Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
It is not proof that we were animals.

Sure.
If ConspiracyNutjob says it, it must be so.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Really? Your going to try to pass that off? We are most definately animals.what reason could you possibly have to think otherwise?

reply to post by Tennessee77


LINNAEAN CLASSIFICATION OF HUMANS


Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

It is called science for a reason.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


Please understand that i am in no way mad at you. But i think you have backed yourelf into a corner with that statement.

Originally posted by Tennessee77
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Please understand that i am in no way mad at you. But i think you have backed yourelf into a corner with that statement.

I have not backed myself into a corner at all.

Humans are not animals because we have an eternal soul. Again this is where my belief comes in but I will freely admit that it is a religious belief. It has no place in science.

Humans have the capacity to worship God and animals do not.

You can be mad, happy or indifferent, it makes no difference to me.

For a theory to become scientific fact it must be observable and testable. The big bang, abiogenesis & macroevolution are religious beliefs. You can label humans as animals if you like but I believe that we were created above the animal kingdom in the same way that we were created a little lower than the angels.

reply to post by wildtimes

Evolution and adaptation go hand in hand. Slowly, painfully incrementally, until something "else" is the result.

Thus is the ASSUMPTION of evolution. You assume that through adaptation something completely new will form but there is literally NO evidence of such an occurrence ever happening.



Still waiting from the countless other topics having to do with evolution for the same information I requested in this one. Show me one single solitary instance where evolution (one species becoming and entirely different one) that has actually occurred that we have seen, that we can prove in motion, since all the tests and the induction of the theory oh so many years ago - just one.

But there isn't one. The only example that one will give is MINOR adaptation qualities with the assumption that the jump would happen given enough time. No bacteria has ever become another bacteria, no animal has ever become another animal. Not at least in our lifetimes of study and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

Humans see this web of life and they know that species adapt so, much like any other common religion, they device ideas and interconnection between all of it simply based on similarities.


And until there is the "theory" of evolution is nothing more that a factless hypothesis.


Things like this and the Big Bang theory are what has ruined modern science. It is all theoretical now with no need to prove a damn thing, just to make the assumptions and run with it. Over time people accept it as fact even though it is largely unprovable, just like religion, and then you have arrogant "scientists" like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins running around being deified for being the major proponents of a new scientific "religion" that has stepped from it all.

It is really disheartening and it is a slap to the face of thousands of years of actual science, tried and true and proven using the Scientific Method - not this malarchy that somehow gets a free pass by the standards of today. I'm not saying it can't be true, but there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to state it as fact.

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Evolution and adaptation go hand in hand. Slowly, painfully incrementally, until something "else" is the result.

Thus is the ASSUMPTION of evolution. You assume that through adaptation something completely new will form but there is literally NO evidence of such an occurrence ever happening.



Still waiting from the countless other topics having to do with evolution for the same information I requested in this one. Show me one single solitary instance where evolution (one species becoming and entirely different one) that has actually occurred that we have seen, that we can prove in motion, since all the tests and the induction of the theory oh so many years ago - just one.

But there isn't one. The only example that one will give is MINOR adaptation qualities with the assumption that the jump would happen given enough time. No bacteria has ever become another bacteria, no animal has ever become another animal. Not at least in our lifetimes of study and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.

Humans see this web of life and they know that species adapt so, much like any other common religion, they device ideas and interconnection between all of it simply based on similarities.


And until there is the "theory" of evolution is nothing more that a factless hypothesis.


Things like this and the Big Bang theory are what has ruined modern science. It is all theoretical now with no need to prove a damn thing, just to make the assumptions and run with it. Over time people accept it as fact even though it is largely unprovable, just like religion, and then you have arrogant "scientists" like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins running around being deified for being the major proponents of a new scientific "religion" that has stepped from it all.

It is really disheartening and it is a slap to the face of thousands of years of actual science, tried and true and proven using the Scientific Method - not this malarchy that somehow gets a free pass by the standards of today. I'm not saying it can't be true, but there sure as hell isn't enough evidence to state it as fact.

Great post.

You summed it up nicely. Supporters of the theory of evolution somehow fail to see the religious belief that is involved.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


I have posted this before in this thread, but I will post it again:

Here is a link to a peer reviewed article (and there are others if you care to look) that I have posted multiple times in this and other threads:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
... and 29 other examples from a lengthy resource, all with sources.

This paper is talking about "macroevolution", the more specific term for it is "key innovation", or in other words the development of a new genetic differentiation otherwise known as a species.

There are indeed "Science Stars", that are known in the media and have strong views, but they are by far the minority. Visit a faculty at a university that you are interested in, talk to some of the professors and you will soon discover that the scientific method is very well and flourishing.

The Big Bang theory is the current "accepted" model, but it is known it is far from perfect, and has been under ever increasing challenge and scrutiny. They do very precise tests and experimentation to test these theories, and it is far from "just theoretical". Recent discoveries and empirical data have made other theories look just as attractive (still no evidence of a higher being), such as "Holographic Theory.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


As I have states already. Your little "proof" experiments are not macroevolution. It is proof that bacteria adapts to its environment with the assumption that if it continues it will become an entirely new specie. This assumption is then carried on to the belief that when placed on a larger scale over a longer period of time - bigger organisms too will become another specie.

There are and were different genus of species on this planet, including human beings - but there is no evidence whatsoever that a species can become an entirely new one because it has not happened under human observation.

If you cannot understand what the term "assumption" means, allow me to give you a definition.

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; Arrogance.

There is no proof that the Big Bang happened, there is no proof of abiogenesis, and there is no proof of macroevolution. There are simply the jumps of possibilities from one assumption to the next. Just because we can observe similar instances of those theories happening in life does not give us the right to state those theories as facts of creation as the majority of the scientific community does.

For your information, religion is far wider spread and "accepted" than the Big Bang theory, so wouldn't that make such the "accepted" model? Does that mean it is true, that it is fact? Many of the stories in The Bible or Quran can be attributed to historical fact and documentation - does that mean that both of those books are correct?

No. Because to believe that would be faith. Faith is an assumption that what you believe is true, regardless of the proof required to state it. Gravity can be proven to exist every time I drop an object, without fail. Mass can be proven to exist because we can measure it, without fail, in all objects known to our existence.

Can we do such tests with any of the assumed theories? No. Because they are all created based on assumed fact of additional time and adaptation producing different results, results that we don't see but assume we will if given the time. Those results don't yet exist.



If macroevolution were to exist it would be entirely easy and plausible, since the inception of evolutionary theory, to produce a response in something such as laboratory rats or rabbits, species that breed fast and adapt to their surroundings. But lab rats and rabbits have been tested to this extent and no matter how much adaptation they make, no matter how much time they are given through generations - those lab rats are still the same old lab rats.

Thus it can be said that until those lab rats become something else - then macroevolution is nothing more then assumed rhetoric in the scientific community.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


Look at puzzlesphere's post and click on the "29 other examples" scroll to the bottom and it has a lot of links to the data you are asking for. There are a lot of examples of one species changing into other species. It lists hundreds of them. All you have to do is read them. They list hundreds of transitional forms. Like i said before, macroevolution is a natural product of time. Even though some forms havent changed in millions of years. The more complex a living form takes the longer it will take to change. It is a fundamental function of dna and it is well documented. In modern labs, the fossil record, in the genome, and yes in the field looking at speciation within closed enviroments ( I.e. galapagos islands). Forms most definately change species. But you won't get a cat change into a dog. They are already existing species. But millions of years from now, some animals will change so drastically from their present forms, you will not recognise them, and when you classify them they may very well fit into a different species, genus, or family, or maybe will will have to create a separate sub set to properly catalogue it.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


LINNAEAN CLASSIFICATION OF HUMANS


Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: sapien

Here's what's responsible for a toxic society....

People having kids and more kids out of wedlock...where a woman can have 6 kids, all with different fathers.

The fact that BOTH parents have to work, instead of one being home when their kid is out of school.

The fact that jobs no longer have pensions, but instead job-hopping is the norm.

We hand our kids a video game where the objective is to shoot as many realistic people as possible, while jacking their car, despite an M rating.

People can become famous for being idiots and become role models for doing the very things we DON'T want anyone doing.

Has nothing to do with evolution. Do you think kids in the 50's didn't learn evolution?

reply to post by Tennessee77


NO. NO. NO.

You are not grasping the damn idea here. I'm sick of being pointed to the same garbage.

I've read through the "29" other examples. All of the experiments done have been on a micro scale. In all of the information on that page it says nothing about people bearing witness to physiological evolution from one species to another besides adaptation in single celled organisms.

All the rest is a bunch more stuff of them ASSUMING based on those findings.

Show me something where evolution has actually occurred and there isn't 29 sources of people basing assumptions on micro adaptation.

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


You asked for a single example of a macroevolution (MaE), and stated that "No bacteria has ever become another bacteria...", and I provided a paper/experiment that showed that over 30,000 generations of "adaption", a new key innovation developed in a bacterial population, making a distinct genetic difference from other isolated populations, that allowed the "new" bacteria to process a previously un-processable nutrient, and survive in an environment that other populations couldn't.

This is a genetic differentiation that occurred over a comparative long period of time to the bacterial population (more concisely defined as evolution), that makes the new strain genetically distinctive from its ancestors and the current lateral relatives on its genetic tree.

In other words, two different genetic strains stemmed from the same ancestor.

If you define MaE as the significant change of a genetic strain over many generations, then that is what this experiment showed. If you define MaE as one organism changing into another in a single generation (which is not what evolutionary theory states, and the the oft used creationist example of a cat->dog comes to mind), then there will never be proof as it doesn't conform to any known observational data.

Evolution isn't a religion, it is a science, it is not based on belief it is based on verifying facts... it is one small category in the search for knowledge.

Evolution has many theories embedded in it. Some considered fact, such as natural selection (creationists often define this as microevolution, and in recent decades have generally accepted it), and some considered theories such as gradualist vs punctuated equilibrium theories (which is what creationists consider to be macroevolution, this is one area where ID considers there is space for a designer).

The only presented alternative to Evolution is Intelligent Design, which as of yet is unfalsifiable, so is in no way testable. I have looked and thought hard, and there literally is no falsifiable scientific alternative, meaning within our current understanding of the universe, natural selection and associated theories are what we have to work with... kind of like 1+1=2 is what we have to work with in maths.

If you can prove 1+1 actually equals 3... Whoaa!!! That would be awesome!... and we would have to redefine almost everything we currently understand!... but unfortunately no-one has yet provided evidence for that.

If anyone can present even a vaguely viable alternative i will happily look into as it greatly interests me, and if there is scientific merit to any alternative idea, I will absolutely re-evaluate my position on the matter. If the evidence is strong enough, I will most definitely be swayed.

Not belief... facts.

Funnily enough, this thread isn't even about the "proof" of evolution... it is about whether evolution as an idea is a toxic mechanism in society.

If evolution is a toxic idea, and we managed to remove the idea entirely... then something else would arise to take its place... it would have to, because people have always asked questions and want answers beyond "that's just the way it is."

Evolution is the result of years of questions and answers and challenges (and is still being actively researched), and the only other alternatives are God or Aliens (which can't be researched in the traditional sense). None of the ideas are toxic, it is different peoples reactions to these ideas that creates toxicity.

Cheers

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by TheNewRevolution

 

You asked for a single example of a macroevolution (MaE), and stated that "No bacteria has ever become another bacteria...", and I provided a paper/experiment that showed that over 30,000 generations of "adaption", a new key innovation developed in a bacterial population, making a distinct genetic difference from other isolated populations, that allowed the "new" bacteria to process a previously un-processable nutrient, and survive in an environment that other populations couldn't.

This is a genetic differentiation that occurred over a comparative long period of time to the bacterial population (more concisely defined as evolution), that makes the new strain genetically distinctive from its ancestors and the current lateral relatives on its genetic tree.

In other words, two different genetic strains stemmed from the same ancestor.

If you define MaE as the significant change of a genetic strain over many generations, then that is what this experiment showed. If you define MaE as one organism changing into another in a single generation (which is not what evolutionary theory states, and the the oft used creationist example of a cat->dog comes to mind), then there will never be proof as it doesn't conform to any known observational data.

Evolution isn't a religion, it is a science, it is not based on belief it is based on verifying facts... it is one small category in the search for knowledge.

Evolution has many theories embedded in it. Some considered fact, such as natural selection (creationists often define this as microevolution, and in recent decades have generally accepted it), and some considered theories such as gradualist vs punctuated equilibrium theories (which is what creationists consider to be macroevolution, this is one area where ID considers there is space for a designer).

The only presented alternative to Evolution is Intelligent Design, which as of yet is unfalsifiable, so is in no way testable. I have looked and thought hard, and there literally is no falsifiable scientific alternative, meaning within our current understanding of the universe, natural selection and associated theories are what we have to work with... kind of like 1+1=2 is what we have to work with in maths.

If you can prove 1+1 actually equals 3... Whoaa!!! That would be awesome!... and we would have to redefine almost everything we currently understand!... but unfortunately no-one has yet provided evidence for that.

If anyone can present even a vaguely viable alternative i will happily look into as it greatly interests me, and if there is scientific merit to any alternative idea, I will absolutely re-evaluate my position on the matter. If the evidence is strong enough, I will most definitely be swayed.

Not belief... facts.

Funnily enough, this thread isn't even about the "proof" of evolution... it is about whether evolution as an idea is a toxic mechanism in society.

If evolution is a toxic idea, and we managed to remove the idea entirely... then something else would arise to take its place... it would have to, because people have always asked questions and want answers beyond "that's just the way it is."

Evolution is the result of years of questions and answers and challenges (and is still being actively researched), and the only other alternatives are God or Aliens (which can't be researched in the traditional sense). None of the ideas are toxic, it is different peoples reactions to these ideas that creates toxicity.

Cheers

edit on 21-3-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

Your religious belief is interesting and when you have solid evidence of macroevolution then I will be all ears.

Prediction: Science will never be able to dismiss the possibility of a Creator because they will never be able to scientifically prove abiogenesis. Non living matter becoming living matter requires an act of God.

Non living matter + non living matter + an infinite number of years will always = non living matter.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


You don't seem to be looking for a civil debate around evolution, and ignored/haven't responded to the information in the paper I provided that shows a significant genetic change across progressive bacterial populations, a verified experiment.

You've made up your mind and you just want to be condescending and place labels on people and ideas without actual justification... in other words, it's your opinion and your sticking to it.

If we follow your example, all ideas could be religious. Your recent posts seem to ignore definitions of things, and conveniently redefine terms and phrases to angle your OP question towards your desired answer.

Just so we're clear on the definitions:
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Biological evolution doesn't include reference to superhuman or deistic powers, it only strives to classify information... thus it is not religious.

Present an alternative to evolution, which I can begin to test.

Also... back to the actual OP... I was interested in your response to my premise that ideas themselves aren't toxic, it is peoples responses to them that can create a toxic situation, as any idea in a certain context could be toxic.

Would you agree?

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

You've made up your mind and you just want to be condescending and place labels on people and ideas without actual justification... in other words, it's your opinion and your sticking to it.

If we follow your example, all ideas could be religious. Your recent posts seem to ignore definitions of things, and conveniently redefine terms and phrases to angle your OP question towards your desired answer.

Just so we're clear on the definitions:
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Also... back to the actual OP... I was interested in your response to my premise that ideas themselves aren't toxic, it is peoples responses to them that can create a toxic situation, as any idea in a certain context could be toxic.

Would you agree?

edit on 21-3-2013 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

I agree in part with your definitions. But what you have been touting is not science, it is religious in nature because it requires faith not science.

The ideas themselves can be toxic because they can lead to a philosophical way of thinking that can undermine a moral way of living. When a critical number of people stop living moral lives and no longer care about other human beings then we end up with a toxic culture in which people are self absorbed.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


The scientific method has four steps.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The Religious Method has 5 steps.

Repeat stories
Repeat stories
Repeat stories
When brainwashing complete they will
Repeat the stories.

Science has to have some proof religion doesn't whats even more IRONIC with people like you on here that criticise science, you have to use the RESULTS of science to be able to post on this web site.

You keep going on about evolution requires faith , there is proof of evolution through DNA, fossil evidence and other experiments.

After all we all share a very high percentage of our DNA with the great apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys and a lower percentage with all other living creatures would you care to explain that.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

The scientific method has four steps.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The Religious Method has 5 steps.

Repeat stories
Repeat stories
Repeat stories
When brainwashing complete they will
Repeat the stories.

Science has to have some proof religion doesn't whats even more IRONIC with people like you on here that criticise science, you have to use the RESULTS of science to be able to post on this web site.

You keep going on about evolution requires faith , there is proof of evolution through DNA, fossil evidence and other experiments.

After all we all share a very high percentage of our DNA with the great apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys and a lower percentage with all other living creatures would you care to explain that.

I am well aware of the scientific method.

The hypothesis for the theory of evolution should have been thrown out long ago, the evidence does not support the theory.

I freely admit that my belief in God requires faith and is not scientific, the same goes for the theory of evolution.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


So you have no comments on this

You keep going on about evolution requires faith , there is proof of evolution through DNA, fossil evidence and other experiments.

After all we all share a very high percentage of our DNA with the great apes, and to a lesser extent monkeys and a lower percentage with all other living creatures would you care to explain that.

So can you make a comment other than faith about the above or is that a struggle for you