Does anyone have any evidence at all for evolution in order to get this topic started?
Verdad
The evidence supporting evolution would fill volumes and there are thousands of tons of fossils, Dr. Dobzhansky said it very well over 30 years ago.
Dr. Lewontin also said it well some 20 years ago.
Dr. Lewontin also said it well some 20 years ago.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Hopes this helps.
Grumpy
The evidence supporting evolution would fill volumes and there are thousands of tons of fossils, Dr. Dobzhansky said it very well over 30 years ago.
QUOTE
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
Dr. Lewontin also said it well some 20 years ago.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) |
Dr. Lewontin also said it well some 20 years ago.
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
Hopes this helps.
Grumpy
That seems to be the general response to such questions, but: really? I mean, I completely agree that at the time that Darwin made his theory, the evidence pointed towards him. I agree that how Christians persecuted evolutionists at the time was wrong, I agree that micro-evolution is true, and I am pretty certain that I agree that the earth is billions of years old. But the evidence against evolution appears to be astounding! So much seems to be based on assumptions and people (excuse me for my political incorrectness) religiously following the work of predecessors, such as Urey, Miller, and Haeckel. I doubt that I could argue with Dobzhansky at the time he wrote those statements (which you said, was thirty years ago), but evolution seems incomprehensible on a molecular level in light of many new discoveries. For instance: how does the first cell come about? Even one protein forming by chance has horrible probabilities. How do you come by beneficial mutations often enough for macro-evolution to occur when DNA is so complex? How do you get DNA in the first place? I do not doubt that macro-evolution is possible. However I seriously doubt that that is the source of the complexity seen today. I can respect evolutionists; I just think that the theory of evolution is wrong. However, I find it hard to respect a man with such closed-minded opinions as Dobzhansky has. Please, if you have answers to any questions I have posed, feel free to answer them.
Verdad
Verdad
Verdad
There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???
There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???
I agree that micro-evolution is true,
The only difference between micro and macro-evolution occur in the minds of ID adherents. There is no difference in science. Micro changes accumulate into macro changes.
Evolution as a fact is based on the huge amount of evidence found and nothing else. The theories explaining those facts can and do change as our understanding changes but the facts themselves do not go away. Einsteins theory of curved space time eventually replaced Newtons theory of gravity, but apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the scientific debates. Again, what valid scientific discoveries(if it doesn't meet the requirement of the scientific method, don't waste my time)
Evolution as a fact is based on the huge amount of evidence found and nothing else. The theories explaining those facts can and do change as our understanding changes but the facts themselves do not go away. Einsteins theory of curved space time eventually replaced Newtons theory of gravity, but apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the scientific debates. Again, what valid scientific discoveries(if it doesn't meet the requirement of the scientific method, don't waste my time)
For instance: how does the first cell come about?
Evolution has nothing to say about that, that is biogenesis, take it up with them.
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during thi period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during thi period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
However, I find it hard to respect a man with such closed-minded opinions as Dobzhansky has.
He is not closed minded, He is speaking from fact, should he lie to accomidate any crackpot theory??? An open mind is not the same as an empty mind. Truth is truth and should be stated as such. Reread what he said because he is stating fact based on the evidence. Any theory is subject to change due to new evidence but the facts have not changed since he made this statement and no CSBS/ID pseudoscience will change the facts either.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But the evidence against evolution appears to be astounding!
There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the evidence against evolution appears to be astounding! |
There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???
I agree that micro-evolution is true,
The only difference between micro and macro-evolution occur in the minds of ID adherents. There is no difference in science. Micro changes accumulate into macro changes.
QUOTE
So much seems to be based on assumptions and people (excuse me for my political incorrectness) religiously following the work of predecessors, such as Urey, Miller, and Haeckel. I doubt that I could argue with Dobzhansky at the time he wrote those statements (which you said, was thirty years ago), but evolution seems incomprehensible on a molecular level in light of many new discoveries.
Evolution as a fact is based on the huge amount of evidence found and nothing else. The theories explaining those facts can and do change as our understanding changes but the facts themselves do not go away. Einsteins theory of curved space time eventually replaced Newtons theory of gravity, but apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the scientific debates. Again, what valid scientific discoveries(if it doesn't meet the requirement of the scientific method, don't waste my time)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So much seems to be based on assumptions and people (excuse me for my political incorrectness) religiously following the work of predecessors, such as Urey, Miller, and Haeckel. I doubt that I could argue with Dobzhansky at the time he wrote those statements (which you said, was thirty years ago), but evolution seems incomprehensible on a molecular level in light of many new discoveries. |
Evolution as a fact is based on the huge amount of evidence found and nothing else. The theories explaining those facts can and do change as our understanding changes but the facts themselves do not go away. Einsteins theory of curved space time eventually replaced Newtons theory of gravity, but apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the scientific debates. Again, what valid scientific discoveries(if it doesn't meet the requirement of the scientific method, don't waste my time)
For instance: how does the first cell come about?
Evolution has nothing to say about that, that is biogenesis, take it up with them.
QUOTE
Even one protein forming by chance has horrible probabilities. How do you come by beneficial mutations often enough for macro-evolution to occur when DNA is so complex? How do you get DNA in the first place?
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during thi period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even one protein forming by chance has horrible probabilities. How do you come by beneficial mutations often enough for macro-evolution to occur when DNA is so complex? How do you get DNA in the first place? |
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during thi period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
However, I find it hard to respect a man with such closed-minded opinions as Dobzhansky has.
He is not closed minded, He is speaking from fact, should he lie to accomidate any crackpot theory??? An open mind is not the same as an empty mind. Truth is truth and should be stated as such. Reread what he said because he is stating fact based on the evidence. Any theory is subject to change due to new evidence but the facts have not changed since he made this statement and no CSBS/ID pseudoscience will change the facts either.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael J Behe? Just a question. But anyways, I agree that microevolution can become macroevolution changes, but that random mutation could account for the diversity seen today is almost inconceivable. The probabilities of a beneficial random mutation is astounding. Sure, just like with any probability, it could happen. But for the neo-darwinist to just use random mutation to explain away everything concerning change within species seems ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying that creationists don't use things to just explain away everything, because many of us do that too. But neither one of us should do that.
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power. Then to say that you somehow got all of these amino acids to all form peptide bonds has a similar probability. To form a peptide bond you must release a water molecule, yet amino acids are often soluble in water, making the liquid water media highly unlikely. Then, you must assume that you have them in the order of some protein, which has a very small probability, something like 10 to the 40th (I don't remember the exact number here). Then for the protein to fold up the right way has a very high probability, maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 or something like that. Now lets say you have one protein. Now you need a diversity of more proteins to get the results you want, to get a cell that is self-replicating. Within this time, you need massive amounts of information to form within the DNA by the form of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (or is it cyanine, or cytocine?). There is still the question of where this all took place. Obviously not on land or under shallow or medium liquid, because the long wave UV rays (very often not present in those experiments that create the amino acids) would disintegrate the amino acids. Probably not in a water medium, because of the solubility of many amino acid bonds. And almost all of the experiments include electricity added to the "mix." How did electricity from lightning reach into those depths?
And what do you mean by "it only has to happen once." It's survival of the fittest; it's natural selection. For these to take place you need more than just one, or even ten or fifty, for any sort of random mutation to take place within the colony so that the self-replicating molecules (Oh by the way, not to challenge or anything, just so that I know, what did they feed on?) could become something slightly different. There are many more problems besides these, but I'd say that's good for starters.
Of course he shouldn't lie, but with words like bigotry and ignorance applying to absolutely anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, it seems slightly closed-minded.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 30 2005, 09:59 PM)
Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
Perhaps you should pass that phrase on to those defending evolution in courts - it's a nice summary of all that is wrong with ID.
Kaeroll
Perhaps you should pass that phrase on to those defending evolution in courts - it's a nice summary of all that is wrong with ID.
Kaeroll
QUOTE
There has been NO valid scientific evidence presented to peer review so what evidence are you talking about???
Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael J Behe? Just a question. But anyways, I agree that microevolution can become macroevolution changes, but that random mutation could account for the diversity seen today is almost inconceivable. The probabilities of a beneficial random mutation is astounding. Sure, just like with any probability, it could happen. But for the neo-darwinist to just use random mutation to explain away everything concerning change within species seems ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying that creationists don't use things to just explain away everything, because many of us do that too. But neither one of us should do that.
Why is that such a rediculious contept?
- Amok
- Amok
If there is any evidence that COMPLETELY invalidates evolution then if that person publishes that evidence would go down in the history books. The problem with ignorant people is that they don't understand that science is about evidence and what is right, not what seems right.
If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.
Remember, ID is not science, no amount of court rulings, or non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved will make it science.
If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.
Remember, ID is not science, no amount of court rulings, or non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved will make it science.
QUOTE
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). And given the multi billion opportunities(molecules) and Billion year window I would be amazed if life DID NOT form. It only has to happen once. Voila, a self replicating protein molecule(probably very simple in form.) From that time to the first multi-cellular lifeforms it took 2.5 billion years, during this period DNA,RNA,Mitochondria and many other cell mechanisms were evolved. Once again, macroevolution is just the accumulation of many micro evolutionary changes.
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power. Then to say that you somehow got all of these amino acids to all form peptide bonds has a similar probability. To form a peptide bond you must release a water molecule, yet amino acids are often soluble in water, making the liquid water media highly unlikely. Then, you must assume that you have them in the order of some protein, which has a very small probability, something like 10 to the 40th (I don't remember the exact number here). Then for the protein to fold up the right way has a very high probability, maybe 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 or something like that. Now lets say you have one protein. Now you need a diversity of more proteins to get the results you want, to get a cell that is self-replicating. Within this time, you need massive amounts of information to form within the DNA by the form of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (or is it cyanine, or cytocine?). There is still the question of where this all took place. Obviously not on land or under shallow or medium liquid, because the long wave UV rays (very often not present in those experiments that create the amino acids) would disintegrate the amino acids. Probably not in a water medium, because of the solubility of many amino acid bonds. And almost all of the experiments include electricity added to the "mix." How did electricity from lightning reach into those depths?
And what do you mean by "it only has to happen once." It's survival of the fittest; it's natural selection. For these to take place you need more than just one, or even ten or fifty, for any sort of random mutation to take place within the colony so that the self-replicating molecules (Oh by the way, not to challenge or anything, just so that I know, what did they feed on?) could become something slightly different. There are many more problems besides these, but I'd say that's good for starters.
[QUOTE]If there is any evidence that COMPLETELY invalidates evolution then if that person publishes that evidence would go down in the history books. The problem with ignorant people is that they don't understand that science is about evidence and what is right, not what seems right.
If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.
Remember, ID is not science and no amount of court rulings will make it science[QUOTE]
You're completely right. ID is not science, court-rulings is not the way to go to prove or disprove creationism or evolutionism, and no one has any evidence that completely invalidates evolution. I don't even think creationism should be taught in schools. However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact? Even if you say yes, should false facts be taught in the textbooks? I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false. Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one. "Facts" such as these should not be taught in textbooks. Evolution, along with its problems, should be taught in schools. I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe.
Oh and by the way, "non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved" ?
Huh?
If Behe is right then let him publish away! good on him if he shows evolution is SCIENTIFICALLY wrong.
Remember, ID is not science and no amount of court rulings will make it science[QUOTE]
You're completely right. ID is not science, court-rulings is not the way to go to prove or disprove creationism or evolutionism, and no one has any evidence that completely invalidates evolution. I don't even think creationism should be taught in schools. However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact? Even if you say yes, should false facts be taught in the textbooks? I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false. Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one. "Facts" such as these should not be taught in textbooks. Evolution, along with its problems, should be taught in schools. I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe.
Oh and by the way, "non scientific people arguing that evolutionists just don't want evolution disproved" ?
Huh?
QUOTE
He is not closed minded, He is speaking from fact, should he lie to accomidate any crackpot theory???
Of course he shouldn't lie, but with words like bigotry and ignorance applying to absolutely anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, it seems slightly closed-minded.
Verdad
Yes, I have. This is precisely what I mean by non peer reviewed junk science. Behe argues Irreducable Complexity and probabilities, both of which have been shown to be untrue. This is just what I meant when I said "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination". There are no structures seen in nature which are too complicated to be explained by natural processes, including DNA, the human eye or the Bombadier Beetle(look for these explanations elsewhere in these forums, I'm tired of repeating myself). Mathematical techniques require foreknowledge of the probabilities of occurances which it is impossible for Behe to even approximate, therefore GIGO. Trying to apply rigid mathematics to nonlinear lifeforms is doomed to failure.
Demski, Behe and other nonpeer reviewed authors have no scientific standing, they avoid peer review because they know their books and ideas will not stand up to real scientific review. They can write as many books as they like, until it passes peer review, it isn't accepted as scientifically valid, therefore junk, bogus or pseudoscience.
Yes, I have. This is precisely what I mean by non peer reviewed junk science. Behe argues Irreducable Complexity and probabilities, both of which have been shown to be untrue. This is just what I meant when I said "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination". There are no structures seen in nature which are too complicated to be explained by natural processes, including DNA, the human eye or the Bombadier Beetle(look for these explanations elsewhere in these forums, I'm tired of repeating myself). Mathematical techniques require foreknowledge of the probabilities of occurances which it is impossible for Behe to even approximate, therefore GIGO. Trying to apply rigid mathematics to nonlinear lifeforms is doomed to failure.
Demski, Behe and other nonpeer reviewed authors have no scientific standing, they avoid peer review because they know their books and ideas will not stand up to real scientific review. They can write as many books as they like, until it passes peer review, it isn't accepted as scientifically valid, therefore junk, bogus or pseudoscience.
But for the neo-darwinist to just use random mutation to explain away everything concerning change within species seems ridiculous.
Random mutation is only one of many processes in natural selection, it explains only part of the changes which occur in evolution. Adoucette has posted some of the best explanations of other forces acting on organisms to affect change, look them up in the forums, I don't have the time.
Simple life+Natural selection+billions of years=all the different organisms in the fossil record+all the organisms we see today. These are the facts supported by the fossil record, we can argue about the how but the fact that it occured is not in doubt.
Grumpy
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power.
Verdad,
A couple of points in response to your posts. First, the idea that molecular chemistry obeys simple laws of combinatorics is false. Using combinatorics (how many coin flips, etc.) such as you have does produce 'astronomical' probabilities. But chemical bonds are not mere 'coin flips'. When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. (These have been detected in every observed post-supernova to date). The combinatoric probabilities of these forming would be so high they would never exist. But there they are. And guess what? The majority of these amino acids are left handed! (See the NASA website archives for a tentative theory on why) According to your 'mathematics' this is impossible, so your mathematical model is obviously incorrect. Physical evidence has a way of doing that. Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power.
Verdad,
A couple of points in response to your posts. First, the idea that molecular chemistry obeys simple laws of combinatorics is false. Using combinatorics (how many coin flips, etc.) such as you have does produce 'astronomical' probabilities. But chemical bonds are not mere 'coin flips'. When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. (These have been detected in every observed post-supernova to date). The combinatoric probabilities of these forming would be so high they would never exist. But there they are. And guess what? The majority of these amino acids are left handed! (See the NASA website archives for a tentative theory on why) According to your 'mathematics' this is impossible, so your mathematical model is obviously incorrect. Physical evidence has a way of doing that. Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
But anyways, I agree that microevolution can become macroevolution changes, but that random mutation could account for the diversity seen today is almost inconceivable. The probabilities of a beneficial random mutation is astounding.
As we speak, there are hundreds of bacteria that are 'beneficially randomly mutating' and developing immunity to generation after generation of anti-biotics. This has all happened in the past sixty years since penicillin first started being used. Again, your misuse of combinatoric probabilities is falsified by the physical evidence.
Bruce
What about the 'bird flu' virus? Surely its newfound ability to transfer from human to human is beneficial to it? (either that, or I have totally the wrong end of the stick about what classes as beneficial)
Kaeroll
"He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right." - SoLoved
You evolved on a world that orbits its sun at the distance it does, so of course you evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been different you would have evolved to fit that. There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water. - Grumpy
There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water, but what exactly is the range of liquid water? As far as I know we just barely squeeze into that category, and have just enough of a stable/ non-eccentric orbit to stay in that range throughout the entire year.
Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
Thank you for this, Adoucette, but... I can't find anything about the DNA or the stuff we were talking about on these links. Is it just me? I'm still looking, though. Help?!
QUOTE
Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael J Behe?
Yes, I have. This is precisely what I mean by non peer reviewed junk science. Behe argues Irreducable Complexity and probabilities, both of which have been shown to be untrue. This is just what I meant when I said "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination". There are no structures seen in nature which are too complicated to be explained by natural processes, including DNA, the human eye or the Bombadier Beetle(look for these explanations elsewhere in these forums, I'm tired of repeating myself). Mathematical techniques require foreknowledge of the probabilities of occurances which it is impossible for Behe to even approximate, therefore GIGO. Trying to apply rigid mathematics to nonlinear lifeforms is doomed to failure.
Demski, Behe and other nonpeer reviewed authors have no scientific standing, they avoid peer review because they know their books and ideas will not stand up to real scientific review. They can write as many books as they like, until it passes peer review, it isn't accepted as scientifically valid, therefore junk, bogus or pseudoscience.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Have you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael J Behe? |
Yes, I have. This is precisely what I mean by non peer reviewed junk science. Behe argues Irreducable Complexity and probabilities, both of which have been shown to be untrue. This is just what I meant when I said "Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination". There are no structures seen in nature which are too complicated to be explained by natural processes, including DNA, the human eye or the Bombadier Beetle(look for these explanations elsewhere in these forums, I'm tired of repeating myself). Mathematical techniques require foreknowledge of the probabilities of occurances which it is impossible for Behe to even approximate, therefore GIGO. Trying to apply rigid mathematics to nonlinear lifeforms is doomed to failure.
Demski, Behe and other nonpeer reviewed authors have no scientific standing, they avoid peer review because they know their books and ideas will not stand up to real scientific review. They can write as many books as they like, until it passes peer review, it isn't accepted as scientifically valid, therefore junk, bogus or pseudoscience.
But for the neo-darwinist to just use random mutation to explain away everything concerning change within species seems ridiculous.
Random mutation is only one of many processes in natural selection, it explains only part of the changes which occur in evolution. Adoucette has posted some of the best explanations of other forces acting on organisms to affect change, look them up in the forums, I don't have the time.
Simple life+Natural selection+billions of years=all the different organisms in the fossil record+all the organisms we see today. These are the facts supported by the fossil record, we can argue about the how but the fact that it occured is not in doubt.
Grumpy
I am having trouble finding these explanations; you don't need to repeat yourself but if you would point me to which topic in the category creation/evolution these answers coulod be found under, I would be very appreciative.
Verdad
He was saying that the fact that evolution occured is self evident in the fossil record and cannot be denied by anyone who has studied and knows that evidence, and that the only ones who could deny that conclusion are those ignorant of the facts or those with preconcieved ideas who ignore that evidence. He is absolutely correct(if a little politically incorrect in his choice of words). The facts of evolution are undeniable if you have studied the fossil record, it is as well "proven"(supported by the evidence) as the Earth rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun. That is how certain we are of that fact.
To not accept the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is to deny reality. If that doesn't fit with your interpretation of scripture it is your interpretation which is wrong, not the facts of evolution.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Of course he shouldn't lie, but with words like bigotry and ignorance applying to absolutely anyone who doesn't believe in evolution, it seems slightly closed-minded.
He was saying that the fact that evolution occured is self evident in the fossil record and cannot be denied by anyone who has studied and knows that evidence, and that the only ones who could deny that conclusion are those ignorant of the facts or those with preconcieved ideas who ignore that evidence. He is absolutely correct(if a little politically incorrect in his choice of words). The facts of evolution are undeniable if you have studied the fossil record, it is as well "proven"(supported by the evidence) as the Earth rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun. That is how certain we are of that fact.
To not accept the fact that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth is to deny reality. If that doesn't fit with your interpretation of scripture it is your interpretation which is wrong, not the facts of evolution.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 01:53 AM)
QUOTE
Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal).
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power.
Verdad,
A couple of points in response to your posts. First, the idea that molecular chemistry obeys simple laws of combinatorics is false. Using combinatorics (how many coin flips, etc.) such as you have does produce 'astronomical' probabilities. But chemical bonds are not mere 'coin flips'. When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. (These have been detected in every observed post-supernova to date). The combinatoric probabilities of these forming would be so high they would never exist. But there they are. And guess what? The majority of these amino acids are left handed! (See the NASA website archives for a tentative theory on why) According to your 'mathematics' this is impossible, so your mathematical model is obviously incorrect. Physical evidence has a way of doing that. Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pre- protein amino acids have been shown, in lab experiments, to be formed in the shock and heat of meteor impacts. In a liquid water media, deep enough to avoid ultraviolet light from the sun(around thermal vents in the deep ocean are ideal). |
I agree that pre-protein amino acids can be easily formed with an early earth atmosphere. However, in all of these studies, an even mix of left and right oriented amino acids are formed. A mix like this is poisonous to life. But saying that only the left oriented amino acids (only left oriented amino acids are found in living organisms) formed a very simple protein chain, the odds are something like 10 to the 30th power.
Verdad,
A couple of points in response to your posts. First, the idea that molecular chemistry obeys simple laws of combinatorics is false. Using combinatorics (how many coin flips, etc.) such as you have does produce 'astronomical' probabilities. But chemical bonds are not mere 'coin flips'. When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. (These have been detected in every observed post-supernova to date). The combinatoric probabilities of these forming would be so high they would never exist. But there they are. And guess what? The majority of these amino acids are left handed! (See the NASA website archives for a tentative theory on why) According to your 'mathematics' this is impossible, so your mathematical model is obviously incorrect. Physical evidence has a way of doing that. Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
But anyways, I agree that microevolution can become macroevolution changes, but that random mutation could account for the diversity seen today is almost inconceivable. The probabilities of a beneficial random mutation is astounding.
As we speak, there are hundreds of bacteria that are 'beneficially randomly mutating' and developing immunity to generation after generation of anti-biotics. This has all happened in the past sixty years since penicillin first started being used. Again, your misuse of combinatoric probabilities is falsified by the physical evidence.
Bruce
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 02:36 AM)
I am having trouble finding these explanations; you don't need to repeat yourself but if you would point me to which topic in the category creation/evolution these answers coulod be found under, I would be very appreciative.
QUOTE
As we speak, there are hundreds of bacteria that are 'beneficially randomly mutating' and developing immunity to generation after generation of anti-biotics. This has all happened in the past sixty years since penicillin first started being used. Again, your misuse of combinatoric probabilities is falsified by the physical evidence.
What about the 'bird flu' virus? Surely its newfound ability to transfer from human to human is beneficial to it? (either that, or I have totally the wrong end of the stick about what classes as beneficial)
Kaeroll
Virus have a built in mutation mechanism. They have a region of their RNA, affecting how they are "identified" by their host's immunization system, which is situated such that it can and will change over time. Thus new strains, which their hosts can't identify are created over time. Same with the cold virus. Which is why we get hit each year or so with a new "version" for which we are not immune.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Oct 31 2005, 10:35 AM)
What about the 'bird flu' virus? Surely its newfound ability to transfer from human to human is beneficial to it? (either that, or I have totally the wrong end of the stick about what classes as beneficial)
Similarly Cholera has also adapted to improved sanitation. Cholera used to be a swift killer, generating large quantities of infected discharges. They would spread to others because of limited sanitation and poor handling of infected material.
As sanitation and procedures improved, Cholera became a much less virulent disease, thus giving the infected host much more time and opportunity to spread the infection, which was needed because in this cleaner environment the virulent form would burn itself out without making a successuful jump to another host.
We see the same effect in strains of AIDs where the speed of its spread are slowed down. In effect strains which kill quickly don't spread as effectively, less virulent strains do and thus come to predominate.
Evolution in action.
Arthur
Similarly Cholera has also adapted to improved sanitation. Cholera used to be a swift killer, generating large quantities of infected discharges. They would spread to others because of limited sanitation and poor handling of infected material.
As sanitation and procedures improved, Cholera became a much less virulent disease, thus giving the infected host much more time and opportunity to spread the infection, which was needed because in this cleaner environment the virulent form would burn itself out without making a successuful jump to another host.
We see the same effect in strains of AIDs where the speed of its spread are slowed down. In effect strains which kill quickly don't spread as effectively, less virulent strains do and thus come to predominate.
Evolution in action.
Arthur
It is still entirely a bacterium, is it not? If there was even a very small step towards being something very slightly different, it would be fine. But it would seem that even if you compiled thousands of mutations that involved becoming immune to an antibiotic, it would be no closer to being anything other than a bacterium.
I'd like to know what all of you think about my previous quote and whether you agree with it or not. Thanx
QUOTE
You're completely right. ID is not science, court-rulings is not the way to go to prove or disprove creationism or evolutionism, and no one has any evidence that completely invalidates evolution. I don't even think creationism should be taught in schools. However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact? Even if you say yes, should false facts be taught in the textbooks? I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false. Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one. "Facts" such as these should not be taught in textbooks. Evolution, along with its problems, should be taught in schools. I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe.
QUOTE
"He placed the Earth at just the right distance from everything so that it works just right." - SoLoved
You evolved on a world that orbits its sun at the distance it does, so of course you evolved to fit the environment. If the environment had been different you would have evolved to fit that. There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water.
There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water, but what exactly is the range of liquid water? As far as I know we just barely squeeze into that category, and have just enough of a stable/ non-eccentric orbit to stay in that range throughout the entire year.
QUOTE
When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. |
Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 07:17 PM)
It is still entirely a bacterium, is it not? If there was even a very small step towards being something very slightly different, it would be fine. But it would seem that even if you compiled thousands of mutations that involved becoming immune to an antibiotic, it would be no closer to being anything other than a bacterium.
True enough, and yes thousands of changes along this same line would not make another specie.
What about Billions X Billions?
Very little is KNOWN about the very early stages of life, but what we seem to have a decent handle on is that cellular life took a billion years longer to develop than bacterial life and when it did develop it incuded within it the previous bacterial life (in the form of Mitochondria), so even cellular life built upon the previous billion years of evolution.
Man and medicine and the study of evolution by contrast are an insignificant point in time and comparing what we have observed over this timeframe to what transpired over evolutionary time frames is pointless.
To put it in perspective there were so many oxygen producing bacteria for so long that they totally changed the atmosphere of the planet. Man has been burning fossil fuels in prodigous quantities for over a century and have changed the atmosphere at most several hundred parts per million.
Arthur
True enough, and yes thousands of changes along this same line would not make another specie.
What about Billions X Billions?
Very little is KNOWN about the very early stages of life, but what we seem to have a decent handle on is that cellular life took a billion years longer to develop than bacterial life and when it did develop it incuded within it the previous bacterial life (in the form of Mitochondria), so even cellular life built upon the previous billion years of evolution.
Man and medicine and the study of evolution by contrast are an insignificant point in time and comparing what we have observed over this timeframe to what transpired over evolutionary time frames is pointless.
To put it in perspective there were so many oxygen producing bacteria for so long that they totally changed the atmosphere of the planet. Man has been burning fossil fuels in prodigous quantities for over a century and have changed the atmosphere at most several hundred parts per million.
Arthur
QUOTE
QUOTE (Verdad @ Oct 31 2005, 02:36 AM)
I am having trouble finding these explanations; you don't need to repeat yourself but if you would point me to which topic in the category creation/evolution these answers coulod be found under, I would be very appreciative.
Try here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3050&st=60
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3050&st=225
Arthur
I am having trouble finding these explanations; you don't need to repeat yourself but if you would point me to which topic in the category creation/evolution these answers coulod be found under, I would be very appreciative.
Try here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3050&st=60
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3050&st=225
Arthur
Thank you for this, Adoucette, but... I can't find anything about the DNA or the stuff we were talking about on these links. Is it just me? I'm still looking, though. Help?!
Isn't bacteria a cell? And aren't mitochondria non-self-relplicating, making them unable to be affected by survival of the fittest/natural selection? And where did the first oxygen-producing bacteria come from? Without the oxygen created by them to make an ozone layer, wouldn't they be torn apart by the UV rays? I mean, bacteria are pretty durable (extremely extremely durable) but wouldn't oxygen making involve photosynthesis on some level, and wouldn't that be susceptible to the UV rays?
A slightly confused and not certain,
Verdad
A slightly confused and not certain,
Verdad
We have a fossil record that proves certain creatures existed at one time. The fossil record does not, however, "prove" evolution.
Several things differentiate "evolution" from most other, reputable science.
The "accidental-life theory of causation" is accepted without the usual standards of science such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Therefore, one DEMONSTRATES other sciences, but one BELIEVES evolution. In chemistry, scientists in China, 40 years removed from the latest theory, can replicate the experiment. Not so in evolution. Also, most evolutionists fail to recognize their own zealotry. They are the only branch of "science" that pays any attention to creationist or ID ideas - why? Because they are more like them then they think ...
Evolution theory depends on three planks.
(1) that life originated by chance. Without detailing exactly what the primordial soup was, and then replicating the formation of cells through conditions that were not only possible, but verifiably existed, this plank falls. You can CHOOSE TO BELIEVE it, but you can't PROVE IT.
(2) that life changed into higher order forms from what it was in the beginning. We do have a fossil record that shows the oldest forms are the simplest, but the record DOES NOT show that any one simple form conclusively begat any one more complex form. The fossil record demonstrates a progressively higher order of life form as time goes by. Problems with the completeness of the fossil record aside, that still doesn't demonstrate that one form begat the other.
(3) that the driving force of point (2) was random mutation. This cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex interrelated and mutually dependant phenomenon. Did the early caterpillers develop silk glands to wrap leaves, and then wrap themselves in coccoons, and die? And finally, by chance, one came out as a butterfly?
I would feel comfortable calling evolution a "hypothesis" but not a "theory" and certainly not a "fact." As hypotheses go, it's still got some problems ...
Several things differentiate "evolution" from most other, reputable science.
The "accidental-life theory of causation" is accepted without the usual standards of science such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Therefore, one DEMONSTRATES other sciences, but one BELIEVES evolution. In chemistry, scientists in China, 40 years removed from the latest theory, can replicate the experiment. Not so in evolution. Also, most evolutionists fail to recognize their own zealotry. They are the only branch of "science" that pays any attention to creationist or ID ideas - why? Because they are more like them then they think ...
Evolution theory depends on three planks.
(1) that life originated by chance. Without detailing exactly what the primordial soup was, and then replicating the formation of cells through conditions that were not only possible, but verifiably existed, this plank falls. You can CHOOSE TO BELIEVE it, but you can't PROVE IT.
(2) that life changed into higher order forms from what it was in the beginning. We do have a fossil record that shows the oldest forms are the simplest, but the record DOES NOT show that any one simple form conclusively begat any one more complex form. The fossil record demonstrates a progressively higher order of life form as time goes by. Problems with the completeness of the fossil record aside, that still doesn't demonstrate that one form begat the other.
(3) that the driving force of point (2) was random mutation. This cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex interrelated and mutually dependant phenomenon. Did the early caterpillers develop silk glands to wrap leaves, and then wrap themselves in coccoons, and die? And finally, by chance, one came out as a butterfly?
I would feel comfortable calling evolution a "hypothesis" but not a "theory" and certainly not a "fact." As hypotheses go, it's still got some problems ...
Kudos to you noodoodahs.
1. I agree with most of what you say
and
2. I have been the only non evolutionist on this section of the forum. If you stay a while it would be great to get a fresh view/ fresh ideas.
1. I agree with most of what you say
and
2. I have been the only non evolutionist on this section of the forum. If you stay a while it would be great to get a fresh view/ fresh ideas.
Verdad
Please try not to be needlessly tedious. The range of orbits where liquid water is available are quite wide, even if the entire surface of Earth were a frozen wasteland there would still be liquid water in the ice covered oceans, especially around Hot Smokers in the deep oceans and thermal updraughts like Yellowstone. Bacteria have also been found in dry Antartic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing.
Conversely, heat loving lifeforms have been found in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone and the 500F degree water of the Hot Smokers, so surface temps could be lower than 50F below or 212F above freezing and life would still thrive, that doesn't sound like a narrow range at all to me!!!
All that is academic since we evolved to fit the conditions on Earth, the Earth was not adjusted to fit us. If conditions had been different as we evolved we would have evolved to fit those conditions.
Please try not to be needlessly tedious. The range of orbits where liquid water is available are quite wide, even if the entire surface of Earth were a frozen wasteland there would still be liquid water in the ice covered oceans, especially around Hot Smokers in the deep oceans and thermal updraughts like Yellowstone. Bacteria have also been found in dry Antartic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing.
Conversely, heat loving lifeforms have been found in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone and the 500F degree water of the Hot Smokers, so surface temps could be lower than 50F below or 212F above freezing and life would still thrive, that doesn't sound like a narrow range at all to me!!!
All that is academic since we evolved to fit the conditions on Earth, the Earth was not adjusted to fit us. If conditions had been different as we evolved we would have evolved to fit those conditions.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
Every atom in your body(with the possible exception of hydrogen) was cooked up in a first (or second,third etc.) generation star which spewed these freshly baked atoms into vast clouds of gas and dust out of which our sun and planets formed ~4.5 billion years ago. During the process of forming planets, moons, asteroids, etc. the amino acids were incorporated into those various bodies and were shocked into long chain preprotein molecules on impact with the ocean surface never having been exposed to UV radiation. Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
It does your arguement no good to use falsehoods trying to advance it. Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab, what he did succeed in doing is producing amino acids out of a reducing atmosphere in just a few hours using electrical discharge for energy. There are many different forms of energy(chemical, thermal, solar) and many different mixes of elements which will produce the same results in the lab, the important point being that the precursers of life are easily formed, not that his mixture was the correct or only one. If Miller had claimed to have produced new lifeforms(and could reproduce the results) he would be the most famous man in the history of science, even including Einstein. He never made that claim and it has never been taught from any textbook.
It does your arguement no good to use falsehoods trying to advance it. Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab, what he did succeed in doing is producing amino acids out of a reducing atmosphere in just a few hours using electrical discharge for energy. There are many different forms of energy(chemical, thermal, solar) and many different mixes of elements which will produce the same results in the lab, the important point being that the precursers of life are easily formed, not that his mixture was the correct or only one. If Miller had claimed to have produced new lifeforms(and could reproduce the results) he would be the most famous man in the history of science, even including Einstein. He never made that claim and it has never been taught from any textbook.
I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false.
The point of the embryos is to show how higher creatures show vestiges of prior less advanced species which are expressed as gills, tails etc during stages of featal developement but disappear in later stages, in what way are these easily seen phenomina "disproved"??? By whom???
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I susspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it. Non peer reviewed material is not in any way scientifically valid and Behe, Dumbski, Gish and all the other scientist wannabees have a long way to go before they qualify for inclusion in a science classroom. They will have to comply with the rules of the scientific method just like every evolutionary scientist has already done. There are no shortcuts.
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I susspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it. Non peer reviewed material is not in any way scientifically valid and Behe, Dumbski, Gish and all the other scientist wannabees have a long way to go before they qualify for inclusion in a science classroom. They will have to comply with the rules of the scientific method just like every evolutionary scientist has already done. There are no shortcuts.
However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact?
That evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth IS A FACT. The theories that explain the processes which cause evolution to occur will always be subject to change as our understanding of those processes changes, but the FACTS do not change. Just as when Einstein's Space-time theory replaced Newton's theory of gravity apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the arguements.
Grumpy
Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
While these are interesting questions, for which there may or may not be answers or even reasonable hypothesis, this is a somewhat pointless exercise.
There are certainly many hundreds if not thousands of similar questions about how life formed and evolved into the the first cellular organism.
The inability of science to answer any one question, or even most of these questions, proves nothing, except where we are NOW on our road to understanding.
As Grumpy so well puts it, Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
I would add, Nature is not limited to our current level of understanding.
Finally, evolutionary Theory begins AFTER life forms. It does not account for HOW life formed.
Arthur
QUOTE
There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water, but what exactly is the range of liquid water? As far as I know we just barely squeeze into that category, and have just enough of a stable/ non-eccentric orbit to stay in that range throughout the entire year.
Please try not to be needlessly tedious. The range of orbits where liquid water is available are quite wide, even if the entire surface of Earth were a frozen wasteland there would still be liquid water in the ice covered oceans, especially around Hot Smokers in the deep oceans and thermal updraughts like Yellowstone. Bacteria have also been found in dry Antartic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing.
Conversely, heat loving lifeforms have been found in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone and the 500F degree water of the Hot Smokers, so surface temps could be lower than 50F below or 212F above freezing and life would still thrive, that doesn't sound like a narrow range at all to me!!!
All that is academic since we evolved to fit the conditions on Earth, the Earth was not adjusted to fit us. If conditions had been different as we evolved we would have evolved to fit those conditions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is quite a range of habitable orbits as long as there is liquid water, but what exactly is the range of liquid water? As far as I know we just barely squeeze into that category, and have just enough of a stable/ non-eccentric orbit to stay in that range throughout the entire year. |
Please try not to be needlessly tedious. The range of orbits where liquid water is available are quite wide, even if the entire surface of Earth were a frozen wasteland there would still be liquid water in the ice covered oceans, especially around Hot Smokers in the deep oceans and thermal updraughts like Yellowstone. Bacteria have also been found in dry Antartic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing.
Conversely, heat loving lifeforms have been found in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone and the 500F degree water of the Hot Smokers, so surface temps could be lower than 50F below or 212F above freezing and life would still thrive, that doesn't sound like a narrow range at all to me!!!
All that is academic since we evolved to fit the conditions on Earth, the Earth was not adjusted to fit us. If conditions had been different as we evolved we would have evolved to fit those conditions.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
Every atom in your body(with the possible exception of hydrogen) was cooked up in a first (or second,third etc.) generation star which spewed these freshly baked atoms into vast clouds of gas and dust out of which our sun and planets formed ~4.5 billion years ago. During the process of forming planets, moons, asteroids, etc. the amino acids were incorporated into those various bodies and were shocked into long chain preprotein molecules on impact with the ocean surface never having been exposed to UV radiation. Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
QUOTE
Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one.
It does your arguement no good to use falsehoods trying to advance it. Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab, what he did succeed in doing is producing amino acids out of a reducing atmosphere in just a few hours using electrical discharge for energy. There are many different forms of energy(chemical, thermal, solar) and many different mixes of elements which will produce the same results in the lab, the important point being that the precursers of life are easily formed, not that his mixture was the correct or only one. If Miller had claimed to have produced new lifeforms(and could reproduce the results) he would be the most famous man in the history of science, even including Einstein. He never made that claim and it has never been taught from any textbook.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Miller's experiment is taught as having created life, when all he created was a mix of amino acids, tar, and a very poisonous acid. His experiment is taught as having used the mix that was the chemicals at the beginning of the earth, when almost nobody agrees that his chemical 'soup' was the correct one. |
It does your arguement no good to use falsehoods trying to advance it. Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab, what he did succeed in doing is producing amino acids out of a reducing atmosphere in just a few hours using electrical discharge for energy. There are many different forms of energy(chemical, thermal, solar) and many different mixes of elements which will produce the same results in the lab, the important point being that the precursers of life are easily formed, not that his mixture was the correct or only one. If Miller had claimed to have produced new lifeforms(and could reproduce the results) he would be the most famous man in the history of science, even including Einstein. He never made that claim and it has never been taught from any textbook.
I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false.
The point of the embryos is to show how higher creatures show vestiges of prior less advanced species which are expressed as gills, tails etc during stages of featal developement but disappear in later stages, in what way are these easily seen phenomina "disproved"??? By whom???
QUOTE
I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe.
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I susspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it. Non peer reviewed material is not in any way scientifically valid and Behe, Dumbski, Gish and all the other scientist wannabees have a long way to go before they qualify for inclusion in a science classroom. They will have to comply with the rules of the scientific method just like every evolutionary scientist has already done. There are no shortcuts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I also think that there should be reading for biology classes, such as "The Blind Watchmaker" by evolutionist Richard Dawkins paired with "Darwin's Black Box" by creationist Michael Behe. |
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I susspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it. Non peer reviewed material is not in any way scientifically valid and Behe, Dumbski, Gish and all the other scientist wannabees have a long way to go before they qualify for inclusion in a science classroom. They will have to comply with the rules of the scientific method just like every evolutionary scientist has already done. There are no shortcuts.
However, should evolution be taught in textbooks as fact?
That evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth IS A FACT. The theories that explain the processes which cause evolution to occur will always be subject to change as our understanding of those processes changes, but the FACTS do not change. Just as when Einstein's Space-time theory replaced Newton's theory of gravity apples did not hang in mid air awaiting the outcome of the arguements.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 07:33 PM)
QUOTE
When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When a star goes supernova, the resulting nebula is loaded with amino acids. |
Consequently, it is quite "probable" the solar disc from which the planets condensed was rich with left-handed amino acids, which then would be present at the beginning of the earth's formation.
I am sure that that is all quite probable, but in the case of a supernova, how do those amino acids get to Earth, and in the case of our solar disk, once the planet stabled a little, how did the bonds the amino acids made with each other survive the long wave UV rays?
While these are interesting questions, for which there may or may not be answers or even reasonable hypothesis, this is a somewhat pointless exercise.
There are certainly many hundreds if not thousands of similar questions about how life formed and evolved into the the first cellular organism.
The inability of science to answer any one question, or even most of these questions, proves nothing, except where we are NOW on our road to understanding.
As Grumpy so well puts it, Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.
I would add, Nature is not limited to our current level of understanding.
Finally, evolutionary Theory begins AFTER life forms. It does not account for HOW life formed.
Arthur
nodoodahs
WRONG!!! Prof. Lewontin says it so much better than I could:
WRONG!!! Prof. Lewontin says it so much better than I could:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
If you knew anything about what you're talking about(evolution) you would know that evolution has nothing to say about how life began, that's biogenesis, another science entirely. Don't ask a Physicist to solve your math problems or vice versa(even if they are somewhat related). We pay attention to CSBS/ID crackpots because our education system is in bad enough shape without letting superstitious mumbo jumbo be taught as real science..
If you knew anything about what you're talking about(evolution) you would know that evolution has nothing to say about how life began, that's biogenesis, another science entirely. Don't ask a Physicist to solve your math problems or vice versa(even if they are somewhat related). We pay attention to CSBS/ID crackpots because our education system is in bad enough shape without letting superstitious mumbo jumbo be taught as real science..
(1) that life originated by chance. Without detailing exactly what the primordial soup was, and then replicating the formation of cells through conditions that were not only possible, but verifiably existed, this plank falls. You can CHOOSE TO BELIEVE it, but you can't PROVE IT.
A lie. See above truth. Not a part of evolution at all.
WRONG AGAIN!!! See above statement by Prof. Lewontin.
WRONG AGAIN!!! See above statement by Prof. Lewontin.
3) that the driving force of point (2) was random mutation. This cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex interrelated and mutually dependant phenomenon. Did the early caterpillers develop silk glands to wrap leaves, and then wrap themselves in coccoons, and die? And finally, by chance, one came out as a butterfly?
There are no Irreducable Complexities. Just because you are not intellegent enough to understand a progression doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
Grumpy
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
Bacteria can survive, most other animals can't. And, while at that place the temp is never above freezing, it is still only much less than the diameter of the earth away from places that do have liquid water at some parts of the year. And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
Bacteria can survive, most other animals can't. And, while at that place the temp is never above freezing, it is still only much less than the diameter of the earth away from places that do have liquid water at some parts of the year. And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
Please try not to be needlessly tedious.
As the leaf calls the grass green?
Are you sure? With no ozone layer whatsoever? I thought that in another topic not long ago you talked about molecules that were deep enough in the ocean depths to not be susceptible to UV rays.
Are you sure? With no ozone layer whatsoever? I thought that in another topic not long ago you talked about molecules that were deep enough in the ocean depths to not be susceptible to UV rays.
Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab
You are correct. I misspoke. I meant to talk about how some textbooks make it unclear of the problems with his experiment and that some textbooks insinuate slightly more than just amino acids.
Haeckel started off by assuming his theory was correct, and so used the same woodcut to represent the embryos. The species of animals used were carefully chosen to be those that look similar in the embryo stages. He then doctored the drawings, making them look more similar than even with the woodcuts already being the same. Plus, it is shown as the first stage of development, when it is really one of the middle stages.
Haeckel started off by assuming his theory was correct, and so used the same woodcut to represent the embryos. The species of animals used were carefully chosen to be those that look similar in the embryo stages. He then doctored the drawings, making them look more similar than even with the woodcuts already being the same. Plus, it is shown as the first stage of development, when it is really one of the middle stages.
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I suspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it.
Correct or incorrect, (I suspect incorrect) you are still making assumptions. Plus, I would not be surprised if things of that nature were rejected before they were submitted for peer review, considering the number of people kicked out of or rejected for jobs in science simply for being creationists.
Assuming your claim that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one and the same, then of course evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on earth. That still does not make teaching that in all cases all life came from evolution correct. I care not whether you believe it is a fact that all life in all cases came from a single-celled organism, it is not fact, it is a theory. A very important theory in science, but a theory. It is still called the theory of evolution.
And lastly, how are you doing? I know you must get this a lot, but it wouldn't take much effort in the task of repeating yourself
And that has to be the fourth or fifth time that I have seen that nature is not constrained by my imagination.
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
No they're not. UV penetrates many clouds, which is why you can sunburn on a cloudy day, and why many doctors recommend sunscreen even on cloudy days.
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
No they're not. UV penetrates many clouds, which is why you can sunburn on a cloudy day, and why many doctors recommend sunscreen even on cloudy days.
Depends on the thickness of the clouds and the season.
Some UV does penetrate thin cloud layers. Very little through heavier cloud layers.
I doubt the amount left would be sufficient to cause the problem you mention, but then again, ever heard of SHADE?
Arthur
QUOTE
We have a fossil record that proves certain creatures existed at one time. The fossil record does not, however, "prove" evolution.
WRONG!!! Prof. Lewontin says it so much better than I could:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We have a fossil record that proves certain creatures existed at one time. The fossil record does not, however, "prove" evolution. |
WRONG!!! Prof. Lewontin says it so much better than I could:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
QUOTE
The "accidental-life theory of causation" is accepted without the usual standards of science such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Therefore, one DEMONSTRATES other sciences, but one BELIEVES evolution. In chemistry, scientists in China, 40 years removed from the latest theory, can replicate the experiment. Not so in evolution. Also, most evolutionists fail to recognize their own zealotry. They are the only branch of "science" that pays any attention to creationist or ID ideas - why? Because they are more like them then they think ...
If you knew anything about what you're talking about(evolution) you would know that evolution has nothing to say about how life began, that's biogenesis, another science entirely. Don't ask a Physicist to solve your math problems or vice versa(even if they are somewhat related). We pay attention to CSBS/ID crackpots because our education system is in bad enough shape without letting superstitious mumbo jumbo be taught as real science..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The "accidental-life theory of causation" is accepted without the usual standards of science such as reproducibility or rigorous demonstration of mathematical feasibility. Therefore, one DEMONSTRATES other sciences, but one BELIEVES evolution. In chemistry, scientists in China, 40 years removed from the latest theory, can replicate the experiment. Not so in evolution. Also, most evolutionists fail to recognize their own zealotry. They are the only branch of "science" that pays any attention to creationist or ID ideas - why? Because they are more like them then they think ... |
If you knew anything about what you're talking about(evolution) you would know that evolution has nothing to say about how life began, that's biogenesis, another science entirely. Don't ask a Physicist to solve your math problems or vice versa(even if they are somewhat related). We pay attention to CSBS/ID crackpots because our education system is in bad enough shape without letting superstitious mumbo jumbo be taught as real science..
(1) that life originated by chance. Without detailing exactly what the primordial soup was, and then replicating the formation of cells through conditions that were not only possible, but verifiably existed, this plank falls. You can CHOOSE TO BELIEVE it, but you can't PROVE IT.
A lie. See above truth. Not a part of evolution at all.
QUOTE
(2) that life changed into higher order forms from what it was in the beginning. We do have a fossil record that shows the oldest forms are the simplest, but the record DOES NOT show that any one simple form conclusively begat any one more complex form. The fossil record demonstrates a progressively higher order of life form as time goes by. Problems with the completeness of the fossil record aside, that still doesn't demonstrate that one form begat the other.
WRONG AGAIN!!! See above statement by Prof. Lewontin.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (2) that life changed into higher order forms from what it was in the beginning. We do have a fossil record that shows the oldest forms are the simplest, but the record DOES NOT show that any one simple form conclusively begat any one more complex form. The fossil record demonstrates a progressively higher order of life form as time goes by. Problems with the completeness of the fossil record aside, that still doesn't demonstrate that one form begat the other. |
WRONG AGAIN!!! See above statement by Prof. Lewontin.
3) that the driving force of point (2) was random mutation. This cannot account for the simultaneous appearance of complex interrelated and mutually dependant phenomenon. Did the early caterpillers develop silk glands to wrap leaves, and then wrap themselves in coccoons, and die? And finally, by chance, one came out as a butterfly?
There are no Irreducable Complexities. Just because you are not intellegent enough to understand a progression doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nature is not constrained by YOUR lack of imagination.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
QUOTE
Bacteria have also been found in dry Antarctic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing.
Bacteria can survive, most other animals can't. And, while at that place the temp is never above freezing, it is still only much less than the diameter of the earth away from places that do have liquid water at some parts of the year. And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bacteria have also been found in dry Antarctic highlands, the coldest place on Earth, which thrive where the temp is NEVER above freezing. |
Bacteria can survive, most other animals can't. And, while at that place the temp is never above freezing, it is still only much less than the diameter of the earth away from places that do have liquid water at some parts of the year. And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
Please try not to be needlessly tedious.
As the leaf calls the grass green?
QUOTE
Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
Are you sure? With no ozone layer whatsoever? I thought that in another topic not long ago you talked about molecules that were deep enough in the ocean depths to not be susceptible to UV rays.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV. |
Are you sure? With no ozone layer whatsoever? I thought that in another topic not long ago you talked about molecules that were deep enough in the ocean depths to not be susceptible to UV rays.
Miller never claimed to have produced life in the lab
You are correct. I misspoke. I meant to talk about how some textbooks make it unclear of the problems with his experiment and that some textbooks insinuate slightly more than just amino acids.
QUOTE
The point of the embryos is to show how higher creatures show vestiges of prior less advanced species which are expressed as gills, tails etc during stages of fetal development but disappear in later stages, in what way are these easily seen phenomena "disproved"??? By whom???
Haeckel started off by assuming his theory was correct, and so used the same woodcut to represent the embryos. The species of animals used were carefully chosen to be those that look similar in the embryo stages. He then doctored the drawings, making them look more similar than even with the woodcuts already being the same. Plus, it is shown as the first stage of development, when it is really one of the middle stages.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point of the embryos is to show how higher creatures show vestiges of prior less advanced species which are expressed as gills, tails etc during stages of fetal development but disappear in later stages, in what way are these easily seen phenomena "disproved"??? By whom??? |
Haeckel started off by assuming his theory was correct, and so used the same woodcut to represent the embryos. The species of animals used were carefully chosen to be those that look similar in the embryo stages. He then doctored the drawings, making them look more similar than even with the woodcuts already being the same. Plus, it is shown as the first stage of development, when it is really one of the middle stages.
Behe's book has not been submitted for peer review, I suspect because it would fail such a test and he knows it.
Correct or incorrect, (I suspect incorrect) you are still making assumptions. Plus, I would not be surprised if things of that nature were rejected before they were submitted for peer review, considering the number of people kicked out of or rejected for jobs in science simply for being creationists.
QUOTE
That evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth IS A FACT. The theories that explain the processes which cause evolution to occur will always be subject to change as our understanding of those processes changes, but the FACTS do not change.
Assuming your claim that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one and the same, then of course evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on earth. That still does not make teaching that in all cases all life came from evolution correct. I care not whether you believe it is a fact that all life in all cases came from a single-celled organism, it is not fact, it is a theory. A very important theory in science, but a theory. It is still called the theory of evolution.
And lastly, how are you doing? I know you must get this a lot, but it wouldn't take much effort in the task of repeating yourself
Adoucette
Isn't an ozone layer necessary to block out long wave UV rays? And even if a cloud was all that was necessary, clouds do not completely cover the earth at all times, or even close.
Isn't an ozone layer necessary to block out long wave UV rays? And even if a cloud was all that was necessary, clouds do not completely cover the earth at all times, or even close.
QUOTE
There are no Irreducable Complexities.
Perhaps not. But there are complexities that are close enough as to seriously challenge a progressive method. And why should we just take Lewontins word as absolute truth. If there is a proggression to everything, then explain a few of them. You didn't answer SoLoved's challenge (sweat glands to milk) in a very explanatory method. I could say that feet evolved from ears, but unless I showed an actual path to get from one to the other you would not believe me. You didn't answer Noodoodahs question about catepillars, except by saying that it is answerable. And for the life of me I cannot find your explanations of DNA and such things. (Don't bother with the bombadier beetle, though, because it is a poor example of our side)And that has to be the fourth or fifth time that I have seen that nature is not constrained by my imagination.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 31 2005, 09:46 PM)
Just because you are not intellegent enough to understand a progression doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And just because you don't get laid enough is no reason to be grumpy.
Now that we're (hopefully) done with the personal attacks ...
The fossil record shows that certain creatures lived at one time, and that the trend is for older fossils to contain less complex organisms than new fossils. This does not necessarily mean that earlier times didn't have complex organisms, it simply means that complex organisms didn't get fossilized in earlier times. Now, it's likely that they didn't get fossilized because they weren't there, but that's a supposition, not a fact, and is unprovable by either side.
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another. If you know of such a fossil, please, by all means, share the location of it with me.
There is an equal amount of scientific evidence for the following suppositions:
(1) invisible elves with supernatural powers flew out of my @ss last night, created the entire fossil record, and falsified all the history books and your memories to support the theory of evolution;
(2) an intelligent creator placed various more complex organisms on the planet at different times, perhaps as he was through making them;
(3) higher order beings sprang into being randomly from the not-quite-primordial soup, i.e. australiopithicus was organized from a bolt of lightning and a chemical pool;
(4) evolution.
In other words, none has scientific evidence. The evolutionists have supposition, and of those four, the evolutionist position is the most likely IMO, but it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
I believe you need a lesson in what is fact, and what is supposition or theory. Lewontin needs it, too, please feel free to forward it to him if you see him.
It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
No, that's a theory.
It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
This is also theory, based on some stronger evidence than his first statement, but there are suppositions involved in dating fossils that could change those dates around significantly.
It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
Again, theory. We have no fossils of birds or mammals that our current process dates to before 250 million years from now is a factually correct statement. He supposes, based on the lack of fossils, that there is a lack of existence in those time periods.
It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
Wow, he's batting .250! Good enough for the Astros, I guess! He finally got one right! That IS a fact!
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
OK, there it is! The HUGE leap of faith, unsupported by fact or evidence, indeed, only supported by previous supposition or theory! WOOHOO! The remainder of his quote is similar in lack of support!
I'm not hostile to the evolutionist hypothesis, I'm hostile to claims that it is anything more than a hypothesis.
And just because you don't get laid enough is no reason to be grumpy.
Now that we're (hopefully) done with the personal attacks ...
The fossil record shows that certain creatures lived at one time, and that the trend is for older fossils to contain less complex organisms than new fossils. This does not necessarily mean that earlier times didn't have complex organisms, it simply means that complex organisms didn't get fossilized in earlier times. Now, it's likely that they didn't get fossilized because they weren't there, but that's a supposition, not a fact, and is unprovable by either side.
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another. If you know of such a fossil, please, by all means, share the location of it with me.
There is an equal amount of scientific evidence for the following suppositions:
(1) invisible elves with supernatural powers flew out of my @ss last night, created the entire fossil record, and falsified all the history books and your memories to support the theory of evolution;
(2) an intelligent creator placed various more complex organisms on the planet at different times, perhaps as he was through making them;
(3) higher order beings sprang into being randomly from the not-quite-primordial soup, i.e. australiopithicus was organized from a bolt of lightning and a chemical pool;
(4) evolution.
In other words, none has scientific evidence. The evolutionists have supposition, and of those four, the evolutionist position is the most likely IMO, but it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
I believe you need a lesson in what is fact, and what is supposition or theory. Lewontin needs it, too, please feel free to forward it to him if you see him.
It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
No, that's a theory.
It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
This is also theory, based on some stronger evidence than his first statement, but there are suppositions involved in dating fossils that could change those dates around significantly.
It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
Again, theory. We have no fossils of birds or mammals that our current process dates to before 250 million years from now is a factually correct statement. He supposes, based on the lack of fossils, that there is a lack of existence in those time periods.
It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
Wow, he's batting .250! Good enough for the Astros, I guess! He finally got one right! That IS a fact!
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.
OK, there it is! The HUGE leap of faith, unsupported by fact or evidence, indeed, only supported by previous supposition or theory! WOOHOO! The remainder of his quote is similar in lack of support!
I'm not hostile to the evolutionist hypothesis, I'm hostile to claims that it is anything more than a hypothesis.
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 31 2005, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE
Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
No they're not. UV penetrates many clouds, which is why you can sunburn on a cloudy day, and why many doctors recommend sunscreen even on cloudy days.
QUOTE (Verdad+Oct 31 2005, 09:56 PM)
Adoucette
clouds do not completely cover the earth at all times, or even close.
Today
Arthur
clouds do not completely cover the earth at all times, or even close.
Today
Arthur
QUOTE (nodoodahs+Oct 31 2005, 11:00 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 31 2005, 09:47 PM)
QUOTE
Several inches of water are quite sufficient to block UV.
Clouds are sufficient to block UV.
Arthur
No they're not. UV penetrates many clouds, which is why you can sunburn on a cloudy day, and why many doctors recommend sunscreen even on cloudy days.
Depends on the thickness of the clouds and the season.
Some UV does penetrate thin cloud layers. Very little through heavier cloud layers.
I doubt the amount left would be sufficient to cause the problem you mention, but then again, ever heard of SHADE?
Arthur
nodoodahs
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Dinosaur(teeth, skeletal features) to bird(flight feathers,wings)
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Dinosaur(teeth, skeletal features) to bird(flight feathers,wings)
There is an equal amount of scientific evidence for the following suppositions:
(1) invisible elves with supernatural powers flew out of my @ss last night, created the entire fossil record, and falsified all the history books and your memories to support the theory of evolution;
(2) an intelligent creator placed various more complex organisms on the planet at different times, perhaps as he was through making them;
(3) higher order beings sprang into being randomly from the not-quite-primordial soup, i.e. australiopithicus was organized from a bolt of lightning and a chemical pool;
(4) evolution.
In other words, none has scientific evidence. The evolutionists have supposition, and of those four, the evolutionist position is the most likely IMO, but it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Yes, you pulled something out of your a** alright. I think Steven J. Gould can probably correct your anal problem best.
I believe you need a lesson in what is fact, and what is supposition or theory. Lewontin needs it, too, please feel free to forward it to him if you see him.
If you don't mind I'll take SJGould's and Lewontin's word over yours about these things since you have no clue of what you're speaking about,OK???
Verdad
Soloved once told me it takes 21 repetitions for a child to understand something, that means we only have 16 or 17 more times to go before you understand this profound truth.
Soloved once told me it takes 21 repetitions for a child to understand something, that means we only have 16 or 17 more times to go before you understand this profound truth.
And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
What part of 50F below freezing to actual boiling water at 212F don't you understand??? That is a range of 272F degrees and we worry about global warming with a three degree(average) range of change!!! That means the Earth could be between half way to Venus's orbit to almost to Mars and still support life!!! This "careful balance" idea is just BS, life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for(is that five times or six???). On our planet we are having a hard time finding places where life DOESN'T exist.
I am correct, you distorted the facts in order to advance your agenda.
As to explaining Irreducable Complexity's nonexistance, you will find many posts explaining these facts to you if you just look them up in these forums. It seems every newbe who comes along must recieve their own personal explanation from me or others when they could find them for themselves with a little study. Why should I waste my time repeating myself when you won't accept my explanation anyway??? Maybe we need a FAQ with these debunkings so we could just direct you new people to that forum and we could move on to something new. Soloved recieved a short answer from me due to his habit of ignoring the answer and just repeating the question in different words, Adoucette did an admirable job explaining the possible sequence for mammary glands immediately after the posts you were citing.
By the way , for you and nodoodahs, mammary glands are a common feature on which branch of animal??? Would this not mean that ALL mammals once had a common source, the animal which first developed those glands???Hmmm?
Grumpy
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another.
I guess that about sums it up.
If there EVER was a quote that MOST CLEARLY indicated that the person making the quote, DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, this one is probably it.
One would THINK, that if one was going to argue against the theory of Evolution, one would have at least a passing acquaintance with it.
But I'm not even going to go there.
Lets just take the fossil record. If has NUMEROUS ONESIES and TWOSIES of various species. In fact if you remember the recent thread on feathered dinosaurs, each of the specimens when found was a NEW species. And only one specimen has been found of each.
Could these be the "act of evolving" finds you speak of?
The fact is a significant number of new species of ancient life forms are found all the time, and again, in usually singular or only a few examples. We have NO IDEA of the actual distribution because the act of becoming a fossil (for most life forms) is actually a fairly rare event. The finding of them now is likewise a rare event. To expect us to find the EXACT transition specie and then from the fossil evidence, be able to conclusively identify it as such, is asking a lot.
I do however refer you to my write up on the split from hard shell, leathery shell and moist shell laying reptiles. This ancient branch developed into the line that led to birds, dinosaurs/reptiles and mammals. The differences in the species at the point of split were simply in their egg. The rest of the animal's physiology was the same, so, given that HOW would one make a clear distinction based upon a fossil, if one did ALSO not find a good fossil of its egg?
Now today, in the mammalian line there are still early members alive who still LAY EGGS, yet they nurse their young, but then they still have the ancient method of secreting the "milk" from their hair follicles (they have no nipples) though the hair is concentrated and the sebaceous glands are enlarged and produce the lipid rich precursor to milk. So these animals, as well as any could most definitely be thought of as "in the act of evolving", in that they still retain many of the early changes made along the way to the placental form and mammary glands of more modern mammals. PS, if you have had the pleasure of intimacy with a woman, than you will probably be able to attest to the fact that the hair follicles around the nipple still occasionally show up, and even if they don't their enlarged presence is clearly visible surrounding the nipple.
Arthur
I know you feel anger (you wonder how I can tell, I'm sure), so I am sure you will sympathize with me when I say that I was slightly angry, instead of methodically planning my little scheme to brainwash you into thinking my way. This is a conversation; a discussion. Take away your conspiritory theories, and leave behind the intellect which I do appreciate (people skills aren't mandatory, but they would be appreciated too).
I know you feel anger (you wonder how I can tell, I'm sure), so I am sure you will sympathize with me when I say that I was slightly angry, instead of methodically planning my little scheme to brainwash you into thinking my way. This is a conversation; a discussion. Take away your conspiritory theories, and leave behind the intellect which I do appreciate (people skills aren't mandatory, but they would be appreciated too).
life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for(is that five times or six???).
You did not just tell me that nature is not constrained by my imagination, therefore we are still only on four or five. Smile.
That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.
Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare.
That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.
Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare.
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Carbon Dating (which you are so fond of the exactness of) has shown that Archaeopterix is younger than the first birds by (insert number here, I don't remember, but it is a positive, real number at least greater than a thousand).
And don't even try to bring in Archaeoraptor or Nebraska man (or is it Piltdown man - I get them so confused).
Grumpy: I'll make one if you want, as long as you agree to put these conversations from other forums that you talk about on the forum I make. Just tell me to do so. Or tell me not to do so, but tell me one way or the other so I know.
At the risk of repetition, what I was pointing out is that the range of orbits which would allow liquid water to exist is EXTREMELY wide. Europa, in orbit around Saturn, has a surface of solid ice,but, like plate teutonics on Earth, the surface is broken into plates, possibly indicating a liquid ocean under the surface ice. Mars, with 200f below nights and 40f below days may yet prove to harbor life underground.
The Earth has undersea vents that will keep the deep oceans liquid even if we have "Iceball Earth" extreme ice age. Yellowstone has geysers and pools that are constantly at boiling, yet they contain life. We humans are not the only or even the most important life on this planet, the bacteria and insects far outweigh all the other animal life. If we don't survive, maybe a superintellegent cockroach will one day dig up our bones.
At the risk of repetition, what I was pointing out is that the range of orbits which would allow liquid water to exist is EXTREMELY wide. Europa, in orbit around Saturn, has a surface of solid ice,but, like plate teutonics on Earth, the surface is broken into plates, possibly indicating a liquid ocean under the surface ice. Mars, with 200f below nights and 40f below days may yet prove to harbor life underground.
The Earth has undersea vents that will keep the deep oceans liquid even if we have "Iceball Earth" extreme ice age. Yellowstone has geysers and pools that are constantly at boiling, yet they contain life. We humans are not the only or even the most important life on this planet, the bacteria and insects far outweigh all the other animal life. If we don't survive, maybe a superintellegent cockroach will one day dig up our bones.
nature(life) is not constrained(is more adaptable) by your lack of imagination(than you give it credit for).
Different words, same meaning.
Here's one for your collection:
Hope this help.
Grumpy
QUOTE
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another. If you know of such a fossil, please, by all means, share the location of it with me.
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Dinosaur(teeth, skeletal features) to bird(flight feathers,wings)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another. If you know of such a fossil, please, by all means, share the location of it with me. |
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Dinosaur(teeth, skeletal features) to bird(flight feathers,wings)
There is an equal amount of scientific evidence for the following suppositions:
(1) invisible elves with supernatural powers flew out of my @ss last night, created the entire fossil record, and falsified all the history books and your memories to support the theory of evolution;
(2) an intelligent creator placed various more complex organisms on the planet at different times, perhaps as he was through making them;
(3) higher order beings sprang into being randomly from the not-quite-primordial soup, i.e. australiopithicus was organized from a bolt of lightning and a chemical pool;
(4) evolution.
In other words, none has scientific evidence. The evolutionists have supposition, and of those four, the evolutionist position is the most likely IMO, but it is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Yes, you pulled something out of your a** alright. I think Steven J. Gould can probably correct your anal problem best.
QUOTE
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution." Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981 |
I believe you need a lesson in what is fact, and what is supposition or theory. Lewontin needs it, too, please feel free to forward it to him if you see him.
If you don't mind I'll take SJGould's and Lewontin's word over yours about these things since you have no clue of what you're speaking about,OK???
Verdad
QUOTE
And that has to be the fourth or fifth time that I have seen that nature is not constrained by my imagination.
Soloved once told me it takes 21 repetitions for a child to understand something, that means we only have 16 or 17 more times to go before you understand this profound truth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And that has to be the fourth or fifth time that I have seen that nature is not constrained by my imagination. |
Soloved once told me it takes 21 repetitions for a child to understand something, that means we only have 16 or 17 more times to go before you understand this profound truth.
And just by showing that even just on earth there are places with liquid water all year round and places with no liquid water all year round, it seems to hurt your claim that there is a wide range of orbits.
What part of 50F below freezing to actual boiling water at 212F don't you understand??? That is a range of 272F degrees and we worry about global warming with a three degree(average) range of change!!! That means the Earth could be between half way to Venus's orbit to almost to Mars and still support life!!! This "careful balance" idea is just BS, life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for(is that five times or six???). On our planet we are having a hard time finding places where life DOESN'T exist.
QUOTE
You are correct. I misspoke.
I am correct, you distorted the facts in order to advance your agenda.
As to explaining Irreducable Complexity's nonexistance, you will find many posts explaining these facts to you if you just look them up in these forums. It seems every newbe who comes along must recieve their own personal explanation from me or others when they could find them for themselves with a little study. Why should I waste my time repeating myself when you won't accept my explanation anyway??? Maybe we need a FAQ with these debunkings so we could just direct you new people to that forum and we could move on to something new. Soloved recieved a short answer from me due to his habit of ignoring the answer and just repeating the question in different words, Adoucette did an admirable job explaining the possible sequence for mammary glands immediately after the posts you were citing.
By the way , for you and nodoodahs, mammary glands are a common feature on which branch of animal??? Would this not mean that ALL mammals once had a common source, the animal which first developed those glands???Hmmm?
Grumpy
You really are grumpy today. I don't want to get into you and noodoodahs argument about... Yeah. I think that's good enough for today I will talk to all of you that are acting like children (adoucette, this does not include you) tomorrow.
Goodnight and happy halloween
Goodnight and happy halloween
QUOTE (nodoodahs+Oct 31 2005, 10:57 PM)
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another.
I guess that about sums it up.
If there EVER was a quote that MOST CLEARLY indicated that the person making the quote, DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, this one is probably it.
One would THINK, that if one was going to argue against the theory of Evolution, one would have at least a passing acquaintance with it.
But I'm not even going to go there.
Lets just take the fossil record. If has NUMEROUS ONESIES and TWOSIES of various species. In fact if you remember the recent thread on feathered dinosaurs, each of the specimens when found was a NEW species. And only one specimen has been found of each.
Could these be the "act of evolving" finds you speak of?
The fact is a significant number of new species of ancient life forms are found all the time, and again, in usually singular or only a few examples. We have NO IDEA of the actual distribution because the act of becoming a fossil (for most life forms) is actually a fairly rare event. The finding of them now is likewise a rare event. To expect us to find the EXACT transition specie and then from the fossil evidence, be able to conclusively identify it as such, is asking a lot.
I do however refer you to my write up on the split from hard shell, leathery shell and moist shell laying reptiles. This ancient branch developed into the line that led to birds, dinosaurs/reptiles and mammals. The differences in the species at the point of split were simply in their egg. The rest of the animal's physiology was the same, so, given that HOW would one make a clear distinction based upon a fossil, if one did ALSO not find a good fossil of its egg?
Now today, in the mammalian line there are still early members alive who still LAY EGGS, yet they nurse their young, but then they still have the ancient method of secreting the "milk" from their hair follicles (they have no nipples) though the hair is concentrated and the sebaceous glands are enlarged and produce the lipid rich precursor to milk. So these animals, as well as any could most definitely be thought of as "in the act of evolving", in that they still retain many of the early changes made along the way to the placental form and mammary glands of more modern mammals. PS, if you have had the pleasure of intimacy with a woman, than you will probably be able to attest to the fact that the hair follicles around the nipple still occasionally show up, and even if they don't their enlarged presence is clearly visible surrounding the nipple.
Arthur
QUOTE
I am correct, you distorted the facts in order to advance your agenda.
I know you feel anger (you wonder how I can tell, I'm sure), so I am sure you will sympathize with me when I say that I was slightly angry, instead of methodically planning my little scheme to brainwash you into thinking my way. This is a conversation; a discussion. Take away your conspiritory theories, and leave behind the intellect which I do appreciate (people skills aren't mandatory, but they would be appreciated too).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am correct, you distorted the facts in order to advance your agenda. |
I know you feel anger (you wonder how I can tell, I'm sure), so I am sure you will sympathize with me when I say that I was slightly angry, instead of methodically planning my little scheme to brainwash you into thinking my way. This is a conversation; a discussion. Take away your conspiritory theories, and leave behind the intellect which I do appreciate (people skills aren't mandatory, but they would be appreciated too).
life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for(is that five times or six???).
You did not just tell me that nature is not constrained by my imagination, therefore we are still only on four or five. Smile.
QUOTE
What part of 50F below freezing to actual boiling water at 212F
That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.
Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What part of 50F below freezing to actual boiling water at 212F |
That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.
Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare.
Your knowledge needs to be expanded, so here is Archeoptrix
Carbon Dating (which you are so fond of the exactness of) has shown that Archaeopterix is younger than the first birds by (insert number here, I don't remember, but it is a positive, real number at least greater than a thousand).
And don't even try to bring in Archaeoraptor or Nebraska man (or is it Piltdown man - I get them so confused).
Grumpy
Out of all of us, you have the most knowledge of Science- therefore please help us out (we're having an argument)
If you could just answer the question without bias, I would be grateful
Can clouds block out UV rays?
If so, how thick would they have to be
what elements would they be made of
would they have been present at the beginning before the Ozone layer
and would they block long-range UV rays completely
Thank you much
Out of all of us, you have the most knowledge of Science- therefore please help us out (we're having an argument)
If you could just answer the question without bias, I would be grateful
Can clouds block out UV rays?
If so, how thick would they have to be
what elements would they be made of
would they have been present at the beginning before the Ozone layer
and would they block long-range UV rays completely
Thank you much
QUOTE
Maybe we need a FAQ with these debunkings so we could just direct you new people to that forum and we could move on to something new.
Grumpy: I'll make one if you want, as long as you agree to put these conversations from other forums that you talk about on the forum I make. Just tell me to do so. Or tell me not to do so, but tell me one way or the other so I know.
Verdad
I'm sure you have seen advertisements for sunglasses which "block harmful UVa and UVb rays". If a thin sheet of polycarbonate is capable of this feat, then several miles of water vapor and droplets would have no trouble doing the same. It only takes a few inches of ocean water to block all the UV from our sun. A heavy cloud cover(as when it is raining) blocks all UV as well.
Hope this helps
Grumpy
I'm sure you have seen advertisements for sunglasses which "block harmful UVa and UVb rays". If a thin sheet of polycarbonate is capable of this feat, then several miles of water vapor and droplets would have no trouble doing the same. It only takes a few inches of ocean water to block all the UV from our sun. A heavy cloud cover(as when it is raining) blocks all UV as well.
Hope this helps
Grumpy
QUOTE
That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare.
At the risk of repetition, what I was pointing out is that the range of orbits which would allow liquid water to exist is EXTREMELY wide. Europa, in orbit around Saturn, has a surface of solid ice,but, like plate teutonics on Earth, the surface is broken into plates, possibly indicating a liquid ocean under the surface ice. Mars, with 200f below nights and 40f below days may yet prove to harbor life underground.
The Earth has undersea vents that will keep the deep oceans liquid even if we have "Iceball Earth" extreme ice age. Yellowstone has geysers and pools that are constantly at boiling, yet they contain life. We humans are not the only or even the most important life on this planet, the bacteria and insects far outweigh all the other animal life. If we don't survive, maybe a superintellegent cockroach will one day dig up our bones.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is the range on earth, I think you are trying to tell me. I actually didn't think that there were places on the surface that high, but whatever.Anyways, If the temperature tange is like that just on Earth, which has a small diameter in relation to the solar system, then it would not take the earth to be much more far out at all either way for the entire planet to be either colder than -50 or hotter than 212. Life (besides bacteria (plus how many other things I am not sure, but not too many)) cannot stand these temperatures! If you really think so, then go to the places just on earth with these extreme temperatures without anything from civilization at all and see how you fare. |
At the risk of repetition, what I was pointing out is that the range of orbits which would allow liquid water to exist is EXTREMELY wide. Europa, in orbit around Saturn, has a surface of solid ice,but, like plate teutonics on Earth, the surface is broken into plates, possibly indicating a liquid ocean under the surface ice. Mars, with 200f below nights and 40f below days may yet prove to harbor life underground.
The Earth has undersea vents that will keep the deep oceans liquid even if we have "Iceball Earth" extreme ice age. Yellowstone has geysers and pools that are constantly at boiling, yet they contain life. We humans are not the only or even the most important life on this planet, the bacteria and insects far outweigh all the other animal life. If we don't survive, maybe a superintellegent cockroach will one day dig up our bones.
nature(life) is not constrained(is more adaptable) by your lack of imagination(than you give it credit for).
Different words, same meaning.
Here's one for your collection:
QUOTE
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Links:
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
References:
Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.
Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.
Further Reading:
Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5.
Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
Links:
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
References:
Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.
Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.
Further Reading:
Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5.
Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press.
Hope this help.
Grumpy
Verdad
Claim
Haeckel faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 81-109.
Behe, Michael, "Firing Line with William Buckley", PBS, 13 Dec. 1997.
Response:
Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)
The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.
Links:
Myers, P. Z., 2003. Wells and Haeckel's embryos: A review of chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
References:
Scientific American, 1849. Young Mamalia. Scientific American 4(51) (8 Sep.): 403. Reprinted in Scientific American 281(3) (Sep. 1999): 10.
Further Reading:
Pickett, Kurt M., John W. Wenzel and Steven W. Rising. 2005. Iconoclasts of evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells and the ontogeny of a fraud. The American Biology Teacher 67(5): 275-282. http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/pub/pickett.pdf
Richardson, M. K., J. Hanken, L. Selwood, G. M. Wright, R. J. Richards and C. Pieae, 1998. Haeckel, embryos, and evolution. Science 280: 983-986.
Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development. Biol. Rev. 77: 495-528. (technical)
That clears that up.
Grumpy
Thank you very much, Grumps, it does help. My problem with what Adoucette said is that I do not believe that such a cloud cover would be constant over all parts of the earth at all times. If even UV rays broke through for 2 minutes out of 1 year that year of development would likely go down the drain.
Okay... I'll take it. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, takes the tally up to an exact count of five or six.
Okay... I'll take it. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, takes the tally up to an exact count of five or six.
may yet
You are sarcastic; I am skeptical
You are sarcastic; I am skeptical
superintellegent cockroach
Now that I'll buy
Although I didn't ask about that one, I do find it interesting. I will put it on the forum that hopefully I will make tomorrow
Anyway, that is interesting. For step one, how did the photosensitive cell come about? Why was it useful enough to be selected by 'seleccion naturale? I do not understand step 2 in the least bit; I agree with the keeping of step three but am uncertain of how/why it came to be in the first place; Step 4 and 5 are fine in my book; as is step 6; step 7 is a little shady as it is supposed to be an accident, but other than that fine.
Cool.
QUOTE
I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have seen textbooks that show Haeckel's embryos as proof of evolution, and those have been proved since 1894 to be false. |
Claim
Haeckel faked his pictures of embryos to make them look more alike than they are.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 81-109.
Behe, Michael, "Firing Line with William Buckley", PBS, 13 Dec. 1997.
Response:
Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Within a group, early embryos do show many similarities. For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail. These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks, arthropods, and annelids. These similarities have been long known. Professor Agassiz in 1849, for example, said, "We find, too, that the young bat, or bird, or the young serpent, in certain periods of their growth, resemble one another so much that he would defy any one to tell one from the other--or distinguish between a bat and a snake." (Scientific American 1849)
The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.
Links:
Myers, P. Z., 2003. Wells and Haeckel's embryos: A review of chapter 5 of Icons of Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html
References:
Scientific American, 1849. Young Mamalia. Scientific American 4(51) (8 Sep.): 403. Reprinted in Scientific American 281(3) (Sep. 1999): 10.
Further Reading:
Pickett, Kurt M., John W. Wenzel and Steven W. Rising. 2005. Iconoclasts of evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells and the ontogeny of a fraud. The American Biology Teacher 67(5): 275-282. http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/pub/pickett.pdf
Richardson, M. K., J. Hanken, L. Selwood, G. M. Wright, R. J. Richards and C. Pieae, 1998. Haeckel, embryos, and evolution. Science 280: 983-986.
Richardson, M. K. and G. Keuck, 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development. Biol. Rev. 77: 495-528. (technical)
That clears that up.
Grumpy
QUOTE
A heavy cloud cover(as when it is raining) blocks all UV as well.
Thank you very much, Grumps, it does help. My problem with what Adoucette said is that I do not believe that such a cloud cover would be constant over all parts of the earth at all times. If even UV rays broke through for 2 minutes out of 1 year that year of development would likely go down the drain.
Although I do appreciate that much of science has corrected itself, I still maintain both that the exact drawings of Haeckel's embryos are used as proof and that a scientific american from 1849 is a little early for me to consider it to have relevance besides food for thought (but that is what this is all about, isn't it? Smile). Embryos do look similar at the middle stage, but they certainly do not look as similar as Haeckel portrayed them.
QUOTE
QUOTE
nature(life) is not constrained(is more adaptable) by your lack of imagination(than you give it credit for).
Different words, same meaning.
nature(life) is not constrained(is more adaptable) by your lack of imagination(than you give it credit for).
Different words, same meaning.
Okay... I'll take it. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, takes the tally up to an exact count of five or six.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE nature(life) is not constrained(is more adaptable) by your lack of imagination(than you give it credit for). Different words, same meaning. |
Okay... I'll take it. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, takes the tally up to an exact count of five or six.
may yet
QUOTE
possibly indicating
You are sarcastic; I am skeptical
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| possibly indicating |
You are sarcastic; I am skeptical
superintellegent cockroach
Now that I'll buy
QUOTE
QUOTE
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust
Although I didn't ask about that one, I do find it interesting. I will put it on the forum that hopefully I will make tomorrow
Anyway, that is interesting. For step one, how did the photosensitive cell come about? Why was it useful enough to be selected by 'seleccion naturale? I do not understand step 2 in the least bit; I agree with the keeping of step three but am uncertain of how/why it came to be in the first place; Step 4 and 5 are fine in my book; as is step 6; step 7 is a little shady as it is supposed to be an accident, but other than that fine.
Cool.
Verdad
Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves.
For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail.
These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history.
The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.
As I said, that takes care of that.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Embryos do look similar at the middle stage, but they certainly do not look as similar as Haeckel portrayed them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Embryos do look similar at the middle stage, but they certainly do not look as similar as Haeckel portrayed them. |
Haeckel's pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves.
For example, all vertebrates develop a notochord, body segments, pharyngeal gill pouches, and a post-anal tail.
These fundamental similarities indicate a common evolutionary history.
The embryos also show some differences, which Haeckel glossed over. However, differences should also be expected, since the animals are not all equally related. It is the pattern of both similarities and differences that displays patterns of descent. Organisms that are less closely related are expected to look less similar.
When Haeckel's inaccuracies were exposed, authors started using corrected versions. Science tends to be self-correcting.
As I said, that takes care of that.
Grumpy
Verdad
Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism??? If single cells can develope photosynthesis it is only a very small step to be able to tell when that process is occuring and move up or down in the water column to regulate exposure to light to survivable levels. Is this the way it occured??? We don't know and may never know, but it is not irreducably complex if we can see logical steps(photosynthesis,light detection,variable bouyency) with each step having usefulness for the organism. In the above case I was talking about very simple single cells, multicellular, more advanced lifeforms are even more able to adapt to their environment.
Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism??? If single cells can develope photosynthesis it is only a very small step to be able to tell when that process is occuring and move up or down in the water column to regulate exposure to light to survivable levels. Is this the way it occured??? We don't know and may never know, but it is not irreducably complex if we can see logical steps(photosynthesis,light detection,variable bouyency) with each step having usefulness for the organism. In the above case I was talking about very simple single cells, multicellular, more advanced lifeforms are even more able to adapt to their environment.
If even UV rays broke through for 2 minutes out of 1 year that year of development would likely go down the drain.
Only for those organisms unfortunate enough to recieve a lethal dose of radiation. Those deep enough in the water will quickly replace those killed by exposure. And, just as microbes become resistant to drugs when exposed to them, resistance to low levels of exposure to UV would tend to develop rather quickly in the survivors, especially if the atmospheric conditions of the cooling Earth caused cloudy conditions to be the norm, cutting down drastically on the amount of UV reaching the surface(a likely scenario).
Grumpy
I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place.
I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/...ducible_com.php
There was so many things wrong with the comments below the above article and with Adoucette's response to it as well. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot. He made a scientific experiment that focused on one facet of evolution, and then answered honestly about the limitations of his experiment. He never tried to pass it off as disproving evolution, or proving ID. He simply proved the extreme problems with one facet of evolution. Thus, he did not shoot himself in the foot in any way shape or form.
The commentor on the article severely misrepresents Behe's work. Behe does not say that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. He says that a direct evolutionary path cannot have produced an irreducibly complex system. He also says that an indirect evolutionary path is possible, but the probabilities against an indirect path grow exponentially (exponentially is an understatement) as the system grows more complex. With a simple enough irreducibly complex system like the ones used in Behe's experiment, I have no doubt that with an extremely large population and an extremely large amount of time, the system could have evolved indirectly. But with more complex irreducibly complex systems, the odds of even just a few of them evolving indirectly are - dare I say it - almost beyond human comprehension. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot, or disprove evolution, or even try. He simply disproved one small facet of evolution, which he did objectively.
I still stand that the commentor on the article severely misrepresented Behe's work, but perhaps I missed something within the article... Please, quote what you mean, or explain.
That is completely right.
That is completely right.
Its been said before but from what grumpy has just said, whenever and ID person says something is "irreduciably complex" its excatly the same as saying "we cant think of a way evolution can evolve this, and since WE cant think of a way its obvious that there is no way. Therefore evolution is wrong, god is good, QED"
That is not. Where are you getting this? I am sure that there are some creationists who use flimsy arguments, just as there are evolutionists who do. But in neither case do those people represent the entire view.
Whether looking in the mirror makes you say "Wow, look at how we have evolved so perfectly" or "Wow, look at how perfectly God made us" is entirely up to you. Neither view is wrong, but neither view proves anything at all.
And by the way, your appendix has an important role in you immune system.
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
I am confused by your first statement, because 185 and 254 are both numbers that are lower than 380.
But anyways, your earlier comment about sunbathing was not conclusive, because you seem to forget that we have an ozone layer now. And now you are saying to me that comparing the two are not conclusive. Trust me, I know! I have been trying to get you to see that!
But, on the shade topic, sure, life could have formed under an overhang, but all life is not underground at the moment (as far as I know), which means that at some time, life must have crawled back out from under the overhang. And died. Your argument is once again, inconclusive.
QUOTE
For step one, how did the photosensitive cell come about?
Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism??? If single cells can develope photosynthesis it is only a very small step to be able to tell when that process is occuring and move up or down in the water column to regulate exposure to light to survivable levels. Is this the way it occured??? We don't know and may never know, but it is not irreducably complex if we can see logical steps(photosynthesis,light detection,variable bouyency) with each step having usefulness for the organism. In the above case I was talking about very simple single cells, multicellular, more advanced lifeforms are even more able to adapt to their environment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For step one, how did the photosensitive cell come about? |
Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism??? If single cells can develope photosynthesis it is only a very small step to be able to tell when that process is occuring and move up or down in the water column to regulate exposure to light to survivable levels. Is this the way it occured??? We don't know and may never know, but it is not irreducably complex if we can see logical steps(photosynthesis,light detection,variable bouyency) with each step having usefulness for the organism. In the above case I was talking about very simple single cells, multicellular, more advanced lifeforms are even more able to adapt to their environment.
If even UV rays broke through for 2 minutes out of 1 year that year of development would likely go down the drain.
Only for those organisms unfortunate enough to recieve a lethal dose of radiation. Those deep enough in the water will quickly replace those killed by exposure. And, just as microbes become resistant to drugs when exposed to them, resistance to low levels of exposure to UV would tend to develop rather quickly in the survivors, especially if the atmospheric conditions of the cooling Earth caused cloudy conditions to be the norm, cutting down drastically on the amount of UV reaching the surface(a likely scenario).
Grumpy
Its been said before but from what grumpy has just said, whenever and ID person says something is "irreduciably complex" its excatly the same as saying "we cant think of a way evolution can evolve this, and since WE cant think of a way its obvious that there is no way. Therefore evolution is wrong, god is good, QED"
No proof of A is no equilivant to proof of ~A
No proof of A is no equilivant to proof of ~A
On UV light.
While UV is composed of wavelengths < 380 nm, only the wavelengths of UV at 185 nm and 254 nm are useful for sterilization.
Thus comparing the effect of UV on sunbathing and UV on the ability to break up nucleaic acids is quite misleading.
But the WHOLE issue is silly because of the potential for NATURAL SHADE, so it really doesn't matter if the early earth is being bombarded by UV rays as long as some places on it are not, like the north sides of rocks at high latitudes, caves, overhangs etc etc etc.
Arthur
While UV is composed of wavelengths < 380 nm, only the wavelengths of UV at 185 nm and 254 nm are useful for sterilization.
Thus comparing the effect of UV on sunbathing and UV on the ability to break up nucleaic acids is quite misleading.
But the WHOLE issue is silly because of the potential for NATURAL SHADE, so it really doesn't matter if the early earth is being bombarded by UV rays as long as some places on it are not, like the north sides of rocks at high latitudes, caves, overhangs etc etc etc.
Arthur
QUOTE (Verdad+Nov 2 2005, 02:38 AM)
For step one, how did the photosensitive cell come about? Why was it useful enough to be selected by 'seleccion naturale
For evolution of the eye see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_044_01.html
Which also is an excellent proof of evolution in that we share the same master gene (Pax-6) responsible for eyes with all other animals with eyes. It is found in insects, in frogs and in the most primitive creature we know that has eyes, the flatworm.
Arthur
For evolution of the eye see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/...p/l_044_01.html
Which also is an excellent proof of evolution in that we share the same master gene (Pax-6) responsible for eyes with all other animals with eyes. It is found in insects, in frogs and in the most primitive creature we know that has eyes, the flatworm.
Arthur
Verdad
You need to see this info.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/...ducible_com.php
Behe's only peer reviewed article proves Irreduceable Complexity a myth.
Grumpy
You need to see this info.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/...ducible_com.php
Behe's only peer reviewed article proves Irreduceable Complexity a myth.
Grumpy
To be honest, Grumpy, Arthur and Co. are almost impossibly erudite on this subject, I have learned loads from each of them (and had a good laugh as Grumpy goes Science Samurai) but I think the most convincing evidence of evolution is what you can see in the mirror: Such as goosebumps, which are meant to insulate us but are more or less useless without a thick coat of fur, your appendix, a leftover from our herbivore ancestors, and our sinuses which most likely had receptors for pheromones, a common chemical communique among so-called "lower" species.
And to tap a bit of philosophy I think the idea of a diety capable of creating a self-perfecting system, way cooler than somebody who just snaps his fingers to make it happen. For me it's a matter of elegance and finesse...
And to tap a bit of philosophy I think the idea of a diety capable of creating a self-perfecting system, way cooler than somebody who just snaps his fingers to make it happen. For me it's a matter of elegance and finesse...
Yeah, you know "Dieties" those super skinny models from the mid nineties that kickstarted the universe through heroin hallucinations.
I meant "Deities".
I meant "Deities".
Grumpy,
I had a read through that article, and even my limited intellect and knowledge of the subject found it hilarious. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Prof. Behe
Cap'n,
You're not the only one who has learned a lot from these fine fellows. Most of what I know about this came from their posts. The quality of their arguments and explanations of very complex stuff is fantastic, they should be teachers. Or something.
(yeah ... can I call you Cap'n, by the way, and shout "AHOY!!" whenever I address you?)
Cheers
Kaeroll.
I had a read through that article, and even my limited intellect and knowledge of the subject found it hilarious. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, Prof. Behe
Cap'n,
You're not the only one who has learned a lot from these fine fellows. Most of what I know about this came from their posts. The quality of their arguments and explanations of very complex stuff is fantastic, they should be teachers. Or something.
(yeah ... can I call you Cap'n, by the way, and shout "AHOY!!" whenever I address you?)
Cheers
Kaeroll.
Capn Caveman, you wouldn't happen to be Pastafarian, would you? Because we need as many pirates (arrh!) as possible in order to help combat global warming!
In His Noodly Image,
Ramen!
In His Noodly Image,
Ramen!
Sinned34,
Pirates, while totally seaworthy, aren't my really my thing, (Somebody had to learn form ol' Ahab's example right?) But fighting global warming is!
Pirates, while totally seaworthy, aren't my really my thing, (Somebody had to learn form ol' Ahab's example right?) But fighting global warming is!
QUOTE
Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism???
I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Remember that UV radiation you were so worried about??? Wouldn't being able to detect the presence of said radiation and movement away from it be a good survival mechanism??? |
I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/...ducible_com.php
There was so many things wrong with the comments below the above article and with Adoucette's response to it as well. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot. He made a scientific experiment that focused on one facet of evolution, and then answered honestly about the limitations of his experiment. He never tried to pass it off as disproving evolution, or proving ID. He simply proved the extreme problems with one facet of evolution. Thus, he did not shoot himself in the foot in any way shape or form.
The commentor on the article severely misrepresents Behe's work. Behe does not say that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. He says that a direct evolutionary path cannot have produced an irreducibly complex system. He also says that an indirect evolutionary path is possible, but the probabilities against an indirect path grow exponentially (exponentially is an understatement) as the system grows more complex. With a simple enough irreducibly complex system like the ones used in Behe's experiment, I have no doubt that with an extremely large population and an extremely large amount of time, the system could have evolved indirectly. But with more complex irreducibly complex systems, the odds of even just a few of them evolving indirectly are - dare I say it - almost beyond human comprehension. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot, or disprove evolution, or even try. He simply disproved one small facet of evolution, which he did objectively.
I don't feel he disproved anything ... he showed that with a limited population and only one of the mechanisms present in evolution, 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, given a not unreasonable amount of time.
Then again, I'm not an expert on this, by far.
Then again, I'm not an expert on this, by far.
Sorry, that was Kaeroll's response, not Adoucette's, which I spoke of. Oh and by the way, Kaeroll, I think Grumpy is a teacher.
QUOTE
I don't feel he disproved anything ... he showed that with a limited population and only one of the mechanisms present in evolution, 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, given a not unreasonable amount of time.
Then again, I'm not an expert on this, by far.
Then again, I'm not an expert on this, by far.
I still stand that the commentor on the article severely misrepresented Behe's work, but perhaps I missed something within the article... Please, quote what you mean, or explain.
QUOTE
No proof of A is no equilivant to proof of ~A
That is completely right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No proof of A is no equilivant to proof of ~A |
That is completely right.
Its been said before but from what grumpy has just said, whenever and ID person says something is "irreduciably complex" its excatly the same as saying "we cant think of a way evolution can evolve this, and since WE cant think of a way its obvious that there is no way. Therefore evolution is wrong, god is good, QED"
That is not. Where are you getting this? I am sure that there are some creationists who use flimsy arguments, just as there are evolutionists who do. But in neither case do those people represent the entire view.
QUOTE
I think the most convincing evidence of evolution is what you can see in the mirror: Such as goosebumps, which are meant to insulate us but are more or less useless without a thick coat of fur, your appendix, a leftover from our herbivore ancestors, and our sinuses which most likely had receptors for pheromones, a common chemical communique among so-called "lower" species.
Whether looking in the mirror makes you say "Wow, look at how we have evolved so perfectly" or "Wow, look at how perfectly God made us" is entirely up to you. Neither view is wrong, but neither view proves anything at all.
And by the way, your appendix has an important role in you immune system.
QUOTE
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
QUOTE
On UV light.
While UV is composed of wavelengths < 380 nm, only the wavelengths of UV at 185 nm and 254 nm are useful for sterilization.
Thus comparing the effect of UV on sunbathing and UV on the ability to break up nucleaic acids is quite misleading.
But the WHOLE issue is silly because of the potential for NATURAL SHADE, so it really doesn't matter if the early earth is being bombarded by UV rays as long as some places on it are not, like the north sides of rocks at high latitudes, caves, overhangs etc etc etc.
Arthur
While UV is composed of wavelengths < 380 nm, only the wavelengths of UV at 185 nm and 254 nm are useful for sterilization.
Thus comparing the effect of UV on sunbathing and UV on the ability to break up nucleaic acids is quite misleading.
But the WHOLE issue is silly because of the potential for NATURAL SHADE, so it really doesn't matter if the early earth is being bombarded by UV rays as long as some places on it are not, like the north sides of rocks at high latitudes, caves, overhangs etc etc etc.
Arthur
I am confused by your first statement, because 185 and 254 are both numbers that are lower than 380.
But anyways, your earlier comment about sunbathing was not conclusive, because you seem to forget that we have an ozone layer now. And now you are saying to me that comparing the two are not conclusive. Trust me, I know! I have been trying to get you to see that!
But, on the shade topic, sure, life could have formed under an overhang, but all life is not underground at the moment (as far as I know), which means that at some time, life must have crawled back out from under the overhang. And died. Your argument is once again, inconclusive.
QUOTE (Verdad+Nov 5 2005, 02:10 PM)
With a simple enough irreducibly complex system like the ones used in Behe's experiment, I have no doubt that with an extremely large population and an extremely large amount of time, the system could have evolved indirectly. But with more complex irreducibly complex systems, the odds of even just a few of them evolving indirectly are - dare I say it - almost beyond human comprehension. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot, or disprove evolution, or even try. He simply disproved one small facet of evolution, which he did objectively.
Verdad,
I believe the gist of the cross examination was to show that in Behe's experiment, the amount of prokaryotes contained in less than one ton of soil would naturally evolve the discussed mutation in less than 20,000 years. This is hardly "an extremely large population and an extremely large amount of time" as you state. Given the amount of soil on the earth (and implied huge population of prokaryotes), said mutation would occur in significantly less than 20,000 years. Contrary to your claim of disproving one small facet of evolution, his experiment showed that this mutation could happen in an insignificant amount of time, evolutionally speaking.
Verdad,
I believe the gist of the cross examination was to show that in Behe's experiment, the amount of prokaryotes contained in less than one ton of soil would naturally evolve the discussed mutation in less than 20,000 years. This is hardly "an extremely large population and an extremely large amount of time" as you state. Given the amount of soil on the earth (and implied huge population of prokaryotes), said mutation would occur in significantly less than 20,000 years. Contrary to your claim of disproving one small facet of evolution, his experiment showed that this mutation could happen in an insignificant amount of time, evolutionally speaking.
Verdad
The symbal adoucette used(<)means "less than". The wave length of "less than" 380nm means all wavelengths will be less than 380nm thus 185 and 254 are valid.
The symbal adoucette used(<)means "less than". The wave length of "less than" 380nm means all wavelengths will be less than 380nm thus 185 and 254 are valid.
But anyways, your earlier comment about sunbathing was not conclusive, because you seem to forget that we have an ozone layer now. And now you are saying to me that comparing the two are not conclusive. Trust me, I know! I have been trying to get you to see that!
But, on the shade topic, sure, life could have formed under an overhang, but all life is not underground at the moment (as far as I know), which means that at some time, life must have crawled back out from under the overhang. And died. Your argument is once again, inconclusive.
Once again you display an unjustified tendency to think in terms of the surface of the Earth. The earliest life probably began in the oceans of Earth, most likely(because of favorable conditions) in the deep ocean near Black Smoker undersea vents, safe from any UV radiation. Even in shalower waters a few inches of water is all that is required to block all UV radiation. The arguement is still valid.
And as I pointed out, single cells developed photosynthesis early in the history of life(hence the oxygen atmosphere). It is a very simple step for that photosynthesis to create changes within the cell such that the cell could detect the amount of light by measuring the amount of photosynthesis it produces, thus a "light detecting" process. By varying the bouyancy of the cell in reverse proportion to the light striking the cell the cell could regulate the amount of exposure to UV to survivable levels.
And as I pointed out, single cells developed photosynthesis early in the history of life(hence the oxygen atmosphere). It is a very simple step for that photosynthesis to create changes within the cell such that the cell could detect the amount of light by measuring the amount of photosynthesis it produces, thus a "light detecting" process. By varying the bouyancy of the cell in reverse proportion to the light striking the cell the cell could regulate the amount of exposure to UV to survivable levels.
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
The difference is we have scientific evidence supporting our opinion, you do not.
Behe was cross examined about his contention of IC due to the calculations of probability contained in his one peer reviewed article. The cross examination showed that even though Behe used only one(of many) possible mechanisms of change in evolution and he stated that due to low probability evolution was unlikely, that in actuality,even using the worst case for evolution, the changes in his study could occur in a reasonable time period(20,000 years). In fact, if he had used the actual number of bacteria on Earth, the change would occur several times a day. He didn't shoot himself in the foot, he blew his whole leg off!!! He proved there were NO problems with evolution, even when he tried to stack the deck, very embarasing!!!
As Kaeroll said:
Behe was cross examined about his contention of IC due to the calculations of probability contained in his one peer reviewed article. The cross examination showed that even though Behe used only one(of many) possible mechanisms of change in evolution and he stated that due to low probability evolution was unlikely, that in actuality,even using the worst case for evolution, the changes in his study could occur in a reasonable time period(20,000 years). In fact, if he had used the actual number of bacteria on Earth, the change would occur several times a day. He didn't shoot himself in the foot, he blew his whole leg off!!! He proved there were NO problems with evolution, even when he tried to stack the deck, very embarasing!!!
As Kaeroll said:
I don't feel he disproved anything ... he showed that with a limited population and only one of the mechanisms present in evolution, 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, given a not unreasonable amount of time.
And he was absolutely correct, There are no Irreducable Complexities because(all together now) Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination (number 5 or 6)
Grumpy
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
It wasn't about homology.
The embryonic creation of a fly's eye and our eye is controlled by the SAME gene, Pax-6
Turns out this gene is common to all animals with eyes.
Arthur
QUOTE
I am confused by your first statement, because 185 and 254 are both numbers that are lower than 380.
The symbal adoucette used(<)means "less than". The wave length of "less than" 380nm means all wavelengths will be less than 380nm thus 185 and 254 are valid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am confused by your first statement, because 185 and 254 are both numbers that are lower than 380. |
The symbal adoucette used(<)means "less than". The wave length of "less than" 380nm means all wavelengths will be less than 380nm thus 185 and 254 are valid.
But anyways, your earlier comment about sunbathing was not conclusive, because you seem to forget that we have an ozone layer now. And now you are saying to me that comparing the two are not conclusive. Trust me, I know! I have been trying to get you to see that!
But, on the shade topic, sure, life could have formed under an overhang, but all life is not underground at the moment (as far as I know), which means that at some time, life must have crawled back out from under the overhang. And died. Your argument is once again, inconclusive.
Once again you display an unjustified tendency to think in terms of the surface of the Earth. The earliest life probably began in the oceans of Earth, most likely(because of favorable conditions) in the deep ocean near Black Smoker undersea vents, safe from any UV radiation. Even in shalower waters a few inches of water is all that is required to block all UV radiation. The arguement is still valid.
QUOTE
I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place.
And as I pointed out, single cells developed photosynthesis early in the history of life(hence the oxygen atmosphere). It is a very simple step for that photosynthesis to create changes within the cell such that the cell could detect the amount of light by measuring the amount of photosynthesis it produces, thus a "light detecting" process. By varying the bouyancy of the cell in reverse proportion to the light striking the cell the cell could regulate the amount of exposure to UV to survivable levels.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I believe that I mentioned that with the case of a photosensitve cell, my worry was not with why it would be kept (that was my worry with a few other components) but how it would get there in the first place. |
And as I pointed out, single cells developed photosynthesis early in the history of life(hence the oxygen atmosphere). It is a very simple step for that photosynthesis to create changes within the cell such that the cell could detect the amount of light by measuring the amount of photosynthesis it produces, thus a "light detecting" process. By varying the bouyancy of the cell in reverse proportion to the light striking the cell the cell could regulate the amount of exposure to UV to survivable levels.
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
The difference is we have scientific evidence supporting our opinion, you do not.
QUOTE
There was so many things wrong with the comments below the above article and with Adoucette's response to it as well. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot. He made a scientific experiment that focused on one facet of evolution, and then answered honestly about the limitations of his experiment. He never tried to pass it off as disproving evolution, or proving ID. He simply proved the extreme problems with one facet of evolution. Thus, he did not shoot himself in the foot in any way shape or form.
Behe was cross examined about his contention of IC due to the calculations of probability contained in his one peer reviewed article. The cross examination showed that even though Behe used only one(of many) possible mechanisms of change in evolution and he stated that due to low probability evolution was unlikely, that in actuality,even using the worst case for evolution, the changes in his study could occur in a reasonable time period(20,000 years). In fact, if he had used the actual number of bacteria on Earth, the change would occur several times a day. He didn't shoot himself in the foot, he blew his whole leg off!!! He proved there were NO problems with evolution, even when he tried to stack the deck, very embarasing!!!
As Kaeroll said:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There was so many things wrong with the comments below the above article and with Adoucette's response to it as well. Behe did not shoot himself in the foot. He made a scientific experiment that focused on one facet of evolution, and then answered honestly about the limitations of his experiment. He never tried to pass it off as disproving evolution, or proving ID. He simply proved the extreme problems with one facet of evolution. Thus, he did not shoot himself in the foot in any way shape or form. |
Behe was cross examined about his contention of IC due to the calculations of probability contained in his one peer reviewed article. The cross examination showed that even though Behe used only one(of many) possible mechanisms of change in evolution and he stated that due to low probability evolution was unlikely, that in actuality,even using the worst case for evolution, the changes in his study could occur in a reasonable time period(20,000 years). In fact, if he had used the actual number of bacteria on Earth, the change would occur several times a day. He didn't shoot himself in the foot, he blew his whole leg off!!! He proved there were NO problems with evolution, even when he tried to stack the deck, very embarasing!!!
As Kaeroll said:
I don't feel he disproved anything ... he showed that with a limited population and only one of the mechanisms present in evolution, 'irreducibly complex' systems can evolve, given a not unreasonable amount of time.
And he was absolutely correct, There are no Irreducable Complexities because(all together now) Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination (number 5 or 6)
Grumpy
QUOTE (Verdad+Nov 5 2005, 02:48 PM)
QUOTE
Great article, explains the similarities between our eyes and fly eyes. But homology gets us nowhere in a creation evolution argument. Looking at the fingers in the bat and dolphin, an evolutionist might say that since they are similar, it proves common descent, while a creationist might say that it proves ID because we are seeing a common theme and buildin blocks threaded through life.
It's all about perspective.
It wasn't about homology.
The embryonic creation of a fly's eye and our eye is controlled by the SAME gene, Pax-6
Turns out this gene is common to all animals with eyes.
Arthur
Verdad,
QUOTE (Verdad+Nov 5 2005, 02:17 PM)
I still stand that the commentor on the article severely misrepresented Behe's work, but perhaps I missed something within the article... Please, quote what you mean, or explain.
Fair enough - you're as entitled to your opinion as I am, but I'll try to explain where I'm coming from, as you asked so nicely
The page introduction summarises Behe's paper as an example of an 'irreducibly complex' system, which is named as a disulphide bond by what seems to be a quote from his paper. I have no reason to disbelieve the author when (s)he states that:
Upon reading through the court transcript, the 'gist' I got of the conclusion of Behe's simulation was that, in a sample of 1 billion prokaryotes evolving by mutation alone, if no intermediate stages conferred an advantage to the organism overall, it would take 100 million generations to evolve. This would, according to Behe, take 20,000 years in a lab, so it's therefore fair to assume that in a sample that size in nature it'd take about the same time. If more time and organisms are available to evolve, it'd happen quicker. The research was limited by the fact that it ignored other processes of evolution.
The transcript then goes on to explain that there are far more organisms in a single ton of soil than in Behe's simulation, and has been this way for a long time. Now, as you say the author's commentary on the transcript is unfair, I'll state my own conclusions from the transcript. I'd say the study suggests that, if complex structures can evolve in a limited population by limited mechanisms in a relatively short time, then given all the possible mechanisms and far more population to work with, complex structures could evolve pretty quickly. This, to me, suggests that 'irreducible complexity' is a poor argument against evolution. Given that Behe is a proponent of this argument, I'd therefore say he did shoot himself in the foot.
Grumpy put that much better than I did, but there you go - that's my justification for my opinion. I hope my summary isn't too vague or inaccurate; I'm not an expert in this and had to re-read some sections of the transcript to fully understand the method and conclusions of the study. As such, in putting it into my own words, I may have lost some of the meaning.
Upon reading through the court transcript, the 'gist' I got of the conclusion of Behe's simulation was that, in a sample of 1 billion prokaryotes evolving by mutation alone, if no intermediate stages conferred an advantage to the organism overall, it would take 100 million generations to evolve. This would, according to Behe, take 20,000 years in a lab, so it's therefore fair to assume that in a sample that size in nature it'd take about the same time. If more time and organisms are available to evolve, it'd happen quicker. The research was limited by the fact that it ignored other processes of evolution.
The transcript then goes on to explain that there are far more organisms in a single ton of soil than in Behe's simulation, and has been this way for a long time. Now, as you say the author's commentary on the transcript is unfair, I'll state my own conclusions from the transcript. I'd say the study suggests that, if complex structures can evolve in a limited population by limited mechanisms in a relatively short time, then given all the possible mechanisms and far more population to work with, complex structures could evolve pretty quickly. This, to me, suggests that 'irreducible complexity' is a poor argument against evolution. Given that Behe is a proponent of this argument, I'd therefore say he did shoot himself in the foot.
Grumpy put that much better than I did, but there you go - that's my justification for my opinion. I hope my summary isn't too vague or inaccurate; I'm not an expert in this and had to re-read some sections of the transcript to fully understand the method and conclusions of the study. As such, in putting it into my own words, I may have lost some of the meaning.
here are no Irreducable Complexities because(all together now) Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination
Perhaps you should pass that saying onto the people defending evolution/attacking ID in the courts - it's catchy.
Kaeroll
Every creature that has ever been fossilized, was done so during the act of evolving from one species to another.
Prove it.
Some animals have some of these qualities - gentleness, meekness, etc. My brother's hamster is gentle and meek, for crying out loud.
Some animals have some of these qualities - gentleness, meekness, etc. My brother's hamster is gentle and meek, for crying out loud.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals can develop some of these traits. Thus disproving everything written in the Bible.
See the error in the logic?
Your rhetoric is condescending and patronising. If you want to be treated with respect, try giving some first.
Animals develop none of these traits.
Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
True, other animals are not human, but humans ARE animals.
The traits you mention are found in the animal kingdom, INCLUDING Altruism.
You might think that unlike the traits that Grumpy showed to be found in his dog, a trait like Altruism would be a "human only" trait.
Not so.
Check out Vampire bat behavior.
Finally, the fact that HUMANS are highly intelligent, and thus have evolved language and in doing so have created a society and described these traits IN NO WAY disproves evolution. If man were wiped out tomorrow, given sufficient time it is highly likely that a new intelligent primate would evolve. It would probably resemble us to a reasonable degree, but it would also be a decidedly unique species.
Arthur
PS, sure we could go back and find our posts that refute the posts that you are making with the VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL ones first made by SoSoLoved.
But, why should WE do all the work?
Why don't YOU do us all a favor and READ the thread.
The answers to MOST of your posts have already been written.
I'd say you might learn something, but that might be hoping for too much.
Fair enough - you're as entitled to your opinion as I am, but I'll try to explain where I'm coming from, as you asked so nicely
The page introduction summarises Behe's paper as an example of an 'irreducibly complex' system, which is named as a disulphide bond by what seems to be a quote from his paper. I have no reason to disbelieve the author when (s)he states that:
QUOTE
This paper has been lauded by ID advocates as an excellent example of ID-stimulated research. The DI has listed it as an example of genuine peer reviewed research that supports ID. William Dembski has declared that Behe and Snoke's research "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution."
Upon reading through the court transcript, the 'gist' I got of the conclusion of Behe's simulation was that, in a sample of 1 billion prokaryotes evolving by mutation alone, if no intermediate stages conferred an advantage to the organism overall, it would take 100 million generations to evolve. This would, according to Behe, take 20,000 years in a lab, so it's therefore fair to assume that in a sample that size in nature it'd take about the same time. If more time and organisms are available to evolve, it'd happen quicker. The research was limited by the fact that it ignored other processes of evolution.
The transcript then goes on to explain that there are far more organisms in a single ton of soil than in Behe's simulation, and has been this way for a long time. Now, as you say the author's commentary on the transcript is unfair, I'll state my own conclusions from the transcript. I'd say the study suggests that, if complex structures can evolve in a limited population by limited mechanisms in a relatively short time, then given all the possible mechanisms and far more population to work with, complex structures could evolve pretty quickly. This, to me, suggests that 'irreducible complexity' is a poor argument against evolution. Given that Behe is a proponent of this argument, I'd therefore say he did shoot himself in the foot.
Grumpy put that much better than I did, but there you go - that's my justification for my opinion. I hope my summary isn't too vague or inaccurate; I'm not an expert in this and had to re-read some sections of the transcript to fully understand the method and conclusions of the study. As such, in putting it into my own words, I may have lost some of the meaning.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This paper has been lauded by ID advocates as an excellent example of ID-stimulated research. The DI has listed it as an example of genuine peer reviewed research that supports ID. William Dembski has declared that Behe and Snoke's research "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution." |
Upon reading through the court transcript, the 'gist' I got of the conclusion of Behe's simulation was that, in a sample of 1 billion prokaryotes evolving by mutation alone, if no intermediate stages conferred an advantage to the organism overall, it would take 100 million generations to evolve. This would, according to Behe, take 20,000 years in a lab, so it's therefore fair to assume that in a sample that size in nature it'd take about the same time. If more time and organisms are available to evolve, it'd happen quicker. The research was limited by the fact that it ignored other processes of evolution.
The transcript then goes on to explain that there are far more organisms in a single ton of soil than in Behe's simulation, and has been this way for a long time. Now, as you say the author's commentary on the transcript is unfair, I'll state my own conclusions from the transcript. I'd say the study suggests that, if complex structures can evolve in a limited population by limited mechanisms in a relatively short time, then given all the possible mechanisms and far more population to work with, complex structures could evolve pretty quickly. This, to me, suggests that 'irreducible complexity' is a poor argument against evolution. Given that Behe is a proponent of this argument, I'd therefore say he did shoot himself in the foot.
Grumpy put that much better than I did, but there you go - that's my justification for my opinion. I hope my summary isn't too vague or inaccurate; I'm not an expert in this and had to re-read some sections of the transcript to fully understand the method and conclusions of the study. As such, in putting it into my own words, I may have lost some of the meaning.
here are no Irreducable Complexities because(all together now) Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination
Perhaps you should pass that saying onto the people defending evolution/attacking ID in the courts - it's catchy.
Kaeroll
As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim… Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable.
Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of depreciating "God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth." It perpetuates, if you will, the venerable Gnostic tradition of "Jehovah bashing." And while this in itself may gladden Gnostic hearts, one should not fail to observe that the doctrine plays a vital role in the economy of Neo-Gnostic thought, for only under the auspices of Darwinist "self-creation" does the Good News of "self-salvation" acquire a semblance of sense.
---God is not restrained by your imagination---
Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of depreciating "God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth." It perpetuates, if you will, the venerable Gnostic tradition of "Jehovah bashing." And while this in itself may gladden Gnostic hearts, one should not fail to observe that the doctrine plays a vital role in the economy of Neo-Gnostic thought, for only under the auspices of Darwinist "self-creation" does the Good News of "self-salvation" acquire a semblance of sense.
---God is not restrained by your imagination---
Guest
What a load of psycobable. Identify yourself if your going to post such garbage, it's like you drove by and threw it out the window. We have laws against littering where I come from.
Let me drop a truth bomb on ya
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
I could not say it better
What a load of psycobable. Identify yourself if your going to post such garbage, it's like you drove by and threw it out the window. We have laws against littering where I come from.
Let me drop a truth bomb on ya
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973)
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
I could not say it better
Nicely said Grumpy. It pains me to see the same usless attacks on evolution and science time and time again on these forums. I wish people would stop getting their 'kicks' from annoying scientists and go do something useful.
QUOTE
To my knowledge, there are no creatures fossilized in the act of evolving from one species to another. If you know of such a fossil, please, by all means, share the location of it with me.
Every creature that has ever been fossilized, was done so during the act of evolving from one species to another.
How Evolution Works:
Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate
a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An
example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists
prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing
something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.
Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will
eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a
hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the
sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or
proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible
to be verified or proven.
Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used
to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has
nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that
all cars everywhere are red.
Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle,
or circular logic. When an assumption or unproven conclusion is used to
validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no
factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.
This is just a sampling of the many logic fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover’s
book, Don’t You Believe It. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to
explain the subject of evolution—a subject assumed, by many, to be proven!
Don't you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law There is a great law that governs the
entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing.
Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in business or in everyday
life. It is the law of CAUSE and EFFECT.
Part of this law’s definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than
its cause. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect.
It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as
entropy. (just to lay down a few basics)
How does a more advanced life form—
the effect—stem from a simpler life
form—the cause? So begins the
quandary of evolution.
But I submit that this question is easily answered by simple observation of life as we know it.
Advanced life form stems from the birth of the simpler life form. A baby is created from the simple
union of a man and a woman. A simple life form begins and ends with an advanced life form.
The same is true for animals, plants, etc. It is not more complicated than that. Although DNA
is complex, it is not complicated, it is a simple set of instructions that repeats itself over and
over and over again through the ages - taking on various paternal traits along the way - making
each individual and their DNA a unique property - by design.
Without going into great detail, I also believe this system applies to the resurrection. God shows
us what will happen to us using the examples of life on earth. When a seed is planted, a life (of some
sort - human, animal, flowers, butterflies, etc.) is born, blossoms, and becomes something beautiful
and useful again, and again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas
in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
In order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either
right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!
For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize thatthe sun is always orange.
There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory.
Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case,
if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color. If the same standards are applied
to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed
and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of
macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that
most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and,
therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.
Recall the logical fallacies discussed above. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are
dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing
with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims.
This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist “His [Darwin’s] general theory
that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is
still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support and very
far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it
is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those
who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how
exactly is it scientific?
I don't post this to hurt or attack - I post this so that you will know the truth and be free from this nonsense. Whether
the road to evolution is paved with good or evil intentions is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. I have found
several interesting sources for this information and will be posting more as time permits. I hope you will consider the tactics used by evolution scientists and test them against the list above to see if they are playing mind games with you, or if they honestly just don't get it themselves. They may never change their minds. They say you can't fight City Hall - but that was a lie too.
Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate
a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An
example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all dentists
prefer a certain kind of toothpaste.
Appeal to the People: Using the general public as your basis for establishing
something as fact, instead of relying on relevant evidence.
Argument to Future: Stating that while something is not true now, it will
eventually be proven to be correct with further study and investigation.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a
hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that the
sky is green, when, in fact, it is obviously not true.
Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or
proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible
to be verified or proven.
Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used
to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, a particular car dealership has
nothing but red cars; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that
all cars everywhere are red.
Begging the Question: This can also be referred to as reasoning in a circle,
or circular logic. When an assumption or unproven conclusion is used to
validate a premise, one is begging the question. In other words, there is no
factual standing for the premise, because it is based on an assumption.
This is just a sampling of the many logic fallacies covered in A.J. Hoover’s
book, Don’t You Believe It. It is surprising how many are used by scientists when trying to
explain the subject of evolution—a subject assumed, by many, to be proven!
Don't you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cause and Effect—A Scientific Law There is a great law that governs the
entire universe. It is so fundamental that you often apply it without even knowing.
Everyone uses it and is impacted by it, whether in business or in everyday
life. It is the law of CAUSE and EFFECT.
Part of this law’s definition states that you may never have an effect that is greater than
its cause. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is directly related to cause and effect.
It is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as
entropy. (just to lay down a few basics)
How does a more advanced life form—
the effect—stem from a simpler life
form—the cause? So begins the
quandary of evolution.
But I submit that this question is easily answered by simple observation of life as we know it.
Advanced life form stems from the birth of the simpler life form. A baby is created from the simple
union of a man and a woman. A simple life form begins and ends with an advanced life form.
The same is true for animals, plants, etc. It is not more complicated than that. Although DNA
is complex, it is not complicated, it is a simple set of instructions that repeats itself over and
over and over again through the ages - taking on various paternal traits along the way - making
each individual and their DNA a unique property - by design.
Without going into great detail, I also believe this system applies to the resurrection. God shows
us what will happen to us using the examples of life on earth. When a seed is planted, a life (of some
sort - human, animal, flowers, butterflies, etc.) is born, blossoms, and becomes something beautiful
and useful again, and again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even among evolutionists, the scope of evolution is largely contested. There are six basic areas
in which evolution can be defined: Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.
In order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist a test that can prove it either
right or wrong. Without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it—either true or false!
For example, one could observe an orange sunset, and then theorize thatthe sun is always orange.
There exists a means to either prove or disprove this theory, therefore making it a valid theory.
Of course, if a theory is proven wrong, it should no longer be considered a valid theory. In this case,
if one continues to watch the sky, they will see changes in its color. If the same standards are applied
to the theory of evolution, we must fulfill these two conditions. Evolution must be able to be observed
and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of
macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that
most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and,
therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.
Recall the logical fallacies discussed above. When something is dated very old to prove a point, we are
dealing with what is called chronological snobbery. Make no mistake, evolutionists know that they are not dealing
with either a scientific fact or theory, and must resort to logical fallacies to validate their claims.
This is best described by Dr. Michael Denton, a proclaimed evolutionist “His [Darwin’s] general theory
that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is
still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct FACTUAL support and very
far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we have seen, evolution is definitely not a fact. It is not even a scientific theory. As Dr. Denton has stated, it
is nothing more than a “highly speculative hypothesis.” Can you imagine something so contested, even by those
who profess to believe it, taught in schools as fact? It leaves one to wonder, if it is not a fact or a theory, how
exactly is it scientific?
I don't post this to hurt or attack - I post this so that you will know the truth and be free from this nonsense. Whether
the road to evolution is paved with good or evil intentions is irrelevant. What is relevant is the truth. I have found
several interesting sources for this information and will be posting more as time permits. I hope you will consider the tactics used by evolution scientists and test them against the list above to see if they are playing mind games with you, or if they honestly just don't get it themselves. They may never change their minds. They say you can't fight City Hall - but that was a lie too.
Obviously messenger and SoSoLoved found the same "well", as we are getting the same posts and arguments that were trashed 30 or so pages back in these threads.
Now we have Entropy and the "baby" as examples.
Sheesh.
To quote a very funny comedian,
Messenger, 'here's your sign'
Arthur
Now we have Entropy and the "baby" as examples.
Sheesh.
To quote a very funny comedian,
Messenger, 'here's your sign'
Arthur
Like a threatened animal, they attack with more lies. They belittle their opponents with irrelevant comments to hide their uncertainty. Don't do it. It's a trap. Set yourself free from the boundaries you have set for yourself.
Does God Exist?
A quote from science best sums up why so many atheists and evolutionists
live in a world of frustration and disillusionment:
“Finding a distinct beginning to the universe was something that most scientists
did not anticipate and which made most of them, like Einstein, enormously
uncomfortable. ‘There is a kind of religion in science,’ says Jastrow,
‘it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the
Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product
of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First
Cause.’ But here it was, a First Effect. The universe, most astronomers and
physicists now agree, had a distinct beginning. There therefore must be a First
Cause, a Prime Mover—God—that set the universe in motion. ‘For the scientist
who has lived by his faith in the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted
by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries’” (The
New American, “Divine Design,” D. Behreandt, Dec. 18, 2000).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Skeptic
Among the educated in the Western World, the popular terms for those who
refuse to accept the authority of an all-powerful God, are “deists,” “rationalists”
or, more popularly, “higher critics.”
The Bible teaches that “the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). This
is the natural tendency of all human beings—including YOU—although most
would never believe or admit it. (Also see Jeremiah 17:9.) There is no proof,
evidence, fact, logic or sound reasoning that could ever cause anyone, who is
unwilling to set aside their natural, automatic prejudice against believing in
and yielding to the authority of a loving God, to do so. Natural bias and prejudice
against belief in an all-powerful God, who tells them how to live, is sufficient
to keep most from honestly admitting the proofs contained in my posts.
What will YOU do?
In his booklet Does God Exist?, Herbert W. Armstrong concluded with
this statement under the subhead “Master Clock of the Universe”:
“But then you, Mr. Skeptic—you look up into the great vast sky at the
MASTER CLOCK of the universe, which never misses a second—the perfect
watch by which we must constantly set all our imperfect man-made
watches—and you tell me, ‘That all just HAPPENED! There was no Great
Watchmaker! No Master MIND thought out and planned that vast universe,
brought it into being, set each star and planet in its own exact
place, and started the myriad heavenly bodies coursing through space,
each in its prescribed orbit, in its orderly precision. No, it just fashioned
itself, put itself together, wound itself up, and started itself running.
There was no Intelligence—no planning—NO CREATION—NO GOD!’
“Do you say that to me?
“If you can, I answer that I do not respect your intelligence. And the
God I acknowledge replies to you, ‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There
is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
“If you can look about you, and observe how intelligently PLANNED
and executed is everything in nature and in plant and animal life—everything
we see except the bungling, botching, polluting of God’s beautiful
handiwork by the clumsy hand of God-ignoring-and-rejecting MAN—and
then say you doubt the existence of an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful
Creator GOD, then I do not have much faith either in your rational
processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the TRUTH!”
----------------------------------------------------
And I concur.
p.s. I don't believe I've posted or found these statements anywhere else in the PhysOrg forum. If you have replied to similar statements in the past, well then there's no need to do it again - either that or you could just go copy and paste your previous reply and save your fingers a bit of typing. Common sense logic eludes the fool, who in his heart has said that there is no God.
Does God Exist?
A quote from science best sums up why so many atheists and evolutionists
live in a world of frustration and disillusionment:
“Finding a distinct beginning to the universe was something that most scientists
did not anticipate and which made most of them, like Einstein, enormously
uncomfortable. ‘There is a kind of religion in science,’ says Jastrow,
‘it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the
Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product
of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First
Cause.’ But here it was, a First Effect. The universe, most astronomers and
physicists now agree, had a distinct beginning. There therefore must be a First
Cause, a Prime Mover—God—that set the universe in motion. ‘For the scientist
who has lived by his faith in the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted
by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries’” (The
New American, “Divine Design,” D. Behreandt, Dec. 18, 2000).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Skeptic
Among the educated in the Western World, the popular terms for those who
refuse to accept the authority of an all-powerful God, are “deists,” “rationalists”
or, more popularly, “higher critics.”
The Bible teaches that “the carnal mind is enmity [hostile] against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). This
is the natural tendency of all human beings—including YOU—although most
would never believe or admit it. (Also see Jeremiah 17:9.) There is no proof,
evidence, fact, logic or sound reasoning that could ever cause anyone, who is
unwilling to set aside their natural, automatic prejudice against believing in
and yielding to the authority of a loving God, to do so. Natural bias and prejudice
against belief in an all-powerful God, who tells them how to live, is sufficient
to keep most from honestly admitting the proofs contained in my posts.
What will YOU do?
In his booklet Does God Exist?, Herbert W. Armstrong concluded with
this statement under the subhead “Master Clock of the Universe”:
“But then you, Mr. Skeptic—you look up into the great vast sky at the
MASTER CLOCK of the universe, which never misses a second—the perfect
watch by which we must constantly set all our imperfect man-made
watches—and you tell me, ‘That all just HAPPENED! There was no Great
Watchmaker! No Master MIND thought out and planned that vast universe,
brought it into being, set each star and planet in its own exact
place, and started the myriad heavenly bodies coursing through space,
each in its prescribed orbit, in its orderly precision. No, it just fashioned
itself, put itself together, wound itself up, and started itself running.
There was no Intelligence—no planning—NO CREATION—NO GOD!’
“Do you say that to me?
“If you can, I answer that I do not respect your intelligence. And the
God I acknowledge replies to you, ‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There
is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
“If you can look about you, and observe how intelligently PLANNED
and executed is everything in nature and in plant and animal life—everything
we see except the bungling, botching, polluting of God’s beautiful
handiwork by the clumsy hand of God-ignoring-and-rejecting MAN—and
then say you doubt the existence of an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful
Creator GOD, then I do not have much faith either in your rational
processes or your sincerity as a seeker of the TRUTH!”
----------------------------------------------------
And I concur.
p.s. I don't believe I've posted or found these statements anywhere else in the PhysOrg forum. If you have replied to similar statements in the past, well then there's no need to do it again - either that or you could just go copy and paste your previous reply and save your fingers a bit of typing. Common sense logic eludes the fool, who in his heart has said that there is no God.
Soloved
How do we tell when you are lying???
We wait to see you call yourself Messenger.
Nothing you post has the least glimmer of truth in it. Posting anti-evolution propaganda you found on a website doesn't change that fact.
Micheal Denton an evolutionist my big ol' butt.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
Why aren't you quoting from this propaganda???
The Case for Teaching Creation by AJ Hoover
I guess we know where he's coming from. Soloved, don't confuse our open minds for empty ones.
Grumpy
How do we tell when you are lying???
We wait to see you call yourself Messenger.
Nothing you post has the least glimmer of truth in it. Posting anti-evolution propaganda you found on a website doesn't change that fact.
Micheal Denton an evolutionist my big ol' butt.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
Why aren't you quoting from this propaganda???
The Case for Teaching Creation by AJ Hoover
I guess we know where he's coming from. Soloved, don't confuse our open minds for empty ones.
Grumpy
More lies from Gr - Dopey.
Soloved
Given up on the science, have you??? Gone straight to the preaching, where you don't need any evidence??? You think your religious opinions mean squat in a science forum??? The old Arguement From Authority(according to AJHoover)???
The old "I say so"???
You have demonstrated no problems with evolution(the topic of this forum), you've not improved your behavior(nor hidden your identity by a name change), your arguments are stale and have been refuted time and again and you've shown your willingness to lie, misuse,use out of context, misrepresent and misquote anyone and everyone to advance your agenda and you've lost in Dover(though you may not know it yet). Your a sad, delusional, ignorant loser who will never convince anyone of anything and your a waste of our time.
Grumpy
Given up on the science, have you??? Gone straight to the preaching, where you don't need any evidence??? You think your religious opinions mean squat in a science forum??? The old Arguement From Authority(according to AJHoover)???
The old "I say so"???
You have demonstrated no problems with evolution(the topic of this forum), you've not improved your behavior(nor hidden your identity by a name change), your arguments are stale and have been refuted time and again and you've shown your willingness to lie, misuse,use out of context, misrepresent and misquote anyone and everyone to advance your agenda and you've lost in Dover(though you may not know it yet). Your a sad, delusional, ignorant loser who will never convince anyone of anything and your a waste of our time.
Grumpy
Character is understanding—knowing—right from wrong and doing what is right instead of what is wrong! God reveals what is right, but it is through the power of free moral agency, deciding to do what is right, that righteous character is built.
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Listen carefully now - and tell me how these fruits of the spirit evolved after you have considered the evidence:
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance. It is not the easy way. It is swimming against the current, rather than drifting lazily in the direction it is flowing. This takes time, because character is built through experience.
God is the Master Scientist and it is He who says He created me.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Listen carefully now - and tell me how these fruits of the spirit evolved after you have considered the evidence:
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance. It is not the easy way. It is swimming against the current, rather than drifting lazily in the direction it is flowing. This takes time, because character is built through experience.
God is the Master Scientist and it is He who says He created me.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
QUOTE
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Prove it.
QUOTE
Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Some animals have some of these qualities - gentleness, meekness, etc. My brother's hamster is gentle and meek, for crying out loud.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility. |
Some animals have some of these qualities - gentleness, meekness, etc. My brother's hamster is gentle and meek, for crying out loud.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals can develop some of these traits. Thus disproving everything written in the Bible.
See the error in the logic?
Your rhetoric is condescending and patronising. If you want to be treated with respect, try giving some first.
QUOTE (Messenger+Nov 19 2005, 09:03 AM)
Character is understanding—knowing—right from wrong and doing what is right instead of what is wrong! God reveals what is right, but it is through the power of free moral agency, deciding to do what is right, that righteous character is built.
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Listen carefully now - and tell me how these fruits of the spirit evolved after you have considered the evidence:
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance. It is not the easy way. It is swimming against the current, rather than drifting lazily in the direction it is flowing. This takes time, because character is built through experience.
God is the Master Scientist and it is He who says He created me.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
One would think if it was so easy to disproove evolution, it would have been disprooved long ago...
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Listen carefully now - and tell me how these fruits of the spirit evolved after you have considered the evidence:
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance. It is not the easy way. It is swimming against the current, rather than drifting lazily in the direction it is flowing. This takes time, because character is built through experience.
God is the Master Scientist and it is He who says He created me.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
One would think if it was so easy to disproove evolution, it would have been disprooved long ago...
Messenger, can you explain this to me?
What I dont get is that CS/IDers soo want it to be tought in public school because they claim it is science... Do you see any other scientists in any field what so ever, when they discover something new, try to make it priority #1 that its tought in public schools? It not the priority. What does it matter if its tought -or not- in public school right away? Heck, most revolutionnary theories are not even tought at undergraduate level for 10-20 years after they've been discovered. So why make so much effort to push ID in public schools BEFORE it receives mainstream acceptance. Scientists just want to convince their peers. IDers don't do that, they push it to be tought in schools RIGTH AWAY as fast as possible. Yet no other scientist does that. Why?
And dont give me a crappy answer such as "well, we want our children to learn the true" because we all want that yet none of us push new theories to be tougth in public schools before mainstream acceptance. SO, WHY THE RUSH by YOUR group only?
What I dont get is that CS/IDers soo want it to be tought in public school because they claim it is science... Do you see any other scientists in any field what so ever, when they discover something new, try to make it priority #1 that its tought in public schools? It not the priority. What does it matter if its tought -or not- in public school right away? Heck, most revolutionnary theories are not even tought at undergraduate level for 10-20 years after they've been discovered. So why make so much effort to push ID in public schools BEFORE it receives mainstream acceptance. Scientists just want to convince their peers. IDers don't do that, they push it to be tought in schools RIGTH AWAY as fast as possible. Yet no other scientist does that. Why?
And dont give me a crappy answer such as "well, we want our children to learn the true" because we all want that yet none of us push new theories to be tougth in public schools before mainstream acceptance. SO, WHY THE RUSH by YOUR group only?
Soloved
I really hate to have to point it out to you, especially since it makes me look like the villan, but YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
My dog loves (no he worships(has faith in )) me, When I come home after being gone for 8 hrs. he does the dance of joy(we've all seen it, it can't be mistaken for anything else). We sit side by side in the late Autum sunlight and I hear him give a great sigh, look up at me with his bright blue eyes(Husky,Border Collie mix, very smart), thumps his tail a couple of times and there is no doubt in my mind that he is at peace with the world(and the cat too showing great temperance(self control) and longsuffering ). To watch him suffer under the less than gentle play(she thinks he's a "horsey") of my youngest neice day after day with never a protest is the very definition of longsuffering, meekness , temperance and gentleness. His sunny personality and willingness to please or defend his "pack" is a goodness we all should emulate!!! I have faith in his meekness,temperance and wisdom (I have witnessed it over and over) and his knowledge and understanding of what I expect of him allows him to have faith in me. And he shows a great deal of humility when he fails to live up to my expectations(it happened much more often when he was a puppy, but as his knowledge and understanding of my families expectations of him grew it happened less and less, and what is wisdom but knowledge and understanding ???)
Everyone in this forum(except you) will recognize the truth of the above. The differences between a dog and a man are far outweighed by our common traits, physical and mental. I will tell you right now that I have a great deal more respect for my dog than you have earned by your behavior, I believe him to be a more moral and all around better "person" than you ever can or will be without major changes on your part(which I don't expect).
Ben Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac said"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt". Words you ought to live by.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Consider the fruits of the spirit: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance (self-control), wisdom, knowledge, understanding and humility.
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution
Animals develop none of these traits. Thus disproving evolution
I really hate to have to point it out to you, especially since it makes me look like the villan, but YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
My dog loves (no he worships(has faith in )) me, When I come home after being gone for 8 hrs. he does the dance of joy(we've all seen it, it can't be mistaken for anything else). We sit side by side in the late Autum sunlight and I hear him give a great sigh, look up at me with his bright blue eyes(Husky,Border Collie mix, very smart), thumps his tail a couple of times and there is no doubt in my mind that he is at peace with the world(and the cat too showing great temperance(self control) and longsuffering ). To watch him suffer under the less than gentle play(she thinks he's a "horsey") of my youngest neice day after day with never a protest is the very definition of longsuffering, meekness , temperance and gentleness. His sunny personality and willingness to please or defend his "pack" is a goodness we all should emulate!!! I have faith in his meekness,temperance and wisdom (I have witnessed it over and over) and his knowledge and understanding of what I expect of him allows him to have faith in me. And he shows a great deal of humility when he fails to live up to my expectations(it happened much more often when he was a puppy, but as his knowledge and understanding of my families expectations of him grew it happened less and less, and what is wisdom but knowledge and understanding ???)
Everyone in this forum(except you) will recognize the truth of the above. The differences between a dog and a man are far outweighed by our common traits, physical and mental. I will tell you right now that I have a great deal more respect for my dog than you have earned by your behavior, I believe him to be a more moral and all around better "person" than you ever can or will be without major changes on your part(which I don't expect).
Ben Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac said"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt". Words you ought to live by.
Grumpy
Perhaps you're right. (about your dog displaying the fruits - I love dogs).
I also have a great deal more respect for your dog than I do for you, if he is as wonderful as you say he is. So, we can agree that we all respect your dog more than we respect each other.
But, consider this:
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance.
Do animals do this? Maybe animals have instinct (given by God), but not spirit. Perhaps they have not eaten the forbidden fruit and thus do not have the knowledge of good and evil.
An alternative view would be that animals never 'fell away from God' so therefore they display all these traits and live in perfect harmony (God's spirit).
It's only humans who need to get back on track and get back to perfect harmony.
We display the opposite of the fruits of the spirit. So when we see love displayed by another human being - we are in awe - and we want it - but we don't seem to know how to get it - so we use our sinful nature to get it. Why then, since maybe I may have this backwards, don't humans act like animals - accepting our roles in nature, living in perfect harmony with each other, etc? Or, is nature just as bad as humans - did our 'fall' cause everything to fall? I posted a bit more on this in the 'where are the holes' forum. I do have some more thoughts on this but it will take a bit of time to sort them out - I didn't sort the above thoughts out and look what happened - looks like a mess, I know. Oh well, see my signature.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
aht,
Biblical creation used to be the mainstream - I could throw the question right back at you in reverse. Why would science want to teach something that went against the mainstream? And don't give me that , well they should know the truth bit either.
Intelligent Design, favored by believers, is an alternative theory. If investigated properly by the brightest minds in science, perhaps they would come to the same conclusion. But, by official fiat, they will not do this. These scientists do not have to believe in it - but they should examine it. And they should examine it as closely as they examine everything they hold dear.
....and it was.
I also have a great deal more respect for your dog than I do for you, if he is as wonderful as you say he is. So, we can agree that we all respect your dog more than we respect each other.
But, consider this:
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance.
Do animals do this? Maybe animals have instinct (given by God), but not spirit. Perhaps they have not eaten the forbidden fruit and thus do not have the knowledge of good and evil.
An alternative view would be that animals never 'fell away from God' so therefore they display all these traits and live in perfect harmony (God's spirit).
It's only humans who need to get back on track and get back to perfect harmony.
We display the opposite of the fruits of the spirit. So when we see love displayed by another human being - we are in awe - and we want it - but we don't seem to know how to get it - so we use our sinful nature to get it. Why then, since maybe I may have this backwards, don't humans act like animals - accepting our roles in nature, living in perfect harmony with each other, etc? Or, is nature just as bad as humans - did our 'fall' cause everything to fall? I posted a bit more on this in the 'where are the holes' forum. I do have some more thoughts on this but it will take a bit of time to sort them out - I didn't sort the above thoughts out and look what happened - looks like a mess, I know. Oh well, see my signature.
‘The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God!’ (Ps. 14:1; 53:1.)
aht,
Biblical creation used to be the mainstream - I could throw the question right back at you in reverse. Why would science want to teach something that went against the mainstream? And don't give me that , well they should know the truth bit either.
Intelligent Design, favored by believers, is an alternative theory. If investigated properly by the brightest minds in science, perhaps they would come to the same conclusion. But, by official fiat, they will not do this. These scientists do not have to believe in it - but they should examine it. And they should examine it as closely as they examine everything they hold dear.
QUOTE
One would think if it was so easy to disproove evolution, it would have been disprooved long ago...
....and it was.
Messenger you DODGE the question as I expected you would. You cannot turn the question back at me. Science has never wanted to teach evolution in the PUBLIC schools. Darwin & cie did not give a dam about what teenagers and prepubescent kids were tought in public schools. All they cared about was to convince their grown up peers AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL. In fact, no scientist or no school of toughts has ever pushed a scientific idea to be tought in public pre university school BEFORE it has gotten mainstream acceptance. The question was, why is your group doing it differently. Please don't dodge the question again since this will be futile as I will just pop up back again until you answer the real question been asked here.
QUOTE (messenger+)
Animals develop none of these traits.
Thus disproving evolution.
We are not animals, and animals are not human.
True, other animals are not human, but humans ARE animals.
The traits you mention are found in the animal kingdom, INCLUDING Altruism.
You might think that unlike the traits that Grumpy showed to be found in his dog, a trait like Altruism would be a "human only" trait.
Not so.
Check out Vampire bat behavior.
Finally, the fact that HUMANS are highly intelligent, and thus have evolved language and in doing so have created a society and described these traits IN NO WAY disproves evolution. If man were wiped out tomorrow, given sufficient time it is highly likely that a new intelligent primate would evolve. It would probably resemble us to a reasonable degree, but it would also be a decidedly unique species.
Arthur
PS, sure we could go back and find our posts that refute the posts that you are making with the VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL ones first made by SoSoLoved.
But, why should WE do all the work?
Why don't YOU do us all a favor and READ the thread.
The answers to MOST of your posts have already been written.
I'd say you might learn something, but that might be hoping for too much.
Soloved
No, character is choosing the right thing when faced with temptation.
I'm sure it's tempting for my dog to disipline my unruly neice for her painful(to him) behavior but he never even shows how uncomforyable she makes him, That's character.
No, character is choosing the right thing when faced with temptation.
I'm sure it's tempting for my dog to disipline my unruly neice for her painful(to him) behavior but he never even shows how uncomforyable she makes him, That's character.
Do animals do this? Maybe animals have instinct (given by God), but not spirit.
Duh, and it's not instinct, it's intellegence, it's love, it's wisdom, it's character. All mammals have these traits to a greater or lesser degree. Mammals are not born with instincts which cover all the behaviors that mammal must learn to be a complete member of his family. That is why kittens play(hand(or paw)/eye coordination, hunting skills, pecking order determination) and why they follow momma around(what's good to eat, what to avoid, where the bathroom is) and why they are so curious,they are learning what it is to be a cat. My dog loves kittens, ever seen a border collie try to herd a bunch of kittens??? I blew iced tea out of my nose, we laughed so hard my side hurt, and my dog laughed right along with us. I am not giving human attributes to my dog, he has his own way of displaying happiness, joy and pleasure. And to see a 40 pound dog asleep covered with 5 tiny kittens is not something in the instinct of a dog, it is learned behavior, they are family.
Lower animals run on instinct, birds display limited learning ability but all the others are instinct driven meat machines. Mammals are different and can learn new behavior some to a greater extent than others. Man can learn the most but it is a difference in scale, not in kind. Humans did not fall, we rose up from a common ancestor with ALL the other mammals, Man made God, not the other way around.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy!
Excellent.
RealityCheck.
PS: As usual. RC.
.
.
.
QUOTE
Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance.
No, character is choosing the right thing when faced with temptation.
I'm sure it's tempting for my dog to disipline my unruly neice for her painful(to him) behavior but he never even shows how uncomforyable she makes him, That's character.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Character is consciously choosing the right way, against resistance. |
No, character is choosing the right thing when faced with temptation.
I'm sure it's tempting for my dog to disipline my unruly neice for her painful(to him) behavior but he never even shows how uncomforyable she makes him, That's character.
Do animals do this? Maybe animals have instinct (given by God), but not spirit.
Duh, and it's not instinct, it's intellegence, it's love, it's wisdom, it's character. All mammals have these traits to a greater or lesser degree. Mammals are not born with instincts which cover all the behaviors that mammal must learn to be a complete member of his family. That is why kittens play(hand(or paw)/eye coordination, hunting skills, pecking order determination) and why they follow momma around(what's good to eat, what to avoid, where the bathroom is) and why they are so curious,they are learning what it is to be a cat. My dog loves kittens, ever seen a border collie try to herd a bunch of kittens??? I blew iced tea out of my nose, we laughed so hard my side hurt, and my dog laughed right along with us. I am not giving human attributes to my dog, he has his own way of displaying happiness, joy and pleasure. And to see a 40 pound dog asleep covered with 5 tiny kittens is not something in the instinct of a dog, it is learned behavior, they are family.
Lower animals run on instinct, birds display limited learning ability but all the others are instinct driven meat machines. Mammals are different and can learn new behavior some to a greater extent than others. Man can learn the most but it is a difference in scale, not in kind. Humans did not fall, we rose up from a common ancestor with ALL the other mammals, Man made God, not the other way around.
Grumpy
Hi Grumpy!
Excellent.
RealityCheck.
PS: As usual. RC.
.
.
.
What ho G'day Mate. Thanks RC
I,ve about given up on improving Soloveds education gap, it probably a hopeless cause, but I have a bit of Don Quiote in me, tilting at windmills and such.
Grumpy
I,ve about given up on improving Soloveds education gap, it probably a hopeless cause, but I have a bit of Don Quiote in me, tilting at windmills and such.
Grumpy
G'day yourself there, Mate!
What!...give up! You!? Never!
Besides, to paraphrase a famous saying: "For Ignorance to fluorish it is enough that good Teachers do nothing."
And from what I've been able to gather regarding your nature, YOU are a 'Teacher' by 'natural design'! (hehehe...joke, SoLoved).
Have at that ignorance, Grumpy, no matter what form it comes in! I'll back you all the way!...even from all the way HERE, 'Down Under'!
How's your back? My lungs are much recovered, thanks.
Your friend in ANTI-ignorance: RealityCheck.
.
What!...give up! You!? Never!
Besides, to paraphrase a famous saying: "For Ignorance to fluorish it is enough that good Teachers do nothing."
And from what I've been able to gather regarding your nature, YOU are a 'Teacher' by 'natural design'! (hehehe...joke, SoLoved).
Have at that ignorance, Grumpy, no matter what form it comes in! I'll back you all the way!...even from all the way HERE, 'Down Under'!
How's your back? My lungs are much recovered, thanks.
Your friend in ANTI-ignorance: RealityCheck.
.
Reality Check
Back's doing much better. I've got just one more visit to that sadistic doctor and I'll be (I hope) pronounced fit again.
I really feel I'm taking advantage of our mutual friend. I think that like Rush Limbaugh(a scourge you Aussies have hopefully missed) he has half his brain tied behind his back, just doesn't seem fair. Ah well, I always did like a chalenge.
Grumpy
Back's doing much better. I've got just one more visit to that sadistic doctor and I'll be (I hope) pronounced fit again.
I really feel I'm taking advantage of our mutual friend. I think that like Rush Limbaugh(a scourge you Aussies have hopefully missed) he has half his brain tied behind his back, just doesn't seem fair. Ah well, I always did like a chalenge.
Grumpy
Grumpy
Good news re back then? Great!
And about that "...he has half his brain tied behind his back, just doesn't seem fair. Ah well, I always did like a challenge."
You mean a double-headed, two-faced ignoramus sharing only half a brain in total? Some challenge you're taking on there, Sir! The best of patience and capacity for repetition to you, mate! But watch your blood pressure, heh? We don't want to present that sadistic medico of yours with another perfect excuse to ply his trade, now do we? hehehe.
Gotta go for some tucker (food) now, mate. See ya later on!
RealityCheck.
.
Good news re back then? Great!
And about that "...he has half his brain tied behind his back, just doesn't seem fair. Ah well, I always did like a challenge."
You mean a double-headed, two-faced ignoramus sharing only half a brain in total? Some challenge you're taking on there, Sir! The best of patience and capacity for repetition to you, mate! But watch your blood pressure, heh? We don't want to present that sadistic medico of yours with another perfect excuse to ply his trade, now do we? hehehe.
Gotta go for some tucker (food) now, mate. See ya later on!
RealityCheck.
.
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.