It's just a theory

[Nique]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Godwin's Law doesn't quite work that way.

It doesn't?

Originally Posted by Wiki

...here is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

It was indirect, but that was a pretty distinct 'hitler' comparision.

Originally Posted by Archbio

A fossil "between two species" would automatically belong to its own species.

Please. I understand this - don't think me an idiot. The point is that the link would show large similarities & combinations of the speicies that it derived from, and that it reproduced.

But again, similarities and/or variety don't nessesitate an evolved path - Just becuase we share 99% similar or the same genes with chimps, (I'm looking at you, spacepope) does not mean we were derived from the same family. It could mean that, or it could merely mean that for any animal life to exisist, certain genetic qualifiers must exisist, and thus 'life' shares those. I'm surprised at how much (genetically) in common we share with other animals, as well.

Feathered dinosaurs are an interesting discovery, but no more evidence than the egg-laying mammals we observe today (which you might consider to be substancial, I suppose)

Personally I think the hominid fossil record displays massive change over time as well as anything could.

Thats the problem though. The fossil record displays only huge jumps, and no inbetween. The 'massive' part is illustrated just fine... its the 'change' part that I can't really see solid proof of.

Originally Posted by ZAKthegeek

I can think of two reasons for why we can't really see this happening much today. The first is simply that it's less necessary. Obviously, today's organisms are much more evolved than those of millions or billions of years ago (assuming evolution is correct). As such, they are already adapted quite well, and generally have little reason to change any further. As such, most changes would only be detrimental.

Its a reasonable explination, but its still smacks of 'explaining things away'.

Originally Posted by krylo

Firstly, the law of thermodynamics is disproven by quantum mechanics.

Thermodynaics is a bad argument against evolution anyway, I've heard it said. I've never used it (I hope - I've been on the internets for a while now.)

Originally Posted by krylo

we should have found more fossils than a few necklaces from that period, and we would have found non-human multi-celled creatures from it as well. The non-human ones, at least, would be easily accepted as the biological ancestors of various creatures from other periods.

Agreed? Maybe you could clarify that part a bit, for good 'ol Nique....

Originally Posted by krylo

Regardless of the religion, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Vedic, or even worshipping Zeus himself, as soon as a 'scientist' starts writing books about how x-theory could work with x-religion if x-thing was different, everything he or she says is immediately suspect.

I'm of the opinion that you generally shouldn't try molding such ideas togethor, or fundamentally altering them to fit each other. It kind of undermines both to say 'well, lets change this one, kind of important detail,just so that everyone will be happy'. Just, stick to your guns until you can't anymore, ya know?

Originally Posted by Azisien

Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium? It wouldn't be a fullproof explanational-concrete to patch up that hole, but it does bring up the idea that, intermediate species aren't there because: They are short-lived, as such, they probably did not 'get lucky' or 'fall under the proper circumstance' and fossilize. I know little of fossilization myself, but I've taken some courses in evolutionary biology.

I think intermediate speicies, at the very least a rare few, would last a substancial period of time. Enough so that their population would boom, and the gene pool would get mixed up enough to jump-start another change.

The time involved from one change to the next makes it seem like there should be some evidence of it.

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Isn't it cocky for non-creationists make that claim? We're the highest stage of evolution?

Well, do you see any speicies "better" or "smarter" than humans? (Douglas Adams quotes aside). There you go then, we are the pinnicale.[/sarcasm]

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

Besides, think about it for a moment. Where would we find out whether the person giving the evidence has "no background in religion?" Are there dossiers on the individual scientists for us to look at? I don't see any way to prove the people making the claims are religious or irreligious, so your statement essentially stands sans contest. I'd make a comparison to recent events, but you're not acting frothing-at-the-mouth-irrationally like the guy I'm only vaguely reminded of, so you don't deserve that comparison.

Also, it's cute how you put "scientist" in quotes. Because, after all, no person can be religious and a scientist.

Well, as that it was an indirect response to Dasnudas and this...

Originally Posted by Das

The sequal to Forbidden Archeology is called Human Devolution and provides an alternative to Darwin's Theory based upon the Vedic model of spiritual evolution and supportive evidence.

I'd say taht someone writing a book wherein they use a spiritual model as their starting point and then try to force the facts to fit around it is a pretty good sign that they're 'religious' before 'scientific' which leads to... well just read the first paragraph under 'mass of data' in Fifth's response. Leaps of logic, forgetting occam's razor, wild assumptions, all to validate the idea they started with.

This is why 'religious' people can't be 'scientists'.

Note that I don't mean a christian can't be a scientist or whatever, but that if you go into a field saying "I think I'm going to prove intelligent design today" and THEN go and look at the facts and do everything you can to make them prove intelligent design, you are immediately suspect. As a reader you can quickly assume that they are making leaps of judgement...

Or, to put it another way, if I were to tell you that I think magical faeries created the world, then took all the facts that scientists currently say point to something else, rearrange them, find other evidence that every other scientist discredits for one reason or another (see Fifth's response), and then present a thesis, would you be more or less likely to believe someone who started off with NO idea, found the facts, looked at them, and then said "I think these things point to magical faeries creating the world..."?

Obviously the second is more likely to be correct because he, or she, went into the investigation with no preconceived notions about how it should turn out. They just looked at the facts and said that they seem to add up to x.

That's the difference between someone who writes a book on how genesis or the vedic spiritual model work with evolution so long as we take into account this new 'evidence' that every other scientist says is bunk.



And Nique, that quote about finding fossils of non-humans and what have you, was in deference to the supposed fossils of humans and human things from 2.5 billion years ago. I think that should pretty much clear it up...

I was just saying that if there ARE fossils from that time period of advanced multicellular organisms at ALL we'd know about at LEAST some of them.


Also: I really don't care much if people believe in evolution or not, I just don't like it when they make their beliefs, or justify them, on faulty knowledge.

Kind of like I wouldn't care if you believe in gravity or not, just so long as you don't start trying to tell me that the evidence suggests that gravity doesn't really exist and it's actually 'intelligent falling'.

Make your beliefs, and stick to them... but for the love of all that is holy do not pervert every bit of fact, evidence, and intelligent thought that has gone into science in the last however many years just to justify yourself.

And with that in mind, don't expect too much more out of me in this discussion unless someone misconstrues what I've said, or something else comes up that needs to be said and hasn't been. (Like the 'why is thermodynamics a law and evolutions not if evolution is just as valid' when actually evolution is more valid than the first law of thermodynamics.)

[Archbio]

Thats the problem though. The fossil record displays only huge jumps, and no inbetween.

I don't think you're treating this fairly (Edit: No, I don't mean it that way. I'm not being rude at all!). The point I was making, and that you just assured me you understood (even though I phrased it badly) is that all species, according to evolution as far as I can understand it (there is a set of 'leap' theory, but I always found that odd), are the inbetweeners.

Personally I see links, and I can't see how a fossil could be demonstrated as more than a "link between species" without wearing an actual nametag ("Hello, I am the ape-man-link, here to replace the australopithecus"). That's where I think that the demand for evidence is skewed; I'm not saying that the proof is definitive, I'm saying that it couldn't be much more definitive than it already is (I literally can't conceive how you expect such a link would look). By the nature of the evidence, what happened can only be deduced, not observed.

In short, you're saying there's a lack of evidence that cripples evolution (evidence which couldn't possibly exist, I think), while I think the only substantial thing you're pointing out is that there's nothing in the fossil record that explicitely excludes other explanations. And I agree, there isn't, altough I have yet to hear an alternative explanation that has scientifcally observable basis or that doesn't stretch credibility to fit the evidence.

Personally, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... (it's a dinosaur?)

Feathered dinosaurs are an interesting discovery, but no more evidence than the egg-laying mammals we observe today (which you might consider to be substancial, I suppose)

Actually, I was going to say this isn't the same thing at all, but I do find monotremes to be indicative of the common ancestry of all mammals to other egg laying animals. The dinosaurs aren't evidence, but I think they're a pretty strong clue.

[Skyshot]

Originally Posted by Nique

It doesn't?

Read the counterpoints and legitimate applications in the article I linked to. It's more than the "You invoke Nazis, you lose" people have made it into. From what I can tell, the popular form of Godwin's Law is as close to the original as the modern form of Occam's Razor to its original.

Well, do you see any speicies "better" or "smarter" than humans? (Douglas Adams quotes aside). There you go then, we are the pinnicale.[/sarcasm]

I meant the apex of our own evolution, not world-wide evolution. Then again, maybe I misunderstood the talk show guys and you're right. Either way, you and I aren't seeing the "pinnacle" thing the same way. Someone more familiar with the "non-linear" angle of evolution care to clear this up? Is Nique right, or am I?

I'm of the opinion that you generally shouldn't try molding such ideas togethor, or fundamentally altering them to fit each other. It kind of undermines both to say 'well, lets change this one, kind of important detail,just so that everyone will be happy'. Just, stick to your guns until you can't anymore, ya know?

Sometimes that's a good idea, sometimes it isn't. Like I said before, I've completely deflected any pro-evolution evidence can have against creationism, without changing my core beliefs. I went back to the core beliefs for it. I could go on, but I recognize this is waxing religious, so I'll stop. Basically, you're saying "don't change your core beliefs, whatever they may be, simply to avoid problems," and I can accept that. I'm saying sometimes overtly contradictory ideas can be unified into something more cohesive and less controversial, which doesn't contest your point. Wave-particle duality, anyone?

Its a reasonable explination, but its still smacks of 'explaining things away'.

Uh...if it's reasonable, what exactly is the problem with it? Are you saying he's blindly rationalizing? This one just kind of bugs me.

Originally Posted by krylo

I'd say that someone writing a book wherein they use a spiritual model as their starting point and then try to force the facts to fit around it is a pretty good sign that they're 'religious' before 'scientific' which leads to... well just read the first paragraph under 'mass of data' in Fifth's response. Leaps of logic, forgetting occam's razor, wild assumptions, all to validate the idea they started with.

A fine defense.

One question in response, in the name of equal presentation or whatever we're calling it these days. Objectivity, open-mindedness, what have you. If someone went into the field saying "I think I'm going to disprove intelligent design today," would you also consider them to be making these fallacies and leaps of judgement you describe? And I mean your immediate thoughts, not what you would get if you sat back and considered it for a moment. I'm not calling your defense flawed, but I am wondering if you're recognizing the other angles like I keep making an honest effort to do. Basically, can a truly "atheistic" person be a "scientist?" According to your logic, no. Let me reword your post a bit.

Note that I don't mean an atheist can't be a scientist or whatever, but that if you go into a field saying "I think I'm going to disprove intelligent design today" and THEN go and look at the facts and do everything you can to make them disprove intelligent design, you are immediately suspect. As a reader you can quickly assume that they are making leaps of judgement...

My intuition warns me somebody is going to tell me science already points to the lack of intelligent design. Pre-emptive counterpoint: cause and effect, yo. If you look at the reword above, you might catch my drift. If you don't, I'm saying atheistic scientists could have already carried out the reword, that being the cause, bringing about the effect of science pointing to a lack of intelligent design.

Once again, we're waxing religious, so let's take it easy here. We've played nice so far, so that's a good sign.

[ziratha]

Well, here is something you might consider, diploids and tetraploids, lets use daylilies as an example: A normal daylily is scientifically named "hemerocallis" (sp?) and is considered a "diploid". However, using a chemical process they may be converted into "tetraploids". A tetraploid is Just like a Diploid but with a few key differences, first it has 2x the genes a normal diploid has. Next it is usually bigger and may have deeper color. Anyway, my point is: Why? should this new thing with a new number of genes be completely different? why is it still a daylily? And if it is still a daylily then mightn't a monkey that gains a gene or two still be a monkey? maybe a little bigger?

[Nique]

Personally I see links, and I can't see how a fossil could be demonstrated as more than a "link between species" without wearing an actual nametag ("Hello, I am the ape-man-link, here to replace the australopithecus"). That's where I think that the demand for evidence is skewed; I'm not saying that the proof is definitive, I'm saying that it couldn't be much more definitive than it already is (I literally can't conceive how you expect such a link would look). By the nature of the evidence, what happened can only be deduced, not observed.

For such ardent claims on science's behalf, I'd expect more evidence.

This disagreeing reaching the point it has, we'd both need to start citing some very specific examples as far as 'links' and what constitutes them.

I'm not really in the mood for that kind of debate though.

Sometimes that's a good idea, sometimes it isn't.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that belifes shouldn't be progressive.



I think I'm pretty much finished here though. Thanks everyone.

[TheSpacePope]

I think intermediate speicies, at the very least a rare few, would last a substancial period of time. Enough so that their population would boom, and the gene pool would get mixed up enough to jump-start another change.

The time involved from one change to the next makes it seem like there should be some evidence of it.

Actually, if you look at the finches that darwin studied, he said that there was semi rapid change to beak structure and wing feather patterns, this would not show up on the fossil record. (the beak would, but the feather patterns would not, i.e. skin hair on the human body) So the bones may look the same, but what went around them may have been very different.

It could mean that, or it could merely mean that for any animal life to exisist, certain genetic qualifiers must exisist, and thus 'life' shares those. I'm surprised at how much (genetically) in common we share with other animals, as well.

Well fundamentally, dna is the same, speaking of components anyway, it is the arrangement that makes us different. Like I said we never stray farther than 97-90 % difference, from bacteria up. So we are fundamentally the same.

Like i said nique, this can't all be an accident.

[ZAKtheGeek]

There is no way we're 90% the same as bacteria. Not in terms of DNA sequence. Please back this up somehow.

In short, you're saying there's a lack of evidence that cripples evolution (evidence which couldn't possibly exist, I think), while I think the only substantial thing you're pointing out is that there's nothing in the fossil record that explicitely excludes other explanations.

It's not the greatest argument, but evolution is a "logical assumption." I'm not saying, "anyone with a brain knows it must be correct," I'm saying it's the next step of already accepted processes: microevolution and macroevolution.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Skyshot

I meant the apex of our own evolution, not world-wide evolution. Then again, maybe I misunderstood the talk show guys and you're right. Either way, you and I aren't seeing the "pinnacle" thing the same way. Someone more familiar with the "non-linear" angle of evolution care to clear this up? Is Nique right, or am I?

You. The theory of evolution doesn't say that things just stop evolving. In fact, we should still be evolving right now. However, a change of species takes many many many generations, so it's unlikely that we'll notice it when it happens... unless we invent a time machine and find out that we can't reproduce with ancient humans, who no longer look like us, or something.

A fine defense.

One question in response, in the name of equal presentation or whatever we're calling it these days. Objectivity, open-mindedness, what have you. If someone went into the field saying "I think I'm going to disprove intelligent design today," would you also consider them to be making these fallacies and leaps of judgement you describe? And I mean your immediate thoughts, not what you would get if you sat back and considered it for a moment. I'm not calling your defense flawed, but I am wondering if you're recognizing the other angles like I keep making an honest effort to do. Basically, can a truly "atheistic" person be a "scientist?" According to your logic, no. Let me reword your post a bit.

My intuition warns me somebody is going to tell me science already points to the lack of intelligent design. Pre-emptive counterpoint: cause and effect, yo. If you look at the reword above, you might catch my drift. If you don't, I'm saying atheistic scientists could have already carried out the reword, that being the cause, bringing about the effect of science pointing to a lack of intelligent design.

Once again, we're waxing religious, so let's take it easy here. We've played nice so far, so that's a good sign.

That would be a pretty decent counter-point if not for the fact that most scientists up to the VERY contemporary were religious. They weren't atheists. Darwin himself wasn't an athiest.

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

The fact of the matter is that this simply isn't the case with science. There were no atheistic people pushing their agendas through.

However, just to humor you: Yes, in the world where physical evidence pointed to the existence of a supreme being, I would consider those set out merely to disprove that being as illogical.

In fact, I call current aethiests illogical for various reasons... but I can't really answer your question past this without getting into religious debate.

And, like you said, we have to be careful of that.

[Lord Bitememan]

but the law itself is widely accepted to be invalid.

Source?