Evolution

[Peregrine]

:ph34r:

I ask you to rebuff these scientific views from venomfangx in his 6 part proof of creationalism.

 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

I am not taking sides. However, I wold like you to explain this evidence.

 

Post this in text form. I'm not sitting through your videos just to find out it's the same creatoinist nonsense that has been disproved countless times already. Posting videos in a discussion like this is considered incredibly rude, there's nothing in those videos that can't be communicated in written form, and it's a lot more time consuming to watch the video, watch it again to get quotes, etc than it is to just read a text document.

 

 

==================================

 

 

Very interesting, haven’t watched them all yet.

According to Part 1, Peregrine is preaching (yes preaching, he is making his own religion and calling it science) number 5 a form of Macro evolution.

 

WRONG. Evolution is not a religion. While I do have (lack of) religious beliefs, and am often guilty of preaching them, I am not discussing them in this thread. The fact that you believe that I'm preaching a religion shows your total ignorance of both science AND religion.

 

And as for macro-evolution, the fact that you think that's actually a relevant term shows how little you understand. Evolution is evolution, micro- and macro- are arbitrary terms used only for convenience. The process is exactly the same, macro-evolution is just the sum of many incidents of micro-evolution. It's just occasionally convenient simplify things and limit the discussion to changes of whatever magnitude you're interested in.

 

 

He openly admits he and his form of evolution makes no explanation of how life started and doesn’t have to.

(We have a lot of frogs following the toad here.)

 

Again you demonstrate your total ignorance of the Theory of Evolution. While I realize biology is outside the field of mechanical engineering, your ignorance of science really makes me wonder if you're being honest about your credentials.

 

And it's not "my" form of evolution. Read the damn theory. The Theory of Evolution deals with how life changes over time. It does NOT make any claims about how the first (very primitive) replicators were formed. No legitimate evolutionary biologist claims otherwise. The only people trying to bring the initial origin of life into the discussion are creationists.

 

This did bring up this question I had forgotten about.

How old do you think the earth is (4.5 billion years)?

 

Approximately 4.5 billion years, an age supported by every known empirical dating method. However, even though the age of the earth is very relevant to science as a whole, it is not relevant to evolution. As long as the earth is old enough for the process to happen, the precise age is irrelevant. If tomorrow we discovered that the earth is actually 100 trillion years old, the theory of evolution would stand un-damaged.

 

 

Hey FYI please don't use the G word Peregrine will get mad.

 

Peregrine will only get made because you have direct orders from the moderators NOT TO DISCUSS RELIGION. I would be perfectly happy to argue religion all you want, if it wasn't against forum rules. In fact, the ban on religion is a result of my arguing against religion... I clearly have no problem doing so, I just wish to avoid a ban.

 

The fact that the moderators are being biased in their ban and allowing you to continue to post these religious statements while I am not allowed to reply is getting incredibly annoying.

 

Bottom line is both are religions, (you have the right to believe in what ever you want but don’t call it science) & take faith.

From the video:

Science is:

Things we can observe.

Things we can test.

Things we can repeat.

Therefore macro evolution is not science.

 

WRONG. The two are NOT the same. The scientists don't believe science is religion, and the priests don't believe religion is science. The idea that science is religion is just a product of the over-zealous faithful who can't understand how someone can live without religion... therefore they label whatever you do believe in as a religion.

 

And as for macro-evolution is not science, you continue to betray an appalling ignorance of science. Please just leave this thread until you have at least a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Honestly, it's for your own good, you're just embarassing yourself.

 

As stated above, micro- and macro- are arbitrary terms of convenience. The process is exactly the same in both cases, macro-evolution is just a series of micro-evolutions. If one is observed, the other is by definition observed. And we have observed them in:

 

1) Modern organisms. For example, the changes in moth colors due to pollution changing the environment, and the rise of drug-resistant bacteria.

 

2) Genetic evidence. Thanks to modern DNA analysis, we can trace the evolution of species back to a common ancestor.

 

3) The fossil record. By looking at common structures and features changing over time, we can trace, in less precise terms, the evolution of a species (or group of species).

[Peregrine]

A theory is a belief; a religion is a belief also.

 

WRONG. A theory, in the scientific sense, is an explanation of some aspect of the world supported by empirical evidence. It is as close as you will get to a statement of absolute truth, since only the most fundamental concepts are officially declared "laws". The Theory of Evolution is as solid as the Theory of Gravity and the theory that diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses.

 

And again, the fact that you don't understand such a basic principle of science really makes me wonder about your claimed credentials. I know my classes have been very clear on this point.

 

You can say that the theory of evolution has some proof or evidence but then again most believers of whatever religion you choose to look at will tell you exactly the same thing & present to you what they feel is proof.

 

WRONG. Your average believer might talk about proof sometimes, but when seriously questioned about it, it all comes down to "faith". This is a universal concept in religion, virtually every believer will say you need faith to believe.

 

 

My definition of science is what you call “pure science”.

My definition of religion is anything else.

It’s as simple as that.

 

Lucky for me, his definition is wrong. Relativity is pure science, it is supported by empirical evidence and is not up for debate. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence, and not up for debate (among scientists at least... among people who aren't biologists, there is plenty of debate).

 

And not only would virtually every scientist, anthropologist, linguistics expert, etc, disagree on your definition of religion, the religious believers would too. Most of them would claim that religion is a superior, more enlightened thing, and shouldn't be lowered to fit every random belief you can name.

[FritzDerochebrune]

Uhm... Can I ask a little question involving evolution?

 

Well, I saw a program on television yesterday, stating that in 50 years man can manipulate our genes, making us able to withstand nuclear weapons, get stronger bones so we can stay longer in space, and even increase our lung capacity.

 

I think it would be cool, but my question is: does this count as evolution? Mankind does change, but it is done from one generation onto another, and nature itself hasn't done anything (except giving us a large enough brain to think of stuff like that)

 

Cya

 

Fritz

[Peregrine]

Uhm... Can I ask a little question involving evolution?

 

Well, I saw a program on television yesterday, stating that in 50 years man can manipulate our genes, making us able to withstand nuclear weapons, get stronger bones so we can stay longer in space, and even increase our lung capacity.

 

Pure dreaming. Some changes might be possible, but:

 

1) We're nowhere near the point of even understanding human genetics well enough to make dramatic changes like that. Many physical attributes are a product of many genes, often in different locations in the DNA, as well as the environment the new organism develops in. While it's likely this understanding will come eventually, I wouldn't bet on it as soon as 50 years from now.

 

2) Genetic engineering on humans raises serious ethical questions... what happens when you make a mistake? When you screw up a plant's genes, you just dump it out and try again. But the possibility for pain and suffering of failed human experiments is entirely different. This is especially relevant if we make the attempt before we have complete knowledge. Maybe we could, through a lot of trial and error, increase our lung capacity (at least for the children of the rich few who are able to afford the modifications) ... but at the cost of millions of failed experiments doomed to short and painful lives.

 

3) Some of these things aren't even possible in an ideal world. Surviving nuclear weapons is just stupid, for example. The same with stronger bones... changing the fundamental chemical composition of bones is, if not impossible, close enough to impossible that we won't be doing it in 50 years. So the only solution is to add mass to those bones (if that's even possible). But as any good engineer knows, that doesn't come for free... it means more resources required to grow them, more weight, more stress on the bones/joints from that weight, more muscle mass needed to move the heavier bones at the current speeds, more resources for the new muscles, etc.

 

I think it would be cool, but my question is: does this count as evolution? Mankind does change, but it is done from one generation onto another, and nature itself hasn't done anything (except giving us a large enough brain to think of stuff like that)

 

No. Evolution is by definition the natural selection of random mutations. Copying errors occasionally happen and produce changes in the body those genes produce, and the results are subject to cumulative selection, generating larger-scale changes over long periods of time. Genetic engineering skips both steps, the genetic changes are not random, and they are chosen by design, not subjected to cumulative selection.

[ninja_lord666]

Uhm... Can I ask a little question involving evolution?

 

Well, I saw a program on television yesterday, stating that in 50 years man can manipulate our genes, making us able to withstand nuclear weapons, get stronger bones so we can stay longer in space, and even increase our lung capacity.

 

I think it would be cool, but my question is: does this count as evolution? Mankind does change, but it is done from one generation onto another, and nature itself hasn't done anything (except giving us a large enough brain to think of stuff like that)

 

Cya

 

Fritz

That depends. Some people (purists) would say it's not evolution and might even go so far as to say it's unnatural. Others would disagree and say that any sort of genetic changes are evolution.

I, personally, wouldn't consider it *true* evolution; however it is somewhat evolution. The only thing I wouldn't like about it is that I couldn't do it to myself. :( I want to be a super-human, too!

 

 

(Immunity to nuclear weapons is hilarious. Nothing is immune to nuclear weapons. It's not just the radiation. In fact, the majority of the destruction is caused by the explosion huge levels of heat, and nothing is immune to that...except Superman and maybe Wolverine...)

[FritzDerochebrune]

(Immunity to nuclear weapons is hilarious. Nothing is immune to nuclear weapons. It's not just the radiation. In fact, the majority of the destruction is caused by the explosion huge levels of heat, and nothing is immune to that...except Superman and maybe Wolverine...)

 

Yes, I ment radition, but I didn't remember the word anymore, thanks! Anyway, they would do that by adding genes of a rooster-roach...

 

cya

 

Fritz

[Marcus Wolfe]

I think cockroaches being immune or very resistant to radiation is just an urban myth. and as for nuclear bombs, there is radiation and heat, but I think it's the sheer force of the shock waves that kills the most.

[hoots7]

:ph34r:

I ask you to rebuff these scientific views from venomfangx in his 6 part proof of creationalism.

 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

 

I am not taking sides. However, I wold like you to explain this evidence.

 

Post this in text form. I'm not sitting through your videos just to find out it's the same creatoinist nonsense that has been disproved countless times already. Posting videos in a discussion like this is considered incredibly rude, there's nothing in those videos that can't be communicated in written form, and it's a lot more time consuming to watch the video, watch it again to get quotes, etc than it is to just read a text document.

==================================

 

Very interesting, haven’t watched them all yet.

According to Part 1, Peregrine is preaching (yes preaching, he is making his own religion and calling it science) number 5 a form of Macro evolution.

 

 

==================================

 

 

 

 

Peregrine replies to me with this:

“Approximately 4.5 billion years, an age supported by every known empirical dating method. However, even though the age of the earth is very relevant to science as a whole, it is not relevant to evolution. As long as the earth is old enough for the process to happen, the precise age is irrelevant. If tomorrow we discovered that the earth is actually 100 trillion years old, the theory of evolution would stand un-damaged.”

 

Very eloquently put and I noticed you decided to give an example of if the earth were older, not younger.

Because you know as well as I if it got too young the evolution theory would sound too crazy for people to buy into. Good ploy, Peregrine, good ploy.

 

So let's cut to the chase given the complexity of the human being, how young is too young for the earth.

Let me simplify my question for you.

In your opinion, what is the minimum amount of years it can take for humans to reach the evolutionary stage that they are at now?

Peregrine says to me “your ignorance of science really makes me wonder if you're being honest about your credentials”.

 

Only a fool will say he has no ignorance at all, things are happening every day, every minute for that matter.

You may be just out of college and think you know it all but you don’t.

 

When I was your age I spoke about science and yes was even a proponent of evolution like you are today (and did a better job of it).

But years, wisdom and the fact that the evolution theory kept changing so much did not allow me to logically continue to believe in it (in hind site I realize that it is a religion), read it’s history how many times has the earth gotten older & older & older. Do you really think we have just learned how to measure it better?

 

 

You keep throwing around the word “empirical” evidence like you own it, you may have some evidence, but “empirical evidence”, very little.

 

Here are some definitions for you (sorry if the formatting looks bad).

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empirical

 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

em•pir•i•cal [em-pir-i-kuh l]

–adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

________________________________________

[Origin: 1560–70; EMPIRIC + -AL1 ]

 

—Related forms

em•pir•i•cal•ly, adverb

em•pir•i•cal•ness, noun

 

—Synonyms 1, 2. practical, firsthand, pragmatic.

—Antonyms 1, 2. secondhand, theoretical.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source

em•pir•i•cal (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)

adj.

1.

a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

 

em•pir'i•cal•ly adv.

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source

empirical

1569, from L. empiricus, from Gk. empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience," from empeiros "skilled," from en- "in" + peira "trial, experiment." Originally a school of ancient physicians who based their practice on experience rather than theory.

 

 

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

WordNet - Cite This Source

empirical

 

adjective

1. derived from experiment and observation rather than theory; "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known" [ant: theoretic]

 

2. relying on medical quackery; "empiric treatment" [syn: empiric]

 

 

 

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

 

empirical (ěm-pîr'ĭ-kəl)

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

 

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

Copyright © 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

em•pir•i•cal ( m-p r -k l)

adj.

1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Of or being a philosophy of medicine emphasizing practical experience and observation over scientific theory.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

 

 

 

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/empirical.html

em•pir•i•cal

 

adjective

Definition:

1. based on observation and experiment: based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory.

2. philosophy derived solely from experience: derived as knowledge from experience, particularly from sensory observation, and not derived from the application of logic.

3. medicine based on practical medical experience: based on practical experience in the medical treatment of real cases, and not on applied theory or scientific proof.

[Peregrine]

:ph34r:

 

Did you actually have something useful to say there, or are you just wasting everyone's time? Posting videos as an argument is incredibly rude because they're much less convenient to reply to than a text document. It's "**** you, I'm lazy", nothing more.

Peregrine replies to me with this:

“Approximately 4.5 billion years, an age supported by every known empirical dating method. However, even though the age of the earth is very relevant to science as a whole, it is not relevant to evolution. As long as the earth is old enough for the process to happen, the precise age is irrelevant. If tomorrow we discovered that the earth is actually 100 trillion years old, the theory of evolution would stand un-damaged.”

 

Very eloquently put and I noticed you decided to give an example of if the earth were older, not younger.

 

The same is true if the earth was younger, though not by as large a margin. Life didn't instantly appear, the age could go down slightly and it wouldn't matter. Of course we know that's not what you're talking about.

 

So if you don't like it, answer this simple question: how old do you believe the earth is?

 

Because you know as well as I if it got too young the evolution theory would sound too crazy for people to buy into. Good ploy, Peregrine, good ploy.

 

You're right. Fortunately for me, the earth is more than old enough for evolution to be reasonable. Saying that it wouldn't be reasonable if the situation was orders of magnitude different is just stupid, since it isn't.

 

So let's cut to the chase given the complexity of the human being, how young is too young for the earth.

 

Let me simplify my question for you.

In your opinion, what is the minimum amount of years it can take for humans to reach the evolutionary stage that they are at now?

 

About 14 billion years, the age of the universe. Also the age that it did happen in (whatever the exact processes involved, the fossil record tells us how long it was between the earliest life and humans). The evolutionary stage that humans are at now is a product of a chain of events. Change the situation (as you would be by changing the time it occurs in), and those events would happen differently, and produce a different result. While the end result may be as advanced as humans (advanced being an arbitrary definition, but I think we all know what I mean) in a shorter time, it would NOT be "human".

 

Peregrine says to me “your ignorance of science really makes me wonder if you're being honest about your credentials”.

 

Only a fool will say he has no ignorance at all, things are happening every day, every minute for that matter.

You may be just out of college and think you know it all but you don’t.

 

There are different levels of ignorance. I admit that I don't know everything there is to know. You, on the other hand, don't understand any of the subject, AND you continue to make statements that are simply wrong.

When I was your age I spoke about science and yes was even a proponent of evolution like you are today (and did a better job of it).

But years, wisdom and the fact that the evolution theory kept changing so much did not allow me to logically continue to believe in it (in hind site I realize that it is a religion)

 

So you are completely ignorant of the empirical evidence for evolution, that has only increased over time? More and more discoveries are made, and again and again they confirm our expectations.

 

As for evolution being a religion, you are a ****ing idiot. You have been told directly by a moderator not to discuss religion on this forum. So stop doing it.

 

read it’s history how many times has the earth gotten older & older & older. Do you really think we have just learned how to measure it better?

 

Actually, I do. Like it or not, the methods have become better and better as technology has advanced.

 

You keep throwing around the word “empirical” evidence like you own it, you may have some evidence, but “empirical evidence”, very little.

 

Here are some definitions for you (sorry if the formatting looks bad).

 

*Removed all of your uselss spam. All you needed was this one*

 

1. based on observation and experiment: based on or characterized by observation and experiment instead of theory.

 

 

BASED ON OBSERVATION. The evidence for evolution is empirical, according to the definition you quoted. The fossil record, DNA analysis, naturalist observations, etc, are all based on observation and experiment. Thank you for proving me right.

 

 

And note the key difference between our arguments: even if my evidence is weak (which it isn't), you have so far managed four arguments:

 

1) "You're angry, so you're wrong", a textbook ad hominem.

 

2) "Evolution is a religion", which has no factual content.

 

3) "Macromutation doesn't exist", which, while at least testable by empirical evidence, is not supported by that evidence.

 

4) "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life", which, while a true statement, is not really an argument. Theories are only expected to explain a narrow range of mechanisms. There is no such thing as a universal theory, it would be far too vague and/or have too much irrelevant information to be useful.

 

 

 

By the way, I would appreciate it if you would either address my comments on macro- vs. micro-evolution, instead of being an evasive troll and pretending I never said anything.

[FritzDerochebrune]

And note the key difference between our arguments: even if my evidence is weak (which it isn't), you have so far managed three arguments:

 

1) "You're angry, so you're wrong", a textbook ad hominem.

 

2) "Evolution is a religion", which has no factual content.

 

3) "Macromutation doesn't exist", which, while at least testable by empirical evidence, is not supported by that evidence.

 

4) "Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life", which, while a true statement, is not an argument. Theories are only expected to explain a narrow range of mechanisms. There is no such thing as a universal theory, it would be far too vague and/or have too much irrelevant information to be useful.

 

You do know those are 4 arguments, don't you?