NationStates Jolt Archive

I’m watching something called Newshour and part of the program is about evolution versus creation science, or Intelligent Design as the intelligent ones prefer to be called these days. The latter sect has released a DVD which attempts to deluge the viewer in complex molecular science until they go “This amount of complexity has to have been created by someone.”

They play on people’s traditional confusion between causes and reasons, and use science selectively to not only try to prove their point (no problem with that, so are the string theory people) but ALSO to try and make people believe that that is THE ONLY OPTION. “It just couldn’t have happened by accident.” Just Couldn’t. Tell me, what kind of scientific backing is there to “just couldn’t”? You know what? Crop circles just couldn’t have happened by accident. Elvis just couldn’t have died in such an undignified manner. People just couldn’t get into space inside a flimsy metal tube.

Believe all you like, it’s your right, but don’t try to back up pure belief with science. It just doesn’t work. You cannot start with the cell structures of a human being, which (assuming evolution is the correct theory) came about after millions of years, and say “this is so complex natural selection couldn’t have done it, someone had to intervene.” If you just had humanity in an isolated environment as apparently the first species to exist, you could make that assumption, but the theory that these people are trying to refute says that life began as amoebas, as isolated amino acids capable of making more amino acids. If you examine an amoeba, keeping in mind that it’s changed slightly over millions of years, then would you say “this is so complex someone had to have created it”? I dare you to try. And after that, with a chain of evolution (remember, what you’re doing here is trying to DISPROVE a theory, therefore you have to approach it on ITS terms) even with an incomplete chain of evolution, still, having the process of natural selection and assuming life already exists, it IS possible for a fish to evolve into an amphibian, for an amphibian to evolve into a reptile, for a lizard to evolve into a crocodile – remember, you have trillions of generations to do this in. Look what we have managed with dogs in far less generations.

Is there any part of the actual method of natural selection you can disprove? Can you prove scientifically that putting rats into an environment in which albino rats are more likely to die than ordinary rats will NOT result in a breed without albinos? Can you say that if you allow good behaviors in a child to flourish while punishing the bad ones the good behaviors will not become more common? Can you say that only sowing seeds from the largest apples will not result in an orchard with larger apples? Or maybe you should go deeper, and attack the theory of genetics itself. But then you would be undermining the very scientific facts you’re trying to bury people in.

In fact, it is the very basis of evolution that things happen in stages, in layers. First a tiny change. Then another. After enough tiny changes you can look at the final product and its origin and the one would be so much more complex than the other. This idea of stages being part of greater stages which are part of stages greater still, underlies everything science can teach an intelligent mind, which is why completely dismissing evolution in favour of mysterious forces would be the death of science, debating and reasonable thought itself. Even this very argument, and the one Intelligent Design-ists are trying to use – you begin from one small assumption, and the ramifications of that have their own ramifications until you have a full-blown scientific theory, and it is that one small unproven assumption which will prove it correct or not – unfortunately we have not, as yet, access to the facts about this assumption, but can you at least refrain from using a theory built from certain assumptions to try to disprove another theory based on the same assumptions.

Now, having said all that from a scientific point of view (apologies if any rhetoric slipped in, I’ve been trying to keep it out without detracting from my point), I would like to state my own theory (or one of a huge number of possibilities) WHICH I might add is what I recognize to be merely my own belief, unproven and unprovable, and I don’t expect anyone to agree with it, unless they think it’s useful. Some believe the original existence of amino acids to have been the work of God, who obviously knowing everything would know that this one small act would be all that was required for the eventual evolution of intelligent beings. Given only the unproven assumption that God exists, and not necessarily believing the bible to be absolutely accurate, a theory can be built up that God was some kind of highly evolved being, for some reason on his own, and lonely – but he knew that if he simple MADE something, it would of necessity be far inferior to himself, and thus would be more of a pet or a robot than a companion – capable of thinking only what he told it to, how could he talk to it? So he set in process a series of events which he predicted would lead to the evolution of a species capable of thinking for itself and eventually capable of thinking on a level where they could understand him. We as humans have not yet reached that level, although as sentient beings we are close – there doesn’t seem to be any more physical evolution we can do, but what we can do is evolve mentally and socially until every one of us and society as a whole is capable of a sufficient degree of rational thought to understand him. By this theory, all these religious revelations of the past were a result of him trying to communicate with people as yet incapable of understanding the universe the way he does and who therefore misunderstood what he was trying to tell them, thereby resulting in the religious texts we have available. Maybe it will take another million years, but if we don’t kill ourselves first we will eventually be capable of communicating with God in a way which does not instantly compel worship, as it does now due to our as yet vastly inferior status.

That paragraph turned out longer than I meant it to, and I don’t expect anyone to argue with it, because as I said it is simply a nice story which may or may not be true, but we won’t find out in our lifetimes so there’s no use worrying. What I want people to argue about is the paragraphs before about Intelligent Design – I want to hear the actual individual arguments of people who actually believe this thing.

Note that I’m not talking to the people who simply believe it because the bible says so. I have no problem with that, you have the right to your beliefs and in any case there’s not way of arguing a belief that doesn’t deteriorate into “is to” “is not”. I’m talking to the people who have a supposed scientific basis for their beliefs; because I really think that with sufficient deconstruction all your arguments can be traced to a basic assumption which is something along the lines of “because!”

The intellegent design logic does not just spring from the inate complexity of all life. It also springs from the law of biogenesis and the second law of themodynamics. The idea that a ordered system can occor from an unordered enviroment without intervention is not scientififc. I have heard people claim that the second law of themodynamics does not apply because of the sun and that it is not a closed system, but if you believe that the suns existance pumping sunlight and heat will significently alter the ability of life to develop on its own, you need to provide proof. The probability that life would develop of its own accord without any external interferance is roughtly equivilent to detnoating a modern nuclear device inside a local Tesco's and afterwards finding a strawberry gateau made out of the component parts that fell down at the detonation site. There is also the case study of the bombadier beatle to consider. This beatle uses a series of chemicals to create an explosive reaction to propell itself away from predetors and at the same time leave the preditors with a nasty spray in the face. The problem here is that it is increadably precise the nature of this reaction. So if the creature were to evolve, every time it got it wrong, the process would have to begin agian as if it gets it wrong, it destroys itself. The point being that this creature could not have developed propely by itself even on the evolutionary timescale. It needs more time than is given.

The intellegent design logic does not just spring from the inate complexity of all life. It also springs from the law of biogenesis and the second law of themodynamics.
ok, how about you stop abusing science.
By the "law of biogenesis" I'm assuming you mean life can't come from non-life... a principle (not law) that was arrived at upon examining maggots coming from hunks of meat, something that does not apply to organic molecules combining to form simple life.
Evolution does not defy the second law of thermodynamics. For one thing, the increase in entropy increases in isolated systems, which the earth is not. For another, it just doesn't work like that, it applies to the degredation of energy... not an increase in complexity of life.

The idea that a ordered system can occor from an unordered enviroment without intervention is not scientififc.
No. Throwing in supernatural forces is not scientific.

I have heard people claim that the second law of themodynamics does not apply because of the sun and that it is not a closed system, but if you believe that the suns existance pumping sunlight and heat will significently alter the ability of life to develop on its own, you need to provide proof.
This doesn't even make sense.

The probability that life would develop of its own accord without any external interferance is roughtly equivilent to detnoating a modern nuclear device inside a local Tesco's and afterwards finding a strawberry gateau made out of the component parts that fell down at the detonation site.
When these odds are applied millions and millions ot times, it becomes quite probable it will happen. When rolling a billion sided dice a couple billion times, odds are you're going to get 498767 at least once. Do you have any idea how quickly chemical reactions can occur and how often the molecules can "try again"?

There is also the case study of the bombadier beatle to consider. This beatle uses a series of chemicals to create an explosive reaction to propell itself away from predetors and at the same time leave the preditors with a nasty spray in the face. The problem here is that it is increadably precise the nature of this reaction. So if the creature were to evolve, every time it got it wrong, the process would have to begin agian as if it gets it wrong, it destroys itself. The point being that this creature could not have developed propely by itself even on the evolutionary timescale. It needs more time than is given.
Uh huh. If you can't be assed to learn this stuff on your own, then I'm not going to bother. Perhaps a biologist will tell you you're an ass...

The intellegent design logic does not just spring from the inate complexity of all life. It also springs from the law of biogenesis and the second law of themodynamics. The idea that a ordered system can occor from an unordered enviroment without intervention is not scientififc. I have heard people claim that the second law of themodynamics does not apply because of the sun and that it is not a closed system, but if you believe that the suns existance pumping sunlight and heat will significently alter the ability of life to develop on its own, you need to provide proof.

Still pretending to have a clue what you are talking about when you don't, I see. The 2nd Law does not apply because the Earth is not a closed system. Period. I don't need proof of that because it is the very definition of the 2nd Law. If you think the Earth is a closed system, *you* need to prove it.

This beatle uses a series of chemicals to create an explosive reaction to propell itself away from predetors and at the same time leave the preditors with a nasty spray in the face. The problem here is that it is increadably precise the nature of this reaction. So if the creature were to evolve, every time it got it wrong, the process would have to begin agian as if it gets it wrong, it destroys itself.

Again demonstrating *complete* misunderstanding of the theory. A single beetle with a single mutation that was "wrong" would have destroyed itself. However, the "whole process" would not have to start again, as the other beetles would still have the beginnings of the process there. Go ahead and try again.


Meanwhile, to the originator of the thread, you left out one very important point. The entire idea of ID assuems that life is so very complex that it had to be designed - like a Rubix design. However, this would also result in an *incredibly* fragile system where the removal of any one part would keep the system from working (again, like a Rubix design). Biology is, in fact, incredibly robust, you can remove most proteins in a lifeform, and biology will still go on.

Creationist/ID-weirdos always always very creative in finding new arguments for their pseudoscience. :p

I'm no biologist, but i don't see why the bombardier bettle could not have evolved. It's based on DNA just as all other beetles and us humans too - since we're all descended from one common ancestor.
If there was no common ancestor, then DNA should be not universal amongst lifeforms, and there should be things like both left- and right-handed glucose existing amongst lifeforms, but only right-handed glucose exists amongst life.

The intellegent design logic does not just spring from the inate complexity of all life. It also springs from the law of biogenesis and the second law of themodynamics.'Abiogensis', don't you mean?

The idea that a ordered system can occor from an unordered enviroment without intervention is not scientififc. I have heard people claim that the second law of themodynamics does not apply because of the sun and that it is not a closed system, but if you believe that the suns existance pumping sunlight and heat will significently alter the ability of life to develop on its own, you need to provide proof.Within a closed system, order can be created within a small section of it, so long as the total disorder of the system is not decreased. This is a truth within the 2ndLoT. Applying this to the real world, the only true closed system is (almost by definition) the entire universe. However, if you approximate a closed system to being the sun and the Earth, you can say that (on average) any transfer of 'order' from outside these confines is swamped by the desertion or order (by said solar energy and the like) to beyond the boundaries of the nominally enclosed system.

Having done said approximation (which you should see to be perfectly valid) we can see that the sun is (if we pause its activity for a moment, to analyse it) a mixture of atoms and subatomic particles at high energies that are able to expel such energies and become more 'grounded' states with less energy and less 'structure'. Though our sun's future is not as extreme, the mostly-concluded state of some sizes of stars will be as neutron-stars (an amorphous mass of neutron-soup, in various exotic but generally featureless formations) or even black holes (so amorphous that there's technically no 'thing' to talk about, merely the group/combined properties of mass, charge, spin, mangled information, etc...). Our sun will go (I think) to 'brown dwarf' status, which is essentially a lump of 'stuff', not particularly exciting. You can see, however, how the entropy levels are essentially exporting the order, however. The light and other radiation caries energies and 'spare entropy' to other places.

Within a very narrow swathe of the outgoing shell of radiation, lies the Earth. Those massive energies, lessened by distance (inverse square) and the occasional exciting of solar/extra-solar particles (moving them from ground states to higher ones) are still significant. The energies excite all kinds of molecules on Earth, from the atmosphere to the ground itself, doing various things, but various unremarkable things based upon the same excitation of those molecules, at the expense of the energies (because the photons are absorbed, or at least re-emitted at lower energies) of the light that came in. One of the things might be to strike a plant's chlorophyl molecule and (essentially, with steps missed out) giving energy to a CO2 molecule releasing O2 and allowing the C to recombine with various other elements to create additional parts to the plant cell, which allows the plant cell to divide, which allows the plant to grow. Entropy is still lost during this process because the process is efficient enough to make use of the incoming energies, but still produces amorphous heat and unwanted 'base state' products wherein entropy is lost, despite the obvious structuring of the Carbon molecule and the 'provision' of the highly-reative Oxygen molecule to the atmosphere.

An animal that eats the plant converts the plant into its own structure. There's structure (and order and therefore entropy) lost in the digestion process, but it is efficient enough to create the right amount of order required for a functioning animal, including the provision of energy reserves. It also takes in the O2 and, with the energy reserves, converts it to actual energy. Again, there's ineficiency, but it works. Carnivorous preditors feeding on the herbivore similarly convert the (gradually lestening) energy and structure into their own structure. If it sounds like the top of the food chain should be an amorphous blob, and wondering why it isn't, it's because a herbivore takes in a massive amount of plant material, reducing a huge amount of ordered plant material (which took in an even huger amount of energy in order to create its own structure) into a smaller amount of order, but also packed denser, so that the order is equal (perhaps greater than?) the plants it consumed, but as a small pocket of such order within a massive cloud of less ordered and less energetic CO2 and other wastes (the latter containing enough order to sustan the order of bacteria, which then reduce it to even less energetic/ordered material, which may then need the guided input of a plant, with solar energy, to recombine it in order again). A predator takes these dense packets of energy and order and uses them to sustain its own dense packet of energy and order, but needs a few of them to do so and (if you look at the source) the original vegetable mass behind those is truly massive and the even more original amounts of sunlight behind them is even more massive, and it's only because nuclear fission releases such large amounts of energy that our little planet, hardly obscuring the outward waves of such energy, can sustain a system of energy transfer (and loss) as energetic as we see.

As an simpler analogy: When building a dry-stone wall, a person takes stones laying at low energy levels (the ground) and expends energy to move them into a structure. It is quite possible for energy to be expended in an unfocus manner and create a pile of stones, but when directed through the mechanism of a skilled wall-builder, the wall shall be a stable and well-created structure, at the expense of the energy of the person who made it. There, entropy has moved from the stored energy in the body of the builder to the wall. The wall is built, energy is lost and the order of the wall is at the expense of the disorder of the prior energy stores of the builder, but a bad builder will expend a lot of energy to create a pile of stones, and even a good builder 'could have built better' given the same energy. Energy is always lost from the system, and it's only his meals at night (which are packets of energy, in the form of 'structured' molecules that contain higher energy, imported from elesewhere at the expense of that place's own entropy) that allows the process to continue again tomorrow.


The probability that life would develop of its own accord without any external interferance is roughtly equivilent to detnoating a modern nuclear device inside a local Tesco's and afterwards finding a strawberry gateau made out of the component parts that fell down at the detonation site.Not only innacurate, but an exageration of the usual inaccuracies. The usual description is "blow up a pile of wood and nails and you get a shed". Both those examples involve undirected energy. Before explosion, concentrated energy is in explosive/fissile material, after the explosion the energy has transfered into undirected heat and kinetic energy of the material at ground-zero. If you had carefully placed windmill-like devices, you could recover this energy and use it constructive, but what you're in reality doing is spreading energy around (as per 2nd law) throughout the environment. This increased heat, or the presence of wood shavings with a minor but possibly significant nutritional value allows something to be constructed, but what you need to do is put the energy through a controlled process (or at least a 'guided' one, much as a train is guided along rails 'naturally' taking it from one place to another with its cargo, requiring no intelligence by the 'driver', only that the tracks happen to be laid on the logical route).

Of course, with a fission/fusion explosion, you're creating energetic isotopes, not much use for creating a trifle, never mind a gateau.

There is also the case study of the bombadier beatle to consider. This beatle uses a series of chemicals to create an explosive reaction to propell itself away from predetors and at the same time leave the preditors with a nasty spray in the face. The problem here is that it is increadably precise the nature of this reaction. So if the creature were to evolve, every time it got it wrong, the process would have to begin agian as if it gets it wrong, it destroys itself. The point being that this creature could not have developed propely by itself even on the evolutionary timescale. It needs more time than is given.It did evolve, as is proven. (Or, if you prefer, "It does exist, as is proven", your choice.) And the development of the mechanism need not astound you. Chemical production isn't such a difficult thing to obtain, and a happenstance creation of two separate chemicals that react isn't really hard to believe (given the number of different beetles that have developed) with the efficacy of the reaction increasing steadily, together with the body-plan of the host beetle, to give us a creature that creates the largest and most impressive reaction that its body can handle. (Those that went into dangerous territory, in developing the plumping and positioning of the chemical-producing glands, never gave us descendants. The ones that did it best outlived the ones that did it worst, either due to predation or self-immolation.)

I see no wonders in the design. I marvel at it, but the fact that a developed this ability is self evident. Had it not done so, I would not miss it but the possibility could still be infered (assuming you could imagine it, as one possibility within a countless myriad of other possible inferations that never came to pass 'because', in favour of those that happened to).

Any one who argues for intelligent design dose not understand the fundlementals of evolution.

What really nails down the coffin lid of it for me, is hume's causality (think i ve mentioned this a good 6 times on the forums now) its the idea that just because something happens doesn’t mean it has a cause, we’ve been inducted to believe
cause --> event by poor logic as a product of an incomplete view of the world.

You can go around all day citing various theories and laws to support intelligent design form physics biochemistry yadadada, but considering the basement foundation of it is the idea of a god figure which is a circular argument, all the stolen scientific theories in the world don’t mean diddily squat then.

When you look at evolution you have to rember, its not in years, its in generations, when you take the fact that over the roughly what is it 3-2 billion years that organic molecules have been replicating them selves for, in generation terms that’s hell almost a trillion trillion generations, that’s more than enough time for dna to appear and then mutations in dna to take the complex form of animals then humans.

When you look at all living things really all we are is a series of biochemical processes making proteins controlled by Dna, make a single change to a base bam whole new protein, if that protein helps the organism bam its the new industry standard, if not the organism dies so on and so on.

But where did all these proteins and dna come from in the first place, well get a bunch of basic amino acids, hydrocarbons, phosphates and varying other elements, put them into a concentrated solution, and pass a charge through it (aka lightning hitting a puddle) see what happens.

When people look at completexity and doubt whether it evolved, like your bombardier beetle, its not like it suddenly appeared one day from bacteria to ass exploding insect, what actually happened was one day a beetle was born with a mutation that made it fire out chemicals rapidly and shot it along, not much but just enough to give it that edge over the beetle behind it without it, this of course meant it dint die and could have a lot more beetle sex, out of its children one had just that extra oopf to its little exploding ability, and so its siblings where one step behind when the birds came, so on and on , until you get the beetle today that appears to have a highly specialised biological defence system.

Intelligent design is the death throws of a church rapidly trying and failing to modernise, it has no scientific basis and just piggy backs of theories that ‘could’ support it. Evolution is tried, tested and proved. The speckled wood moth is just one example of PROOF that comes to mind.

But im not expert just an a level biology student

*snip:a lot of accurate, well thought out, scientific information*

That is what you would get if you looked at the facts and with these facts, came to your own conclusions. However the ID/creationist argument (and i'm trying to be generous here) comes down to: " it's all so very complicated, how could it have possibly come into being on it's own?"

To which you gave the answer, of course. But no-one who hasn't studied physics and biology up untill about at least the age of 18 will understand that. That is why the argument will never be won. People will not understand it and go back to beleiving their own safe ideas like ID.

To which you gave the answer, of course. But no-one who hasn't studied physics and biology up untill about at least the age of 18 will understand that. That is why the argument will never be won. People will not understand it and go back to beleiving their own safe ideas like ID.

Also remember that the "proponents" of this theory use scientific terms, so to the layperson, they are just as scientific as a real scientist. Some of them even have degrees (although generally in areas other than biology). I remember being wowed by a Creationist at church when I was a child - mostly because he used the same big words I didn't understand yet in real science. Most lay-people are not really capable of fully understanding scientific theory - they don't have the background - so when a person comes along that seems official, they believe it.

Again demonstrating *complete* misunderstanding of the theory. A single beetle with a single mutation that was "wrong" would have destroyed itself. However, the "whole process" would not have to start again, as the other beetles would still have the beginnings of the process there. Go ahead and try again.


I will try and explain this two you again. The bombadier bettle needs an extremely precise mix of the chemicals to get the explosion to work. If it is wrong it will explode and kill itself. The number of bettles you would need to get it right is massive. A comparable analogy would be if you had 100 monkeys and attempted to get them to write out a sustatained A-level history essay with a typewriter where there was a 50/50 chance that the keys they typed with would produce a letter the right way up. You get it wrong once, the whole thing is wrong. It destroy's itself. End. Obviously there are other bettles with the beginings of this mutation but the problem with them is that once they reach the level at which they can try this reaction, they then have the problem of accuracy again. In short you would need a number of beetles equivelent to the number of possible combinations of the chemical combinations.

*snip:a lot of accurate, well thought out, scientific information*Cheers for the complement. I wish I had more time to spend on refining it a bit (concentrating the packets of information, as it were) but I'm glad you appreciate it. I realise that I'm not going to convince a hard-line ID advocate, but it's nice to know I'm not talking at cross-purposes with my own side.

I was a little worried about mentioning the wall builder, who some might say needs intelligence where I was aiming at a developed process that became more efficient and creating a 'wall' for purposes outside the scope of the argument, and the same with the train tracks (which just 'lead' to places, like a natural reaction leads from compounds X+Y to compounds A+B). But enough of that... :)

That is what you would get if you looked at the facts and with these facts, came to your own conclusions. However the ID/creationist argument (and i'm trying to be generous here) comes down to: " it's all so very complicated, how could it have possibly come into being on it's own?"

To which you gave the answer, of course. But no-one who hasn't studied physics and biology up untill about at least the age of 18 will understand that. That is why the argument will never be won. People will not understand it and go back to beleiving their own safe ideas like ID.

So true, so true. I suppose I must be aiming at those whose belief in the plane of religion is wavering and whose confidence in the parachute of reason can be hightened, allowing them to cut loose and drift gently down to the ground level of logically proven premises rather than desperately grab the crumbling Skylon of ill-conceived conclusions on the way down into the wave-tossed sea of mortality. ;)

When people look at completexity and doubt whether it evolved, like your bombardier beetle, its not like it suddenly appeared one day from bacteria to ass exploding insect, what actually happened was one day a beetle was born with a mutation that made it fire out chemicals rapidly and shot it along, not much but just enough to give it that edge over the beetle behind it without it, this of course meant it dint die and could have a lot more beetle sex, out of its children one had just that extra oopf to its little exploding ability, and so its siblings where one step behind when the birds came, so on and on , until you get the beetle today that appears to have a highly specialised biological defence system.


Yes, but the problem is the level of complexity of chemical reaction. If you have your first mutated beetle blowing himself up and the next, and the next, you have a situation where the mutation is unproductive and by "suvival of the fittest" logic should just die out.

Intelligent design is just a ploy by crazy bible people who don't belive in evolution. They reason why it was even concieved was because of the seperation of chuch and state, literal bible interpretations of how life began are not allowed to be taught and g-d can NEVER be mentioned in a science class. To get around this Intelligent Design was created, in which "Someone" must have a hand in creating life. The key in getting so much support in this is because I specificly never mentions religion or g-d, just some "force" that guides all new life. It saddens me as someone who is deeply interested in science to see such unfounded, crazed theories being taught in school. Sure, evolution my not be fully proven, but it still has a lot more evidence supporting it then intelligent design. Intelligent Design is just the saddening attempt to defer people from true science...

Yes, but the problem is the level of complexity of chemical reaction. If you have your first mutated beetle blowing himself up and the next, and the next, you have a situation where the mutation is unproductive and by "suvival of the fittest" logic should just die out.

What i was trying to state is, if that was the case yes that beetle would die, the eventual bombardier beetle must have come about by a successive mutation though, most probably by a small change, all of the greatest diversification from a giraffe to a elephant have come about from very small changes over a very long time. Just look back at animals like the elephants ancestors, each new species in the family is slightly bigger with slightly bigger tusks

Not only innacurate, but an exageration of the usual inaccuracies. The usual description is "blow up a pile of wood and nails and you get a shed". Both those examples involve undirected energy. Before explosion, concentrated energy is in explosive/fissile material, after the explosion the energy has transfered into undirected heat and kinetic energy of the material at ground-zero. If you had carefully placed windmill-like devices, you could recover this energy and use it constructive, but what you're in reality doing is spreading energy around (as per 2nd law) throughout the environment. This increased heat, or the presence of wood shavings with a minor but possibly significant nutritional value allows something to be constructed, but what you need to do is put the energy through a controlled process (or at least a 'guided' one, much as a train is guided along rails 'naturally' taking it from one place to another with its cargo, requiring no intelligence by the 'driver', only that the tracks happen to be laid on the logical route).

Of course, with a fission/fusion explosion, you're creating energetic isotopes, not much use for creating a trifle, never mind a gateau.

Undirected energy? The Suns light is undireceted energy, yet for some reason people see fit to use it as a cause for saying the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.


It did evolve, as is proven. (Or, if you prefer, "It does exist, as is proven", your choice.) And the development of the mechanism need not astound you. Chemical production isn't such a difficult thing to obtain, and a happenstance creation of two separate chemicals that react isn't really hard to believe (given the number of different beetles that have developed) with the efficacy of the reaction increasing steadily.

Chemical production is not hard. Two diffrent chemicals is harder. Two diffrent chemicals to the proprtion needed to create A) a repulsive chemical B) a sudden propultion away from a predetor is almost impossible. The margin for error is near zero. There is no way that such a creatre could randomly mutate it right on the first go. There would have to be millions of attempts first, none of which could happen in the natural world anyway as there are no controlled lab enviroments in the natural world to have a tests for a series of bettles. Simpley put, almost every time the bettle gets to the level at which it would produce these chemicals it would blow itself up. And even if it did get it right once, when it then went on to breed you get geneitc dialation. Lots of bettles would have to do this mutation at once so the proability becomes even lower.

Yes, but the problem is the level of complexity of chemical reaction. If you have your first mutated beetle blowing himself up and the next, and the next, you have a situation where the mutation is unproductive and by "suvival of the fittest" logic should just die out.

That chemical reaction that's going on there is not very complex at all, really. That's the whole point.

What i was trying to state is, if that was the case yes that beetle would die, the eventual bombardier beetle must have come about by a successive mutation though, most probably by a small change, all of the greatest diversification from a giraffe to a elephant have come about from very small changes over a very long time. Just look back at animals like the elephants ancestors, each new species in the family is slightly bigger with slightly bigger tusks

A small change leading to an error, thus making said change unproductive. Unless you get it right first time (which I have allready explained is near impossible) then you have a beetle with a self destruct. The line thus becomes unproductive and does not continue.

That chemical reaction that's going on there is not very complex at all, really. That's the whole point.

It is VERY complex. It blasts its opponents full of noxious gasses of over 100 degrees Centigrade. To do this it mixes Hyrdgoen Peroxide and Hydroquinones using enzymes and enzyme blockers, pressure tanks and a whole load of nerve and muscle attachments for aim.

A small change leading to an error, thus making said change unproductive. Unless you get it right first time (which I have allready explained is near impossible) then you have a beetle with a self destruct. The line thus becomes unproductive and does not continue.

Ahh your getting the whole concept upside down, No you would not have got a full fledged bombardier beetle from the first mutation, what you would have would be regular bettle that had small mutation perhaps a very small pouch on its back containing chemicals that would hell maybe even be inactive like a spleen, but through successive mutations this beetle would being to develop a prototype form of this bombardier effect perhaps with very small amounts at first or an incomplete reaction, and if this gave it an advantages it would have lots of offspring one of which may have a slightly more advanced system, and so on and so on.

You would not have the full chemical process in a beetle form the word go, its complexity suggests i took many many generations for evolution to effectively get it 'right'. Not to mention the amount of mutations that would need to occur from generation 0 to 1 to have a fully functioning exploding feature working, would almost certainly kill it any way.

Progressive tiny changes over many generations, not huge new limbs or organs that’s what evolution is about.

It is VERY complex. It blasts its opponents full of noxious gasses of over 100 degrees Centigrade. To do this it mixes Hyrdgoen Peroxide and Hydroquinones using enzymes and enzyme blockers, pressure tanks and a whole load of nerve and muscle attachments for aim.

I still don't see why this mechanism should not have evolved from a less noxious form, for example.

I will try and explain this two you again. The bombadier bettle needs an extremely precise mix of the chemicals to get the explosion to work. If it is wrong it will explode and kill itself. The number of bettles you would need to get it right is massive. A comparable analogy would be if you had 100 monkeys and attempted to get them to write out a sustatained A-level history essay with a typewriter where there was a 50/50 chance that the keys they typed with would produce a letter the right way up. You get it wrong once, the whole thing is wrong. It destroy's itself. End. Obviously there are other bettles with the beginings of this mutation but the problem with them is that once they reach the level at which they can try this reaction, they then have the problem of accuracy again. In short you would need a number of beetles equivelent to the number of possible combinations of the chemical combinations.Beetle Zero has a body that produces no reactive chemical pairs, because the chemicals it produces are (for example) mere irritants. Beetle One is mutated slightly and now has a body that produces a small concentration of reactive chemical within its irritant-chemical glands. In its usual way of things, it does its irritant thing and creates a small fizz on the odd occasion. If it were intelligent enough, it might be surprised at itself, but if it lives a little longer because of it and descendants now have the basic ability of making fizzes. A descendant whose body creates a little bit of the appropriate stuff creates a pop and outlives those for whom fizzes weren't enough to survive. etc etc etc We eventually get beetles whose glands are chemically producing less and less irritant, more and more flash-bang stuff. This, I think you agree with.

If at any point there exists a beetle that goes a bit overboard on the old reactive juices... bye bye beetle... No (or at least fewer) descendants, so the tendency for the genes to do that to be passed on is lowered. If a descendant with the repressed tendancy for really big bangs develops a hardier exoskeleton, he may survive as well as his siblings, and any descendants that redevelop the tendency for big bangs are now able to survive their own defensive process better. Those that don't, don't. That's evolution for you. If you transplanted your beetles to an environment where small 'gunpowder plants' grew then you might find that selection for smaller explosions (lest they set off the mythical gunpoweder plants and be hoisted by their own petard) might occur. Gunpowder plants may also select for less susceptibility to sparks, or perhaps some kind of repellant to the beetles, but what happens is up to nature. I suspect, however, that bombadier beetles are not at the 'upper' limits of evolution, that they could develop bigger and bigger explosions. The ones that do it without the capability to absorb it tend to die, the ones that lessen are outcompeted (in a spark-friendly environment) by those that sustain/grow their sparks safely.

Who knows what might develop. We could have real life 'Doodlebugs', bombadier beetles that have developed a biological version of a V1-style pulse-jet engine. It'll take innumerable generations (and a lot of chance) but it could happen. Just needs the right dice-rolls in the genetic lottery and sufficiently-survivable transitional forms of the beetle between the current model and one that makes use of micro-explosions within a chittinous U-pipe to 'power-glide' short distances away from danger... It's my (theoretical) universe, so I suppose you could call me the Inteligent Designer, but that's only because I have an aim. If I truly allow random decisions and yet the dice rolls still allow the Doodlebug to come into existence (as is possible) in my thought experiement then where has the design come from?

Ahh your getting the whole concept upside down, No you would not have got a full fledged bombardier beetle from the first mutation, what you would have would be regular bettle that had small mutation perhaps a very small pouch on its back containing chemicals that would hell maybe even be inactive like a spleen, but through successive mutations this beetle would being to develop a prototype form of this bombardier effect perhaps with very small amounts at first or an incomplete reaction, and if this gave it an advantages it would have lots of offspring one of which may have a slightly more advanced system, and so on and so on.

You would not have the full chemical process in a beetle form the word go, its complexity suggests i took many many generations for evolution to effectively get it 'right'. Not to mention the amount of mutations that would need to occur from generation 0 to 1 to have a fully functioning exploding feature working, would almost certainly kill it any way.

Progressive tiny changes over many generations, not huge new limbs or organs that’s what evolution is about.

I understand that, however there are problems with that

1) Untill the bettle is evolved to the point at which it can trigger this reaction these organs that are the beginigns are superfluious and may hinder the bettle, causing the line to die out

2) The idea that it starts off with superfulous organs suggests that it somehow is aware of the end result, the bombadier bettle which is impossible

3) The progressive mutation idea does not discount the fact that when the bettle is cappablie of doing the reaction it still has the problem of having to get it right. If it gets it even slightly wrong it blows itself up

4) You now have to consider the mathamatical probability of individual mutations. Mutations within individual DNA molicules are rare, occuring useally once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molicule (1 in 10ttp7 ttp=to the power of). To get to something like this bettle obviously need a series of mutations. To get two related mutations = 10ttp7 X 10ttp7 = 10ttp14. To get four related mutations you need 10ttp28 and the earth is not big enough to hold that many organisms.

Still pretending to have a clue what you are talking about when you don't, I see. The 2nd Law does not apply because the Earth is not a closed system. Period. I don't need proof of that because it is the very definition of the 2nd Law. If you think the Earth is a closed system, *you* need to prove it.

Mind clarifying this please? Are you claiming that Entropy has no effect on Earth?

Mind clarifying this please? Are you claiming that Entropy has no effect on Earth?
No, the claim is that entropy is not acting alone in affecting Earth.

I understand that, however there are problems with that

1) Untill the bettle is evolved to the point at which it can trigger this reaction these organs that are the beginigns are superfluious and may hinder the bettle, causing the line to die out

2) The idea that it starts off with superfulous organs suggests that it somehow is aware of the end result, the bombadier bettle which is impossible

3) The progressive mutation idea does not discount the fact that when the bettle is cappablie of doing the reaction it still has the problem of having to get it right. If it gets it even slightly wrong it blows itself up

4) You now have to consider the mathamatical probability of individual mutations. Mutations within individual DNA molicules are rare, occuring useally once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molicule (1 in 10ttp7 ttp=to the power of). To get to something like this bettle obviously need a series of mutations. To get two related mutations = 10ttp7 X 10ttp7 = 10ttp14. To get four related mutations you need 10ttp28 and the earth is not big enough to hold that many organisms.

Ok may i ask where you getting all this from, its quite good if fighting a loosing battle, personally i think the guy who stated this thread ,E B Guvegrra has a much better understanding of evolution than i do, im a philosophy student first and foremost and a biology student as a side thing really.

What i think your making the biggest mistake is that if the beetle dose have the semi functioning mutation and then dies the entire process gets scraped and it all goes back to stage one, yes this will happen and it will of course die, but to have the current beetle even existing suggests that at some point the a beetle was born perhaps a of a beetle with a semi functioning system(one step down from the current thing) that did have it all working and thus it went forth and propagated itself.

Most probably the original bombardier beetle had a much smaller system ,and having bigger explosion organs has cause it to be more advantageous and so is now the norm.

Hell perhaps we have to go to ockhams razor here, assuming there is a god, why in the f*ck would he make a ass exploding beetle.

I’ve got to be off now but ill be back this is turning into a interesting and rarely intelligent discussion

First of all Neo-Cannen, you don't understand how evolution works. It's not the sum of n mutations, it works a lot different (ever heard of heterochrony and allometric growth?). Second, where do you have that figure from? To my knowledge, mutations occur way more often.

Second, that nihilistic argument "This cannot, under no circumstance have evolved naturally" is rather idiotic. Just because you can't imagine the ancestor of the bombardier beetle, that doesn't mean it didn't exist (as i said, it shares common DNA with other beetles, therefor it must have a common ancestor with them).

First of all Neo-Cannen, you don't understand how evolution works. It's not the sum of n mutations, it works a lot different (ever heard of heterochrony and allometric growth?). Second, where do you have that figure from? To my knowledge, mutations occur way more often.


Julian Huxley wrote it in his book "Evolution, the Modern Synthesis"

Undirected energy? The Suns light is undireceted energy, yet for some reason people see fit to use it as a cause for saying the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.Your explopsion pumps the energy into the Tesco's Superstore (or into the pile of timber and nails) in an undirected manner. The Sun's energy alights upon the earth without direction (well, from the direction of the Sun, but you know what I mean) but is then absorbed by a multitude of molecules, some of which (like Chlorophyl) have specific behaviours in sunshine. Some molecules do 'good' things (like create Oxygen and produce useful carbon compoints), some molecules do 'bad' things (like change minor pollutants into major ones, or destroy the ozone layer) and others do things of indeterminate use (creation of O3, which is bad in the lower atmosphere and good in the... well... ozone layer...) 'Good', 'Bad' or (yes...) 'Ugly', these all take the energy from the sun and do things with it. And then there are molecules that take the UV energy, wobble a bit then re-emit it again as IR with no apparent end product.

But Chlorophyl (for example) is a place where the free energy is taken in and loaded onto a train following an railway route established from the connection of a number of 'molecular stations' linked by the specific precursor and products involved and their proximity to each other... The energy is guided down the line, into sidings, over bridges into other processes, tunneled through chemical 'impossibilities' through the work of catalysts and enzymes and and all the while losing quanta to support and extend the countryside it passes through...

If you have appropriate chemicals to survive (or be created through) the explosion that seek out other chemicals and form themselves into a Gateau, then be my guest. You may be acting like the upstart Bombadier, however, the one that has the ability to create an almighty bang but did not inherit the hard exoskeleton to survive its application.


Chemical production is not hard. Two diffrent chemicals is harder. Two diffrent chemicals to the proprtion needed to create A) a repulsive chemical B) a sudden propultion away from a predetor is almost impossible. The margin for error is near zero. There is no way that such a creatre could randomly mutate it right on the first go. There would have to be millions of attempts first, none of which could happen in the natural world anyway as there are no controlled lab enviroments in the natural world to have a tests for a series of bettles. Simpley put, almost every time the bettle gets to the level at which it would produce these chemicals it would blow itself up. And even if it did get it right once, when it then went on to breed you get geneitc dialation. Lots of bettles would have to do this mutation at once so the proability becomes even lower.Any time a beetle exceeds the level at which it can safely produce and apply these chemicals it would blow itself up, yes... But the ones that have small reactions (the very first ones, whose parents only inadvertantly passed on the ability through minor mutation) should live long enough to have children with larger ones. And then if you hit an evolutionary brick wall, the ones with not quite enough bang to propel themselves fatally against that wall will dominate. No error margin needed, because those who go over the line never come back, but the ones that are well back from the line can wander up to it, one small step every generation or so (with some retreating and some being killed off by unrelated occurences...).

And I believe (though the biologists can correct me if I'm wrong) that the two chemicals are produced in separate glands and mix only when they meet, having both been squirted from the body to coincide a small distance (a body length or so) from the beetle. The chemicals on their own are not dangerous (well, not the to the respective glands or projecting orifices) and may well have been developed (and retain the properties of) irritants, acides, pheremonic signals, something that were useful. If you don't mix them right and they don't explode, you still get some benefits. If your body-plan produces/projects too much/too close then you're dead. You earnt a Darwin Award. Viva the beetles whose body plans don't make that mistake (which is all the ones without the ultimately fatal errors in their genetic code).

Second, that nihilistic argument "This cannot, under no circumstance have evolved naturally" is rather idiotic. Just because you can't imagine the ancestor of the bombardier beetle, that doesn't mean it didn't exist (as i said, it shares common DNA with other beetles, therefor it must have a common ancestor with them).

I wasn't aware that imagination was given such credence in science.

Julian Huxley wrote it in his book "Evolution, the Modern Synthesis"

To your information, that book is from 1942. A bit too old for my taste. Considering this was a few years before the discovery of the structure of DNA (Watson & Creek, 1953, i wouldn't be sure if that guy really knew what he was talking about). Genetics have moved quiet a bit since then, don't you agree? :p

To your information, that book is from 1942. A bit too old for my taste. Considering this was a few years before the discovery of the structure of DNA (Watson & Creek, 1953, i wouldn't be sure if that guy really knew what he was talking about). Genetics have moved quiet a bit since then, don't you agree? :p

The third edition came out in 1973

I wasn't aware that imagination was given such credence in science.

Well, imagination in the context of coming up with new ideas and solutions. Science wouldn't work without that.

I will try and explain this two you again. The bombadier bettle needs an extremely precise mix of the chemicals to get the explosion to work. If it is wrong it will explode and kill itself. The number of bettles you would need to get it right is massive. A comparable analogy would be if you had 100 monkeys and attempted to get them to write out a sustatained A-level history essay with a typewriter where there was a 50/50 chance that the keys they typed with would produce a letter the right way up. You get it wrong once, the whole thing is wrong. It destroy's itself. End. Obviously there are other bettles with the beginings of this mutation but the problem with them is that once they reach the level at which they can try this reaction, they then have the problem of accuracy again. In short you would need a number of beetles equivelent to the number of possible combinations of the chemical combinations.

Do you have any idea how many beetles there have been since the beginning of time?

Do you have any idea how many beetles there are on this planet right this second?

Meanwhile, you don't need a number of beetles equivalent to all possible combinations - you just need one mutation that gets it "right". You are thinking of evolution as being a directed process, but it is not. If the correct mutation never happened, we simply wouldn't have bombadier beetles, but the fact that they are here does not in any way suggest that every possible mutation to the process has occurred.

Chemical production is not hard. Two diffrent chemicals is harder. Two diffrent chemicals to the proprtion needed to create A) a repulsive chemical B) a sudden propultion away from a predetor is almost impossible. The margin for error is near zero. There is no way that such a creatre could randomly mutate it right on the first go. There would have to be millions of attempts first, none of which could happen in the natural world anyway as there are no controlled lab enviroments in the natural world to have a tests for a series of bettles. Simpley put, almost every time the bettle gets to the level at which it would produce these chemicals it would blow itself up. And even if it did get it right once, when it then went on to breed you get geneitc dialation. Lots of bettles would have to do this mutation at once so the proability becomes even lower.

You are still thinking about this as if the species had to be "trying" to get a specific reaction, which is not the case.

Do you have any idea how many beetles there have been since the beginning of time?

Do you have any idea how many beetles there are on this planet right this second?

Meanwhile, you don't need a number of beetles equivalent to all possible combinations - you just need one mutation that gets it "right". You are thinking of evolution as being a directed process, but it is not. If the correct mutation never happened, we simply wouldn't have bombadier beetles, but the fact that they are here does not in any way suggest that every possible mutation to the process has occurred.

And just LOOK at the number of different species of beetles....

Given the HUGE beetle-presence on the planet, it'd be against the laws of probablility if there were NO exploding beetles, surely?

I understand that, however there are problems with that

1) Untill the bettle is evolved to the point at which it can trigger this reaction these organs that are the beginigns are superfluious and may hinder the bettle, causing the line to die outIf it fatally hinders the beetle from reproducing, then that line will die out. If it doesn't quite it won't. In my own interpretaion, the organs are ones that were carrying out purpose A (irritant producers, perhaps having ultimately developed from skin/surface glands that oozed irritant) and through accident and chance gradually gained the ability to required for purpose B. Glands producing chemicals. Glands producing different chemicals. By way of glands producing small amounts of the second (related) type within the first mixture because of slightly altered cellular production process, then the usefulness of increasingly concentrated mixes selecting for such progress.

2) The idea that it starts off with superfulous organs suggests that it somehow is aware of the end result, the bombadier bettle which is impossibleFirstly, superfluous organs are actually old organs that have lost their usefulness. See the appendix. Did someone decide that "we need the appendix but we don't want it to do anything, except create minor medical emergencies on occasion"? Secondly, the organs/glands/whatever may or may not have been superfluous and may or may not have developed into Bombadier organs/glands/whatever. They did do, but that's by-the-by. Throw a dice. What's the number on top. What were the chances of gettng that number. 1/6th is less than a half. You should never have rolled that number by pure chance. Someone must have decided that you'd get that number, right? Well, no, you just happened to. Live with it.

3) The progressive mutation idea does not discount the fact that when the bettle is cappablie of doing the reaction it still has the problem of having to get it right. If it gets it even slightly wrong it blows itself upThus a 'safe' beetle develops a body-plan that makes things 'happen just right'. If it does not develop that body plan, it has significantly lower chance of creating 'still not right' offspring. The ones that develop slowly and surely or even serrendipitously jump into a nice safe 'niche' whereby both ability and safeguards are well matched have more offspring with a good chance of being within a 'safe niche' of their own, but might be slightly better and slightly more capable of handling it.

4) You now have to consider the mathamatical probability of individual mutations. Mutations within individual DNA molicules are rare, occuring useally once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molicule (1 in 10ttp7 ttp=to the power of). To get to something like this bettle obviously need a series of mutations. To get two related mutations = 10ttp7 X 10ttp7 = 10ttp14. To get four related mutations you need 10ttp28 and the earth is not big enough to hold that many organisms. Which is why aiming for an overall mutation is so darned hard. Now roll two dice, a red one and a blue one to save confusion. What are the numbers on those dice? What are the chances of those numbers? 1 in 36? Wow, someone must have decided to do that, because it's very unlikely to have got that particular combination. Yet you did.

Look at the bombadier. Very unlikely. Yet it did happen. Anything that could happen can happen. Anything that did happen must have happened, and perhaps you're just very lucky to be in a world where such a beetle occurs to marvel at... No design, just chance.

And just LOOK at the number of different species of beetles....

Given the HUGE beetle-presence on the planet, it'd be against the laws of probablility if there were NO exploding beetles, surely?
Not nessisarily ... you would have to figure out total possible outcomes before calculating the probability of a specific occurance of one ... I dont see how we could know just how many different types their could be.

Not nessisarily ... you would have to figure out total possible outcomes before calculating the probability of a specific occurance of one ... I dont see how we could know just how many different types their could be.

I was being a little tongue in cheek, admitted.

But, hundreds of millions of years, more species of beetle than all other (non-plant, multi-cellular) lifeforms put together...

Seems that chance FAVOURS exploding beetles, eventually. :)

And just LOOK at the number of different species of beetles....

Given the HUGE beetle-presence on the planet, it'd be against the laws of probablility if there were NO exploding beetles, surely?Not nessisarily ... you would have to figure out total possible outcomes before calculating the probability of a specific occurance of one ... I dont see how we could know just how many different types their could be.Still, a good parody of the "Probability says it cannot happen. Ever." POV.. ;)

Look at the bombadier. Very unlikely. Yet it did happen. Anything that could happen can happen. Anything that did happen must have happened, and perhaps you're just very lucky to be in a world where such a beetle occurs to marvel at... No design, just chance.

Im debating that it happened by chance. Certianly I seem to be better off than you in that regard. Given that for four individual yet linked mutations the odds are 10ttp28. There isnt enough space on earth for that many organisms.

Im debating that it happened by chance. Certianly I seem to be better off than you in that regard. Given that for four individual yet linked mutations the odds are 10ttp28. There isnt enough space on earth for that many organisms.

Not at the same time maybe.

Again I ask, how many beetles do you think there could be over the course of millions of years?

Not at the same time maybe.

Again I ask, how many beetles do you think there could be over the course of millions of years?

Im not talking about bettles with that figure. Thats any animal, any mutation. For 4 individual genetic mutations which move towards any kind of significent outcome the odds are 1 in 10ttp28. Now there isnt enough space on earth for that many organisms to exist. If you want a mutation to move between individual generations then it still takes 1 in 10ttp7. Thats a lot of any animal.

Im not talking about bettles with that figure. Thats any animal, any mutation. For 4 individual genetic mutations which move towards any kind of significent outcome the odds are 1 in 10ttp28. Now there isnt enough space on earth for that many organisms to exist.

You are still making the assumption that the mutations are directed, which they are not. You can't use the probability of four different mutations, because there is no direction here. You can only calculate the probability of each individual mutation happening (which is actually pretty high over the course of things).

I was being a little tongue in cheek, admitted.

But, hundreds of millions of years, more species of beetle than all other (non-plant, multi-cellular) lifeforms put together...

Seems that chance FAVOURS exploding beetles, eventually. :)My fault for imagining them, I suppose, but now I want to see Brachinus Vengeancea develop... Pity I could be waiting a long time for it and it still not arise. :D

You are still making the assumption that the mutations are directed, which they are not. You can't use the probability of four different mutations, because there is no direction here. You can only calculate the probability of each individual mutation happening (which is actually pretty high over the course of things).

I know mutations are not directed, Im not talking about directed mutations. Just individual mutations within a genetic molicular chain. Mutations of any kind are extremely rare, occuring only once in every 10 million dupications of a DNA molicule. Therefore the odds of getting two mutations are 1 in 10ttp14 and 4 is 1 in 10ttp28 etc.

My fault for imagining them, I suppose, but now I want to see Brachinus Vengeancea develop... Pity I could be waiting a long time for it and it still not arise. :D

But, when they finally turn-up, it'd be a sight worth seeing. :)

I know mutations are not directed, Im not talking about directed mutations. Just individual mutations within a genetic molicular chain. Mutations of any kind are extremely rare, occuring only once in every 10 million dupications of a DNA molicule. Therefore the odds of getting two mutations are 1 in 10ttp14 and 4 is 1 in 10ttp28 etc.

And, how many times, do you think.... do beetles (collectively) exchange DNA?

All beetles.... any DNA exchange, sexual or just mutagenic/teratagenic alterations included?

How many beetle 'entities' do you estimate might be on this planet, right now?

And, how long do you imagine beetles have been 'beetling' around?


So: if you are going to throw out one set of 'numbers', how about considering the other side of the 'numbers' game?

I've stopped debating the faults and misinterpretations in evolutionary theory for one main reason. There's been talk on this thread of "open systems" and "closed systems." The reason I've stopped debating is because most evolutionists live in a sort of "closed system" meaning that any scientific evidence or proof that goes against their belief system is immediately deemed unscientific. Evolutionists more often than not limit their serious debate to "how many millions of years" it took for the world to evolve. Any question to the theory is not debated but ridiculed in a quite unscientific (and quite childish) manner.

Therefore...debate is pointless. You couldn't change their mind even if you were the intelligent source that designed the world.

I've stopped debating the faults and misinterpretations in evolutionary theory for one main reason. There's been talk on this thread of "open systems" and "closed systems." The reason I've stopped debating is because most evolutionists live in a sort of "closed system" meaning that any scientific evidence or proof that goes against their belief system is immediately deemed unscientific. Evolutionists more often than not limit their serious debate to "how many millions of years" it took for the world to evolve. Any question to the theory is not debated but ridiculed in a quite unscientific (and quite childish) manner.

Therefore...debate is pointless. You couldn't change their mind even if you were the intelligent source that designed the world.
Although I agree with the scientific explanations offered to counter "Creation Science", I agree that they are with few exceptions presented in a manner meant to ridicule the opposition. That is, in my opinion, rather self-defeating, and little wonder why they have to repeat themselves so frequently.

I've stopped debating the faults and misinterpretations in evolutionary theory for one main reason. There's been talk on this thread of "open systems" and "closed systems." The reason I've stopped debating is because most evolutionists live in a sort of "closed system" meaning that any scientific evidence or proof that goes against their belief system is immediately deemed unscientific. Evolutionists more often than not limit their serious debate to "how many millions of years" it took for the world to evolve. Any question to the theory is not debated but ridiculed in a quite unscientific (and quite childish) manner.

Therefore...debate is pointless. You couldn't change their mind even if you were the intelligent source that designed the world.

Curious - you talk about how 'science' rejects evidence... and yet, what is the (main) alternative? A system of explanation that rejects anything not written down nearly 3000 years earlier?

http://www.creationtheory.org/HateMail/Summerbird.shtml

Im debating that it happened by chance. Certianly I seem to be better off than you in that regard. Given that for four individual yet linked mutations the odds are 10ttp28. There isnt enough space on earth for that many organisms.You don't understand stats.

Look at the lottery numbers. 432938943360 (I think) different orders that they can roll out in (including bonus ball). Yet you don't have to wait that many times for any particular combination. (It just seems like it... :)

Or (more accurately), perhaps you want 1 to come out first, 2 to be drawn on the second, 3 third, etc, 7 on the bonus ball position. There's a one in 49 chance chance that the first happens, so you make some 'first draws'. Around 98% of those will be useless to you, so you forget about them, consign them to history, but you remember the ones that do (label them up as "Arthur, set of balls 4", whatever you want). You then make more draws. You set them up so that the number 1 has been removed and a randomly labelled 'survivor' from the first round (i.e. one that produce the number 1 ball) is the 'parent' to this draw. Obviously there will be more than one 'child draw' to the 'parent draw', but that's because the parent-draw won the right to be a parent. You similarly choose/kull the said draws so that only ones where '2' came out are important to you at the next step. "Guinevere, set of balls 3" is a surviving daughter of "Arthur, set of balls 4".

Continue.

At each step, you make maybe 200 draws (to try to avoid any nasty extinction-level pure-chance events where you didn't get the chosen numbers at all that round). Seven rounds later, you have family trees (albeit a little nasty, assessed on a mythological level :)) where the children that exist from the seventh round have 4x10^12 chance of ever being drawn, yet you only ever had 1400 draws in total and (probably) several perfectly developed family trees. You never did have to see the 'bonus child' draw whose number was 12, not 7, whose parent was 41 not 6, whose parent was 2 not 5, whose parent was 4 but that didn't matter bcause their parent was 1, not 3, and their parent was 22 not 2 and the originator of the family was 37, not 1. You never saw those, because "Merlin, balls 5" who came up 37 on the first pass wasn't ever considered 'fit' to be a parent, by the given selection scheme, and the rest of the lineage never occured to crowd out the 'one true' lineage that dealt with the environment (in this case an artificial one dictated to by me, but in the Bombardier's case a natural one dictated by the complex nature of nature itself... Chance and luck and interaction and parallel evolution of preditor and prey and catastrophies and who knows what...)

Want to make it less directed? Have the 'surviving number' from each generation be the one chosen in that position by a a real-life draw. What you're doing is emulating the choosing of a (completely improbable, completely random) identical combination, and you can have populations vying for superiority over each other. Keep cycling round each combination you've so far built up until you've got a number of successors that match various previous draws. Keep cycling round, and some past draws may never come up from the start (because you didn't get a 49-starter before you decided you had enough to start with) or others may die off (because the "10 and 15" family never had a "3" child before you declared that generation done reproducing) but as long as you give oportunity for some evolving of further numbers, you'll probably end up with several families, replicating several different past draws...

You can play around with these ideas all day, you know. And then you might get on a 'highly improbable' cycle where it all goes wrong and there are no succesful attempts to produce offspring after thousands and thousands of attempts, one generation...

Although I agree with the scientific explanations offered to counter "Creation Science", I agree that they are with few exceptions presented in a manner meant to ridicule the opposition. That is, in my opinion, rather self-defeating, and little wonder why they have to repeat themselves so frequently.I think some of it is tone... Frexample, I say "Roll a dice, what's the number on it... ...you got that number. Live with it." Reading back what I read (in light of reading what my correspondant had said to others inbetween times) it could have looked like "Live with it" was said in the tone of "Stuff it!".

It wasn't, needless to say, but if that sort of thing works with everyday words, how might the more complex words often required to convey the more complex concepts be so much more misunderstood through their departure from the modern parlance?

There are times I might actually be upset and raging (ranting even, c.f. the title given to us by the originator of this thread) but I truly, honestly, do feel that the base from which I'm working is of the "I understand that you have these ideas, but I was wondering if the following explantion might offer you a perspective from which you can appreciate the relative merits of the other ideas and understand why our position is the one based upon sturdier reasoning."

And, of course, if we can (try to) say that then so can the 'opposition', and we're in a sticky mess if both of us decide we have 'the best viewpoint' and yet cannot appreciate the locale of the others... This is where other balances come into play, or else it degenerates. Still, we do implore the poor misguided soul(s) on the other side of the argument to consider our position, or else provide a decent panorama representing the qualities of the landmarks as seen from their standpoint, with a view to showing superior appreciation. (And this is all said, however genuinely, with a slight mischievous wink, so maybe I should have inseted a ;) smiley at that point, in the hope that it was correctly understood...)

I know mutations are not directed, Im not talking about directed mutations. Just individual mutations within a genetic molicular chain. Mutations of any kind are extremely rare, occuring only once in every 10 million dupications of a DNA molicule. Therefore the odds of getting two mutations are 1 in 10ttp14 and 4 is 1 in 10ttp28 etc.

In order to even make that calculation, you are assuming a direction. Otherwise, every mutation has the exact same probability, regardless of whether or not they cause the effect you are looking for.

Did you know that at least 5 genes control skin color? What do you think the odds would be of a single person getting a specific skin color from a specific set of five genes? Pretty small if you assumed that there was a direction and that you *had* to get those 5 genes.

I've stopped debating the faults and misinterpretations in evolutionary theory for one main reason. There's been talk on this thread of "open systems" and "closed systems." The reason I've stopped debating is because most evolutionists live in a sort of "closed system" meaning that any scientific evidence or proof that goes against their belief system is immediately deemed unscientific. Evolutionists more often than not limit their serious debate to "how many millions of years" it took for the world to evolve. Any question to the theory is not debated but ridiculed in a quite unscientific (and quite childish) manner.

Therefore...debate is pointless. You couldn't change their mind even if you were the intelligent source that designed the world.

While I won't deny that some people take this tack, the scientific community as a whole does not.

However, "We can't figure it out and God must've done it" is simply unscientific - by definition.

<snip> When people look at completexity and doubt whether it evolved, like your bombardier beetle, its not like it suddenly appeared one day from bacteria to ass exploding insect, what actually happened was one day a beetle was born with a mutation that made it fire out chemicals rapidly and shot it along, not much but just enough to give it that edge over the beetle behind it without it, this of course meant it dint die and could have a lot more beetle sex, out of its children one had just that extra oopf to its little exploding ability, and so its siblings where one step behind when the birds came, so on and on , until you get the beetle today that appears to have a highly specialised biological defence system. <snip>

I would reccomend you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, who, just for the record, is not a christian, but an expert at biology on the molecular level. In that book he sets out several very impressive challenges to evolution, one of which deals with the bombardier beetle.

Anyone hoping to defend evolution has to meet and defeat the challenges in that book.

I would reccomend you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, who, just for the record, is not a christian, but an expert at biology on the molecular level. In that book he sets out several very impressive challenges to evolution, one of which deals with the bombardier beetle.

Anyone hoping to defend evolution has to meet and defeat the challenges in that book.

Sorry, friend... you are YEARS behind the debate...

I have seen entire sites dedicated to then flaws in that text...

I would reccomend you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, who, just for the record, is not a christian, but an expert at biology on the molecular level. In that book he sets out several very impressive challenges to evolution, one of which deals with the bombardier beetle.

Anyone hoping to defend evolution has to meet and defeat the challenges in that book.

Any old idiot can come along with a biochemistry degree from hickvile usa and then write a book on his opinions, If its published by either the Cambridge or oxford world press then ill read it, otherwise its not either worthy of a coffee mat status, the evolution is wrong because x y and z books are a 'dime a dozen' these days there almost all highly subjective, based on limited amount of arguments and from people of shaky credentials.

I know of several examples that undisputedly prove evolution any way, it really should start being called the law of evolution, as opposed to theory. The peppered moth for one.

Hell not to mention Darwin was a committed Christian

Any old idiot can come along with a biochemistry degree from hickvile usa

There actually is a Hicksville, (NY) and it has a college. Too bad it's a Makeup and Artistry college. :(

In order to even make that calculation, you are assuming a direction.

No, you dont. A mutation is a change in a gene with some kind of result that doesnt turn it into "Junk DNA". Thats all the direction you need.

Sorry, friend... you are YEARS behind the debate...

I have seen entire sites dedicated to then flaws in that text...

And I have seen entire sites dedicated to the flaws in evolution.

What was your point?

Sorry, friend... you are YEARS behind the debate...

I have seen entire sites dedicated to then flaws in that text...

Then post them

And I have seen entire sites dedicated to the flaws in evolution.

What was your point?

That your 'evidence' for a 'flaw' in evolution, is thoroughly discredited.

Thus - the original theory 'stands', until another, better, argument arrives.

<snip> I know of several examples that undisputedly prove evolution any way, it really should start being called the law of evolution, as opposed to theory. The peppered moth for one. <snip>

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

Then post them

Off topic.

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

I fully expect replies to be consonant with the amount of worthwhile material, and supportable evidence, you have added to the debate.

:) <---- This is me, not holding my breath.

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

Ahh damn (at you leaving :( ).
Thats one example, me an a level biology student can think off the top of his head, I KNOW there are more though, not think, know. I just dont know what they are. I know i should know though, lol. I have to know at least 3 for my exam in june.

No evolution is currenlty taught and should be thought in schools simply becuase it is a tried tested and proven theory, i dont know why its still called a theory (prehaps it not really just the public misconception). Hell ask any credibile person from a credible university.

Why should it be in R.s its not a relgious theory.

bah!

Yes, but the problem is the level of complexity of chemical reaction. If you have your first mutated beetle blowing himself up and the next, and the next, you have a situation where the mutation is unproductive and by "suvival of the fittest" logic should just die out.
I don't think you understand the term "survival of the fittest" it means the survival of the genes from the organisms that survive and pass on their genes the most. Not every mutation will end up the same, if you know anything of chaos theory, the slightest variation in one thing (i.e. a slight change on the 12th chromosome instead of the 11th) can and does produce much greater changes throughout the rest of the system.

Not every mutation will end up beign the same and eventually, after all these beetles who don't survive blow themselves up, odds are that a beetle will be able to survive with a slightly different formula and then voila.

I also love how you passed over the entire discussion on the second law of thermodynamics and probability in favour of pointing out the one thing that no one really bothered to deal with on the first page. Does that mean you accept that you were wrong about everything else?

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

Actually, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. Evolution IS a theory. There is no step above theory, so, unless you advocate making people sit around twiddling their thumbs for an hour, you cannot say something shouldn't be taught in science class because it is only a theory.

To the guy with the probabilities:

You seem to have a gross mis-understanding of probability. Just because something has a 1 in X chance of happening doesn't mean it will only happen after you have made X tries at it. It means it will, on average, happen once for every X tries. This means it could be the first, second, third, fourth, etc on up to X try on which it happens.

To the guy with the probabilities:

You seem to have a gross mis-understanding of probability. Just because something has a 1 in X chance of happening doesn't mean it will only happen after you have made X tries at it. It means it will, on average, happen once for every X tries. This means it could be the first, second, third, fourth, etc on up to X try on which it happens.

That would be me, perhaps my langue was the problem, what i was suggesting was along those lines that if a probability was above 0, assuming that the number of 'tries' per second or any space of time were infinite and these it would be attempted for an infinite amount of time, these probability would express them selves, It not my theory really it was that of a friend and a rather brilliant mathematician, I’m just giving you perhaps a rather poor copy of it.

That would be me, perhaps my langue was the problem, what i was suggesting was along those lines that if a probability was above 0, assuming that the number of 'tries' per second or any space of time were infinite and these it would be attempted for an infinite amount of time, these probability would express them selves, It not my theory really it was that of a friend and a rather brilliant mathematician, I’m just giving you perhaps a rather poor copy of it.

I was refering to Neo Cannen, actually.

By the way, there cannot be infinite tries per second as there is an actual quanta of time, the planck time, which is the most literal definition of "a moment in time", I can think of. It isn't actually anything physical, but just as there is a smallest possible bit of space, there is a smallest possible bit of time.

I was refering to Neo Cannen, actually.

By the way, there cannot be infinite tries per second as there is an actual quanta of time, the planck time, which is the most literal definition of "a moment in time", I can think of. It isn't actually anything physical, but just as there is a smallest possible bit of space, there is a smallest possible bit of time.

Not to split hairs... but - there still could be an 'infinite number of tries per second'... since you don't have to assume that all of them are occuring sequentially....

That is to say... there could be an effective infinite number of simultaneous attempts, over the (slightly more) finite duration.

Not to split hairs... but - there still could be an 'infinite number of tries per second'... since you don't have to assume that all of them are occuring sequentially....

That is to say... there could be an effective infinite number of simultaneous attempts, over the (slightly more) finite duration.

Infinite tries requires one of two things: infinite space (resources) or infinite time. There can be neither in a clearly defined universe and clearly defined period of time. Not unless the try for something took up no space or no time.

Macro evolution seems to be full of crap anyways. As for me I will look at the evidence and draw my own conclusion. I am not going to let someone fill in the gaps for me. Do you know macro evolution happened because of hypostatization or did it happen because you know?

Infinite tries requires one of two things: infinite space (resources) or infinite time. There can be neither in a clearly defined universe and clearly defined period of time. Not unless the try for something took up no space or no time.

Clearly defined universe?

Regardless... in theory, there is no reason why (effectively) infinite repetitions of a thing (depending on the 'thing', of course) should not be carried out simultaneously.

(For example... in 'theory', you could be waiting for repetitions of an amount of energy to propogate spontaneously... which would require no set resource, no set duration... and the product would only be 'quantifiable' after it occured).

In practice, duration and resources may become more of an issue.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.


The reason *they* teach evolution in schools is not to persuade children to give up God. The reason evolution is taught in schools is because almost the entire cycle of modern biology is based on evolution.
Genetics
Natural Selection
Mutation
Big Bang
Paleontology
Botany
Anatomy
etc.

untill they make coacervates the replicate/reproduce im not fully beilieving either side.

The reason *they* teach evolution in schools is not to persuade children to give up God. The reason evolution is taught in schools is because almost the entire cycle of modern biology is based on evolution.
Genetics
Natural Selection
Mutation
Big Bang
Paleontology
Botany
Anatomy
etc.
Add to that list the fields of Psychology, Philosophy, and Anthropology, all of which were heavily influenced by Evolutionary Biology.

Damn science! It confuses me and my inbred son, we are gonna go read (insert religious text) for 8 days and go kill gays and ......
The only people who think that Evolution threatens religion are crazy fundamentalists. Just cuz it says 7 days doesnt mean 7 days what r days to god?
The only problem i have with evo, is that why does the thing become complex. couldnt it become simpler and more effecient? And that probability of a protien being made is like 1 out of a billion, and the possibility of a organism forming even less.
The only explanation thats been given is quantum evo but thats still in infancy so.............

Damn science! It confuses me and my inbred son, we are gonna go read (insert religious text) for 8 days and go kill gays and ......
The only people who think that Evolution threatens religion are crazy fundamentalists. Just cuz it says 7 days doesnt mean 7 days what r days to god?
The only problem i have with evo, is that why does the thing become complex. couldnt it become simpler and more effecient? And that probability of a protien being made is like 1 out of a billion, and the possibility of a organism forming even less.
The only explanation thats been given is quantum evo but thats still in infancy so.............

What the hell are you talking about, quantum evolution? Seriously, is english your first language?

Off topic.


Hey Grave,
actually i think that it would be quite relevant to post some of those sites, Since he used 'Darwins Black Box' in his support.

(By the way I have read it)Here is a link:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

No, you dont. A mutation is a change in a gene with some kind of result that doesnt turn it into "Junk DNA". Thats all the direction you need.

And every mutation has roughly the same chance of occuring, regardless of what other mutations might have already occurred.

The chances of the exact four or five mutations that caused my grandfather's lung cancer occuring are pretty low - but it happened. In someone else, four or five other mutations might have occurred that *didn't* cause cancer. In the end, the probability of both happening is the same.

And I have seen entire sites dedicated to the flaws in evolution.

What was your point?

One has backing in science, the other has backing in people who don't understand science.

Add to that list the fields of Psychology, Philosophy, and Anthropology, all of which were heavily influenced by Evolutionary Biology.

Absolutely. My initial list was merely those fields directly influenced. The list of indirectly influenced subjects likely extends to all forms of education in place. To not teach evolution is to remove science from schools.

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

I guess you think we should just stop teaching science then, since *everything* in science is "just theory". Meanwhile, ID is not a scientific theory, it is a lay-theory, which is an entirely different matter. Creationism is just someone going "What he said!"

Ahh damn (at you leaving :( ).
Thats one example, me an a level biology student can think off the top of his head, I KNOW there are more though, not think, know. I just dont know what they are. I know i should know though, lol. I have to know at least 3 for my exam in june.

No evolution is currenlty taught and should be thought in schools simply becuase it is a tried tested and proven theory, i dont know why its still called a theory (prehaps it not really just the public misconception). Hell ask any credibile person from a credible university.

Why should it be in R.s its not a relgious theory.

bah!

If you are really an "a level biology student", then you should realize that science can never "prove" anything and that *everything* in science is a theory. Why is evolution called a theory? BECAUSE IT IS!!

I guess you think we should just stop teaching science then, since *everything* in science is "just theory". Meanwhile, ID is not a scientific theory, it is a lay-theory, which is an entirely different matter. Creationism is just someone going "What he said!"

But, those in favor of ID also use science to back their theory. I would think ID should be considered a scientific theory. Not focusing on the discussion of God, but the discussion of Design in nature.

But, those in favor of ID also use science to back their theory. I would think ID should be considered a scientific theory. Not focusing on the discussion of God, but the discussion of Design in nature.

ID is not a theory as a theory has the requirement of falsifiability. Name an experiment that could falsify ID. You can't, as it depends on a supernatural (outside the realm of science and empirism to begin with) element.

But, those in favor of ID also use science to back their theory. I would think ID should be considered a scientific theory. Not focusing on the discussion of God, but the discussion of Design in nature.

No, they don't. The "theory" is completely outside the scientific definition of the word and "We can't figure it out so God must've done it" is not a testable hypothesis. As such, it can never be considered scientific.

You must try not to confuse "said by people in scientific terms" with "scientific".

Even though the peppered moth is now not considered as conclusive? One example is not enough to prove a theory.

At the end of the day, I don't think they should teach either theory in science classes, as they are just that, theories. Evolution takes as much belief as Creation or Intelligent Design, and therefore all three should be reserved for Religious Education classes, and not science.

I'm leaving this thread now, so don't expect me to read any replies.

Ouch. :headbang:

That's the typical argument by Creationists: "Evolution is just a theory". You don't know what the term theory means - you think it was a hypothesis - which it is not. So, what about other theories now, like the Theory of Relativity. It's "just a theory" too, so it should not be taught in science class, in your opinion? :mad:

Ok, Dempublicents1 and Industrial Experiment, i see your point.

Neo Cannen's arguments seem to be entirely based upon a teleological argument, i.e. "Look at how complex the bombardier beetle is....." except with many, many more grammar and punctuation errors. Enough, in fact, to make it very difficult to read.

Aside from this, the bombardier beetle does exist, as do many other things resembling it's particular line of defense, albeit without the explosive escape. Consider the acacia tree perhaps, or the skunk. Small changes over long periods of time created new defense mechanisms, new colorations of the fur, longer, or flatter canines. Thorns to protect from predators, spines to do the same.

Chameleons can change color to match their surroundings, as can several other lizards. Birds have feathers and my Guinness always tastes just right. Do you know what the probability is of all these things occurring at the same time?

The main problem I can see when attempting to understand evolution, is that Intelligent Design advocates are often working with a shortened period of time, or a deadline. We've only got 6 days to work with, therefore a longer period of time means a falsehood. Who knows how long it took for God to create the universe, and who are you to question his methods? Perhaps he just let the chips fall where they may, and didn't much care if he had a beetle that blew odiferous gases and propelled itself out of harms way.

To say that evolution is entirely deniable is to deny evidence gathered over centuries. I do not deny the existence of the Bible or the people inside its pages. I ask that you do the same for Darwin's On the Origin of Species. He travelled halfway around the world and examined creatures and plants that had striking similarities to those creatures he had seen at home. Halfway around the world there were creatures that weren't entirely alien, although did seem a bit different from those back in England. But considering the surroundings, who's to blame them? A much harsher environment breeds a much harsher creature to survive.

Don't look at the probability of life to take a certain path, look at the amazing similarities between the wolves of Europe and of America. Look at the intricate designs on the back of a boa constrictor and see the same on a rattlesnake. They are most likely related. Sort of like looking on the far side of your family tree. Look way back at your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's brother and trace his family down, then find the people who would be your age. Do you look alike? Are you fat and he/she thin? Is your hair straight and red and his/her's brown and curly? Do not disregard the evidence. You are related to this person.

To say that evolution is impossible, or at the least so improbable as to necessitate a guiding hand, is to say this (which has been said before in another way):
Take a deck of cards and shuffle them. Now deal 5 cards face down on the table. Turn over the first card, now the second, the third, fourth and fifth. Do you know what the probability is of picking those five cards in that exact order? The chance of those cards being picked in that exact order is 1 in 311,875,200. That's less than a 1 in 3 million shot. And you picked it on the first try! Time to play the lotto!

Oh, and Neo Cannen, would you mind using scientific notation (i.e. 6.02x10^28)? That ttph thing looks surprisingly like the phonetic spelling of a raspberry. :p

The main problem I can see when attempting to understand evolution, is that Intelligent Design advocates are often working with a shortened period of time, or a deadline. We've only got 6 days to work with, therefore a longer period of time means a falsehood. Who knows how long it took for God to create the universe, and who are you to question his methods? Perhaps he just let the chips fall where they may, and didn't much care if he had a beetle that blew odiferous gases and propelled itself out of harms way.

Most seem to use the 6 days idea, but there are some 'old earth' creationists.


Don't look at the probability of life to take a certain path, look at the amazing similarities between the wolves of Europe and of America. Look at the intricate designs on the back of a boa constrictor and see the same on a rattlesnake. They are most likely related. Sort of like looking on the far side of your family tree. Look way back at your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather's brother and trace his family down, then find the people who would be your age. Do you look alike? Are you fat and he/she thin? Is your hair straight and red and his/her's brown and curly? Do not disregard the evidence. You are related to this person.

IDers usually state the Micro/Macro argument here.


Take a deck of cards and shuffle them. Now deal 5 cards face down on the table. Turn over the first card, now the second, the third, fourth and fifth. Do you know what the probability is of picking those five cards in that exact order? The chance of those cards being picked in that exact order is 1 in 311,875,200. That's less than a 1 in 3 million shot. And you picked it on the first try! Time to play the lotto!

Thats a good example, I liked that ;)

Sometimes I wonder if micro evolution could simply be described as genetics? After all, genetic theory seems to describe mutations far more clearly than evolution ever does. Genetics did not spring forth from evolution, evolution sprung forth from genetics. It makes you wonder about assumptive thinking. As long as evolution is a theory to be critically considered and analyzed, I am fine with that.

Sometimes I wonder if micro evolution could simply be described as genetics? After all, genetic theory seems to describe mutations far more clearly than evolution ever does. Genetics did not spring forth from evolution, evolution sprung forth from genetics. It makes you wonder about assumptive thinking. As long as evolution is a theory to be critically considered and analyzed, I am fine with that.

The purpose of evolution is not to describe mutations, but to describe natural selection and speciation that can only occur because of genetics. Genetics is taken into account in the Evolutionary theory.

Meanwhile, *everything* in science is a theory to be critically considered and analyzed. *EVERYTHING* If you aren't critically considering and analyzing it, you aren't truly thinking scientifically.

Damn science! It confuses me and my inbred son, we are gonna go read (insert religious text) for 8 days and go kill gays and ......
The only people who think that Evolution threatens religion are crazy fundamentalists. Just cuz it says 7 days doesnt mean 7 days what r days to god?Amen, brother. No-one has convinced me of a God, but I'm at least open to the possibility, whereas there are those who put the "mental" in "fundamental"...

The only problem i have with evo, is that why does the thing become complex. couldnt it become simpler and more effecient?It always becomes more efficient. It might need (or, more accurately, read "need" as "happen") to become more complex to take advantage of an efficiency further 'up the line'. Like a predating amoeba develops motile abilities to grab more immobile prey to survive better (who develop motile forces to escape). Bits that are over-complex do reduce (legs in reptiles-bceoming-snakes or 'bears/whatever'-becoming-whales). See also the appendix in humans. No longer 'maintained' and thus 'atrophied' within the body-plan. It may perhaps have disappeared in some people, but there's not much more advantage (procreation-wise) to not having it any more so it's a simple little thing that (most of the time) causes no problems just sitting around being vestigel. (However you spell "vestigel". :))

Aside from that, complexity itself is something observed, not aimed for. Take six random numbers. Give them to someone and tell them that they were generated through a rule. They could easily reduce it to (say), "ah, it's a variant on a triple-fibonacci series, where the number is three times the sum of the three numbers before it, minus five, and the first three numbers are sequential squares minus one". Or they may come up with the (horribly complex) code that exactly copies the pseudo-random code that you actually used to create the sequence, but (for the sake of argument) that's essentially the universe playing dice (evolution) compared with someone saying "ah, you designed it around <ficticious rule>, didn't you" (ID). And all because you assume there is a human rule behind it. Distance yourself from that idea and you can appreciate the numbers for what they are, but associate yourself with the need for a design and say "the chances of those numbers coming about by any other means than <ficticious rule> are huge", is to deny that another random list could have occured and your response being "the chances of those [other] numbers coming about by any other means than <[other] ficticious rule> are huge". (Of course, there's always a chance that the list of numbers comes out "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6", and the people evaluating that are going to say "Aha! That's a simple rule! It was designed because it is so simple!", which is ironicly opposite from what the others had in mind... :))

And that probability of a protien being made is like 1 out of a billion, and the possibility of a organism forming even less.Spontaneously, you mean? Proteins are made by inherited templates, organisms being built up of loads of little templates. You mean the first protein? The first organism? That's different, but still inevitable, I feel. (Though not inevitably exactly like the first protein/organism was, just essentially inevitable that there be something that someone might one day might be around to suggest was a chance in a billion, or more.)

The only explanation thats been given is quantum evo but thats still in infancy so.............I, also, do not know what Quantum Evolution is supposed to be... Unless you mean "Evolution by quantum leaps in development" ("quantum leaps" being macro ones, another common misnomer...).

Chameleons can change color to match their surroundings, as can several other lizards. Birds have feathers and my Guinness always tastes just right. Do you know what the probability is of all these things occurring at the same time?

Actually Chameleons dont change coulor for their enviroment, thats a myth. They change with their mood.


To say that evolution is impossible, or at the least so improbable as to necessitate a guiding hand, is to say this (which has been said before in another way):
Take a deck of cards and shuffle them. Now deal 5 cards face down on the table. Turn over the first card, now the second, the third, fourth and fifth. Do you know what the probability is of picking those five cards in that exact order? The chance of those cards being picked in that exact order is 1 in 311,875,200. That's less than a 1 in 3 million shot. And you picked it on the first try! Time to play the lotto!

Nice and immature there. What I'm saying here is that its very improbable using YOUR METHODS. In other words if you shuffle the cards in your manner, its much harder than if you do it my way

Hey Grave,
actually i think that it would be quite relevant to post some of those sites, Since he used 'Darwins Black Box' in his support.

(By the way I have read it)Here is a link:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

I have to admit, I make a determined effort to stay right on topic, whenever Neo Cannen is in the mix... since he can turn any debate into an argument about biblical attitudes to homosexuality... or at least, so it seems.

However, "We can't figure it out and God must've done it" is simply unscientific - by definition.

This is very true, however, ruling out all possibility of an outside force is also quite unscientific for it limits the outcome of scientific research to a forgone conclusion. Science used to be a discipline of making conclusions from observations, it has since turned into making observations based on presupposed conclusions, which seems quite unscientific as well.

This is very true, however, ruling out all possibility of an outside force is also quite unscientific for it limits the outcome of scientific research to a forgone conclusion. Science used to be a discipline of making conclusions from observations, it has since turned into making observations based on presupposed conclusions, which seems quite unscientific as well.
Science is a process ... it does not DO anything ... people are using the method, calling it scientific research

And do you have any proof that "science" is doing this ... or is it just what you are catching from the attitude of the average person (a lot tend to confuse science and what it is)

This is very true, however, ruling out all possibility of an outside force is also quite unscientific for it limits the outcome of scientific research to a forgone conclusion. Science used to be a discipline of making conclusions from observations, it has since turned into making observations based on presupposed conclusions, which seems quite unscientific as well.

No, it hasn't.

Science is still the process of trying to explain observations.

An earlier theory may be used to 'predict' what result might be expected in a given situation - but observation is still required, and new theories are based on those new observations.

Nice and immature there. What I'm saying here is that its very improbable using YOUR METHODS. In other words if you shuffle the cards in your manner, its much harder than if you do it my way

Missed the point, Neo.

(Also - I don't think that the poster was being 'immature' for trying to explain probability).

Assume: The probability of something happening is very small.

Now, Assume: Infinite iterations.

How 'probable' does something become, eventually?


Also: Assume: The probability of any GIVEN change happening is very small.

Now: Assume: ANY change is valid.

How 'probable' is change now?


The FIRST flaw in your argument is that you assume a short-term period over which change must occur.

The SECOND flaw in your argument is that you assume evolution somehow 'AIMS' for one specific result... whereas, the theory actually supports the idea that ANY result that improves survivability has a chance of being transmitted.

Missed the point, Neo.

(Also - I don't think that the poster was being 'immature' for trying to explain probability).

Assume: The probability of something happening is very small.

Now, Assume: Infinite iterations.

How 'probable' does something become, eventually?


Also: Assume: The probability of any GIVEN change happening is very small.

Now: Assume: ANY change is valid.

How 'probable' is change now?


The FIRST flaw in your argument is that you assume a short-term period over which change must occur.

The SECOND flaw in your argument is that you assume evolution somehow 'AIMS' for one specific result... whereas, the theory actually supports the idea that ANY result that improves survivability has a chance of being transmitted.

Im not sure if you just refuse to listen or if you are stupid. I will try and explain again. For evolution to work, you need mutations to exist to pass on benefitial characteristics from one generation to the next. That we can all agree on. Now the problem is that whatever these mutations are, any mutation at all is extremely low likelyhood, happening only once in 10^7 duplications of a gene. Now the problem you have is that one mutation does not equal an entirely new speices, just a very slight variant. You need a series of mutations to get any significent change. But to goet two mutations increases to 10^14 and to get 4 is 10^28. At this point there is not enough time even in the millions of years timescale for that many of one organism to exist. Also there is not enough space on the earth. Simpley put, its too improbable to happen. And these arent even targeted mutations, these could be anything.

Im not sure if you just refuse to listen or if you are stupid. I will try and explain again. For evolution to work, you need mutations to exist to pass on benefitial characteristics from one generation to the next. That we can all agree on. Now the problem is that whatever these mutations are, any mutation at all is extremely low likelyhood, happening only once in 10^7 duplications of a gene. Now the problem you have is that one mutation does not equal an entirely new speices, just a very slight variant. You need a series of mutations to get any significent change. But to goet two mutations increases to 10^14 and to get 4 is 10^28. At this point there is not enough time even in the millions of years timescale for that many of one organism to exist. Also there is not enough space on the earth. Simpley put, its too improbable to happen. And these arent even targeted mutations, these could be anything.
Incorrect mutations are not dependent so you cant multiply probablity

Each is an independent event (you are thinking of a series ... some act like this but not all)

Science is a process ... it does not DO anything ... people are using the method, calling it scientific research

And do you have any proof that "science" is doing this ... or is it just what you are catching from the attitude of the average person (a lot tend to confuse science and what it is)

You make a very valid point. Technically, the realm of science is just to observe, and since no living scientist (or dead one for that matter) has observed the beginning of the universe, or even the beginning of a new species, that placing evolution as scientific fact is a bit of a stretch.

Evolutionists, IDers, Creationists and whatever else might be out there use the same facts (fossilized bones, geological layers, etc), how they interpret the facts is quite different. Evolutionists assume that there is no outside force, IDers assume that there was at least a little outside force, Creationists believe that there was (and still is) a whole lot of outside force. These assumptions then dictate to some degree how the scientist will interpret the facts.

Im not sure if you just refuse to listen or if you are stupid. I will try and explain again. For evolution to work, you need mutations to exist to pass on benefitial characteristics from one generation to the next. That we can all agree on. Now the problem is that whatever these mutations are, any mutation at all is extremely low likelyhood, happening only once in 10^7 duplications of a gene. Now the problem you have is that one mutation does not equal an entirely new speices, just a very slight variant. You need a series of mutations to get any significent change. But to goet two mutations increases to 10^14 and to get 4 is 10^28. At this point there is not enough time even in the millions of years timescale for that many of one organism to exist. Also there is not enough space on the earth. Simpley put, its too improbable to happen. And these arent even targeted mutations, these could be anything.

I don't appreciate being called stupid, Neo.

What do you mean 'not enough space on earth'?

You do realise that some animals (for example) EAT other ones, yes?

I think you are still missing an important point... how often do you think DNA is 'duplicated'?

I also disagree with your assertion of a fixed 'value' for mutations. Explain how you can have a 'fixed value' in a system with varying levels of mutagenic/teratagenic agents?

If you are really an "a level biology student", then you should realize that science can never "prove" anything and that *everything* in science is a theory. Why is evolution called a theory? BECAUSE IT IS!!

1. I never said i was good at it.
2. your wrong, most of science is 'proven' take Biology for example, we know how a heart works, we know how the kidneys works. Chemistry we know the marco atomic structure. Physics we know how nuclear reations work
(Again all of the top of my head theres x 100,000's more examples)

This is becuase x number of scientists have done y number of experiments, they have observed the results and the logic conclusions are what we know

You make a very valid point. Technically, the realm of science is just to observe, and since no living scientist (or dead one for that matter) has observed the beginning of the universe, or even the beginning of a new species, that placing evolution as scientific fact is a bit of a stretch.

Evolutionists, IDers, Creationists and whatever else might be out there use the same facts (fossilized bones, geological layers, etc), how they interpret the facts is quite different. Evolutionists assume that there is no outside force, IDers assume that there was at least a little outside force, Creationists believe that there was (and still is) a whole lot of outside force. These assumptions then dictate to some degree how the scientist will interpret the facts.

'Evolutionists' (as you call them) are scientists, while IDers and Creationists are not - for one simple reason.

The scientists assumes only the interactions that can be observed, and duplicated.

'God' cannot be 'observed' or 'duplicated', thus - it is unscientific to introduce 'it' as a parameter in science.

Thus, IDers and Creationists fall at the first hurdle, since they START with an assumption of an interaction that is unobservable, and unrepeatable.

I don't appreciate being called stupid, Neo


I dont either, you do it to me often enough, just in a round about and arrogent way.


I think you are still missing an important point... how often do you think DNA is 'duplicated'?

I am talking about within generational replication


What do you mean 'not enough space on earth'?


You would need more space than the Earth's surface area to house the number of generations required for some numbers of mutations.


I also disagree with your assertion of a fixed 'value' for mutations. Explain how you can have a 'fixed value' in a system with varying levels of mutagenic/teratagenic agents?

Definition of mutation

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:mutation

My point being that the kind of genetic change required to change an organism is very rare and that one change is not enough to change the organism significently enough to create a new speices.

You make a very valid point. Technically, the realm of science is just to observe, and since no living scientist (or dead one for that matter) has observed the beginning of the universe, or even the beginning of a new species, that placing evolution as scientific fact is a bit of a stretch.


Wrong. The begin of the universe has been observed - indirectly - via the existence of the Cosmic Background radiation. The beginnings of new species have also been observed - for example amongst certain species of annelides. :p

This is becuase x number of scientists have done y number of experiments, they have observed the results and the logic conclusions are what we know

Yes but in this case we are debating something that happend in a time beyond obeservation. Ergo we cant "Prove" it.

1. I never said i was good at it.
2. your wrong, most of science is 'proven' take Biology for example, we know how a heart works, we know how the kidneys works. Chemistry we know the marco atomic structure. Physics we know how nuclear reations work
(Again all of the top of my head theres x 100,000's more examples)

This is becuase x number of scientists have done y number of experiments, they have observed the results and the logic conclusions are what we know

We have 'mechanisms' that seem to explain what is occuring in an atomic structure - but it is still 'theoretical', as are the processes governing nuclear reactions.

They seem to be GOOD theories, since they seem to apply pretty much all the time... but they are still theoretical, and malleable in the face of new evidence.

I dont either, you do it to me often enough, just in a round about and arrogent way.


I have never called you stupid, Neo.

And I refuse to descend to such a level.

I think you are dangerously close to flaming.


I am talking about within generational replication


Why? Why limit it to just ONE type of mutation?

Any mutation affecting germ cells COULD be reproduced, surely?

Why ignore the effects of mutagenic/teratagenic agents?


You would need more space than the Earth's surface area to house the number of generations required for some numbers of mutations.


You don't have to house all the generations simultaneously, Neo.


Definition of mutation

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:mutation


Not a definition - actually, you just linked to a list... some of which definitins are antagonistic to one another. Which one did you like?


My point being that the kind of genetic change required to change an organism is very rare and that one change is not enough to change the organism significently enough to create a new speices.

Not at all, Neo.

Our world is blanketed in background radiation, of various 'intensity' varying with location. That factor alone means that there is no way of knowing when genetic 'change' will occur... certainly to any predictable extent.

And, what do you consider defines the separation BETWEEN species?

Actually Chameleons dont change coulor for their enviroment, thats a myth. They change with their mood.



Nice and immature there. What I'm saying here is that its very improbable using YOUR METHODS. In other words if you shuffle the cards in your manner, its much harder than if you do it my way

And what you're saying is that God pulled the cards out for you.

Yes but in this case we are debating something that happend in a time beyond obeservation. Ergo we cant "Prove" it.

Wrong, Neo.

I direct you to:
"Wrong. The begin of the universe has been observed - indirectly - via the existence of the Cosmic Background radiation. The beginnings of new species have also been observed - for example amongst certain species of annelides"

(Although, it would be a little unscientific to even attempt to 'prove' it, as you say).

Yes but in this case we are debating something that happend in a time beyond obeservation. Ergo we cant "Prove" it.

ahh, can't we i suppose you would say carbon dating and geology would not be a meathod for doing that.

But i must state im really out of my depth now.

'God' cannot be 'observed' or 'duplicated', thus - it is unscientific to introduce 'it' as a parameter in science.

Ahh yes...to which the logical question is...was the big bang observed? I'm told that the stuff floating in the universe is a result of it, but how do we know? To my knowledge we haven't duplicated anything close to the big bang...well..with the exception of explosives, but so far 100% of them have resulted in absolute destruction. My point being that Evolutionists, IDers, and Creationists still start with an (unobserved, unduplicated) assumption...the evolutionists just try to set themselves apart by saying anything else isn't science.

Ahh yes...to which the logical question is...was the big bang observed? I'm told that the stuff floating in the universe is a result of it, but how do we know? To my knowledge we haven't duplicated anything close to the big bang...well..with the exception of explosives, but so far 100% of them have resulted in absolute destruction. My point being that Evolutionists, IDers, and Creationists still start with an (unobserved, unduplicated) assumption...the evolutionists just try to set themselves apart by saying anything else isn't science.

The 'Big Bang' Theory has nothing to do with evolution.

But, it is based on the observable expansion of all observable matter seemingly expanding from one central point, at such acceleration as to support a common initiation point at a given earlier time.

So - it is a 'scientific' concept - but it is certainly not the ONLY 'scientific' possible origin - just the one that seems 'most probable', given the available data.

Personally, I prefer the concept of a universe born from the collapsing remains of a PREVIOUS universe.

But - as I said... it is irrelevent, since the 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution' are not connected.

Wrong. The begin of the universe has been observed - indirectly - via the existence of the Cosmic Background radiation. The beginnings of new species have also been observed - for example amongst certain species of annelides. :p

Cosmic background radiation....How do you know it came from the beginning of the universe? That conclusion is based on a previous assumption. Suppose there's another reason for such radiation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, the point is the radiation is the fact, what it came from is interpretation.

As for the beginnings of new species...you pretty much provided my answer yourself. You've sited a case of micro-evolution, a variation within an already existing species...nothing new...just different.

The 'Big Bang' Theory has nothing to do with evolution.

But, it is based on the observable expansion of all observable matter seemingly expanding from one central point, at such acceleration as to support a common initiation point at a given earlier time.

So - it is a 'scientific' concept - but it is certainly not the ONLY 'scientific' possible origin - just the one that seems 'most probable', given the available data.

Personally, I prefer the concept of a universe born from the collapsing remains of a PREVIOUS universe.

But - as I said... it is irrelevent, since the 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution' are not connected.

And some prefer that the universe came into being from a higher source, based on the design seen in all observable matter and the lack of randomness even down to the smallest microbe. Good...now that we've separated the origen of the universe from evolution....

The 'Big Bang' Theory has nothing to do with evolution.

But, it is based on the observable expansion of all observable matter seemingly expanding from one central point, at such acceleration as to support a common initiation point at a given earlier time.

So - it is a 'scientific' concept - but it is certainly not the ONLY 'scientific' possible origin - just the one that seems 'most probable', given the available data.

Personally, I prefer the concept of a universe born from the collapsing remains of a PREVIOUS universe.

But - as I said... it is irrelevent, since the 'Big Bang' and 'Evolution' are not connected.
Nice. i agree

The big bang is just most popular one because it allows the idea of a god, in reality though its probably the theory people are working least on these days, its all about p branes and multi verses now i think.

This is very true, however, ruling out all possibility of an outside force is also quite unscientific for it limits the outcome of scientific research to a forgone conclusion. Science used to be a discipline of making conclusions from observations, it has since turned into making observations based on presupposed conclusions, which seems quite unscientific as well.How about saying "By what process did this outside force produce such results?"

You could say "He just did it, <poof>", but how could you support that claim without relying on its own internal consistency? Especially if you are able to argue "Either he or the nature of the universe caused identifiable processes to produce the end results that we see today" gives an acceptible result and yet takes as its support actual observed evidence of those processes, of the kind that does not exist in the <poof> example.

The presupposed conclusion in the above is the "He did it". Science does not actually say "He doesn't exist thus it's just a function of the universe", but ID says "He does exist, so forget everything the universe appears to be saying."

And some prefer that the universe came into being from a higher source, based on the design seen in all observable matter and the lack of randomness even down to the smallest microbe. Good...now that we've separated the origen of the universe from evolution....

Lack of randomness?

I don't even understand what you mean by that.

I can perceive 'randomness' in lifeforms, by exposing them to teratagens... is that what you mean?

Some animals have wings, some don't. Some lifeforms are photovores... it all seems open to 'randomness' to me.

What is the 'observable design' (which you claim is in ALL matter), that FAVOURS the assumption of a 'higher source'?

Assuming, of course, that there was a beginning to the universe. Is anybody familiar with the Anthropic Principle?
The anthropic principle in its most basic form states a truism: that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy.

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture



Thus evolution, in it's entirety is a theory. It is also a theory with mass quantities of evidence that supports it. It also stands to reason that a creation or "intelligent design" is a theory. But I would define evolution as closely tied with the definition given by #1 and creation with #4 or #6.



Recent publications (2004) by Stephen Hawking suggest that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the anthropic principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98% chance that a universe of a type as ours will come from a Big Bang. Further, using the basic wavefunction of the universe as basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing. As of 2004, however, these publications and the theories in them are still subject to scientific debate, and in the past, Hawking himself has asked, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?...Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" (Hawking, 1988).

And yes, evolution and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.

How about saying "By what process did this outside force produce such results?"

You could say "He just did it, <poof>", but how could you support that claim without relying on its own internal consistency? Especially if you are able to argue "Either he or the nature of the universe caused identifiable processes to produce the end results that we see today" gives an acceptible result and yet takes as its support actual observed evidence of those processes, of the kind that does not exist in the <poof> example.

The presupposed conclusion in the above is the "He did it". Science does not actually say "He doesn't exist thus it's just a function of the universe", but ID says "He does exist, so forget everything the universe appears to be saying."

Exactly - STARTING from the premise of a 'god' is unscientific - because it is non-observable. There is no 'directly attributable' evidence.

Just the same as trying to explain the origins of the universe through the activities of aliens, ghosts or goblins would be unscientific.

(Unless you can prove 'evidence' for any of those 'outside' agents).

And yes, evolution and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.

Is that really what you meant to say?

Intelligent Design implies that each change is directed, or that each thing has a purpose.

What is the purpose of our appendix? What about the purpose of our wisdom teeth? What about the tailbone? What about all the wasted code that appears, for those familiar with programming, commented out? Why don't we have thicker skin, wings, or horns?

In short, why would a designer create things that have no relevant use today? Is he just trying to fool us into believing that the universe is billions of years old when in reality, he created it mature?

Intelligent Design implies that each change is directed, or that each thing has a purpose.

What is the purpose of our appendix? What about the purpose of our wisdom teeth? What about the tailbone? What about all the wasted code that appears, for those familiar with programming, commented out? Why don't we have thicker skin, wings, or horns?

In short, why would a designer create things that have no relevant use today? Is he just trying to fool us into believing that the universe is billions of years old when in reality, he created it mature?

And, indeed - wouldn't that be just a little dishonest of 'him'?

Is that really what you meant to say?

I was agreeing with your previous statement. In other terms, evolution can occur in a universe without a Big Bang, and in a universe with a Big Bang.

I was agreeing with your previous statement. In other terms, evolution can occur in a universe without a Big Bang, and in a universe with a Big Bang.

:)

That's what I THOUGHT you meant...

In which case, what you should have said was:


"And yes, evolution and the Big Bang ARE mutually exclusive".

or

"And yes, evolution and the Big Bang are not mutually dependent".

Just trying to be helpful.

:)

That's what I THOUGHT you meant...

In which case, what you should have said was:


"And yes, evolution and the Big Bang ARE mutually exclusive".

or

"And yes, evolution and the Big Bang are not mutually dependent".

Just trying to be helpful.

If they were mutually exclusive, they couldn't both be true at the same time, I was stating that it didn't matter, that one or both could happen at the same time.

Edit: In any case, rather than confusticate my statement, I should have said: And No, evolution and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.

Lack of randomness?

I don't even understand what you mean by that.

I can perceive 'randomness' in lifeforms, by exposing them to teratagens... is that what you mean?

Some animals have wings, some don't. Some lifeforms are photovores... it all seems open to 'randomness' to me.

What is the 'observable design' (which you claim is in ALL matter), that FAVOURS the assumption of a 'higher source'?

I must admit I'm a bit lost as to the type of reply you're looking for, but I guess I'll pick a direction and go with it.

"Some animals have wings, some don't. Some lifeforms are photovores... it all seems open to 'randomness' to me."

perhaps...but then, if you totally erradicated all winged animals there would be quite an imbalance in the eco-system yes? (an educated guess on my part :cool: ) So even the balance between Fish, Birds, Mammals and Humans (yes, I know we're mammals) isn't as random as it might first appear. Then if we look at each animal individually we see design right down the to the DNA. Each atom, each cell, each microbe operates according to a specific pattern (as opposed to randomness) and only via outside interaction can that pattern be altered.

I'm not sure if that clears up, or confuses what I meant about "design" vs. "randomness."

However, my day is going to be more random than I planned if I don't get back to work. :p

Cosmic background radiation....How do you know it came from the beginning of the universe? That conclusion is based on a previous assumption. Suppose there's another reason for such radiation. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, the point is the radiation is the fact, what it came from is interpretation.

Well, that's based on the assumption that the laws of physics are unchanged since the beginning of the universe - and that's pretty consistent with what we see - and not a universe where a Creator/Designer is permanently fudging around.
Heh, and I now reckon that Creationists dislike the idea of Big Bang. Not because physicists say there was a beginning, but because they say it was 14 billion years ago. :p

As for the beginnings of new species...you pretty much provided my answer yourself. You've sited a case of micro-evolution, a variation within an already existing species...nothing new...just different.

You don't get it. If two populations become incapable of inter-breeding with each other, they become different species per definition. And of course it's new, every change is a novelty. And technically, there is no difference between so-called "micro-" and "macro-evolution". If you take n steps of 'micro-evolution' in two different populations, you will eventually end up with 'macro-evolution' after a certain amount of time. When we look into the fossil record (which is incomplete due to the hazards of fossilization), then we usually only see macro-evolution.
That distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is very subjective. What is in your opinion which one?

- The transition from land-living whale ancestors to whales
- the transition from Daspletosaurus to Tyrannosaurus
- the transition from feathered dinosaurs to birds?
- the transition from South American iguana to Galapagos land and marine Iguanas

It's really all the same. :D

I must admit I'm a bit lost as to the type of reply you're looking for, but I guess I'll pick a direction and go with it.



perhaps...but then, if you totally erradicated all winged animals there would be quite an imbalance in the eco-system yes? (an educated guess on my part :cool: ) So even the balance between Fish, Birds, Mammals and Humans (yes, I know we're mammals) isn't as random as it might first appear. Then if we look at each animal individually we see design right down the to the DNA. Each atom, each cell, each microbe operates according to a specific pattern (as opposed to randomness) and only via outside interaction can that pattern be altered.

I'm not sure if that clears up, or confuses what I meant about "design" vs. "randomness."

However, my day is going to be more random than I planned if I don't get back to work. :p

Let's say we did eradicate all winged animals/creatures. A gap in the natural order would occur, a void which would have to be filled by more predators and more prey. Certain animals, such as those feasted upon by the winged ones, would flourish until a new predator became available, or would die off. But the system would eventually recover, or die. And as to the design aspect of the dna, how do you explain what I shall quote to you from my previous post?

What is the purpose of our appendix? What about the purpose of our wisdom teeth? What about the tailbone? What about all the wasted code that appears, for those familiar with programming, commented out?

I'm no geneticist, but some of the code doesn't pertain to our lives now or 2000 years ago.

<Snip bit about being "too stupid"... Apologies if anyone has ever said that to you. I'd say "misguided/ill-informed" at a push, but even that wouldn't be fair. Stupid, no, though perhaps lacking certain pieces of commonly known information which, as no-one alive is a true polymath and no-one alive knows nothing, means you probably have expertise in other directions that I or my fellow proponents of evolution.>
For evolution to work, you need mutations to exist to pass on benefitial characteristics from one generation to the next. That we can all agree on. Now the problem is that whatever these mutations are, any mutation at all is extremely low likelyhood, happening only once in 10^7 duplications of a gene.Mutations happen all the time. Beneficial, trackable, mutations within the allelle population at large seem to be the ones you are giving a 1 in 10^7 mutations rate for. i.e. ones that you can say "There are X specific genetic differences between archetypal representative of people A and archetypal representative of people B (over and above the many thousand further genetic differences that even brother and sister display, should you check the differences between them) thus people A and people B, having accumulated population-wide changes to one or other (or differently to both) at a rate of 1 every N years, must have last shared genes with each other (at a time of common and co-existant ancestors) XN years ago". This does not prevent spurts of genetic advantage at any time, allows smaller/endangered populations to 'flush' old genetic combinations out with newer, mroe advantageous ones at a quicker rate, occurs quicker if the generations go quicker, can accumulate 'silently' in junk areas which changes to the 'geneti index' makes active, and can happen simultaneously throughout all current members of the race at the same time with few outwardly observable signs until they 'kick in' during a time of stress (or produce the odd stillborn or even never-even-started baby, but that just allows the next child to be conceived and born quicker).

Now the problem you have is that one mutation does not equal an entirely new speices, just a very slight variant. You need a series of mutations to get any significent change. But to goet two mutations increases to 10^14 and to get 4 is 10^28.No it doesn't. One mutation (any mutation, not just one particular one, and not at the low rate you suggest) could occur in newly conceived future-daddy and another in newly-conceived future-mummy, who, when 15 years or so have passed can conceive their own future-baby, who has a 1 in 4 chance of having both mutations. Which can be single-nucleotide mutations causing no issues and yet which could just sit there and affect nothing (backed up by 'normal' copies on the paired gene, unless it's on 'X' and he's a boy, so doesn't have to cause any problems) or could confer an advantage of some kind. Or could kill the kid, but what doesn't kill you during gestation or early childhood usually only gets one further chance (the onset of adolescence, when hitherto quiet genes, possible ones incorporating our change, get switched on) to kill you before you grow to reproduce. So having survived that long, it's probably going to be neutral or even slightly good for you, with a small probability of stopping you contributing your (or your siblings, in the case of a 'gay' gene) genetic material.

At this point there is not enough time even in the millions of years timescale for that many of one organism to exist. Also there is not enough space on the earth. Simply put, its too improbable to happen. And these arent even targeted mutations, these could be anything.Not enough time? Possibly, but not as I understand it.
Not enough space? We're not going to need space for 'humans' with genetic code "AAAA...AAAA", "AAAA...AAAC", "AAAA...AAAG", "AAAA...AAAT, "AAAA...AACA", etc, all the way to "TTTT...TTTT". There will not be 4^X different people required to get a person with a specific one of the 4^X different combinations of length-X genetic codes... One asexual reproduction might go go from "ACTG....GCCT" to "ACTG....ACCT" (just the one change, which would be unlikely for any decent value of X) and it would take just X generations (with false starts and inviable siblings and other branches of the trees) to navigate... no, not navigate, to stumble, quite accidentally, along a route where a descendant only X-generations down the line has a completely different genome. And as us and... bananas... are supposed to share areound 93% of our genetic code (depending on how you measure it) and the number of generations between us/bananas and our common ancestor is probably more than 7% of X... (And that's taking into account the fact that most modern bananas are essentially clones of the first cultivated ones, ever since they lost self-seeding and sexual reproductive abilities, never mind that human and ancestral animal sexual activity mixes the letters around at amuch higher rate than one-per-generation...)
And so what if they aren't targetted. It's a stumble. A blind-man's walk. Set blind-men loose wthin London and some are going to be run over, some are going to fall off bridges and some will find their way into public houses and museums. It doesn't mean that every step of every blind man tends to lead him to a public house or a museum, just that some managed to reach them, and those are the ones we know about (unless we're the river-police fishing the bridged ones out... :))

There's enough time.
There's enough space.
There's no need for an aim. It just happens, takes as long as it needs and uses the available space as it goes... Lack of space is indeed one of the pressures that would allow a particular variant to spread itself throughout a population, without outlying members of the same tribe pescily coming back into the fold and mixing it up again... And then there's geographic isolation forcing population allele divergance...

'S fun.

What is the purpose of our appendix? What about the purpose of our wisdom teeth? What about the tailbone?


Ive read the appendix is important in the development in the Immune system. The human appendix is not truly vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system.

(I had plenty of room for my wisdom teeth.) Dr. Jack Cuozzo (an orthodontist), has evidence that humans today may be maturing faster than in yesteryear, and our facial bones lack sufficient growth time before wisdom teeth come in. (I dont know if i believe his claims).

The tail bone, (coccyx), is one of the most important bones in our body. Its the point of muscle attachment required for our upright posture, and for defecation. Its important in human development.

Ive read the appendix is important in the development in the Immune system. The human appendix is not truly vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system.

(I had plenty of room for my wisdom teeth.) Dr. Jack Cuozzo (an orthodontist), has evidence that humans today may be maturing faster than in yesteryear, and our facial bones lack sufficient growth time before wisdom teeth come in. (I dont know if i believe his claims).

The tail bone, (coccyx), is one of the most important bones in our body. Its the point of muscle attachment required for our upright posture, and for defecation. Its important in human development.

I don't have room for my wisdom teeth, and therefore, cause me nothing but grief (getting them removed soon ;) ). The coccyx, or "tailbone", it is considered vestigial, and thus not required. Our upright posture could be maintained without it.

The coccyx is regarded as vestigial in humans, meaning it no longer serves major functions it did in ancestor species of humans. (Those included supporting a tail and accommodating its nerves.) It does provide an attachment for muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and also serves as something of a shock absorber when the person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains.

And as for the appendix, it may or may not have immunolical functions, but that is pure speculation. It has also been theorized that it has some function with the exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular system. However, these are unsubstantiated. A complete argument for the vestigiality of the appendix (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html).

Ive read the appendix is important in the development in the Immune system. The human appendix is not truly vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system.

I always thought it was part of a system to digest cellulose, at the time when humans ate a considerable amount of cellulose rich plants.

This is very true, however, ruling out all possibility of an outside force is also quite unscientific for it limits the outcome of scientific research to a forgone conclusion. Science used to be a discipline of making conclusions from observations, it has since turned into making observations based on presupposed conclusions, which seems quite unscientific as well.

Science does not rule out an outside force, it simply assumes nothing about one, as any outside force is by definition, also outside science.

Im not sure if you just refuse to listen or if you are stupid. I will try and explain again. For evolution to work, you need mutations to exist to pass on benefitial characteristics from one generation to the next. That we can all agree on. Now the problem is that whatever these mutations are, any mutation at all is extremely low likelyhood, happening only once in 10^7 duplications of a gene. Now the problem you have is that one mutation does not equal an entirely new speices, just a very slight variant. You need a series of mutations to get any significent change. But to goet two mutations increases to 10^14 and to get 4 is 10^28. At this point there is not enough time even in the millions of years timescale for that many of one organism to exist. Also there is not enough space on the earth. Simpley put, its too improbable to happen. And these arent even targeted mutations, these could be anything.

Actually, getting two mutations is exactly the same probability as getting one. Why? Because they are not connected in any way.

1. I never said i was good at it.
2. your wrong, most of science is 'proven' take Biology for example, we know how a heart works, we know how the kidneys works. Chemistry we know the marco atomic structure. Physics we know how nuclear reations work
(Again all of the top of my head theres x 100,000's more examples)

This is becuase x number of scientists have done y number of experiments, they have observed the results and the logic conclusions are what we know

Look in the very first chapter of your science textbook and you will see how veery wrong you are. There is nothing in science that is *known*, only that which is theorized. We have a good idea how the heart works, but if we found out tomorrow that it actually magically moves the blood, rather than pumping it, the theory would change.

The method of science, by definition, cannot *prove* anything.

One small problem with the rant, the size of an apple is a phenotype, not a genotype. It is luck and chance whether it will be big or small, depending on the location of the tree and the location of the apple. A better analogy would be a different type of apple, that would be a genotype. Other than that I agree entirely.

As for my belief, I believe in a mix between the two. There was intelligent design to the point of the creation of the physical abiotic universe. Then it was only tweaked and expanded. Life came about through a series of random events. Small bundles of self-replicating RNA and simple organisms began to immerge through reactions in the premordial stew. Over billions of years, these evolved, changing, adapting, mutating and eventually became what is on this planet today.

Look in the very first chapter of your science textbook and you will see how veery wrong you are. There is nothing in science that is *known*, only that which is theorized. We have a good idea how the heart works, but if we found out tomorrow that it actually magically moves the blood, rather than pumping it, the theory would change.

The method of science, by definition, cannot *prove* anything.Of course, by lay-person terms it has been 'proven' (quotes included, if you wish) in the same way as a lay-person's use of the word 'theory' is as "a tenuous idea about something". In science, though, a theory can be as solid as... a very solid thing. And it may well be Titanic-like both up until and after it hits the iceberg of new observations. But, until that iceberg, it still floats better (and does everything of a floaty nature that we want it to do) than the concrete duck the others are trying to carefully place on the water and support by surface-tension alone... ;)

(I'm getting silly now. Goodnight!)

Science does not rule out an outside force, it simply assumes nothing about one, as any outside force is by definition, also outside science.
i had a prof who once put it this way:

when you first meet a new person, before they open their mouth and say a single thing to you, do you assume they like ice cream? probably not; you have no reason to believe they dislike ice cream, but you also have no reason to believe they like it. you simply have no reason to assume either way, and it would be a bit silly of you to assert a factual statement either way.

science feels this way about God. we currently have no reason to assume God does or doesn't exist, because all our information could support either theory equally or not at all. however, it is possible that if we get to know the universe better we may eventually get around to discussing subject of God with it :).

Science does not rule out an outside force, it simply assumes nothing about one, as any outside force is by definition, also outside science.

Which brings me to back to why I don't debate this topic much in the first place...because they don't (won't) assume anything about an outside force, and label anyone who does consider an outside force as "unscientific" no matter how high the credentials...an effecient loop-hole has been created so as to never have to talk about it. Science has become a god unto itself, far removed from the days of Newton and Gallileo (who managed somehow to be scientists and still believe in creation).

Which brings me to back to why I don't debate this topic much in the first place...because they don't (won't) assume anything about an outside force, and label anyone who does consider an outside force as "unscientific" no matter how high the credentials...an effecient loop-hole has been created so as to never have to talk about it. Science has become a god unto itself, far removed from the days of Newton and Gallileo (who managed somehow to be scientists and still believe in creation).
They were scientists with not enough information to even start on creation ... people can follow a method irregarless of how much info they have and still be a "scientist"

Which brings me to back to why I don't debate this topic much in the first place...because they don't (won't) assume anything about an outside force, and label anyone who does consider an outside force as "unscientific" no matter how high the credentials...an effecient loop-hole has been created so as to never have to talk about it. Science has become a god unto itself, far removed from the days of Newton and Gallileo (who managed somehow to be scientists and still believe in creation).

Nevermind that Galileo was almost excommunicated and executed for his assertions about the stars in the sky. Yes, nevermind that.

Ahh yes...to which the logical question is...was the big bang observed? I'm told that the stuff floating in the universe is a result of it, but how do we know? To my knowledge we haven't duplicated anything close to the big bang...well..with the exception of explosives, but so far 100% of them have resulted in absolute destruction. My point being that Evolutionists, IDers, and Creationists still start with an (unobserved, unduplicated) assumption...the evolutionists just try to set themselves apart by saying anything else isn't science.

Wrong. Scientists do not assume that the Big Bang happened. They look at all the evidence, and that is the most logical conclusion that has come out of it so far. It all comes from *observed* evidence and is not assumed as a foregone conclusion. *That* is why it is a scientific theory.

perhaps...but then, if you totally erradicated all winged animals there would be quite an imbalance in the eco-system yes? (an educated guess on my part :cool: ) So even the balance between Fish, Birds, Mammals and Humans (yes, I know we're mammals) isn't as random as it might first appear. Then if we look at each animal individually we see design right down the to the DNA. Each atom, each cell, each microbe operates according to a specific pattern (as opposed to randomness) and only via outside interaction can that pattern be altered.

I'm not sure if that clears up, or confuses what I meant about "design" vs. "randomness."

You are making the assumption that complexity cannot develop out of randomness.

science feels this way about God. we currently have no reason to assume God does or doesn't exist, because all our information could support either theory equally or not at all. however, it is possible that if we get to know the universe better we may eventually get around to discussing subject of God with it :).

If we are talking about God as an all-powerful creator, God necessarily exists outside the rules of the universe - which is what science concerns itself with. As such, science can never address the existence or non-existence of a God.

Which brings me to back to why I don't debate this topic much in the first place...because they don't (won't) assume anything about an outside force, and label anyone who does consider an outside force as "unscientific" no matter how high the credentials...an effecient loop-hole has been created so as to never have to talk about it. Science has become a god unto itself, far removed from the days of Newton and Gallileo (who managed somehow to be scientists and still believe in creation).

You are ignoring the point. Science cannot, by definition, address the idea of an all-powerful creator. Such a creator would, by necessity, exist outside the rules of the universe. Science only concerns itself with how the universe works. As such, God is completely outside its realm.

Meanwhile, many scientists believe in creation. Even today, the number of atheist scientists is very low. However, scientists (at least those in the various fields of biology that actually have a clue what they are talking about on this subject) do not believe in Creationism because there is too much evidence to contradict it.

You are making the assumption that complexity cannot develop out of randomness.

It might be an assumption on my part, an assumption based on my never hearing a case where complexity devoped out of randomness. Perhaps an example to help me see this phenomena would help...and the universe doesn't count because we only see the finished product, we have no clue what it was like before hand, only guesses.

Which brings me to back to why I don't debate this topic much in the first place...because they don't (won't) assume anything about an outside force, and label anyone who does consider an outside force as "unscientific" no matter how high the credentials...an effecient loop-hole has been created so as to never have to talk about it. Science has become a god unto itself, far removed from the days of Newton and Gallileo (who managed somehow to be scientists and still believe in creation).

Why should the debate on evolution pander to theological wishes?

As a scientist, I am not trying to 'disporove' OR 'prove' god... my 'job' is to attempt to rationalise what happens in the universe, through tools of logic applied to observation.

If you want to talk about god, feel free... but the reason 'science won't assume anything about an outside force', is because that isn't what science does... science explains what can be seen, and theology explains what cannot.

I don't have room for my wisdom teeth, and therefore, cause me nothing but grief (getting them removed soon ;) ). The coccyx, or "tailbone", it is considered vestigial, and thus not required. Our upright posture could be maintained without it.



And as for the appendix, it may or may not have immunolical functions, but that is pure speculation. It has also been theorized that it has some function with the exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular system. However, these are unsubstantiated. A complete argument for the vestigiality of the appendix (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html).

Id have to disagree with you here. The coccyx is certainly required. D.N. Menton and others have written alot about its importance. In an embryo the budding legs need plenty of blood and they wouldn't get enough blood if they were not right at the end of the embryo body. The growing body absorbs the supposed tail except for the last four vertebrae. These fuse together to form the coccyx bone. The evolutionists will now call the coccyx a remnant tail that is a useless left over from our animal ancestors. But, the coccyx is anything but useless. The coccyx bone has a vital job. It is an anchor post onto which ligaments and muscles are joined. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.

And on the appendix, I have read that link before.

It might be an assumption on my part, an assumption based on my never hearing a case where complexity devoped out of randomness. Perhaps an example to help me see this phenomena would help...and the universe doesn't count because we only see the finished product, we have no clue what it was like before hand, only guesses.

Sand grains, trickling from your hand onto a sheet of paper.

Their 'random' trajectories and interferences result in a pretty accurate geometric form (order, from chaos) - with an almost infinitely complex surface (complexity from randomness).

So anyone want to summarize all these lengthy posts?

So anyone want to summarize all these lengthy posts?

Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against.

Creationism or ID: One dusty book.

That's pretty much it.

(Apologies to Dempublicents1, who I know is a 'rational' believer... it is the scientific accuracy of the Genesis accounts I am commenting on, there... not the basis of the faith. But then - I suspect you already knew that.)

'So anyone want to summarize all these lengthy posts?'

Well as long as they're not biased, I don't mind who. But seeming as everyone is, that pretty much rules, well everyome out :P

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against.

Creationism or ID: One dusty book.

That's pretty much it.

*cough* and of course you're not biased either *raises eyebrow*

'So anyone want to summarize all these lengthy posts?'

Well as long as they're not biased, I don't mind who. But seeming as everyone is, that pretty much rules, well everyome out :P

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against.

Creationism or ID: One dusty book.

That's pretty much it.

*cough* and of course you're not biased either *raises eyebrow*

I have been swayed by the overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the lack of any non-scriptural evidence for creationism/ID.

If picking the only independantly 'supportable' course is a bias, then I am biased.

It might be an assumption on my part, an assumption based on my never hearing a case where complexity devoped out of randomness. Perhaps an example to help me see this phenomena would help...and the universe doesn't count because we only see the finished product, we have no clue what it was like before hand, only guesses.

Well, there are all sorts of cases, but the easiest thing I can do is tell you to look up Dr. John Doyle. There should be plenty of sites referencing him and his collaborators.

Sand grains, trickling from your hand onto a sheet of paper.

Their 'random' trajectories and interferences result in a pretty accurate geometric form (order, from chaos) - with an almost infinitely complex surface (complexity from randomness).

THat's a good example, I may have to use that in the future. =)

THat's a good example, I may have to use that in the future. =)

:) Thank you... you are most welcome to steal my imagery. :)

It's amazing how many aspects of your message I agree with. I'm a freshman and biology major at NMT, and before coming here I was thoroughly convinced that evolution was not possible. But, considering myself to be somewhat of an intellectual (or at least a half-decent poser), I simply can't deny the full body of evidence presented to me in my classes. It's not the current state of things that presents a viable case, it's the fossil record that details change over millions of years.
I do believe that the intelligent design advocates are... well, pretty out there. But it is an important part of my faith that I reguard the bible as wholly true. If it were not, it would mean either that the prophets supposedly aspired by God were liars, or God himself was a liar, and that either way, God allowed lies in his holy book. What is not an important part of my faith, however, is all the dogma that has developed in the various churches since Christ. Not much after the books of the new testament were compiled can really be trusted as God-inspired, and much of it has resulted in quite ungodly violence and yada yada yada.
My point is, if you take the bible for what it says, and don't assume things that it doesn't say, it's possible to reconcile it with science. True, the first chapter of Genesis details a process of creation that is far from what the theory of evolution states. However, passages in Isaiah speaking of Satan's downfall from heaven clearly must have happened before this, since he was around to decieve Eve and tempt Adam out of paradise. How can that be when the first verse says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth?" Well, a common misconception is that the events of verse two directly followed the events of verse one. Verse two says "And the Earth was void, and without form." However, in ancient Hebrew, there is no word for "was". This verb is always inferred when no verb is present, which is why anywhere in the old testament that the verb to be is used as a state of being, it is in italics. This means it was added by english translators. The word was in verse two, however, is not in italics. Anywhere in the old testament that that verb isn't in italics, it is a verb that literally means "became". So verse two says the earth became void and without form. God created it in perfect order. There's no way of knowing how much time passed between those verses. It could be all the billions of years it took for life to evolve (with the helping hand of God, of course). When it was all wiped out in a war with Lucifer, God took seven days to restore it all to how it was before, only now he would give that divine spark to his most advanced creatures, homo sapiens. Of course, this is every bit as much conjecture as your idea. Merely an unprovable hypothesis that, if true, could reconcile differences in at least my theology and science.
Another note: compared to natural minerals or even advanced crystalline structures, Amoebas are incredibly advanced. They are eukaryotes, meaning they already have various distinct organelles, such as mitochondria and a centralized nucleus. Prokaryotes are pretty much the simplest forms of life, and even those have DNA, which is incredibly complex. I'm just saying, it's always possible God started at a slightly higher level than cobbling together amino acids.

But it is an important part of my faith that I reguard the bible as wholly true.

Do you understand the difference between truth and "TRUTH"?

Not much after the books of the new testament were compiled can really be trusted as God-inspired, and much of it has resulted in quite ungodly violence and yada yada yada.

Those books were compiled by a panel of, well, essentially politicians. What makes you think that they did so correctly?

My point is, if you take the bible for what it says, and don't assume things that it doesn't say, it's possible to reconcile it with science. True, the first chapter of Genesis details a process of creation that is far from what the theory of evolution states. However, passages in Isaiah speaking of Satan's downfall from heaven clearly must have happened before this, since he was around to decieve Eve and tempt Adam out of paradise.

I thought you said you don't like to assume things that it doesn't say? Nothing in Genesis states that the serpent was Satan - that is simply assumed.

Meanwhile, if you do any in-depth theological studies (which it seems you have), you would find that there are *two* very distinct and separate creation stories in Genesis, one from the Priestly writer and one from the Yahwist - suggesting that the point of the story is important, rather than the literal order of it.

Note: Don't take this as an attack. You are obviously working through your theological stances and I love to question - which also helps me to work through my own.

That is odd, I have never held myself back from anything in a situation like this. At first I want to debate Grave_n_idle, yet I know I will lose and it is pointless (for me). At first I want to read 11 pages of debate and then write, yet it is pointless. So all I have to say is : (1)do not be so quick to cite the incongruities of Genesis, understand why your opponent says they aren't. (2)Scientists [can] interpret differently. (3)"Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against." Transitional Fossils, When, where, give me URLs.

So all I have to say is : (1)do not be so quick to cite the incongruities of Genesis, understand why your opponent says they aren't.

It is relatively common knowledge among those who can read Hebrew that there are two basic authors of the Torah, one of whom wrote the first and one of whom wrote the second creation story.

(2)Scientists interpret [can] interpret differently.

Yup.

(3)"Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against." Transitional Fossils, When, where, give me URLs.

Every fossil we have ever found.

Every fossil we have ever found.

I was taught each fossil had distinct characteristics of its species today (if it was still around). Shouldn't we be finding dags, cogs, cags, and dots?

It is relatively common knowledge among those who can read Hebrew that there are two basic authors of the Torah, one of whom wrote the first and one of whom wrote the second creation story.

Oh and it is not common knowledge since I did not know it. maybe after I take a theology class.

Just because two authors wrote .."second creation story"??

That is odd, I have never held myself back from anything in a situation like this. At first I want to debate Grave_n_idle, yet I know I will lose and it is pointless (for me). At first I want to read 11 pages of debate and then write, yet it is pointless. So all I have to say is : (1)do not be so quick to cite the incongruities of Genesis, understand why your opponent says they aren't. (2)Scientists interpret [can] interpret differently. (3)"Evolution: Observed. Recorded evidence. No evidence against." Transitional Fossils, When, where, give me URLs.

I think that is a compliment, of sorts? :)

Regarding 'transitional fossils'...

Let me introduce you to a site I like... not too scientific that it is beyond the layman, but with a fair amount of detail.

This on is specifically about Hominids:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

I was taught each fossil had distinct characteristics of its species today (if it was still around). Shouldn't we be finding dags, cogs, cags, and dots?

Oh and it is not common knowledge since I did not know it. maybe after I take a theology class.

Just because two authors wrote .."second creation story"??

Regarding 'dags', I seem to recall a beast called 'miacis' which was most likely precursor (and shows attributes of) cats, dogs and bears.
(Sorry about the crappy links... just wanted to find one on short notice).
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9052426
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461517460/Miacis.html

The 'second creation story' is what happens after the Genesis 1 account.

It is commonly agreed that there are at least 2 'authors' to Genesis, possibly more.

Ok, Grave_n_idle, how intellectual are you? Are you big, strong, and smart enough to just have URLs thrown at you (Credible URLs I hope) And eat them up?

Ok I think I got my wits on me and I can calmy ask this. So this is no doubt my crazy christian faith, but if YHVH is as cracked up as he is said to be. And if the christian religion, too, is as cracked up as is said to be. Then lets go from (1) Everything writtien in the Bible to this day was preserved by someone (God), who has the power to preserve it. Next, look at (2) The Bible is completely God's word (in original language, of course). So my proposition (which will be commented to have much more faith than simply believing evolution). Is (3) The second author is reiterating and summarizing what God first did, and also acknowledging the importance of man.

Now a question: Does not the second genesis story go along with the first? I.E. this was made, then that, then that, blah blah blah, then man?

Ok, Grave_n_idle, how intellectual are you? Are you big, strong, and smart enough to just have URLs thrown at you (Credible URLs I hope) And eat them up?

Sure, I'm always ready for fun and games. :)

Not sure I want to eat URLs, though...

Do you understand the difference between truth and "TRUTH"?



Those books were compiled by a panel of, well, essentially politicians. What makes you think that they did so correctly?



I thought you said you don't like to assume things that it doesn't say? Nothing in Genesis states that the serpent was Satan - that is simply assumed.

Meanwhile, if you do any in-depth theological studies (which it seems you have), you would find that there are *two* very distinct and separate creation stories in Genesis, one from the Priestly writer and one from the Yahwist - suggesting that the point of the story is important, rather than the literal order of it.

Note: Don't take this as an attack. You are obviously working through your theological stances and I love to question - which also helps me to work through my own.

The difference between truth and TRUTH? Hm. Well, I know the difference between truth and fact... facts change, truths don't.

I suppose you're right, in this particular passage it doesn't say Satan is the serpent. But if the serpent is a literal serpent, this is pretty out of step with the rest of the bible. Where else does an animal communicate with a human (excluding cases of divine intervention)? Additionally, the bible refers to Satan as the serpent in numerous other parts of the bible. But even if this isn't refering to Satan, the more accurate interpretation [of the second verse] leaves a very large window to account for a world older than 6000 years.

I have read the book of Genesis, and I must admit, I can't say I've found a seperate account of creation. In chapter two it refers back to the making of Adam before going further into detail on the account of Eden... I suppose this sort of thing could cause some confusion. It confused me for a little while, at least.

Thank you, though, for pointing out percieved flaws. You've given me things to go over and think about.

Tell me, what kind of scientific backing is there to “just couldn’t”?
Probability

I was taught each fossil had distinct characteristics of its species today (if it was still around). Shouldn't we be finding dags, cogs, cags, and dots?


Distinct characteristics are not exact. Horses, zebras, and donkeys all share certain distinct characteristics, and we can find fossils that reflect those particular characteristics. They do not, however, reflect all of the characteristics of a horse, zebra, or donkey.

Oh and it is not common knowledge since I did not know it. maybe after I take a theology class.

I didn't say it was common knowledge among all people. However, it is common knowledge among theologians and those who study the ancient texts *in Hebrew*.

Just because two authors wrote .."second creation story"??

Well, there is one creation story, written by the Priestly author. It is the seven days creation story.

Then, around Genesis 2:4, the story starts over, things occur in a different order, and the tone and point of the story are completely different.

The difference between truth and TRUTH? Hm. Well, I know the difference between truth and fact... facts change, truths don't.

There is truth, as in a truth contained within it and TRUTH, which would be absolute literal truth.

If I tell you a story about a fox and some grapes, I have given you truth - that it is useless to whine about something instead of trying to fix the situation. I have not, however, given you TRUTH - as there aren't actually talking foxes who whine about not being able to get grapes out of trees.

I have read the book of Genesis, and I must admit, I can't say I've found a seperate account of creation. In chapter two it refers back to the making of Adam before going further into detail on the account of Eden... I suppose this sort of thing could cause some confusion. It confused me for a little while, at least.

Read it more carefully, you will find that the order of events once the second account starts (Genesis 2:4, I believe) is different. Most people try to explain it away by saying "Well, this is just going into more detail," but the details and order themselves are different.

Thank you, though, for pointing out percieved flaws. You've given me things to go over and think about.

I try. =) I think that the way to truth, as it were, is through questioning.

please reply
*replies*

Well, there is one creation story, written by the Priestly author. It is the seven days creation story.

Then, around Genesis 2:4, the story starts over, things occur in a different order, and the tone and point of the story are completely different.

this is from http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html:

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. However, close examination of the text will show that what is recorded in 1:1-2:3 is an introductory summary of the events of creation, and that what begins with verse 2:4 is a more detailed account of the Creation of mankind. There is nothing in the two Creation accounts that contradicts. Genesis 2:4-25 should be understand as a further explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:26-31. It is comparable to taking a magnifying glass to Genesis 1:26-31 to take a closer look at the Creation of mankind.

Edit: also from Kenneth Kitchen

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

Let your mind chew on this for a while. Along time ago there was this thing that scientists call the "Cambrian Explosion". During this "explosion" tons of species seemed to come from nowhere. These species' fossils were found but no fossils of species looking like them have been. Most evolutionists believe that evolution took millions of years. You can't tell me that between those times not a single one of those species ancestors died and left fossils. Another thing is the T-Rex bones that the scientists found still have living cells and tissues on them. How is it possible that these things survived after this animal was supposed to have died 60 million years ago or more?

this is from http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html:

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. However, close examination of the text will show that what is recorded in 1:1-2:3 is an introductory summary of the events of creation, and that what begins with verse 2:4 is a more detailed account of the Creation of mankind. There is nothing in the two Creation accounts that contradicts. Genesis 2:4-25 should be understand as a further explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:26-31. It is comparable to taking a magnifying glass to Genesis 1:26-31 to take a closer look at the Creation of mankind.

Edit: also from Kenneth Kitchen

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

Exactly! This is a much more detailed explanation of what I mentioned in my earlier response. Thank you for explaining it so well.

Let your mind chew on this for a while. Along time ago there was this thing that scientists call the "Cambrian Explosion". During this "explosion" tons of species seemed to come from nowhere. These species' fossils were found but no fossils of species looking like them have been. Most evolutionists believe that evolution took millions of years. You can't tell me that between those times not a single one of those species ancestors died and left fossils. Another thing is the T-Rex bones that the scientists found still have living cells and tissues on them. How is it possible that these things survived after this animal was supposed to have died 60 million years ago or more?

Cambrian Explosion: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

T-Rex: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

Let your mind chew on this for a while. Along time ago there was this thing that scientists call the "Cambrian Explosion". During this "explosion" tons of species seemed to come from nowhere. These species' fossils were found but no fossils of species looking like them have been. Most evolutionists believe that evolution took millions of years. You can't tell me that between those times not a single one of those species ancestors died and left fossils. Another thing is the T-Rex bones that the scientists found still have living cells and tissues on them. How is it possible that these things survived after this animal was supposed to have died 60 million years ago or more?

Firstly you are assuming that because it has not been found, it cannot be found. Secondly, you are assuming that everything is fossilized. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of all living organisms are ever fossilized. Thirdly, evolution is not a steady process. Depending on a variety of factors, it may be as slow as several millions of years or as fast as a couple hundred thousand. Thirdly, the tissue in the TRex bone has been preserved; it is not still living. There is a huge difference between the two. Any more misconceptions you would like to add to the list?

It is often claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contain two different creation-narratives. In point of fact, however, the strictly complementary nature of the “two” accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the centre of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. There is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.

Notice that, in the second account, it specifically states that Adam is created before plants and animals.

In fact, while the first account has males and females created simultaneously, at the pinnacle of creation, the second has the garden and animals made for Adam before Eve is made.

Notice that, in the second account, it specifically states that Adam is created before plants and animals.

In fact, while the first account has males and females created simultaneously, at the pinnacle of creation, the second has the garden and animals made for Adam before Eve is made.

So going off of what you said, what do you believe? Also, ..ah this is a shame I am so brain dead right now. lets just leave it at "what do you believe?" and ...wow yeah I SHALL RETURN LESS BRAINDEAD but for now I will please myself with the smooth Desi Beats.

There is truth, as in a truth contained within it and TRUTH, which would be absolute literal truth.

If I tell you a story about a fox and some grapes, I have given you truth - that it is useless to whine about something instead of trying to fix the situation. I have not, however, given you TRUTH - as there aren't actually talking foxes who whine about not being able to get grapes out of trees.



Read it more carefully, you will find that the order of events once the second account starts (Genesis 2:4, I believe) is different. Most people try to explain it away by saying "Well, this is just going into more detail," but the details and order themselves are different.



I try. =) I think that the way to truth, as it were, is through questioning.

Well in that case, the bible is the TRUTH. Anything in the bible that is not a literal truth is declared as such- specifically parables used by Jesus and various prophets.

I have just read through chapters one and two very carefully. Chapter 2:4 through chapter 3 only mention the creation of plants (vaguely), men, animals and Eden. It starts by saying there were no plants because there was neither rain, nor man to till the earth. You can grow plants without rain, that is, with irrigation. You can grow plants without man's influence by a mechanism such as rain, or mist. While most of the land on earth would be barren without one or the other, only one is necessary to grow plants. So, before making man, God brought up a mist to water the earth. If the bible is the TRUTH, and there is no theological reason to expect otherwise (I'm saying within the bounds of the bible, I'm not asking for a list of flaws with the bible or anything like that), it follows that this mist would have to cause plants to grow, so we must conclude that this is implied by the misting of the earth. Why else mention it, afterall? Then it goes into the making of Eden. The plants mentioned being grown after the formation of man are specifically for this paradise, not for the whole world.
Edit: Reguarding the animals, technically it doesn't say He brought these animals immediately to be named after formation. If this is a separate account of creation, then the postponement of mentioning the formation of animals could be due to the fact that it was more pertinent to mention their creation just before going into the process of naming them. The final draft was by Moses, who reconciled these two accounts. The first naturally serves as a time table of creation, so there's no real reason to clarify order of events in the second account. There is a small level of conjecture in this explanation, sure, but mostly it's logic. It's much less conjecture than saying two entirely different stories were written because they weren't intended to be believed.
Edit II: One more thing. Just because the first account says God created man and woman, doesn't mean he created them at exactly the same time. This is where the increased specificity of the second account comes in. Male and female created he them, but not at the exact same time. He simply created them both after animals and before resting.

Notice that, in the second account, it specifically states that Adam is created before plants and animals.

In fact, while the first account has males and females created simultaneously, at the pinnacle of creation, the second has the garden and animals made for Adam before Eve is made.


not to mention that the two stories have completely different character types set as the God figure.

the first stands aloft, very much apart from the creation, and it is all created very distantly. he shouts down "let there be whatever" and it happens.

he's not really a hands on god.

in the second story, you see a completely different character altogether. he's getting his hands dirty. he's 'gardening' instead of just shouting.

Firstly you are assuming that because it has not been found, it cannot be found. Secondly, you are assuming that everything is fossilized. Only a tiny fraction of a percent of all living organisms are ever fossilized

The Cambrian explosion is evidence of some kind of traumatic event that caused a masive number of fossilisations. Ergo there must be a reason WHY there are loads of animals at this point and no fossils that look like them.


Thirdly, evolution is not a steady process. Depending on a variety of factors, it may be as slow as several millions of years or as fast as a couple hundred thousand

Rather than just SAYING that and expecting us to believe it perhaps you can explain WHY the Cambrian explosion happened so fast and WHY there are no fossils of no reletive animals can be found.

The Cambrian explosion is evidence of some kind of traumatic event that caused a masive number of fossilisations. Ergo there must be a reason WHY there are loads of animals at this point and no fossils that look like them.



Rather than just SAYING that and expecting us to believe it perhaps you can explain WHY the Cambrian explosion happened so fast and WHY there are no fossils of no reletive animals can be found.

Response.

There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms.

The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

* The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

* Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

* The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

* Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

* Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

* Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

* Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

As it was linked to before, Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html).

Edit: What's your explanation, Neo? This one's good enough for me.

The Cambrian explosion is evidence of some kind of traumatic event that caused a masive number of fossilisations. Ergo there must be a reason WHY there are loads of animals at this point and no fossils that look like them.

Traumatic event? I don't think so. The fossils were deposited over a very long time.
Best example i know are trilobites. Them, being arthropods regularly had to shed their hide in order to grow (to my knowledge, circa sixty times in a lifetime). And most of the trilobite fossils are just shed parts - not complete animals which means that the animals lived afterwards.

Also, if there was some kind of deluge event, you'd expect the small trilobites lying on top of the bigger ones ('cause the bigger ones are heavier, obviously). And that's just simply not the case. :p

So going off of what you said, what do you believe? Also, ..ah this is a shame I am so brain dead right now. lets just leave it at "what do you believe?" and ...wow yeah I SHALL RETURN LESS BRAINDEAD but for now I will please myself with the smooth Desi Beats.

I believe that there are morals to both stories to be learned, but that the overriding point is that God created the universe. Evidence points to the idea that creatures were created on this earth through the process of evolution, a process which I believe God set into motion.

I’m watching something called Newshour and part of the program is about evolution versus creation science, or Intelligent Design as the intelligent ones prefer to be ....

I read the whole thing. Simply put, you rock out loud.

in the second story, you see a completely different character altogether. he's getting his hands dirty. he's 'gardening' instead of just shouting.

God also isn't omniscient and makes mistakes in that story. For instance, God thinks that Adam will find a companion and helper among the anmals. After trying *all* of them, God makes Eve from Adam.

Traumatic event? I don't think so. The fossils were deposited over a very long time.
Best example i know are trilobites. Them, being arthropods regularly had to shed their hide in order to grow (to my knowledge, circa sixty times in a lifetime). And most of the trilobite fossils are just shed parts - not complete animals which means that the animals lived afterwards.

Yes but that does not explain the rapidity of the Cambrian explosion compared to the rest of the fossil record. And the lack of previous forms


Also, if there was some kind of deluge event, you'd expect the small trilobites lying on top of the bigger ones ('cause the bigger ones are heavier, obviously). And that's just simply not the case. :p

Not nessecarlily. If they were burried in sediment, it merely relies on the order in which they fell, not their respective weights. They land on the sediment already their and more sediment gets depostied ontop. They arent sinking through layers

As it was linked to before, Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html).

Edit: What's your explanation, Neo? This one's good enough for me.

I have read that site, its all based on suppositons and maybe's not actual facts. Now I dont dispute the posibility of those facts being based on real ideas but they cannot be said to be certian. So my problem is with those people who put these ideas as certian fact when they aren't. The ideas behind creationism are not certian fact either, just another set of supositons, using the same evidence but with diffrent interpretations. So I would just wish the pro-evolution lobby would stop claiming supiority that it doesnt have.

God also isn't omniscient and makes mistakes in that story. For instance, God thinks that Adam will find a companion and helper among the anmals. After trying *all* of them, God makes Eve from Adam.
Well, that's one spin on the story. Another is that God let Adam find out for himself that he had no companion among the animals. After Adam had tried all of them and failed, God moved to fashion one for him.
Genesis 2:20 "The Man named the cattle, named the birds of the air, named the wild animals; but he didn't find a suitable companion."

I think this example says nothing about God's omniscience or lack thereof.

I couldn't read the rest of the topic because my parents will know I've been on the internet for too long, but my reason for believing in IDT is not to do with complexity. It's to do with the gradual process of evolution.
My example is the Venus Fly Trap. It uses touch-sensitive hairs to trap insects. But how could this come about through several stages? The change could not come through a mutation - and a gradual evolution in the direction of carnivorously eating insects and developing the necessary parts would have no benefit on the plant in the early stages, and therefore it could not evolve that way.

And, (this is probably just my lack of knowledge), but how did multicellular organisms evolve? I thought that single celled organisms could not evolve into anything else, as they always produced identical copies - therefore, no variation.

Yes but that does not explain the rapidity of the Cambrian explosion compared to the rest of the fossil record. And the lack of previous forms

Heh, well... you are still forgetting the taphonomic filter. I think i posted it a week or so ago already, but i gladly repeat it here:
The Burgess Shale in Canada is just a site with exceptional good preservation where animals with exclusively soft-tissue have been preserved. If you look anywhere else in Cambrian sediments, you will only find remains of animals with hard tissue - like trilobytes, archaeocyathides and brachiopodes. Those appear in the Burgess Shale too, but they make up only 2%. The lifeforms from Burgess Shale weren't created from one day to the other, they evolved over millions of years. I'm pretty sure that if some day a similar good preservation site from the Early Cambrian will be found (Burgess Shale is Middle Cambrian), then we will also see ancestors of the Burgess Shale fauna.


Not nessecarlily. If they were burried in sediment, it merely relies on the order in which they fell, not their respective weights. They land on the sediment already their and more sediment gets depostied ontop. They arent sinking through layers

Heh, well, and how do you explain that ammonites have never been found in Cambrian sediments, or trilobites have never been found in Mesozoic sediments?

(Note: the answer is that ammonites had not evolved yet in the Cambrian - they appeared only in late Devonian, and trilobites became extinct at the end of the Permian although their diversity had already vastly decreased by the end of the Ordovician).

So I would just wish the pro-evolution lobby would stop claiming supiority that it doesnt have.

Well, on the contrary, dear Neo Cannen. We have the superiority. I don't want to sound like arrogant or anything, but tons of evidence are on our side. There is no proof that the principles of stratigraphy are wrong. Also, i've never heard any explaination by Creationists about stuff like Plate Tectonics, the CCD, or the presence of aeolian and evaporite sediements. Those shouldn't exist in the abundance they do if Creationists were right.

:p

I have read that site, its all based on suppositons and maybe's not actual facts. Now I dont dispute the posibility of those facts being based on real ideas but they cannot be said to be certian. So my problem is with those people who put these ideas as certian fact when they aren't. The ideas behind creationism are not certian fact either, just another set of supositons, using the same evidence but with diffrent interpretations. So I would just wish the pro-evolution lobby would stop claiming supiority that it doesnt have.

Who said it was fact? Who's claiming superiority? It is an intelligent explanation of supposed events derived by interpreting the fossil record we have today. I ask again, what is your explanation of the Cambrian Explosion?

Edit: I myself do not accept nor deny the existence of God, or that He created the universe. These things are unprovable. In fact, you'll find most things are. I can see the evidence for evolution, therefore, I accept it in the knowledge that it may be proven wrong, or that more evidence will change it. The explanation is what is important here, important to humanity in that it will show a little more of how the universe works, how life works. You are so dead-set against evolution, seemingly because you are frightened by it, that you offer no explanations of your own as to the way things happened. Evolution is a theory, but the Bible is a book. The Bible must be interpreted in order to create a theory. What's yours?

1) Evolution is in general not a biological theory, but rather a mathematical one.

If you have numerous objects that multiply themselves with the following aspects:
-Some sort of ‘blueprint’ or ‘memory’ that determine the chances of the object having certain qualities.
-A process that can change portions of this ‘blueprint’.
-A most likely changing environment in which objects have different chances of survival and multiplying themselves based on the qualities mentioned above.

Then you have evolution in the system. Suppose all objects are identical at the start. Object A ‘mutates’ and the blueprint changes a bit, and is the first to do so. Object B comes from object A and because of the change develops a certain quality – which happens to be advantage in the current environment. Object B will now multiply itself more than the original objects and its kind will become more common in the overall population. Eventually there will only objects of the same type as B.

If you build a function f(t) (time dependent) that represents the entire population of objects at the time t, then evolution would be some sort of (very complex) differential equation:
g(t,f(t),f’(t),f’’(t),…) = 0

Note: Every event (earthquakes, the varying energy we get from the sun, meteor crashes, …) is a part of this equation – making it unsolvable even in principle for anyone but a hypothetical Demon of Laplace for the determinists out there.

Now a very important factor in differential equations are the begin conditions, in our case: what was the original set of objects we started with? And a less mathematical question might be: how did this original set get there?

2) Application to biological evolution

As objects, we take all living things. We see that the above can be applied because we have:
-DNA (and other self-replicating molecules – RNA) that serve as a ‘memory’. I don’t like the word ‘blueprint’ in this case as the end result also depends on circumstances, with the DNA just determining chances of developing a certain trait and not being an actual blueprint.
-change of the DNA: Sunlight can cause mutations, errors in the replication of the DNA can occur, with more ‘advanced’ species: two sets of DNA recombine, bacteria and/or viri (I don’ know for sure if both can, but at least one type can) inject parts of their DNA into your cells, chemicals can alter your DNA, …
-Natural selection: We see it all around us. A lion that can run faster than another lion is better at hunting and has a natural advantage - unless the hunting advantage gained is smaller than the disadvantage of consuming more energy by being able to run faster.

Thus we have the ‘differential equation’ mentioned above with species more or less slowly evolving into new species. This can be observed in bacteria, breeding of dogs, etc. and is undeniable.

The ‘problem’ for any opponent of evolution that does not deny the fact (it can be observed) that bacteria evolve are the begin conditions.

3) Begin condition: The first cell

From now on, evolution will not only mean the process of evolution, but also the study of this process throughout the ages.

Evolution assumes that something capable of evolving came out of a soup of organic chemicals a couple of billion years ago. This in itself is a theory and I am not going to discuss it here, but it gives us a couple of ways to support evolution:
-We can try to create something capable of evolving in a lab experiment.
-After that, we can try to do this in a lab simulating the conditions of early earth.

This is the begin condition. An important conclusion we get from this condition:
If we ‘go back in time’, we should see that our set of species converges to one species, the latter being composed of only 1 cell.

The begin condition used by creationists – those that oppose evolution, not those that say god created the first cells - is that a set containing a lot of different species, with the difference being detectable, came into existence. If we hold this as true and go back in time, we may not see our set of species converging to one species near our beginning.

This is where fossil records and DNA research (comparing the DNA of a man and an ape for example) come into play. They show again the process of evolution, species evolving into other species. They also provide a test for the begin condition of evolution: convergent or not?

We see that species A and B must have had a common ancestor, this ancestor then had a common ancestor with species C, … In general, what we have indicates that our set of species converges when we go back in time, disproving the begin condition of non-evolutionists and supporting that of evolutionists.

I couldn't read the rest of the topic because my parents will know I've been on the internet for too long, but my reason for believing in IDT is not to do with complexity. It's to do with the gradual process of evolution.
My example is the Venus Fly Trap. It uses touch-sensitive hairs to trap insects. But how could this come about through several stages? The change could not come through a mutation - and a gradual evolution in the direction of carnivorously eating insects and developing the necessary parts would have no benefit on the plant in the early stages, and therefore it could not evolve that way.

And, (this is probably just my lack of knowledge), but how did multicellular organisms evolve? I thought that single celled organisms could not evolve into anything else, as they always produced identical copies - therefore, no variation.I hope you get to read this, given your parents' restrictions...

Many, many, many plants have 'motor reflexes'. Sunflowers follow the sun with their 'heads', brambles 'pneumatically' propel their stems along the ground whilst growing (quite frightening, watched in sped-up/time-lapse film) and flowers open and close their petals at particular times of day (or night) to suit the insects (butterflies, moths, flies, etc, etc) that they 'prefer' to be polonised by (i.e. have co-evolved to work with on a 'food for reproduction' barter basis). The movement of a Venus Fly Trap leaf is really not much more than that... The speed is due (if I remember correctly) to the way the shape of the leaf flexes. Have you ever had one of those toys that are small 'hemispheres' of rubber (half a tennis-ball will do as well). You turn it 'inside out', put it with the flat/open side down and (at some point between immediately and never, depending on the construction) it'll turn itself the right way round again, 'explosively', and propel itself off the ground in doing so. VFT leaves are stressed in one direction, have internal pressure applied to not quite pop them the other way and when hairs on the leaves (a simple extension of plant 'reflexes' that can be found in other plants) the process is completed and each half-leaf is 'tripped' over the edge and all but snaps shut.

Gradual evolution can easily occur, in that situation. It's just a series of small changes to an existing motile leaf, and where a plant like a VFT lives, every extra bit of nutrients does it very well, so accidentally trapped insects may provide just enough nutrients to give that plant with the (at first partial) ability an advantage whenever a fly is trapped...


As to multicellular organisms evolving, my person theory (completely unaffected by any actual education in the subject, so I may be wrong) is as follows:

First of all, asexual reproduction of single-celled organisms do produce mutations. When all the genetic code lines up in the centre of of the cell, parts in half like a zip, zoomes to each end of the cell and forms half of each two 'daughter cell' codes, there's occasional mistakes made, so single-cells can evolve.

Next, if cells evolve that find they can't do some cellular action (e.g. digest certain nutrients well) but are very efficient at another (e.g. good at snaring 'prey amoeba') happen to develop in an environment where another type is of the reverse pursuasion, you get symbiosis and colony-forming behaviours, whereby each different type of cell (different animals from each other) help the other to survive circumstances they are no longer fit to do so on their own.

My next step is the assumption (reasonable I think) that the ability to do both jobs still exists, but is suppressed by mutation. If that suppression is linked to some kind of chemical signal, then one of the symbiotic/colonied cells may (by dint of being on the outside of the colony) find itself re-expressing the ability that it had supposedly lost. This could easily happen and could result in the unrelated 'friends' being ousted by cells directly related (indeed, all but identical) to the each other. From there, it's not much of a step for a 'blastocyst' construction of a ball of cells, the outer cells taking on 'external' duties through the expression of genes that help do those duties, but the concentration of cells in the centre, within a concentration of chemical signals from surrounding sibling cells, activates different functionality and takes on the role of the gut.

And there you have a rudimentary multi-celled (single germ-line) creature, which (at this point) might well still be asexual in nature, but later on could revise its body plan (next time a few new cells 'bud' off to create a 'starter' offspring) to handle sperma nd eggs (or equivalent) separately with the aid of sibling mono-culture colonies, rather than internally... and then it can go on to develop things like hard skeleton, diferent cell specialisations, etc, especially now there's a possibility of mixing genes, not just recombining with itself any more. Don't know if that's the way it works, but sounds plausible to me, with perhaps a few minor details to be tided up...

Whadya think?

I think the Rhombozoa are a good example of what early animals may have looked like. They're at least pretty close, i'd say.

I have read that site, its all based on suppositons and maybe's not actual facts. Now I dont dispute the posibility of those facts being based on real ideas but they cannot be said to be certian. So my problem is with those people who put these ideas as certian fact when they aren't. The ideas behind creationism are not certian fact either, just another set of supositons, using the same evidence but with diffrent interpretations. So I would just wish the pro-evolution lobby would stop claiming supiority that it doesnt have.

(a) Nothing in science is "fact". If you have a problem with hypotheses and theories, you should just ignore science (and everything that comes out of it).

(b) Creationism is not "based on the same evidence", but is actually based on "the evidence that happens to back my foregone conclusion that I will never change."

Well, that's one spin on the story. Another is that God let Adam find out for himself that he had no companion among the animals. After Adam had tried all of them and failed, God moved to fashion one for him.
Genesis 2:20 "The Man named the cattle, named the birds of the air, named the wild animals; but he didn't find a suitable companion."

I think this example says nothing about God's omniscience or lack thereof.

...except that it says God expected to find a companion among them and then went "Oh, I didn't find a companion for him there, guess I need to make one."

The point is that the two authors had very different views of God. The Priestly view is of an all-powerful being separate from the world. The Yahwist had a view more tied to the idea of personal or family gods - that god was anthropomorphized and somewhat fallible, but more powerful than human beings.

(a) Nothing in science is "fact". If you have a problem with hypotheses and theories, you should just ignore science (and everything that comes out of it).

(b) Creationism is not "based on the same evidence", but is actually based on "the evidence that happens to back my foregone conclusion that I will never change."

Very well said! :D

*applauds*

(a) Nothing in science is "fact". If you have a problem with hypotheses and theories, you should just ignore science (and everything that comes out of it).

Many parts of science are observable fact, but evolution is not one of them. For example we can prove that electricty passing through a filliment will create high resistance in that filliment and give out energy in the form of heat and light.


(b) Creationism is not "based on the same evidence", but is actually based on "the evidence that happens to back my foregone conclusion that I will never change."

That could equally be said about evolution, and creationism is at a disadvantage in this case since the ideas surronding it and the intepretations came about only after the original evolution interpretations were made public. Creationism is not selective in evidence regards. It does try and embrace all the evidence. Evolution doesnt explain everything, creationism doesnt explain everything. But evolution claims to be somehow supiror which it isnt. Both ideas are incomplete theories which cannot be said to be entirely certian of being accurate

Ok, just to throw out a few accepted facts to let you guys stew about it. First, the possibility of a SINGLE DNA strand of the complexity required to start life forming on its own in a primodial soup as is said to have exisisted is as follows.

10^20 Earths are given. 1.1 million years worth of time. Lots and lots of chemical reactions per micro second(millionth of a second). The odds of ONE strand happening are 1 in 10^400 power. Give or take 50 powers.

The actual odds of a single celled organism sprouting in that time frame, given the same situations, are 1 in 10^50,000.

To put this in perspective for you who can't fathom this number, because I sure as hell can't: There are only 10^80 electrons in our lil universe. So, that would be like having a chance of pulling one weird electron out of a universe that is 10^800 times larger than ours. The universe hasn't had that many feto(.000000000000001) seconds yet. :) Thus, mathmaticians have labled it a mathematical impossibility.

Any questions?(he says opening himself up to a flood of flames and a few legit questions)

Edit: I myself do not accept nor deny the existence of God, or that He created the universe. These things are unprovable. In fact, you'll find most things are. I can see the evidence for evolution, therefore, I accept it in the knowledge that it may be proven wrong, or that more evidence will change it. The explanation is what is important here, important to humanity in that it will show a little more of how the universe works, how life works. You are so dead-set against evolution, seemingly because you are frightened by it, that you offer no explanations of your own as to the way things happened. Evolution is a theory, but the Bible is a book. The Bible must be interpreted in order to create a theory. What's yours?

I am not set against evolution, I can see it as a way in which animals have changed since Eden. What angers me is the way evolutionists strut up and down the place insulting religous people for being ignorent and ignoring "given facts".

Sorry, I love this subject, I have to post again.

First, on the tiny changes bit. Where the hell did they find that there is a TINY change between a man and a woman? Look at us physically and I guarantee you we are WAY different. If not, then try to find some testicles in a woman's ovaries or the other way around. Then, if a male and female of whatever species DID actually form, what are the odds they formed near enough to each other to breed? And then what are the odds that one liked the other enough to breed? Have you seen how animals breed? They're as picky as we are plus they can sence genetic flaws in their mates. Differences between women and men disprove evolution hands down.

Second, as for God. Ok, so you don't believe in the god of Isac and Jacob and so on. Lets at least put this in place and get you down to one god. Ok, so we know that is at LEAST one god now. Now, can there be more? If you say yes, then how many? If you have three, why not four? Why not five? etc.... They are gods after all, they dont have to reveal themselves to you. Now, we can have an infinite amount of gods. Sorry, but the way you took your last breat just pissed off god number 10^10293983474.34382. You are dead. Struck down in your prime by a vengeful god. By the zero, one, infinity principle(it's an engineering thing), there can only be one god.

Oh yea, and for those who say, we're two percent away from apes, did you know that means we're only 10,000 pairs away from apes? Bit bigger than you think, no?

Many parts of science are observable fact, but evolution is not one of them. For example we can prove that electricty passing through a filliment will create high resistance in that filliment and give out energy in the form of heat and light.

Observable fact, eh? It's called Electromagnetic Theory because it supports our current notions of electricity and magnetism. The filament already has high resistance, it just resists more when more current flows. At least that's what we think. We don't really know why, just that sometimes behaviours work in a predictable manner.

That could equally be said about evolution, and creationism is at a disadvantage in this case since the ideas surronding it and the intepretations came about only after the original evolution interpretations were made public. Creationism is not selective in evidence regards. It does try and embrace all the evidence. Evolution doesnt explain everything, creationism doesnt explain everything. But evolution claims to be somehow supiror which it isnt. Both ideas are incomplete theories which cannot be said to be entirely certian of being accurate

Wait, you're saying that Darwin's book was written before creationism came about?!?!? So Darwin's book is older than creation and the world is only a little over a century old! Natural selection is what Darwin came up with, and it became accepted years after it was first published. But here's where you're really wrong, "evolution claims to be somehow supiror which it isnt." "Evil-lutionists" as I like to call them (and I group myself with "them") do not claim that the idea of a creation is absurd, or even that God is nothing more than a figment of our imaginations. We do not claim to be superior, just that we search for more bits and pieces of our universe's history, and piece them together like a jigsaw puzzle. We do find the idea that the "universe was created only 6000 years ago and God's just making it look like it's much older" very absurd. That's what creationism is. However you may try to give it silver lining, that is it's core belief. Creationism is ignorance, being religious and believing in creation is not.

Wait, you're saying that Darwin's book was written before creationism came about?!?!?

As in the idea of creation as a countor to evolution.

I am not set against evolution, I can see it as a way in which animals have changed since Eden. What angers me is the way evolutionists strut up and down the place insulting religous people for being ignorent and ignoring "given facts".

But you apparantly are, because You claim that "evil-lutionists" strut around, and stick it in your face, that they are better then you, that evil-lutionists can't stop rubbing it in your face that they're superior. This is ludicrous, so please stop it. You cannot even answer a straight-forward question without launching into generalizations and denegrating the debate into a game of keyboard fisticuffs.

I've tried to answer the questions you throw out. I give reasonable explanations, as do many people. Not because I claim to have the "facts" as you call them, but because my point of view might be of some use to somebody. I've asked you several questions, but you change the subject to make it sound as if the position I'm defending has something personal against God and creation.

We do find the idea that the "universe was created only 6000 years ago and God's just making it look like it's much older" very absurd. That's what creationism is. However you may try to give it silver lining, that is it's core belief. Creationism is ignorance, being religious and believing in creation is not.

I agree the idea that "God just made it look older" idea is absud, but thats not creationsim. And as for the age of the earth, thats debateable. Radiometric dating (NOT carbon 14 dating, thats diffrent) can be analysed in such a way that gives a result in the 1000's or 10,000's. The factors that must be taken into account are these:

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions.

But you apparantly are, because You claim that "evil-lutionists" strut around, and stick it in your face, that they are better then you, that evil-lutionists can't stop rubbing it in your face that they're superior. This is ludicrous, so please stop it. You cannot even answer a straight-forward question without launching into generalizations and denegrating the debate into a game of keyboard fisticuffs.

I've tried to answer the questions you throw out. I give reasonable explanations, as do many people. Not because I claim to have the "facts" as you call them, but because my point of view might be of some use to somebody. I've asked you several questions, but you change the subject to make it sound as if the position I'm defending has something personal against God and creation.

So does this mean you two are going to run for president in the next elections here in the good ol' US of A?

I am not set against evolution, I can see it as a way in which animals have changed since Eden. What angers me is the way evolutionists strut up and down the place insulting religous people for being ignorent and ignoring "given facts".

Well, on the contrary, religious fundamentalist weirdos are insulting scientists. I mean, look, I'm permanently posting tons of evidence here and you happily go ahead and ignore it, say it wouldn't matter. They pick out whatever is consistent with their dogma and regard the rest as nonsense.
(Oh, and regaridng dogma, i have to admit that Creationism is something rather heterogenous).

You must not distinguish between good and bad science. You have to take all given evidence into account and make a consistent conclusion out of it. That's what science is all about, and that includes evolution.

Geology suggests that Earth is billions of years old, and that life was not present on Earth from the beginning and that it changed vastly during the meantime. Molecular evidence (DNA) suggests that there is one common ancestor of all life on Earth (plus tons of other evidence that would take too long to mention here).

So what now? The most reasonable conclusion is that life on Earth truly evolved and that Humans are a product of the evolutionary process.

Oh, and Neo Cannen, you still haven't said what's your opinion on plate tectonics and the CCD. :p

Oh, and Neo Cannen, you still haven't said what's your opinion on plate tectonics and the CCD. :p

I dont know how exactly they contridict creationism, whats wrong with them?

I agree the idea that "God just made it look older" idea is absud, but thats not creationsim. And as for the age of the earth, thats debateable. Radiometric dating (NOT carbon 14 dating, thats diffrent) can be analysed in such a way that gives a result in the 1000's or 10,000's. The factors that must be taken into account are these:

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions.

rubbish. If a proplerly done radiometric dating method revealed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, and the result could be reproduced as many times as needed, the whole of the scientific community would be in uproar.

Radiometric tests give the age of the earth to be 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

I dont know how exactly they contridict creationism, whats wrong with them?

Well, plate tectonics affect the configuration of continents (plus, that phenomon is observable, although slow). Different continents affect climate on Earth. Change in climate - over geological time - affects life on Earth. The formation of Pangaea created a hot, arid climate, for example, which promoted the evolution of the reptiles.

Regarding the CCD, it's another phenomenon that contradicts Creationism:
(btw, CCD means Carbonate Compensation Depth). It's a depth in the ocean below which carbonate (i.e. of shells, etc.) is dissolved in the water. This means that no carbonate sediments can form below it. On deep sea flow, thus only non-carbonateous material can form sediments - for example silicate from radiolaria and other siliceous plancton. Now, the amount of silicate-producers in comparison to carbonate-producers in the marine ecosystems is and was always very small. This means that the sedimentation rate on deep sea floor is very low - in the order of a few millimeters per millennium. And now take that into consideration if you find layers of radiolarite which are meters thick. :)

Note: I've never heard a Creationist talk about the CCD. This phenomenon seems to be totally unkown to them.

Oh, and Neo, that Melvin Cook never received any nobel prize (looked it up). Where did you take that from? :p

(Note: i reckon somebody made a similar claim about Fred Hoyle a few weeks ago)

Many parts of science are observable fact, but evolution is not one of them. For example we can prove that electricty passing through a filliment will create high resistance in that filliment and give out energy in the form of heat and light.

Actually, we cannot prove that at all. We have hypothesized that the energy we measure as heat and light comes from electrons passing through the filament, but we can never *prove* that. All we can do is disprove the other options.

Meanwhile, from a Creationist point of view, we cannot rule out the idea that there is no electricity, that God just says *poof* and there is heat and light.

That could equally be said about evolution,

I know you have a hard time actually thinking about things Neo, but what I am about to say to you has been pointed out to you at least 50 times. NO IT CAN NOT. You know why? Because the very principle of a scientific theory is that, if disproven, it is changed. Thus, there is no foregone conclusion that will not change - the entire thing is *supposed* to change with new evidence.

Creationism is not selective in evidence regards. It does try and embrace all the evidence.

...except any evidence that doesn't support what it says.

As I have pointed out before, you can find evidence for *anything* if you start with the conclusion. That is why nothing which begins with a conclusion can be considered scientific.

Evolution doesnt explain everything, creationism doesnt explain everything. But evolution claims to be somehow supiror which it isnt.

No, evolution claims to be a scientific theory - which it is. If you believe that scientific theories are inherently superior to lay-theories, then evolution is superior. If you do not believe that, then it is not.

Both ideas are incomplete theories which cannot be said to be entirely certian of being accurate

One is a scientific theory which changes with new evidence. As it is a scientific theory, it will never claim to be completely accurate.

The other is a lay-theory - a supposition based on hearsay. It claims to be entirely accurate, although you claim that it is not necessarily so.

First, on the tiny changes bit. Where the hell did they find that there is a TINY change between a man and a woman? Look at us physically and I guarantee you we are WAY different. If not, then try to find some testicles in a woman's ovaries or the other way around. Then, if a male and female of whatever species DID actually form, what are the odds they formed near enough to each other to breed? And then what are the odds that one liked the other enough to breed? Have you seen how animals breed? They're as picky as we are plus they can sence genetic flaws in their mates. Differences between women and men disprove evolution hands down.

Biologically, there is a single gene that makes the difference between someone developing as a man or a woman - located on the Y chromosome. In fact, there is a condition referred to as CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) in which there is a single point mutation in the DNA that makes someone who is XY develop completely and totally as a female.

Oh yea, and for those who say, we're two percent away from apes, did you know that means we're only 10,000 pairs away from apes? Bit bigger than you think, no?

You do realize that the "2%" figure is not calculated from base pairs, but from the actual genes present, correct?

rubbish. If a proplerly done radiometric dating method revealed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, and the result could be reproduced as many times as needed, the whole of the scientific community would be in uproar.


Very immature, you didnt deal with a single one of my points. How about instead of calling them "rubbish" you actually attempt to deal with them.

Very immature, you didnt deal with a single one of my points. How about instead of calling them "rubbish" you actually attempt to deal with them.

I said rubbish because the age of the earth you gave according to radiometric data is wrong. If you think it is not, give me a reference.

I have read that site, its all based on suppositons and maybe's not actual facts. Now I dont dispute the posibility of those facts being based on real ideas but they cannot be said to be certian. So my problem is with those people who put these ideas as certian fact when they aren't. The ideas behind creationism are not certian fact either, just another set of supositons, using the same evidence but with diffrent interpretations. So I would just wish the pro-evolution lobby would stop claiming supiority that it doesnt have.

"Evolutionists" don't claim superiority - they claim to be more 'scientific' in their practice.

Evolutionary theory starts with observation, and the assumption that we know nothing about how to explain what is happening... and grows from there.

Creationist 'theory' starts with an assumption (of a 'god', and even a specific timetable of life), and may or may not utilise observation to 'support' that premise.

Well, plate tectonics affect the configuration of continents (plus, that phenomon is observable, although slow). Different continents affect climate on Earth. Change in climate - over geological time - affects life on Earth. The formation of Pangaea created a hot, arid climate, for example, which promoted the evolution of the reptiles.


Its possible Pangea is what was formed when God created land. And then he moved it about. Also remember Genesis talks about animals being created "According to their kinds" so it makes sense of animals to be well adapted.


Regarding the CCD, it's another phenomenon that contradicts Creationism:
(btw, CCD means Carbonate Compensation Depth). It's a depth in the ocean below which carbonate (i.e. of shells, etc.) is dissolved in the water. This means that no carbonate sediments can form below it. On deep sea flow, thus only non-carbonateous material can form sediments - for example silicate from radiolaria and other siliceous plancton. Now, the amount of silicate-producers in comparison to carbonate-producers in the marine ecosystems is and was always very small. This means that the sedimentation rate on deep sea floor is very low - in the order of a few millimeters per millennium. And now take that into consideration if you find layers of radiolarite which are meters thick. :)


Its possible that when God moved about the continets in the early days, the rate at which such things happend increased, because it was how everything else happend. After Eden, then everything moved at a much slower rate, without God's intervention in such matters. The slowing down idea aslo explains mythological dragons later on in history. Genesis 6 talks about how the age of man is limited. At this sort of time the oxygen content of the atmosphere decreased and the level of atmospeheric pressure increased (not so sure about the pressure, I know it changed, just cant remember if its increase or decrease). Thus also decreasing the lifespan of every other animal. So its possible that when Noah took the animals onto the ark, he took young dinosaurs (not fully grown ones) and when they got out, because enviromental conditons had changed they no longer grew to full size hence the idea of dragons. I wont say these things are certian, but the do make sense scriptually and to an extent scientificly. Your quite free to disagree with my interpreatiaon but you must see it as a posibility.

i have one point that will solve it all.

what created the intelligent designer? he/she/it couldnt of just happened by accident according the original post. If something intelligent created that designer then another designer would have had to make it. in the end you have a paradox.

chemicals randomly interacting :gundge: can and will produce something that can produce something that can produce the simplest amino acid. the earth is 5 billion years old. life has existed for only 1 of those billion. what do u think was happening the other 4? a lot of random interaction

precisely 126,144,000,000,000,000 seconds worth(more or less).

yes thats plenny of time. although i'm sure thats going to be debated despite no one really having a proper prespective on how long the necessary chemical functions would take.

the last one billion years is a bit more directed because lifeforms are focusing on reproducing and with each generation the lifeform develops in one way or another.

Its possible Pangea is what was formed when God created land. And then he moved it about. Also remember Genesis talks about animals being created "According to their kinds" so it makes sense of animals to be well adapted.



Its possible that when God moved about the continets in the early days, the rate at which such things happend increased, because it was how everything else happend. After Eden, then everything moved at a much slower rate, without God's intervention in such matters. The slowing down idea aslo explains mythological dragons later on in history. Genesis 6 talks about how the age of man is limited. At this sort of time the oxygen content of the atmosphere decreased and the level of atmospeheric pressure increased (not so sure about the pressure, I know it changed, just cant remember if its increase or decrease). Thus also decreasing the lifespan of every other animal. So its possible that when Noah took the animals onto the ark, he took young dinosaurs (not fully grown ones) and when they got out, because enviromental conditons had changed they no longer grew to full size hence the idea of dragons. I wont say these things are certian, but the do make sense scriptually and to an extent scientificly. Your quite free to disagree with my interpreatiaon but you must see it as a posibility.

How can it make sense to "an extent scientifically". Either it fits all the known evidence and we can call it a theory or it clashes with some evidence and must be modified or thrown out. But i wouldnt have thought you'd be ready to change it.

edit:typoes

Ok, just to throw out a few accepted facts to let you guys stew about it. First, the possibility of a SINGLE DNA strand of the complexity required to start life forming on its own in a primodial soup as is said to have exisisted is as follows.

10^20 Earths are given. 1.1 million years worth of time. Lots and lots of chemical reactions per micro second(millionth of a second). The odds of ONE strand happening are 1 in 10^400 power. Give or take 50 powers.

The actual odds of a single celled organism sprouting in that time frame, given the same situations, are 1 in 10^50,000.

To put this in perspective for you who can't fathom this number, because I sure as hell can't: There are only 10^80 electrons in our lil universe. So, that would be like having a chance of pulling one weird electron out of a universe that is 10^800 times larger than ours. The universe hasn't had that many feto(.000000000000001) seconds yet. :) Thus, mathmaticians have labled it a mathematical impossibility.

Any questions?(he says opening himself up to a flood of flames and a few legit questions)

Probability is irrelevent.

If I step outside my house, and get struck by lightning, what would the 'probability' be? A vanishingly small number, I'd imagine, right?

Okay - what about if that happened to me YESTERDAY? What is the probability be that I would have already been struck by lightning? 100%.

You cannot successfully apply probability to events that have already happened.

Sorry, I love this subject, I have to post again.

First, on the tiny changes bit. Where the hell did they find that there is a TINY change between a man and a woman? Look at us physically and I guarantee you we are WAY different. If not, then try to find some testicles in a woman's ovaries or the other way around. Then, if a male and female of whatever species DID actually form, what are the odds they formed near enough to each other to breed? And then what are the odds that one liked the other enough to breed? Have you seen how animals breed? They're as picky as we are plus they can sence genetic flaws in their mates. Differences between women and men disprove evolution hands down.

Second, as for God. Ok, so you don't believe in the god of Isac and Jacob and so on. Lets at least put this in place and get you down to one god. Ok, so we know that is at LEAST one god now. Now, can there be more? If you say yes, then how many? If you have three, why not four? Why not five? etc.... They are gods after all, they dont have to reveal themselves to you. Now, we can have an infinite amount of gods. Sorry, but the way you took your last breat just pissed off god number 10^10293983474.34382. You are dead. Struck down in your prime by a vengeful god. By the zero, one, infinity principle(it's an engineering thing), there can only be one god.

Oh yea, and for those who say, we're two percent away from apes, did you know that means we're only 10,000 pairs away from apes? Bit bigger than you think, no?

So full of holes.

Try doing a google search on 'Liger' or 'Tigon'.

Perhaps, you can work out why creatures don't need to suddenly 'evolve' males and females, in the cardboard cut-out manner you seem to be suggesting.

You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down.

I call 'false'.

Prove it, Neo.

I need to see a source cited, for your 'assumption' that radioactive decay is non-linear.

I said rubbish because the age of the earth you gave according to radiometric data is wrong. If you think it is not, give me a reference.

You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions

Other studies done using the same techniques found the same thing, coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old had these corrections applied and it came out as just over 1600 years

And there are further problems with other dating systems

4 - The Potassiem Argon dating system is extremely unreliable. When applied to rocks that were known to be only at the very most 200 years old, results varied from 22 million to 200 million

5 - Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of production of carbon 14 is equal to the rate of decay (. However for such a state to be achieved it requires 30,000 years from the start of the atmosphere. But modern studies, even those by Dr Libby who discovered the method, discovered that such equalibrium has not been achieved and that formation of carbon 14 is still 24% more than decay.

Reference W.F.Libby "Radiocarbon dating" University of Chicago press 1955

In America, scientists used the Carbon 14 dating system on a living snail, discovering that this LIVING snail was more that 27,000 years old!

Reference

"Science" volume 224 1984 pgs 58-61

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966

You cannot successfully apply probability to events that have already happened.

This is where you dont seem to get it

The chances of something happening RANDOMLY are much less than something happening WITH DIRECTION

And that is where the probability arguement comes from, the idea that something is too improbable to happen by the methods you discribe, and so another reason must be found thats more logical.

How can it make sense to "an extent scientifically". Either it fits all the known evidence and we can call it a theory or it clashes with some evidence and must be modified or thrown out. But i wouldnt have thought you'd be ready to change it.

edit:typoes

The extent being that you wouldnt allow the existance of God as "Scientific"

This is where you dont seem to get it

The chances of something happening RANDOMLY are much less than something happening WITH DIRECTION

And that is where the probability arguement comes from, the idea that something is too improbable to happen by the methods you discribe, and so another reason must be found thats more logical.

Evolution is random, there is no intended direction.

The extent being that you wouldnt allow the existance of God as "Scientific"

Darling, it is not scientific by the very definition of science and the scientific method. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else will allow.

The extent being that you wouldnt allow the existance of God as "Scientific"

I didnt say that did I? That account would clash on so many levels with the available data as to not worth be considering, the most obvious being the age of the earth.

Evolution is random, there is no intended direction.

Which is precisely why its insanely improbable!

Darling, it is not scientific by the very definition of science and the scientific method. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else will allow.

Do not call me darling, I am not your darling.

Secondly, Science is about (as far as I am aware) making observations of the physical world. If a metaphysical entity chose to intercede into it there would be physical evidence. Which is what we see with the nature of the world.

You said rubbish and completely failed to actally analyise any of the reasons I gave you. I will now give them to you again and this time you can actually READ them. And then perhaps you can expalin WHY you think they are wrong, rather than just calling them rubbish

1 - You take out the assumption that radiometric decay in uranium is constant. Its not. It starts off fast and then slows down. Also large scale enviromental change can alter the surrondings to such an effect which alters the rate of decay

2 - You remove the assumption that you know how much of the first element in the chain there was. You dont. You dont know how much of any original piece of rock was lead and how much was Uranium

3 - You remove the assumption that the radiometric decay occurs in an isolated system and that any lead present comes only from the decaying Uranium. Dr Melvin Cook, who won a Nobel prize for his research into this field, discovered that if you put in a neutron reaction correction to the dating methods that the result comes out in the 10'000's of years and not millions

Other studies done using the same techniques found the same thing, coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old had these corrections applied and it came out as just over 1600 years

And there are further problems with other dating systems

4 - The Potassiem Argon dating system is extremely unreliable. When applied to rocks that were known to be only at the very most 200 years old, results varied from 22 million to 200 million

5 - Carbon 14 dating assumes that the rate of production of carbon 14 is equal to the rate of decay (. However for such a state to be achieved it requires 30,000 years from the start of the atmosphere. But modern studies, even those by Dr Libby who discovered the method, discovered that such equalibrium has not been achieved and that formation of carbon 14 is still 24% more than decay.

Reference W.F.Libby "Radiocarbon dating" University of Chicago press 1955

In America, scientists used the Carbon 14 dating system on a living snail, discovering that this LIVING snail was more that 27,000 years old!

Reference

"Science" volume 224 1984 pgs 58-61

Dr Cook.M "Pre-History and Earth Models" London 1966

You pick all this up wholesale at Kent Hovind's site, Neo?

If you bothered to read around the subject, you'd know that C14 dating is publically acknowledge as being a poorer choice in regard to 'marine' lifeforms, purely BECAUSE it throws specualtive results, due to a known effect:

"There is a known problem with dating aquatic organisms that can derive their carbon from old sources, a situation called the reservoir effect. It doesn't refute all dating techniques".

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/would_you_want_this_clown_teaching_biology

Do not call me darling, I am not your darling.
You realise that people do it because you're so hung up about it. ;)

Secondly, Science is about (as far as I am aware) making observations of the physical world. If a metaphysical entity chose to intercede into it there would be physical evidence. Which is what we see with the nature of the world.
What evidence? Were my eyes closed when it whizzed by?

Which is precisely why its insanely improbable!

woops, misread the post i replied to. If you're referring to likfrog's post about the probabilities of a dna molecule or cell forming spontaneously, then they could be right. However, dna does not form randomly. It started off with much simpler molecules that became able to self replicate and grew and grew till they became comparable to the size you find inside organisms.

Which is precisely why its insanely improbable!
True. And its improbable because the universe is way to small for such random creation to exist, since there are millions of parameters that Earth needs for life to exist on it, regardless of how many planets there are.

This is where you dont seem to get it

The chances of something happening RANDOMLY are much less than something happening WITH DIRECTION

And that is where the probability arguement comes from, the idea that something is too improbable to happen by the methods you discribe, and so another reason must be found thats more logical.

No - you don't get it, Neo.

You are arguing 'probabilities' as reasons why something cannot have happened.

You could say that the more 'probable' answer is always right... but that doesn't explain volcanic eruptions... which are MUCH less 'probable' than dormant volcanoes.

I prefer the idea that the least 'imaginative' reason is USUALLY right... and I find it easier to apply logic to observation, than to try to make facts 'fit' theology.

And, actually - the odds are better for 'random' events, than for 'directed' events... UNLESS you assume that a SPECIFIC result is desired.

Evolution accepts ANY positive change, which is far more 'probable' than a SPECIFIC change.

I never said anything about proof. Merely fitting in with the evidence available. The post wasnt long. Read it next time. I'm perfectly aware that outside the realms of mathematics, proof is impossible.
yeah... i noticed that i clicked quote instead of new post after i read my post...

i need chocolate

yeah... i noticed that i clicked quote instead of new post after i read my post...

i need chocolate

Then i read the bit about practical proof and didnt know if my post was appropriate so i deleted it.

I need sleep.

Do not call me darling, I am not your darling.

Secondly, Science is about (as far as I am aware) making observations of the physical world. If a metaphysical entity chose to intercede into it there would be physical evidence. Which is what we see with the nature of the world.

Curious - show me this 'physical evidence'?

You are aware, of course, that you have to prove that anything you use as 'evidence' here, CANNOT have happened any OTHER way, than through divine intervention?

I prefer the idea that the least 'imaginative' reason is USUALLY right... and I find it easier to apply logic to observation, than to try to make facts 'fit' theology.

Yeah, Occams razor, which I mentioned in another thread. To which Neo hasn't replied oddly enough.

Also, if you accept religious explanations, which have NO proof, how can you not accept any other crackpot theory, like that we're really a robots?

Secondly, Science is about (as far as I am aware) making observations of the physical world. If a metaphysical entity chose to intercede into it there would be physical evidence. Which is what we see with the nature of the world.

Actually, there wouldn't. Science would observe that intercession and realize that the rules of the universe must be different than they thought - and would change the theory.

Unless God appears simultaneously to all people and says "I AM GOD AND YOU WILL BELIEVE IT!", God is and always will be outside the realm of science, as science is only concerned with the rules of the universe - which God exists outside of.

Dammit, an hour ago i click on this thread promising myself i'll make 1 post then leave. Here i am an hour later and i think i've already had this argument with neo cannen before. Why do i keep doing this?

Well, night all.

You realise that people do it because you're so hung up about it. ;)

What? Did I start a trend?

Seriously though, I do that to everyone - I don't know why Neo feels singled out.

Yeah, Occams razor, which I mentioned in another thread. To which Neo hasn't replied oddly enough.

Also, if you accept religious explanations, which have NO proof, how can you not accept any other crackpot theory, like that we're really a robots?

Also - if you ARE willing to accept theological responses, with no other evidence... why chose the Christian creation myth?

I seem to recall that Ancient Egyptian myth had some story on the lines of a goddess manually stimulating her 'god', until he 'spilled' the world into reality...

Personally, I think that's a much more interesting creation myth.