Please use the correct terminology. Thanks.

Darwinism is a philosophical concept, which is not synonymous with "evolution", however, occasionally it is synonymous with evolution by natural selection. Remember: Darwin proposed natural selection. When informed "evolutionists" refer to "evolution", they're talking about the modern evolutionary synthesis which includes information of which Darwin was not aware.

Evolution concerns biological evolution. See also: What is evolution?, Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution, God and Evolution, Evolution and Philosophy, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism, Observed Instances of Speciation, Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics, Index of Talk.Origins' Must-Read Documents.

Neo-Darwinism regards the modern evolutionary synthesis. This is the current scientific form of evolution. The modern evolutionary synthesis, or simply Neo-Darwinism, is what scientists (and informed "evolutionists") are referring to when they use the term "evolution" today.

By the way, if you have not read Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, please please please do not attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about regarding Charles Darwin and his research. So many non-scientists, especially creationists, make this mistake and end up misinforming their brethren and submitting their potentially useful intellect to dogma, fancy, and illusion of their own making.

Quote:Original post by d000hg

Quote:Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:Original post by d000hg (On the exact same freaking page my post was on)
Most of the people here though have a completely closed mind on this. Evolution is fact, everything has a naturalistic explanation etc. However it's the Christians who get labelled as indoctrinated and brainwashed if they suggest that athiestic theories have weaknesses.

I know I'm wasting two minutes of my life by taking you seriously, but here goes...

I searched every page of this thread for "brainwashed", and the only prior instance also belongs to dooohg, here:

Quote:Is this just another bickering thread where the athiests (most of whom never seriously considered the alternatives) repeatedly 'state' that Creationist views are without any evidence at all, that their proponents are brainwashed into believing such tripe

to which another poster responded that dooohg should find out for himself by actually, y'know, reading the thread. Such things are appearantly beneath our intrepid hero, because here he is days later, claiming that Christians are getting labeled as "indoctrinated" and "brainwashed", when in truth this has only happened in his mind. I especially enjoy the irony of his imagined persecution by knee-jerk dismissal juxtaposed against his ignorant claim that most of the opposition "never seriously considered the alternatives." He's at least correct in that *somebody* needs to open his eyes...

And er, whatever... just because I didn't read the first few pages before my (somewhat non-serious) first post, I have actually been following it since and trying to conduct a reasonable discussion. If it will make you feel better, I'll apologise for unhelpfulness of my first post.

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by Nathan Baum
If random mutation is guided by a super-natural God-like being, then its existance is untestable. I don't accept that as a scientific theory.

The question becomes, how then does this super-natural God-like being guide mutation. How exactly does X alter DNA? What kinds of mechanism are used?

Ah, but no. That question cannot be asked because a supernatural entity does not act in a naturalistic fashion. Such an entity can modify the DNA of an organism such that there is no clue, even at the quantum level, that the modification was not just a random mutation.

You can ask the question when the entity that is guiding evolution is a naturalistic entity, such as a 9 foot by 4 foot jet black monolith. Then, having come up with a possible explanation, you can test it. A general-purpose test could be to place a biological preserve in a space craft and drop it into a large black hole. The scientists in the preserve would then test to see if evolution was still occuring. If it is, then evolution is not caused by any naturalistic external intelligence (assuming that no naturalistic intelligence could see behind the event horizon). Sadly, of course, the scientists wouldn't be able to us about the result.

Quote:Young earth creationism on the other hand, not only conflicts with evolution, but it conflicts with everything we know about the history of the earth, various fundamental laws of physics, along with logic and reality. Anyone who believes in this nonsense has no business calling themselves an academic.

Yet despite this, there are doctors in physics, biology etc who hold young-Earth beliefs and have scientific theories to try and validate this. Personally I find them unconvincing but it makes it less easy to say anyone with such views hasn't thought about it, or that there is no scientific basis for such theories.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Eelco
Pond scum.

Green pond algae are more or less self sufficient. However, it became advantageous to group together into the scum normally seen. The large patches seen are a step between single cell and multicell systems.

yeah thats the general idea.

one cellular organisms find themselves in a situation where its advantagous to group together, for whatever reason. once they live in such clusters, specialization isnt too far fetched, since the envirnoment of a cell in the middle of the body, or one on the outside, exposed to solar radiation or not, are quite different.

I don't see that as anything like a multicellular organism. Any single-celled organism which is in a good environment can multiply to the point where you get a big 'lump' of it. If the ones in the centre are in different conditions to the ones at the edge, they may mutate differently. But they aren't linked to each other - if you started a new colony with a mutated organism from the centre, it would grow a whole colony the same as itself, which might then mutate into other single-celled varieties.

Quote:Original post by coderx75
For anyone disputing evolution, look into dog breeding.

Start with a basic breed, like the Mastiff, and put a few on a ranch. The rancher uses the dogs for controlling flocks. The dogs that do the best job get fed more. The dogs that are more well-fed become more attractive to the females and therefore reproduce more. Through the generations, the rancher selects only the best-suited dogs for the job and, with each generation, the dogs will change. These dogs may have longer legs for running, more intelligence for controlling the flocks, etc. This is why we have such drastically different breeds. We have animals evolving virtually right before our eyes.

That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't suggest you can get such huge changes in a single generation. It talks about single mutations happening in a generation, typically. Cross-breeding simply illustrates genetics. Breeding for a specific trait isn't evolution because the children aren't better suited for the environment - humans take the most suitable and choose them to breed further.

It's a slight irony in my mind that even if this waas evolution, you've brought an example which requires somebody to control it :)

Quote:Original post by Sandman

Quote:Original post by LessBread
The question becomes, how then does this super-natural God-like being guide mutation. How exactly does X alter DNA? What kinds of mechanism are used?

Magic, obviously.

Since the idea of a supernatural God like being is beyond the limits of science to begin with, it doesn't really make much sense to speculate on a scientific explanation of how he works.

Agreed, I think. Any intervention by God is by its very definition 'unnatural' so cannot be explained in terms of natural laws. I'm not saying we should try to scientifically prove God. However, most people (or at least a very significant minority) do believe in a god with some ability to influence the universe, from surveys I've seen. So the fact that all of science works on the basis that there is no god is odd. Sure, explaining how natural processes work shouldn't have any link to God - but imagining that everything can be explained naturalistically is making the claim that there is no God.

Quote:Original post by Eelco

Quote:
Allowing Darwinism and Theism to mix is a nice thing to do because then everyone can agree that science and religion don't need to ever disagree, but all the books I've read state clearly that Darwinism does not have a place for a God. Since we can talk about evolution which is guided, there's no real reason why they would lie - it's just the terminology is different.

there is a real reason why they would lie. a very realistic one.

having a plausible explanation for the origins of live, while not disproving god, really kindof diminishes his importance. preachers like to get away with stuff like: 'just look around you at the miracle of life and obey god!!11', which just doesnt go all that well if the miracle is (partly) uncovered.

No, all the Christians I know who have done science degrees agree that knowing more about how stuff works makes the whole setup seem more impressive. Life is no less miraculous if God caused it to evolve. I find it more impressive to make a barren universe which creates life than to just plonk people into a world.


[Edited by - d000hg on April 7, 2005 2:07:06 AM]

Quote:Original post by d000hg

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Eelco
Pond scum.

Green pond algae are more or less self sufficient. However, it became advantageous to group together into the scum normally seen. The large patches seen are a step between single cell and multicell systems.

yeah thats the general idea.

one cellular organisms find themselves in a situation where its advantagous to group together, for whatever reason. once they live in such clusters, specialization isnt too far fetched, since the envirnoment of a cell in the middle of the body, or one on the outside, exposed to solar radiation or not, are quite different.

I don't see that as anything like a multicellular organism. Any single-celled organism which is in a good environment can multiply to the point where you get a big 'lump' of it. If the ones in the centre are in different conditions to the ones at the edge, they may mutate differently. But they aren't linked to each other - if you started a new colony with a mutated organism from the centre, it would grow a whole colony the same as itself, which might then mutate into other single-celled varieties.

they dont mutate differently. mutations dont come into the mix in the span of one life. they just express themselves differently. just like the cells in your body. they are the exact same program, only with some other command line parameters.

Quote:

Quote:Original post by Eelco

Quote:
Allowing Darwinism and Theism to mix is a nice thing to do because then everyone can agree that science and religion don't need to ever disagree, but all the books I've read state clearly that Darwinism does not have a place for a God. Since we can talk about evolution which is guided, there's no real reason why they would lie - it's just the terminology is different.

there is a real reason why they would lie. a very realistic one.

having a plausible explanation for the origins of live, while not disproving god, really kindof diminishes his importance. preachers like to get away with stuff like: 'just look around you at the miracle of life and obey god!!11', which just doesnt go all that well if the miracle is (partly) uncovered.

No, all the Christians I know who have done science degrees agree that knowing more about how stuff works makes the whole setup seem more impressive. Life is no less miraculous if God caused it to evolve. I find it more impressive to make a barren universe which creates life than to just plonk people into a world.

i completely agree. it would be even more impressive that way. but all powerfull is all powerfull. in any case, interpreting god as someone who only has set things in motion is something that doesnt appeal to many christians either i think. they prefer the overseeing judging 'n smiting kind, the other is just too unsubstantional and too easily put aside as an oddity: which i think is the biggest driving force behind the diminishment of religion.