It never fails. It seems I can't post anything on my facebook anymore without sparking some sort of debate. This time I post an interesting article about skink evolution and got attacked with anti evolution rhetoric. Just wondering how you all would respond to this? Also, feel free to discuss. Thanks.
Skeptics shouldn't "BELIEVE" in evolution. I completely agree... the operative word here is 'believe'. Skeptics should go with the evidence which supports the most attacked scientific theory in the history of man and continues to withstand the test of time. Belief is for religion.
If there ever is another theory to replace evolution it will have to explain the same things that evolution does and more. What do we have as an alternative?..... NOTHING
If creationists want an opposing scientific theory they need to get off their ass and do the research and study that supports one. BUT THEY DON'T. They can't even define a 'kind'.
Put up or shut up!
young earth creationists are the worst... Ask them to explain huge limestone karsts buried over a mile deep. Ask them to explain shared retro-viruses between chimps and humans but not other 'kinds'.
Here's an interesting article from a geophysicist working for an oil company who made the transition from young earth creationist to old earth creationist based upon the evidence he encountered in the field.... I don't know what his ideology is today....anyway its very interesting. He asks some of the best questions.
most of the questions people have about life...the ones who look into the bible for the answers, are usually hopelessly lost and need to feel comfort.
For me, I don't need to worry about the meaning of life. I'm experiencing it right now. Life is filled with meaning. Love, friendship, making the world a better place. etc.
and I'm sorry, but the biblical meaning of life is just plain ignorant. I refuse to live my life to worship something. Why would a god give us our own lives if we are only meant to use them to worship him? what kind of sick sadistic shit is that? I guess there has to be a heaven....some place big enough for God's ego to reside.
I really don't see why people don't believe in this "crazy theory" of evolution, but yet they believe that we came from dust and magic.
I prefer to say that I think evolution is the most correct answer we have to the question of why is there so much diversity in life.
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (study of how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter) and many theists would do well to know the difference between the two studies. Evolution along with genetics explains the diversity of life that we see on our planet. Evolution is for all intents and purposes a fact and has been proven true time and time again.
But of course none of this is going to convince a person who is firmly convinced by their own 'evidence' that something else is true.
"Evolution says we are here by chance, no more than a highly evolved animals, and the whole point of life is to survive and pass on our amazing good looks. "
Um, no. Evolution does not say that we are here by chance. Evolution isn't random. Sure, mutations are random, but the process of evolution most certainly is not. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. I am so sick of people who can't be bothered to do even the most rudimentary research on the matter before disregarding it as false.
I apologize that it has taken me so long to reply to your comments on my post. My life is really crazy at the moment and I haven't had the time nor the patients to sit, think, research, or reply. I realize a lot has been said on a variety of topics since my original posting, but I would actually like to return to my original topic which was evolution.
In your initial response you posted that the skink is still a skink, and yes I would agree with that, however it is no longer the same skink it originally was. This shows that evolution has taken place. You then wen on to say that it is still laying eggs which is not true. If you read the article it states that some are giving birth to the live skinks and they are no longer born in eggs. Yes it says they still have a thin membrane, but that is not the same thing as an egg. Most mammals are born with a similar membrane which the mother has to help the offspring out of. Would you call those eggs as well?
You then went on to asking how nothing became something and how something became life. Neither of those points have anything to do with evolution, the first deals with physics and cosmology and the second is abiogenisis. Neither one has anything to do with evolution, so it is extremely dishonest to equate them with it in any form. If you would like to see the leading explanation on how something could possibly come from nothing I suggest you watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo and for more information on the current evidence for abiogenisis, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Now that I cleared up that those both have nothing to do with evolution, I would like to look at some of your claims about evolution. You went on to say "When it comes to the basic questions of life, how did we get here, why are here, what's the point of life, etc., I find no better answers than what is written in the Bible. God made us for his glory and we are to serve him." Thats nice, but evolution is a biological process which explains how the diversity of life came to be. It has nothing to do with the meaning of life, how life first started (abiogenisis), or anything else. Further more , evolution does not say that we are here by chance. Evolution isn't random. Sure, mutations are random, but the process of evolution most certainly is not. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution.
You mention creation and creation scientists a few times, so before continuing I would like to remind you that the scientific community does not recognize creation or intelligent design as a science and neither do our courts. You also stated, "Biology is not based on evolution, for evolution is a theory, a man made idea that tries to explain how everything got here." This is so far from the truth that it shows how little you really know of what evolution actually is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. 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. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality.
As for some of the reasons you said you find evidence lacking, first, you asked how many mutations are beneficial? Every mutation that has helped an organism to survive . Let me give you 3 examples I can think of in humans. For example, there is a specific mutation in human DNA which confers HIV resistance delays AIDS onset. There is also a mutation in cultures of people who relied on cattle for centuries which prevents the natural shut of the body's production of lactase. Lactase aids in the breakdown of lactose in milk and without it, anyone ingesting milk suffers serious digestive consequences. Another example, is Sickle cell disease which is a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene, because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene.
As for a "kind" of animal suddenly changing into another kind, this is not at all what evolution is. I also have issue with the use of the biblical word "kind". Please define what a kind is using scientific classifications. Is it at the level of Species? Genus? Family? Order? etc... For the sake of argument, I will assume you mean species and continue from there. Evolution is a gradual process of small changes over a long time. Eventually a species undergoes so many changes it could no longer reproduce with its original form and at this point it is now a new species. Give these small changes millions of years and you get the variety of life we have today.
As for transitional forms, you misunderstand what a transitional form is. Technically every form is a transitional form and yes we have lots of evidence of this. If you would like to see a comprehensive list of some of the more important transitional forms we have fossil records of, then please check out this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for your use of macroevolution, you clearly do not understand what this even is. Firstly, macroevolution has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. Also, The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species.
Evolution is not in the same boat as god; not even close. Evolution is backed by fossil evidence, observable evidence, and genetic evidence. As for god, there is not one bit of scientific evidence proving his or her existence.
Yes some of the greatest scientific minds were christian, but so what. The majority of them were alive before evolution was even an idea. Also, don't foreget that Darwin himself was a christian who had attended seminary. It wasn't until he discovered evolution that he himself turned away from god. Just because somebody believed or disbelieved in god says nothing about the validity of scientific facts.
I am going to stop there for now. I really think that it is extremely dishonest of you to criticize evolution when you yourself don't know the facts. You continued to spew the same creationist propaganda that I did when I believed as you do. The truth is that none of it is accurate and it is really dishonest to attack something you don't fully understand or haven't fully studied. I would never attack an organization I haven't fully investigated or attack the core beliefs of a religion I haven't ever fully investigated. I suggest you read actual scientific journals and watch actual scientific videos to see what evolutionary biologist are actually saying and what evidence there actually is for evolution. Just as you wouldn't find somebody who never read the bible or any other christian texts to spread rumors and lies about christianity as if they were true, you should be sure you know what evolution really is and what evidence there is before you attack it with false information.