How did whales, porpoises, and dolphins evolve?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 23 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]428421[/snapback]</div>

Really? Where are they kept?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 24 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]429222[/snapback]</div>

So, it didn't work? I mean, the indoctrination part? Why didn't it "take" with you?

I always sense an attitude of superiority among militant atheists, as if they truly believe they are smarter than anyone else because they are not "delusional". Can you comment on that? Are you smarter than the rest of us because you resisted the "child abuse" of religious indoctrination?

And one more question; when did you first realize the religious indoctrination was incorrect?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 24 2007, 12:05 PM) [snapback]429080[/snapback]</div>

This isn't even important to the discussion. I followed your link and read it. OK, so maybe the people in Columbus' time did know that the earth was round. As a independent thinker, I can accept this (although if I cared enough to know for sure, I'd look for some more unbiased sources). That's the difference. If you are indoctrinated, you are taught to accept what you are taught at face value, and not to question. If you are taught to question EVERYTHING, then you will most readily accept views which you can verify with your own senses. For example, since the horizon is a clearly visible phenomenon, I can readily believe that these people in question had figured out the shape of the earth. HOWEVER, I'm pretty sure there is documentation of religious people at various points in history saying the earth must be flat.

Age 11-13, right when psychologists say the formal cognitive operations stage begins (abstract thinking). In other words, when you begin to think for yourself.

As an aside, when I looked up that psychology info, I discovered something startling. Did you know that only %30 of adults can reason abstractly? Interesting...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_development

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 24 2007, 07:56 PM) [snapback]429499[/snapback]</div>

Probably simply because I don't have a strong need to belong and I have an innate love for knowledge, a discerning eye and yes an appreciation for ... Star Trek - including episodes like The Squire of Gothos where Spock stands up to Trelane by saying "I object to you; I object to intellect without reason. I object to power without constructive purpose." I thought that showed tremendous courage considering Trelane appeared Godlike in his ability to control matter and energy. Shows like that said to me - don't let people bully you into submission just because they appear to have narly powers.

I became a science (and science fiction) fan at about 8 years old and that's when I started to realize that what the priests were telling me didn't make any sense. Plus, while I was in a catholic school from 1-12, my parents weren't very religious so I guess they didn't reinforce the ideas they were preaching at school. Luckily for me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 24 2007, 09:51 PM) [snapback]429591[/snapback]</div>

OK. I have to admit I'm tempted mightily to be very flippant here! I have to remember I was a member of the Lincoln Club the first year it started.

Anyway, I don't want to belittle your experience, so help me understand this ... are you saying that the episode of Star Trek resonated with you because of a deeper truth you felt within you that God wasn't real?

Or are you saying that the episode of Star Trek gave you an inkling that you could question authority, and therefore you were free to set out to understand and know more about spiritual things (or the lack thereof)?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Apr 24 2007, 09:51 PM) [snapback]429591[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not sure that you're really able to express why the indoctrination didn't take; you didn't have amatures doing it (i.e., parents), but seasoned professionals. You liken the experience to child abuse, and want to see it outlawed. But it looks to me like your decision about spiritual things happened through the use of mass media influences like science fiction and TV shows that inspired you, and were readily available.

Did you have a belief in God before the age of 8? Or were you just going through the motions without really thinking of the concepts?

Before I entrust you with removing First Amendment rights from everyone through the use of government power, I'd like to know a little more about your plan. What will be the punishment if the parents take the child to church with them once a week? Will the parents be permitted a Bible or Koran in the house, or should it be locked up like the liquor? What happens if a child expresses an interest in learning about God at 5 or 6, even in non-religious households?

How will you enforce the ban on religious teaching of youth? Will you have the police interview them twice a year, and if they express an opinion about spiritual matters, what would you have done? Arrest the parents and put the child in the foster care system? Or would you have teachers and doctors as "mandated reporters" like they are now with physical child abuse? Where the teacher can go to jail if they don't report the "religious abuse" of the child?

Finally, have you ever been exposed to children who are the victims, currently, of physical or sexual abuse?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 24 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]429351[/snapback]</div>

Gee, thanks for the open mind there, Dan.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 24 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]429235[/snapback]</div>

IN YOUR VIEW. That is not always the same view as others. Why is this hard to grasp? Why must we all agree the same? Can one not have a different view then others? I thought that was what being free meant.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 03:13 AM) [snapback]429622[/snapback]</div>

Its not a matter of agreeing with each other. Its a matter of matching our ideas with reality. What I beg you to understand is that reality exists outside of human thoughts (post-modernists aside). You can choose to believe what you want but if it does not match reality it would be "fantastical and/or illogical" by definition.

Again, I have no less respect for you as a person if you choose to believe in fantasies. However, don't expect that your opinions on the truth carry the same weight as more rational people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 25 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]429661[/snapback]</div>

Another Stalinist here. Who defines reality - when reality only encompasses the here and now and will change as we move forward in time? Obviously - YOU define what has to be reality for the 300,000,000 rest of us. What makes you so certain you are correct - there is not 1% doubt in your mind???

And why do you have no tolerance for differences in beliefs or realities? Are they harming you personally? Are you willing to use the power of the state to regulate these differences??

And i give you some credit for consistancy here - the same way you want the Islamofascists to exert their realities on the people of the middle east - you want to do the same here in America. Tell me, Iran now is exerting its power of the State on its entire population forcing women to wear head coverings - is their reality the correct reality - should we do the same here in America? If not, why - how can there possibly be two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SETS OF REALITY on planet earth? AND AND AND - if you say that iran is wrong in using state power to enforce its set of realities on its people - are you willing to do anything about it??????? or is it ok for only some people to operate under your assumed "correct set" of realities?

just curious.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 25 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]429670[/snapback]</div>

Now this is impressive. Up until now this thread followed a fairly predictable pattern. Evolution vs Creation gave way to religion vs atheism. But trying to turn the conversation once again to the middle east -- and in particular iran -- is really amazing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 24 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]429418[/snapback]</div>

Where are what kept? The porpoises? I keep mine in my bathtub. But please don't tell PETA.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 01:13 AM) [snapback]429622[/snapback]</div>

You're welcome.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 01:13 AM) [snapback]429622[/snapback]</div>

Like Alric, I deeply respect you as a person, for your lifestyle and your attitudes towards other people. But ideas only deserve respect when they have earned it. An open mind does not mean giving equal weight to nonsense as to carefully-researched and independently-verified understandings of how the world works. The hypothesis that the Earth was created by some guy who loves us and will give us pie in the sky when we die (but only if we believe in him) has no supporting evidence and is preposterous on the face of it; and that hypothesis has been used to justify half the preventable suffering in the history of the human race. I therefore do not respect the belief in a god or gods, though I affirm your political rights to hold that belief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 25 2007, 06:22 AM) [snapback]429670[/snapback]</div>

Now think about what you just wrote and consider that christianity does just that in our own nation. Exerts its beliefs and will on those of us who believe differently. I don't know how your county works but mine (Placer County) is almost literally run out of our megachurches. Our government is much the same....

TJ, I am not slamming religion so much as my friend dbermanmd's omission of it's effect in our own country. You know I respect your views and tolerance for others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 24 2007, 11:33 PM) [snapback]429609[/snapback]</div>

The Star Trek thing too low brow for you?

I don't think things like that episode changed me as much as reinforced things that I was already coming up with on my own. But it is hard to say which came first. It's a bit like the chicken and the egg. It was a perhaps a positive feedback loop. If I had to say one way or the other I'd have to say that it probably just reinforced my thinking.

I think I already knew I could question authority at that point. It's hard to remember though.

Certainly had an influence.

Probably going through the motions for the most part thinking that adults knew more than I so I'll accept what they are saying... for now.

I don't think you read my posts very well. I only said "I would love to see the day when a ban COULD be imposed on the participation of minors in any organized religion." But I know such ban could never be imposed. It's completely impractical. Just like it is impractical to completely ban abortion.

I also said, "I don't think it wrong to teach children ABOUT religions and atheism..." From that, you somehow got the reverse - that I would maybe want to ban holy books from peoples homes.

To not coerce my children to BELIEVE in delusions would be my choice as a parent. I leave other parents with their choices. But my goal would be to encourage people to parent like me - to show them the argument for doing it that way. There is no law or enforcement required - again, that would be completely impractical. While I think forcing kids to participate in religion before they can make a rational decision about it is a pretty lame act, it is a pretty mild form of abuse, so we don't need to legislate against it.

No.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 25 2007, 07:28 AM) [snapback]429661[/snapback]</div>

As 'more rational people', though, is a put down. Because I choose to believe in God, does not make more or less rational then any other person. Science, could, in the long run, be just as off on how we got here as I am.

Not one person alive today was alive when everything started. We have based a lot of 'facts' on simple assumptions.

As much as I believe that God is real, I also believe that we don't know who, or what, started it all. Or how. All of this could have been farted out in a really bad gas attack. We, as a species, tend to think we have figured it all out, when we haven't come close.

I often ask, how did the cat (domestic), evolve? When there is no recorded cat sightings before the Egyptians?

I'm not against evolution, per se, but what if, God started evolution, placed the pieces in order, and from that we became man?

 

I think there are two major ways people can determine their religious beliefs:

1) There are the those that are told, probably as children - "This is what you should believe or God will be sad and/or angry with you" First they accept it because an authority figure told them it was true and from then on they tend to ignore any evidence that contradicts that belief because they are emotionally invested in it.

2) Then there are those that say. Hey, let's consider every possibility and look at ALL the evidence logically and with a emotionally detached mind and then we'll try to come up with a way to explain our experience. (And I don't include expert opinion when I mean evidence - I mean facts and figures).

Clearly the former leads to things like islamofascism and christian fundamentalism and the latter is more like the scientific method. I've chosen the latter. I can't respect the former.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 25 2007, 11:14 AM) [snapback]429958[/snapback]</div>

There are no rational people. People are governed by emotions, not by reason. There are, however, rational and irrational ideas. Ideas based on the conclusions of science are rational, because they are based upon observation, experimentation, and logic. The dogmas of religion are irrational, because they are based upon nothing but dreams and wishful thinking. They have no other foundations than imagination.

Many (if not most) people hold some rational ideas and some irrational ones, and curiously, there are some intelligent people who hold some irrational ideas. Many of the Church fathers were exceedingly intelligent men, and yet they believed some preposterously irrational ideas.

The accomplishments of technology demonstrate clearly that rational thinking is a successful way to learn how the world works. Milennia of religious wars demonstrate equally clearly that religion is a torrent of cruelty.

 

I have, and was one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 23 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]428421[/snapback]</div>

Doesn't Evolutionary theory teach that ancestral species propagate out to many different species both living and dead (extinct)? Therefore, using the evolutionary tree as a map between different species, should not all transitional forms have to be from the main branch? Why then are the whale forms you show and all forms in existence today from the tips and the outer nodes of this tree and not the main branch? In addition, according to the Evolutionary Tree, why do scientists use these unique forms far removed and distinct from the whale and from one another? Why do they use examples such as shown in your chart and then arrange them in an order that does not agree with the evidence in the geological record? How does one reconcile this treatment of data and facts with the theory of evolution and the claim that many transitional forms exist?

It seems to me that Evolutionary Scientist are imposing their beliefs by selectively choosing fossils, fabricating some type of explanation upon them to match their Darwinian beliefs and the required transformations they assume must be there. If this is not the case then one would have to believe the examples you chose backed down the evolutionary tree from different tips, nodes and branches where they are placed, relocated themselves in the timeline of geological history, in order to pass on these traits to their ancestors, true? Your Faith far transcends my pitiful little fragment of a mustard seed of Faith that when whole can only “remove mountains into the sea†I am humbled. [attachmentid=7659]

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]430038[/snapback]</div>

It is mainly for display purposes. In fact most phylogenetic trees are built that way. To display a general idea. The extinct species are always displayed at the end nodes.

If you wish to argue which idea is more faith based I would agrue yours is for the simple fact that we have evidence and a multitude of testing procedures to explain our ideas. Yours comes from a book and has no testable evidence to back it up.

 

Some good questions...others not so good.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]430038[/snapback]</div>

Yes! Evolution happens in both space and time. For example there are many closely related presently living species of finches geographically distributed in the Galapagos. But there are many closely related extinct ancestors as well.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]430038[/snapback]</div>

I think you are carrying the tree analogy too far. What transitional forms represent are a branching point anywhere in the tree, not necessarily from the trunk. The tree of life continuously branch and species associated with the "trunk" may or may not persist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]430038[/snapback]</div>

What is unique about the animals in the chart is that they are conspicuously "whales", all the way down to the ancestral land-dwelling dog looking thing. They all share morphologic traits that only whales have. In their case a specific bone conformation in the skull.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 25 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]430038[/snapback]</div>

These are the not so good questions. They do agree with the geological record. You have to only use your eyes to see how there is a transition within these animals from land-dwelling to sea-faring. In other genealogies not only the fossil record but also DNA sequence can be used to investigate the relationships.