Darwin's original tome on evolution "The Origin of Species by Natural Selection"

[Michal Ptacnik]

One good thing about the fundamentalists and religious people in general: They have what the science folk lack: The actualized capability for faith and the willingness to see beyond the animal man; they of course, lack what the scientific folk have in abundance, namely, the keen adherence to reason. Only together, we can prosper in a meaningful way.

where is any Bible quotes? You fail, as usual. This crap will fall on Science alone. Real Observable Science.

Hey, bible quotes are fine by me! In fact, with difficult subjects relating consciousness at least, the Bible is an invariable tool for discernment and, at the least, for achieving mutual understanding. Of course, if you want to use it for science, you should interpret it as a scientist and not as a fanatic seeking dogma, otherwise, you'll get no science and all dogma, but that's another matter entirely.

By the way, ad the Bible, and the fundamentalists, do you realize that to state that a scientist finds something you claim is against God, to ignore those finds, is actually to act in the sin of pride? As I've said, it is the act of taking a level of complexity from your understanding of the God's Creation on a completely arbitrary, man made grounds, e.g. prideful, boastful notion that your interpretation of the Bible is superior to scientific findings, those expeditions, if you will, into the realm where creation, God, is in action, or at least where that action is clearly reflected. I'd see that as an error on part of the fundamentalist (as well as an unscientific conclusion on part of the scientist, viz above.).

[adissenter2]

did I hear PEER REVIEW mentioned?  peer reviewed or scientific fraud to fit an agenda?

THE MIRAGE OF PEER REVIEW

Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist. That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had better get the current research paper published in the best scientific journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical reality.

But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off, money .

Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy magazines must confront: don’t antagonize your advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors may lack moral fibre, but they aren’t stupid.

Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There’s a formal requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99)

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.

Then there’s the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed. (Stauber, p 204)

Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987, the New England Journal ran an article that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including:

*reporting data for experiments that were never done
*reporting measurements that were never made
*reporting statistical analyses that were never done
o Engler

Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel Effect that results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific fraud in peer-reviewed journals is quoted by other researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.

Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion? Check out the McDonald’s ads which routinely appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)

Very scientific, oh yes.

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors/Doors-of-Perception/

[cold fusion]

they of course, lack what the scientific folk have in abundance, namely, the keen adherence to reason

Excuse me while I remove orange juice from my ACD.  Good thing I wasn't drinking milk.  

[Michal Ptacnik]

Excuse me while I remove orange juice from my ACD.  Good thing I wasn't drinking milk.   Grin

Religious naivete lacks reason, lacks the drive to go on and thus is at fault and unable to, in essence, walk on it's own two legs. If you feel like one of those people, milk might have been perhaps a more proper drink for such an intellectual baby.

[cold fusion]

I don't have any religious naivete, nor lack of reason. You do. Excuse me while I enjoy a grilled slice of your sacred cow, with barbeque sauce.

[agentbluescreen]

I shall forever implore all these bestial "selectionists" to find me one "naturally selected bolt or nut" that can be fit together into a fastener.

Hurricanes in junkyards do not produce attractive, creative, lovingly designed intellects.

[cold fusion]

I shall forever implore all these bestial "selectionists" to find me one "naturally selected bolt or nut" that can be fit together into a fastener.

Hurricanes in junkyards do not produce attractive, creative, lovingly designed intellect.

On that we can agree! 

[Michal Ptacnik]

I shall forever implore all these bestial "selectionists" to find me one "naturally selected bolt or nut" that can be fit together into a fastener.

Hurricanes in junkyards do not produce attractive, creative, lovingly designed intellects.

Agreed in principle.

[Djævlen]

where is any Bible quotes? You fail, as usual. This crap will fall on Science alone. Real Observable Science.

LMAO 

[Dok]

LMAO 

Why do you find it funny? Please explain how fossils are dated. 

[lamourlady]

I just love how a fossil is dated and a date is given, but if the same fossil is then dated again...we get another date...quite off in the amount of years.  It's just soooo effective. 

[Dok]

Quote
And what happens when a scientist finds evidence against it?

I don't believe that is possible with the scientific method. If they make conclusions in that direction, these conclusions are above and beyond the call of science or so to say; they have just about the scientific veracity of you stating this and this means that Creationism is true. Opinion, not science.

Could you, please list and apply, the scientific method to evolution. In your own words please.

[Dok]

I just love how a fossil is dated and a date is given, but if the same fossil is then dated again...we get another date...quite off in the amount of years.  It's just soooo effective. 

that would be rocks, we are talking fossils. 

yet i see what you mean. 

[thnkfstpal]

and they date it how?

evolution and natural selection are ideas that state life started by a mere random coincidence. If you believe that I'm sure you'll believe anything.

[Djævlen]

evolution and natural selection are ideas that state life started by a mere random coincidence. If you believe that I'm sure you'll believe anything.

..the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

if you believe THIS, I'm sure you'll believe anything......

[GhostofTsenzei]

just what we need.... another evolution v's christian fundy thread  

We should totally start a betting pool.  You know: Who gives up in disgust at the others' idiocy after how many posts, when the first person will start using ad hominem instead of logical argument, etc.



All that said, let me get my pole out here...  Just to remind everyone: Evolution has neither been empirically proven nor empirically dis-proven.  That's why it's called the THEORY of Evolution.  Not: "the Law of..." or anything like that.  And that doesn't even get into the how and why Evolution would occur.

And now I'm putting my pole away.

As to the original topic, it's still important to know how people think, and thanks for posting an easily obtainable copy of Darwin's thesis.

[Michal Ptacnik]

All that said, let me get my pole out here...  Just to remind everyone: Evolution has neither been empirically proven nor empirically dis-proven.  That's why it's called the THEORY of Evolution.  Not: "the Law of..." or anything like that.  And that doesn't even get into the how and why Evolution would occur.

No. A theory is already proven to a degree, or at least there are observed facts leading to the conclusion that that theory is valid. Otherwise it would have been a hypothesis.

Otherwise, I agree with you on the poll.

[Tds_kaneda]

unfortunately you will not win this battle against the fundamentalists. if ones proof of everything are bible quotes, then one is not forced to use empirical scientific research to back his claims. the fundamentalist basically has an "open checkbook" to back his claims with "proof" that is not really proof, but only dogmatic belief.

Darwins theory on evolution is accurate, but perhaps his notion on survival of the fittest and natural selection are flawed because those are the points the eugenecists cling on to. dog breeders can tell you that slow changes over time can create new species.

What no way so dog breeders are collaborating to crate new life from dogs, whats this new animal called? My god are people dumb

[Tds_kaneda]

Well those too statements tell me and I need to know about you, you don't know jack. Evolution has so much lies and disinfo and the fact that it's beleive in so blindly just proves to me the mentality that one MUST feel they know "the best mainstream outlook we have". What crap, feeling one knows sometime is just proof of there own inscurity about the truth of them not really knowing. There is NO macro evolution PERIOD.

[Tds_kaneda]

Ment to post this but the forum craped out...

I believe by no means that it is the definitive answer to the problem of life, but it's the best mainstream outlook we have. It's so big it can't be hijacked, it can only be fossilised by it's own weight, or so to speak, the same problem is with today's relativity, etc. But that's not a conspiracy, that's entropy, and it can only be solved by scientists, not by laymen who have imperfect understanding of the subject, in other words, not by me, not by you, unless you have an equivalent of a degree in biology, have done field research and experiments, etc.

And what happens when a scientist finds evidence against it?

I don't believe that is possible with the scientific method. If they make conclusions in that direction, these conclusions are above and beyond the call of science or so to say; they have just about the scientific veracity of you stating this and this means that Creationism is true. Opinion, not science.

Well those too statements tell me and I need to know about you, you don't know jack. Evolution has so much lies and disinfo and the fact that it's believed in so blindly just proves to me the mentality that one MUST feel they know "the best mainstream outlook we have". What crap, feeling one knows sometime is just proof of there own inscurity about the truth of them not really knowing. There is NO macro evolution PERIOD.

[Djævlen]

Well those too statements tell me and I need to know about you, you don't know jack. Evolution has so much lies and disinfo and the fact that it's beleive in so blindly just proves to me the mentality that one MUST feel they know "the best mainstream outlook we have". What crap, feeling one knows sometime is just proof of there own inscurity about the truth of them not really knowing. There is NO macro evolution PERIOD.

enlighten me then, asshole. show us all your genius. enlighten us with your vast knowledge of how we came to be. anybody that comes on here with statements like yours reeks of some self important mental midget that actually has no answers, just sweeping generalizations and character assassination.

[Dok]

enlighten me then, asshole. show us all your genius. enlighten us with your vast knowledge of how we came to be. anybody that comes on here with statements like yours reeks of some self important mental midget that actually has no answers, just sweeping generalizations and character assassination.

Wow dude, you really need to look in a mirror and say that, as you have yet to actually contribute to a debate. All you really do is just troll around. 

[cold fusion]

..the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Wow. The wonder of it all is that in such a complex extended sentence, I can't find anything that is an honest representation of what the Bible says.

Speaking of extensions... 

Otherwise, I agree with you on the poll.

Ghost used the word "pole", and I think he was alluding to putting it away before stepping on it.  A wise measure indeed, Djævlen having just given us a demonstration of stepping on his.   

[Djævlen]

Wow dude, you really need to look in a mirror and say that, as you have yet to actually contribute to a debate. All you really do is just troll around. 

"contributing to a debate" is in the eyes of the beholder, i guess. i give my opinion on topics. i have no pretense that i know it all. i dont cut and paste dissertations that border on the unreadable as my replies to posts. i dont quote the bible as my safety net.

so sue me.

[clearmyst]

Just curious as he believed it was oK to exterminate the less favored races, as you were proclaiming this book i was just wondering why? This book and his follow up makes eugenics and genocide perfectly allright, as we are nothing more than animals.

The bible claims its okay to commit genocide against non-believers so lets be fair here?

[cold fusion]

The bible claims its okay to commit genocide against non-believers so lets be fair here?

You need to get your facts straightened. The Bible mandated that Joshua's army was to exterminate the mixed seed of the giants which came of the angels that sinned, and the purpose was to SAVE THE HUMAN RACE. There is no redemption for fallen angels or their progeny. Previously, the Great Flood came for the same reason. Likewise the 5 cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah were slated for annihilation. The cities of Canaan that Joshua conquered were filled with sodomy, bestiality, and child sacrifice, learned from the offspring of the various races of giants, who got it from the angels that sinned.

There were still some "giants" around when Lot moved to Sodom, called "Rephaim" (see Gen. 15:20; Deut. 2:10, 12, 20). You will see land given to Lot (Deut. 2:19) was called "a land of giants" (Deut. 2:20). They are listed in Deuteronomy 2.

(See Genesis 13:12) So that you will lose the connection between the Amalekites and the Sodomites, the Oxford Bible Atlas has carefully eliminated giving the location of "Shur" and "Rephidim" from its Atlas. The reason for this is clear-hatred for the word of God.  You see, God promised a genocide on Amalek in Exodus 17:16, and He gave the job to Saul to carry out in 1 Samuel 15. The action takes place from Havilah, "until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt" (1 Sam. 15:7). That is where the Amalekites were. Exactly as a genocide was promised to the Sodomites, from Ham, in Sodom and Gomorrah, so genocide was promised to the Amalekites.

"The cities of the plain" are given as five in number in Genesis 14:2, and from what follows it would appear that the southern one-quarter of the Dead Sea was dry land once and ideal pasture land. It sank when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and when He turned Lot's wife into salt. Note the right-hand projection at the south end of the Dead Sea on all maps of Palestine. "The cities of the plain" not only burned (Jude 7), they sank. (See Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan, 1962, pp. 98-99.)
(See Genesis 13:13) Notice "The Law of First Mention". The first time any "sinner" shows up in the Bible (called "sinners" in verse 13), the reference is to a sex pervert: what all news media outlets call "gays." The Bible word is "sinners," and the first "sinners" defining sin are Sodomites.

[xereau]

Could you, please list and apply, the scientific method to evolution. In your own words please.

Take 2 groups of animals.

Put group 1 in Environment 1.

Put group 2 in Environment 2.

Take random samples from each group, each generation.

Sequence genes from both groups, each generation.

Test for genetic differences between the groups.

See if they differ significantly statistically.

Publish your work.

Let others do exactly the same procedure, to see if they come up with the same results.

*********************************

Obviously, mutations occur.

This is an indisputable fact.

It is known how they occur, it is known how often they occur, and it is known where they occur within a genome.

All you need to do is test for variation over time, to see evolution.

The definition of speciation is:  When a species is no longer able to reproduce sexually viable offspring with its parent species.

The technical reason a new species can not mate with its parent species is because a change has occurred in the gene that controls the production of proteins on the surface of sperm, that allows it to say to the egg of a same species "Hi, I am a sperm of your same species."  It is quite literally a lock and key type system at the nanoscale.

In conclusion:

Speciation is a property of life.

It happens.

It has been observed in laboratory and in natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Mutation is a property of DNA replication.

It happens.

It has been observed in laboratory and natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Populations get separated.

It happens.

It has been enforced in laboratories and observed in natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Environments differ and change over time.

It happens.

It has been observed in human and geologic history, whether you want to believe it or not.

[xereau]

The bible claims its okay to commit genocide against non-believers so lets be fair here?

Heh, its not polite to point out hypocrisy, you know.  It is however, poignant.

[cold fusion]

Genetic variations between two isolated groups are the result of natural selection from the diverse gene pools of the parent populations. Eventually, there is loss of genetic information.

Mutations happen, but are generally not beneficial, are selected against in subsequent breeding, not passed on, and often fatal. DNA is designed to PREVENT mutations. That's why 97% of its material is introns.

[xereau]

Genetic variations between two isolated groups are the result of natural selection from the diverse gene pools of the parent populations. Eventually, there is loss of genetic information.

Mutations happen, but are generally not beneficial, are selected against in subsequent breeding, not passed on, and often fatal. DNA is designed to PREVENT mutations. That's why 97% of its material is introns.

Yet they still occur, and is what allows for speciation.

[cold fusion]

Examples among higher life forms? Give an example which is not due to loss of information (loss of genetic diversity) in an isolated or stressed population, and which IS demonstrably attributable to mutation.

[Dok]

Take 2 groups of animals.

Put group 1 in Environment 1.

Put group 2 in Environment 2.

Take random samples from each group, each generation.

Sequence genes from both groups, each generation.

Test for genetic differences between the groups.

See if they differ significantly statistically.

Publish your work.

Let others do exactly the same procedure, to see if they come up with the same results.

*********************************

Obviously, mutations occur.

This is an indisputable fact.

It is known how they occur, it is known how often they occur, and it is known where they occur within a genome.

All you need to do is test for variation over time, to see evolution.

The definition of speciation is:  When a species is no longer able to reproduce sexually viable offspring with its parent species.

The technical reason a new species can not mate with its parent species is because a change has occurred in the gene that controls the production of proteins on the surface of sperm, that allows it to say to the egg of a same species "Hi, I am a sperm of your same species."  It is quite literally a lock and key type system at the nanoscale.

In conclusion:

Speciation is a property of life.

It happens.

It has been observed in laboratory and in natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Mutation is a property of DNA replication.

It happens.

It has been observed in laboratory and natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Populations get separated.

It happens.

It has been enforced in laboratories and observed in natural settings, whether you want to believe it or not.

Environments differ and change over time.

It happens.

It has been observed in human and geologic history, whether you want to believe it or not.

That wouldnt and dosent show evolution. Big dog little dog, they are still dogs. Nobody argues what you call micro-evolution, that happens. You take group one and drop them in the ocean, they will just die.

[xereau]

That wouldnt and dosent show evolution. Big dog little dog, they are still dogs. Nobody argues what you call micro-evolution, that happens. You take group one and drop them in the ocean, they will just die.

Micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro= Macro

What exactly about this is so hard to grasp, with your mental opposable thumb?

Dok, you really are the king of false analogies, aren't you?

No kidding something will die if you throw it in the ocean.

But put it near the ocean, and after enough generations, and if there was an environmental pressure that made survival neccessary by entering the ocean, chances are the species would be able to live in the ocean full time.

Honestly, this 'debate' is entirely borderline insane.

Doctrine from a book made up to manipulate VS data that is repeatably collectable and testable.

I know which I am going to choose every single time.

[Dok]

Micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro= Macro

What exactly about this is so hard to grasp, with your mental opposable thumb?

Dok, you really are the king of false analogies, aren't you?

No kidding something will die if you throw it in the ocean.

But put it near the ocean, and after enough generations, and if there was an environmental pressure that made survival neccessary by entering the ocean, chances are the species would be able to live in the ocean full time.

Honestly, this 'debate' is entirely borderline insane.

Doctrine from a book made up to manipulate VS data that is repeatably collectable and testable.

I know which I am going to choose every single time.

Micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro + micro= Macro

No it dosent. 
 
That is such a lie. Big dog, Little dog, its still a DOG. Big Cat little Cat, its still a cat.

Scientist did everything they could to force mutations for evolutionary purposes on fruit flies, they did everything they could possibly think of, in the end after all that time and death and pain, all they ended up with was a fruit fly.

[Dok]

But put it near the ocean, and after enough generations, and if there was an environmental pressure that made survival neccessary by entering the ocean, chances are the species would be able to live in the ocean full time.

We've been living near the ocean for thousands of years, dont see any frog people around, lots of froggy looking people, but no real frog people. 

[Michal Ptacnik]

According to a theory, all of us are frog people, in a way. Our bodily fat system is much closer to what see mammals have than to that of the land ones, so the theory states that this has happened precisely because our ancestors have been gathering a significant portion of their daily meals from water.

[Dok]

According to a theory, all of us are frog people, in a way. Our bodily fat system is much closer to what see mammals have than to that of the land ones, so the theory states that this has happened precisely because our ancestors have been gathering a significant portion of their daily meals from water.

uhm, frogs arent mammals. 

Our bodily fat system is much closer to what see mammals have than to that of the land ones,

I would really hope so..

[Michal Ptacnik]

uhm, frogs arent mammals.  Cheesy

Well I used your term here so... well... yeah.

[Dok]

Well I used your term here so... well... yeah.

I UH, never claimed frogs were mammals. As ah, you did. 

[Michal Ptacnik]

I used your term to counter the absurdity you sought to create, though obviously, frogs are amphibians and not mammals. But frogs do swim, so I guess frog people would be people who are somehow adapted to swimming... I mean, come on, do you really want to discuss this? I am sure you knew that I would not consider frogs mammals, I might be a heretic for you, but I've never shown this level of stupidity here.