The stages of evolution

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby vincent » Tue May 22, 2001 1:30 pm

Ok lets calm down a bit, everyones making good points lets not get over defenseive here, lets keep it friendly please,i'm enjoying this thread and would hate to see it get nasty.
User avatar
vincent
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:07 pm
Location: Portlandia
Top

Postby Falkeep » Tue May 22, 2001 1:46 pm

<i>"You and I, Dr. Jones, are the same."<BR><BR>"NOW, you're getting nasty!"</i><BR><BR>LOL, ok, Vincent, point taken. Sorry. I'll cool down some now... I promise... Trust me! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0> <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-devil.gif"border=0><BR><BR><BR>P.S. -- Not trying to upset anyone or anger anyone but, because of this discussion, I highly recommend that everyone try in the near future to watch the great movie "Inherit the Wind" (the one with Spencer Tracy, Frederick March and Gene Kelly). The court scenes and "arguments" are amazing.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby vincent » Tue May 22, 2001 2:02 pm

thanks <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0>
User avatar
vincent
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:07 pm
Location: Portlandia
Top

Postby Angbasdil » Tue May 22, 2001 3:11 pm

I've got one question that evolutionists have never answered to my satisfaction: What about entropy?<BR>Entropy is one of the basic priciples of thermodynamics. To oversimplify the concept, every sytem moves from order to chaos unless energy is expended to reverse the process. For example, I can build a house with a beautifully manicured lawn, leave it alone for 50 years, and it will have become a pile of rotting wood and loose bricks overgrown with weeds. But if I throw a pile of rotting wood and loose bricks into a field of overgrown weeds, it will not make itself into a house with a manicured lawn. From order to chaos. From more organized to less organized. Always. Unless someone directs the system the other direction. In thermodynamics they even measure the entropy of the system and quantify the energy required to organize the system (by moving the heat to make the steam hot and the condensor cold, for example, instead of having all the water at a uniform temperature.) Entropy is universal and unavoidable.<BR>So...if we go from primordial soup to amoebae to fish to frogs to mammals to humans, isn't that going against entropy - from chaos to order, from less organized to more so? How did this happen? Seems to me that maybe, just maybe, someone was directing the process. Personally, I find that easier to believe than believing that this very basic principle of physics just decided not to apply itself. <BR><BR>Anybody got a better answer?<BR><BR>Oops, time to go home! I'll check for responses tomorrow.<BR>
User avatar
Angbasdil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:21 pm
Top

Postby vincent » Tue May 22, 2001 3:45 pm

I asked the same question, and the answers i got were, thats a law of physics, and does not apply to the question of evolution. besides that law says that as long as there is energy being put into the object it will keep going, and if you look at the sun as a source of energy supplying earth with power, and the sun is still shining giving the earth the energy it needs to keep evolution going.
User avatar
vincent
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 11:07 pm
Location: Portlandia
Top

Postby Falkeep » Tue May 22, 2001 3:52 pm

Angbasdil wrote:<BR><BR>"<i>I've got one question that evolutionists have never answered to my satisfaction: What about entropy?</i>"<BR><BR>I would posit two possible answers...<BR><BR>First is that evolution is an active process, not an inactive decay. Entropy, as I understand it, is what happens when there is NO active prevention of decay. For example, if I have a swinging pendulum, it will eventuall stop swinging UNLESS someone (or someTHING0 exerts effort or energy to keep it swinging. Evolution would be an active process of organisms and lifeforms which are fighting to survive and to become stronger. Even without a controlling intelligence, it is still a process that is being driven from an external source (in this case, the survival drive and instinct inherant in all life forms we know of).<BR><BR>The second would be more from my deist philosophy. When God made the rules and laws (when he programed the computer) he wrote in some special cases or exceptions. One of these would be ice. I heard an argument MANY years ago which made a lot of sense to me that the existence of a creating being was shown by the properties of water when it freezes. In the world we know, EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes... EXCEPT water. This however is crucial to the survival and development of life as we know it. If water contracted when it froze, it would sink to the bottom of the water and would push things at the bottom up towards the top where they would eventually freeze themselfs. BUT, since water EXPANDS when it freezes, it covers the top of water and provides a barrier to what is below and slows the freezing process below it. As a result, life is protected during winter and can continue to grow and develop. In the same way, evolution could be considered a "special case" or exception to the normal "rules" of the program... and be viewed as further evidence of a creating being who uses the processes of science and nature as part of his creation (as opposed to a God who just built models when he got bored a few years ago... what do you think? Would God be a creator or a builder?).
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Fatty_Bolger » Tue May 22, 2001 5:00 pm

Angbasdil, good question. It may well bring us farther than we thought if we found a sure answer.<BR>Growingcomplexity transforms basic atoms into more complex ones. And according to astrophysics, stars burn simple atoms. When too many atoms will be transformed into complex ones, the universe will be as close as dead as it can be.<BR>Now, take human beings: they clearly create far much mess than their atoms would do separately. For one, they consume a huge lot of energy (not to speak of W's policies <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> ). This energy is globally wasted for good, and won't come back, especially since we use non-renewable energies.<BR>Now, the main thing to keep in mind is: Earth is not a closed system, otherwise there would be NO evolution. Put the Sun in and its tremendous energy. Plants hijack a lot of it through photosynthesis, allowing locally (compared to universe's scale) a complexification and an apparent paradox in thermodynamics. Yet on the solar system scale, the energy is still being growingly wasted by our good olde Sun, which burns hydrogen to turn it into carbon and other complex elements. Now the real trick would be to move into another system when the entropy becomes really too annoying here (that is, Earth not supporting life anymore).<BR>So, life and evolution is just temporarily cheating; the payback should come sooner or later, don't worry <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
Fatty_Bolger
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 3:15 pm
Top

Postby podge&rog » Tue May 22, 2001 6:00 pm

Annael.<BR><BR>What would constitute adequate proof to you?<BR><BR>Dismissing Darwinism as "just a theory" fails on two points. First, failure to seperate Darwins joint claims: that modern species evolved from ancestral forms, and that Natural Selection is the main mechanism for this "evolution". The conclusion that life has evolved is based on a vast wealth of historical evidence (by that I mean everything we`ve achieved to this point in our effeorts to uncover the mechanism involved).<BR><BR>Theories are our attempts to explain facts and integrate them within broard concepts. "Darwins theory of evolution" IS natural selection - the mechanism he proposed to explain the historical facts of evoluion as documented by fossils, biogeography etc.<BR><BR>So the claim of "just a theory" seems to be aimed at his theory of natural selection. This brings us to the second point. The term heory has a very different meaning in science compared to colloquial use. Theory in general use is more akin to hypothesis. A scientific theory is more comprehensive than a hypothesis. Theories such as Darwinian natural selection or Einsteinian relativity, accounts for many facts and attempts to explain a great variety of phenomena. Such unifying theory does not become widely accepted in science unless its predictions stand up to thorough and continuous testing by observation and experiment. Even then, it should never be allowed to become dogma. Many people are still hotly debating the individual mechanisms at work in evolution but this does not mean that natural selection is at fault. We know things evolve just as we know they fall if you drop them.<BR><BR>As Darwin himself said, "There is grandeur in this view of life."
User avatar
podge&rog
Citizen of Imladris
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 9:12 pm
Top

Postby Jester_RM » Tue May 22, 2001 6:04 pm

Annael – I think you may be confusing the issue here when comparing theory to religion<BR><BR>Evolution is a scientific theory…it always has been, and only a very few consider it otherwise. Since it is a theory, its veracity can be tested, and is constantly being tested, and as yet has not been proven incorrect (as far as I know). It certainly COULD be if adequate evidence against it was presented. That is the nature of theories. A theory (such as evolution) is presented, and it is debated and the scientific community tries to prove it wrong. Until it is proven wrong, evolution appears to be the most likely explanation for human development.<BR><BR>Religion on the other hand is a belief in something that inherently CANNOT be tested, therefore is not a “theory”. For instance, “creationism” is the religious answer to evolution: God made everything (in some undefinable manner). Since “God” cannot be adequately defined or measured, the existence of “God” cannot be proven or disproven, therefore “creationism” does not appear to be a testable theory.<BR><BR>As to proof of evolution, you may have to be more specific as to what you are looking for. There are a couple of observed and documented “proofs” of “evolution” that I can provide off-hand:<BR><BR>1) Viral and bacterial evolution: This is fairly well documented by the medical community, such as the increasing resistance of viruses to penicillin over generations, necessitating the constant research into new medicines to combat the new resistances that the viruses and bacteria develop.<BR><BR>2) The aforementioned Insect/Pesticide evolution: This is also fairly well documented. Insects can develop inherent resistances to pesticides over generations, necessitating stronger pesticides. Also seen in the increasing resistance of certain plants to herbicides.<BR><BR>These might be better termed as examples of “microevolution” rather than evolution in general. The problem with presenting “proof” of evolution on a more grand scale, or macroevolution, that would meet your burden of evidence (such as chromosome analysis) is that genetic material is not usually available for the specimens that are found. Such a large timescale is involved that any genetic material in older samples (fossils, amber inclusions, etc.) is completely gone, or at least severely degraded. There may be some partial samples here and there (such as the frozen “wooly mammoths” or some of the better preserved ambers), but there are by no means enough genetic samples to provide a continuous timeline. That is why most evolution is based on an interpretation of changes in gross body form (skeletal fossils for example), since that is the most widely available type of data.<BR>
User avatar
Jester_RM
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 3:56 pm
Location: Central Oregon
Top

Postby Annael » Tue May 22, 2001 8:43 pm

Jester-RM,<BR><BR>It seems by your definition of a religion, something that can't be tested, Macroevolution is a religion. How is someone going to test something that takes millions of years to produce?<BR><BR>The theory of Macroevolution can't be tested, therefore it must be a religion.<BR><BR>Next question, has anyone ever be able to recreate spontaneous life? <BR><BR>I'm asking why is it just a religion to believe that God created the universe and macroevolution is not, when neither can be proven. <BR><BR>Why believe something that isn't proven? Why not just say 'good question' and leave it at that. Is it that important to have your own explanation on how things started?
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby tuile » Wed May 23, 2001 1:23 am

Hey guys!! <BR>Hey Falkeep, I loved that movie. Wonderful stuff. I for some reason, have never seen religion and science opposed to each other. If you read some of the stuff by folks like Einstein, they have such awe and humility in their work as they regard it as understanding the work of the god they believe in. Awesome stuff.<BR><BR>I think the main reason people call it religion when you claim that god created the universe as opposed to religion, is that it is a specific theistic claim. There are thousands of other creation stories out there, each with a different god or goddesses or divine beings who created. I love studying other religions, I guess mainly because (and this is REALLY superficial <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> ) I love wonderful stories. But, most stories when they hit home for you in some way, do so because they ring of truth in some fashion. I think this is found, for me anyway, in these stories and all the stories that explain the placement of the other beings in the world and man's predicament within it. There is such wonderful wisdom in these stories, they make science cold, boring, and obsessive over details to me some times!!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> But, I do understand why it is what it is!<BR><BR>For many people, it is just as difficult for them to place their belief in a religion, or a theistic claim as it is for others to place their faith in a scientific theory. And they are testing this theory. By every discipline possible, geology (strata, composition), physics ( I still can't remember, someone help! ), biology ( DNA, insects/bacteria (who evolve (change) very quickly), biochem ( DNA sequencing ) and on and on. It is widely accepted because it has not been proved wrong yet; it has held up under loads of scrutiny. <BR><BR>Evolution doesn't necessarily concern itself with the question of how it started as to how it changed. (This was really emphasized in class!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> )As far as I know, other scientists have taken big steps in showing how life might well have begun. They've shown the abiotic synthesis of purines and pyrimidines! I mean, part of DNA! I think that is so interesting. Self-replicating RNA, just crazy!!! Take a look at mitochondira and how they can be seen as separate beings living symbiotically with us ...,This is so fascinating, and amazing, I wouldn't want to miss what they find out about this no matter what the implications are. (same goes for black holes and event horizons,... this just made me think, anyone read God and the New Physics by Paul Davies???? Really interesting stuff, he points to event horizons as the closest thing science has to offer in the way of a divine being. The cross-over, the line between the divine and the mundane worlds...shiver me timbers!!!)<BR><BR>For myself, I don't want anyone telling me what I should believe. If I was looking only for proof, I think I would find myself in the scientific realm with no beauty. I like to look at the stuff out there (both scientific and religious)( and man, there's a lot!!! ) and form ideas along the way. They change and move and drift...and scatter!!! lol,... as much as I feel in my bones that there is something out there that science will never be able to lay a finger on, whatever that is, I don't want it ruling my life. ( little pro-individuality here!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif"border=0> ) Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0> I guess what I am saying, is yes, it is important in a way for you to have your own ideas on what life is about and how it all came to be. That is part of who you are and helps define your world view. That's why you may think I am a raving lunatic by now!!!! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0><img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif"border=0> Good night!!
User avatar
tuile
Mariner

 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:21 am
Top

Postby Jester_RM » Wed May 23, 2001 10:11 am

<i>It seems by your definition of a religion, something that can't be tested, Macroevolution is a religion. How is someone going to test something that takes millions of years to produce?<BR><BR>The theory of Macroevolution can't be tested, therefore it must be a religion.</i><BR><BR>Annael: I'm sorry if I implied that Macroevolution could not be tested, because it certainly can, and is! The problem here seems to stem from your definition of "proof" as opposed to the type of scientific evidence that is normally used, such as fossil records. <BR><BR>You seem to be starting from the assumption that since man is fallible, then nothing that requires scientific interpretation (such as macroevolution in the fossil record) can be considered as proof, because men make mistakes. What you apparently disregard is that scientific theories are not based on one persons interpretations, but are tested by the entire scientific community operating in the field of study. You're not dealing with one opinion, but a scientific concensus based on the weight of the evidence. Does that mean "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt"? No. But is does in the majority of cases consis of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".<BR><BR>The way I understand the scientific method to work, is like this:<BR><BR>1) A scientist observes a phenomenon (such as evolution, or gravity)<BR>2) the scientist collects data regarding the phenomenon (collects fossils, looks at falling apples, etc.)<BR>3) the scientist, based on the data available at the time, develops a theory to explain the phenomenon<BR>4) the theory is presented to the scientific community for discussion and testing<BR>5) the theory is either supported by data collected by others (note I did not say "proven true"), or is disproven by other data (like cold fusion)<BR>6) if not disproven, then the theory remains in the scientific community to be further tested as new data is discovered<BR>7) if disproven, then it is either disregarded, or might be modified to fit the new data and reconsidered<BR><BR>The problem where religion comes in is that it is predicated on the existence of "God". Any theory that requires the existance of "God" as a motivating factor ultimately needs to prove the existance of "God" to be acceptable. For instance, the "Creation argument" might be presented as:<BR><BR>1) Man exists<BR>2) Based on the available data that has been observed, the best explanation of the existance of Man is that he was created by God<BR>3) Therefore, God created Man<BR><BR>To be a true theory, this argument must be open to testing. How do you test this, since there is no way to scientifically prove that God exists?<BR><BR>Evolution theory (or natural selection, either one) on the other hand, CAN be tested through any number of means (biological, fossil record, geological, genetic, etc.).<BR><BR><i>Next question, has anyone ever be able to recreate spontaneous life? </i><BR><BR>That I don't know...I do know there have been some experiments regarding the potential makeup of the "primordial soup" but I'm not a bioligist, so I don't follow that stuff at all.<BR><BR>I hope this makes sense, I'm running short on time in the office right now, and am rushing quite a bit, sorry!<BR><BR>
User avatar
Jester_RM
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 3:56 pm
Location: Central Oregon
Top

Postby Angbasdil » Wed May 23, 2001 10:59 am

Thanks everyone - good answers all!<BR>Just to summarize what I think I understand of what y'all said: The earth is not a closed system. The energy to overcome entropy comes from the sun. But the mere application of energy to a system will not, by itself, overcome entropy; you'll just have a randomly distributed increase in the total energy of the system. The energy must be directed against the "flow" of entropy. This direction comes from either A: the will to survive or B: a higher power. Personally, I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that primordial soup has a survival instinct, but that's just me. <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Falkeep,<BR>It seems that you and I think a lot alike. I am a Christian, but I don't believe that I'm supposed to check my brain at the church door. God gave me this brain for a purpose. I also find the perceived opposition between science & religion to be, at its core, quite counterproductive to both. After all, they are both working towards the same goal - the truth. As for the original topic, I find enough logical flaws and leaps to conclusions in both of the hardline arguments to think that the truth is probably somewhere in between. Or somewhere else entirely.<BR><BR>Anneal,<BR>You ask, "Why believe something that isn't proven?" I am assuming from your question that you find value only in beliefs that are provable. (If I'm wrong in that assumption I'm sorry, but it's a logical inference from the fact that you asked the question.) I identify because I used to think the same way. I considered myself a skeptic, one who doubted everything until and unless it could be proven to me. But I eventually took that skepticism to its logical conclusion and reached a question I couldn't answer. I'd like to hear (read, actually) your thoughts on it.<BR>The basic premise here is this: a belief only has value if it can be proven. So, let's apply this standard of proof to the basic premise itself. Can you prove that an unprovable belief has no value? In short, are you willing to be skeptical of your own skepticism? I tried, and eventually came to the conclusion that I could not prove the basic premise, making the basic premise, if judged by its own standards, a valueless belief. The circular nature of this line of thought is obvious. <BR>So, Anneal, is there a flaw in my logic somewhere? Or have I totally misstated your stance on the issue? Or is my intellectual reasoning just completely overwhelming? <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Angbasdil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:21 pm
Top

Postby Waxwing » Wed May 23, 2001 11:30 am

Great thread! I generally keep out of the creation/evolution debates, because they always get so heated. Science vs. religion always boils down to a discussion of intense personal world views, and it's hard for people NOT to get emotionally involved. It's also impossible to convince the others that they are wrong and you are right-- especially in the context of this forum. It's nice to see a civil discussion.<BR><BR>That said, I'll dive right in.<BR><BR>I will admit up front that I'm a creationist. I'll also freely admit that it is difficult to explain my position without launching into a discussion about faith, which those on the science side will either not accept or not want to sit through. I firmly believe that evidence and explanations supporting creation exist, but we humans just haven't found them yet. I also firmly believe that all will be explained in time, and I don't need to know the whole truth now. Other things in life are more important. In the meantime, I'm developing quite a list of questions that I will ask about when I die.<BR><BR>Jester_RM,<BR><BR>(Great scientific method summary, by the way.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>I personally have a hard time accepting the fossil record as evidence supporting macroevolution, simply because of the lack of DNA data. A fossil is a snapshot of a moment when a creature died. Since it's impossible to see the live animal's appearance and social behavior, we can't even be sure if two different fossils, identified by modern science as very similar but different species, aren't the same species, just male and female. Paleontology is a science involving a lot of guess-work and assumptions, and many mistakes have been made in the past. And since DNA does not easily (or completely) survive the fossilization process, it's impossible to compare species any more closely. This makes it <i>very</i> hard, in my mind, to explain how one creature (especially something as small and uncomplex as a one-celled critter is) can be the progenitor of so many varieties and complexities of animals. <BR><BR>Science has plenty of examples of microevolution and adaptation. However, I have yet to see an example of something evolving from a fish to an amphibian, or from a reptile to a mammal. How can two creatures of one "kind" mate to produce a creature of another "kind?"
User avatar
Waxwing
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 4:07 pm
Top

Postby JRRTfanatic » Wed May 23, 2001 12:21 pm

<i>How can two creatures of one "kind" mate to produce a creature of another "kind?"</i><BR><BR>Simple answer - they can't. Evolution is not a process that takes place over time periods short enough for us to say 'this and this mated to produce something completely different'. I often find that the reference to bacteria reproducing (and becoming resistant to antibiotics) useful. Imagine a table with an m&m on it to represent the bacteria. It reproduces exponentially, untill there is a mutation, so say there are now a few hundred M&M's of one colour (say green) and a fair number (say 150) of 'mutated' yellow m&m's. Now imagine something in the environment, (in this case antibiotics, but it could be the fallout from a volcano) that will kill off all of the green bacteria, but the yellow mutation is immune. Then there is a table of 150 yellow bacteria which will then reproduce, all resistant to the environmental stimulus that wiped out the green ones. I'm not sure i've explained that too well - it works better in a visual medium. And now i've completely lost my train of thought and have forgotten the point that I was going to make. Bummer.<BR><BR><BR>Actually to update - evolution might also be seen as similar to the process of erosion. A stone in a river will at first be craggy and sharp edged, but after a certain time has elapsed it will have broken down into sand. At the middle point of this process the stone will be much smaller than the original one put in, and relatively smooth, but will not resemble the sand grain it will eventually turn out to be, or the larger sharp edged stone originally put in. If you were to go every day and pick the stone out of the river you would not notice a change from day to day, but nevertheless the changes would occur - imperceptible to humans on a day to day basis. Just as evolution is imperceptible to humans at present. But the process is the same - very gradual change over time in a species resulting in a different species to the original one. Exactly the same idea as a spectrum of light - there is no one point that you can say that blue has turned to purple, which has come from red. But from left to right the colours are netirely different, and go through different stages - without there ever being a distinct point that the change has occured.
User avatar
JRRTfanatic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:47 am
Top

Postby Waxwing » Wed May 23, 2001 12:29 pm

Your example is valid for microevolution, jrtfan, but although they are different colors and one has a resistance to an environmental hazard, they are still bacteria.<BR><BR>(And now I'm hungry for m&ms... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>)
User avatar
Waxwing
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 4:07 pm
Top

Postby Axordil » Wed May 23, 2001 1:34 pm

WW--<BR><BR>Remember that taxonomy is arbitrary. Offspring of higher organisms are not identical to their parents; their cousins may look very different indeed in some ways. But it would require substantial anatomical and probably physiological differences before a very, very distant cousin could be termed a different species.<BR><BR>The line between amphibians and reptiles is arbitrary. There are reptile-like amphibians (salamanders) and amphibian-like reptiles (some of the aquatic ones). But there are also members of the two groups that are "unmistakably" repitle or amphibian. It's a continuous spectrum that we choose to divide, and in a way we're all stuck on bad drawings of evolutionary "trees" from high school biology books. <BR><BR>Oh, and don't forget:<BR><BR>ENTROPY--<BR>Think locally, act globally <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Axordil
Mariner

 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Waxwing » Wed May 23, 2001 2:34 pm

Point taken, Axordil-- and there is an example, with a classification of deer. One group of black-tail deer lived on one side of a mountain range, and one on the other. Over the years they developed different "mutations" significant enough that they could no longer interbreed, and they became two different species. <BR><BR>This also applies to Darwin's sparrows that he studied in the Galapagos. However, what he used as an example of evolution was actually microevolution. The sparrows were still birds. And I still don't believe the changes would become significant enough to make a deer no longer a deer, or a bird no longer a bird. It doesn't make sense to me.<BR><BR>Back to poor runes' original question-- in which, I just realized, he asked that creation vs. evolution not enter into the discussion (sorry, runes!). I can't remember if someone answered this earlier in the thread. runes asked, <i>is it also because or climates are fixed that we don't change? In say a million years, if everything is to stay the way it is, we will se no change? Yet, in a million years if the climate is to change, will we see a difference in ourselves or other animals?</i><BR><BR>First off, our climates are hardly fixed. Things are changing all the time-- sometimes more imperceptably than others. There are many instances where lands that were once fertile have become deserts, and vice versa.<BR><BR>Secondly, humans are remarkably ill-equipt for survival. We have so-so hearing, a poor sense of smell, fragile flesh that easily tears. We can't run very fast compared to major predators or even their prey. We have very few advantages-- not the least of which are our opposable thumbs, and our brains. With our brains, we have been able to create tools we manipulate with our opposable thumbs-- tools that allowed us to compensate for the dangers in our environment. <BR><BR>Not only that, but with our cumulative knowledge, we have been able to create medicines that keep us alive longer, surgeries that save lives, and all sorts of compensations for disease and other bodily deficiencies. In other words, we have managed to side-step Darwin's "survival of the fittest" creed. People whose disabilities would have killed them off young have been able to survive and reproduce, thus passing on their defective genes.<BR><BR>That sounds rather heartless, so I'll try to explain my thought in a different way... Darwin's "survival of the fittest" just doesn't seem to apply to humans. We care for our sick and our lame, and try to give them the best and most comfortable lives they can have. We love our children, even those who are sick. We do the best we can to buy medicines to help them live the most normal lives they possibly can-- even when their disabilities are hereditary and they would pass them on to their children.<BR><BR>Now I'm getting into a diatribe, so I'll stop. <BR><BR>My point is, we have gotten to the point where, because we create our OWN adaptations to our environment, our genetics don't really have a chance to do it for us.
User avatar
Waxwing
Ranger of the North
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2000 4:07 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 2:39 pm

And the plot thickens...<BR><BR>Angs,<BR>I did not say that I was a skeptic. I believe in faith, that which can't be proven. I am a Christian and believe in the Bible and God. What I am saying is that I thought science was not good science if it says expounds something as truth, when in fact it is only conjecture.<BR><BR>I'm sorry Jester, but I don't see how Macroevolution can be tested. It is simply a huge jump from Microevolution. There has never be proven to be a single species that has evolved from another. Since it has never been proven, it is only conjecture. It may make sense that it is possible, but just because the explanation seems plausible, doesn't make it true. <BR><BR>How are we to test Macroevolution? It would take an experiment over millions of years. That is not going to happen in my lifetime, and I'd be willing to bet it can't happen in yours either.<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>Jester, do you see any reasonable way that Macroevolution can be tested? I said Macroevolution, not microevolution, there is a big difference between the two.<BR><BR>I'm working under the assumption that it can't. If that is true, then to believe in a scientific theory that can't be proven is simply taking a leap of Faith. It is little more than religion. Humanism is a religion.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Angbasdil » Wed May 23, 2001 2:58 pm

Anneal,<BR>Good summation! I had assumed that your question was for everyone and not just the scientific. I am also perturbed when "scientific" minded people forget the meaning of the word "theory". Evolution has NOT been proven, that's why it's called a theory. If it had been proven, it would be called a law. Basic third-grade science class there.
User avatar
Angbasdil
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2030
Joined: Tue May 08, 2001 3:21 pm
Top

Postby Jester_RM » Wed May 23, 2001 3:42 pm

Annael: Well, I’m not going to retype everything I’ve found (it would take far too long, and some of it may be copyrighted), but after doing a quick web search under “macroevolution” and "speciation", here’s links to the following:<BR><BR>A good description of Micro- vs. Macroevolution, basically concluding that they are the same process, only to different degrees (micro is below the species level, macro is above)<BR><BR>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html<BR><BR>Another describing Macroevolution, along with some of the scientific study processes involved<BR><BR>http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html<BR><BR>A “slide show”, a little simplistic since it seems to be the basis for a lecture<BR><BR>http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/macroevo/<BR><BR>Another page with a VERY good discussion of theory vs. fact, with some very enlightening quotes on the subject.<BR><BR>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html<BR><BR>A page with some instances of observed speciation (macroevolution). I’m going to copy a number of them for you, with the link to the entire page below it:<BR><BR><i> 5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization. <BR><BR>5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971). <BR>5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)<BR>While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. <BR>5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)<BR>Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926. <BR>5.1.1.3 Trapopogonan<BR>Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus. <BR>5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica<BR>The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 192<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif"border=0> crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage. <BR>5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)<BR>A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology. <BR>5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis<BR>Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. <BR>5.1.1.7 Brassica<BR>Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif"border=0> and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 1<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif"border=0> may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris. <BR>5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)<BR>Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporo- phytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas. <BR>5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)<BR>Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 194<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif"border=0>. The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores. <BR>5.1.2 Animals Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document. <BR>5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy <BR>5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif"border=0>. S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self- incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50\% of the seeds and 24\% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities. <BR>5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays) Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridi- zation as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30\% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1\% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8\% to 4.9\% in the white strain and from 46.7\% to 3.4\% in the yellow strain. <BR>5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus) At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes. <i><BR><BR>and here is the link for the page<BR><BR>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html<BR><BR><BR>I think that is enough for this post <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0>. If you want more, just let me know and I’ll keep looking <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR>
User avatar
Jester_RM
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 3:56 pm
Location: Central Oregon
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 5:11 pm

Here is my problem,<BR><BR>Science can't take into consideration a Miracle, and what would be more miraculous than the creation of the universe?<BR><BR>The Bible tells us that Jesus' first miracle was changing water into wine. Lets say that a scientist got ahold of the sample of said wine within moments of the miracle.<BR><BR>The scientist would correctly deduce that this sample is wine. He could then deduce that the wine was an 'evolved' form of grape juice(fermented). He could then deduce that the grape juice is an 'evolved form or grapes(processed). He could then deduce that the grapes were a product of the successful sexual reproduction of a flower(pollination). The scientist could then deduce that the flower was a result of a seed that germinated in a soil conducive to growth combined with a favorable enviroment(Temp,water,sunlight,lack of being trampled upon or eaten and the like).<BR><BR>The scientist could then estimate the minimum age by estimating the time from germination to production and from production of the graped to processes and ferment. He would deduce that it took months for the wine to be produced, when in fact the components of the wine are seconds old. This is because scientists have no idea about miracles.<BR><BR>If I saw Jesus make the wine from water, do you really think I could convince a scientist that the wine was only seconds old? That the wine was made from water alone and not by grapes by way of a grape vine? The answer is obviously no.<BR><BR>Do you think that the scientist could convince me that I am wrong for believing that Jesus created the wine out of water? The answer is obviously no again.<BR><BR>What makes me upset is that scientists, who have no earthly idea of what actually happened try to say that they are right because they say so. Would the scientist with the wine be right about the origin of the wine? Would he believe he was? Why must his view be the correct view? Plausible doesn't equal happened!
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Axordil » Wed May 23, 2001 5:46 pm

If plausible isn't almost always equal to happened, A., then we live in a world where we can't really trust our senses, or the equipment we build to extend them. It means that physical laws have no meaning. It means that we exist or not, from moment to moment at the whim of a giant cosmic space muffin you happen to believe in.<BR><BR>Riiiiight. And I'm a Chinese fighter pilot.<BR><BR>
User avatar
Axordil
Mariner

 
Posts: 7325
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 12:00 am
Top

Postby Jester_RM » Wed May 23, 2001 5:54 pm

Annael: Well, now you seem to be changing the argument completely. You said:<BR><BR><i>There has never be proven to be a single species that has evolved from another. Since it has never been proven, it is only conjecture. </i><BR><BR>I then provided, as you requested, concrete examples of observed macroevolution and/or speciation. Now you are saying that even that is not enough proof for you that evolution (on many different scales) occurs? Even if it includes your requested genetic testing? What WOULD constitute suffient proof for you?<BR><BR>We appear to be at a basic impasse. It seems that you will accept no scientific evidence that contradicts your position, no matter what the source, since all evidence is obtained by fallible humanity and therefore cannot be believed.<BR><BR><i>What makes me upset is that scientists, who have no earthly idea of what actually happened try to say that they are right because they say so. Would the scientist with the wine be right about the origin of the wine? Would he believe he was? Why must his view be the correct view? Plausible doesn't equal happened!</i><BR><BR>Scientists do not say that they are right because they say so. They present observable data and testable hypotheses, in a search for increasing understanding about the world we live in. If a scientist came up with a theory like "The Earth Revolves around the Moon", he would be laughed out of the field, because the theory flies in the face of the observable data.<BR><BR>Please read the papers at the links I provided. There are several discussions of theory and fact and levels of proof. You are correct in "plausible doesn't equal happened", but you appear to be arguing from the philosophical position that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to be true, therefore "God" must have done it all, since we can't explain anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.<BR><BR>And I believe you are incorrect about science not "taking into consideration" something like a miracle. How in the world should one do this? A miracle (according to the dictionary) is an unusual and mysterious event that is thought to have been caused by a god. Should any currently unexplained phenomenon then be considered a "miracle", and no further effort expended to explain it or understand it? <BR><BR>For instance, consider early medicine. A terrible plague sweeps a city. There are several survivors, who apparently have no ill effects. "Ah", the scientists say, "since we cannot explain how they survived while all the others died, it must therefore be an act of God and a miracle!" If we left things at that point, we would not understand viruses and bacteria, or antibiotics, or good sanitation. Good scientists cannot let themselves become so lazy as to rest on the belief that something is caused by a "miracle", since to do so would be to assume that there was nothing left to learn.<BR><BR>I would like to add that if you are going to insist on turning this discussion into a thread on biblical evidence, I will have to resign from it. I've had those discussions before, and I dislike them intensely. If you'd like to continue the discussion about evolutionary theory vs. other theories and scientific methodology, I would be happy too <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif"border=0><BR><BR>
User avatar
Jester_RM
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1765
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 3:56 pm
Location: Central Oregon
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 6:12 pm

Annael,<BR><BR>A few things?<BR><BR>1.) DID Jesus turn the water into wine? It apparently isn't a definate point since plenty of christian religious sects (Baptists, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Desciples of Christ, etc.) seem to argue that since they want to belief alcohol if evil that Jesus really just made strong grape juice out of wine. Aren't they basically saying he added water and made grape concentrate?<BR><BR>2.) I reiterate my point about Schroediger's Cat, just because man may not have some bit of knowledge, be able to prove something or even know how to prove something does not change whether something is true or not.<BR><BR>3.) I REALLY wish that people who want to dispute the evidence which supports the theories regarding evolution on the basis of being incapable od dealing with anything that challenges their narrow pre-concieved belief that god is deminished if he did not create everything in 6 days 6,000 years ago, who want to cling blindly to their "faith" to that extent would stop trying to use "science" and "scientific reasoning" to take an anti-science stance and just say "I am a zealot and a fanatic for God. Do not bothering trying to engage me in an open-minded, enlightened debate becasue I completely refuse to accept anything you might ever say which goes against what I want to believe. I believe in the most narrowminded view of God, only God and nothing but God and will not accept that science and faith are not mutually exclusive." Do all of us a favor and stop trying to hid your close-mindedness behind a facade of "reason".<BR><BR>BTW, the Bible you read and get you "miracles", etc. out of was NOT written by God and is not even the works as they were written by the authors. It is a created book intended to sell a product which has had chapters and books added to it, removed from it, edited and even completely re-written over the course of many councils and synods over the course of a thousand years. It is the product of men who were selling blind obediance to them and unwaivering acceptance of their rule and control. Gos had little, if anything to do with it. At least the Koran which the muslims use is the work written by Mohammed... not by committees,
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 7:17 pm

What got me going on this was the site talkorigins.org. It was saying that evolution is a fact and that the only thing that is a theory is how it happened.<BR><BR>My prior post was a reaction to that concept. I do not believe I ever went into why macroevolution had to be wrong, I merely stated why I thought it was wrong. There is a difference and I hope you can see it.<BR><BR>There are laws of nature that we manipulate to make things work the way we want them to work(lift on a wing,electricity,etc). I do not believe that this holds true for miracles.<BR><BR>Just because some people have a problem with alcohol, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't make wine. Even if he did make grape juice, omit the sections on fermentation and the argument still stands. Science cannot deal with things that act outside of the normal way of things, miracles.<BR><BR>I am sorry, but just because a bunch of people think something is true, that does not make it true.<BR><BR>Jester, I am sorry if I mislead you, I do appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts, and I have learned some things, but what you have posted is no argument against the possibility of creation. To think that others must believe the way you do I find bothersome. All I have been trying to say is that there are other possibilities. You have yet to show me one animal has mutated from another animal. The possibility of two exact same mutations in opposite sexes in basically the same generation just seems to me to be a little too unlikely to be the way all the different species evolved. I site my miracle of the wine as my explanation.<BR><BR>Falkeep,<BR>I understand that you have some problems with the validity of the Bible, I hope for your sake you are right. I hope that you understand that I believe that God keep his Word preserved.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 7:41 pm

This is anew post for a new feeling, anger!<BR><BR>Let's define open minded.<BR><BR>Am I correct in thinking that if I base my beliefs solely on the Bible, I am being closed minded, and if you base your beliefs on science then you are open minded.<BR><BR>I find this reasoning faulty. I would think that open minded would be trying to understand why someone believes the way they do. Closed minded would be to only see your side and to force your views on them.<BR><BR>You have some nerve telling me that I am wrong for believing the way I do. If creation was actually a miracle and the Bible is right, then I'm right. If the world was created by guess and by golly, then you are right. Who here was actually there? Who here knows beyond a shadow of a doubt?<BR><BR>Then to try and pull, well if science's explanation of creation is not valid then you should not enjoy any of the advancements of science, is a bunch of hoo-ie.<BR><BR>OK, I feel much better now. The sentiment is still there, I just got it out of my system now.
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 7:50 pm

Annael, my problems are from growing up in the church (my dad is an Episc. Priest) and I have problems with people using religion to try to control people and what they think or do as well as the ones who use it to try to limit what what can be taught or explored because it conflicts with their personal beliefs. I belief in the absolute supremacy of truth and that is something IS true (whatever it is) it can stand to be questioned and dounbted. Does that make sense?
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

Postby Annael » Wed May 23, 2001 8:29 pm

The only problem with that Falkeep is that TRUTH is such a personal thing. What is true for one person, may not be for another. Much of life is how you look at it. To believe that my truth is less valid than yours is wrong.<BR><BR>What is the purpose of teaching evolution in schools? Why is it important? Why not spend that time doing experiments and see for oneself how things work and fit together. I personally see no educational value in the subject what so ever in a Science class.<BR><BR>A history class? A philosophy class? These are where theories of possibilities can be discussed and seen as possibilities, not TRUTH!<BR><BR>Is my analogy of Jesus first miracle faulty? Or does it have merit?<BR><BR>By the way, the Bible does say that fermented old wine that has expanded its wine skins is better than new wine(grape juice).<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0><BR><BR>(I got a Church of Christ preacher on that one)<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif"border=0>
User avatar
Annael
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 3:54 pm
Top

Postby Falkeep » Wed May 23, 2001 8:48 pm

truth is NOT a personal thing... truth is. What people may accept as true or not is individual but that acceptance or a lack thereof does not change what is truth. Again truth exist whether it is known or not and whether it is accepted or not. It is not dependent on being known or even accepted. For example, when Galileo publicly supported Copernicus's findings that the earth revolved around the sun rather than everything revolving around the earth, the Vatican had him brought in and tortutured until he recanted. he did, he was only human and was an old man but the Vatican felt that having him recant would show that what they WANTED To be true would be true. It didn't matter though, no matter how many people wanted the truth the be that the earth was the center of everything, it did not change what was actually true. Truth is not in belief... truth is.<BR><BR>As for any ideas and theories and hypotheses, etc. man is far from being as far along the road to knowledge as he will be and so at this point in history he may very well be unable to "prove" or "disprove" many things but being able to prove or disprove them does not change the truth of them, just our knowledge of that truth. Maybe God DID create the universe EXACTLY like the Bible says and if that is truth then all the questioning and doubting in the Universe will not change that. In the end, questioning and doubting will point the way to that truth. Likewise, if eveolution (or any other currently unimagined process) is what happened then it is truth and all of the efforts to prevent it from being tested or accepted will not change that. What tells the take is not whether or not something can be proven but whether or not it can stand being questioned. The more you (or I) believe in something, if we really believe it is true then we should be ENCOURAGING EVERYONE to poke, prod, question, doubt and try to tear down those beliefs. if they are true, they will prevail and we will be shown to be right. if they do not prevail then we were wrong and it would have been immoral and evil to have tried to make them be the accepted ideas simply becasue we wanted them to be true and did not have enough faith in our own reasoning that we could not stand for them to be questioned.
User avatar
Falkeep
Shield Bearer

 
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 9:32 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs.com, Google [Bot] and 3 guests