NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure most supporters of Intelligent Design are aware of (and detest) Richard Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. As part of his argument he wrote a computer program called 'Blind Watchmaker' that demonstrated complex shapes coming from simple rules. In requiring human guidance it totally failed to demonstrate that a designer is unnecessary, however.

I wrote my own version called 'Evolving Tree' that introduced some basic evolutionary rules so after setting it going I didn't have to intervene at all (the rules caused it to simulate those branching structures that small sea creatures use to catch particles floating in the water).

All this proves is that I know more about computer programming that Richard Dawkins (he's a biologist, not a programmer, after all). It does however lead to an interesting dilemma: if God is omniscient, then surely he/she would not need to intervene in evolution (like in Intelligent Design) - a truly omniscient God could set the universe up in a way that led to the desired result (a carefully placed asteroid here, some high-energy cosmic rays there, and so on). Until humans appear with free will there's nothing an omniscient God couldn't foresee. So perhaps the intelligence behind Intelligent Design is really not that clever after all.

So is God not omniscient, or is Intelligent Design wrong? Or is there a way to unify the two ideas?

[For the purposes of arguments in this thread, can atheists please assume that God exists and be content with pointing out logical flaws within particular ideas of God. Discussions of the (non)existence of God can be left to another thread. Okay, I know that request won't work...]

I'm sure most supporters of Intelligent Design are aware of (and detest) Richard Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. As part of his argument he wrote a computer program called 'Blind Watchmaker' that strated complex shapes coming from simple rules. In requiring human guidance it totally failed to strate that a designer is unnecessary, however.

I wrote my own version called 'Evolving Tree' that introduced some basic evolutionary rules so after setting it going I didn't have to intervene at all (the rules caused it to simulate those branching structures that small sea creatures use to catch particles floating in the water).

All this proves is that I know more about computer programming that Richard Dawkins (he's a biologist, not a programmer, after all). It does however lead to an interesting dilemma: if God is omniscient, then surely he/she would not need to intervene in evolution (like in Intelligent Design) - a truly omniscient God could set the universe up in a way that led to the desired result (a carefully placed asteroid here, some high-energy cosmic rays there, and so on). Until humans appear with free will there's nothing an omniscient God couldn't foresee. So perhaps the intelligence behind Intelligent Design is really not that clever after all.

So is God not omniscient, or is Intelligent Design wrong? Or is there a way to unify the two ideas?

[For the purposes of arguments in this thread, can atheists please assume that God exists and be content with pointing out logical flaws within particular ideas of God. Discussions of the (non)existence of God can be left to another thread. Okay, I know that request won't work...]

What I personally believe is that God started the Big Bang or whatever, and the organisms evolved until humans developed. Once they had the capacity for reason and therefore free will, God gave humans souls which raised them above the other animals and established us at the top of the food chain and those closest to God on this planet. Thats what I believe at least, so I guess by that I belive in the omnisceint if I read your post correctly, idk...

It doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or situation. Its quite possible God COULD set it up to run on its own and just doesn't. Maybe He prefers to be involved. I like to believe that anyway.

I'm sure most supporters of Intelligent Design are aware of (and detest) Richard Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. As part of his argument he wrote a computer program called 'Blind Watchmaker' that demonstrated complex shapes coming from simple rules. In requiring human guidance it totally failed to demonstrate that a designer is unnecessary, however.

I wrote my own version called 'Evolving Tree' that introduced some basic evolutionary rules so after setting it going I didn't have to intervene at all (the rules caused it to simulate those branching structures that small sea creatures use to catch particles floating in the water).

All this proves is that I know more about computer programming that Richard Dawkins (he's a biologist, not a programmer, after all). It does however lead to an interesting dilemma: if God is omniscient, then surely he/she would not need to intervene in evolution (like in Intelligent Design) - a truly omniscient God could set the universe up in a way that led to the desired result (a carefully placed asteroid here, some high-energy cosmic rays there, and so on). Until humans appear with free will there's nothing an omniscient God couldn't foresee. So perhaps the intelligence behind Intelligent Design is really not that clever after all.

So is God not omniscient, or is Intelligent Design wrong? Or is there a way to unify the two ideas?

[For the purposes of arguments in this thread, can atheists please assume that God exists and be content with pointing out logical flaws within particular ideas of God. Discussions of the (non)existence of God can be left to another thread. Okay, I know that request won't work...]


Oh what language did you use?

My theory (and that's all it is), is that God or some equivalent being initiated the Big Bang and created the universe as we know it, but then left it to evolve naturally.

How does religion fit in? My guess is when our species evolved to a certain level, God revealed himself, hoping to lead humanity down an enlightened path. When he saw the devastation it caused however (Crusades, Holocaust, etc.), he changed his ways, and now has a policy of non-interference. That's why we haven't seen "miracles" recently.

Oh what language did you use?

For the Evolving Tree program, you mean? (Why oh why can't people trim quotes?) It was in an old version of Java. Unfortunately my AnimationCanvas class on which it depended stopped working several versions of Java ago because of API changes (that'll teach me to rely on undocumented features...).

For the Evolving Tree program, you mean? (Why oh why can't people trim quotes?) It was in an old version of Java. Unfortunately my AnimationCanvas class on which it depended stopped working several versions of Java ago because of API changes (that'll teach me to rely on undocumented features...).
Had a feeling it was java

As time goes on, I become more and more convinced that life on Earth was actually seeded by an outside source. Or not necessarily the life itself, evolution could easily have produced life-forms such as ourselves, but the dominant world religion is a by-product, I believe, of an outside influence watching the development of the human species.
There is a number of sources of evidence for this, including that in the earlier sections of the bible, 'Jehovah' is constantly speaking to other beings not clearly delineated as angels. Additionally, the existance of 'other people' (from whence Cain aquired a wife) indicates that he did not make man, per se, but merely gave rules to that subsect of humanity known as 'Jews'.
Along this same vein, there are references to 'Fiery Chariots' not only in the Christian faith, but I believe a 'ball of fire' was referred to in the arrival of the Tuatha De Danaan in the British Isles. Then there are the references to visitors from the sky in Maya, including one image of a vessel descending from the sky that bore a striking resemblance to the 'saucer shaped' UFO's that are reported.
Let us also not forget how carefully the pyramids in Egypt are aligned celestially, nor Stone Henge. Many of the cultures of man turn their eyes skyward when seeking divinity, whose to say they haven't got a damn fine handle on things?

In truth, I think that the idea that God created the Universe at the beginning and let it run puts much less limits on God than ID does. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, which is what I believe, then God would know every possible variable going into the equation, and the outcome of every possible rule set up for how the universe works. Thus, God would have been well aware that evolution would occur, and that human beings would come into existence.

Isn't that much more elegant than the idea of ID (ie. "God couldn't have done it through evolution, so he must've done it this way instead.")?

In truth, I think that the idea that God created the Universe at the beginning and let it run puts much less limits on God than ID does. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, which is what I believe, then God would know every possible variable going into the equation, and the outcome of every possible rule set up for how the universe works. Thus, God would have been well aware that evolution would occur, and that human beings would come into existence.

Isn't that much more elegant than the idea of ID (ie. "God couldn't have done it through evolution, so he must've done it this way instead.")?
While I agree I like that better I think some ID people still find it offensive that we "evoloved" from a "lower" life form

I dont personaly have an issue with it if that is what happened

While I agree I like that better I think some ID people still find it offensive that we "evoloved" from a "lower" life form

I dont personaly have an issue with it if that is what happened

Yeah, and I don't really get that. Those are the same people who have a freaking cow if you mention that human beings are animals, as if we have to be completely separate from all else in nature.

Of course, they are also often the same people who have holier-than-thou attitudes and look down their noses at "less religious" people than them while drowing kittens.

Wow, I was getting all ready to reply civilly, and then you two go off and start spewing hatred and insults and stereotyping bigotry against a certain group of Christians that you don't like...

Nicely done. Calling them hypocrites, my butt, hypocrites yourselves is more like it.

Yeah, and I don't really get that. Those are the same people who have a freaking cow if you mention that human beings are animals, as if we have to be completely separate from all else in nature.

Of course, they are also often the same people who have holier-than-thou attitudes and look down their noses at "less religious" people than them while drowing kittens.
Im about as less religious as you can get … if they look down at me I poke them in the eye :) hehehehe

Anyways yeah I don’t understand why they can’t see the beauty and wonder of such a plan (setting everything up for evolution) for some reason *puff existence* is necessary

Wow, I was getting all ready to reply civilly, and then you two go off and start spewing hatred and insults and stereotyping bigotry against a certain group of Christians that you don't like...

Nicely done. Calling them hypocrites, my butt, hypocrites yourselves is more like it.
As far as I can tell you are the only one in the thread that said hypocrite

As far as I can tell you are the only one in the thread that said hypocrite

Hypocrite = Ridiculer, scoffer, bigoted, pietistic, sanctimonious, intolerant … you get the idea.

Hypocrite = Ridiculer, scoffer, bigoted, pietistic, sanctimonious, intolerant … you get the idea.
Yeah but that’s not what you said … you clearly stated we called them something when in fact I have not called them anything … so I don’t know who you “two” are all I said was that if someone looks down at me I poke them in the eye


Again tell me how I spew hatred? Or how I have called any other group anything in this thread much less hypocrite

Yeah but that’s not what you said … you clearly stated we called them something when in fact I have not called them anything …

Can you two stop this pointless argument? A semantics lesson:

1) "You called them 'hypocrites'" means the person claims you used the word 'hyprocrites'
2) "You called them hypocrites" (notice lack of quotes) means the person does not claim you used the exact word

If I had said "George Bush would fail an IQ test", it would be legitimate for someone to say I had called him an idiot (so long as they don't but the word 'idiot' in quotes). Similarly I would argue that 'hypocrisy' is the concept you are describing when you write:

Of course, they are also often the same people who have holier-than-thou attitudes and look down their noses at "less religious" people than them while drowing kittens.

[edit #1 fixed ironic spelling mistake]

Similarly I would argue that 'hypocrisy' is the concept you are describing when you write:



[edit #1 fixed ironic spelling mistake]
Check again I did not write that quote

If you like to accuse me of something please make sure you quote the right person

Yeah but that’s not what you said … you clearly stated we called them something when in fact I have not called them anything … so I don’t know who you “two” are all I said was that if someone looks down at me I poke them in the eye


Again tell me how I spew hatred? Or how I have called any other group anything in this thread much less hypocrite


You accused them of looking down on you, while the whole time you are actively looking down on them ... you quoted and you agreed with... guilt of harboring and participating. Creating an environment of intolerance against your target group (in this case, the fundamentalist and their opinions).

Yeah, and I don't really get that. Those are the same people who have a freaking cow if you mention that human beings are animals, as if we have to be completely separate from all else in nature.

Of course, they are also often the same people who have holier-than-thou attitudes and look down their noses at "less religious" people than them while drowing kittens.

Hey! thats not completely true, i dont think im part monkey. + im religeous ( when im not too stoned) and i would never look down my nose at you. I just want to drown my kittens in peace

You accused them of looking down on you, while the whole time you are actively looking down on them ... you quoted and you agreed with... guilt of harboring and participating. Creating an environment of intolerance against your target group (in this case, the fundamentalist and their opinions).
I did not say they did look down on me I said if they look down on me I poke them in the eye … anyone not just religious people

Hey! thats not completely true, i dont think im part monkey. + im religeous ( when im not too stoned) and i would never look down my nose at you. I just want to drown my kittens in peace

lol

:p

I did not say they did look down on me I said if they look down on me I poke them in the eye … anyone not just religious people


Okay fine, whatever you say, you didn't help create an environment of intolerance...

Okay fine, whatever you say, you didn't help create an environment of intolerance...

The mistake here was Greenlander, you said "you two" when, in fact it was just Dempublicants (or whatever that name was) who was creating the environment of intolerance all by himself. Upwardthrust's comments weren't hypocritical or intolerant at all. Just a misunderstanding there guys. Relax

Check again I did not write that quote
Right you are. Now I look back at the thread, it's even more confusing though - Greenlander's second paragraph is obviously directed at Dempublicents1, so why did you take as directed at you? (I'm wondering if Greenlander also failed to notice that you'd taken up Dempublicents1 cause and it was no longer Dempublicents1 posting...).

If you like to accuse me of something please make sure you quote the right person
I was just taking about the use of the English language to try to settle a pointless arguments, not making accusations at all.

Anyway, I think I'd have to agree with this comment:

Just a misunderstanding there guys. Relax

Okay fine, whatever you say, you didn't help create an environment of intolerance...
At least not intentionally

While I agree I like that better I think some ID people still find it offensive that we "evoloved" from a "lower" life form

I don't understand why some groups would consider it offensive to have evolved from any lifeform. As an aetheist, I still appreciate that every organism is uniquely adapted to its environment and should be considered as an example of perfection. A succession of stimuli have nudged species into larger and more complex forms in order to adjust to their constantly changing environments. Surely a believer would be inclined to consider all forms of life as examples of perfection (perhaps not including humans), and therefore evidence of divine guidance?

I don't understand why some groups would consider it offensive to have evolved from any lifeform. As an aetheist, I still appreciate that every organism is uniquely adapted to its environment and should be considered as an example of perfection. A succession of stimuli have nudged species into larger and more complex forms in order to adjust to their constantly changing environments. Surely a believer would be inclined to consider all forms of life as examples of perfection (perhaps not including humans), and therefore evidence of divine guidance?
You defiantly could look at it that way … the wonder of adaptation and the power of life’s ability to cope rather then just static animals that god popped into being

I don't understand why some groups would consider it offensive to have evolved from any lifeform. As an aetheist, I still appreciate that every organism is uniquely adapted to its environment and should be considered as an example of perfection. A succession of stimuli have nudged species into larger and more complex forms in order to adjust to their constantly changing environments. Surely a believer would be inclined to consider all forms of life as examples of perfection (perhaps not including humans), and therefore evidence of divine guidance?

well I don't think the discussion was to be about evolution but I'll put in my 2 cents. I don't feel its offensive to have evolved, I just don't believe in it. I believe there are too many holes in Darwin's theory that won't be filled in, even in the future. Kind of the same way an atheist feels about God, I would imagine.

well I don't think the discussion was to be about evolution but I'll put in my 2 cents. I don't feel its offensive to have evolved, I just don't believe in it. I believe there are too many holes in Darwin's theory that won't be filled in, even in the future. Kind of the same way an atheist feels about God, I would imagine.
If you are still using Darwin’s theory as “evolutionary” theory you may want to update that just a smidgen lol

well I don't think the discussion was to be about evolution Yeah sorry, but I enjoyed reading the start of this thread and hoped it could be revitalised. I'm going to go search for an anti-evolution thread tho, that sounds like something I could sink my teeth into :)

Hey! thats not completely true, i dont think im part monkey. + im religeous ( when im not too stoned) and i would never look down my nose at you. I just want to drown my kittens in peace

Who said anything about being part monkey? =)

The mistake here was Greenlander, you said "you two" when, in fact it was just Dempublicants (or whatever that name was) who was creating the environment of intolerance all by himself. Upwardthrust's comments weren't hypocritical or intolerant at all. Just a misunderstanding there guys. Relax

I didn't "create an environement of intolerance." Is anyone going to deny that there are a subset of religious people with holier-than-thou attitudes that are extremely hypocrtical? Have I accused anyone in this thread of meeting that description?

If you are still using Darwin’s theory as “evolutionary” theory you may want to update that just a smidgen lol


perhaps, but the whole scenario doesn't work for me. But this is for a different discussion

I didn't "create an environement of intolerance." Is anyone going to deny that there are a subset of religious people with holier-than-thou attitudes that are extremely hypocrtical? Have I accused anyone in this thread of meeting that description?

Isn't that the same sort of argument that some police groups use to justify and enforce racial profiling in white neighborhoods, they just start pulling over black-teenagers who drive through white neighborhoods? It’s not reasonable just because bad guys exist…

If what you are about to say is derogatory to a group, it's stereotyping in a bad way.

What you did to was make any non-confrontational fundamentalist/creationist believer feel totally unwelcome to present their position here, as the original thread asked them to do but you derided them before they even said a thing.

well I don't think the discussion was to be about evolution but I'll put in my 2 cents. I don't feel its offensive to have evolved, I just don't believe in it. I believe there are too many holes in Darwin's theory that won't be filled in, even in the future. Kind of the same way an atheist feels about God, I would imagine.

I guess Creationism does have one advantage over evolution... Darwin's theory apparently has many small holes in it, while Creationism only has one gigantically huge hole in it. ;)

I guess Creationism does have one advantage over evolution... Darwin's theory apparently has many small holes in it, while Creationism only has one gigantically huge hole in it. ;)
Again Darwin’s theory is not current evolutionary theory

That is the beauty of scientific theory … it changes to fit facts it makes it adaptable like us it adapts to better fit the truth as we learn more.

Again Darwin’s theory is not current evolutionary theory

That is the beauty of scientific theory … it changes to fit facts it makes it adaptable like us it adapts to better fit the truth as we learn more.

Natural selection of random mutation is wrong, I don't know what the right answer is, but that's not it... I don't care who came up with it.

Proving that things change via breeding does not prove 'why' they evolve.

Natural selection of random mutation is wrong, I don't know what the right answer is, but that's not it... I don't care who came up with it.

Proving that things change via breeding does not prove 'why' they evolve.
Evidence or just “feeling” your way though (that’s valid for belief in improvable things like objective morals or deities but at least in the world of science “feelings” don’t over rule data)

If you find data that supports another theory write it up and submit it for peer review if it is in fact good solid data they will have to take it into consideration

Evidence or just “feeling” your way though (that’s valid for belief in improvable things like objective morals or deities but at least in the world of science “feelings” don’t over rule data)

If you find data that supports another theory write it up and submit it for peer review if it is in fact good solid data they will have to take it into consideration

yeah but for evolution, the data doesn't add up. In many places the "data" is made up just as easily as in some religions. The missing link, flagellum, cambrian explosion, the fact that there are still monkeys and apes, origin of life, and the fossil record. Evolution doesn't explain any of these and none of them explain evolution.

The same goes for Miller's Experiment. Useless experiment that proved nothing but was touted as "proven fact" for almost 50 years and still is in some text books.

yeah but for evolution, the data doesn't add up. In many places the "data" is made up just as easily as in some religions. The missing link, flagellum, cambrian explosion, the fact that there are still monkeys and apes, origin of life, and the fossil record. Evolution doesn't explain any of these and none of them explain evolution.

I hate to break it to you, but the missing link, etc. are parts of the theory developed out of the data. They are not, themselves, data.

Meanwhile, if the fact that there are still monkeys and apes seems like a contradiction to the theory to you, you have no understanding whatsoever of the actual theory of evolution. You need to go back and study a bit before trying to discuss it.

yeah but for evolution, the data doesn't add up. In many places the "data" is made up just as easily as in some religions. The missing link, flagellum, cambrian explosion, the fact that there are still monkeys and apes, origin of life, and the fossil record. Evolution doesn't explain any of these and none of them explain evolution.

The same goes for Miller's Experiment. Useless experiment that proved nothing but was touted as "proven fact" for almost 50 years and still is in some text books.
Ok look up the big 3 and show me where each of these “problems” are not covered

And how does niche based selection not explain or at least provide for the existence of moneys and apes … only species in area of pressure would be subject to increased pressure … those that stuck to farer climes would have less

Again write up a paper and submit it to peer review … so far none of your claims have been supported enough by anyone to make it into the theory … peer review is rigorous but that’s how it should be

Evidence or just “feeling” your way though (that’s valid for belief in improvable things like objective morals or deities but at least in the world of science “feelings” don’t over rule data)

If you find data that supports another theory write it up and submit it for peer review if it is in fact good solid data they will have to take it into consideration

I don't have to build an airplane to prove that a different plane doesn’t fly. With this in mind, let's see some good hard data that 'natural selection' of random mutations is right ... reverse you demand to me on evolution itself.

There is no real strong evidence at all for natural selection of random mutation. Such as, we can show change in a species over time (by design like in dogs, or by isolation from others of their kind), we can show change for good and change for bad, and constant change. We can't show, for example, why there is change. The truth is, we can't 'stop' change.

Natural selection is the operative word, but if so, then why is it that when the big strong bucks are fighting each other (random selection supposedly picking out the victor) the weak, sickly and too young to fight bucks are off and boffing the does, propagating their genes and not the big strong buck’s genes as the theory said should occur? (I agree isolated events don't prove a thing, I'm going for example here) Why does it seem that animals in heat do not select at all, it's first come first serve, disproving the ability of the theory to even be possible.

The nice little evolutionist theory of the best and strongest are picked, is simply wrong more often than it is right, if it is ever right...

It appears, for example, that change in a species is inevitable, essentially that stability in a species impossible, that change is guided by something outside of natural selection (if anything at all).

Species do not seem to be 'improving' themselves via natural selection and there is certainly no reason to assume that accidental changes of mutations in genes are capable of changing an entire species quickly as would be required for quickly changed environments. But rather, that entire species seem to mutate as needed or when possible. More often than not, they don’ seem to be able to ‘adapt’ to quick changes at all are simply replaced by a different creature entirely in the food chain after they are gone.

yeah but for evolution, the data doesn't add up. In many places the "data" is made up just as easily as in some religions. The missing link, flagellum, cambrian explosion, the fact that there are still monkeys and apes, origin of life, and the fossil record. Evolution doesn't explain any of these and none of them explain evolution.

The same goes for Miller's Experiment. Useless experiment that proved nothing but was touted as "proven fact" for almost 50 years and still is in some text books.

OMG seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.

A) Missing links - tons of them exist
B) Flagellum - is made of a number of proteines which are not too different from each other
C) Cambrian "Explosion" - is largely a taphonomic effect
D) Because monkeys, apes and humans evolved from a *common ancestor*
E) Origin of life is still under debate, but that's not the problem
F) The fossil record has given us, despite all it's gaps, tons of informations about evolution and ancient ecosystems
G) What we see in the fossil record *is* evolution, seriously (what do you expect, some weird chimaeras with half-paw-half-flippers?)
F) Conditions similar to the Urey-Miller experiment have been existing on early Earth, and they do exist on various places in outer space, plus amino acids etc. have been found in meteorites. Where's your problem?!

The nice little evolutionist theory of the best and strongest are picked, is simply wrong more often than it is right, if it is ever right...

Somehow you got things wrong there. It was never stated that "the strongest" survive. The selective pressures can be of all varieties (and very subtle at times), but in any case those who are fit for these specific pressures will survive. That's something slightly different...

Ok look up the big 3 and show me where each of these “problems” are not covered

And how does niche based selection not explain or at least provide for the existence of moneys and apes … only species in area of pressure would be subject to increased pressure … those that stuck to farer climes would have less

Again write up a paper and submit it to peer review … so far none of your claims have been supported enough by anyone to make it into the theory … peer review is rigorous but that’s how it should be

why would I want to write up a paper and submit it to peer review on a theory I reject?

why would I want to write up a paper and submit it to peer review on a theory I reject?
Um so that the theory fits reality

That is science … if you have evidence that the current theory is not correct you correlate it so that the theory will be modified

A theory is not the end all it is changes to better fit reality

If you have hard evidence that it does not fit reality … modify it

If you have hard evidence that it does not fit reality … modify it

Huh? :confused:

How could hard evidence ever not fit reality?!

Huh? :confused:

How could hard evidence ever not fit reality?!
Sorry in that quote “it” is the theory not the evidence

So I meant to say if he has evidence that the theory of evolution does not match reality …

Sorry in that quote “it” is the theory not the evidence

So I meant to say if he has evidence that the theory of evolution does not match reality …

Ah ok, now i see. :)

What you did to was make any non-confrontational fundamentalist/creationist believer feel totally unwelcome to present their position here, as the original thread asked them to do but you derided them before they even said a thing.


Good. They are unwelcome.

OMG seems like you have no idea what you are talking about.

A) Missing links - tons of them exist
B) Flagellum - is made of a number of proteines which are not too different from each other
C) Cambrian "Explosion" - is largely a taphonomic effect
D) Because monkeys, apes and humans evolved from a *common ancestor*
E) Origin of life is still under debate, but that's not the problem
F) The fossil record has given us, despite all it's gaps, tons of informations about evolution and ancient ecosystems
G) What we see in the fossil record *is* evolution, seriously (what do you expect, some weird chimaeras with half-paw-half-flippers?)
F) Conditions similar to the Urey-Miller experiment have been existing on early Earth, and they do exist on various places in outer space, plus amino acids etc. have been found in meteorites. Where's your problem?!

A) produce one
B) produced by 40 proteins and comprise an irreducable part of the bacteria that could not have evolved except in one fell swoop. Any of those proteins missing and the "motor" that is the flagellum would have been a useless tail that served no purpose.
D) monkeys, apes, and humans also managed to survive in exactly the same habitat WITH each other and yet only some evolved?
E) origin of life IS the problem, natural selection and evolution can not and will not find the answer.
F) the fossil record has also grown 100X its size since Darwin and yet, despite what you say, no missing link has been found.
G) What we see in the fossil record is evidence that animals existed and died. Also that there were some species that died out. Anything past that is imagination.
H) The Miller experiment created an atmosphere by stacking the deck that would most likely produce amino acids. According to NASA, that is not what early Earth atmosphere comprised of. It was mostly inert gases and those do NOT produce amino acids. Also, amino acids are NOT life, they are just a small part of a protein which also is NOT life. Creating an amino acid, then creating more of them (different ones), and then stringing them together in the CORRECT order, etc. This is never going to happen by chance. No way in the space of 50 Earth's lifetimes.

Good. They are unwelcome.


well its good to know where you stand on the subject. :rolleyes:

Somehow you got things wrong there. It was never stated that "the strongest" survive. The selective pressures can be of all varieties (and very subtle at times), but in any case those who are fit for these specific pressures will survive. That's something slightly different...

Somehow you missed my point. I entirely understand that the theory says the most 'fit' survive. My point was that it isn't true.

That random chance and the weak and useless of a species are just as likely to mate as the 'most' fit of their brethren are to propagate their species. And even more so in many cases, as the most fit are off and proving their fitted-ness while the weak and very young (unproven to be most 'fit' or anything else) and the useless are popping out offspring in their distraction.

In addition to that observation, when environmental changes do occur, none of the species is likely to survive anyway (fit or otherwise) as massive extinction is proven to be the end-result of ALL species to date. The evidence suggests that species can't adapt fast enough in real time for change to save them anyway. Species change in unchanging environments, they seldom survive changes at all and when they do it seems to be pure luck. More likely, they are replaced by unrelated species in the food chain/ecology.

Natural selection of random mutation does not explain any of it. It was a pretty theory, too bad it doesn't hold up to scrutiny

A) produce one
B) produced by 40 proteins and comprise an irreducable part of the bacteria that could not have evolved except in one fell swoop. Any of those proteins missing and the "motor" that is the flagellum would have been a useless tail that served no purpose.
D) monkeys, apes, and humans also managed to survive in exactly the same habitat WITH each other and yet only some evolved?
E) origin of life IS the problem, natural selection and evolution can not and will not find the answer.
F) the fossil record has also grown 100X its size since Darwin and yet, despite what you say, no missing link has been found.
G) What we see in the fossil record is evidence that animals existed and died. Also that there were some species that died out. Anything past that is imagination.
H) The Miller experiment created an atmosphere by stacking the deck that would most likely produce amino acids. According to NASA, that is not what early Earth atmosphere comprised of. It was mostly inert gases and those do NOT produce amino acids. Also, amino acids are NOT life, they are just a small part of a protein which also is NOT life. Creating an amino acid, then creating more of them (different ones), and then stringing them together in the CORRECT order, etc. This is never going to happen by chance. No way in the space of 50 Earth's lifetimes.

A) Missing Links:

Fish-amphibian transition:
Panderichthys
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega

Reptile-mammal transition:
Cynognathus
Thrinaxodon
Probainognathus
Oligokyphus

land mammal-whale transition:
- Ambulocetus
- Rhodocetus
(some others that i'd have to look up)

dinosaur-bird transition:
- Archaeopteryx
- Caudipteryx
- Microraptor
- Rahonavis
- Sinosauropteryx
(many others)

(just as a few examples)

B) Today they're different, once many of these functions were performed by much more simple proteines. They've been replaced in the meantime.

C) What about C?

D) Come on! They do not live in exactly the same habitat, and they certainly don't have the same ecological niches. Do you know how many species. And most certainly not "only some of them evolved". Contemporary monkeys and apes are different from say Miocene or Pliocene ones. Seriously.

E) Well, have you ever sat down 500,000 or 1,000,000 years? I don't think so.

F) As mentioned above, tons have been found, you just don't want to see them. Also, doesn't this say something to you that we find so much in the fossil record? Not just *some* have become extinct, but virtually ALL have become extinct except what we have today.

G) Well, we have evidence that animals lived, we have evidence of how they died and how and why they got preserved (That is called taphonomy). We also have evidence of how they lived, and that they co-existed in ecosystems which functioned much like present-day ecosystems despite players were different. The point is that these ecosystems did exist in different times and couldn't have co-existed, and some change happened in the meantime - hence EVOLUTION.

H) Yes, they do not create life, and that was the not the purpose of the experiment... and if you think those likeliness calculations mean anything, then you've been brainwashed by the Creationists...

In addition to that observation, when environmental changes do occur, none of the species is likely to survive anyway (fit or otherwise) as massive extinction is proven to be the end-result of ALL species to date. The evidence suggests that species can't adapt fast enough in real time for change to save them anyway. Species change in unchanging environments, they seldom survive changes at all and when they do it seems to be pure luck. More likely, they are replaced by unrelated species in the food chain/ecology.

That is not true, only some 5% of all taxa became extinct in mass extinction events, not all. 95% perished in so-called 'background extinctions'.
In regard for mass extinctions, though, i think luck and opportunism may actually be a factor there. I mean, imagine that by chance only 1% of a population does survive, that still means the species will survive. However the makeup of the gene pool will have been radically changed by the bottleneck.

What you did to was make any non-confrontational fundamentalist/creationist believer feel totally unwelcome to present their position here, as the original thread asked them to do but you derided them before they even said a thing.

I assume this was Greenlander and it was directed at me.

Meanwhile, I never did any such thing.

I may have made the type of person who is personally insulted by science feel unwelcome, but that does not describe all fundamentalists or creationist believers.

There was nothing at all in my post that in any way derided creationist belief.

A) produce one

If we found them, they aren't missing anymore, are they? I think this person was referring to transitional fossils.

B) produced by 40 proteins and comprise an irreducable part of the bacteria that could not have evolved except in one fell swoop. Any of those proteins missing and the "motor" that is the flagellum would have been a useless tail that served no purpose.

You need to read up a bit more on this, my dear. There are all sorts of uses for the individual proteins that can be posited. No one is suggesting that the entire structure evolved "in one fell swoop".

Meanwhile, why assume that the only possible use for each and every part of the flagellum is for locomotion? Without pretty darn good reason to make such an assumption, you really have no standing.

D) monkeys, apes, and humans also managed to survive in exactly the same habitat WITH each other and yet only some evolved?

Incorrect. All of them evolved, in different ways. You have fallen into the classic trap of thinking that the entire purpose of evolution was to create human beings. The other apes have also changed since the common ancestor. Chimps are as different from apes as we are from them. Monkeys are even more different, having diverged at an earlier time.

This comment makes it painfully obvious that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. How do you intend to argue against something you have no understanding of?

E) origin of life IS the problem, natural selection and evolution can not and will not find the answer.

Evolution is not supposed to tell you the origin of life. That is outside the realm of this theory.

F) the fossil record has also grown 100X its size since Darwin and yet, despite what you say, no missing link has been found.

More than one "missing link" has been found. Every time the lineage of any species is altered, it is because of a missing link. Are you seriously claiming that the fossile record has grown that much but we have not found a single new species among it?

G) What we see in the fossil record is evidence that animals existed and died. Also that there were some species that died out. Anything past that is imagination.

No, anything past that is explanation. If you have a better explanation that fits all evidence and does not bring in any unfalsifiable claims, by all means put it forward.

That is not true, only some 5% of all taxa became extinct in mass extinction events, not all. 95% perished in so-called 'background extinctions'.
In regard for mass extinctions, though, i think luck and opportunism may actually be a factor there. I mean, imagine that by chance only 1% of a population does survive, that still means the species will survive. However the makeup of the gene pool will have been radically changed by the bottleneck.


Admittedly, my phrasing did make it sound like I meant only mass extinctions were killing everything off, I didn't mean it that way. I meant, all species die off, period, mass extinction events help show it.

Sure we still have sharks and tortoises (examples of old species still sticking around), but they won't last forever (well, maybe the sharks will because they rock :p ), but the point still holds true. Species change constantly without environmental changes, they can’t stay unchanged, evolution does not actually predict, it guesses and it guesses in error.

Admittedly, my phrasing did make it sound like I meant only mass extinctions were killing everything off, I didn't mean it that way. I meant, all species die off, period, mass extinction events help show it.

Sure we still have sharks and tortoises (examples of old species still sticking around), but they won't last forever (well, maybe the sharks will because they rock :p ), but the point still holds true. Species change constantly without environmental changes, they can’t stay unchanged, evolution does not actually predict, it guesses and it guesses in error.

Yeah i see now what you mean. :)

Regarding tortoises, i'm giving them better chances than the Crocs (which actually have been doing very well until the Miocene, since then they are in decline) or the Perissodactyls, for example...

Somehow you missed my point. I entirely understand that the theory says the most 'fit' survive. My point was that it isn't true.

That random chance and the weak and useless of a species are just as likely to mate as the 'most' fit of their brethren are to propagate their species. And even more so in many cases, as the most fit are off and proving their fitted-ness while the weak and very young (unproven to be most 'fit' or anything else) and the useless are popping out offspring in their distraction.

In addition to that observation, when environmental changes do occur, none of the species is likely to survive anyway (fit or otherwise) as massive extinction is proven to be the end-result of ALL species to date. The evidence suggests that species can't adapt fast enough in real time for change to save them anyway. Species change in unchanging environments, they seldom survive changes at all and when they do it seems to be pure luck. More likely, they are replaced by unrelated species in the food chain/ecology.

Natural selection of random mutation does not explain any of it. It was a pretty theory, too bad it doesn't hold up to scrutiny


You have just defended natural selection, to the fullest. Natural selection explains all of the above, and does so brilliantly.

The weak and useless may mate just as much as the seemingly most 'fit' (i assume you are only looking at exterior features here, which is also incorrect) individual, however, they will die sooner as they are, as you said, weaker, and therefore produce less offspring, ergo their genepool is smaller than those of the fitter. In time, their genepool will cease to exist. Natural selection.

In your second example, you seem to suggest that natural selection is an instant process, as "when environmental changes do occur, none of the species is likely to survive anyway". Inaccurate at best. Environmental change is usually slow, therefore allowing enough time for the species to adjust to their ever-changeing environment. You, however, are referring to mass extinctions caused by massive and virtually instant (from a geological point of view) climate changes. When this happens, the climate of the species habitat changes drastically, causing the species to no longer be adapted to their environment, and therefore dying, and eventually becoming extinct.
"Unchanging environments" do not exist. When species evolve, they do because something has changed.

Intelligent Design is BS. Total, utter BS. It's supposedly an "alternative theory", and yet it's no theory at all. Theories are based on facts. Natural Selection is based on facts. Intelligent Design is based on the single assumption that Natural Selection is not true. No facts, no nothing.
Intelligent Design is just a bunch of religious fundamentalists. They were having little success preaching their beliefs as just that, their beliefs, so they wrapped them up in some scientific terms and called it a theory. It's not.
Not a single scientist (that knows what he's talking about) has even considered Intelligent Design as a plausible theory.

You have just defended natural selection, to the fullest. Natural selection explains all of the above, and does so brilliantly.

The weak and useless may mate just as much as the seemingly most 'fit' (i assume you are only looking at exterior features here, which is also incorrect) individual, however, they will die sooner as they are, as you said, weaker, and therefore produce less offspring, ergo their genepool is smaller than those of the fitter. In time, their genepool will cease to exist. Natural selection.

Yup, that’s the theory alright, too bad it doesn’t hold true. Random sets of the species mate and produce offspring. They are ‘lucky’ not more fit. Being the fittest helps them not at all when ALL of the species is capable of mating and breeding, they mutant without benefit, only they continue to mutate because they can’t stop. There is nearly no selection whatsoever taking place at all. The longest lasting species actually prove my point best, they are mostly the ones that favor random chance, mass promulgation of the species (turtle eggs in mass, alligators and crocs, fish, octopi etc.,).


In your second example, you seem to suggest that natural selection is an instant process, as "when environmental changes do occur, none of the species is likely to survive anyway". Inaccurate at best. Environmental change is usually slow, therefore allowing enough time for the species to adjust to their ever-changeing environment. You, however, are referring to mass extinctions caused by massive and virtually instant (from a geological point of view) climate changes. When this happens, the climate of the species habitat changes drastically, causing the species to no longer be adapted to their environment, and therefore dying, and eventually becoming extinct.
"Unchanging environments" do not exist. When species evolve, they do because something has changed.

All animals change, constantly, as does the environment, but they don’t change together. When the environment changes the animals leave, they don’t evolve to match, they leave or die.

Intelligent Design is BS. Total, utter BS. It's supposedly an "alternative theory", and yet it's no theory at all. Theories are based on facts. Natural Selection is based on facts. Intelligent Design is based on the single assumption that Natural Selection is not true. No facts, no nothing.
Intelligent Design is just a bunch of religious fundamentalists. They were having little success preaching their beliefs as just that, their beliefs, so they wrapped them up in some scientific terms and called it a theory. It's not.
Not a single scientist (that knows what he's talking about) has even considered Intelligent Design as a plausible theory.

I never once mentioned ID myself, so I’ll assume that this part isn’t addressed to me. But the Natural Selection is not based on facts, as you said, it’s based on badly interpreted data (the data is real, the theory about ‘why’ we have this data is wrong).

All animals change, constantly, as does the environment, but they don’t change together. When the environment changes the animals leave, they don’t evolve to match, they leave or die.

http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec6_05.html

http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec6_05.html

From your link, disclaimer at the bottom:
Not all aspects of fitness were measured. It is conceivable that if male mating success, survival during the larval stages, etc., had been measured, the picture obtained would turn out not to be consistent with theory.


The problem with examples like this is, why did the moths immediately jump from one color that does not work to one that does? Why no multitude of other colors or middle 'colors' to speak of? If it was random mutations entirely, that just 'might' happen from generation to generation in the moth, they should have several colors in all the generations, but they do not.

Cases like these don't seem so much like natural selection of random mutation as it does like it's a planned event, or they are 'painted' by their environment, like they 'tried' to change with purpose. Something more than the theory is at work there.

<snip>

they don’t evolve to match, they leave or die.

You made that quote and I posted proof to the contrary. The moths neither left or died. That was the point I was trying to make. I wasnt trying to prove natural selection only I was proving you wrong.

Hypocrite = Ridiculer, scoffer, bigoted, pietistic, sanctimonious, intolerant … you get the idea.

Actually, a Hypocrite is someone who contredicts themselves.
Ex.- "Save the Children!" (Man then proceeds to eat children).

yeah but for evolution, the data doesn't add up. In many places the "data" is made up just as easily as in some religions. The missing link, flagellum, cambrian explosion, the fact that there are still monkeys and apes, origin of life, and the fossil record. Evolution doesn't explain any of these and none of them explain evolution.

The same goes for Miller's Experiment. Useless experiment that proved nothing but was touted as "proven fact" for almost 50 years and still is in some text books.

Actually, we have a good idea of where life came from. Now, first you must understand that all life on earth is carbon based (yay, carbon!). Carbon is one of the basic elements (find an element chart in your friendly neighbourhood Science Text Book). So, all life on earth is made of the collection of different elements, intriquetly woven together to form your basic life form. Now, as time went on (and i mean about 1 billion years of it) life went on from your basic life forms to more complex life forms (multi-cellular). From there the need to change in rapidly changing environments (hence, the "evolutionary" process), continued to advance the intriquecy of life on our little blue planet.. Its too intriquet for a mere 9th grade graduate to overcome, so i can't really explain all of the complex maths involved. We are the creations of over a billion years of learning. I think we're pretty impressive, yes?

Intelligent Design is BS. Total, utter BS. It's supposedly an "alternative theory", and yet it's no theory at all. Theories are based on facts. Natural Selection is based on facts. Intelligent Design is based on the single assumption that Natural Selection is not true. No facts, no nothing.
Intelligent Design is just a bunch of religious fundamentalists. They were having little success preaching their beliefs as just that, their beliefs, so they wrapped them up in some scientific terms and called it a theory. It's not.
Not a single scientist (that knows what he's talking about) has even considered Intelligent Design as a plausible theory.

I could go along with most of what you said until this tripe here. You obviously don't understand ID. First, the founders of this theory said nothing whatsoever about God or any religion. There was nothing religious about it. The religious society has grabbed hold and made it their (our) own but nothing in the original drawing of this theory even mentions any religion.

Your statement about "not a single scientist" is both false, arrogant, and unscientific since you're starting your opinion whether they know what they're talking about on whether they agree with your view.

You made that quote and I posted proof to the contrary. The moths neither left or died. That was the point I was trying to make. I wasnt trying to prove natural selection only I was proving you wrong.

Ah, I see. But a hundred years of smog isn't long enough to kill them off, yet, wait longer, more polution will doom them for sure ... They will move or die.

Actually, we have a good idea of where life came from. Now, first you must understand that all life on earth is carbon based (yay, carbon!). Carbon is one of the basic elements (find an element chart in your friendly neighbourhood Science Text Book). So, all life on earth is made of the collection of different elements, intriquetly woven together to form your basic life form. Now, as time went on (and i mean about 1 billion years of it) life went on from your basic life forms to more complex life forms (multi-cellular). From there the need to change in rapidly changing environments (hence, the "evolutionary" process), continued to advance the intriquecy of life on our little blue planet.. Its too intriquet for a mere 9th grade graduate to overcome, so i can't really explain all of the complex maths involved. We are the creations of over a billion years of learning. I think we're pretty impressive, yes?

so your answer to the origin of life is carbon? Go get yourself a handful of carbon and see if it comes to life.

Your statement about "not a single scientist" is both false, arrogant, and unscientific since you're starting your opinion whether they know what they're talking about on whether they agree with your view.
Considering that IDists are notably lacking in cosmologists, physicists, geologists, and biologists is striking. Scientists in relevant disciplines do not accept ID. In fact, I know of only 2, and both of them were IDists before entering their future discipline.

Ah, I see. But a hundred years of smog isn't long enough to kill them off, yet, wait longer, more polution will doom them for sure ... They will move or die.

Your supposing. Maybe in a hundred years they adapt to the polution again. You made a claim and I posted evidence to the contrary. And all you can do to respond to it is suppose that maybe they will die off later instead of posting any evidence to the contrary of it.

Ah, I see. But a hundred years of smog isn't long enough to kill them off, yet, wait longer, more polution will doom them for sure ... They will move or die.

Okay, explain antibiotic-resistance in bacteria, then.

Actually, a Hypocrite is someone who contredicts themselves.
Ex.- "Save the Children!" (Man then proceeds to eat children).

I don't disagree, but your analysis isn’t complete:

Dictionary: hypocrite
Main Entry: hyp•o•crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective

Thesaurus: hypocrite
actor, attitudinizer, backslider, beguiler, bigot, bluffer, casuist, charlatan, cheat, con man, crook, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, empiric, fake, faker, four-flusher, fraud, hook, humbug, imitator, imposter, impostor, informer, lip server, malingerer, masquerader, mimic, mocker, mountebank, pettifogger, pharisee, phony, playactor, poser, pretender, quack, rogue, scorner, sham, sharper, smoothie, sophist, stool pigeon, swindler, trickster, two-face, two-timer, whited sepulcher, wolf

i think it's quite conceivable for there to be no way of setting the universe up wihtin the laws we know of and have the desired outcome, thus requiring intervention. i dunno if this is compatible with the concept of God, but if i were the ruler of the universe, i'd get really bored just sitting and watching...i'd much rather be messing around with it. by the way, i am a christian.

I'm sure most supporters of Intelligent Design are aware of (and detest) Richard Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. As part of his argument he wrote a computer program called 'Blind Watchmaker' that demonstrated complex shapes coming from simple rules. In requiring human guidance it totally failed to demonstrate that a designer is unnecessary, however.

I wrote my own version called 'Evolving Tree' that introduced some basic evolutionary rules so after setting it going I didn't have to intervene at all (the rules caused it to simulate those branching structures that small sea creatures use to catch particles floating in the water).

All this proves is that I know more about computer programming that Richard Dawkins (he's a biologist, not a programmer, after all). It does however lead to an interesting dilemma: if God is omniscient, then surely he/she would not need to intervene in evolution (like in Intelligent Design) - a truly omniscient God could set the universe up in a way that led to the desired result (a carefully placed asteroid here, some high-energy cosmic rays there, and so on). Until humans appear with free will there's nothing an omniscient God couldn't foresee. So perhaps the intelligence behind Intelligent Design is really not that clever after all.

So is God not omniscient, or is Intelligent Design wrong? Or is there a way to unify the two ideas?

[For the purposes of arguments in this thread, can atheists please assume that God exists and be content with pointing out logical flaws within particular ideas of God. Discussions of the (non)existence of God can be left to another thread. Okay, I know that request won't work...]


I have several clarifying qeustions before I can talk wiht you.
How far exactly did this program evolve?
Could it get beyond the simple forms of sea creatures?
Could it create something as amazing as a dog brain or even a human brain?
could it take over and begin creating itself? and building things such as computers and tools?


I assume that you are intelligent thus you prove that it needs at least some sort of intelligence to create the program ("life"). By you creating the program and introducing the evolutionary rules it proves there has to be a designer. There was not simply random computer code and then it created these sea like creatures. It needed you to introduce those rules and then it can function by those rules. Can it now make it's own rules? Has it changed the ruls so that it can function better? Did you cange the rules? Have you helped it grow and function better?

Okay, explain antibiotic-resistance in bacteria, then.

You and I both know that they adapt... What we don't know is that Natural Selection of Random Mutation is what allowed it or caused it to happen. It is raw data, the theory is supposition for why, but unproven.

Your supposing. Maybe in a hundred years they adapt to the polution again. You made a claim and I posted evidence to the contrary. And all you can do to respond to it is suppose that maybe they will die off later instead of posting any evidence to the contrary of it.

My evidence is that since the first life form (whatever might have caused it), first squirmed on this planet, 99.9% of all species have died off eventually rather than adapt. You have some moths that have changed color in 100 years.

Considering that IDists are notably lacking in cosmologists, physicists, geologists, and biologists is striking. Scientists in relevant disciplines do not accept ID. In fact, I know of only 2, and both of them were IDists before entering their future discipline.


Oh that's not fair, and I'm not even an IDist myself... But there are some cosmologists out there that have expressed some serious misgivings about just casually explaining away how the trillionth of the second after the big-bang that everything about it came out ‘just right’ and perfect for the universe to exist with the matter that it has... almost like something did it on purpose. (I'm just saying is all :p )

My evidence is that since the first life form (whatever might have caused it), first squirmed on this planet, 99.9% of all species have died off eventually rather than adapt. You have some moths that have changed color in 100 years.

But you havent posted any links saying that. You've just supposed that. I could easily counter that by saying well its not that 99.9% has died off but rather adapted and evolved. You stated an absolute and I countered that. You still have been stating an opinion which has not been backed by any links or any articles by scientists. Start doing that and then I will start believing that you have posted evidence. Until then your just stating your opinion.

so your answer to the origin of life is carbon? Go get yourself a handful of carbon and see if it comes to life.



mwahahaha,... *wipes tear from eye* okay, regardless of which side I might be on, that was funny. :p

Oh that's not fair, and I'm not even an IDist myself... But there are some cosmologists out there that have expressed some serious misgivings about just casually explaining away how the trillionth of the second after the big-bang that everything about it came out ‘just right’ and perfect for the universe to exist with the matter that it has... almost like something did it on purpose. (I'm just saying is all :p )
God, that's a shitty strawman. It's like the Anthropic Principle on crack.

But you havent posted any links saying that. You've just supposed that. I could easily counter that by saying well its not that 99.9% has died off but rather adapted and evolved. You stated an absolute and I countered that. You still have been stating an opinion which has not been backed by any links or any articles by scientists. Start doing that and then I will start believing that you have posted evidence. Until then your just stating your opinion.

As does evolutionary theory just spouse off an opinion. The fossil record is the fossil record, it is the same regardless of how we explain it.

As does evolutionary theory just spouse off an opinion. The fossil record is the fossil record, it is the same regardless of how we explain it.

I ask you to provide proof for your arguement that organisms either leave or die of if the environment changes. First you just give me an opinion and now your attacking another arguement which I dont even care about. I'm not talking about evolution here. I am talking about a statement you made and I am asking you to provide proof or respond to the proof I posted with facts not opinions.

Considering that IDists are notably lacking in cosmologists, physicists, geologists, and biologists is striking. Scientists in relevant disciplines do not accept ID. In fact, I know of only 2, and both of them were IDists before entering their future discipline.

1. Steven Weinberg
2. John Polkinghorne
3. Sharon Begely
4. Allan Sandage
5. J.P. Morland
6. Johnathan Wells
....

From your link, disclaimer at the bottom:
Not all aspects of fitness were measured. It is conceivable that if male mating success, survival during the larval stages, etc., had been measured, the picture obtained would turn out not to be consistent with theory.


The problem with examples like this is, why did the moths immediately jump from one color that does not work to one that does? Why no multitude of other colors or middle 'colors' to speak of? If it was random mutations entirely, that just 'might' happen from generation to generation in the moth, they should have several colors in all the generations, but they do not.

Cases like these don't seem so much like natural selection of random mutation as it does like it's a planned event, or they are 'painted' by their environment, like they 'tried' to change with purpose. Something more than the theory is at work there.

Do yourself a favor and go to http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm.
While you're there, search through the site for anything that might interest you.

1. Steven Weinberg
2. John Polkinghorne
3. Sharon Begely
4. Allan Sandage
5. J.P. Morland
6. Johnathan Wells
....
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
No mention of ID there.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
No mention of him being a physicist. Just that he studied it.

3. I could find no mention of a 'Sharon Begely'. I found a Sharon Begley, but there was so indication that she supported ID. In fact, she was a columnist, not a scientist.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Sandage
No mention of ID there.

5. J.P. Morland does not exist. J.P. Moreland does, but his PhD is in philosophy, which is most definitely not a relevant discipline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.P._Moreland

6. It's Jonathan Wells, not Johnathan. He was an IDist before getting a degree in biology. He has also been shown to be wrong on many accounts.

Do yourself a favor and go to http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm.
While you're there, search through the site for anything that might interest you.

That's kind of like an Islamist linking me to the Qur'an to proove that Adam was the first man...

That's kind of like an Islamist linking me to the Qur'an to proove that Adam was the first man...

I can understand that.

It's the same as a theologian trying to tell you how science works......

I ask you to provide proof for your arguement that organisms either leave or die of if the environment changes. First you just give me an opinion and now your attacking another arguement which I dont even care about. I'm not talking about evolution here. I am talking about a statement you made and I am asking you to provide proof or respond to the proof I posted with facts not opinions.

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/extinction/extinction.html

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/essays/5._Species_Extinction-rev1.html

http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12157/latest/

I'm not pretending that they all agree with me about 'why,' just proof that 99.9% of all species have died off...

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/extinction/extinction.html

Interesting source. Talks about extinction and I'll accept for the moment that 99.9% of all species are extinct. However this still does not prove your point that animals either leave or die. You can not prove that any species moved after these mass extinctions. Not only that but I have offered proof that species that have had their environment change but also stayed there. You can only suppose that they might eventually die off but you can not offer proof that they in fact will move. All I am really arguing against is the fact that you made an absolute statement without backing it up. And your proof does not make a credible conection between the claim that if the environment changes that animals move or die. It only offers a possible solution but it is in no way a fact.

http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/extinction/extinction.html

Ok you are attacking evolution and you use an evolutionist to defend your argument?

Did you even look over his notes? From is intro to Biology link:

Evolution as a Scientific fact

* If evolution has occurred, there are a variety of signs we should be able to detect.
* No test that life has evolved has failed.
* However there is still considerable debate about the actual mechanisms of evolution.

(I added some more, missed that you had posted, sorry)

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/essays/5._Species_Extinction-rev1.html

http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12157/latest/

I'm not pretending that they all agree with me about 'why,' just proof that 99.9% of all species have died off...

Natural selection and random mutations doesn't explain it either.

(I added some more, missed that you had posted, sorry)

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/~msaier/essays/5._Species_Extinction-rev1.html

http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m12157/latest/

I'm not pretending that they all agree with me about 'why,' just proof that 99.9% of all species have died off...

Natural selection and random mutations doesn't explain it either.

I'm not talking about that. You made the claim the when an environment changes species will either die or move. I offered a proof against it and all you have just said that 99.9% of species are dead. That still doesnt prove your claim at all. Either your claim is correct that either animals die or move or your claim is wrong.

*snip*


I didn't attack the fact that creatures change and life forms adapt (I said that they are constantly changing regardless of environmental influences), I attacked the notion that natural selection and random mutation as an explanation of the data.

Another example, the evolution of horses from the eophippus (Hyracotherium) to Miohippus to Merychippus to the present-day Equus. There has been an unbroken line of descent, yet horses of the earlier types no longer exist. They didn’t need to grow larger, it’s not like the fauna couldn’t support them, in fact, once they moved out of their niche, something else moved into it. Small creatures do just fine, the horse would have as well, to argue that it is ‘better’ because it is bigger is to ignore the fact that it didn’t ‘have’ to change, it just did.

I'm sure most supporters of Intelligent Design are aware of (and detest) Richard Dawkins' book 'The Blind Watchmaker'. As part of his argument he wrote a computer program called 'Blind Watchmaker' that demonstrated complex shapes coming from simple rules. In requiring human guidance it totally failed to demonstrate that a designer is unnecessary, however.

I wrote my own version called 'Evolving Tree' that introduced some basic evolutionary rules so after setting it going I didn't have to intervene at all (the rules caused it to simulate those branching structures that small sea creatures use to catch particles floating in the water).

All this proves is that I know more about computer programming that Richard Dawkins (he's a biologist, not a programmer, after all). It does however lead to an interesting dilemma: if God is omniscient, then surely he/she would not need to intervene in evolution (like in Intelligent Design) - a truly omniscient God could set the universe up in a way that led to the desired result (a carefully placed asteroid here, some high-energy cosmic rays there, and so on). Until humans appear with free will there's nothing an omniscient God couldn't foresee. So perhaps the intelligence behind Intelligent Design is really not that clever after all.

So is God not omniscient, or is Intelligent Design wrong? Or is there a way to unify the two ideas?

[For the purposes of arguments in this thread, can atheists please assume that God exists and be content with pointing out logical flaws within particular ideas of God. Discussions of the (non)existence of God can be left to another thread. Okay, I know that request won't work...]first... is there a way to read your "Evolving Tree"?

second, there is the definition of Omniscience. "Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. It is typically contrasted with omnipotence. Omniscience is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be."
now if we take out the bolded section then ID and Omniscience can go Side by Side.

now if you keep the bolded section in. realise this, after God created everything. there is one wild card, one element that can try to disrupt God's plan... the Serpent. the tempter and corruptor.

So we have free will. With Satan in the mix, our choices are not so predetermined. Satan places the temptations in our path as God places the opportunities for Salvation. it's our choice which path to take. the lovely thing about it all tho, is that no matter what Satan does, God's Grand scheme remains UNTOUCHED, and even Satan doesn't know what that scheme is.

So yes, you can have intelligent design behind evolution with an omniscience God.

How can we have free will with Omniscience then? the answer is simple. Satan. In revelation, God WILL cast the Corruptor into the ring of fire. not will attempt to, not might... will. thus God can remove Satan anytime he wants. Why keep him around then? to give us the choice. to let us choose whom to follow. to give us our Free Will.

His followers love him not because they are compelled to, but because they rather Him than the other choice. Just like some choose to turn their backs on God by their choice.

that's what free will is. Choice. and every day we are faced with the choice to follow Him or not.

That's kind of like an Islamist linking me to the Qur'an to proove that Adam was the first man...

What? I don't quite follow.... I was just referencing you to a page that explains the evolutionary theory. Besides, i'm not a Muslim....and i don't think Adam's in the Qur'an....I think....

I'm not talking about that. You made the claim the when an environment changes species will either die or move. I offered a proof against it and all you have just said that 99.9% of species are dead. That still doesnt prove your claim at all. Either your claim is correct that either animals die or move or your claim is wrong.

Sure, it's proof that the prediction of evolution to adapt to changing conditions is wrong in the long haul.

Sure, it's proof that the prediction of evolution to adapt to changing conditions is wrong in the long haul.

But you offer no proof. You offer speculation and guesses at best. Okay you say they will either die or move. I offered proof to the contrary and your response was well maybe they will die later. Thats not a valid arguement against the proof I have presented. The moths environment changed. According to your reasoning they should have left or died. They did neither they stayed and survived. Therefore unless you can show proof to the contrary your statement is wrong.

What? I don't quite follow.... I was just referencing you to a page that explains the evolutionary theory. Besides, i'm not a Muslim....and i don't think Adam's in the Qur'an....I think....

Adam is in the Qur'an, so is Abraham and Jesus... but that's besides the point. I was pointing out that a book advocating the belief of what I was attacking was not actually proof against what I'm saying.

If I say the A is true about C and you say B is true about C, you can't just point me at another thing that says B is right, you have to point at something about C that proves that A can't be right.

I said evolution is wrong because it doesn’t work, you sent me to a page to explain evolution, but you need to dispute with the data how evolution must be more right than what I said about why it was wrong.

One of my evidences was that species don’t evolve because of change in the environment, but because they ‘can’t’ not change. That if the environment changes, they move, they don’t adapt, if they don’t move, they die. Then I stated that 99.9% of all species have died out, not adapted, as more evidence.

Telling me that the theory says they should have adapted doesn’t prove my evidences wrong…

Okay?

But you offer no proof. You offer speculation and guesses at best. Okay you say they will either die or move. I offered proof to the contrary and your response was well maybe they will die later. Thats not a valid arguement against the proof I have presented. The moths environment changed. According to your reasoning they should have left or died. They did neither they stayed and survived. Therefore unless you can show proof to the contrary your statement is wrong.

The odds are, it will go extinct, it will die or move. Adapting is not being challenged, Natural Selection and random mutation of genes is being attacked as an explanation of speciation.

Besides, I have a 99.9% chance of being right about the moths (eventually). :D

so your answer to the origin of life is carbon? Go get yourself a handful of carbon and see if it comes to life.

Nah. I'm not as dumb as you. Besides, I said Carbon BASED! BASED!!!!! A big hunk of pur carbon can't be alive! It's impossible (i think....)! But, when mixed with a fair amount of other things (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.), and left to simmer for a hundred million years or so, it might just become life. Because the creation of life is like building a house; you don't just get everbody into position and go "1...2...3!", and build a house. You start with the simplest of bricks, and build upward until you have a complete house (well, actually, i guess you'd build the foundations first, but i guess that would be the elements needed for life. Besides, i'm trying to be poetic!). I don't see how life just existed. All of a sudden...BOOM! A bunch of creatures are just there! The Evolutionary Theory (though unfinished) is much more logical, and there is evidence to support it.

Good. They are unwelcome.



Go away, thou troll.

The odds are, it will go extinct, it will die or move. Adapting is not being challenged, Natural Selection and random mutation of genes is being attacked as an explanation of speciation.

Besides, I have a 99.9% chance of being right about the moths (eventually). :D

Your just speculating. Of course in the end everything dies but once again I'm not talking about natural selection or any of the arguements for evolution. You made a statement that if the environment changes species will die or move. I have submitted proof that shows the opposite. You say well 99.9% of species have died. Well that doesnt prove your claim. Your claim states that when the environment changes that they die or move. Well what about the other 1%? Can you show that they moved? All you can say is look things die. But thats not the whole claim. You state the obvious part of your claim but you leave the other half unproven. I mean come on. If I say eventually something will die out are you going to be able to say I'm wrong? But thats not what you said. You said they either die or move. Well one half of that claim is obvious the other half mainly the part saying they move you havent shown any proof yet. And I have come up with a direct contradiction to your claim.

One of my evidences was that species don’t evolve because of change in the environment, but because they ‘can’t’ not change. That if the environment changes, they move, they don’t adapt, if they don’t move, they die. Then I stated that 99.9% of all species have died out, not adapted, as more evidence.

Telling me that the theory says they should have adapted doesn’t prove my evidences wrong…

Okay?

Well that is a little over simplification of the whole picture.

Species die. There is no arguing that.

Example: The Prosimians. They were everywhere. Now they are only in a couple places. A new species supplanted them. Outperformed them and pretty much made them extinct. If monkeys ever made it to Madigasgar, the lemurs would be gone.

Why did those species die? We just know they did. Evolution is doesn't happen instantly. Some aspects favor the sitution.

Take CycleCell. Did you know the disease is very useful against Maleria? It was only the the advent of insecticides and antimalerials did the disease become a problem(as in the non carriers not getting killed off by maleria).

There is no silver bullet to kill evolution. If there was, we wouldn't be having this talk.

Nah. I'm not as dumb as you. Besides, I said Carbon BASED! BASED!!!!! A big hunk of pur carbon can't be alive! It's impossible (i think....)! But, when mixed with a fair amount of other things (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.), and left to simmer for a hundred million years or so, it might just become life. Because the creation of life is like building a house; you don't just get everbody into position and go "1...2...3!", and build a house. You start with the simplest of bricks, and build upward until you have a complete house (well, actually, i guess you'd build the foundations first, but i guess that would be the elements needed for life. Besides, i'm trying to be poetic!). I don't see how life just existed. All of a sudden...BOOM! A bunch of creatures are just there! The Evolutionary Theory (though unfinished) is much more logical, and there is evidence to support it.Sorry but won't read back through the sniping that's going on back there...

Ok, you believe in the Evolutionary theory... great, So do I. But is there anything in all the proof of Evolution that God didn't have a hand in it?

Sorry but won't read back through the sniping that's going on back there...

Ok, you believe in the Evolutionary theory... great, So do I. But is there anything in all the proof of Evolution that God didn't have a hand in it?

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

In the matters of simple science, how do you test for God?

Your just speculating. Of course in the end everything dies but once again I'm not talking about natural selection or any of the arguements for evolution. You made a statement that if the environment changes species will die or move. I have submitted proof that shows the opposite. You say well 99.9% of species have died. Well that doesnt prove your claim. Your claim states that when the environment changes that they die or move. Well what about the other 1%? Can you show that they moved? All you can say is look things die. But thats not the whole claim. You state the obvious part of your claim but you leave the other half unproven. I mean come on. If I say eventually something will die out are you going to be able to say I'm wrong? But thats not what you said. You said they either die or move. Well one half of that claim is obvious the other half mainly the part saying they move you havent shown any proof yet. And I have come up with a direct contradiction to your claim.

What exactly are you trying to get out of me here? You could argue that the environment changes between night and day and from winter to summer, and some animals don’t move or die. My position was not based on such trivial differences though, and I thought it self-evident. 100 years is not necessarily long enough to prove me right, or wrong, not even for moths if the environment doesn't change enough.

On the other hand, look at the eastern edge of the expanding Sahara for an example, look at what used to live there, and what has moved away, out of it's growing dryness...


As to the speculating stuff, of course I'm speculating, I'm advocating a theory, so is evolution, that's the whole point. Practice the idea, bounce stuff off of it and see what works and what breaks.

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

In the matters of simple science, how do you test for God?
just wondering... most of these arguments are sounding close to the Creationism vs Evolution arguments. Killary's last sentence just threw me off
"I don't see how life just existed. All of a sudden...BOOM! A bunch of creatures are just there! The Evolutionary Theory (though unfinished) is much more logical, and there is evidence to support it." that's all.

What exactly are you trying to get out of me here? You could argue that the environment changes between night and day and from winter to summer, and some animals don’t move or die. My position was not based on such trivial differences though, and I thought it self-evident. 100 years is not necessarily long enough to prove me right, or wrong, not even for moths if the environment doesn't change enough.
But your whole point was that if an environment changes the species moves or dies. You never mentioned anything about time. You stated only that they move or die. And I posted proof to the contrary. When your responding to facts its good to respond with other facts rather then speculation or guesses.

On the other hand, look at the eastern edge of the expanding Sahara for an example, look at what used to live there, and what has moved away, out of it's growing dryness...
What species? Show me with a link.


As to the speculating stuff, of course I'm speculating, I'm advocating a theory, so is evolution, that's the whole point. Practice the idea, bounce stuff off of it and see what works and what breaks.
Well lets practice that idea shall we. Well when an environment changes the species either move or die. Well look here there are some moths who's environment has changed and they havent moved or died. Well looks like that idea doesnt work. Back to the drawing board.

Adam is in the Qur'an, so is Abraham and Jesus... but that's besides the point. I was pointing out that a book advocating the belief of what I was attacking was not actually proof against what I'm saying.

If I say the A is true about C and you say B is true about C, you can't just point me at another thing that says B is right, you have to point at something about C that proves that A can't be right.

I said evolution is wrong because it doesn’t work, you sent me to a page to explain evolution, but you need to dispute with the data how evolution must be more right than what I said about why it was wrong.

One of my evidences was that species don’t evolve because of change in the environment, but because they ‘can’t’ not change. That if the environment changes, they move, they don’t adapt, if they don’t move, they die. Then I stated that 99.9% of all species have died out, not adapted, as more evidence.

Telling me that the theory says they should have adapted doesn’t prove my evidences wrong…

Okay?

Actually, i wasn't trying to prove you wrong (as you pointed out with the whole A,B,C thing), i just thought that you didn't quite understand modern Evolutionary theory (based on your Darwin Theory remarks earlier on). I thought that you should be better versed in the theory that you are arguing against, for your own gain. Besides, those guys aren't advocating the Evolutionary theory, they are explaining it towards the benifit of the general public. They even say on the first page that the Evolutionary theory is just that, a theory, and is not necisarily true (whether they believe it or not). Personnaly, i believe in Evolution. You believe in Creationism. If i could decisivly prove you wrong, i would, and vise versa. I just think that everyone deserves to know what each side is all about (on that note, could you post me a good link about creationism? Thnks in advance.), so that the argument can get past all this silly mudslinging!

Okay? (:D)

And if it's worth anything, you just gained some respect in my eyes. (don't lose it!)

Hey! thats not completely true, i dont think im part monkey. + im religeous ( when im not too stoned) and i would never look down my nose at you. I just want to drown my kittens in peace

Actually you are correct to think you are not part monkey. You are more part Ape. Did you know you share 98% of your DNA with the chimp?

Evolution has never sought to prove or disprove the existence of God.

In the matters of simple science, how do you test for God?

A Urine Sample? Blood Test? Paper Trail?(I'm kidding)

A Urine Sample? Blood Test? Paper Trail?(I'm kidding)

We can do that. Doesn't she like to play skeeball out on the east coast somewhere? :p

We can do that. Doesn't she like to play skeeball out on the east coast somewhere? :perrr.. tried getting on her schedule... right now, I'm scheduled to see God sometime after the Rapture... whenever that is.

Btw... her secretary is a bit.... tough when it comes to God's schedule. :D

My evidence is that since the first life form (whatever might have caused it), first squirmed on this planet, 99.9% of all species have died off eventually rather than adapt. You have some moths that have changed color in 100 years.

Heh. I see where you slipped into this error.

What happens when a species changes sufficiently?

It becomes a different species.

If birds are descended from dinosaurs (as evidence strongly suggests they are), dinosaurs never died off. Over millions of generations, they adapted until they are no longer recognizable as dinosaurs. They didn't die. They didn't move. They grew feathers and got smaller. :)

Do you get where you're slipping up now? It's an understandable mistake to make...

Heh. I see where you slipped into this error.

What happens when a species changes sufficiently?

It becomes a different species.

If birds are descended from dinosaurs (as evidence strongly suggests they are), dinosaurs never died off. Over millions of generations, they adapted until they are no longer recognizable as dinosaurs. They didn't die. They didn't move. They grew feathers and got smaller. :)

Do you get where you're slipping up now? It's an understandable mistake to make...


Actually, I do see that, good point. EA pointed at it and then got distracted and angry with the moths not dying yet, stuff, however, both scenarios seem equally plausible with the evidence at hand.

Now, the theory says, the species should have evolved and adapted, and I can’t completely dismiss this entirely, and neither do I try. I'm arguing that something else replaces the reasons why this occurs through. That sometimes changes occur with species moving in and others going away that is not from the newer being better, but from being luckier (or an unknown event).

If I am right … then what, what would actually causes speciation?

Hmmm, I'm still working that out :D


But like I said way back at the beginning of this thread, I don't have to build a flying airplane to prove that the evolution airplane doesn't fly. :p

Nah. I'm not as dumb as you. Besides, I said Carbon BASED! BASED!!!!! A big hunk of pur carbon can't be alive! It's impossible (i think....)! But, when mixed with a fair amount of other things (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.), and left to simmer for a hundred million years or so, it might just become life. Because the creation of life is like building a house; you don't just get everbody into position and go "1...2...3!", and build a house. You start with the simplest of bricks, and build upward until you have a complete house (well, actually, i guess you'd build the foundations first, but i guess that would be the elements needed for life. Besides, i'm trying to be poetic!). I don't see how life just existed. All of a sudden...BOOM! A bunch of creatures are just there! The Evolutionary Theory (though unfinished) is much more logical, and there is evidence to support it.

well I do appreciate your insight into my intelligence. So a big hunk of pure carbon won't do but something based with it will?
When building a house, first there are plans, then there are materials brought, then the wife gets to choose the carpet colors, THEN the foundation goes up. Then the wood frame... on and on. The bricks actually go up close to the end.

That's the problem you see? We can't see how life just BOOM existed. The evolutionary theory can not and will not explain the origin of life. Evolution couldn't come up with a single strand of DNA on its own, how could it possibly create life? And wrong, there is not a shred of evidence to say otherwise. Sorry kid. I'd say ask your science teacher, but if you go to a public school in America, even if he believed in Intelligent Design, I'm sure he'd be forbidden to bring it up. So he'd just end up feeding you the old bullshit about evolution instead.

Heh. I see where you slipped into this error.

What happens when a species changes sufficiently?

It becomes a different species.

If birds are descended from dinosaurs (as evidence strongly suggests they are), dinosaurs never died off. Over millions of generations, they adapted until they are no longer recognizable as dinosaurs. They didn't die. They didn't move. They grew feathers and got smaller. :)

Do you get where you're slipping up now? It's an understandable mistake to make...

except the evidence doesn't strongly suggest they are. The link that many thought proved it turned out to be a dud

That's the problem you see? We can't see how life just BOOM existed. The evolutionary theory can not and will not explain the origin of life. Evolution couldn't come up with a single strand of DNA on its own, how could it possibly create life?

You're quite right that evolutionary theory doesn't and can't explain the origins of life. That's because it's not trying to. Gravitational theory and quantum theory also fail to address this issue, possibly because they, like evolution, are discussing something else entirely.

Arguing against evolution on these grounds is like arguing that a screwdriver isn't a functional tool because it's not good for hammering nails.

except the evidence doesn't strongly suggest they are. The link that many thought proved it turned out to be a dud
Source? Was this shown to be a dud in any credible scientific journal or was this something that congealed at Baptist Boards?

You're quite right that evolutionary theory doesn't and can't explain the origins of life. That's because it's not trying to. Gravitational theory and quantum theory also fail to address this issue, possibly because they, like evolution, are discussing something else entirely.

Arguing against evolution on these grounds is like arguing that a screwdriver isn't a functional tool because it's not good for hammering nails.

since when? Evolution most certainly did attempt to explain life. It failed miserably so far on all its attempts. But the whole amino acid clinging to more amino acids to create a protein that attached itself randomly to another protein until there were enough to create the so-called "simple single cell organism". which by the way was NOT so simple.

except the evidence doesn't strongly suggest they are. The link that many thought proved it turned out to be a dud

*sigh* No, no, no. First, there's been a LOT more than one transitional fossil sugegsting this connecting, and no evidence whatsoever that any of them are fakes. Secondly, the evidence includes more than just fossils like Archaeopteryx. Comparisons of various structures in the therapods and in modern birds reveal a whole bunch of interesting similarities. Look it up sometime - it's pretty nifty, and you can enjoy the idea of having a huge scary predator's great-to-the-nth-power grandchild fluttering around your backyard.

since when? Evolution most certainly did attempt to explain life. It failed miserably so far on all its attempts. But the whole amino acid clinging to more amino acids to create a protein that attached itself randomly to another protein until there were enough to create the so-called "simple single cell organism". which by the way was NOT so simple.

The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis, what life did later is covered by evolution. The two are completely seperate, independant, and unique scientific questions.

And for the record, that little scenario is either completely out of date or a total strawman.

since when? Evolution most certainly did attempt to explain life. It failed miserably so far on all its attempts. But the whole amino acid clinging to more amino acids to create a protein that attached itself randomly to another protein until there were enough to create the so-called "simple single cell organism". which by the way was NOT so simple.

Evolution: the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms.

Note that this process doesn't start until after there are ancient organisms. The theories as to the origins of life are not evolution. They are often related theories, frequently studied and discussed by the same people, but you can reject all of them without in any way rejecting the fundamental theory of evolution. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the catalyst for life was God saying "boom," if that's what you choose to believe. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the concept that from then on, life adapted in response to its environment and eventually developed into the species we see today.

Source? Was this shown to be a dud in any credible scientific journal or was this something that congealed at Baptist Boards?

Not at all. The archaeopteryx. Touted as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. For one, they've only found one. It doesn't show evolution for the same reason a corvette doesn't. There needs to be more than an intermediate form to show evolution. We would need to know how you get from one to the other.

The question is, do you get from a reptile to a bird (which is an astonishingly huge step) by some totally natural process or does this require the intervention of a designer? An archaeopteryx doesn't show us one way or the other. People believe it is half-bird, half-reptile. Not even close. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways, their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. Its a bird, not part reptile. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor even to any modern birds: instead, its a member of a totally extinct group of birds. The missing link is still missing.

The origin of life is covered by abiogenesis, what life did later is covered by evolution. The two are completely seperate, independant, and unique scientific questions.

And for the record, that little scenario is either completely out of date or a total strawman.

you guys like that strawman thing don't you? Yes the little scenario is out of date. It was out of date when they first dreamed it up. And yet, scientsts are still attempting to use that out of date scenario to explain the origin of life AND its still showing up in textbooks in American schools.

Evolution: the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms.

Note that this process doesn't start until after there are ancient organisms. The theories as to the origins of life are not evolution. They are often related theories, frequently studied and discussed by the same people, but you can reject all of them without in any way rejecting the fundamental theory of evolution. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that the catalyst for life was God saying "boom," if that's what you choose to believe. But that doesn't in any way invalidate the concept that from then on, life adapted in response to its environment and eventually developed into the species we see today.

if this is the case, then all the people who are compelled to debate evolution over creationism and/or ID are barking up the wrong tree. Both creationism and ID BEGIN with the origin of life.

you guys like that strawman thing don't you? Yes the little scenario is out of date. It was out of date when they first dreamed it up. And yet, scientsts are still attempting to use that out of date scenario to explain the origin of life AND its still showing up in textbooks in American schools.

Wrong. That scenario doesn't even begin to cover modern abiogenesis. Your analysis was akin to me saying that Christianity is a festish for perpendicular lumber. You ignored things like self replicating RNA in favor of a distorted version of abiogenesis that hasn't been taken seriously in decades.

Wrong. That scenario doesn't even begin to cover modern abiogenesis. Your analysis was akin to me saying that Christianity is a festish for perpendicular lumber. You ignored things like self replicating RNA in favor of a distorted version of abiogenesis that hasn't been taken seriously in decades.

well whether its been taken seriously in decades or not, its still being printed in our school textbooks.

Perhaps in discussing the history of abiogenesis but no mainstream publisher is likely to be printing textbooks today that endorse it as scientifically plausible. Maybe there are some schools that use old text books that have it but I sincerely doubt newer ones do. Unless of course, the aim of the book is to discredit abiogenesis to begin with.

Not at all. The archaeopteryx. Touted as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. For one, they've only found one. It doesn't show evolution for the same reason a corvette doesn't. There needs to be more than an intermediate form to show evolution. We would need to know how you get from one to the other.

The question is, do you get from a reptile to a bird (which is an astonishingly huge step) by some totally natural process or does this require the intervention of a designer? An archaeopteryx doesn't show us one way or the other. People believe it is half-bird, half-reptile. Not even close. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways, their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. Its a bird, not part reptile. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor even to any modern birds: instead, its a member of a totally extinct group of birds. The missing link is still missing.

Good lord, do your research before you say these things!

- They haven't only found one. They've found eight or nine specimens.
- There are several other similar species besides Archaeopteryx as well. With quite a lot of specimens.
- The link in question isn't between reptiles and birds; it's between dinosaurs and birds. Dinosaur /= reptile. Nowadays, most scientists believe the dinos were even warm-blooded!
- Did you read my post? The bone structures in birds and therapods are not only not "very different," they're very similar.
- Archaeopteryx is not a bird with modern feathers by any stretch of the imagination.

About the only accurate thing in your post was the statement that Archaeopteryx "isn't even close" to being half-bird, half-reptile. Can't argue there! :p

Not at all. The archaeopteryx. Touted as the missing link between reptiles and modern birds. For one, they've only found one. It doesn't show evolution for the same reason a corvette doesn't. There needs to be more than an intermediate form to show evolution. We would need to know how you get from one to the other.

The question is, do you get from a reptile to a bird (which is an astonishingly huge step) by some totally natural process or does this require the intervention of a designer? An archaeopteryx doesn't show us one way or the other. People believe it is half-bird, half-reptile. Not even close. Its a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways, their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. Its a bird, not part reptile. Larry Martin, a paleontologist from the University of Kansas said clearly in 1985 that the archaeopteryx is not an ancestor even to any modern birds: instead, its a member of a totally extinct group of birds. The missing link is still missing.

Too bad a majority of paleontologists reject his views.

"Larry D. Martin is a paleontologist, author, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas. Martin has theorized that birds evolved not from dinosaurs, but from another group of reptiles - this theory has been rejected by the vast majority of paleontologists"


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Paleontologist.shtml

Too bad a majority of paleontologists reject his views.

"Larry D. Martin is a paleontologist, author, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, and curator of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Kansas. Martin has theorized that birds evolved not from dinosaurs, but from another group of reptiles - this theory has been rejected by the vast majority of paleontologists"


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Paleontologist.shtml
For those of you in the audience who would like to know why Martin is wrong, I recommend Paul's Dinosaurs of the Air. It's an excellent book, if you don't mind the preponderance of technical terms.

Perhaps in discussing the history of abiogenesis but no mainstream publisher is likely to be printing textbooks today that endorse it as scientifically plausible. Maybe there are some schools that use old text books that have it but I sincerely doubt newer ones do. Unless of course, the aim of the book is to discredit abiogenesis to begin with.

I happen to be in a room with about 100 science textbooks (mostly biology or subsets thereof) at the moment, so I took the liberty of checking how a few of them deal with the topic of abiogenesis. So far, five out of five discuss self-replicating RNA. :)

if this is the case, then all the people who are compelled to debate evolution over creationism and/or ID are barking up the wrong tree. Both creationism and ID BEGIN with the origin of life.

In a philosophy class or a compartive religions class; you are correct.

Creationism/ID doesn't belong in the science classroom.

I happen to be in a room with about 100 science textbooks (mostly biology or subsets thereof) at the moment, so I took the liberty of checking how a few of them deal with the topic of abiogenesis. So far, five out of five discuss self-replicating RNA. :) That can't be right, everyone knows that abiogenesis really says cells appeared out of thin air due to a vast Illuminati conspiracy that began with the reanimated corpse of Elvis going back in time to find Sarah Connor in the primoridal soup. I heard it from a Christian.

:p

For those of you in the audience who would like to know why Martin is wrong, I recommend Paul's Dinosaurs of the Air. It's an excellent book, if you don't mind the preponderance of technical terms.

Thank you. I am always on the look out for reads! Will add that to amazon. :)

That can't be right, everyone knows that abiogenesis really says cells appeared out of thin air due to a vast Illuminati conspiracy that began with the reanimated corpse of Elvis going back in time to find Sarah Connor in the primoridal soup. I heard it from a Christian.

:p


I am sorry brother, but you know the punishment for speaking of our secrets!

That can't be right, everyone knows that abiogenesis really says cells appeared out of thin air due to a vast Illuminati conspiracy that began with the reanimated corpse of Elvis going back in time to find Sarah Connor in the primoridal soup. I heard it from a Christian.

:p

You forgot the bit where, on his way back to modern times, Zombie Elvis beamed the entire layer of sediment deposited during the Great Flood onto his spaceship (which later crashed somewhere in New Mexico) just to screw with us. Damn that sneaky Zombie Elvis! ;)

You forgot the bit where, on his way back to modern times, Zombie Elvis beamed the entire layer of sediment deposited during the Great Flood onto his spaceship (which later crashed somewhere in New Mexico) just to screw with us. Damn that sneaky Zombie Elvis! ;)

That goes for you too!

Just pitching in here. It seems to me that ID is nothing more than a contrarian point of view to placate the religious people among us, despite the fact that religion is not mentioned anywhere in any writings about the theory itself.

Just my .02

The problem with examples like this is, why did the moths immediately jump from one color that does not work to one that does? Why no multitude of other colors or middle 'colors' to speak of? If it was random mutations entirely, that just 'might' happen from generation to generation in the moth, they should have several colors in all the generations, but they do not.

Cases like these don't seem so much like natural selection of random mutation as it does like it's a planned event, or they are 'painted' by their environment, like they 'tried' to change with purpose. Something more than the theory is at work there.

The solution to the problem is devastatingly simple.

The "moth study" is not in the least a study of "random mutations", nor indeed of mutation. To equate evolution with mutation is to miss out on 99% of the content - the theory of evolution by natural selection operates predominantly on what already exists in the gene pool, chromosomes and genes themselves, as they are. Mutation plays a very small role except in rare - but often stunning - cases.

The only factor at work in this case study is the presence of multiple alleles, different versions, of a single gene. Alleles are the workhorse of evolution - mutation and recombination are usually invisible in multicellular organisms. Every living creature has alleles - to name a human example, whether one has brown eyes, hazel eyes, blue eyes, green eyes, or what have you, is a result of the interaction of different alleles (because of their existence, there exists such things as "dominant" traits and "recessive" traits, but also intermixed traits, such as pink flowers that result from the pairing of white and red flowers).

In moths, alleles for dark and light colors exist. I presume the genes function similarly to genes that control human pigmentation, in the sense that it's not a, ahem, "black or white" situation but rather one in which there exists an infinite continuum of shades, which results from the interaction of multiple genes and alleles - the actual shade, predominantly determined by melanin production, is more or less the result of "averaging" the "values" of the alleles the individual possesses.

In such case, population changes are not the result of mutations (random or otherwise - the only non-random mutations I'm familiar with are those engineered by human hand). Thus, there is no problem of "why aren't there more colors" - there aren't more colors because the other colors simply do not already exist in the contemporary moth population.

If we presume that other pigmentations may have once existed in the particular species, then we presume that the other pigmentations met an evolutionary end because they did not serve as well - or were even detrimental - the moth possessing them. A bright pink moth - assuming such a pigmentation had ever evolved - would become something's snack quite a bit sooner than one with a more subdued tone, ideally one lending it some benefit (for example, blending in with something in its environment).

To clear something up: the moths did not "jump" from one color to one that "worked". Again, of course, other pigment shades already existed in the population (as can be well demonstrated). Most importantly, though, the moths did not choose to do anything, nor did they, or nature, or anything, choose what "worked".

Simply put, those moths whose pigmentation cried out to predators were less likely to reproduce, and hence, their genes were less likely to continue to exist. Those moths whose pigmentations afforded them greater advantage were less likely to become a snack, and more likely to reproduce. The only "choice" involved in the matter is whether a particular bird, bat, frog, etc, chose to make a snack out of a given moth - whether they saw the moth in the first place is a function of whether the moth blended with the environment or not.

But to reiterate - evolution is not about mutation. Evolution (by natural selection) is a matter of recombination. Nature is very conservative - what works, works, and when what works is tweaked by chance, even very slightly, it almost always results in something that doesn't work. Lifeforms that don't work, or don't work as well, eventually become lifeforms that don't exist, and don't reproduce - but that's not at all a function of mutation.

*snip*

I just reread some of the earlier posts in this thread and was wondering if I ought to write a long post explaining basic genetics and why moths don't suddenly turn new colors, but since you wrote an excellent explanation of exactly that, now I can just be lazy and make up silly conspiracy theories about Elvis instead.

Yay!

I just reread some of the earlier posts in this thread and was wondering if I ought to write a long post explaining basic genetics and why moths don't suddenly turn new colors, but since you wrote an excellent explanation of exactly that, now I can just be lazy and make up silly conspiracy theories about Elvis instead.

Yay!

A pleasure to have made your acquaintance. :-D

PS
Elvis is in my closet.

I happen to be in a room with about 100 science textbooks (mostly biology or subsets thereof) at the moment, so I took the liberty of checking how a few of them deal with the topic of abiogenesis. So far, five out of five discuss self-replicating RNA. :)

I absolutely love all that stuff. Self-replicating and evolving RNA is... exhilarating. I really can't come up with a better word at the moment.

At a more abstract level, I do work, now and then, with AL (artificial life, which stemmed from earlier interest in things such as cellular automata, AI, etc). It's fun stuff.

Elvis is in my closet.

Eek! :eek:

(Artificial life? Wow. Sounds fascinating...)

since when? Evolution most certainly did attempt to explain life. It failed miserably so far on all its attempts. But the whole amino acid clinging to more amino acids to create a protein that attached itself randomly to another protein until there were enough to create the so-called "simple single cell organism". which by the way was NOT so simple.

Evolution - or more specifically, the theory of evolution by natural selection - never attempts to explain how life came to be, but only how life has changed since. Evolution is merely one branch of biology.

Interestingly enough, a commonly held belief in Europe prior to its refutation in 1668 was that raw meat would spontaneously generate fly maggots - spontaneous generation, a primitive form of abiogenesis (a misnomer, as the life would have indeed come from other life - just not from the SAME type of life, so...).

Spontaneous generation is not science, nor was it ever. At best, it amounted to a superstitious belief based on anecdotal "evidence" proffered by one's cousin's uncle's brother's roommates and believed incredulously because no one thought to question it - until someone did (sound familiar?).

Science does not accept anecdotal evidence - it is scientifically void to speak of mice being generated from grain, or of little grey men abducting humans for sexually deviant experiments. Nor does it accept incredulity, nor does it suggest theory without amply grounded empirical evidence (save for the rare cases in which mathematical theory predicts something as yet unobserved empirically, but such is not commonly found anywhere but in the most fundamental physics).

An abiotic origin of life is strongly suggested and supported by science in general, not just biology, and certainly not on the grounds of evolution (although the knowledge achieved through the study of evolution provides hints and glimpses into how life must have arisen).

As such, while there is much that we simply can not do - just as we can not hope to observe directly the creation of the present known universe, we can not hope to observe directly the creation of life, unless by some fluke our descendants some day happen upon a world in which the process is beginning, or may yet begin - there is much more that we can do.

From theory and empirical evidence, we can offer up hypothetical scenarios (quite literally hypothetical - scenarios founded upon hypotheses). These scenarios can then be tested, and granted support - or refuted - by application of the scientific method.

Until our capabilities expand beyond their current limitations, there is little we can do to accurately test our hypotheses directly, but that is not to say that such hypotheses are empty.

At present, our best understanding of the origin of life is not one but several understandings. It may be that life first arose in primordial oceans, under the influence of an atmosphere that would be alien to modern life. It may be that life first arose in the depths of the earth, or on the surface of clays. It may be that Earth was indeed seeded by intergalactic bacterial spores (presumably quite unlikely, but by all means possible).

To the extent that we can be aware, there is no scientific reason that life did not arise first from the chance meetings of pre-organic (but naturally occurring) molecules, combinations of which do indeed have life-like, or life-essential, properties. Note that no one, save for opponents with nary even an elementary understanding of evolutionary science, who are unlikely to desire to understand it, anyway, insists that life sprang into existence as it exists today, nor even in forms that we would recognize, much less in one (what we would call, from our modern understanding) piece.

The best understanding of the origin of life amounts to this:

Not amino acids, but the components of nucleic acids are to have bonded to each other, being capable of forming fairly lengthy polymers (in this case, RNA, and single stranded DNA). The component molecules themselves form readily, given the raw material (water, CO2, methane, that sort of thing) and energy input (radioactive heat, solar radiation, lightning, etc).

Primitive proteins would also have formed, but proteins would only later become critical, as we shall see.

As there would be nothing swimming/crawling/flying about gobbling up the nucleic acids, the resulting molecules would be stable, save for environmental intrusions (UV, lightning, etc) - and for interactions with other complex molecules.

As of such time as sufficient numbers of amino acids and nucleic acids were present in a given area, it would only be a matter of time and chance before combination and interaction created the first enzyme - an RNA enzyme, not a protein enzyme.

It would be only a matter of time before RNA molecules that could catalyze the creation of more, similar, RNA molecules would come to exist, much as there exist today RNA molecules that assist with various sundry biochemical reactions.

And once you have a self-replicating molecule, in opposition to molecules that form by chance chemical reactions, you have life. The familiar trappings of life as we today know it - cellular walls, organelles, complex proteins, nuclei, vast macromolecules formed of DNA - are not basic necessaries for life, but simply basic necessaries for modern cellular life (and bacteria get along fine without nuclei or many organelles, etc).

A molecule - or rather, a system of molecules - capable of bringing about rudimentary cellular walls, for example (not that outside molecules are necessary - lipids placed in water will form a molecular bubble that would likely be identical to modern cellular walls were one to strip away the proteins from it) is nothing in comparison to a molecule, or system of molecules, capable of self-reproduction.

*sigh* No, no, no. First, there's been a LOT more than one transitional fossil sugegsting this connecting, and no evidence whatsoever that any of them are fakes. Secondly, the evidence includes more than just fossils like Archaeopteryx. Comparisons of various structures in the therapods and in modern birds reveal a whole bunch of interesting similarities. Look it up sometime - it's pretty nifty, and you can enjoy the idea of having a huge scary predator's great-to-the-nth-power grandchild fluttering around your backyard.

Quite. And, if i remember correctly (which I do), then they found the remains of a feathered dinosaur in China. It was some relativbe of the raptor, but it was noticably smaller. I remember reading about it in the news a year or 2 ago. (Pretty cool!).

Quite. And, if i remember correctly (which I do), then they found the remains of a feathered dinosaur in China. It was some relativbe of the raptor, but it was noticably smaller. I remember reading about it in the news a year or 2 ago. (Pretty cool!).
They've found around 20 genera of feathered, non-avian dinosaurs in China in the last 9 years.