[hrothgar]

I recognize that these categories are rather broad, however, its difficult to provide much nuance into a singe line.

In my mind "Evolution includes both micro and macro evolution (I think that the distinction is farcical)

"Man-made climate change" means that human actions over the past 150 years (especially greenhouse gas production) will cause significant changes in the global climate.

If you prefer a more nuanced position to one or both of these categories, please feel free to describe it here...

[naresh301]

The nuance I don't like is calling them "beliefs"

I doubt if the results of this poll will be any surprising.

[Winstonm]

Had it been there, I would have voted for this category, but that may only show my ignorance of the scientific proofs.

Evolution true/man-made climate change probable

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Jan 4 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

Had it been there, I would have voted for this category, but that may only show my ignorance of the scientific proofs.

Evolution true/man-made climate change probable

Yes. or even man-made climate change to some degree highly likely but perhaps only one part of the story and the full causes not yet understood. Or something like that.

Or another alternative: Reducing our use of fossil fuels would be a really good idea, whatever the full story on warming is.

But I will still go with the evolution true, man made climate change true options. No need to fuss to much with the wording.

[EricK]

Winstonm, on Jan 4 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

Had it been there, I would have voted for this category, but that may only show my ignorance of the scientific proofs.

Evolution true/man-made climate change probable

I voted for true/true. But whereas I would be totally shocked if evidence came to light now that showed that evolution was false; I wouldn't be so shocked about the other.

[P_Marlowe]

That the climate change is man made is obvious, of course
one needs to define, what one understands under this subject.
Just global warming or the increse of the desert area in Africa,
the reduced forrest areas world wide, the ozon whole, the
killing of animals until they are disitinct, which leads to ...
take your pick.

I would not be surprised, if they modify the evolution theory,
not 100%, but they adjust, but again, what does evolution really
mean.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I voted yes, yes, answering the question with the obvious
clarification (Darwins theory, global warming).

[luke warm]

richard calls the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution "farcial" but is it really?

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Jan 5 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

richard calls the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution "farcial" but is it really?

You drive 100 meter down the road in 5 secs and call it micro-travel. You drive 100 kilometer down the road in 5000 secs and call it macro-travel. Is there an essential difference? I suppose it depends on your perspective.

You could distinguish between domestic travel and international travel, so a 100 meter journey becomes macro-travel if it happens to cross a country boundary. But there is no similar thing in evolution. Evolution does not cross species boundaries at specific time points, it just changes gray shades gradually, and when we decide to call it a new species is not an objective thing but just a feature of the way we have decided to classify fossils.

[Gerben42]

I strongly object to the word "belief".

BTW, the 2 votes against evolution were joking, right?

[PassedOut]

Gerben42, on Jan 5 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

BTW, the 2 votes against evolution were joking, right?

Not necessarily. When I was young, I one of the men I worked with told me that he truly believed that the earth was 6000 years old. I had been telling him about a PBS broadcast I had seen about the Sahara desert being forest land as recently as 10,000 years ago, and Elmer broke in to say why he felt that information had to be wrong.

Elmer was quite a nice man, not pushy about his beliefs at all. It turned out that he was the choir director at his church - some Lutheran denomination. When he told me that, I understood why he had brushed aside my enthusiasm for Janis Joplin vocals.

Once I had explained, "If you hold a power saw up to the mic, you couldn't get a better sound," but Elmer had simply looked bewildered.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Jan 5 2009, 05:46 AM, said:

BTW, the 2 votes against evolution were joking, right?

Welcome to the Bridgebase forums Gerben.

Seriously, do you ever read posts, or do you only post?

[ASkolnick]

I am not pro-evolution or anti-evolution (I actually believe it is sort of a combination) , but I do think that the evolution "theory" has a lot of holes in it that scientists do not take into consideration. Yes, there are items which prove that evolution exists as well, but I do sometimes feel you currently now have a similar situation where evolutionists "pu-pu" any theory counter to their theory without giving it consideration.

1) Some are, when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species?
We have seen characteristics of the same species change, but when did it actually change species. And what does "change species" actually mean?

And once you define it, can you define it in a different manner where they are the "same species"? For example, a Donkey and a Horse can mate ? Are they separate species? According to our scientific classification, yes. But why does someone have to use that scientific classification?

2) Let's assume you don't think God created man. How did the first breath of life begin even at the atomic level?

So, I think it is more than just a yes-no question. Also, with global warming, we do remember we had an ice-age and things melted as well. I am sure that we are contributing to the problem of global warming, but that doesn't mean it may not have happened by itself.

[hrothgar]

ASkolnick, on Jan 5 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

1) Some are, when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species?
We have seen characteristics of the same species change, but when did it actually change species. And what does "change species" actually mean?

I recommend looking at so called "ring species" that are distributed around an object like a mountain range.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Ring_species

[helene_t]

ASkolnick, on Jan 5 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

1) when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species?

It happens gradually.

Think of an experiment: you have a bucket with yellow paint. You add a droplet of red paint to it and stir. Which color is it now? Still yellow of course, you can't notice the difference with the naked eye. What color does it have after you have added a million droplets? Red, obviously. Maybe it was "orange" after 100,000 droplets. Suppose someone asks you: have we ever seen a single droplet changing the color of the paint? No, we haven't. None of the one million droplets left the paint in a qualitatively different color than it was before.

[Gerben42]

To question 1: I don't know the last time, but the first time was in 1905:

FROM http://toarchive.org...speciation.html

Quote

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

So what is a species? This site suggest a species is an "interbreeding community". So a horse and a donkey are not 1 species, because they don't have any fertile offspring (but there have been cases where mules actually could breed with horses / donkeys again, suggesting that the difference between a horse and a donkey is close to the border of "different species").

If mules could cross-breed unlimitedly, it would be possible to breed the mule with both a donkey and a horse again, thus creating all possible steps in between and creating a homogeneous population of this one species.

Quote

2) Let's assume you don't think God created man. How did the first breath of life begin even at the atomic level?

There are many who realize that evolution is happening all around us, and believe in some god. One might for example believe that this god created this first breath of life. Personally I would put my bets on chance, because you need it to happen only once and have a huge number of tries (if there would be a number called "gazillion", this would apply here). But there you go.

I cannot answer this question, and if someone could I'm sure I would have heard about his Nobel Prize. But this is outside of Darwin's theory, really.

[barmar]

Most of the time, new species don't show up right away. What I think happens more often is that an initial species spawns two (or more) lines of descendants that gradually diverge. Perhaps each of the decendants could interbreed with the original species, but they can't interbreed with each other. If the original species goes extinct, you're now left with two distinct species.

But there are also gradations of speciation. What sometimes happens is that there are species that could interbreed, because they're genetically compatible, but generally don't interbreed, perhaps because they've developed incompatible mating practices.

[ASkolnick]

#1 I understand what a "species" is. Scientist have defined species in such a manner. This however does not need to be the only method of grouping. It just may be the grouping among scientists, the expert community etc.

#2 always seems to be a sticking point which evolutionist which they seem to push aside and say chance. I just don't think that is good enough.

I agree there are definitely similar traits among the animal kingdom to indicate that suggest animals evolved from one type of animal to the other. And that is the most likely explanation.

Even I learned in Biology:
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny

I don't know if a supreme being exists or not. I'm not sure why it happening only once is any more or less likely than a supreme being.

I actually do believe that evolution is the most likely course of action that occured, but I just see sort of a hole as in how did it all start.

My whole point is this 2x2 grid is not black and white.

[TimG]

Gerben42, on Jan 5 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

I cannot answer this question, and if someone could I'm sure I would have heard about his Nobel Prize. But this is outside of Darwin's theory, really.

Darwin's theory, or breakthrough, is really natural selection, not evolution, isn't it?

[vuroth]

ASkolnick, on Jan 5 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

1) Some are, when is the last time we have seen a species "evolve" into a new species?

2) Let's assume you don't think God created man. How did the first breath of life begin even at the atomic level?

1. Look up the "recent" e coli experiment findings. We've seen it happen in a laboratory.

2. This technically isn't a question about evolution at all. Evolution can be scientifically proven without answering the question. In fact, proving it and having the proof lead to new questions is kind of at the heart of how scientific progress has worked down through the ages.

That said, read up on Miller-Urey, and some of the recent experiments related to that one. I don't *think* that science has all the answers, though I'm no expert on the subject, but certainly organic chemistry can come about in a variety of ways.

[vuroth]

ASkolnick, on Jan 5 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

I am not pro-evolution or anti-evolution (I actually believe it is sort of a combination) , but I do think that the evolution "theory" has a lot of holes in it that scientists do not take into consideration.

Incidentally, I think that this sentence is decidedly incorrect. Scientists, especially aspiring PhDs, LOVE holes in theories, and absolutely do take them into consideration. Considerable consideration, even.