Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 12:55 pm Post subject: Evolution vs. Creationism and public schools
Hello everyone! I'm new here.
by just looking at the forums I can already tell that there is a LOT of religion here... so this should be very interesting.
Where do you stand on evolution? do you accept evolution? do you believe in creationism? why or why not? Do you think it should be taught in public schools? just post your thoughts :)
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 5:09 pm Post subject: Intelligent Design
I believe that the two creation stories in Genesis (1:1--2:3 cf. 2:4--3:24) are incompatible accounts and that the actual creation of this world only partially resembles both scenarios. I also believe that standard evolution theory is greatly inferior to the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium.
I define special creation as instantaneous change over time. Evidence points to distinct life forms appearing and disappearing instantly. Is that spontaneous generation or multiple creations? I also believe in a relatively young age for humankind and all other earth-creatures.
I'm not sure I understand you. The first paragraph suggests you accept evolution, and the second one suggests you're a creationist.
Quote:
I also believe that standard evolution theory is greatly inferior to the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium.
well, not really. punctuated equilibrium is just an extension of the standard evolution theory. Here... this explains it better than I could:
Quote:
Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with saltationism and catastrophism, and thus mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism; it is actually more properly understood to be a form of gradualism. This is because even though the changes are considered to be occurring relatively quickly, they are still occurring gradually, with no great changes from one generation to the next. This can be understood by considering an example: Suppose the average length of a limb on a particular species grows 50 centimeters (a large amount) over 70000 years (a geologically short period of time). If the average generation is 7 years, then the given timespan corresponds to 10000 generations. Thus, on average, the limb grows at the minute, gradual rate of only 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm / 10000 generations).
so one is not inferior than the other.
Quote:
Evidence points to distinct life forms appearing and disappearing instantly.
what evidence? The evidence (fossil record) shows the stages which life went through to reach it's present state. Exactly what do you mean "distinct life forms"?
I assume he is referring to the general lack of transitional forms between species. There are some that could fit the bill, but not enough to account for all the many species.
Since he cites that he believes in a young earth I don't think he believes in evolution as such, as it would be precluded without sufficient time. Instead he seems to be making a theological argument regarding the two creation accounts. So he would accept creation, a short earth etc. but was simply noting that the two accounts leave some vagueness as to the actual details, and he was maybe even making room for multiple creation acts.
Well you asked for our view...so here it goes... a bit long..sorry for that. I grew up in a family where both my mom and dad had at one time been religious but then left the church. So I had to decide for myself what I believed.
I am going on the assumption, as you have stated, that you are open enough to new thoughts, but that all you have seen so far confirms evolutionary views. Fair enough.
I am a creationist, short earth guy too. And as to teaching creation in schools, I have no burden for it. But then I have no burden for teaching the spontaneous generation of life either. There may be evidence for evolution, without doubt on the micro level, but there is not much evidence for spontaneous generation. Scientists simply found what they thought would be the only possible environment where the amino acids could form life then said that was the earth's earliest environment. Then they still had to speculate that some components were brought by extra-terrestial influences, whether meteors or actual aliens. The real problem is that, once formed, these would continue to develop or even survive. The ideal environment includes vast oceans for the necessary oxygen in the formula. But the physical presence of water seems to be problematic for forming life. So they speculate that the whole process took place on rocks floating in the water...hm....seems a bit convenient. The earliest life happened with elements from space, some natural ones, the proper gasses in the environment, a bit of lightning...and....viola. Now we have life which takes off and develops. Nevermind that most mutations, which are required for change, are deleterious not helpful. Nevermind that some scientists seem to think an RNA environment would be the only way to replicate in such a way.
In short scientists who speculate about the spontaneous generation of life have made a god out of gas, scum, water and lots of time. Some evolutionist scientists are recognizing this and are simply falling back to alien seeding as the only...ahem, rational.... solution. Now we won't get in to where the aliens come from. And as sad as I see this explanation to be , it is at least intellectually honest. But it points out a typical formulation for those who hold this view of origins. If you can't explain the data as it is then postulate that lots of time, or some unkown conditions on another planet will make sense of it. If the only way life could form spontaneously is for there to be a certain combination of gasses, water, etc...then it must have been that way. Kind of like evolutionists accuse religious folks of using religion to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Only scientists do the same with time and aliens. I think of the two I prefer God. Origins are by far the weakest argument of the evolutionist...though the two are really separate. One refers to creation of life, the other to properties observed in life.
I don't see any of it compelling enough to present as facts in school.
I would say the strongest argument evolutionists have would be radioactive dating. Even then carbon dating for instance, when compared with other forms of dating such as dendrochronology etc. seems less than accurate. Of course carbon is not the one used to substantiate long periods due to the half life, but it does raise questions about the process in general.
For that matter, when you can only see a minute part of the whole time frame how do you know that there are not factors which radically adjust what we assume are very set principles. With radioactive dating there are two variables that we really have no empiracle data concerning. Those are
1. whether half lifes are the same no matter what the factors. Now of course we can tell for items which have short half life's but not in other cases. But if the early earth environment really was completely different, then wouldn't some things be altered, possibly even half life? Let me take a completely simplified example. The rate of decay in extracted teeth is completely different if soaked in
a. soda
b. water
c. a toothpaste/water combination (actually shorter than water, which is interesting in itself).
So to think that half lifes of other elements are always fixed no matter the conditions is speculating a bit. Now we wouldn't necessarily say that isotopic decay is the same as teeth decaying. But we also can't say that with many of the elements that we can observe what happens in radically different environments...we are stuck with our own...or over vast periods of time...humans aren't given that.
2. Are the actual original proportions of isotopes consistent? Are there factors which change them?
The geologic column itself could actually favor creationists due to lack of transitional forms, the seeming reversals of strata in various locations, the presence of species in strata where they don't belong, seeming rapid changes in species, etc. These factors have indeed led to changes in the theory of in gradualism, such as punctuated equilibrium, or catastrophism as noted. But isn't that doing what the creationists often do? Making the facts fit your given theory?
The change of animals, even species level change, might be verifiable. Why not teach that? What is debated is whether animals can change beyond their Genus. While we have the time to observe the one, we don't to observe the other. The fact that birds could change their beaks over time is a bit different than a dionsaur turning into a bird for instance.
In fact, since I am on that subject, I think that the observation of Darwin on the changes that take place rapidly due to niches could have a definite application to the concept of a Genesis flood event. Let me lay out what I see as the likely scenario, along with a few explanatory principles of the scenario.
a. mutations tend to be deleterious, not beneficial. The likelyhood of a single beneficial mutation being prolonged, and actually becomging dominant is unlikely. It would take many generations to happen, and often times would mean that the whole group of creatures who previously occupied that niche would have to be so disadvantaged as to dissapear completely. An unlikely event. One well adapted creature with a slight evolutionary change is not going to suddenly displace droves of nearly as well adapted creatures and then become the model. In fact simply observing what happens to slightly different...especially advantaged...creatures in the wild should dispell that notion. They are often ganged up on by the multitude of normal/mediocre creatures until dead. Or put more simply, animals that look different, act different ,etc. Are not well accepted. For that matter, when we do see mutations, cross breeding etc. (mules, ligers) we see a fixed limit before natural curbs such as sterility set in.
b. devolution is more likely than evolution. This is related to the above. I find it humerous that scientists who postulate entropy, and that the world is collectively going to hell in a material handbasket go on to say everything is improving. If entropy tends to effect all systems, things get worse not better. And since most mutations are deleterious, then I think devolution is what we should expect to see.
Moreover, the big buzz term among creationists lately is irreducible complexity. Buzzword or not it is still a valid issue. A small change of .005 cm average to a given limb would render NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER ( I realize you are going by averages..so we might say a difference of a couple cm due to genetic diversity, but it would have the same result. ). Therefore there would be no evolutionary benefit to the mutation, and no continuance of it among a whole generation of slightly smaller limbed creatures. This becomes magnified when extended to complex systems. The classic scenarios are of course blood clotting, the eye, etc. A system which requires multiple, interdependet, irreducibly complex structures, all of which must be functioning for one part to have any meaning can not come about through gradual change. Because their would be no advantage whatsoever to one part of an eye without another. So then rather than expound how these came into being Darwin simply charted the various stages...a sensor...a bit more complex here, a bit more color there, etc. But he doesn't explain how these intricately designed systems in later eyes, that need every part to work, suddenly came onto the scene fully working. You can't evolve parts that all need to be there to work. Because a partial system gives no genetic advantage at all.
So we see an enigma. By your own admission mutations would happen rather slowly (over a quick geological time, but slowly in fact in regards to generations). But you have then to answer why they would happen at all? Why would they take hold in a population when a small change makes no difference? Of course part of the answer is that you are using averages. The idea is that there is variation all the time, and those at the longer end would be prolonged. So for instance, rather than a .005 change per generation you would actually see....one with a fairly longer limb...which stays...then another eventually with longer yet...which stays.. But all of this assumes a ton of rather unlikely conclusions. That the new creature would even survive to further this new mutation...that it would successfully mate, especially given it is a mutant...that it will take hold in the population...or even that creatures with longer limbs give birth to more creatures with longer limbs. We see that doesn't even happen today with regularity. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I am 6'11, but my dad was 5'11". There is no readily available reason for why my brother and I are so tall as none of our immediate ancestors are, other than genetic diversity. So even if we go on to have kids ( I have some, but the data is still out! )...what guarantees that this genetic mutation would in fact be preserved? Diversity might simply be a phenomenon which has fixed limits, rather than a means to further develop new traits. Let's take deer populations. It is readily observed that deer populations go through changes in weight, stature etc. sometimes based on adaptations to environmental conditions. But we certainly haven't seen a change over time to say...giant deer. What we see is they fluctuate over observably short periods of times from larger to smaller, etc. based on the already present diversity. Those that are best suited to survive based on their already present diverse traits stay for a generation...but conditions might change the next generation and they are not favored. We don't see even nominal changes towards lasting genus level changes, but instead we see continual fluctuation within parameters to meet the situation. In other words, diversity within limits.
c. The biblical account fits better with devolution than evolution. You have the degeneration of creatures due to the introduction of sin. They go from perfect to imperfect. From a genetic standpoint we would say that the original creation, according to its Genesis "kinds" would be more genetically diverse than that of today. Over time animals have devolved. We see this phenomenon in sightless fish, flightless birds etc. It is especially true when a niche does not provide competition. Only because, as the evolutionist would agree, the devolved creatures would be killed off otherwise.
This is in fact precisely the type of situation we would see after a Genesis type flood. You have a very limited population that would spread out over large areas of now competitor free niches. It would lead to a huge amount of seeming diversity, which would really be devolution into various new forms due to lack of competition in new niches. Creatures that could not survive before now could. Certain creatures would be lost in a flood...dinos etc. And certain species would simply die out, perhaps after the flood etc.
So my general view would be that the earth is short-aged...not tied to exactly 6k years. We also see definite variation at the species and even genus level, and adaptation as well. But I see a fixed limit to this variation, and I don't see new genus level creatures being formed over time. Rather I see variation based on competition within a fixed scheme. In fact on a whole we see a process of devolution, entropy, and the inescapable conclusion that things are getting worse, not better. Not only does this make sense to me from a scientific view, but also from a biblical view which shows the earth subject to the decay of sin.
The one thing that gives me pause on this view is radiological dating. But since the other data seems to make sense to me, and since some doubts have from time to time been cast on radiological dating, this is not to convince me of evolution or spontaneous generation of life.
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject: Religious myth in evolution theory
Alpha,
You need to distinguish between theory and actual observation. "The fossil record does not show gradual transitions between species." … "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." See this link on the Hopeful Monster theory.
In a debate on origins, observational fact trumps religious dogma. Your source emphasizes theory. My sources emphasize uncontested facts.
AAAAHH! I am so MAD!!! I had replied to 90% of what you said and BAM the blue screen of death comes up and my ...dare I say it... my WHOLE ENTIRE reply to every point you made gone... just like that. stupid computers.
so anyway, first...
Quote:
You need to distinguish between theory and actual observation. "The fossil record does not show gradual transitions between species."
If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence
the hopeful monster theory is NOT punctuated equilibrium. they are completely different. the HMT DOES go against gradualism. PE doesn't (as was explained by wikipedia)
Quote:
There are some that could fit the bill, but not enough to account for all the many species.
first of all, if there were enough fossils to account for all the many species, we'd be drowning in a sea of fossils! that is impossible.
look at this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
Quote:
so here it goes... a bit long..sorry for that.
yeah... could you make one point at a time next time? many times the reply is even longer. I don't like writing novels every time I have to reply :P
Quote:
I am a creationist, short earth guy too. And as to teaching creation in schools, I have no burden for it. But then I have no burden for teaching the spontaneous generation of life either.
since the origins of life is totally separate than evolution, the age of the earth is sort of another topic too, and since evolution is such a huge subject itself, and since off-topic chat isn't allowed in the forums, I'll make another thread for the age of the earth and the origins of life.
Quote:
1. whether half lifes are the same no matter what the factors
Quote:
The rate of decay in extracted teeth is completely different if soaked in
no no no no. you are completely confusing two totally different things. radioactive decay is the decay that each nucleus in an atom undergoes (it is separate from other atoms) and the tooth decaying involves many atoms. If you only had the tooth in a vacuum with nothing else in it, it would never decay because it NEEDS an outside environment. radioactive decay doesn't. It is within the atom itself and does not involve other atoms. you CAN determine weather half lives are the same no matter what the factors. By subjecting different long half-life radioactive isotopes to different conditions, you can then figure out if it is decaying at an increasing or slowing rate. With short life isotopes, you can just change the environment and then look at if the whole half-life changed.
Quote:
But we also can't say that with many of the elements that we can observe what happens in radically different environments
oh yes we can :)
Quote:
the seeming reversals of strata in various locations
those reversals can be accounted for by intrusions and whatever.
Quote:
the presence of species in strata where they don't belong
I think I know what you're talking about but could you explain further?
Quote:
These factors have indeed led to changes in the theory of in gradualism, such as punctuated equilibrium, or catastrophism as noted. But isn't that doing what the creationists often do? Making the facts fit your given theory?
that's what you're doing right now. As explained in my previous post, punctuated equilibrium does NOT in any way change gradualism. PE is just sped up gradualism.
Quote:
The change of animals, even species level change, might be verifiable
The fact that birds could change their beaks over time is a bit different than a dionsaur turning into a bird for instance.
it is ridiculous to think that humans, being a pretty darn young species itself, could observe changes so drastic. Evolution is very slow. Speciation has been observed, but you are asking for WAY too much. You can't change the theory to disprove it.
... to be continued...
a. mutations tend to be deleterious, not beneficial
weather a mutation is good or bad depends on the environment. Sickle-cell anemia for example. Malaria can't attack people (as well) with sickle-cell anemia. Having it would be considered bad in america since we don't have malaria, but having it in malaria-infested regions of the world such as africa is actually an evolutionary advantage. There is even proof, the fact that the ratio of people who have sickle-cell anemia to the ones that don't is much greater in malaria-infested countries than in ones without malaria, showing that they can survive better and pass their genes.
There are many other examples of beneficial mutations. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html (don't forget to look at the links)
Quote:
It would take many generations to happen, and often times would mean that the whole group of creatures who previously occupied that niche would have to be so disadvantaged as to dissapear completely.
yes, it WOULD take many generations. hence evolution being slow. You have to remember though that mutations ocurred in individuals all over the population and that the winners (the ones with good mutations) go and mate together so you have the good mutations from individual A and from individual B. You also have to remember that the vast majority organisms have a LOT of offspring every year. The odds that the mutations from both parents will get passed on to at least one offspring are very, VERY good.
and yes, many times that's why species go extinct. They don't evolve fast enough when an organism better at surviving comes along, so they die (it's called natural selection)
Quote:
In fact simply observing what happens to slightly different...especially advantaged...creatures in the wild should dispell that notion
LOL!!! first of all, mutations aren't going to make the next baby you have have three eyes, four feet, two wings, and a tail. They could be a mutation to say digest cellulose, or a longer tail, etc.
Quote:
Or put more simply, animals that look different, act different ,etc. Are not well accepted
secondly, many times that is not the case. There have been experiments with finches where they actually make a hat for male finches(with a little feather sticking up) and the females were more attracted to them. More recently, and in nature, check this article about the black squirrels of washington.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/18/AR2005051802251.html
Quote:
He has studied their behavior -- now using feeders rather than Valium -- and determined that the squirrels don't appear to treat each other differently because they are black or gray.
"They don't seem to care," he said.
humans should learn from squirrels and stop being racist, homophobes, etc.
Quote:
I find it humerous that scientists who postulate entropy, and that the world is collectively going to hell in a material handbasket go on to say everything is improving. If entropy tends to effect all systems, things get worse not better. And since most mutations are deleterious, then I think devolution is what we should expect to see.
ah, good ol' entropy. One of the worst arguments against evoluton ever concieved. ... I know what you've been reading... lol!
there's so much wrong with that argument I don't even know where to start.
order comes from disorder ALL the time. every time clouds form, that's a decrease in entropy. When snowflakes form ( http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm ), crystals like quartz and tons of others, condensation, freezing, the filtering that comes from springs, etc. and those are just non-living examples. every living organism is proof that the entropy argument is one of the worst. living things decrease entropy all the time. They take minerals form the soil and arrange them in leaves, etc. If your agument is right, then living things themselves shouldn't exist. Nor should water... nor anything solid... the universe would just be a big cloud of gas.
Quote:
And since most mutations are deleterious, then I think devolution is what we should expect to see.
those mutations are not passed down to offspring. They are weeded out by natural selection. you're trying to reverse natural selection so it favors bad mutations. Of course if you re-define a theory it will be wrong!
Quote:
A small change of .005 cm average to a given limb would render NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER ( I realize you are going by averages..so we might say a difference of a couple cm due to genetic diversity, but it would have the same result. ).
the smallest changes can have huge impacts. say the spaces of the filter-feeding organ of barnacles (I forgot what it's called) were a little smaller, they could filter out smaller particles and the amount of food cought would greately increase. Say beak size... even the smallest amount of growth could allow a finch to break nuts faster. or say that the tendons of a certain animal are made tougher by just a tiny little bit. That animal could then outrun (or... out last) a predator. a LOT of times the slightest thing can mean the difference between life or death.
Quote:
The classic scenarios are of course blood clotting, the eye, etc. A system which requires multiple, interdependet, irreducibly complex structures, all of which must be functioning for one part to have any meaning can not come about through gradual change
This is in fact precisely the type of situation we would see after a Genesis type flood.
you just love bringing up ten thousand huge issues in one post don't you? look at how much it has taken me to reply to every little point (about evolution) you have made. one point at a time, PLEASE!
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Quote:
So my general view would be that the earth is short-aged...not tied to exactly 6k years
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
that is all you could say to disprove the young earth belief.
from the fact that the nearest galaxy is more than TWO MILLION light years away (meaning that light from THE NEAREST GALAXY takes two million years to reach the earth) to the fact that it's impossible for humans to have just come about 6K or whatever years ago.
Quote:
In fact on a whole we see a process of devolution, entropy, and the inescapable conclusion that things are getting worse, not better.
no we don't. We see bacteria first, then protists, then animals like worms, alage and bryophytes, then animals like arthropods and stuff, then ... blah blah to birds and mammals and brugmansias.
WHEW! that took what... two hours of my life? (not counting yesterday) and that was just me posting links and short explanations...
If you want anything explained in more detail or anything at all, just ask.
I could post some of the evidence for evolution if you want... I don't know... just ask.
Since it violates the spirit of true education to teach myth and religious opinions and pass them off as science in public schools, perhaps you should explain what this noted paleontologist meant.
Since it violates the spirit of true education to teach myth and religious opinions and pass them off as science in public schools, perhaps you should explain what this noted paleontologist meant.
First of all, I don't care who said it and why, it is irreleveant now because it's not true of today. Did you look at my links? It gives examples of a lot of transitional fossils.
However, since apparently you do care what one person said even though he was obviously wrong, I'll try to explain anyway. he said that 28 years ago. That's 1 2/3 my lifetime. 1997 was years before the internet was used (by regular people). The information is not very known now, imagine how widely known it was back then. Also, if you look at the dates in my link(I'm assuming that's when they were discovered... or maybe that's when they were made public... either way he probably didn't know about them before those dates), most of them were discovered/made public after he made that statement.
He was also in the minority: (from your link)
Quote:
Gould was considered by many outsiders to be one of the pre-eminent theoreticians in his field. However, most evolutionary biologists disagreed with the way that Gould presented his views; they feel that Gould gave the public, as well as scientists in other fields, a very distorted picture of evolutionary theory. Few evolutionary biologists question his motives, insight, or his new ideas. However, many hold that his claims to have overthrown standard views of neo-Darwinism were exaggerated to the point of falsehood, and that his claims of replacing adaptation as a key component of natural selection were erroneous.
Biologist John Maynard Smith wrote that Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory"; another biologist, Ernst Mayr, wrote of Gould, and those who agree with him, that they "quite conspicuously misrepresent the views of evolutionary biology's leading spokesmen."
bah, he didn't even understand evolution. Who knows what he thought "transitional fossils" are?
a. If you ask for my views on a broad subject, don't get ticked when I put them. We can always go from broad to more specific on whichever details catch our eye. But an isolated fact does not give why I would favor creationism in classrooms, etc. nor does it sum up my actual views. So a lengthy response was necessaryAs you noted, more lengthy responses are now necessary. But that is fine. I hate coming every few days to find only one little point to respond to. It is a waste of time. Moreover, since you seem to take a little pleasure in putting us on the spot, it is fair enough to ask you to at least put yourself out a bit to further a conversation you were all too willing to start.
Finally, some people mistakenly feel that big claims that go unchallenged must be right. I intend to challenge the claims on several levels so that those inclined to such reasoning have no excuse.
b. If you take that much time to respond then do what I do...write it in a word processor, save often, then cut and paste. It protects it and makes it more convenient.
A. Let us start with irreducible complexity, and the eye. Your chart that you posted was something similar to what Darwin did when he first took a stab at the eye. In fact, you will note that I mentioned this type of chart.
The real issue is that in eye you have parts that inter-work together with no means of working in the same way without the other.
As you are probably aware the idea of irreducible complexity comes from Darwin himself, in his book "Origin of the Species." He wrties,
Quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
The eye is the most popular argument polemically speaking because Darwin supposedly referenced this concept in the following quote, in a letter to a friend, though the reliability of this I am not qualified to say:
Quote:
I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over.
The upshot is that there are parts of the complex eye that require all other parts to be there to have any function whatsoever. There would be no reason to gradually develop those parts that had no function until all were combined.
Quote:
How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities.
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Meteksan Publications, Ankara, p. 475.
Darwin's succession of simple eye concepts ignores the fact that even the 150 million year old trilobite eye had a double len's and was fairly complex. Early eyes don't seem to be all that simple. They require a system which cannot come about slowly because they give no benefit until complete.
In Darwin's time they did not understand the physical and bio-chemical processes of the eye. And you will note they list no examples of creatures that had this light sensing type of eye. In fact though I often see this kind of development chart, they never give specific examples of animals with senor eyes. I am not sure one exists. They simply adopted Darwin's ancient concept of how it could have happened, not mentioning they have no actual record of it. This was a theory in the true sense...more of a hypothesis in the scientific sense.
The model also glosses over a few important facts in the whole "light sensor" model. It is true that the body has sensors that detect heat etc. But they still had to form...not just that, but they still had to connect to a brain....a central system. To say that something impossible happened because something else impossible happened does not explain how it happened. It simply says both happened. I agree that both are present, but that does not mean it was any less complex. And the most basic eye on record was far more complex than this sensor.
The issue with blood clotting is essentially the same. A whole chain of chemical reactions must take place for blood to clot when injured. Without one of the components being there immediately there would be no working clotting. And I dare say that all the creatures who did not possess all the required parts would be more than just disadvantaged...they would be dead.
B. Second let's move on to transitional forms. If you define them as not in direct lineage, as does your article, then you have no way to distinguish between
a. items which followed similar but distinct paths of evolution.
b. natural similarities in many species...in other words, it begs the question. "Some simple animals have similar structures to more complex ones, so they must have been developed from them." No. It just means they have similar structures. Assuming your argument can be a way to show logical possibilities, but it is not proof in itself.
I think that Eugene does in fact want direct links. And to say we would be swimming in fossils...yes I think we would...which is precisely Eugene's point.
C. Related, or unrelated? The evolution of life is totally separate from evolution in the sense that it is not observable, granted. But the issues of long earth and origins of the earth are completely related when you get to issues of evolution in the sense that if you remove long periods of time evolution is NOT A POSSIBILITY. Gradualism, mutations as a vehicle for change, etc. all fall apart without time. It is directly related.
Moreover, the whole issue of origins is related in another way. You posit materialistic understandings of everything. I don't. If you want to posit material workings in all things then you have to come up with a viable origins explanation to even give your system some merit. Evolutionists are increasingly unable to do this.
Do you really think kids in their class are going to not ask about origins? It is related.
D. Short earth--
a. I don't believe that the universe was created 6k years ago. I was discussing the earth. So the star's distance does not bother me.
b. I mentioned that decay of teeth and isotopes are totally different. My point is that in both varying factors effect the equation–which you granted. Since you just admitted that radically different environments affect rate of decay you make my point. You cannot know the actual rate if you don't know all the factors back to the times you are studying. So if you don't know all of the factors...which we both say that they were not readily observable in our short span of time...you can't know the conclusions are true.
c. punctuated equilibrium– Here is yet another example of how it is related. Again this theory, along with gradualism requires long times. But apart from all that, your insistence that PE is not doing away with gradualism is rather silly. Is it an outgrowth? Sure. But saying that things happen at predictably slow, regular rates, and saying that things happen quickly at times within larger periods of slow regular rates are not the same thing.
PE is not sped up gradualism. Gradualism says things happened at FIXED rates. It does not say that things seem to do nothing for a bit, then change a bit more rapidly.
Moreover you missed Eugene's point. He was not equating PE with HMT, he was saying one was an outgrowth of the other and still does not do the job as we still are not....swimming in fossils, to use your term.
E. Species not meant to be at same time...let's skip the famous controversial Paluxy Riverbed case, which I assume is what you thought I meant, because you can't prove anything from that mess with all the debate, and just look at a more mundane example. The Coelacanth was thought to be extinct long ago, since dinosaur times, and was relegated to a strata. Now it was found, not only in a new strata, but in a shark trap off the coast of Africa.
If occasionally species thought extinct are found in modern day times, how can we be sure that the fossils we are finding should be dated to a specific period in the past?
For that matter, we hear that we haven't even discovered all the species on the planet. How then do we know that certain ones that we thought were relegated to strata of the far past were indeed only in that time period, or are not still in existence today?
F. Change at the species level...I conceded that anyway, not sure why that needs proof.
Quote:
Your wrote:
it is ridiculous to think that humans, being a pretty darn young species itself, could observe changes so drastic. Evolution is very slow. Speciation has been observed, but you are asking for WAY too much. You can't change the theory to disprove it.
a. I didn't change it. I stated the theory as it is. I simply said it has no means of being observed on the macro level.
b. You concede the very point I was making. Species change IS observed. But we also observe some built in barriers to genus type change. And Genus level change HASN'T been observed. I am glad we agree on that.
c. Again you assume humans to be a young species...which I would agree with since I believe they are ALL new species :) But the facts should not be confused with the conclusions.
G. Mutations. Yes, some mutations that seem bad can be good. But some that seem bad are simply that...bad. In fact most are bad. The occasional lucky one does not rule out all those bad ones. In fact...it would be classed among the good ones, which would still be pitifully small in number. We all argue with anecdotal evidence, but here it does not address the real issue. Most mutations are not good. Good ones are quite rare, and passed on good ones are even more rare. Hence the need for evolutionists once again to project long periods of time. See how that is all related?
No I didn't forget to look at your link. Let us observe their logic:
Quote:
Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
a. here we note that they agree...most that have effect are harmful. Moreover, most are neutral. Only a very, very small amount are beneficial.
b. they engage in semantics to make very few sound like very much. Sure, most mutations that survive are beneficial....so how many survive? VERY FEW. Don't comfort yourself with semantics, read what even they tell you, albeit grudgingly.
Note this quote by them as well:
Quote:
Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model
This is of course absurd. The only thing that would be a falsification is if it could be proven that positive mutations happen often enough, quickly enough, survive enough, and are of sufficient scope for evolution to have occurred within the specified time frame. Such arguments are indeed debated all the time. The famous case being the roughly 3 percent difference in the genome between chimps and man. It was proposed that there was not near enough time in the proposed fossil record for mutations to result in 3 percent change to the genome. This was then debated by evolutionists, and is to this day. Haldane's delimma is the classic formulation. You can find the actual delimma and its would be debunkers on a simple web search.
Here is the dilemma in a nutshell:
Quote:
Imagine a population of 100,000 of those [pre-human] organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees).
Now of course the actual dilemma has some flaws.
a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time.
b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens.
These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather COMPLETELY unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented.
Second whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time.
Of course the other solution some offer is to say that we don't know the actual genome difference between humans and their ancestors millions of years ago. It is not necessarily true that they were the same as a chimp. True enough. But given that both the chimp and the human had a common ancestor a ways back, wouldn't it make some sense to say that the ancient common ancestor was LESS EVOLVED THAN EITHER THE CHIMP OR THE HUMAN? Otherwise evolution sure isn't doing it's job.
A more substantial answer is that some of the 3 percent difference, perhaps a great deal, involves neutral, non beneficial differences. This could well be. But we don't rightly know which ones are, which ones aren't, or what the actual differences are between the chimp and man.
What we do know is that
a. evolutionists, not creationists are the ones who have something to prove when it comes to the rate of beneficial mutations, the solution to which is not immediately obvious.
b. The presence of one beneficial mutation means squat and they know it.
It is hardly so simple as to say that one beneficial mutation proves anything other than....there are beneficial mutations, and they are not that common. The very thing your own source already told you.
Here is a quote from you where you concede that genetic changes take a LONG time:
Quote:
yes, it WOULD take many generations. hence evolution being slow.
Yes, it is slow...in this case quite likely TOO slow. The problem is that when you have the ease of saying that things happened over millions of years you can convince people that time allows anything. But once you start specifying the number of years, you have to prove that it actually happened.
H. As to animals exhibiting differences being accepted, sure it is not universal. And since we are on the point, you again state that the changes are incredibly slow, but with each little one making a difference. Again...are they too slow? And if it makes an incredible difference, how is it that the one doesn't stand out? An incredible difference stands out.
As to humans learning from squirrels, be glad we didn't. Because if we learned from squirrels or any of the other animals you are citing we would be going by survival of the fittest and beating the tar out of each other all the time. In fact, on a social level racism is darwinism–keeping the marginalized...less advantaged socially...down. An ethics based on power is not something I am interested in learning. But let's not get too far afield.
I. Entropy, actually I haven't read anything on that in a long time. And it predated the web, so I doubt you know what I am reading. I don't generally read on the web. I just find related web-based articles to back it up because they are quicker to cut and paste, and they are in abundance. And as for living beings being an example of entropy not being a good argument...show me one that doesn't eventually give in to entropy. The facts are that all things do end in disorder.
J. Devolution. You assume they don't exist. I listed some that do. And in fact in an environment with tons of competitor free niches MANY deleterious mutations would in fact persist. They only die out in natural selection if they FAIL TO COMPETE. Failure is not a problem when competition doesn't exist in open niches. Again, a Genesis type flood would produce this very circumstance. And unlike many of your notions of the past we do have numerous HISTORICAL records in nearly every culture of stories about large deluges or floods.
But perhaps we can debate the various flood questions at more length. I will read through your article, that one is quite long.
I answered the other questions at the beginning.
And I spent 3 hours on this just to be fair to your 2 hours. I await your reply.
a. If you ask for my views on a broad subject, don't get ticked when I put them.
no, I get ticked when you post a whole novel I have to reply to, and half of that novel is about something else.
Quote:
Moreover, since you seem to take a little pleasure in putting us on the spot, it is fair enough to ask you to at least put yourself out a bit to further a conversation you were all too willing to start.
I have debated quite a few times with creationists in different forums and not ONE single time has anyone wrote a 13, 1496 word reply. Not at the beginning of the debate, not at the end. This is a forum, we're not debating with books (or at least we shouldn't). You should follow Eugene's example and make a couple of short points so that I can reply to them.
But anyway, I guess it's too late. Now I also have to post books as replies, and anyone who comes along and would have had anything to contribute will just be scared off by the enormous replies. The whole purpose of this thread is gone.
Quote:
The quote is taken out of context. Darwin answered the seeming problem he introduced. The paragraph continues,
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
The optic nerve is just another regular nerve that just happens to connect the eye to the brain. We have nerves that connect our fingers to our brain.
Quote:
And you will note they list no examples of creatures that had this light sensing type of eye. In fact though I often see this kind of development chart, they never give specific examples of animals with senor eyes. I am not sure one exists.
oh... so that's the problem eh? actually they do exist.
Quote:
Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
Some monkeys have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.
The model also glosses over a few important facts in the whole "light sensor" model. It is true that the body has sensors that detect heat etc. But they still had to form...not just that, but they still had to connect to a brain....a central system.
You basically want me to tell you every single step we had to go through to evolve right? single cells can detect pressure/temperature/light/chemical changes. Animals evolved from single cells by first becoming colonial (many single cells are colonial... you could even argue that sponges are colonial organisms and not animals) and having specialized cells. some of those cells became neurons. at first animals had neural nets (like cnidarians) and then they started having small clusters (ganglia) to achieve more complexity (like arthropods). then they evolved into one cluster (brain).
Quote:
The issue with blood clotting is essentially the same.
B. Second let's move on to transitional forms. If you define them as not in direct lineage, as does your article, then you have no way to distinguish between
a. items which followed similar but distinct paths of evolution
my article defines them as not direct lineage? where?
Quote:
I think that Eugene does in fact want direct links. And to say we would be swimming in fossils...yes I think we would...which is precisely Eugene's point.
I already adressed that. the conditions for fossilizing are rare, many organisms dont' fossilize (or their parts don't), and fossils are destroyed.
Quote:
C. Related, or unrelated? The evolution of life is totally separate from evolution in the sense that it is not observable, granted
huh? you're confusing two totally different things. one thing is the ORIGINS of life (not the evolution of life) and another is the evolution of life.
Quote:
Since you just admitted that radically different environments affect rate of decay you make my point. You cannot know the actual rate if you don't know all the factors back to the times you are studying. So if you don't know all of the factors...which we both say that they were not readily observable in our short span of time...you can't know the conclusions are true.
are you not listening to me? you're stating the same exact thing you said before without REPLYING to what I said.
Quote:
But apart from all that, your insistence that PE is not doing away with gradualism is rather silly. Is it an outgrowth? Sure. But saying that things happen at predictably slow, regular rates, and saying that things happen quickly at times within larger periods of slow regular rates are not the same thing.
I guess you don't understand what gradualism is. from wikipedia "Gradualism, in biology, holds that evolution occurs through the accumulation of slight modifications over a period of generations. " it says NOTHING about it being slow, or regular.
Quote:
Moreover you missed Eugene's point.
You seem to be eugene's spokesman.
Quote:
The Coelacanth was thought to be extinct long ago, since dinosaur times, and was relegated to a strata. Now it was found, not only in a new strata, but in a shark trap off the coast of Africa.
so? archaebacteria are still found today. What's your point? whole species don't evolve, populations do
You will never find say a human fossil in cambrian strata because we evolved later than that. You may very well find real live organisms from that time because they simply just didn't go extinct.
Quote:
If occasionally species thought extinct are found in modern day times, how can we be sure that the fossils we are finding should be dated to a specific period in the past?
because we can date them by radioactive dating, they're found alongside with say dinosaurs or whatever and obviously t-rex's don't exist anymore, etc.
Quote:
How then do we know that certain ones that we thought were relegated to strata of the far past were indeed only in that time period, or are not still in existence today?
that is totally irrelevant. in fact, mark my words: we WILL find more "living fossils" soon. does that contradict evolution in ANY way? no. in fact, we should EXPECT (hence my prediction) that we find them.
Quote:
And Genus level change HASN'T been observed. I am glad we agree on that.
no, I said that it would be ridiculous to expect seeing a population of reptiles turn into birds.
Quote:
You concede the very point I was making. Species change IS observed
you never said that.... (yes I know that's irrelevant, i'm just setting the record straight)
Quote:
which I would agree with since I believe they are ALL new species :)
explain fossils then. why are we very recent additions to the fossil record?
Quote:
But some that seem bad are simply that...bad. In fact most are bad.
no. most are neutral.
Quote:
The occasional lucky one does not rule out all those bad ones
the good one gets passed and the bad ones get weeded out.
Quote:
Most mutations are not good. Good ones are quite rare, and passed on good ones are even more rare
it depends on the environment.
Quote:
Hence the need for evolutionists once again to project long periods of time. See how that is all related?
... long time is a part of the theory... it is supported by geology. yes, long periods ARE necessary. what's your point? you're proving my point.
Quote:
Sure, most mutations that survive are beneficial....so how many survive? VERY FEW.
if the mutations weren't beneficial they wouldn't survive. Where are you drawing your conclusion that only very few survive?
Quote:
This is of course absurd. The only thing that would be a falsification is if it could be proven that positive mutations happen often enough, quickly enough, survive enough, and are of sufficient scope for evolution to have occurred within the specified time frame
you mean if beneficial mutations happen scarecely enough, and slow enough, to have evolved within the specified time frame.
Quote:
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.
say that one organism had a generation every 25 years (which is EXTREAMELY slow for the average organism). It would take less than 10 million years to evolve an eye.
Quote:
Haldane's delimma is the classic formulation.
Quote:
a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time.
b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens.
c. the chimp and human population would be diverging too. we didn't evolve from chimps.
d. Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon
e. like I mentioned before, say we have 10 individuals in a population. two of those have a beneficial mutation so they survive. that's two good mutations per generation in a year. The surviving individuals would then mate and their offspring would have both beneficial mutations.
Quote:
It is still rather COMPLETELY unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation.
I agree. You'd get a lot more. And they would could possibly change more than one gene or nucleotide.
on the subject of human evolution form apes...
did you know that basically all other animals can produce their own vitamin C? they don't have to get it from their food like we (and all other great apes) do. here's the catch... the mutation which doesn't let us synthesize our own vitamin C is EXACTLY in the same place and is EXACTLY the same in ALL great apes. do you know how large genes are? that is sure one heck of a coincidence. or is it?
Quote:
True enough. But given that both the chimp and the human had a common ancestor a ways back, wouldn't it make some sense to say that the ancient common ancestor was LESS EVOLVED THAN EITHER THE CHIMP OR THE HUMAN? Otherwise evolution sure isn't doing it's job.
first of all there's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". there can be more or less complexity, yes, but that doesn't mean that you can survive better if you're more complex. take bacteria for example. they can survive pretty well... they've been here since WAY before any birds, mammals, or even worms were here. Heck, even though we try we just can't beat them.
Quote:
A more substantial answer is that some of the 3 percent difference, perhaps a great deal, involves neutral, non beneficial differences.
lol. another problem. 3 percent? right...
Quote:
The results suggested that within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity.
more like .6% take all the flaws and everything, and your dilemma is dead.
Quote:
What we do know is that
a. evolutionists, not creationists are the ones who have something to prove when it comes to the rate of beneficial mutations, the solution to which is not immediately obvious.
b. The presence of one beneficial mutation means squat and they know it.
both are wrong.
Quote:
Here is a quote from you where you concede that genetic changes take a LONG time:
Quote:
yes, it WOULD take many generations. hence evolution being slow.
Yes, it is slow...in this case quite likely TOO slow
you're twisting what I said. I said it would take many generations. most organisms (if not all) have more than one generation a year. and yes, evolution is slow, but it's not too slow given the billions of years the earth has been around.
Quote:
As to animals exhibiting differences being accepted, sure it is not universal
it's greately universal. Just about the only animals (no fungus, plant, protist, archae, nor eubacteria discriminate like that) that kill others of their own species because they're different are social animals. and social animals are quite rare indeed.
Quote:
And if it makes an incredible difference,
incredible in the sense that it can allow organisms to survive, not that it is obvious. They only stand out because they can do things better... say michael jordan or bay ruth or whatever. do you see people hating them because they're different?
Quote:
Because if we learned from squirrels or any of the other animals you are citing we would be going by survival of the fittest and beating the tar out of each other all the time
HELLO!!!! did you even LOOK at what I said? THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!!! they DON'T do that. they overlook the fact that one is gray and the other is black.
Quote:
In fact, on a social level racism is darwinism–keeping the marginalized...less advantaged socially...down. An ethics based on power is not something I am interested in learning. But let's not get too far afield.
ha! yes... resort to stupid arguments like that. Want to start mud slinging? look at your own beliefs first. the crusades, inquisition, witch trials, the KKK, etc. don't be so immature.
Quote:
show me one that doesn't eventually give in to entropy. The facts are that all things do end in disorder.
yes they do die but not before reaching their prime, and at that prime (less entropy), reproducing.
Quote:
Devolution. You assume they don't exist. I listed some that do. And in fact in an environment with tons of competitor free niches MANY deleterious mutations would in fact persist.
they are called vestigial structures. part of the evidence for evolution. They are NOT bad mutations. Why would not having eyes in complete darkness be bad? do you REALLY think we once had flying ostriches? I can just see it now... lol.
Quote:
And unlike many of your notions of the past we do have numerous HISTORICAL records in nearly every culture of stories about large deluges or floods.
there are also stories about little people (from leprichauns and the hawaiian's menekune or however you spell it, to dwarves and elves and all those little people... and many others), about ape-men (bigfoot, the snowman, there's some in australia, etc), to even vampires in many places. your point is??? oh that's right. I guess vampires, little people, and ape-men are also historical facts. Most cultures even had multiple gods, some which were good and some which were evil. I guess we really do have multiple gods and not just one, like you think.
I was actually enjoying our discussion. We got more in this way than we would in a week of short posts. You came here announcing you were going to have fun posting, debating etc. What happened? Now you sound bitter just because you had to type a bit.
On the subject of whether I am off topic, once again...
you state that evolution REQUIRES long time periods. That makes the discussion of long time periods vs. short earth highly relevant, wouldn't you think?
As for the flood, since my view of devolution revolves around niches, etc. I think that is relevant to my discussion as well.
1. The eye.
a. The optic nerve is just another nerve. But instead of saying that, why not explain how the whole neural system came about? You are missing the whole point. If you don't explain how other nerves came about then it is pointless to say it is the same.
b. No matter what you think of light sensors that does not explain how interdependent parts develop seperately when they have no purpose without each other. The fact that one has a simpler eye, even if it is a progression does not prove that one developed into the other.
c. yeah, I want every step. Let me list them, then you tell me how they evolved. If you gloss over immense detail you don't answer the question. :
Quote:
When photons hit the cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal" that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this molecule changes shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called "rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form that enables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin."
Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to another molecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducin releases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP. That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsin and transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducin-rhodopsin."
But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducin-rhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein resident in the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesterase protein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Since this process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMP concentration is suddenly decreased.
How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chain reaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ion channels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed of proteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Under normal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance. When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodium ions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, which stimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we refer to as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and "seeing" happens there.
Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 18-21
2. As to the question of blood clotting, the issue that dolphins don't have a single aspect of the human system shows nothing. The challenge is for evolutionists to describe how the complex system of the human came about, not the simple system of dolphins.
3.
Quote:
TheAlphaWolf wrote
my article defines them as not direct lineage? where?
It is the very first line of the article actually:
Quote:
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found.
4. Rates of decay. You said that we can know the effects of radically different environments. However, can you know what those environments were throughout the billions of years you claim, or all possible factors which effected them? No. That was my point.
5. Number of fossils...so it is convenient that the fossils that did manage to make it are in fact ones that show large gaps. Proving that there are a few that could constitute so called transitional ones does not close the huge number of gaps.
6. Gradualism....Wikipedia can think what they like, saying that things change gradually over time is not the same as saying they do nothing for a bit then change fairly rapidly.
Also in their own article they note that PE is not an explanation for gaps in the fossil record:
Quote:
It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
A handy excuse to say just what Eugene did all along...big....gaps. And no I am not Eugene's spokesman, as we have been known to disagree on his distinctive doctrinal contributions regarding prophecy. But in this case I rather think he was right.
7. The point of extinct creatures showing up is that the fossil record is just what we observe now. It obviously has its flaws. If there were a human in the cambrian you would simply say it was a reversal due to glaciation etc. The point is you like to forget those parts of the fossil record that don't agree.
8. Radiometric dating....scientists constantly reject their own dates. Here is one example from many that are known...
Quote:
researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was "too old," according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them.
You also have the problem that known items don't match up...
Quote:
There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Another dilemma:
Quote:
No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
Fossil wood found in "Upper Permian" rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.[23] Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as "middle Triassic," supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.[24] The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the "date" was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
there are many, including the fact that various dating methods don't match up on the same item.
For more information on these and other problems, including the vast array of indications of a young earth see here:
Inicidentally, I do still remember your list of links to the contrary. They stated that one proof was enough. Well it must work both ways right?
No, because the truth is that we are all looking at a hugely complex set of data and both sides are interpreting the same data different ways, so both can marshal tons of proofs which really prove nothing. They are interpretations.
9.
Quote:
Quote:
tall73 said: You concede the very point I was making. Species change IS observed
you never said that.... (yes I know that's irrelevant, i'm just setting the record straight)
actually I did in my initial post:
Quote:
tall73 said
The change of animals, even species level change, might be verifiable. Why not teach that? What is debated is whether animals can change beyond their Genus. While we have the time to observe the one, we don't to observe the other. The fact that birds could change their beaks over time is a bit different than a dionsaur turning into a bird for instance.
I also said more than once that it is genus level change that I doubt. Go look :)
10. As to us being recent additions to the fossil record, you are basing that on your INTERPRETATION of the fossil record, which I of course reject. Circular reasoning....In fact if you step back from this whole thing you will see the obvious situation. We both would like to assume our model and interpret all facts that way. That is expected. But at least realize when you are doing it.
11. Mutations...yes most are neutral, as I also said. But the ones have effect, most are bad, which your own article said. Whether good ones endure even your own article said they are RARE.
Let us review their quote:
Quote:
Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
read the first 9 words....
Realize that just before this they said the vast majority are neutral. So...a small percentage have effect, most of them are harmful, and a small FRACTION of a small amount are good. I would think that would be VERY FEW.
12. Mutations must occur quickly enough to fit the evolutionary timeline. You note that it is billions of years. Of course it is. But by your own beloved interpretation of the fossil record humans are short lived. They have a SHORT timeline to account for all the mutations necessary.
13. Evolving from chimps. Here you get lazy again. I covered at length that we did not evolve from chimps. But they do claim a common ancestor in the past. I would say that they would have advanced beyond the common ancestor just as we have, making the gap larger.
12. You assume a lot. I think you would have a hard time finding even evolutionary scientists agreeing with your multiple mutations in a generation that then survives. In fact, there is no guarantee the two that both had mutations mate together or even survive.
13. As for your vitamin c thing...didn't you just say we didn't evolve from chimps? Why would we from modern apes then? You contradict yourself. And no, I don't think it a coincidence at all. I think a design might be kept from work to work ,if you get the idea. Correlation does not equal causation. You should know that.
14. No one knows the neutral parts of the neuron, or even the actual changes necessary to go from the common ancestor to humans. So actually the timing must be answered by the ones who postulate it. An assumption or scientific hypothesis is proved right by facts. The facts are not there.
15. Now since you said the statement I made that one beneficial mutation proves squat was wrong...I want you to back up their statement that one beneficial mutation is a refutation of the creationist view. Go ahead...show me the logic that one good mutation means anything other than....one positive mutation. You continually confuse the facts for your interpretation of them. Sorry to disappoint you but both camps have equal claim to the facts.
16. On squirrels being our social model....actually I did look at what you said. We are all physical creatures working on natural selection. So how many of your competition did you take out lately?
And thanks ,but last I checked I am not catholic, so forget the crusades. Inquisition...see first answer. KKK...sorry, no sheets in my closet. Witch trials...a bit before my time. Did it e strike you that you are on a forum that has many Seventh-day Adventists on it? I am one...it says so in my little tag. I have probably preached against catholic abuses more than you ever will.
17. In this case I am defining devolution as a process where originally diverse species become less diverse over time due to loss of genetic material through mutation. Bad, etc. is not really the issue. Incidentally, this kills the beatle argument against the ark too. The genesis kinds were not that many, with many various species coming from each. Far from your assertion that I rejected speciation, I wholeheartedly embraced it...just limited to the genus level or so.
18. Actually there are historical vampires, giants too, dwarves, sure, and I believe that evil beings can and do act through various mediums to carry out their work. You have said nothing that bothers me there at all. In fact, false gods and idols were said specifically in the Bible to gain their power through demons. My paradigm is not limited to material factors.
The optic nerve is just another nerve. But instead of saying that, why not explain how the whole neural system came about? You are missing the whole point.
I did.
Quote:
single cells can detect pressure/temperature/light/chemical changes. Animals evolved from single cells by first becoming colonial (many single cells are colonial... you could even argue that sponges are colonial organisms and not animals) and having specialized cells. some of those cells became neurons. at first animals had neural nets (like cnidarians) and then they started having small clusters (ganglia) to achieve more complexity (like arthropods). then they evolved into one cluster (brain).
Quote:
b. No matter what you think of light sensors that does not explain how interdependent parts develop seperately when they have no purpose without each other.
if they have no purpose without each other then they didn't evolve. However, you have yet to give me an example where that is true. Yes maybe a cornea without a retina is useless, but that's how now it happened. a retina by itself is useful, so it evolved, and THEN came the cornea, which is even more useful. then the muscles that control the cornea. etc.
Quote:
2. As to the question of blood clotting, the issue that dolphins don't have a single aspect of the human system shows nothing. The challenge is for evolutionists to describe how the complex system of the human came about, not the simple system of dolphins
yeah, I want every step. Let me list them, then you tell me how they evolved. If you gloss over immense detail you don't answer the question. :
that long explanation looks very complex and stuff but they're just chemical reactions. Many chemical reactions in nature (like acid rain... first thing that came to mind) take many steps. They are just regular chemical reactions that just happen to take many steps. There are chemicals that react with light, so say an organelle in a cell (like euglenas) starts making that kind of chemical. Then of course the chemical reacts with other things in that cell and you have a cell that can tell light from dark. (again, like euglenas and dinoflagellates and others)
but here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html
Quote:
The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
I believe that is saying that there is no way to know if the fossils you found were the direct ancestors of today's organisms. They could have been the same species but not direct ancestors of today's organisms.
Quote:
However, can you know what those environments were throughout the billions of years you claim,
you can subject the radioactive isotopes to different chemicals. If they don't react with those chemicals, then they wouldn't react with the chemicals of past environments on earth. If you've studied chemistry, you also know that there are many rules that govern chemical reactions, so you can know if anything will react with isotopes. Also... radioactivity happens within the atom's own nucleus. it does not involve any other atoms so even if the atoms were to bond with other atoms, it would be irrelevant. In fact... when you get injected with isotopes to detect cancer and stuff, they're not in it's pure state (otherwise you'd probably get killed by the radioactivity :P), they're dissolved in something so obviously reacting with other atoms doesn't affect the half-life.
so, to answer your question
Quote:
or all possible factors which effected them? No. That was my point.
yes.
Quote:
Number of fossils...so it is convenient that the fossils that did manage to make it are in fact ones that show large gaps.
fossils don't show large gaps. the more fossils you have the less gaps you have too. They are constantly discovering new transitional fossils.
Quote:
saying that things change gradually over time is not the same as saying they do nothing for a bit then change fairly rapidly.
ok, let me explain it as simply as I can. Gradualism is just going in gradual steps. Meaning that
Quote:
Main Entry: 2gradual
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin gradualis, from Latin gradus
1 : proceeding by steps or degrees
2 : moving, changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible degrees
let me make an analogy. You are going to NY. You do that gradually. You must physically travel every single nanometer from where you are to NY. It doesn't matter if you're going at 2 miles per hour, or if you're going at the speed of light. You are still proceeding in little steps or degrees.
same with evolution. You don't just have a baby and it suddenly has wings instead of arms, you must first grow feathers, change your skeleton little by little, etc.
and PE is not saying that "they do nothing for a bit". It's saying that you evolve less rapidly than other times. The only thing PE is saying is that sometimes you evolve faster than other times. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
Also in their own article they note that PE is not an explanation for gaps in the fossil record:
no it isn't. what does that have to do against evolution? PE is an explanation of things like the cambrian explosion, and thigns like that where you see that sometimes organisms evolve faster than other times.
Quote:
It merely explains the small jumps that are observed in fossil lineages within or between closely related fossil species, not the transitions between major categories of organisms. Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
A handy excuse to say just what Eugene did all along...big....gaps
look, the fossil record doesn't show 1/4 the species that have lived in the earth. If you take all the species found in a certain area at a certain time in the geologic column, you will never be able to find a stable ecosystem. Why? because most organisms do not fossilize or their fossils have been destroyed. Of course there are gaps, because we do not have anything NEAR a complete record of the species that have lived on earth! however we have a LOT of transitional fossils as well. we see how horses, humans, dolphins, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. evolved.
and the only thing wikipedia is saying, is that transitional fossils between SPECIES are UNCOMMON. That is more than easily explained. Many different species, such as skinks, are very hard to distinguish from each other in real life, let alone just from their bones. You even aknowledge that species do become other species!
also, one species becoming another species takes place in a relatively short time and few generations. to expect to find a lot (transitional fossils between species are UNCOMMON, meaning they are there) of transitional forms between species is ridiculous. the chances are greately against it. There would be extremely few fossils like that since extremely few organisms actually fossilize, and many of those fossils are destroyed. THEN people would have to find them. It's a miracle there are ANY transitional fossils between species! (remember wikipedia says UNCOMMON? not very rare, not rare, not non-existant, but uncommon)
Quote:
If there were a human in the cambrian you would simply say it was a reversal due to glaciation etc. The point is you like to forget those parts of the fossil record that don't agree.
with those times we can see WHY that happened. You would also find ALL other fossils switched. The fossil record does perfectly agree. give me ONE example that doesn't.
Quote:
There are many examples where the dating methods give "dates" that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar "dating" of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.[14]
Many times as the volcano is erupting it brings up rocks from below the earth's surface and spews them out. Other times the lava or whatever sticks to other rocks.
Quote:
The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them.
so contamination never occurs? 17 out of 26 is big enough to say that the 17 is right and the other 9 are wrong, especially if it could have been contaminated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
Quote:
No source of coal has been found that completely lacks 14C.
Fossil wood found in "Upper Permian" rock that is supposedly 250 Ma old still contained 14C.[23] Recently, a sample of wood found in rock classified as "middle Triassic," supposedly some 230 million years old, gave a 14C date of 33,720 years, plus or minus 430 years.[24] The accompanying checks showed that the 14C date was not due to contamination and that the "date" was valid, within the standard (long ages) understanding of this dating system.
first of all, 14C dating is only accurate up to 50,000 years. The fact that they are even trying to date those things shows their ignorance.
and according to my chemistry teacher (how is this possible? I have no clue...) half-lives are logs. meaning you never reach zero. Meaning that they shouldn't completely lack 14C
Quote:
For more information on these and other problems, including the vast array of indications of a young earth see here:
I'll read it in a while... I'm already tired
Quote:
They stated that one proof was enough. Well it must work both ways right?
where?
Quote:
you never said that.... (yes I know that's irrelevant, i'm just setting the record straight)
actually I did in my initial post:
no you didn't. you said it MIGHT be verifiable. you didn't say it HAS been verified, meaning I didn't concede the point you were making because you didn't make that point.
Quote:
10. As to us being recent additions to the fossil record, you are basing that on your INTERPRETATION of the fossil record, which I of course reject
what other interpretation is there? c'mon, show me where human fossils are found among t-rexes and trillobites in old layers
mutations- "your own article said they are RARE"
let me stress what they said:
Quote:
The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
yes, the actual event occuring is rare but the vast majority of mutations that survive are beneficial.
[i HATE computers. I hope they rot in hell grr]
Quote:
Mutations must occur quickly enough to fit the evolutionary timeline. You note that it is billions of years. Of course it is. But by your own beloved interpretation of the fossil record humans are short lived. They have a SHORT timeline to account for all the mutations necessary.
no, it doesn't take billions of years for beneficial mutations to ocurr. beneficial mutations to any given species happen every year. ... I don't get the point you're trying to make... The fossil record shows that humans have been in this planet for a short time, NOT that they are short lived. Humans are VERY long lived animals. The mutations necessary occured BEFORE humans were on this earth. That's the whole point... you don't judge how long it took to make humans by how long they have been around. That's is totally illogical and wrong.
Quote:
13. Evolving from chimps. Here you get lazy again. I covered at length that we did not evolve from chimps. But they do claim a common ancestor in the past. I would say that they would have advanced beyond the common ancestor just as we have, making the gap larger.
your little dilemma thing was assuming that we evolved from chimps. we didn't. besides the fact that the percent of difference is much smaller than 3% (it's .6%), both chimps and humans both had to just change .3% of their genome in order for chimps and humans to be .6% genetically different, meaning that the math was TOTALLY wrong. (among other premises)
Quote:
As for your vitamin c thing...didn't you just say we didn't evolve from chimps? Why would we from modern apes then? You contradict yourself
all modern apes (orangutans, humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, that one i can't remember the name of,) evolved from the same ancestor. That ancestor had the vitamin C mutation, so the fact that all modern apes have that mutation shows we came from the same common ancestor.
Quote:
I think a design might be kept from work to work ,if you get the idea.
no i don't get the idea.
Quote:
No one knows the neutral parts of the neuron, or even the actual changes necessary to go from the common ancestor to humans. So actually the timing must be answered by the ones who postulate it. An assumption or scientific hypothesis is proved right by facts. The facts are not there.
huh? when were we talking about neutral parts of neurons? I'm confused.
Quote:
want you to back up their statement that one beneficial mutation is a refutation of the creationist view. Go ahead...show me the logic that one good mutation means anything other than....one positive mutation
good mutations means that species can and do change. Meaning that if given enough time they accumulate (through natural selection) and you don't have the same species anymore, which is evolution. speciation (one species becoming another) IS evolution, meaning that creationism is wrong because species do evolve.
Quote:
And thanks ,but last I checked I am not catholic, so forget the crusades. Inquisition...see first answer. KKK...sorry, no sheets in my closet. Witch trials...a bit before my time.
you're christian. But ok, I'll follow your logic. Last time I checked I have never killed anyone or discriminated against them for any reason, including that they are genetically inferior to me.
besides the fact that how people use facts doesn't make the facts wrong, just bringing that up was ridiculous and weak.
Quote:
Did it e strike you that you are on a forum that has many Seventh-day Adventists on it?
oh, so it's perfectly fine to sling mud at one of the only agnostics here, but when he fights back then it's wrong. bah. BS.
Quote:
In this case I am defining devolution as a process where originally diverse species become less diverse over time due to loss of genetic material through mutation. Bad, etc. is not really the issue
your premise is wrong. mutations INCREASE diversity.
Quote:
Far from your assertion that I rejected speciation, I wholeheartedly embraced it...just limited to the genus level or so.
why? There's no reason to believe that one genus can't become another.
Quote:
Actually there are historical vampires, giants too, dwarves, sure, and I believe that evil beings can and do act through various mediums to carry out their work
so you believe vampires, ape-men, dwarves, other gods, do exist? well, if you believe that then I don't know why the heck I even bother to debate with you.
I am going to diverge a bit on this post, answering some of the last post, but also discussing some of the underlying assumptions we are both working on in the hope that it will further the overall conversation.
First the particulars.
1. Irreducible complexity...again.
First off, saying that complex biochemical things happen often is not a way to explain them, it is simply admitting that there are LOTS of them that need to be explained.
But for a moment let me step back from the intricate eye and clotting examples, because to be honest I doubt that either of us really understand all the factors involved. If you do, then you certainly gloss over them with ease. So let's take a simpler example of some of the problems of gradual development of complete systems. If necessary we can always come back with more complicated discussions of the eye.
This is a quote from Chuck Colson's book, certainly nobody's scientist to the degree that most of the sources we quote are. But I think the issue he raises is still interesting.
Quote:
Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs (the "front toes") developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the "front toes" grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transitional stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct.
There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to the bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats.
This is a simple, yet still effective example of an irreducibly complex system. A system that doesn't work is not only not helpful, but can be harmful.
2. As for direct links in transitional forms, I really put it just to address your question of whether they mentioned it. I think most people think in terms of direct links, but I agree that they would not necessarily be necessary, and would have no way to confirm them. But you must also look at the question and ask yourself if the fact that we see creatures of somewhat similar structure with similar elements does that mean that the ONLY conclusion is that one developed from the other? I don't think so. And the gaps still remain. You may explain them by saying not all creatures are fossilized. We tend to look at the fact that, just as with the bat, it seems strange that you have forms that seem to have no transitional forms and which seem to be problematic in their development. We therefore based on a totally different world view argue that our system is logically consistent as well as yours. More on this in a bit.
3.
Quote:
TheAlphaWolf
you can subject the radioactive isotopes to different chemicals. If they don't react with those chemicals, then they wouldn't react with the chemicals of past environments on earth.
Yes, that is my point. You can tell what they would react to and what they wouldn't. We established that a bit ago. But once you determine the things that do and don't effect them what you cannot do is chart billions of years of possible things that they might be exposed to which you found did effect them. Most of us would not even count to a billion, let alone pretend to chart all of the possible things that could happen to a formerly unkown atom that we just found for testing over billions of years worth of days and hours. You don't have all the data, to say the least.
And the contamination issue could be that, or it could be looking around until they find what they want. They obviously were much comforted by finding something a bit further away that CONFIRMED THEIR CURRENT VIEW. That is not the scientific method. And yet again I will touch on this later.
4. PE...I still don't agree with you, but it is a semantics issue anyway. We both acknowledge what is believed to be happening under your model in regards to the rate of change at various times (the whole model is not accepted by me, but I can certainly see how it is interpreted in an evolutionary, long earth model) , and eventually we have to move beyond merely verbal differences. Perhaps I could go as far as to say that it was a modification to gradualism, as you said, but QUITE a large one that was never invisioned by those who initiated gradualism. Whether it is properly another theory or not doesn't really matter to anyone but the scientists who have to sell books somehow. You can take up the issue with Eugene if he wishes to debate it further, since it stemmed from your conversation with him.
I will say that there is a slight contradiction in your formulation of the change in creatures to explain the gaps. You earlier said it takes many generations of gradual change. Then you said species changes happen relatively rapidly with few chances for fossilization. I am afraid you can't really have it both ways. If you simply mean in the grand scheme of things, fine, but there should still be far more than there are in my opinion. And while I do see that creatures change I don't necessarily see that that proves they change past certain boundaries. But then I don't agree with your time table so there is no reason for me to debate that.
5. Carbon dating. They were not dating with carbon to see ages that long. They were pointing out that all of the carbon should certainly be gone if the whole theory is right. If all of the carbon never goes away, you can say it is a log all you want, but it seems a rationalization of a problem that can't be explained. Either the decay happens at constant rates or it doesn't.
6. As for the humans being new, I am referring to the whole idea of pre human forms back to Australopithecus etc. The development from that time to the present is a relatively short time. And your concept that all of the changes happen within a small population, very often, and are always passed on are simply unrealistic.
7. As to evolving from chimps the dilemma was derived from that because there is no record of the common ancestor. As I said, that is the closest comparison we have. Nor do we know all of the neutral parts versus actual differences in the genome. The point was a broader illustration of a point. That point is one which I am going to treat at length now.
The purpose of the dilemma was to show that there are issues which are strong points for creationists and strong points for evolutionists. You seem to approach things from only one angle refusing to acknowldge that other models even exist. There is absolutely no doubt that you know what I mean when I say that species with similar traits do not not necessarily mean one developed from another. Nor could you have possibly debated creationists as many times as you claim and be ignorant of their models of the fossil record, time lines etc. When you play dumb as if to say that they are not even worth considering because you don't agree with them or deem them unscientific you point yourself out to be either trying to intimidate through rhetoric rather than convincing with facts, or as simply a devoted RELIGIOUS devotee to evolutionary theory that can consider no other option, or acknowledge the existence of other theories.
The facts are that there are many scientists, even in my own denomination, and some with no religious affiliation per se who do in fact debate points of evolutionary theory, origin theories in regards to spontaneous generation of life, the big bang, etc.
As I said before you do not have exclusive right to the facts, though teaching them exclusively in the classroom often lets scientists feel they do. I personally don't feel either need to be taught. But if you wish to then allow both views, or even more views, to be taught, otherwise it continues to look as though evolutionary devotees simply want no challenge to their interpretation of what all honest minds admit is very complex data which none of our models explains perfectly.
So far what we have primarily done here is look not at what actually happened, but the internal consistency of two different models, with most of the focus on your model of choice, precisely because you refuse to even look at the other without considering it with contempt. I don't find that to be scientific in the least. If you make a post asking for ideas and views, then perhaps you should at least look at them. I get the feeling from the moment you arrived that your true purpose for this thread (which you correctly said was now lost) was to present largely unchallenged claims that you hoped would
a. convince people of your view
b. cast doubt on some people's view of the world, their faith etc.
c. provide some entertainment either through feeling superior or just because you knew there would be some arguments that you were more familiar with and could poke fun at folks.
I present your initial greetings to back this up:
Quote:
you have a devil amongst you Twisted Evil I'm agnostic... maybe you can try to convert me? Wink
I was born in mexico (lived there 11 years, moved to NC), raised as a catholic, don't agree with what the bible says because i'm a science nut, and the more I talk about religion the more convinced I get that it's not right. We shall see what my point of view is later eh?
what I'm wondering is if you'll allow an agnostic like me to chat here... I'm new so I don't know if i'm the only agnostic here or what.
EDIT: after some reading I see you're opposed to censorship and will allow "evil" lol. great!
and your quotes in your sig are evident to all....but in case you change them at some point:
Quote:
To be great is to be misunderstood
I dont want to believe. I want to KNOW
Stupiditiy is beyond my level of understanding
Don't worry about offending me worry about offending yourself
Adults have imaginary friends too
Everything a person says effects how people view them. You obviously intended for us to view you a certain way from these things you posted. So claiming that I am abusing an agnostic for my comments, when you started on an inflammatory note is simply baiting.
I think it goes without saying that your initial posts here were anticipating debate on your terms that would be fun for you , whatever constitutes that. Now you are just whining about having to answer multiple issues and saying no one will read it. I tend to believe what you mean is you won't get the casual viewer that you can discourage. Now that someone is challenging your views at length and taking it to an actual discussion of particulars it allows less time for promoting your view in a less scientific, more propagandistic manner. You tend to avoid any discussion of issues which are weak points of evolutionary theory, or alternate views unless absolutely pressed.
I am more than willing to have a vigorous debate. But I am not willing to engage in what amounts to accusing of personal attacks, trying to manipulate the conversation to just your tastes etc. If you can't discuss with some professionalism without inisisting that it go your way then perhaps another forum would be a good spot to discuss.
Now of course to a degree it is natural to play up our view's strenghts and downplay the weaknesses. We all do that. But you will note I laid out what I thought were the strong and weak points of both in my initial post because I think most recognize that most of these debates are not about what is right at all. Instead they are discussions of how our interpretation of the facts are what I would call system that could explain a great deal of the information and are internally consistent.
When viewed this way we see that both theories we are arguing for present some of the information as a strong point, and avoid others as a weak point. The fact that these types of discussions endure on many such boards and even among scientists, some without distinct religious views, testifies to the fact that things are not as neatly decided as you would hope.
You state that I am beating up on the agnostic. I actually did not reference anything at you as a personal attack. I questioned your logic that animals could teach us how to interact harmoniously because I think that it is a very limited example, and that on the whole animals fall far short in showing us how to live. You went on to challenge my religious views which you know nothing about. Which was the personal attack? My comments grew out of your argument where you ventured into applying scientific observations to ethics . Yours grew out of wanting to say something catchy to get back at me and use the shame technique.
I am sorry to say that for years I too cultivated a spirit of cynicism, and became quite good at cutting people down. I have tried to avoid sarcasm etc. in this whole exchange, but it wouldn't surprise me if I came through at times as a jerk. However, I am also aware from many debates with agnostics/athiests/evolutionists/Satanists, etc. that SOME segments of those populations delight in setting Christians up by provoking to personal attack then pointing out that it is inconsistent with their faith. Most of them that do so start out stating their attitude much as you did.
So yes, part of the reason I posted long responses was because I actually wanted to see if you were interested in intellectually interesting conversations, or if you really just wanted to push your view and amuse yourself.
So far I find it was more the latter. So I am not in the least upset that fewer will read this post. If however you really do want to discuss the issues while also acknowledging as any scientist would that you don't have all the answers, that both views have weaknesses and strengths, whether you agree with the other view or not, then let's have at it.
If on the other hand this is all for kicks and so you can be a pain in the back side as your initial greeting seems, then I think this post has run its course for my part. I made the arguments I want to make on those issues. You made some good ones too. And people will undoubtedly at least see that the facts themselves are not all on one side but in fact are independent from all sides and are marshaled by both.
This is precisely why I don't base all that I know on science. It is incomplete at best. But the spiritual reality has been far more real to me.
And on the points about dwarves, vampires etc. or anything remotely supernatural, I would say you are in the weaker position. I would not think it an exageration to say that over 90 percent of the population of the earth throughout history, and likely far more than that, have accepted some aspect of the supernatural. Many testify to evidence of it. The evidence is so vast as to be overwhelming, especially as compared to things such as the origins of life, the big bang, etc. that many scientists see no problem with. The completely materialistic person while not unheard of in history is at best a rarity until recent times. Perhaps all of these people in antiquity were not really just superstitious, or liars, or stupid (many believe that had higher intelligence), but were in fact right on a few things. Maybe there are things that go beyond simply observable matter. And if so then even a few of such supernatural manifestations should prove to do a lot of harm to a view that only looks at material realities.
As for me, personal experience is enough. I hope some day that you have that experience too.
Incidentally, if want to explore some other areas that would be rather interesting in a slightly different realm I would be interested to see how you explain the seeming reality of free choice from a purely physical mechanism. That gets into philosophy, but is not divorced from science as it deals with the nature of the brain etc.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
