It's just a theory

[Nique]

Originally Posted by SWKC

Its exactly the same thing as not believing in gravity. Our understanding of gravity is by no means complete, there are gaps, we don't know precisely its effects.

No, becuase although we do not know what exactly gravity IS, we can sucessfully identitfy the force and test its effects.

'Gaps in understanding'? Yeah but not nearly as much as the lack of fossil & observed evidence for evolution. Not even 'lucy' the famed 'missing link' is close enough to modern humans to accept as an ancestor - at the least, its highly debateable.

Don't think I exclude the entire theory, however - Survival of the fittest, slight modifications over time in descendants, those kind of things obviously happen. It's the changing of types into entirely new species (the threshold is supposedly when the offspring cannot reproduce with the specis it was derived from, if I'm not mistaken) that is debateable.

Evolution is a working theory, and yes it isn't perfect, but showing that it has a few minor flaws by no means disproves it.

Much like having some very minor evidence doesn't prove it. But I'd say the 'gaps' are too substancial to ignore.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

The difference between a scientific law and a theory is as follows

Its age

The original scientific method: develop a hypothesis, try to prove it right, if successful it’s a law.
The inherent flaw caused the modern scientific method to be created
Develop a hypothesis, try to prove it wrong, if unsuccessful it becomes an accepted theory for now.

The only reason such things are still called laws has more to due with habit and tradition than anything else.

Yeah - the "laws" of thermodynamics are pretty much just statistical aggregates of subatomic behavior. It's just that when you're dealing in aggregates of 10^fuckall, the law of averages (again, less a law than a strong tendency) tends to hold.

[Lord Bitememan]

Robot Jesus-

The problem with your assertion that age is the determining factor in weather something is a theory or a law is that we have things referred to as laws that are roughly contemporary with Darwin's original works (which suggested the principles upon which the theory of evolution is based). Thermodynamics, for example, was termed in 1849 by Lord Kelvin. And entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, wasn't fully worked out until 1875 by Boltzman. The Origin of Species was penned by Darwin in 1859.

One thing I did notice, though, is that the laws of thermodynamics can be represented through mathematical equations (similar to something we had to memorize in Chemistry called the "ideal gas law"). I notice, however, that there are no such mathematical exactitudes within the theory of evolution. Perhaps this, rather than age, suggests why we have "laws" of thermodynamics and gravity, but merely a theory of evolution?

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Originally Posted by Nique

'Gaps in understanding'? Yeah but not nearly as much as the lack of fossil & observed evidence for evolution. Not even 'lucy' the famed 'missing link' is close enough to modern humans to accept as an ancestor - at the least, its highly debateable.

No, not really. I mean, if you understand anything of where fossils come from, you'd understand that most living creatures have to die in a pretty unorthodox way in order for them to even become fossils (excluding small creatures that live near the beach shores).

So frankly, aside from those sea creatures, its dang near impossible to be as mind boggling accurate as you seem to demand.

Don't think I exclude the entire theory, however - Survival of the fittest, slight modifications over time in descendants, those kind of things obviously happen. It's the changing of types into entirely new species (the threshold is supposedly when the offspring cannot reproduce with the specis it was derived from, if I'm not mistaken) that is debateable.

So what about mutation, eh? Do you discount that? I know from biology class, that a number of scientists have done a number of studies on this subject. The one study I can recall, is where a scientist was able to bring out a breed of housefly with colored eyes that were not a-typical, just from breeding & re-breeding under conditions I can't recall.

Originally Posted by Dasanudas

One piece that stuck out in my mind was the discovery of a beatifully worked golden chain embedded into the middle of a piece of coal that dated back about 20 million years.

Now comes the crux. Is this evidence displayed? Is it mentioned, even to discount it? Almost never.

Das, the problem with the case you specifically cite is this. It is not impossible for somebody to get a hold of a very old rock, carve it accordingly, and get a hold of a gold chain. And frankly, while general paranoia in regards to all information is understandable, you have to grant that the scientific community might not be echoing these cases simply because theyr'e suspicous of those who present them (people w/ no background, for example) or because they're proof is not very substantial (kinda like cold fusion).

If the evolution view & its opposition had equal (or at least near-equal) merit, I'd have no problem with presenting both views. But that just isn't the case, and the problem with repeating a non-truth constantly, is that sooner or later people will start to believe it. Just look at how Hitler was able to turn German into the psychopathic killing machine that it was.

SWK

[Dasanudas]

Alright, so I have scoured the temple grounds and couldn't find our copy of Forbidden Archeology, so I will strike the gold chain example from the record, but by embedded I meant that you could hold the chain and the coal would hang from it - it was inside the rock, not just stuck on the outside. However if one is interested enough to go here then you could see three other examples of artifacts that would be extremely hard to explain not being of human origin - the youngest of which (a coin) is dated around 200,000 years old, and the oldest of which (a metallic sphere with 3 parallel grooves goin around it) is dated at around 2.8 billion years old. Yes...billion. There are also examples of bones and other such archeological finds at the website.

As a note for fossils, while they are one of the best ways to study very ancient history, we must remember that even the sheer number of fossils we have do not accurately represent the whole of the Earth. In a discontinued magazine called Origens, it cites David M. Raup (curator of Chicago's Field Museum) and Steven Stanley (john Hopkins paleontologist) numbering about 130,000 fossil species compared to the 1.5 million living today, and compared to the estimated 1 billion ever to have existed. They calculate that 99.9% did not leave fossils.

Also, factoring erosion and other variables that remove parts of the rock strata, various scientists have found that there is very little of what should be there actually there. Geologist Tjeerd H. van Andel studying early Cretaceous sandstone in Wyoming concluded that only 2% of what should have been there actually was according to accepted rates of sedimentation. He also found that this can be repeated almost anywhere with the same result. (Tjeerd H. van Andel, "Consider the Incompleteness of the Geological Record," Nature, Vol. 294 (Dec. 3, 1981), pp. 397-398) With erosion and the adding of new layers, only a small amount is left over in the record of the rock; arond 90-99% of the layers are gone forever.

Take also into account this statistic: The estimated volume of sedimentary rock deposits on the land surface of the Earth is about 134 million cubic miles. If 100,000 paleontologists were to divide up the task of examining just 1 cubic mile of rock, each would have to go through 1,472,000 cubic feet. At 8 hrs a day, 365 days a year, and at the rate of one cubic foot a minute - itwould take 84 years to investigate 1 cubic mile out of 134 million. While this can be used in support of why the fossil record is incomplete, it seems pretty silly to say that because the evidence will never be found, the theory must be right. Such huge gaps in the fossil record should lead one to simply take each fossil as a specific example. This species was at this place around this time, not that they appeared here or that they first showed up at this time.

As for mutation, there is a quote from Luther Burbank, an American botanist, "I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two-and-a-half inches long, with every possible length in-between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit. I have roses that bloom pretty steadily for six months of the year, but I have none that will bloom twelve, and I will not have. In short, there are limits to the development possible." (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (Boston: Gambit, 1971), p.36) Ernest Mayr of Harvard also did experiments on flies and found that, when using selective breeding to change bristles on their bodies, he could get a range of 25 to 56 per body (the average is 36), but beyond that they would die off and that when breeding was allowed to to be unselective, they would return to the average within five years. So while it is very likely to have selective breeding change minor features like a fly's eye color, it becomes difficult to impossible to imagine a fly being bred into a dragonfly or butterfly. Also, we can see even in sucessful cases of selective breeding like dog subspecies, if purebred specimens were not kept for breeding, most types of dogs would revert to a standard dog form, or "mutt" within a short amount of time, evolution-wise.

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior KC

If the evolution view & its opposition had equal (or at least near-equal) merit, I'd have no problem with presenting both views. But that just isn't the case,
SWK

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. While I haven't read this book, my knowledge of the Vedic understanding drives me to assert that the current evolutionary evidence does not discount the Vedic view (as much evidence does discount the view that the Earth has only existed for less than 10,000 years). As an interesting side note, Michael Cremo - the author - was lecturing in Russia, and one of his interviewers found it rather odd that the seemingly progressive state of the US was teaching only Darwin's theory in schools, while Russia saw no intrinsic problem with presenting various other theories to its students.

...man I make big posts, good thing this is a serious board.

[ZAKtheGeek]

it becomes difficult to impossible to imagine a fly being bred into a dragonfly or butterfly.

Of course, that's impossible. It would have to mutate radicallly somehow, yet all the mutations would have to simply make it into a different species instead of killing it in any number of ways.

Sounds like an argument against evolution, but it really isn't. This is because evolution occurs slowly over time, and only in the "direction" of benefit: there's no benefit to a fly gaining attributes of a dragongly or butterfly, so even if it were to mutate like this, the genes could well never get passed on because they haven't aided the organism in any way.

[Robot Jesus]

Originally Posted by Lord Bitememan

Robot Jesus-

The problem with your assertion that age is the determining factor in weather something is a theory or a law is that we have things referred to as laws that are roughly contemporary with Darwin's original works (which suggested the principles upon which the theory of evolution is based). Thermodynamics, for example, was termed in 1849 by Lord Kelvin. And entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, wasn't fully worked out until 1875 by Boltzman. The Origin of Species was penned by Darwin in 1859.

One thing I did notice, though, is that the laws of thermodynamics can be represented through mathematical equations (similar to something we had to memorize in Chemistry called the "ideal gas law"). I notice, however, that there are no such mathematical exactitudes within the theory of evolution. Perhaps this, rather than age, suggests why we have "laws" of thermodynamics and gravity, but merely a theory of evolution?

I’m a poli-sci major not sciences, so I apologies for any inaccuracies I may have mentioned or am going to mention. This is just my understanding and is probably wrong. Which is sort of the basis of scientific thought. The whole law theory thing is just a name. I do know that the assumption of a universal truth is against the underlying premise of the scientific method. Or as my grade eleven chem. Teacher put it “everything I’m about to teach you is wrong. Shall we begin”.

[Nique]

Originally Posted by SWKC

No, not really. I mean, if you understand anything of where fossils come from, you'd understand that most living creatures have to die in a pretty unorthodox way in order for them to even become fossils (excluding small creatures that live near the beach shores).

Your tone is getting a tad insulting, and I'd appriciate it if you wouldn't imply that I am so terribly misinformed or uneducated on the subject at hand. Perhaps you didn't intend that, but its coming across that way.

So frankly, aside from those sea creatures, its dang near impossible to be as mind boggling accurate as you seem to demand.

I don't think its demanding to want substancial evidence before I belive in something. It's awfully convienient for evolution's main source of proof, the fossil record, to be so littered with 'explainable' holes - Most notably, the lack of fossils that link species.

So what about mutation, eh? Do you discount that? I know from biology class, that a number of scientists have done a number of studies on this subject. The one study I can recall, is where a scientist was able to bring out a breed of housefly with colored eyes that were not a-typical, just from breeding & re-breeding under conditions I can't recall.

Again, with that tone.

Yes, yes, the houseflys. They've done all kinds of stuff to houseflys. None of it beneficial or lasting, which are the 'goals' of evolution. Changing eye color means he bred a bunch of flys with that gene until that gene became dominant in that family. True mutation is very rarely beneficial, and I haven't heard of any naturally occuring mutations that were. They are most often listed under 'defects'.

Its like I said, modifications can happen, but they don't alter the basic animal. Variety doesn't prove evolution. It proves variety.

If the evolution view & its opposition had equal (or at least near-equal) merit, I'd have no problem with presenting both views. But that just isn't the case,

You have failed to illustrate how that isn't, in fact, 'the case'.

...the problem with repeating a non-truth constantly, is that sooner or later people will start to believe it. Just look at how Hitler was able to turn German into the psychopathic killing machine that it was.

Godwin's Law. You just lost at the internets.

Game Over.
Play Again?

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

This is because evolution occurs slowly over time, and only in the "direction" of benefit: there's no benefit to a fly gaining attributes of a dragongly or butterfly, so even if it were to mutate like this, the genes could well never get passed on because they haven't aided the organism in any way.

Nothing seems to have actually 'mutated' or generated brand new traits - Only strong traits already exisiting becuase of natural selection have been preserved. Its that jump of mutation that I can't personally see the sense in.

[Skyshot]

Wow. An actual debate on evolution that only involves the secular aspects. Never thought I'd see the day.

That said --

Godwin's Law. You just lost at the internets.

Game Over.
Play Again?

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

Incidentally, isn't carbon-14 dating inaccurate in some circumstances? Like extended exposure to water? I checked the Wikipedia article, but it gave me nothing, and I don't know any other good places to go look. If it is, that's worth bringing into the discussion, as I don't think it's come up yet.

Another question on the general topic -- why on Earth would we evolve the ability to feel a change in depth narrower than a human hair? I don't have an online source on this (it was a magazine article), so to check it, I felt a scratch on the surface of the wood desk my keyboard is on, then pulled out one of my own hairs and compared it to the scratch I felt. The scratch is definitely shallower than the hair is wide. I believe that constitutes a valid experiment; if nothing else, it's repeatable. I'm not being all "dur this proves evolution is wrong!", since I know better than to declare victory in debate (in part thanks to Lucas, but mostly through common sense), and because I've found evidence religion and evolution aren't in any direct conflict. Let's not talk about that, though. That's not good here. I'm just interested in these two questions.

[Archbio]

It's awfully convienient for evolution's main source of proof, the fossil record, to be so littered with 'explainable' holes - Most notably, the lack of fossils that link species.

I'm not sure what you're expecting there. If feathered dinosaurs (of which there is solid proof since the 1990's don't look conspicuous enough for you, I don't know what will. I just really can't wrap my head around what you would consider more a "link" between species than what has already been discovered.

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

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

And I like that little "awfully convenient". It's just so vaguely accusatory (or reproachful, I can't tell).

As for Dasanudas' posts, I really can't tackle all of that. Lets just say that I don't think that a scientific conspiracy on such a scale is plausible. I think the existence of a small fraud (those incredibly ancient alleged artefacts) is much more easy to belive than a much larger fraud (the destruction of all other similar artefacts that were discovered and the collaboration of scientists in that many fields).

And for one specific example, lets take the 2.8 billion years artefact. Wasn't oxygen too rare (according to the evidence) to support more than the simplest of life until 2 billion yars ago?

That's what I heard. Maybe that was fabricated too.

Another question on the general topic -- why on Earth would we evolve the ability to feel a change in depth narrower than a human hair?

I'm not sure how that's an obstacle to any theory I'm aware of.

Edit: If anything, Intelligent Design would be the conception affect by this. It's much more purpose driven than all variations of evolution theory I know.