NationStates Jolt Archive

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)

how do you contact him.

Oh, I remember a forum back in the day where there was one really studied guy. He made a business of making fun of Hovind - one thing of which was that contest, which is technically unwinnable. If it was winnable, do you think he would he be offering 250 thousand?

Now now, dont give me an excuse to bash creationnism and the church (again) ...

Is the use of a highschool biology book, and/or archaeology books allowed as evidence?

The evolutionist might have had a chance if he didn't lump cosmology in there with biology :D

Is the use of a highschool biology book, and/or archaeology books allowed as evidence?



Hint: With the specifications he's made, it's impossible to win. Unless youu could travel back in time and somehow make it here alive with a good video :D

Hint: With the specifications he's made, it's impossible to win. Unless youu could travel back in time and somehow make it here alive with a good video :D

Crap. I lost the keys to my time machine, and my digital camera was stolen the last time I travelled in time. By ape-men, strangely enough. *Sighs*

But you're probably right..People won't accept proof if they don't want to.

1. Does Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" really encompass the creation of the universe?

2. Doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical for this guy to say 'Your science should be called 'faith' and is completely bullsh*t' and then turn around and tell everyone to "Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible"? I mean, he doesn't have any more evidence to support his claim than the evolutionists do.

First off this guy is an idiot. Heres a quotation from the site:

"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing."

Ummm...no its not. Its presented as the way BEINGS an LIFEFORMS on this planet have genetically developed... I dont think I even have to say anything more.

First off this guy is an idiot. Heres a quotation from the site:

"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing."

Ummm...no its not. Its presented as the way BEINGS an LIFEFORMS on this planet have genetically developed... I dont think I even have to say anything more.


He was referring to all forms of evolution, biological and cosmological, so he is technically correct.

My favorites:

Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time.

Versus:

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

...

Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
So even if you were to find this first life form and it's attendant offspring [demonstrating, of course, that it had changed noticably], the evidence would be rejected as being "minor changes within the same [animal]."

Classic.

Hint: With the specifications he's made, it's impossible to win. Unless youu could travel back in time and somehow make it here alive with a good video :D

A VIDEO?!?!? How the fuck would one even document EVOLUTION IN A VIDEO?! You cant. Thats how. Total nOOb.

3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is Why Mr. Dino is an idiot unworthy of the time of anyone who knows anything about evolution. When he is spewing shit like that it is quite clear he has no interest in evidence.

A VIDEO?!?!? How the fuck would one even document EVOLUTION IN A VIDEO?! You cant. Thats how. Total nOOb.



You can't prove all aspects, you can only present strong evidence supporting it. Which is why nobody will be receiving a quarter-million :D

"For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!"


More than theory? If you knew anything about science youd know evolution cant be more than a theory...


Anyways, back when I was doing a paper on the underlying statistics of evolution I ran across this guy. I also ran across 4 or 5 guys who claimed to have contacted him and accepted his challenge only to be blown off in some form or another.

Putting up an award for beating someone in a debate isnt the way science works anyways.

If his thoughts hold any scientific value, why doesnt he publish them for the scientific community. If he has a point, theyll acknowledge him.

He was referring to all forms of evolution, biological and cosmological, so he is technically correct.

And your technically a moron, but thats besides the point. In the literal sense of the word "Evolution" it could be applied to anything. EX: Evolution of the stock market, Evolution of the universe's matter, Evolution of the study of Evolution...

My favorites:



Versus:

[/list]
So even if you were to find this first life form and it's attendant offspring [demonstrating, of course, that it had changed noticably], the evidence would be rejected as being "minor changes within the same [animal]."

Classic.



He wanted it all proven, speciation included. He wants the amoeba to moose, not the boston terrier to chihuahua.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is Why Mr. Dino is an idiot unworthy of the time of anyone who knows anything about evolution. When he is spewing shit like that it is quite clear he has no interest in evidence.
Um, I hate to side with the Mystics here, but I think it would be more appropriate to challenge your understanding of evolution. Evolution [many contend] is not just a biological process but a cosmic one as well.

A VIDEO?!?!? How the fuck would one even document EVOLUTION IN A VIDEO?! You cant. Thats how. Total nOOb.

I dunno, a million years of so of continuous footage of the same group of animals and observe their changes? It would be a very long video though.

He was referring to all forms of evolution, biological and cosmological, so he is technically correct.

No. The process of the development of the universe is not technically called evolution. I mean, the guy doesn't even know what the definition of theory is.

And your technically a moron, but thats besides the point. In the literal sense of the word "Evolution" it could be applied to anything. EX: Evolution of the stock market, Evolution of the universe's matter, Evolution of the study of Evolution...




Why did you flame me in a thread that a moderator is currently viewing? :headbang:

He wanted it all proven, speciation included. He wants the amoeba to moose, not the boston terrier to chihuahua.
Then what's the point? Putting up a contest like this strikes me as little more than a spiteful gesture. If turnabout is fair play, I should get to offer $250,000 to anyone who can prove to me that Creationism exists--and mind you, I want proof. So you have to go up to Heaven, get God, and drag his wisened, all-knowing ass down here.

It's about as likely as me or anyone else demonstrating 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that moose came from amoebas.

I dunno, a million years of so of continuous footage of the same group of animals and observe their changes? It would be a very long video though.

So long, that the man would never be able to watch it all and thus never have it proved to him.

He wanted it all proven, speciation included. He wants the amoeba to moose, not the boston terrier to chihuahua.

So, the only way to prove evolution to his liking is to somehow show him millions of years compressed into a reasonable watching period. Great.

Read the offer...he is legitimate...he's not talking about adaptation or micro-evolution....he's talking about BIG evolution that once and for all would disprove God....you see, you can't prove evolution....it is something that you have to accept by "faith"....you have believed what you have heard....you have seen and had faith in evolutionary drawings of reversed osteoporosis. Charles Darwin has been quoted as to saying, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire! People made a religion out of them."...the language of evolution is that of "faith"...Evolutionists use words like believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probably, possibly. Evolution can only be accepted on blind faith....because it cannot be proven.

So you have to go up to Heaven, get God, and drag his wisened, all-knowing ass down here.

It's about as likely as me or anyone else demonstrating 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that moose came from amoebas.

Well put. I agree completely.

And your technically a moron, but thats besides the point. In the literal sense of the word "Evolution" it could be applied to anything. EX: Evolution of the stock market, Evolution of the universe's matter, Evolution of the study of Evolution...

And you're technically warned to knock it off. Don't make me load up the Centre.

Then what's the point? Putting up a contest like this strikes me as little more than a spiteful gesture. If turnabout is fair play, I should get to offer $250,000 to anyone who can prove to me that Creationism exists--and mind you, I want proof. So you have to go up to Heaven, get God, and drag his wisened, all-knowing ass down here.

It's about as likely as me or anyone else demonstrating 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' that moose came from amoebas.



Yes, so stop giving it publicity, you're just giving him the attention he wants.

Um, I hate to side with the Mystics here, but I think it would be more appropriate to challenge your understanding of evolution. Evolution [many contend] is not just a biological process but a cosmic one as well.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with cosmic forces or cosmology in general. If you want to apply the word "evolve" to things like galaxies and even the universe itself, you would be misplaced to do so but go ahead if you wish, the theory of evolution itself applies to biological organisms only. Evolution does not merely mean change.

So long, that the man would never be able to watch it all and thus never have it proved to him.
Fast forward. :p

So, the only way to prove evolution to his liking is to somehow show him millions of years compressed into a reasonable watching period. Great.



I think he's making the point that atheism requires as much faith as theism ;)

And you're technically warned to knock it off. Don't make me load up the Centre.

"The Centre"??? Sounds n0obish.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with cosmic forces or cosmology in general. If you want to apply the word "evolve" to things like galaxies and even the universe itself, you would be misplaced to do so but go ahead if you wish, the theory of evolution itself applies to biological organisms only. Evolution does not merely mean change.

See, the difference is whether the "e" is capitalized. Anything can be said to "evolve" if it changes over time, but when you talk about "Evolution" you are talking about life.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with cosmic forces or cosmology in general. If you want to apply the word "evolve" to things like galaxies and even the universe itself, you would be misplaced to do so but go ahead if you wish, the theory of evolution itself applies to biological organisms only. Evolution does not merely mean change.
You're restricting this view to biological evolution only. The theory of evolution, in order to be taken seriously as a metaphysical hypothesis has to be consistently applied, just like any other theory about reality. You can't just say "Well, random shit flies together and makes stuff in space, but when organisms are involved, things become more orderly."

In short, we're talking about more than just what our ancestors are, but rather how the universe works. Cosmic evolution is an important concept to understand as well, for without it [many hold] Biological Evolution wouldn't even be possible.

"The Centre"??? Sounds n0obish.
No, it's the place where I warn people for doing bad things like flaming other users in a thread about how to collect $250,000 for proving evolution.

So knock it off. Don't call people morons and we're cool. I don't agree with Neo Rogolia all the time either [in fact, I'm sure we agree very seldom] but that is not a license to insult her.

Just cause you think evolution is a correct theory doesnt mean you are atheist.....


Evolution requires no faith at all. It only requires the use of inductive logic. Believing something is true because there is strong evidence which supports it is not "blind faith".



(BTW, you cant actually prove anything using inductive logic)

No, it's the place where I warn people for doing bad things like flaming other users in a thread about how to collect $250,000 for proving evolution.

So knock it off. Don't call people morons and we're cool. I don't agree with Neo Rogolia all the time either [in fact, I'm sure we agree very seldom] but that is not a license to insult her.



According to your sig, we apparently agree on objectivist philosophy :D

I think he's making the point that atheism requires as much faith as theism ;)

I don't like to deal in absolutes. Therefore I go where the evidence leads me. So far that leads me to question the existence of any being as descrived in any of the religious texts I have perused. Still, if one understands science, it also means that you can't ever quite rule anything out.

No, it's the place where I warn people for doing bad things like flaming other users in a thread about how to collect $250,000 for proving evolution.

So knock it off. Don't call people morons and we're cool. I don't agree with Neo Rogolia all the time either [in fact, I'm sure we agree very seldom] but that is not a license to insult her.

oh... my bad.

p.s. Is "noob" considered a "Flame"?

You're restricting this view to biological evolution only. The theory of evolution, in order to be taken seriously as a metaphysical hypothesis has to be consistently applied, just like any other theory about reality. You can't just say "Well, random shit flies together and makes stuff in space, but when organisms are involved, things become more orderly."

In short, we're talking about more than just what our ancestors are, but rather how the universe works. Cosmic evolution is an important concept to understand as well, for without it [many hold] Biological Evolution wouldn't even be possible.

But you can't use the Big Bang Theory to prove or disprove Evolution. They're jusat 2 different things.

The evolutionist might have had a chance if he didn't lump cosmology in there with biology :D

Yeah, considering bilogical evolution and cosmological are COMPLETELY INDEPENDANT.

But you can't use the Big Bang Theory to prove or disprove Evolution. They're jusat 2 different things.


I think he was getting at the fact that the observable tendency towards chaos in cosmology and the tendency towards order in biology need to be reconciled to reinforce evolution's credibility.

I think he was getting at the fact that the observable tendency towards chaos in cosmology and the tendency towards order in biology need to be reconciled to reinforce evolution's credibility.

I think that since no belief has more or less credibility than Evolution, that is a mood point for him to make.

According to your sig, we apparently agree on objectivist philosophy :D
Less so than you might think. Objectivism denies the existence of the supernatural, holding that it is a contradiction to exist simultaneously both within and 'above' nature. Objectivism rejects religion as Mysticism, noting that its followers seek not knowledge, but "Faith" or "Revelation" as a means to perceive the truth about reality. I will always maintain that the man who waits for nature to write the truth within his soul waits in vain. Knowledge is to be sought and worked for, it is not something which comes automatically with age, faith, or any other factor.

As a general rule I tend to side with science because it deals with what is observable, i.e. what is concrete and objectively verifiable in nature. Of course, that doesn't mean it's proponents aren't capable of some stunningly unintelligent arguments.

Basically, about the only things we agree on are likely to be certain economic issues, and the fact that we believe that morality is objective, i.e. it exists independent of our opinions of it. However, we likely differ wildly on just what that morality is.

I think that since no belief has more or less credibility than Evolution, that is a mood point for him to make.



One of the objectives of science is to get the various fields to not contradict one another. Evolution tends to fit in well with geology, archaeology, and others, but still has some issues with cosmology.

See, the difference is whether the "e" is capitalized. Anything can be said to "evolve" if it changes over time, but when you talk about "Evolution" you are talking about life.

Yes, but we were talking about how evolution is presented in text books. Being the proud owner of multiple college level texts on cosmology, I can say with certainly that nobody, well, except creationists, are claiming:

1. That the natural process that created the universe was evolution.
2. That it was evolution and not simply gravity that formed the the solar system, galaxy, etc.
3. Created life itself, that theory being abiogenesis, NOT evolution
or 4. Caused life to spontaneously diversify.

Now, if someone can show me where the theory of evolution holds any of these things to be included in evolution as opposed to other theories we can talk.

You're restricting this view to biological evolution only. Yes, because that is the only field that evolution applies when we accept the biological definition. We cannot say a Galaxy evolved. How does genetic drift apply to a galaxy? How does survival of the fittest apply to a galaxy? What evolved into the matter we see in the universe? The fact is the progressive history of the universe and time does not resemble the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution, in order to be taken seriously as a metaphysical hypothesis has to be consistently applied, just like any other theory about reality. You can't just say "Well, random shit flies together and makes stuff in space, but when organisms are involved, things become more orderly." No, but nor does one theory have to explain everything. The theory of special relativity, does not, no matter how many times one goes over it, tell us what the winning lotto numbers are going to be. Neuton's third law of motion will never explain the origin of life. While all theories must be consistant with the world around them, they need not explain the entirety of the world around them. Gravity explains galactic formation from the primordial hydrogen clouds of the universe and evolution explains how self-replicating RNA's distant descendants are six foot bipedal mammals.

In short, we're talking about more than just what our ancestors are, but rather how the universe works. Cosmic evolution is an important concept to understand as well, for without it [many hold] Biological Evolution wouldn't even be possible. Cosmological Evolution is a misnomer. Yes, cosmological history is important. The same is true of abiogenesis, for without non-life going to life we would still have nothing to evolve later. However, the mere fact abiogenesis is required for evolution does not make them part of the same theory until we manage to put together a coherent theory of everything. Until then, cosmological theories cover the cosmos and more scope limited theories like evolution continue to cover their specialties.

Oh great, another Jesus-lover strikes again.

Maybe evolution is a theory, but who cares how we got here? There are much more important things to think about than whether we came from a blob of cells, or were made by some dictatorial jackass as his playthings. Like, how to end world hunger or find a cure for AIDS.

....here's a thought about the Big Bang......try and think of any explosion that has produced order....does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos....How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears....thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?

Here's an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for twenty years. If that doesn't work...leave it for 100 years...then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.

Oh great, another Jesus-lover strikes again.

Maybe evolution is a theory, but who cares how we got here? There are much more important things to think about than whether we came from a blob of cells, or were made by some dictatorial jackass as his playthings. Like, how to end world hunger or find a cure for AIDS.



Umm, our origin is quite possibly the most important thing. Upon it hinges the very crux of Christianity, mysticism, metaphysics, ethics, Darwinism, etc. The entire world would be affected by absolute knowledge of our origins.

I think he was getting at the fact that the observable tendency towards chaos in cosmology and the tendency towards order in biology need to be reconciled to reinforce evolution's credibility.

Cosmology is actually rather ordered hence why scientists are interested in the aparent randomness of the universe at the quantum level.

....here's a thought about the Big Bang......try and think of any explosion that has produced order....does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos....How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears....thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?

Here's an interesting experiment: Epmty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for twenty years. If that doesn't work...leave it for 100 years...then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.



It's kind of intriguing how things have a propensity towards order and evolution without any mind or purpose guiding them. You would think that inanimate matter would tend to be chaotic. Yet, somehow, defying all logic is the earth...

Umm, our origin is quite possibly the most important thing. Upon it hinges the very crux of Christianity, mysticism, metaphysics, ethics, Darwinism, etc. The entire world would be affected by absolute knowledge of our origins.

Yes, but there are far more important things to think about. One should never focus on the past, when they should be focusing on the future.

Cosmology is actually rather ordered hence why scientists are interested in the aparent randomness of the universe at the quantum level.



Ordered to a degree, but moving towards disorder.

Yes, but there are far more important things to think about. One should never focus on the past, when they should be focusing on the future.



Yes, I'm sure the British and French thought the same way in 1939.

One of the objectives of science is to get the various fields to not contradict one another.

oh... I thought science was supposed to search for the truth...

Here's a thought about "evolution of the sexes"......notice that all forms of complex life have both males and females....horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc....The male needs the female to reproduce...and the female needs the male to reproduce....One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females? If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its intial plan and require the necessity of male and female?

oh... I thought science was supposed to search for the truth...



And the truth should not contradict itself ;)

*snip*Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.

The scientist didnt MAKE UP the idea that organisms evolved over time. They discovered evidence. So your idea that it was created for people to blindly accept is wrong, oh so wrong.

Here's an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for twenty years. If that doesn't work...leave it for 100 years...then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.

Ok, I'll do that.

To paraphrase the words of a Biology textbook author, whose editorial I have a copy of somewhere: evolution is just a theory. Just like relativity is just a theory. Quantum model for atomic structure? Yeah, that's a theory too. I'm sorry, but dismissing things because of their nature as "theories" is pure ignorance.

oh... I thought science was supposed to search for the truth...
I believ both are accurate technically. If it contradicts itself it cannot very well be held to be true. However, the mere absence of contradiction does not guarantee truth.

Here's an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for twenty years. If that doesn't work...leave it for 100 years...then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.


I am astounded by your utter inability to grasp the distinction between "organic" and "inorganic."

I haven't stated once what I believe in....you are just assuming what I believe in...I actually just thought that this would be an interesting debate....I just wanted to challenge your minds to think beyond what textbooks say and what churches say...

To paraphrase the words of a Biology textbook author, whose editorial I have a copy of somewhere: evolution is just a theory. Just like relativity is just a theory. Quantum model for atomic structure? Yeah, that's a theory too. I'm sorry, but dismissing things because of their nature as "theories" is pure ignorance.



Actually, relativity and quantum mechanics contradict one another, so one of them has to not be taken seriously :D

*snip* Evolution tends to fit in well with geology, archaeology, and others, but still has some issues with cosmology.

What kind of issues?

Here's a thought about "evolution of the sexes"......notice that all forms of complex life have both males and females....horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc....The male needs the female to reproduce...and the female needs the male to reproduce....One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females? If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its intial plan and require the necessity of male and female?

You're failing to grasph something here. They evolved simultaneously. Small steps, remember that, small steps. A monkey didn't give birth to your mother, even though it looks like it*.

*It's not a flame if it's true. And I'm just joking if it's not. :)

Actually, relativity and quantum mechanics contradict one another, so one of them has to not be taken seriously :D

This is true. They may seemingly contradict eachother, but they seem to work independantly... so yea... your right. We just dont know wich one since they both seem to work.

Yes, because that is the only field that evolution applies when we accept the biological definition.
:headbang:
And when you accept the proper defenition--the entire definition, the theory holds that not only do species evolve, but planets and solar systems do too. Evolution alsorefers to the process by which the planets were forged by solar materials as 'Evolution.' Our planets evolved, they say, from trace particles habiting our solar system.

We cannot say a Galaxy evolved. How does genetic drift apply to a galaxy? How does survival of the fittest apply to a galaxy?
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is context-dropping at it's finest. Here, what my opponent is doing, is he's completely ignoring the entire concept of Cosmic Evolution [whether it exists or not] and he's trying to apply standards of biological evolution to justify its rubuttal.

Of course we can say a galaxy evolved. If it wasn't always there, it had to be assembled by some sort of process. A process like evolution. It evolved, let's say, from a random collection of stars into a bonafide Galaxy.

What evolved into the matter we see in the universe? The fact is the progressive history of the universe and time does not resemble the theory of evolution.
Now we're getting into beliefs, which isn't an area of the debate I care to foray into, as my purpose in talking to you is to clear up just what 'evolution' is rather than challenge anyone's view of it. From what I can tell, the last couple of paragraphs follow this formula at least vaguely.

I'd just like to state that "more complex" does not equal "more orderly" when it comes to physics. Living creature are walking entropy creators. and a living creature is more chaotic than a pile of identical elements that are not animate.

The whole "Evolution contradicts the laws of thermo dynamics!" argument is cause by not understanding either.

Cosmology is actually rather ordered hence why scientists are interested in the aparent randomness of the universe at the quantum level.
I believe that the quantum level is actually very orderly, as orderly as the theory of relativity, but we cannot observe this order. The only way we can observe quantum mechanics would be to mess it up. For example, if you attempted to "observe" say, an electron, mere photons are too are too large to illuminate the object, so one would need a theoretical gamma-ray microscope. The path of the electron, I belive, is smooth and not random, but if you attempt to observe it using this theoritical gamma-ray microscope, the electron's path would be herky-jerky due to bombardment by the gamma-ray photons. Thus it leads to the philosphical question, does a falling tree make a noise if no one hears it. Is the quantum level actually stable, but whenever we try to observe it, it becomes random.

As to the thread, I offer you $500,000 if you can prove humans were created solely by a higher being.

And while we're on deep philisophical questions, I am sure a higher being created the universe or universes that created ours, but did not do anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the diesm, or does diesm go further than that?

The Zoogie People: Firstly, this debate isn't about what I believe in...I'm just posting different things to see what people will do with it....secondly, you stated:

"To paraphrase the words of a Biology textbook author, whose editorial I have a copy of somewhere: evolution is just a theory. Just like relativity is just a theory. Quantum model for atomic structure? Yeah, that's a theory too. I'm sorry, but dismissing things because of their nature as "theories" is pure ignorance."

...so, then to dismiss that humans were created by a Divine Being would also be ignorant as well, since it is also a "theory"?

Read the offer...he is legitimate...he's not talking about adaptation or micro-evolution....he's talking about BIG evolution that once and for all would disprove God....you see, you can't prove evolution....it is something that you have to accept by "faith"....you have believed what you have heard....you have seen and had faith in evolutionary drawings of reversed osteoporosis. Charles Darwin has been quoted as to saying, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything: and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire! People made a religion out of them."...the language of evolution is that of "faith"...Evolutionists use words like believe, assume, surmise, suspect, speculate, perhaps, probably, possibly.
Nothing can be proven absolutely, it must be believed with some amount of faith.
Evolution can only be accepted on blind faith....because it cannot be proven.
Not blind faith, there is evidence that supports evolution, whereas there is no evidence that supports any other theory of our origins.

A VIDEO?!?!? How the fuck would one even document EVOLUTION IN A VIDEO?! You cant. Thats how. Total nOOb.

Get one of those time lapse cameras that they use to film the changing of seasons.
Get a bunch of grey mice.
Put them all in a cage.
From each generation kill off the lightest colored ones. After a couple of years of doing this you'll have black mice.
The video will look like a cage with a gradually darkening cloud in it, but the start point will be grey mice and the end point will be black mice.

Black mice will have evolved in an environment that was ill suited to light colored mice. i.e. and environment in which some guy with a time-lapse video camera comes along and kills them. Sure it's not exactly natural, but he said evolution, not natural selection.

:headbang:
And when you accept the proper defenition--the entire definition, the theory holds that not only do species evolve, but planets and solar systems do too. Evolution alsorefers to the process by which the planets were forged by solar materials as 'Evolution.' Our planets evolved, they say, from trace particles habiting our solar system.


Ladies and Gentlemen, this is context-dropping at it's finest. Here, what my opponent is doing, is he's completely ignoring the entire concept of Cosmic Evolution [whether it exists or not] and he's trying to apply standards of biological evolution to justify its rubuttal.

Of course we can say a galaxy evolved. If it wasn't always there, it had to be assembled by some sort of process. A process like evolution. It evolved, let's say, from a random collection of stars into a bonafide Galaxy.


Now we're getting into beliefs, which isn't an area of the debate I care to foray into, as my purpose in talking to you is to clear up just what 'evolution' is rather than challenge anyone's view of it. From what I can tell, the last couple of paragraphs follow this formula at least vaguely.

Again, this is the difference between the word evolution and the Theory of Evolution. One means change over time, the other is the scientific theory of the diversification of species. Period.

Actually, relativity and quantum mechanics contradict one another, so one of them has to not be taken seriously :D

No, actually, that's not correct. Relativity is a useful model for all intents and purposes to describe things when we're dealing with very large scales. Quantum mechanics, when we're dealing with very miniscule scales. That they contradict means they can't both be "true" - but it doesn't mean they can't be useful descriptions of the world. Take Newton's law of universal gravitation. They're not true in the sense that they were completely pwned by relativity. But, for all intents and purposes, we can say that the force of gravity between two objects is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You can't not take Newton's laws seriously, much less relativity and quantum mechanics. Guesswork and idiocy did not bring about those theories.

This is true. They may seemingly contradict eachother, but they seem to work independantly... so yea... your right. We just dont know wich one since they both seem to work.
They don't necissarily contradict each other, they just aren't compatible as a whole...yet. Stephen Hawking claims we will unify physics within the next 20-30 years.

I just wanted to challenge your minds to think beyond what textbooks say and what churches say...

Well sry to say, but you failed. You didnt challenge us by removing all the logical ways of thinking... without those... we have your post.

I believe that the quantum level is actually very orderly, as orderly as the theory of relativity, but we cannot observe this order. The only way we can observe quantum mechanics would be to mess it up. For example, if you attempted to "observe" say, an electron, mere photons are too are too large to illuminate the object, so one would need a theoretical gamma-ray microscope. The path of the electron, I belive, is smooth and not random, but if you attempt to observe it using this theoritical gamma-ray microscope, the electron's path would be herky-jerky due to bombardment by the gamma-ray photons. Thus it leads to the philosphical question, does a falling tree make a noise if no one hears it. Is the quantum level actually stable, but whenever we try to observe it, it becomes random.

Whenever I try to explain this to people the analogy that makes their little light-bulbs spark up is to say that "trying to see quantum mechanics is like trying to feel a sandcastle while blindfolded. As soon as you find it, you've messed it up."

Get one of those time lapse cameras that they use to film the changing of seasons.
Get a bunch of grey mice.
Put them all in a cage.
From each generation kill off the lightest colored ones. After a couple of years of doing this you'll have black mice.
The video will look like a cage with a gradually darkening cloud in it, but the start point will be grey mice and the end point will be black mice..

we can already do this... no big deal. Thats not the evidence he wants. (im guessing).

Nothing can be proven absolutely, it must be believed with some amount of faith.

Not blind faith, there is evidence that supports evolution, whereas there is no evidence that supports any other theory of our origins.



Second point, false. There is some...unsettling evidence for the Judao/Christian religions. The earth's rotundity, the currents of the ocean, the fact that the earth "hangeth upon nothing", etc. are all mentioned in the Bible.

we can already do this... no big deal. Thats not the evidence he wants. (im guessing).



That would prove genetics, not evolution ;)

Again, this is the difference between the word evolution and the Theory of Evolution. One means change over time, the other is the scientific theory of the diversification of species. Period.
Correct. And in the context of this 'contest,' the author is referring to evolution as a whole; i.e. in the broader meaning of the term. Xhadum thought it would be appropriate to challenge his opinions of evolution on these grounds, claiming the man had no idea what evolution was.

I am aware of the difference, I'm just trying to explain that difference to Xhadum and inform him/her as to what the author of the contest is trying to say.

The Zoogie People: Firstly, this debate isn't about what I believe in...I'm just posting different things to see what people will do with it....secondly, you stated:

"To paraphrase the words of a Biology textbook author, whose editorial I have a copy of somewhere: evolution is just a theory. Just like relativity is just a theory. Quantum model for atomic structure? Yeah, that's a theory too. I'm sorry, but dismissing things because of their nature as "theories" is pure ignorance."

...so, then to dismiss that humans were created by a Divine Being would also be ignorant as well, since it is also a "theory"?

To dismiss that human beings were created by a divine being would also be ignorant in my opinion, yes, but not because it's a theory. It's not, and there's no use whatsoever pretending it is. It is not an empirical model that can be tested in any way, shape, or form. It's faith. You have it or you don't.

But you DO see why a mercedes will not self-assemble, right? ;)

Achtung 45, even the best of us aren't necessarily good at predicting the future. (Where's that moon base?) To unify physics, to find a theory of quantum gravity, is something that's being worked on right now, but it isn't going to be either relativity or quantum mechanics. Just as relativity "supplanted" Newton (Newton's theories are still around, hence supplanted in quotes), the 'theory of everything' would take precedence over relativity and quantum mechanics; I'm *almost* positive. The current favorite is the set of many, many string theories that are now being grouped together in something called M-Theory, but last I checked, nobody could think of a way to test it with what we currently have. There lies the problem. The current efforts are focused around Fermilab and the new atom smasher they've been building somewhere in Europe, I believe.

Get one of those time lapse cameras that they use to film the changing of seasons.
Get a bunch of grey mice.
Put them all in a cage.
From each generation kill off the lightest colored ones. After a couple of years of doing this you'll have black mice.
The video will look like a cage with a gradually darkening cloud in it, but the start point will be grey mice and the end point will be black mice.

Black mice will have evolved in an environment that was ill suited to light colored mice. i.e. and environment in which some guy with a time-lapse video camera comes along and kills them. Sure it's not exactly natural, but he said evolution, not natural selection.

Uh. No.

Second point, false. There is some...unsettling evidence for the Judao/Christian religions. The earth's rotundity, the currents of the ocean, the fact that the earth "hangeth upon nothing", etc. are all mentioned in the Bible.
Just because some things mentioned in the bible are true doesnt mean all things mentioned in the bible are.

Whenever I try to explain this to people the analogy that makes their little light-bulbs spark up is to say that "trying to see quantum mechanics is like trying to feel a sandcastle while blindfolded. As soon as you find it, you've messed it up."
Not if you used glue! And so castles made of sand, melts into the sea...

No, actually, that's not correct. Relativity is a useful model for all intents and purposes to describe things when we're dealing with very large scales. Quantum mechanics, when we're dealing with very miniscule scales. That they contradict means they can't both be "true" - but it doesn't mean they can't be useful descriptions of the world. Take Newton's law of universal gravitation. They're not true in the sense that they were completely pwned by relativity. But, for all intents and purposes, we can say that the force of gravity between two objects is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You can't not take Newton's laws seriously, much less relativity and quantum mechanics. Guesswork and idiocy did not bring about those theories.



If you take all aspects of the theory as a fact then it is untrue. Reconciling quantum physics with general relativity will involve some parts on both theories being dropped in order for them to be compatible. Until we make said modifications none can be said to be entirely true.

Just because some things mentioned in the bible are true doesnt mean all things mentioned in the bible are.



There's more than what I listed :D

If you take all aspects of the theory as a fact then it is untrue. Reconciling quantum physics with general relativity will involve some parts on both theories being dropped in order for them to be compatible. Until we make said modifications none can be said to be entirely true.

Yeah, but to say that it's not the absolute truth...doesn't really mean anything, does it? Especially considering we're still using Newton's law for most everyday purposes instead of relativity.

Achtung 45, even the best of us aren't necessarily good at predicting the future. (Where's that moon base?) To unify physics, to find a theory of quantum gravity, is something that's being worked on right now, but it isn't going to be either relativity or quantum mechanics. Just as relativity "supplanted" Newton (Newton's theories are still around, hence supplanted in quotes), the 'theory of everything' would take precedence over relativity and quantum mechanics; I'm *almost* positive. The current favorite is the set of many, many string theories that are now being grouped together in something called M-Theory, but last I checked, nobody could think of a way to test it with what we currently have. There lies the problem.
Of course, that is why as our technology progresses, and more geniuses come along, we will become closer to unification. I think it is possible, it is merely a matter of time before we do it. You know in the late 1800's the U.S. government shut down the patent office because they thought there was nothing more to invent.

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)


I've never said it was anything more than a theory, but it seems to be the best theory.

Ill give you everything I have in the world if you prove your God exists.

I certainly find evolution more plausible than creation 'scientists' who will stop at nothing to make people think that the world was created in 7 days and that Carbon dating MUST be wrong cause it fucks with the Adam and Eve saga

Why 7 fucking days?

Sounds like a pretty shit god to me

I'll pay the same amount to someone who can prove that Creationism or Intelligent Design is as a valid explanation as Evolution.

:headbang:
And when you accept the proper defenition--the entire definition, the theory holds that not only do species evolve, but planets and solar systems do too. Evolution alsorefers to the process by which the planets were forged by solar materials as 'Evolution.' Our planets evolved, they say, from trace particles habiting our solar system. That is like saying I evolved from a fetus because I am bigger and added particles from the universe around me to reach my mass. Evolution in any other sense, when applied to science, than biological is a misnomer. The same thing is true of "theory" in the common usage. As I said, call it evolution if you wish but the word is completely misplaced. Growing is not enough to be considered evolution in the scientific sense any more than the idea of theory being an educated guess, as is common in language, is scientifically accurate.


Ladies and Gentlemen, this is context-dropping at it's finest. Here, what my opponent is doing, is he's completely ignoring the entire concept of Cosmic Evolution [whether it exists or not] and he's trying to apply standards of biological evolution to justify its rubuttal. I'm saying so called cosmic evolution is has nothing to do with the concept of evolving. It is at best misnamed. Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with the theory of evolution, WHICH IS WHAT HE CALLED FOR TO BE PROVEN. Show me something where the theory of evolution talks about cosmology and then we can talk. While there are theories and laws about the developement of the universe, as far as I am aware there is no unified theory of evolutionary cosmology. I didn't drop context, you just created a strawman to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Of course we can say a galaxy evolved. If it wasn't always there, it had to be assembled by some sort of process. A process like evolution. It evolved, let's say, from a random collection of stars into a bonafide Galaxy. That completely misunderstands both evolution and galaxy formation, the galaxy comes before the stars in a big cloud of gas that concentrates in certain areas and forms stars. Furthermore, returning to the fetus analogy, jusging by these standards I evolved from a fetus because I was assembled by some sort of process, a random collection of mollecules came together to form me, I wasn't always here, etc. Evolution is a word misplaced here and cosmological evolution has nothing to do with real evolution beyond being it's prerequisite.


Now we're getting into beliefs, which isn't an area of the debate I care to foray into, as my purpose in talking to you is to clear up just what 'evolution' is rather than challenge anyone's view of it. From what I can tell, the last couple of paragraphs follow this formula at least vaguely.
As you wish. I am aware of what the contest maker is trying to say, however, from a scientific standpoint he is just plain wrong. There is no one theory of evolution, as he refers to it in the singular, that covers both so called cosmological evolution and biological evolution. The one actual theory of evolution is that of the biological kind.

Also, my name is XhadAm.

"Creation Science Evangelism was started in 1989 by Dr. Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind is one of the most requested speakers on the Creation and Evolution topic in churches and Universities all over the world. Dr. Hovind served as an educator for many years teaching Biology, Anatomy, Physical Science, Mathematics, Earth Science, and many other sciences. Dr. Hovind has debated the Creation and Evolution controversy over 90 times all over the world, in many large Universities, and on thousands of radio talk shows. If you would like to schedule Dr. Hovind to speak at your event, please visit our scheduling page."

And of course he can prove that the bible creation scenario is correct? What a totally absurd challenge......250k if he can prove what he says is correct to the masses as well. Im sure he wont offer that challenge......

:upyours:

To dismiss that human beings were created by a divine being would also be ignorant in my opinion, yes, but not because it's a theory. It's not, and there's no use whatsoever pretending it is. It is not an empirical model that can be tested in any way, shape, or form. It's faith. You have it or you don't.

But you DO see why a mercedes will not self-assemble, right? ;)

Achtung 45, even the best of us aren't necessarily good at predicting the future. (Where's that moon base?) To unify physics, to find a theory of quantum gravity, is something that's being worked on right now, but it isn't going to be either relativity or quantum mechanics. Just as relativity "supplanted" Newton (Newton's theories are still around, hence supplanted in quotes), the 'theory of everything' would take precedence over relativity and quantum mechanics; I'm *almost* positive. The current favorite is the set of many, many string theories that are now being grouped together in something called M-Theory, but last I checked, nobody could think of a way to test it with what we currently have. There lies the problem. The current efforts are focused around Fermilab and the new atom smasher they've been building somewhere in Europe, I believe.



Uh. No.

And if you lock a bunch of hominids in your garage, you won't produce humans in a few millions years either. Because they'd die. Either that, or they'd adapt to garage-life conditions.

And if you lock a bunch of hominids in your garage, you won't produce humans in a few millions years either. Because they'd die. Either that, or they'd adapt to garage-life conditions.



They would evolve into spidermen! And roachmen! And I would fend them off with giant can of RAID!

I love this contest.

"Give me proof, except this proof, and except this proof, which fits in a series of parameters I've outlined so as to make it unobtainable."

Hey, here you go. I'll give you 250,000 dollars if you can spell the world "I" without using a vowel!

The only thing this guy is doing for religion is making people say "Jesus, what an idiot."

As I understand, the following is stated by the Dino guy:

"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)."

This very premise is wrong. I have looked throough my highschool textbooks, which are less than 10 years old, and not any of these are stated.

"1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing."

This is not presented as part of the theory of evolution. In fact, it is not presented as part of the Big Bang theory either. Science has yet to determine from what the proposed super dense particle the universe exploded from was created by. It does not claim yet to have come from nothing. In addition, some have said he is talking about the 'evolution' of the universe. The problem with that is textbooks do not put it that way, therefore his very premise is wrong.

"2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)"
As someone with an interest in astronomy, I have almost never heard this called 'cosmic evolution.' Rather, it is the development of the universe. Notice also, as previously said, that evolution is not capitalized here, as it would be when talking about the Theory of Evolution. My textbooks call it the development of the universe, therefore his premise is wrong again.

"3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution)."
OK, I will give him part points here. I am a chemistry student in college, and we do talk about chemical evolution when it comes to the begining of life on this planet. In addition, we have yet to 'demonstrate' creation of life from non-living compounds. We have proven chemical 'evolution,' though. In specialized chambers that recreate the conditions of the early Earth, conditions we can determine through other sciences, we can observe the chemical processes that took place. Those chambers have produced all but two of the known amino acids, which are the building blocks of protien, and therefore of life. These chambers produced the chemicals of life, via chemical 'evolution.' This, though, is still not part of the Theory of Evolution, it is part of the science of chemistry, not biology, at least not until a life form is created.

"5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution)."
The existing Theory of Evolution and biolgical sciences do not claim that life 'spntaneously' diverses into other living things. The current theory states that as life reproduces, random changes occur in the genetic code being passed on to the offspring. This can happen because the genetics of the parent in mitosis, or the parents in sexual reproduction, were damaged, such as by radiation that has been shown to alter genetic code. These changes can also happen while the code is being copied, if there is an error. These changes are all called mutations. As you go through more and more generations, you have succesive mutations. Eventually, there is something different about one life form from another. If that difference is an advantage, that life form has a greater chance of surviving, reproducing, and passing on its advantage, while the other life form is more likely to die with no offspring. It is a very slow process, although its speed is increased by sexual reproduction, due to the fact that you can combine different lines of mutation to create something even different. All of this is called the Theory of Natural Selection. High School textbooks make no claim of spontaneous change, in fact, the only ones I have ever heard claim such a thing existed were creationists.

Lastly, I am sure someone is going to say that evolution is a bunch of hogwash because we have not found any "intermediate" species. These are life forms that show the change occuring. This used to be true, but within the last ten years, a number of these forms have been found in the fossil record. The best example I can think of is the whale, especially since it is the favorite of creationists. They say,
"Here you have the fossil of a land animal, and the fossil of a full whale, but nothing in between to prove that they are linked."
Not true, mr. creationist. Scinetists discovered Ambleocetus (i am sure i misspelled it). The name means "walking whale" It has legs, like the land animal, but its feet are webbed, and beginning to form into fins. Its body has become less like that of a land animal, and more like that of a crocidile. It no longer has external ears, instead listening through the bones of its jaw, something allowing it to hear virations in the ground, or sound in the water. Its nostrils are begining to move back on its head. Its backbone is constructed for the form of swimming known as porposing, which whales use today. Other fossils have been found that more and more resemble whales, until the first true whales are found. These are true "intermediate species."

Why do we not find more of them? If a species is doing well in its environment, without many pressures on it, then the small differences from genetic mutation never get a chance to express themselves in natural selection. No pressure means no, or extremely slow, natural selection. If something major happens, like suddenly an area that was forest becomes desert, yo havehigh pressures on the species there, and natural selection plays the prime role, making change happen faster. Since that change can occur in a million years, or less, it will not be represented in the fossil record as much as species which last many millions of years. It is hard enough to find fossils at all, so if they are extremely rare in the record, it may be near impossible to find them. In any case, we have found intermediate species for the whale and other animals.

Ill give you everything I have in the world if you prove your God exists.

I certainly find evolution more plausible than creation 'scientists' who will stop at nothing to make people think that the world was created in 7 days and that Carbon dating MUST be wrong cause it fucks with the Adam and Eve saga

Why 7 fucking days?

Sounds like a pretty shit god to me



Hi, we're trying to keep this civilized. Stop.

how do you contact him.

Don't bother. Hovind is a liar. He won't honor it and it won't respond to the challenge.

It's just a bunch of crap he spews for the biological uninformed.

Don't bother. Hovind is a liar. He won't honor it and it won't respond to the challenge.

It's just a bunch of crap he spews for the biological uninformed.
Talkorigins has a nice few articles about why his "challenge" is nothing but.

You're restricting this view to biological evolution only. The theory of evolution, in order to be taken seriously as a metaphysical hypothesis has to be consistently applied, just like any other theory about reality. You can't just say "Well, random shit flies together and makes stuff in space, but when organisms are involved, things become more orderly."

In short, we're talking about more than just what our ancestors are, but rather how the universe works. Cosmic evolution is an important concept to understand as well, for without it [many hold] Biological Evolution wouldn't even be possible.

Melkor's right. I have heard more then a few take it that way.

Luckily for me I say to the simple area of physical antro and primates ;)

One of the objectives of science is to get the various fields to not contradict one another. Evolution tends to fit in well with geology, archaeology, and others, but still has some issues with cosmology.

The interject of cosmology is a recent thing. It didn't take that on.

Ever read Darwins 2 "evil" books or even wallace?

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)
OMG My first thought on title name was “omg no one could be stupid enough to bring up that fucking Dumas contest AGAIN”

I guess I was proven wrong

They would evolve into spidermen! And roachmen! And I would fend them off with giant can of RAID!

I was thinking more along the lines of developing natural camo to allow them to blend in with empty appliance boxes, calendars featuring scantily clad women and cars (the women being scantily clad, not the cars,) the waterheater and the 5 crock pots gifted by friends and family over the years.

They would mix cleaning supplies in order to see visions, and they would worship, "The Great Self-Opening Portal and the Rumbling Smoking Beast That Comes Through It."

Correct. And in the context of this 'contest,' the author is referring to evolution as a whole; i.e. in the broader meaning of the term. Xhadum thought it would be appropriate to challenge his opinions of evolution on these grounds, claiming the man had no idea what evolution was.

I am aware of the difference, I'm just trying to explain that difference to Xhadum and inform him/her as to what the author of the contest is trying to say.

He is therefore asking scientists to prove one "theory of evolution" which covers cosmic and biological. He claims that such a theory is in textbooks today. HE IS WRONG. They are not in textbooks, it is not what science currently has as it's theories. Might they in the future be explained under one theory? Sure! Electricity and magnetism where once explained by two seperate theories, but as science evolved, they were able to combine the theories into electromagnetism. This was not easy, and took a long time.

This guy is saying that science has already done this, and telling scientists to prove it. That would be like asking Ben Franklin to explain electromagnetism. He would say to you that we have no evidence that electricity and magnetism are the same thing, or can be explained by the same theory, becuase they weren't.

Why are we wasting our time with this guy? (But I guess I’m not one to talk since I’m joining in.) His offer is full of scientific inacuracies, logical falicies, and nastyness to top it of. His statement that Evoloution refers to cosmology is particularly shocking. Cosmology and Biology are separate fields that neither overlap nor contradict. The tendency tords chaos in the universe is called the second law of thermodynamics. The tendency tords order in biology is because the earth is not a closed system receiving a constant stream of energy from the sun. Lets all just forget this idiotic but financially privaliged bufoon and go on with our lives.

The interject of cosmology is a recent thing. It didn't take that on.

Ever read Darwins 2 "evil" books or even wallace?



So? Should you even care? If evolution is true, then it will corroborate with other branches of science.

That would prove genetics, not evolution ;)

Hnmmmm

A chimp shares 98% of our DNA.

How did we become different? Evolution....

;)

So? Should you even care? If evolution is true, then it will corroborate with other branches of science.

That is ignoring the fact the science "evolves" as our understanding and experimentation grows. Older theories which were believed to be true are shown to need change by new discoveries. If cosmology and the Theory of Evolution can somehow be shown to be linked, then discoveries and experimentation, and further theories, will change the existing one. TRUE scientists accept this. When I am in the lab, I may operate on an existing premise, but if my experimentation shows that premise to be wrong, then I have to find out why. It may be a fault in my experimentation, or it may be a new discovery I have made that will change science as we know it. It is up to me to prove which, by the scientific method.

Grayshness:

Who said that that world had to be created in 7 actual 24 hour days? Here is a thought: Maybe a day is just a time frame....I never said that I agreed with Dr. Kent Horvind....I just wanted to see what people would do with it...maybe the 7 days in the Bible refers to a span of time, so people of that time period could grasp it...2 Peter 3:8-9 states: ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’....so I think there is room for adaptation to exist....but it is still a theory....accepted only by faith.

Hnmmmm

A chimp shares 98% of our DNA.

How did we become different? Evolution....

;)



That's not saying much. We share a high percentage of DNA with many living things that aren't remotely similar to ourselves.

He is therefore asking scientists to prove one "theory of evolution" which covers cosmic and biological. He claims that such a theory is in textbooks today. HE IS WRONG. They are not in textbooks, it is not what science currently has as it's theories. Might they in the future be explained under one theory? Sure! Electricity and magnetism where once explained by two seperate theories, but as science evolved, they were able to combine the theories into electromagnetism. This was not easy, and took a long time.

This guy is saying that science has already done this, and telling scientists to prove it. That would be like asking Ben Franklin to explain electromagnetism. He would say to you that we have no evidence that electricity and magnetism are the same thing, or can be explained by the same theory, becuase they weren't.
Thank you.

Hnmmmm

A chimp shares 98% of our DNA.

How did we become different? Evolution....

;)
Fred did it?

He is therefore asking scientists to prove one "theory of evolution" which covers cosmic and biological. He claims that such a theory is in textbooks today. HE IS WRONG. They are not in textbooks, it is not what science currently has as it's theories. Might they in the future be explained under one theory? Sure! Electricity and magnetism where once explained by two seperate theories, but as science evolved, they were able to combine the theories into electromagnetism. This was not easy, and took a long time.

This guy is saying that science has already done this, and telling scientists to prove it. That would be like asking Ben Franklin to explain electromagnetism. He would say to you that we have no evidence that electricity and magnetism are the same thing, or can be explained by the same theory, becuase they weren't.
Wait, I'm confused. Am I 'He?'

That's not saying much. We share a high percentage of DNA with many living things that aren't remotely similar to ourselves.

Sure if you want to compare a horse with a human.

But the chimp?

They are self aware.
They use tools.
They have the capacity to lie.
They make war.
They problem solve.
They play politics to advance ones social standing.

The Chimp is something creationists avoid since they offer some rather startling comparisons.

Wait, I'm confused. Am I 'He?'

No, "he" refers to the guy who made this challenge, with the money reward.

...and the Bible never states that Adam and Eve were white people that look like us....Adam and Eve could've had dark skin, brown hair, brown eyes, been short, stocky, hairier, and had more pronounced features than us...but created...then humans adapted to their surroundings....again...it's just a theory...

Grayshness:

Who said that that world had to be created in 7 actual 24 hour days? Here is a thought: Maybe a day is just a time frame....I never said that I agreed with Dr. Kent Horvind....*snip*.

Well the fact that you even mention Hovind pretty much closes anybodies mind to anything you have to say.

Hovind is a snake oil salesman. A fraud; nothing more.

Do yourself a favor. Don't mention him.

People will listen to what you say and debate you. Mention him and they write you off as being the "typical ignorant christian" casting judgement for things they don't know......

Fred did it?
No hank did it … but don’t worry he will give you a million bucks when you leave town (or kick your ass)

Hovind is a well-known fraud. This doctor got his degree from a diploma mill called Patriot University, an institution only accredited by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which provides accreditation for a fee.

I mean, take a look at their website:

http://www.patriotuniversity.com/

And here's a critique of Hovind:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.html

Here's a thought about "evolution of the sexes"......notice that all forms of complex life have both males and females....horses, cats, dogs, humans, moths, monkeys, fish, elephants, etc....The male needs the female to reproduce...and the female needs the male to reproduce....One cannot carry on life without the other. Which then came first according to evolutionary theory? If the males came before the females, how did the males of each species appear without the females? If you believe that perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly, male and female evolved over a long period of time, what then made evolution change its intial plan and require the necessity of male and female?

There are several species of reptiles and fish (among others) that do not have males as members of their species; all members are female, and reproduce through a process called parthenogenesis.

Even bacteria can engage in 'sexual' reproduction, whereby two bacteria can exchange genetic material before undergoing reproduction.

No hank did it … but don’t worry he will give you a million bucks when you leave town (or kick your ass)

But I thought Mikey liked it?

The Black Forrest:

I think that I will mention anyone that I wish to....the opinions that you hold aren't everyone's...and I wanted both sides on here to see the extremes...and I could say the same about someone who judges Christianity based on what they have "heard" and not because they have actually read the Bible from cover to cover and formed an educated opinion from actually studying the Bible....the sword cuts both ways, my friend...

Hovind is a well-known fraud. This doctor got his degree from a diploma mill called Patriot University, an institution only accredited by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which provides accreditation for a fee.

I mean, take a look at their website:

http://www.patriotuniversity.com/

And here's a critique of Hovind:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.html
Ahw, yes, Reggie's website. I have enjoyed many an hour listening to those two do battle.

....here's a thought about the Big Bang......try and think of any explosion that has produced order....does a terrorist bomb create harmony? Big bangs cause chaos....How could a big bang produce a rose, apple trees, fish, sunsets, the seasons, hummingbirds, polar bears....thousands of birds and animals, each with its own eyes, nose and mouth?

Here's an interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. I'm serious. Try it. If it doesn't appear, leave it for twenty years. If that doesn't work...leave it for 100 years...then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hard to believe? Then here's what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: Leave it for 250 million years. Cerebellum liposuction.

Here's another experiment. In a very, very cold location, heat up a sturdy, sealed container of water until it vaporizes and causes the container to explode. Keep waiting, and watch as the highly disordered water vapour condenses into very-well-ordered ice crystals. Hmmmm...

The universe does not tend towards disorder. Rather, entropy always increases. Entropy != disorder.

...and the Bible never states that Adam and Eve were white people that look like us....Adam and Eve could've had dark skin, brown hair, brown eyes, been short, stocky, hairier, and had more pronounced features than us...but created...then humans adapted to their surroundings....again...it's just a theory...

What I personnally choose to believe as a matter of faith, since I cannot prove the existence of God, is this:
God created the primordial particle that exploded into the universe. He (for the sake of simplicity, I will use he, rather than she, or it, which may allbe possible, in fact my father always refers to God as a she) did this knowing what it would produce. He, in his divine knowledge and power, knew that the Earth would be created, that life would form, that mankind would evolve. He knew all of what would happen up until a point that he chose, the point that the human race would be given free will. He then gave us the story of creation, but one which we could understand at the time. Do you think Moses would have understood the universe exploding from a singularity to form all of the material of the universe, understand how stars work, etc. Probably not.
God had already given mankind a large amount of free will at this time, otherwise he would not have allowed many of the problems that occured, like enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt to happen. Perhaps he meant to reveal his role in creation to our people at a time when we were developed enough to understand, but events played out that required him to do so before we were ready, so he gave us a story we would understand.
This is all not proveable, of course.

By the way, I am Jewish, and therefore only believe in the Old Testament.

Warrigal:

I don't mind if you tear apart these thoughts...they are not my thoughts...they are just things that I threw out there to see what would happen...I'm more of the thought that Creation and Evolution come together and support each other....I don't believe that the world was created in 7 literal days...but each day is more of a time frame that allowed for human comprehension of the history before the existance of man...these are just my thoughts....

:headbang:
And when you accept the proper defenition--the entire definition, the theory holds that not only do species evolve, but planets and solar systems do too. Evolution alsorefers to the process by which the planets were forged by solar materials as 'Evolution.' Our planets evolved, they say, from trace particles habiting our solar system.
Melkor, you're confusing the dictionary definition of the general-use word 'evolution', with the name of the Theory of Biological Evolution. Even if there exists a Theory of Cosmological Evolution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Biological Evolution.

'Evolution', as a general-use term, means the process of a system changing over time. Scientific theories, however, have very specific fields of applicability. Asking why the Theory of Cosmological Evolution doesn't say anything about biological evolution is like asking why the Theory of Biological Evolution doesn't say anything about Special Relativity.

Melkor, you're confusing the dictionary definition of the general-use word 'evolution', with the name of the Theory of Biological Evolution. Even if there exists a Theory of Cosmological Evolution, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Biological Evolution.

'Evolution', as a general-use term, means the process of a system changing over time. Scientific theories, however, have very specific fields of applicability. Asking why the Theory of Cosmological Evolution doesn't say anything about biological evolution is like asking why the Theory of Biological Evolution doesn't say anything about Special Relativity.

Or better yet, why the science of Psychology doesn't explain nuclear chemistry.

The Black Forrest:

I think that I will mention anyone that I wish to....the opinions that you hold aren't everyone's...and I wanted both sides on here to see the extremes...and I could say the same about someone who judges Christianity based on what they have "heard" and not because they have actually read the Bible from cover to cover and formed an educated opinion from actually studying the Bible....the sword cuts both ways, my friend...

There is the problem. Things about that fellow aren't stuff we "heard" they are facts.

Again if you want a meaningful dialoge. Don't mention that liar.

Warrigal:

I don't mind if you tear apart these thoughts...they are not my thoughts...they are just things that I threw out there to see what would happen...I'm more of the thought that Creation and Evolution come together and support each other....I don't believe that the world was created in 7 literal days...but each day is more of a time frame that allowed for human comprehension of the history before the existance of man...these are just my thoughts....
So you do not abide by the literal word of god?

Then why bother? Why do you cling to creationism if it is only a tool, a parable. Granted, it's some rather heady stuff (though wrong in some cases as to the order) if you read it loosely, but then again, so could anything else. Why would you insist upon teaching ID if you awknowledge that it is only a story?

Sure if you want to compare a horse with a human.

But the chimp?

They are self aware.
They use tools.
They have the capacity to lie.
They make war.
They problem solve.
They play politics to advance ones social standing.

The Chimp is something creationists avoid since they offer some rather startling comparisons.


1. Recognizing oneself in a mirror does not equate to self-awareness. Self-awareness is the concept of I or the Self.

2. As do many animals.

3. Can't bother with this until I see your source

4. As does nearly every animal :D

5. Now this is where the issue begins. It is kind of intriguing how an ape can manage to think of placing a chair in order to reach a banana hanging from the ceiling. However, their capacity for reason is far inferior to ours.

6. That's a bit much lol, let's just say they have a more complex social structure than most animals ;)

Hunting Eagles:

If you believe in God....then is it so hard to fathom that He created humans just like it states in the Bible?....the account in Genesis is very descriptive about the creation of man and of woman...but the creation of everything else is very brief, so who knows exactly "how" He created the world?...we just know that He created it....I think that it is also neat that from Adam and Eve you can also follow the geneology through the ages and actually map it out....it's a tedious job, but it has been done....did you know that Methuselah died the same year of the flood?....interesting fact, but it is not known if he died before the flood, or because of the flood...but the geneology of the Bible is such interesting stuff...

So you do not abide by the literal word of god?

Then why bother? Why do you cling to creationism if it is only a tool, a parable. Granted, it's some rather heady stuff (though wrong in some cases as to the order) if you read it loosely, but then again, so could anything else. Why would you insist upon teaching ID if you awknowledge that it is only a story?



Discern between ID and creationism. One allows for evolution, directed by God. The other does not.

Discern between ID and creationism. One allows for evolution, directed by God. The other does not.
Occam's Razor...

So you do not abide by the literal word of god?

Then why bother? Why do you cling to creationism if it is only a tool, a parable. Granted, it's some rather heady stuff (though wrong in some cases as to the order) if you read it loosely, but then again, so could anything else. Why would you insist upon teaching ID if you awknowledge that it is only a story?

I wouldn't teach it is school. In the Jewish religion, one of the primary responsibilities of every Jew is to teach their children the religion. I will teach my children what the bible says, and what I believe. If they disagree with me, and want to follow the bible precisely, then I willbe upset, but will have done what I can. As long as my children do not convert to another religion, I have not failed. It is not my place to teach other parents children what I believe if it is different than their beliefs, at least on religion. Science is another matter. I should teach what is currently accepted by science, being careful to include that science changes.

Occam's Razor...



Well, ID necessitates a god, so the razor doesn't apply in this case :D

Well, ID necessitates a god, so the razor doesn't apply in this case :D
Occam's razor does not work that way.

CSW:

I do think that the Bible is literal, but literal in the context of the time period...the Bible is perfect and inspired by God, but written by Man's understanding of his world...have you read the entire Bible? I believe that God created the world, but used the laws of science to do it...except when it comes to the creation of man...the creation of man is told very differently in the Bible than the creation of everything else...I believe that it was Divine, and that we were created in God's image....but I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the depiction of what we see in artwork and such....I also don't believe that Jesus was white...He would've been darker and looked like someone from Israel...

Well, ID necessitates a god, so the razor doesn't apply in this case :D
ID, is, essentially, evolution with God. God is a postulation.

Glossing over much of the differences, which really don't exist once we get down to the meat and potatoes of the thing ('irreducable complexity' does not exist, unless the item being irreducable complex is something as basic as an amino acid), and in the context of the above, the creation myth story, we have two theories.

First, is evolution, taking the creation myth as a parable that has been extended and twisted to mean evolution.

Second is ID, guided evolution.

Subtract one from another, and ID has one thing, one postulation that evolution proper does not have, mainly the existance of a god. Occam's razor states that the theory with the least number of postulations tends to be correct (for a number of reasons, basically as wikipedia quips "At the same time, without the principle of Occam's Razor science does not exist...[a]s an example, perhaps you are investigating Newton's famous theory that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's easy to think of alternative theories which fit the data equally well. One such theory would be that for every action there is an opposite action of half intensity, but benevolent indetectable creatures magnify the opposing action with input of their own energy so it appears to be equal. These creatures will all die in the year 2055, and at that point the observable nature of the universe will instantly shift. This is an alternative theory which fits currently observable evidence just as well as Newton's theory. Furthermore we are currently unable to collect any evidence that one theory is superior to the other. Because the second theory states these creatures are undetectable, we cannot have any evidence to distinguish between the two theories until 2055")

1. Recognizing oneself in a mirror does not equate to self-awareness. Self-awareness is the concept of I or the Self.


Ahh never read Harlow and the dot tests did you?


2. As do many animals.

Ok name them? Which ones go about making a tool for a solution?


3. Can't bother with this until I see your source

That was a tape at Berkeley. They had a chimp that kept signing for cookies. They found out he was getting double his alotment.

So they set up a test. While he was out for playtime, the rigged a camera. He got his noon treat then a lab guy came in. He signed for a cookie. Lab signed back didn't you get one? Chimp signed no. Didn't mary give you one? No.

There are other instances of it and even Dr. Goodall commented on it. Nobody has done a formal study on it yet.


4. As does nearly every animal :D

Not when it involves rudimentary strategy and looks to eliminate key inviduals of the rival troop. Goodall reported that.


5. Now this is where the issue begins. It is kind of intriguing how an ape can manage to think of placing a chair in order to reach a banana hanging from the ceiling. However, their capacity for reason is far inferior to ours.

Chair and blocks for a banana isn't done anymore. Try working puzzles and locks.


6. That's a bit much lol, let's just say they have a more complex social structure than most animals ;)

Read Chimpanzee Politics by De Waal. Kano, Goodall, and *just blanked his name* mention it as well.

CSW:

I do think that the Bible is literal, but literal in the context of the time period...the Bible is perfect and inspired by God, but written by Man's understanding of his world...have you read the entire Bible? I believe that God created the world, but used the laws of science to do it...except when it comes to the creation of man...the creation of man is told very differently in the Bible than the creation of everything else...I believe that it was Divine, and that we were created in God's image....but I don't believe that Adam and Eve were the depiction of what we see in artwork and such....I also don't believe that Jesus was white...He would've been darker and looked like someone from Israel...
Numerous times. The order, by the way, for creation is wrong.

Hunting Eagles:

If you believe in God....then is it so hard to fathom that He created humans just like it states in the Bible?....the account in Genesis is very descriptive about the creation of man and of woman...but the creation of everything else is very brief, so who knows exactly "how" He created the world?...we just know that He created it....I think that it is also neat that from Adam and Eve you can also follow the geneology through the ages and actually map it out....it's a tedious job, but it has been done....did you know that Methuselah died the same year of the flood?....interesting fact, but it is not known if he died before the flood, or because of the flood...but the geneology of the Bible is such interesting stuff...

Because I belive in science, and the Jewish religion at the same time. If I believe that God simply created Adam and Eve after everything else, even though science has shown that not to be the case, then I would be choosing religion over science. By believing what I believe, I leave room for both, without declaring that all of Genisis is false and that there is no God.

As a side note, there is some new genetic evidence that all living humans are descended from one couple at some point in the past. This means that the offspring of that couple had some advantage, and over the generations, the offspring of the other couples died out and went extinct. Therefore, by my beliefs, God knew that this evolution would occur, with all of humanity from one couple, and he chose the names Adam and Eve (or their Hebrew equivelant) for the story.

CSW:

Explain your position....

CSW:

Explain your position....
Which?

Ok name them? Which ones go about making a tool for a solution?

There are several species of birds who will make (very) simple tools, from time to time. Not that I don't agree with everything you're saying, here. :)

Because I belive in science, and the Jewish religion at the same time. If I believe that God simply created Adam and Eve after everything else, even though science has shown that not to be the case,

Eh? Science went about testing for the existince of Adam and Eve? :eek: ;)



As a side note, there is some new genetic evidence that all living humans are descended from one couple at some point in the past.

You talking the mitocondrial? That hasn't been blessed yet......

Hunting Eagles:

That still doesn't explain why you can actually chart the geneology of the Bible....and it lines up right from Adam and Eve....and the flood DID wipe out all of man-kind, except for Noah and his family...so we did start from scratch again after Adam and Eve!!

There are several species of birds who will make (very) simple tools, from time to time. Not that I don't agree with everything you're saying, here. :)


Really? Didn't know that as birds are not one of my strong points.

What for example does one of them do?

CSW...of the order for creation being wrong....explain that...

According to genesis, the earth was created before the sun, there is a rather large amount of water above our heads (that's solid water, not clouds, recall, and above that is heaven), it has water created before land (not possible), land plants came about before sea plants or any other forms of life (doesn't happen), and birds were created before animals (again, backwards).

Really? Didn't know that as birds are not one of my strong points.

What for example does one of them do?
http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/birds.htm

http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/birds.htm

Now that is interesting! Thank you!

Good site too! Bookmarked that baby!

There are several species of birds who will make (very) simple tools, from time to time. Not that I don't agree with everything you're saying, here. :)



That's what I was referring to. I think it was a species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. It uses a sharp stick for various purposes, mainly to extract food from rough places.

Hunting Eagles:

That still doesn't explain why you can actually chart the geneology of the Bible....and it lines up right from Adam and Eve....and the flood DID wipe out all of man-kind, except for Noah and his family...so we did start from scratch again after Adam and Eve!!

Great, you can track geneology written from a story. Well, lets use one of the creationist arguments. Show me a film of Adam and Eve's children, and children's children being born, and so on. Otherwise, it is just what is written down. Here, I can write down another list:

Adam and Eve had a son and daughter named Tom and Jill...

Prove mine wrong. You can't. Therefore, saying that you can track a geneology that has no proven evidence of truth does not prove that the literal story of Adam and Eve is true.

As for the new genetic evidence I was talking about, someone said that it has not received science's blessing yet. That is true, it i a work in progress, and may turn out to be wrong. I just wanted to throw it out there. Sorry if I confused anyone.

That's what I was referring to. I think it was a species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. It uses a sharp stick for various purposes, mainly to extract food from rough places.

Yup, Galapagos Woodpecker will use thorns to get at insects. The Green Heron will actually drop bait into water to catch fish. Most thrushes will use rocks to bash open snail shells. Apparently, one of the most versatile tool-using birds is the new caledonian crow:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml

Many species are a lot cleverer(?) than we give them credit for, or if you prefer, we like to put ourselves on a bit of a pedestal. :)

Yup, Galapagos Woodpecker will use thorns to get at insects. The Green Heron will actually drop bait into water to catch fish. Most thrushes will use rocks to bash open snail shells. Apparently, one of the most versatile tool-using birds is the new caledonian crow:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml

Many species are a lot cleverer(?) than we give them credit for, or if you prefer, we like to put ourselves on a bit of a pedestal. :)

Another decent site.

Bastards. Now I have to add more to my never ending reading pile! ;)

CSW....

The Bible says nothing about creating the sun second....in Genesis it says: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the deep, and God's spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 And God saw that light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And evening was and morning was: the first day.

There is no mention of the sun in any way...there is mention of the earth not being in a light and dark cycle....the sun could've already been created...and God took His time creating the orbit that we know today....

as far as the second day, Genesis continues....6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters separating the waters from the waters."
7 And so God made the expanse, and he separated the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so.
8 God called the expanse "heaven." And evening was and morning was: the second day.

Again, I think that this is a man's comprehension of the creation of the atmosphere and the oceans....I don't think that the "waters" in the sky mean H2O....it is a poetic description...

and as far as the rest of it...it's really about how you believe evolution works...many people believe that the sea is where life began...I would like to know the science behind your beliefs....

Hunting Eagles:

You completely missed my point...I'm not here to make you believe something, or prove something...all I'm saying is that if you take the book of Genesis and track the geneology..it is all there and intact...and it continues through the entire Old Testament...you can trace Adam and Eve to Noah....Noah's family to Moses and the Twelve Tribes and so forth and so on....there is no break...there are no theories in between generations....just so and so begat so and so....research it for yourself...it's just interesting that is all...

Wow this thread is going around.

Hovind says evolution is BS.
People say Hovind is an idiot.
Evolution vs Creationism
Primates
Birds
Bible talk.

What next?

many people believe that the sea is where life began...I would like to know the science behind your beliefs....

Earlier I talked about experiments duplicating Earths early conditions, experiments that created amino acids. Those experiments were done with ocean conditions, since water is a necessery ingrediant, if you will. In addition, the chemical reactions necesserry to go from amino acids to protiens must take place in a water solution. That is the scientific evidence for life forming in water, and since the vast majority of liquid water is in the oceans, probably there.

Hunting Eagles:

You completely missed my point...I'm not here to make you believe something, or prove something...all I'm saying is that if you take the book of Genesis and track the geneology..it is all there and intact...and it continues through the entire Old Testament...you can trace Adam and Eve to Noah....Noah's family to Moses and the Twelve Tribes and so forth and so on....there is no break...there are no theories in between generations....just so and so begat so and so....research it for yourself...it's just interesting that is all...

I can do the same thing, from the awakening of the first Elves, to the birth of Aragorn II, son of Arathorn, in Tolkien's Middle Earth. :)

Hunting Eagles:

So then that does support the theory that water could've been created before land as it states in the Bible....

Hunting Eagles:

You completely missed my point...I'm not here to make you believe something, or prove something...all I'm saying is that if you take the book of Genesis and track the geneology..it is all there and intact...and it continues through the entire Old Testament...you can trace Adam and Eve to Noah....Noah's family to Moses and the Twelve Tribes and so forth and so on....there is no break...there are no theories in between generations....just so and so begat so and so....research it for yourself...it's just interesting that is all...

I have looked at that, and I agree, it is very interesting. I especially like how it brings modern enemies together. For example, the Jews trace there direct lineage to be from Abraham and his son Isaac. As you say, the geneology is traced to there. The bible talks of another son of Abraham, Ishmael (again, I am misspelling), who Abraham's wife forced him to cast away, along with his servant mother. God promised Abraham that just as Isaac's children would be the chosen people, he would look after Ishmael, and build a kingdom around him. Islam traces its roots through Ishmael.

Warrigal:

I'm sure you can....but I'm actually referring to the idea that if you believe that Moses really led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land and that the Twelve Tribes existed....and that generally the events in the Old Testament did occur, that there is the geneology to back up that all of those people mentioned throughout the Old Testament stem from Adam and Eve without any pauses or breaks in the family trees....

Hunting Eagles:

So then that does support the theory that water could've been created before land as it states in the Bible....

No, it doesn't. It neither supports, nor denies it. All it says is that there was water at that time. It allows for both. This is one of the common mistakes I see with non-scientists, they often can infer too much from a given theory. For example, people think that because the color we see is that which is reflected or emitted off objects, that the sky reflects just the color blue. In fact, the sky reflects (or refrects) a band of colors ranging from purple, to blue, to green, and your brain interperets them as blue.

Hunting Eagles:

Exactly!! I just think that the geneology behind the Bible is very interesting...I also think that it is interesting that 3 MAJOR religions (Judaism, Islam and Chirstianity) all worship the God of Abraham and that the story of creation is very similar for all three, too...just a thought...

Warrigal:

I'm sure you can....but I'm actually referring to the idea that if you believe that Moses really led the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land and that the Twelve Tribes existed....and that generally the events in the Old Testament did occur, that there is the geneology to back up that all of those people mentioned throughout the Old Testament stem from Adam and Eve without any pauses or breaks in the family trees....

well many people believe that those names were family names, not individual names. hence their longevity. However sometimes it gives individual stories of people, but I dunno, tis a theory I have stumbled upon, just offering it up.

Hunting Eagles:

I was more trying to state that the idea that the order of creation in the Bible is wrong is not "fact"...it is merely someone's theory....as with anything that we are talking about here...."proof" I'm sure could be "found" to back up both sides...

Orteil Mauvais:

In the Old Testament it gets pretty specific...there are even recorded numbers of the first census that the 12 tribes were instructed to take....once you get to the Twelve Tribes and past that...not every single person is named much past that just the people who are more significant....and you can track their geneology all of the way back, too....you can even trace Jesus all of the way back....

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)


Yes, we all agree evolution is a theory and so would staunch evolutionsists. However, creation and intelligent design is at best hypotheses and mythology. While none are proof, evolution is on firm scientific ground while creation and intelligent design is not.

Orteil Mauvais:

Also, in the Bible God eventually shortens the life span of man: Genesis 6:3 states: 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." It is very clear that as one charts the geneology, the names mentioned in the Bible are individual people...actually sit down and read Genesis...you will see what I mean.

You can't prove all aspects, you can only present strong evidence supporting it. Which is why nobody will be receiving a quarter-million :D

I'm gonna set up a fund of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove the Earth is round and show me positively and definitively that there aren't just strange phenomena at the edges of the world that warp you to the other side and other strange phenomena that make it seem round from space. Then when nobody claims the award due to all my ridiculous standards, which include proving the nonexistence of supernatural forces, I'll use it as evidence that the Earth is flat.

"# The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
# No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal."

You can already tell hes an idiot.

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)

got this far.....
"is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment."

..... and realised no-one could ever win the money.

I then saw this and realised......

Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

....whovever sends them a message will be receive religious junkmail until said judgement day comes.

Evolution is a scientific theory.
It's the work of "Man".
As such it is constantly questioned and updated. Perhaps one day it will even be replaced.

Creation is a metaphysical theory.
It's the work of "God".
As such it is never questioned, never updated. It will never be replaced.

Out of the two "schools of thought", I will always choose the first.

I cant believe people who refuse evolutionism after all the strong evidence supporting it and prefer a fantastic myth could exist in a society that is believed to be advanced.

The bible is just as good literature as Harry Potter or Tolkien. The most it will do to anyone reading is to realise the fantasies their ancestors once believed to explain what is obvious.

To put it simple: to compare creationism with evolutionism is like having one game where one team plays soccer and the other american football. They can never be put together.

*BUMP*
Anophales
peppered moth
ambulocetus natans
Falcarium
australopithecus afarensis (and sub class this year Addis Ababa Ethiopia)

Now to appease the "creationists" we just have to prove that a non-biological organism like, say, a ROCK, will *NOT* magically transmogrify into a toad or something like that.

:rolleyes:

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.

1. Does Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" really encompass the creation of the universe?

2. Doesn't it strike anyone as hypocritical for this guy to say 'Your science should be called 'faith' and is completely bullsh*t' and then turn around and tell everyone to "Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible"? I mean, he doesn't have any more evidence to support his claim than the evolutionists do.
actually, he has a lot less.

And yes, as people have said before, there is no way to prove not only this, but really ANYTHING, to the level that he wants it proven.

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.
Newsflash: Almost all wildlife photographs are staged. Try again.

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.
Oh? (honestly curious) got a linky for us?

Oh? (honestly curious) got a linky for us?

Those of true faith have no need for links.

Newsflash: Almost all wildlife photographs are staged. Try again.

Of course they were.

Where do you think the training happened for the staged landings on the moon?

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.


mmm, peppered moths with a veal stock reduction.

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.
SOMEONE doesn't read enough SCIENCE journals and instead tends to the listening aspects of social living more.

Try the Skeptical Inquirer, THIS YEAR.

On a similar note/topic .....

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/falcarius_utahensis/
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors. It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.

I'll post on the peppered moth when i bother looking it up. Got other things to do right now...

;)

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!

To do this....go to this website:
http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=67

Good Luck!! :)


Nobody can prove theories. All you can do is falsificate (critical rationalism). But I bet I don't get 250,000 if I can falsificate the theory of evolution...

A VIDEO?!?!? How the fuck would one even document EVOLUTION IN A VIDEO?! You cant. Thats how. Total nOOb.


You can! You just follow a species around for millions of years videoing it, and wait for it to evolve. Then play it speeded up, like those documentaries that show trees growing and stuff. It would have to be speeded up a bit more than those though. obviously. and youd need an assistant to carry the extra film/memory. Ooooooh a robot could do it!! a time travelling robot. it could be modelled on Arnie.
although the robot from short circuit would probably be more practical for film making purposes.

Nobody can prove theories. All you can do is falsificate (critical rationalism). But I bet I don't get 250,000 if I can falsificate the theory of evolution...

Well you probably would since that is his thing.

He is a fraud however. People have put in for it and for some reason he doesn't return phone calls. ;)

I would give you 20 grand if you would define "falsificate" to me.

Clearly, it means "to falsify." 20 grand, please.

You can! You just follow a species around for millions of years videoing it, and wait for it to evolve. Then play it speeded up, like those documentaries that show trees growing and stuff. It would have to be speeded up a bit more than those though. obviously. and youd need an assistant to carry the extra film/memory. Ooooooh a robot could do it!! a time travelling robot. it could be modelled on Arnie.
although the robot from short circuit would probably be more practical for film making purposes.

Ah, but said robot would then change history. Inevitably causing a mass extinction which wipes out our early ancestors and eventually gives rise to a species of sentient amphibious squid who worship the darkly occult figure of a squid's body topped by a subtly altered human's head. They will call it Uhluhtc, and it will be said to come from the Lands that are Never Wet.

My favorites:



Versus:

[/list]
So even if you were to find this first life form and it's attendant offspring [demonstrating, of course, that it had changed noticably], the evidence would be rejected as being "minor changes within the same [animal]."

Classic.

1st= Microevolution
2nd= Macroevolution

1st= Microevolution
2nd= Macroevolution

Difference?

1st= Microevolution
2nd= Macroevolution

microevolution is visible in a human lifetime. Inevitably, a long series of small changes results in a large change. Unless you have proof that after something changes, it cannot change again?

Therefore microevolution begets macroevolution, inevitably.

Ah, but said robot would then change history. Inevitably causing a mass extinction which wipes out our early ancestors and eventually gives rise to a species of sentient amphibious squid who worship the darkly occult figure of a squid's body topped by a subtly altered human's head. They will call it Uhluhtc, and it will be said to come from the Lands that are Never Wet.
I always look forward to your posts. They scare me and educate me ... in an exciting and tantalizing way!!! :eek: :fluffle:

Difference?
Scientifically, microevolution refers to changes within a species. Macroevolution refers to changes that result in speciation or more.
Both have been observed on multiple occasions.

Scientifically, microevolution refers to changes within a species. Macroevolution refers to changes that result in speciation or more.
Both have been observed on multiple occasions.

I was talking more in an attempt to show the fool that the difference between them is superficial.

I always look forward to your posts. They scare me and educate me ... in an exciting and tantalizing way!!! :eek: :fluffle:

At last! Positive reinforcement!

The offer is a joke.

Item 3 in the offers conditions basicly says that any irrefutable evidence available won't qualify. You can not definitavely 'prove' anything not within recorded history and the offer discounts any evolutionary changes within recorded history as too minor to prove the theory. They'll never pay no matter what you offer as proof, either by discounting archological evidence as not beyond a shadow of a doubt or historical evidence as too minor to prove the point. It's an attention grabbing attempt carefully worded and stipulated to never have to pay out.

it's been showed that the peppered moths were a fraud.
Actually, it's been shown the peppered moth study is a classic text book case study of NATURAL SELECTION and the creationists who don't know the difference purporting it as fraudulent proof of evolution is the fraud.

Actually, it's been shown the peppered moth study is a classic text book case study of NATURAL SELECTION and the creationists who don't know the difference purporting it as fraudulent proof of evolution is the fraud.
My brain hurts

Interesting thread to jump into on my first time here. My 2cents worth...

This whole contest is nothing more then religious propaganda. The man is basically saying that your faith is wrong, mine is correct, so you better jump on my bandwagon because I have friends who have money and you can be saved!

Personally, I'd much rather have my public school child be taught about evolution, and how it's been proven already, rather then teaching her about the hypocrisy and incestuous beginnings of life from the bible. Hello! That's what private schools are for!

I've had this conversation with my dad before. He wanted me to show proof of why evolution is right and the bible is wrong. My response was "The question should really be this: How can the bible prove that humans were created by God and not by evolution? According to your Bible, God created Adam from dirt in God's own image then created Eve from one of Adam's ribs. Where did God get the image for Eve from? Once the forbidden fruit was eaten and they were cast out from Eden, Adam and Eve went on to populate the earth. The question now becomes, how did they populate the entire planet without incest? Yet, according to the Bible, incest is a sin. Oh, look at that. Inconsistency!" To which my father just stared at me with a stupid look on his face and began spouting some verses from his "Holy Bible". I personally choose the facts of evolution.

The new question should now be something like this: Have humans now evolved to their limit? Are we as evolved as we will ever become?

The new question should now be something like this: Have humans now evolved to their limit? Are we as evolved as we will ever become?


Unless we become extinct, we inevitably have to evolve, if only slightly. As I said before, this is what scares creationists...that we are not God's last creation. Personally, I think if we are the best God can do, I'm not impressed.

At last! Positive reinforcement!
See, this would be an example of "scaring" me .... ;)

You rock.
*bows*

Actually, it's been shown the peppered moth study is a classic text book case study of NATURAL SELECTION and the creationists who don't know the difference purporting it as fraudulent proof of evolution is the fraud.
Fair 'nuff!!
Green is the new mauve.

There's no such thing as "evolutionists."

I don't believe in them.

*un-lurks*

Someone should really make a counter-offer to this guy asking him to prove God exists by providing (yet not limiting) the following evidence:

1) Video evidence of God

2) The energy source and energy expendature required to perform a miracle.

3) What material constitutes a soul (including all physical data).

4) Finding out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Any other additions? Comments?

*re-lurks*

How do you split $250000 over six billion people minus a couple of cranks?

There's no such thing as "evolutionists."

I don't believe in them.

Do you believe in alcohol?

*un-lurks*

Someone should really make a counter-offer to this guy asking him to prove God exists by providing (yet not limiting) the following evidence:

1) Video evidence of God

2) The energy source and energy expendature required to perform a miracle.

3) What material constitutes a soul (including all physical data).

4) Finding out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Any other additions? Comments?

*re-lurks*
Excellent!! All are criterion of an irrational concept curbed into a rational matrix.

*bows*
I think you'll get the "anecdotal" but the rest mightn't hold up much.

WTF, guys if anybody can prove that evolution exists 250K$ will be NOTHING, think about it, publish ti and you get millions upon millions, compared to the crappy 250K$ this guy is offering.

WTF, guys if anybody can prove that evolution exists 250K$ will be NOTHING, think about it, publish ti and you get millions upon millions, compared to the crappy 250K$ this guy is offering.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Evolution has already been shown to exist. It's old news.

A few things to say bout that:

1. I want to kill that guy ( what an overzealous christian). (NO FLAME OR TROLL INTENDED)

2. I am an athiest, i believe in evolution. I dont know it is right. However, it is the most scientifficaly possible. The fact that one living being was able to create all life, is now where NEAR scientificaly possible.

3. Can't all beliefs just get along?!?!?!?!?!

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

Evolution has already been shown to exist. It's old news.

Very true. The only problem is that the flat-earthers refuse to even consider the evidence.

True, it has been shwon to exist (bug off im an atheist and definitley belive in evolution) but it has nto been proven to beyond a doubt.

True, it has been shwon to exist (bug off im an atheist and definitley belive in evolution) but it has nto been proven to beyond a doubt.

Nothing has. It's been proven beyond a probable doubt though.

A few things to say bout that:

1. I want to kill that guy ( what an overzealous christian). (NO FLAME OR TROLL INTENDED)

2. I am an athiest, i believe in evolution. I dont know it is right. However, it is the most scientifficaly possible. The fact that one living being was able to create all life, is now where NEAR scientificaly possible.

3. Can't all beliefs just get along?!?!?!?!?!

Flaming and trolling ken hovind? Hardly a crime. That pig deserves all the abuse he can get.

True, it has been shwon to exist (bug off im an atheist and definitley belive in evolution) but it has nto been proven to beyond a doubt.

The problem is the fact that Hovind has no plans to pay anyting. It's just a stunt.

People have put in for it but he seems to never return phone calls.

Go figure.....

The problem is the fact that Hovind has no plans to pay anyting. It's just a stunt.

People have put in for it but he seems to never return phone calls.

Go figure.....

It makes me chuckle that his name is just 2 letters from reading as Hominid.

this really pisses me off. Science is not 'out to get' religion. The theory of evolution is evil? Wtf? Just cause a guy named Darwin came up with, rather, he observed natural selection? I dont understand how this could threaten your religious beliefs. Is it so hard to believe that maybe God or whoever you wish to pray to did create the universe and therefore created organisms so damn complex that they were able to evolve so as to better adapt to a changing world?
Besides, the people who wrote the bible also thought the earth was flat so dont even start with the "disagrees with the bible" argument.

It makes me chuckle that his name is just 2 letters from reading as Hominid.

:)

You know I never clicked on that one. ;)

You better be careful though. If he hears you he might start talking about why life doesn't evolve from a rock again. ;)

Sorry, I'm lazy and only read some of the posts (I never spell check either). Unfortunately no matter how much evidence we give for evolution people will still choose to believe what they wish to believe. The same goes for people believing in Christianity. God says several times in the Bible that he won't bother showing certain people signs because even if He showed them signs they still wouldn't believe. Its human nature to be delusional. Nothing could be satisfactory to the people offering the money. Besides its impossible to prove anything completly without a doubt. It's a matter of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that has been done allready with evolution. Or put another way its about proving things to a certain probability of being true. Most people aren't aware of nor understand the best evidence for evolution so I don't want to attack those who don't believe in evolution. The antropology and palentology stuff is largely crap, but the genetic evidence is amazing.

Sorry, I'm lazy and only read some of the posts (I never spell check either). Unfortunately no matter how much evidence we give for evolution people will still choose to believe what they wish to believe. The same goes for people believing in Christianity. God says several times in the Bible that he won't bother showing certain people signs because even if He showed them signs they still wouldn't believe. Its human nature to be delusional. Nothing could be satisfactory to the people offering the money. Besides its impossible to prove anything completly without a doubt. It's a matter of proving things beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that has been done allready with evolution. Or put another way its about proving things to a certain probability of being true. Most people aren't aware of nor understand the best evidence for evolution so I don't want to attack those who don't believe in evolution. The antropology and palentology stuff is largely crap, but the genetic evidence is amazing.

Eh, what, what is this about genetic evidence? I would be interested in hearing what evidence you are thinking of. (I know a little about this area of biology.)

When I was in highschool I didn't believe in evolution. Being a Christian, I was taught it was anti-Christian. I also didn't see any evidence for it. Largely because my defficent highschool didn't teach it much or all that well. What I found the most convincing was that of retroviral integration. Retroviruses insert themselves into the genome. Everyonce in a while this occurs in a gamete (reproductive cell). This can then get passed onto the next generation. Overtime the virus mutates along with the rest of the genome. Whats really amazing is that close relatives of humans will have the same virus inserted in the same possition in their genome. Since retroviral insertions are largely random (not entirely random in that they prefer to integrate near active genes and some near certain possitions in active genes) its just about impossible for two seperate integration events to occur in the same place. Even more so in both species the same mutations will be seen in the virus sequence. Thats even more impossible. The only way for this to happen is for the virus to have integrated into a common ancestor of both species. Whats even greater about using retroviruses to study evolution is that they have long terminal repeats LTRs. These are identical sequences flanking both ends of the virus. That means one can get an idea of how mutated the provirus (thats what inserted viruses are called) is based on how different the two sequences are. And before its argued otherwise, yes, one can be certain these were viruses given the LTRs and recognizable viral genes (even though in the vast majority of cases these viruses are inactive). Do I win the money?

I found this link for you. You can also search google. I hope its not too much science jargon.

http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1483/480302.pdf

When I was in highschool I didn't believe in evolution. Being a Christian, I was taught it was anti-Christian. I also didn't see any evidence for it. Largely because my defficent highschool didn't teach it much or all that well. What I found the most convincing was that of retroviral integration. Retroviruses insert themselves into the genome. Everyonce in a while this occurs in a gamete (reproductive cell). This can then get passed onto the next generation. Overtime the virus mutates along with the rest of the genome. Whats really amazing is that close relatives of humans will have the same virus inserted in the same possition in their genome. Since retroviral insertions are largely random (not entirely random in that they prefer to integrate near active genes and some near certain possitions in active genes) its just about impossible for two seperate integration events to occur in the same place. Even more so in both species the same mutations will be seen in the virus sequence. Thats even more impossible. The only way for this to happen is for the virus to have integrated into a common ancestor of both species. Whats even greater about using retroviruses to study evolution is that they have long terminal repeats LTRs. These are identical sequences flanking both ends of the virus. That means one can get an idea of how mutated the provirus (thats what inserted viruses are called) is based on how different the two sequences are. And before its argued otherwise, yes, one can be certain these were viruses given the LTRs and recognizable viral genes (even though in the vast majority of cases these viruses are inactive). Do I win the money?

Hmmm....interesting. Does appear to be worth a look. I tried to open the PDF link, without success, since I'm on a friends computer and it wants to open it in Photo-shop, and I don't know enough about computers to fix the problem.

However, I find it hard to believe that you accepted evolution on the basis of this one argument. I would have thought you ought to have several, perhaps dozens more arguments, before you would be convinced.

I shall look at some of the points you made.

Firstly, I think that you are pointing out that, since genetic mutations accumulate in the virus DNA, each virus has it's own 'barcode'. Thus, each virus can be distinguished from other similar viruses (i.e. those that belong to the same species) by sequencing the virus DNA. I think the argument is that a discovery of the virus with the same sequence in both humans and their closest relatives is good evidence that the particular mutations that the virus carries must have occurred in the ancestor of the humans and chimps. Particularly when the virus with the particular sequence is located at the equivalent locations in both genomes.
(I don't know if I have worded it better, but at least you should be able to tell whether I have understood you.)

But before we can call this good evidence for the emergence of chimps and humans from the same ancestor, we have to know that this virus was not transmitted from humans to chimps, or visa versa, and that it really is impossible that the virus has the genetic information that targets the same position in the genome. To do that, we have to understand how viruses target. As far as I know, we do know that they prefer areas of higher transcription activity (genes that are more active than other genes, and exons rather than the intragenic regions). But a discovery of the same virus inserted in the same position can be explained also in terms of viral targeting. Perhaps it looks unlikely, but that 'unlikely' would not be sufficient to win a case in court (IMO).

Another problem with this discovery, is that if this virus was present in the ancestor of the humans and chimps, something like several millions of years ago, it is hardly likely that it has survived those millions of years to even resemble its original sequence, given the rate of mutation, unless the virus somehow served a very important function in the life of the mammal, so that mutations in it's sequence were selected against. I find that unlikely, since the insertion was not necessary for the parent individual.
What is more likely, is that those interesting repeats in the DNA have something to do with the nature of viruses (their survival), and not necessarily their ancestry (as is often the mistake made in genetics).

Furthermore, it is easy to find 'homology' in DNA repeats, because the repeats are generated, rather than conserved. If you have ever done a blast with a DNA sequence, you will find homology comming up in all sorts of genomes. Recently, for example, I was playing around with a bit of bacterial sequence (a repeat, in fact) and found homology in everything from bacteria to humans. (Actually, this was quite a disappointment for me, since I was hoping it was going to be a specific one.) In order to demonstrate that a virus has a conserved DNA sequence, you have to demonstrate that it is free from selective pressure resulting in the generation of homology. I doubt anyone is able to show this at this stage.

I think I would hold on to the money a little longer, for now.

Flaming and trolling ken hovind? Hardly a crime. That pig deserves all the abuse he can get.
Hear, hear!!!
*clang*

Hmmm....interesting. Does appear to be worth a look. I tried to open the PDF link, without success, since I'm on a friends computer and it wants to open it in Photo-shop, and I don't know enough about computers to fix the problem.

However, I find it hard to believe that you accepted evolution on the basis of this one argument. I would have thought you ought to have several, perhaps dozens more arguments, before you would be convinced.

No, this isn't the only evidence of evolution on which to base my belief. I just thought it was one of the more convincing arguments. You really should try to find this artical one way or another because it explains things much better then I can, and I think it will probably address most of the points you are making.


Firstly, I think that you are pointing out that, since genetic mutations accumulate in the virus DNA, each virus has it's own 'barcode'. Thus, each virus can be distinguished from other similar viruses (i.e. those that belong to the same species) by sequencing the virus DNA. I think the argument is that a discovery of the virus with the same sequence in both humans and their closest relatives is good evidence that the particular mutations that the virus carries must have occurred in the ancestor of the humans and chimps. Particularly when the virus with the particular sequence is located at the equivalent locations in both genomes.
(I don't know if I have worded it better, but at least you should be able to tell whether I have understood you.)

But before we can call this good evidence for the emergence of chimps and humans from the same ancestor, we have to know that this virus was not transmitted from humans to chimps, or visa versa, and that it really is impossible that the virus has the genetic information that targets the same position in the genome. To do that, we have to understand how viruses target. As far as I know, we do know that they prefer areas of higher transcription activity (genes that are more active than other genes, and exons rather than the intragenic regions). But a discovery of the same virus inserted in the same position can be explained also in terms of viral targeting. Perhaps it looks unlikely, but that 'unlikely' would not be sufficient to win a case in court (IMO).


So far it sounds like you understand the argument. Though I like to point out that its not necessary for mutations to occur in the provirus to make the conclusion that it integrated in a common ansestor. Simply the fact it is in the same place in both genomes is enough. Having the same mutations in both genomes is just further evidence because it makes it even less likely that the virus happened to specifically target that region in two seperate species. It suggests that there was a common ansestor in which the mutations occured. I can only think of one virus called Adeno-associated virus (AAV) that integrates in a specific region, but if I recall correctly it doesn't integrate at an exact spot, it just has a spot it prefers to integrate near. The viruses I'm talking about, however, are located at the exact same spot. As a side note, AAVs are significantly different from retroviruses and their integration is much different. The fact retroviruses have any preference at all to where they integrate probably has more to do with genomic structure then actual targeting. Regions of active gene expression are less compact and therefore are more accessable.


Another problem with this discovery, is that if this virus was present in the ancestor of the humans and chimps, something like several millions of years ago, it is hardly likely that it has survived those millions of years to even resemble its original sequence, given the rate of mutation, unless the virus somehow served a very important function in the life of the mammal, so that mutations in it's sequence were selected against. I find that unlikely, since the insertion was not necessary for the parent individual.
What is more likely, is that those interesting repeats in the DNA have something to do with the nature of viruses (their survival), and not necessarily their ancestry (as is often the mistake made in genetics).

A significant portion of our genome is made up of these old retroviral integrations. Some probably are mutated beyond recognition but not all. Having a provirus in ones genome can be advantageous because they sometimes prevent the replication of similar viruses, making the individual resistant to that virus. This has something to do with mechanisms the virus uses to remain latent. Using what we know about mutation rates many scientists believe they can estimate how long ago the virus integrated (these estimates tend to be broad and I'm pretty sceptical of them myself).

I'm not sure at what point you are getting at in the last sentence. Are you suggesting the repeats in the virus DNA are useful for the survival of the virus? If so then I would agree, but I don't see how that refutes the argument. What I was saying is the same virus is found in two different species at the same position. I'm suggesting that the two viruses are the same.


Furthermore, it is easy to find 'homology' in DNA repeats, because the repeats are generated, rather than conserved. If you have ever done a blast with a DNA sequence, you will find homology comming up in all sorts of genomes. Recently, for example, I was playing around with a bit of bacterial sequence (a repeat, in fact) and found homology in everything from bacteria to humans. (Actually, this was quite a disappointment for me, since I was hoping it was going to be a specific one.) In order to demonstrate that a virus has a conserved DNA sequence, you have to demonstrate that it is free from selective pressure resulting in the generation of homology. I doubt anyone is able to show this at this stage.

I think we are missunderstanding each other. I'm not following you. I'm not sure if its that you didn't understand something I said earlier, or that I don't understand what you are saying now. Are you refering to proviruses themselves as repeat elements or are you refering to the repeat elements within viruses? There are some people that use small repeat elements in genomes to make similar arguments for evolution and I'm wondering if you are getting that mixed up with the argument I'm making. I'll assume you are refering to my reference of compairing homology between the long terminal repeats of the virus. Each provirus has two indentical repeats on both ends of its sequence. They are generated during reverse transcription, which occurs prior to integration. Yes if you search for homology with different parts of the genome you might find matches, depending on how stringent you are. That's not what I'm suggesting. You are looking for two viral LTRs flanking viral genes. You are not compairing the LTRs with the rest of the genome, only against each other. The reason for this is that you know that they were once identical. Overtime, since the LTRs usually don't serve much purpose to the host, they gain mutations and become less identical. This simply means one can tell how much the provirus has mutated over time.


I think I would hold on to the money a little longer, for now.

Well I admit I was a little hasty. But I can't emphasize enough that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, only to high certainty. I'm not even 100% certain of my own existance. I'm even less certain of your existance. Yet I believe in them anyway. The evidence seems to lean that way. Its strange to me that evolution is held to such a higher standard then all other scientific knowledge.

snip


It's times like these when I'm glad I horde away essays that I find interesting...

----
The following is an argument demonstrating evidence for "macro-evolution"--that is, evolution in which the evolved organism is no longer a member of the same species as one of its ancestors. Its purpose was to challenge any creationists or intelligent design proponents, who commonly claim that there is no evidence for macro-evolution, to refute it. It was originally presented by "Reformentia" at <http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693>. Having read the entirity of the thread on which it was posted, I assert that no person made a valid counterargument; all either relied on logical fallacies (most notably strawmen) or ignored the challenge altogether.

The following is his (Reformentia's) post in its entirety. It is his work and I take no credit for it.
---

"I was recently engaged in another one of the evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design threads on the boards (Tired of them? Feel free to go away now) and for something like the 700th time I encountered the absurd claim that there is absolutely NO evidence for “macroevolution”. Rather than run through the (very) extensive list of evidence for macroevolution I figured we’d just narrow it down to one item and let the creationists and selected IDers try to explain why it isn’t actually evidence of “macroevolution”. In order to do that however a bit of explaining will be necessary first.

Retroviruses

Retroviruses contain viral RNA, as opposed to the DNA in humans and other animals and plants… and they also contain a reverse transcriptase. What this means is that they have the ability to insert the complimentary DNA sequence of their own RNA genetic code into the genetic code of the host organism they infect. It’s how they reproduce. Example of a retrovirus: HIV.

Here’s how it works in a little more detail.

The virus infects a cell. It then releases the reverse transcriptase. The reverse transcriptase makes a copy of viral DNA from the viral RNA. The viral DNA then gets spliced into the DNA of the infected host cell, at a random location… so from now on every time that cell’s DNA is replicated the viral DNA gets replicated right along with it. In the meantime the viral DNA in the cell serves as the template for producing new copies of viral RNA. Now, while the initial insertion point of the viral DNA is random, in any subsequent copies made when the cell reproduces the exact same location of the viral DNA will be copied as well.

(Side note: The random nature of the retroviral insertion is one well known hurdle faced by researchers of genetic therapies, since if they attempt to engineer a retrovirus to deliver their developed therapy to their patient a random insertion could place it in the middle of DNA that was already coding for something else that was fairly important)

When a retrovirus infects a host’s reproductive system - and thus the copies of the host’s DNA which will be passed on to it’s offspring - it becomes heritable by the host organism’s offspring, passed onto them just like any gene would be. And again, the location of the viral DNA within the genetic code will be the same as in the parent organism the DNA was inherited from.

The Evidence

The human genetic code is huge. It’s over 3 billion base pairs long. The genetic codes of the other primates (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, etc…) are similarly massive. The odds of a single retrovirus infecting two of these individual species independently and just happening through pure coincidence to randomly splice themselves into the exact same location in their DNA are, obviously, not good.

So if we were to find, for example, that an analysis of human and chimp DNA revealed a single identical retroviral genetic sequence at an identical location that would be extremely solid evidence that they had both inherited that genetic sequence from a common ancestor who was originally infected by the retrovirus… thus also inheriting it’s common location in their genome. Not only is this a similar type of evidence that is possible from analysis of other genetic information… but this information in particular is completely immune to being hand-waved away as being somehow due to “common design” of similar appearing animals or functions as IDers and creationists attempt (and I stress “attempt”) to do with other findings. There is no rational way to argue that a viral infection was an element of the design of an organism.

So, in all of our studying of the genetic codes of humans, chimps, and other primates have we found a case of a retroviral insertion in an identical location in both humans and another primate? No…

We’ve found multiple cases.

The odds of finding a single example occurring by coincidence are mind bogglingly bad. The odds of finding multiple examples occurring by coincidence are exponentially worse. They defy description. And for the final nail in the coffin (as if we needed it), there’s the pattern we find these common insertions in:

So far (with the sequencing of the human and primate genomes still far from complete) the primate species we share the most common insertions with are chimps, which all other genetic evidence says are the most closely related primates to humans. We share the second most common insertions with gorillas… the second most closely related primates. Third and fourth most common insertions = orangutans and gibbons respectively… also the third and fourth most closely related according to the other genetic evidence. Fifth most = old world monkeys… sixth most = new world monkeys… fifth and sixth most closely related groups, respectively, according to the other genetic evidence.

A diagram of the pattern of insertions in question, courtesy of talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/com.../retrovirus.gif

The arrows show where the evidence indicates the original retroviral infection occurred.

So please, creationists and IDers… explain how this piece of evidence isn’t actually evidence at all.

One note, don't bother bringing up the existence of other viruses that are capable of non-random targetted insertion. Yes, they exist (parvoviruses). No, these aren't them. They know this because the reason they were able to identify them in the first place is they know which viral proteins those sequences code for, and they aren't from parvoviruses.

Either that, or I expect never to see another one of you claiming there is no evidence for macroevolution. Those IDers (I'm aware they exist) who do not argue against there being evidence of macro-evolution may feel free to ignore this challenge. "

Once again, that was Reformentia. Not me.



EDIT: Does this mean I get 250k USD now? Nope. Why? Because 1: the standards of "proof" are a: rediculously high, b: arbetrary, and c: judged by individuals hostile to evolution, and 2: the money doesn't really exist because 3: he has no intention of ever paying it anyway, any more than he had any intention of going to a real university for his docterate degree.

Where's that book,ah yes here, Amino acids, (Organic compounds of carbon, hydrogen,oxgyen, and nitrogen. 'Life' of sorts) Can be formed when electricity is passed through a hot atmosphere of, Methane, water and Ammoina, amino acids form. Which the early earth was full of these conditions, out of contol storms, volocanos, no ozone layer. Plenty of water for these Animo acids to settle in and join forming colonial organisms. Which combined into whole singled celled organisms.

How did THIS universe form? As it is said matter must go somewhere correct? And Blackholes seem to make matter 'disappear' Where does it go? It goes outside time and space as this huge blob of matter, kind of like if you put something heavy on a plastic bag, it begans to sink, if the Universe was 2D. That would mean that the area where the mass made it lower is no longer in this universe, but what does this have to do with the universe. Well this base of the black hole continues to grow until, it pops, It breaks off, destroying the black hole, exploding, and spreading out in millions of pieces of matter. Behold the Big Freakin Bang. You can't find any true 'holes' in this can you?

No, this isn't the only evidence of evolution on which to base my belief. I just thought it was one of the more convincing arguments. You really should try to find this artical one way or another because it explains things much better then I can, and I think it will probably address most of the points you are making.


I did manage to find another computer and have a read of the article. Very interesting. But didn't like the way he used only 5 or 6 references. Rather unlike most good scientific literature. Apart from that, though, I thought it was rather well written, and made an interesting read for me on my early Sunday morning.
I also realized that I don't that much about genetics, particularly viral genetics.



So far it sounds like you understand the argument. Though I like to point out that its not necessary for mutations to occur in the provirus to make the conclusion that it integrated in a common ansestor. Simply the fact it is in the same place in both genomes is enough. Having the same mutations in both genomes is just further evidence because it makes it even less likely that the virus happened to specifically target that region in two seperate species. It suggests that there was a common ansestor in which the mutations occured. I can only think of one virus called Adeno-associated virus (AAV) that integrates in a specific region, but if I recall correctly it doesn't integrate at an exact spot, it just has a spot it prefers to integrate near. The viruses I'm talking about, however, are located at the exact same spot. As a side note, AAVs are significantly different from retroviruses and their integration is much different. The fact retroviruses have any preference at all to where they integrate probably has more to do with genomic structure then actual targeting. Regions of active gene expression are less compact and therefore are more accessable.

There are some things I still don't understand from the article. There is the point that the discovery of a virus inserted in a particular genomic position in every member of a species points to the insertion event occuring in early in the species, either in the ancestor of the species (i.e., one of the first members of the species), or the earlier species from which the second is derived. (This is jolly difficult to put into words). Then the next point is that the inserted virus, when found in the same position in two species, e.g. chimp and human, must have inserted in the ancestor of both the chimp and the human.

But my point is that in order for this to be safely assumed, one needs to rule out the possibility of targeted insertion. And we need to rule out the possibility of a transfection, i.e. from human to chimp or chimp to human. An example is where the few humans alive on earth were in direct contact with the few chimps alive, and the transmission of the virus took place, e.g., something like Noah's Ark. Currently, viral insertion is thought to be mostly random, apart from some few exceptions. To be careful, though, we need to know if the viruses in question belong to these exceptions. Also, we really need to sort out the forces behind this 'randomness'. A truly random virus might be expected to have several copies (depending if the first copy prevented a secondary copy) in a single genome, and multiple locations within a species. As you might know, the term 'randomness' simply means that either we don't know the parameters involved, or that the parameters are so complicated that we cannot predict the outcome (e.g. location of the viral insert) based on our current understanding of mathematics. The former is probably more likely in this case. An example of the latter would be trying to predict the exact point at which a drop of water hits the ground when it leaves a cloud 1000 meters high. The mathematics is far too complicated. The current explanation of viral insertion as being 'random' does not convince me that we can rule out targeted insertions, particularly when we are looking at 'ancient' remains of viruses that are most likely not functional any more. (So how could we determine whether they were random insertions or not? The observation it is located in the same position in each individual of the species won't tell us whether it was a targeted insertion or if it was inheirited.) As I said before, I'm no expert on viral genetics, so I am willing to learn, particularly before I make up my mind.


A significant portion of our genome is made up of these old retroviral integrations. Some probably are mutated beyond recognition but not all. Having a provirus in ones genome can be advantageous because they sometimes prevent the replication of similar viruses, making the individual resistant to that virus. This has something to do with mechanisms the virus uses to remain latent. Using what we know about mutation rates many scientists believe they can estimate how long ago the virus integrated (these estimates tend to be broad and I'm pretty sceptical of them myself).

I see your point. One viral insertion may prevent another, particularly, as the article pointed out, the viral proteins that form on the outermost structures of the cell can prevent subsequence infections. But at some point, the first copy of the virus must get mutated to such a point that the proteins that it encodes no longer functions as a protection. It is then a question of whether the original version of the virus is still around and wanting to infect an individual with the mutated version of the virus. If so, then there must be a subsequent infection. The paper doesn't mention this problem. Obviously, a new copy of the virus would confuse the results, though I've no idea what affect this would have on the conclusions. However, this raises another point. The paper assumes rates of virally associated mutations based on the date set on the divergence of humans from chimps, a nice round figure of 5 million years. But that figure comes from somewhere else, some other science research, and I was annoyed that the writer of the paper hadn't referenced it. If the figure is wrong, then the mutation rates are also wrong, which may mean a rearrangement of some of the basic conclusions.


I'm not sure at what point you are getting at in the last sentence. Are you suggesting the repeats in the virus DNA are useful for the survival of the virus? If so then I would agree, but I don't see how that refutes the argument. What I was saying is the same virus is found in two different species at the same position. I'm suggesting that the two viruses are the same.


It seems to me that the repeats are not only essential to the virus (essential for recombination insertion), but often the way in which the viruses are detected. (For example, if every member of the species has the virus, then there is no control for an experiment like Southern hybridization. How is one to know if it is a virus?) If the repeats are necessary for the virus, then that points to the function of the virus being more of a decisive factor than inheritance (since DNA sequences will quickly alter, in some cases, and those sequences that fulfil the requirements will be selected to suit their funtion--an example of this is the genes for antibody production). Therefore, it is dangerous to conclude from similarities in sequences that it MUST be because of inheritance. I have learned enough from bacterial genetics that this is continually a trap for geneticists, particularly ones that are too eager to prove the evolution of their species of interest (and consequently gain more recognition for their work).

Another minor point is the since DNA has only four 'letters', these repeats are likely to be easily similar, without being related through inheritance.



I think we are missunderstanding each other. I'm not following you. I'm not sure if its that you didn't understand something I said earlier, or that I don't understand what you are saying now. Are you refering to proviruses themselves as repeat elements or are you refering to the repeat elements within viruses? There are some people that use small repeat elements in genomes to make similar arguments for evolution and I'm wondering if you are getting that mixed up with the argument I'm making. I'll assume you are refering to my reference of compairing homology between the long terminal repeats of the virus. Each provirus has two indentical repeats on both ends of its sequence. They are generated during reverse transcription, which occurs prior to integration. Yes if you search for homology with different parts of the genome you might find matches, depending on how stringent you are. That's not what I'm suggesting. You are looking for two viral LTRs flanking viral genes. You are not compairing the LTRs with the rest of the genome, only against each other. The reason for this is that you know that they were once identical. Overtime, since the LTRs usually don't serve much purpose to the host, they gain mutations and become less identical. This simply means one can tell how much the provirus has mutated over time.


Yes, I was referring to the long terminal repeats (LTR). Sorry that my language is unclear. As I said before, it is also complicated by my unfamiliarty with viral genetics (e.g. I'm still learning the terms). What is not that clear to me is whether the proviruses are detected on the basis of the LTRs or of the intervening sequences. Given that a virus is about 10,000 bp, it is likely that they mostly use the intervening sequences. This would mean that my earlier point about the LTRs being rather common was a little misdirected and not so relevant. However, if the viruses are identified only on the basis of the LTRs, then I cannot see how they can make such assumptions about the older viruses, given that these sequences (LTRs) are most likely undergoing a more rapid mutation process than the sequences which code for proteins (assuming the proteins provide selectional advantage).

When the paper refers to viruses that have been around for millions of years, using them to decide how closely related we are to chimps and monkies becomes a little tricky. It basically means using all of the assumptions they covered in the paper. If one assumption is false, the rest fall like a pack of cards. It would mean starting again with their assumptions. It looks like they are trying to fit the data to an explanation that was already there (e.g. humans evolved from non-humans). But of course, that is the nature of science. But one has to see that the mutations, while providing the variation that we need in order to make the differentiations between species divergence (i.e. macroevolution) are also calling into question the validity of the assumptions.




Well I admit I was a little hasty. But I can't emphasize enough that nothing can be proven beyond doubt, only to high certainty. I'm not even 100% certain of my own existance. I'm even less certain of your existance. Yet I believe in them anyway. The evidence seems to lean that way. Its strange to me that evolution is held to such a higher standard then all other scientific knowledge.

Relax. I took your question about the money as humour. It did put a smile of my face. And you can believe that I do exist. But that raises a good point. Can you prove it? I suppose it depends whether the Bruarong that you are referring to (me) is a normal guy with a nomal life, or just an entity that replies to your posts. I think that you can prove, at least, that your posts were replied to (however poorly, I might add).

As for the standard of scientific knowledge that 'supports' evolution, of course it has to be held to a higher standard than the other stuff. There is a lot at stake. Witness the colossal mistakes that science has made in the past. Things like the birth pill (still controversial) and sun cream and genetically modified foods and such improvements that have come from science that have resulted in strife--although each rather important in themselves--are still not as critical as one's personal belief system (e.g., the issue over God). Science that supports or goes against evolution is perhaps the most criticised of all science. So it should be.

For all of you evolutionists out there....you think that evolution is more than a theory?...then I urge you to take a run at this challenge and make an easy $250,000.00!!I haven't read all the posts in this thread, because I've read them all before so many times I couldn't be bothered to count them.

So I don't know if anyone's pointed this out already, although I'm sure they will have:

No 'evolutionist' (a term invented by creationists for the sake of a tactic a friend of mine calls 'reversal') has ever claimed that evolution is 'more than a theory'. That's because, unlike creationists, those who learn a little bit about the subject know what a theory is in a scientific context.

Get this straight: creationism is the religion. Creationism depends on faith. Creationists point to the Bible and say it is 'proof' - but it is not. The veracity of the Bible is debatable, to say the least, and the stories in Genesis date back far beyond any concept of Christianity or 'salvation''. These stories are myths designed to be myths, because as I've said elsewhere, society back then knew what a myth was and appreciated its illustrative value - but they didn't expect for one moment that anyone would actually try to believe that myth was literal truth. Remarkable, in fact, to realise that a modern Creationist would have been considered by the writers of Genesis to be a deluded fool for trying to treat myth as literal truth.

Evolution, on the other hand, is science. It is observable. Testable. Demonstrated. Evolution has been exploited throughout human history by animal breeders, and the results are available for all to see. It is one of the greatest problems facing medical science today that micro-organisms are becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs. And how? They are evolving.

The evolution versus creationism debate is no debate. This is not a 'matter of perspective'. It is not a matter of there being two points of view equally valid. There is science, which is fact, and creationism, which is fantasy. A scientific principle of evolution, albeit not yet fully understood, has reams of material, historical, experimental, circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support it. Creationism has a single book and the fervent belief of a multitude of its faithful. But belief does not in itself make something true.

But the idea that creationists have that they must 'beat' science only goes to show the fragility of their own faith. While most believers in God can credit Him with the omnipotence their religion claims for Him, and thus allow Him to have created life in any way He saw fit, creationists have built their faith entirely on the writings of humans from long ago - misunderstood writings, at that. Thus, they cannot afford to credit God with omnipotence. He MUST have created the universe in a way THEY expect and understand. To imagine otherwise, even for one moment, would confront their faith with a challenge too great for it to overcome.

I did manage to find another computer and have a read of the article......

I won't quote the whole thing because that would be a lot of stuff to scroll through.

Yes two retroviruses could have similarities in their LTRs. Ah, I wasn't understanding what you were refuting the first time. You switched gears and were arguing that the viruses in the same position in both species weren't even necessarly the same type of retrovirus and may have been totally different retroviruses that just happened to contain some sequence homology. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you were arguing previously is a better argument when you said it may be the same retrovirus but different insertion events. Arguing they are different viruses is week in comparison because arguing they are different viruses means there must be some reason they are inserting in the same location (such as targeted insertion) and its far more likely that the same virus would insert twice in the same location then two different viruses. If this occured my argument would be just as flawed. In other words I was confused not because you weren't making a good argument, but because your argument about homology did nothing to further your much stronger argument before that.

Oh and a nice thing about LTRs is that you have two idenitcal regions for both viruses. This means that if the sequences of the proviruses in both species were once different but simply randomly mutated to appear similar over time, this would have to occur in both LTRs, which is less likely.

Anyway I think we can limit it to three reasons why what appears to be the same virus is in the same location in multiple species.

1. Virus integration is random and evolution does not occur. It is all mearly a coincidence. This is a statistical impossibility considering how many times this is seen.

2. The sequences are similar because its the same integration event that occured in a common ancestor. This is the argument I have been making. This is entirely possible, but appears to be a contradiction to literal interpretations of genesis. I believe this is probably your underlying problem with the argument. I'm not dissmissing it as a genuine concern, but its important that we know the underlying reasons behind arguments to understand the reasoning behind them.

3. The sequences are similar because the same retrovirus (or possibly a closely related one) uses targeted insertion and happened to get into the germline of the two different species. This is the argument you are making. There are a few problems I have with this.
A. This suggests a population bottleneck of some kind in both species. As you pointed out Noah's ark could address this.
B. This assumes retroviruses can integrate in a targeted mannor. I see no reason to assume this. It's not a bad argument, but not the most logical conclusion. Not that you are an expert in viral integration and would know that its not likely, so I don't blaim you. It's more logical to assume ancient viruses behave like modern ones then to assume they don't simply because you don't agree with the implications. Correct me if you find out otherwise, but there are no known viruses that integrate in a mannor targeted enough to confuse the results. The AAV example I gave was not a retrovirus, integrates in a much different mannor, and is still only targeted to a general area (not the exact same spot). Given what is known about retrovirus integration, targeted integration ever arrising seems unlikely. I can't think of how targeted integration could be beneficial to the virus, and the way retroviruses integrate its unlikely for targeted integration to occur without a selective advantage to do so. This may not be the case for AAV which integrates differently and whose targeted integration may just be happenstance do to its mechanism of integration. It may not be advantagous for AAV to integrate in a targeted manor, it just does.

I agree with your issues about how he dates things. I even said so earlier myself that I was sceptical of it. This doesn't refute the idea of using proviruses to discover evolutionary relationships, but does put into question dates one might come up with for species divergence.

Haha, just as I wasn't serious about asking for the money, I knew you weren't trying to be offensive about saying I shouldn't get the money quite yet. I was just using your response as an excuse to make a point about what it means to "prove" something. I come across more serious then I am. And I guess I can understand why those disputing evolution ask for a higher degree of proof considering it contradicts literal interpretations of genesis. But what I'm saying is the threshold of proof that people ask for is so high that nothing could be satisfactorly proven to that degree. I think the evidence for evolution is higher then that for the literal interpretation of genesis. Just my own personal oppinion. It's quite possible that we don't understand genesis or that it has been altered over time, etc.

I won't quote the whole thing because that would be a lot of stuff to scroll through.

Yes two retroviruses could have similarities in their LTRs. Ah, I wasn't understanding what you were refuting the first time. You switched gears and were arguing that the viruses in the same position in both species weren't even necessarly the same type of retrovirus and may have been totally different retroviruses that just happened to contain some sequence homology. Correct me if I'm wrong. What you were arguing previously is a better argument when you said it may be the same retrovirus but different insertion events. Arguing they are different viruses is week in comparison because arguing they are different viruses means there must be some reason they are inserting in the same location (such as targeted insertion) and its far more likely that the same virus would insert twice in the same location then two different viruses. If this occured my argument would be just as flawed. In other words I was confused not because you weren't making a good argument, but because your argument about homology did nothing to further your much stronger argument before that.

To tell you the truth, I can hardly see what are the strong arguments and what aren't at times. Unfamiliarity with this sort of research, put together with a sort of crash course (my morning sunday browsing), makes a bad combination for making conclusions.


Oh and a nice thing about LTRs is that you have two idenitcal regions for both viruses. This means that if the sequences of the proviruses in both species were once different but simply randomly mutated to appear similar over time, this would have to occur in both LTRs, which is less likely.

But this have been observed before. It happens when there is selective pressure. It could still be unlikely, but it is another assumption. It certainly gets used to explain many other aspects of evolution.


Anyway I think we can limit it to three reasons why what appears to be the same virus is in the same location in multiple species.

1. Virus integration is random and evolution does not occur. It is all mearly a coincidence. This is a statistical impossibility considering how many times this is seen.

OK, but statistical impossibilities don't seem to cause alarm for the average evolutionist. That may be a harsh statement, and perhaps not fairly directed to you. But I have often come up against this problem in my discussions with other pro-evolutioners.


As for it being true on the basis of statistics, that may change, depending on the new discoveries that are brought to light. One can only fairly say (from my point of view anyway, because I know so little about it) that the evidence (that I have been browsing through) would seem to point to the reasonable conclusion that macroevolution has occurred. But when I am confident that I am familiar with the area, and my reason is still telling me the same thing, then I will be more willing to pass a judgement.


2. The sequences are similar because its the same integration event that occured in a common ancestor. This is the argument I have been making. This is entirely possible, but appears to be a contradiction to literal interpretations of genesis. I believe this is probably your underlying problem with the argument. I'm not dissmissing it as a genuine concern, but its important that we know the underlying reasons behind arguments to understand the reasoning behind them.

My view is that similar sequences are consistent with common ancestry. I don't deny that. But I'm not prepared to say that this is the only way in which the data can be interpreted. If I knew more about the area, I'm sure I would be able to do a better job. Already, though, I am beginning to see some of the assumptions on which the argument is built. I think even the evolutionists should be careful with this one.
I also don't deny that I am a Christian. I am willing to accept macroevolution, when I am convinced of that argument. But I cannot, without being dishonest, stop believing in God, after He has personally proved Himself to me in so many ways.


3. The sequences are similar because the same retrovirus (or possibly a closely related one) uses targeted insertion and happened to get into the germline of the two different species. This is the argument you are making. There are a few problems I have with this.
A. This suggests a population bottleneck of some kind in both species. As you pointed out Noah's ark could address this.
B. This assumes retroviruses can integrate in a targeted mannor. I see no reason to assume this. It's not a bad argument, but not the most logical conclusion. Not that you are an expert in viral integration and would know that its not likely, so I don't blaim you. It's more logical to assume ancient viruses behave like modern ones then to assume they don't simply because you don't agree with the implications. Correct me if you find out otherwise, but there are no known viruses that integrate in a mannor targeted enough to confuse the results. The AAV example I gave was not a retrovirus, integrates in a much different mannor, and is still only targeted to a general area (not the exact same spot). Given what is known about retrovirus integration, targeted integration ever arrising seems unlikely. I can't think of how targeted integration could be beneficial to the virus, and the way retroviruses integrate its unlikely for targeted integration to occur without a selective advantage to do so. This may not be the case for AAV which integrates differently and whose targeted integration may just be happenstance do to its mechanism of integration. It may not be advantagous for AAV to integrate in a targeted manor, it just does.

Insertion is usually on the basis of homologous recombination. That implies that insertion is not completely random, but requires, at least at some level, some sort of homology before the event can occur. I know that, even without remembering much of what they taught me about viruses in my second year of microbiology. I still remember my lecturer using the word 'random' rather carefully. You have, however, a rather strong point when you compare it to the behaviour of viral insertions today. They do appear random. But if so, we should expect, at least in some individuals, variation in viral location. An example, I believe, was given in the paper with the mice. Some viruses excise themselves out of the genome, leaving only a LTR. Actually, I have heard that other viruses can leave the genome without leaving any LTR behind. That would mean that some individuals would either be virus free, or be reinfected. If reinfected, the virus, if random, should be targeted to a different location. I see no mention of this possibility in the paper. Why not? It would be a great way to show that the virus insertion was indeed random.


I agree with your issues about how he dates things. I even said so earlier myself that I was sceptical of it. This doesn't refute the idea of using proviruses to discover evolutionary relationships, but does put into question dates one might come up with for species divergence.

If the dates are wrong, it may mean that there simply isn't enough time for macroevolution. In that case, we would certainly see some changes made.


Haha, just as I wasn't serious about asking for the money, I knew you weren't trying to be offensive about saying I shouldn't get the money quite yet. I was just using your response as an excuse to make a point about what it means to "prove" something. I come across more serious then I am. And I guess I can understand why those disputing evolution ask for a higher degree of proof considering it contradicts literal interpretations of genesis. But what I'm saying is the threshold of proof that people ask for is so high that nothing could be satisfactorly proven to that degree. I think the evidence for evolution is higher then that for the literal interpretation of genesis. Just my own personal oppinion. It's quite possible that we don't understand genesis or that it has been altered over time, etc.

On the contrary, it could be argued that since there are more evolutionists than creationists, that the literal interpretation has been disputed, criticised, ridiculed, and blamed for and endless number of problems, far more than evolutionary theory. I mean, how often do you hear about the rather strong like between survival of the fittest and the Nazis, for example? Hitler was a great fan of Darwin. (I'm not suggesting that Darwin caused the atrocities of WWII.)

I agree, however, that it is possible that most Christians have misunderstood the genesis account. As for myself, as I mentioned earlier, I don't cling on to the literalist explanation in the face of reasonable proof. I may change my opinions. I believe a true Christian will cling onto a faith in God, and truth wherever he finds it.

I want to *BUMP* this one since Der Drache and Bruarong had such an interesting discussion.
And i'm outta time for today :(

Why is it always the same two camps?!I think youre as bad as each other.One side believes in a universe without meaning,while the other side believes in a universe without common sense.

There's no reason evolution and intelligent design cant coexist.I believe in evolution,and I believe it is God's way of making things happen.

Why is it always the same two camps?!I think youre as bad as each other.One side believes in a universe without meaning,while the other side believes in a universe without common sense.

There's no reason evolution and intelligent design cant coexist.I believe in evolution,and I believe it is God's way of making things happen.

Why does meaning depend on some outside force. The point of life is to determine the best meaning for oneself. Acknowledging the mechanisms by which the universe works in no way lessens the wonder or grandeur of the universe, in my mind.

Nor am I totally atheistic. I just think the truth is likely far beyond our limitations to understand. With knowledge, though, we come closer.

Bruarong,

Sadly statistical impossibilities do not concern most people. Most people don't understand statistics. Most common people I've met see the world in black and white and think that if its staistically possible it must be, and if it isn't so then it must be statistically impossible. And you are right when you say that in light of new evidence what we think is statisticaly improssibile can change. But instead of hoping for new evidence that will confirm what we want to believe I think we have to believe based on the evidence and be ready to change when the evidence changes. I think enough is known about viral insertions to say rather confidently that its statstically unlikely for a virus to insert in the same position in different genomes, but enough isn't known to be able to say how unlikely. One has to be careful with statistics.

I also think most people (especially in the US) are ignorant about evolution. The common evolutionist has no reason to believe in evolution except for his faith in scientists who claim it. They either lack the ability to understand it or don't bother to look into it. Most non-scientists believe evolution based on fossil records. They base their belief in human evolution in anthropology. Anthropology is the most anti-scientific field of study their is. Most scientists are after the truth, but relativism has creeped into Anthropology. Anthropology profesors now teach that there is no truth (not that we are incapable of learning it, simply that it does not exist). This was shocking enough that I asked for clarification and if I understood them correctly that is what they were saying (I'm still not certain I understood because I don't see why anyone would be in a field seeking to gain knowledge when they believe there is no knowledge to be gained). Anyway, to base your belief in something on a field so dissalussioned and riddled with scandle that anything goes is about as crazy as those who believe in that David Ike stuff on another thread. Thats also why its so easy for anti-evolutionists to attack this sort of evidence.

Okay, I exagerated a little. There are plenty of good anthropologists, many who are just as upset with the field as I am.

Anyway, I think I'm going to retire from this argument. Though other people can carry on.

Oh, and I should emphasize again. It's not just the viral insertion evidence that convinces me. But I don't have the time to argue all of them. I just picked one of the better ones and one of the ones I felt that I was most knowledgable in.

Bruarong,


relativism has creeped into Anthropology.

This doesn't seem quite astute concerning the nature of anthropology.


Okay, I exagerated a little. There are plenty of good anthropologists, many who are just as upset with the field as I am.

Whew. Good conditioner. Seemed like something worth arguing about, til this statement!!

Why is it always the same two camps?!I think youre as bad as each other.One side believes in a universe without meaning,while the other side believes in a universe without common sense.

There's no reason evolution and intelligent design cant coexist.I believe in evolution,and I believe it is God's way of making things happen.
Unfortunately until God specifically points out to a reliable group of witnesses ANYTHING at this stage, what's going to have to be dealt with is the evidence that is reproducable, predictable and sustainable.

In large part i agree with you, though.