The Thinking Mans Thread - Evolution Schmevolution. No Offence to the Ladies.

[whoareyaaa]

nothing really to do with evolution but I wonder in 200 years if it would be possible to put an object in a machine which could be transferred to another machine in a different country at the flick of a switch.

I mean who would of though you could talk to someone on the other side of the world instantly via video 200 years ago

[Daggers]

I mean who would of thought you could talk to someone on the other side of the world, call them a keyboard warrior and call them out in your local pub car park via the internet 200 years ago?

Ye Olde Lolle Catte?

[BoneDog]

As I said, there may be inaccuracies in some aspects of Darwinism, and some things that can't yet be fully explained, such as Atlantic rafting monkeys, but that doesn't take away from the scientific evidence of evolution as Darwin explained it, we may even come to a point we were refine Darwinism down to a point where it is actually something quite far removed from what we understand, but if you are saying that the proposed Atlantic raft monkeys that is used to explain one small anomaly is proof against Darwinism then you are wrong. If you want to challenge evolution, challenge it on its core scientifically proven principles not one tiny anomaly.

It is not a small anomaly. It is a huge part of the puzzle. Unless that specific monkey rafted across the Atlantic with a supply of food and water then the main neo-Darwinist 'theme' is ruined.

I haven't started posting about the things I had in mind when I started this thread yet, as I'm still catching up with the replies, but hopefully will post about numerous scientific evidences that put Darwinism in serious doubt.

The rafting monkey is an unscientific piece of 'evidence' for Darwinism, it can be neither proved or disproved. It's a very convenient piece of 'evidence' at that, because if that specific monkey didn't raft across the Atlantic then Darwinism has a serious problem (or should I say another problem, as it already has many).

Do you personally believe that at least two of those monkeys, or at least one pregnant one did the raft trip? I personally don't give such a theory the time of day.

[Captain...]

It is not a small anomaly. It is a huge part of the puzzle. Unless that specific monkey rafted across the Atlantic with a supply of food and water then the main neo-Darwinist 'theme' is ruined.

I haven't started posting about the things I had in mind when I started this thread yet, as I'm still catching up with the replies, but hopefully will post about numerous scientific evidences that put Darwinism in serious doubt.

The rafting monkey is an unscientific piece of 'evidence' for Darwinism, it can be neither proved or disproved. It's a very convenient piece of 'evidence' at that, because if that specific monkey didn't raft across the Atlantic then Darwinism has a serious problem (or should I say another problem, as it already has many).

Do you personally believe that at least two of those monkeys, or at least one pregnant one did the raft trip? I personally don't give such a theory the time of day.

I don't believe nor disbelieve it, how they got there is largely irrelevant to the mechanics of Darwin evolution, and it is that that I believe. As even the doctor himself has said the scientific evidence around evolution doesn't necessarily exclude the involvement of a creator or divine power, and you could use that to fill the gaps, but as a scientist that would be lazy, filling in any gaps with god.

The mechanics of evolution are visible today, they can be manipulated by science and be proven to exist as well as a whole raft (sans monkey) of evidence in nature.

[BoneDog]

I don't believe nor disbelieve it, how they got there is largely irrelevant to the mechanics of Darwin evolution, and it is that that I believe.

It isn't irrelevant really, and you have to believe it happened if you want to support Darwinism as an explanation of life. The only possible way that monkey got there was a raft journey across the Atlantic which would have taken about 2 weeks - evolutionists accept this and it is in their own textbooks. The monkey would have starved and dehydrated unless they had a food and water supply on said raft. If they didn't get there this way then Darwinism is out of the window.

The raft journey explanation is really clutching at straws, and I'm sure that if it was an ID scientist claiming such a thing to support one of their theories then you, and others, would be ridiculing such an idea!

As even the doctor himself has said the scientific evidence around evolution doesn't necessarily exclude the involvement of a creator.

Well I wish he'd have said that weeks ago because I only started the thread to try and point this out and counter his, and others constant barrages about evolution disproving a Creator. Nothing could be further from the truth.

but as a scientist that would be lazy, filling in any gaps with god.

Yes it would be lazy. Luckily, no scientists in ID are trying to fill in any gaps with God. Intelligent design theory doesn't consider the question of the identity of the designer. It is all science. They keep all religion out of the science and just try to prove design in the cell among other things. They are also working on proving the digital information in living creatures has to come from somewhere and cannot be random and unguided. 0's and 1's!

The claim that ID science is trying to bring any God into the classroom is a much peddled lie as has already been established. In fact, it is the Darwinists who try to fill in gaps with far out ideas (such as the monkey raft) as I'll show with some links.

[BoneDog]

Not sure if anybody is interested in this thread anymore but I have to crack on!

Just to prove that this is not a battle for any religion, before I continue to get up to date with the thread I'll post a few links that show that ID is all about the science. Many of the scientists who contribute to this site are not religious people. It's a very real and modern science. If anyone who knows anything about science wants to look through the large list of articles on the site then I'm sure you'll come to see that it is serious. You should also see that there is a smear campaign going on towards ID if you take a look at some of the academic freedom articles.

Here's some science:

Two of the worlds leading experts on bacterial flagellar assembly take on Michael Behe

http://www.evolution...s_an069881.html

The latest buzz on bumblebees

http://www.evolution..._bum070911.html

DNA replication: An engineering marvel

http://www.evolution...tion068061.html

"The systems responsible for DNA replication are well beyond the explanatory efficacy of unguided processes involving chance and necessity. Indeed, machinery of the complexity and sophistication of that described above is, in all of our experience, habitually associated with intelligent agency. This brief description barely amounts the tip of the iceberg. Later, I will examine these intricate processes in more detail."

News about epigenetics

http://www.evolution...pige069301.html

"In all these stories, there's a hidden subtext of intelligent design.

This is evident not only by the lack of appeal to Darwinian theory to explain what is observed, but by the growing evidence of an elaborate epigenetic choreography in action. Enzymes, cofactors and tags that "fine tune" gene expression like a dimmer switch, that provide robustness against changing environments, that rework genetic structures in complex interactions - none of these seem amenable to being explained in terms of purposeless, gradual processes."

Edit : Homepage - http://www.evolutionnews.org/

[Captain...]

Can you highlight the bit that disproves the mechanics of evolution, and shows that evolution through the species, and common ancestry and all the evidence behind it is false. All these geographical anomalies just prove that we have yet to find all the answers, now there may have been an external influences that shaped the path of evolution, or it may be that our understanding of the geography of that time, or our ability to date species may not be 100% accurate. Species have travelled between continents before through ice bridges for example, not saying that is what did happen in the case of the monkeys, but it has happened. What I an saying is we don't know, and that is cool.

Edit: forgot to say that the monkey rafting is a hypothesis and not actually part of the evolution theory, the difference being a hypothesis is not considered fact.

[BoneDog]

Viva la reverlooshun.

Cracks seem to be appearing in Ken Millers arguement for Darwinian evolution. 'Exhibit A' looks as if it'll have to be binned.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.html

"Adults should not be sheltered from the fact that some aspects of evolutionary thinking are under intense criticism in the scientific community. Of course evolution is a fact in the sense that living things have changed over enormous periods of time. It is also a fact that the major groups of animals burst onto the scene some 530 million years ago in the Cambrian explosion - the subject of Stephen Meyer's book, Darwin's Doubt. But it is also a fact that science does not know what mechanism lies behind the evolutionary process."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/worlds_leading_071641.html

[BoneDog]

Check out the assembly line in this video. I love how, after assembly, it floats down the tunnel and is released through a door into the main part of the cell. Sci-fi razzle dazzle. I can't possibly see how that system assembled itself into working order all because of an unguided explosion followed by random events and 'luck'.

The 'mad darwinists' (that's my phrase, so don't hold it against ID scientists) want us to believe that this machine, and all other marvels - including the smashing frog below - are pure luck and came from a puff of smoke with no guidance whatsoever. Luckily for us there are scientists who don't believe such foolishness and are beginning to look away from Darwinism for an explantion. High five.

[Raw Dykes]

Check out the assembly line in this video. I love how, after assembly, it floats down the tunnel and is released through a door into the main part of the cell. Sci-fi razzle dazzle. I can't possibly see how that system assembled itself into working order all because of an unguided explosion followed by random events and 'luck'.

Argument from ignorance. The fact that you can't see how that system came into existence naturally does not mean it didn't happen. "Random events and 'luck'" is not an accurate description of evolution. I get the feeling that you don't really understand the theory. You seem very interested in the subject, so why not look into it further?

The 'mad darwinists' (that's my phrase, so don't hold it against ID scientists) want us to believe that this machine, and all other marvels - including the smashing frog below - are pure luck and came from a puff of smoke with no guidance whatsoever. Luckily for us there are scientists who don't believe such foolishness and are beginning to look away from Darwinism for an explantion. High five.

Intelligent design indeed.

It's your strange view of science that gets me. It seems like you believe there's a big conspiracy going on behind the scenes, and that the whole scientific community is desperately clinging onto the theory of evolution, as if it was dogma. Why would they? And how could they, if it was, as you believe, a load of old rubbish? A conspiracy of this scale, kept up for this amount of time, is beyond the realms of possibility, surely? Science works - it's the reason we don't live in caves. Science works because it deals in facts - things that are demonstrably true. If you really think you can disprove evolution, then you should look forward to receiving your Noble prize.

You know how religion works. Just look at every religion that you don't subscribe to. They deal in the supernatural (the unfalsifiable), and promote faith as a virtue, when in reality, faith is an excuse people give for not having a good reason to believe something. I'm sure that you're sure the particular brand of religion you like is different, but it really isn't.

Creationism/Intelligent Design (I don't think they are all that different. Have a look at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) is just the result of religiously indoctrinated people trying to discredit an area of science that does not fit with the fables they believe to be fact.

[AdamN]

I can't possibly see how that system assembled itself into working order all because of an unguided explosion followed by random events and 'luck'.

Why do people use this as an argument? Surely the creation of an almighty being from absolutely nothing is just as, if not more absurd?

[BoneDog]

It'd be nice to get an answer to some of the science links I've posted. Seems like every one is ignored.

Argument from ignorance. The fact that you can't see how that system came into existence naturally does not mean it didn't happen. "Random events and 'luck'" is not an accurate description of evolution. I get the feeling that you don't really understand the theory. You seem very interested in the subject, so why not look into it further?

Fair point and I've realised lately that I lack a sophistication in getting my point across. I'll try and explain better later so there are no crossed wires. I have said before that I know speciation and other parts of evolution do exist. But they have limits, and do not create new species, as some scientists seem to be pointing out. The parts of evolution theory that are real do not in any way explain how we came into existence - which was my main reason for starting this thread, but it got lost in translation.

I am very interested in the subject and am slowly learning more about it.

It's your strange view of science that gets me. It seems like you believe there's a big conspiracy going on behind the scenes, and that the whole scientific community is desperately clinging onto the theory of evolution, as if it was dogma. Why would they?

Have you seen any of the links I posted about how scientific evidence that contradicts neo-Darwinism is kept out of debates? I've got about 40 more links to similar things, so yes I do believe that those at the top are running scared. It is a dictatorship and has been for decades, and anybody who speaks out against it, or is even slightly sympathetic to the idea of debate, is blacklisted and worse. I'll post some more links to evidence of this later.

Some more points you made I'll reply to in a while.

Why do people use this as an argument? Surely the creation of an almighty being from absolutely nothing is just as, if not more absurd?

Yes, it's a mind bender alright!

[The Doctor]

It'd be nice to get an answer to some of the science links I've posted. Seems like every one is ignored.

Fair point and I've realised lately that I lack a sophistication in getting my point across. I'll try and explain better later so there are no crossed wires. I have said before that I know speciation and other parts of evolution do exist. But they have limits, and do not create new species, as some scientists seem to be pointing out. The parts of evolution theory that are real do not in any way explain how we came into existence - which was my main reason for starting this thread, but it got lost in translation.

Do I still need to repeat this or should I go fetch someone who speaks fluent moron -

Evolution. Does. Not. Seek. To. Explain. Origins. Of. Life. Only. The. Variation. In. Life.

[Zingari]

Do I still need to repeat this or should I go fetch someone who speaks fluent moron -

Evolution. Does. Not. Seek. To. Explain. Origins. Of. Life. Only. The. Variation. In. Life.

Then why is Darwin's book called the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"?

You can see how people get a bit confused , it's a bit misleading ain't it ?

[The Doctor]

Then why is Darwin's book called the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"?

You can see how people get a bit confused , it's a bit misleading ain't it ?

Origin of species, not of life - species originate through evolution because that's what the variation leads to - speciation. The origins of life itself however don't tie into evolution at all.

[Zingari]

Origin of species, not of life - species originate through evolution because that's what the variation leads to - speciation. The origins of life itself however don't tie into evolution at all.

Yes I see that

But the problem is we are led to believe that species evolve incrementally over a period of many years , so there is no actual point of "origin". It's a continual process .Or does the theory recognise a specific point when each species become "new"?

And how do you arrive at telling when it stops being one thing and becomes the new thing ?

Would this specific birth of a lifeform be the point of "origin" of a species i.e. the parent is the last of one species and the offspring the first of the new ?

I'm not doubting the whole theory in itself , just having problems accepting that there is not a lot more to life/ evolution etc than can ever be really understood .

[The Doctor]

Yes I see that

But the problem is we are led to believe that species evolve incrementally over a period of many years , so there is no actual point of "origin". It's a continual process .Or does the theory recognise a specific point when each species become "new"?

And how do you arrive at telling when it stops being one thing and becomes the new thing ?

I'm not doubting the whole theory in itself , just having problems accepting that there is not a lot more to life/ evolution etc than can ever be really understood .

It's a continual process - but we consider a new species to have arisen when the two can no longer bred to produce living, fertile offspring.

[birdwith2beaksandnofriends]

I'm halfway through an anthropology course, an introduction sort of thing offered for free by a university.

I find it fascinating. I can recommend it if anyone fancies learning a little more. Some of you are clearly well, well above that level already, but to others its an interesting and accessible course which makes the subject a little less daunting.

PM me if you want details. Its an online course. You do get a certificate but I'd imagine thats pretty worthless.

[Zingari]

It's a continual process - but we consider a new species to have arisen when the two can no longer bred to produce living, fertile offspring.

So there comes a point in evolution when one generation can interbreed with it's ancestral life form , but the next generation cannot .A kind of cut off switch point ?

Why did the former lifeform ( which can no longer be bred with by the new) not evolve in the same way as the new life form ?

What dictated that this old lifeform ( which was originally the same as the new) should stop or diversify differently if the same pressures to evolve are being applied to it ?

[The Doctor]

So there comes a point in evolution when one generation can interbreed with it's ancestral life form , but the next generation cannot .A kind of cut off switch point ?

Why did the former lifeform ( which can no longer be bred with by the new) not evolve in the same way as the new life form ?

What dictated that this old lifeform ( which was originally the same as the new) should stop or diversify differently if the same pressures to evolve are being applied to it ?

There's a generation where there'll be a reproduction cut-off, yes - as for why they evolve differently: depends, there's a degree of geographical segregation that causes it (for instance the Cichlid's in the African great lakes - separated from each other by land) with then the two separated gene pools changing in terms of relative concentrations of alleles as well as the new alleles or genes added by mutations: but when the two are together there's more a case of the "mutants" having some sort of advantage - such as giraffes having longer necks and being able to reach the top of the trees, meaning they find a new niche and diverge off to their own species, while the predecessing species may have some members who have an adaptation allowing them to avoid being out-competed by the new species and instead being able to co-exist.

Or basically - they don't evolve the same due to the random attribute of mutations in the evolutionary process.

[Zingari]

There's a generation where there'll be a reproduction cut-off, yes - as for why they evolve differently: depends, there's a degree of geographical segregation that causes it (for instance the Cichlid's in the African great lakes - separated from each other by land) with then the two separated gene pools changing in terms of relative concentrations of alleles as well as the new alleles or genes added by mutations: but when the two are together there's more a case of the "mutants" having some sort of advantage - such as giraffes having longer necks and being able to reach the top of the trees, meaning they find a new niche and diverge off to their own species, while the predecessing species may have some members who have an adaptation allowing them to avoid being out-competed by the new species and instead being able to co-exist.

Or basically - they don't evolve the same due to the random attribute of mutations in the evolutionary process.

Cheers Doc I’m not gonna pretend I really understand the theory of evolution of the species or how the origins of life are not inextricably linked to the theory , but thanks for trying . You must have incredible patience or really just enjoy debating and explaining the subjects of your choice.

I tend to accept the theory fully with my limited understanding of it and then something quite simple happens such as the sight of an ordinary spider weaving a perfect web with such intricate design that I really have trouble accepting that such a thing just came about by some random process of natural selection. With early spiders just casting a few random strands gradually improving the design

I mean, webs aren’t much use until they are quite intricate, so any simple form of web, such as a few crossed strands wouldn’t be of any use for survival. It’s only really any good when it’s a complex design good enough to catch flies.

I really get lost in the wonderment of how it all came together and in some ways I don’t mind holding on to the mystery ( even if scientists don’t believe it is a mystery)

But it’s been good talking to you and I’ll give you a rest for a while because it really doesn’t matter a fook what I believe or don’t understand , but I just find it’s good to talk about different things anyway .

All the best

[Raw Dykes]

Cheers Doc I’m not gonna pretend I really understand the theory of evolution of the species or how the origins of life are not inextricably linked to the theory , but thanks for trying . You must have incredible patience or really just enjoy debating and explaining the subjects of your choice.

I tend to accept the theory fully with my limited understanding of it and then something quite simple happens such as the sight of an ordinary spider weaving a perfect web with such intricate design that I really have trouble accepting that such a thing just came about by some random process of natural selection. With early spiders just casting a few random strands gradually improving the design

I mean, webs aren’t much use until they are quite intricate, so any simple form of web, such as a few crossed strands wouldn’t be of any use for survival. It’s only really any good when it’s a complex design good enough to catch flies.

I really get lost in the wonderment of how it all came together and in some ways I don’t mind holding on to the mystery ( even if scientists don’t believe it is a mystery)

But it’s been good talking to you and I’ll give you a rest for a while because it really doesn’t matter a fook what I believe or don’t understand , but I just find it’s good to talk about different things anyway .

All the best

With the example of spiders' webs, I expect spiders first just used them to climb down from things. The ones that used this ability more often would catch more prey, would tend to survive longer and would therefore be more likely to pass their web-building genes on to the next generation. I disagree that a simple web is of no use. A single strand is infinitely better for catching flies than no web at all, just as a single light sensing cell is better than no eye at all.

[Zingari]

With the example of spiders' webs, I expect spiders first just used them to climb down from things. The ones that used this ability more often would catch more prey, would tend to survive longer and would therefore be more likely to pass their web-building genes on to the next generation. I disagree that a simple web is of no use. A single strand is infinitely better for catching flies than no web at all, just as a single light sensing cell is better than no eye at all.

How could a single strand catch anything , let alone something as evasive as a fly ? No i really can't accept that , sorry

It's as bad as the theory that birds wings evolved from flappy cooling devices that somehow gradually turned into perfectly designed appendages capable of flight .

But the mental image of SAS type spiders abseiling down from things is quite amusing

What were they living on before they caught flies and why did they need to change?

As I said before , I don't disbelieve the theory, but just find the whole mystery of life too complex to be reduced in this way .

But I do accept that it's probably just me

[BoneDog]

Do I still need to repeat this or should I go fetch someone who speaks fluent moron -

Evolution. Does. Not. Seek. To. Explain. Origins. Of. Life. Only. The. Variation. In. Life.

Hark at him!

The only reason I started this thread in the first place was because you were speaking in other threads as if you had the answers to the origin of life. You were repeating the no God line in a number of threads, and mentioning Dawkins.

If you and Dawkins et al kept philosophy and religion out of your supposed 'science' talks and books, then you telling me that 'evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life' might be a valid point. But you/they don't, so it isn't. Dawkins seems to harp on about religion and theology more than he does science.

[The Doctor]

Hark at him!

The only reason I started this thread in the first place was because you were speaking in other threads as if you had the answers to the origin of life. You were repeating the no God line in a number of threads, and mentioning Dawkins.

If you and Dawkins et al kept philosophy and religion out of your supposed 'science' talks and books, then you telling me that 'evolution doesn't concern itself with the origins of life' might be a valid point. But you/they don't, so it isn't. Dawkins seems to harp on about religion and theology more than he does science.

No - you really don't get it do you. Regardless of whether they talk about philosophy or what ever - The theory of evolution does not make reference to the ****ing origins of life. I don't know how I could make this clearer, even a ****ing 5 year old would have grasped what I've told you, but then again, the 5 year old isn't generally a tin-foiled nutcase who refuses to acknowledge evidence unless it suits his crazy ideas. You are wrong. Get over it.