[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
This characterization shows your general ignorance of Southeast Asian religion, which is very big on washing in general.
:Ahem:
[/QUOTE]
Southeast Asians wrote the Bible? I did not know that.
[QUOTE=shiftless]
How about this: You all only exist in my own feverish imagination. There was no evolution or creation other than the question of where my imagination started and I’m not interested in that topic. When I leave a (chat) room everyone there ceases to exist. So far I find this world amusing.
[/QUOTE]
So, while I can blame you for all the ills of the world, any response by you in your defense would be useless because you would only be arguing with yourself.
Sounds fair to me. 
[QUOTE=interface2x]
Then people are generally wrong. Evolution is not about the beginning of life, it’s about the shifting of already existing life over time. While there may be some debate over macroevolution, microevolution has been repeatedly observed. One could also make the argument that multiple instances of microevolution comprise a single instance of macroevolution, provided there are enough changes to make the original animal different enough from the final product.
The “theory” of evolution isn’t a question of whether it happened or not. We know it happened, we can see it happening now. The “theory” is why it happened.
[/QUOTE]
I thought the why was natural selection. If the beginning of life on the planet is not part of evolution then what is it called separate from evolution?
If I don’t know about evolution then tell me about the evolution of plants, how did plants begin and become what they are now?
Tell me about the evolution of consciousness, how did things get more intelligent if they did get more intelligent?
Most of the beginnings are not knowable, only theories, opinions and such can be thought about them which is a waste of time. Why worry about it. There can never be a solution to any debate about the beginning of man, plants, consciousness, universe, etc. Such debates are useless.
And if you are telling me evolution only means animals growing larger or faster, pray tell why would there be a debate about something so obvious.
Define the whole of evolution, in common terms.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I thought the why was natural selection. If the beginning of life on the planet is not part of evolution then what is it called separate from evolution?
[/quote]
Abiogenesis.
You must learn to tell the difference between things that are unknowable, and things that you personally do not know.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I thought the why was natural selection. If the beginning of life on the planet is not part of evolution then what is it called separate from evolution?
If I don’t know about evolution then tell me about the evolution of plants, how did plants begin and become what they are now?
Tell me about the evolution of consciousness, how did things get more intelligent if they did get more intelligent?
Most of the beginnings are not knowable, only theories, opinions and such can be thought about them which is a waste of time. Why worry about it. There can never be a solution to any debate about the beginning of man, plants, consciousness, universe, etc. Such debates are useless.
And if you are telling me evolution only means animals growing larger or faster, pray tell why would there be a debate about something so obvious.
Define the whole of evolution, in common terms.
[/QUOTE]
Where to start? Could you please tell us what basic natural science courses you’ve taken in school, so we know what you don’t know?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Where to start? Could you please tell us what basic natural science courses you’ve taken in school, so we know what you don’t know?
[/QUOTE]
Just give a common language definition of evolution, a short one. So I can figure out what the controvery between science and religion is all about.
I don’t think religion would object to a simple “animals change” type evolution.
Show me where the primordial soup comes in and just assume I know nothing about science.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Show me where the primordial soup comes in and just assume I know nothing about science.
[/QUOTE]
Would someone else who can keep a straight face please handle this one?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I know that no one present today observed the beginning of the universe or mankind, so no one can offer the truth of what happened.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe in the existence of George Washington? After all, no one present today observed him. We have a lot of physical evidence that suggests that Washington probably existed, but no proof.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Just give a common language definition of evolution, a short one. So I can figure out what the controvery between science and religion is all about.
I don’t think religion would object to a simple “animals change” type evolution.
Show me where the primordial soup comes in and just assume I know nothing about science.
[/QUOTE]
There isn’t a controversy, only uneducated people or the utterly brainwashed don’t believe in evolution. It’s like not believing in chemistry.
Here’s my layperson description of evolution:
Wee little self replicating molecules vie with other ones for limited resources (the bits they need to self replicate). Every once in awhile one gets mutated, either by a cosmic ray, random replication errors or Jesus poking it with his oh so holy member, I dunno. Most of the mutations are bad, and don’t lead to advantages, like thalidomide flipper babies or spina bifida. Some very few mutations are good. that is to say the change makes the little guy more able to get food than the teeming masses around him. The self replicating molecule with the good mutation is more likely to live and pass on his mutation than the other un-mutated molecules around him. Eventually the new mutation becomes the norm because the old school molecules can’t keep up.
Keep this up for a few billion years and you have a species of hairless ape listening to ipods and fighting ignorance on message boards.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Just give a common language definition of evolution … .
[/QUOTE]
Evolution is the idea that living creatures change over time. Two hundred million years ago elephants didn’t exist. Now there are elephants. That’s evolution.
The theory of natural selection explains evolution. It states that an animal’s genes influence its chances of survivial and that random changes occur in those genes from time to time. When a random change is favorable to survival it tends to stick around through multiple generations. When a random change is unfavorable it doesn’t. Over thousands of generations these changes pile up and one type of animal slowly morphs into a different type.
[QUOTE=zeno]
Im not interested in a debate, I was wondering if there was a “third way”. Guess i should have posted in General.
[/QUOTE]
Many years ago, the term “devolution” was bandied about in a few circles suggesting that creation was more perfect and that species evolve negatively into extinction.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Southeast Asians wrote the Bible? I did not know that.
[/QUOTE]
No, I guess the Bible writers would technically be NW Asians. But it seems to me the Jews were very big on washing. Book of Leviticus- this makes you unclean, you need to wash; that makes you unclean, you need to wash, repeat as necessary.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
What you are talking about is not the gist of evolution. We all know that what you say happens. When people talk about evolution they generally mean one animal turning into another or the alleged beginning of life. Now all of this may be at least somewhat true, but there is no fossil evidence of one animal becoming another, etc. Evolution is a theory and so is the Big Bang, no one will ever know where the first matter came from and why, or with religious people where God came from. These will remain the great mysteries of our existence.
[/quote]
What fossil evidence would you expect to see of one animal turning into another? What do you think this term means? What do you think evolution says about this? I trust you don’t think a dog turns into a cat or that there is an abrupt leap from one species to another, different, species.
No one should have faith in evolution. We don’t need to have faith, since the evidence is there. Those who talk about “the religion of science” are usually those people who fervently believe in some religion and have no idea what science is about.
Considering how well science works, you have to believe that it has some passing acquaintance with the truth - or at least an approximation to the truth which is all that science claims to have. I assure you that theories are still theories. I’m not sure you know what a theory means, which might be part of your problem. I haven’t noticed any change since I was in college almost 40 years ago. Any evidence of one?
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
No, I guess the Bible writers would technically be NW Asians. But it seems to me the Jews were very big on washing. Book of Leviticus- this makes you unclean, you need to wash; that makes you unclean, you need to wash, repeat as necessary.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because we were getting ready to become doctors, even way back then.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
Many years ago, the term “devolution” was bandied about in a few circles suggesting that creation was more perfect and that species evolve negatively into extinction.
[/QUOTE]
Now every man, woman, child and mutant can know THE TRUTH ABOUT DE-EVOLUTION!
Oh Dad, we’re all Devo!
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Just give a common language definition of evolution, a short one.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t think religion would object to a simple “animals change” type evolution.
[/quote]
Curiously, the Young-Earth Creationists (as distinct from the ID theorists) do object to it, because the book of Genesis says God made every species, separately, in the same week; speciation through macroevolution is not allowed for.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Show me where the primordial soup comes in and just assume I know nothing about science.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t. The “primordial soup” is by definition something that was there before life or evolution began. See abiogenesis.
[QUOTE=zeno]
I have been talking to a lot of people lately who take an ‘agnostic’ view of the debate, ie they take stock in neither creationism nor evolution.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose laziness and apathy could be regarded as “agnosticism”, though that demeans religious agnostics of whom I am a card-carrying member.
The “who knows, things are unknowable and anything is possible” crowd also can be best characterized as lazy.
The third possibility is sheer intellectual trollery.
Come to think of it, there’s a fourth possibility as well - that the answers are known but They don’t want us to know. :eek:
[QUOTE=Grumman]
Abiogenesis.
You must learn to tell the difference between things that are unknowable, and things that you personally do not know.
[/QUOTE]
Amen.
Bless you, brother Grumman.
I don’t know why it astonishes me so much to read stuff like lekatt’s post on SDMB, but it does astonish me. I thought - and I guess it was a stupid thought - that anyone who could find their way here had a certain amount of, oh, I don’t know, understanding? Education?
Oh, well. These little arguments always interesting, in a bang-your-head-against-a-brick-wall sort of way.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
When people talk about evolution they generally mean one animal turning into another or the alleged beginning of life.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that’s what people who don’t understand evolution generally mean. Animals don’t turn into other animals.
And plants evolve, too, ya know. As does every other group of organisms.
And the beginning of life is only “alleged” if one accepts a steady-state model in which life has always existed. There is no “alleged” if it did begin, regardless how it began.
How can one claim ignorance of a subject if the information requested has been offered on a silver platter dozens of times over the years?