Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About sjl197

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. sjl197

    How Did Humans Lose Their Hair?

    Take a look at the aquatic ape hypothesis. It never became fashionable, but i still quite like it. The problem was in part the original article was terribly written and really quite unscientific. The photograph of people sun bathing on a beach in the article make it rather the laughing stock of mainstream science back then. Endurance running hypothesis is another to look up
  2. sjl197

    Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

    Whether you believe humans are adapting or evolving or not, i'd say the evidence shows we are, and have, even during those last 6,000 years Here's a good example, as we all know Ron in particular likes empirical examples Evolution of lactose digestion. I expect you can digest milk like I can. All children can, but not all adults can. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html I'd say differences in human height, skin colar and skin pigmentation have all showed adaptation, and dare i say, evolution. Many aspects of modern human adaptation (during the last 6000 ears) are driven by parasites and bacteria. I'd say you've got a decent chance to survive a new outbreak of Black Death or Bubonic Plague because your ancestors did. Same with modern humans on Carribean/South Pacific islands, would stand a good chance to survive small pox, because their ancestors did, since living small pox carrying Westerners reached their islands and spread the disease that decimated populations. Take a look at this with malaria http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html It is very difficult to say how the power of the human mind has adapted or evolved over the last 6,000. But it has been quantified by looking at the complexity of human drawings, from basic outlines of hunt animals on cave walls with square bodies and stick legs towards shaded toned skillful depictions of horses in fluid motion galloping through rivers.. And yes, in the current age when its often the parents with below average intelligence who have the most children, while highly intelligent and well educated ones have few, then that maybe does indicate there is now little selection pressure that might favour continued intellectual growth/development in future humankind. Those with many children pass their characteristics onto subsequent generations in greater numbers than those that have fewer children. There was an odd but rather watchable film... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
  3. I've explained above why the term macroevolution is a useful one when talking about evolution, either you didnt read or didnt understand my words on that. There is no empirical example of any value that i can provide to those with their eyes closed and own fingers in their ears., even if they're called Lucy.
  4. Tell you what, i will instead acknowledge your tirade of insults about my personal history and philosophy, and turn the other cheek.
  5. So your fundamentally stable species. Tell me about them. Because to have this, all living organisms must therefore be placeable into one species or another species. Or, more widely, into just one biblical kind, or another. Maybe those kinds can modify with adaption, maybe your species can modify by adaptation into breeds. Thats if you allow some modification with descent for either kinds or species, which i dont think you do. I, like all evolutionists, be they athiest or God fearing theist, together disagree that species are "fundamentally stable' or immutable. There are so many cases where a living organisms is difficult to put them into a single definable box called 'species' ?How is species defined? Choose your definition. (there's i a host of potential species definitions out there.. more than thirty last i saw). or go with the pluralist approach and use several definitions simultaneously Then, using just one preferred definition, try and put all living creatures into all these artificially constructed boxes called species. Some dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously. So try a different preferred definition of species, different from the previous definition, and try... Some dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously. Try using several definitions of species simulaneously to define each 'box' Plenty still dont just fit into one box. Never will. Some can fit into several artificial boxes simultaneously. Actually, with pluralistic definitions, its much much more messy...some neatly fit into just one box, plenty always cant be fitted into just one box. The problem, is using trying to make a single definable box called 'species'. Mainstream science knows this already. There have been other systems proposed, all human generated systems to fit ALL life into separate boxes to date have flaws. I suspect many creationists (particularly literalists) will come across the same issue if they tried to put all lifeforms into 'biblical kinds'. Birds for example. Birds are a biblical kind. But birds are also animals. Animals are a biblical kind. So are birds birds or are birds animals. Hopefully we agree, theyre both actually. Evolutionists would say birds arose from animals, so easily, the bird group is a subgroup of animals. This fits. The biblical version means birds are not animals. Maybe our definition of animals is wrong... ok try a different definition of animals that doesnt include birds... im curious to hear it. Neither of us need mention of God's role in creating birds or not. No mention of whether birds descended from ancestral animals or not. For kinds you need diagnosable exclusive groups. Only monophyletic groups for example. If you want to hold fast to original biblical kinds, those might have to be Archaea, Eubacteria and Eukaryotes. Though similarity among Archaea, Eubacteria means you can make a wider grouping of some as Prokaryotes. Then we have Prokaryotes versus another exclusive diagnosable group called Eukaryotes. But do these have a single common ancestor or not, if so how did this/these arise... interesting questions.. !
  6. There is no hard distinction or 'significant difference' between micro and macro distinction, this article is wrong if it maintains there is a hard boundary. There isnt. There is a spectrum of differences that range from the few/only minor ones between what we'd all call variants or breeds, to more/massive differences between those we'd call different species. Same as there are more/massive differences between those we'd call different genera. To more/massive differences between those we'd call different genera. So what is it, when NO photons of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its definitely night, darkest night So what is it, when just ONE photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its still night, but not absolute darkest night. So what is it, when VERY FEW photon of light from the sun's edge JUST below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its lighter night. So what is it, when FEW MORE photon of light from the sun EDG the horizon reaches your eyes. Its not really quite night is it, ok, its early dawn, but still very dark. So what is it, when MANY photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its late dawn, but quite light now. So what is it, when MANY MORE photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its late dawn but much light now. So what is it, when PLENTY MORE of photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its early day, but a little dark. So what is it, when MANY MANY of photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes. Its definitely day. There are no significant hard boundaries between day and night. Those are human constructed categories that put arbitrary boundaries onto a spectrum without any inherent boundaries. Those two categories of day and night allow us to explain different parts of a spectrum. You can add extra categories of dawn and dusk to give a total of four less widely separate places on the same spectrum. You can add extra categories such as 'late dawn but much light' like i did on the same spectrum. But its a spectrum of differences still, no matter how we [perhaps arbitrarily] chose to subdivide it. Hope you can tell, I liked the day and night example. It proved a useful analogy for these concepts. There are no significant hard boundaries between 'micro and macro evolution', they are two arbitrary places along a spectrum. You can refer to the least differences as micro-mutations if you want, you can refer to the massive ones as macroevolution, but there are hard boundaries. Often humans use categories to refer to very different things like 'day' and 'night'. Yes, indeed, it helps to refer to the extremes easily like the single word 'day' ,, rather than the lengthy "when MANY MANY of photon of light from the sun below the horizon reaches your eyes" That Doesn't mean there is a 'hard distinction' or 'significant difference' between that category and other human constructed categories. so no. Macro evolution is not the accumulation of microevolution. They are differences in scale of evolutionary change from few = adaptations across breeds, to massive = can be used to make artificial human categories that need more accumulated differences, like species, genera, families, orders... and choosing which of those to apply again depends on where on the scale of the spectrum of differences are, ok, few differences, = differences species, several differences = different genera, plenty of differences=families, many =orders) so how is our 'few' significantly different from several, and how are several different from plenty, and how is plenty different from many? Theyre not. Theyre all along a spectrum from 1 difference to an infinitely huge number of differences. Same with mutational differences. By using 'micro mutations' and 'macromutation' You are just looking at two widely separated places along a spectrum and not seeing other intermediate parts of the specrum. If theyre so different, what then are midi-mutations, or quasi-macromutations. Yup, they're other hypothetical places along the spectrum, and both intermediate to the two extreme artificially constructed terms you know. I would be useful to learn about qualitative and quantitive differences everyone who is not familiar.
  7. sjl197

    The Problem Of The Dog

    We are getting far from topic. Indeed, variants of text don't change what the bible said happened. This reveals to us the Bible text has been modified over time by subsequent generations of scribes over time. Put another way, Biblical text, with its current various forms of translations and reinterpretations shows such wondrous modification with descent from a single God-given source. Im not sure if you are now saying some animals floating outside the ark or not might be spared. Maybe equivocating? No matter. If you or other members on this forum stil contend some floating outside the ark might have be spared...., Then i question the effectiveness of it being such a wrathful cleansing judgement, if as you suggest, some escaped by floating, etc. The Bible scripture is clear about the absolute cleansing, except for those inside the ark. God observes the 'wickedness of man' and decides to destroy all other creations. Genesis 6 :7 - "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Whole point of loading all life into the ark to survive is really this overwhelming destruction. In and saved, not in and destroyed. The LORD destroys men, beasts creeping things, and fowls of the air, that are not in the Ark. That's a rather vague generality. Modification of what? The morphological variation observed seem to serve the same purpose as the original pheno. Genetically, they are still using the same gene groups to express that variation. Indeed, im using it as a generality, because indeed i see the action of selection to be a powerful force to drive and guide such wondrous modification with descent. Such modification with decent through the influence of selection can act on many different things, from written passages of books where tiny parts of some versions are miscopied and that miscopy remains in all subsequent copies arising from it (plus more may arise later), or where re-interpretations are then put in written text, and similarly that re-interptetation remains in descendant copies from it. Same idea perhaps with computers sold by a company, when they have different product lines like laptops versus handheld. A useful modification of the design for the handheld version can be in future versions of that handheld computer, but not put into the product line of the desktop as its an inappropriate modification. And yes, this latter example is most definitely a case of artificial selection by an intelligence, along the lines of 'intelligent design' proponents, except those guys fail to see it is actually the purchasing public who buy are the selectors. They decide if the modification useful or not, the designer just propose the modification and put it in the product. Yes designers are no doubt intelligent, but they are actually just the source of variation.. or source mutations as i prefer say. The power come from the intelligent selectors, who buy the new product variation or not. Much like it is the humans being the intelligent selectors of which dogs to breed together to TRY and form new breeds or TRY modify body features. These people are selecting individuals to try and get dogs towards to desired form, or these days to try and maintain breed purity. These humans are selectors, artificial selectors. There are several different mechanisms of selection. Artificial selection is just one (with humans as the selectors). Natural selection is another with purely naturalistic agents (which is differential fitness individuals, those being better adapted to a situation surviving better or having more offspring. These being together under the umbrella of selection. Also, many other great thinkers allow room for God to act as a selectior if they and you prefer. But with God or not, selection on variation still leading to wondrous modification with descent. I would follow and agree that much observed morphological variation indeed are highly conservative. Yes, much 'variation' seem to serve the same purpose as the orignal phenotype. Yes, that can be followed to the same genes or gene groups. You can simply term that original phenotype or its genotype as your candidate homology, and for body structures like a given bone, its modified variants over time still have most if not all the same connections with other neighboring tissues and bones as the original phenotype. Very often genes and gene groups too.
  8. sjl197

    Scientists Of Faith

    All useful points Ron, thanks for your replies. I did not intend my post to be disingenuous. There were some issues with bias and misinformation i saw in the locked thread i could not give reply to there. Thankyou and the other moderators for allowing my opinion to remain here on view for now. The people listed on my thread and attached links are only listed as 'Christian' or 'people of faith', and sometimes more information on their denominations and personal philosophies can be sought out from this. Any of us can only speculate or report evidence on the fervency of others beliefs, but my own i can share directly. Yes, if it is not possible to communicate directly, i understand your perspective that going to source writings is a useful way to try to understand the beliefs or teachings of others. I fully appreciate US president isn't a scientist nor is he necessarily a christian (only that is what he himself contends). Such views have been recorded by the press many times, and publicly available. I wont share them, there is no political agenda here. Indeed, the OP is about ""Replying to Scientists" indeed. Just to explain, I inserted the bit about the US president because he is a core policy decision maker about the direction of funded science in the USA, so if anything can provide bias on the focus and output of Science, its a topdown bias from the president and his government. My point being, he is also [allegedly] a firm Christian believer. Maybe its a little divergent, i can only accept if moderators want to remove those lines.
  9. sjl197

    The Problem Of The Dog

    Last i heard, insects are animals. Maybe you could fit 1 million insect SPECIES into 1 room, but still you need to consider all required individuals. Much more room. Last i heard, other certain animals are spiders, crabs, centipedes, scorpions, and so the estimated 1 million or so kinds of mite which i didnt count because i was going with conservative estimates of species. I thought all these creepy-crawly things were animals, as well as all those other earth worms, flatworms, peanut worms etc i listed, which go creeping along the ground. Try this translation of biblical text then: "Genesis 6:18 - But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive." I think ANY animals are safely included under the broadest call for "EVERY living thing of all flesh", (as well as plants, fungi and all the billions of bacteria actually - but i didnt count those for conservant number too ) And pretty easily, all the 'Creepy-crawly' insects, spiders and kin, plus wormy things covered by either "animal" OR under "of EVERY creeping thing of the ground according to its kind" Last i heard, all spiders are predators, all flies their prey. If you stuffed all insects into a room, how do you ensure all survive for 190 days?, The only way is to separate plenty of them into many cages with their own food sources. Sure you can put a few types of beetles and flies together no problem. But not with any of the many many thousand kinds of parasitic wasps, those would need to be kept separate. Then with the many thousand kinds of spiders (40,000 kinds, actually) you'd have to separate almost every individual as many would otherwise gladly have eaten many others, and many would even be willing to eat some of those precious individuals from their own species. Maybe they all lived in blissful harmony for 190 days, lion laying down with the lamb and all that. Well, they still need food, and you're still far over capacity. OK. Prove to us that dogs aren't dogs. Thing is, indeed currently all dogs are dogs. Thats why, regardless of the wondrous variety of dog forms, variants, and 'breeds' we see, and they were apparently unclean, so just 2. The wondrous variety of modern dog forms generated by selection from just 2 very recent ancestors that survived the flood, apparently. Selection is potentially a very powerful force indeed to drive and guide such wondrous modification with descent.
  10. sjl197

    Scientists Of Faith

    Huh, as in this link to a touching morning prayer he certainly sounds like a Christian. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/obama-to-deliver-major-speech-on-personal-faith-white-house-official-says/
  11. sjl197

    The Problem Of The Dog

    The link video was very informative, i enjoyed it, thankyou Thanks for sharing those 'calculations' with us, or as i prefer to call them, those "rough summary estimates without numerical justification" First Jason777, you said above, that "every mammal, reptile, bird, and dinosaur with only 25% of the arks capacity" but your source video says his numbers were for 50,000 creatures, giving only just 36% full. I do however fully accept that nowhere in genesis it says that Noah only took on adult creatures, so yes ok, baby elephants good enough for me here. 7 pairs of those please. Thats 14 of those to go. As clean animals go 7 by 7's. But, its vital to question this ..how did he get to count of just 50,000 creatures? That number seems very very small to me. --- Ok, TERRESTRIAL species, swimmers excluded. So, I think we are not allowing fish (31,000 species by the way), nor crocodiles, no turtles, etc. and i got it, no frogs, ok. all those excluded from subsequent calculations. (though i think the bible says something about the family eating fish, they could have caught them, sure). No insects with swimming larvae, ok, excluded from calculations. Ok, Lets put on all the other animals though, there is really quite a few, earthworms, nematode worms, velvet worms, peanut worms, priapulid worms, fan worms, flatworms, theres actually quite a few, you must know snails and slugs.. Anyway 68,827 described species of all those wormy slithery animals, but no swimming ones.. lets say a conservative 50,000 species. Heres some nice diagrams showing the branches of all the worms and slitherers on tree diagrams. http://www.sars.no/images/hejnol_Research_Figure3.jpg http://accessscience.com/popup.aspx?figID=035700FG0010&id=035700&name=figure But ok, the Ark. Without swimming animals, no marine ones nor freshwater ones.. final head count of species please. There are actually 1.214,000 species of described terrestrial creatures ! Thats 1 million 2 hundred and fourteen thousand species ... NOT just a fifty thousand like he said in the video ! and in this guys video he says his fifty thousand already fill up 36% of the ark? The ACTUAL number described terrestrial species is 24.2 times bigger than his number! and his filled 36%. ? ... Here, the ACTUAL number of described terrestrial species fills far over 100% ark capacity... actually fills upto 871.2 % !! But, sure, lets say plenty of my additional creatures are smaller than in the video..(though he was also going for the smallest and weakest, kittens, rat pups etc). So, lets say most of mine additional creatures just are half the size,.. if we go ahead and half my number its still 4 x over capacity. What if most of mine are actually much much smaller, should we divide my number by 1/8th? Fine do it, still overcapacity, we're stuffed in without any breathing room. -- Perhaps importantly, we need to ask whether his calculations based on numbers of species or number of individuals?, He clearly said 50,000 ANIMALS when he was talking about 50,000 for vertebrates, mammals birds and reptiles remember 7 by 7 for clean and few 2 by 2 for unclean.. but there are definitely 30,000 known SPECIES mammals birds and reptiles, many of them appear to be clean..so rather than his vague 50,000 ANIMALS, ..we're actually talking about 200,000 individuals now for just these same few lineages actually. Not 50,000. Anyway if we go on talking individuals, for 1.214,000 described creatures, then it actually around 8,500,000 individuals we've got to fit in, not 50,000 ! Which he said was 36% full!. Big difference. Huge. --- And im being VERY VERY lenient on actual species numbers. This number of terrestrial creatures i gave, of 1.214.000 species, is only the number of DESCRIBED SPECIES . Every day, scientists describe more species they find, infact its about 8,000 newly named species each year by scientists... Based on current scientific predictions, there an actual total is 10 million and 30 million terrestrial species on earth when all are described. That gives a total number of ACTUAL SPECIES somewhere between 10 times to 30 time bigger than the 1.214.000 described to date! And we were already super-duper crammed in even if each animal was an average of 1/8 the size ! So, whatever way we look at it, we are way over capacity with just the described creatures pushed in as tight as they'd fit. Stacked even. Not sure where all these new ones discovered by science upto to the 10 to 30 million total will go. And we need either 2 or 7 of each, oh my. And food. They all need food. Thats fresh meat for many kept for 190 days without going rotton without freezer facilities. Thats every kind of plant that all the leaf eating creatures eat, fresh for 190 days, as most dont eat old or dead leaves. And the plants he would have brought to keep each one of the kinds to repopulate the earth would be seeds as thyre smallest.. And he'd have needed plenty more seeds for all the seed eating birds and bugs, especially the seed weevils.. 40,000 of those each with own seed preference etc And fresh water daily. Not salt water. Plants and animals die without constant fresh water. Thankfully for him, it was raining. And the waste removed. Yah, you can flush the waste matter away with rainwater. But not without room to breath with everything crammed in so tight.. No room to move, cram them in without any gaps?, sure they'll all survive for 190 days, sure. I loved in this same thread Ikester7279 casually dismissed the difficulty getting all species in the ark as "Having a room problem" . Yah, i think i might follow from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room I think i formalise this idea with some exact numbers. As elephants went 7 by 7, I'd call this "the 14 elephant in the room" problem. Ok.. so I wouldnt say all would survive, they each need their individual food plant or prey, as well as lots of parasitic ones. Did some of the terrestrial ones like insects raft? Perhaps. did some of the terrestrial creatures NOT go on the boat? Well: Scripture is very clear, Genesis 7: 2-3. (New international version). "Take with you seven pairs of EVERY KIND of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of EVERY KIND of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of EVERY KIND of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." See the words 'EVERY KIND'. Its written three times. EVERY KIND is clear. EVERY KIND of creature, all freshwater fish, marine fish, sharks, crocodiles, turtles, crabs, prawn, shrimp, sea squirts, jelly fish corals, EVERY KIND, frogs too. And whether swimmers were included or not, we were still already FAR FAR over capacity, even stuffed in a tight as you could imagine. And please check some fact before you talk to me about insects. Only a tiny tiny fraction of insects are aquatic or have aquatic swimming larvae. Thats, caddis flies (>0.5% total insect diversity), Dragonflies and damselflies (>0.5% diversity) and some diving beetles. (>0.1% diversity). Doesn't matter if we subtract those tiny fractions, wouldn't make any noticeable difference for this super-overfilled ark. You do the math. So. Shall we all reread the original post and discuss as the OP says "Now, leaving aside all arguments about the potential for the Ark to house all the necessary creatures and what forms those creatures rode on the ark (etc)." Lets talk about defining those Baramin forms shall we?
  12. Im moving on... I contend before the assembled Jury, that Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy. As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false. So. Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice? Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please? BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed. So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence. The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability. Let the white swan counting begin.
  13. sjl197

    Cytochrome C - The Illusion Exposed

    Ok, i'd like to answer and follow on, but i'd like to first clarify please.. About "A Creationist put them there, " Do you mean you got this info from somewhere/ someone else? Can you tell me your source please/where to find this? and "The differences include: 1 ,2, etc" Is this list supposed to be ape+human synapomorphies you are wishing to argue against, or human autapomorphies ? If you dont know these terms, please look them up, plenty of great resources freely on the web. I ask you to do this otherwise its almost impossible to make clear and meaningful discussion on the merits or pitfalls of mainstream phylogenic theory and techniques without us sharing a basic understanding these basic terms and definitions. [also useful to lookup symplesiomorphy, monophyly, paraphyly, etc]
  14. I would just like to comment on some points highlighted by 'dave' in a new pinned thread. As i understand it, he wasnts to gather support and ideas to 'defend' these 3 issues from criticism by evolutionary perspectives. If i misunderstood the point of the pinned topic entitled "Scientists of Faith" then i apologise for getting the concept wrong. These points. First, im an evolutionary biologist. The worst kind. I want to point out i dont get my thoughts or ideas from the 'talk origins' website, though im now tempted to look at it. However, i prefer to go it alone. I call it being a free thinker. If any of the mods want to lock my post or remove it, please do. I just wish the orignal poster of the locked thread to consider my views, and in particular perhaps modify his second point. Thankyou. And my comments to please consider. Thing is, for me as a scientist and evolutionary biologist, this is absolutely and totally fine. Totally agreed. Men of faith and even men of great faith can do Sciene. Great science infact sometimes. Even men of great faith can do evolutionary biology. Totally agreed. Great evolutionary biology infact sometimes. Women too, infact people of all denominations, persuasions and inclinations. Great science/evolutionary biology infact sometimes. You perhaps would be better to say something like 'Studies on life" (=biology) itself, rather than the much broader term 'science' I'd say so many scientific disciplines can be conducted without evolution, from astrophysics to quantum theory, inorganic chemistry, etc. I think you want to gather arguments against biology or evolution. Perhaps instead form argument against this venerable statement/essay entitled: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" Its from a 1973 essay by one of the greatest evolutionary minds and driver of the modern synthesis, and one of my hero's, the greatly respected Prof. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Who was actually Russian Eastern Orthodox Christian, and favoured what might be now termed theistic evolution Direct quote: "I am a creationist and an evolutionist" — Theodosius Dobzhansky 1973. Again, Bible-believers can do real science, and can even do great evolutionary biology like the great Dobzhansky. Here is a useful link to many other great names below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science However, those who attempt to apply inappropriate methods as pseudoscience, give any theists, and Christians in particular a bad press for those who understand and support the merits of science. Those Christians who understand the merits of science like President Barack Obama, also a Christian i've been told.
  15. @Portillo Please be careful throwing around the word "believed" like that. I'd say if you want to better reflect views of many evolutionary biologists, please say 'prefer' evolution. Also evolutionary theory and God/Bible are not necessarily incompatible.. ask some evolutionary theists on that. I personally dont NEED God to exist. (Many of you here do, and those are your beliefs. we dont need debate that). Happy to hear that. I hope for me, it stimulates greater capacity of the respectable quality of perseverance. James 1:3 "because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance." So then, sjl197', you fully accept your atheistic religiosity? Or are you simply (and purposefully) being facetious, or obstinate? Please separate "evolution" from "atheism". My reply was about faith in evolution. Still empirical faith is different from religious faith. Also, by my forum profile saying "atheist" it does not well reflect my personal philosophy, please dont presume. Actually, i'd say im 50.1% atheist and 49.9% naturalistic pantheist. Actually Einstein was a naturalistic pantheist, but i give my unknown powers less room. So. Yes, i personally would accept my atheistic tendencies as requiring faith, but as there is no structured belief system there is no way to say religiosity as there is no structured belief system or rituals. Ergo it is obviously the antithesis of Religiosity. Also other atheists dont seem to allow faith, however defined. Ok now @Teejay and Ron together. I must pooint out that you are being inconsistent. You believe in evolution; yet you have never seen it happen? First, please do not modify the words "evolution" or evolutionary biology" to say 'evo' in my post. This has been done elsewhere for my posts, and it's beginning to upset me. Please respect my desire for this now. I try to always write God with a capital G because many Christians respect that (and capital C there). I disagreed i'm being inconsistent. I now disagree about “presupposing” evolution. These days, after several years of study, i think i undertand evolutionary theory well. I got high grades in classes, and now my articles on the topic get in the top journals if they survive the terrors of peer review. Nowadays, I SEE evolution happening all around me, every day, every-time i step out for a walk and see life around me, and particularly if i see "a tangled bank" in Darwins own words. I do not "believe" in evolution. I have personally accumulated observable evidence from life all around, have conducted my own experiments on living organisms, and seen/read published results of many other people who i respect as great thinkers, and evolutionary principles have not yet been falsified. Such findings, including my own have been repeatedly verified by many independent investigators. No, i am not attempting to PROVE evolution, but thats what the overwhelming evidence continues to suggest as the best available hypothesis. From your statements Ron of "The stronger devouring the weaker doesn’t lend credence to evolution" and give "empirical scientific evidence that the animal eating cycle somehow causes one animal to “macro-evolve” into another animal?" shows me you have not sufficiently read about how evolutionary theory to give any realistic arguments against it. You misunderstand what evolutionary theory is saying. Actually, you might want to know when i was a young grad student, i was personally very unconvinced by evolution (actually i was biased against it -so i really dislike reading claims that all evolutionists are similarly biased because of share preconceptions). Yet i learnt several modern techniques of evolutionary biology ... and the data + experiments convinced me this is a very good explanation for the current living worlds diversity. I tried to keep my initial bias against evolution, but i couldnt get past the brickwall that the scientific method (when done correctly) doesn't allow such investigator bias. Whichever way my biases were, the evaluated evidence led the way., i couldn't refute it. You might want to say i took a leap of faith. I prefer to say i was convinced by overwhelming evidence and logic. My studies of the bible however convinced me this was a far less adequate explanation for life's great diversity. I prefer the option to question everything, which i continue to do as an evolutionary biologist. I found i could not question or reason with religious dogma. I could not accept the teachings of the bible as divinely inspired, they didnt answer my questions, those words were unquestionable and inflexible. I couldn't take that leap of faith. I tried to apply different interpretations, but still the bible failed to provide me with anything to fill my desire to know more about the world around me than it could provide. I wanted to know more, but the bible wouldnt let me know more than the few limited words of fixed text and few varient interpretations that i couldn't be secure were the original or true meaning. It failed me. So yes, all of you. i have read the bible. Its teachings alone were lacking. I perhaps chose to instead bite the allegorical apple of knowledge and leave the garden of eden. Maybe i misquote the bible in the last part. Maybe im misinterpreting its teachings. p.s. You all have nearly driven me away from this forum. Im tired of the same misinformed views, such as "evolution isnt scientific", "you cant prove it" and worse "you cant show one species turns into another" and the one i really find ironic "give me evidence". The evidence is all around, im just asking you all to open your minds, or start by opening your eyes and observe. Even dare i say it, please please go try some experiments yourself. Only you can allow yourself to become convinced of something new to you. Dont just be told how it is, go experiment.

Important Information

Our Terms