Agent Monkeysee on 11/3/2006 at 22:06
It's threads like these that make me consider swallowing a bullet.
Fafhrd on 11/3/2006 at 22:28
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
The Cambrian Explosion was most likely caused by large-scale extinctions.
not exactly, as the Cambrian Explosion occurred before there were anywhere near enough life forms to have any large-scale extinctions.
It happened because it took about 3 billion years for the Earth to settle down enough geologically to allow life forms to actually get a running start, but climatically (is that a word? who cares.) was still pretty crazy, and given the lack of anything in any ecological niche, any possible mutation would have free reign to prove it's worth, thus: shitloads of crap evolving all at once until their competition and waste products and shit produce a somewhat stable system.
Quote Posted by nickolae
... I.D. ... are beliefs. Neither of them know the answer for sure. It's all based on assumptions and <strike>educated</strike> guesses.
There's nothing educated about I.D. There's a reason that most of the proponents of the "theory" that have scientific degrees (which isn't many) are mathematicians and not biologists. And you complain about evolution not being a testable theory (false, by the way) and defend I.D. which is BY IT'S VERY NATURE untestable. The entire so-called theory is based on a logical fallacy, ffs, and even if it WEREN'T, there's STILL
no way to test whether or not some unseen intelligent entity personally designed every cell and biological structure that we don't yet have a complete theory for how it evolved.
Wyclef on 11/3/2006 at 22:35
Quote Posted by nickolae
It works me up to.
Evolution is not a testable theory. You cannot duplicate it with expirements in a lab.
No one has observed Macro Evolution in nature.
As time increases, Entropy increases.
Matter cannot be created inside the natural law.
Both I.D. and Evolution are beliefs. Neither of them know the answer for sure. It's all based on assumptions and educated guesses.
Didn't you learn anything from RBJ?
(
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html)
N'Al on 11/3/2006 at 22:43
It's interesting to see that some people seem to see religion and science as some sort of opposed extremes whilst it's perfectly feasible to be religious and 'believe' in science at the same time*. Just let science explain the what, when and how of things, and religion cover the why. And I'm not just talking about the simple "Cause and Effect" Why, but more about the pythonesque "Why are we here? What's life all about?" Why. Surprisingly, the area of Philosophers.
So how about you fucking religious nutters go after Philosophers for once!?!
Actually, no, don't.
* Not the way I roll, FWIW.
And now, bullet.
d0om on 11/3/2006 at 22:45
The sad thing is that the beauty of evolution is so obvious when you look at biological systems.
Take for example, the most ubiquitous protein on the planet, Rubisco. Now this protein is very very rubbish. Its really shit. Its job is to convert CO2 from the atmosphere into organic carbon for making sugars in photosynthesis. It suffers from a lack of selectivity between O2 and CO2, and when it reacts with O2 it produces a useless compound it then has to recycle.
When its the most common enzyme on the planet you would think it would be slightly better?
However, when carbon fixing bacteria first evolved, there was no O2 in the atmosphere. From looking at ice cores in the south pole they can see what the atmosphere was like in the past. This meant rubisco was a very efficient enzyme when it evolved. However after photosynthetic life became rather dominant the O2 concentration increased and the atmosphere became oxygen rich.
It is this evolutionary history which we are stuck with!
Now as life was adapted for a reducing atmosphere most life would be unable to surive in the new oxygen rich atmosphere. However one bacteria mutated to be able respire using the oxygen to create a proton potential in its membrane which could drive its proton-pump backwards to generate ATP. This is a highly desirable trait, and some of the daughter cells got half eaten by another cell to become the mitochondria we have today. All non-bacterial life on Earth that exists in an oxygen rich environment relies on these bacteria living inside their cells to process the toxic oxygen.
Now, surely any "intelligent designer" would simply have created life adapted to the oxygen rich atmosphere we have? Rather than having essentially anerobic life scraping by with the use of intra-cellular invaders?
I think the hypothosis I just put forward for the evolution of mitochondria and rubisco makes a lot more sense than any intelligent design hypothesis ever could. It isn't neccesarily fact, but it is the best idea we have given our current evidence and understanding.
And its teh sexy :)
Nicker on 11/3/2006 at 22:54
Quote Posted by Convict
How have we initiated speciation in dogs? And what's this about changing scientific terms such as "species" to suit one's own arguments?
I said that interchanging the terms natural selection with with artificial selection made no qualitative difference to the effect of selective pressure in general. The name is not the thing.
Speciation is the process by which a single species produces a genetically distinct variation of itself. Given a few hundred thousand years it is possible that certain breeds of dogs could become distinct species but given that domestiation is only a few thousand years old the fact that we have produced to new species in no way disproves evolutionary theory.
Very simply put - a species is a group of individuals that can produce viable offspring. Members of a subspecies (equivalent to breeds in domestic animals) may produce viable offspring but will not normally do so in the wild. This may be because the populations are physically isolated or because their morphology and / or behaviours disuade them from attempting to mate. Domestic breeds are 'isolated populations' owing to our control of their breeding choices. And while it is unlikely that a chihuahua and a great dane could get it on effectively, they are still genetically similar enough that their puppies would be viable.
Subspecies that remain isolated for millenia will eventually diverge genetically to the point they can no longer produce offspring, at least not viable ones. Some interspecies matchings may still produce infertile children (e.g. donkey + horse - mule).
jay pettitt on 11/3/2006 at 23:05
Quote Posted by nickolae
It works me up to.
Evolution is not a testable theory. You cannot duplicate it with expirements in a lab.
No one has observed Macro Evolution in nature.
As time increases, Entropy increases.
Matter cannot be created inside the natural law.
Both I.D. and Evolution are beliefs. Neither of them know the answer for sure. It's all based on assumptions and educated guesses.
Theory is not the same thing as conjecture. Giant invisible gods are conjecture and Creationism is conjecture, you can choose to believe in those things if you like, but there is not, never has been and never will be proof to support your belief. Neither can I show your belief to be false.
Theory is a model that tries to describe how some bit of the universe works. Theory is distinct from conjecture because theory specifically provides a framework for producing testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
Theories are a bit like Beliefs in that they arn't facts, but then - they're not supposed to be. Evolution will never become a fact in exactly the same way that gravity will never become a fact; but they do keep producing testable hypothesis. As long as those hypothesis keep coming up trumps and increasing our understanding of life, the universe and everything then it remains a good theory.
Evolution is a theory. You can choose to believe it if you like, but the important bit is you can also use it to do science.
Bulgarian_Taffer on 11/3/2006 at 23:12
Lots of christians tend to believe that Earth is about 6 000 years old. This is impossible, radioisotopic analysis proves that the age of our planet is about 4 billion years.
Life evolves. Palaeontology proves this. There are fossils of ancient animals and plants.
Aerothorn on 12/3/2006 at 00:37
The other day I learned that almost all people have 24 ribs, and the ones that don't have nothing to do with sex. I'd believed that thing about women have one more or less (forget which), always just thought that was a fact and that's where the biblical story came from - didn't realize it was the other way around. Look what growing up in a Christian society taught me:(
that said, reading the article, it doesn't sound like they are teaching it as truth - merely as a sort of historical basis of understanding, i.e. "for centuries this is what people thought" which is totally true.
Gingerbread Man on 12/3/2006 at 01:06
Quote Posted by nickolae
Evolution is not a testable theory. You cannot duplicate it with expirements in a lab.
Yes it is, and yes you can. Why do you think bio labs have a hard-on for fruit flies, dinkus?
This is probably still the Argument Most Likely To End With A Drowned Creationist in my book. You just can't discuss anything with people who insist on making up their own definitions for words and concepts.
