AviatorTx

.............]
...........

__________________
This post is my personal opinion only. I make no claim of being an actual XJT employee, nor do I play an XJT employee on TV. All statements are made only as that of a private tax paying citizen of the United States. No affiliation with Expressjet, Expressjet Holdings, or ALPA are expressed, nor implied.

Yariv

common forum etiquette says read before you post, but realistically we can't expect you to read all 88 pages. but if you're going to talk about evolution, we do expect that you have a working understanding of what evolution is.

to keep it short, evolution by natural selection means that self-reproducing life forms change by random mutation of their genes. most of these mutations are a liability (example - being born with a smaller brain, a tail, or downe syndrome) and the organism doesn't survive. even if it does, it doesn't reproduce, or if it does, the mutation is so rare that after a few generations it disappears from the gene pool. some mutations are beneficial, like being born tall, strong, smart, or with natural immunity to the flu. if the flu became rampant, most people will die, and those with natural immunity will survive, as will the very strong ones. hence an evolution. after many generations, there would be two different species of people - ones with immunity to the flu, and the strong ones that were able to survive it. hence two different species with a common ancestor.

your analogy is not very good because the bolt and nut are not self replicating, the change is instantenous, and there is no logical reason for the change. in fact, it's not a bad analogy for MUTATION, not for evolution. evolution is not mutation. other examples like yours include the one where a tornado goes thru a junkyard and when it's thru a fully functional 747 is sitting there. another is looking at the intricate inner workings of a watch, and concluding that since it could not have formed randomly, or by natural selection, it must have had a designer.

the keys to evolution are
1. it's slow - many many generations of mutation before any changes become visible. this is why your analogy of instantenous improvement in a piece of metal is not a good one.
2. it's not random - only beneficial traits survive. non-beneficial ones disappear. only species that 'adapt' to the environment by having beneficial traits survive, others go extinct. there is nothing random about that. this is why the 747 analogy is not a good one. (a good one would be that stone buildings would be standing after the tornado, and mobile homes would be gone)
3. it doesn't require any external force, other than the environment. this is its major advantage over creationism. no designer. if you claim a designer, you have to use the same set of rules to explain where the designer came from and who designed him. evolution makes sense without a designer. the watchmaker analogy is flawed because watches do not exist in nature, they DO have a designer. this does NOT mean that anything too complex for me or you to understand requires a designer.

currently the only weakness of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't answer the question of where the first organism came from. science has theories (I'm using the second meaning of the word theory here - better known as hypotheses) but until we can replicate it, we just don't know. this does NOT mean that evolution is therefore wrong or that there is a designer. to say that is to fill the gap in our knowledge with god, something that was done plenty in the past, only to later have science fill the gap without god.

(webster's definition of the word theory:
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another - example: gravitational theory.
2: abstract thought - example: "jimmy hoffa is burried in the meadowlands.")

to improve on your bolt analogy, let's say that you have a pile of bolts and nuts - 1000 pairs. they go thru a machine that sorts them into nuts and bolts separately, to be packed and shipped to hardware stores. since in the original pile they all rubbed against each other, it is possible, though statistically unlikely, that 3 pairs of nuts and bolts out of the 1000 will end up with the nut on the bolt (so odds are 99.7% that this can't happen, probably similar to your wave in the tub action). the machine will pick those out and move them to the 'discard' pile. after a year of sorting 1000 pairs per day, there would be 1000 pairs of bolts with nuts on them in the discrad pile. so you started with 1000 pairs of separate nuts and bolts, and you ended up after a long time with 1000 pairs of nuts on the bolts. the ones that weren't on the bolt are extinct (shipped off, never seen again)

the mutation is random, but the fact that it's beneficial for survival is not. it took time, and there was no external force other than the natural environment (the sorting machine.) in reality, the odds of a significant, beneficial mutation are much smaller than 0.3% (but still >0), it takes thousands of years not one, and the change is much less noticeable.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

redbird

Yariv, i didn't really need a definition on evolution, I had to study it like everyone else. And yes my example is not the perfect representaion of the evolutionary state. I also imagine there is some very slight chance(>0) that the nut could get on the bolt. And yes I did read many of the posts, my statement was only intended to mean that I may be repeating something that had already been said.
It seems the person who started this thread demands proof of Gods existence because they choose not to believe in him. Only God himself can give the proof to an individual like him/her. No post on this thread can PROVE either position. As for me, I see undeniable evidence all around. And if nothing else, the nut and bolt example prooves my passion and determination in my beliefs. This is one of those subjects that has been debated for centuries. Perhaps for some, the only proof will come when they die.

FlyXJTnow

You see undeniable proof all around? Wow, I guess its in how you interpret what you see. I don't see it.

Using that logic I guess I believe in Santa Clause. I saw him at the mall last December and my 4 year old believes he's real. She believes him to be real with a passion that is "undeniable". Does that mean he really exists? Am I fooled into believing he exists because everyone tells me he's real around Christmas time? I see the presents he leaves behind. He also eats the cookies and drinks the milk that my daughter leaves for him. His reindeer even eat part of the carrots. That is concrete, hard facts. You can't deny it. Did you see someone other than Santa do those things? Since I can't prove otherwise, I have to go on faith. That's all I have to believe Santa, besides the evidence I see all around supports my view.

__________________
www.factcheck.org

Yariv

sorry for underestimating. all I had to go by is your analogy and the fact that you disagree with modern science about evolution. to me that's similar to not agreeing with sciene about modern medicine, or about the earth revolving around the sun. but you're certainly entitled to your opinions and beliefs.

I agree that the only proof of god can come from god himself. that's because I find no such proof anywhere else, such as in nature. does this mean that until we receive such proof from god we have no reason to believe he exists? I guess you can say we already received it in the form of the bible or nature itself. yet there are large numbers of sane, intelligent people who do not consider this to be proof. don't you think an all powerful god can do better?

this subject has been discuessed for centuries, but for most of that time, we didn't know how electricity worked, we thought the sun revolved around the (flat) earth, and only for the last 150 years did we have logical, working explanation of how species develop and evolve. before then, it truly was a mystery and god was a good alternative to not knowing. 150 years is a short time compared to centuries.

you said that to not believe in god is to not be accountable for your own actions. I believe that the opposite is true. without god, we're just a bunch of people responsible for our own actions and creating our own purposes and morals. with god, we get everything handed to us on a platter from god. morals, purpose, physical and moral support, and when things don't go well we have an explanation. it's like being kids again, as opposed to responsible, accountable adults.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Guardguy

I am becoming Catholic on Easter and will only say god father son and wholy gost. I am so proud to be a part of this thread, god bless, may he bless expressjet airlines and our future! We may be beyond help?

irishNJ

Holy Ghost. You better get into that Catechism book a little more in depth ha ha.

By the way, I don't know if you were being serious but if you were then Congratulations. Even though I don't believe in much of that stuff anymore, it's nice to go to mass at midnight for the show (music, costumes and the incense etc.). That's what Catholicism is really about anyway, the ritual. It's fully expected that you take much of the Bible with a grain of salt as long as you don't question the Catechism!

Guardguy

LOL, good one on the gost, yes I am for the wife etc. First holly communion is at the easter vigal next Saturday night. Thanks

Yariv

happy easter to all that celebrate it.

some questions about easter. not making fun, I'm really looking for answers:
1. why is it a happy occasion?
2. why do orthodox christians celebrate it on a different day?
3. what on earth does a chocolate-egg laying bunny (or is it a chocolate egg-laying bunny) have to do with easter???

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

kidicarus5897

Who created the creator then? Kind of complicates the situation a little. We were created-ok. Some can buy that. Where did the creator come from? Poof.......and there he/it was. Acoms Razor.......and a creator who created a creator who created a creator who created the created is hardly a simple explination for existance. I think too many people, including myself, have a hard time grasping the extreemly long duration evolution had to create life. Single cell organisims replicate many times a minute, put that against millions upon millions of years, and a better version is bound to arise. Evolution is not good at producing beneficial traits, seeing as how 99.9% of all evolved traits are counter-productive to survival, and as a result, 99.99% of all species have gone extinct over the eons. Given enough time.........you will find bored airline pilots debating the cause of their very existence on some the crack pipe in JAX. Humans are at an odd time in their evolution, smart enough to contemplate their existance, but to stupid to udnerstand it. Hopefully someday, if we don't blow ourselves up we can understand why we are here. However, I doubt that the answer lies in a 2,000+ year old book and a church.

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......