₦airaland Forum

damygurl:
well after reading everything i got more confused what exactly does evolution mean?

I can understand that you get confused. Creationists like to make the concepts as blurry as possible so that they can attack their strawman of evolution more easily.

Evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. It is a fact that in the past there were countless life forms that are no longer here. It is a fact that these lifeforms differed depending on the time they lived on our planet.
The theory of evolution offfers a scientific explanation for that fact. It explains that all current life forms originated from a common ancestor and diverged and evolved over time. The processes that caused these changes are:
[list]
[li]natural selection[/li]
[li]sexual selection[/li]
[li]gene drift[/li]
[/list]
All these processes work from the natural genetic variations witin the populations that stem from sexual recombination, mutations and DNA copying errors.
If you want a very good introduction to the Theory of evolution, go and visit http://web.archive.org/web/20011201194909/www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/evolution-for-beginners.html
after you have gone through this and you still want to know more, you can visit http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

layi:
Also go through this link http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html by astrologers
You'll learn about the projected life of the sun and how it'll end.

I gotta be careful how i post now. I might use just links and lil texts from now on

Indeed, you do have to be careful, as that information is probably made up by astronomers, not astrologers

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg198465#msg198465 date=1139266575]I'm seeing this again - and a good one. Some who say that God does not exist will do well to note that "It is impossible to "prove" the non-existence of ...God... in it's broadest terms."

4g_m.[/quote]Yes, and it's equally impossible to prove that God does exist in whichever terms you may choose

Can we get back to the debate?

layi, do you have other material that you think falsifies the Theory of evolution? Do you have any counter-refutations to my arguments?
If not, maybe you can explain the Theory of Creationism you adhere to, so that we can investigate it's merits and see whether or not it fits the evidence better.

oladeoye:
Oh no!

I have enjoyed this thread up until now. While not supporting any party creationsim or Evolution..i have to mention that Nferyn latest style in uncalled for. You sound too intelligent to bring in the debating style used by partisan politicians - Trying to fault your opponent debating style or oratory skills rather than treating the issue at hand is a sign of weakness on your part.

If that was the only thing I did, I would agree, but I have refuted [b]all [/b]of layi's objections against Evolutionary theory up to this point and he has yet to answer to the bulk of mine.

oladeoye:
There is no plagiarism in Layi's first post.

Actually, there was. Unintentionally by layi's admission, as he did not want to hide his sources, but still, tecnically it was plagiarism.

oladeoye:
Like he said He couldnt find better words to replace such statements. If he had added links,it wont change a thing.

If I cannot find any better words, I do use quotations to the relevant sources. It does not change the information, but it shows where tho origin of the ideas lies. This is extremely important in any intellectual debate. A scientific paper also always includes the source material it is based on, as it allows the reviewer to properly weigh the arguments on their merit and see where the auther brought novel ideas and where he is rehashing other people's arguments.
You may not be aware of this practice of quotations and citations in the scientific literature, but this is the way it is done.

oladeoye:
It would still have been HIS CASE.

It would have made clear what were his ideas and what were the ideas from others.

oladeoye:
Its irrelevant bringing in such accusation at this point. Its just too trivial an issue.

Actually it is not. I consider the debating ground here to be just as meticulous and methodical as in a scientific debate. Maybe I should lower my standards.

oladeoye:
Whether they be hispoints or someelse's is ofnouse. Thefact thathe has been able to raise pointsover pointsin repose to your debate is enough to know he knows what he's doing. I'm totally against such accusations.

Actually, he hasn't. Can you point out a refutation of my arguments that I have not been able to counter?

oladeoye:
Some else's thought automatically becomes yours if u agree with it.

That would obviously mean that you do not investigate the arguments on their merits. Your agreement needs to be based on something.

oladeoye:
I am not a creationist or evolutionist. I am not adept in the study of both but you have both brought up interesting points that makes me give a second look to both creationism and evolution.

Please do so, Sir. It is a fascinating subject

oladeoye:
Perhaps they both wont answer to Life most pertinent question. Origin.

Evolutionary Theory does not claim to answer questions of origin. Creationism does, without evidence, though.

oladeoye:
I still believe Layi's side the more. So many things inLife are caused. They don't occur by chance. Intelligent design seem more credible. If the earth and universe is eternal then whyis it deteriorating? It sure has a beginning.

I urge you to investigate Evolutionary Theory in more detail. Don't settle for arguments from personal incredulity, but study to see whether or not evolutionary theory answers your questions. Do know though that Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. There needs to be no contradiction between a belief in God and acceptance of Evolutionary Theory.
Please read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

layi:
Good we have obviously veered of course. Seems we wont be able to keep such sensitive matters like this flowing without touching some strings. Since my debating style seems dishonest to you when in actual fact it is not, no need countering or continuing. I agree Evolution theory is flawless.

I have no problem as long as you give sources for your ideas, especially when you present them as your own. As you now made clear that you did not [b]intentionally [/b]hid the origin of your statements, I retract my view that your debating style was dishonest.

Anyway, can we get back to the debate or do you truly believe that Evolution theory is flawless (I certainly don't)

from http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm

WHAT IS PLAGIARISM?

Plagiarism means using another's work without giving credit. You must put others' words in quotation marks and cite your source(s) and must give citations when using others' ideas, even if those ideas are paraphrased in your own words.

I like to know where the ideas are coming from, so that I can evaluate their merit. Paraphrasing would just have hid their origin. If the ideas are not your own, giving the sources is the courteous thing to do, both to the author of the sources and your debating opponent.

layi, I do believe that you did not intentionally make this slip, so I will no longer fault you for it.

I hope this settles the point.

Layi, why couldn't you just have indicated that you just copied and pasted the arguments from another site without editing them or using other words.

An example:
from http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/index.htm

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

from your case:

If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?

Edited: reason: misreading of words last post layi

layi:
If i had gotten those question froma book offline and pasted themhere. Would that have made me honest?
Did your own points arrive from thing air?

No, they come from my vivid interest in evolution, which makes me, as a non-specialist, read up on the subject whenever I have the chance. I have sufficient knowledge about the subject to construct my own arguments and only quote others when I think that a more reputable source is required or when the argument is much better constructed than I could have done myself.

layi:
Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased them?

It would have been better if you referenced the source. I generally do not paraphrase other people's arguments, but construct my own. That's why it usually takes me a little longer to reply to your posts. The links are there for further clarification (I could also reference to my personal library, but that would take even longer).

layi:
The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir.

Does that justify plagiarism?

layi:
"Its dishonest to tell me that you know smoking is bad when in actual fact you only read is somewhere else"

What do you mean with this statement?

layi:
Thats a bad debating style. Leaving out the pointin discourse to attack the person. In this case,you loose because there is nothing dishonest here. If i amto argue elsewhere,i would still bring those points. it doesnt make them less my points.

I don't attack the person. I appreciate you too much as a person to do that. What I do attack is the debating style. Make sure that if the arguments are not yours, you properly indicate where they come from

layi:
Did your own points arrive from thing air? Would it have made a diference if i had paraphrased it. The fact that those points made me rethink on evolution makes it My Case as well. Its English language Sir. Evrything u wrote on this thread, U read somewhere else. Paraphrasing makes no difference.

What you call paraphrasing, I call copying and pasting without mentioning the source. In technical terms, it is called plagiarism. Not that I think your source would mind you using their material like that, after all, you are defending the same case they make.

My postings have been different in the sense that I use my own words and reason from the knowledge I acquired. I do not blindly copy other people's reasoning without explicitely mentioning the source. Also, the way you characterise Evolutionary Theory shows that you get your knowledge almost exclusively from creationist sources. You don't seem to bother to really study evolution, you rather study a strawman version of evolution, as only this strawman can be refuted, not the real thing.

layi:
You have killed this debate by coming up wit such approach. If i wasnt able to counter your points intelligibly, it would have been a different case.
Thanks

How have I killed the debate? I have just exposed the fact that you copied somebody elses case against evolution and not really presented your own case. I don't mind you defending somebody elses ideas, just be honest to admit that they are not coming from you.

And you have not refuted any of my points. I have refuted yours and refuted your counter refutations. Can he get back to the debate or don't you have any counter-counter refutations left?

Have you been able to trace him back to the downing of your VPS? Is it visible in you access logs and what type of atack did he use?

Anyway, if you're absolutely certain about his responsibility, I would suggest that everybody on the forum ignores him for starters

layi,

One more thing. If you present something as My case against evolution, you better make sure that it is [b]your [/b]case. It is not very honest to present it as your case when you mainly engage in copy-and-paste from another website:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/index.htm

layi:
We have specialist pathologists who are qualified pathologists with expertise in histopathology (tissues), cytology (cells), immunohistochemistry, immunoflowcytometry, molecular biology (which is relevant here) and post-mortem pathology.

And that makes your prof a credible source? The fact that you have expertise in molecular biology? How does that make them qualified in matters of evolutionary theory? Has he falsified one of the main pillars of evolutionary theory through his research work in pathology?

layi:
Firstly i accept the mistake of putting habilis in place of erectus (unknowingly). However it doesnt change the fact that Homo Sapiens evolved about 400,000 years ago.
Here is a quote from http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml
"Most anthropologist believe that between about 400000 & 300000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into a new species called Homo sapiens."

Ah exactly. A web page written in 1997 says that a source from 1996 says that most anthropologist (this should actually be paleo-anthropologists, but maybe the writer misquoted the source) between 400.000 and 300.000 years ago Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens. Since that time quite a few discoveries have been done that indicate that there are candidate intermediate species between Homo Erectus (who still lived up to 30.000 years ago). The most likely candidate is the species Homo Heidelbergensis of whom we have fossil evidence between 600.000 and 100.000 years ago.

Mind you, even within Homo Erectus fossil materials there are huge differences based on chronology and geographic location of the finds.

layi:
Also check www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html and
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/ant100/pdf/LaterHominidEvolution.pdf.

Thank you, but I'd rather use my more recent and accurate material. The new book by Carl Zimmer, The Smithsonian Intimate Guide to Human Origins, is an excellent summary of the most recent research on human evolution.

layi:
If Lactose tolerance and the Sickle cell trait is considered Evolution, then Resistance to malaria and other pathological disorders like Small Pox is Evolution as well. Biological adaptation has now been termed evolution instead of beign a factor.

I thought the sickle cell trait constitutes a level of resistance against malaria or am I wrong? Anyway, lactose tolerance is an evolved trait, as it manifests itself in the human DNA and only omong these people that historically consume considerable amounts of dairy products. As for resistance against specific viral and bacterial pathological disorders, these are fundamentally different as they are built up within the human immune system and does not manifest itself in human cellular DNA, but only in that of the B lymphocytes. I had this discussion one with our fiend nicetohave [/i]here on this board. I better link to the relevant entries for the details (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3833.msg137480.html#msg137480). Let me just repeat the conclusion here that our human[b] immune system[/b] is an excellent example of the principles of evolution in action.

layi:
I have evolved several times then.

You have not, but your immune system has undergone significant evolution

layi:
True Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth. Abiogenesis concerns itself wit the evolution of amino acids and proteins.
Here is a quote from http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html
"The foundation of evolution is abiogenesis, life spontaneously generated from nonlife. The superstructure placed upon that foundation is monogenesis, myriad spontaneously generated structures to produce every kind of simple life form then by countless spontaneous generations every kind of complex life form. The other “definitions” of evolution are change over time, common descent and natural selection".

The foundation of evolution as a fact is indeed abiogenesis, just as the foundation of human beings as a fact is energy contained in matter. Of that foundation, the most important building block is the manifestation of energy contained in matter in the form of water.
When you're talking about Evolution [i]as a scientific theory, abiogenesis is absolutely not a foundation of Evolution. It falls wholly outside the scope of evolutionary theory.
When you're referring to abiogenesis and using definitions or explanations either of abiogenesis or evolution, rather use material from scientists working in the respective fields than creationist pamphlets by people with no credentials either in biology or abiogenesis.

layi:
Seems you are outrightly dissociating evolution from abiogenesis. You may wish to check these out
www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

I'm dissociating it from the Theory of Evolution, yes, because once more, if falls outside it's scope. Evolutionary theory only deals with already existing replicators, not with the formation of replicators.

layi:
Just in case you don't know Abiogenesis is also known as the theory of pre-biological evolution or the theoryof spontaneous generation
http://www.ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/abiogenesis.htm

By creationists yes. Anyway, abiogenesis has not yet produced any meaningful results and there are currently only working hypothesis concerning it's possible functioning. It does not have anything yet approaching the status of theory. By putting God in the gap of how the first replicators were formed, you solve nothing though, as this explains nothing about any underlying processes. The principle of inscrutability at work - it is anti-intellectual.

layi:
In actual fact Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it you claim it does not have.

No it is not. Explain what you mean with baseless and why it is baseless?

layi:
A real auto mechanic knows how an engine works else servicing would be by trial and error.

Yes, but he does not know how it is designed and built and if he does know, he should change profession.

layi:
Awww I'm sorry But i didnt create those illogical events. Its an interpretation of my perceptions. The term logic could be a relative term. I only used illogical looking at it from your standpoint.

Logic does not depend on it's user. It can be just as well applied by theists. The main difference is that theists accept premisses within their logical system that are insrutable and block it from further investigation. Within that system, they can be perfectly logical.

layi:
To a theists a miracle is logical because there is a direct causal relationship between an invisble beign and the benefactor. And yes, its not a placebo effect. It is faith in action a.k.a creative faith. To the atheist, thats illogical and false.

It is not illogical to the atheist. It is false to the atheist, as the underlying premises are either inscrutable or self-contradictory within a rational epistemiological framework.

layi:
Faith is absolutely useful in Life. The issue should be advancing life not science. Science is only 1 of the tools in advancing life. Speculations and risks are a type of faith and they have been found to be useful.

I never have said that faith cannot have it's purpose or use. It is irrational and unscientific though and therefore not suitable for the study of the natural world.

layi:
Its the type of question any critical thinker would ask. You say natural selection is responsible for the continous evolution of the Homo Genus. Yet for about 1 millions years the apes we see have not evolved considerably. Most of the new ape species we have are could pass for hybrids

How exactly do you know that those apes (If you're talking about the non-hominid apes) have not evolved? It's not that there is a big chance of finding fossils in the natural habitat of those apes. A tropical climate and forrest habitat are not directly beneficial for the fossilisation of remains.

And even if they did not undergo much morphological evolution, once more you fail to see one of the main characteristics of evolutionary theory. Mutations only [/b]lead to [b]adaptations [/b]when there is a [b]selection pressure. If the habitat remains the same and the other species within that habitat remain the same or similar (as is the case for the other great apes) you will not see much morphological change. The habitat of the Coulacanth has not changed considerably for millions of years and thus as there was no selection pressure, the coulacanth did not go through a lot of morphological change.

layi:
I am also reasonable enough not to treat theory explaining origin as trivial as theories explaining the present - everyday occurence (e.g gravity et all). Einstein's Theory of Relativity is beign used to supplant the Theory of gravity for more advanced work in gravitation. The ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question just like the force behind evolution.

You should really explain what you mean by ultimate cause and by origin. These terms are rather blurry and vague without context.

layi:
this makes both qualify as theories but the difference is this: a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity to an infallible conclusion

Meaning?

layi:
but a major tool used by evolution to arrive at their conclusion-Radiometric Dating has been faulted by geochronologists.

Really? What exactly do you mean by being faulted, as your link only talks about the fact that one of the radiometric dating methods (Radio-Carbon dating) cannot be used for specific age ranges. Therefore radio carbon dating is hardly ever used in the dating of fossils.

layi:
They claim that the error range in radiometric (radio-carbon) dating increases drastically once you pass 50,000 years due to contamination and some other biological factors.

No, that's because the remaining unstable carbon isotopes are too few to properly determine an exact date. Contamination can be determined through other methods.

layi:
Moreover radiometric ages do not agree with each other.

Obviously not, as the isotopes they look at have different half lives and the margin of error of the different methods is different. Could you be more specific about what you mean here, because maybe we're talking about different things.

layi:
That may not sound too problematic but if conclusions were made on those errors, i'm reasonable enough to know that a second look at the facts is needed.
See this: http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/radiometric_dating.htm

No self respecting scientist is going to make conclusions based on only one line of evidence. Could you give and example of where those errors have been used, and, if they would somehow still be used, how that falsifies evolution?

From http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/4180_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

It is rare for a study involving radiometric dating to contain a single determination of age. Usually determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, or are evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages. Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others. As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment.

layi:
Seun, There is another belief system held to be as true and is probably more widespread than the belief in Darwin's theory of Evolution; that is belief in Astrology. This theory parallels belief in evolution in the respect that it is persistent, without an explainable mechanism, and tautologous in the sense that predictions of behavior of an individual can be made based solely on time of birth, but seemingly cannot be made without this information.
Darwin's theory on the other hand, explains the reasons for characteristics of organisms after knowing whether or not they are survivors. The similarities between the two theories are just so striking. You should have placed them together instead of bringin in gravity

Now evolution has been promoted to a belief system. Nice to know. Actually, it is no belief system at all. It is:
1. A fact: evolution happened
2. A scientific theory explaining the mechanisms underlying that fact

How exactly does astrology qualify as a scientific theory? I would be very interested to know how you can come to that conclusion.
Anyway, once more you have your own, peculiar way of characterising the Theory of Evolution. Or maybe, using the same method of reasoning, you're going to characterise me as a murderous villain, based on the similarities between me and a murderer. After all, we both eat food and have to go to the bathroom every now and then

layi:
A pathologist is a biologist. Infact a "higher" biologist and he deals more with microbiology (supposed antecedents of macrobiology).

I was under the impression that a pathologist was a medical doctor.
Biology-online.org defines a pathologist as A doctor [/b]who specialises in identifying diseases by studying cells and tissues under a microscope. (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/pathologist)
Medicine is an applied science. It relates to biology the same way engineering relates to physics and chemistry.

layi:
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=6208.msg195493#msg195493 date=1139039097]Could you explain the context in which he made that statement, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.

Thats inconsequential, its a statement with a vivid meaning that can't change for the opposite with context[/quote]Let me reiterate the statement here:
I want all of you to understand that evolution is [b]just a theory and hasn't been proven yet, but in this class, we will be referring to hard and fast scientific evidence that makes it a believable and widely accepted idea of creation and how life arose.
He says that:
[list]
[li]It's just a theory - nobody with a proper understanding of the meaning of a scientific theory would make such a statement unless he's got a hidden agenda[/li]
[li]it hasn't been proven yet - nobody with a proper understanding of the meaning of a scientific theory would ever use the term proven in this context, unless he's got a hidden agenda[/li]
[li]creation - the mere mention of creation in the context of the Theory of Evolution means that he assumes creation is part of the mix of life. This is indeed completely inconsequential in this context and show an ulterior motive[/li]
[li]how life arose - is not part of the Theory of Evolution and - again - either shows a lack of understanding or a hidden agenda[/li]
[/list]
Context is [b]definitely [/b]needed to understand whether or not he understands the Theory of Evolution or has an ulterior motive

layi:
Then what does evolution explain? Evolution explains the origin of Life through abiogenesis. I am surprised at your statement (except u've got your own version of evolution).
The explanation of the origin of life offered by evolution theory is roughly this: Once upon a time, there was no life. Purely by chance, there came to be simple organisms capable of reproducing themselves. Random mutations introduced variety into the population of these organisms, with the result that some of them were better suited for competition than others. A scarcity of the natural resources necessary for these organisms to survive introduced competition for those resources. Those least fit for competition were unable to secure the resources that they needed to survive, and died without reproducing. Those best able to compete multiplied, with random mutations again introducing further variety. As this process was repeated, the organisms developed on an upward curve: each round of mutations introduced better organisms, and each round of competition killed off the weaker organisms. We are the result of the repetition of this process over millions of years.

See these links for more info :
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/lifeorigin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Once more you are putting up a strawman. You are mixing up the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis. The Theory of evolution only [/b]deals with how [b]already existing life evolves from a common ancestor to the diversity of life we see today.
As you mentioned in you other post, Abiogenesis isn't even close to finding out how life arose on this planet, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the Theory of Evolution. You can believe that the first replicators came into existence through a special act of creation for all I care. At this moment in time, science just doesn't know

layi:
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=6208.msg195493#msg195493 date=1139039097]I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

Beign a prof in the field of biology, i know he's definitely got more experience than you- a communication scientist.[/quote]Obviously, layi, but I am not debating him, am I? I am debating you.
If you use that prof as a source, I am in my full right to ask what exactly his credentials are in the field we're discussing. My sources all have have ample experience as researchers in biology and are considered experts in their field (biology) by their peers. What about your sources? Pardon me my blunt way of putting this, but - to make a fair comparison - if I really want to understand how an engine works, I am going to ask the engineer who designed it, not the auto-mechanic who services it.

layi:
Evolution theory is merely an interpretation of facts. Creationism also does the same. Its just an alternative interpretation of those facts. There are evidences supporting creationism which We'll delve into that later.

The theory of Evolution is not merely and interpretation of the facts. It is a coherent framework, that not only interprets the facts (the fact of evolution int his case), but , as a scientific theory, it also is:
• Consistent (internally and externally)
• Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
• Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
• Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
• Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
• Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
• Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Now, on what counts exactly can creationism be considered a scientific theory?

layi:
In actual fact, if there are 2 sides of a coin, and 1 side is not it. U don't need evidence or proof to tell you its definitely the other side.

Do you honestly consider creationism as another side of the coin and obviously of the only coin in existence? Which creationism then are you talking about? The Yoruba creation myths, perhaps? Or maybe it's intelligent design by the flying spaghetti monster? You do have a funny way of finding the truth by ellimination

layi:
Evolution is also a religion ..though with no god. You are guilty as well. You can't think out of the box called "logic". I have seen several things in life that are illogical (not abnormal)

If you are pondering over the functioning of the natural world, logic and evidence is indeed the material you work with. Faith is not really useful when trying to advance science. And to be honest, the fact that you do not find a logical explanation for a phenomenon, does not mean that none exists. This type of argument from personal incredulity is not befitting you, layi.

layi:
So without "chance" the evolutionary process can't work. What are we saying then?

Sigh.... Indeed, without chance , evolutionary processes cannot work. Without chance nothing whatsoever can work. Ever heard of Quantum Mechanics?

layi:
Evolution does not deal with origin of universe and origin of life? Then what does it deal with. Origin of what? What explains your obsession for www.talkorigins.org .You've referred me there a thousand times and all they talk there is origin. Am i missing something?

You obviously have not read the talkorigins archives ab extenso if you think that all they talk about is origin. You are definitely missing something. You are missing an opportunity to increase your knowledge and understanding of evolutionary processes. Something that is definitely needed if you want to discuss it.

layi:
Man could have a relatively longer generational span, but we have had over 20,000 generations since homo sapiens evolved acoording to evolutionist. Is that not enough to observe evolution in man? Afterall the present man evolved from Homo Habilis *according to Evolutionists* over 400,000yrs ago. It takes roughly 300,000 - 500,000 years for species in the HOMO genus to evolve into the next and the transition phase gets considerably shorter down the *tree*. We should have observed evolution in modern man - Homo Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Sapiens).

Which evolutionist claimed that Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Habilis over 400.000 years ago? Which evolutionist claimed that over 20.000 generations passed since Homo Sapiens evolved? Or are these once again part of your Strawman of Evolution? Could you be so kind to give the sources for these ridiculous claims? I won't comment on your other remarks because they are just as much off the mark

And, by the way, we have observed evoluton in Homo Sapiens Sapiens ([i]evolutionist [/i]now use the term Homo Sapiens without the added Sapiens, as Homo Neanderthalensis is no longer considered to be Homo Sapiens). Lactose tolerance has evolved in some groups of herders and the Sickle cell trait has evolved in African populations after the start of agriculture. Obviously this relatively minor kind of evolution has not lead to speciation and will not lead to speciation as humans are no longer reproductively isolated for long enough periods to make that possible.

layi:
Its a clever question sir. If Natural selection is responisble for the evolution of man and apes from the same ancestors, then they shouldnt be living under the same enviroment/natural habitat. The 'forest' is inconsequential afterall ther are trees and gardens in the cities. The point here is the region. Chimpazees and Man both live in tropical region. Morphological similarity does not indubitably explain a relationship.

Hominids are unlikely to have moved back into a tropical rainforrest habitat before enough adaptations had accumulated to allow them to survive in that habitat. Regions have nothing to do with evolution at all. Changing habitats provide selection pressure, not climatological regions. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your remark on morphological similarity.

layi:
Scientists have identified the skeletal structures of Homo sapiens in different parts of the world. The main conroversy centers around the question of whether Homo sapiens evolved from a single population in Africa or simultaneously in different parts of the world. Some evidence (molecular genetics) supports the "Out of Africa"model, other evidence (morphology) supports the "Multiregional Evolution"model.

See http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

You are referring to Homo Sapiens, I was talking about Hominids is general, thus including older hominid species (more precisely the australopethicae). These species did not move out of Africa at all. We had to wait untill the Homo Erectus before we find evidence of hominids outside of Africa. You are answering to a point I never made.

layi:
Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.
This, though, doesn’t seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won’t just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won’t have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can’t have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn’t evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Can you properly define irreducibly complex and give specific examples of what exactly is irreducibly complex, so that I can properly refute your argument? And please don't come with any of the Behe arguments. These are far too easy to refute and pose no challenge whatsoever.

Maybe you can throw in some specified complexity as well. With a bit of luck, you will have brought all the fellows of the Discovery Institute in the picture and then we could have a chat about the Wedge document as well.

layi:
Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.

See above

layi:
I'm strongly aversed to evolution as the source of human life. Before i start dissecting some points raised in posts above...i'll want the pro-evolutionists to answer Icon's question first.
[quote author=Icon link=topic=6208.msg195766#msg195766 date=1139051058]Alright, just a quick one for the pro-evolutionists.
If Humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

[/quote]Well, as it's your thread I will grant you the courtesy of answering that question.

Humans and other apes share a common ancestor they don't evolve into each other. This once again shows how badly you people understand evolution, but I think you do not have a willingness to learn anyway.
It's actually as stupid a question as you can possibly ask. It's akin to saying[i] "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"[/i]

Anyway, I guess the source of this question is a misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. Natural selection does not postulate that because a population evolves into another species because of increased fitness, that the original species dies out. Natural selection is a process that works from:
1. genetic variation within a host species
2. evolutionary pressure coming from a specific environment (ecology)
Selection is a function of positive fitness changes caused by genetic variability within a specific [/b]environment. [b]Different environments cause different kinds of adaptations

Hominids evolved from other apes when the climate in Africa changed. The atmospheric CO2 (greenhouse gas) decreased during the ice ages and it became significantly cooler and dryer. The lush tropical forests retreated to a band closer to the equator and the natural environment of the common ancestor between Chimpansees and Humans changed. It found itself in two different climates with two different evolutionary pressures. One was the tropical forest (where the chimpansee now resides) and the other the savanna (where our Hominid ancestors lived). The two populations became reproductively isolated and evolved in different directions: one leading to humans and the other leading to the common chimp and the bonobo.

layi:
[quote author=demmy link=topic=6208.msg194621#msg194621 date=1138984736]Evolution as a THEORY makes more sense than the biblical creationism. Simple. Besides hasn't the recent DNA decoding makes that apparent?

The DNA coding issue u pointed out is just a finding under "population genomics" that only gives more credence to the "Recent African Origin" theory. Funny enough it is scriptural.[/quote]Can you explain to me how exactly the "Recent African Origin" theory (which postulates that Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa approximately 50.000 years ago) gives credence to scripture?

goodguy:
Brilliant write up there, Layi!

IAH:
Yes, very brilliant indeed! It made all the pro-evolution folks evolve into Homo [b]Silent[/b]us.

Apparently people only listen to arguments they already agree with. Sad but true

layi:
I once did a study on Evolution in my Pathology class and my lecturer made a statement ""I want all of you to understand that evolution is just a theory and hasn't been proven yet, but in this class, we will be referring to hard and fast scientific evidence that makes it a believable and widely accepted idea of creation and how life arose."

It's quite obvious your lecturer did not know the first thing about the Theory of Evolution. A pathologist is not, unless I understand it wrongly, a biologist. Could you explain the context in which he made that statement,, because it is a clear sign of his ignorance on the subject matter.
Anyway, this is the classical mix up of the colloquial meaning of the word theory and the scientific meaning of the word theory.
The famous biologist Stephen J. Gould explained this issue as:

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

On top of that, by using the words of creation and how life arose, your lecturer makes it abundantly clear that he has [b]no [/b]understanding of the Theory of Evolution, as that theory:
[list]
[li]does not deal with life's origins[/li]
[li]has nothing to do with creation[/li]
[/list]
I wonder how much experience the man has in the scientific field? If he does have a research background, it will most definitely [b]not [/b]be in biology.

layi:
I have seen in many cases in this Forum that evolution has sorta become like a religion (widely accepted belief though with no god) unknowingly despite the fact that its almost as inconclusive as the proponents "cream" christianity. I dare to counter such belief not because i represent christianity but because I am also a free-thinker. Afterall we have the same evidence (earth and its content) to proove the existence or non existence of GOD, the formation of life by Intelligent Design (creationism) or by chance (evolution).

There are mountains of evidence in favor of the Scientific Theory of Evolution and not a shred of evidence in favor of creationism (just look at this for a mere glimpse of the evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/). Layi, you are as much a free thinker as your religion allows. You dare not step outside the boundaries of your religious dogma. Once more, proof is for mathematics and logic and has no place in real natural science. You can only study the evidence and there is plenty [/b]for evolution and [b]none whatsoever for creationism.
I'm happy you dare to call a cat a cat. Intelligent Design is indeed nothing more than Creationism [/i]in disguise. You show your lack of understanding about evolution by refering to chance as the main driver of evolution. Chance only plays a role in the random mutations that form the basis on which the evolutionary processes can work. Natural selection and sexual selection, which drive evolutionary change in organisms, are anything but chance processes.

layi:
I knew that learning the material was not synonymous with accepting it. I got no reason not to learn evolution. I had even garnered a lil knowledge from church "Christ Embassy". I learned about almost everything from the Big Bang, neutrinos to Hubble's Law. From the Evolution of cosmos (earth) to Life in itself and i couldnt see a better reason to believ more in evolution than creationism.

Well in view of the source of your material, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Did you ever read any material by even one relevant scientist (I mean a working research biologist)?

layi:
Firstly "To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?"

Why do you keep on hammering that [i]chance [/i]bit? Where does that obsession with [i]chance [/i]come from? Evolution is not driven by chance or random processes. Natural selection is very directive, as only those organisms that are succesful in a specific environment can reproduce and spread their genes.
Read this as an antidote for your misconception of chance in evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

As for your example of the evolution of the human eye, here's the evidence for it's evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm#Overview
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html#EYES
This last link gives a very simple description of how eyes can evolve,which I will repeat here (also see attached image for te references):

The green represents the creature that is evolving, the pink represents light-sensitive cells. Imagine these changes happening over a period of two million years (which is a microscopic fraction of the history of the Earth), each generation of creatures only changing by a fraction of a percent).
A: The creature is blind. This has obvious disadvantages as it cannot see predators approaching, and has to rely on sound, smell etc.

B: A random mutation has given this creature a patch of light-sensitive cells (not a problem - see below). It can detect light and dark. A sudden change of light to dark could indicate a predator approaching, allowing the creature to defend itself (by fleeing, fighting etc.) and dramatically increase it's chances of surviving and reproducing. Which is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce - a creature that runs when a shadow passes over it, or one that stands still? Your skin is covered in cells/nerves that detect heat, pressure, taste, smell and so on. Light is not that much different (see below).

C: Two patches, one either side of the head have developed (no surprise, as symettrical mutations are very common). The creatures can now determine which side the shadow is approaching from, and run in the opposite direction (or it may distinguish open spaces from dark shelter, for instance). Again, a huge improvement in their chances of survival from a fairly small change in their body. Slugs and snails see like this (admittedly, they can't run very well, but who wants to eat a slug anyway?).

D: If the patch of cells becomes hollow, cup-shaped, it gives the ability to better determine the direction of light (a dome would work just as well, but would be easier to damage. Also, a hollow would help create greater contrast with well-defined shadows). One side of the cup will be better-lit than the other. This creature can therefore better determine the direction that a shadow is approaching from (or, again, find a dark shelter more easily).

E: The hollow deepens over time and starts to close in on itself. A photographer would recognise this a pin-hole camera. It will form a reasonable image on the cells (retina), allowing the creature to see shapes, not just differentiate between light and dark. The Nautilus (a marine mollusc) has eyes exactly like this.

F: A transparent membrane covers the pin-hole, forming a crude lens (alternatively, the eye may be filled with a transparent jelly). This will make the images formed on the retina much sharper as well as protecting the delicate surface from dirt and infections. The creature can see predators/prey much more clearly now.

G: Muscles around the lens develop, allowing the creature to alter the shape of the lens and change focus. Now it can clearly see objects close by or far away. This is how the eyes of most mammals (such as humans) function. The Chameleon's eyes are quite different - instead of changing the shape of the lens, muscles move the lens backwards and forwards to focus the image, in the same way that an auto-focus camera works.

Further incremental refinements include the iris (to restrict the amount of light), eyelids (to protect and clean the surface of the eye) and muscles to rotate the eyes.

Very conservative simulations by the biologists [i]Nilsson and Pelger, showed that it takes only about 400.000 generations to develop a camera-lens eye such the human eye (see http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1995-06-16peepers.shtml for a full explanation). It is so astoundingly fast that it would be nearly impossible to detect in the fossil record. It is thus of no surprise that the eye has evolved at least 40 times completely independently in different species.

layi:
Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and Country, 1996, p. 199).

It is a falsehood that Darwin had second thoughts about the validity of his theory, on the contrary. The Lady Hope story you're referring to has been proven to be a fabrication. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) Darwin used to be an avid theist and it took him quite long to muster the courage to go against the prevailing stream and publish his work On The Origin of Species and only after his Theory was scientifically well established did he dare to publish Descent of Man. So strong was the oposition to the idea that humans are also mere animals.

layi:
It is helpful to remember that evolution cannot offer an explanation for the origin of our magnificent universe; evolution seeks to explain only how life might have begun in a universe that already existed.

Neither should it. It simply does not deal with the origins of the universe. Would you go and ask your auto-mechanic for help when it comes to performing a complex surgery? I am quite positive though that he is far more qualified than you to work on your car.

layi:
So my case against evolution:

[list]
[li]
Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change.
Instead, they say, we have to look at the past-the fossil record that shows the many life forms that have existed over earth's history-to find transitions from one species to another.

Darwin's theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions if not hundreds of millions of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and humans that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous.
[/li]
[/list]

1. because evolution happens over wide timespans (geological time), it does not mean evolution has not been observed. Species with very short generational timespans (such as fruit flies or bacteria) are used to study evolution in action. What creationists call macro-evolution (the development of seperate species) has been observed on countless occasions.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2. transitional fossils for all major taxa have been found. This in itself is already quite impressive, as the remains of past species only fossilise under very favorable conditions, so only a very tiny number of specimens of the great variety of past lifeforms could ever fossilise and could thus be found. Obviously, this could only be a problem for the Theory of Evolution, if the fossil record were the only line of evidence in it's favor, which isn't the case.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html

layi:
[list]
[li]
If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
[/li]
[/li]
[/list]

This once more shows your lack of understanding of what the Theory of Evolution really is. Sexual reproduction provides many benefits, such as a more rapid adaptation rate and quicker evolution of resistance against parasites. The most important benefit though is that it is a mechanism that weeds out non-beneficial mutations quicker within a population. For complex, multi-cellular organisms, these benefits far outweigh the advantage of fast reproduction.
Multi cellular lifeforms have just colonised another niche of nature that bacteria, viruses and protozoa do not occupy and for that reason, they are not in direct competition with these lifeforms. Sexual reproduction has proven to be the most beneficial survival mechanism for multi-cellular organisms.

layi:
[list]
[li]
Furthermore. If humans are the result of evolution continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can we explain a human infant?
[/li]
[/li]
[/list]

Very easily. How exactly does the existence of human infants disprove evolution, as the human form and characteristics have proven to be quite successful. We have colonised the entire planet. The main driver for our success as a species is our big brain and our ability to craft and use tools. Such a brain needs a lot of development and consumes a lot of energy. Even at birth, the human brain is huge compared to other species. It still needs to develop considerably to perform the functions humans need for survival. That's why the human infant needs long care and nourishment by it's parents (I won't bore you here with the details as to why we are not born with a fully developed brain, but if you would insist, I can explain the mechanism of the underlying evolutionary trade-offs in another post)

Once more, our success as a species is sufficient evidence for the positive evolutionary outcome of human specificity. We eat [/b]all those species that are capable of survival within a matter of days [b]for lunch and we have developed technology to fend of fierce predators without much effort. What more do you need as evidence for our evolutionary success?

layi:
[list]
[li]
If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?
[/li]
[/list]

Only a Creationist would say that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. We are successful, yes, but so are the insects and bacteria, and even more so, as they have a higher bio-mass than ourselves.
Anyway, can you explain how exactly human reproduction flies in the face of everything that evolution holds true? It seems to me that it only flies in the face of the validity of your strawman of evolution.

layi:
[list]
[li]
Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an infant is utterly helpless—not for days but for up to several years after birth.
[/li]
[/list]

So? See above.

layi:
[list]
[li]
A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults, since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects for survival.
[/li]
[/list]

Evolution works on the level of the replicators, not on the level of the individual or group. Investment of time and energy in their offspring increases the chance of survival of the constituant genes of a specimen more than fending for one's own survival. You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

layi:
Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).

Another one of those creationist mock-ups? You can do better than that, layi.
See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html

It's is quite obvious that creationists just love to use quotes, either by famous biologist or by others that could give their ideas credibility. These quotations are either invented, attributed to other people than the ones that made them, a mock up of several quotes by different people, or completely out of context quotations.
This quotation scores high on that index. It passes 3 out of the 4 criteria for good ^(tm) creationist quotations.

layi:
Science has been challenged to proove OR disprove the existence of GOD. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .

Since when has science been challenged to do that? This is news to me.

CimonJorr ,
You know domestication takes several generations of selective breeding. I wonder how on earth that could be done to men, I mean controlling their breeding habits

layi:
Nferyn No vex. Deji was only pulling your legs o but seems he removed it this time.

I'm feeling rather helpless without leg. Can I have it back?

dejiolowe:
@nferny this is a place for those who believe in God. Atheists cannot post... o

Please spell my nickname correctly. It's starting to become irritating. Why exactly can I not post? Do I need to report to the chief of thought police?

layi:
"What next?"
[quote author=nferyn link=topic=6183.msg194342#msg194342 date=1138971996]Why didn't you give me anything susbstantial to make me believe in you?

Very funny. But..hmm...can u really ask GOD that face to face? You'ld probably be begging. Doggedness/free thinking will fly out [/quote]Not going to happen, though