To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Natural Selection is Recursive
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

stevedoetsch
The deeper one’s knowledge of evolution the better one sees its inability to explain the origin of species. Whether this is because NS(natural selection) is a tautology and therefore has no power to explain, or it is because NS has no power to explain and is therefore a tautology, I haven’t yet figured out. Whatever we label NS, it cannot explain a straight line in development from a single cell to you or me.

In logic, a tautology is a statement that is always true in a truth table. No matter what is plugged into the variables on one side the result is always true on the other. Tautologies can’t be scientific explanations since they can’t be empirically tested for their validity. They are true simply by definition. Statements can be tautologies by their logical structure like, “All crows are black or not black”. The statement is logically expressed “either X or not X”, and is always true no matter what we use to replace X. Statements are also tautologies when they make recursive claims like, “All naked people are not wearing clothes”, and “If dogs could sweat they’d perspire.” The fact that NS can be stated as the tautology “survival of the fittest” is a clue that it is a tautology, though this is by no means the end of the evidence.

NS is always true since it “predicts” all levels of complexity. The increase, decrease, or stability in complexity of organisms in a population are all “predicted” by NS. For example, if beetles with wings outlive beetles without wings then the beetles with wings are more fit because their wings allow them to travel further, and search for mates and food more easily. If beetles without wings outlive those with wings because on a particular island the wind blows flying beetles into the sea, then the beetles without wings are more fit. NS is a tautology because it “predicts” that organisms will survive that have traits that help them survive.

Evolutionists get confused since it seems quite obvious to them that NS can explain the change in the average beak size in a finch population on the Galapagos after a drought, for example. But NS does not cause the change in beak size; it is the observation of the change in beak size. NS is simply the label we give for the death of a portion of a population that leads to a shift in the proportion of traits in that population. NS is an empirical observation that organisms that don’t die replenish the population. NS becomes recursive when we try to use it as an explanation for the same observation. We can’t make NS into its own explanation. If we start with the assumption that beaks of various sizes exist, and then we remove most small beaks (this is natural selection), we are of course left with bigger beaks on average. The cause of the big beaks is not that we removed small beaks, but that we started with big beaks as a premise. Since big beaks exist, then if they don’t cease to exist, they will continue to exist. The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.

The claim that NS is observed is a fact irrelevant to the tautological status of NS. Tautologies can be observed and NS is an observed tautology. “All naked people are not wearing clothes” is a tautology that can be observed in both the field and the laboratory. Just because something is observed doesn’t mean it’s not a tautology. Explaining why there are naked people in the field and laboratory is distinct from observing that they are there. If one offers the definition of an occurrence as the cause for that occurrence one offers a tautological explanation. Tautologies can’t be used as explanations because they attempt to use the observation of something as the explanation for that same thing. In short, tautological explanations confuse effects for causes by stating an effect is its own cause.
(BTW-Some say NS explains the formation of new species but new species form via various modes of a process called “speciation” and nobody debates its occurrence. It just can’t lead from single celled organisms to the diversity and complexity of life around us today, since speciation results in a reproductively isolated genetic subset of the original species. The subset of the genetic information in a single celled organism is not a step toward the information in you or me. Speciation is empirical evidence that genetic information decreases in a population over time.)

So NS is true (after all, tautologies are always true), it does occur in both the field and the laboratory. Traits in living populations have been observed to change in proportion within the population. Some animals do die while others do live. The living, of course, replenish the population with their genes, and the dead do not. This is not an explanation for the source of life sustaining genetic info, but simply the observation that there is life sustaining genetic info. All parties agree that life sustaining genetic info will spread thru a population if it is present. The debate is over whether life sustaining genetic info spontaneously occurs in nature. But really there’s no debate because this has never been observed in either the field or the laboratory. Anti-evolutionists are simply trying to convince evolutionists that something that is not observed, but is deduced from a set of beliefs, cannot be a scientific fact. As soon as the formation of new genetic information is empirically observed the attempts will end, as there is no empirical evidence anti-evolutionists (including biblical creationists) reject. Since information has thru history been confirmed to be the product of the human mind alone, the best available theory says that whatever produced genetic information has a thinking and reasoning capacity similar to, but greater than, our own.

NS cannot explain the "origin of species" because it assumes the truth of the very thing it claims to explain. Calling NS a tautology is not a word game or sophistry. A tautology is made of certain things and it produces certain things. A tautology has certain characteristics. It has a certain smell, a certain taste. We can label NS whatever we want: tautology, smautology, whatever, but a label is more than a name, it’s a collection of characteristics. If NS really is a tautology then it will be made of the same things as a tautology, it will have the same traits as a taut, and it will produce the same results as a tautology. All arguments I have read against NS being a tautology have failed to disprove the claim, and have instead focused uselessly on:
1) Whether Karl Popper recanted
2) Restating the tautological statement "Survival of the fittest"
3) Claiming that if NS is a taut then all science is a taut.

I have proven NS is a tautology; prove that its not.
PaulBored
What exactly is natural selection be the cause of? I think it is evident that it is an effect. It is a process. The cause is genetic variation. Natural selection doesn't cause evolution, it's just part of the explanation. So, yeah NS is a tautology because the fittest are those that survive and those that survive are the fittest. And the development of single-celular organisms into multi-cellular organism can be explained by NS. Those cells that 'worked together' survived while cells that didn't died. The structure of mitochondria is evidence of this.
stevedoetsch
I laugh because you offer me every persuasive writer’s nightmare; the dreaded “So what?”

The power of the diabolical argument of natural selection as the origin of species is its seductive lure in seeming to explain all while explaining nothing. NS feels like it explains even though we know it doesn’t. You express the same when you admit that NS is an effect, yet claim it to be a cause: “What exactly is natural selection [supposed to] be the cause of?” you ask. You respond: “…the development of single-cellular organisms into multi-cellular organism can be explained by NS.” We know that a tautology cannot explain, yet we feel that some how the tautology of NS helps explain evolution. Such is NS’s power over us; the simplicity of its refutation belies the depth of its refutation.

NS is nothing. It explains nothing. It simply says that is what is, and what is is the very thing in question. Yet we experience NS as a cause. Like an inverted mask it seems always to point to the observer; a mindless visage nodding acceptingly at any and all evidence. If life sustaining genetic information spontaneously occurs, NS can “extract” from that set a subset via elimination. All empirical tests reveal no such spontaneous occurrence of information. Yet, even were such information to occur, NS cannot explain it.
howtothinklikegod
Sorry steve but I agree with Paul. NS is not about nothing. Charles Darwin wouldn't be too stupid enough to formulate a theory without enough basis.
Nessus
QUOTE
All empirical tests reveal no such spontaneous occurrence of information


Opps, you said all. Now you have a big task of backing up that statement.
Knot of this world
Evolution = Life ...therefore,
NonEvolution = Death

Stop Evolving at your own peril.

k.
Justavian
QUOTE
All empirical tests reveal no such spontaneous occurrence of information.


Most "empirical tests" can operate on the order of months or years. For bacteria, this is enough to see natural selection work its magic on the mutations that are randomly produced - drug Resistance, the ability to metabolize man made materials like nylon. But in higher organisms, this is the blink of an eye in a process that takes thousands of generations. How do you expect a test involving a few animals over a few years to produce results that happen in nature when operating on thousands or millions of animals over millions of years?

As was already mentioned, NS does not show where the original genetic information being selected comes from. Natural selection never works alone. Natural selection will simply dictate which changes eventually spread through a given population. That, combined with geographic separation, or varying environmental pressures can eventually lead to the division of a single species into more than one.

You can't simply pick out a single process from the evolutionary theory and expect it to function on its own. Natural selection does nothing on its own. Genetic mutation does nothing without selection pressure. Geographic separation does nothing without genetic diversity and different environmental factors.
StevenA
Let's separate out a couple ideas:

1) There's a progression to the universe over time. This could be viewed as an evolution, in a general sense. So "things happen" and some of them create more visible and lasting effects.

2) The idea of "survival of the fittest" is an extrapolation of this view that applies to Darwinian Evolution.

2a) You have a good point that if this concept is interpreted along the lines of everything having an unalterable destiny, then there is little value in it as "what will be, will be" and you can always redefine "fittest" to simply mean whatever "survived" and then there's simply survival or existance and little information is available as to why.

2b) If you instead extract the ideas of selective pressures as a bias toward what can be observed, then it becomes a more useful tool in understanding the paths life has taken and even provides some ability to predict the directions things would head under various circumstances.

So if there's a drought in an area and it causes a lower representation of amphibians there shortly afterwards, there's little use is saying "non-amphibians were fittest" as it's simply an after the fact observation that provided no useful knowledge ahead of time (it's also a very limited in view there's the food chain, as well as other amphibians that might have thrived elsewhere etc.).

But instead by looking at these events over time and determining how they're interrelated, then more useful predictive abilities can emerge that leave people less at the mercy of random unforseen events and instead, for example, allow them to predict some what long term genetic effects might be seen in local wildlife when environmental conditions are changed, or analyze why some unusual local ecosystem evolved as it did and what effects might be seen if some foreign plantlife was introduced etc. (Though the rapid growth of possible secondary effects and long term, often compensating, factors makes large scale analysis difficult and unreliable unless it's a closed system with few factors involved)

The ideas of genetic evolution have been used to solve engineering problems also. For example, aerodynamics is a complex field. There have been designs created by evolving structures and testing their aerodynamic abilities instead of attempting to calculate the optimal design. The number of possible variables, and non-linear complexity of the interactions in many real life designs becomes too complex to work with. If you have a simply way to evaluate the merit of a design, then instead you can create a large number of designs, evaluate them, select the best and combine or mutate traits in them and quickly find a design that works satisfactorily without knowing what it would be ahead of time.
stevedoetsch
Scientific theories are disprovable, but evolution as an explanation for the origin of species/genetic info is neither science nor disprovable. NS (natural selection) predicts the survival of those organisms that have traits that encourage survival; a self-evident fact that has no explanatory power. Whether complex or simple, when organisms survive, evo told us it would happen Evo even says it might not happen. (Man! This theory explains every thing!) Evo does not predict an increase in genetic info over time, yet that’s what we find in the fossils record according to some evolutionists (some have been looking thru evolutionary glasses for so long they think the interpreted increase in fossil complexity is synonymous with evolution). According to Gould’s punk eek we find stasis and sudden appearance in the fossils. Well evolution fits that too! Whether we find change, stasis, an increase in complexity, or a decrease in complexity, evolution did it all, baby! The empirical evidence requires evo to explain the increase in genetic info over eons. And what does evo say? Evo tells us it happened by chance. Yep, it is because it is. There’s no knowable law governing genetic info. We might as well stop science ‘cause there is no cause whatsoever. This is just the way it turned out; its magic. Claiming chance as a scientific cause is a reduction of science to mere sorcery. Why is evo true? Evolutionists say, “we’re here aren’t we?”

But tell me, can nothing be known about my car because it was intelligently designed? I guess my computer is beyond the realm of scientific investigation. You know, the last time I tried to measure my house to obtain its square footage my measuring tape just disappeared. Yeah, the evolutionists are right, things designed by an intelligence really are beyond empirical investigation! I guess will just have to stick with the evolutionary explanation: Chance; the certainty that we’ll never know. At least we can be sure of something smile.gif

Please tell me a single experiment that can disprove evo.
Grumpy
stevedoetsch

Evolution is not just Natural Selection. In fact all NS entails is that the organism survived to pass on it's particular gene set to future generations of that species.

Evolution is descent(reproduction) with modification(mutations or differing genes being expressed) which is then submitted to real world testing by NS(did the organism survive and reproduce?). Like all of the best scientific theories(E=MC2) it is simple in it's expression, yet profound in it's effects!!!

You were saying that new info is not the product of evolutionary processes, you are wrong. If a mutation occurs(for whatever reason)that gives an advantage to an individual, NS will insure it becomes more prevalent in the gene pool of that species. That is new "information". Once new information appears, DNA will keep it(we call that accumulation "junk DNA") and when the species is under stress it may be activated(through various processes,ask a microbiologist) to be submitted to NS once again. This packrat nature of DNA means that over time it will become more complex(sometimes slowly like in sharks, sometimes quickly like primates). This is one reason we share some genes with carrots, crocodiles and cows.

Grumpy cool.gif
PuckSR
QUOTE
Scientific theories are disprovable, but evolution as an explanation for the origin of species/genetic info is neither science nor disprovable.


Well...you later go on to talk about natural selection...so lets just stick with that.
I could obviously prove natural selection wrong. If you proved that the 'weaker' species frequently survived...then you would prove natural selection wrong. The problem is that natural selection obviously is true. Don't get too upset about it...many things in science are 'obviously' true.

Natural Selection, however, is not the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution could obviously be refuted...but it exists as a theory that must be replaced...because it exhibits too much explanatory power.
I will give you an analog though. Gravity. The Theory of Gravity is almost impossible to prove 'wrong'. Gravity exists...we may not know why it exists. We may not be able to explain all of the 'gravitational' interactions(think dark matter). We may someday find a better "theory of gravity"....but we will never be able to disprove the current theory of gravity. It obviously exists....even if the current theory doesnt do much to satisfy your curiosity.
stevedoetsch
Grumpy
"Evolution is not just Natural Selection."
PuckSR
"Natural Selection, however, is not the theory of evolution."

Even the Greeks had the idea of evo. It was Darwin who came up with the idea of evo by NS. So evo via NS is the theory that's supposed to explain the origin of species, just as he entitled his book. NS is the mechanism that explains how evo works.

Since evo is based on NS, as Darwin made a huge point of saying, then, if NS has no explanatory power, evo is left without an explanation.

Does NS lack explanatory power? I already gave my argument.

Can you give me a hypothetical example of a pattern in the fossil record that would disprove evo, or an experiment that would?

You said that the fittest might not survive, but that's impossible since the fittest are the survivors. You seem to think the "fittest" must be more complex. Evo by NS does not predict that organisms will increase in complexity. That's a basic error of those new to evo theory. Dinosaurs may survive, or bacteria may survive, and evo does not predict which one will survive. That we see an increase in complexity in the fossils record is a problem for evo, not something that evo predicted would be found. Organisms may increase, stay the same, or decrease in complexity, and evo does not predict any of it. Evo only says that, who ever survives, will pass there genes on to the next generation. So why is there in increase in complexity? Evo's only answer is: that's just the way it happened. But that's not a scientific explanation. Its not an explanation at all. That's why I say Darwin’s theory of evo by NS does not explain anything.
PuckSR
QUOTE
Can you give me a hypothetical example of a pattern in the fossil record that would disprove evo, or an experiment that would?


Absolutely.....
If we discovered that organisms suddenly emerged that had absolutely no similar traits.
For example...if large mammals suddenly arrived without any smaller mammals first being present

If organisms suddenly arose with completely dissimilar traits
i.e. Precambrian explosion we suddenly see teeth and hard shells.
If we had seen hard shells...no teeth....then maybe you would have an argument against evo

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Can you give me a hypothetical example of a pattern in the fossil record that would disprove evo, or an experiment that would?


Absolutely.....
If we discovered that organisms suddenly emerged that had absolutely no similar traits.
For example...if large mammals suddenly arrived without any smaller mammals first being present

If organisms suddenly arose with completely dissimilar traits
i.e. Precambrian explosion we suddenly see teeth and hard shells.
If we had seen hard shells...no teeth....then maybe you would have an argument against evo

It was Darwin who came up with the idea of evo by NS. So evo via NS is the theory that's supposed to explain the origin of species, just as he entitled his book. NS is the mechanism that explains how evo works.

You might want to read up on evolution....
Several controlling factors are considered in modern evolutionary theory....
Natural selection or "best adapted" is fairly vague...
Modern Evolutionary theory breaks down natural selection into several sub-elements that are not nearly as circular.
For example...
Modern "natural selection" consists of environmental pressure, sexual selectivity, feeding ability, resistance ability...etc.

QUOTE
Dinosaurs may survive, or bacteria may survive, and evo does not predict which one will survive. That we see an increase in complexity in the fossils record is a problem for evo, not something that evo predicted would be found.

Actually this is a mistake....
Evolutionary theory predicts that animals will continue to adapt...which indicates "complexity". Massive extinction events are different. While punctuated equilibrium evolution does predict that certain situations will necessitate evolution....massive extinction events are very different.

Grumpy
stevedoetsch

QUOTE
You seem to think the "fittest" must be more complex.


Where did you get that idea??? Certainly not from me. Did you fail to read where I pointed out that sharks rays and crocodiles have changed very slowly???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You seem to think the "fittest" must be more complex.


Where did you get that idea??? Certainly not from me. Did you fail to read where I pointed out that sharks rays and crocodiles have changed very slowly???

It was Darwin who came up with the idea of evo by NS. So evo via NS is the theory that's supposed to explain the origin of species, just as he entitled his book. NS is the mechanism that explains how evo works.


Actually Darwin's theory(and a well supported one it is) is
1. Descent with modification(very important)
2. TESTED by NS(which simply means that the changes from 1 are tested by the real world, those that allow an organism to survive allow that organism to reproduce, those changes that don't are eliminated from the gene pool.)

QUOTE
That we see an increase in complexity in the fossils record is a problem for evo, not something that evo predicted would be found.


As I already explained, successful mutations accumulate in the genome, thus more complexity over time(Just as seen in the fossil record, no problem) and IS predicted by the modern synthesis. You just don't understand that which you are denigrating.

Grumpy cool.gif
Grumpy
Oops, multi-post

Grumpy cool.gif
stevedoetsch
PuckSR: Evolutionary theory predicts that animals will continue to adapt...which indicates "complexity".

Schizoid-Grumpy1: Where did you get that idea??? Certainly not from me.

Schizoid-Grumpy2: As I already explained, successful mutations accumulate in the genome, thus more complexity over time

Schizoid-Grumpy1: Did you fail to read where I pointed out that sharks rays and crocodiles have changed very slowly???

PuckSR: Actually this is a mistake....

Schizoid-Grumpy1&2 in unison: Oops, multi-post.

I’ll let you three work this out. In the meantime, note that any theory that predicts all outcomes is untestable and hence not scientific. “F=ma”, not “F tends to = ma, but it might not….but it might”. You guys are a riot, and your lack of criticism concerning this failure of the evo theory reveals a blinding bias.

The effect of genetic info is that it helps organisms survive because it’s the recipe for making functional traits. IF genetic info is present in a pop then organisms with it will tend to survive and tend to pass that info on thru the generations. So the affect of genetic info is evolution, not the other way around. Evo does not cause genetic info, evo is the result of genetic info.

If organisms share a common ancestor, it is because genetic info is present in the population. It is the genetic info that allows organisms to live and breed. The empirical fact of their survival and modified descent is pre-programmed into the genetic code. Did you know all the examples of evo put forth by Darwin are examples of traits already present within the pop before Darwin started his observations? We have yet to observe an increase in genetic information. (and I’m sure you’ll want to mention nylon eating bugs, poison and disease resistant mutants, flowers with colors novel to their lineage, etc…All examples of new traits via a degradation of genetic info)

Now, does that info spontaneously occur in nature or does it have a metaphysical cause? IF we rule out metaphysical causes a priori, then we‘re forced to accept that genetic info occurs spontaneously in nature. That evolutionists have ruled out the metaphysical possibility means that, even were all evidence to point to the metaphysical, they would maintain their position, saying “We don’t debate evo, only its mechanism.” The fact that evolutionists have been saying this for 150 years is evidence of the metaphysical border upon which their theories recoil into recursive explanations (like the tautology of NS.) Evo by NS is no closer to explaining the origin of species/genetic info than when Darwin first made it up (after reading Malthus and Lyell and attempting to force his observations of nature to fit the ideas he read.)
PuckSR
Wow...Ive never seen anyone so grossly misunderstand other people's posts.

QUOTE
’ll let you three work this out. In the meantime, note that any theory that predicts all outcomes is untestable and hence not scientific. “F=ma”, not “F tends to = ma, but it might not….but it might”. You guys are a riot, and your lack of criticism concerning this failure of the evo theory reveals a blinding bias.


So now your a liar too?
Actually, a theory can predict all possible outcomes...Probability can be incredibly important.

Quantum theory, the law of large numbers, most of the theorems and laws of probability all predict ALL possible outcomes for an event. The thing that makes them a "theory" is that they assign at least some degree of probability to different outcomes.

Back to Darwin though,
The Theory of Evolution does not predict complexity, or lack thereof....
The Theory of Evolution claims that animals will adapt under certain circumstances....
It defines the reason for this adaptation....constant genetic variation coupled with a Natural Selection algorithm.

It makes very clear predictions...that can be tested...and have been observed to be true. It predicts that changes in an enviroment will cause adaptation of organisms so that they can survive in the enviroment. It also predicts that since this adaptation is accomplished via mutation, the adaptation will not be instant, will not occur during the life of the organism(lamarkian evolution), and the adapted organism will frequently not be "perfectly" adapted.

The fossil record shows us that all of these predictions are accurate.
While it does seem obvious that the organisms best suited for survival will survive....it is obvious....it is still a theory(fact). It also seems recursive when you consider F=ma. Force will always equal mass times acceleration, but acceleration is equal to force divided by mass.

BTW...while Natural Selection may seem "recursive" to you...explore the other option creationism...it fails miserably. It doesnt have any provision claiming that animals will adapt. Natural Selection is common sense...and one might argue that it doesnt even need to be stated...but then one forgets that many people dont believe it exists at all.
stevedoetsch
“[Evolution] predicts that changes in an environment will cause adaptation of organisms so that they can survive in the environment.” This is false, and confuses individual mutation with adaptation of a population. Evolutionists claim mutations are random, and are not responses to, and not caused by, the environment. Changes in the environment cause changes in the population, not individual organisms. Thus adaptation of a population is a result of the interaction of the random phenotype with the environment.
Read that last line again.
Adaptation of the population is a consequence of... Adaptation is caused by... Adaptation is an effect, not a cause. So what causes adaptation? The phenotype! And the phenotype comes from the information in the genome! The fact that populations can adapt is a result of the genetic info within the population. Thus adaptation does not cause genetic info, genetic info causes adaptation. It is the evolutionist claim that genetic info appears spontaneously that is unverified.

As for the creation option “failing”, you seem to think the theory of evolution adds something to science. If an oyster is hard on the outside and soft in the middle, and we say God made the oyster, well, it’s still hard on the outside and soft in the middle. If we say evolution made the oyster its physical traits remain the same. Evolutionists and creationists both agree that genes cause physical traits in organisms. Yet the cause of genetic info remains unknown. Some believe it has a physical cause, others believe it has a metaphysical cause. Concerning genetic info, there is nothing for creationism to fail about. While no one debates natural selection (only its extent), bad philosophy has led people to believe natural selection explains what it has been demonstrated (with the discovery of DNA) not to explain: the origin of species. The cause of heritable variation, unknown to Darwin, has since been discovered to be DNA so that the limitless adaptation posited by Darwin now, as then, has no empirical base. So what is the theory of evolution? It’s a belief (based on poor logic) in the spontaneous appearance of genetic information that has been added to the scientific data.
AlphaNumeric
Even the Bible thumping, Jesus praising creationist wackos over at "AnswersInGenesis" (the "God did it in 7 days" website) accept that 'Evolution is a tautology' is not a valid argument from a creationist viewpoint :
QUOTE
“Natural selection is a tautology.”

Natural selection is in one sense a tautology. Who are the fittest? Those who survive and leave the most offspring. Who survive and leave the most offspring? The fittest. But a lot of this is semantic wordplay, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand. For example, what is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work; it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something. To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn’t happen. Of course the environment can “select,” just as human breeders select. But demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means. The real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem. Arguments about tautology distract attention from one of the real weaknesses of neo-Darwinism—the source of the new information required. Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Even the late pope John Paul II accepted evolution could be reconciled with the Bible, along with the big bang.
PuckSR
QUOTE
As for the creation option “failing”, you seem to think the theory of evolution adds something to science. If an oyster is hard on the outside and soft in the middle, and we say God made the oyster, well, it’s still hard on the outside and soft in the middle. If we say evolution made the oyster its physical traits remain the same.


Great...but thanks to evolution we can compare the oyster to its other bivalve relatives. We can determine the differences between other related bivalves and organisms that are completely unrelated. We can determine if oysters will be able to adapt to changing enviroments in the wild, and because of a knowledge of evolution we can predict that oysters may be able to develop to tolerate a variable enviroment.
The information differences between creationism and evolution may seem irrelevant to someone who doesnt study biology...but the differences are glaring.

Some science may seem entirely meaningless. History, anthropology, archaeology, and several other sciences that deal entirely with historical information may seem meaningless to you. They all, however, expand our knowledge. Most humans agree that knowledge is one of the ultimate quests of mankind. We are inquisitive, curious beings...and we are true to our nature.

If it wasn't for evolution, the entire field of modern pharmaceuticals wouldnt exist. It is the knowledge of adaptation and evolution that drives our modern medicine. Our understanding of the evolutionary similiarities between certain species has allowed us to evaluate modern medicine without endangering humans.

The belief that "evolution gives us no valuable information" is equivalent to saying that kids shouldnt have to study history in school...because history has no "real world" applications.
curious1
QUOTE
So what is the theory of evolution? It’s a belief (based on poor logic) in the spontaneous appearance of genetic information that has been added to the scientific data.


So, asking the 'creationist' a question, what is the theory of creationism? The belief that animal life appeared whole and did not 'evolve'?

So explain why some species replaced others and where they arose from. When the dinosaurs disappeared 165 million years ago, mammals were created by a god to replace them? This god kept creating and uncreating creatures, sort of like painting and erasing mistakes throughout the history of life on this planet?

What are neanderthal man then in the Creationist mythos? I thought god created man as he was, so what exactly are these other branches of human evolution that went extinct, practice? Mistakes?

Since man hasn't further evolved, since he can't per creationism, we are now flawless and perfect, and this is the world god wanted to create? Complete with the misery, suffering and evil?

I was just curious where you were coming from with this. Do you agree with the above statements as a Creationist?
CactusCritter
When I read stevedoetsch's specious logic which started this subject chain, I expected a followup about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Natural Selection (NS) is a name given to a process which both describes what has been observed in the fossil record and how some easily identified species differentions have occurred.

Bacteriologists have observed evolution via bacteria which have developed new capabilities in their laboratories. Bacteria have evolved which feed on new waste chemicals from human technology which never existed before.

Moving away from what might be regarded as microevolution, I suggest to you Mark Riddley's "Evolution" Second Edition (Blackwell Science, 1996, ISBN 0-86542-495-0) which describes, on pages 582-587, the evolution of a family of reptiles during a period of 40 million years, into mammals as shown by changes in jaw musculature, modification of jaw bones to provide hearing, and in dentition.

In other words, NS operated for 40 million years in order to produce mammals from lizards.
stevedoetsch
The sheer volume of info about evolution impinges on me to narrow our focus. I recommend Daniel C. Dennettt’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and Elliot Sober’s “The Nature of Selection” for a pro-evolutionary in-depth look at NS, the explanation for evolution which I am criticizing. Try “Darwin on Trial” by Phillip E. Johnson for a rational nonreligious critique of the theory.

In a nutshell, I critique NS as an explanation for evolution because it obfuscates the fact that we can find no scientific cause for genetic information. To explain evolution (common descent and novel species) one must explain genetic information. Genetic info causes the traits that define organisms: the traits that lead to survival and the traits that lead to NS. Yet, what causes genetic info?

Evolutionists claim genetic info spontaneously occurs in nature; NS is just the effect by which they identify genetic info. Since there is no known material cause for genetic info, the only remaining deduction is that it occurs by accident. Claiming that an event occurs by accident is not a scientific explanation because it posits no cause for the phenomenon, and provides no more clarification than to claim the whim of an unseen deity; it is the abandonment of the quest for scientific knowledge to the unknown and forever unknowable.

So what is the role of NS in explaining evolution? It is the characteristic that evolutionists use to define genetic info. Wherever NS occurs, there must genetic info exist. Since NS defines and is an effect of genetic info, to claim NS produces genetic info is a tautology and circular argument.

To help focus this debate be specific in talking about that which I am incorrect. Does evolution not occur at random as I posit? Is NS not an effect of the genome? Is genetic info not the hinge upon which the truth of evolutions swings, as I allude? Can you provide me the scientific cause of genetic info? Or do you simply feel satisfied with the claim in the spontaneous occurrence of events as a scientific explanation? Perhaps you still thank NS is a cause, not an effect? Or will you try to say that NS does not define genetic info and hence is not a tautology in reference to the origin of species? Or will you just reference the pope?
Dave Grossman
Even if it can be shown that Evolution does require some form of intelligent design does not automatically mean that the Bible is right or that any of the world's religions are correct.

It could be aliens. I find that infinitely more plausible than any of the Creation stories I've heard.

Or, maybe some force outside the universe could have had something to do with it. Again, this does nothing to support any religion.

When it comes to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, we need to stop arguing this as a religious debate. It's still a scientific issue. If we can show that Evolution requires no help then that's fine. If it turns out that Evolution requires at least some design, so be it. This has nothing to do with the Bible, Christianity or any other religion other than the fact that religion is desperately trying to justify itself.

Religion is obsolete. It's time for an upgrade to Humanism or some rational religion that doesn't base itself on ridiculous stories passed on over thousands of years.

- Dave
CactusCritter
stevedoetsch Posted: May 17 2006, 03:23 AM:

"The deeper one’s knowledge of evolution the better one sees its inability to explain the origin of species. Whether this is because NS(natural selection) is a tautology and therefore has no power to explain, or it is because NS has no power to explain and is therefore a tautology, I haven’t yet figured out. Whatever we label NS, it cannot explain a straight line in development from a single cell to you or me."

Stevedoetsch gave us a real mishmash with the above statement; he states that Natural Selection (NS), a process-descriptive term established by Darwin, is a logical equivalent of a tautology and thereby denigrates the tremendous impact that Darwin's introduction of the term has had on biology and botany ever since just because he recognizes that in a narrow logical sense it can be viewed as a tautology (per Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, '"a needless repitition of an idea, statement, or word").

The fact is that similar exercises can lead to the claim that dozens, if not hundreds of precess-derived terms can be denigrated by being called tautologies. All would be empty exercises, just as in the present case, proving nothing.

In view of the fact that every ancestral creature to we humans successfully demonstrated the NS process, thereby there is a "a straight line in development from a single cell to you or me."

You shouldn't allow the fact that human languages utilize the same sounding words and phrases (homonyms) in completely different contexts to confuse you so thoroughly by trying to shoehorn a phrase into a single context.
Your fellow human (yfh)
I say that morphic-resonance, not random mutations, is the main means which evolution used to get this far, and there are other means aswel.

I disagree with creationism and standard evolution-theory.

There are too many standard traits within the species which have nothing to do with reproduction or survival.

Imaginations fly in all directions about "how" a baceria could eventually sprout a spine, eyes, a brain, then deside to hop out of the water. Such a drastic environment change would require a completely different existential paradigm.

An octopus going blind within minutes of being out of the water -- is a perfect example of the effects which come down upon any species meant to live in the salt-waters, but then set on land.

I'd prefer not to blame god or random events for the existence of ineffable intricute universal structure.
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Stevedoetsch: Briefly, since the publication of the renowned British naturalist-biologist Charles Darwin’s masterpiece The Origin of Species (1859), Darwinism has had been vastly used, misused, and/or abused by self-proclaimed Darwinists, religionists, and freethinkers alike—all maneuvered Darwinism to their each own political ends, dividing thus our Epistemology, especially our current Evolutionism vs. ID neocreationism most fiercely in the US and the UK.

Epistemologically, Evolutionism has had been propagated by the renowned British pseudo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 bestseller The Selfish Gene; in which he metaphysically translated the Natural Selection (NS) into a process that our genes would operate selectively, determinately, and selfishly—thus his book’s title—as what he had had interpreted that Darwin might have had posited that organisms would have had been selected naturally, in The Origin of Species.

Nonetheless, Evolution as observed and described by Darwin as NS, is a process; and is ubiquitous to all entities—the components of the STEM matrices of space, time, energy, matter—that can be observed, detected, measured, and related in the Universe above and beyond, including all things that are around us on this unique planet Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

Chronologically, at Darwin’s times, NS was the best terminology of choice for his then still undefined evolutionary process for organisms that he was able to observe, collect, taxonomize, treasure, evaluate, and speculate. And, NS—that had implied determinate actions by organisms—was deemed a valid scientific description of Evolution or variation, as defined by Darwin and his contemporaries in the mid-19th century.

However, since 1976, NS—that metaphysically implies selfish determinate actions by genes or DNA molecules or gene-driving-system—has had been deemed a “leap of faith” description of Evolution or Scientism as defined by Dawkins; a metaphysical genetic Determinism or Evolutionism that I have had just a chance of repudiating—please see Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity (PhysOrgEU; August 20).

Furthermore, Evolutionism has had also been the subject of rejection that the renowned US creationist-lawyer Phillip Johnson presented in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, rallying thus the similarly “leap of faith” ID neocreationists to attack on Evolution, all at once at it’s source: Darwinism and NS, with their now confused late-20th century mentality, in an attempt to further confuse the general public in Scientism with Religionism!

Since your essay above presents a valid and cogent epistemological argument on Evolution, at the quantum or genetic level, it deserves serious responses. For your consideration and discussion, I’ll just quote it in entirety, with editions including my point by point commentary, as follows:
QUOTE
The sheer volume of info about evolution impinges on me to narrow our focus. I recommend Daniel C. Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and Elliot Sober’s “The Nature of Selection” for a pro-evolutionary in-depth look at NS, the explanation for evolution which I am criticizing. Try “Darwin on Trial” by Phillip E. Johnson for a rational nonreligious critique of the theory.

In a nutshell, I critique NS as an explanation for Evolution because it obfuscates the fact that we can find no scientific cause for genetic information[1]. To explain Evolution (common descent and novel species) one must explain genetic information. Genetic info causes the traits that define organisms: the traits that lead to survival and the traits that lead to NS. Yet, what causes genetic info[2]?

Evolutionists claim genetic info spontaneously occurs in nature; NS is just the effect by which they identify genetic info[3]. Since there is no known material cause for genetic info, the only remaining deduction is that it occurs by accident. Claiming that an event occurs by accident is not a scientific explanation because it posits no cause for the phenomenon, and provides no more clarification than to claim the whim of an unseen deity; it is the abandonment of the quest for scientific knowledge to the unknown and forever unknowable[4].

So what is the role of NS in explaining evolution[5]? It is the characteristic that evolutionists use to define genetic info[6]. Wherever [Phenotypic Expression] occurs, there must genetic info exist[7]. Since NS defines and is an effect of genetic info, to claim NS produces genetic info is a tautology and circular argument[8].

To help focus this debate be specific in talking about that which I am incorrect: Does Evolution not occur at random as I posit[9]? Is NS not an effect of the genome[10]? Is genetic info not the hinge upon which the truth of Evolution swings, as I allude[11]? Can you provide me the scientific cause of genetic info[12]? Or do you simply feel satisfied with the claim in the spontaneous occurrence of events as a scientific explanation[13]? Perhaps you still think NS is a cause, not an effect[14]? Or will you try to say that NS does not define genetic info and hence is not a tautology in reference to the origin of species[15]? Or will you just reference the Pope[16]?

1] This is true; however, Genetics is an early-20th century Science, a concept that had had not been fully considered in Darwinism or variation by NS, in the mid-19th century.

2] This is a good question; but not qualified as a mid-19th century or NS question, as explained in 1] above.

3] This is all true; to wit: since the mid-20th century, by Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, Genetics, Chemistry, etc, we (scientists) have had just begun to learn the fact that the DNA molecules is a source of genetic info, or heredity traits.

4] This is false; toady, we all know the sources of our Life entities—including DNA, RNA, amino acids, proteins, etc—all had had been coalesced and accrued on Earth over 3 billion years ago, abundantly fermented in the then primordial seas of Life (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience)!

5] This is an unscientific question; scientifically, since Darwinism (NS), all well trained scientists in different disciplines (see 3] above) have had been working earnestly by the influence of Darwinian Science and Spirit, and congruently uncovered that Evolution is a process, whereby all entities are being given rise by the STEM matrices in the Universe above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

6] This is called a phenotype; an exterior characteristic that is expressed by the organism’s genotype or genome.

7] Scientifically, and especially genetically, NS should now be replaced by the Phenotypic Expression (or PE); also take note that PE is not the same as NS; PE is defined by the gene expression, whereas NS is not, but a definition of the variation and adaptability of a species that may appear to be selected by Nature, thus coined NS, the best terminology of Darwin’s times, in the 19th century.

8] This is false, your statement may define Dawkins’ Evolutionism; on the contrary, NS (or PE) does not define gene expression, but it is the other way around, as explained in 7] above.

9] By modern definition, Evolution is a random process, specifically depending on the 2 key factors or properties of an entity: the intrinsic chemical propensity, and the extrinsic or environmental chemical reactivity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life).

10] This is an invalid argument; as explained in 7] and 8] above.

11] Quantum mechanically, and depending on its favorable environment, the DNA molecules are in Evolution all the times; that’s why and how on Earth that we have had inherited a biospheric network of Life species and variation and adaptability, ever since the first order of cells—the organism ancestors—began to be energized, assemble, and evolve over 3 billion years ago; and the Evolution has had been keeping all Life including humans alive on Earth, and further enabling us to think and argue about Evolution itself at hand (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience)!

12] Please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life.

13] Please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life.

14] This is an invalid epistemological question; as explained in 7] and 8] above.

15] This is a self-contradictory metaphysical question; as explained in 7] and 8] above.

16] This is a creationist question; however, with the power of our mind or psyche or imagination, all creations are possible, why reference only the Pope? What about shamans? Mullahs? Dalai Lama, etc? (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).

So, epistemologically, and in the final analysis: to continue arguing against Darwinism or NS as a tautology in the 21st century, despite the abundant facts that have had been pointing to the process of Evolution of all entities on Earth, is like shadow-boxing with oneself—a creationist self, who is forever elusive, evasive, and scientifically unaccountable; just like the ID theory!

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 8/24/6usct11:58p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
CactusCritter
Your fellow human (yfh) Posted: Today at 12:19 AM:

"Imaginations fly in all directions about "how" a baceria could eventually sprout a spine, eyes, a brain, then deside to hop out of the water. Such a drastic environment change would require a completely different existential paradigm."

I'm not sure where a new paradigm comes in or even where a paradigm exists in discussing evolution.

However, yfh, you are in luck. A very educated, knowlegable individual has had a book published which has posited his view of what species could have been members of such a prodigous evolutinary journey.

I refer you to "The Ancestor's Tale; A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. (A Mariner Book Houghton Mifflin Company, Copyright 2004ISBN 0-618-61916-x (pbk.)

It's roughly modeled after Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales", consisting of 40 Rendezvouses, each treating in reverse sequence with possible ancestral species, starting with "All Humankind" and terminating with "Eubacteria.

I'd be interested in how it strikes you if you have the time to read it. I found it both entertaining and informative. I hope that you don't have an onus about Dawkins which will inhibit you from reading the volue.
stevedoetsch
Ha ha ha! Mong you crafty devil! Promoting your own book! I didn’t realize you were the author until I looked up the book on amazon (and placed it in my shopping cart by the way) smile.gif
Thanks for critiquing my argument. I think we agree on the facts but have fundamentally different interpretations.

You insist that Darwin didn’t know about DNA so it’s unfair to critique his theory. I’m glad we agree that DNA is not explained by NS, and it is certainly fair to say that Darwin is therefore wrong. Am I not allowed to critique the flat earth theory because people at that time in history didn’t know the earth was spherical? However, notice that I critique the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that random mutation and NS lead to new species. I comment on each separately to improve clarity. NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation. Since claiming that genetic info occurs by accident is no explanation, evolution is left without impetus. The evolution theory tells us if something randomly forms (mutation) that can lead to survival then it will cause survival; that is always true and provides no scientific explanation.

I entirely agree that “NS, is a process; and is ubiquitous to all entities” and while for you this explains everything, for me this was the first revelation in my understanding that evolution is false. All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things. Every rock, every stone, every non-living thing is granted the same prize as only the most fit of natures productions; they’re all granted nothing, but simply allowed to continue as they are. If the mere passage thru time confers complexity then non-life should exhibit the same complexity as the living.

Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life, but even were a DVD player formed during the accidental collision of molecules the DVD player would not be alive. Though living things exhibit complexity, all complex things are not alive, therefore complexity bequeaths not life. The only random variation that can occur in the genetic code is the same kind of random variation we see in non-life. Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur. It is an observable fact that both the stone and the DNA degrade over time. It is a logical illusion that time produces complexity. Time necessarily appears the producer of that which is inexplicable to science.

Evolution via NS is simply a description of time (this is why they say “All things evolve”, because all things change) and time is not a cause, but the observation that things are caused. Thus to posit time as an explanation for anything is to observe that it is caused, but does not explain its cause. That “things came to be this way simply because they are this way” is not an explanation for anything. “Chance” is not a scientific explanation.

Dave Grossman’s irrelevant comments have only confirmed his theophobia as a block to objective scrutiny of the evolution theory. I present a rational and logical critique of the theory and he gives an anti-religious rant; indeed the theory has been historically tied to men frenzied at the very possibility of a creator as Dave demonstrates. Yet I mentioned neither religion, nor God. One would be right to ask the question whether such bigotry has blurred the presentation of evolution in the public square. How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?
Piltdown man
Nebraska man
Orce man
Archaeoraptor
Haekel’s embryos
It is obvious many of evolution’s proponents are less than objective.

CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred. I have no argument with such dogma; one may believe what one wishes. My problem is that he concludes by insisting that others accept the same illogical explanation he accepts.
PuckSR
QUOTE
Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life, but even were a DVD player formed during the accidental collision of molecules the DVD player would not be alive. Though living things exhibit complexity, all complex things are not alive, therefore complexity bequeaths not life.


I would hardly agree with you on this point. Defining life is one of the greatest challenges to biology.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life, but even were a DVD player formed during the accidental collision of molecules the DVD player would not be alive. Though living things exhibit complexity, all complex things are not alive, therefore complexity bequeaths not life.


I would hardly agree with you on this point. Defining life is one of the greatest challenges to biology.

All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things.


This is absolutely incorrect....
Before going any further....

Will you readily admit that via genetic modification a living organism can be made more complex?(you do not have to admit this...but it seems to be a point of definition)...

How does a rock become more complex?
A rock is a rock, it can be used to create a complex structure...but it is still a rock.
A genetic organism is capable of becoming more complex....your analogy fails horribly.
Even if we ignore your argument...it is a crappy analogy.

A better analog would be software. However, you ignore this because it doesn't assist your argument

QUOTE
Evolution via NS is simply a description of time (this is why they say “All things evolve”, because all things change) and time is not a cause, but the observation that things are caused. Thus to posit time as an explanation for anything is to observe that it is caused, but does not explain its cause. That “things came to be this way simply because they are this way” is not an explanation for anything. “Chance” is not a scientific explanation.


Science is not active....using a similiar line of logic you could argue that physics is not science because it only observes interactions between objects over fixed time periods. Of course it is science, science is observation and analysis.

You did get one thing right though...Biologists are not "creating" evolution...they are simply observing a process. Evolution occurs and natural selection occurs.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolution via NS is simply a description of time (this is why they say “All things evolve”, because all things change) and time is not a cause, but the observation that things are caused. Thus to posit time as an explanation for anything is to observe that it is caused, but does not explain its cause. That “things came to be this way simply because they are this way” is not an explanation for anything. “Chance” is not a scientific explanation.


Science is not active....using a similiar line of logic you could argue that physics is not science because it only observes interactions between objects over fixed time periods. Of course it is science, science is observation and analysis.

You did get one thing right though...Biologists are not "creating" evolution...they are simply observing a process. Evolution occurs and natural selection occurs.

How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?
Piltdown man
Nebraska man
Orce man
Archaeoraptor
Haekel’s embryos
It is obvious many of evolution’s proponents are less than objective.

Hmm...your absolutely correct....
So many frauds....
It is a good thing that the physical sciences are completely devoid of frauds...

Why dont you google zero-point energy, "free energy"? Of course...this is completely different?
How about the scientists who have claimed advances in cold fusion?
Wow...just a coincidence that scientists frequently make grandiose and misleading claims about their discoveries to secure better funding?

QUOTE
CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred

Are you insane?
You were the one who just argued that change over time is obvious...
Do you have a new definition for Evolution that we dont know about?
Please share.....
Knot of this world
QUOTE
How does a rock become more complex?


It is returned to its component parts as it is erroded and washed back into the sea.

smile.gif

k.
Grumpy
stevedoetsch

QUOTE
NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation.


NS is simply the test that each random mutation undergoes. It is very simple, Does the organism survive long enough to reproduce?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation.


NS is simply the test that each random mutation undergoes. It is very simple, Does the organism survive long enough to reproduce?

Since claiming that genetic info occurs by accident is no explanation, evolution is left without impetus.


Mutations happen, we see it every day, so you are just wrong.

QUOTE
All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things


That is the stupidest statement, bar none, I have ever read on any forum. Show me a rock that can reproduce itself. Without reproduction there is no NS thus no evolution.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things


That is the stupidest statement, bar none, I have ever read on any forum. Show me a rock that can reproduce itself. Without reproduction there is no NS thus no evolution.

If the mere passage thru time confers complexity then non-life should exhibit the same complexity as the living.


It's called descent with modification, tested by NS. Sometime it requires a long period of time, sometime not so long. Example: Nylon is a completely man made fabric, first seen in the 1940's. Yet, in waste ponds behind a Japanese nylon factory there was found a bacteria that can EAT nylon. This is an entirely new characteristic that EVOLVED since the 40's. That is just an irrefutable FACT.

QUOTE
Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life


Another stupid statement. Not all life is that complex, not all complex things are alive. Self-replication is the only thing needed for something to be considered alive.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life


Another stupid statement. Not all life is that complex, not all complex things are alive. Self-replication is the only thing needed for something to be considered alive.

The only random variation that can occur in the genetic code is the same kind of random variation we see in non-life.


Another incredibly stupid statement. It is evident you know nothing about this subject.

QUOTE
Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur.


Let's see, one is inert matter one is not inert. The second statement just shows an abysmal ignorance of the evidence, probably a self imposed ignorance.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur.


Let's see, one is inert matter one is not inert. The second statement just shows an abysmal ignorance of the evidence, probably a self imposed ignorance.

It is an observable fact that both the stone and the DNA degrade over time.


A lie, DNA repairs itself(sometimes imperfectly).

QUOTE
I present a rational and logical critique of the theory


No you do not, when it comes to this subject I have never seen such ignorance or more lies as I see in each of your ignorance riddled posts.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I present a rational and logical critique of the theory


No you do not, when it comes to this subject I have never seen such ignorance or more lies as I see in each of your ignorance riddled posts.

How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?


And the lies and disinformation of AIG is what???

Grumpy cool.gif

abduljakul
grumpy read this.


Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible

Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.

There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition impossible:

1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea.

However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40% of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.


abduljakul
Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature indeed existed. This fish, called a coelacanth, which was estimated to be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory system ready to function on land, and even a primitive walking mechanism. These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among scientific circles until the end of the 1930's. The coelacanth was presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary transition from water to land.

However on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery was made in the Indian Ocean. A living member of the coelacanth family, previously presented as a transitional form that had become extinct seventy million years ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist paleontologist J.L.B. Smith said that "If I'd met a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished".41 In the years to come, 200 coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.

Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.

PuckSR
QUOTE
2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.


This is incorrect.
Shallow-water areas(bays, lagoons, lakes) actually have a fairly suprising range of temperatures...and the temperature can fluctuate rather quickly(however not as quickly as land)....so many species of aquatic life have a rather wide temperature range in which they can live
Amphibians frequently travel on the land only when the conditions are suitable for their emergence out of the water. It is not at all odd to suggest that early creatures that ventured onto land only did so when they found the temperature suitable for their survival.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly, and fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A living organism with a body system regulated according to the constant temperature of the sea would need to acquire a protective system to ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random mutations as soon as they stepped onto land.


This is incorrect.
Shallow-water areas(bays, lagoons, lakes) actually have a fairly suprising range of temperatures...and the temperature can fluctuate rather quickly(however not as quickly as land)....so many species of aquatic life have a rather wide temperature range in which they can live
Amphibians frequently travel on the land only when the conditions are suitable for their emergence out of the water. It is not at all odd to suggest that early creatures that ventured onto land only did so when they found the temperature suitable for their survival.

3. Water: Essential to metabolism, water needs to be used economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance,, the skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while also preventing excessive evaporation. That is why land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the land-dwelling creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals is not suitable for a nonaquatic habitat.

At this point I am going to address a general failing of your entire post. You are assuming sustained survival on land. Early land-dwelling organisms did not spend extended periods of time out of the water. Adaptation was not instant.....
There exist to this day organisms that cannot exist for long periods of time outside of water, but these organisms are still capable of the occasional "dry walk".

QUOTE

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

Once again your suggestion is that one day a fish climbed out of the water and decided it was going to stay out of the water for the rest of it's natural life.
In reality NO ONE is suggesting this scenario. The existence of amphibians with varying ability to survive in dry climates is reason enough to think that amphibious life existed before continual existence on dry land.
Yes, you are absolutely correct though. Dry land survival is impossible without several modifications. You are proposing that these modifications could not have occured? You make your argument that they would have to "suddenly" appear. However, we see the obvious intermediate steps in current organisms. We also see the ineffeciency of several of these systems. Many organisms do not have the most efficient kidneys...simply functional kidneys.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.

Once again your suggestion is that one day a fish climbed out of the water and decided it was going to stay out of the water for the rest of it's natural life.
In reality NO ONE is suggesting this scenario. The existence of amphibians with varying ability to survive in dry climates is reason enough to think that amphibious life existed before continual existence on dry land.
Yes, you are absolutely correct though. Dry land survival is impossible without several modifications. You are proposing that these modifications could not have occured? You make your argument that they would have to "suddenly" appear. However, we see the obvious intermediate steps in current organisms. We also see the ineffeciency of several of these systems. Many organisms do not have the most efficient kidneys...simply functional kidneys.
5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They canot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.

This is your worst argument yet. Several aquatic organisms are capable of "breathing" air...and I am not talking about lung fish....the main requirement is that they keep their gill systems moist....or that they absorb the gas into an inner chamber. This is a useful survival skill for shallow-water marine organisms who may find themselves in extremely shallow-water on occasion.

As i have said before...this is all very simple stuff. While you can make similiar arguments via the "irreducible complex" avenue(which I also find logically invalid)...your argument is supposing that these features would arise "instantly and without intermediate steps"....this is simply insane. No one is suggesting that these features arose instantly.

Please understand that your argument is flawed from the beginning...because you assume "instant" transformation. If anyone is claiming that these features arose instantly and magically...I will help you argue against them. You may need to go do some reading to see what is actually being claimed. This is simply a childish attempt at arguing against a valid scientific theory.

QUOTE
Living coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to what had been claimed, coelacanths had neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist researchers had proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a lipid pouch.42 Furthermore, the coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land", was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 180 metres from the surface.


This is entirely misleading. The coelacanth was an entire group of prehistoric fish. The ones found today are only a deep-water species of the original group. The fossil records of coelacanths are mostly from shallow-water fossils. They had very different features. You are correct that the currently living coelcanth is a deep-water fish. However, you are absolutely wrong in assuming that it is exactly the same species as those found in the fossil record. Even a creationist biologist who studied the fossils and the bones of the now-living fish would explain this to you if he was an honest man.
Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Stevedoetsch: Thanks for your compliments and shopping for my book! I thought I always attached a self-disclosure as an author-philosopher of Modern Mind, at the end of all my posting herein and elsewhere. smile.gif

Anyway, your NS thread did catch my eye since you joined this dynamic Creation/Evolution forum; and at a time when I was just in the process of learning how to communicate and engage in meaningful dialogues worldwide, immediately after the publication of my book Gods, Genes, Conscience, online (January 2006).

From your writing herein, if I could psychoanalyze it as whom you are—a person who might have had a training and education in Western philosophy, literature, and the arts, with an interest in Science (?)—you probably would benefit a lot from reading my new book!

Briefly, and as I analyzed before: Since the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), Darwinism has had been propagated, misused, and/or abused by freethinkers, religionists, atheists, etc alike; who might have had intended using Darwinism to justify their own social partisan goals—whereas my book Gods, Genes, Conscience is neural; and I sincerely hope that my readers will gain as much up-to-date knowledge as possible, including the working and understanding of our each own Life and Mind, after scrutinizing and delving into it!

However, in regard to your NS-Evolution thread at hand—while not attempting to sideline other informative posting-arguments herein—for your consideration and discussion, I would like as usual to focus, quote, and comment on your cogent essay above, point by point, as follows:
QUOTE
Ha ha ha! Mong you crafty devil! Promoting your own book! I didn’t realize you were the author until I looked up the book on amazon (and placed it in my shopping cart by the way) smile.gif

Thanks for critiquing my argument. I think we agree on the facts but have fundamentally different interpretations[1].

You insist that Darwin didn’t know about DNA so it’s unfair to critique his theory[2]. I’m glad we agree that DNA is not explained by NS, and it is certainly fair to say that Darwin is therefore wrong[3]. Am I not allowed to critique the flat earth theory because people at that time in history didn’t know the earth was spherical[4]? However, notice that I critique the Neo-Darwinian synthesis that random mutation and NS lead to new species[5]. I comment on each separately to improve clarity. NS cannot produce genetic info therefore I focus on random mutation[6]. Since claiming that genetic info occurs by accident is no explanation, evolution is left without impetus[7]. The evolution theory tells us if something randomly forms (mutation) that can lead to survival, then it will cause survival; that is always true and provides no scientific explanation[8].

I entirely agree that “NS, is a process; and is ubiquitous to all entities” and while for you this explains everything, for me this was the first revelation in my understanding that evolution is false[9]. All things undergo evolution, so the very rocks should be increasing in complexity the same way as living things[10]. Every rock, every stone, every non-living thing is granted the same prize as only the most fit of nature’s productions; they’re all granted nothing, but simply allowed to continue as they are[11]. If the mere passage thru time confers complexity then non-life should exhibit the same complexity as the living[12].

Evolutionists seem to think complexity is life, but even were a DVD player formed during the accidental collision of molecules the DVD player would not be alive[13]. Though living things exhibit complexity, all complex things are not alive, therefore complexity bequeaths not life[14]. The only random variation that can occur in the genetic code is the same kind of random variation we see in non-life[15]. Imagine DNA and a stone in the stream of time and tell me why one is supposed to increase in complexity and the other not[16]. No one can provide such an explanation so there is no reason to believe such events occur[17]. It is an observable fact that both the stone and the DNA degrade over time. It is a logical illusion that time produces complexity. Time necessarily appears the producer of that which is inexplicable to science[18].

Evolution via NS is simply a description of time (this is why they say “All things evolve”, because all things change) and time is not a cause, but the observation that things are caused. Thus to posit time as an explanation for anything is to observe that it is caused, but does not explain its cause[19]. That “things came to be this way simply because they are this way” is not an explanation for anything[20]. “Chance” is not a scientific explanation[21].

Dave Grossman’s irrelevant comments have only confirmed his theophobia as a block to objective scrutiny of the evolution theory. I present a rational and logical critique of the theory and he gives an anti-religious rant; indeed the theory has been historically tied to men frenzied at the very possibility of a creator as Dave demonstrates. Yet I mentioned neither religion, nor God. One would be right to ask the question whether such bigotry has blurred the presentation of evolution in the public square[22]. How many know of the numerous frauds perpetrated in the name of evolution?

Piltdown man; Nebraska man; Orce man; Archaeoraptor; Haekel’s embryos; etc[23].

It is obvious many of evolution’s proponents are less than objective[24].

CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred. I have no argument with such dogma; one may believe what one wishes. My problem is that he concludes by insisting that others accept the same illogical explanation he accepts[25].

1] This may be due to our having difference in academic training and education; as an interdisciplinary and metacognitive reader-philosopher of Science and Religion, my hope is to be able to communicate and engage in dialogues with the general public who might have had originated from different educational background and degree worldwide.

2] No, anyone can critique Darwinism; but one must do it in honesty and scientifically within the appropriate historical epistemological context; I would characterize Charles Darwin (1809-82) as a great, diligent, scholarly humble naturalist-biologist—not a geneticist!—whose religious orthodoxy was crushed in himself, as a result of his hard taxonomic work and deduction of the Life species, a revolutionary worldview—the process of Evolution—that set off the accurate direction of thinking and understanding of our own human Life and Mind ever since the debut of The Origin of Species; a masterpiece that Darwin took over 20 years to agonize, theorize, and write; and only to publish reluctantly it under the heat of a same competitive idea—the consistent evolutionary observation, variation, and thesis—of a younger self-trained naturalist Alfred Wallace (1823-1913)!

The earth-shaking theory of Evolution as presented in The Origin of Species has had been comparable in scientific significance, to the Copernicus (1473-1543) revolutionary view of our solar system in Cosmology—both the revolutionary views in Science have had since been subjects of rejection by the orthodox religionists, proving the fact that Faiths can make their arrogant practitioners blind indeed!

3] No, Darwin was not wrong, as explained in 2] above; it is the pseudo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, who has had wronged Darwinism, especially NS, by his mistranslating NS dogmatically or unscientifically into the DNA and psychical levels as Evolutionism, a Scientism that he propagated in his 1976 The Selfish Gene; and, as I just have had a chance of repudiating the book since April 2006—please see Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity (PhysOrgEU; August 20).

4] Epistemologically, I would not critique the pre-Copernican flat earth theory; whereas the post-Copernican flat earth theory, that would be totally another matter, as explained in 2] above.

5] This statement defines the main thrust of The Selfish Gene perfectly; you may critique Evolutionism, a metaphysics of Evolution, to your heart’s content; but not dragging Darwinism into and with it, as the US creationists and ID neocreationists have had been doing evermore wrong-headedly since the 1990s. This is because Dawkins (in all respects, academic, scientific, spiritual, intellectual, etc) is no Darwin, as explained in 3] above.

6] This is true; that’s why I didn’t respond to your initial arguments against Darwinism or NS as a tautology—an intrinsic creationist argument that has had no scientific merits, and would be detrimental to our Epistemology in the 21st century!

7] By modern definition, Evolution must be understood within the context of Cosmology or the STEM matrices; as I explained before, Evolution is a random process, specifically depending on the 2 key factors or properties of an entity: the intrinsic chemical propensity, and the extrinsic or environmental chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life).

Similarly, the revolution of our Earth to the Sun, has had been the result of our planetary Evolution; Did our Earth’s revolution, gravity, have an impetus or purpose, during its terra formation or Evolution, and therefore, its subsequent Life formation or Biogenesis over 3 billion years ago? The answer is no; an impetus or purpose of Life is all human creations ((please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind).

8] Here is a scientific explanation and observation—specifically referring to a population of a species, and not an organism per se—changes in environment will cause mutation; mutation will enhance adaptability; adaptability will result in survival of the population; and thus Evolution in the species continues for as long as the system of our STEM matrices is sustained by the constancy of our Earth’s revolution to the Sun, as explained in 7] above.

9] This is a good conscientious self-introspection and criticism; that’s why I sensed that your arguments against NS and queries on Evolution, must have had originated from a person who might have had different academic training and education than mine.

10] This is a good observation, but with an invalid expectation; By Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Biology, the organic (Life) and inorganic (rock) things evolve or change differently: In general, Life evolves into complexity, because it is a STEM entity of active chemistry, plasticity, and opportunity; and it will evolve to adapt to evermore environmental complexity for survival; whereas rock evolves by degradation (for lack of intrinsic active chemistry) into its loosely bound (even if complex) elemental components; a braking-down process which by chance may get incorporated into Life organisms (including fungi, bacteria, etc) as foods or elemental supplements, directly and/or indirectly.

11] Microscopically, rocks as the STEM matrices, will never stay the same as they are, at any moment in time or space; this is because there are extrinsic chemical reactions going on within and on the rocks, primarily by its environmental factors, including wind, rain, fire, microorganisms, etc constantly eroding the rocks away.

12] This is a good pre-modern scientific philosophical argument, as explained in 10] and 11] above; therefore it is an invalid question, epistemologically.

13] This is an invalid argument for the inorganic (DVD player) Synthesis (human made) vs. organic Biogenesis (Life; or species by NS as defined by Darwin); please also see 10] above.

14] This is an invalid pre-Biology argument.

15] This is an invalid “computer vs. brain” argument; as explained in 10], 13] above, and also see Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

16] Please see 10], 11], 13], and 14] above.

17] This is an extensive and intensive epistemological question; so, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.

18] Please see Gods, Genes, Conscience.

19] This is a typical metaphysical question; “time” or “spacetime” is only a metaphor, in reality, there is no such thing as time; it is only a representation of measurement or coordinate in the STEM matrices or in Life entities as “biological clock” defined by Biochemistry (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience). In Physics, we have “atomic clock” as defined by the decaying process of an Element of choice as a standard; this is because all elements degrade differently in their each unique spacetimes.

20] This is a metaphysical argument (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

21] This is true; as “Chance” is also a metaphor in spacetime, that can only be defined in our own imagination; or in random in Biochemistry, Biogenesis, Cosmology, etc (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

22] As I analyzed before, the ID neocreationism vs. Evolution, or Evolutionism vs. Religionism, has had been intensifying since the publication of the US creationist-lawyer Phillip Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial (1991), which is a repudiation, in response to the British pseudo-Darwinist-atheist Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene (1976); furthermore, most well-specialized scientists have had not been at all prepared or trained for such a deep-rooted philosophical debate, including the creationist-archrival Dawkins—even though he has had proclaimed himself to be a Darwinian evolutionist! What a gloriously and utterly fashionable nonsense! Let our Epistemology be the judge.

So, epistemologically, and personally, as long as I’m not partisan to either side of Evolutionism vs. Religionism, I would not be bothered with or by the ignorant bigotry of either side of the quarrels—the fact that I’ve had been opposed to Dawkins’ Evolutionism, it is purely for scientific reasons: as my research shows that he and his groupies have had misinterpreted and abused Darwinism, so as to justify their “atheists without conscience” anti-Religionism politics! If Darwin could have had found out, he would have had turned over in his grave, in Westminster Abbey!

23] In any disciplines of human knowledge inquiry or Epistemology including Religionism and Scientism, there have had been shares of their opportunistic charlatans, fraudsters or false prophets; that’s why we as modern human beings must learn evermore critical and scientific thinkings at all times—specifically in Science, such frauds or pseudoscience or metaphysics eventually will be over run by the evermore scientific evidence and empiricism; upon which all of our civilization, consciousness, conscience, etc, are being built and grown worldwide; whereas in Religion, all religionists shall bear responsibilities for their followers’ fanaticism, religious fascism, and senseless homicidal martyrdoms, especially in the 21st century and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience).

24] This is true; Evolution is a multidisciplinary subject that cannot be defined mono-dimensionally, as in Dawkins’ Evolutionism, or in his selfish, mindless, emotionless, robo-genetic Determinism, to be exact, which has had also misguidedly given rise to his metaphysics of meme (or myth that I prefer to call!)—please see 3], 5], 22] above; and also Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

25] Well, as I’ve had been vehemently opposed to Evolutionism openly online: The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins, has had indeed spawned a scientistic groupie of ibots—intellectual robots—who has had since lost their own critical and scientific thinkings! (April 2, 2006; see also Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity; PhysOrgEU; August 20); and, as explained in 3], 5], 22], and 24] above.

Hew! Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 8/28/6usct12:29p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
CactusCritter
stevedoetsch Posted: Aug 25 2006, 09:58 PM and included the following:

"CactusCritter does not deny that NS fails to explain evolution; he simply says he’s going to believe in evolution anyway because he asserts that evolution occurred. I have no argument with such dogma; one may believe what one wishes. My problem is that he concludes by insisting that others accept the same illogical explanation he accepts."

I reread what I have posted and no where did I find an indication that I agreed that NS failed to explain evolution.

The sections of the fossil column that I have had the opportunity to view very clearly showed that evolution occurred. I was raised in northerm Kentucky whose rocks contain Ordivician fossils for which the Cincinnati area is known throughout the world and, when my children were young, we visited exposures of Devonian fossils ranging from western Indiana to to Toledo, Ohio to Columbus, Ohio. The changes in fauna were quite striking.

The genius of Darwin was twofold. First, he was able to analyze data objectively despite his theistic upbringing. Secondly, he recognized that the process of Natural Selection would explain speciation by generally small, incremental changes. The fact is that science had not yet produced sufficient knowlege of how NS could come about in Darwin's time. I do not insist that others accept that explanation, just that there must be some scientific basis for explanations or conjectures.

Your claim that all things undergo evolution takes evolution far from the biological and botanical application which are relevant. Reproduction is essential for evolution and weathering process do not involve reproduction.

The fact some individuals whether jokers or folks who wanted a bit of fame have falsified fossils has nothing whatsoever to to with science in general or evolution in particular. In particular, the perpetrators were NOT proponents of evolution.
stevedoetsch
Mong H Tan, you are absolutely correct in your analysis of my intellectual influences, and it is because you offer a rational response to the irrational claim that genetic info occurs via “chance” that I think we have something to discuss. If a biochemical cause for genetic info exists as you posit then I will once again consider evolution a possible explanation for the origin of species. I assume you know of “Biochemical Predestination” (ISBN: 0070341265) which author attempted to show the biochemical necessity of life and who now claims he can find no biochemical cause for genetic info.

I appreciate abduljakul’s comments on evidence for evolution. However, he and his critics neglect to acknowledge the subordinate role of the evidence to the theory. The evidence for evolution is data interpreted thru the lens of the theory and is therefore supported by the theory. Some point to the data interpreted via evolution as fact because they cannot separate data from interpretation. Data does not speak for itself but is interpreted using a paradigm that shapes one’s perspective. In this case, the paradigm shapes the theory that supports the evidence. Those unaware of the paradigm by which they interpret make doctrinaire claims such as: “evolution happens everyday” (the very occurrence we are debating) Abduljakul, arguing the evidence with people who know only one interpretation is useless since they cannot distinguish between fact and interpretation. It is criticizing the paradigm and theory that will help others begin to interpret the data in a new way.

I accept that some believe in the spontaneous generation of genetic info. However, some think evolution a scientific explanation for genetic info when it is merely a description of the effects of that info. Evolution is a process descriptive theory which premise is the existence of genetic info; it does not describe how genetic info originates. The process described by evolution is: genetic info causes the traits that lead to the changes in populations that Darwin observed and labeled NS. NS does not cause genetic info; NS defines it. If one believes this process begins with the spontaneous appearance of genetic info, so be it; just don’t call that belief science.

Puck SR, here’s an example of a complex rock called "The David" by Michelangelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_v...ichelangelo.jpg
Why does the random application of nature's laws not produce such a work? Certainly there is nothing lacking in nature' ability to carve stone via erosion? Then what more explanation is needed if we can identify a force capable of carving out stone? Obviously, more explanation is needed than identifying the raw material and forces out of which things are made; nature has never hewn the statue of a man from a mountain face though it posses the material and power to do just that. It is observable even to the child that the laws of nature alone produce nothing beyond a certain level of complexity; the question of life would never have been asked if people could see no difference between life and non-life. Life is not a mystery that evolutionary biology will one day unlock; evolutionists abandoned that search when they claimed “chance” as a cause. Rather, it’s an empirical reality that the laws of the universe alone produce only certain patterns of the kind we see in the movement of the waves, the clouds, erosion, and the crystalline structures of many minerals. The complexities that evolutionists claim chance “created” in the living should also be visible in the non-living since the same “cause” affects both. NS says nothing more than that some organisms survive, that is, some did not cease to be. Every stone survives in this sense and if not ceasing to exist is the recipe for design then non-life should exhibit complexity similar to life. Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.

The claim that survival (NS) is the impetus for the design we see in life must, when analyzed and critiqued, reduce to the belief in the spontaneous generation of genetic information. If time alone produces information then evolution is the origin of species. However, if the design we see in life is found no where else then we know beyond a doubt that time is not the designer because all things change, but life exhibits a unique complexity.
stevedoetsch
LOL. I see now my error in arguing that there is no mechanism for genetic design i.e. there is no explanation for the origin of species hence evolution fails to explain what it claims. Evolutionists don’t care because they’re going to believe in evolution anyway! While my critics here ignorantly deny my claim that evolution cannot explain the origin of species, the “talkorigins” website fully admits the lack of a mechanism for new genetic info and arrogantly proclaims evolution a “fact” by consensus. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Using the well known “evolution’s a theory and a fact” argument, evolutionists defeat with irrationality any reason based argument I or anyone can ever put forth. Those who profess the truth of a theory regardless of the evidence demonstrate their acceptance of a conclusion prior to the evidence: that is, they demonstrate that evolution is a belief. They can never be defeated in argument because they have already defeated themselves by accepting the illogical: that a theory is true regardless of the evidence. A theory is supported by the evidence, and if the evidence is in question, so is the theory. Since evidence is interpreted data, a theory is in question when either the data or its interpretation are in question. Those open minded enough to consider both sides can see that when the evidence of a theory is debated, it’s irrational to call that theory a fact.

Some compare evolution to gravity, but while gravity is an effect with an unknown cause, evolution claims to be the cause of a known effect. We can directly experience gravity, but we can only experience the effects of what some claim evolution caused. Hence gravity can be directly observed and evolution cannot (except by those whose bias renders them incapable of distinguishing data from interpretation-they can see anything they first believe is real). Evolution remains entirely unlike gravity because evolution cannot be directly experienced.

Ultimately, I write to those open to more than one interpretation of the data. I write to those honest enough to recognize that evolution is not a fact. Logic fails with those who make the circular claim that NS is a cause of genetic info, or the opposing illogical argument that “evolution is true, only its mechanism is debated.” The quote “Grumpy” uses at the end of his post is ironically apropos: “Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity.“ There can be no rational conclusion to a debate with those who claim that an effect is its own cause, that a theory is a fact regardless of the evidence, and that “chance” is a scientific explanation.
PuckSR
QUOTE
Puck SR, here’s an example of a complex rock called "The David" by Michelangelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_v...ichelangelo.jpg
Why does the random application of nature's laws not produce such a work?


Ah...and that within your question lies the answer.
Why?
Why should it?

In a mathematical sense, David is no more complex than the grand canyon, niagra falls, or Mt. Renier.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Puck SR, here’s an example of a complex rock called "The David" by Michelangelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_v...ichelangelo.jpg
Why does the random application of nature's laws not produce such a work?


Ah...and that within your question lies the answer.
Why?
Why should it?

In a mathematical sense, David is no more complex than the grand canyon, niagra falls, or Mt. Renier.
nature has never hewn the statue of a man from a mountain face though it posses the material and power to do just that

A simple and hopefully productive analogy.
In a randomly shuffled deck of cards, if you were to deal every card in order just as if it had just been opened...you would claim impossibility.
In terms of mathematical probability however, EVERY POSSIBLE ORDER has an equal probability. You only consider it "rare" because it closely resembles a particular order that you recognize.

The same can be said of Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.David. You grant it a higher level of sophistication because it closely resembles the image of a man. It resembles the image of a man because Michelangelo was trying to make it look like a man. If natural erosion produced a "random" David statue....the improbability of such a structure would be several times greater than Michelangelo producing one because it was his goal.

No....Michelangelo's David is not more complex than an ordinary rock. Unless complexity is defined as "resembling another object". Some potato chips look like a person's face...others look like potato chips. Do we say that the "face" potato chips are more complex?

QUOTE
It is observable even to the child that the laws of nature alone produce nothing beyond a certain level of complexity

Hmmm...so...define complexity...
So far all you have done is point out that unguided systems do not produce guided results....suprise!!!
This does not vary the level of complexity.

Another point...is complexity defined by smoothness or roughness?
Is a jagged rock, with millions of facets more complex than David?
Hmm...perhaps smoothness is then the decider of complexity? Then wouldnt a river stone be more complex than David?

Your definition of complexity seems to be "resembles something i am familiar with"...which is not complexity. Perhaps a mathematically perfect object...but then a brass ball is more complex than the city of Rome.

Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It is observable even to the child that the laws of nature alone produce nothing beyond a certain level of complexity

Hmmm...so...define complexity...
So far all you have done is point out that unguided systems do not produce guided results....suprise!!!
This does not vary the level of complexity.

Another point...is complexity defined by smoothness or roughness?
Is a jagged rock, with millions of facets more complex than David?
Hmm...perhaps smoothness is then the decider of complexity? Then wouldnt a river stone be more complex than David?

Your definition of complexity seems to be "resembles something i am familiar with"...which is not complexity. Perhaps a mathematically perfect object...but then a brass ball is more complex than the city of Rome.

Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.....

The complexities that evolutionists claim chance “created” in the living should also be visible in the non-living since the same “cause” affects both. NS says nothing more than that some organisms survive, that is, some did not cease to be. Every stone survives in this sense and if not ceasing to exist is the recipe for design then non-life should exhibit complexity similar to life

Well...this is wrong and flawed...
First, natural selection suggests more than "some things live". Natural selection is applicable to a scenario where all things are changing. i.e. living, dying, mutating.
You can emulate natural selection on a computer, but it does require that the natural selection "filter" is being applied to varying population.

Now, the flaw....
I've already explained that complexity is a difficult term to define, since you cannot tell me what is more complex....a perfectly round rock or a perfectly square rock...and explain your "complexity".
Is a royal flush more complex than an Ace high?

non-living things are subject to natural selection on occasion, but only when they alter themselves slightly. An example...rivers. Rivers all run. Rivers have many twists and turns...but they all run until they end. Why? Because if a river accidentally diverted course up-hill...it would all run back down again....
So did SOMETHING carefully design the rivers...or did they wind up that way because all other alternatives failed?

QUOTE
Evolution cannot explain the design in life because it posits a ubiquitous “cause”; a process which all things undergo but magically adds design to life and eliminates design from non-life. If by its very nature time bequeaths design all things would exhibit the same design and the living would exhibit a subset of the design in the nonliving. As it is, life exhibits a design altogether unseen in the inanimate; a design for which we have no scientific explanation.

Design in life?
Of course they can....
There is design in the rivers too...all rivers run. When man tries to imitate this feat(aquaducts) it required a mathematically complex and advanced culture like the Romans to achieve it at any considerable distances.

But we have watched rivers develop, grow, and change....
No design.....
Biological Evolution is an incredibly simple concept...it is almost so simple that you try to ignore it as "recursive".
Basic math is also simple and obvious...but some mathematicians dedicate their lives to proving the very foundations of simple mathematics.
The same can be said for physics.

When you consider the basic concepts:
All organisms change...mutate...alter slightly
An organism that has an advantage is more likely to die out, and one that has an advantage is more likely to survive.
It is an obviously simple conclusion to claim that organisms evolve, rather than instant creation.

Take the river analog.
All rivers change....bend....erode
A river that changes in a way that is compatible with "survival" will survive, while a river that changes in a way that violates the basic rules of river hydrodynamics will have to either change or discontinue
It is an obviously simple conclusion that rivers 'evolve', rather than instant creation.
rpenner
One of the main claims presented is than Natural Selection (part of the mechanism proposed by neo-Darwinism) is a logical tautology, which is therefore devoid of content.

This is similar to the claim that "Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory." as tautologies are not disprovable from within a mathematical framework. But stevedoetsch's argument is not a formal mathematical proof as at http://metamath.org/, and in science the proof is in the empirical observation, not the puffery of word games.

Specifically, Evolution (the big picture) is falsifiable so nit-picking at a straw-man model of evolution is not persuasive.
QUOTE
  1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
    • a static fossil record;
    • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
    • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
    • observations of organisms being created.

  2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.


Also, as logical tautologies are truly devoid of explanatory power, the hollowness of stevedoetsch's argument becomes apparent when you examine the predictive power of evolution:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
  1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
    • a static fossil record;
    • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
    • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
    • observations of organisms being created.

  2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.


Also, as logical tautologies are truly devoid of explanatory power, the hollowness of stevedoetsch's argument becomes apparent when you examine the predictive power of evolution:
  1. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.
  2. The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.
  3. Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:
    • Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
    • Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
    • Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
    • Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
    • Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
    • Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
    • Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

    With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.
  4. If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.
See Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html

But now let's confront stevedoetsch's (old!) argument head on. Is the concept of natural selection a tautology?
QUOTE
  1. "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994).
  2. The phrase cannot be a tautology if it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish:
    • Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like individuals, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittest individuals are more likely to perish than others (Hyatt 1866; Lefalophodon n.d.).
    • The theory of orthogenesis says that certain trends, once started, kept progressing even though they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For example, it was held that Irish elks, which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
    • The "fittest" individuals could be considered those that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environments. If the environment changes, the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive.

  3. The fittest, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index (Pole et al. 2003). With that definition, survival of the fittest is not a tautology. Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology.

See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html and http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tautology.html

But I know that stevedoetsch is getting his information from unreliable sources if he thinks science has been compromised by Piltdown man (where scientists proved the hoax immediately after a test had been devised to test their suspicious of fraud) and that Orce man plays a major role in evolution, etc. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html
But I like the page on the transitional fossils between ape and man which seems to be central point for creationists. I mean, who cares about the evolution of spots on salamanders, if creationism is true then there must be no transitional ape-men, right?

The best think stevedoetsch ever added to this thread was "See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html" since it helps clear up the ambiguity in the many meanings of the term Evolution. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html for more.)

My favorit document on this site is also the longest: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent -- on a science board (as opposed to a philosophy board) what more needs to be said?

Mong H Tan, PhD
Hello, Everybody, Mind, and Spirit! smile.gif

Specifically, Stevedoetsch: Thanks for your kind words above (September 5); and that reminded me of my reading of an account on a “battle of wits” interview that Richard Dawkins accorded in the early 1990s, in which he was totally stunted in silence, for minutes, in front of a rolling camera; as he was unable to answer or philosophize the origin of the genetic information (Gi) question, that he was quested by an alleged “creationist disguised as a Science reporter.”

I first recalled this Dawkins vs. creationists interview here Re: Newly discovered gene holds clues to evolution of human brain capacity (PhysOrgEU; August 20), as I still can’t locate the initial source of such a report—probably in the early (now out of print) issues of Skeptic magazine, or the like—however Readers, please feel free to help me identify the source, if you had had also read that report, or seen a film clip of such Dawkins interview with the alleged creationists, before. Thank you.

Epistemologically, the Gi question is very fundamental, especially in these days of our intensive-extensive search for Life in extraterrestrial existence, scientifically and astro-biologically. The fact that Dawkins couldn’t answer the Gi question—even nowadays—revealed volumes about his scholarship and ethological training, that he was indeed not well grounded in Genetics and Biochemistry. That’s why the main thrust of The Selfish Gene (1976) was a metaphysics at best, in which Dawkins has had misread and mistranslated the Natural Selection (NS) of Darwinism into his selfish genetic Determinism—or Evolutionism: a Scientism that he has had likened the genes as a stack of cards which would be shuffled, selective, and replicate at will, thus he dubbed The Selfish Gene (SG)—and further mistranslated genes (by means of wordplay) into memes (or units as defined by SG of our emotionless, mindless cultural traits including Religions, etc): a theory of memetics or Consciousness, that he has had determinedly been trying to build on his now a stack of SG or “house of cards” metaphysical Evolutionism—please also see Consciousness and Special Relativity? (PhysOrgEU; August 18).

Recently, I was further alarmed by the fact that Dawkins has had used this “house of cards” theory in an attempt to uproot and/or unseat the ailing “house of faiths” in The Root of all Evil?, in the British TV broadcast (in 2 parts), proving the fact Dawkins has had indeed become an aggressive “atheist without conscience”—for his disrespect for the Conscience of Religions—and revealed himself as the Oxford’s “Emperor in Darwinism who has no clothes”—for his persistently mistranslating Darwinism into Evolutionism; and now into anti-Religionism—in a way he thought he might be championing the Conscience of Science where Religions have failed into the 21st century?!

Chance and Evolution of the Gi or “Chemical Intelligence” on Earth: While returning to our discussion at hand, by “chance” I would mean that things are and have been happening all along with the history of our unique planet Earth since its Evolution over 4 billion years ago. Conceptually, and Darwinism (NS) and Evolutionism (neo-Darwinism or SG) notwithstanding, the Gi question must be understood, perceived, and theorized within the context of modern Geochemistry, Cosmology, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Genetics, etc—an interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Philosophy or Epistemology that most well-trained, specialized scientists or philosophers including neo-Darwinists, Dawkins, lack since the 1970s.

As such, especially by Geochemistry, Biochemistry, and Cosmology, the Evolution of the Gi on Earth, had had been straddled between the pre-biotic, inorganic, organic, and biotic terra formation and the Evolution of Biogenesis over 3 billion years ago, particularly at a time when all the active, interactive, reactive, and creative geo-chemicals, elements, compounds, molecules, macromolecules, etc, had had accrued, coalesced prevailingly in the then fertile, primordial seas of Life, by the virtues of the 2 key properties or “chemical intelligence” inherent in each of these geo-biochemical entities: the intrinsic chemical propensity and the extrinsic chemical reactivity or opportunity (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life).

By chance and opportunity, during the planetary atmospheric formation, by geo-chemical interactions, permutations, etc, the macromolecules containing the Gi, such as, the DNA, RNA, proteins, etc, began to accrue, form, reform, and evolve rapidly and competitively in the then primordial soups of Life. Because of their inherent chemical properties, intelligence, and competitive permutations, the Gi was eventually coded within the macromolecules of DNA, as well as RNA—an intermediary decoder of amino acids that would become the building units of a protein, enzymes, etc; all materials essential to the Evolution and survival of a cell, eventually organisms, etc.

Furthermore, and specifically, by electro-hydrochemistry, permutations, etc, these cells or eukaryotes containing the Gi in their nuclei, had had assembled; and their DNA further protected, encased by a layer of membrane: which by structure, permeable only to water, electrolytes, nutrients, essentials for the cellular survival, in the then evermore competitive seas of Life—evolving and multiplying increasingly thereof and thereon in Life complexity and diversity on Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life).

As such, biochemically, the Gi did establish the origin of species—as you argued above—over 3 billion years ago on Earth. However, I would not weigh too heavily on the 1969 textbook Biochemical Predestination, as it is now long outdated and was written by Dean Kenyon; who is not a geneticist or biochemist; but a physicist-biophysicist by training, turned creationist, and now ID neocreationist! While very personal, I would recommend you scrutinize the renowned US medical geneticist-Christian, Francis Collins bestseller The Language of God (2006), on how he has had reconciled his faith and Evolution.

Darwinism (NS) vs. Evolutionism (SG); Chance vs. Reality; Design vs. Genetics: As we discussed before, Evolution is a multidisciplinary and epistemological subject, that has been in hot debates since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Darwinism as derived from his hard taxonomy of species only represents the tip of this Evolution iceberg, so to speak. Your question of the Gi as the origin of species is the physicochemical basis of Life; and therefore, your quest is at the very base of this Evolution iceberg—a query to the beginning of Biogenesis or Evolution of Life on Earth!—a deep epistemological as well as spiritual question, that even Dawkins has had failed to imagine or explore at this Evolution base; but he only resorted to misreading and mistranslating Darwinism (NS) into Evolutionism (SG), as propagated in The Selfish Gene (1976), the book that I have had analyzed above, and elsewhere, as a genetic Determinism; and as a “house of cards” theory of memetics—all Scientism that has had now turned into anti-Religionism of the “atheists without conscience” politics!

Today, we (as epistemologically educated scientists, philosophers, intellectuals alike) would not claim that everything happens by Chance; this is because, and as far as we know and appreciate, that all things on Earth are now interconnected to each other, directly and/or indirectly. In Reality, Life as a Unity has had evolved to beget Life—by reproduction or replication only today—and all organisms (dead or alive) would recycle in and by our network of vital food chains, and eventually be reincorporated into the Great Cycle of Elements on Earth, or dust to dust, so to speak, religiously. The conditions for the spontaneous Biogenesis eons ago had long passed, especially for the Chance and Evolution of any new, “naïve or virgin” Gi to be feasible or like those Gi of what had had occurred over 3 billion years ago, as we discussed above, and more in my 2006 book Gods, Genes, Conscience.

Furthermore, Evolution as a process does not cause Design or Intelligence in itself; whereas Design and Intelligence are actually caused by the chemical reactivity, selectivity, and specificity of Life elemental entities themselves: particularly whose intrinsic chemical propensities, when interacting with propensities of other biochemical entities, would chemically and opportunistically sort and form their each unique configurations that would appear to have had been designed—in and by anyone’s eye, if one has had not fully comprehended these 2 intrinsic and extrinsic forces, that are at work within the process of Evolution of any STEM matrices (of space, time, energy, and matter entities) in the Universe above and beyond, as well as on Earth (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2 The Universal Elements of Life; and Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life)—an observation in the 19th century that Darwin described as speciation by NS (a misnomer now that we have discussed before); whereas Dawkins has had further dogmatically translated NS to the genetic level as SG in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene!

Quantum mechanically, and specifically by Electrochemistry, and by the dynamic chemical propensities for binary configuration and bilateral symmetry, a Hydrogen atom, when appropriately bonded with 2 Oxygen atoms, would always give rise to water, ice, snowflake, or vapor, depending on their each immediate surrounding atmospheric conditions, such as, the temperatures in our Earth’s Biosphere. Because of this Evolution of chemical forces and dynamics, even in the inorganic formation of snow, no 2 snowflakes would be created identically, within the context of the STEM matrix. Whereas in Life organisms, the appearance (or phenotype) of each organism, would be caused and influenced by the surrounding and interacting chemicals, nutrients, etc, which are present at the time of their each unique genetic expression (or genotype)—for more specific examples, including the Evolution of human beings, please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 3 The Physicochemical Basis of Life; and Chapter 4 The Human Life, Mind, Dreams, Intelligence, and Conscience.

Thus, the spontaneous generation of Gi—as that you queried above; and one that occurred over 3 billion years ago on Earth; and now contained in the genotype of each unique Life organism—had had given rise to the phenotype of that specific organism, as expressed in the unique pattern of its exterior characteristics, which would appear to have been designed, by any uncritical and/or unscientific observers, especially the ID neocreationists of today since the 1990s. Furthermore, because of its intrinsic and extrinsic biochemistry, as you’ve had quested above, Life can and will exhibit a wide range of complexity and diversity; for as long as our dynamic Biosphere continues to persist on Earth, and as long as our dynamic Solar System permits, within our constantly swirling Milky Way Galaxy above and beyond (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 2.1 The Universe, Galaxies, the Sun, Moon, and Earth; and Chapter 3.6 The Diversity of Life).

Specifically, if any Intelligent Designer were to have had involved in our genotype Evolution and phenotype expression, we human beings—or organisms of any species—would all have had been born identical: like any series of the Fords, or Toyotas, or robots, rolling out of their each factory assembly lines, with all component serial parts designed, constructed, molded, cast, assembled; all devoid of any molecular variation or autonomous speciation inherent in Life Genetics and Biochemistry.

And above all, if ID were indeed involved in Nature, Darwin would not have had spent over 20 years to analyze, agonize, and theorize his then vast taxonomic collections, observations, and variations of organisms in Nature, that he had had described in The Origin of Species!

Or, even more intuitively and creatively, and by our own human nature: especially in Religions, literature, and the arts, we would not have had heard of any creation narratives, fairy tales, stories, imageries, etc, such as, the cave paintings of Lascaux (France); the Epic of Gilgamesh; the Torah; Bhagavad Gita (Hindu); Dao De Jing (Daoism); Iliad and Odyssey; the Bible; the Koran; etc—constituting all intuitions, imaginations, creations, dreams, memories, visions (real and imagined) of our electrochemically dynamic Mind, or psyche, in and throughout our history; especially as a result of the Evolution of our humankind on this unique planet Earth, since over 50 thousand years ago, at a time when our ancestors had had just begun to artistically (emotionally) acquire, invent, use, misuse, and/or abuse varied survival symbolisms, mysticisms, spiritualisms, shamanisms, religionisms, etc of our own creations; for our own survival and survivorship in the then still incomprehensible worlds, both the physical and the psychical (please see Gods, Genes, Conscience; Chapter 5 The Origins of Gods; Chapter 6 The Meaning of Life; and Chapter 15 The Universal Theory of Mind)!

[Post Script: Your September 8 post above sounds like you have had been taking up a creationist position all along: which is to deny Evolution as a theory and a fact! smile.gif

[After scrutinizing my response to your September 5 post above, I hope you will begin to see that all the facts of Evolution are laying around us, quantum mechanically written in the Genetics and Biochemistry of all Life species on Earth; showing that Evolution as a theory, has had been too elaborated and proven beyond any doubt, by our modern interdisciplinary Science and metacognitive Epistemology, which has now been way beyond Darwin’s original imagination and vision in the 19th century; at which time he was only be able to work and theorize on Life specimens that he had had collected at and from the tip of the Evolution iceberg, so to speak; and as I analyzed, analogized, and emphasized what a magnificence-significance of the Evolution theory, that it is, and has been above, ever since the publication of Darwin’s opus magnum The Origin of Species!

[So, beware of the iceberg (Evolution), it would sink more Titanics, such as, pseudoscience, superstitions, metaphysics, creationism, ID neocreationism, and the likes. What Darwin saw and analyzed, was only at and by the tip of this iceberg; that’s why he was a Titan in our modern Life Science (or Natural Philosophy); and not became a Titanic himself later, as Alfred Wallace did, at the turn of the 20th century!

[If you’re truly interested in modern Epistemology, why did you keep banging your head on this tip (NS) of the Evolution iceberg? Pursuing philosophy in an irrational manner, as in a clear self-denial of Evolution as a theory and a fact nowadays, is to reveal oneself in one’s own counter intellectual and spiritual propensity for Creationism; and that would be detrimental to general Epistemology indeed.

[Nonetheless, good luck to your Epistemology, which should also include the discussions that our dynamic Readers herein have had in another relevant thread that I started earlier Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; May 5). Thank you for your consideration and meaningful discussion herein, and/or therein!]

Thank you all for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Happy reading, thinking, scrutinizing, and enlightening! smile.gif

Best wishes, Mong 9/10/6usct2:19p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

PuckSR
QUOTE
The claim that survival (NS) is the impetus for the design we see in life must, when analyzed and critiqued, reduce to the belief in the spontaneous generation of genetic information. If time alone produces information then evolution is the origin of species. However, if the design we see in life is found no where else then we know beyond a doubt that time is not the designer because all things change, but life exhibits a unique complexity.


Here is a thought experiment....
Should something that is designed be more complex or less complex?
I invite you to take out a sheet of paper....
I want you to write down the following number
24234435345345745347583475874523423545
Now...I want you to create a random number generator...and let it run for awhile.
Give it a 10% tolerance...and tell it to stop when it gets a number that is within 10% of that number.

You will notice two things
1. You arrived at the number with far fewer steps
2. Your number is close to perfect....I doubt the RNG got it exactly...

What is the point?
A "designed" or intelligently influenced system has the hallmark of simplicity.
If God(or anyone else) had wanted a dog...he would have designed a "perfect" dog...without error. However...dogs are color-blind unlike a lot of other animals. They lack thumbs and fingers(which could definately help their human masters) and they are exceedingly dumb by comparison.

Every time we look at natural systems we see complex and amazing detail...we also see errors that a designer would have easily corrected.
Why does the nerve running to the larnyx on giraffes travel down so low...only to come back up?

Some of the errors are simple....others are mind-bogglingly dumb.

Either the "designer" was a lazy ***...who couldnt be bothered to clean up his design or modern biological organisms are the result of a haphazard trial/failure scenario.
Honestly...I like to think of God as a smart guy...so i cannot really buy into this whole "lazy ***" God scenario.

Also...dont start talking about "information theory". Unless you have an advanced degree in mathematics or philosophy. Your entire error stems mostly from your misdefinition of the term information.
womankine
Hi,
I have been involved in a running argument in a Religion forum with a conservative Christian who is very into Intelligent Design. He also is advocating that science curriculum in schools be replaced with teaching a "few important experiments". I'm assuming that one of them is the double-slit theory, which is apparently a big "proof" among Christians that, because it is non-repeatable, means that God is causing the different outcomes. Or something. To be honest, this loses me and I can only argue from the perspective that he ought not be taking experiments out of the body of scientific thought.
If anyone would like to take my place in the debate, I would appreciate it. My degrees are in art and not science.
This is the link:
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2...6.html#comments

The guy's user name is JustThinking. This is his last post, which I do not understand at all. Incidentally, the reference to "emotional" is a reference to me because I told him that taking his double-slit theory outside the body of science was like my making a baking soda and vinegar volcano without having a context of experiment or knowledge. It becomes little more than a magic trick.

From JustThinking in response to ID bashing:
"Logical thinking is also something that should be carefully taught starting at a young age.

For example, science deals with the repeatable. But there is no a priori reason to believe that all things will be repeatable. That would not follow logically, and scientists do not make such assumptions.

Scientists cannot study the non-repeatable because it cannot be predicted. However, just because it could not be studied does not mean that it does not exist. That would be illogical to assume.

Logical thought allows for the non-repeatable. Inquisitive and logical thinkers might even be interested in the consequences of the existence of the non-repeatable. Any scientists who refuse to admit the possibility of the non-repeatable is not logical, which means they have become emotional."




PuckSR
hope that helped a lil
ragnarpendon
QUOTE (womankine+Sep 12 2006, 10:35 PM)
If anyone would like to take my place in the debate, I would appreciate it. My degrees are in art and not science.
This is the link:
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2...6.html#comments

ei!... an Evolutionist me! biggrin.gif

*sigh*...... and he's better at talking than i am... sad.gif

oh well, welcome to physorg. biggrin.gif
womankine
Thanks so much PuckSR. Your posts are terrific and I really appreciate them.
PuckSR
This might be a fun read though
QUOTE
    A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a
miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any
argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than
probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain
suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished
by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the
laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in
other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle,
if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle
that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden:
because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other,
has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle,
that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been
observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform
experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would
not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a
proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the
fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be
destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof,
which is superior.*

  * Sometimes an event may not, in itself, seem to be contrary to
the laws of nature, and yet, if it were real, it might, by reason of
some circumstances, be denominated a miracle; because, in fact, it
is contrary to these laws. Thus if a person, claiming a divine
authority, should command a sick person to be well, a healthful man to
fall down dead, the clouds to pour rain, the winds to blow, in
short, should order many natural events, which immediately follow upon
his command; these might justly be esteemed miracles, because they are
really, in this case, contrary to the laws of nature. For if any
suspicion remain, that the event and command concurred by accident,
there is no miracle and no transgression of the laws of nature. If
this suspicion be removed, there is evidently a miracle, and a
transgression of these laws; because nothing can be more contrary to
nature than that the voice or command of a man should have such an
influence. A miracle may be accurately defined, a transgression of a
law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the
interposition of some invisible agent. A miracle may either be
discoverable by men or not. This alters not its nature and essence.
The raising of a house or ship into the air is a visible miracle.
The raising of a feather, when the wind wants ever so little of a
force requisite for that purpose, is as real a miracle, though not
so sensible with regard to us.

    The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of
our attention), "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a
miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood
would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to
establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of
arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to
that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior."
When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I
immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that
this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact,
which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle
against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover,
I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the
falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event
which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command
my belief or opinion. ---from The Essay on Miracles by Hume


I referenced it enough times that i decided i should post it
womankine
That's very interesting. Thanks for posting.(Hume)
Incidentally, you might be interested that yesterday JT gave up on the battle against science(at least for the present; you beat him pretty badly) to turn his attentions to good old bestiality. Apparently liberals stand for unleashing this practice onto the chosen. Whooda thunk?
rpenner
[HUMOR]
Liberals = Believers of Evolution rolleyes.gif
Man = Animal
Sex = Required for Continuation of the Species wub.gif
Continuation of the Species = Goal of all Liberals mad.gif
Bestiality = Having sex with animals

So All Liberals would make Bestiality mandatory if they had their way.

By planning the deliberate discontinuation of the species, the Conservatives avoid this horror. laugh.gif A Plan which is Fair and Balanced.
[/HUMOR]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.