Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[Urgannagru]

Drat you beat me to it Raikiri, know you did a far better job than I would have

It doesn't take an in-depth study to understand the problem that it raises. The vast majority of animal types in the fossil record. Since Darwins theory 150+ years ago has there been any more discoveries that support the theory i.e. transitional states?

Yes loads, as far as I'm aware more of the transitional primate fossils for man have been found since Darwin. I hate to use wikipedia as a source but just for the sake of haiving so many to hand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Invertebrates_to_Fish

If a harmful organ is introduced then surely the species would be exstinct before it 'realises' that it was actually harmful? Where does this concept of knowing what is good or not come from?!

No the individual with the harmful organ would die, the rest of the speacies that was not carrying the organ would survive. This is pretty much the entire point of natural selection

Can you share the background information on how the Cambrian puzzle is being solved? To me the Cambrian explosion seems to suggest that the idea of this all happening over millions of years is nonsense. The bigger problem is that it offers no evidence of transitional states at all!

Like others I don't know much about the Cambrian explosion, as far as I'm aware this was a considerable period of time when most of the phlyum came into existance. This doesn't seem that suprising when most life before it was single celled, once life had evolved to the point where it became multicelluar and cell have speacialised functions the possibilities for the number of forms of life are going to be enormous so their is going to be an explosion the number of types of fossils you find.
To be honest with you I'd of thought if anything the cambrian explosion would show you supporting evidence for evolution. a lot of weird and wonderful creatures existed back then that no longer do as they weren't suitable for survival when the climates changed.



I've got to ask if you have an agenda here Ringo747, as yes there are things about the evolution of life we don't understand but hopefully with time and study we may; yet the theory does have a lot of supporting evidence and more importantly has been applied to things of actuall use, such as producing new anti-biotics for resistant bacteria. Yet despite this you seem very hostile.
At the same time there is lot about particle physics we don't understand (by this I mean on the small scale so including the standard model and quantum physics) yet the gist of our theories must be correct otherwise we would not be able to build the computers we're using now.

 

[Urgannagru]

Well at some point there must have been the first male. There must have been a first exponent of sexual reproduction? Did human males always have the reproductive organs? Until the sexual organs evolved then reproduction couldn't happen obviously! The whole thing must just be magic!

I know this only makes the question of how did gender arise earlier but I don't know enough on the subject to comment on that. However you are aware that animals other than humans have male and females? Of course human males have always have had reproductive organs, the primates before them had reproductive organs.

This is starting to go from helping someone understand something to something quite painful.

 

[Raikiri]

You seem to have ignored what I posted about the organs/body parts that we don't need. Or 'mistakes' as you put it.

Yes. However, in the fossil record there is no transitional states. The vast majority of animal types were discovered together.

Define a transitional state? All fossils are from transitional states, evolution hasn't stopped.

Although if you mean ones that specifically share features with less evolved species then have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Well at some point there must have been the first male. There must have been a first exponent of sexual reproduction? Did human males always have the reproductive organs? Until the sexual organs evolved then reproduction couldn't happen obviously! The whole thing must just be magic!

I have neither the time nor patience to do your research for you, so here's what someone else wrote on the subject:

Reproductive organs can emerge very slowly. And no, a new species doesn't have to create brand new reproductive organs that have to "work the first time."

Start by considering sexual reproduction in one-celled organisms. Sexual reproduction just means that two cells can merge their DNA to produce a new individual. This happens in many single-celled organisms without "reproductive organs."

In amoebas, they can spend most of their time in a single-cell state, but when food resources get scarce, they gather in colonies called a "slime mold" ... and extend a stalk, with a fruiting body, which bursts and releases tiny cells (called spores) into the air, which travel out and find other cells, and fertilize to create new amoebas and start the cycle somewhere else.

In other words, amoebas illustrate the beginnings of how multi-cellular reproduction probably started.

As multi-cellular organisms got more and more complex, the systems they have for sending "spores" out into the world got more and more sophisticated (and these "spores" are called "gametes"). Basically, some of these cells became specialized for travelling ... and became tiny and lightweight so they can be mass-produced in HUGE numbers. And bit by bit organs developed for spreading these little cells into the water or air. We call these male gametes ... pollen, or sperm ... and the organs for spreading them, male reproductive organs.

Meanwhile, other gamete cells became huge, full of nutrients ... we called these female gametes, or 'ova' (or egg cells). And organs slowly developed that were better and better for receiving male gametes, fertilizing the female gametes inside, and then encasing the fertilized cell for growth (e.g .seeds in a plant, or eggs in fish, amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs and birds.

Most plant species have both male and female reproductive organs in the same plant.

But in animals, these reproductive organs became more specialized ... a male individual has only male reproductive organs, and a female has female reproductive organs.

So you see, at no point does the continuation of life depend on an organism finding an entirely different system that needs to "work the first time." An earlier systems may work just fine ... but if a tiny improvement reproduces a tiny bit *better* ... it will spread into the next generation better than the old system ... and so the reproductive system ... with male and female reproductive organs distributed throughout the species ... slowly gets better and more complex.

 

[RDM]

I've got to ask if you have an agenda here Ringo747,

Of course he does. As evidenced by the fact that he starts off with absolutely no knowledge of evolution and then is suddenly parroting the usual debunked creationist arguments against evolution. An almost astounding grasp of the subject in such a short period of time.

 

[Urgannagru]

Aye just after I wrote that, I saw the post where he is referring to the Cambrian post and then a couple of sentances insinuates that gender arose independantly in humans. If he meant that, then this very much a lost cause hehe

 

[ringo747]

I know this only makes the question of how did gender arise earlier but I don't know enough on the subject to comment on that. However you are aware that animals other than humans have male and females? Of course human males have always have had reproductive organs, the primates before them had reproductive organs.

This is starting to go from helping someone understand something to something quite painful.

Haha, yeah I worked that out a few years ago! It just pushes the question back further though. Would sexes have been introduced when it was still on basic structures? It must have began somewhere.

 

[ringo747]

No the individual with the harmful organ would die, the rest of the speacies that was not carrying the organ would survive. This is pretty much the entire point of natural selection

So would this harmful organ have developed in one single generation i.e. one animal can be born without the organ and it can develop during its short lifetime? I thought the process took millions of years. This doesn't add up.

Like others I don't know much about the Cambrian explosion, as far as I'm aware this was a considerable period of time when most of the phlyum came into existance. This doesn't seem that suprising when most life before it was single celled, once life had evolved to the point where it became multicelluar and cell have speacialised functions the possibilities for the number of forms of life are going to be enormous so their is going to be an explosion the number of types of fossils you find.
To be honest with you I'd of thought if anything the cambrian explosion would show you supporting evidence for evolution. a lot of weird and wonderful creatures existed back then that no longer do as they weren't suitable for survival when the climates changed.

I'd disagree. If anything it shows that the idea of the process of everything developing slowly over millions of years is simply nonsense.

I've got to ask if you have an agenda here Ringo747, as yes there are things about the evolution of life we don't understand but hopefully with time and study we may; yet the theory does have a lot of supporting evidence and more importantly has been applied to things of actuall use, such as producing new anti-biotics for resistant bacteria. Yet despite this you seem very hostile.

Hostile? Seriously? I'm simply trying to find out more about what views people hold.

Define a transitional state? All fossils are from transitional states, evolution hasn't stopped.

The Cambrian explosion showed most of the animal types, transitional states is something that is transitioning between animal types surely.

Of course he does. As evidenced by the fact that he starts off with absolutely no knowledge of evolution and then is suddenly parroting the usual debunked creationist arguments against evolution. An almost astounding grasp of the subject in such a short period of time.

Not so. I don't know much about evolution. I do happen to have heard of the Cambrian explosion and the questions it raises.

Why is there even a need to debunk evolution considering it appears to be all based around luck/chance/magic.

 

[Castiel]

Does it ever turn out any other way, ignoring the internet for a second? Isn't the entire premise Them vs Us and all that's left is for people to work out which of the two camps they fit within? This isn't a debate where you can prove or 'win' anything because both sides retreat to their standards (God! vs Science!)

It should never really be about God vs Science, the two are not incompatible with each other despite what might be alluded to in this and other threads. In this forum at least I find the 'Science' side of the argument largely (not everyone) ignores their own advice when it comes to changing opinions with the evidence, and the 'God' side of the argument largely (again not everyone) seems blinded by their own literal (and erroneous) view of specific Scripture and also will not change opinion according to evidence however it is phrased or rom wherever it came. Neither side particularly understands the other or in many cases even their own position and all we end up with is a thread of 'prominent and/or famous commentators' opinions and common insults in lieu of the actual considered and evidenced opinions of the Posters themselves.

I'm actually both surprised and understanding of the fact that you didn't get involved in this one (even when others tried to drag you in) and if this were a debate - which it was not, let's be clear - it would have been worse for not having had your input.

No-one listens or wants to listen to anything I have to say, I either end up getting called names, misrepresented, misunderstood or simply ignored so why waste my time on discussions which seem to be more about people's prejudices than about any inclination to understand and learn.

I like that. I like that a lot and have never read it before so thank you.

You're welcome, although all the credit should go to Buddha as it is his wisdom, not mine. Another piece of wisdom from someone rather more contemporary;

“Respect your fellow human being, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, enjoy their friendship, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another achieve it.”

- Bill Bradley

If only the debates and discussions in GD/SC about theology and philosophy et al were conducted with that in mind?

Will fire you an email later

Aye that would be cool, my email is back up and running after being offline while my rebuild was underway....working through replies as we speak.

 

[m4rk84]

In this forum at least I find the 'Science' side of the argument largely (not everyone) ignores their own advice when it comes to changing opinions with the evidence

I'm curious, what evidence are you alluding too?

I've never seen any evidence in the scientific sense that gives any indication of a god.

 

[Castiel]

I'm curious, what evidence are you alluding too?

I've never seen any evidence in the scientific sense that gives any indication of a god.

I never mentioned evidence in any specific parameter, but simply as a general term, evidence is not limited to scientific evidence, reason and logic are not limited to scientific positions, evidence is evidence no matter the nature of it and it can be many things and mean or infer others.....while the Literal Creationist ignores one form of evidence (in fact two, as biblical literacy is theologically unsound) so do those non-theists (and some theists as some previous examples with Jason2 will attest) who suggest 'such and such' in the Bible or other Scipture sources means this or that, when it can be amply demonstrated otherwise.

If you are looking for evidence of God then science isn't currently the arena to do it, as that is limited to explanation of the natural and observable and most importantly testable, you need to look to analytical philosophy and its subgroups such as ontology which are more able to deal with such metaphysical questions and will frame the evidence accordingly. And that one of the issues with such God vs Science debates, the arguments for and against are framed differently so are ultimately never going to truly contest with each other in any meaningful or constructive way.

 

[Urgannagru]

Haha, yeah I worked that out a few years ago! It just pushes the question back further though. Would sexes have been introduced when it was still on basic structures? It must have began somewhere.

I had to ask that because of the way you worded it, it sounded like you believe sex had developed independantly in humans. I'm very glad to see this is not your belief I agree that my reply just pushes is back, I don't feel I have to enough knowledge to say how it occurred though Raikiri's post seems very plausable. To that I have to add that reproduction via sex rather than mitosis is beneficial to a speacies as it causes greater genetic variety, there for advoiding a lot of the problems you get with artificial selective breeding.

So would this harmful organ have developed in one single generation i.e. one animal can be born without the organ and it can develop during its short lifetime? I thought the process took millions of years. This doesn't add up.

I was answering what would happen if a harmful organ evolved not how organs develope in a speacies. At no point did I say this organ occurred in one generation. An earlier post with the video on how the bacteria flagellum explained fsr better than I can how speacialised organs develope. All I can add is that when a mutation occured that developed the organ to the point it became harmful, the creature would die. The rest of the population carrying the earlier form of the organ would continue to exist.

I'd disagree. If anything it shows that the idea of the process of everything developing slowly over millions of years is simply nonsense.

You're entitled to your interpretation of events. But again I'd reiterate that from what I can see the majority of life before this was single celled. The step from single celled to multicelluar life will allow many more configurations of life so there will be an "explosion" in the number of types of organisms.
While I agree there is a lot we don't know about this period, theres a lot of fossils showing the transitional development of features in speacies, eg fish to tetrapods, the development of hooves on horses, birds from reptiles that seems to be thrown out the window.

Hostile? Seriously? I'm simply trying to find out more about what views people hold.

I say this because poeple have repeatedly explained how speacialised organs can develope by evolution, yet you keep coming back to it as an argument. This either shows that you are ignoring anything that doesn't fit in your point of view or you don't understand the explainations, if this is the case I'm wary of your other arguments such as the cambrian explosion as I'm not sure you understand the points you are raising.

The Cambrian explosion showed most of the animal types, transitional states is something that is transitioning between animal types surely.

a lot a phlya deveoped in that period but it isn't the sole period, I don't know about animals but I do know flowering plants and ferns occurred later. As we've shown before we have transitional fossils between types of animals for after this period. I can't speak for before but being as before it appears to be single celluar life so the predesors may of been more "squishy" and less likely to form fossils.
After doing a bit of reading, apparently the phlya that did develope in this period share similar characteristics, I don't fully understand these characteristics but if this is true it points towards a common ancestor. Maybe we'll find a fossil of this ancestor at some pont in the future, I cant say we will for certain, the chances that a dead organism becomes fossilised is quite low, it then has to survive any geological changes (the older it is the more chance it has of being destroyed) then on top of it someone has to be lucky enough to dig in the right place to find the fossil, see it and realise what it is. It's amazing that there aren't a lot more gaps in he fossil record.

Not so. I don't know much about evolution. I do happen to have heard of the Cambrian explosion and the questions it raises.

The problem is if you can't understand the basic principles of evolution (whether you agree with them or not), I can't see how you can truly understand the questions that are being raised.

Why is there even a need to debunk evolution considering it appears to be all based around luck/chance/magic.

I don't understand this point. But if you mean why should evolution be scrutinised, well thats how the scientific process works if we didn't question and test it would be no different from religion. We also wouldn't learn more about. I'm not sure how you mean its all based on chance (please don't use magic thats an incredibly weighted term and doesn't do you any favours), yes each mutation is a chance occurance, and that life forms are as they are now is to an extent (there may be a possible mutation that hasn't occured that may be even more suited for the current environment), but that current life forms are suited to their environment isn't luck.

To use Anglions quote again "the shape of the hole determins the shape of the puddle, not vice versa".

 

[ringo747]

The problem with the Cambrian is that it completely reverses Darwins ideas that things would develop slowly over time and then become more pronounced, larger changes more quickly. The Cambrian fossils showed the complete opposite. These weren't similar creatures, these all had fundamentally different body plans.

Instead of slow, gradual -> fast, larger changes the Cambrian shows fast, large -> slow, gradual changes.

If the Cambrian was 530 million years ago then why do some of the Cambrian creatures still exist today. Has evolution slowed down since then?

 

[Urgannagru]

I never mentioned evidence in any specific parameter, but simply as a general term, evidence is not limited to scientific evidence, reason and logic are not limited to scientific positions, evidence is evidence no matter the nature of it and it can be many things and mean or infer others.....while the Literal Creationist ignores one form of evidence (in fact two, as biblical literacy is theologically unsound) so do those non-theists (and some theists as some previous examples with Jason2 will attest) who suggest 'such and such' in the Bible or other Scipture sources means this or that, when it can be amply demonstrated otherwise.

If you are looking for evidence of God then science isn't currently the arena to do it, as that is limited to explanation of the natural and observable and most importantly testable, you need to look to analytical philosophy and its subgroups such as ontology which are more able to deal with such metaphysical questions and will frame the evidence accordingly. And that one of the issues with such God vs Science debates, the arguments for and against are framed differently so are ultimately never going to truly contest with each other in any meaningful or constructive way.

I know this is lazy of me, but my knowledge of philosophy is limited, but are there any examples of philosophical evidence that are accessable to the layman you can give me? These don't need to relate to god, my knowledge of philosophy is too poor to understand the point your trying to make so an example may help my comprehension.

The only pont I feel I can contend with you, is that you say that people can have an erroneus view of specific scripture, how can you judge which is the correct one?


I have to say in these discussions I try to stick to arguing specific points that are reletively black or white eg. misunder standings of a theory, or what appear to be logical flaws in certain interpretations of scripture. I'm afraid I'm going to have to make a crude statement here for simplicity and brevity; but these arguments are normally against literal interpretations as outside these interpretations what is the point of the bible other than an outdate life style guide. I'm sorry if this seems insulting but once its is no longer literal it no longer explains how our world came to be so genesis seems to become irrelevant.

I am probaly missing an important point here because of my stance. but so be it.

 

[estebanrey]

Yes. However, in the fossil record there is no transitional states.

EVERY fossil is a transitional state.

 

[Castiel]

The problem with the Cambrian is that it completely reverses Darwins ideas that things would develop slowly over time and then become more pronounced, larger changes more quickly. The Cambrian fossils showed the complete opposite. These weren't similar creatures, these all had fundamentally different body plans.

Instead of slow, gradual -> fast, larger changes the Cambrian shows fast, large -> slow, gradual changes.

If the Cambrian was 530 million years ago then why do some of the Cambrian creatures still exist today. Has evolution slowed down since then?

Is there a reason why Evolution (like Human Growth) doesn't come in both flavours, with indeterminate and intermittent bursts of advancement as well as a longer, slower more steady underlying evolution as well?

I don't see why logically both cannot exist simultaneously.

 

[m4rk84]

I never mentioned evidence in any specific parameter, but simply as a general term, evidence is not limited to scientific evidence, reason and logic are not limited to scientific positions, evidence is evidence no matter the nature of it and it can be many things and mean or infer others.....while the Literal Creationist ignores one form of evidence (in fact two, as biblical literacy is theologically unsound) so do those non-theists (and some theists as some previous examples with Jason2 will attest) who suggest 'such and such' in the Bible or other Scipture sources means this or that, when it can be amply demonstrated otherwise.

If you are looking for evidence of God then science isn't currently the arena to do it, as that is limited to explanation of the natural and observable and most importantly testable, you need to look to analytical philosophy and its subgroups such as ontology which are more able to deal with such metaphysical questions and will frame the evidence accordingly. And that one of the issues with such God vs Science debates, the arguments for and against are framed differently so are ultimately never going to truly contest with each other in any meaningful or constructive way.

I just can't give the same kind of value you seem too, to ancient writings which in themselves are translations of translations of translations.

It's simply a difference of opinion, you seem to spend lot's of time explaining how writings can be interpreted in all sorts of ways, however to an atheist none of the interpretations hold any weight or value at all, other then in a historical sense.

I can see your point that some seem to incorrectly use quotes from the bible as evidence in favour of an atheistic point of view, which is just as wrong as using the bible in order give weight to the theistic view.

In fairness it's often after Jason2 tries to quote the bible as some kind of evidence.

Either way I personally find your arguments fairly interesting even if I don't always agree with what you have to say, all your points are usually worthy of discussion which most definitely isn't the case for some others in this and other similar threads.

 

[ringo747]

EVERY fossil is a transitional state.

Transitioning to what? The main animal types surely have fairly large differences. You'd expect a scale with minute differences between each level. It doesn't appear to be the case.

Is there a reason why Evolution (like Human Growth) doesn't come in both flavours, with indeterminate and intermittent bursts of advancement as well as a longer, slower more steady underlying evolution as well?

I don't see why logically both cannot exist simultaneously.

I'd imagine it is possible, however, it seems that the cambrian data doesn't support the Darwinian view in the slightest. A fact conceded by Darwin himself I believe.

 

[Urgannagru]

Ringo747 and anyone who is interested in the Cambrian period, this site seems to be fairly neutral, its looks at the explosion from an evolutionist perspective but admitts flaws in our knowledge and ways in which we are trying to correct them.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm

Nipping out for a bit of a boulder, so haven't got chance to comment on specific points but one thing I did notice if you go to the page with examples of cambrian fossils I can see similarities between different types of animals, mainly a longitudinal symetry but laterally asymetric, its not much but people devote years of their lives to studying this, I jumped ship at GCSE

 

[The Running Man]

Transitioning to what? The main animal types surely have fairly large differences. You'd expect a scale with minute differences between each level. It doesn't appear to be the case.



I'd imagine it is possible, however, it seems that the cambrian data doesn't support the Darwinian view in the slightest. A fact conceded by Darwin himself I believe.

Do you even understand what evolution is? Evolution is the change of DNA over time. This can be caused by numerous factors including interaction with food sources, access to sunlight and viruses.

New mutations. Until recently, anthropologists thought that human evolution had slowed down. But last December, Hawks reported that it has actually accelerated 100-fold in the past 5,000 to 10,000 years. He figured that out by comparing chunks of DNA among 269 people from around the world. Over time, DNA accumulates random mutations, just as the front of a white T-shirt tends to accumulate spots. The bigger the chunks of DNA without random spots, the more recently it had been minted. Using this system, Hawks concluded that recent genetic changes account for about 7 percent of the human genome. Much of the increase, he says, has been fueled by the growth of the world's population, which has expanded by a factor of 1,000 over the past 10,000 years. Having more people increases the odds of mutations.

At the same time, the human genome has been scrambling to adapt to a rapidly changing world—11,000 years ago, nobody farmed, nobody milked domesticated animals, and nobody lived in a city. People with a mutation that aided survival were more likely to thrive, reproduce, and pass that mutation along to offspring. For example, the capacity to digest lactose, the sugar in milk, has become common only over the past 3,000 years. Now, about 95 percent of the people in northern Germany have the mutation, which also popped up independently among the Masai in Africa and the Lapps in Finland. Hawks says: "This is really rapid evolution."

Your posts show that you don't even understand what evolution means or you don't know that humans are genetically different now than 10,000 years ago. It is ignorance to post in the way you continue to having made no attempt to understand the theory that you are trying to decry.

Everything is in a transitory state. Some things change faster than others and outside events like climate change can act as a catalyst to this process.

 

[Castiel]

I know this is lazy of me, but my knowledge of philosophy is limited, but are there any examples of philosophical evidence that are accessable to the layman you can give me? These don't need to relate to god, my knowledge of philosophy is too poor to understand the point your trying to make so an example may help my comprehension.

This is where the advantages of Wikipedia are really evident. This will give you access to a broad and varied range of examples of various arguments from Godel and so on, as well as criticism of them. While it is very limited it should give you a springboard to research yourself and explore more compex arguments based on other methodologies such as various forms of logic and Epistemology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The only pont I feel I can contend with you, is that you say that people can have an erroneus view of specific scripture, how can you judge which is the correct one?

Strangely I suppose, Science. More specifically Lingustics, Hermeneutics, Exegisis and the application of higher criticism, also known as the historical-critical method. You basically study the language(s) how they relate to the historical period, the context, syntax and so on across a range of sources, texts, languages and historical record. Sometimes a single word can alter the entire meaning of a passage, the Pauline Epistles are often subject to such criticism.

I have to say in these discussions I try to stick to arguing specific points that are reletively black or white eg. misunder standings of a theory, or what appear to be logical flaws in certain interpretations of scripture. I'm afraid I'm going to have to make a crude statement here for simplicity and brevity; but these arguments are normally against literal interpretations as outside these interpretations what is the point of the bible other than an outdate life style guide. I'm sorry if this seems insulting but once its is no longer literal it no longer explains how our world came to be so genesis seems to become irrelevant.

Rarely is anything black and white, least of all arguments of Faith or Interpretation. The Bible isn't a single book, it is a collection of texts that seek to teach and inform a particular worldview, in many ways it is exactly a form of lifestyle guide, whether it is outdated or not is subjective and a matter of opinion, but ultimately it is about a message, not about a strict adherence to some literal interpretation of the words, Genesis for example isnt about literally creating the universe et al in a week and making men out of dust, but is an allegory about mans relationship with God and the Universe around him, not a literal 'how to make a Universe...' manual as many young Earthers etc would believe. The earliest Christian Theologians from Philo of Alexandria to Augustine of Hippo expressed this theological position and it is a common and original theme within Christianity (and Judaism, which has no concept of literalism within scripture anyway).

I am not insulted, I am not religious.

I am probaly missing an important point here because of my stance. but so be it.

Simply put, the relevance of scripture is not what it says about the World, but what it teaches about oneself.