I had a roommate throw that at me once to help deny the possibility of man evolving from monkey. I gave him the explanation my uncle (very religious) told me when I asked him if evolution contradicted his beliefs.
Perhaps God set this whole complex mess into motion, allowing bits and pieces of the universe to swirl and mix forming stars, planets, etc. He allowed life to arise and spread and eventually something resembling man formed. God didn't create the physical shape of man in his own image, but instead created mans' soul in his image, and once this soul was applied to these newly evolved creatures man was created.
I always liked that one - especially the idea that the soul is in God's image, not the gangly ackward appearance of man.
I am not stupid, I just work in another industry than university science.
I do not consider you, or your questioning of this theory to be stupid. My arguments are firm, but I do not intend them to be a personal attack.
Let's just leave it that you and I agree that the details are fuzzy and not well thought out, although we agree that the theory is in agreement with quite a lot of observed phenomena.
I do not agree that the details are fuzzy; I think that's part of what this argument is about. I believe that you are still not considering the slow pace of evolution.
Let's posit I accept your outline of speciation above. You say no unique mating ritual is necessary at the start (to establish?) a new species, but allow it may be necessary to sustain it.
Yes and no. I am saying that a unique ritual is not necessary at the start of a new species, but I do not mean to convey that it is necessary to sustain a species. Why would it be necessary? Why would 2 separate species of birds, in separate locations NEED to have different mating rituals? What difference would it make? How would not having a different ritual threaten that species? Of course, it makes sense that the rituals of each would eventually become different as their rituals change over time, but that doesn't mean they NEED to.
Genetically, this is a dodgy assumption because any species is most vulnerable when its numbers of individuals is small. No species is smaller that when it has only two members. It is counterintuitive to assume that a unique mating ritual is not necessary to establish a new species given that.
It is only counterintuitive if the new species forms in the same location as the old species. I believe your mention of separate bird songs was an attempt to show that separate rituals are necessary, but it just shows that separate groups develop different rituals. It says nothing about separate rituals being NECESSARY. An entire population changes together as genes (including surviving mutations) are bred back into the group - an entire population can slowly develop into a new species. It doesn't start with two individuals, it progresses with an entire population. The point here is, it isn't the emergence of a new species that has to cause separation. IT'S THE SEPARATION THAT CAN CAUSE SPECIATION! If the groups are already separate, why would separate rituals, etc. be necessary? Why, again, would a lack of separate rituals be dangerous for the new group if the groups don't compete at all?
The reason I and others are saying that your problems with evolution aren't problems at all isn't because we think evolution can explain or disprove them. It's because that's not what evolutionary theory says. In fact, evolutionary theory AGREES with what you're saying in regards to sudden change. A sudden change would not survive - a mutation too extreme will not propagate. It's the small but still compatible mutations that propagate, and with enough small mutations added up (and with physical separation), you will eventually have a new species.
Here's a quote taken from one page of many that provides good information on speciation;
"The formation of two or more species often (some workers think always!) requires geographical isolation of subpopulations of the species. Only then can natural selection or perhaps genetic drift produce distinctive gene pools."
Read the current literature (my source is the prosaic BBC science pages on the web) and you will see science now accepts that each species of bird responds only to a particular call and, in a separate article covered on/. scientists reported humans have a genetic code that helps them remember tunes.
Science also recognizes, for example, the dance of a male pigeon or the display of a peacock is mandatory for mating to occur. A pigeon will not try to mate with a peacock, partly because his dance does not stir the response that "turns him on."
Why is this hard to explain? Let's take a sample bird flock, X. Each member has some very very slight variations (just like every human is slightly different). A climate shift reduces availible food/shelter/whatever and some of the flock leave for a different area, and through several generations they develop their own flock, Y. Flocks X and Y remain separate and mutate separately over thousands of years. Their features and song(s) change independently of each other, and tada - 2 separate species.
Obviously this is simplified, but my main point is that the issues you raise aren't really issues at all. A peacock doesn't have to recognize the pigeon dance (or vice versa). These are features that develop AFTER a new group or subgroup is formed! There's absolutely no reason they have to happen spontaneously. It doesn't even require a separate species for separate dances and songs to be present - just a separation of groups over an ample number of generations. "Hank the Lion" asked why you insisted a new species develop a new mating ritual. You answer with the findings above, but they refer to established species, not newly developed ones. They say nothing about it being necessary for a NEW species to have a new mating ritual. This is a SLOW process - there's no reason sudden changes like that would be necessary.
The first living thing, from which all others evolved, had to have a discriminating membrane, transmit genetic information to its offspring, had to be able to process that information, had to acquire and use energy to process that information, had to reproduce, grow and repair itself when necessary, react to its surrounding, and adapt to its environment. This living thing had to be formed from nonliving things. No experiment has ever been devised to show how this could occur.
As has been stated numerous times here, the theory of evolution does not explain abiogenesis. This isn't a problem with evolution, it just means this subject falls outside the realm of evolutionary theory.
The mathematical improbability....
This is an often cited issue. Looking at the end result of a staggering number of changes and calling it improbable is really backwards. If you flip a coin 10 billion times and come up with exactly 5 billion heads and 5 billion tails the probability of this occurring is truly incredible. And truly meaningless - it still happened. Any end result from the incredible number of mutations that would occur over hundreds of millions of years will have an incredibly low probability when you look at it that way. It might seem more unfeasible because of the complexity of the end result - but that comes from mutations "piling up". In the coin toss, every toss starts over and no complexity is added to the final result. In evolution, past mutations (or tosses) stay put, and new ones are added; so the complexity naturally grows with time. Saying it's too improbable implies that this is the result that had to occur - when it's really just one of a vast number of results that could have, each result having the same probability of occurring.
How exactly is that out of context? I pointed out that you CAN disprove a theory. Do you not still garner that from the entire sentence? You're being contradictory again by now stating that it could be possible to disprove that God exists when you clearly stated that it cannot be disproven. Perhaps you meant to say that it cannot be disproven by known methods (or something similar)?
Perhaps there is some experiment out there that will, without a doubt, prove that there's no God.
If we're assuming an all powerful God then it is a safe conclusion that you cannot disprove it. Not now, not ever, regardless of our advancement. Someone mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster earlier. Can you disprove that it doesn't exist? Of course not! If something has no effect on the reality we do or can (in the future) perceive then it is impossible to formulate an expirement to validate it, OR if something can violate any concievable measure or principle then again, it is impossible to validate. If God is all powerful then no measurement regarding his/her/it's validity can be trusted.
On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
"God exists". It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution.
Not to be rude, but there's a stupidly obvious contradiction there. The belief that God exists CANNOT be disproven if that belief also holds that God is all powerful. That fact is what makes it a belief and not a theory. Stating that "God exists" cannot be disproven demonstrates that it isn't a theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a roommate throw that at me once to help deny the possibility of man evolving from monkey. I gave him the explanation my uncle (very religious) told me when I asked him if evolution contradicted his beliefs.
Perhaps God set this whole complex mess into motion, allowing bits and pieces of the universe to swirl and mix forming stars, planets, etc. He allowed life to arise and spread and eventually something resembling man formed. God didn't create the physical shape of man in his own image, but instead created mans' soul in his image, and once this soul was applied to these newly evolved creatures man was created.
I always liked that one - especially the idea that the soul is in God's image, not the gangly ackward appearance of man.
I am not stupid, I just work in another industry than university science.
I do not consider you, or your questioning of this theory to be stupid. My arguments are firm, but I do not intend them to be a personal attack.
Let's just leave it that you and I agree that the details are fuzzy and not well thought out, although we agree that the theory is in agreement with quite a lot of observed phenomena.
I do not agree that the details are fuzzy; I think that's part of what this argument is about. I believe that you are still not considering the slow pace of evolution.
Let's posit I accept your outline of speciation above. You say no unique mating ritual is necessary at the start (to establish?) a new species, but allow it may be necessary to sustain it.
Yes and no. I am saying that a unique ritual is not necessary at the start of a new species, but I do not mean to convey that it is necessary to sustain a species. Why would it be necessary? Why would 2 separate species of birds, in separate locations NEED to have different mating rituals? What difference would it make? How would not having a different ritual threaten that species? Of course, it makes sense that the rituals of each would eventually become different as their rituals change over time, but that doesn't mean they NEED to.
Genetically, this is a dodgy assumption because any species is most vulnerable when its numbers of individuals is small. No species is smaller that when it has only two members. It is counterintuitive to assume that a unique mating ritual is not necessary to establish a new species given that.
It is only counterintuitive if the new species forms in the same location as the old species. I believe your mention of separate bird songs was an attempt to show that separate rituals are necessary, but it just shows that separate groups develop different rituals. It says nothing about separate rituals being NECESSARY. An entire population changes together as genes (including surviving mutations) are bred back into the group - an entire population can slowly develop into a new species. It doesn't start with two individuals, it progresses with an entire population. The point here is, it isn't the emergence of a new species that has to cause separation. IT'S THE SEPARATION THAT CAN CAUSE SPECIATION! If the groups are already separate, why would separate rituals, etc. be necessary? Why, again, would a lack of separate rituals be dangerous for the new group if the groups don't compete at all?
The reason I and others are saying that your problems with evolution aren't problems at all isn't because we think evolution can explain or disprove them. It's because that's not what evolutionary theory says. In fact, evolutionary theory AGREES with what you're saying in regards to sudden change. A sudden change would not survive - a mutation too extreme will not propagate. It's the small but still compatible mutations that propagate, and with enough small mutations added up (and with physical separation), you will eventually have a new species.
Here's a quote taken from one page of many that provides good information on speciation;
"The formation of two or more species often (some workers think always!) requires geographical isolation of subpopulations of the species. Only then can natural selection or perhaps genetic drift produce distinctive gene pools."
Read the current literature (my source is the prosaic BBC science pages on the web) and you will see science now accepts that each species of bird responds only to a particular call and, in a separate article covered on /. scientists reported humans have a genetic code that helps them remember tunes.
Science also recognizes, for example, the dance of a male pigeon or the display of a peacock is mandatory for mating to occur. A pigeon will not try to mate with a peacock, partly because his dance does not stir the response that "turns him on."
Why is this hard to explain? Let's take a sample bird flock, X. Each member has some very very slight variations (just like every human is slightly different). A climate shift reduces availible food/shelter/whatever and some of the flock leave for a different area, and through several generations they develop their own flock, Y. Flocks X and Y remain separate and mutate separately over thousands of years. Their features and song(s) change independently of each other, and tada - 2 separate species.
Obviously this is simplified, but my main point is that the issues you raise aren't really issues at all. A peacock doesn't have to recognize the pigeon dance (or vice versa). These are features that develop AFTER a new group or subgroup is formed! There's absolutely no reason they have to happen spontaneously. It doesn't even require a separate species for separate dances and songs to be present - just a separation of groups over an ample number of generations. "Hank the Lion" asked why you insisted a new species develop a new mating ritual. You answer with the findings above, but they refer to established species, not newly developed ones. They say nothing about it being necessary for a NEW species to have a new mating ritual. This is a SLOW process - there's no reason sudden changes like that would be necessary.
The first living thing, from which all others evolved, had to have a discriminating membrane, transmit genetic information to its offspring, had to be able to process that information, had to acquire and use energy to process that information, had to reproduce, grow and repair itself when necessary, react to its surrounding, and adapt to its environment. This living thing had to be formed from nonliving things. No experiment has ever been devised to show how this could occur.
...
As has been stated numerous times here, the theory of evolution does not explain abiogenesis. This isn't a problem with evolution, it just means this subject falls outside the realm of evolutionary theory.
The mathematical improbability.
This is an often cited issue. Looking at the end result of a staggering number of changes and calling it improbable is really backwards. If you flip a coin 10 billion times and come up with exactly 5 billion heads and 5 billion tails the probability of this occurring is truly incredible. And truly meaningless - it still happened. Any end result from the incredible number of mutations that would occur over hundreds of millions of years will have an incredibly low probability when you look at it that way. It might seem more unfeasible because of the complexity of the end result - but that comes from mutations "piling up". In the coin toss, every toss starts over and no complexity is added to the final result. In evolution, past mutations (or tosses) stay put, and new ones are added; so the complexity naturally grows with time. Saying it's too improbable implies that this is the result that had to occur - when it's really just one of a vast number of results that could have, each result having the same probability of occurring.
How exactly is that out of context? I pointed out that you CAN disprove a theory. Do you not still garner that from the entire sentence? You're being contradictory again by now stating that it could be possible to disprove that God exists when you clearly stated that it cannot be disproven. Perhaps you meant to say that it cannot be disproven by known methods (or something similar)?
Perhaps there is some experiment out there that will, without a doubt, prove that there's no God.
If we're assuming an all powerful God then it is a safe conclusion that you cannot disprove it. Not now, not ever, regardless of our advancement. Someone mentioned the Flying Spaghetti Monster earlier. Can you disprove that it doesn't exist? Of course not! If something has no effect on the reality we do or can (in the future) perceive then it is impossible to formulate an expirement to validate it, OR if something can violate any concievable measure or principle then again, it is impossible to validate. If God is all powerful then no measurement regarding his/her/it's validity can be trusted.
On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
"God exists". It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution.
Not to be rude, but there's a stupidly obvious contradiction there. The belief that God exists CANNOT be disproven if that belief also holds that God is all powerful. That fact is what makes it a belief and not a theory. Stating that "God exists" cannot be disproven demonstrates that it isn't a theory.