General Biblical Debate (trying to prove the Earth is an "upright circle")

[Hydro]

I didn't go to Uni full-time, I preferred having a job and continued study via day-release. Tough going, with only one full day and two evenings a week to reach a similar standard as those who studied full-time. There were however, many advantages: financially, I was relatively well-off and like most other people on the course, knew exactly why we were studying and more importantly, already had more than a foot on the ladder in our chosen careers. Employers too ( in my humble opinion) looked more favourably on staff who obtained their qualifications in this manner. After all, they were partly financing it through day-release and had a vested interest in their employees success.

That's what I'm doing next year, hopefully. I will earn my standard salary, the company pays for Uni costs and I only have to attend for two weeks at a time every so often. The downside is I have to do all the coursework and course requirements in addition to my day job. It's a great way to do it, because I've already got the career, financially stable, no chance of student debt, and I have a clear idea of what the course will achieve both for me and my profession. I already have the experience in the vast majority of areas that the course covers, so I don't anticipate a great deal of difficulty there. I've got industry contacts that I can use to gain evidence for coursework, and hopefully base everything on real life examples. It's win-win-win.

 

[Nick W]

On the side topic that's appeared, I personally find it confusing how many people struggle to comprehend evolution which has evidence, but will follow a religion which has none. The bible is not evidence to me. It is a collection of moralistic stories. Many of which may have a basis of historical truth, but then so does the story of Santa Claus. It has a moral (good children get rewarded, and everyone deserves love and care), it has a basis of historical truth (Saint Nicholas) and pretty much every kid believes it is true when told, despite no evidence to prove it beyond faith in their parents telling the story. Faith, therefore is undeniably real and incredibly important to humanity, but I think that is a different thing from religion itself.

It's amazing how quickly a topic diverges.

I don't think anyone will deny the "peppered moth evolution" and other forms of evolution that have been witnessed within the previous few centuries. What is disputed is "modern evolutionary synthesis", the idea of going from single-celled bacteria or more primitive to us.

What science gives us is models, generally the simplest explanation for the evidence provided. Science never gives us the truth, just something which is useful insofar as its limitations are not reached. Originally, it was felt that the "plum pudding" model was correct. Then, Rutherford undertook experiences which disproved it and the model was refined to one much closer to the present day model. Then along came "wave-particle" duality.

The same is true with "modern evolutionary synthesis". It is an explanation that fits the evidence thus far, but isn't the be all and end all.

It is arguable that basic 'life' had no ordered character, the scramble of basic peptides and residues that happened to come together would later lead to the organised development and "coding" of acidic compounds. It was that ordering that spawned nuclei.

Cheers. It's plausible, I'll give you that. But it's very much against what tends to happen in this world, ie things become increasingly disordered. Each new human being carries on average 3 genetic defects, so the very code that beings about order is becoming more disordered!

 

[All Line Rover]

I don't think anyone will deny the "peppered moth evolution" and other forms of evolution that have been witnessed within the previous few centuries.

I disagree with the use of the word evolution when referring to the peppered moth.

Google defines "evolution" as (and they are pretty good definitions):

1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
2. The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

The darker peppered moth is evidence of variation within a species. It is not evolution. Scientists claim that variation leads to evolution, but you cannot claim that the darker colored peppered moth is, in itself, evidence of evolution.

A darker peppered moth is not a "different kind of organism" compared to a lighter peppered moth. It is also disputable that the darker peppered moth is "a more complex form" of peppered moth - it's only a different colour!

 

[90019]

I disagree with the use of the word evolution when referring to the peppered moth.

Google defines "evolution" as (and they are pretty good definitions):

1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth
2. The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

The darker peppered moth is evidence of variation within a species. It is not evolution. Scientists claim that variation leads to evolution, but you cannot claim that the darker colored peppered moth is, in itself, evidence of evolution.

A darker peppered moth is not a "different kind of organism" compared to a lighter peppered moth. It is also disputable that the darker peppered moth is "a more complex form" of peppered moth - it's only a different colour!

You're misinterpreting how things are written.

'Different kinds of living organisms' in this case isn't inferring that they have to be different organisms, but that it includes all different kinds.
You've also ignored the 'esp.', which changes the meaning from only 'simple to more complex', to 'any changes, especially simple to more complex'.

 

[All Line Rover]

You're misinterpreting how things are written.

'Different kinds of living organisms' in this case isn't inferring that they have to be different organisms, but that it includes all different kinds.
You've also ignored the 'esp.', which changes the meaning from only 'simple to more complex', to 'any changes, especially simple to more complex'.

The word "development" can also mean "improvement." Evolution is not considered to be "any changes."

My point is that whether a darker colored moth is consider to be an "improvement" (or "development") is debatable.

Also, you wouldn't say that a black person is "a different kind of living organism" to a white person! In the same way, a darker peppered moth is not a different kind of organism compared to a lighter peppered moth.

 

[90019]

The word "development" can also mean "improvement." Evolution is not considered to be "any changes."

But evolution is also not always improvement.
Animals being bipedal is generally considered to be inferior to being quadrupedal, but Humans becoming bipeds is considered to be evolution.

My point is that whether a darker colored moth is consider to be an "improvement" (or "development") is debatable.

If it helps it to blend in to the background it lives in, then yes, it is.

Also, you wouldn't say that a black person is "a different kind of living organism" to a white person! In the same way, a darker peppered moth is not a different kind of organism compared to a lighter peppered moth.

Re-read what I said.

'Different kinds of living organisms' in this case isn't inferring that they have to be different organisms, but that it includes all different kinds.

 

[All Line Rover]

Re-read what I said.

Google defines the word "kind" as:

1. A group of people or things having similar characteristics.

A white person and a black person are the same "kind" of creature - they have similar characteristics (apart from their skin colour).

In the same way, a darker peppered moth and a lighter peppered both are the same "kind" of creature, apart from their colour.

The peppered moth example is not conclusive proof for evolution. It's conclusive prove that variation can exist within a species, but it is not an example of one species (or "kind" of organism) changing into another species (or "kind" of organism).

I will repeat the first definition from Google for "evolution:"

1. The process by which different kinds [or species] of living organisms are thought to have developed...

The peppered moth example does not demonstrate that.

 

[Hydro]

You know, as a place of learned debate and research, University definitely is needed if we are to answer questions like the ones raised in this thread as it veers wildly down the embankment.

 

[90019]

In the same way, a darker peppered moth and a lighter peppered both are the same "kind" of creature, apart from their colour.

Which exactly the point I'm trying to make.
The original quote does not infer that they have to be different kinds of creature.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Never mind the Google definition, I'll use the definition of a Professor of Ecology and Evolutiuonary Biology:
Evolution is the change of one or more inherited traits found in populations over time (Futuyma, Douglas J. 2005). Inherited traits are characteristics (such as anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics) that are passed on from one generation to the next. The peppered moth fits this exactly - the colour is an inherited trait which has changed for the overall benefit of the species. The colour change is a very good example of evolution.

 

[All Line Rover]

But evolution is also not always improvement.

The definitions of "evolution" again, from Google:

1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed...
2. The gradual development of something...

And the definition of "development?" From Google:

1. A specified state of growth or advancement

Evolution, over a long period of time, is considered to be the advancement, and general improvement of living organisms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Never mind the Google definition, I'll use the definition of a Professor of Ecology and Evolutiuonary Biology:
Evolution is the change of one or more inherited traits found in populations over time (Futuyma, Douglas J. 2005). Inherited traits are characteristics (such as anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics) that are passed on from one generation to the next. The peppered moth fits this exactly - the colour is an inherited trait which has changed for the overall benefit of the species. The colour change is a very good example of evolution.

To me that definition befits variation - not evolution.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Evolution, over a long period of time, is considered to be the advancement, and general improvement of living organisms.

Which is exactly what the peppered moth illustrates. When they were their original colour they camouflaged very well with the surrounding flora. The Industrial Revolution came about, and suddenly the lichens they were disguising themselves with died out and trees became polluted. They were perfectly obvious, so a variation evolved so that they would become black in order to camouflage again so as not to be hunted as prey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me that definition befits variation - not evolution.

So you are disagreeing with Professor Douglas Futuyma MS PhD who has authored a number of very well respected books in the subject of Evolution? Perhaps you ought to admit that the definition, as described by the Prof is for evolution?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Speaking as a graduate of 45 years standing since obtaining my First in 1966, I think that this thread is developing into a University standard debating forum on the following:-

Humanity as seen today with its differing secular and religious beliefs have ethical and evolutionary barriers.....discuss.

 

[All Line Rover]

Which is exactly what the peppered moth illustrates. When they were their original colour they camouflaged very well with the surrounding flora. The Industrial Revolution came about, and suddenly the lichens they were disguising themselves with died out and trees became polluted. They were perfectly obvious, so a variation evolved so that they would become black in order to camouflage again so as not to be hunted as prey.

You cannot say that a "variation evolved." There is variation in all species - that is down to genetics.

To say that one species has evolved into another species (which is exactly what scientists are claiming - that humans have evolved from a single-celled organism) is an entirely different matter.

As I said earlier, I accept the peppered moth example as proof for variation, but not evolution. Variation has limits* - the moth is not changing into a bird, or any other creature!

*A good example is the fruit fly experiment. The flies mutated - they varied (some of which may have been considered improvements) - and yet a few generations down the line the DNA had changed back to its original form!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you are disagreeing with Professor Douglas Futuyma MS PhD who has authored a number of very well respected books in the subject of Evolution? Perhaps you ought to admit that the definition, as described by the Prof is for evolution?

To be quite honest, yes. I am sure that many other well-respected scientists (with PhD's) disagree with this Professor on certain matters pertaining to evolution.

If that is his definition for evolution, I would like to see his definition of variation.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As I said earlier, I accept the peppered moth example as proof for variation, but not evolution. Variation has limits* - the moth is not changing into a bird, or any other creature!

The variation can evolve. The moths with the allele that gave them a lighter colour died out whilst the allele that gave them a darker colour prospered. Over time, increasingly fewer moths with the lighter colour were produced. Soon, none were. Therefore the species has evolved to take the darker colour.

 

[All Line Rover]

The variation can evolve. The moths with the allele that gave them a lighter colour died out whilst the allele that gave them a darker colour prospered. Over time, increasingly fewer moths with the lighter colour were produced. Soon, none were. Therefore the species has evolved to take the darker colour.

The species has demonstrated variation, but it has not evolved into a different species. The foundation for evolution is that one species evolves into another species (not just that species vary).

You seem to be sidestepping that issue, as do many other scientists, who claim: "Well since it happens with minor changes, many of those minor changes will obviously create some major changes over time." Well no, that is no automatically the case*, and I would like to see some hard evidence for it.

I would also point out that the lighter colored peppered moth is not extinct - it still exists.

*As the fruit fly experiment demonstrates.

This discussion is also wildly off-topic from the thread's title! I hope this doesn't matter too much since it is in the "General Discussion" section. If it does, a new thread should probably be created.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, ironically, fruit flies showed that evolution could happen at a very fast pace, as in the peppered moth example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The foundation for evolution is that one species evolves into another species (not just that species vary).

Then you are completely misunderstanding what evolution is:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution

The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This may help you (from the same site as above):

In order for evolution to occur, there must be genetic variation. Genetic variation brings about evolution. Without it there will be no evolution. There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. First is natural selection. Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, passing these traits to the next generation. This kind of evolution driven by natural selection is called adaptive evolution. Another mechanism involves genetic drift, which produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Evolution that arises from genetic drift is called neutral evolution.

 

[All Line Rover]

This may help you (from the same site as above):

Yes, of course - scientists claim that variation is one of the "building blocks" of evolution. It is supposed to make up evolution - it is not evolution in itself.

As I have said repeatedly, the peppered moth example demonstrates variation (which supposedly leads to evolution) within a species. I do not consider it to be sufficient evidence for evolution (of one species turning into another).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

evolution (of one species turning into another).

Evolution is not one species turning into another. Evolution can occur entirely within the same species (as with the peppered moth). In fact, it will occur within the same species until it is judged that it is too genetically different to be grouped under the same species, however it will still be the same Genus.

 

[All Line Rover]

According to Theodosius Dobzhansky, ironically, fruit flies showed that evolution could happen at a very fast pace, as in the peppered moth example.

Of course, because they used radiation to speed up the process.

I have found a quote (on Google) from a book written by your (clearly) much-loved professor - "Heredity and the Nature of Man." On Page 126 he says:

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”

As he says, in spite of so many "mutated" ("evolved" flies), they were "almost without exception inferior."

An interesting point he fails to mention is that in time, in successive generations, the DNA of these "mutant" flies slowly "repaired" itself, the mutant flies died out, and we were back to the original flies!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

An interesting point he fails to mention is that in time, in successive generations, the DNA of these "mutant" flies slowly "repaired" itself, the mutant flies died out, and we were back to the original flies!

Can you please find the research paper that found that? In any case, it supports evolution again. The mutant flies found themselves t be at a genetic disadvantage (as shown in the Heredity and the Nature of Man) so natural selection moved them back to the original format so to speak.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst this debate between the two protagenists is being keenly debated, can I, as a theoretical forum answer to David Dimbleby on Question Time, gently raise the level from fruit flies and peppered moths onto a species more advanced in terms of evolution that was of interest to a certain British explorer with an interest in species development. I refer to the body of birds commonly grouped under the heading of GALAPAGOS FINCHES

These birds were all decended from a single arcane finch species that arrived from the Galapagos Islands millions of years ago and now form a group of 15 species of passerine birds.

Because of the isolation from the mainland, the differing geological and geographical variations natures of all the islands that make up this group and the differing vegetable food sources available as a result, there are now differences in size, behaviour, diet and most importantly, beak formation.

Can we move the debate up the species evolutionary ladder somewhat.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What you have mentioned is a good example of the founder effect in biodiversity Paul. Sadly I am out at the theatre so am unable to elaborate more.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Barrett M95]

I can see many research papers from countless sources on evolution. Not just the ones quoted from here, but a quick google search shows that there is a LOT of work going on and a lot of work already documented from multiple sources in specialist fields of biology, chemistry, physics and paleontology from the most logical and analytical minds on earth.

And they are increasing exponentially. Possibly due to the parallel increase in computing power that has aided so many investigations, simulations and experiments. The projects underway at CERN have openly testified to that. Perhaps the truth, or indisputable evidence is not so far away.

On the other hand, there are people of strong faith quoting only from scripture written many hundreds or even thousands of years ago in most cases. There are many different vesions of religion as well. By definition, they're either mostly wrong, or all wrong. They can't all be correct. Scientology anyone?

Faith is a very powerful thing emotionally, but these people of faith that look for flaws in the scientists logic, do not apply that same analysis to their own arguments which so desperately need it. That is a fundamental problem. If evolution and the big bang remain unproven theories, religion (not faith) is bringing a knife to a scientific gun-fight, and as time goes by, the guns are getting bigger.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I wonder if I can put an end to this immature stubbornness:
We can separate 'variation' and 'evolution' simply by referring to Darwin who considered ''variation" one of the properties of "evolution, thus:

Darwinian Evolution - Four Postulates:
Individuals within species are variable.
Some of the variations are passed on to offspring.
In every generation, more offspring are produced than can survive.
The survival and reproduction of individuals are not random: The individuals who survive and go on to reproduce, or who reproduce the most, are those with the most favorable variations. They are naturally selected.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" (Darwin 1859).

It is since Darwin (neo-Darwinian theory) that the processes of variation when viewed over a suffiently long period can be thought to result in changes complex enough to justify the use of different taxonomies (ie species).

 

[All Line Rover]

Can you please find the research paper that found that? In any case, it supports evolution again. The mutant flies found themselves t be at a genetic disadvantage (as shown in the Heredity and the Nature of Man) so natural selection moved them back to the original format so to speak.

It is generally accepted scientific knowledge (albeit very recent scientific knowledge) that DNA has a remarkable ability to "repair" itself through successive generations - e.g. from radiation damage.

In the case of the fruit fly experiment, when the "mutated" flies mated with each other, it was found that a few generations down the line, some "normal" (i.e. the original) fruit flies began to hatch. (I cannot find a specific document right now as I don't have the time, however any research paper which documents the experiment from start to finish - not one that simply "reviews" the experiment - should mention this.) Since the "normal" fruit flies were superior to every single one of the "mutated" fruit flies, common sense dictates that the "mutated" flies would eventually die out while the "normal" - original - fruit flies would survive.

I find it simply remarkable that, in spite of all the "mutated" flies that scientists were able to create, not one of them was superior to the original fly!

Whilst this debate between the two protagenists is being keenly debated, can I, as a theoretical forum answer to David Dimbleby on Question Time, gently raise the level from fruit flies and peppered moths onto a species more advanced in terms of evolution that was of interest to a certain British explorer with an interest in species development. I refer to the body of birds commonly grouped under the heading of GALAPAGOS FINCHES

These birds were all decended from a single arcane finch species that arrived from the Galapagos Islands millions of years ago and now form a group of 15 species of passerine birds.

Because of the isolation from the mainland, the differing geological and geographical variations natures of all the islands that make up this group and the differing vegetable food sources available as a result, there are now differences in size, behaviour, diet and most importantly, beak formation.

Can we move the debate up the species evolutionary ladder somewhat.

Again, your (much quoted) example is simply evidence of variation within a species! The birds are not changing into another creature - they are just adapting to suit their environment.

I find your comment "These birds were all descended from a single arcane finch species" an interesting one in that, contrary to popular belief, neither the Bible accounts of "Creation" or "Noah and the Ark" mention specific types of the same "species" of animal. Instead it groups animals "according to their kinds", alluding to the belief of variation within a species.

My problem is with the "bigger picture" - such as the belief that humans have evolved from fish - of which there is remarkably little evidence for. (Since we have such an enormous fossil record, it would seem to me that countless examples of such evolution should exist. Instead, scientists desperately latch on to the occasional "missing link" that crops up.)

It is evident that this discussion (or argument, depending on your perspective) will just go on, and on, and on! It is also distracting from the original topic of this thread. So I will here end my participation in this discussion, though it has been an interesting one nonetheless.

 

[Nonsense]

Now I don't want to go into a whole debate about this! But it really drove me mad that we were just supposed to "accept" such things.
!

Tough luck, apparently

Seriously though. The beauty of science is that you can work with an existing theory, or you can formulate a better one, but you don't have to accept anything. You won't go to hell or get less nectar points if you don't buy in, but understand its not the job of the scientist to convince you. You can either make the effort to gain an understanding, spend the rest of your life observing our enormously rich biodiversity and presenting a better explanation for it (and deserving your own face on our money too), or just move on. The theory of evolution persists because it hasn't been challenged.

You might think that standing at the back shouting "I don't get it", or "But what about the..." is a challenge, but its not. There are plenty of people that do understand it and are finding practical applications for this particular theory but nothing to invalidate it.

The theory isn't sacred either, its not guarded like some ancient scripture, contrary to what the christian "scientists" might have you believe. The scientific community doesn't care too greatly whether the average pleb gets a theory, but what is concerning, and rightly so, is the promotion of ignorance by the creationist movement.

An interesting point he fails to mention is that in time, in successive generations, the DNA of these "mutant" flies slowly "repaired" itself, the mutant flies died out, and we were back to the original flies!

I am perplexed by this sentence. It is both bolocks, and yet somehow logical. I can see why some are so confused.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As I understand it, variation occurs across a generation, and evolution down the generations. Its a huge simplification I know.

As to the poster who termed this debate "immature", this how science works - critical evaluation. If you don't like it, then there's no need to post.

Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Barrett M95]

As to the poster who termed this debate "immature", this how science works - critical evaluation. If you don't like it, then there's no need to post.

Agreed. To use an ironic saying, the devil is in the detail.

 

[Pumbaa]

My problem is with the "bigger picture" - such as the belief that humans have evolved from fish - of which there is remarkably little evidence for. (Since we have such an enormous fossil record, it would seem to me that countless examples of such evolution should exist. Instead, scientists desperately latch on to the occasional "missing link" that crops up.)

I'm going to come back to this - the fossil record is incomplete but overgrowing, and our understanding is changing. And there's a lot of evidence ALR, some of which I will try and present in due course.

I hope to be able to shed some light on this, being my field of research and all, but currently stuck in the middle of Scotland away from my desk, my lab and most of my research! To add to my first point, within 6 weeks we have identified 7 new species of Carboniferous plant, and we intend to challenge the classification of 17 others pending further analysis. That's what Science is all about, dynamic, ever changing. Science knows it doesn't know everything, or it would stop