Do you believe the theory of Evolution to be true?

[A4J]

Quote

Hi a4, So barring car accidents, heart attacks,cancer or a stroke, you, with your diet and aspirin, are hopeful of living maybe 80 years of so? That is enough?

yes it is, i plan to eat healthier and stuff, see how long i can live.. but yeah i'm just fine with dieing.. why arnt you?

[Not3in1]

You say, “…not impossible to know the past.”  Not impossible, no.

Personally, I have been discouraged by many well-meaning loved ones and friends when they say, “You can't know everything” or my personal favorite, “Greater minds than ours have pondered it, and we should just trust their results.”  Can't they see that this just squelches the inquiring mind?  Is it not OK to think for oneself?  Is it not OK to come to a different conclusion than those with “greater minds” than my own?  Goodness!

With that said though, I must acknowledge that there is an element of the “unknown” out there.  Search though we might, there will still be “unknowables” or “mysteries” in our world, and if you believe, in the worlds beyond or in the future.

What do we do with these unknowables?  We either trust them (i.e., the wind blows everyday – tho we do not know how or have proof that it will do it again and again), or we choose not to believe in them (i.e., we cannot see the wind, nor do we have proof that the wind will blow again, therefore we will choose to believe it doesn't exist).

The effects of the wind can be sensed with our eyes, ears, skin, nose – and sometimes even with our mouths!  But proof of it's existence?  Can we bottle it?  

Nice to chat with you, AJ. I'm off to bed. I'll be checking back with you…..glad you are here!

[A4J]

well i mean we can't know all the past, but thats the only thing we can know…. we can't even know the presents

we do know laws of the universe however… making us sure that when the sun sets, the warm water and the cooling land will cause wind, and so on
if of course it all stopped, we would have to change are theory's and so on

but yes.. the most aggravating thing is when people say to stop asking
a person told me to be a child on this topic…
how horrible is that? i don't even get it… honestly
other then to believe what your told like children do with Santa and so on.

[Debra]

Quote (A4J @ July ,17:05)

Quote Stats are not proof. Stats are not evidence of your life continuing tomorrow…….. At last, you have no proof or evidence that you will wake tomorrow morning. However, you do “trust” that because of past results with baby aspirin, and past reports of young people not having heart attacks that you will wake tomorrow. I'm sure you will, too. But I have no evidence or proof of it. right, but it makes more since to believe that you will, because you have more evidence you will *health etc* then that you will die so thats still the logical conclusion i guess i only believe what seems the most logical… that makes sense correct?

Hello A4J
maybe this will interest you…

God doesn't believe in Atheists.

[A4J]

Quote

God doesn't believe in Atheists.

Good! that means we don't exist hahaha

well its not possible to scientifically prove big foot is not real is it?
or that there is a tea pot orbiting mars?you can't prove somethings but it doesn't mean you should believe in them

however there is no proof of such, so we shouldn't believe it
there isn't a proof of a god, and there for i say there isn't one, its my belief, that we shouldn’t believe there is one
surely you don't believe there is a tea pot orbiting mars do you?
you would be a-teapotst as i am also, along with an atheist
do you really want to leave such stupid possibility open simply because you can not prove them?
i think not
as soon as you realize why you dismiss all the other gods of the world, present and past, you will understand why I dismiss yours

now the guy on the video you sent us, uses the cosmology argument,
Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.
A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect. *the video says its god*

Now this is my argument to such an argument, its practically the same argument isn’t it?

Premise 1:if nothing exists, there are no laws because laws of matter exist because matter existed. there for it is possible for matter to exist with out a cause for the very fact that no law would prevent it (the law of conservation does not exist, until matter exists)

Premise 2: if anything at all exists it must have laws that govern it *as observed in this universe there is nothing that can do anything or that qualifies for everything*

Premise 3: the moment anything existed, it becomes everything and all the laws of the universe that exist along with the beginning of time

Premise 4: the laws of physics do not and cannot change.

Premise 5: the first thing to exist must apply to all the laws of physics that ever has existed in this universe at once.

Premise 6: To say god was the first to exist, forces god to obey all the laws of matter and energy, because he would be just: matter and energy. And there for if there is a god, god is the universe.

Premise:7 The universe itself or anything in it, can not be omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnipresent because nothing can travel faster then the speed of light and the speed of light is not an infinite and so it would always take some amount of time for information to reach anything at any distance. Also there is constant random change in the universe. And so at any given time nothing could know everything

And so the god in the Judeo-Christian sense does, and cannot exist 😛 unless there is something wrong think you guys should start begging the question and find my fallacies if I have any 😛

[Is 1:18]

Quote (A4J @ July 30 2007,21:06)

Quote Okay A4J, I'll call you on that. Name one piece of “compelling proof” for the veracity of the theory of evolution. i already have given tons! but here are some good videos

Hello AJ4,
I was hoping you could just name what you think is the single best piece of proof for the veracity of the theory of darwinian evolution. Can you do that for me AJ4?

Blessings

[A4J]

Hello AJ4,
I was hoping you could just name what you think is the single best piece of proof for the veracity of the theory of darwinian evolution. Can you do that for me AJ4?

Blessings

why would you rather have just one piece of proof, when i have already given you so many?

i think it would probably Ring species 😛

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

“In describing two distinct species of salamanders, Dawkins teaches us about ring species. This example describes how the ancestor of both species lived at the north end of a valley surrounded on the east and west by mountains. The ancestors migrated separately southward, each inhabiting it’s own side of the valley (east or west), evolving through the years in isolation with respect to the members on the opposite side of the valley. Finally, upon meeting at the southern end of the valley, the salamanders had evolved to the point of separate species, no longer capable of interbreeding.”

Explain that without evolution

[Is 1:18]

He he…ring species huh?….wouldn't that be an example of devolution since this speciation involves a loss of genetic information?

Is that the BEST proof IYO?

[Is 1:18]

Birds of a feather don't breed together

The fascinating phenomenon known as ‘ring species’ is sometimes quite incorrectly used to ‘prove’ evolution. The classic example is as follows.

In Britain, the herring gull is clearly a different species from the lesser black-backed gull. Not only can they be easily told apart, but apparently they never interbreed, even though they may inhabit the same areas. By the usual biological definition, they are therefore technically different species.

However, as you go westward around the top half of the globe to North America and study the herring gull population, an interesting fact emerges. The gulls become more like black-backed gulls, and less like herring gulls, even though they can still interbreed with herring gulls from Britain.

Now go still further via Alaska and then into Siberia (see map page 12). The further west you go, the more each successive population becomes less like a herring gull and more like the black-backed.

At every step along the way, each population is able to interbreed with those you studied just before you moved further west. Therefore, you are never technically dealing with separate species. Until, that is, you continue your journey into Europe and back to Britain, where you find that the lesser black-backed gulls there ‘are actually the other end of a ring that started out as herring gulls. At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbours to interbreed with them.’1 Yet when the ends of the ring meet, the two do not interbreed and so are for all intents and purposes separate species.

Evolution?
It is clear from such examples that species are not fixed and unchanging, and that two apparently different species may in fact be genetically related. New species (as man defines them) can form. The herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull could not have been initially created as two separate groups reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates.

There are also observations of other wild populations from which a reasonable person must infer that certain very similar species did indeed share the same ancestor, even though there is no complete ‘ring’.

Many have been misled into thinking this is evidence for evolution and against biblical creation. However, some thought reveals otherwise. The key to understanding this is to consider the vast amounts of complex information in all living things, coding for functionally useful structures and processes.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).

This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill.

Evolution (in the normal meaning of the word) implies on the other hand that a single cell has become people, pelicans and palm trees. If true, then this is an uphill process—involving a massive increase of information.2

Change—but what sort?
The formation of new species actually fits the creation model very comfortably. The wolf, the dingo and the coyote are all regarded as separate species. However, they (perhaps along with several other species) almost certainly ‘split off from an original pair on the Ark—a species representing the surviving information of one created kind. Is there evidence that this can happen, and that it can happen without adding new information, that is, within the limits of the information already present at creation?

A ‘mongrel’ dog population can be ‘split’ into separate sub-groups, the varieties of domestic dog (breeders can isolate portions of the total information into populations which do not contain some other portions of that information). This sort of variation does not add any new information. On the contrary, it is genetically downhill. It involves a reduction of the information in each of the descendant populations compared to the ancestral one. Thus, a population of pampered lap-dogs has less genetic information/variability, from which nature or man can select further changes, than the more ‘wild’ population before evolution selection took place.

But is it conceivable that such change (which is obviously limited by the amount of information already present in the original kind) can extend to full, complete formation of separate species without any new information arising, without any new genes? (In other words, since evolution means lots of new, useful genes arising with time, can you have new species without any real evolution?)

Richard Lewontin is Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard. In his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change he says there are instances in which ‘speciation and divergence of new full species’ have obviously occurred using ‘the available repertoire of genetic variants’,3 without requiring any ‘novelties by new mutation’. In other words, an ancestral species can split into other species within the limits of the information already present in that kind—just as creationists maintain must have happened.4

In the example we looked at, there is no reason to believe that the differences between the two gull species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not al-ready present in an ancestral, interbreeding gull population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.

Ring species and similar examples actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds.5 They can be said to demonstrate evolution only to the gullible (pun intended).

Source.

[A4J]

Quote

He he…ring species huh?….wouldn't that be an example of devolution since this speciation involves a loss of genetic information?

omg i can't believe im dealing with this!

No its a different set of genetics that fit for there environment, monkey's are not less evolved then us.. like it or not neither is a germ!

things only evolve if they have too
you obviously do not understand, I'm sorry but you can not de-evolve… you just simply evolve to survive in your environment… thats it

now… what?
whats there to show that isnt true?
even if it was de-evolution, wouldn't it still help prove the fact of evolution?
regardless… its still evolution

any more criticisms? you nutty guy you

[A4J]

Quote

This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. Evolution (in the normal meaning of the word) implies on the other hand that a single cell has become people, pelicans and palm trees. If true, then this is an uphill process—involving a massive increase of information.2

YES! exactly, because the ones that loss information, or get information do not survive… and only the ones with the right information survives
and so either the entire species goes extinct (it happens) or they improve and survive to evolve another day

[Is 1:18]

A4J,
I asked you for proof of darwinian evolution, but you gave me what might be construed for proof of devolution, but definitely not evolution. When you find some legitimate proof for darwinian evolution let me know…..

[A4J]

so you believe only de-evolution exists?
meaning humans are less then they were?
were turning back into monkeys?
is that what your saying?because your saying de-evolution is happening…
but yet you still claim normal evolution *the increase instead of the decrease of information in DNA* is impossible?
even if it makes perfect since the ones that get random mutations that they benefit from for there environment and increase survival?

If DNA can lose information, it can gain it by random mutations and mistakes from copying itself!

Evolution is the Non-random survival of randomly varying replications

[A4J]

Give me proof of De-evolution
i don't believe in it
😛

[A4J]

NOW, given that postitive and negative evolution can occur
here is proof that we were on a postive evolution, from one skull to another
by comparisons of crainal volume in messurements of cubic centimeters

because the smarter of us, survived

Also may contain some vestigial genetic information from your ancestors. But you don't contain all of it. You are not “your ancestor plus some extra stuff”. Even if genetics did work that way, you've had a lot of ancestors down through the years. There isn't room in your DNA to record them all.

I say Evolution is true, if De-evolution is true
there is ABSOLUTELY no reason for it not to be if de-evolution is true

[Stu]

Hi Is 1:18

++”I asked you for proof of darwinian evolution, but you gave me what might be construed for proof of devolution, but definitely not evolution. When you find some legitimate proof for darwinian evolution let me know…..

Is 1:18 You are only allowed of ask for proof of evolution by natural selection if you can prove the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

Since science and doctrine both forbid proofs, here is the evidence, for the third(?) time:

There is a fossil record that has the fossilised remains of different species of living things laid down in order with “simpler” ones in the oldest rocks, and a particularly intersting “Cambrian Explosion” which resulted from the evolutionary development of hard body parts that could fossilise. The morphology of fossils of the same type clearly shows patterns of gradual development over long periods of time, and many well-developed series of fossils show progression from one species to another along the same line of descent. The most famous is that of the evolution of the modern horse. The Tree of Life that results is exactly and independently confirmed by relative DNA studies on modern animals which shows patterns in the divergence of DNA. By this evidence we are closest cousins of chimpanzees and bonobos, then gorillas and orangutans and so on back to the first replicator that is an ancestor of humans, whatever form it took.

When A4J states that “the only unproven part is that we come from a common ancetstor”, actually that part is very well demonstrated to be true long back into natural history.

Stuart

[Stu]

Nick,

++”So barring car accidents, heart attacks,cancer or a stroke, you, with your diet and aspirin, are hopeful of living maybe 80 years of so? That is enough?

I add my yes to this as well. If this life is only a preparation for eternity, then the ultimate reason for doing good is only to gain entry to the special post-apocalypse club for Good Christians/Good Muslims/Good Jews/Good Jedi Knights/Good Geminis etc (they can't all be right – could it be that none of them are?)

I like to think there are deeper things to life than that. The fact that this is my only life challenges me constantly to get the very most out of it, and help others to do the same. What amazing set of circumstances led to me being able to type this, rather than float around in the atmosphere and soil as inorganic molecules, makes me incredibly lucky to be alive. Science has demonstrated that there is no need for an Impetuous Sky Friend to explain existence, and there is no evidence of one either.

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ July 31 2007,22:56)

I add my yes to this as well. If this life is only a preparation for eternity, then the ultimate reason for doing good is only to gain entry to the special post-apocalypse club for Good Christians/Good Muslims/Good Jews/Good Jedi Knights/Good Geminis etc (they can't all be right – could it be that none of them are?)

You forgot to mention atheists. They are religious too and have faith in nothing. They say there is no God, and yet they say this while possessing less than 0000001% of all knowledge in existence. What faith they have

Also it is logical that there is truth and all contradictions are false.

i.e., one truth vs many lies.

Narrow is the path that leads to life and wide is the path to destruction.

Of course not all can be right. But it is logical to assume that right exists and that there are more false theories than correct ones.

Falseness is quite easy. Truth is far more challenging.

[Proclaimer]

Man who creates sophisticated cameras using his intelligence to do so, was completely outwitted by nothing that made the human eye.

Man who creates robots as the result of thousands of years of accumulated knowledge including the microchip revolution and billions of dollars is outwitted by just about every species with a brain and skeleton of similar size that was supposedly created by no one.

Nothing did a better job than intelligence.

That's logical. Makes perfect sense.

“The fool has said there is no God”.

[Stu]

Hi Nick,

++”You forgot to mention atheists. They are religious too and have faith in nothing.

According to atheists, supernatural believers have faith in nothing.

In my dictionary a religious atheist is an oxymoron. How do you define “religious”, Nick?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts