[_ Old Earth _] Does Evolution have any actuall evidence?

[reznwerks]

bad arguement

Human beings evolved from bacteria? Is this a sci-fi forum? :o The human imagination is endless, but has little if anything to do with reality. 8-) If humans evolved from bacteria, then again, why not leave all bacteria alone to develop into healthy cells? By trying to kill them off, scientists are not only losing the opportunity to prove the theory of evolution but also the opportunity to let a super race develop! Thus by killing off bacteria, they are again contradicting their own premise! This gets more bizarre with each argument. :fadein:

Nice try but posing the challenge to scientists to watch evolution in action within a few short years is a challenge you know can't be met. Scientists themselves readily admit that life may have taken a million years to develop or may have needed the proper stimulus. Just because the answers are not known does not mean the God of the gaps exists.

 

[Drew]

I think we should consider DNA. Can something change it's DNA? Is DNA a form of programing? If so, who programmed it, and by what method?

This idea that a "program" must (repeat must) have a programmer appears throughout a lot of these threads. I still think that no strong case has been made against the possibilty of "natural programs" - programs without a programmer. It seems obvious to me that "nature" programs all the time - although the "programs" are developed through a process involving, for example, random variations and the pruning effects of natural selection processes.

I think it is obvious that DNA is effectively a program - set of instructions for constructing a creature. But we cannot just assume that instsructions must be created by an intelligent agent of some sort. I think a subtle "trick" is being played here (and not necessarily intentionally) - things like DNA are properly interpreted as being "codes" or "programs". We are also submerged in the information age where human beings are continually creating programs. The only kinds of programs we deal with in day to day life are ones that are created by people - intelligent agents. We therefore slide easily into the belief that all programs must have been designed by an intelligent agent.

This is not necessarily so. Given the laws of physics and the initial conditions of our universe, it is kind of inevitable that nature itself will engage in programming - fundamental particles collide and stick together - higher level structures are built up and so on etc. Sophisticated structure and function thus arise through entirely natural processes. In the case of biological structures, those suited to the environment survive and reproduce. This process effectively can be understood to be "programming by random variations and subsequent natural selection".

As a believer in a form of Intelligent Design myself, I think the real place where we should try to argue for the insertion of "design" involves the matter of why the laws of nature are what they are and why the initial conditions were what they were.

I hope I have not misrepresented you, Lovely.

 

[Heidi]

Sorry, but there is zero evidence for evolution. There is no evidence that man is any better than he was since the beginning of recorded history. There are strill deformed babies that come from AIDS, fetal alcohol syndome, and damaged cells. Man is also closer to annihilating himself than ever before. Apes are still breeding apes & humans are still breeding humans. There has never been any evidence that this was not always true. Scientists find bones on the earth and glue them together in the shape he has already determined they belong, then projects stories around his concoction. This may make him feel omniscient & omnipotent but it is not proof. The bible says that at one time, giants like Andre the Giant, roamed the earth. Those bones could also belong to them. So this tunnel vision of scientists leaves out many variables but of course can produce no witnesses for their theories and that is what they count on.

So acknowledging there is no evidence in recorded history, scientists now say that someday there will be. And if humans are alive thousands of years from now & there is still no evidence, they will then say, it will take millions of years. This is virtually admitting there is no evidence today, nor has there evern been any evidence, only speculation & conjecture.

By the way, lipoproteins have always existed, scientists just didn't know the large part they played in heart disease until recently. In addition, many of the foods we eat can alter body chemistry which is one reason new diseases come into being. The favorite phrase of scientis is; "we now know" that what we once thought was true is not. That is a phrase we can always count on from scientists, which is why it is the only constant in science. ;-)

 

[Drew]

Among the numerous errors in this thread (and others related to it) is the frankly ridiculous argument that science is an untrustworthy enterprise specifically because scientists are always "changing their minds".

Sometimes this is true but this is not a sign of weakness but rather of strength of this particular system of knowledge acquisition. More on that shortly.

First, though, much of what people construe to be radical revision (i.e. throwing out a theory and replacing it with something dramatically different) would be more accurately described as "extension and refinement".

But nevertheless, it is true that science, as an enterprise, "makes mistakes" - we go down the wrong path and then have to retrace our steps. Is this a sign of weakness?

Hardly. Consider your own life. Is it not obviously true that the way that we learn about the world and its ways is largely through trial and error. From writing term papers to designing engineering structures to learning how to interact constructively with people - life is a distinctly empirical experience. It is simply way the world is, the hand of cards we have been dealt.

Science, as a system of acquiring knowledge, is simply being true to the characteristics of world that we are given.

Now sure, one can choose to villify science and embrace a highly dogmatic position - that one has received a perfect revelation from God and that one need not therefore join the rest of us in the very uncertain enterprise of determining how our world works.

Unfortunately, much of the content of this and other threads shows where this all too often leads - to ignorance, deep confusion, and a propensity to argue through attacking the character of your opponent rather than the content of their argument.

 

[cd27]

people, please remember that this is not a debate, this is simply posting one's oppinions. if you wish to reply on someone's oppinion, please do so, but please be brief and keep on the topic of only posting oppinions.

cd

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

people, please remember that this is not a debate, this is simply posting one's oppinions. if you wish to reply on someone's oppinion, please do so, but please be brief and keep on the topic of only posting oppinions.

cd

Wow, aren't we pompous. It is a debate, this forum was created solely for the purpose of debate.
"An argument is a set of statements intended to establish a proposition."
Propositions are being established, ergo, there is an argument going on. If you don't have the patience to read all the posts, then skim, if you don't like skimming, then go tell other people how to post on their message boards.