evolution questions

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
lol!! i hear you. nice. i love you kerowo. honestly. just amazes me that sklansk who taught me poker!!!! blindly belives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lolllerz. honesty our world doesnt exist for no reason

[/ QUOTE ]i thought i'd be hard for your following posts to make you look less informed after your first one, but somehow you did it.

more exclaimation points in the next one plz.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
lol!! i hear you. nice. i love you kerowo. honestly. just amazes me that sklansk who taught me poker!!!! blindly belives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lolllerz. honesty our world doesnt exist for no reason

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you really need to learn your limitations with the pharmaceuticals...

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm unaware of the history of your skepticism regarding evolution, that is, whether it is as simple as not understanding the relation between the theory, the evidence and ongoing discoveries and developments, or whether you are interested in debunking a theory which you feel is in conflict with deeply held religious beliefs or indeed some other reason altogether. That said, let me provide some comments on the questions you pose.

1) when did you become convinced that evol is true?

My parents are biologists so I was exposed to evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life from an early age. I also had the good fortune to attend good schools through college where I learned the scientific method and the ways in which scepticism, experimentation, hypothesis and evidence are used to test ideas and conjectures in a highly rigorous and competitive environment. That the basic tenants of evolution have withstood this process extremely well lend great credence to its continuing value as a naturalistic explanation of the diversity of life.

In that context, let me address the notion that the "truth of evolution" is what one is after. Quite the contrary: if the scientific method teaches us anything it is that truth is always elusive. What we are after is increasingly useful guides, in the form of theory, that expand our understanding of natural processes. It really isn't a question of truth at the end of the day.

2) what do you think is sufficient knowledge for one to logically become convinced? (would most of the donks in my class be rational in accepting the theory- likely, a handful of them did, but still know close to nothing about it)

The explanatory power of the theory is what impresses. Evolution does a fantastic job of answering otherwise very difficult "how" questions.

3)intermediate fossil forms- why are there close to none? (please dont link me to talkorigins). darwin predicted that if numerous intermediates werent found by now, his theory was faulty. i should believe despite this?

First, there is a tremendous body of transitional fossils. It is a popular creationist talking point to say that there are not many. The very notion of the "missing link" came up in the context of the many transitional forms in the development of modern humans from earlier forms. Second, when you say "don't link me to talkorigins" are you not just saying answer my question without showing me any evidence? What's the point of that? It suggests you are not really interested in answers in this discussion.

4) where did the 1st cell and primordial soup come from?? no one is close here, but oh well, i should not bother.

There are many hypotheses in this regard but no consensus has yet emerged. This is part of the scientific process. So far from serving as a rebuttal of the evolutionary project, this problem simply points to how science itself an ongoing process of human inquiry. If you need an answer that bears no continued examination then you are misunderstanding how human knowledge works.

5) piltdown man, horse sequence- proven wrong: this also doesnt matter?

Piltdown man was a hoax. I'm not sure what you mean by the horse sequence issue. Again, scientific inquiry and scientific knowledge is always changing, this is not simply the case with evolution. If you can't tolerate knowing how old the universe is, for example, does that put the lie to astronomy?

6) most of the people that curse me (and i wrongly respond and am banned cuz i am not an atheist- those who cursed me are cool to insult, despite deficient arguments) ....blah

Not sure where this is going.

7) hoyle? aliens?

Hoyle, no. Aliens, definitely.

8) cambrian explosion - punctuated equilibrium (definitely scientifically proven fact, beyond question- no talk of creation, though, that's what the founders would have desired)

Not sure what you are saying here. But if you accept the cambrian explosion as fact, what are you basing that on and could such criteria be applied to other areas of scientific consensus? For example, how old is the Grand Canyon and how do you know that?

[Hoi Polloi]

List of Transitional Fossils

Also, take a look at the discussion of misunderstandings of what is meant by transitional in this regard.

What is a transitional fossil?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm unaware of the history of your skepticism regarding evolution, that is, whether it is as simple as not understanding the relation between the theory, the evidence and ongoing discoveries and developments, or whether you are interested in debunking a theory which you feel is in conflict with deeply held religious beliefs or indeed some other reason altogether. That said, let me provide some comments on the questions you pose.

1) when did you become convinced that evol is true?

My parents are biologists so I was exposed to evolutionary explanations for the diversity of life from an early age. I also had the good fortune to attend good schools through college where I learned the scientific method and the ways in which scepticism, experimentation, hypothesis and evidence are used to test ideas and conjectures in a highly rigorous and competitive environment. That the basic tenants of evolution have withstood this process extremely well lend great credence to its continuing value as a naturalistic explanation of the diversity of life.

In that context, let me address the notion that the "truth of evolution" is what one is after. Quite the contrary: if the scientific method teaches us anything it is that truth is always elusive. What we are after is increasingly useful guides, in the form of theory, that expand our understanding of natural processes. It really isn't a question of truth at the end of the day.

2) what do you think is sufficient knowledge for one to logically become convinced? (would most of the donks in my class be rational in accepting the theory- likely, a handful of them did, but still know close to nothing about it)

The explanatory power of the theory is what impresses. Evolution does a fantastic job of answering otherwise very difficult "how" questions.

3)intermediate fossil forms- why are there close to none? (please dont link me to talkorigins). darwin predicted that if numerous intermediates werent found by now, his theory was faulty. i should believe despite this?

First, there is a tremendous body of transitional fossils. It is a popular creationist talking point to say that there are not many. The very notion of the "missing link" came up in the context of the many transitional forms in the development of modern humans from earlier forms. Second, when you say "don't link me to talkorigins" are you not just saying answer my question without showing me any evidence? What's the point of that? It suggests you are not really interested in answers in this discussion.

4) where did the 1st cell and primordial soup come from?? no one is close here, but oh well, i should not bother.

There are many hypotheses in this regard but no consensus has yet emerged. This is part of the scientific process. So far from serving as a rebuttal of the evolutionary project, this problem simply points to how science itself an ongoing process of human inquiry. If you need an answer that bears no continued examination then you are misunderstanding how human knowledge works.

5) piltdown man, horse sequence- proven wrong: this also doesnt matter?

Piltdown man was a hoax. I'm not sure what you mean by the horse sequence issue. Again, scientific inquiry and scientific knowledge is always changing, this is not simply the case with evolution. If you can't tolerate knowing how old the universe is, for example, does that put the lie to astronomy?

6) most of the people that curse me (and i wrongly respond and am banned cuz i am not an atheist- those who cursed me are cool to insult, despite deficient arguments) ....blah

Not sure where this is going.

7) hoyle? aliens?

Hoyle, no. Aliens, definitely.

8) cambrian explosion - punctuated equilibrium (definitely scientifically proven fact, beyond question- no talk of creation, though, that's what the founders would have desired)

Not sure what you are saying here. But if you accept the cambrian explosion as fact, what are you basing that on and could such criteria be applied to other areas of scientific consensus? For example, how old is the Grand Canyon and how do you know that?

[/ QUOTE ]
This was probably a mistake, but if you aren't familiar with SAR I can't blame you for it. He likes to get really ripped once every couple of weeks and come in here and make a lot of posts like this. They are pretty funny, but no reason to take them seriously. Doug's response was about perfect.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
This was probably a mistake, but if you aren't familiar with SAR I can't blame you for it. He likes to get really ripped once every couple of weeks and come in here and make a lot of posts like this. They are pretty funny, but no reason to take them seriously. Doug's response was about perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nice to know that in his drunken hallucinations I'm a mod.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
all those evol people are retards, plane as eye can see., It's absolutely a Old dude that sits on clouds and nods His head while blinking. Poof rabbit, blink nod doggy, do dooo, do do da do doo monkey. FOOLS are there important genetic mutations naturally selected. Ha I know that's false cause I know it in my heart. Slow gradual process, you all make me laugh, mhuhahahah, Maaarcooooo, Marcooo, Polo Fish in the water. Idjits. Everyone that know anything about morality can tell you that the 2nd most important moral dictate is Do not make graven images. Can you honestly think of anything worse then graven images. LEts get out of here SAR these FOOLS will never learn. It's hot where they are going. Sharooken, elephants. Pow, Zap, Bam giraffes. Clearly the the devil is responsible for the platypus.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what the hell happened in this post, but I love it

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was probably a mistake, but if you aren't familiar with SAR I can't blame you for it. He likes to get really ripped once every couple of weeks and come in here and make a lot of posts like this. They are pretty funny, but no reason to take them seriously. Doug's response was about perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nice to know that in his drunken hallucinations I'm a mod.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is confusing you with Rduke. Rduke has been a little too lenient with this nutcase, IMHO.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was probably a mistake, but if you aren't familiar with SAR I can't blame you for it. He likes to get really ripped once every couple of weeks and come in here and make a lot of posts like this. They are pretty funny, but no reason to take them seriously. Doug's response was about perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nice to know that in his drunken hallucinations I'm a mod.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is confusing you with Rduke. Rduke has been a little too lenient with this nutcase, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the way RDuke handles things around here, and personally I'm ok with it. This forum, more than any other, needs to be exceptionally lenient, due to the subject matter. Things often get personal and emotional, and I think its a disservice to ban people lightly for getting worked up about God or whatever.

But SAR is pretty ridiculous, and doesn't really add anything or make any arguments. He's also harmless, so I don't really care either way.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
"evolution questions"
6) most of the people that curse me (and i wrongly respond and am banned cuz i am not an atheist- those who cursed me are cool to insult, despite deficient arguments) ....blah

8) cambrian explosion - punctuated equilibrium (definitely scientifically proven fact, beyond question- no talk of creation, though, that's what the founders would have desired)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. These aren't even questions.