NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes there is. You just mentioned it! ;)



Well I suppose that is one theory...

A fact is the best you can get for one object. A theory the best you can get for a class of objects. And all facts can be revised if new experiments challenge it. For example: the world is not round, it is a bit irregular with flatter poles.

That seems to explain why, although people can live to 110 or more, once they get to about 80 if anything goes wrong they don't recover. Certainly true in my family who are longlived but nobody so far has got past 94.

Well, if I remember correctly, the thing about old age is that we do not continuously get older, at least our bodies don't. At a certain point, our bodies actually stop aging(Up somewhere in the old age), and it is due to irreversible damage to the body(Which is weakened due to old age) that is what causes natural death.

No, folks like you have a bad name from the get-go.

Exactly. From the gt-go. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. You self-proclaimed scientists decided that we were all idiots before even listening to what we had to say. Yeah, Kohlstein's a moron who has his fingers in his ears and is singing at the top of hi voice, but I really don't see how people like you who won't accept that thre is any truth beyond what humans have ben able to dig up are any different.

Well, that's my little rant. Please note that I have studied evolution at length and still disagree with it, which is more than you one-siders can say.

That seems to explain why, although people can live to 110 or more, once they get to about 80 if anything goes wrong they don't recover. Certainly true in my family who are longlived but nobody so far has got past 94.

Well it depends on how aging really happens, something we as humans aren't really sure of. Oxidation plays are part, as does the shortening of tellomeres in the DNA, and neither of those stop at any point until you die.

Exactly. From the gt-go. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. You self-proclaimed scientists decided that we were all idiots before even listening to what we had to say. Yeah, Kohlstein's a moron who has his fingers in his ears and is singing at the top of hi voice, but I really don't see how people like you who won't accept that thre is any truth beyond what humans have ben able to dig up are any different.

Well, that's my little rant. Please note that I have studied evolution at length and still disagree with it, which is more than you one-siders can say.

How much studying would one need to do in order to understand Creation(which has nothing to do with evolution btw)? I'm gonna say very little. It's summed up nicely in "God did everything, now go back to sleep"

Exactly. From the gt-go. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. You self-proclaimed scientists decided that we were all idiots before even listening to what we had to say. Yeah, Kohlstein's a moron who has his fingers in his ears and is singing at the top of hi voice, but I really don't see how people like you who won't accept that thre is any truth beyond what humans have ben able to dig up are any different.

Well, that's my little rant. Please note that I have studied evolution at length and still disagree with it, which is more than you one-siders can say.

Yes, that is more than I can say.

I've just studied evolution and agreed with it.

Exactly. From the gt-go. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. You self-proclaimed scientists decided that we were all idiots before even listening to what we had to say. Yeah, Kohlstein's a moron who has his fingers in his ears and is singing at the top of hi voice, but I really don't see how people like you who won't accept that thre is any truth beyond what humans have ben able to dig up are any different.

Well, that's my little rant. Please note that I have studied evolution at length and still disagree with it, which is more than you one-siders can say.
Pray tell, what else do you have to say that would not re-cross the same paths we have already tread? It ALWAYS boils down to the notion that God did it, which is always pointed out as not being testable and therefore not science.

But if you have something new to add, I for one, would be interested.

Your entire argument is flawed as it derives from a misconception.
You didn't read a single post here and are obviously not interested in debate.

Can you delete him? Please, please, please. NSG has become so dreadful since the troll DEATing season ended.

Evolved from monkeys? It's a common misconception.

We actually evolved from the Beatles; the Monkeys were just a knock-off for a telly programme.


ROFLMAO!

:D

Oh, man, the smug waves are too strong, I don't think I can respond to this, it's making my eyes water, aw, aw.

In all seriousness, I don't see why you had to even bring up the word "Church". The evolution debate doesn't have to center around religion, and the originator of the thread did not declare himself a theist.

Personally, I am a devout Protestant, and I am an agnostic when it comes to evolution. I have determined that evolution's rightness does not disprove God's existence, therefore in my mind whether it is true or not is fairly unimportant. However, I am for people being allowed to decide what their children learn, although whether that means dictating Public School Curriculum or merely increased homeschooling is another matter altogether.

that's right, I should be allowed to teach my kids whatever I want, that the earth is flat, that we were created out of dust, and that the moon turns people into werewolves.

you may have the right to teach your faith to your children, but science is not a matter of point of view (wich is the point I was trying to make, sorry if it sounds a bit angry :headbang: )

I think Evolution is most likely accurate, in large part, though there are holes in it here and there, so it shouldn't be treated with religious reverence like so many Sciencists (this is a made up word, by the way, not a misspelling of the word "Scientists") tend to.

I think it should be the theory taught in school, but I also think that the environment in which any slight criticism of scientific orthodoxy is treated as Heresy at best and Madness at worst has got to go. In other words, point out and stress that it is a theory, as yet not disproved, and that there are other theories which do not have to be named.

That way, parents can talk to their kids and maybe have them read some Intelligent Design books, or say "Study that to pass your test, but remember God did it all in Six Days" or whatever they want their kids to know, and their kids will be more receptive to what their parents want them to, while still absorbing the widely accepted but not infallible knowledge on the subject.

Both sides need to be a bit more reasonable, and the Sciencistas need to cut back on the condescension and disrespect of others' beliefs.

In my humble opinion, of course.

maybe when someone comes along with another hypothesis (wich doesn't include id or creationism, since those where not made to improve science, but merely to dress religion as science), and if that hypothesis is more accurate in making prediction about the part of the world it is trying to describe (in this case, biology), then it will (eventually) replace the old one. but saying "god did it" or "there was a designer" doesn't help our understanding of the world.

Exactly. From the gt-go. I couldn't have summed it up better myself. You self-proclaimed scientists decided that we were all idiots before even listening to what we had to say. Yeah, Kohlstein's a moron who has his fingers in his ears and is singing at the top of hi voice, but I really don't see how people like you who won't accept that thre is any truth beyond what humans have ben able to dig up are any different.

Well, that's my little rant. Please note that I have studied evolution at length and still disagree with it, which is more than you one-siders can say.

I believe that God created the universe and humanity and I don't feel that conflicts with the idea of evolution.

I don't know that people here are saying there is no proof beyond what humans are able to perceive, but they are saying that such things have no place in science. God is not falsifiable. Neither is an 'intelligent designer' (which is also contrary to my religious beliefs). The entire thing about science is that God isn't the answer to everything. I KNOW He created us, I put that knowledge aside when considering biology because using Him as a cop out answer will not help discover mechanisms of life.

Besides, being a biologist was the first profession of man.

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

I believe that God created the universe and humanity and I don't feel that conflicts with the idea of evolution.

I don't know that people here are saying there is no proof beyond what humans are able to perceive, but they are saying that such things have no place in science. God is not falsifiable. Neither is an 'intelligent designer' (which is also contrary to my religious beliefs). The entire thing about science is that God isn't the answer to everything. I KNOW He created us, I put that knowledge aside when considering biology because using Him as a cop out answer will not help discover mechanisms of life.

Besides, being a biologist was the first profession of man.

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Huzzah, another person that realises evolution has nothing to do with how life or existence came about!

So, your arguement is this:
1. Assume what we perceive is real
Therefore: What we perceive is real.

That's not a very convincing argument.
What proof are you referring to? It all relies upon the assumption, which is quite circular. No proof. Therefore, it falls under the realm of belief.

No - I didn't say that.

You said there was no evidence, and I suggested there is actuially a mountain of it... but it relies upon us accepting it's validity.

United, nothing you wrote disputed anything I wrote. You just rephrased your previous argument. You keep on saying that science uses experience and observations to gain understanding of the world we live in. I have never, not once, disputed this. Observations are great. Yippee. Science is great. Yippee. But...

Science can never prove that true reality is as we perceive it. Ever. But since it aims to give knowledge about reality through observation, then it assumes that these observations reflect the reality.

This is an assumption, pure and simple.

No - because you are making another assumption that isn't really supportable.

You assume science somehow defines it's observable phenomena and environment as 'true' reality.... by which, I mean some kind of reality that is unalterable and universal.

This is simply not the case.

The basic premise of science - it's zeroeth law - is that it is contingent upon the observed system. That is - science explains the world we observe. That is the 'system' in which science 'runs'.

It really doesn't matter if 'this' is 'reality' or not, because science is 'in here' with us, and that is all it deals with.

I side with the Darwinism = fantasy folks.

Not because of religion.

I used to be one of the people who believed that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which God brought about His Creations, but now I have rejected that.

I have also studied these issues from a strictly scientific perspective and have found that the theory simply doesn't answer enough questions, and many of its core concepts are based upon falsified or erroneous information.

I was once debating this with a very good friend of mine, who conceded that Darwinism/Natural Selection fails to adequately explain things, but said that we go with it because "it's the best we've got right now."

I can't accept that. If I presented a theory on practically any other subject, it would be completely shot down as soon as it was found to fail. It seems as if a different standard is being applied to Natural Selection/Darwinism. What I find really disturbing is that I've heard debaters (outside thi forum even) say that yes, there are areas where there are holes, but surely sometime in the future those holes will be filled. Pardon me? If I tried to use that argument I'd be called out for using an argument from ignorance-a logical fallacy... And rightly so.

What I've observed is that Natural Selection is often the refuge for people who, for whatever reason, reject Creationism and have no other theory to turn to. They then argue for it with all the fervor of a religious zealot in spite of the bad science used to prove it.

My point of view is this: if you don't believe in God or Creationism, that's fine. But it's time to come up with a new theory.

I side with the Darwinism = fantasy folks.

Not because of religion.

I used to be one of the people who believed that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which God brought about His Creations, but now I have rejected that.

I have also studied these issues from a strictly scientific perspective and have found that the theory simply doesn't answer enough questions, and many of its core concepts are based upon falsified or erroneous information.

I was once debating this with a very good friend of mine, who conceded that Darwinism/Natural Selection fails to adequately explain things, but said that we go with it because "it's the best we've got right now."

I can't accept that. If I presented a theory on practically any other subject, it would be completely shot down as soon as it was found to fail. It seems as if a different standard is being applied to Natural Selection/Darwinism. What I find really disturbing is that I've heard debaters (outside thi forum even) say that yes, there are areas where there are holes, but surely sometime in the future those holes will be filled. Pardon me? If I tried to use that argument I'd be called out for using an argument from ignorance-a logical fallacy... And rightly so.

What I've observed is that Natural Selection is often the refuge for people who, for whatever reason, reject Creationism and have no other theory to turn to. They then argue for it with all the fervor of a religious zealot in spite of the bad science used to prove it.

My point of view is this: if you don't believe in God or Creationism, that's fine. But it's time to come up with a new theory.

Details?

Details?

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

I side with the Darwinism = fantasy folks.

Not because of religion.

I used to be one of the people who believed that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which God brought about His Creations, but now I have rejected that.

I have also studied these issues from a strictly scientific perspective and have found that the theory simply doesn't answer enough questions, and many of its core concepts are based upon falsified or erroneous information.

I was once debating this with a very good friend of mine, who conceded that Darwinism/Natural Selection fails to adequately explain things, but said that we go with it because "it's the best we've got right now."

I can't accept that. If I presented a theory on practically any other subject, it would be completely shot down as soon as it was found to fail. It seems as if a different standard is being applied to Natural Selection/Darwinism. What I find really disturbing is that I've heard debaters (outside thi forum even) say that yes, there are areas where there are holes, but surely sometime in the future those holes will be filled. Pardon me? If I tried to use that argument I'd be called out for using an argument from ignorance-a logical fallacy... And rightly so.

What I've observed is that Natural Selection is often the refuge for people who, for whatever reason, reject Creationism and have no other theory to turn to. They then argue for it with all the fervor of a religious zealot in spite of the bad science used to prove it.

My point of view is this: if you don't believe in God or Creationism, that's fine. But it's time to come up with a new theory.

I think this is disingenuous. What are these 'falsified' or 'erroneous' details?

Evolution doesn't claim to fill all the holes, and maybe that's what you don't like... but, unfortunately, science doesn't deal in comfortable assurances. You'll have to look elsewhere for that kind of mothering.

I lso have to point out that 'Creationism' isn't the only alternative. Just because someone rejects the (two, conflicting) accounts of creation in Judeo-Christian scripture... doesn't make evolution the only alternative.

I side with the Darwinism = fantasy folks.

Not because of religion.

I used to be one of the people who believed that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which God brought about His Creations, but now I have rejected that.

I have also studied these issues from a strictly scientific perspective and have found that the theory simply doesn't answer enough questions, and many of its core concepts are based upon falsified or erroneous information.

I was once debating this with a very good friend of mine, who conceded that Darwinism/Natural Selection fails to adequately explain things, but said that we go with it because "it's the best we've got right now."

I can't accept that. If I presented a theory on practically any other subject, it would be completely shot down as soon as it was found to fail. It seems as if a different standard is being applied to Natural Selection/Darwinism. What I find really disturbing is that I've heard debaters (outside thi forum even) say that yes, there are areas where there are holes, but surely sometime in the future those holes will be filled. Pardon me? If I tried to use that argument I'd be called out for using an argument from ignorance-a logical fallacy... And rightly so.

What I've observed is that Natural Selection is often the refuge for people who, for whatever reason, reject Creationism and have no other theory to turn to. They then argue for it with all the fervor of a religious zealot in spite of the bad science used to prove it.

My point of view is this: if you don't believe in God or Creationism, that's fine. But it's time to come up with a new theory.

Yes, please, details? Even just a link or two or three to a peer-reviewed paper that shows that the basic assumptions underlying the current theory of evolution were either falsified or are incorrect.

Aren't you saying that Evolution is the refuge for people who have rejected God (= Creationism)? And how do you know what people think?

So come up with a new theory. Saying "evolution is a myth (or wrong or a lie or whatever)" does not qualify as "coming up woth a new theory" (or as a refutation of the old one).

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

Is this a central premise of the evolution debate? I mean - are those drawings core? Or - are you discarding the entire mechanism of a theory because of one person's superficial additions?

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?
Embryology <> Evolution. And no, it's not that odd. Textbooks are expensive to produce and the publishers tend to stick with what they have. Sure, the drawings, if indeed falsified, should be removed. But again, embryology <> evolution.

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?


How is this the slightest bit relevant? Fine you believe in creationism, at least post a cogent argument as to why creationism is any way more convincing than evolution.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?
Perhaps, but not unusual.

I think this is disingenuous. What are these 'falsified' or 'erroneous' details?
I guess you were writing this at the same time I was. Please see my last post for one example.:)


Evolution doesn't claim to fill all the holes, and maybe that's what you don't like... but, unfortunately, science doesn't deal in comfortable assurances. You'll have to look elsewhere for that kind of mothering.
I never said that a theory necessarily had to fill all the holes, but when it doesn't that must be acknowledged. Many adherentd to Natural Selection treat it as if it DID answer all, and I object to that.

Buy your snide tone is noted. It does help illustrate the common reaction people have when this theory is challenged. I find that telling.


I lso have to point out that 'Creationism' isn't the only alternative. Just because someone rejects the (two, conflicting) accounts of creation in Judeo-Christian scripture... doesn't make evolution the only alternative.
Evolution is the only secular alternative that I am aware of. If you know of a different theory that isn't related to religion, please fill me in.

Perhaps, but not unusual.

And that's scary.

And that's scary.
That humans make mistakes? It would be scary if they didn't, considering that's how we learn and grow.

I think this is disingenuous. What are these 'falsified' or 'erroneous' details?

Evolution doesn't claim to fill all the holes, and maybe that's what you don't like... but, unfortunately, science doesn't deal in comfortable assurances. You'll have to look elsewhere for that kind of mothering.

I lso have to point out that 'Creationism' isn't the only alternative. Just because someone rejects the (two, conflicting) accounts of creation in Judeo-Christian scripture... doesn't make evolution the only alternative.

They don't conflict. Unless you're referring to something other than Genesis 1 and 2.

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

You are, I believe, refering to Haeckel's Embryos. This fraud has been a Creationist talking point for a very long time.


At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?
It sure seems odd to the scientists who have "exposed" this fraud many, many times over the years.

Here's a letter written to Science in 1998, by a guy named Richardson who is among those who have exposed the Haeckel fraud (Richardson et al, 1997):

Our work has been used in a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to suggest that evolution cannot explain embryology (2). We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel's famous drawings are a Creationist cause célèbre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4).

Unfortunately, Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly. He did not show significant differences between species, even though his theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found variations in embryonic size, external form, and segment number which he did not show (1). This does not negate Darwinian evolution. On the contrary, the mixture of similarities and differences among vertebrate embryos reflects evolutionary change in developmental mechanisms inherited from a common ancestor (5). [...]

These conclusions are supported in part by comparisons of developmental timing in different vertebrates (7). This work indicates a strong correlation between embryonic developmental sequences in humans and other eutherian mammals, but weak correlation between humans and some "lower" vertebrates. Haeckel's inaccuracies damage his credibility, but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated.

(Bolds mine)

UPDATE: I also should point out that it is important to know which textbooks you are talking about, because there is actually a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, it was claimed that Futuyma used the Haeckel embryo drawings in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology, but a review of the 1st and 2nd editions of Evolutionary Biology reveals that no such drawings were included. From TalkOrigins, "In the first edition, Haeckel's biogenetic law and the problems with it are discussed on page 153 in respectable fashion (this corresponds with page 303 in the second edition) -- and in fact the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions."

Yes, please, details? Even just a link or two or three to a peer-reviewed paper that shows that the basic assumptions underlying the current theory of evolution were either falsified or are incorrect.

You demand a much higher standard of people who disagree with you than from people who don't. Shall we play "my expert is better than yours" now?


Aren't you saying that Evolution is the refuge for people who have rejected God (= Creationism)? And how do you know what people think?

There are plenty of people who believe in God who also accept Natural Selection, and reconcile the two.


So come up with a new theory. Saying "evolution is a myth (or wrong or a lie or whatever)" does not qualify as "coming up woth a new theory" (or as a refutation of the old one).
The onus isn't on me to come up with a new theory. I'm simply refusing to subscribe to a false one in the meantime.

They don't conflict. Unless you're referring to something other than Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 1 conflicts Genesis 2.

That humans make mistakes? It would be scary if they didn't, considering that's how we learn and grow.

People learn and grow by correcting their mistakes, not by propagating them.

I guess you were writing this at the same time I was. Please see my last post for one example.:)


I never said that a theory necessarily had to fill all the holes, but when it doesn't that must be acknowledged. Many adherentd to Natural Selection treat it as if it DID answer all, and I object to that.

Buy your snide tone is noted. It does help illustrate the common reaction people have when this theory is challenged. I find that telling.


Evolution is the only secular alternative that I am aware of. If you know of a different theory that isn't related to religion, please fill me in.

Just as your "based on falsified and erroneous information" is dismissive of work done over the past hundred years many a great many honest, intelligent people. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Saying "evolution is wrong" doesn't cut it. Though you have not said so explicitly, I suspect you have nothing more than Creationism to put in place of Evolution. As someone said 100 years or so ago, evolution may be supported by only a few facts, but creationism is supported by none (and that was before a century of work).

How is this the slightest bit relevant? Fine you believe in creationism, at least post a cogent argument as to why creationism is any way more convincing than evolution.

I don't need to. I'm not here to convince anybody about Creationism. I'm here to state my perspective on Natural Selection.

Red Herring, anyone?

Just as your "based on falsified and erroneous information" is dismissive of work done over the past hundred years many a great many honest, intelligent people. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Saying "evolution is wrong" doesn't cut it. Though you have not said so explicitly, I suspect you have nothing more than Creationism to put in place of Evolution. As someone said 100 years or so ago, evolution may be supported by only a few facts, but creationism is supported by none (and that was before a century of work).

Natural Selection is supported by a few facts, and refuted by many.

Creationism is a Red Herring. I'm not addressing it one way or the other. I"m talking about Natural Selection. I'm even all but conceding that there MIGHT be some other scientific process that as yet goes unknown.

By hey if putting words in my mouth is what it takes, that says something too.

I never said that a theory necessarily had to fill all the holes, but when it doesn't that must be acknowledged. Many adherentd to Natural Selection treat it as if it DID answer all, and I object to that.


That is irrelevent to the theory. What you are attacking here is HOW people approach the theory... not the theory itself.

Example: I live in the rural backwaters of Georgia. There is a lot of racism and homophobia here. There is also a lot of Soiuthern Baptist fundamentalism.

I object to the racism and homophobia, but I do not believe it impacts whether or not the Bible is true.


Buy your snide tone is noted. It does help illustrate the common reaction people have when this theory is challenged. I find that telling.


On the contrary - you stated that you are unhappy with the scientific model... because there are holes. If you don't want holes, science really can't help you.

You really do need to look elsewhere if the simple, honest 'I don't know" just won't work for you.


Evolution is the only secular alternative that I am aware of. If you know of a different theory that isn't related to religion, please fill me in.

Why secular?

You think biblical creationism is the only alternative to a purely scientific model?

Red Herring, anyone?


Best description of creationism I have seen in a while.

Natural Selection is supported by a few facts, and refuted by many.


Like what?

Thus far, you are firing blanks.

You demand a much higher standard of people who disagree with you than from people who don't. Shall we play "my expert is better than yours" now?

I already have peer-reviewed sources for the points I agree with. I wouldn't hold my current stance if I didn't have the research to back it up. Logically, I don't need to ask people to provide sources for the stuff I've already looked up and studied.

Now, if somebody claims to have sources that 'disprove' evolutionary theory, I really want to see them, because I haven't found any. They must have found information that I have not, so I would like to see it!


The onus isn't on me to come up with a new theory. I'm simply refusing to subscribe to a false one in the meantime.If you claim to have evidence that disproves a given theory, I'd say you should probably be prepared to present it. Otherwise, what's the point of going around telling people that it's a "false theory"? Do you really expect them to just believe you? If so, why? If not, then why are you telling them?

People learn and grow by correcting their mistakes, not by propagating them.
No, correcting mistakes comes after the learning.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We DID evolve from a common ancestor.

No, correcting mistakes comes after the learning.

So in the meantime it's acceptable to continue teaching known false data?

Natural Selection is supported by a few facts, and refuted by many.

Creationism is a Red Herring. I'm not addressing it one way or the other. I"m talking about Natural Selection. I'm even all but conceding that there MIGHT be some other scientific process that as yet goes unknown.

By hey if putting words in my mouth is what it takes, that says something too.

Fine, I did say I "suspected" that was your position, but if not, good. I stand corrected.

Now, please correct me further and provide a concrete example of how Natural Selection is refuted by facts.

So in the meantime it's acceptable to continue teaching known false data?
How did my opinion enter the picture? And why? Mistakes were, they've since been corrected. Belabouring the fact that the mistakes were taught isn't going to make your point that evolution has 'holes.'

So in the meantime it's acceptable to continue teaching known false data?
Could you please provide a specific example of this? You are clearly very passionate about the subject, so I'm sure you've got one handy. I'm honestly not quite sure what you are specifically refering to.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

Evidently your brain is also a myth.

I already have peer-reviewed sources for the points I agree with. I wouldn't hold my current stance if I didn't have the research to back it up. Logically, I don't need to ask people to provide sources for the stuff I've already looked up and studied.

Now, if somebody claims to have sources that 'disprove' evolutionary theory, I really want to see them, because I haven't found any. They must have found information that I have not, so I would like to see it!

If you claim to have evidence that disproves a given theory, I'd say you should probably be prepared to present it. Otherwise, what's the point of going around telling people that it's a "false theory"? Do you really expect them to just believe you? If so, why? If not, then why are you telling them?

The sequence of events that will follow when I do:

(1)I will cite the sources I've read, along with the names of scientists who wrote them.
(2)About half of you will put up sources that contradict or disagree with mine, and we play "my expert is better than yours"
(3)The other half will just dismiss my sources out of hand because it doesn't say what they want to hear

I mean, everybody SAYS they're objective and if they see evidence they'd weigh it without passion or predjudice. But people rarely do. 99/100 times people have already made up their mind and will ignore anything that threatens their worldview. It's true, you know it's true so don't bother denying that.

My advatage is that my worldview isn't threatened one way or the other. As I said before I was one of those people who was perfectly happy reconciling Natural Selection with my religious beliefs. I reject Natural Selection NOT because of my worldview, but because my research indicates that it is false. Simple.

A couple of you have tried to paint me as a Creationist, which brings with it connotations of closed-mindedness and religious zealotry. If that's what you have to do to win a debate then I submit that your understanding of the subject needs work, no offense.

I submit that closed-mindedness is a trait of people on BOTH sides of this issue, as with any other.

So hey, if you want to believe I'm a zealot to keep from dealing objectively with me then do what you have to. It's not going to hurt my feelings one way or the other. You want sources? I'll dig 'em up for you when I get off work. In the meantime I hope you'll notice that I've got about 5 people all talking at me at once so forgive me if individual attention to your points suffers.

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

Just that rubbish? I would expect something more profound from you.
Like an argument about the preconditions for an individual to get its genes into the next generation and how this affects the overall gene-pool of the population in which the individual exists. Evolution is not about scribblings of empryos in weird books.

The sequence of events that will follow when I do:

(1)I will cite the sources I've read, along with the names of scientists who wrote them.
(2)About half of you will put up sources that contradict or disagree with mine, and we play "my expert is better than yours"
(3)The other half will just dismiss my sources out of hand because it doesn't say what they want to hear

I mean, everybody SAYS they're objective and if they see evidence they'd weigh it without passion or predjudice. But people rarely do. 99/100 times people have already made up their mind and will ignore anything that threatens their worldview. It's true, you know it's true so don't bother denying that.

My advatage is that my worldview isn't threatened one way or the other. As I said before I was one of those people who was perfectly happy reconciling Natural Selection with my religious beliefs. I reject Natural Selection NOT because of my worldview, but because my research indicates that it is false. Simple.

A couple of you have tried to paint me as a Creationist, which brings with it connotations of closed-mindedness and religious zealotry. If that's what you have to do to win a debate then I submit that your understanding of the subject needs work, no offense.

I submit that closed-mindedness is a trait of people on BOTH sides of this issue, as with any other.

So hey, if you want to believe I'm a zealot to keep from dealing objectively with me then do what you have to. It's not going to hurt my feelings one way or the other. You want sources? I'll dig 'em up for you when I get off work. In the meantime I hope you'll notice that I've got about 5 people all talking at me at once so forgive me if individual attention to your points suffers.

I believe "my expert is better than yours" what's politely known as scientific debate. Please, post them.

How did my opinion enter the picture? And why? Mistakes were, they've since been corrected. Belabouring the fact that the mistakes were taught isn't going to make your point that evolution has 'holes.'

It's not belaboring the point if they CONTINUE to be taught. I'm not okay with that.

Could you please provide a specific example of this? You are clearly very passionate about the subject, so I'm sure you've got one handy. I'm honestly not quite sure what you are specifically refering to.

I did. It's probably a couple pages back by now. :)

Just that rubbish? I would expect something more profound from you.
Like an argument about the preconditions for an individual to get its genes into the next generation and how this affects the overall gene-pool of the population in which the individual exists. Evolution is not about scribblings of empryos in weird books.

I was asked for an example, I provided it.

No, this isn't the only issue related to Natural Selection that caused me to change my opinion.

99/100 times people have already made up their mind and will ignore anything that threatens their worldview. It's true, you know it's true so don't bother denying that.
lol... made your own point. :)

It's not belaboring the point if they CONTINUE to be taught. I'm not okay with that.
Then it becomes an issue of inadequate education system, but that still has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution itself.

I was asked for an example, I provided it.

No, this isn't the only issue related to Natural Selection that caused me to change my opinion.

No - you haven't presented ANY flaws in the Natural Selection idea... only how some people illustrated it.

What are the flaws in the theory?

The sequence of events that will follow when I do:

(1)I will cite the sources I've read, along with the names of scientists who wrote them.
(2)About half of you will put up sources that contradict or disagree with mine, and we play "my expert is better than yours"
(3)The other half will just dismiss my sources out of hand because it doesn't say what they want to hear

I know that it can be discouraging to engage in discussions around places like this, but I don't personally feel that this is a good excuse for being sloppy in my own behavior.

Furthermore, I don't see what could possibly be accomplished if we set aside our standards for discussing this topic. If you refuse to present substantive arguments, then why bother to post at all on these threads? If you're just going to say, "This is what I think, and that's that," then what can anybody say in return?

Where's the fun in a fact-free science debate?!

I think it would be far more interesting and useful if we all provided specific information when it comes to topics like this one. Your opinion, and mine, mean buggerall when it comes to the actual evidence. The data is the data. Without presenting the data, we've got nothing to debate.


I mean, everybody SAYS they're objective and if they see evidence they'd weigh it without passion or predjudice. But people rarely do. 99/100 times people have already made up their mind and will ignore anything that threatens their worldview. It's true, you know it's true so don't bother denying that.

Lots of people do this, yes. Why are you letting those people be the ones who determine how you will behave? Why are you letting them set your personal standards for discussion of important topics?


My advatage is that my worldview isn't threatened one way or the other. As I said before I was one of those people who was perfectly happy reconciling Natural Selection with my religious beliefs. I reject Natural Selection NOT because of my worldview, but because my research indicates that it is false. Simple.

That's very nice for you, and it might make discussing this topic with you easier on everybody (since you aren't going to get overly emotive about it, one would hope). However, your personal comfort level is rather beside the point if you aren't going to present any of your evidence or research.


A couple of you have tried to paint me as a Creationist, which brings with it connotations of closed-mindedness and religious zealotry. If that's what you have to do to win a debate then I submit that your understanding of the subject needs work, no offense.

Forgive me, but your tactics so far are very Creationist in flavor. You claim to know better than others, but will not present any evidence to support your claims. That's pretty much textbook Creationist. You also appear to have already made up your mind that nobody here will be able/willing to appreciate your evidence, and thus you are utterly closed to the idea of generating real discussion about your findings.

In other words, I call a spade a spade. If you behave like a Creationist, that's probably what I will end up calling you.


I submit that closed-mindedness is a trait of people on BOTH sides of this issue, as with any other.

Closed-mindedness is a human trait. So?

I'm close-minded about Flat Earthism. I'm guessing a few other people are. Doesn't mean we're wrong.


So hey, if you want to believe I'm a zealot to keep from dealing objectively with me then do what you have to.

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I don't believe you are a zealot. I believe you're up on a pretty high horse, but that's nothing that really bothers me because I get up on a few of those myself from time to time. :D


It's not going to hurt my feelings one way or the other. You want sources? I'll dig 'em up for you when I get off work.

Terrific! In the meantime, you could just post in your own words what some examples of your evidence are. You don't have to cite them from memory or anything, just try to describe them so we can start talking about them.

(i.e. the H Embryos were brought up, so that could be discussed even though a citation wasn't provided in the original post)


In the meantime I hope you'll notice that I've got about 5 people all talking at me at once so forgive me if individual attention to your points suffers.
Not to worry, I won't take it personally or hold it against you. It's tough being the only one holding up one side of a discussion, and I appreciate your willingness to give it a go. People like you make these debates possible! :D

The sequence of events that will follow when I do:

(1)I will cite the sources I've read, along with the names of scientists who wrote them.
(2)About half of you will put up sources that contradict or disagree with mine, and we play "my expert is better than yours"
(3)The other half will just dismiss my sources out of hand because it doesn't say what they want to hear


So - you are admitting that what you might consider 'evidence', has already been rebutted by the scientific community?

Then - clearly, your 'opposition' to evolution/natural selection is not scientific.

I did. It's probably a couple pages back by now. :)
If that was the case of H's Embryo drawings, then I addressed it in a post of my own.

In short, said embryo drawings are actually not being used in any current mainstream biology texts that I know of, except as part of a discussion about their use and the fraud in question. They aren't used as a support for evolutionary theory in any accredited course or text that I know of, though I freely admit that I might not know about a whole lot of courses and texts. Evolutionary biologists were the ones to really soundly disprove the assertions made from those drawings, and this hasn't caused evolutionary theory to crumble in any way. As I posted a while back, the accurate drawings of early-stage embryos are actually STRONGER support for evolutionary theory than what the fraud presented!

I was asked for an example, I provided it.

No, this isn't the only issue related to Natural Selection that caused me to change my opinion.It really isn't too much to ask to either repost that or link to your post so that the others don't need to hunt through 37 pages to find your one post.

99/100 times people have already made up their mind and will ignore anything that threatens their worldview. It's true, you know it's true so don't bother denying that.


...

(I changed my view on something today due to internet-discussion)

It really isn't too much to ask to either repost that or link to your post so that the others don't need to hunt through 37 pages to find your one post.
I think this is what he is referring to:

One of the items I talked about with my friend was a series of drawings produced by a biologist right around the turn of the 20th Century. The biologist's name escapes me at the moment but it's apparently a very common drawing depicting the embryos from several different species of organisms, illustrating the similar appearances and illustrating that all these forms had similar parts in an embryonic stage and thus a common origin. He had seen this picture in biology textbooks that he teaches from. (He teaches in a public High School.)

At any rate, it was discovered at some point that some of the drawings were falsified. The biologist simply drew them as he assumed they ought to appear and didn't bother actually studying them to prove it. This was by his own admission, mind you.

That essentially makes them useless as a scientific proof, and yet they still appear in textbooks. Does this not seem odd to anyone?

This was my response:


It sure seems odd to the scientists who have "exposed" this fraud many, many times over the years.

Here's a letter written to Science in 1998, by a guy named Richardson who is among those who have exposed the Haeckel fraud (Richardson et al, 1997):

Our work has been used in a nationally televised debate to attack evolutionary theory, and to suggest that evolution cannot explain embryology (2). We strongly disagree with this viewpoint. Data from embryology are fully consistent with Darwinian evolution. Haeckel's famous drawings are a Creationist cause célèbre (3). Early versions show young embryos looking virtually identical in different vertebrate species. On a fundamental level, Haeckel was correct: All vertebrates develop a similar body plan (consisting of notochord, body segments, pharyngeal pouches, and so forth). This shared developmental program reflects shared evolutionary history. It also fits with overwhelming recent evidence that development in different animals is controlled by common genetic mechanisms (4).

Unfortunately, Haeckel was overzealous. When we compared his drawings with real embryos, we found that he showed many details incorrectly. He did not show significant differences between species, even though his theories allowed for embryonic variation. For example, we found variations in embryonic size, external form, and segment number which he did not show (1). This does not negate Darwinian evolution. On the contrary, the mixture of similarities and differences among vertebrate embryos reflects evolutionary change in developmental mechanisms inherited from a common ancestor (5). [...]

These conclusions are supported in part by comparisons of developmental timing in different vertebrates (7). This work indicates a strong correlation between embryonic developmental sequences in humans and other eutherian mammals, but weak correlation between humans and some "lower" vertebrates. Haeckel's inaccuracies damage his credibility, but they do not invalidate the mass of published evidence for Darwinian evolution. Ironically, had Haeckel drawn the embryos accurately, his first two valid points in favor of evolution would have been better demonstrated.

(Bolds mine)

UPDATE: I also should point out that it is important to know which textbooks you are talking about, because there is actually a lot of misinformation out there. For instance, it was claimed that Futuyma used the Haeckel embryo drawings in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology, but a review of the 1st and 2nd editions of Evolutionary Biology reveals that no such drawings were included. From TalkOrigins, "In the first edition, Haeckel's biogenetic law and the problems with it are discussed on page 153 in respectable fashion (this corresponds with page 303 in the second edition) -- and in fact the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions."

I know that it can be discouraging to engage in discussions around places like this, but I don't personally feel that this is a good excuse for being sloppy in my own behavior.

Furthermore, I don't see what could possibly be accomplished if we set aside our standards for discussing this topic. If you refuse to present substantive arguments, then why bother to post at all on these threads? If you're just going to say, "This is what I think, and that's that," then what can anybody say in return?

Where's the fun in a fact-free science debate?!

I think it would be far more interesting and useful if we all provided specific information when it comes to topics like this one. Your opinion, and mine, mean buggerall when it comes to the actual evidence. The data is the data. Without presenting the data, we've got nothing to debate.


Lots of people do this, yes. Why are you letting those people be the ones who determine how you will behave? Why are you letting them set your personal standards for discussion of important topics?


That's very nice for you, and it might make discussing this topic with you easier on everybody (since you aren't going to get overly emotive about it, one would hope). However, your personal comfort level is rather beside the point if you aren't going to present any of your evidence or research.


Forgive me, but your tactics so far are very Creationist in flavor. You claim to know better than others, but will not present any evidence to support your claims. That's pretty much textbook Creationist. You also appear to have already made up your mind that nobody here will be able/willing to appreciate your evidence, and thus you are utterly closed to the idea of generating real discussion about your findings.

In other words, I call a spade a spade. If you behave like a Creationist, that's probably what I will end up calling you.


Closed-mindedness is a human trait. So?

I'm close-minded about Flat Earthism. I'm guessing a few other people are. Doesn't mean we're wrong.


The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I don't believe you are a zealot. I believe you're up on a pretty high horse, but that's nothing that really bothers me because I get up on a few of those myself from time to time. :D


Terrific! In the meantime, you could just post in your own words what some examples of your evidence are. You don't have to cite them from memory or anything, just try to describe them so we can start talking about them.

(i.e. the H Embryos were brought up, so that could be discussed even though a citation wasn't provided in the original post)


Not to worry, I won't take it personally or hold it against you. It's tough being the only one holding up one side of a discussion, and I appreciate your willingness to give it a go. People like you make these debates possible! :D

Points well taken.

I apologize for appearing to be "on a high horse." I think it's because I try really hard in my day-to-day life to at least listen to someone's point no matter how BS it might seem to me, and I get frustrated quickly when I feel as if people are going to dismiss my arguments out of hand. I do that pre-emptively.

*deep breath*

Ok. I will elaborate on the details of what I refer to, and will get the sources later on. for the moment I have a meeting here at work so be back in a bit.

if evolution is a myth, its a pretty dam good convincing myth.

Here is a critique of the standard proposition that combines microevolution and natural selection to try and explain macroevolution. This not from an ID site, but refutes creationism arguments as well from a rationale and scientific point of view.

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html

The Creationists would have us believe there is some magical barrier separating selection and drift within a species from the evolution of new species and new characteristics. Not only is this imagined barrier invisible to most scientists but, in addition, there is abundant evidence that no such barrier exists. We have numerous examples that show how diverse species are connected by a long series of genetic changes. This is why many scientists claim that macroevoluton is just lots of microevolution over a long period of time.

But wait a minute. I just said that many scientists think of macroevolution as simply a scaled-up version of microevolution, but a few paragraphs ago I said there's more to the theory of evolution than just changes in the frequency of alleles within a population. Don't these statements conflict? Yes, they do ... and therein lies a problem.

When the principle tenants of the Modern Synthesis were being worked out in the 1940's, one of the fundamental conclusions was that macroevolution could be explained by changes in the frequency of alleles within a population due, mostly, to natural selection. This gave rise to the commonly accepted notion that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. Let's refer to this as the sufficiency of microevolution argument....

...snip...

...The orthodox believers in the hardened synthesis feel threatened by macroevolution since it implies a kind of evolution that goes beyond the natural selection of individuals within a population. The extreme version of this view is called adaptationism and the believers are called Ultra-Darwinians by their critics. This isn't the place to debate adaptationism: for now, let's just assume that the sufficiency of microevolution argument is related to the pluralist-adaptationist controversy and see how our concept of macroevolution as a field of study relates to the issue. Niles Eldredge describes it like this ...

The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution—generation by generation selection- mediated change in gene frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term macroevolution suggests that the answer is automatically no. To them, macroevolution implies the action of processes—even genetic processes—that are as yet unknown but must be imagined to yield a satisfactory explanation of the history of life.

But macroevolution need not carry such heavy conceptual baggage. In its most basic usage, it simply means evolution on a large-scale. In particular, to some biologists, it suggests the origin of major groups - such as the origin and radiation of mammals, or the derivation of whales and bats from terrestrial mammalian ancestors. Such sorts of events may or may not demand additional theory for their explanation. Traditional Darwinian explanation, of course, insists not.

Niles Eldredge (1995) p. 126-127

Rubiks cubes are a bit simple to be compared to genes.

I don't think so. I think it's a very apt description. In fact, I think you can argue by virtue of their composition and make-up that genes may even be simpler than a Rubiks cube.

Actually, it does. Given enough generations, changes in species can occur. And we've had a lot of time for that to happen.

Change in species occurs - yes. But the cornerstone of your arguement is whether species can change into other species. Whether we have or haven't had enough time for that to happen is a seperate debate. However, if the evolutionist had been able to prove that one species has changed into another we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Actually, no. There are plenty of environmental influences that mess up your genes, such as radioactive radiation or UV light. This would be the equivalent of changing a few pieces on a rubiks cube, removing a few, or adding a few.

Nope. Again, the cornerstone of your belief is that genetic material is ADDED - i.e. improved features/functionality. Whilst radiation, UV light or any other disturbing feature (i.e. natural decay over time) removes or degrades genetic material. Effectively disproving evolution - or at the very least leaving it unprovable one way or another. However, since science holds that what is true presently has always been so (witness the above arguement on gravity or even the expansion of the universe), my contention is that the reverse of evolution is currently being witnessed and there's no proof that the contrary ever occurred.

The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution—generation by generation selection- mediated change in gene frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term macroevolution suggests that the answer is automatically no. To them, macroevolution implies the action of processes—even genetic processes—that are as yet unknown but must be imagined to yield a satisfactory explanation of the history of life.

But macroevolution need not carry such heavy conceptual baggage. In its most basic usage, it simply means evolution on a large-scale. In particular, to some biologists, it suggests the origin of major groups - such as the origin and radiation of mammals, or the derivation of whales and bats from terrestrial mammalian ancestors. Such sorts of events may or may not demand additional theory for their explanation. Traditional Darwinian explanation, of course, insists not.

Niles Eldredge (1995) p. 126-127[/INDENT]
This could be an ignorant question, but is it necessary that the Theory of Evolution in it's current incarnation explain the entire history of life?

This could be an ignorant question, but is it necessary that the Theory of Evolution in it's current incarnation explain the entire history of life?

Considering that evolution started when life did, yes, yes it is. It's not necessary to explain how life came about, however.

Considering that evolution started when life did, yes, yes it is. It's not necessary to explain how life came about, however.
I guess I asked the wrong question. I'll ask, rather, "What is the purpose of the Theory of Evolution?"

I guess I asked the wrong question. I'll ask, rather, "What is the purpose of the Theory of Evolution?"

I'd say its purpose is to explain how life developed from simple beginnings to what we see now. It's a work in progress.

I'd say its purpose is to explain how life developed from simple beginnings to what we see now. It's a work in progress.
What makes those beginning any more simple than life we have now?

I'd say its purpose is to explain how life developed from simple beginnings to what we see now. It's a work in progress.

That sums it up nicely. It would be cool if we could use it to predict further evolution, but considering it hinges on random gene mutation that's probably never going to happen.

What makes those beginning any more simple than life we have now?

They were single celled, we are not.

We share the majority of our DNA with monkeys, and have vestigial organs which serve no direct purpose, and in some cases are a minor hindrance (The appendix, for example, is horribly inefficient). This would imply that we shared a common ancestor.
Honestly, I haven't the time for this flamefest, and I doubt anyone else does either.


Humans have 99% of the same DNA as chimps, thus we have to have a common an ancestor. As for the human appendix it's function use to be like the gizzard in a bird the organ is used to help digest hard seeds and grains. Humans no longer need it thats why it is a useless part of the digestive system....

They were single celled, we are not.
Will we have more cells in the future than we do today?

What makes those beginning any more simple than life we have now?

Actually, most life on Earth is still simple. Bacteria and single-celled protozoa and all make up the vast bulk of life on Earth. But once upon a time, they were all there was. Over time they changed (evolved) into multicellular creatures and on up to Me, the Pinnacle of ... ahem, sorry.

And without being a biologist (classics major) I think probably the very first living things were simpler in their genetic make-up, in the chemical pathways they used for generating energy, they didn't have nuclei, such like. No internet or NationStates, either, the poor buggers.

Will we have more cells in the future than we do today?

That's impossible to know.

However, if the evolutionist had been able to prove that one species has changed into another we wouldn't be having this discussion.

since we have observed precisely that, and we are having this discussion, i'd say your argument is a bit lacking. it's not our fault that cdesign proponentsists hold to a standard of evience of "beyond unreasonable and clearly insane doubts"

Again, the cornerstone of your belief is that genetic material is ADDED - i.e. improved features/functionality. Whilst radiation, UV light or any other disturbing feature (i.e. natural decay over time) removes or degrades genetic material.

this is factually incorrect

What makes those beginning any more simple than life we have now?

the fossil evidence showing them to be such

Actually, most life on Earth is still simple. Bacteria and single-celled protozoa and all make up the vast bulk of life on Earth. But once upon a time, they were all there was. Over time they changed (evolved) into multicellular creatures and on up to Me, the Pinnacle of ... ahem, sorry.

And without being a biologist (classics major) I think probably the very first living things were simpler in their genetic make-up, in the chemical pathways they used for generating energy, they didn't have nuclei, such like. No internet or NationStates, either, the poor buggers.
How is the history of life relevant if single-celled organisms exist today that we can look at?

That's impossible to know.
Then what does the Theory of Evolution predict?

That sums it up nicely. It would be cool if we could use it to predict further evolution, but considering it hinges on random gene mutation that's probably never going to happen.

Not just that, but evolution has no direction. It follows what the environment dictates.
It is quite possible our descendants will get much dumber than us, but have other qualities we lack.

How is the history of life relevant if single-celled organisms exist today that we can look at?
We can learn about the life forms in between us and those original life forms and see if their existence fits in with the theory of evolution.


Then what does the Theory of Evolution predict?

I have no idea if it predicts anything. Possibly that life will continue to evolve through random gene mutations and natural selection. Though we're much less subject to natural selection than a few million years ago.

Then what does the Theory of Evolution predict?

Very little about the distant future. Though it can predict what we will find when we search the past.

Not just that, but evolution has no direction. It follows what the environment dictates.
It is quite possible our descendants will get much dumber than us, but have other qualities we lack.
Then a progression from "simpler" to us is not relevant to its purpose?

Then a progression from "simpler" to us is not relevant?

Depends on what you mean by relevant. It seems to have happened, and many people seem interested in understanding how.

Very little about the distant future. Though it can predict what we will find when we search the past.
I can predict the past, too. :-)

Just kidding. So the purpose of the Theory of Evolution, from what I am hearing, is to fill in that line of development of life from the beginning to now? i.e. to create that history.

Before I get going:

1)I'm not arguing in favor of Creationism. I'm limiting my comments to Natural Selection and why it has failed as an Evolutionary theory.

2)I will get the sources I'm using, but I won't play "my expert is better than yours" with anybody. Ultimately we all have to draw our own conclusions based upon how we understand available evidence.

-We've already talked a little about the embryo drawings issue. I brought it up as an example of evidence that is taken as fact despite its questionable reliability/objectivity. I don't know what biology textboox my friend saw it in. I'll ask him when I next see him. Make no mistake, the book was citing this as evidence of common origin.

-The Pre-Cambrian Explosion. This is an event revealed in the fossil record that indicates the sudden appearance of a great many species on Earth in a relatively short period of time. This is in conflict with Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that the timeline is dramatically compressed and links between many of these species has not been established.

-Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are certain organs and organ systems that could not have existed in a more primitive form and still been functional. I have seen articles that are meant to refute this, but while they refute some ill-considered examples (for example the eye) thet don't refute all of them (blood clotting, flagella). An irreducibly complex structure is not possible under Darwin's Natural Selection because mutation that improves survivability/reproductivity is an incremental process. A analogy to this is the mousetrap. You cannot remove a single component of a mousetrap and still have a functioning device. So it is with certain biological constructs.

As I said there are others, but this should suffice for now.

I remembered one more I wanted to use in this one:Inconsistency in Carbon Dating

How is the history of life relevant if single-celled organisms exist today that we can look at?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that if simple, single-celled creatures evolved into more complex, multi-celled ones, why are there still single-celled creatures? Creationists soetimes pose this one, asking why, if humans evolved form monkeys, are there still monkeys? The answer is that not every single simpler creature magically turned into a more complex one. Some evolved, changed and their children became something other than the parents (in the sense of many generations of parents and children). Some of the simpler creatures remained simple.

Then what does the Theory of Evolution predict?

I explains, rather than predicts. Though I suppose you could say that it predicts that as we look farther into the Earth's past, we should find remains of simpler creatures.

Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are certain organs and organ systems that could not have existed in a more primitive form and still been functional. I have seen articles that are meant to refute this, but while they refute some ill-considered examples (for example the eye) thet don't refute all of them (blood clotting, flagella). An irreducibly complex structure is not possible under Darwin's Natural Selection because mutation that improves survivability/reproductivity is an incremental process. A analogy to this is the mousetrap. You cannot remove a single component of a mousetrap and still have a functioning device. So it is with certain biological constructs.

A single gene mutation in drosophila melanogaster (model organism- fly) changes an antenna into another leg. Now, I know this is not a complete argument against irreducible complexity, but it is one example of a single gene mutation resulting in a humongous change in gene expression. All in one, compact, simple step.

Before I get going:

1)I'm not arguing in favor of Creationism. I'm limiting my comments to Natural Selection and why it has failed as an Evolutionary theory.

2)I will get the sources I'm using, but I won't play "my expert is better than yours" with anybody. Ultimately we all have to draw our own conclusions based upon how we understand available evidence.

-We've already talked a little about the embryo drawings issue. I brought it up as an example of evidence that is taken as fact despite its questionable reliability/objectivity. I don't know what biology textboox my friend saw it in. I'll ask him when I next see him. Make no mistake, the book was citing this as evidence of common origin.

-The Pre-Cambrian Explosion. This is an event revealed in the fossil record that indicates the sudden appearance of a great many species on Earth in a relatively short period of time. This is in conflict with Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that the timeline is dramatically compressed and links between many of these species has not been established.

-Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are certain organs and organ systems that could not have existed in a more primitive form and still been functional. I have seen articles that are meant to refute this, but while they refute some ill-considered examples (for example the eye) thet don't refute all of them (blood clotting, flagella). An irreducibly complex structure is not possible under Darwin's Natural Selection because mutation that improves survivability/reproductivity is an incremental process. A analogy to this is the mousetrap. You cannot remove a single component of a mousetrap and still have a functioning device. So it is with certain biological constructs.

As I said there are others, but this should suffice for now.

I remembered one more I wanted to use in this one:Inconsistency in Carbon Dating



1)Precambrian explosion:

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

2) Irreducible Complexity: Matter of opinion. A wrong one though. Everything can be "reduced" to simpler forms. Blod clotting can use different methods or be less efficient and the flagellem (as well as the eye) have numerous examples of less efficient/complex forms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

3) Carbon dating:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

I don't think so. I think it's a very apt description. In fact, I think you can argue by virtue of their composition and make-up that genes may even be simpler than a Rubiks cube.Nope. Rubiks cubes are nowhere near as complicated as genes and aren't prone to recombination or mutation either.
Change in species occurs - yes. But the cornerstone of your arguement is whether species can change into other species. Whether we have or haven't had enough time for that to happen is a seperate debate. However, if the evolutionist had been able to prove that one species has changed into another we wouldn't be having this discussion.The cornerstone of any such argument relies on the idea that species exist, and that it's not just some human label. ;)
Nope. Again, the cornerstone of your belief is that genetic material is ADDED - i.e. improved features/functionality. Whilst radiation, UV light or any other disturbing feature (i.e. natural decay over time) removes or degrades genetic material. Effectively disproving evolution - or at the very least leaving it unprovable one way or another. However, since science holds that what is true presently has always been so (witness the above arguement on gravity or even the expansion of the universe), my contention is that the reverse of evolution is currently being witnessed and there's no proof that the contrary ever occurred.Are you suggesting that addition of genes never happens?

A single gene mutation in drosophila melanogaster (model organism- fly) changes an antenna into another leg. Now, I know this is not a complete argument against irreducible complexity, but it is one example of a single gene mutation resulting in a humongous change in gene expression. All in one, compact, simple step.

Are you talking about a change in a single organism, or a change over several generations?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that if simple, single-celled creatures evolved into more complex, multi-celled ones, why are there still single-celled creatures?
No; I'm just trying to get at whether the Theory of Evolution need explain the history of life.

I explains, rather than predicts. Though I suppose you could say that it predicts that as we look farther into the Earth's past, we should find remains of simpler creatures.
Theories exist to predict. For instance, the Theory of Gravity predicts that things will move towards the body of greater mass, or something like that.

-Irreducible Complexity. This is the idea that there are certain organs and organ systems that could not have existed in a more primitive form and still been functional. I have seen articles that are meant to refute this, but while they refute some ill-considered examples (for example the eye) thet don't refute all of them (blood clotting, flagella).

The flagellum is an even more illconsidered example than the eye. Every intermediate step still exists in living bacteria...
Which Behe would have known if he had just bothered to check.

An irreducibly complex structure is not possible under Darwin's Natural Selection

The idea of irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy to begin with if you talk about living organisms. It is impossible to define.

The cornerstone of any such argument relies on the idea that species exist, and that it's not just some human label. ;)
Within science, a definition for species exist, whether it is just a randomly applied label or not. Evolution is defined and described using scientific terminology, so therefore the scientific definition of a species is perfectly valid. There certainly are competing definitions, but most of them follow a fairly consistent outline.
Are you suggesting that addition of genes never happens?
Yeah, I believe s/he is. Misunderstanding that a beneficial mutation (and even some of the deleterious one's) are passed on.

The flagellum is an even more illconsidered example than the eye. Every intermediate step still exists in living bacteria...
Which Behe would have known if he had just bothered to check.

The idea of irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy to begin with if you talk about living organisms. It is impossible to define.


But using lots of big words is more important than peer review, accuracy, or honesty.

Are you talking about a change in a single organism, or a change over several generations?

This is a mutation in a single organism which may be passed on to offspring.

Within science, a definition for species exist, whether it is just a randomly applied label or not. Evolution is defined and described using scientific terminology, so therefore the scientific definition of a species is perfectly valid. There certainly are competing definitions, but most of them follow a fairly consistent outline. Indeed there is. They are just not universally applicable and have grounds for much controversy. The typical species/race concept doesn't apply to many species of orchid, for example.

I looked at your sources, of which two were from a talking points website. The talking points seemed to be directed more about how these issues dont' prove Intelligent Design, but since I'm not arguing Intelligent Design I'll just go with the parts that are relevant.

1)Precambrian explosion:

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

This response centers on a few examples that do fit Natural Selection, and then follows those examples with a list of hypotheses that might explain ways the Pre-Cambrian Explosion could be shoehorned into Darwin's model.


2) Irreducible Complexity: Matter of opinion. Give me an example.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

I gave 2. And this isn't a matter of opinion. The article you're citing here concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems may not fit into Darwin's Natural Selection, and goes on to add that it doesn't in itself prove Intelligent Design. Again, I'm not addressing Intelligent Design in this discussion, so the rest is moot.


3) Carbon dating:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
[/quote]
These articles simply explain the process of Carbon Dating, not how it's used in the arena of Evolution.

My issue with Carbon Dating is that it makes assumptions as to the history and state of the material being testes that are not necessarily accurate or realistis. Results of C-14 dating can and often are impacted by environmental factors as well as microorganisms.

Indeed there is. They are just not universally applicable and have grounds for much controversy. The typical species/race concept doesn't apply to many species of orchid, for example.

Ah, I see what you were getting at. :)

Change in species occurs - yes. But the cornerstone of your arguement is whether species can change into other species. Whether we have or haven't had enough time for that to happen is a seperate debate. However, if the evolutionist had been able to prove that one species has changed into another we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Look I know its wikipedia and people have some problems with that but its just easier… so check out Ring Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) I posted info about them before… they are a pretty good example of speciation at work. Its all to do with the way the concepts of populations and species interact.


Nope. Again, the cornerstone of your belief is that genetic material is ADDED - i.e. improved features/functionality. Whilst radiation, UV light or any other disturbing feature (i.e. natural decay over time) removes or degrades genetic material. Effectively disproving evolution - or at the very least leaving it unprovable one way or another. However, since science holds that what is true presently has always been so (witness the above arguement on gravity or even the expansion of the universe), my contention is that the reverse of evolution is currently being witnessed and there's no proof that the contrary ever occurred.

That sums it up nicely. It would be cool if we could use it to predict further evolution, but considering it hinges on random gene mutation that's probably never going to happen.

Actually it may one day be possible.. admittedly a very very very long time in the future.. but it does look like it is a possibility

http://news.com.com/Is+evolution+predictable/2100-11395_3-6074543.html

Also Lydiardia you might notice that in the article above that the mutations are beneficial. A single population of cells with zero difference and no way to sexually reproduce manage to form several distinct populations and created mutations that improved their survival rate… pretty convincing ??

But using lots of big words is more important than peer review, accuracy, or honesty.

Resorting to personal shots so quickly?

Resorting to personal shots so quickly?

Against Behe, yes. If you're supporting his psuedo-science, then that's your decision.

Evidence against IC:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

The flagellum is an even more illconsidered example than the eye. Every intermediate step still exists in living bacteria...
Which Behe would have known if he had just bothered to check.

No, they don't. Not unless your'e talking about an organ that serves a different purpose but bears a resemblance to a flagellum.



The idea of irreducible complexity is a logical fallacy to begin with if you talk about living organisms. It is impossible to define.
Which logical fallacy, precisely?

And I think as a concept it's pretty easy to define.

Resorting to personal shots so quickly?

Well then.. please define irreducible complexity. Behe failed miserably when he tried.

Against Behe, yes. If you're supporting his psuedo-science, then that's your decision.

Then I misunderstood your target.

Although just calling something pseudo-science doesn't make it so. if I said that about a source of yours I'm sure you'd demand some kind of support for that opinion. Therefore, quid pro quo...

No, they don't. Not unless your'e talking about an organ that serves a different purpose but bears a resemblance to a flagellum.

...
Yes. That is the whole point.

...
Yes. That is the whole point.

Ok but see here's the problem. You're suggesting that an organ suddenly, in a single mutation step, becomes something that serves a completely different purpose. It's like suggesting that my child could have a mutation that turned his right arm into a wing in one step. This is not consistent with Darwin's theory, as conceded by one of kecibukia's source talking points.

So the purpose of the Theory of Evolution, from what I am hearing, is to fill in that line of development of life from the beginning to now? i.e. to create that history.

more like explain the changes we see, both now and in the past, as well as providing a general framework for understanding life in general. it's predictive power rests in, for example, predictions about relationships between things (on a number of levels - genetic, morphological, ecological, chronological, etc).

Indeed there is. They are just not universally applicable and have grounds for much controversy. The typical species/race concept doesn't apply to many species of orchid, for example.

Species actually has just about zero meaning at the microbial level as there is no sexual reproduction.... so yeah species is all about defining populations anyway....

and populations are all about levels of inbreeding.

Dogs are a great example...

If you breed 2 bulldogs together you get another bulldog. As long as you keep them separate then they will stay bulldogs. You can however breed bulldogs for particular traits. Their bulldog population is effectively isolated. This isolation is completely artificial as they can in fact still breed with other dogs if they come across them. But it is isolation none the less.

This seperation could be because of geographical reasons though... a mountain range or a river between populations for instance. For as long as there is separation in the populations then you can have the 2 populations develop in different directions... if they can interbreed though then then they are really just one big population as genetic material can pass from one population to the other.

What the species definition does is provide a definate point at which populations are separated. If they can't interbreed then they must have different populations.

This means it is possible (in some circumstances) to have much greater differences between 2 populations of the same species than 2 species. eg a great dane may be more different genetically from a pekinese than the eastern spotted woodpecker is from the western spotted woodpecker is even though the woodpeckers are different species and the dogs are both the same species.

So really species is just an artificial construct to describe definately separated populations....

Then I misunderstood your target.

Although just calling something pseudo-science doesn't make it so. if I said that about a source of yours I'm sure you'd demand some kind of support for that opinion. Therefore, quid pro quo...

So you admit you're citing Behe? Read the sources that have been presented. Plus the fact that he regularly misstates quotes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.10

Ok but see here's the problem. You're suggesting that an organ suddenly, in a single mutation step, becomes something that serves a completely different purpose. It's like suggesting that my child could have a mutation that turned his right arm into a wing in one step. This is not consistent with Darwin's theory, as conceded by one of kecibukia's source talking points.
I don't see why this is inconsistent with Darwin's theory.

a mutation.. gives an advantage... better survival in a particular niche... improved reproduction

Why does it matter if the result of the mutation is big or small? Surely it only matters what the result is?

The thing is during development a small change in expression can result in big changes in the final animal. Fins to legs doesn't even require any real change to the genes themselves... just to changes in timing for their expression, for example.

So you admit you're citing Behe? Read the sources that have been presented. Plus the fact that he regularly misstates quotes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.10

Actually I wasn't citing him directly, since I don't have my sources handy I CAN'T really cite anybody at the moment, although "admit" is an interesting word. So what if I were? The reference on your link doesn't directly address his findings. The author of the text seems to be interested in defelcting attention away by nitpicking grammar.

I don't see why this is inconsistent with Darwin's theory.

a mutation.. gives an advantage... better survival in a particular niche... improved reproduction

Why does it matter if the result of the mutation is big or small? Surely it only matters what the result is?

The thing is during development a small change in expression can result in big changes in the final animal. Fins to legs doesn't even require any real change to the genes themselves... just to changes in timing for their expression, for example.

It's inconsistent because Natural Selection is based upon tiny, incremental changes over the course of many generations, each of which has an improved chance of survival/reproducing as a result of this change.

What' sbeing argued here is whether or not a change as massive and complex as a human being suddenly mutating arms into a set of fully functioning wings is consistent withthat theory. It is not. Whether you see a pair of wings as being genetically advantageous or not, the point is that it's supposed to happen over generations, one little bit at a time.

The X-Men is fiction, not science.

These articles simply explain the process of Carbon Dating, not how it's used in the arena of Evolution.

My issue with Carbon Dating is that it makes assumptions as to the history and state of the material being testes that are not necessarily accurate or realistis. Results of C-14 dating can and often are impacted by environmental factors as well as microorganisms.

I think his links were to ellaborate what carbon dating was.

Carbon dating in the arena of Evolution is only possible back to 100,000 years, as the first link states, so at best it can cover only the most recent evolution. Its accuracy has been comfirmed to be good back to 5000BC. Beyond that it is, as you say, not necessarily accurate and also it points out why it will become less reliable for future dating.

Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

I am puzzled though why the reliability of carbon dating blows a hole in the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I looked at your sources, of which two were from a talking points website. The talking points seemed to be directed more about how these issues dont' prove Intelligent Design, but since I'm not arguing Intelligent Design I'll just go with the parts that are relevant.

But since most of your arguements are based off of ID, it follows.


This response centers on a few examples that do fit Natural Selection, and then follows those examples with a list of hypotheses that might explain ways the Pre-Cambrian Explosion could be shoehorned into Darwin's model.

"shoehorn"? So you take scientifically unsupported statements and present them as "evidence" but an article that actually presents supported evidence is "shoehorning" into your red herring.


I gave 2. And this isn't a matter of opinion. The article you're citing here concedes that Irreducibly Complex systems may not fit into Darwin's Natural Selection, and goes on to add that it doesn't in itself prove Intelligent Design. Again, I'm not addressing Intelligent Design in this discussion, so the rest is moot.

ANd I editted it to refute them as well as presented the evidence. Since IC is a major part of ID, you sure seem to present a lot of arguments that support it when not supporting it.



These articles simply explain the process of Carbon Dating, not how it's used in the arena of Evolution.

My issue with Carbon Dating is that it makes assumptions as to the history and state of the material being testes that are not necessarily accurate or realistis. Results of C-14 dating can and often are impacted by environmental factors as well as microorganisms.

You claimed it was innaccurate w/o supporting evidence. I provided evidence as to it's accuracy. Try again.

Actually I wasn't citing him directly, since I don't have my sources handy I CAN'T really cite anybody at the moment, although "admit" is an interesting word. So what if I were? The reference on your link doesn't directly address his findings. The author of the text seems to be interested in defelcting attention away by nitpicking grammar.

You just present the same arguments he does. It addresses most of his findings as well as presenting more links.

You can state the author "seems" to be doing whatever you want. Doesn't make it any more accurate.

I am puzzled though why the reliability of carbon dating blows a hole in the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Because when examining the fossil record, especially with human evolution, Carbon Dating is often used to justify linking varous fossils together in such a way as to support Natural Selection. Therefore, the reliability of C-14 dating becomes relevant.

It's inconsistent because Natural Selection is based upon tiny, incremental changes over the course of many generations, each of which has an improved chance of survival/reproducing as a result of this change.

What' sbeing argued here is whether or not a change as massive and complex as a human being suddenly mutating arms into a set of fully functioning wings is consistent withthat theory. It is not. Whether you see a pair of wings as being genetically advantageous or not, the point is that it's supposed to happen over generations, one little bit at a time.

The X-Men is fiction, not science.

But your example doesn't fit at all. Different variations of flagellum do exist at different levels of "complexity". They didn't just "pop out" miraculously. That would be a strawman BTW.

This means it is possible (in some circumstances) to have much greater differences between 2 populations of the same species than 2 species. eg a great dane may be more different genetically from a pekinese than the eastern spotted woodpecker is from the western spotted woodpecker is even though the woodpeckers are different species and the dogs are both the same species.

So really species is just an artificial construct to describe definately separated populations....

Sorry to quote myself just realised I wanted to ad something....

This is often the reason you won't find directly linking individuals...

if you take one population.. split it in two and then let them develop separately if you leave them apart for long enough the 2 populations may grow to look very different indeed. Great Danes and Pekinese for instance. All the Great danes will look mostly like great danes .. and all the pekinese will look like pekinese... there won't be really any individuals that look half way between great danes and pekinese in either population. Does that mean that there is no link between those populations?

The search for link species is like looking for a needle in a haystack... the intermediaries only really happen during the brief period when populations are separated... once they are separated then change will occur rapidly until they once again form a stable point. So you get long stretches of stability punctuated by very brief stretches of rapid genetic separation.

Because when examining the fossil record, especially with human evolution, Carbon Dating is often used to justify linking varous fossils together in such a way as to support Natural Selection. Therefore, the reliability of C-14 dating becomes relevant.

So only C-14 dating is used? Try again.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

But since most of your arguements are based off of ID, it follows.
If the same arguments are applicable to both then so be it. Ultimately what you're trying to do is put the burden of proof on me to prove ID. I don't need to prove it because that's not the argument I'm making. It's a strawman argument.


"shoehorn"? So you take scientifically unsupported statements and present them as "evidence" but an article that actually presents supported evidence is "shoehorning" into your red herring.

No, I'm pointing out that presenting a bunch of "maybe this happened" theories doesn't prove anything. That's called an argument from ignorance.


ANd I editted it to refute them as well as presented the evidence. Since IC is a major part of ID, you sure seem to present a lot of arguments that support it when not supporting it.

Edited what?


You claimed it was innaccurate w/o supporting evidence. I provided evidence as to it's accuracy. Try again.
What you presented were a description of the process. That osn't, in and of itself, proof of accuracy.

Actually I wasn't citing him directly, since I don't have my sources handy I CAN'T really cite anybody at the moment, although "admit" is an interesting word. So what if I were? The reference on your link doesn't directly address his findings. The author of the text seems to be interested in defelcting attention away by nitpicking grammar.

It was not so much nitpicking grammer but criticising for mis-use of quotes and taking them out of context.

But your example doesn't fit at all. Different variations of flagellum do exist at different levels of "complexity". They didn't just "pop out" miraculously. That would be a strawman BTW.

Did you notice that the person who insisted that the structures comprising flagella existed at different stages of complexity conceded that they served other functions?

Just a side note, tossing out terms like strawman doesn't actually make that a logical fallacy. I recommend you brush up on your logical fallacy terms.

Because when examining the fossil record, especially with human evolution, Carbon Dating is often used to justify linking varous fossils together in such a way as to support Natural Selection. Therefore, the reliability of C-14 dating becomes relevant.

really? it seems to me that 1) radiocarbon dating can only be used on maybe two or three species of humans and 2) giving things exact dates isn't used to establish evolutionary relationships at all really.

So only C-14 dating is used? Try again.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

I never said only C-14 dating was used, that's just the example I chose.

Could you do me a favor and debate the points I actually make, rather than putting words into my mouth? Thanks! :)

It's inconsistent because Natural Selection is based upon tiny, incremental changes over the course of many generations, each of which has an improved chance of survival/reproducing as a result of this change.

What' sbeing argued here is whether or not a change as massive and complex as a human being suddenly mutating arms into a set of fully functioning wings is consistent withthat theory. It is not. Whether you see a pair of wings as being genetically advantageous or not, the point is that it's supposed to happen over generations, one little bit at a time.

The X-Men is fiction, not science.

The "tiny, incremental changes" you are talking about are at the genetic level though... sometimes a very small change at the genetic level can result in a large change at the morphological level.



eg the fly antenae to leg example .. which you can observe amongst many others in the lab (included in most university lab practical classes)

The actual genetic change necessary to cause this change is very small... but the change in interaction of the genes during development results in a big final change.

eg closer to home ... people are born with 6 fingers.. downsyndrome.. gigantism... etc .. they are only small changes at the genetic level but have a big result at the final level.

So that is perfectly consistent with darwins "tiny, incremental changes" model.

Did you notice that the person who insisted that the structures comprising flagella existed at different stages of complexity conceded that they served other functions?

so? the mere fact that they can and do exist utterly destroys the notion that flagella are irreducibly complex.

you know what else is IC? stone archways - pull one stone out and the whole thing falls down. they must spring into existence fully formed, eh?

If the same arguments are applicable to both then so be it. Ultimately what you're trying to do is put the burden of proof on me to prove ID. I don't need to prove it because that's not the argument I'm making. It's a strawman argument.

You're dodging the point. The articles focus on ID because ID uses those same arguments. Just because they mention ID does not invalidate their refutation of the arguement.


No, I'm pointing out that presenting a bunch of "maybe this happened" theories doesn't prove anything. That's called an argument from ignorance.

And they presented papers that support the possible hypothesis. That is not an AFI. Just claiming "well science can't "prove" it so the cambrian explosion is false" is a fallacy.


Edited what?

The post where I asked for examples and then changed it to provide refutations.


What you presented were a description of the process. That osn't, in and of itself, proof of accuracy.

So you didn't even bother to read the article then did you? There's a section on it's reliability along w/ references.

Try again.

really? it seems to me that 1) radiocarbon dating can only be used on maybe two or three species of humans and 2) giving things exact dates isn't used to establish evolutionary relationships at all really.

There are a great many anthropologists and palentologists who rely heavily on it. As for the exactness of their dating... a range of 10,000-15,000 years is fairly precise, on an evolutionary scale.

so? the mere fact that they can and do exist utterly destroys the notion that flagella are irreducibly complex.

No it doesn't. Once again, it's saying that an organ can jump function from one to another, unrelated function by a single mutation step. This is NOT consistent with Natural Selection.

I never said only C-14 dating was used, that's just the example I chose.

Could you do me a favor and debate the points I actually make, rather than putting words into my mouth? Thanks! :)

Yet you're attacking evolution based off of one method that's used, claiming it's innacurate yet haven't provided sources to back you up.

No it doesn't. Once again, it's saying that an organ can jump function from one to another, unrelated function by a single mutation step. This is NOT consistent with Natural Selection.

And that's not what anybody here is saying except you.

The "tiny, incremental changes" you are talking about are at the genetic level though... sometimes a very small change at the genetic level can result in a large change at the morphological level.



eg the fly antenae to leg example .. which you can observe amongst many others in the lab (included in most university lab practical classes)

The actual genetic change necessary to cause this change is very small... but the change in interaction of the genes during development results in a big final change.

eg closer to home ... people are born with 6 fingers.. downsyndrome.. gigantism... etc .. they are only small changes at the genetic level but have a big result at the final level.

So that is perfectly consistent with darwins "tiny, incremental changes" model.

But there's the added requirement that the new structure provide an advantage in survival/reproduction. Having 6 fingers on one hand rather than 5 doesn't confer a particular advantage in survival, therefore it would never, under the model presented by Natural Selection, cause a species level evolution.

There are a great many anthropologists and palentologists who rely heavily on it. As for the exactness of their dating... a range of 10,000-15,000 years is fairly precise, on an evolutionary scale.

Source it.

But there's the added requirement that the new structure provide an advantage in survival/reproduction. Having 6 fingers on one hand rather than 5 doesn't confer a particular advantage in survival, therefore it would never, under the model presented by Natural Selection, cause a species level evolution.

Agreed.
So.. how is that relevant to the flagellum case ?

Once again, it's saying that an organ can jump function from one to another, unrelated function by a single mutation step. This is NOT consistent with Natural Selection.

yes, it is. on a simple enough structure, a single point mutation can make a huge difference. on more complex ones, it takes a few more mutations. sfw?

But there's the added requirement that the new structure provide an advantage in survival/reproduction. Having 6 fingers on one hand rather than 5 doesn't confer a particular advantage in survival, therefore it would never, under the model presented by Natural Selection, cause a species level evolution.

You have evidence that 6 fingers "doesn't confer a particular advantage in survival"? Why wouldn't it? Increased dexterity is an advantage.

[QUOTE=Prussische;12027484]Oh, man, the smug waves are too strong, I don't think I can respond to this, it's making my eyes water, aw, aw.

In all seriousness, I don't see why you had to even bring up the word "Church". The evolution debate doesn't have to center around religion, and the originator of the thread did not declare himself a theist.
/QUOTE]

Maybe not, but the only people who ever try to dispute the existence of evolution are idiots whose argument always boils down to 'It's not in the Bible, so it must be wrong', as if the Bible is some kind of science textbook.

Look at Matthew 13:32, where it clearly says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.
Perhaps you think that's a scientifically accurate statement?

Did you notice that the person who insisted that the structures comprising flagella existed at different stages of complexity conceded that they served other functions?


So if a creature originally develops a tool for a particular purpose it can't be used for any other purpose?

eg wings used for flying couldn't be used for swimming

limbs developed for walking couldn't be used as antenae

if something is useful for a purpose it wasn't intended for that doesn't make it any less useful.

Most human inventions are serendipitous... they get invented for one thing and end up being used for another... same in the animal kingdom.

There are a great many anthropologists and palentologists who rely heavily on it...

to find out precisely how old something is. not to make it fit the theory of evolution. it already fit the theory.

Yet you're attacking evolution based off of one method that's used, claiming it's innacurate yet haven't provided sources to back you up.

So you're saying it's okay to put words in my mouth to prove your points. Gotcha.

to find out precisely how old something is. not to make it fit the theory of evolution. it already fit the theory.

No, in order to establish that a particular fossil form fits the structure of Natural Selection, you'd have to establish that it existed at a time between the two forms it supposedly links together. That makes dating improtant.

So if a creature originally develops a tool for a particular purpose it can't be used for any other purpose?

Of course not. That would defenstrate the whole idea of irreducible complexity ;)

You have evidence that 6 fingers "doesn't confer a particular advantage in survival"? Why wouldn't it? Increased dexterity is an advantage.

Are you suggesting that 6-fingered people have a longer lifespan and greater reproduction oportunity than those with 5?

So you're saying it's okay to put words in my mouth to prove your points. Gotcha.

You stated that scientists use carbon dating, that it's innacurate, and is proof against evolution. I've shown evidence that it's accurate, it's not the only method they use, and can be used as evidence for evolution.

I asked if C-14 was the only one they used. Are you stating that all of the methods are innacurate or only C-14?

So if a creature originally develops a tool for a particular purpose it can't be used for any other purpose?

eg wings used for flying couldn't be used for swimming

limbs developed for walking couldn't be used as antenae

if something is useful for a purpose it wasn't intended for that doesn't make it any less useful.

Most human inventions are serendipitous... they get invented for one thing and end up being used for another... same in the animal kingdom.

I dind't make up the theory, Darwin did. I dind't state the specifications, Darwin did. You have a problem with the tenets of that theory, talk to him.

You stated that scientists use carbon dating, that it's innacurate, and is proof against evolution. I've shown evidence that it's accurate, it's not the only method they use, and can be used as evidence for evolution.

I asked if C-14 was the only one they used. Are you stating that all of the methods are innacurate or only C-14?

I already answered this, and you're still trying to justify putting words in my mouth.

I dind't make up the theory, Darwin did. I dind't state the specifications, Darwin did. You have a problem with the tenets of that theory, talk to him.

You seriously do not believe the current theory of evolution is identical to the thing Darwin thought up I hope ?

I think you'll find that we didn't evole from monkey's as they are a seperate branch of our own genetic family we both descended from a similar creture however evoled differently in fact the closes animal related to us ape and more specifically the orangatang you know that orange thing.
In fact genetically we have more in common with pigs than monkey's although that would make a ribbuish picture wouldn't it.:)

Are you suggesting that 6-fingered people have a longer lifespan and greater reproduction oportunity than those with 5?

Are you putting words in my mouth? Did I say that? Read what I wrote. I stated that increased dexterity(from having additional usable fingers) is an survival advantage. You claimed that additional fingers wouldn't be. Now you're trying to limit it down to only lifespan and reproduction. Are you suggesting improved physical capabilities is NOT an advantage?

Try again.

For anyone who dosen't understand why scientists are so confident in evolution...

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution

I already answered this, and you're still trying to justify putting words in my mouth.

You haven't answered anything. You attack "carbon dating" w/o evidence, don't read the evidence provided for it, and keep claiming it is doesn't support the evolution.

Since it IS accurate and it's not the only one they use to justify the dates, your argument is false.

I dind't make up the theory, Darwin did. I dind't state the specifications, Darwin did. You have a problem with the tenets of that theory, talk to him.

Show me in his theory the specifications you're talking about.

That sums it up nicely. It would be cool if we could use it to predict further evolution, but considering it hinges on random gene mutation that's probably never going to happen.

Well, it would be if the "random gene mutation" added functionality. Unfortunately, that's not been proven to be the case.

Drat.. I can't find the other comment I wanted to respond to.. Have to spam more posts now :(

Are you putting words in my mouth? Did I say that? Read what I wrote. I stated that increased dexterity(from having additional usable fingers) is an survival advantage. You claimed that additional fingers wouldn't be. Now you're trying to limit it down to only lifespan and reproduction. Are you suggesting improved physical capabilities is NOT an advantage?

Try again.
I haven't put words in your mouth, I asked a question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. It's alright.

Athough it's kinda funny because you went on to say exactly that. You do understand that survivability in th eevolutionary sense is all about living long enough to pass on your genes to the next generation. How am I limiting that down by refering to to survivability/reproduction?

Mind you, you've just stated that having an extra finger is a survival advantage, right after accusing me of putting those very words into your mouth. It looks like there's a lack of coherency here.

And "Try again" isn't really as clever as all that. Saying it doesn't invalidate someone's argument. Keep writing it though, if it helps.

I dind't make up the theory, Darwin did. I dind't state the specifications, Darwin did. You have a problem with the tenets of that theory, talk to him.The world is already 100 years ahead of Darwin. ID folks on the other hand are 2500 years behind.

And "Try again" isn't really as clever as all that. Saying it doesn't invalidate someone's argument. Keep writing it though, if it helps.

"Keep writing it though" isn't substantially more clever.

Try again! ;)

I dind't make up the theory, Darwin did. I dind't state the specifications, Darwin did. You have a problem with the tenets of that theory, talk to him.

The specifications are rather vague. Darwin defined natural selection (which is where you started, I think, however so many pages ago) as being the "principle by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved" (Origin of Species, Chapter 3). He also realized that it "has been the main, but not exclusive means of modification" (Origin of Species, page 6). Since then science has progressed quite a way beyond Darwin.

Are you suggesting that 6-fingered people have a longer lifespan and greater reproduction oportunity than those with 5?

Are you suggesting that it would make you have shorter lifespan and lesser reproduction opportunity than those with 5?

If not then its a mutation that will be carried on in the population.

The other thing that is involved here is linkage...

Say a particular mutation gives me the ability to produce twins with every birth but through some bizarre developmental process also gives me 1 less arm. The one less arm may well be a disadvantage... but if its not so much of a disadvantage so as to stop me breeding at all with my extra baby born through each success I may quickly outbreed by fellow 2 armed friends...

Not all changes have to be benificial to be gained...

You seriously do not believe the current theory of evolution is identical to the thing Darwin thought up I hope ?

'Course he does. Idiots like to give the impression that evolution was just an idea one man came up with - sounds much more rational to say that you're arguing with one man, rather than admit you're claiming there's an anti-God conspiracy been going on among scientists at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. Maybe not all scientists - maybe only the biologists, chemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers, historians, archaeologists...

Naturally, the ancient Greeks couldn't get the whole business completely figured out, and neither could the ship's doctor of the HMS Beagle.

I haven't put words in your mouth, I asked a question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. It's alright.

No, you're stating I suggested something I didn't.

Athough it's kinda funny because you went on to say exactly that. You do understand that survivability in th eevolutionary sense is all about living long enough to pass on your genes to the next generation. How am I limiting that down by refering to to survivability/reproduction?

So "living long enough to pass on your genes" equals a "longer lifespan" than others? Really? You're now also changing your question again. "Lifespan" /= "survivability" nor does "greater reproductive opportunities" = "reproduction" as a whole.

Keep trying.

Mind you, you've just stated that having an extra finger is a survival advantage, right after accusing me of putting those very words into your mouth. It looks like there's a lack of coherency here.

Now you're lying. You stated only "Lifespan" and "reproductive opportunities". Those aren't the only two advantages. The only "lack of coherency" is on your part.

And "Try again" isn't really as clever as all that. Saying it doesn't invalidate someone's argument. Keep writing it though, if it helps.

I'll keep writing it as long as you keep posting nonsense. Nice that you refuse to anwer the question though.

Are you suggesting that it would make you have shorter lifespan and lesser reproduction opportunity than those with 5?

If not then its a mutation that will be carried on in the population.

Not at all. The only thing I've asserted in connection with having 6 fingers is that it doesn't confer an advantage or disadvantage. It therefore won't (according to Natural Selection)yield a species-altering change. Sure, it may get passed on to offspring, but without making it easier to survive/reproduce, it would forever remain a mere oddity.


The other thing that is involved here is linkage...

Say a particular mutation gives me the ability to produce twins with every birth but through some bizarre developmental process also gives me 1 less arm. The one less arm may well be a disadvantage... but if its not so much of a disadvantage so as to stop me breeding at all with my extra baby born through each success I may quickly outbreed by fellow 2 armed friends...

Not all changes have to be benificial to be gained...

A mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to occur, but, accoridng to Natural Selection, for it to eventually result in a species changing adaptation it DOES have to be beneficial for survival/reproduction.

Well, it would be if the "random gene mutation" added functionality. Unfortunately, that's not been proven to be the case.

Drat.. I can't find the other comment I wanted to respond to.. Have to spam more posts now :(

Not proven... but they are working on it:

http://news.com.com/Is+evolution+predictable/2100-11395_3-6074543.html

Are you suggesting that 6-fingered people have a longer lifespan and greater reproduction oportunity than those with 5?

Yes you could say that. Having six-fingers may not be why that is so however. The gene that causes the six fingers may also cause another alternation that does give the person an advantage.

This causes a neutral mutation to be preserved because another of its effects is beneficial.

In the future another mutation may occur that interacts with the previously neutral mutation that causes it to become either detrimental or beneficial.

This may be the reason why vestigial organs may be preserved in some species. Not because the organ itself is beneficial to the organism but because the genes that encode for it encode for other things that are vital to the organism.

Not at all. The only thing I've asserted in connection with having 6 fingers is that it doesn't confer an advantage or disadvantage. It therefore won't (according to Natural Selection)yield a species-altering change. Sure, it may get passed on to offspring, but without making it easier to survive/reproduce, it would forever remain a mere oddity.

A mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to occur, but, accoridng to Natural Selection, for it to eventually result in a species changing adaptation it DOES have to be beneficial for survival/reproduction.


And I've asserted that it can provide an advantage.

No, you're stating I suggested something I didn't.



So "living long enough to pass on your genes" equals a "longer lifespan" than others? Really? You're now also changing your question again. "Lifespan" /= "survivability" nor does "greater reproductive opportunities" = "reproduction" as a whole.

Keep trying.



Now you're lying. You stated only "Lifespan" and "reproductive opportunities". Those aren't the only two advantages. The only "lack of coherency" is on your part.



I'll keep writing it as long as you keep posting nonsense. Nice that you refuse to anwer the question though.

OK I'm done with you. Generally when someobody resorts to personal insults the debate isn't enjoyable anymore. I didn't lie. You failed to read/comprehend what I said. Not my fault. In fact, I could have called you a liar a couple times but I gve the benefit of the doubt that you just misunderstood.

For the record, you accused me of putting words in your mouth, then went on to say the very thing I was supposed to have falsely attributed to you. That's incoherent. Second, if you don't understand Natural Selection well enough to know that beneficial traits are passed on because of improving survivability/reproduction, then you need to brush up. If you die before you can reproduce, you don't pass along the upgrade. See how that works?

I'll continue the discussion with anyone else who'd like to.

Yes you could say that. Having six-fingers may not be why that is so however. The gene that causes the six fingers may also cause another alternation that does give the person an advantage.

This causes a neutral mutation to be preserved because another of its effects is beneficial.

In the future another mutation may occur that interacts with the previously neutral mutation that causes it to become either detrimental or beneficial.

This may be the reason why vestigial organs may be preserved in some species. Not because the organ itself is beneficial to the organism but because the genes that encode for it encode for other things that are vital to the organism.

What you're saying is logical, but "may be" isn't proof, it's a hypothesis.

What you're saying is logical, but "may be" isn't proof, it's a hypothesis.

Indeed. However, the fact that you acknowledge the possibility of such occurences automatically entails that you must dismiss irreducible complexity.

Indeed. However, the fact that you acknowledge the possibility of such occurences automatically entails that you must dismiss irreducible complexity.

I'm not acknowledging it. This is why.

Basically by saying "may be" one is trying to create proof from hypothesis. I reject that. It's a form of logical fallacy. For me to dismiss Irreducible Complexity, I need proof, not hypothesis.

No, in order to establish that a particular fossil form fits the structure of Natural Selection, you'd have to establish that it existed at a time between the two forms it supposedly links together. That makes dating improtant.

order ≠ exact dating
and even relative order is unnecessary to demonstrate morphological relationships.

Basically by saying "may be" one is trying to create proof from hypothesis. I reject that. It's a form of logical fallacy. For me to dismiss Irreducible Complexity, I need proof, not hypothesis.

then you must not understand what the word 'irreducible' means

accoridng to Natural Selection, for it to eventually result in a species changing adaptation it DOES have to be beneficial for survival/reproduction.

no, it doesn't

My point is simple. Stop treating mutations like they exist in a vacuum. A single mutation can be beneficial in one fashion, may be detrimental in another, and yet does something neither good or bad in another. But, if you look at only one of its expressions then you have failed to recognize its net effect on the organism.

This is why genetic modification can be extremely dangerous if not carefully considered before.

Another thing you have to take into account is which organism the mutation occurs to. If an utterly neutral mutation occurs to an otherwise extremely successful individual than it will spread that neutral mutation along with all of the others.

Thus, you can't say that just because the mutation is not immediately useful that it won't stay in the gene pool.

There are just too many factors involved.

order ≠ exact dating
and even relative order is unnecessary to demonstrate morphological relationships.

I disagree.

Suppose I'm trying to prove that Species A evolved into Species C, and I'm using a fossil of Species B to prove it. My carbon dating results MUST indicate Species B falling into a range bwteen A and C. Otherwise no proof exists that it's a link between the other two forms. It may share traits similar to the others, it may even look like it, but unless it can be established that the dates match up, Species B is no more proven as a link than I can say an chimpanzee is a link between me and a house cat.

then you must not understand what the word 'irreducible' means

Please elaborate.

OK I'm done with you. Generally when someobody resorts to personal insults the debate isn't enjoyable anymore. I didn't lie. You failed to read/comprehend what I said. Not my fault. In fact, I could have called you a liar a couple times but I gve the benefit of the doubt that you just misunderstood.

For the record, you accused me of putting words in your mouth, then went on to say the very thing I was supposed to have falsely attributed to you. That's incoherent. Second, if you don't understand Natural Selection well enough to know that beneficial traits are passed on because of improving survivability/reproduction, then you need to brush up. If you die before you can reproduce, you don't pass along the upgrade. See how that works?

I'll continue the discussion with anyone else who'd like to.

Translation: I can't support anything I've said so I'll stop talking.

I've supported everything I've posted.

Having an "advantage" /= a longer lifespan necessarily nor does it necessarily = increased reproductivity. It means being able to compete or fill an previously unused niche, not necessarily supplant.

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

if you take the story of adam and eve and say it happend JUST LIKE THAT that'd mean that eve's son would have had to have sex w/ her. and thats a sin. haha.
anyways, what do we learn from adam and eve? who trusts in God stays stupid til the end of his or her fucking days :D :p

My point is simple. Stop treating mutations like they exist in a vacuum. A single mutation can be beneficial in one fashion, may be detrimental in another, and yet does something neither good or bad in another. But, if you look at only one of its expressions then you have failed to recognize its net effect on the organism.

This is why genetic modification can be extremely dangerous if not carefully considered before.

Another thing you have to take into account is which organism the mutation occurs to. If an utterly neutral mutation occurs to an otherwise extremely successful individual than it will spread that neutral mutation along with all of the others.

Thus, you can't say that just because the mutation is not immediately useful that it won't stay in the gene pool.

There are just too many factors involved.

The problem is that Natural Selection does exactly that... treats the mutation as if they existed in a vaccum. Would there be other factors? Sure, but one can't say that somehow those factors favor evolution any more than I could get away with asserting that they inhibit it.

Mmm, tasty strawman. Tastes like trollhouse cookies.



Why don't you give an argument that proves "evolution is a myth?" Then we could shoot holes in your "evidence" without having to waste time responding to a strawman.

Haha, now that's awesome

The problem is that Natural Selection does exactly that... treats the mutation as if they existed in a vaccum. Would there be other factors? Sure, but one can't say that somehow those factors favor evolution any more than I could get away with asserting that they inhibit it.

Where does it do that? SHow me the evidence.

I'm not acknowledging it. This is why.

Basically by saying "may be" one is trying to create proof from hypothesis. I reject that. It's a form of logical fallacy. For me to dismiss Irreducible Complexity, I need proof, not hypothesis.

I am always amazed at the level of "proof" people require for evolution.

Essentally people will onlybe happy if they see it happen with their own 2 eyes. And micro evolution can be seen with your own 2 eyes... but macro evolution is slightly more difficult to see .. given the time scale. There have been some pretty good tests with fruit flies as over 10 years you can get quite a few generations.. but time scales are always going to be a problem.

With evolution its a problem... but with say geology.. its fine. No one goes around saying that tectonic plate movement being responsible for continental drift and mountain formation is just a theory because we only see it move by a centimeter at a time.. i want to see it move by 20 kilometers and then I might believe..... I want to see a mountain just rise up out of the sea.. then I will believe your "Theory" until it does no amount of "evidence" can convince me otherwise.

Its just crazy.. there are examples of just about every little step along the way .. it you wilfully don't want to put the pieces together then I don't see how that is going to change.

No one is saying we have a complete understanding of evolution (or tectonic movement for that matter) however it doesn't have any real counter evidence, ie no counter theory that can be used to explain a piece of evidence more accurately. Sure the theory might need some tweaking... it is very unlikely to be 100% correct... but its so damn close that for all intensive purposes it can be used as if it is right.

Newtons laws of motion are bunk.. they have been shown to be inaccurate.. they were certainly on the right track though and any predictions they make are so close to reality thats its irrelavant that the hypothesis behind them was ever so slightly out. Evolution is in the same boat... its not perfect.. but it is so damn close as to be impractical to view it as otherwise...

haha, this thread is funny.
If evolution is a mith then why can we see it happening when we alter the genetics of a fruit fly (chosen cause it breeds really really fast so you can get through about 20 generations in about 3 weeks)?
Any why cant god fit into the theory of evolution? There is nothing to say that there isnt someone controlling which genes get chosen.

I'm not acknowledging it. This is why.

Basically by saying "may be" one is trying to create proof from hypothesis. I reject that. It's a form of logical fallacy. For me to dismiss Irreducible Complexity, I need proof, not hypothesis.

For the concept of irreducible complexity to be meaningful there must be no possibilities of a lesser complex system. If you acknowledge that a theoretical possibility exists, you can NEVER prove IC.

Aside: a similar argument can be made for complex systems falling apart and leaving slightly less complex systems behind. Those systems may seem IC if one were to build them from the ground up, but not when seen as a former part of a greater whole.

Any why cant god fit into the theory of evolution? There is nothing to say that there isnt someone controlling which genes get chosen.

Or God wrote the evolutionary algorithm with the intent of producing intelligent life capable of receiving a soul and thereby understanding the nature of Him? I mean, it's damn easy to fit God in to it, and a God that could design something like evolution is a lot more impressive than the clumsy tinkerer of ID and creationism.

The problem is that Natural Selection does exactly that... treats the mutation as if they existed in a vaccum. Would there be other factors? Sure, but one can't say that somehow those factors favor evolution any more than I could get away with asserting that they inhibit it.

Not sure what you mean by favour or inhibit evolution...

evolution doesn't have to be all benificial as long as the balance is benificial.

Sickle Cell Anemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_Cell_Anemia) is a classic example. Its a mutaion in the formation of blood cells... it actually casues blood clots and can be fatal... but it also helps prevent the effects of malaria. In any other situation but malaria infestation this would be a disadvantagious mutation.

In caucasian populations the rate of the disease is very low as they have traditionally lived in malaria free areas.. in certain african populations its rate is very high as they have lived in malaria infested regions.

To judge whether a mutation is benificial or disadventagious is entirely dependant on the environment.

evolution is not a straight line to the perfect organism... it is all about niche specialisation. Finding a combination that works best in a particualr situation. Evolution is just change... not getting better or worse.. just getting different.

The only reason why you think Natural Selection works in a vacuum is because people treat it like it exists in a vacuum and they only do that because its too difficult for people to consider all of the factors at once. Fortunately bioinformatics is attempting to change that as Biology and other fields move from the era of reductionism to the era of emergent properties and systems.

What you are saying is akin to saying that the weather system of the Gulf of Mexico is not affected by anything outside the Gulf of Mexico.

A mutation doesn't have to be beneficial to occur, but, accoridng to Natural Selection, for it to eventually result in a species changing adaptation it DOES have to be beneficial for survival/reproduction.

This isn't true at all. Not by a long shot.

First of all, a single mutation is not (at least not generally) going to result in a huge change to a species or in a speciation event. A single mutation may confer some advantage, it may confer some disadvantage, or it may confer neither. In order for a large change to occur (or speciation), a number of mutations must be accumulated. There is no reason to suggest that all of these mutations must be beneficial.

Not to mention that such events can happen much more readily if there are isolated breeding groups. Mutations that are passed on in one group (whether neutral/beneficial/or detrimental) will eventually be quite different from mutations passed on in the other. If they are isolated from each other, they need not compete with each other, only within their own groups. As such, the mutations that eventually differentiate the two groups from one another need not grant one any type of advantage over the other. The mutations don't even have to be beneficial here - just different.

For me to dismiss Irreducible Complexity, I need proof, not hypothesis.

Then you cannot look to science to help you. Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in hypotheses and empirical support for (or the disproof of) those hypotheses.

If you need "proof" before you will dismiss an a priori assumption that you have no "proof" for, then science is definitely not the place for you. Try ascending to godhood, that might help.

I am always amazed at the level of "proof" people require for evolution.

Essentally people will onlybe happy if they see it happen with their own 2 eyes. And micro evolution can be seen with your own 2 eyes... but macro evolution is slightly more difficult to see .. given the time scale. There have been some pretty good tests with fruit flies as over 10 years you can get quite a few generations.. but time scales are always going to be a problem.

With evolution its a problem... but with say geology.. its fine. No one goes around saying that tectonic plate movement being responsible for continental drift and mountain formation is just a theory because we only see it move by a centimeter at a time.. i want to see it move by 20 kilometers and then I might believe..... I want to see a mountain just rise up out of the sea.. then I will believe your "Theory" until it does no amount of "evidence" can convince me otherwise.

Its just crazy.. there are examples of just about every little step along the way .. it you wilfully don't want to put the pieces together then I don't see how that is going to change.

No one is saying we have a complete understanding of evolution (or tectonic movement for that matter) however it doesn't have any real counter evidence, ie no counter theory that can be used to explain a piece of evidence more accurately. Sure the theory might need some tweaking... it is very unlikely to be 100% correct... but its so damn close that for all intensive purposes it can be used as if it is right.

Newtons laws of motion are bunk.. they have been shown to be inaccurate.. they were certainly on the right track though and any predictions they make are so close to reality thats its irrelavant that the hypothesis behind them was ever so slightly out. Evolution is in the same boat... its not perfect.. but it is so damn close as to be impractical to view it as otherwise...

Your point is taken, but let me offer the opposite side of that coin.

Whether accepted or not, there ARE common beliefs that explain the origin of species that predate Darwin. Now yes, those tend to be religious in nature, but like it or not Darwinism is the newcomer and thus the burdeon of proof is on THAT theory. Nowhere else in science is the new theory accepted first and then the burden of proof shifted to the old.

It would be nice if we could observe it, since there's no better source of data than direct observation. Unfortunately, like you said, that's quite impossible for all practical purposes, so some other proof is needed, but yes, since it's having to fill in for direct observation, it DOES have to be pretty iron-clad.

I woul disagree with the assertion that there are examples of every little step. When Darwin first presented his theory he believed that precisely that would happen.. that over time people would discover more and more fossils that woul dbear out his theory. Unfortunately, this hasn't happened. When I say there are gaps in the fossil record I don't mean that there are holes here and there, I mean that only a relatively small percentage of the fossil record has been filled. This isn't enough to prove it according to anyone's standards except for those who want to believe it.

Your Newton example is a good one, but the difference between physics and biology is that there isn't religious controversy.

I honestly believe one of the things that makes Darwinism popular is that it offers an alternative to Creationism, a word which has reached almost epic proportions as being associated with zealots and superstition. If you don't want to be a Creationist, you have to go with Darwin, so says popular understanding. If the bottom falls out of Natural Selection, what happens then? Maybe a lot of people would get shaken up pretty badly. Who knows?

As for me personally, I'm not a Creationist in the traditional sense. I don't believe God snapped His fingers and poofed a bunch of animals into existence here. I have my own ideas, but they're quite beside the point in terms of whether Natural Selection is a viable theory.

The main reason I engage in this discussion is to try and illustrate the fact that there are some people out there who truly adhere to Darwinism with all the fervor of a full-blown religious zealot. They react aggressively and negatively to anyone who appears to disagree, refuse to entertain alternatives, and generally behave in the way that religious adherents are characterized as behaving.

Lastly, I don't believe it's wise to stick with Natural Selection just because, as my friend said. "it's the best we've got." Typically Science discards a theory with so many problems and searches, objectively, for a new one.
Yes, Newtonian physics has been shown to be lacking, and that's why scientists went in search of something better, without fear or predjudice. That's what I'd like to see with this.

Then you cannot look to science to help you. Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in hypotheses and empirical support for (or the disproof of) those hypotheses.

If you need "proof" before you will dismiss an a priori assumption that you have no "proof" for, then science is definitely not the place for you. Try ascending to godhood, that might help.

Maybe science doesn't deal in proof, but it's not swayed by mere hypothesis, either. Something more tangible than "may be" is required.

At least, that's what I was taught in Science courses.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

What exactly makes you qualified to refute evidence by almost every single scientist alive? Okay, I'll humour you for a minute or two. If you believe that we were created by God out of nothing, than give me your reasons and I will refute them.

Whether accepted or not, there ARE common beliefs that explain the origin of species that predate Darwin. Now yes, those tend to be religious in nature, but like it or not Darwinism is the newcomer and thus the burdeon of proof is on THAT theory. Nowhere else in science is the new theory accepted first and then the burden of proof shifted to the old.

Nowhere in science are religous beliefs considered theories. In truth, evolutionary theory is the only scientifically supported theory when it comes to development of life.

Your Newton example is a good one, but the difference between physics and biology is that there isn't religious controversy.

That difference is irrelevant in science.

I honestly believe one of the things that makes Darwinism popular is that it offers an alternative to Creationism, a word which has reached almost epic proportions as being associated with zealots and superstition. If you don't want to be a Creationist, you have to go with Darwin, so says popular understanding. If the bottom falls out of Natural Selection, what happens then? Maybe a lot of people would get shaken up pretty badly. Who knows?

I highly doubt it. Most people have no problem believing in divine creation and still accepting that evolutionary theory is well-supported (and the basis of modern biology, for that matter).

Lastly, I don't believe it's wise to stick with Natural Selection just because, as my friend said. "it's the best we've got." Typically Science discards a theory with so many problems and searches, objectively, for a new one.

A theory in science is rejected when it is disproven. Has evolutionary theory (or the principle of natural selection) been disproven?

Yes, Newtonian physics has been shown to be lacking, and that's why scientists went in search of something better, without fear or predjudice. That's what I'd like to see with this.

You seem to think that scientists are not trying to improve our knowledge in this area. Why?

This isn't true at all. Not by a long shot.

First of all, a single mutation is not (at least not generally) going to result in a huge change to a species or in a speciation event. A single mutation may confer some advantage, it may confer some disadvantage, or it may confer neither. In order for a large change to occur (or speciation), a number of mutations must be accumulated. There is no reason to suggest that all of these mutations must be beneficial.

Not to mention that such events can happen much more readily if there are isolated breeding groups. Mutations that are passed on in one group (whether neutral/beneficial/or detrimental) will eventually be quite different from mutations passed on in the other. If they are isolated from each other, they need not compete with each other, only within their own groups. As such, the mutations that eventually differentiate the two groups from one another need not grant one any type of advantage over the other. The mutations don't even have to be beneficial here - just different.

But if a mutation isn't advantageous, then it won't replace the population. It will merely exist in a single bloodline, and odds are, eventually disappear if the last of that line fails to reproduce for whatevr reason.

Natural Selection hinges on the idea that for species to evolve, the mutations must confer an advantage in order for it to eventually excluse specimens without it. A lot of people have said it doesn't, but it is the essence of natural selection.

Maybe science doesn't deal in proof, but it's not swayed by mere hypothesis, either. Something more tangible than "may be" is required.

At least, that's what I was taught in Science courses.

Then surely you were taught that any theory in science begins as a hypothesis? And that our knowledge in science is driven by hypotheses?

Evolutionary theory has been tested and has stood up to the test of time. It has yet to be disproven, although it has been modified as new information was uncovered.

In many cases, the particular relationship between organisms is at the hypothesis level. Evolutionary theory describes a process, not the exact sequence in which that process has occurred. When we wish to discuss particular instances, we start with "may be", based on whatever observations we currently have. Then we test that "may be," to determine whether or not it continues to fit the data.

Nowhere in science are religous beliefs considered theories. In truth, evolutionary theory is the only scientifically supported theory when it comes to development of life.

Not before Darwin. Before that time, Creationism WAS the scientifically accepted belief among scientists, for better or worse.


I highly doubt it. Most people have no problem believing in divine creation and still accepting that evolutionary theory is well-supported (and the basis of modern biology, for that matter).
There's a certain pressure to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism, and I think it leads people to overlook a lot of the issues.


A theory in science is rejected when it is disproven. Has evolutionary theory (or the principle of natural selection) been disproven?

I believe it has. That is the point I've been debating.


You seem to think that scientists are not trying to improve our knowledge in this area. Why?
Because objectivity has been compromised.

Then surely you were taught that any theory in science begins as a hypothesis? And that our knowledge in science is driven by hypotheses?

Evolutionary theory has been tested and has stood up to the test of time. It has yet to be disproven, although it has been modified as new information was uncovered.

In many cases, the particular relationship between organisms is at the hypothesis level. Evolutionary theory describes a process, not the exact sequence in which that process has occurred. When we wish to discuss particular instances, we start with "may be", based on whatever observations we currently have. Then we test that "may be," to determine whether or not it continues to fit the data.
I can't believe we're belaboring this point.

In the original assertion that triggered this sidebar on hypothesis, the writer of the article was using a list of "may be" sentences to try and account for the formation of organ systems that are believed to be irreducibly complex.

You simply can't put forth a hypothesis and use it as an argument in a debate. These hypotheses have NOT been tested, they have NOT been subjected to the test of time.

Yes, "may be" is the beginning of what MIGHT become a theory or modification to the theory of Natural Selection, but in the meantime it's inadmissible in a debate, being an argument from ignorance.

But if a mutation isn't advantageous, then it won't replace the population. It will merely exist in a single bloodline, and odds are, eventually disappear if the last of that line fails to reproduce for whatevr reason.

Natural Selection hinges on the idea that for species to evolve, the mutations must confer an advantage in order for it to eventually excluse specimens without it. A lot of people have said it doesn't, but it is the essence of natural selection.

But I think what you are suggesting is like saying Einstien's theory of relativity says that v = u + at..

Evolutionary theory has been revised since it was first postulated.. same as Newtowns laws of motion got revised further down the track. Thats the way science works.

When Darwin made his first guess modern genetics didn't exist. There was the vague idea of a gene.. but nobody really had any idea what it was.. or what it meant. Now that we have a better understanding of the mechanics of evolution (DNA, genes, chromosomes, mutation in DNA sequence, gene expression and regulation etc etc) much more accurate descriptions of how natural selection works can be made...

But if a mutation isn't advantageous, then it won't replace the population.

It doesn't have to "replace the population." It simply has to spread through a significant portion of it. This could occur quite easily if, as I pointed out, you had a fairly isolated breeding group, even if the mutation was neutral. It would be even more likely to occur if the organism that first developed the mutation in question was already "pick of the litter," as it were and bred prolifically.

It will merely exist in a single bloodline, and odds are, eventually disappear if the last of that line fails to reproduce for whatevr reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "single bloodline." Unless you are looking at a species that only produces a single offspring in its life, you'd quite likely have several bloodlines going. Place that in a relatively isolated group, and you'd likely get a spread throughout the group.

Natural Selection hinges on the idea that for species to evolve, the mutations must confer an advantage in order for it to eventually excluse specimens without it. A lot of people have said it doesn't, but it is the essence of natural selection.

This is patently untrue. Natural selection simply states that the most well-suited animals will be more likely to be reproductively successful, and will thus pass on more of their traits. They will pass on these traits whether they are advantageous, neutral, or even disadvantageous. To suggest that natural selection requires only beneficial mutations is to demonstrate a very shallow understanding of the principle.

Meanwhile, you ignore that natural selection is only a portion of evolutionary theory. It is a driving force in evolution, but not the only one. Quite a few mutations could be passed on and eventually result in major changes without being selected for or against.

I can't believe we're belaboring this point.

In the original assertion that triggered this sidebar on hypothesis, the writer of the article was using a list of "may be" sentences to try and account for the formation of organ systems that are believed to be irreducibly complex.

You simply can't put forth a hypothesis and use it as an argument in a debate. These hypotheses have NOT been tested, they have NOT been subjected to the test of time.

Yes, "may be" is the beginning of what MIGHT become a theory or modification to the theory of Natural Selection, but in the meantime it's inadmissible in a debate, being an argument from ignorance.

Then what would you have, instead of the "may be" hypotheses for irreducibly complex structures? Saying something is "irreducibly complex" is just to describe it, not to explain it. If something truly is irreducibly complex (as opposed to insufficiently understood), what then?

I disagree.

Suppose I'm trying to prove that Species A evolved into Species C, and I'm using a fossil of Species B to prove it. My carbon dating results MUST indicate Species B falling into a range bwteen A and C. Otherwise no proof exists that it's a link between the other two forms. It may share traits similar to the others, it may even look like it, but unless it can be established that the dates match up, Species B is no more proven as a link than I can say an chimpanzee is a link between me and a house cat.

Well, here's the a problem with that: Carbon dating is only useful in recent years. It is accurate for only up to around 40-ish thousand years or so. We have dating methods that are accurate for several million years, and several thousand years, however there is an "in-between" stage which no exact dating methods exist. So we must use relative dating methods, which give as a general idea of how old it is. Stratographic dating, for example, is more or less a relative dating methods. We know how old the layers are, but it is difficult to tell how old, exactly, specimens in the layers are. So, if we were to find a fossil in a certain layer that we know is between 400,000 and 1,000,000 years old, we would know that animal lived somewhere in that period. If Species A is found below Species B, and looks quite similar, but more "primitive" than Species B, it can be said that it is likely that Species B is a decendant of Species A(However, it is hard to tell exactly what is a decendant of what, as we do not know the exact species line, only what is more likely due to similarities and progression of traits), and if fossil C is above fossil B, and has similar traits to B(Where B is slightly more "primitive" than C) then it can be concluded that B is the likely ancestor.

This is all due to the fact that B is placed in between A and C, however it is impossible to know the exact date of any of these. We know approximately how old they are, and if the methods line up with A being more than likely older, B be slightly less younger, and C being even younger still, all through relative dating methods.

What exactly makes you qualified to refute evidence by almost every single scientist alive? Okay, I'll humour you for a minute or two. If you believe that we were created by God out of nothing, than give me your reasons and I will refute them.To be honest, I'd love to see any evidence that shows we evolved from monkeys...

Not before Darwin. Before that time, Creationism WAS the scientifically accepted belief among scientists, for better or worse.

Incorrect. It was the accepted belief. This is not to say that it was at all scientific.

There's a certain pressure to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism, and I think it leads people to overlook a lot of the issues.

You don't need to reconcile Genesis with anything if you don't take it literally. If you do, you have to reconcile it with itself, and that should take enough effort.

I believe it has. That is the point I've been debating.

Do you hear that?

Do you?

Do you hear it?



.....utter silence. Not exactly the sound you'd expect to hear if you had disproven the basis of modern biology.

Because objectivity has been compromised.

How so? And why are you discounting the work of countless scientists acrros the globe out of hand? You honestly think we aren't still trying to figure thse things out?

I can't believe we're belaboring this point.

You brought it up.

In the original assertion that triggered this sidebar on hypothesis, the writer of the article was using a list of "may be" sentences to try and account for the formation of organ systems that are believed to be irreducibly complex.

Yes, and since those "may be"s exist, something cannot be said to truly b e irreducibly complex. You would have to disprove every single "may be" to determine that something truly is irreducibly complex.

You simply can't put forth a hypothesis and use it as an argument in a debate. These hypotheses have NOT been tested, they have NOT been subjected to the test of time.

Neither has irreducible complexity, but you seem to have no problem putting it forth in a debate.

Yes, "may be" is the beginning of what MIGHT become a theory or modification to the theory of Natural Selection, but in the meantime it's inadmissible in a debate, being an argument from ignorance.

You don't like science much, do you? In a scientific discussion, "may be" comes up all the time. That's how we move forward. If you are attempting to have a scientific discussion, you're going to have to get used to looking at the evidence on hand, and forming a hypothesis from it.

You are putting forth an absolute statement that needs only a single alternate possibility to disprove it. A number of hypotheses, with varying degrees of support, can be put forth to refute it.

To be honest, I'd love to see any evidence that shows we evolved from monkeys...

That would be interesting.

I can't believe we're belaboring this point.

In the original assertion that triggered this sidebar on hypothesis, the writer of the article was using a list of "may be" sentences to try and account for the formation of organ systems that are believed to be irreducibly complex.

You simply can't put forth a hypothesis and use it as an argument in a debate. These hypotheses have NOT been tested, they have NOT been subjected to the test of time.

Yes, "may be" is the beginning of what MIGHT become a theory or modification to the theory of Natural Selection, but in the meantime it's inadmissible in a debate, being an argument from ignorance.

Linkage is actually a very well established mechanism in evolutionary theory. It is used all the time. It is used in hospitals around the world when looking at genetic diseases. Linkage disequalibrium is used to pinpoint which particular gene or genes is/are responsible for a particular genetic disease.

The idea that every little change has to be benificial to be evolution is a misinterpretation of what was stated.. even as early as Darwins first pass... let alone modern evolutionary theory.

The "may be carried along" is only a "may be" because you are suggesting a situation that might explain something not a specific example. There are specific examples available.

Suggesting a hypothesis for a situation is what enables you to test it. If you didn't have the "may be"s you would have no scientific progress

IIn the original assertion that triggered this sidebar on hypothesis, the writer of the article was using a list of "may be" sentences to try and account for the formation of organ systems that are believed to be irreducibly complex.

You simply can't put forth a hypothesis and use it as an argument in a debate. These hypotheses have NOT been tested, they have NOT been subjected to the test of time.

They do not have to. The existence of the possibility is enough to discredit the philosophical concept of irreducible complexity.

It does not mean that things aren't designed btw. Just that IC itself is not a valid concept .

I think his links were to ellaborate what carbon dating was.

Carbon dating in the arena of Evolution is only possible back to 100,000 years, as the first link states, so at best it can cover only the most recent evolution. Its accuracy has been comfirmed to be good back to 5000BC. Beyond that it is, as you say, not necessarily accurate and also it points out why it will become less reliable for future dating.



I am puzzled though why the reliability of carbon dating blows a hole in the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Carobon Dating only accurate to 500BC (coincidently give or take 100 years the "age" of the earth according to creationists? :eek: You realise the implication that could be drawn from that, don't you? ;)

The reliability of CD blows a hole in the theory of evolution, because unfortunately, there's no verifiable evidence of evolution or even evolved traits so the evolutionists have to fall back on minute changes happening over thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years - but if you can't reliably date those - or better, if you can prove that the dating is inaccurate it blows a considerable shot beneath the waterline...

To be honest, I'd love to see any evidence that shows we evolved from monkeys...

So would I, to tell you the truth. Even our most common ancestors with monkeys weren't monkeys. They were proto-primates, which were drastically different than anything alive today.

To put things in perspective, we branched off with the our closest living ancestors(Chimpanzees) 5 million years ago, with the next(Gorillas) 10 million years ago, and the next(Orangutans) 14 million years ago. And we branched away from the monkey line even further back than that. To say we evolved from monkeys is like saying we evolved from Chimps, or Gorillas, or Orangutans, which quite frankly is an oddly overly misunderstood conception.

Which is why the argument "Why aren't apes evolving into humans today?!" does not hold any ground. But heh, whatever. It's almost impossible to hammer this point home.

Carobon Dating only accurate to 500BC (coincidently give or take 100 years the "age" of the earth according to creationists? :eek: You realise the implication that could be drawn from that, don't you? ;)

The reliability of CD blows a hole in the theory of evolution, because unfortunately, there's no verifiable evidence of evolution or even evolved traits so the evolutionists have to fall back on minute changes happening over thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years - but if you can't reliably date those - or better, if you can prove that the dating is inaccurate it blows a considerable shot beneath the waterline...

(bolding mine)

You must've missed the bit about bacteria developing drug resistances.

Other people are piling on to some of the same posts and saying many of the same things, so take this as a general reply using Dempublicents's post as a template.

Incorrect. It was the accepted belief. This is not to say that it was at all scientific.
You may not call it scientific by today's standards, but historically, it was believed to be scientific at the time. Granted, so was the idea that the Earth was at the center of the solar system, but the point I'm making is that there was a theory in place at the time Darwin came alon, and thus that's wher ethe burden of proof lies.


You don't need to reconcile Genesis with anything if you don't take it literally. If you do, you have to reconcile it with itself, and that should take enough effort.

I didn't say anyone needed to reconcile it. I said there was pressure felt by people to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism.


Do you hear that?

Do you?

Do you hear it?



.....utter silence. Not exactly the sound you'd expect to hear if you had disproven the basis of modern biology.

Editorialism is a poor substitute for premise points in a debate.


How so? And why are you discounting the work of countless scientists acrros the globe out of hand? You honestly think we aren't still trying to figure thse things out?

Have you noticed the tone of people who concede there are still areas that need to be addressed? One would expect, from an objective scientist: "We're still researching the evidence to verify the accuracy of Natural Selection"

What we hear is more like:"We're still researching the evidence to figure out how these pieces fit into Natural Selection."

See the difference? one is objective, the other is based on the precondition that Natural Selection is fact.


You brought it up.

And you're dragging it out. That's what belaboring means.


Yes, and since those "may be"s exist, something cannot be said to truly b e irreducibly complex. You would have to disprove every single "may be" to determine that something truly is irreducibly complex.

Saying that x may be true doesn't somehow invalidate arguments against x. I could say "It may be that the Moon, is in fact, swiss cheese below the surface of lunar dust and rock." Does that in ANY WAY hold water? Is it strong enough for me to come on here onto NationStates and set up a thread seeking to prove that a lunar colony could easily be established that would have the residents subsisting on moon swiss cheese?

And yet I'm expected to concede the Irreducible Complexity argument based solely on a few "may be" ideas.


Neither has irreducible complexity, but you seem to have no problem putting it forth in a debate.

That's where we disagree.


You don't like science much, do you? In a scientific discussion, "may be" comes up all the time. That's how we move forward. If you are attempting to have a scientific discussion, you're going to have to get used to looking at the evidence on hand, and forming a hypothesis from it.

"May be" is a part of the brainstorming process. It's where ideas begin. I love science, which is how I know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.


You are putting forth an absolute statement that needs only a single alternate possibility to disprove it. A number of hypotheses, with varying degrees of support, can be put forth to refute it.

No they can't. What sort of science allows for unproven and unubstantiated hypotheses to carry the weight of even a single proven theory? Are you kidding me? You don't disprove an assertion with hypothesis. I can hypothesize all day about what flavor of cheese the Moon is made of, but none of that makes it so.

They do not have to. The existence of the possibility is enough to discredit the philosophical concept of irreducible complexity.

It does not mean that things aren't designed btw. Just that IC itself is not a valid concept .

The possibility is the issue at hand. It hasn't been established, therefore it does not discredit IC.

The possibility is the issue at hand. It hasn't been established, therefore it does not discredit IC.Isn't that the thing? The possibility has been established, the fact that that's how it happened isn't. IC states that under no conditions whatsoever could there be a possibility, therefore IC is false.

Carobon Dating only accurate to 500BC (coincidently give or take 100 years the "age" of the earth according to creationists? :eek: You realise the implication that could be drawn from that, don't you? ;)Are you serious? 500BC? Not last I checked. What with the histories in the Old Testament spanning several milennia I'd say closer to 5000-4000BC.

Carobon Dating only accurate to 500BC (coincidently give or take 100 years the "age" of the earth according to creationists? :eek: You realise the implication that could be drawn from that, don't you? ;)

The reliability of CD blows a hole in the theory of evolution, because unfortunately, there's no verifiable evidence of evolution or even evolved traits so the evolutionists have to fall back on minute changes happening over thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years - but if you can't reliably date those - or better, if you can prove that the dating is inaccurate it blows a considerable shot beneath the waterline...

Well, here's the beauty of it all: We have many dating methods to rely upon. If we take a certain specimen, and apply several dating methods to it, and all of the dating methods line up to the same date, then it is reasonable to assume that these dating methods are quite accurate. The only way they are not is if all the methods used are flawed in the same way, which is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.

Not to mention that Carbon Dating relies on some fundamental properties of chemistry, which are quite reliable.

As for evolution, we also have "relative dating", which is used to predict approximate, but not exact, dates. We know the ages of Stratographic layers, and if a fossil is found in said layers, we can rightfully assume that that specimen is from that time period. If it is higher in the layer, it is younger than those in the lower part of the layers.

This method proves especially useful when following lines of evolution. We may not know if a specimen is the exact descendant of an earlier one, however if it shows up in a later part of stratography, and has traits similar to those in an earlier specimen, and is not to drastically different, we can in effect assume that the specimen is a descendant of the earlier one(Albiet not necessarily a direct descendent).

As an aside, Carbon Dating does nothing to evolution. We can observe evolution occuring today, and there is no reason not to assume that this process has occurred throughout Earth's history, as the same mechanisms were in place back then(DNA, for example) as today. This position is strengthened because the fossil records following a rather logical line from early ancestors to descendants, and we can observe this.

Isn't that the thing? The possibility has been established, the fact that that's how it happened isn't. IC states that under no conditions whatsoever could there be a possibility, therefore IC is false.

Not so fast. That completely relieves the opposition viewpoint of the burden of constructing a coherent alternative. By your logic one could disprove IC by simply stating:

"Maybe aliens came down and m odified all the little bacteria."

With no burden of proving that at all.

Are you serious? 500BC? Not last I checked. What with the histories in the Old Testament spanning several milennia I'd say closer to 5000-4000BC.

And the reason why we know that these are 100% accurate, is that this is the dawn of human of history. As in, this is when people starting recording things down in writing, so we know exactly how old these things are to begin with. We then can check them with CD, which lines up with them.

It, however, does not disprove in any way CD as an accurate method beyond this point.

Not so fast. That completely relieves the opposition viewpoint of the burden of constructing a coherent alternative. By your logic one could disprove IC by simply stating:

"Maybe aliens came down and m odified all the little bacteria."

With no burden of proving that at all.
Ah, the delicious irony.


I think, I've never been good at spotting irony - a trait punishable by death for an English gent such as oneself.

Not so fast. That completely relieves the opposition viewpoint of the burden of constructing a coherent alternative. By your logic one could disprove IC by simply stating:

"Maybe aliens came down and m odified all the little bacteria."

With no burden of proving that at all.IC states there is no possible way to develop eyes. People have formulated hypotheses that it's possible, causing people like Behe to admit they were talking bullshit all along. Yeah, it's that fast.

Besides, isn't "Maybe aliens came down and modified all the little bacteria." the premise of IC? How would restating it disprove it?

IC states there is no possible way to develop eyes. People have formulated hypotheses that it's possible, causing people like Behe to admit they were talking bullshit all along. Yeah, it's that fast.

Besides, isn't "Maybe aliens came down and modified all the little bacteria." the premise of IC? How would restating it disprove it?

It's "a" premise of ID to try and divert the fact that it's really creationism in disguise w/ as much supporting evidence.

IC states there is no possible way to develop eyes. People have formulated hypotheses that it's possible, causing people like Behe to admit they were talking bullshit all along. Yeah, it's that fast.
I know eyes are not Irreducibly Complex. In fact, I states that a few pages back.


Besides, isn't "Maybe aliens came down and modified all the little bacteria." the premise of IC? How would restating it disprove it?
The example wasn't clear, I admit, but aliens aren't the premise of IC, at least not for those who separate aliens from deities. My purpose was to use a ridiculous example.

I know eyes are not Irreducibly Complex. In fact, I states that a few pages back.


The example wasn't clear, I admit, but aliens aren't the premise of IC, at least not for those who separate aliens from deities. My purpose was to use a ridiculous example.

What's your evidence that the eye isn't IC? The primary proponents of IC say that it is.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

(bolding mine)

You must've missed the bit about bacteria developing drug resistances.

And you missed the part about new genetic information.. By your explanation, my exposure to the TB virus and subsequent resistance to that has made me a different creature.

:)

And you missed the part about new genetic information.. By your explanation, my exposure to the TB virus and subsequent resistance to that has made me a different creature.

:)

No, that didn't change you genetically. You're children won't have that resistance where the bacteria's "progeny" will.

And you missed the part about new genetic information.. By your explanation, my exposure to the TB virus and subsequent resistance to that has made me a different creature.

:)Nah. Natural selection and your immune system are two separate buckets of bufallo wings.

Nah. Natural selection and your immune system are two separate buckets of bufallo wings.

mmmmmm... Buffalo Wings....

Nah. Natural selection and your immune system are two separate buckets of bufallo wings.

The immune system, like every other biological system, is subject to natural selection.

And you missed the part about new genetic information.. By your explanation, my exposure to the TB virus and subsequent resistance to that has made me a different creature.

:)

You missed the point. The Bacteria gaining a resistance does not mean that the individual bacteria gain a resistance, just the overall population has. The reason for this is that those with a natural resistance to said drugs have a higher chance of survival, those that do not have less of a chance. This means that there are fewer without the trait, which allows those with the trait to reproduce more readily. The population as a whole gains the trait.

However, I know very little about Bacteria reproduction, and this is about the extent of my knowledge on this particular issue.

For the concept of irreducible complexity to be meaningful there must be no possibilities of a lesser complex system. If you acknowledge that a theoretical possibility exists, you can NEVER prove IC.


No, for IC to be discredited, evidence of the possiblity for a lesser complex system must exist in EVERY case instead of just one. It only takes one example to validate IC.

No, for IC to be discredited, evidence of the possiblity for a lesser complex system must exist in EVERY case instead of just one. It only takes one example to validate IC.

So what would that case be? Every example made up so far has been debunked.

[QUOTE=Prussische;12027484]Oh, man, the smug waves are too strong, I don't think I can respond to this, it's making my eyes water, aw, aw.

In all seriousness, I don't see why you had to even bring up the word "Church". The evolution debate doesn't have to center around religion, and the originator of the thread did not declare himself a theist.
/QUOTE]

Maybe not, but the only people who ever try to dispute the existence of evolution are idiots whose argument always boils down to 'It's not in the Bible, so it must be wrong', as if the Bible is some kind of science textbook.

Look at Matthew 13:32, where it clearly says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds.
Perhaps you think that's a scientifically accurate statement?

Right, because Muslims and secularists never try to disprove evolution. Anyone who is not force-fed evolutionary THEORY can clearly examine the issue from an objective standpoint and see the problems with evolution.

You may not call it scientific by today's standards, but historically, it was believed to be scientific at the time.

No, it wasn't. It was well-known to be a religious concept. The difference is that people didn't worry as much about actually following the scientific method, so injecting religion into it didn't seem like much of a problem. There was no investigation of Creationism other than to say, "This is true. The end." Thus, it could not possibly have been a theory.

Granted, so was the idea that the Earth was at the center of the solar system, but the point I'm making is that there was a theory in place at the time Darwin came alon, and thus that's wher ethe burden of proof lies.

It had never been tested. As such, it was not a theory. It was simply a widely held belief.

Interestingly enough, pretty much no one, even very highly religious people, had a problem with Darwin's ideas at the time they were written. The Catholic Church had a problem with his religious suggestions. ((Ever read The Origin of the Species? It's very religious)). At first, there was very little problem with the theory. The modern Creationist/ID movement is a reactionary movement that came around long, long after evolutionary theory was established.

I didn't say anyone needed to reconcile it. I said there was pressure felt by people to reconcile Genesis with Darwinism.

Well, I don't know about Darwinism, but I see nothing wrong with those who feel the need to reconcile Genesis with evolutionary theory, any more than those who feel the need to reconcile any holy book with any scientific concept or theory. Those of us who would investigate both the natural world and the spiritual one still crave consistency.

Editorialism is a poor substitute for premise points in a debate.

The point is clear. If evolutionary theory had been disproven, there would be quite a commotion over it. There would probably be Nobels going out as we speak. But there aren't. You claim that evolutionary theory has been disproven, yet you have shown no evidence of this fact. It makes equivalent sense with me telling you that scientists have disproven that DNA is the genetic carrier. Would you believe me?

Have you noticed the tone of people who concede there are still areas that need to be addressed? One would expect, from an objective scientist: "We're still researching the evidence to verify the accuracy of Natural Selection"

What we hear is more like:"We're still researching the evidence to figure out how these pieces fit into Natural Selection."

See the difference? one is objective, the other is based on the precondition that Natural Selection is fact.

Most scientific research is going to go with the prevailing theory. You'll hear physicists who are trying to find the graviton or trying to figure out the specifics of the theory of relativity. Once a theory has become a theory - especially the prevailing theory - it will often be taken as true for the purposes of other study. That isn't to say that we aren't still on the lookout for anything that will disprove or modify that theory. However, after a certain amount of support, we accept that such evidence is unlikely, and get on with progressing science.

Saying that x may be true doesn't somehow invalidate arguments against x.

No, it doesn't.

Of course, that isn't what is going on. You are making an absolute statement that something irreducibly complex. The only way to logically come to that conclusion is to disprove all viable possibilities to the contrary. If there are viable possibilities to the contrary that have not yet been disproven, then it is illogical to state that something is irreducibly complex.

And yet I'm expected to concede the Irreducible Complexity argument based solely on a few "may be" ideas.

You need to support the irreducible complexity argument for it to make sense. You are making an absolute statement - one that would end scientific investigation into the point if taken as true. If there are viable possibilities out there, then there is no reason to believe something is irreducibly complex. And these hypotheses are far from "ZOMG, Swiss cheese on the moon!" They are backed up by what we know of mutation, of development, of organs, etc.

That's where we disagree.

Then you are taking an illogical position. How exactly do you test irreducible complexity? How would you demonstrate it to be true? Without disproving every single other possibility, "irreducible complexity" is nothing more than a cop-out that ends scientific investigation.

"May be" is a part of the brainstorming process. It's where ideas begin. I love science, which is how I know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

And yet you expect every statement to be a full-blown theory, skipping over the hypothesis step.

No they can't. What sort of science allows for unproven and unubstantiated hypotheses to carry the weight of even a single proven theory?

None. Of course, "irreducible complexity" isn't a single proven theory. It isn't even a scientific hypothesis. It is a philosophical stance that can only be supported by disproving all other hypotheses.

Are you kidding me? You don't disprove an assertion with hypothesis.

You do if that assertion is an absolute statement that can only be supported by disproving all other hypotheses, such as, "This is irreducibly complex." If it is truly irreducible, then there can be no possible way that it could have developed. If there is a possible way, especially if that possible way is hypothesized using the evidence at hand, then there is no support for IC.

Anyone who believes we evolved from monkeys, give me your reasons why, and I will give evidence to refute them.

You should be on stage. Seriously, given the current intelligence of modern comedians, you'd fit right in.:)

No, for IC to be discredited, evidence of the possiblity for a lesser complex system must exist in EVERY case instead of just one. It only takes one example to validate IC.

I haven't said this is a while. "Irreducible complexity" is essentially the lazy person's way out of doing science. What you're saying ... what I'm hearing, I mean, is that you can't understand how such a structure could evolve naturally, therefore it is "irreducibly complex" and can only be explain by resorting to supernatural explanations. I know Bretonnia hasn't resorted to those, really, what else is there? Neither Bretonnia nor Kohlstein have proposed alternate theories to natural selection or evolution (unless one was proposed in the 36 pages or so I didn't read, in which case ... meh).

No, for IC to be discredited, evidence of the possiblity for a lesser complex system must exist in EVERY case instead of just one. It only takes one example to validate IC.

And that statement in and of itself invalidates IC. You see, in science, there is no such thing as 100% true, instead, it is "most likely" true. The mere possibility taht there might be something less complex that something that is IC, that means that IC is invalidated. We may not have a model of something less complex, but we the possibility of something less complex still remains.

This is the main problem with ID in general: It assumes it is correct, and that it is the only answer.

You're dodging the point. The articles focus on ID because ID uses those same arguments. Just because they mention ID does not invalidate their refutation of the arguement.
Try again.

So if ID uses those arguements, then every one else who uses them must be ID. Is that what you are trying to say? Not very logical.

Right, because Muslims and secularists never try to disprove evolution. Anyone who is not force-fed evolutionary THEORY can clearly examine the issue from an objective standpoint and see the problems with evolution.

Problems, such as? Please, what "smoking gun" are we talking about, so to speak?

So what would that case be? Every example made up so far has been debunked.

No. You have the human eye as well as the interdependency of DNA nucleotides and proteins.

So if ID uses those arguements, then every one else who uses them must be ID. Is that what you are trying to say? Not very logical.

No, what I said was he was invalidating the arguements because they contained ID as a general and he claims not to be even though the articles were specific to the contended points.

No. You have the human eye as well as the interdependency of DNA nucleotides and proteins.

Let me ask you this:

How are these irreducibly complex? Please explain, because as far as I can tell, they most simply are not.

No. You have the human eye as well as the interdependency of DNA nucleotides and proteins.

Like I said, debunked. NB claims the eye isn't IC. Still waiting for that evidence.

As for DNA/proteins:

DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

Not so fast. That completely relieves the opposition viewpoint of the burden of constructing a coherent alternative. By your logic one could disprove IC by simply stating:

"Maybe aliens came down and m odified all the little bacteria."

It isn't that IC is disproven. It is that it cannot be supported unless all viable options are disproven. If we have reason to believe that aliens exist and can modify bacteria, "Aliens came down and modified bacteria," would be a valid hypothesis, and one that would render the IC statement obsolete until disproven.

That's the problem with IC. It is a position that cannot be empirically demonstrated, as there are always other possibilities out there to be investigated.

You're obsessed with the moon analogy, so let's make it a little more applicable.

Suppose you said, "The moon could not possibly have been formed by any material known to man. it must have burst out of heaven intact." You would be making an absolute statement. If I then looked at the data and said something like, "Well, the crater patterns suggest that it might be made out of X, which we know can be molded by certain processes.....so it might have happened this way," I would have discredited your "Could not possibly have....." statement by demonstrating a viable possibility.

Likewise, the very principle of IC is, "These traits could not possibly have developed. They must have sprung from some designer intact." Thus, if I can say, "Well, based on what we've seen of mutation and development, it could have happened this way...." then IC has been discredited. There is a possible way it could have happened.


And you missed the part about new genetic information.. By your explanation, my exposure to the TB virus and subsequent resistance to that has made me a different creature.

I love it when people who don't even have the most basic understanding of biology try to enter this debate.

Human resistances to diseases as a result of exposure to them are a completely different issue. You develop resistances by making antibodies to a given infection. Bacteria don't have antibodies. They don't have B-cells or T-cells or any of the fun things you have in your immune system to help you build up said resistances.

When bacteria demonstrate resistance to certain drugs, it is because of a genetic difference between the bacteria that are resistant and those that are not. When you build up a resistance to a disease, it is because your body has made antibodies, not because your genetics have been changed.

Oh, and by the way, TB is a bacterial infection, not a virus.


Right, because Muslims and secularists never try to disprove evolution. Anyone who is not force-fed evolutionary THEORY can clearly examine the issue from an objective standpoint and see the problems with evolution.

And those problems are?

Most people I see who have a problem with evolutionary theory are basing their issues on a lack of understanding of the theory itself.


I haven't said this is a while. "Irreducible complexity" is essentially the lazy person's way out of doing science. What you're saying ... what I'm hearing, I mean, is that you can't understand how such a structure could evolve naturally, therefore it is "irreducibly complex" and can only be explain by resorting to supernatural explanations.

Precisely. They try to present it as a scientific idea, when all it could have the result of doing is stifling scientific inquiry. If something is held to be "irreducibly complex," there is no point in investigating it further.

Meanwhile, no one in any of these threads has yet presented a viable scientific hypothesis, much less theory, for how these things came to be if not by some form of development.

A single gene mutation in drosophila melanogaster (model organism- fly) changes an antenna into another leg. Now, I know this is not a complete argument against irreducible complexity, but it is one example of a single gene mutation resulting in a humongous change in gene expression. All in one, compact, simple step.

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.

As is the eye. Really, you are grasping at straws, here. How is it that you know what is and isn't complex? Really, are you the Grand Complexitor, or something of the sort?

And I will restate it: Why are those two things which you stated "irreducibly" complex?

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.What do you consider complex?

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.

Are you kidding me? You really don't know anything about biology, do you? An appendage and its development is hardly simple.

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.

So you would say a flagellum is a simple appendage and is not complex?

Are you kidding me? You really don't know anything about biology, do you? An appendage and its development is hardly simple.

At least no less simple than the eye. If you consider the leg simple, you must consider the eye simple, and vice versa. Same goes for complex. Thus, if the leg is not IC, then the eye...

You get where I'm going with this.

Neither an antenna nor a leg can be considered complex. They are simple appendages.

Whether they are complex or not is not really the point. (And as others have stated, an appendage is a rather complex entity). The point is that a single gene mutation can change the morphology of the individual greatly. So, this is a fact that has to be incorporated into your background knowledge.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. We DID evolve from a common ancestor.

You come from a family of apes? Oh excuse me, a common ancestor of apes. If that was true then there would be no purpose at all to life. All political philosophy would have to be thrown out the window and we should all live like animals because that is what we are according to you right? Hey, animals kill and eat each other so let's practice cannabalism. You can think of yourself as a mere animal and I will share that opinion of you, but as for me, I like to think that humans are a higher form of life than mere animals.:upyours:

So you would say a flagellum is a simple appendage and is not complex?

No, a flagellum requires a motor and a driveshaft. I should clarify what I meant by appendages. I was talking about appendages in the context of a fly's legs.