Please use this thread for off-topic, but preferably BBC related, comments. Please keep comments on other threads to the topic at hand. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments – our aim is to maintain order and clarity on the topic-specific threads. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog. Please scroll down to find new topic-specific posts.
Open thread – for comments of general Biased BBC interest:
Bookmark the permalink.
Mr Daneshmand and others,
please don’t get personal about BBC presenters.
1) It looks bad.
2) It is bad.
But Jon Snow on Channel Four is fair game thanks to his appalling dress sense in ties and socks…. 😎
Diana
“…in order for life to be created energy had to be put into the process”
Yes. The sun was probably the source of the energy, although the extant heat of the Earth and radioactivity are also energy sources that were present.
“You must recognize that after all the Soup-Model theory has not been proven a fact, just like the divine-creation theory has not been proven a fact, that’s why they teach both in school …”
That is not why I said creationists lie! Please read my post before answering.
Divine creation is not a theory. A scientific theory must explain the observed facts (which divine creation doesn’t – it simply defers explanation or is contradicted by the observed facts) and most importantly it must also make testable predictions, which again divine creation does not.
I don’t care if your physics teacher was a Christian. Some of the people I learnt evolution with were Christians, it didn’t stop them understanding that the theory of evolution fits all the evidence. Your physics teacher probably understood that evolution does not mean an overall fall in entropy. However I am shocked that you studied science and still don’t know what a theory is. Not exactly a good physics teacher, was he? I am confused a little as you said “professor”, I believe in the US that is like a lecturer in the UK. Surely you didn’t study science at university without ever understanding what a theory is?
“Notice how the theory says that these lifeless molecules would combine in more complex fashions, grow and reproduce, isen’t that a little bit too much to expect from inorganic molecules because the concept of reproduction can only be aplied to living organisms, not molecule”
No.
Here you are simply not knowledgeable enough about sciences. For a start we are probably considering organic molecules, no inorganic (although Dawkins has some intriguing thought about self-replicating minerals perhaps catalysing the formation of self-replicating organic molecules). Why do you say that molecules canot reproduce themselves? known molecules do.
Can you show me every molecule, under every set of environmental conditions present in the early Earth, and demonstrate that it doesn’t cause other, similar molecules to form, which also have that property? One such molecule is all that is required to start a process of evolution. To anyone who understands organic chemistry, it is almost inconceivable that this would not happen in a carbon and hydrogen-rich body the size of the Earth, so close to an energy source like the sun.
“As you can see, YOU CANNOT call a creationist a liar because then you would have to call many scientists liars since both views are theories and NONE HAS BEEN PROVEN…”
I can call them liars, as they lie.
[Aside: as explained before creationsit models do not fall within the definition of theories. I can add that even if something is called a theory it can still have been proven.]
All you do there is show that you didn’t read my post – said they lie about entropy not about the nature of a theory (which I hope you now undertand a little better).
You clearly do not even understand the rather simple science you quote as your own evidence (and I suggest that in any argument you should at least understand your own case, even if you can’t understand your opponent’s). The lie I was talking about was the creationists’ lie that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics. Re-read my earlier post to see why this is not the case.
“Now I have a question for you Richard, if with the technology that we have today we cannot make life, how do you suppose that in those times, life would just sprout without a purpose or meaning for its existence?”
You really have an exagerated assumption of human capability. The surface area of the Earth is a little over 200 million square miles. First evidence for life was a little after 4 billion years ago, on a planet roughly 4.55 billion years old. All that is required is that somewhere, on that surface being pounded with energy, in the air above or the depths of the oceans forming, over a time period of 550 million years, one self-replicating molecule happened to form.
We don’t even know what the conditions were. Typical laboratory experiments happen in a few millilitres of fluid, and as you point out the experiments have been going on for a few decades. Yet you expect it to be esier to synthesise a replicating molecule in the lab?
Ironically you are also wrong (sort of). Although life has not been created (that was never the purpose – it is possible that millions of years of evolution were needed for recognisable life, which is where you are also misinterpreting your Wikipedia quote), molecules that might have self-replicated have. The argument is whether the conditions in those labe might have existed, or whether we have yet to replicate how it really happened.
Even if the soup model is wrong (there are other hypotheses) then that doesn’t mean creationism is right. An argument against one hypothesis for abiogenesis is not an argument that life happened due to divine will. You would have to prove that there is no possible theory for abiogenesis, and since you haven’t even argued successfully against your favourite you have your work cut out.
A question for you:
Why do you think life could not have sprung up without purpose? Why do you think life has to have purpose? Why do creationists lie about evolution?
Regarding Terry Loyns ‘Walking with Taliban’s’ I can only think the motivation behind this left-wing propaganda piece in favour of the Taliban is just another result of the epidemic that has swept many other nations since Sept 11th. The epidemic I speak of is a variant of what is know as ‘Stockholm Syndrome’
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage exhibits loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered person syndrome, child abuse cases, and bride kidnapping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
I first noticed this effect when former Daily Express journalist Yvonne Ridley was kidnapped in Afghanistan in the build up to the war in Afghanistan. After her release she converted to Islam and only just recently made a call for the Muslim community not to cooperate with police regarding people the suspect for terrorism. What other answer is there for this type of absurd change of character and these irrational irresponsible comments. Through this fear The BBC, The Mirror, Yvonne Ridley and a fare chunk of the nation who have been brainwashed by left-wing fear dribble mixed with conspiracy theories and Pareidolia, especially those who attend the BBCs question time need to be informed of their condition. Because with out this we will see much more strange bizarre behaviour which could include some hacks, and TV news readers planting roadside bombs. Remember the protests the other month, ‘we are all Hezbollah now?’
Spread the word!
But Jon Snow on Channel Four is fair game thanks to his appalling dress sense in ties and socks…. 😎
dave t
But also his pompous, intellectual pose, coming from a man (who, like Humphrys) has no proven academic ability (Snow – 2 attempts to get A levels, didn’t complete degree).
jon snow is also rather inarticulate (but I mean… is his catchphrase), as well as being a bit dim, as are many of the rest of the c4 reporters.
Perhaps this is a consequence of recruiting from a small pool which excludes centre and right people and from which most of the remainder have been snapped up by the beeb.
THE BBC attitude to the Kriss Donald case is typical of the reponse of the liberal establishment to any crime commited by Moslems or Arabs. Where “minorities” are the criminals multiculturalism takes priority over any rights the victim should have been afforded in giving unbiased coverage especially when the victim was selected because of his/her ethinic background.
Whats happened here also happened in 2004 Australia when groups of Australian girls were raped by a gang of Lebanese teens. (A case which was never reported on by the BBC)
… although it went “eventually” mainstream in Austalia and got covered by their MSM.
Here by contrast because of BBC dominanace of the MSM cases like the Kriss Donald one never see the light of day.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/13/1026185124700.html
The BBC doesnt mind giving sensationalised coverage to “race riots” in Australia. It never examines the reasons for the pent up anger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4519818.stm
Instead it goes for the easy sterotyping of Australians violent drunks.
“Thousands of young white men have converged on Cronulla Beach in Sydney, Australia, and attacked people of Arabic and Mediterranean background ….. several people were injured in the alcohol-fuelled violence, and at least 12 were arrested.”
When the BBC doesnt refer to the Lebanese gang rapes and many other cases of violent assault that triggered this reaction the reader is left with no context.
Richard
I have to stick my oar in here. But firstly, I’m neither a creationist nor a Dawinist. I haven’t a clue what the truth is. Far greater minds than mine have wrestled with these questions without success so I’m not about to start up with it. As Harry Callaghan said, a man’s gotta know his limitations. And I know mine. I just regret that plenty of scientists seem not to now theirs, or do yet try to dupe the public. You say:
Some of the people I learnt evolution with were Christians, it didn’t stop them understanding that the theory of evolution fits all the evidence.
Well that’s not what I’ve been reading. In fact I’ve read that there are quite a few gaping holes in the theory of evolution ( and a theory is what it is, nothing more.) Of course creationism is a theory, but I’ve learnt that scientists are often in the business of talking up what they know rather than proving it.
You see, I recently found myself with a few hours to kill and decided to check out this stuff which scientists call ‘Dark Matter’ and ‘Dark Energy’. It’s long intrigued me so I thought I’d find out more. Well I was certainly enlightened!
What I found out was that for all the chatting and muttering and reporting on the Dark Stuff in the universe by scientists, what they actually mean by ‘Dark Matter’ and Dark Energy’ is: “we haven’t a clue what 96% of the universe is made up of.”
Now they have their PhDs and professorships and their big fancy telescopes and computers and their big beardy scientist faces, and for all that it comes down to “we haven’t a scooby doo mate!”
That’s not all by a long stretch. When it comes to getting it wrong, even spectacularly so, science is up there with the best of them. In the 70’s we were heading for a catastrophic ice age. Humanity was under threat from walls of ice which were about to appear in the north. Many of those very same scientists can now, within just a few years, do a complete volte face and tell us the complete opposite, but with equal certainty. Frankly, people who get it so wonderfully, gloriously wrong should have a bit of humility, crawl away and shut up for a bit.
When science can tell me what 96% of the universe is made up of I’ll be more receptive to the idea that alot of them aren’t a bunch of charlatans passing of a little knowledge as the wisdom of the ages.
When science can tell me what 96% of the universe is made up of
& when a religious person can tell me why god created the other 99.999999999999% of the universe to intigue his chosen creation on a small part of one of the billions of solar systems I may consider believing in a god that gives a damn about us.
Pete
“Far greater minds than mine have wrestled with these questions without success…”
Not true. They have had great success, as you would know if you looked into the issue in any depth.
Unlike you, I have studied rather a lot on the subject, as it related closely to part of my degree and it was an area I found especially interesting. There are no “gaping holes”. There are debates about the importance of various effects of, and various influences on, evolution. The theory of the origin of species by natural selection is not itself in dispute among scientists in the field.
That is nothing to do with dark matter or dark energy. Why on earth do you start using cosmology as part of your argument about evolution?
What exactly have you been reading that questions the veracity of the theory of evolution? Why should you not believe something for which there is strong evidence, simply because other scientists entirely have the honesty to admit they don’t know something when there is no evidence? Admitting they don’t know, that there might be more to find out, is the great strength of science, not a weakness.
I agree that the presentation to the public of the science of climate is less than honest, but that is the fault of politicians, the media and a few overbearing scientists (who have priorities, such as funding, distorted by the politicians), not scientists as a whole. If you want to criticise them, do a survey of the scientific literature, look at what scientists say not the tiny fraction that gets clasped onto by politicians or makes a good headline in your newspaper. There is much evidence against the dominance of human influence in climate change out there, and both int he 70s and today scientists are far more cautious than fools like Al Gore.
3 important questions. Any answers?
Calm down you lot or I’ll turn you into tadpoles and send you 65 million years back…..
GOD
Natalie
You are being a little pathetic, both with you censoring and your comments above.
I happen to know that the BBC reporter who filed the Panageric to the Taliban is gay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6081594.stm
THE BBC appears to have pulled or edited the original article filed by Lloyan but just have a look at a few choice quotes from his follow up:
“Taleban fighters appear both ferocious and fearless”
“The bare arid landscape of northern Helmand suits them well”
“There is no army on earth as mobile as the Taleban”
“Afghanistan has been in the grip of a severe drought for several years, but the lack of clean water does not seem to concern these hardy men. ”
Thats fine by me. I have nothing against gays, or “fine hard fearless mobile fighters.”
You dont have to make it out thats my comment wasca personal attack or an attack on homosexuals in general. In fact I was the one who made several posts on this website asking why the BBC jumped to Graham Norton’s defence but has always under-reported the hanging of young homosexual boys in Islamic countries like Iran because of their homosexuality.
So please Natalie dont get all high and mighty about what “looks bad, and is bad”
The more inportant point I was trying to make is that within Pakistan and Southern Afganistan it is a well known FACT that many of the Taliban are known for raping the young boys that they force into their ranks. There is nothing wrong with pointing this out. The BBC and its reporters ceratinly wont do it.
Whats more its wrong of you to censor that part of my previous post.
Hanging around BBC issues/types has bred bad habits in you Natalie. You are begining to be more concerned about what others think of you than of stating hard truths.
F***ing hell Bilge-an, you really are full of the brown stuff. Your previous post was nothing about ‘hard facts’ just a grammatically dubious spewing of popular terms for homosexuals.
If your claim of sexual assaults within the Taliban were true then that would be newsworthy – where’s the evidence?
Speaking of John Snow,did anyone see that C4 “debate” asking if Muslims were a danger to free speech? (Monday 8pm)This whole set up reminded me of another debate,one of a series of six hosted by Snow, in the run up to the last election.The previous five debates were conducted with a scientificaly-chosen audience, as proudly stated by Snow;but when it came to the sixth debate there was no mention of a scientificaly-chosen audience,only a “very diverse” one.The debate was about immigration.The audience was visibly over-represented by ethnic groups.
Well this Monday it happened again. It was quite clear there was a complete bias in the audience.The Left are terrified of having a debate on issues like this with a truly representative audience.Btw, the smug satisfation of Snow as he read his final piece to camera has to be seen.He had won the debate which was exactly what he and his production team would have forecast based on the audience make-up.
Richard
“Even if the soup model is wrong (there are other hypotheses) then that doesn’t mean creationism is right.”
I cannot prove to you that creationism is right, and my answer to why I cannot is philosophical ( if you want to know it just ask), BUT YOU AND MORE INTELLIGENT SCIENTISTS CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG. Therefore like I said, you CANNOT call a creationist a liar.
In FACT, the theory of evolution or the soup model HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN with sufficient proof to call it a law. BTW one of the definitions of theory is “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture” so it does not necessarily imply a fact.
Also if you know a bit about evolution then you will know that the theory bases itself on supposed patterns from fossil records, yet there is something called “THE MISSING LINK” which has never been found, therefore it cannot be proven that humans evolved from monkeys.
My professors were not lecturers, they were teachers, who studied in the university and graduated in physics and chemistry, I think they know a bit more than you about physics given that they had to take Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism and other required courses to graduate. One of them is even getting his PHD next spring.
I think you ought to be aware that “reproduction” is characteristic of living organisms and an organic molecule is not a living organism, it is just any molecule composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, such as Methane, Do you consider Methane a living organism?? cause the rest of the scientific community doesn’t.
Also self-replication is a term assigned to living organisms (a cell), not to molecules, Methane, an amino acid, a vitamin, a mineral, a virus DO NOT self-replicate.
Here is the proof that the theory is just a theory, NOT A FACT, and that it has many critics, including scientists:
“Since it is difficult to prove abiogenesis has occurred, and even more difficult to falsify it, the hypothesis has many such critics: even in the scientific world, unlike many other theories. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continues in the hope of putting together the specific building blocks thought to yield abiogenesis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
THUS like I said you cannot call me a liar for believing in God and I cannot call you a liar either. Only when the theory of evolution becomes a fact and a law, will you be able to make such a statement and not be called ignorant about your own theory. Evolutionists have to learn to admitt when there is not enough proof to validate their theory as factual. Just like creationists admitt that theirs is also a theory.
Richard: Sorry for the long long post, I am answering your 3 questions
Why do you think life could not have sprung up without purpose?
Because in order for life to survive it must have a purpose, if every human being remains in isolation for the rest of their life, the human race will become extinct, therefore, that implies that we have a need implanted in ourselves to not become extinct. This need is not energetic, since you can feed and still be in isolation and still the human race will become extinct. This need is not found in inorganic or organic molecules, only in living creatures. This need is called purpose, and is in living creatures’ instincts to want energy in food, to grow, and to reproduce. Molecules do not have these instincts, in fact if anything molecules have the tendency to opt for equilibrium and stability in lower energy states, while living organisms as a whole constantly require more energy to not be in equilibrium with the surroundings, for example you have a higher concentration of water in your body than the environment, yet water by osmosis moves from high concentration to low concentration so you require energy and certain structures to prevent osmosis from naturally taking place, which would result in your dehydration and death.
Why do you think life has to have purpose?
Evolutionists believe in natural selection, a part of the theory to which I have no objection. Therefore, they believe that the purpose of the specie is to survive, and they do so by natural selection.
Organic and inorganic molecules do not follow natural selection, because molecules do not show any sign of will of this sort. Why would molecules want to become more complex or to pass on their traits, or to replicate without a purpose? So far Oxygen or Carbon do not have a purpose within themselves, they just interact in order to achieve a lower energy state, yet living organisms try to achieve a higher energy state by becoming more organized, developing, and self-replicating, something which is never seen in other inorganic or organic molecules.
Why do creationists lie about evolution?
Like I said, creationists do not lie about evolution, the theory of evolution defeats itself by its own evidence and experiments which show that it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN A FACT, thus, it reamins a theory, a conjecture.
Hey, as long as they don’t teach creatinism or intelligent design theory in science lessons people can surely believe what they like.
Diana
“BUT YOU AND MORE INTELLIGENT SCIENTISTS CANNOT PROVE THAT IT IS WRONG. Therefore like I said, you CANNOT call a creationist a liar.”
Are you wilfully misrepresenting what I am saying, or are you simply unable to understand a simple statement about your own argument? The lie I was talking about the suggestion that evolution goes against the second law of thermodynamics. Many creationists make that argument, including you in your first post (that was the whole origin of this discussion, in case you hadn’t noticed). That argument is a lie.
“In FACT, the theory of evolution or the soup model HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN with sufficient proof to call it a law …
I am sorry, you now show that you don’t understand the concept of a theory or a law. Find out before you try to use the terms. Evolution could never become a law, however much evidence existed. A vast body of evidence has already been found to support it though. What is the evidence to support creationism?
Anyone who talks about missing links clearly learnt all they know from poor-quality TV documentaries. The concept of a “missing link”, of expecting to find particular fossils, is ridiculous. In your terms, many “missing links” have been found, so you are now lying in denying this. However then they are not missing links any more! If the missing link between type A and type C is found, and called B, then all that has happened is that there are two new missing links, between A and B, and between B and C. It is a completely useless term!
The fossil record is not complete. We do not expect to find intermediate forms between known types. In fact some are found, others are not. The latter are your missing links. The former are part of my evidence.
“I think they know a bit more than you about physics given that they had to take Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Electromagnetism and other required courses to graduate”
For a start we are not talking about physics. To carry on, I also had to know about those subjects to graduate, so how can you have the arrogance to assume they know more than I do? You, on the other hand, did not need to know, and we are now comparing my knowledge with yours, and it is obvious who is making it up from popular misconceptions.
Clearly you learnt little from your clever teachers [why call them professors when they don’t even have PhDs, let alone academic posts let alone senior academics? In this country you need not only a doctorate but a chair (senior post) at a university to be a professor] about the nature of science, if you don’t even know the definitions of a law, a hypothesis and a myth.
The debate about abiogenesis is nothing to do with the possibility of divine creation. In fact Wikipedia exagerates the debate, which is not as to whether it happened but where and how it happened. It is certain that it happened, as without abiogenesis there could be no life (in case your classical education is as poor as your scientific knowledge, it means roughly the making (of life) without life).
However, in case you still don’t understand the theory of evolution is independent of theories of abiogenesis. However life started, it changed through natural variation and natural selection. The evidence for that is as vast as the evidence for abiogenesis is sparse, for well-established reasons.
“I think you ought to be aware that “reproduction” is characteristic of living organisms…”
True. However it is also a characteristic of some molecules that are not living organisms. Just because it is not a property of methane doesn’t mean it is not a property of any other organic molecule. All you are doing here is saying that you don’t know about these things – your ignorance is not a valid argument! Iam not ignorant. Had I been I would not have graduated.
“Because in order for life to survive it must have a purpose…”
No it doesn’t. You are simply making an emotional plea.
“…if every human being remains in isolation for the rest of their life, the human race will become extinct…”
Only because we could not reproduce – entirely in line with evolution.
“…we have a need implanted in ourselves to not become extinct
Finally a correct statement. This one favours evolution though, as such an instinct is one of the strongest evolutionary pressures. It has nothing to do with creation.
“…they believe that the purpose of the specie is to survive…
No they don’t, except as a useful shorthand way of discussing how evolution occurs. They are talking about apparent purpose not actual, conscious purpose. They believe that the effect of evolution is (sometimes) survival of species. That is not a purpose.
“Organic and inorganic molecules do not follow natural selection, because molecules do not show any sign of will of this sort”
It is not a will. It is completely unwilling. You are misunderstanding evolution.
In fact some organic molecules do follow natural selection. The simplest viruses are just complex organic molecules, so you will prove that next time you catch a cold. However in the right environment it could happen to far simpler molecules.
“…yet living organisms try to achieve a higher energy state by becoming more organized, developing, and self-replicating…”
No they don’t. Sub-atomic particles have energy states, not organisms, so you are talking there like a cheap TV mystic. Organisms don’t “try” to do anything except respond to instinct (a desire that humans can to a degree subjugate). They certainly don’t have conscious will for improvement of the species.
As I said before, the complained that your biology teacher didn’t mention divine creation (why should she? That is religious myth, nothing to do with science, of which biology is a part) and that your discussions in class “… failed to explain why [evolution and abiogenesis] contradicted entropy”
That statement that biological theories contradict entropy theories is a lie. Neither evolution nor any theory of abiogenesis contradicts any theory about entropy, especially (as I think you are refering to) the second law of thermodynamics.
So why is that lie perpetuated by creationists?
Since you are so keen to call divine creation a theory, where is the large bulk of evidence that is required to call something a theory? Where are the testable predictions it makes? What the observations that it explains, in order even to call it a hypothesis?
Cockney
That is the point I am arguing. Diana expectd her biology teacher to teach divine creation, and spread creationist lies.
no Richard, my biology book HAD THREE THEORIES: Divine creation, Soup Model and the Alien theory, I forget what it’s name was
I expected my biology teacher not to mock the creationist theory, since he does not have proof to say it is wrong
As I said Richard, look at the definition of a theory, it is not always a fact.
And the FACT is that EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, because all the evidence you say, cannot proove it a fact. HELLO!! the MISSING LINK
please take a look at the sources I am sitting. Scientists may BELIEVE in EVOLUTION and accept it, but it is NOT A FACT.
Tell me Richard which molecule that is not a living organism reflects the characteristic of reproduction??? I am intrigued to know how these molecules defy the definition of reproduction in the dictionary which is “The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate new individuals of the same kind; procreation.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reproduction
“there is something called “THE MISSING LINK” which has never been found”
I’m sorry but this is utter rubbish.
The missing link was coined when early evolutionary biologists found both fossils of Neanderthal man, and fossils of ‘modern’ humans. There seemed to be no intermediate fossils. However, we now know that actually there were two strands of humans alive at the same time. They interbred and competed with each other and the Neanderthal line became extinct (although there is still evidence of them in our genes).
I am a geneticist and I can tell you that evolution is not a theory it is a fact. My field of study is fisheries, and at the moment we are examining the genetic and phenotypic changes in fish populations due to selection by fishing nets. Fish are maturing earlier and at smaller sizes as the chances are that they will not make it to reproduce if they wait too long or grow too big. The population is evolving. This is not theory, it is fact, come to my lab and I will show you.
It is so simple really:
1) a population has variation that is heritable
2) there is a selective pressure that causes some individuals with a certain trait to out-perform and hence out-breed the rest
3) the population evolves
There is so much evidence for this that to deny it is just willful ignorance.
“Also self-replication is a term assigned to living organisms (a cell), not to molecules”
Again rubbish. Fire self replicates, as do crystals. Imagine this. A crystal growing in a soup. It breaks into two, each part continues to grow, ie it replicated. Now imagine if one day a bit of different material got stuck to one of these crystals and this meant that, by chance, it replicated faster than the rest. It would soon dominate the population of crystals. Then this happened again..and again…, eventually you end up with a cel, then a..etc etc
Life is too short to go on. Just to say that the denying of evolution because it is a theory is, well, rubbish. A scientist is always very careful in his/her choice of words. There is a theory that the sun will come up tomorrow. However, I cannot prove it. It may explode n the night. But, the massive balance of evidence says that this will probably not happen so we accept the theory. The only people who refer to the ‘theory’ of evolution are those who willfully ignore the evidence. The theory has been accepted as fact by the rest of us.
Richard, to make our debate simpler, give me a credible source that states with valid evidence to support it, that the theory of evolution is a fact, and is accepted as a fact in science.
If you cannot do that, then you have to conclude that the theory of evolution is a conjecture, not a fact.
Since the same happens with the creationist theory and the Alien theory, we cannot say that these are facts, they are simply THEORIES, word used in the sense of CONJECTURE.
Therefore you cannot call someone who believes in the creationist theory a liar, just like you cannot call someone who BELIEVES in the evolution theory a liar.
Therefore, THERE IS NO CERTAINTY ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, and schools are right in teaching ALL THREE THEORIES.
Diana
You do not have to believe in evolution, you just have to look at the evidence.
Why do you not want to do that?
Take an African wild dog. Select those dogs which have lighter coats and are better at fetching sticks and breed them. Do this again and again and you end up with a Labrador. Now take those dogs that are small and do not have much hair and breed with them, eventually you end up with a Chihuahua.
If there is no evolution, please tell me how we ended up with all the different breeds of dogs starting from the wild type?
J.G. I am not talking about micro-evolution or adaptation, I am talking about the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of life.
You can say that I speak rubbish all you want but if you believe so much on the theory of evolution, maybe you should write a thesis and put your arguments and research data on it, and present to the scientific community, to see if they find your research to be the proof that the theory of evolution is a fact and not a conjecture as it stands now.
A fact means absolute certainty, if there is a probability that it is not true, then it is not a fact.
There is a high probability that I will die in 60 years, given the life expectancy, but IT IS NOT A FACT that I would die in sixty years.
BTW I think your research must be very interesting
J.G.
If you can interbreed them and create offspring that can reproduce, then, it is not a different specie. Take for example the breeding of a horse and a donkey, it gives a mule, but the mule cannot reproduce, therefore these are different species.
Creationism does not refute variations in traits from one individual to the other of the same specie.
J.G.
I have looked at the evidence and it doesn’t convince me because it does not prove it as a fact.
Creationism does not prove it as a fact either but at least it can convince me philosophically.
You can argue that science is not philosiphical and that is true. But since the theory of evolution cannot prove itself as a fact within science and neither can creationism, it is a matter of choice, which is perfeclty explainable within the boundaries of creationism. Thus, I rather take creationism which can convince me phisophically but not scientifically, than take the theory of evolution which cannot convince me philosophically nor scientifically.
i have to go to class now, I’ll be back later
“I am not talking about micro-evolution or adaptation, I am talking about the theory of evolution as it relates to the formation of life.”
There is no difference. If you accept the fact that there is heritable variation, and that some individuals will do better and pass their traits on to the next generation you have accepted evolution, because that is all it is. It is such a simple processes with mountains of evidence that to deny it is to be willfully ignorant.
“maybe you should write a thesis and put your arguments and research data on it, and present to the scientific community”
Well, start with ‘On the Origin of Species’ and then look at the thousands of scientific papers published since then, including my own. In fact part of my own PhD thesis examined the genetics of the evolution of parasite resistance in populations of fish.
“A fact means absolute certainty, if there is a probability that it is not true, then it is not a fact.”
Yes indeed it does. As I said before, a scientist chooses their words with care. They will never tell you something is a fact. It is ALWAYS a probability. However, there comes a time when the evidence is so great that we just have to accept something. Its all about the evidence.
“BTW I think your research must be very interesting”
Thanks, it really is. I am sorry if I have come over a bit heavy, but it just gets to you sometimes. There is reams of evidence of evolution in action I find it hard to imagine how someone who is obviously intelligent does not ‘Get it’.
To be honest I rarely get into this type of discussion, because it always comes down to the same bottom line. “I know there is masses of evidence for evolution, but I don’t believe it. I believe in god/kama/the all seeing eye/etc”.
“I have looked at the evidence and it doesn’t convince me”
QED
Personally I’ve never had any trouble in believing in both God and Evolution.
The *Alien* theory?? Now that’s really laughable!
The mere existance of crapules such as Simpson, Bowen, Guerin ‘et al’ blows both the ‘intelligent design’ and ‘natural selection/evolution’ hypotheses I reckon –
Anyway – BBC BIAS everyone !!!!!!
That why we’re all here on this site after all, doing our wee bit for evolution/revolution.
J.G., you sounded like a normal, free thinking, intelligent person until you mentioned ‘african dog’! Are you one of the lefty weirdos who believes all life started in Africa and that basically just like the BBC believe, we’re all derived from something African?
My science lessons always taught me that all land masses were once joined and they split over eons. So, when the landmasses were all intertwined did the native folk refer to them as ‘Africa’? And if they weren’t all joined then where the hell did the Aborigines come from? Another race that just happened to develop at the same pace, independently as those African folk?
There is a missing link, a much publicised missing link. Perhaps you could provide the answer?
J.G., if you believe in ‘survival of the fittest’, can you explain why we pay single mothers to pop kids whenever they feel like it while the rest of us hard working folk toil every day in the hope that one day we can afford to have a kid which may hopefully have the morals and the work ethic that we have?
Frances
Yes “‘African dog'” was wrong, so read “canine wolf-like ancestor” (my field is fish). The point of my argument was that dogs have evolved due to selection.
Have to agree with your second post. But there is a part of evolutionary study called altruism.
Anyway, Isn’t the BBC biased?
Diana
If it contained divine creation then it wasn’t a biology book. Taht is theology, not biology. As I said before, that is not a theory. A theory requires evidence. It is not even a hypothesis, as it does not explain any observations. I am not even sure of the status of the other models, they would have started out as hypotheses but might have gathered enough evidence to be theories now.
Your biology teacher was right not to give the same status to divine creation. He was wrong to mock it, as that is simply discourtesy, but he should have pointed out that it belongs in theology classes, not in science classes as it is not science.
He could then have explained why, and you would not have the difficulty you are now having in understanding what science is, and what a theory is. It is not what you think it is. It is not as used in the vernacular – and most definitely not “conjecture”. There you display further that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t just make up the meaning of what you read as you go along!
As a technical term I have only seen the word conjecture used in mathematics, where proof also means something completely different to science. You are mixing up the two sets of terminology. The term theory is not synonymous with conjecture in the common usage of that term. Hypothesis would be closer to conjecture, but even that is much more tightly defined.
Evolution is a theory by the strict scientific definition of theory. This does not indicate any doubt about its veracity, in fact it has to accumulate a large amount of evidence to become a theory. Gravitation is still only a theory – but do you doubt that?
There are many molecules that reproduce. Try looking at a piece of gypsum sometime – it is clear that each crystal has influenced the shape of the next. That is only in the loosest term reproduction, but the accuracy of reproduction in some organic molecules is far greater. There is a continuous scale, and at the top is the virus, at its simplest just strands of RNA (a molecule) that reproduces, almost always exactly. The fact that there are occasional variations means that it evolves, so if you are immune to one cold strain you can still catch the next that comes along.
As I say, just because you don’t know about it don’t assume it doesn’t exist. I can’t name other molecules, but don’t expect to. I am a geology graduate, seeing evolution from the point of view of fossils (and I can name some of those that would blow many of your views out of the water). However I read around the subject, and studied some organic chemistry at university too, so I know that there are molecules out there that, in the right environmental conditions of temperature, pressure and chemicals will cause other, similar molecules to form.
There is no certainty about the origin of life. However there is som certainty in its development – that is evolution. Evolution is nothing to do with the origin of the first reproducing molecules. It simply acts on the reproduction process.
Please do not continue to call divine creation a theory. It is not, I have asked you to provide the required evidence and you have not, as expected. While it was excusable when you first used it, as you did not know the meaning of the term, I have explained to you the requirements for a theory, and since divine creation does not fit those requirements to continue to call it a theory is now a lie on your part.
The distinction between macro and micro evolution is a false one.
You say you have studied the evidence and it doesn’t convice you. The problem is you show here a remarkable lack of knowledge of the evidence. So what are the earliest known macro fossils? Where do similar forms exist today? Where were the earliest known probable fossils found? How old are they? How to we know the age? How do we generally date fossils? What was the distinctive pattern of development of ammonoids? What was the probable habitat of acanthostega? What was the Cambrian explosion? What were the mattress-like macrofossils found from before that known as? What is the Burgess Shale, and who reinterpreted it in the 1970s, one of the team making what slightly embarrassing error (he supervised me, by the way, and we knew each other quite well) he corrected later? What did agnathans lack? From what did the first teeth develop in our ancestors? What body part in early tetrapods evolved into your ear? What is the importance of the echinoids to human evolution?
Off the top of my head I have listed a few key points in the study of evolution. I don’t expect you to know all of them, they are just a few of those that I can remember. However if you have actually seen the evidence then you should be able to answer most of them.
Francis
You are mistaking the time scales here. The BBC presents the (very strong) case that human and hominid life started in Africa. This was a hundred million years after the American continent split off, and the continental plate boundaries were very similar to today’s.
Life probably began in the ocean – certainly for the first 3 billion or so years of fossils there was not a lot that was from the land. It would be maningless to discuss the location first land invasion by macroscopic life, because as soon as it happened it probably spread to all areas within a million years, a trivial time to a geologist.
Anonymous
Actually the cosmic, or alien origin hypothesis (perhaps a theory now, with recent developments) was postulated by Fred Hoyle, an exceptional and well-respected astrophysicist (he is the reason Stephen Hawking decided to study at Cambridge for his PhD, for example). However for a long time it was derrided by palaeobiologists. On the other hand remarkably complicated organic molecules have recently been found in space, hence my uncertainty about whether it might now be a theory.
The main problem is that it just shifts the problem – abiogenesis had to happen somewhere. However it increase the timescale to about 10 billion years and the space available greatly.
Richard, I also asked about aborigines. Are we to believe that if hominid life started in Africa then at some point thousands of years ago, a boat load went to Australia? This bit perplexes me.
Francis
Yes, they did. Can’t remember the details, but didn’t some anthropologist show they could have done by reconstructing what he thinks might have been their journey as far as Polynesia? [Just found the name of the chap, was Heyerdahl].
Never underestimate survival, especially of that ultimately adaptable creature, Homo Sapiens sapiens.
With reference to the discussion about the Taleban and gays, I should report that one of my ancient relations, who served in the North West Frontier Police during the days of Empire says the Pathans
(a) (who make up most of the Taleban fighters) were magnifient, if poorly disciplined, fighting men
(b) were generally very good looking
(b) were universally known as the “bu**ering Pathans”
It should be no surprise if a gay BBC reporter finds himself sympathetic to Pathan tribesmen
“can you explain why we pay single mothers to pop kids whenever they feel like it while the rest of us hard working folk toil every day in the hope that one day we can afford to have a kid which may hopefully have the morals and the work ethic that we have?”
The reason is simply that if we don’t stump up the money we will be kidnapped by the state and held until we pay up. The states skill is in Extortion Kidnapping and Murder, that’s why most of us consider the state far far too large (i’d say 80% too large).
Diana: / Richard :
On Entropy, biochem wise many constructs self assemble and sometimes even reproduce without violation of entropy.
It is tough to explain without a ton of biochem, but in a summary:
Although the constructs are more ordered themselves, the boundary between the ordered and non-ordered is so chaotic the overall system tends towards chaos and therefore support self assembly. Search Micelles, it is a start.
Interesting. Of course some of the most complicated patterns known are on the border of order and disorder of certain fractals, such as the mandelbrot set.
Richard,
With all your study of these fascinating phenomena, don’t you suspect the presence of a divine guiding hand behind it all?
And what about devolution? If we can apply the meaning of the term as “the process of declining from a higher to a lower level of effective power or vitality or essential quality,”
http://www.answers.com/devolution&r=67
then where does the BBC fit in here and when did it start its slide down the curve? And more importantly, what can we do about it?
A few points on the evolution / creationism debate.
Probably the defining characteristic of science is that, in the long run, communities of scientists are prepared to change or ultimately abandon their theories in the face of evidence.
Creationists are not. So even though they use scientific language they are not playing the same game.
Creationists generally believe in a very specific narrative, the details of which they might debate, but that is not susceptible to total removal and replacement.
Finally, creationism is utterely sterile because it’s ‘project’ is so restricted. Here are some simple questions the creationist program lacks the tools to tackle (apart from simply saying God willed it to be so).
Why do all animals share similar biology?
Why are there polar bears only in the northern hemisphere and penguins only in the southern hemisphere?
Why did all animal and plant species not appear at the same time?
‘It should be no surprise if a gay BBC reporter finds himself sympathetic to Pathan tribesmen’
Are we referring to’the fruit of his loins’?
Bryan
“With all your study of these fascinating phenomena, don’t you suspect the presence of a divine guiding hand behind it all?”
No. There was never anything that might suggest any sort of guidance, in fact if anything there is a strong suggestion of no guidance.
Of course there is nothing to prove there is no guiding hand, but then there is nothing to prove that unicorns never existed either, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (look it up in Google, use “I Feel Lucky”).
It has little to do with the BBC I am afraid – I made a simple response to a misrepresentation Diana made and she attacked my correction. Interesting discusion though, to see where her misconceptions of science and lack of knowledge of the more bizarre aspects bible push her towards religion, so more science and religion should be taught to allow people the rational choice she has been denied. It was learning more about the bible, after my science degree, that lead me from agnosticism into atheism.
Richard,
Well, I dunno. I suspect that the BBC must fit into the scheme of things somewhere, on some downward curve. But forgive me, I was being a bit flippant and also attempting to direct the debate back to the BBC.
Thing is, if there is no God, and chaos trumps order, what is the purpose of life? Is it to build something stable and enduring out of chaos or simply to go with the flow? What are we here for?