U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:25 AM
 
702 posts, read 811,993 times
Reputation: 87

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
I was of the understanding that in order for a scientific theory to even be taken seriously as a theory, it must be falsifiable and testable. That of course means that the theory must be tested. How do you test something that has allegedly happened in the past? Is my view of the scientific approach mistaken?
Evolution is not something that has just happened in the past, it is an ongoing process. Life on currently on Earth is not a "final product."
Yes, I know that evolutionists believe that evolution is an ongoing process, but that is the very problem I'm talking about: When it comes to macroevolution, nobody can actually test it through observation because it would take too long to observe the evolution of one species into another (millions of years?).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,070 posts, read 4,965,643 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy View Post
Yes, I know that evolutionists believe that evolution is an ongoing process, but that is the very problem I'm talking about: When it comes to macroevolution, nobody can actually test it through observation because it would take too long to observe the evolution of one species into another (millions of years?).
You can observe macro evolution through the fossil record, geologic time scale, genetics and DNA(despite what creationists will say).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,064,818 times
Reputation: 3717
Default Design, Schmee-zign!

Correct, AG! In fact, the touchstone of a lot of modern evolution will be (already is!) DNA genome mapping, has tossed out the need for some vague, identifiable "transitional' species. Given the recordable occurrence of mutations, translocation errors etc., within any species' genome, it's possible to witness "evolution" as it happens, and it does, within a population. No waiting required, frankly.

The frantic recent denialism regarding "transitionals" or Missing links" by some of the more reliably dogmatic posters here only serves to enhance and define their desperation to discount what's already passed out of vogue in scientific pursuit of knowledge.

In future years, some evolutionary biologist may well describe a species as "a missing link", and having been "key to the development of a given species", but that determination will be after the DNA fact, it's relative position in a lineage hierarchy having been already determined to a high degree, coupled with other corroborating field evidence such as dating and relative position amongst other finds and habitats.

Field-found "Missing Links" are no longer the holy grail, nor are they necessary to an anti-design argument. Sorry. BTW, DNA also corroborates design flaws, exactly and incontrovertibly, and shows exactly where they came from. As in "previous generations" back a long long ways (see my other new thread about wolf-to-dog breed developments).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Space Coast
1,989 posts, read 4,467,976 times
Reputation: 2733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy View Post
Yes, I know that evolutionists believe that evolution is an ongoing process, but that is the very problem I'm talking about: When it comes to macroevolution, nobody can actually test it through observation because it would take too long to observe the evolution of one species into another (millions of years?).
Actually, speciation events are observed quite frequently in organisms with a fairly short generation time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 12:33 PM
 
702 posts, read 811,993 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
You can observe macro evolution through the fossil record, geologic time scale, genetics and DNA(despite what creationists will say).
You can actually observe one species in the process of evolving into another and see the results of that evolution?!? When has that been done?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 12:41 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,508 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eresh View Post
Actually, speciation events are observed quite frequently in organisms with a fairly short generation time.
Like, Italian Wall Lizards.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

This isn't what creationists want, however. They want grand morphological changes, the kind that happen on the scale of millions of years. We see these morphological changes in the fossil record, but "no transitional fossils exist," despite fossils being classed on morphology. We won't have a fossil every time a finger mutates and grows an extra inch. That would be an absurd expectation, especially considering the relative rarity of fossils in the first place (which the Noah's Flood myth fails to account for).

Creationists literally want to see the a monkey give birth to a man, even the theory never even suggests this. Their total ignorance of the theory shows that they really don't understand what they are arguing against, and for many, the narrative of the story is more important than actual truth.

But regardless, the evidence is clear in genetics. If we had nothing but genetics, evolution would still be abundantly clear. Those organisms that are better suited to their environment will survive. Those changes they undergo due to genetic mutation and genetic drift "pile on" to one another, eventually leading to morphological changes different from the "stock" that originated. No creationist is able to point out the "limited" that prevents these changes from adding on to one another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 12:47 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,951,508 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
There are days that I would agree with you, because the whiteness of many humans is the result of gene mutation and I sometime question how that whiteness has benefited humans, not because I think that there is anything inherently wrong about white people, just that the fact that this mutation has lead to Europeans to see themselves as superior to other humans as a result of nothing more than an physical adaptation that allows them to absorb more vitamin D as a result of their migrating to a less sunny clime.
Technically, humans absorb UVB radiation that the skin uses to synthesize vitamin D. As you stated, our white skin better absorbs the suns energy. UVB light is weaker in the northern climates, and skin that doesn't absorb the sunlight as well leads to early people having Vitamin D deficiency.

Human history is fun. White people have contributed very little to the birth of civilization. The middle east and Mediterranean did that for us. White people are responsible essentially for the industrial revolution and some modern technology, none of which would have been possible without language. mathematics and medicine first developed in Mesopotamia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,037 posts, read 30,676,322 times
Reputation: 12213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy View Post
You can actually observe one species in the process of evolving into another and see the results of that evolution?!? When has that been done?
Try googling "rapid evolution". There are hundreds of examples. I have no idea how one can deny that evolution is taking place in almost every creature and plant on earth, including us. As a matter of fact humans are evolving at an accelerated rate at the moment.

Where Is Human Evolution Heading? - US News and World Report

Not only that, but we are accelerating the evolution of other species. Acting as super-predators, humans are forcing changes to body size and reproductive abilities in some species 300 percent faster than would occur naturally, a new study finds

Super-Predators: Humans Force Rapid Evolution of Animals | LiveScience
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,037 posts, read 30,676,322 times
Reputation: 12213
Here is an article that's right up Rifleman's alley....

Scientists at Penn State University studied DNA from a rare fossil found in Norway and determined that polar bears developed only about 150,000 years ago - much more recently than the six million years some researchers previously thought.

canadaeast.com - Rapid evolution shows adaptability of polar bears: study | Bob Weber, THE CANADIAN PRESS - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2010, 01:18 PM
 
702 posts, read 811,993 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Like, Italian Wall Lizards.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

This isn't what creationists want, however.
A quote from the article:

"In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say."

This wasn't the kind of evolution I was referring to. If the idea that one species can evolve into an entirely different species is not an evolutionary theory, then I concede that I have been misled.

Quote:
They want grand morphological changes, the kind that happen on the scale of millions of years. We see these morphological changes in the fossil record, but "no transitional fossils exist," despite fossils being classed on morphology. We won't have a fossil every time a finger mutates and grows an extra inch. That would be an absurd expectation, especially considering the relative rarity of fossils in the first place (which the Noah's Flood myth fails to account for).
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top