Evolution in action.

[Gemini]

I happen to think science is the most successful religion on the face of the earth since the beginning of history. I go be it's Latin root re ligare' "to bind together, to unify". What has brought the world together and unified our ability to act as one more than modern science?

Okay, Humpty Dumpty. Define religion however you want. For the rest of us, religions are supernaturally informed doctrines and practices, which makes science the opposite of religion.

It's more like spaghetti thrown at the ceiling to see what sticks..  

The noodles aren't done, I need to cook longer.  

I think you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to eat your pasta, not throw it at the ceiling. Time out, mister!

[Cato]

RR,

I couldn't help but notice you qualified your previous acceptance of evolution with 'because I was told to', yet the same qualification doesn't follow theistic evolution. Much irony in this.

I'm not sure I follow, what you are questioning exactly.

I'm not questioning anything, just pointing out the irony in your stated position. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, but is qualified with 'because you were told to'.  Yet, there is absolutely no evidence of God creating anything, let alone the species (or 'kinds' as the argument typically unfolds) as they exist today; therefore, it's ironic that your theistic evolution belief isn't qualified similarly. The position not supported by any evidence is much more in need of the qualifier.

[bennyboy]

I'd like to talk about evolution, but not about any of the recent posts. Forgive me for being lazy.

First of all, that we need "evidence" for evolution. We don't, since evolution is not a thing. There's no evolutionary process, really, either. Evolution, it seems to me, is a description of the statistical relationships between organisms, the environment, and time.

We only call it a "process" because it is a relationship about what we see at different times. At no point does anything "do" evolution, not even DNA, nor a species. At no place in space can evolution be seen to exist.

To say there's no evolution is fucktarded-- that is to say there is no relationship between the environment, organisms, and time. In other words, hot places "just happen" to have people with darker colored skin. Deserts "just happen" to have animals which can tolerate extreme temperatures and minimal moisture.

[RobertE]

I'd like to talk about evolution, but not about any of the recent posts.  Forgive me for being lazy.

First of all, that we need "evidence" for evolution.  We don't, since evolution is not a thing.  There's no evolutionary process, really, either.  Evolution, it seems to me, is a description of the statistical relationships between organisms, the environment, and time.

We only call it a "process" because it is a relationship about what we see at different times.  At no point does anything "do" evolution, not even DNA, nor a species.  At no place in space can evolution be seen to exist.

To say there's no evolution is fucktarded-- that is to say there is no relationship between the environment, organisms, and time.  In other words, hot places "just happen" to have people with darker colored skin.  Deserts "just happen" to have animals which can tolerate extreme temperatures and minimal moisture.

We evolve, animals evolve, and also the good bacteria evolves within our bodies. I don't think I am exaggerating when I say this. Imagine if we had been created by God (please, just imagine, even for me it is hard to imagine, but just for one moment) and we do not evolve. What do you think our chances would be of surviving with regards to these viruses and harmful bacteria? I think slim to none. It is a bit like rats or bed bugs or even rabbits. Many decades ago, the best pesticides were able to kill off rats or bed bugs easily, and the myxomatosis virus was introduced into Australia to control the rabbit population. Of course, at the start the numbers will diminish, but it will always take one or two who managed to survive it, and then they will have a litter of rabbits who will also have this genetic mutation. Who, in time will pass on the genetic mutation and so on and so forth. Up to the point where it will still kill a few, but a majority will always survive and increase their immunity. This is something that creationists will not admit to, that animals, humans and every living thing on this planet evolves through successive generations.

[RoadRunner79]

You become skeptical when macroevultion comes into play?
Good one... you forgot that as a Christian your not really questioning everything. Taking things as you've been told.
But either way.

The only difference between macro and micro evolution is the time span. At least when it was first used.

Man has never popped out of a man ape
Read 2001 a space oddesy, it explains it well.

The only diiferences between macro and microevolution are whatever made up differences creatards ascribe to those two terms, because they created them in the Great Panda Shift of the late eighties in order to try and put on a scientific veneer and get creatardism taught in schools under intelligent design. Science does no use those terms, as while there are a number of mechanisms driving evolution, evolution itself is a single process.

And I am as skeptical of RRs claims to formerly accept evolution. There are gross mischaracterisations replete throughout RRs postings hers showing the only grounding he got in evolution was from a creatard perspective.

What specifically do you think that I am mis-characterizing about evolution?

Also, I don't accept name calling, attacking the person, or attacking the source, as an argument. And if there is no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution, then you should have no trouble demonstrating macro evolution correct? Hardly anyone denies that changes occur within the genetic population of a species over time. However; all time is going to gain you is an addition or multiplication of those changes seen within micro evolution. What evidence would you point to demonstrate that large scale systematic body plan changes occur to demonstrate macro evolution?

Also, to your claim that science does not use those terms, I would refer you to FAQ #13 here http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macmictrms
and also the the term was coined in 1927 by a Russian entomologist, not in the late eighties as you describe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never got enough information out of an Arkilogue quantum-bafflegab post to know whether he disagrees with science or not. It's rather like he raided a textbook for terms, loaded them in a shotgun, and then pulled the trigger.

Oh, he disagrees with it alright, nobody could believe that electromagnetism worked differently before James Clerk Maxwell and accept scientific validity. It's just that he's too chicken to come out and admit it, just like he's too chicken to admit his fundagelical christianity.

I think this is a deep misreading of him.

[Arkilogue]

Oh, he disagrees with it alright, nobody could believe that electromagnetism worked differently before James Clerk Maxwell and accept scientific validity. It's just that he's too chicken to come out and admit it, just like he's too chicken to admit his fundagelical christianity.

Man...when you get something stuck in your craw, you really get it stuck! For the third and final time, here is my original quote which you continue to misrepresent, and the history to back up my statement that it was considered magic before science figured out how it works.

And what was electromagnetism before scientists explored, worked out the math and explored the mechanics of it?

If you think current science is the end all/be all paradigm, you don't know history and you aren't doing science.

And now to back up my claim that electromagnetism was considered hocus pocus "magic" before it was scientifically understood.

http://www.howmagnetswork.com/history.html

The Greek & Chinese

The earliest discovery of the properties of lodestone was either by the Greeks or Chinese. Stories of magnetism date back to the first century B.C in the writings of Lucretius and Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD Roman). Pliny wrote of a hill near the river Indus that was made entirely of a stone that attracted iron. He mentioned the magical powers of magnetite in his writings. For many years following its discovery, magnetite was surrounded in superstition and was considered to possess magical powers, such as the ability to heal the sick, frighten away evil spirits and attract and dissolve ships made of iron!



I'm a fundamentalist alright, far more fundamental than any cultural/text based religion.

[Iroscato]

The only diiferences between macro and microevolution are whatever made up differences creatards ascribe to those two terms, because they created them in the Great Panda Shift of the late eighties in order to try and put on a scientific veneer and get creatardism taught in schools under intelligent design. Science does no use those terms, as while there are a number of mechanisms driving evolution, evolution itself is a single process.

And I am as skeptical of RRs claims to formerly accept evolution. There are gross mischaracterisations replete throughout RRs postings hers showing the only grounding he got in evolution was from a creatard perspective.

What specifically do you think that I am mis-characterizing about evolution?

Also, I don't accept name calling, attacking the person, or attacking the source, as an argument. And if there is no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution, then you should have no trouble demonstrating macro evolution correct? Hardly anyone denies that changes occur within the genetic population of a species over time. However; all time is going to gain you is an addition or multiplication of those changes seen within micro evolution. What evidence would you point to demonstrate that large scale systematic body plan changes occur to demonstrate macro evolution?

The Appendix, just off the top of my head. A redundant remnant of a time when humans had vastly different diets and lifestyles, whose only function now is to occasionally burst and kill the shit out of us.

[Pat Mustard]

Oh, he disagrees with it alright, nobody could believe that electromagnetism worked differently before James Clerk Maxwell and accept scientific validity. It's just that he's too chicken to come out and admit it, just like he's too chicken to admit his fundagelical christianity.

I think this is a deep misreading of him.

No, based on arkilogue's deep ignorance of science, and his own words (where he flat out made out that electromagnetism did work differently, and then about three weeks later denied he said so), that is a perfectly accurate reading of him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think this is a deep misreading of him.

No, based on arkilogue's deep ignorance of science, and his own words (where he flat out made out that electromagnetism did work differently, and then about three weeks later denied he said so), that is a perfectly accurate reading of him.

I'm not seeing fundamentalist religiosity of any stripe from him. His woo and tinfoilery bugs hell out of me sometimes, but fundamentalist Christian?

I don't think that term means what you think it means, clearly.