By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you think Darwin is right

The_vagabond7 on 13 February 2009
mrstickball said:
akuma587 said:

That is a philosophical question.  Science doesn't try to answer how the universe began.  It will try to explain how the universe (at least as we know it) reached its current form by using the Big Bang Theory, but any scientist who tries to tell you how the universe is created is full of it, because there isn't any strong evidence out there that could let him make that assertion.  If you don't understand the distinction I just made, then you should learn more about the Big Bang Theory.

Speculation on something for which there is no empirical evidence to make a determination on is better left to theology and philosophy.  It has no place in a science class room.  Sure, its an interesting question, but until there is some evidence to work with science has no answer to that question.  Science is the interpretation of observable fact.

Your definition of "observable" is overly narrow.  Not to mention you are looking at things simply based on the fossil record.  The distinction between micro and macroevolution is muddled at best.  A perfect example is comparing the human chromosome sets with those of the different primates.  Its really pretty fascinating stuff.  You will see when you align where the gene sequences match up that humans essentially have a few hybrid chromosomes caused by a chromosomal translocation (grafting of one chromosome onto another).  Quite a few genes and a set of degenerate chromosomes formed because of this transloaction were lost in the process.  Thus, we have 46 chromosomes with almost perfect sequences on some of them from those "lost" chromosomes that you can find in primates. 

Honestly, the DNA record is as rich or richer than the fossil record.  You are looking at evolution from the perspective of the 1950's, before genetics and DNA theories started dominating the field.

Don't even get me started on things like the endosymbiont hypothesis.  If that doesn't convince you that organisms share a common ancestry, nothing will.  Not to mention it is pretty impressive how much of our genome is still identical to the average plant's genome.

But honestly I can't even tell you if some of these things are macroevolution or microevolution, because in actuality they are sort of both.  The distinction between macroevolution and microevoltion is only becoming more and more convoluted with how driven the field has become on genes and DNA.  One simple bout of "microevolution" can give rise to an entirely different taxonomic kingdom.  Take something like the repositioning of HOX genes.  Man, BIOLOGY IS SO COOL!  WHY DID I GO TO LAW SCHOOL!

Mind telling me then, if BB is true, how the matter compressed itself into a singularity? Or how it was even there in the first place? The root of the issue with BB is that no matter how easy it is to say that it happened based on the universe expanding, it fails to answer the root of the problem: How the matter became a singularity, and how it naturally decided to react with an explosion to expand the singularity into the universe we have today.

 


God did it....until we find out otherwise, and then he did whatever came before that...until....

You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 13 February 2009

But don't scientists have a viable theory of the creation of that matter that perfectly explains it, and how it doesn't conflict with the law of the Conservation of Energy?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

JaggedSac on 13 February 2009

I am an atheist and I believe that ID is a possibilty to explain how we got here. It definitely cannot be used to explain how all life in the universe originated, but it could possibly prove something helped us along. I for one hope that ID can prove something, that would cause quite a bit more of a stir to know for a fact that we are not alone. Thinking there is no greater intelligence out there requires just as much faith as believing there is a greater being. Until anything is proven, all beliefs require faith. Science has yet to disprove a higher intelligence exists.



The_vagabond7 on 13 February 2009

Furthermore I see this degenerating into the usual extremely misguided assertion that Evolution should be an all encompassing theory of the universe, which it is not. Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe got here, or physics or thermodynamics. Evolution does not have to explain the big bang. Evolution does not describe how life got here, nor does it have to, that would be the field of Abiogenesis, something completely seperate from evolution. Evolution only describes what happens when life exists, how life diversifies once it's here.

So saying evolution shouldn't be taught because it doesn't explain these things is ridiculous. Relativity shouldn't be taught in classrooms either apparently. And Mr. Stickball, watch the Nova special. That explains in great detail why ID is not taught in classrooms, and shows how disgusting the Discovery Institute is. I have no problem with religions, but can you watch that and honestly say that the kind of dishonesty, manipulation, and moral bankruptcy used by the discovery institute is the proper way to spread the teachings of Jesus? That is not respectable.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

akuma587 on 13 February 2009

@mrstickball

I wouldn't be surprised if they do. If it is based on observable fact, then it might be worth looking into. And you are probably using the word "theory" over-broadly. Its probably still a hypothesis within the scientific community if only for the reason that it sounds pretty recent.

Science can postulate about whatever it wants if it is using facts. That doesn't necessarily mean that science always gets it right. Sometimes a question is just really hard to answer even with good data. Ask a scientist to explain to you what gravity is, not what it does, but what it is. We still have no idea.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
akuma587 on 13 February 2009
JaggedSac said:
I am an atheist and I believe that ID is a possibilty to explain how we got here. It definitely cannot be used to explain how all life in the universe originated, but it could possibly prove something helped us along. I for one hope that ID can prove something, that would cause quite a bit more of a stir to know for a fact that we are not alone. Thinking there is no greater intelligence out there requires just as much faith as believing there is a greater being. Until anything is proven, all beliefs require faith. Science has yet to disprove a higher intelligence exists.

I didn't know that science had set out to prove God didn't exist.  Could you show me some scientific studies where they created tests and observable models trying to disprove that there is a higher intelligence out there.

You are completely mischaracterizing science as overtly hostile to religion.  That's just false.  If anything, its religion that is hostile to science, not the other way around.  Religion may be intimidated by science, but scientists can't control that.  They are just doing their job.

The problem with ID "proving" anything is that ID is not based on proving anything.  It is essentially people shrugging their shoulders saying, "That is irreducibly complex.  Therefore, a higher power created it."  That's all well and good, but that's not science.  Intervention of divine beings in not a testable hypothesis.  Furthermore, many of the cornerstone examples that ID supporters give as support for ID have been disproved by evolutionary biologists, like the bacterial flagellum being "too irreducibly complex" to have arisen through evolution alone.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

The_vagabond7 on 13 February 2009

Science has nothing to do with religion. Zero. Scientists do not set out to prove or disprove Islam, Judiasm, Christianity, Hinduism, taoism, anything. That has nothing to do with science. Science job is to look at observable facts, and find explanations for those facts, doing so through making predictions, testing said predictions and creating logical models. God and religions have nothing to do with any of that.

Religion on the other hand seems to feel threatened by something that doesn't have any interest in it whatsoever. The discovery institute in particular has made it it's job to wage war on science because it is a threat to "christian values in america". That is where the debate stems from, almost solely from that single organization.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

JaggedSac on 13 February 2009

I agree that ID should not be taught in the classroom. I also think that students should not be taught explanations as to how life originated on the planet in any way. It cannot be scientifically proven. Evolution is a fact. Even ID acknowldges that. There are certain aspects of evolution that can and will be ironed out, but there is no doubt that it should be taught in school. What I believe is that people should not be shunned by the scientific community because they have ideas on how life originated on this planet that differs from the norm. Even the idea of 'God' placing a single celled organism into the depths of the ocean cannot be scientifically disproven.



The_vagabond7 on 13 February 2009
JaggedSac said:
I agree that ID should not be taught in the classroom. I also think that students should not be taught explanations as to how life originated on the planet in any way. It cannot be scientifically proven. Evolution is a fact. Even ID acknowldges that. There are certain aspects of evolution that can and will be ironed out, but there is no doubt that it should be taught in school. What I believe is that people should not be shunned by the scientific community because they have ideas on how life originated on this planet that differs from the norm. Even the idea of 'God' placing a single celled organism into the depths of the ocean cannot be scientifically disproven.

 

 

Eh, that's not science though. Science doesn't alow non science to be science, the reason ID isn't accepted. There is no ID model, predictions, tests anything. ID is a statement, not a hypothesis. Somebody can claim ID is true, but that doesn't mean scientists have to pay it any mind unless somebody is willing to do the science on it.Did you watch the Nova Special? Even supporters of ID aren't doing any kind of tests, or forming models or predictions. They are just trying to ram it down people's throat and claim it's science. Science isn't just an assertion, making a claim doesn't make it science.

 

 Also Being unable to disprove something doesn't give it scientific validity. If it did I could claim that a unicorn create the universe and lives on Pluto and then complain when scientists don't hear me out, and make a movie about how the government won't give me grant money to fund my campaign to teach unicornism in classrooms. There has to be actual science behind it, rather than just an assertion.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

The_vagabond7 on 13 February 2009

On a more humorous note

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.