# Evolution...Open to anyone with an opinion.



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I recently read this:

The evolutionists state that everything changes or, just evolved by needs over time, well this could be for some simple things but for the various reproduction methods of animals over time; this is very questionable… This still doesn't explain why some species would even think of changing, or want to change, or need to change… Lets look at the last "needs " to change, due to the environment, etc. ; well first since the evolutionist state that the change would take place over millions of years… Thus an animal needing more, fur, or gills, or wings would not have time before the environment caught up and they would die out… It would take too much time for them to adapt or change into what ever new forms; much less getting their biology to cooperate and product a new creature… It is a rather drawn out argument you must admit… But for the sake of argument we will let them have their turn at bat… We will say it happened, that way… OK!!

The above was written by a creationist. This is what I think:

I agree with the author in that environmental changes happen too quickly for biological changes to catch up. Evolution does not chase change requirements, rather species are already where they need to be when the change is necessitated. I believe as do scientists that all species (including human) are varied and various groups within a species can differ from one another and still be the same species.

I'll give an example. All members of a species differ somewhat. Some are brighter colored, some have larger appendages, more fur, etc. An example would be body hair. Some human males have far more than others. We can see this and prove this.

I also think that when an environmental change occurs which ever group is best prepared will survive. Let's say a species of wolf inhabits the central US. Of this species a genetic mutation has occured that has spread through half of the total number. That mutation is the undercoat of half the species is thinner and less dense than the other half. Both varients can readily survive in the temperate climate of the midwest. However, should the climate become extremely hot (tropical) or cold (artic) then one of the halves will be more ready to adapt to the new environment and may in fact be the half to survive.

The author is wrong in his supposition that biological change chases and follows environmental change. Environmental change occurs far to fast for any biology that I am aware of to make the necessary changes. Evolution is haphazard. Only those that are ready for the change will survive and being ready for the change is based on the luck of having the correct gene mutation. In fact, none of the species may be ready and all will perish.
Just my thoughts…


----------



## therookie (Aug 29, 2010)

I do believe in evolution, but in all reality yes there is a non-shop talk forum but my firm belief is that it should be used for items like notifying this website of a passing of a jock or something along those lines. I mean some politics is OK but when that is all anyone wants to talk about on a *WOODWORKING* forum, I believe that there is something seriously wrong with that picture. For example my news feed has been showing that more and more people are commenting on the political stuff instead of the woodworking. When someone comments on a project that you post it gives you a little glory moment because they are usually saying good job or giving advice, it makes you feel good. but no not anymore, it is rare that you see more than 10 or 12 comments on one project now, where as before you could see 30 or 40. Just my opinion I have been keeping to my self for a long time now and I am getting sick of this ^ crap being posted.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)




----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

At the risk of being blunt: Evolution is a scientific fact, you can accept it or reject it, but belief does not enter into the discussion. If your religious beliefs conflict with evolution, or any other science, you must decide how you will deal with that, but it does not diminish the validity of the scientific theory.

Your post indicates significant confusion with the basics of evolution (which is very common in the US) and you would benefit greatly from reading some introductory science books on the subject. I would suggest "Why Evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne; it is well written and accessible to the lay person.


----------



## woodworkerscott (Sep 12, 2010)

*jmos*
Very well put. You are exactly right…..there is no argument; evolution is fact. Thanks for posting.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Jmos, please point out a few of the significant confusions.

Therookie, thanks for your thoughts.

Chrisstef, I do not know what you are trying to communicate.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

that youre a troll


----------



## mark88 (Jun 8, 2009)

haha good one chrisstef


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Chrisstef, please post a list of allowable nonshop topics. I'm not sure about the troll label.

Mark, have you ever thought on your own or do you just follow what others say and giggle?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I believe in evolution but JMOS as a scientist I have to say that evolution is not a fact, it is a very well regarded theory. There is actually a difference, people that try to politicize science (like Al Gore) use the words fact when they shouldn't. The instant you say something is a scientific fact and there is no room for arguement then you are as closed minded as the people that deny evolution.

Not all evolution is for the best, imagine breeding dogs. If certian dogs interbreed or breed with other species they get different characteristics. The resulting species of dog could die out or it could continue to live on, but that doesn't necessarly mean its a better dog. This is where I think many believers in evolution don't quite understand it. The darwinism only occurs if there is an outside force that "kills off" the inferior dogs.

One simply has to sit on a busy street to see evolution has failed some


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

Ah, the simple pleasures of working wood by hand…









This was a tree that evolved into a pallet, that evolved into an Oak Table. As for the by hand part? My hand guided each piece. Of course, If you want to look at….









something curlie…..

Answer the Irish Poem, yet?


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I agree with the theory of Evolution, but (jmos) it is NOT "scientific fact"


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

The evolutionists…

This is a misnomer. It seems to me that the people that have confidence in the theory of evolution are not so much believers in evolution, but are believers in the scientific method, the process that produced this particular theory (and others). It would be far more appropriate to label this group scientists. That paragraph then continues with some babbling that is not at all representative of the current theory of evolution nor the data and analysis behind it.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Pat, you are, of course, correct. If the strict sense all scientific knowledge is provisional, which is the beautiful thing about it.

The distinction I was trying to make is that evolution happened, and is happening. There is no theory that will come along and completely disprove evolution, especially in the creationism sense. It is possible the copious amount of evidence for evolution will be integrated into a larger, more comprehensive theory at some point (as Newtonian mechanics was absorbed into Relativity and Quantum Mechanics).

Many religious apologists like to try to use 'theory' in the colloquial sense to indicate that it's just some guys opinion, which it is not.

DKV, if you are really asking this to gain knowledge, I'd look up the reference I quoted. I don't have the interest or time to get into a detailed discussion on evolution, especially on a woodworking site.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

jmos, I am very interested and I am always open to knowledge gain. I am currently reading chapter 2 of your suggested reading. I don't understand why we can't discuss this subject in the nonshop forum of a woodworking site. I look forward to any input you may have. BTW, I have not found any "significant confusions" so far. Maybe chapter 3…

Bandit, you obviously did not read the title of this thread…


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

Ah, but I did, sirah… If a piece of lumber can evolve, so can almost anybody, just look to your changing avatars for proof.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Just the idea that climate change occurs quicker than evolution is a major misunderstanding. That would vary significantly depending on the speed of climate change and the reproductive cycle of the species. That's one of the major concerns with the current rate of climate change is that it is far more rapid than many past changes, giving species less time to adapt.

Likewise, evolution has nothing to do with a species 'thinking about' or 'wanting' to change.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

John, did I not say the samething in my post? I don't understand where we differ. I am looking for new insights and different thought process approaches. I would love to get Greg going on this thread.

I always seem to forget about you bandit and then I have to go back and edit in a reply to you. I've always had this avatar and I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

Really…....OK, better go back and recheck your avatars over time. They have in deed changed, just every time you change them, they go back to all of your other posts. Maybe i should leave you with a better one of mine?









" I have always had this avatar…' LOL LOL LOL. Some of us have very good memories…..


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

AH man now you made me want some Salsa con Queso, thanks alot.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

jmos and gregd, what are your thoughts on coyne and dawkins vs shapiro?


----------



## Dwain (Nov 1, 2007)

1) I don't understand why you put these posts out there when you have nothing to do with woodworking. That is why you get the responses you get here.

2) Evolution is the best theory we have going. It is not fact, but it is what we have now, AND WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT. Thats the great thing about science, If it's fact, you'd better be able to prove it over and over again. If it's not, keep searching.

3) Please understand simple grammar. To and too mean different things. Please review your Oxford Dictionary and figure out the differences. I welcome a woodworking project from you at some point…heck, I would rather not hear from you until you post something woodworking related.

Just my two cents.

Dwain


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I think that many people have the idea that evolution happens because a species somehow makes it happen. It's my understanding, however, that evolution is essentially a lottery on a grand scale. Some mutation occurs which gives a few members of a species a slight edge in the survival sweepstakes. Since they survive slightly longer, they have a greater chance of mating with one another and passing that characteristic along to their offspring who will also survive slightly longer.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

I find it makes much more sense to think of evolution in terms of genes instead of in terms of living organisms or species. A gene which happens to produce an organism that is good at reproducing will become more prevalent than a gene that does not. There is no direction, there is no foresight.

An interesting example is the gene that causes sickle cell anemia. This is a recessive gene. If you get it from both of your parents, you will have the anemia. If you get it from just one parent, you will not. But, with one gene, you will be less likely to get malaria and more likely to reproduce than people who have no such genes. One gene is an advantage (in an environment with malaria) and two is a disadvantage. This is why the gene is so widespread, even though it can cause problems in the resulting humans.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I think there can be a lot of reasons for it. For example people who have ancestors on both sides of their family tree that survived the black death in Europe are somewhat immune to AIDS. A different example would be animals begining to use simple tools, octopusses (is that the correct plural?) have been witnessed to use manmade objects found at the bottom of the ocean to help them open clams. The octopi (that could be the plural too ) could develope shorter and stronger tentacles to aid in the use of tools.

One of these examples would be a mutation from sheer dumb luck and the other based on the species learning and passing it on to future generations.

And a scientific fact is something that can be measured or observed directly like the water temperature is 72 degrees, aluminum is less dense than gold. Facts can be a preresquite to a theory. 
Unfortunately in many circles the theory is developed and the facts are looked for to support the theory.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Dwain, I absolutely understand the difference between to and too…my mistake. Forgive me.

Sawkerf, evolution is random and pure luck. Please reread my paragraph in the OP that starts with "I also think that…" It is a good example of evolution.

ChuckV, I agree that evolution is all about genes.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pat Collins, layman theory or the everyday use of the word and scientific theory are two different things. Your last sentence denotes layman theory.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pat Collins, this is from my personal bible. It may help you.

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a wayconsistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

For all those that constantly berate me and others for posting in the nonshop section please show me the rules for posting and I will follow them. I can't understand why my woodworking or lack of it is such a concern to some of you. Maybe you can explain that to me. Also, I did my best to let everyone know via the title exactly what they were getting into by reading my post. Did I leave anything out?

Allah loves you all.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

DKV -

I vented my energy on this topic during its last iteration which was not so long ago.

My biology education is weak and I am not well read on Dawkins and Shapiro. I applaud anyone that is dissatisfied with evolution - or any other current scientific theory - and makes an honest, competent effort to improve the science. But the game of science has rules, and if you aren't following the rules what you are doing isn't science. Science - the practice of following the scientific method - rejects any reference to supernatural phenomena. Truly supernatural phenomena ls beyond the scope of the scientific method.

The bits I have read on Intelligent Design all have the same deficiencies as the paragraph following "I recently read this:" in the OP. They misrepresent the prevailing theory - evolution in this case - and then refute the misrepresentations. Such a process is worthless. If Evolution were a person (s)he should sue for slander.

Strike one.

Then there is the problem that the term "Intelligent Design" implies the acceptance of something supernatural.

Strike two.

Further the proponents of Intelligent Design that I have seen are all clearly determined to come up with an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth - any explanation - that conforms to their preconceptions - religious views in this case - that are completely independent of any of the relevant data. I know from my professional experience how difficult it is to avoid being misled by confirmation bias even when you are looking for its effects. The proponents of ID that I have seen embrace this pitfall at the outset. It will blind them for a very, very long time.

Strike three.

So everything I have seen on ID is clearly not science. It is a fraud, and an incompetent fraud at that.

That is not to say that the current theory of evolution is perfect and complete. It would be really cool to show experimentally how mutations and selection can lead to a population of fish that descended from a population of birds, for example. There may well be some pretty interesting details that are for now beyond our understanding.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

UNBELIEVABLE!

A new Gallup poll measures Americans' belief in the origin of human beings, and how this belief correlates with church attendance, political party affiliation and education level. The poll was conducted by interviewing a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.The following question was asked to determine Americans' views on origin of human beings:Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Respondents were categorized as believing in theistic evolution (option 1), evolution (option 2) and creationism (option 3) depending on their answer choice.Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention.

The percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years. The percent of Americans who believe in evolution has also increased by 6 percent over the last 30 years while the percent of Americans who believe in theistic evolution has decreased by 6 percent over the same time period.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

None of those is the right answer. The notions of "more advanced" and "less advanced" have nothing to do with evolution - they are a result of erroneous human-centric thinking. Are you as good at catching mosquitoes in the dark as a bat is?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

erroneous human-centric thinking

Careful. Many would find that an intensely inflammatory statement. A belief in a Judeo-Christian God, likely prevalent in the polled population, is an intensely human-centric characteristic, is it not? With luck no-one that would be inflamed will have any idea what you are talking about.

Humans. We are a crazy bunch.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Greg, I would call us an extremely egotistical bunch…


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

I feel lucky that I arrived before the cockroaches took over. I have a feeling that the transitional phase won't be pretty.


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

Only 15% believe in Evolution? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Renners, in this case you'd be the uncle of a bunny.


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

Evolved?? let's see. Started out living happily in Western Gaul, til J.G. Ceasar showed up one fine day. Left for a big island off shore, dang if that sob followed us there, Wound up in the western edge of the "big island", settled down. Here comes the Bastard Billie, to a place called hastings. Tried to get along with them Normans, gave up and went across the sea to the small island. Later on, here comes the "Normans", only they call themselves "English". Hmmm, same old Braggarts, different names. Tried to get along with them "English" fellows, until about the late 1700s. Bought passage to America. Found in a couple of wars there, moved from Finger lakes, New "York", to some land we had won from the "New" American Government for our "War Services'. Land was in the Ohio Valley area. Some of us started a Methodist Church in the area, first called the Newman Society, later called the Olive Chapel. About 1820s. We have fought in EVERY war since that time. Still can't get along with them "English" Dudes, though.


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

I thought it would be interesting and educational if you, DKV, would share with us what your faith has to say about the beginning of the world… 
I promise not to laugh, after all, it can't be any more outlandish than a talking snake and a missing apple.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Renners, I'm 100% big bang guy. Can't even start to believe that the world is only 10,000 years old. I am firmly in the camp that we have evolved through gene mutation and blind luck. I do not believe in any kind of mysticism, hokey pokey, magic, divine intervention, etc. I guess my question is how can an intelligent and all powerful god create something as grand as the universe and then turn management of it over to a staff of pedifiles and adulterers. I guess that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

You dodged the question there, what does the Qur'an have to say about the beginning of the world? Is it any different to the Book of Genesis?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pretty much Muslims and the Koran follow the old testament. As you know the old testament (a history of the Jews) is the source book for the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. Not much differs…all three have the same beginning point with only slight variations.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I have to say that I don't believe in the big bang, but not for any theological reasons. I just dont believe there is enough science behind it other than some conjecture. I don't get the need for a begining, why can the universe just have been? I think this need for a begining came from theoligical roots.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pat, I agree there is no solid evidence except for the fact that science can prove the universe is expanding. My thought is if it is expanding then it was smaller at one time. Tiny small, small small, medium small, medium, large medium…who knows.


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

I do not believe in any kind of mysticism, hokey pokey, magic, divine intervention, etc. I guess my question is how can an intelligent and all powerful god create something as grand as the universe and then turn management of it over to a staff of pedifiles and adulterers. I guess that's it in a nutshell.

So you're an agnostic/atheist?


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

That's a bit of a let down really, but thank you for sharing anyway.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

OldMarine, to be an evolutionist do I have to be an agnostic/atheist? Agnostics by the way are kind of wimps that can't make up their minds and take a stand.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Renners, what are your thoughts? And, why are you let down? Take a stand, man! What do you believe?


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

There may have been infinite numbers of previous Universes.

Big Bang /

Universe Expands /

Universe Contracts /

Big Implosion /

Big Bang….

like a cosmic four stroke engine, running on matter, gravity and time.

Who knows? How do they even think this stuff up?

I think it sounds more plausible than man being moulded from clay.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

This one will smoke your brain…

The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief by James S. Spiegel


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

OldMarine, to be an evolutionist do I have to be an agnostic/atheist?

Not at all. Given your list of what you don't believe in I was just asking.

I have heard agnostic referred to as "chicken atheists".


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Old Marine, to be a Jew, Christian, Muslim do I have to get rid of my list?

Peace


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

I merely asked a question out of curiosity. How you reconcile your belief system is up to you.

Jim


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Renners, oh to live a thousand years from now and have a whole new set of questions to debate and wonder about. And laugh about the thoughts of those that lived in 2012.


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

oh to live a thousand years from now and have a whole new set of questions to debate and wonder about. And laugh about the thoughts of those that lived in 2012.

They'll be the same questions phrased differently.

Our base of knowledge increases, technology advances, but human nature remains the same.

3000 years ago a wise man said, "there is nothing new under the sun".

Jim


----------



## bunkie (Oct 13, 2009)

"Agnostics by the way are kind of wimps…"

That's one way of looking at it. I view atheism as somewhat like religion as it is, in itself, a kind of faith. Agnosticism is completely in line with scientific method. The fact that the premise itself cannot be tested is beside the point.

I like to say that I just don't have the faith gene. For some people, the questions about the meaning of life are deeply important. For me, not so much. Is there a god? I have no idea and no way to prove it one way or the other. Furthermore, it's not an important question to me. Is that wimping out? No. Why tie yourself to an unprovable point of view, if you aren't driven by faith?

In short, I simply don't know, nor do I expect to know. It could be argued that submitting to an unprovable belief system is "wimping out", but I would never say so because I don't presume to know "the truth".


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Jim, you're a wise man. What I was trying to communicate was this. Whereas, the shape of the earth was heatedly debated at one time in history we can now absolutely prove its shape without a doubt. If I believed in reincarnation I would want to be on the "rounders" side of whatever was being debated a thousand or two years from now. Many of today's questions will have absolute answers and will seem impossible to have ever been questioned or debated.


----------



## littlecope (Oct 23, 2008)

I've always wondered how Evolution explains the common Spider.
Why would they develop an ability to cast intricate webs, before there was any usefulness shown for such a talent?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Littlecope, the answer is in my OP. Either that or beer evolved at the same time spider webs did.


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

http://www.trinity.edu/jdunn/spiderdrugs.htm

Don't know about beer, but the link shows the effects of other drugs.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Jim, I now understand the decline of the British Empire.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Jim,

That is great. A spider is more messed up by Caffeine than LSD or Mescaline\Peyote!


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Most discussion I hear about the big bang these days (by knowledgeable cosmologists) are careful to point out that since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet, they really don't know what happens before the Plank time. A singularity is often talked about, but it is not required for the current big bang theory. It is perfectly possible that our universe tunneled out of another and did not start from 'nothing'. It's also completely possible it did arise from nothing, as virtual particles do all the time. If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend Lawrence Krauss' new book "A Universe from Nothing", excellent book.

As for Agnostic vs atheist, I see it as a semantic argument. I consider myself an atheist because I put the probability of a god/creator at the same level as faeries, unicorns, and ghosts. If real evidence for any of those were ever presented, I would change my mind accordingly, which technically makes me an agnostic with respect to all those myths. You can read atheist to be set in a belief and unwilling to listen to evidence, which would make it a quasi religion, but most atheists I've met are in the former camp, rather than the later.

As for the spider, I have no trouble seeing that one; an organism mutates to excrete a particularly sticky substance which incidentally turns out to be useful helping to catch prey, and the rest is mechanics. Most likely an existing organ mutates to function a bit differently and it's off to the evolutionary races.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Evolution at the scene of the crime - updated August 2012

The tests confirm, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Roger Keith Coleman did it, but Alan Crotzer did not. In 1992, Coleman was executed for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law. In 1981, Crotzer was sentenced to 130 years in prison for a robbery and pair of rapes. Though the crimes themselves are old, judgments long since rendered, and punishments already meted out, for many observers, the actual guilt or innocence of these two defendants for two different crimes was only just settled by an increasingly important test: the DNA fingerprint.

Recent DNA tests revealed that it was, indeed, Coleman's semen in the body of his victim, and that he had actually committed the crime for which he was executed more than 10 years ago. And recent DNA tests revealed that Krotzer is not a rapist and has spent 24 years in prison for crimes he did not commit.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm disappointed that I have not heard from those that do not believe in evolution. I would truly like to hear their side. It doesn't do any good to have a topic and have all the like thinking good old boys sit around and slap each other on the back for their fantastic insights. To understand anything you need to understand both sides. I was raised and indoctrinated into the Catholic faith. Real nuns and old time priests. No questions asked. Believe because we say so. Luckily I was able to "see the light".


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

You specifically asked them not to participate in the post title!!


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I changed my mind and now I'm changing the title.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

While some of the process may be theory, evolution is fact. DNA studies have proven it. You can also see it in how infectious microbes are becoming resistant to our antibiotics. The bacteria, being relatively simple bodies, evolve quickly to adapt to hostile environments. We've got a lot of recently resistant diseases out there now.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

tonight my wife and I made some vodka gummy bears for our birthday part this weekend. Soak gummy bears in vodka for 24 hrs….eat gummy bears.

Now thats evolution….


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

I second John's recommendation of "A Universe from Nothing".

This article is about the evolution of spider web weaving:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081231130944.htm

This photo is from here:
http://www.jahojalal.com/2011/06/floods-2010-give-birth-to-giant-spider.html










EDIT: One more…


----------



## lunn (Jan 30, 2012)

so what species animal can you kill ALL of them in the world and can still get more?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

God is laughing hilariously…all his children are mistakes.


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

I don't know if anyone else has any really wild and crazy thoughts about stuff while they're passing material through the planer - you know, ear muffs on, no distractions, repetitive task, idle mind…
Anyway, it did occur to me some time ago that with the rising population and food shortages, it would only be a matter of time until some food scientists got together to create a genetically modified chicken, with no feathers, no bones, beak or claws - a pan ready chicken of the future. This might sound far fetched, but scientists are now growing beef in petri dishes from stem cells, no need for a cow, no bones, no blood, just man made animal protein.
Not that this really has much to do with evolution per se, but it does demonstrate that a living organism the size of a stem cell can survive and adapt and grow - all it needs is the right conditions.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

renners,


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

Nice one Chuck, lol


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

patcollins-
The universe can't "just be" because we've already seen that it's incredibly dynamic. I doubt if any human can resist asking why that's so. Since we've seen that it's expanding it's very logical to ask "How much further will it expand?" That, of course, leads to "Was it smaller in the past?" "How small?" At one time, it was thought that the solution to that was fairly straightforward - but then the physics blew up and they're having to come up with new theories to explain it. Look up "string theory" and "membrane theory". They make relativity seem like childs play. - lol


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Biology is the only science in which multiplication means the same thing as division.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

If Darwin was right, you will probably figure it out in a few million years.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

A Belgian astronomer and professor of physics, Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître proposed his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" in a 1931 article in the journal Nature. This idea eventually became known as the "Big Bang". When Einstein read some of Lemaître's earlier work he wrote to him, "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable."

An interesting side note is that Lemaître was also a priest and held his professorship at the Catholic University of Louvain.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Watch those religious references or the moderators will strike you down!!!


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

59%. Only 59%. How can this be possible? Are Americans stupid? Did they listen to nothing in school? What do we read…People magazine and comic books? I am ashamed.

According to the California Academy of Sciences, only 59% of U.S. adults know humans and (non-avian) dinosaurs did not coexist.[188] The last of the non-avian dinosaurs died 65.5 million years ago, after the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, whereas the earliest ******************** genus (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago. This places a 63 million year expanse of time between the last non-bird dinosaurs and the earliest humans.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Americans just don't seem to know much about science; sad but true. Stupid, bad schooling, lack of interest, hard to say. The dinosaur issue gets confounded since the young earth creationists do say man and dinos lived at the same time, only way to get them all on the planet in only 10,000 years or so.

Another mind blower, they've been doing a survey for quite a number of years where they ask; true or false, 'the earth orbits the sun and takes a year to do it.' Consistently 50% get that wrong; the same percentage as random guessing would yield.

Here's a link to a Pew Research poll http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/ Give it a try. The questions are pretty easy, but it's surprising to see the number of questions folks got wrong. They give you the results at the end.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

John,

Thanks for that link. You gotta love the three T/F questions that were answered correctly by only 46%, 47% and 54%. Also, the multiple choice question that was missed the most (48% incorrect) is politically important: stem cells.

EDIT: Not to brag (yeah, right) my 10-year old son got all 12 right.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

lwllms I believe the evolution that people talk about is did man evolve from apes, that is not a fact, that is a theory. A scientific fact is one that can be directly observed, measured, etc.

The fact in your argeument is that microbes can adapt to antibiotics because it has been directly observed.

I am in the evolution camp, however people that say things are scientific fact are as close minded and as bad as the close minded on the other side of the arguement.

I am 37 years old and I can remember when I was in highschool a little more than 20 years ago it was a scientific fact that margerine was the healthy alternative to butter…...

Bad science is no better than bad religion.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

About the universe expanding, where is it expanding to? What was whatever it was before the universe expanded into it?


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Pat, rather splitting hairs here because your basic point is entirely correct, but molecular biology shows that man and apes descended from a common ancestor. Prior to this the available evidence would make that descent a theory, but the results from molecular biology really place it into the fact column, IMHO.

Cosmology does blow ones mind a bit, but space itself is expanding, uniformly as best we can tell. Structures that are not gravitationally bound are growing apart at an accelerating pace (fact) most likely by dark energy (theory).  I'm not sure the question of where it is expanding into is even a valid question. That's getting into some pretty speculative territory (single universe, bubble universes, string theory)


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

ChuckV, please pat your son on the back for me.

The only way the US is maintaining any kind of technological edge is by importing their scientists. Our kids don't want anything to do with it. It's a shame and the parents are accountable for the dire state of US homegrown scientists. We are no longer curious. We are followers and accept what we are told. Our apathy will be our downfall.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

jmos actually the premise that galaxies are moving apart is based on the redshift that is observed is a theory, the redshift itself is the fact, its what causes it that is a theory.

I don't think that DNA being 99% similar makes it a fact that man and apes are decended from a common ancestor, a very sound theory and commonly held belief but not a fact. Man has to be careful to not be so arrogant to think that they already posses all the knowledge required to say so.

I have seen a few commonly held beliefs crumble in my life time that many claimed were fact. Part of sound science is not getting stuck into a mindset that we currently have all the answers, often the right question isn't even asked.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

The problem is that ordinary language is not a very good medium for describing the discoveries of modern physics. The primary language of physics is mathematics and ordinary language does a very poor job of translating such complex concepts. So the idea of the universe expanding is somewhat of a misnomer. It's not really expanding as we normally understand that term.

IF we assume the universe is infinite, the idea of an expanding infinite space makes no sense. Nevertheless, the distances between objects in our universe, namely galaxies, are growing; they're moving farther apart from one another. Some astrophysicists use the term "stretching" instead of "expanding" to avoid the confusion but that term is problematic as well.

And this is why scientific theory is so important for understanding scientific fact. The theoretical models in most sciences are mathematical and/or probabilistic. They explain the mechanisms of observable and non-observable phenomena.

Science does not separate fact and theory per se or locate them as differing degrees of certainty along the same continuum. As Stephen J. Gould put it:

"facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

This is why the phrase - "it's only a theory" misunderstands what scientific theories are all about. Again, the colloquial use of the term 'theory' often means an educated guess or speculation or a stab in the dark. That's not how science uses or understands that term.


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

DKV,

Thanks.

I understand the difference between correlation and causation. But, here are some related facts. We do not have TV. Well, we have one, but no external service. We only watch what we borrow from the library or friends, or what we purchase. We home-school our two boys and allow them to take the time to explore what they want when they want, within a reasonable framework. Young minds are amazing to see in action.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Looks like someone got hacked. Anyone know who he/she was prior to the hacking?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

ChuckV, any idea who this guy is? He has projects with fake pictures but real comments.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Well, it looks like his first name is John. I wonder if this John decided to leave and this is his parting shot. He's from the panhandle of Florida and those folks really don't like the thought of evolution.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm looking for some input from those folks that believe creationism is the way we got to where we are. Creationism as a science topic of course. Leave the religion out and let's talk science. Grizzman, can you give us a hand?


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

All it takes is peanut butter and a lightning strike, et voile!


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

I am more inclined towards nacho cheese and lightning. Six of one half dozen of another.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Peanutbutter Nachos, I think I have an idea for a new dish for the Texas state fair.


----------



## renners (Apr 9, 2010)

If it had been Nacho Cheese and a lightning strike, I fear we would all look like the silicon based lifeform Spock mind-melds with in Star Trek.

*P A I N ! ! !*


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)




----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Since I would like all of our brother and sister LJs to join the evolution discussion I went looking for words that might tempt them to contribute to this thread. What I found is the following:

Americans need to know that there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea. Although there is of necessity a conflict between Biblical literalist views of creation and modern science, these views are not held by the majority of Christians.From this brief history, it is clear that there has been a struggle within theology to accommodate the discoveries of science regarding creation and evolution. This history also shows that accommodation of evolution, rather than rejection, has been more the norm. Religious people who struggle with the creation/evolution controversy need to understand that accepting evolution as science is not antithetical to a religious view.

So there you have it. The definitive excuse for joining us in this discussion. If it was found on the internet then it must be true and good. Come one, come all…even you Grizz. I would send you a personal invite but you have me blocked. Maybe one of your friends could relay the invitation for me.


----------



## Millo (Jan 19, 2010)

Just for anyone who wants to read about the subject:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/

While I typically don't partake in these non-woodworking discussions on this site, I'd have to say I agree whole-heartedly with this statement of DKV's:

"Americans need to know that there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea. Although there is of necessity a conflict between Biblical literalist views of creation and modern science, these views are not held by the majority of Christians.From this brief history, it is clear that there has been a struggle within theology to accommodate the discoveries of science regarding creation and evolution. This history also shows that accommodation of evolution, rather than rejection, has been more the norm. Religious people who struggle with the creation/evolution controversy need to understand that accepting evolution as science is not antithetical to a religious view."

Have a good night.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

DKV,

How does your "invitation" for a discussion of creationism vs. evolution and the science/religion conflict debate NOT violate the new ban on religion and politics? It's one thing to discuss the scientific method, theories or developments in science more generally. It's quite another to invite discussion about science and religious belief and their supposed compatibility or incompatibility. The latter is not a scientific discussion.

There are a buttload of other sites dedicated to these type of discussions. Given LJ's new rules and the reasons for implementing them, I just don't see how such a discussion fits. What's the point in pushing the boundaries here?


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pierce, ordinarily I would not answer questions from the website police without first asking to see their badge. But (edit) I will deign to answer you with this question. Where did you get the idea and then jump to the conclusion that I want to "discuss creationism vs evolution", given that in post 101 the words were never written?

I am merely seeking more opinions on the subject of evolution and don't want religion to keep anyone from contributing. After all, most christians do believe in the theory of evolution and have valuable insight to add to the thread. I can assure you that the first post that seems to be leading towards an "us vs them" discussion will be flagged and the police called. With any luck you will be the responding officer and can then interrogate to your hearts' content.

Sorry if post 101 mislead you.

Definition:
Self-righteousness - (also called sanctimoniousness, sententiousness, a holier-than-thou attitudes1) is a feeling of (usually) smug moral superiority2 derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I took the pew quiz. Demographically, I do not fit in any category, got 'em all right; therefore, I must be 10 years old again. ;-)


----------



## JAGWAH (Dec 15, 2009)

Just so you can say you got one more LJ member to post their opinion here on Evolution let me just say and only say this about that…evolution is real and I am the physical proof as I have evolved above and beyond everything, including this discussion as of now. See you when you get here.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I didn't evolve from an ape; I am one.


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

"ordinarily I would not answer questions from…"

Since when?

You need to work on your slight of hand a bit more. It's not all that convincing.

Cheers


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

The mathematical probabity of evolution for all things on the planet is about the same as winning the state lottery 10,000 times straight in a row.

~Never Under Estimate the Stupidity of the General Public~


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

DKV, let me state up front that none of your posts have personally offended me in any way. In fact, I find myself pretty much in agreement with most , if not all, of the views you have expressed.

Having said that, pretty much every post you make seems like a calculated effort to pick a net-fight with anyone who might disagree with you. If that's how you like to entertain yourself, this new no-politics-or-religious-discussion policy enforcement is going necessitate your becoming much more creative in your pot-stirring efforts.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Pierce and Charlie, I guess being totally open and honest in a parnoid and suspicious world takes everyone by surprise. Based on the history of nonshop posters I can kind of see your point.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Most folks that have never studied anything about evolution but think they understand how it works are more than likely wrong. A lot think that species evolve when conditions change. It is just the opposite. Read the explanation below and then tell me what you think.

Evolution does not "plan" to improve an organism's fitness to survive.[191][192] For example, an incorrect way to describe giraffe evolution is to say that giraffe necks grew longer over time because they needed to reach tall trees. Evolution doesn't see a need and respond, it is instead a goalless process. A mutation resulting in longer necks would be more likely to benefit an animal in an area with tall trees than an area with short trees, and thus enhance the chance of the animal surviving to pass on its longer-necked genes.

Tall trees could not cause the mutation nor would they cause a higher percentage of animals to be born with longer necks.[193] In the giraffe example, the evolution of a long neck may equally well have been driven by sexual selection, proposing that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests over females.[


----------



## pierce85 (May 21, 2011)

Good, we're back on topic ;-)

What you describe is a classical Lamarckian theory of evolutionary inheritance. It was discarded in favor Darwinian and Mendelian "models" long ago. However, recent research (relatively speaking) is suggesting that Lamarckian inheritance may not be so far off the mark.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518111723.htm


----------



## Millo (Jan 19, 2010)

PineChopper: can you explain your statement? Thanks.


----------



## jmos (Nov 30, 2011)

Not to put words in his/her mouth, but arguments like Pinechopper's usually arise from those who believe all evolution is random chance (old argument that evolution is like a tornado going through a junk yard and 'randomly' assembling a 747). It's a gross mischaracterization of the theory.

Interesting articles on Lamarckian inheritance; it will be interesting to see where the research goes with that. I expect it to be a minor effect, if it turns out to be real, or it probably would have been noticed before, but who knows.


----------

