Logic dictates that there is a God!

[PLAYER57832]

No one has observed KLOBBER, therefore KLOBBER does not exist.

[owheelj]

Actually people have observed the Earth orbiting the sun. We can also easily observe the positions of all the stars, planets asteroids and other space objects, and the sun and their relative position to us on Earth and extrapolate out a map of what is going on.

But of course way before we could do this there were plenty of phenomenon that can be easily observed and cannot be adequately explained with any hypothesis other than the one that the Earth orbits the sun (such as length and direction of shadows from the sun in different parts of the world over time).

It is, of course, completely illogical to assume that something that has not been observed therefore does not exist, however it would also be foolish to think that something does exist if there is no evidence (direct observation or inference from direct observation) to suggest that it does.


Regarding evolution. Evolution is definitely an observed fact. It's not a theory, it's actually clearly been observed happening over generations. I'm not sure what Klobber considers a reputable source but here is an article I would say is from a reputable source.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/specseminar/ ... osos97.pdf - from the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature. Here is a NY Times article about this article;
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/01/us/le ... /Evolution


Essentially lizards of the same species were placed on 14 separate islands and over a 10 - 14 year period were measured and found to change significantly over that time (the populations obviously, not the individuals).


Here is another similar study (from the same scientists) that found similar results but only on one island and in the context of an introduced predator. I can only find the abstract and not a viewable version of the article I'm afraid;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03039.html
Here is a New Scientists article about this article;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ction.html

There are, of course, countless more examples. The "theory" of evolution is an attempt to explain why the observed phenomenon of life evolves over generations. We *know* for a fact that life evolves - we see it happening constantly. We also *know* basically how it works. There really is no doubt amongst people who actually study it (like me). There is still heaps of stuff we don't know though, especially the specifics of how specific behaviours evolved.

Denying that evolution occurs at all, or claiming that there is any doubt about whether it does, really just indicates that the person making that claim is speaking from ignorance and has spent only a very small amount of time trying to understand evolution and the evidence that supports it. Come back to me after you have a phd. in a field of evolutionary biology and tell me you're unconvinced, or actually present some evidence for your beliefs from a reputable source that suggests evolution doesn't actually occur but can explain how populations of lizards on different islands can vary in characteristics over time.

[astronautg117]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Um someone may have said this already because I didnt take the time to read the hundreds of pages but... THE VOTING POLL TO BEGIN WITH IS BIASED!!!

[captain.crazy]

Actually people have observed the Earth orbiting the sun. We can also easily observe the positions of all the stars, planets asteroids and other space objects, and the sun and their relative position to us on Earth and extrapolate out a map of what is going on.

But of course way before we could do this there were plenty of phenomenon that can be easily observed and cannot be adequately explained with any hypothesis other than the one that the Earth orbits the sun (such as length and direction of shadows from the sun in different parts of the world over time).

It is, of course, completely illogical to assume that something that has not been observed therefore does not exist, however it would also be foolish to think that something does exist if there is no evidence (direct observation or inference from direct observation) to suggest that it does.


Regarding evolution. Evolution is definitely an observed fact. It's not a theory, it's actually clearly been observed happening over generations. I'm not sure what Klobber considers a reputable source but here is an article I would say is from a reputable source.

http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/specseminar/ ... osos97.pdf - from the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature. Here is a NY Times article about this article;
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/01/us/le ... /Evolution


Essentially lizards of the same species were placed on 14 separate islands and over a 10 - 14 year period were measured and found to change significantly over that time (the populations obviously, not the individuals).


Here is another similar study (from the same scientists) that found similar results but only on one island and in the context of an introduced predator. I can only find the abstract and not a viewable version of the article I'm afraid;

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03039.html
Here is a New Scientists article about this article;
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ction.html

There are, of course, countless more examples. The "theory" of evolution is an attempt to explain why the observed phenomenon of life evolves over generations. We *know* for a fact that life evolves - we see it happening constantly. We also *know* basically how it works. There really is no doubt amongst people who actually study it (like me). There is still heaps of stuff we don't know though, especially the specifics of how specific behaviours evolved.

Denying that evolution occurs at all, or claiming that there is any doubt about whether it does, really just indicates that the person making that claim is speaking from ignorance and has spent only a very small amount of time trying to understand evolution and the evidence that supports it. Come back to me after you have a phd. in a field of evolutionary biology and tell me you're unconvinced, or actually present some evidence for your beliefs from a reputable source that suggests evolution doesn't actually occur but can explain how populations of lizards on different islands can vary in characteristics over time.

I think that AgentSmith88 was suggesting that no one has actually stayed stationary in space from the vantage point that would allow the actual observance that the earth revolves around the sun, like no one has actually observed something evolve right in front of their eyes. The former is simply a pointless experiment in something that we already know to be true, while the latter is something that occurs spontaneously and in species, under some sort of duress. One would either need to have a highly adaptable species to study or have a really long time in which to study, longer than the normal human lifespan can allow, I think.

[PLAYER57832]

Regarding evolution. Evolution is definitely an observed fact. It's not a theory, it's actually clearly been observed happening over generations. I'm not sure what Klobber considers a reputable source but here is an article I would say is from a reputable source.

What KLOBER considers a reputable source is anything KLOBBER says, as opposed to anything anyone else says.

However, Evolution (big "E" ) is not technically a fact. Is is a theory, or perhaps more properly a series of theories, about the origin of life on Earth. That things change over time is evolution (small "e") and is fact, yes. That these changes accumulate over time and may eventually result in new specie(s) is also fact. (doesn't always happen, but can).

[owheelj]

I'm not aware that "Evolution" and "evolution" are different things. Certainly as a biology student I don't recall any lecture or text book ever making such a distinction.

Yes things change over time - this is an observed fact. Indeed they change every generation. This is an observed fact. S

no one has actually observed something evolve right in front of their eyes.

I'm not sure what you mean. You do understand that single individuals don't evolve right? Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines. The evolution is the fact that the child never has the exact same DNA as its parents. We've certainly observed this to be the case.

[owheelj]

Just to clarify slightly - sorry for the double post - when I say evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis I mean that genetic change only occurs during this time. The only time you can view genetic change actually occurring is at that point, and it's very easy to observe and happens every time life reproduces sexually.

[PLAYER57832]

Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines.

Evolution can occur during several stages of development, including in the creation of gametes, embryonic development, etc.


Per the "E" versus "e". Usually a capitol letter indicates a proper name, in this case the theory of Evolution. It is broadly simply the change of species over time, but in specifics involves a lot more. It is a convention, but not universal.

That said, however you distinguish, there is a theory of Evolution and there is the fact of evolution, both.

[Annie M]

As someone new here I was quite disappointed to see some of the nonsense being posted in this thread. I'm so glad I skipped to the end and saw the excellent posts from Player57832, Captain Crazy and Owheelj - there is intelligent life here after all!

[owheelj]

I've never seen that convention before.

Regarding evolution during the creation of gametes and embryonic development; I am unsure how this could occur. I don't really understand what you mean by "evolution" in this context. Are you saying that a sperm and egg combine creating replicating cells that all have the same DNA but then that DNA changes as the embryo develops? I've never heard of that happening. Likewise are you saying that during the production of sperm, some of my sperm will have different DNA to the rest of me?

[StiffMittens]

I've never seen that convention before.

Regarding evolution during the creation of gametes and embryonic development; I am unsure how this could occur. I don't really understand what you mean by "evolution" in this context. Are you saying that a sperm and egg combine creating replicating cells that all have the same DNA but then that DNA changes as the embryo develops? I've never heard of that happening. Likewise are you saying that during the production of sperm, some of my sperm will have different DNA to the rest of me?

Even if that were to happen, or for that matter any change in an individual organism, wouldn't that be classified as a mutation? Isn't evolution a process that affects a species rather than individual members of a species? (I'm speaking of the specific phenomenon which the theory of Evolution describes. A process of change in an individual can also be described as evolution - as in the evolution of one's artistic aesthetic).

[owheelj]

Well we're kind of using the wrong terms here, which makes it a little difficult to understand, but let me have a go

"Evolution," with or without a capital E is a rather broad term that really refers to things changing over time. We have observed that this happens and we have some good explanations for why (both generally, ie. natural selection, and specifically - ie. the evolution of dry ear wax in humans). Evolution generally happens like this. The genetic material of life forms is passed on to its offspring, however it's not identical to it's parents - both because in most cases they combine half their genetic material giving the child a mix from each parent, but also because the copying of long chains of complex molecules (which is essentially where genetic information is stored) is not perfect. Creationists sometimes claim that mutations only take away information, but can't add to it, but this obviously rubbish because in these long molecules it is the order, placement and type of atom in the chain that essentially is the stored information. Mutations aren't atoms taken out of the chain, they are just atoms moved around or different atoms in the chain - there is essentially the same amount of information, it's just different (usually).

So the change that we see over time is essentially as a result of children being different to their parents. Neither the parents nor the children's genetic material will change after they're born, but their children with have different genetic material than they do, and so on.

A child having different genetic material than its parents can't really be seen as "evolution" as I just described it, but it's the change that continues to occur each generation over time, which combined with selection pressure drives evolution.

As I said in my post, I don't know about genetic change in gametes or in developing embryos and I'm not sure if Player57832 and I are talking about the same things. "Evolution" is not exactly the right term to be applying to those kinds of situations. Mutation is also a poor term to use, as it's also rather general. If those changes occur as I asked then you could certainly vaguely describe them as both mutation and evolution, just as you could say that the new genes found in offspring (that aren't found in their parents) are mutations, and that these are part of the process of evolution. However most mutations that we see in life are not genetic, but a result of a disruption to the development of the life - ie. a bacterial infection in an embryo can cause it to become deformed - and that's what we'd typically call a mutation, even though it has nothing to do with the genes of the mutated life form.

Hmm. I hope this makes sense and is understandable. I tried my best anyway

[neanderpaul14]

Logic dictates that organized religions as a whole were started by con men, huxsters, "snake-oil salesmen", and what have you, who were too lazy to work for a living and decided to take advantage of their gullible, yet hard working, neighbors. The ideas, and audacity, of these early flim-flam men was pure genius. They decided to take advantage of the oldest and biggest fear of mankind: death. The selling of this "after-life insurance" to the unsuspecting masses was absolute brilliance, it required no product, no proof, and in no way could it be verified or disproved. "If you give me 10% of your income you will live happily ever after". Absolute, sheer, and utter brilliance, and the gullible masses still eat this load up just like a herd of sheep happily grazing in a clover field.

[jay_a2j]

Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines.

Evolution can occur during several stages of development, including in the creation of gametes, embryonic development, etc.


Per the "E" versus "e". Usually a capitol letter indicates a proper name, in this case the theory of Evolution. It is broadly simply the change of species over time, but in specifics involves a lot more. It is a convention, but not universal.

That said, however you distinguish, there is a theory of Evolution and there is the fact of evolution, both.

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation. How many people do you know that teach a flat Earth? Hmmm I wonder why they don't? Aaah that's right! They have proof that it is round!


It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

[owheelj]

I don't think that's the case. I think the vast majority of religious people and the people who started religions actually believed all their teachings. Most religions we see today have evolved from previous religions for tens of thousands of years. Religious belief appears to be at the very least as old as understandable surviving communication, and is presumably a lot older than that. Religion was probably born with our ability to think and if you think about the world at that time, while they didn't have any evidence to believe in their religion, it's certainly understandable. There's heaps of really interesting work that's been done on the evolution of religion - Scott Atran, Jon Haidt, Marc Hauser, Lewis Wolpert, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett etc. all have good stuff out there about this. Even though I'm an atheist I still find it fascinating.

[Iliad]

Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines.

Evolution can occur during several stages of development, including in the creation of gametes, embryonic development, etc.


Per the "E" versus "e". Usually a capitol letter indicates a proper name, in this case the theory of Evolution. It is broadly simply the change of species over time, but in specifics involves a lot more. It is a convention, but not universal.

That said, however you distinguish, there is a theory of Evolution and there is the fact of evolution, both.

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation. How many people do you know that teach a flat Earth? Hmmm I wonder why they don't? Aaah that's right! They have proof that it is round!


It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

It is a fact. Show me where besides the Bible belt people teach creationism?

Evolution has long been proven. It caused a stir back in Darwin's day, some religious folk are still causing a stir about it. The rest of the world has accepted it and moved on.

[owheelj]

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation. How many people do you know that teach a flat Earth? Hmmm I wonder why they don't? Aaah that's right! They have proof that it is round!


It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

Evolution is definitely a fact. Go read those Nature articles I posted and tell me another explanation for how scientists could put populations of the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

This is just one of many examples where we've actually observed evolution occurring. Because I study science and not maths, I'm not sure what the word "prove" means, since we don't use it, but it's hard to think of more conclusive possible evidence for evolution occurring than seeing evolution occur.

[neanderpaul14]

It's one thing to believe in evolution. If you do, good for you. But I can't stand when people say it is a fact. It is not a fact! If it was you could show me proof of it and this conversation would end. But the FACT is, you CAN'T prove evolution any more than I can "prove" God.

Gee and back in the 1500s when scientists began to prove that the Earth is not the center of the universe crazy ass bible thumpers like you roasted them alive for their efforts.

[jay_a2j]

Go read those Nature articles I posted and tell me another explanation for how scientists could put populations of the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

Could we stick to one subject? Are we talking evolution or adaptation?

[Timminz]

If evolution was a fact then they would most certainly stop teaching creation.

The Christian creation myth is taught alongside other creation myths, in religious studies classes. Evolution is taught alongside other leading scientific theories, in biology classes. At least, that's how it works when logic dictates what is taught in which subjects. When religious zealots dictate what schools teach, all sorts of crazy shit gets passed off as science.

[owheelj]

Go read those Nature articles I posted and tell me another explanation for how scientists could put populations of the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

Could we stick to one subject? Are we talking evolution or adaptation?

We're talking about evolution. Lizards being different lengths in different isolated populations that started from the same population is clearly a trait based on genetics, not environment. Adaptation would be a non genetic change in behaviour as a result of different conditions which would occur with in a generation, not a difference between generations.

[captain.crazy]

I'm not aware that "Evolution" and "evolution" are different things. Certainly as a biology student I don't recall any lecture or text book ever making such a distinction.

Yes things change over time - this is an observed fact. Indeed they change every generation. This is an observed fact. S

no one has actually observed something evolve right in front of their eyes.

I'm not sure what you mean. You do understand that single individuals don't evolve right? Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines. The evolution is the fact that the child never has the exact same DNA as its parents. We've certainly observed this to be the case.

I know that. KLOBBER's point was that no one has ever observed evolution, therefore it does not exist.

[KLOBBER]

I'm not aware that "Evolution" and "evolution" are different things. Certainly as a biology student I don't recall any lecture or text book ever making such a distinction.

Yes things change over time - this is an observed fact. Indeed they change every generation. This is an observed fact. S

no one has actually observed something evolve right in front of their eyes.

I'm not sure what you mean. You do understand that single individuals don't evolve right? Evolution essentially only occurs during meiosis - ie. in the period of time where the DNA from the parents of a life form combines. The evolution is the fact that the child never has the exact same DNA as its parents. We've certainly observed this to be the case.

I know that. KLOBBER's point was that no one has ever observed evolution, therefore it does not exist.

That is your point.

[KLOBBER]

...when scientists began to prove that the Earth is the center of the universe....

You believe that the Earth is the center of the universe? Now THAT is bizarre!

[KLOBBER]

...the same species of lizard on different islands and then over time each population could change in traits such as body length so that after a decade the populations are noticeably different that doesn't involve evolution occurring.

First of all, evolution is an unproven theory, and has never been observed. It is not a "fact."

Are you trying to pull the crap that a long lizard is necessarily a different species from a shorter one? Body length alone is not a criterion for species determination. My father is also slightly taller than me. Does this make him, in your strange belief system, a different species?

If so, then your belief system is embarrassingly unscientific.

Just to be clear: the lizards you referred to are still the same species, no matter their body lengths, and our fathers are also the same species as we are, no matter any differences in our body lengths.