Richard Dawkins New Evolution Book

[Archael]

The DNA mutated but that did not bring about positive mutation because in a normal environment, the nylonase would die. Also, no actual new species was formed.

It brought about positive mutation, it enabled the bacteria to digest a new form of food for energy, Nylon

how is that not a positive change? it helps them thrive in a new environment (in this case, a man-made environment). this obviously puts the evolved bacteria MILES ahead than bacteria who could not adapt. this has beneficial written all over it

is improbable. Firstly, the complexity of life alone makes evolution an impossibility.

improbable does not = impossible

the complexity of life is EASILY explained by evolution, if you went to high school, you would understand why

"god created everything this way" is not an explanation

if you say life is improbable, how improbable must the creator of life be? certainly more improbable than the life it created

arguing from incredulity goes both ways and doesn't say anything about evolution

Secondly, if the animal/organism really needed the feature to survive, in the time required for evolution, the organism would be dead.

this is the stupidest argument I have ever seen, with all due respect

organisms change from generation to generation to better survive in an environment, obviously, this takes time. a\An organism that cannot respond to an environment that threatens it's survival in sufficient time will die out, this is called extinction

take for example human beings

it has benefited us greatly to become smarter over time, and we have, regardless of the fact that if we could not have increased our intelligence and pattern forming skills fast enough an alternate environment X would have wiped us out. we have evolved (in more ways than one) regardless of a hypothetical situation

By order, I mean energy.

Order is not a term that is interchangeable with energy

your statement

"If the universe is arbitrarily old, how is it possible for there be any order in the universe. "

makes zero sense if you substitute the word energy in it, nice try though

even assuming that you actually MEANT "Energy" when you said "Order", that still says nothing. It is very possible for energy to exist in the universe regardless of it's age.

[bisekibungaku]

I'll stop right now saying that this argument is futile because our world-views are the complete opposite. Your evidence can be twisted around as can mine. If God had planted a seed in you, you would believe Him.
If He didn't, then you won't. And as a result, you will find out later (after you die) that you should have believed.
But I'm telling you it's better to start believing now than later.

[Archael]

I'll stop right now saying that this argument is futile because our world-views are the complete opposite. Your evidence can be twisted around as can mine.

you have no evidence for a religious world view

no one does, because there is none

that is why your "evidence" can be twisted around so easily, because it's not actual evidence, it's non-evidence (things like a man-made bible, testimonies of miracles, your "personal experience with g.o.d") are not evidence, not by any standard that would fit a claim as big as the one you're making (g.o.d)

If St. Ajora had planted a seed in you, you would believe Him.

what? because you happened to have been born a christian, in X country that believes in christianity, that makes you somehow right?

if you were born a muslim or a hindu you would also believe you are right, guess what, your particular faith and upbringing is not evidence, and doesn't make you "special"

and it certainly doesn't mean that any g.o.d planted a "seed" in you

If He didn't, then you won't. And as a result, you will find out later (after you die) that you should have believed.
But I'm telling you it's better to start believing now than later.

this is insulting to the intelligence level of the people that browse this forum

not only are you deluded, you're also condescending

[bisekibungaku]

"what? because you happened to have been born a christian, in X country that believes in christianity, that makes you somehow right?

if you were born a muslim or a hindu you would also believe you are right, guess what, your particular faith and upbringing is not evidence, and doesn't make you "special"

and it certainly doesn't mean that any g.o.d planted a "seed" in you"

I believe I'm right just like you believe that you're right.

"you have no evidence for a religious world view

no one does, because there is none

that is why your "evidence" can be twisted around so easily, because it's not actual evidence, it's non-evidence (things like a man-made bible, testimonies of miracles, your "personal experience with g.o.d") are not evidence, not by any standard that would fit a claim as big as the one you're making (g.o.d)"


Actually, my evidence has just as real as yours. The Bible was not man-made; it was inspired. But obviously, If you don't believe G.o.d then you will discredit His Word.

The Bible (ASV) says this:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. 28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful: 32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them."

That's what's been happening.

[philsov]

However, although natural selection does happen, it adds nothing to the gene pool.  Finches are always finches, no one has ever observed any actual gene change

genetic variation and mutation, combined with natural selection/environmental factors, are the primary causes of evolution.

For any organism that reproduces sexually, their sex cells undergo a process called Meiosis.  This is different that normal cellular division (mitosis), which basically creates duplicate cells.  Meiosis results in a cellular split, with each gamete having half the normal amount of chromosomes.  Male gemete meets female gemete and then we have a new egg/embryo/whatever, which then has a combination of genes for both parents.  

Using plants as an example, if you have some plants that produce a lot of fruit and some plants that produce very little, you prevent the poor producing from reproducing and pollinate the the high-producers.  After a couple generations, the majority of the plants are all high producers.  That is a simple and easily observed genetic change.  Similarly, two parents with blue eyes will almost always produce a blue-eyed child.  That's how genes work.  

Though it's funny you should mention finches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

blatant phenotypic and genotypic change.  Make sure to read the section on Molecular basis of beak evolution.

The Bible was not man-made; it was inspired.

Because there were plenty of witnesses around for the creation of the universe, right?  Wait, sorry.  One guy who ate some moldy bread and then saw God is surely correct.

[bisekibungaku]

Because there were plenty of witnesses around for the creation of the universe, right? Wait, sorry. One guy who ate some moldy bread is surely correct.

Because there are plenty of witnesses around seeing animals turning into other animals, right? Wait, sorry. One guy who failed med school (Charles Darwin) is surely correct.

[philsov]

um... animals do not get extensive morphological changes overnight.  It isn't some magic shift that spontaenously causes two moths to give birth to a trout.  That's not evolution in the slightest, and no one has in fact seen complete genetic reformation, but then again no one's claimed that either.

Generic variation exists.
Genetic mutation exists.
Environmental factors exist.
Natural selection exists.

Therefore the evolutionary process is true.

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time and scale.

Edit:  Also, it's not so much as one animal changing into another, it's more a matter of a common ancestor that underwent different changes due to variance and selection.

Edit2:  
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi12hg.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

christianity and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.  Summary:  Pope says "gooooo evolution".

Edit3:  

But I'm telling you it's better to start believing now than later.

Apologies for the straw man, but Pascal's Wager is a flaming crock of shit, and shame on you for invoking it in any manner of serious discussion.  Given the number of potential deities which can exist (or non exist), belief is just as likely to be rewarded as disbelief.  In fact, disbelief nets you better odds, all other things being equal.

[bisekibungaku]

Micro evolution does happen. However, micro evolution is change within a species. Macro evolution is not.
Time and scale are not the only differences.

"Generic variation exists.
Genetic mutation exists.
Environmental factors exist.
Natural selection exists.

Therefore the evolutionary process is true."

that's like saying

1 exists, 2 exists, 3 exists, 4 exists.

Therefore 1+2+3+4 must be true and 1+2+3+4=11. Which  isn't right.

[philsov]

"1+2+3+4 is true" isn't even a statement, and that is a non-sequitor analogy and makes little sense to the point at hand.  This is logic.  If A exists, B exists, C exists, and D exists, and E is the result of A through D existing, then E must also exist as well.

Meanwhile, if microevolution is a change within species -- which you do actually accept... then what would you call the process of speciation?  At what taxonomic level does macroevolution occur?  

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

[Archael]

Itt: biblelol

[Dormin Jake]

The Bible (ASV) says this:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible St. Ajora for the likeness of an image of corruptible man"

Inspired or not, a corruptible man, professing his word to be the word of G.o.d., wrote that.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!  The Great Oz has spoken!"

[Tersius]

I don't see what's so great about this book.  From the video introduction, it doesn't seem to be presenting anything particularly revolutionary or new about evolution.  Just the same old stuff found in countless science books.  I do, however, disagree with his analogy of a detective.  IIRC, he said something about us being unable to see the effects of evolution during our short lives.  Gregor Mendel's (who ironically was a Catholic Monk) experiments with peas immediately came to mind.

I also don't understand why there is frequently a heated debate about Intelligent Design / Creationism vs. the theory of evolution(particularly Darwin's spin on it).  To me, they don't appear to be mutually exclusive.  Most religions describe creationism as a single event that started life on this planet.  The theory of evolution talks more about how organisms adapt and evolve.  It doesn't really talk about how non-living matter turned into living matter.  

While trying to remain objective in this discussion, I want to point out the previously quoted passage from the Bible talks about how the world is "corruptible".  When speaking of evolution, people sometimes refer to "mutations".  From the perspective of a creating deity, couldn't such mutations / changes in His/Her original design be viewed as corruptions?  Or perhaps the ability to adapt (evolve) was "engineered" into the creations?

Finally, may I request that this thread be closed?  This sort of debate typically does little more than offend all parties involved and cause harsh feelings to come between them.  No one's entrenched views are ever changed.  Instead, why don't we focus on what we have in common:  Our love for Final Fantasy Tactics, and our desire to hack and change it.

Edit:  Fixed a minor grammatical error.

[SilvasRuin]

^^ I get the feeling that what you're doing can be described as trying to get a beehive to shut up and stop buzzing by poking at it with a broom handle.

[Tersius]

Good point.  Didn't mean to do that.  I was just trying to point out that arguing about this stuff is pointless.

[philsov]

Most religions describe creationism as a single event that started life on this planet. The theory of evolution talks more about how organisms adapt and evolve. It doesn't really talk about how non-living matter turned into living matter.

There's actually a sliding-scale on the matter.  There's hardcore young-earth creationists who believe that everything was plopped down to earth as is, including phenomena like starlight and mountains and such that under normal, physical means takes a lot more than 6000 years to exist, then there's old-earth creationists, then there's the theistic evolutionists and about three different grades of that mess, then there's the atheist/pure coincidence viewpoint.  Either way, there's a metric asston of grey area on what level Deity played on the things.

But at the heart of the matter, if it all started with nothing and everything went "naturally" it doesn't matter if that was Deity's hand or just fate -- the process is exactly the same.  

The kicker is the implications.

[bisekibungaku]

Finally, may I request that this thread be closed? This sort of debate typically does little more than offend all parties involved and cause harsh feelings to come between them. No one's entrenched views are ever changed. Instead, why don't we focus on what we have in common: Our love for Final Fantasy Tactics, and our desire to hack and change it.

I was actually just arguing against the people's POVs not the people themselves. I harbor no ill will toward them.
However, if other people are getting offended, I agree that this thread should be closed.

[Asmo X]

God doesn't exist on the same plane of explanation as evolution. Evolution endeavours to show the process by which organisms speciate. The competing theory to this idea is not "God" since that does not clarify a process, it merely defers the question upwards. If I ask you HOW your new back fence was built, "John" or "Willoughby's Timber Supplies" does not constitute a sensible answer. Perhaps this will go some way to clarifying why "God" is a supremely inadequate competing "theory" to the question of life. Or, in fact, to anything where the truth of something is deemed to be both unquestionable and only knowable as a dictate of some higher authority.

[boomkick]

This my metaphor for my belief in God.

God is not an almighty being that created us and all those plants and animals out of thin air. He is basically a programmer or coder of a computer. A ASM hacker of sorts. He created a "program" that runs a universe. He set values and numbers to his liking so that universe runs as it is suppose to. He left chance and probabilities and RNGs into it so that there would be variations to a certain limit.

God created the probability of "life" being able to form. He granted the possibility of a huge increase in disorder to the universe (because living things create disorder). After this life formed, other probability values of mutation and other factors were added in to "make life go on."

That is just a summary. But if there was no "God" and our planet was just another floating space rock that happened to have animated water-carbon stuff walking around on its surface making other stuff out of the basic elements, our planet and "us" were created through evolution.

Our planet survived, in a sense, because we were in the right spot at the right time around our sun to support what we call "life." That is (you can twist the logic around as much as you want) evolution of a rock, where something happened to something at the right time to increase it's chances of survival.

Same thing with evolution of living things. Mutations happen everywhere and maybe often. Evolution is just another word for a GOOD mutation, which means it increases the subject's chance of survival in it's current environment.

For those who believe that we were created (no diss to Christianity, it does have its faults however) in just a week, I'm sorry, but Dinosaurs don't magically turn into apes in that short time period. But on the positive side, 7 days is not far from the truth (if you believe trillions of years off is not far, then that's ok).

OK, more ranting, did you know that we humans have evolved over the course of the 18th to 21st Century? Do you know how we evolved? Well I'll tell you, we evolved to have more horrible eyesight.

Let me explain, if you were blind in the 17th or 18th century, you would be dead because there would be nothing to correct your eye condition (unless you had money). Nowadays, you don't need good eye sight to live, all you need is glasses. That... in a sense... is de-evolution... which is evidence that evolution exists...

O EM GEE TOO MUCH TYPING TIRED

Does not Raise post count like a jerk!

[tithin]

I harbor no ill will toward them.

Therein lies the rub. They don't have the same belief system as you, and you find theirs abhorrent. You've said already that unless you believe in a judeochristian deity, then you will regret it, come your death.

Doesn't exactly inspire a feeling of "no ill will". In fact, it envisions a feeling of smug superiority.

My only sense of satisfaction comes from the fact that if there truly is a deity, then come your own judgement, you will fail in his eyes, because your interpretation was inspired by a mans point of view on a holy text.

Agnosticism ftw.

[Archael]

Actually, my evidence has just as real as yours.

The Bible (ASV) says this:

blargh

That's what's been happening.

your evidence has just as real as mine?

give me a single piece of evidence that is as strong as the observable  chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms between species, the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations,   the fossil record of change in earlier species, Homology, Embryology, and/or Genetic Mutations that is in favor of a god or a religion (take your pick)

The Bible was not man-made; it was inspired. But obviously, If you don't believe G.o.d then you will discredit His Word.

the bible is man-made, you can go, in person, and study the documented history of how it was put together, what was left out, what was included, and what was edited, by... MEN

"inspired" or not, it's man-made, it could have been inspired by people on drugs for all I care, it's still man's creation

I'm not trying to discredit anyone's word except my fellow man's, which is not only fallible, but was written to serve their own ends

Because there are plenty of witnesses around seeing animals turning into other animals, right? Wait, sorry. One guy who failed med school (Charles Darwin) is surely correct.

your previous posts are testament to the failure that is your understanding of evolution and speciation, I mean, you were seriously arguing that evolution can't be true because the beneficial adaptations within organisms can't happen fast enough before they die out

(I'm not even going to bring up your pathetic referencing of bible passages and threats of 'you better believe in x g.o.d or you're in for it'!)

I also don't understand why there is frequently a heated debate about Intelligent Design / Creationism vs. the theory of evolution(particularly Darwin's spin on it). To me, they don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

biology professor from brown university rips apart intelligent design and explains why it's incompatible with the fact of evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

"1+2+3+4 is true" isn't even a statement, and that is a non-sequitor analogy and makes little sense to the point at hand. This is logic. If A exists, B exists, C exists, and D exists, and E is the result of A through D existing, then E must also exist as well.

Generic variation exists.
Genetic mutation exists.
Environmental factors exist.
Natural selection exists.

Therefore the evolutionary process is true.

^ this x 1000

if you argue against this, you're either a blind fundie that refuses to acknowledge reality to favor your own delusional beliefs, or you're trolling

xx