Posts by simwaves1

or just go to a single-payer system and eliminate the middle-man all together.

Part of the reason why I mentioned all three was that mentioning evolution alone does not include the others. However, just because the big bang and an old earth are not part of evolutionary theory, doesn't mean that there isn't sufficient scientific data supporting them. They also seem to be the key points that traditional creationists don't accept.

When I asked you why you didn't agree with evolution and you give me an argument against the big bang, your argument is irrelevant. On the other hand, if you want to debate the big bang or an old earth separately, I am glad to do so.

ETA: happy halloween (or harvest if that's your thing) 

Original Post by franklinmeister:

And as for the Bible being a science book, you may want to check your facts.  Columbus embarked upon his voyage largely because of what the Bible said about the form of the earth.  When it was believed that going to fast would turn a man inside out, and the railroad was being picketed because of its "abominable violations", Christian men who read in the Bible that man would travel "to and fro upon the earth (in its original language it is more vivid as to its meaning)" went ahead with their plans.  There are actually lists and lists of scientific discoveries that were mentioned well in advance to their discoveries, mentioned in scripture.  Simply read the last handful of chapters of the book of Job, and you will find multiple things listed and mentioned that were later (so much later, as to be recent) discovered to be valid and true, when previously they were questioned.

Okay, perhaps it would be incorrect to say that nobody ever considered the bible a science book, but science before the 14th century wasn't the same as it is now, and that seems to be the only time period which you take examples from. Nothing in the bible was meant to be a source of scientific knowledge. I have read the book of Job and it is definitely not, nor was it meant to be, a scientific writing. It is poetry, not science and there are no scientific discoveries hidden within it.

The truth is, there are lists and lists of men who were Christians who used the information they found in the Bible to spur them to their discoveries, and very few pure evolutionists that can say the same thing.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. I doubt that any evolutionist would say that the bible spurred their discoveries. On the other hand, if you are asking if evolutionists are spurred onto new discoveries by the previous writtings of others, then absolutely they are. That's an important part of how science works.

Original Post by franklinmeister:

I am not saying Augustine was a fool, don't get me wrong.  But depending on how much of his work you have read, you may find he was more of a philosopher than a "Christian".  Much - if not MOST - of his writings are speculative and unscriptural.  He guesses often, and makes gross conjectures just as often.

As far as the Bible being meant to explain ONLY the supernatural, I am afraid that reveals a level of ignorance on your part regarding scripture.  That is simply not the case.

As to what I disagree with in scripture, I never said I disagreed with scripture.  I simply said I could not call myself a Christian.  In the second chapter in the book of James, the Bible says that even the demons believe - and tremble!  But they are by no means Christians.  I can agree with the Bible all I want, and even believe what it says, but that does not make me a Christian any more than it does for the demons that believe the same way.

Augustine was a Roman Catholic Bishop and a saint, as well as a philosopher. How is he any less "Christian" than anyone else? And why bother demoting him from your view of what a "Christian" is if you don't even hold to that title yourself.

The whole purpose of the bible is to explain what the supernatural is and our relation to it. Nobody ever considered it a science book.

You dodged my question about your beliefs. I didn't ask what part of scripture you disagreed with, I asked what part of christianity you disagreed with. If you don't call yourself christian, then there must be a reason.

I'm kinda split on this issue so far. I have seen quite a few people who were healthy end up intubated in the ICU from H1N1. Obviously "quite a few" isn't really a great sample size to be making decisions from, but it makes quite an impact when you see it first hand.

At the same time, there are a LOT of doctors that don't want to take the swine flu vaccine. None of the neurologists that I've been working with are going to get it because they don't want to risk getting Guillain-Barre. IDK 

Original Post by franklinmeister:

Sim,

Your argument has now drifted into meaninglessness.  The logic escapes me how you can be so concerned with the process of the changes of life, without conquering the obstacle of the origin of that life.  You cannot come up with ANY proof, and yet you hold fast to one little sliver of idealism.  Ibez makes an interesting case, albeit a bit morose.  I cannot say I share the abismal sentiment, but it is consistent with his beliefs.  You, on the other hand (from best I could tell at some point in the annuls of the history of this thread) seemed to present the idea that both God and evolution co-exist.  I just wonder if that is genuinely the case, or perhaps I misunderstood.  My whole point in jumping in on this was simply (at least initially - though I certainly confess I lost sight of this intent) to ask, "if there IS a God, then why the staunch disbelief that He created everything all at once?  I mean, if God created the origin of everything, why does there need to be a reasonable process from an earlier form to a later form?  Couldn't God just do whatever He wanted, and might that desire contradict what would make sense to us?"

Perhaps the easier question would have been (with the understanding that you may have answered this very question quite directly earlier on), "what is your belief regarding God?  And how does that belief relate to the topic of evolution?" 

If you would like to answer this question, then very well.  If not, then I must agree with Shapeshifter that this thread has lost its usefulness as an entertaining venue.

My personal beliefs have been brought up a few times in this thread. I'm not sure why it comes back to this (perhaps just curiosity). Most of the time I disregard the question of my beliefs because I don't find it to be relevant to the topic of conversation. In this case, I don't see any reason not to because our conversation isn't really directional at this point.

The simplest way to summarize my beliefs is to say that I am non-denominational protestant. My beliefs are based heavily on the bible. Some of my beliefs are based on the tradition of the church and still others originate from the interpretations of biblical scholars.

At the same time, the process of science (the study of God's creation), has equal credibility with the bible. As St. Augustine held, if there is part of the bible with multiple possible interpretations and science contradicts one of them, it should be discarded for another.

I believe that the God of Israel created the universe and guided the process that led to the organization of the universe and the generation of life on our planet. I believe that God (mostly) works through natural means and created the life on our planet through the process of evolution.

Of course God could have created everything all at once. God certainly has the power to create the world in six 24-hour days and it is possible that he did this ~6000 years ago. The problem that I have with this interpretation is that it is inconsistent with my beliefs of God's character. I find it incredibly deceptive to give us so much evidence for the age of the universe, the big bang, and evolution if these processes never happened.

Again, evolution is the process of descent with modification (You can't have descent without life). Spontaneous generation is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution only takes place after life has been established. The challenge of spontaneous generation is still a straw man. If you really want to challenge evolution, than you have to go after the process, or at least something that evolution predicts.

Though I have no interest in defending a straw man argument, I wanted to mention that no scientist claims that spontaneous generation occurs at the level of animals or plants. Instead, spontaneous generation would result in a single celled organism, probably similar to the archaea bacteria.

like I said, I found it amusing, that's all.

I wasn't trying to say that we should rely only on previous knowledge. If older information is found to be wrong, or less optimal, then it should be discarded for what is new. Alternatively, it is fallacious to assume that information is less optimal primarily because it is older. Also, just because people "believed the world was flat," at the same time that a writing was penned, doesn't make the writing false as well. That fits the general form from the wiki:

• You argue that A implies B.
• A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
• C is clearly false.
• Therefore, A does not imply B.

I'm sure carmen wasn't trying to prove anything, but instead expressing her general feelings about religion, so I'm not really trying to debate anything here. I was just sharing a new term that I came across and thought was amusing. When it comes down to it, the age of an argument is irrelevant to its validity.

Evolution did not start with the big bang. Evolution begins the moment that the first life began to exist. It is a theory of life, and makes no claims about the big bang or the universe outside of living organisms. 

Here is a definition of evolution:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

If you would like to use a different definition of evolution, than I am open to that; however, I guarantee you will not find a definition of evolution (from a non-religious source) that includes anything more than what is stated above.

Your argument using the law of angular momentum isn't challenging the idea of evolution. It is instead challenging the idea that these retrograde orbiting structures developed naturally. This is nothing more than a straw man argument. You are misrepresenting the theory of evolution and tearing down claims that were never made. 

Original Post by umneydurak:

hmm?

Multiple universes are not inconsistent with religion. Both Buddhism and Hinduism teach the existence of multiple universes. Even in Christianity, multiple universes are not inconsistent with doctrine. Garrett DeWeese is a christian philosopher who suggests the possibility of God creating alternate universes outside of our space-time continuum in his book, God and the Nature of Time.

In addition to that, theories that involve multiple universes have no physical evidence at this point (nor are they expected to, since we could never find any evidence of something outside of our space-time). These theories are really more metaphysics than science.

ETA: I'm really trying not to hijack this thread with another religion debate.

To the OP: I think its really good that you are questioning your religion. The only way to really grow in any belief is to ask questions and find answers.

That's really not inconsistent with religion either. Inconsistent with some people's beliefs perhaps, but not inconsistent with religion.

Original Post by franklinmeister:

 Wow.  All I can say is, if you honestly don't see the fallacy in these answers, I simply have no idea what I could say to help you.  Again, wow!

I really don't know what you mean. The first answer wasn't even mine, it was from the research article that I referenced. The second, is not fallacious as far as I can see. If you really see fallacy, wouldn't it be best to point it out?

Original Post by franklinmeister:

Perhaphs you will need to answer this question for me.  The reality is, we tend to focus on the similarities between monkeys and humans (most charts showing "human evolution" stop at Pliopithecus, or the like, but if we go back far enough, we ultimately need to find the similarities between dandelions and humans.  Besides that natural selection breaks down to progress through loss of information.  Where did the original information come from?

I use the example of monkeys and humans because that seems to be the one evolutionary process that challengers of evolution resists the most. If we look at a dandelion and a human, we don't need to find anything, though many similarities are evident. On a cellular level, plants and animals are not that much different. Take a closer look at the biochemical machinery, and you will see many more similarities.

Mutations provide new information into a population, producing a gene pool. Natural selection constricts that gene pool and the process repeats. You can imagine that if the gene pool is not constricted down upon its median value, then the new gene pool will have a new median.

Original Post by franklinmeister:

The chance of that statement referring to you went up when you started quoting Augustine.  You will need to clarify what you mean by these two antiquated quotes.  It sounds like you are suggesting I am "reckless and incompetent".  My main question is whether you are truly suggesting that, and secondly whether you are intending that to refer only to Holy Scripture (which I am in no way ignorant to - though I have tried to be careful to leave God and faith out of this discussion), or just generally speaking.

You gave a quote from the perspective of a scientist claiming that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I gave you a quote from one of the most prominent early church fathers in Christianity saying the exact opposite. The reason I offer this quote is as a reminder that fundamentalism is a rather new thing to the church. St. Augustine suggested that when we are unsure about the interpretation of a passage and science proves one view wrong, the correct response would be to discard that view for another.

I am not calling you reckless or incompetent, but I think if St. Augustine were around today, then he would.

Original Post by franklinmeister:

Still a bold statement, especially when the only reference you included was the one linking back to Yunis and Prakash 1982:

The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy

JJ Yunis and O Prakash

Man, gorilla, and chimpanzee likely shared an ancestor in whom the fine genetic organization of chromosomes was similar to that of present man. A comparative analysis of high-resolution chromosomes from orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, and man suggests that 18 or 23 pairs of chromosomes of modern man are virtually identical to those of our "common hominoid ancestor", with the remaining pairs slightly different. From this lineage, gorilla separated fist, and three major chromosomal rearrangements presumably occurred in a progenitor of chimpanzee and man before the final divergence of these tow species. A precursor of the hominoid ancestor and orangutan is also assumed."

That is literally the entire text from that link, and really holds no support to your statement what so ever.

One of the benefits of being at a university is that I have access to the full text of these articles. I understand that you may not, which is why I supplied the picture that diagrams the human chromosome (#2) next two its dual chimp counterparts with the same karyotypic stain markers. 

This is the relevant text from the article:

In addition to inversions and variations in heterochromatin, a few chromosomes of the four species showed reciprocal translocation (5;17 in gorilla), band insertion (terminal band 20p13 on centromeric band 8q11.2 in orangutan), differences in the number and position of nucleolar organizers (8), and telomeric fusion (chromosomes 2p and 2q, with inactivation of the 2q centromere in man) (1,2). Humans have nucleolar organizers on chromosomes 13 to 15, 21, and 22; in chimpanzee, they are on chromosomes 13,14,18,21, and 22; in gorilla on chromosomes 13, 21, 22; and in orangutang on 2p, 2q, 7, 9, 13 to 15, and 22 (Figure 2). The telomeric fusion of chromosomes 2p and 2q accounts for the reduction of the 24 pairs of chromosomes of the great apes to 23 in modern man.

Original Post by franklinmeister:

And yet, at some point, chromosomal changes must, by the very nature of evolution, move one species to another species, one genus to another genus, one order to another order, and even one kingdom to another kingdom (bacteria to a single cell animalia to a fish to an amphibian to a lizard to a mammal to a human [yes, it may be oversimplified, but cannot be nullified]).  And yet the argument you use contradicts the ability for such changes and variations to even move an organism from one "type" (regardless of which group to which you are referring) to another.

No. Chromosomal changes don't mean squat. The only thing that matters is the underlying genetic code. Whether an organism has 1 or 50 chromosomes only represents the number of breaks in that code, and says nothing about its content. 

Original Post by franklinmeister:

As previously mentioned, I have not done adequate research on the topic to be able to weigh in too heavily one way or another regarding this specific research.  Having not done that research keeps me from commenting on the favorable prospects of it, just as much as it does from criticising it too heavily.  Considering its short life span, as well as the fact that the methodology is already so controversial in regards to reliable results causes me to tend more toward putting it on the back burner until some additional time and observations have been made.

The fact of the matter is that no matter if the results were 100% reliable, this "evidence" does not allow for otherwise unaccounted-for necessary applications in evolution.  Such needful changes as moving from single chromosomed organisms, to multiple chromosomed organisms.  Or even the addition or subtraction of a single chromosome to currently established organisms, without the onset of neutering mutations.  Non-Disjunction,sw Down's Syndrome, and Kleinfelter Syndrome are known end results when even a single chromosome is added, and of course Turner Syndrome is a result when one is missing.  In every known mutation where chromosome counts are considered, short life span and sterility are the end result.  In no observed cases are chromosomal changes ever associated with a beneficial mutation, and yet those changes must have had to happen in order for evolution to be able to work.  Your "snap-shot" history of one possible DNA example simply does not help make the case for this essential process.  All it really goes to prove is that Roger Lewin was correct in his book In the Age of Mankind (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books, 1988) when he wrote "The problem is that because we know the `end of the story', we tend to interpret earlier events as if their sole purpose was to reach that end."

As far as it being a "heavy blow" to anything, I must disagree.  At best it is sketchy and weak, and is as likely to be proved as unreliable as it is to prove anything of substance.  It leaves us still in need of something concrete to be able to lay on the table.  And the chromosome arguement is just one of literally dozens, if not hundreds that can be proposed to complicate the evolution argument.

I assure you that the methodology of this research is not controversial. The methods used in this research meets the accepted standards of any modern biochemical research. This is not the end-all-be-all of evolutionary proof, but it is a clear example of observed evolution in primates.

There seems to be quite a misunderstanding on the part of those who challenge evolution that a theory must be able to provide a solution for every situation in order to be considered valid. All of the objections that rise against evolution go somewhat like this: "Evolution can't explain event x, and so evolution must be false." The problem with this type of argument is that it is based off of a lack of evidence. If you really want to propose an argument against evolution that people will take more seriously, you have to offer positive evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. No such evidence has been presented to date.

In the case of the evolution from single-chromosome organisms to multiple-chromosome organisms is not quite as simple as you propose. In fact, simple organisms, such as bacteria, often require the addition of genetic material in order to make phenotypic changes (such as transformation). Other organisms show a great deal of variance in the number of chromosomes, even in the same genus and species. The plant genus Clarkia, for example, has species with chromosome counts of n = 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 26 (From the Jepson Manual). Mouse species can have a chromosomal range from 2n = 22 to 40 (Nachman et al. 1994). Humans have a chromosome that arises from the end-to-end overlapping of chimpanzee chromosomes (Figure from Yunis and Prakash 1982), and so reproduction continues unabated even with a different number of chromosomes. Even in humans, a Robertsonian Translocation can result in a fully functional, 45-chromosome human. The number of chromosomes is not nearly as rigid as you proposed.

Original Post by moonikins:

 So, in other words you just cherry pick what to believe.

Your perspective is that I cherry pick what to believe. From my perspective, what I believe is the result of synthesis of the information that I have.

luckily for me, I don't have to prove my intensions