Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > Politics, Religion & Controversy
Reload this Page >

1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution

Notices
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution

 
Old 02-11-2019, 05:42 PM
  #121  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
this is a statement. prove your statement.
You already have. I present you as exhibit (A)….

Last edited by 30YR W8T; 02-11-2019 at 05:42 PM.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 05:56 PM
  #122  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PatternDayTrader View Post
Adaptation is evolution in the short term. The individual member that cannot adapt, will not reproduce and will therefore die out, and so will their genetic code. Those that can, perpetuate the species. This is evolution.
We have to disagree again. Adaptation and evolution are two separate entities. Think about it this way, most life forms from the most basic to the most advanced have the ability to adapt, so one should ask the question, where did that ability come from? Adaptation in and of itself, argues a need was recognized in life's process and that runs counter to the theory presented. We know the earths environment is not static and it never has been, we also know there are extreme events that have happened with no time or relatively short time frames. Even humans being the most intelligent of species, aka having the greatest adaptive capabilities, fall victim to environmental conditions they could not adapt to quick enough.

Second when a species cannot adapt, or cannot adapt fast enough, the end result is usually extinction, not evolution as the so-called evolution process is stopped dead in its tracks. Many examples of this where man was the environmental change agent, that some species simply could not adapt to. It is still happening around the world and the change agent is still man. Life is a fragile thing and can be completely wiped out under the right conditions. Adaptation provides a chance at survival, but it does not guarantee it and neither could the proposed process of evolution.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 05:59 PM
  #123  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dryadsdad View Post
We agree on the evidence but I've not encountered a reason this evidence (such as the explosions in life) disprove evolution. Even Darwin was dissatisfied with his theory since he didn't see a mechanism for much of it.
Subsequent discoveries in biology fill in many of the missing pieces.

If you're worried about those missing pieces, well fine - those are areas of exploration to come. I'm content in saying I don't know it all and never will.
I agree we don't really know and therefore because we don't know, we should never dismiss other possibilities. That is and always will be my issues with stating we know how it happened, because the truth is we don't.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:03 PM
  #124  
Sifu-TZ
CF Senior Member
 
Sifu-TZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2014
Location: houston texas
Posts: 16,155
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
You already have. I present you as exhibit (A).
fail, ad hominum.


but you didn't come here to discuss science, every time you do you get embarrassed by any number of people. a smart person would study up and come back, but you're here for the banter as this is your only communication with the scary world outside.
Sifu-TZ is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:15 PM
  #125  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

To use your example. If a cold snap occurs, the bacteria that have the highest resistance to cold temperatures will survive. Why? More than likely (other than fortuitously being under a large warm rock) it is because genetically they possess some type of resistance to the cold. Maybe their mitochondria operate more efficiently than the unfortunate deceased bacteria. Maybe some other biochemical reaction is more tolerant of the cold. Whatever the reason, over generations the tolerance becomes greater. Until you have creatures that can be frozen solid, thaw-out and continue as if nothing happened. Like the frog Rana sylvatica.

Another example of bacterial evolution is a looming medical problem. Resistance to current antibiotics. If a bacterial colony is exposed to an anti-microbial, some of the bacteria will be resistant due to genetic peculiarities that instruct novel enzymes to be produced. These enzymes deactivate the antimicrobial agent. The result is an overgrowth of a resistant strain. Evolution before your very eyes.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....

Lets use your example of assumption here. How did some bacteria know it needed to become cold resistant, while others didn't? I could argue their genetic make up was designed to ensure they would be resistant to the cold just as easily as you arguing luck and happenstance gave them that benefit. But lets take this a step further using your example. If they were fortuitously under a warm rock, there would be no need for an adaptive change to occur, because their environmental conditions in truth never changed. Now what happens when they are no longer under that warm rock and are exposed to extreme cold conditions? They are in truth are at a disadvantage to the bacteria that actually survived the cold because they were able to adapt. You are presenting a circular argument with assumptions and what ifs. Those same arguments can be countered using the exact same approach.

Let me say this again, adaptive resistance is not evolution, it is adaptation. People in the civilized world as an example have become resistant to certain strains of bacterial infections and disease, if they are healthy. However take those same people who could still be carrying those strains they are resistant to and introduce them into a sheltered or closed environment of people, and the results are disastrous as history has recorded. Inversely if we go into an environment with unknown disease and bacterial viruses, we too can be decimated while the indigenous people have developed immunities to those same diseases and viruses that have no impact on them at all.

Neither of us evolved into something other than what we always have been, we just adapted to different changing environmental condition. Bacteria is still bacteria, no matter if it has become resistant to conditions introduced into its environment, what it is has not changed, what it can adapt to and resist has.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:19 PM
  #126  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sifu-TZ View Post
fail, ad hominum.


but you didn't come here to discuss science, every time you do you get embarrassed by any number of people. a smart person would study up and come back, but you're here for the banter as this is your only communication with the scary world outside.
Seems to me I am the one discussing science while all you are doing is your normal hate mongering and adding nothing of relevance to the discussion. You are a prime example of those who blindly reject any other possibilities and trust me, that speaks volumes about your lack of understanding where actual science is concerned.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:31 PM
  #127  
PatternDayTrader
CF Senior Member
 
PatternDayTrader's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2008
Location: Lansing MI and Houston TX
Posts: 8,145
Thanked 694 Times in 537 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
We have to disagree again. Adaptation and evolution are two separate entities. Think about it this way, most life forms from the most basic to the most advanced have the ability to adapt, so one should ask the question, where did that ability come from? Adaptation in and of itself, argues a need was recognized in life's process and that runs counter to the theory presented. We know the earths environment is not static and it never has been, we also know there are extreme events that have happened with no time or relatively short time frames. Even humans being the most intelligent of species, aka having the greatest adaptive capabilities, fall victim to environmental conditions they could not adapt to quick enough.

Second when a species cannot adapt, or cannot adapt fast enough, the end result is usually extinction, not evolution as the so-called evolution process is stopped dead in its tracks. Many examples of this where man was the environmental change agent, that some species simply could not adapt to. It is still happening around the world and the change agent is still man. Life is a fragile thing and can be completely wiped out under the right conditions. Adaptation provides a chance at survival, but it does not guarantee it and neither could the proposed process of evolution.
Ok so it seems the disconnect here is how adaptation manifests itself. Lets use a fish as an example, and you can tell me what you think about this.

Imagine a fish in the ocean is adapted to a certain water temp. Now imagine the water temp begins to change slowly enough that it wont just immediately die, but the environment is changing. The fish in question reproduces by the hundreds (maybe thousands depending) and almost all of the offspring die, except just a few that can live in the new temperature environment. This is how evolution manifests itself. Its not that the one fish which has the ability to adapt to the new environment lives on, its that the few random offspring from every fish, by chance, happen to be adapted to the new environment, and therefore perpetuate the species, while the rest all die. This is what Darwin was telling us. Said another way, the offspring of the fish that are exact copies of the previous generation, will all die in a new environment. But, the randomly mutated variations, that happen to be adapted, to the new environment will survive. Said yet another way, its not that one particular fish can adapt, its whether or not its offspring are already adapted by chance. That's evolution, and ill tell you what, when you apply this idea to humans, and consciousness, we are so close to Genesis, I cant believe no one has ever talked about it in this way. This why when someone just tries to dismiss religion out of hand as though its superstition, I tell them they are not Darwinian enough.
PatternDayTrader is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:32 PM
  #128  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,068
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Dueysan View Post

Ron Wyatt is a con man.
shane p is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:42 PM
  #129  
Sifu-TZ
CF Senior Member
 
Sifu-TZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2014
Location: houston texas
Posts: 16,155
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
Seems to me I am the one discussing science while all you are doing is your normal hate mongering and adding nothing of relevance to the discussion. You are a prime example of those who blindly reject any other possibilities and trust me, that speaks volumes about your lack of understanding where actual science is concerned.
claiming that "reject intelligence or engineering being involved" is not science. you're lying.

then again we know for a FACT that bacteria such as E. Coli are evolving and we have evidence for it;
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-e...ion-in-action/

https://www.britannica.com/science/b...on-of-bacteria

https://www.nature.com/subjects/bacterial-evolution

http://news.mit.edu/2019/determine-b...ution-age-0208

you're full of absolute **** and we have evidence that proves you wrong. bacteria has been evolving for over 400 million years. go pretend to do science elsewhere.
Sifu-TZ is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:03 PM
  #130  
dryadsdad
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Nov 2014
Location: Albuquerque New Mexico
Posts: 3,865
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
I agree we don't really know and therefore because we don't know, we should never dismiss other possibilities. That is and always will be my issues with stating we know how it happened, because the truth is we don't.
and :cheers back at you and Pattern. I had to leave for work so this delayed reply to both of you.
dryadsdad is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:43 PM
  #131  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,834
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
Wrong, wrong, wrong.....

Lets use your example of assumption here. How did some bacteria know it needed to become cold resistant, while others didn't? I could argue their genetic make up was designed to ensure they would be resistant to the cold just as easily as you arguing luck and happenstance gave them that benefit. But lets take this a step further using your example. If they were fortuitously under a warm rock, there would be no need for an adaptive change to occur, because their environmental conditions in truth never changed. Now what happens when they are no longer under that warm rock and are exposed to extreme cold conditions? They are in truth are at a disadvantage to the bacteria that actually survived the cold because they were able to adapt. You are presenting a circular argument with assumptions and what ifs. Those same arguments can be countered using the exact same approach.

Let me say this again, adaptive resistance is not evolution, it is adaptation. People in the civilized world as an example have become resistant to certain strains of bacterial infections and disease, if they are healthy. However take those same people who could still be carrying those strains they are resistant to and introduce them into a sheltered or closed environment of people, and the results are disastrous as history has recorded. Inversely if we go into an environment with unknown disease and bacterial viruses, we too can be decimated while the indigenous people have developed immunities to those same diseases and viruses that have no impact on them at all.

Neither of us evolved into something other than what we always have been, we just adapted to different changing environmental condition. Bacteria is still bacteria, no matter if it has become resistant to conditions introduced into its environment, what it is has not changed, what it can adapt to and resist has.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Adaptation is not evolution.

People adapt to cold weather by wearing a coat. Animals adapt by changing their usual territory in search of food. A commuter adapts by changing his route to work when there is a traffic jam on his usual route.

Evolution is the modification of the physiology and structure of the organism itself. The microorganisms exposed to antibiotics are not adapting. Their genetic code differs enough so some produce the enzymes needed to create resistance. Their DNA has been compared and proven to be different. That is not adaption.That is evolution.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:39 PM
  #132  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Adaptation is not evolution.

People adapt to cold weather by wearing a coat. Animals adapt by changing their usual territory in search of food. A commuter adapts by changing his route to work when there is a traffic jam on his usual route.

Evolution is the modification of the physiology and structure of the organism itself. The microorganisms exposed to antibiotics are not adapting. Their genetic code differs enough so some produce the enzymes needed to create resistance. Their DNA has been compared and proven to be different. That is not adaption.That is evolution.
That is exactly what I have been saying, adaptation is not evolution. So your argument is that when humans become resistant to certain viruses and disease, we evolved? Are you kidding me here?

Let me ask a real simple question, is the bacteria still bacteria and are humans still humans?
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:52 PM
  #133  
NBM LS1 M6
CF Senior Member
 
NBM LS1 M6's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2002
Location: I helped our former POSOTUS return the wealth of America to its rightful owners one parcel of real e
Posts: 124,345
Thanked 43 Times in 28 Posts
St. Jude Donor '10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19

Default

The Bible is the foundational source of all truth in the universe,

The Bible is the foundational source of the truth regarding the creation of the universe.

That fact cannot be disputed and that fact cannot be refuted,
NBM LS1 M6 is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 10:00 PM
  #134  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PatternDayTrader View Post
Ok so it seems the disconnect here is how adaptation manifests itself. Lets use a fish as an example, and you can tell me what you think about this.

Imagine a fish in the ocean is adapted to a certain water temp. Now imagine the water temp begins to change slowly enough that it wont just immediately die, but the environment is changing. The fish in question reproduces by the hundreds (maybe thousands depending) and almost all of the offspring die, except just a few that can live in the new temperature environment. This is how evolution manifests itself. Its not that the one fish which has the ability to adapt to the new environment lives on, its that the few random offspring from every fish, by chance, happen to be adapted to the new environment, and therefore perpetuate the species, while the rest all die. This is what Darwin was telling us. Said another way, the offspring of the fish that are exact copies of the previous generation, will all die in a new environment. But, the randomly mutated variations, that happen to be adapted, to the new environment will survive. Said yet another way, its not that one particular fish can adapt, its whether or not its offspring are already adapted by chance. That's evolution, and ill tell you what, when you apply this idea to humans, and consciousness, we are so close to Genesis, I cant believe no one has ever talked about it in this way. This why when someone just tries to dismiss religion out of hand as though its superstition, I tell them they are not Darwinian enough.
I hear what you are saying but there is assumption at play, meaning we assume that what ever changes happen, they automatically get passed on to the next generation, but that is not always the case. The second part is assuming if it does get passed on, then it will continue to be passed on and again that is not always the case. Let's take your same example and consider that the breeding fish had to be able to withstand the environmental change and if so, that means they already possessed adaptive capabilities, which would make sense considering the temperature change in the water depending on the depth the fish is at. Lets say the fish has a main source of food and upper surface temperatures of the water rise to the point its food source doesn't do well there and starts moving deeper. That's means the fish must also move deeper to obtain the food source and it is also moving into cooler waters the deeper it must go for food, if it cannot withstand the cooler temperatures, it doesn't eat.

Maybe a better example of this is the catfish that live in the lakes and canals by the Chernobyl nuclear plant. That area is still so toxic as to be dangerous for humans, yet multiple species of animals have adapted to that caustic environment including these catfish. They are exactly the same species as others of their kind in the surrounding lakes and streams, but they have slowly adapted to survive in the dangerous environment, absorbing levels of radiation that would kill most other things. One notable difference is they are smaller and many attribute that change to the high levels of radiation. But the catfish is not alone, plants, insects, birds, animals and even earthworms have done the same thing and adapted to that environment. What they are as a species has not changed, but what they can withstand has changed as they have slowly adapted to their environment. Those species who did not or could not adapt, no longer live in this area because they died out, but they still survive elsewhere. They can still breed with the same species living outside the hostile environment and still produce young. That aspect alone validates as a species they are still the same.

Life is an incredible thing and has been said many times, life always finds a way to survive or re-emerge.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 10:04 PM
  #135  
Jim2003
CF Senior Member
 
Jim2003's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 3,631
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

It is called the theory of evolution, it is not called a fact of evolution. It is a theory that has never been proven. God created the earth, the animals and man. Believing that a mass of gas came together, mutations became positive, etc are very hard to beleive and really extremely hard to prove.
Jim2003 is offline  
Old 02-11-2019, 10:16 PM
  #136  
PatternDayTrader
CF Senior Member
 
PatternDayTrader's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2008
Location: Lansing MI and Houston TX
Posts: 8,145
Thanked 694 Times in 537 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 30YR W8T View Post
I hear what you are saying but there is assumption at play, meaning we assume that what ever changes happen, they automatically get passed on to the next generation, but that is not always the case. The second part is assuming if it does get passed on, then it will continue to be passed on and again that is not always the case. Let's take your same example and consider that the breeding fish had to be able to withstand the environmental change and if so, that means they already possessed adaptive capabilities, which would make sense considering the temperature change in the water depending on the depth the fish is at. Lets say the fish has a main source of food and upper surface temperatures of the water rise to the point its food source doesn't do well there and starts moving deeper. That's means the fish must also move deeper to obtain the food source and it is also moving into cooler waters the deeper it must go for food, if it cannot withstand the cooler temperatures, it doesn't eat.

Maybe a better example of this is the catfish that live in the lakes and canals by the Chernobyl nuclear plant. That area is still so toxic as to be dangerous for humans, yet multiple species of animals have adapted to that caustic environment including these catfish. They are exactly the same species as others of their kind in the surrounding lakes and streams, but they have slowly adapted to survive in the dangerous environment, absorbing levels of radiation that would kill most other things. One notable difference is they are smaller and many attribute that change to the high levels of radiation. But the catfish is not alone, plants, insects, birds, animals and even earthworms have done the same thing and adapted to that environment. What they are as a species has not changed, but what they can withstand has changed as they have slowly adapted to their environment. Those species who did not or could not adapt, no longer live in this area because they died out, but they still survive elsewhere. They can still breed with the same species living outside the hostile environment and still produce young. That aspect alone validates as a species they are still the same.

Life is an incredible thing and has been said many times, life always finds a way to survive or re-emerge.
The only assumption that needs to be made is any creature that has not changed along with the environment, will die off. As far as the Chernobyl environment, that's not even a tick of the clock in evolutionary terms, but like you said, the catfish seem to be smaller already. Check back in fifty thousand years, and there's really no telling what those fish will be.

Last edited by PatternDayTrader; 02-11-2019 at 10:22 PM.
PatternDayTrader is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 03:19 AM
  #137  
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 32,839
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PatternDayTrader View Post
The only assumption that needs to be made is any creature that has not changed along with the environment, will die off. As far as the Chernobyl environment, that's not even a tick of the clock in evolutionary terms, but like you said, the catfish seem to be smaller already. Check back in fifty thousand years, and there's really no telling what those fish will be.
This is true because we don't know how that radiation could alter their genetic makeup.
30YR W8T is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:32 AM
  #138  
Dueysan
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dryadsdad View Post
This thread saddens me. Great religious thinkers such as the Buddha and Maimonides outright said that if science (reality) conflicts with religious beliefs, go with reality since even great religious men make errors in their thinking. So what if the Bible goes on about a 6 day creation which conflicts with reality? Why does that shake up religious folks so much they must bend, twist and sweat to cast doubt upon said reality? The Bible also says that pi is 3.0 which likewise is wrong but so what? This stuff is all pitched at the minds and knowledge of Bronze Age folks and definitely not us.

I see no more reason to attack evolution than to attack geometry which has Pi is more than 3.0. Let's move on.
The settled science argument huh? Only problem is it is not settled. Evolution relies on many false assumptions.


Last edited by Dueysan; 02-12-2019 at 08:47 AM.
Dueysan is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 06:36 AM
  #139  
shane p
CF Senior Member
 
shane p's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,068
Thanked 49 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jim2003 View Post
It is called the theory of evolution, it is not called a fact of evolution. It is a theory that has never been proven. God created the earth, the animals and man. Believing that a mass of gas came together, mutations became positive, etc are very hard to beleive and really extremely hard to prove.

You seem confused.
shane p is offline  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:25 AM
  #140  
juanvaldez
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2014
Posts: 17,698
Thanked 348 Times in 264 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NBM LS1 M6 View Post
The Bible is the foundational source of all truth in the universe,

The Bible is the foundational source of the truth regarding the creation of the universe.

That fact cannot be disputed and that fact cannot be refuted,
Sure it is! There was no truth before 3,000 years ago.
juanvaldez is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: 1,000 scientists go public with doubts on evolution


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: