Evolution

[Inverted Things]

I worded the question this way on purpose because evolution isn't really something to 'believe in.'

[Inverted Things]

No, but I have no problem with it being taught in school. However, its flaws should also be taught, as well as intelligent design.

The problem with intelligent design, which is a perfectly reasonable theory, is that it is not science. In order to be a science, a theory must not assume the existence of any gods.

For instance, if I were to say to you "When you stir salt in water, a bunch of angels come by and break up the salt to make it part of the water," you'd think I was nuts. There is no need to appeal to unseeable beings to explain this chemical phenomenon. Likewise, there is no need to appeal to unseeable beings to explain life.

Another reason intellegent design is not science is because it's lazy. Any inquiries into the specifics of intellegent design result in answers similar to "God is unknowable." This is unacceptable in a science.

What I'm saying is intellegent design is a valid theory, and it could very well be right, although I tend to doubt it. It is not a science and has no place being taught in a science class.

[Inverted Things]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

The only question should be "How confident are our biologists in the theory of evolution?" Scientists can generally be trusted to re-examine ideas as new evidence come out. Particularly, a fruitful endevor would be for the biologists and mathematicians to team up and put certain portions to the test.

[Inverted Things]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

[Inverted Things]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

[Inverted Things]

Atoms are easier to prove then evolution.

Actually, it is the other way around.

I challenge you, prove atoms exist.

In exchange, I will prove evolution happens.

When you get sick and see the doctor, if there is a bacterial infection the doctor will prescribe antibiotics. A small percentage of the bacteria will not be killed by said antibiotic. These will be the only bacteria that reproduce. Eventually we end up saying that the bacteria developed resistence to the antibiotic. That's evolution.

Their is a difference between Micro Evolution and Macro evolution. What you are referring to is what I believe is called Micro evolution.

Semantics. I made no distinction in my poll question. I made no distinction in my earlier posts. You are simply dodging my point.

[Inverted Things]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

This principle is false. Which is more complex, a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule? The hydrogen molecule is more complex, yet if you take two hydrogen atoms there is no way to keep them from forming a molecule.

Which is more complex, a single amino acid or a protein molecule? The protein molecule, of course. When scientists make their best guess as to what the world was like 4 billion years ago, and simulate the conditions, proteins form out of amino acids with incredible ease.

[Inverted Things]

I don't believe in it and I don't think a theory should be taught in schools. Creationism should also not be taught in schools, so don't get me wrong there.

Saying this shows a fundmental misunderstanding of the principles of science. Take, for instance, atomic theory. It is a theory that everything is made of atoms. However, we have as much evidence for this theory as we do that planes fly.

Excuse me? You went to public school I take it.

Last time I checked, basic atomic theory has pretty much been proven - stuff is made of atoms. How else would we know what substances are elements, or atomic structure of non-elements, ect?

Recently graduated college with a double major in math and physics, actually.

In science a theory is a convenient organizing scheme that explains experiemental observations. A theory cannot by proven. As another example, take Einstein's theory of relativity. That is another example of a theory that we have more evidence for than we have that planes fly.

Theories can't be proven? Uh...what? I'm pretty sure they can be proven, perhaps not at the current time, due to lack of conditions or technology needed, but I'm sure they could be proven at some point in time, and become law rather than theory. Theories could be disproven as well. Of course, maybe you're a perfectionist - remember your calculus, eventually you get to a point where you can say 'close enough.

Any scientist 100 years ago would have proclaimed Newton's Laws as fact. Today we know that they are wrong.

Don't see what calculus has to do with being close enough.

[Inverted Things]

it puts me in mind of the famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953, when early primitive earth (crica 3 billion BC) was simulated.  A closed vessel containing reduced compounds such as ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water was set up.  Electrodes supplied an occassional spark ("lightning") and after a week or so, the clear solution in the vessel changed color.  Subsequent analysis showed that the solution contained amino acids!  The beginnings of contemporary life-type molecules were spontaneously organized in a vessel containing reduced inorganic compounds, thus lending support to theories.  At first glance this seems to be both spontaneous and creating negative entropy (?!)  Was Shiva asleep that day?  We need not turn to metaphysics for an answer:  it is simply that the electrodes which supplied the energy for "lightening" borrowed some order (or disorder) from the local power company (the surroundings).  The same thing happens on a universal scale.  Also, the second law deals with equilibrium thermodynamics.  The complex molecules of living organisms are in constant non-equilibrium.  I think the current hypothesis is that life, as a purely energetic event, is a continuity only narrowly tied to the evolution of space-time from the singularity at which the entropy of the universe was zero.  (Really zero!  Not "third law" zero.)  About 15x10^9 years ago, or about 10^-37 seconds after the big bang, original entropy was generated in a phase transition of the entire universe, which, at the time, was about the size of an atomic nucleus (and *very* dense).  At least that's one commonly accepted theory.

As for amino acids *easily* becoming proteins:  hogwash.  No biochemist or biophysisist or molecular biologist I know ever claimed it was easy.  In fact, many moles of glucose must be oxidized in order for the system to acquire enough energy to build proteins from amino acids, and that's even with enzymes lowering the reactive barriers by a few kilocalories per mole!

If you think it dificult for aminoacids to become proteins, try getting proteins to combine into DNA. And then try to get that DNA to form a cell.

You don't need DNA to form a cell. They can make cells in laboratories just by simulating the energy of earth of 4 billion years ago. All they are is a sphere of proteins (a cell, if you will). They grow. They get so big that they split, and the 'children' grow again. That's perilously close to life, isn't it? In terms DNA, RNA, etc., in these simulation, RNA molecules of up to about a dozen nucleotides are made. We can simulate the beginnings of life in our laboratories.

[Inverted Things]

Evolution flies in the face of the basic scientific principle that all the universe moves from complex forms to simpler forms. 

This principle is false. Which is more complex, a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen molecule? The hydrogen molecule is more complex, yet if you take two hydrogen atoms there is no way to keep them from forming a molecule.

Which is more complex, a single amino acid or a protein molecule? The protein molecule, of course. When scientists make their best guess as to what the world was like 4 billion years ago, and simulate the conditions, proteins form out of amino acids with incredible ease.

That is because the natural state for hydrogen is as a moelcule.  The same proves true for some biological components, protiens among them.

The problem comes from getting these simple forms to form more complex forms.  Soem chemical reactions do occur naturally.  They are rare and usually non-sustainable.  Eventually the energy for them will dry up and we will no longer get the chemical reaction allowing for complex structures to be formed.

There is also no case where something goes from the equivalent of an amino acid to somethign as complex as a human being without masive outside influence.  Silicon does not form computer chips on its own. 

Evolution is the only scientific theory that says something as basic as amino acids can develop into something as complex as even our relatively simple circulatory system without an outside influence.

Unless, of course, you accept that there is an outside influence.

You ignore the fact that the sun puts an incredible amount of energy on the earth each day. You also ignore all the energy stored in the earth's interior.

[Inverted Things]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

[Inverted Things]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

It is entirely possible that God exists.

For me, believing in God is like believing in a Model T Ford at the very bottom of the Marianas Trench. There may be one. There may not be one. Ultimately, it has no effect on my life outside the effect that I let it have.

We cannot tell weather or not there is a God. Zero gods makes as much sense as one god. One god makes as much sense as two gods. Two gods make as much sense as three gods. And so on.

I'm saying that, at the present time, the knowledge of how many gods there are just isn't 'out there' anywhere.

[Inverted Things]

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

Explain please.

[Inverted Things]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

All uranium isotopes are unstable.

[Inverted Things]

Sounds like Mr Spock talking about "some science that we don't yet understand."    But it's also impossible for an athiest or anyone else stuck in the material realm to prove that God doesn't exist to someone who has any experience in the spiritual.  It would be like trying to explain nuclear physics to a four year old.  The four year old wouldn't say, "Why is one uranium isotope stable and another one unstable?"  He'd say, "Huh?"

All uranium isotopes are unstable.

Huh?

from http://greennature.com/article1104.html:

All isotopes of uranium are radioactive, with most having extremely long half-lives.

Half-life is a measure of the time it takes for one half of the atoms of a particular radionuclide to disintegrate (or decay) into another nuclear form. Each radionuclide has a characteristic half-life. Half-lives vary from millionths of a second to billions of years. Because radioactivity is a measure of the rate at which a radionuclide decays (for example, decays per second), the longer the half-life of a radionuclide, the less radioactive it is for a given mass. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.5 billion years, uranium-235 about 700 million years, and uranium-234 about 25 thousand years.