Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Sep 24, 2010 Full story: New University 590

The UC Irvine community was given a chance to witness an intellectual debate aimed at broadening the perspective on the origins of life on May 7. 'A Colloquium on Origins: Evolution and Intelligent Design' featured two experts on the origin theory of intelligent design: Paul Nelson, a senior fellow at the International Society for Complexity ...

Full Story
First Prev
of 30
Next Last
Human Ape

Pompano Beach, FL

#1 Sep 25, 2010
Evolution or Intelligent Design = Science or magic.

Normal people prefer science. Uneducated morons prefer magic.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

“Science is the waytof truth”

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#2 Sep 25, 2010
Human Ape wrote:
Evolution or Intelligent Design = Science or magic.
Normal people prefer science. Uneducated morons prefer magic.
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
You have about summed it up. Evolution was known to occur long before Darwin. Indeed, Darwin was a Lamarkian, in which he was unambiguously and flatly wrong. But in spite of his failings, his discovery of natural selection has proven to be one of the most revealing discoveries in all of science.

Sadly, one thing it has revealed is the depths of dementia into which many theists are willing to dip in order to preserve a comforting childish fantasy.
Human Ape

Pompano Beach, FL

#3 Sep 25, 2010
Darwin was a Lamarkian??? WTF??? You're full of it, mister. You don't know what you're talking about.

Perhaps you're confusing Charles Darwin with his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

Charles Darwin most certainly was NOT a Lamarkian. Look it up.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#4 Sep 25, 2010
Human Ape wrote:
Darwin was a Lamarkian??? WTF??? You're full of it, mister. You don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps you're confusing Charles Darwin with his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.
Charles Darwin most certainly was NOT a Lamarkian. Look it up.
Darwin had no concept of genes or mutation of genes. He believed in ""endless slight peculiarities which distinguish the individuals of the same species and which cannot be accounted for by inheritance from either parent or from some more remote ancestor", "Fluxuations" which he thought we the RESULT of the environment acting on the individual, and that the individual could then pass on.
steen

Brooklyn, NY

#5 Sep 26, 2010
Fascinating, that this article was originally from 2006. But the IDiots haven't changed much anyway.

“Science is the waytof truth”

Since: Aug 10

Earth

#6 Sep 26, 2010
Human Ape wrote:
Darwin was a Lamarkian??? WTF??? You're full of it, mister. You don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps you're confusing Charles Darwin with his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.
Charles Darwin most certainly was NOT a Lamarkian. Look it up.
Actually he was, though perhaps I overstated the point.(Charles) Darwin referred to the inheritance of acquired characteristics as "Pangenesis" and, in the final chapter of "Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication" described his own hypothesis, that somatic cells give off some sort of 'gemmules' or 'pangenes' which somehow communicate acquired characteristics to the gametes. I can say with a completely straight face that the idea seemed reasonable at the time.

And of course, he wasn't entirely wrong. We now know that mitochrondria are passed down through the cytoplasm of the egg, and the whole field of epigenetics has sprung up to explore the various effects the cellular environment of gametes can have on future generations. Not exacly Darwin's "pangenes" of course, but enough to suppress any laughter the idea might engender in the modern mind.

The point is, of course, that while we honor Darwin for his contributions, it is the ideas that count. Natural selection has been retained and expanded because the evidence overwhelmingly confirms it. Pangenesis was quickly discarded, and so completely forgotten that you evidently had never heard of it. Science does not, as those misled by the religious propagandists sometimes claim, twist the data to fit its chosen Illuminati. It judges the ideas of men great and small through the same callous filter of evidence. This, of course, is why creationists are trying so hard to convince the lay public of their claims and corrupt the education of future generations--because the evidence makes fools of them.
What He Said

Coatesville, PA

#7 Feb 18, 2012
Human Ape wrote:
Evolution or Intelligent Design = Science or magic.
Normal people prefer science. Uneducated morons prefer magic.
http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
There IS something very magical about subatomic particles forming life and consciousness. The very laws that subatomic particles follow, and upon successive generations of the matter that they make up -- having laws built from the previous, recursively. The laws are immaterial. What then gave rise to the laws in action? What forces continue to carry out the laws in action to unending perfection? Magic = Advanced Science. Western scientists today have no clue of what they're studying because they have failed to acknowledge the animating force (the magic) behind the scenes.

Magic = Higher Power: Which can be studied. Western religions are a joke granted. This doesnt mean that there are no religions which cannot be bridged effectively with science. In fact, true religion always bases its foundation on science. Many of such religions from old times can be found throughout the world today, intact.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#8 Feb 18, 2012
What He Said wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS something very magical about subatomic particles forming life and consciousness. The very laws that subatomic particles follow, and upon successive generations of the matter that they make up -- having laws built from the previous, recursively. The laws are immaterial. What then gave rise to the laws in action? What forces continue to carry out the laws in action to unending perfection? Magic = Advanced Science. Western scientists today have no clue of what they're studying because they have failed to acknowledge the animating force (the magic) behind the scenes.
Magic = Higher Power: Which can be studied. Western religions are a joke granted. This doesnt mean that there are no religions which cannot be bridged effectively with science. In fact, true religion always bases its foundation on science. Many of such religions from old times can be found throughout the world today, intact.
You're confusing abstract "laws" which the particles follow with the mere characteristics of the particles themselves. It is from these characteristics and their predictable effects that we invent "laws" in order to help us describe universal phenomena.

"Magic" is another word for incredulity. "Higher power" will always remain a philosophical/theological concept having little to do with science, until the day it becomes testable via the scientific method.

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#9 Feb 19, 2012
nothingUnreal wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually he was, though perhaps I overstated the point.(Charles) Darwin referred to the inheritance of acquired characteristics as "Pangenesis" and, in the final chapter of "Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication" described his own hypothesis, that somatic cells give off some sort of 'gemmules' or 'pangenes' which somehow communicate acquired characteristics to the gametes. I can say with a completely straight face that the idea seemed reasonable at the time.
And of course, he wasn't entirely wrong. We now know that mitochrondria are passed down through the cytoplasm of the egg, and the whole field of epigenetics has sprung up to explore the various effects the cellular environment of gametes can have on future generations. Not exacly Darwin's "pangenes" of course, but enough to suppress any laughter the idea might engender in the modern mind.
The point is, of course, that while we honor Darwin for his contributions, it is the ideas that count. Natural selection has been retained and expanded because the evidence overwhelmingly confirms it. Pangenesis was quickly discarded, and so completely forgotten that you evidently had never heard of it. Science does not, as those misled by the religious propagandists sometimes claim, twist the data to fit its chosen Illuminati. It judges the ideas of men great and small through the same callous filter of evidence. This, of course, is why creationists are trying so hard to convince the lay public of their claims and corrupt the education of future generations--because the evidence makes fools of them.
Did evolution start with a single celled organism and mutate over millions of years into a human? How did the human eye evolve? How did humans evolve with two?
LMT

Twinsburg, OH

#10 Feb 19, 2012
graist wrote:
<quoted text>
Did evolution start with a single celled organism and mutate over millions of years into a human? How did the human eye evolve? How did humans evolve with two?
Must we do your reading for you? The answers are out there. You just sit there shouting "La la la I can't hear you"! Belief based on willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#11 Feb 19, 2012
graist wrote:
<quoted text>
Did evolution start with a single celled organism and mutate over millions of years into a human? How did the human eye evolve? How did humans evolve with two?
"Yes" to the first question, "watch this video" to the 2nd and 3rd.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/...
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#12 Feb 19, 2012
graist wrote:
<quoted text>
Did evolution start with a single celled organism
More likely with a self-replicating protocell.
graist wrote:
and mutate over millions of years
No, according to the fossil record over 3.5 billion years.
graist wrote:
into a human?
And all other life on this planet.
graist wrote:
How did the human eye evolve?
Descent with modification via random mutation tempered by natural selection and genetic drift (among other mechanisms).
graist wrote:
How did humans evolve with two?
Bilateral symmetry, which occurred very early on in life's biological history.

.

Now to make a point. Granted science cannot give in to the creationist's demand to provide a complete 3.5 billion year history of the entire timeline of life on Earth, step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, organism-by-organism, all the way up to the present day. However it can and does provide a fairly descriptive overview.

But my question is, do any current gaps in scientific knowledge justify the rather childish proposal of Goddidit with magic (which doesn't actually explain very much at all) complete with talking lizards in a magic garden and magic fruit and talking donkeys?

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#13 Feb 20, 2012
LMT wrote:
<quoted text>Must we do your reading for you? The answers are out there. You just sit there shouting "La la la I can't hear you"! Belief based on willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
Typical

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#14 Feb 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yes" to the first question, "watch this video" to the 2nd and 3rd.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/...
How did the god of evolution keep them all in the same place so they could all evolve at the same rate? All humans are anatomically the same. All dogs are anatomically the same. All gorrillas are anatomically the same....

There are no half human half primate. No have dog half cat. They are all the same within their kind.

I'm not talking about the outward appearance. The anatomy of each creature is unique to the creature.

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#15 Feb 20, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
More likely with a self-replicating protocell.
<quoted text>
No, according to the fossil record over 3.5 billion years.
<quoted text>
And all other life on this planet.
<quoted text>
Descent with modification via random mutation tempered by natural selection and genetic drift (among other mechanisms).
<quoted text>
Bilateral symmetry, which occurred very early on in life's biological history.
.
Now to make a point. Granted science cannot give in to the creationist's demand to provide a complete 3.5 billion year history of the entire timeline of life on Earth, step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation, organism-by-organism, all the way up to the present day. However it can and does provide a fairly descriptive overview.
But my question is, do any current gaps in scientific knowledge justify the rather childish proposal of Goddidit with magic (which doesn't actually explain very much at all) complete with talking lizards in a magic garden and magic fruit and talking donkeys?
Goddidit with magic is not the question. Evolutionary guesses and supposing doesn't make any sense. To reduce the wonder of the human eye to a statement like the one you provide is just ridiculous. Descent with modification via random mutation is just a bunch of supposing that all the creatures stayed in the same place under the same influences over billions of years so they could change by chance. Doesn't make any sense.

Self-replicating cell..... Really,,,, just does it all by itself and replicates itself into itself so it can have other itselves so they could get together and mutate and self-replicate somemore. And then they could descend with modification via random mutations that could inhance their self-replicating self. And they all lived happily ever after in the land of make believe where they use big words to invent even more self-replicating blather.

What a fair tale.

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#16 Feb 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yes" to the first question, "watch this video" to the 2nd and 3rd.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/...
I only had to read the first paragraph to see that it is just somemore supossing of happy accidents to explain something that is unexplainable.

You people have obviously never tried to "breed in/out" a trait in a coonhound. The dog still remains a dog, but may be smaller or taller or faster, but still a dog. All the cross breeding and line breeding in the world wont make it a french fry.

Evolutionary theory is a fair tale.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#17 Feb 20, 2012
graist wrote:
<quoted text>
I only had to read the first paragraph to see that it is just somemore supossing of happy accidents to explain something that is unexplainable.
You people have obviously never tried to "breed in/out" a trait in a coonhound. The dog still remains a dog, but may be smaller or taller or faster, but still a dog. All the cross breeding and line breeding in the world wont make it a french fry.
Evolutionary theory is a fair tale.
But give me(us) a dozen or so MILLION YEARS, and perhaps we could make your average coonhound into a species quite distinct from Canis lupus familiaris ("dog").

Of course, it wouldn't then be "natural" selection (our interference would see to that), but you get my drift.

Then again, I wouldn't suppose you do.

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#18 Feb 20, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
But give me(us) a dozen or so MILLION YEARS, and perhaps we could make your average coonhound into a species quite distinct from Canis lupus familiaris ("dog").
Of course, it wouldn't then be "natural" selection (our interference would see to that), but you get my drift.
Then again, I wouldn't suppose you do.
So, a few happy accidents over a million years are going to change alllllll dogs into some new species of animal. Alllll the dogs on the face of the earth are going to change into this new animal because one mutated and magically infect all the other dogs. OR one mutated an allllllll the other dogs are going to die off and leave this positive mutation to carry on the new animal strain allllllll by itself. OR you say it will mate with one of the exsisting dogs and infect it's offspring with the new positive mutation. and then line breed this new mutation into it's daughters without incest causing major malformities.

Right.

Once upon a time in a mind far away a so called scientist decided to make up a story called evolutionary theory. "With no evidence other that what I see I will tell everyone who will listen that animals change theirselves through happy accidents called positive mutations over huge amounts of time."

What a Fairy Tale

Since: Feb 12

Paris, TN

#19 Feb 20, 2012
What about the plant world? Why is there no evidence of any evolution in the plant world? It is all the same and it isn't evolving. Must have been the same since the beginning.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#20 Feb 20, 2012
graist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, a few happy accidents over a million years are going to change alllllll dogs into some new species of animal. Alllll the dogs on the face of the earth are going to change into this new animal because one mutated and magically infect all the other dogs. OR one mutated an allllllll the other dogs are going to die off and leave this positive mutation to carry on the new animal strain allllllll by itself. OR you say it will mate with one of the exsisting dogs and infect it's offspring with the new positive mutation. and then line breed this new mutation into it's daughters without incest causing major malformities.
Right.
Once upon a time in a mind far away a so called scientist decided to make up a story called evolutionary theory. "With no evidence other that what I see I will tell everyone who will listen that animals change theirselves through happy accidents called positive mutations over huge amounts of time."
What a Fairy Tale
Read again what I posted. I'll give you time to do so, and some additional time to post an apology for your above post.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 30
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

UC Irvine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Army Research Grant to Explore Communication Th... (Sep '08) 4 hr Steve Doe 6,425
NASA Begins Sixth Year Of Airborne Antarctic Ic... Oct 20 One way or another 4
UCI to lead $8 million effort to create library... Oct 9 American 1
Same-sex marriage arguments flooding federal co... Oct 9 Missylynn 28
Committed Carbon Emissions Are Rising Fast Aug '14 SpaceBlues 1
Saudi Aramco Senior Vice President to keynote a... (Feb '11) Aug '14 NITiN 2
Cuba's Buena Vista Social Club on 'Adios Tour' Jun '14 castroHitlerAsesino 1

UC Irvine People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE