[mikellanes]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
year 125.... first copy of a bible assembled under Pope Telesphorus who was later martyred.

You forgot to include selectively choose what to keep and what to dismiss.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:

I'm still trying to figure out how the cleft palate and lip are beneficial to our species in our "progression".

Originally posted by UnixMac:

I have just one question..

If we evolved from Monkeys, then why are there still Monkeys running around out there?

Why didn't they evolve? At least they could have evolved 1/2 way ... but it seems like we have on one end of the animal spectrum Monkeys, and other the other extreme end (with no other company) Humans.

Kinda makes evolution a tough sell for me from a logical viewpoint.

I'm not a scientist but I don't need to be a scientist to understand the trial-and-error nature of evolution and life in general. Both of you seem to think evolution is or should be a linear process, but it isn't.

To survive, species have to be able to adapt to their environments. If they adapt perfectly to one environment, and that environment changes, they can easily become extinct. One of nature's strategies for dealing with this is to create mutations/variations, which might seem pathological in a given environment but which might serve as an advantage in a new environment. Birds with large beaks might be disfavored in a given environment, but if that environment changes, large beaks could start to look more attractive. It's unlikely that this will be true of cleft palates in humans, but it partly explains why such variations happen. It's not a linear process, and to the extent that it is, it can take a long time for certain non-adaptive characteristics (like cleft palates in humans) to be bred out.

As for monkeys, they didn't need to evolve any further because they're well-adapted to their particular environment. Your question mistakenly assumes that monkeys are deficient because they haven't evolved into humans - again, the faulty idea that evolution is a linear process, with humans at the end of the line. Monkeys are perfectly happy being monkeys.

For those who don't understand why evolution would create such seeming anomalies, I would ask: "Why would God?" The theory of evolution provides logical answers; the theory of God doesn't. Unless you think God likes to make people suffer by giving them cleft palates.

[Edit: after posting this, I saw that mikellanes had already addressed it in a similar way.]

[ebuddy]

By Zigzag; I'm not a scientist but I don't need to be a scientist to understand the trial-and-error nature of evolution and life in general. Both of you seem to think evolution is or should be a linear process, but it isn't.

You're honing in on a mistaken premise though zigzag. Micro-evolution is a relatively linear process, no one is suggesting that the process does not stumble along the way. I'm telling you it is linear hence the term lineage or ancestory, I believe it's linear in reverse stumbling along the way. Matter degrades. While two variety of like species co-exist and mate-they are in fact combining genes. There is no divergence of genes. A species has it's own set of principles for which it must adapt and adapt within, hence the term, varieties. The exact differentiation of 'species' is debateable and few really stop to think about that, but suffice it to say while a wolf may find it advantageous to be more agile, it cannot mate and bring forth a cougar-dog. There can be no gene flow from dog to cat. It is more likely that a dog will combine genes with other dogs bringing forth unique dogs. An eskimo's eyes may look unique because of the adverse effects of light constantly bombarding a sensitive cornea. This means over time, muscles develop and diminish according to their usage and the skin grows over accordingly. This does not suggest anything new was introduced, only that the old adapted. Environmental influence begets varieties, breeding propogates the species. Time and the dating of matter is critical for a foundation of understanding. I have several problems with how matter is dated by man. In other words, does the age of the earth continuously change by thousands of years because of advances in study and affirmative findings, or to ease the contradictions of more negative findings. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the theory of evolution is ridiculous, far from it. I do however believe in applying the same level of scrutiny as to the information at hand regarding the findings and conclusions of scientists in both the evolution as well as the creation arguments. Afterall, to be known you must be published. If you are not published your work will not be widely known and even more slim are it's chances of being heard and understood. It's also important to know that an archeological scientist may know very little of thermodynamics for example. Many scientists use published data to have a foundation from which to work without first really challenging the foundation.

To survive, species have to be able to adapt to their environments

Correct, though you will note nothing new is introduced to the pool in this example. For evolution to have occured as the modern scientist would have you believe; cross-breeding and/or divergence of genes would have to have occurred. In this instance, matter has at least a less likelihood of survival as evidenced by the attempted cross breeding of horses with donkeys. This also does not pass the 'survival of the fittest' filter. I believe it to be statistically impossible for this to have occurred and resulted in the propogation of a species or 'new species' if you will.

If they adapt perfectly to one environment, and that environment changes, they can easily become extinct.

Because the species degraded to an extent that it did not meet the requirements of a changing/degrading environment and it met the end of the known evolutionary process. The process within it's kind. Micro-evolution.

One of nature's strategies for dealing with this is to create mutations/variations, which might seem pathological in a given environment but which might serve as an advantage in a new environment.

Now you're treading on neo-Darwinian suppositions that are fastly becoming unpopular and that is that random mutations can produce new genetic information which can be filtered by natural selection to create a species with new characteristics. Again, the biggest problem I have is at the very foundation of evolution; speciation. I do not believe macro-mutation can create new data. I'm even less willing to accept the mutation as occuring in a species' benefit. Now, you are in fact suggesting a linear "progression" if at any point we came from apes or ape-like entities or anything less intelligent than a species who creates such complex ways of mere communication. Yet, observational science; (cleft palate and lip) are suggestions to me that perhaps the human gene pool is degrading. Why the end of improvement?

As for monkeys, they didn't need to evolve any further because they're well-adapted to their particular environment. Your question mistakenly assumes that monkeys are deficient because they haven't evolved into humans - again, the faulty idea that evolution is a linear process, with humans at the end of the line. Monkeys are perfectly happy being monkeys.

No, I'm saying there's a vast difference in our ability to have rationale and discussion and thought of all this in the first place let alone using the means by which we currently are in communicating those ideals. I do in fact believe the monkey inferior to man.

For those who don't understand why evolution would create such seeming anomalies, I would ask: "Why would God?" The theory of evolution provides logical answers; the theory of God doesn't. Unless you think God likes to make people suffer by giving them cleft palates.

With regard to nature I would not ask why. The 'how' would explain the why. Only, the 'hows' are many in variety and debateable at best. I resent anything being taught as fact without asking first for some faith. Religion does this. "modern science" does not. Why? Well, all of this still suggests a designer as some have argued. Unless you're purist evolutionist, then your god is time. With regard to God, I could ask why and I could ask how, but I'm really interested in that which I can observe for myself regarding 'how', then I might also know why when considering earth and the discussion of it. Observational science does not jive with macro-evolution. To God, I may ask why the degradation of our blood line, why war, why death and disease, why famine, why the fruit fly, but I suppose they may carry a common ideal. I won't get all theological on you I promise. Suffice it to say; matter degrades, but I have many more questions than I have answers. Only the most elitist of individuals could claim otherwise for themselves personally, but I of course give them the right to believe. Why? Because it's difficult to know anything of history for certain. How could I know for certain they were wrong on all of it?

[UnixMac]

Originally posted by zigzag:

For those who don't understand why evolution would create such seeming anomalies, I would ask: "Why would God?" The theory of evolution provides logical answers; the theory of God doesn't. Unless you think God likes to make people suffer by giving them cleft palates.

[Edit: after posting this, I saw that mikellanes had already addressed it in a similar way.]

As a Roman Catholic I believe that God created the universe and created man in his image... but I don't go as far (and neither does my Church, the majority Christian denomination) as say that nature doesn't take it course..

God created the universe and set it into motion... call it the Big Bang or what ever.. God then chose our planet to create man... evolution played a roll maybe in the life forms that mostly inhabit this earth, but our original life form, which is so different than all of the others could not have evolved, as it is far to superior (intellectually) to all of the others. Surely if there was evolution in the human race, there would be many lesser evolved versions of us around. And by the same token, there would be animals that are far more evolved that may even come close to our abilities. Yet no animal can create the PPC970.. just us. What species come even close?

Evolution? Or God... Sorry I buy God a lot easier.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
You forgot to include selectively choose what to keep and what to dismiss.

Of course they did, some of the books and letters are far easier to identify (and historically place) than others.

As much as I love the gnostic texts, the vast majority aren't as easily corroborated as the books that made it into the canon.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
As a Roman Catholic I believe that God created the universe and created man in his image... but I don't go as far (and neither does my Church, the majority Christian denomination) as say that nature doesn't take it course..

God created the universe and set it into motion... call it the Big Bang or what ever.. God then chose our planet to create man... evolution played a roll maybe in the life forms that mostly inhabit this earth, but our original life form, which is so different than all of the others could not have evolved, as it is far to superior (intellectually) to all of the others. Surely if there was evolution in the human race, there would be many lesser evolved versions of us around. And by the same token, there would be animals that are far more evolved that may even come close to our abilities. Yet no animal can create the PPC970.. just us. What species come even close?

Evolution? Or God... Sorry I buy God a lot easier.

first good for u i respect your beliefs..
i think when we see all this we also have time in mind..millions of years...that's how i see it

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You're honing in on a mistaken premise though zigzag. Micro-evolution is a relatively linear process, no one is suggesting that the process does not stumble along the way . . .

Yes, but you're the one who suggested that because they don't appear to advance the species in any particular way, cleft palates disprove the idea of evolution. My point was that while evolution might be linear in a sense, it's not that linear - nature is full of hits and misses, or bumps, as you call them. Nature obviously loves variety.

Do you have an explanation for cleft palates? It's either nature's will or God's will. I can think of logical reasons why it might be nature's will, but I can't think of any logical reasons why it might be God's will.

No, I'm saying there's a vast difference in our ability to have rationale and discussion and thought of all this in the first place let alone using the means by which we currently are in communicating those ideals. I do in fact believe the monkey inferior to man.

It's not a question of better or worse. UnixMac wondered why monkeys didn't evolve into humans. The assumptions behind it - that all evolutionary roads should lead to homo sapiens and Starbucks - are clearly mistaken.

I don't claim to have the explanation for trans-speciation at hand - I'll have to leave that to the scientists. And certainly there are gaps in the evolution story, which (as with all scientitific endeavors) should be scrutinized. I just haven't encountered a more plausible theory.

With regard to nature I would not ask why. The 'how' would explain the why. Only, the 'hows' are many in variety and debateable at best. I resent anything being taught as fact without asking first for some faith. Religion does this. "modern science" does not. Why? Well, all of this still suggests a designer as some have argued. Unless you're purist evolutionist, then your god is time. With regard to God, I could ask why and I could ask how, but I'm really interested in that which I can observe for myself regarding 'how', then I might also know why when considering earth and the discussion of it. Observational science does not jive with macro-evolution. To God, I may ask why the degradation of our blood line, why war, why death and disease, why famine, why the fruit fly, but I suppose they may carry a common ideal. I won't get all theological on you I promise. Suffice it to say; matter degrades, but I have many more questions than I have answers. Only the most elitist of individuals could claim otherwise for themselves personally, but I of course give them the right to believe. Why? Because it's difficult to know anything of history for certain. How could I know for certain they were wrong on all of it?

I can't make much sense of this paragraph, but I would certainly agree that questioning conventional wisdom is appropriate in both the scientific and religious realms.

The difference is that science is a method, not a belief system. It's fallible and can be overly doctrinaire, but it doesn't rely on faith in the same way that religion does - it's subject to constant testing. It may or may not find The Answer(s), but I have much less confidence in the alternative.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by UnixMac:
And by the same token, there would be animals that are far more evolved that may even come close to our abilities. Yet no animal can create the PPC970.. just us. What species come even close?

Evolution? Or God... Sorry I buy God a lot easier.

I will cite some of the smartest animals that we have studied so far.

But first I will say that just because we have evolved more in thought and reason doesn't mean squat against evolution, we have evolved in this way and other animals have evolved in other ways, ancient cave painting neanderthals and even some tribes through studies have been shown to be of lower intelligence and incapable of though on par with our own.

You can see a clear "learning process" over millions of years where either tools or paintings or languages have become more and more advanced.

The Giant Tortoise lives much longer than us, up to about 177 years, doesn't this make them better than us?

The peregrine falcon, a bird is the fastest animal (clocked at up to 100-200 miles per hour) and they have been doing this for 1,000's of years, we recently had to invent devices (cars palnes) to accomplish this, doesn't that makes them better?

The most dangerous spider the Brazilian Wandering Spider (Phoneutria nigriventer)_only 0.006mg will kill a mouse, what do we have naturally to defend against this? Doesn't that make them better?

Best sense of smell is the Shark. The can detect as little as 1 part blood in 100 million parts of waters._Our sense of smell is horrid in comparison, doesn't this make them better?

Best Sense of Hearing is Barn Owl it can locate food even in total darkness, doesn't this make them better?

We all evolve in different ways, a lot of the same features but some are just better than others at certain tasks, that the way it is and that is totally expected.

on to the smartest animals...


1. Great Apes - Language once was thought to be limited to people. All the great apes [in captivity] -- which include chimpanzees, bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees), gorillas and orangutans -- have learned American Sign Language, What's more, each kind of ape has taught ASL to others of their own kind.
Great apes can use computers, There's a chimpanzee in Japan who's hooked on her computer like kids are hooked on video games. She's learned to solve complex problems. For example, she can replicate a set of numbers on the computer after the screen goes dead. To watch her is amazing. Her mind is clearly working the same way as ours, but actually much, much faster.
Maybe chimps are a little too much like us; look at them, and we look into a mirror. The reflection isn't always flattering. They live in a society where power is rewarding for its own sake. They also have wars over territory.

2. Whales and Dolphins
Unusual among animals, whales and dolphins use high frequencies to communicate with those they can't see.
It was once assumed that only humans could communicate with others they can't see, but it turns out dolphins and whales (and elephants, too) have their own versions of telephone and e-mail. Whales and dolphins use high frequencies to communicate over long distances. In fact, they seem to have a need to "talk." We're only starting to understand what it is they're saying to one another. I believe when we ultimately learn what they're talking about, it will be quite revealing.


3. Elephants
Elephants and great apes have painted original works of art, a creative expression of intelligence once thought restricted to humans.
They use very low frequencies to communicate over great distances. Elephants establish long-term friendships and recognize these individuals years later. We all know elephants remember. They also have "extraordinary empathy and compassion, explaining how elephants sometimes even "bury" their dead. When elephants come across a dead companion they recognize, they may outwardly grieve.


4. Parrots
African Gray parrots are known for their large vocabularies.
I know a parrot in New York called N'kisi (a Congo African Gray parrot) who knows 971 words. He isn't counted as having a new word until he's used it at least five times in a proper context. In other words, if he just repeats a word, that doesn't count. Before I met N'kisi, his owner, Aimee, was showing him pictures of me and chimps. When I walked into the room, he asked, 'Got a chimp?' Aimee broke a necklace, and he said, What a pity. You broke your new, nice necklace. He uses grammar and initiates conversation (all skills once reserved for people). This bird even has a Web site [sheldrake.org/nkisi]. I don't think he's an exceptionally brilliant parrot; I do think we're only starting to understand how smart they are.


5. Dogs & Cats
Dogs first led to recognizing animal intelligence. Dogs and cats often are more perceptive than people. They're as different as chimps and gorillas, and the age-old question about which are smarter I won't tackle, Dogs have always been a part of my life and opened my eyes to animal intelligence. The stories of how devoted dogs are to people are legendary, but this is a choice they freely make. Dogs and cats are so perceptive -- much more than people are. They know what their people are thinking; they're always a step ahead of us.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Now you're treading on neo-Darwinian suppositions that are fastly becoming unpopular and that is that random mutations can produce new genetic information which can be filtered by natural selection to create a species with new characteristics.

Your dead wrong again, did you ever even study darwin? or is this from scienceagainstevolution? LOL

Evolution adds to the mix, it adds more and more variation of DNA, I think the major smoking gun for evolution is DNA. In fact, it�s not only a smoking gun, it�s a signed confession, 4 eyewitnesses, and a security video. We know for a fact that all life around us uses the exact same basic code to control how we are assembled. We know for a fact that that code is imperfectly replicated, so it will drift and change over time. Since nobody can find any limits that prevent changes from accumulating over the long term, extremely large changes are inevitable. What exactly a does a large change in DNA imply? Significantly different creatures, speciation, production of whole new body types and forms. In short, what many people call Macroevolution.

As for your second thought, Look at the enormous physical changes we have worked on domesticated wolves (dogs), via selective breeding. You might argue, "but they are all still dogs!" But are they? Sure, we recognize them all as dogs. But imagine you were a visiting space alien who knew nothing about earth critters. If someone showed you a Great Dane and a Chihuahua, would you recognize them as members of the same species? They're physically incapable of mating, and things might get ugly if you impregnated a female Chihuahua with Great Dane sperm.

As has already been mentioned, mutations commonly duplicate a chunk of DNA, or even entire chromosomes (polyploidy). This makes the genome bigger, and allows further mutations to occur in the duplicated section without eliminating already-useful traits.

There are numerous examples of beneficial mutations which add useful traits. A famous example is the nylon bug. In fact, this happens so often that the Ames test uses a beneficial mutation as a test for carcinogens (because mutagens also tend to be carcinogens).

And there's no evidence in the genetic code that it developped from a once far better code.

A "genetically gradual" change is one that doesn't require any step bigger than the difference we'd expect to see between a parent and child. A change in the form of an organism may appear "fast" in the fossil record, which shows geological time, which is very very long (so, say, 500,000 years is hardly any time at all), but still be "genetically gradual" in the sense just outlined."

Or to put it yet more simply:

If a species changes abruptly between one layer of rock and the next, it might still have changed "gradually" in actual fact, because there is such a lot of time between layers of rock.

One way to think of it is to see the geological record as a series of random snapshots taken thousands of years apart. Fossilization is an extremely rare event, plus, evolution probably takes place most "rapidly" within small, isolated populations subjected to different environmental pressures, or after catastrophic events or major environmental changes that wipe out many existing species and open new niches for surviving species to exploit. When populations are relatively small and evolving relatively "quickly" (but still over tens or hundreds of thousands of years), you're less likely to get a "snapshot," i.e, a fossil. It's during the more stable periods, when the environment has reached a sort of balance or equilibrium, when new species have become established and more numerous, that you're more likely to get a snapshot. So, what appears to be the "sudden" appearance of new species is actually the geological equivalent of looking at someone at age one, then falling asleep for 25 years, waking up and looking at them at age 25, falling asleep for another 25 years, waking up and seeing them at 50, and so on.

[SimpleLife]

How about both?

The Creator created the world in all it magnificence an allowed it to evolved because it is somewhat free to do so?

And what if God was created after the universe as its janitor?

[SimpleLife]

And why do you need a Creator for if not to justify your own insecurities?

Or to create an image of yourself to which you can rely to with your full blown narcissism?

[mikellanes]

Society formed out of the need to work together.
we see this with chimps and gorillas, as well as ants, and lions, etc.

It greatly improved economics and survival.
A study with chimps showed that if two were given the same task, but rewarded differently, the chimp receiving the lesser reward (bananas as opposed to grapes) would become hostile. Beginning of economics.

Problems existed, however.....most individuals were driven by basic instincts, the ability to think rationally had not been learned.
More likely that certain individuals were more rational than others. This is seen ebven today.

Out of the need to control individuals in society came the concept of god.
Kings would often called themselves the "chosen one" in one way or another.

The ignorant would fear the unknown....the famine, lightning strikes, floods, etc.
Can anyone say RaptureReady.com?

As this concept evolved. leaders seized upon this fear and created a diety-based religion.
Aztecs, the Greek, ancient Egypt, etc.

It worked well for the leaders.
Clearly.

Different civilizations modified this concept and formed various other religions.
Christianity from Judaism

These religion stimulated man to communicate accurately.
Accurately, yes. Correctly, no.

As the populations increased, the need to transport the laws of god to the masses arose.
What happened when Moses became the leader of many followers? He established laws.

Reading and writing came into being.
But this could be debated. Our ancestors began writing (cave drawings) long before the concept of gods.

People exchanged ideas....reasoning became sophisticated.
But it took a long time, and only a minute few could do so logically. Aristotle, Plato, etc

Unfortunately, leaders did not want to lose their power over the masses so they tried to stifle reason because the reasonable man didn't need guidance.
Galileio is a good example of the church supressing reason.

Despite this repression, man continued to learn about the world around him. He discovered the world was round not flat. Many began searching for knowledge instead of the good graces of a deity.
Because reason works, and faith doesn't.

Today, the religion that gave us so much is threatening to destroy us.
Hell, 9-11 happened, some would say, because of religious beliefs.

The masses are decieved by the leaders for the sake of power. Wars between the religious leaders continues to kill many.
Bush, in his SotU address, claimed that this war against terrorism is lead by God.

Each one calling the other evil.
Exactly. How does Bush think the Muslims feel when he agrees to engage in a Holy War?

The religious leaders exploit reason by removing the need for the basic premise.
i.e. Man is fallible, man createdlogic, therefore logic is fallible. Self-defeating argument against logic, yet people live by it.

Rational thought is compromised because reality is taken out of the equation.
As Iaachus would put it: an "immaterial universe"
IOW: Set reality aside for the moment, and pretend that we're right.

Although science continues to evolve, society stagnants, creating more conflicts among the reasonable, the unsure and the deity worshippers.
Ridiculous, isn't it?

[ironknee]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
[/B]

very nicely put

and also, i checked out RaptureReady.com

[UnixMac]

I really believe that the answer lies in a little of both. I know that there are atheists who strictly believe in science and the laws of nature.... but I add to those laws the creator of those laws.. God.

I say in public schools, we should teach evolution as a theory... and state that many also believe in a God the creator who in various was created this universe. Some believe he did it in 7 days (literally) and others (myself) believe it was done over billions of years thru his natural laws (astrophysics, etc..).

Private school is a whole different matter, and my kids go to Catholic school where they are taught both and told that evolution is just a theory that some believe.. it's not given any extra weight over the other ideas.. but more importantly, they are taught that our Church believes in a God the creator who sent his only Son Jesus to save us from our sins... etc..

The beauty of America, (and most of the free world), is we can choose either school for our kid... though I wish America would give me a tax credit to help pay for it (more of an issue for lower income people actually).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
And why do you need a Creator for if not to justify your own insecurities?

Or to create an image of yourself to which you can rely to with your full blown narcissism?

Why do you feel it's necessary to analyze another person's motivations in the matter, let alone do it in a condescending manner? What does that do for you?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Why do you feel it's necessary to analyze another person's motivations in the matter, let alone do it in a condescending manner? What does that do for you?

That is not my point.

That is not about motivation; it has more to do with making sense of the world and the meaning of life. I understand and respect the fact that we need to make sense of this world, but do we require a God made to our image to that purpose? Do we require a Creator to make sense of our own lives?

I believe that the idea of a creator is strongly linked to our need to have a cause to existence because we believe we live in a causal world.

But what if it is not causal? What if causality is actually a cognitive process? Or an artefact of our interaction with reality?

Then, it means that the Creator is part of this Universe, but it also allows for a Creator to have been created by the world this Creator created him/herself!

That would also mean that evolution has as much value as Creation. Evolution being one aspect of a process with causality

The apparent paradox is resolved because time is set as an equivalent to space. That requires some mental effort, but the picture we get from the universe makes sense and is just as valid, especially in consideration of all the latest research results in physics.

It gives another sense of awe...

[ebuddy]

The difference is that science is a method, not a belief system. It's fallible and can be overly doctrinaire, but it doesn't rely on faith in the same way that religion does - it's subject to constant testing. It may or may not find The Answer(s), but I have much less confidence in the alternative.

Science is a method but it's also important to remember it's a community. Known science or popular science is entirely dependent upon dissemination of information. You must be published. A rock dated to be 2 million years old, with hammer found inside, or a Tyrannosaur's skeleton with spears in it's side, or dinosaur footprints with human footprints inside, -these are all things many can't see. They exist, but they contradict popular science therefore, popular science will not publish them. There's a creation-science museum in Texas chalk-full of this kind of stuff, it's open to study and scrutiny.

Regarding the need for faith in religion, but not science you're forgetting something. Macro-evolution is necessary for all species to have had a common ancestor. The chances of macro (divergence of genes) happening successfully are like 1 in 10 plus 38 zeros. (This means it is literally statistically impossible). Science is not supposed to embrace statistical impossibilities. I'd say in light of that fact alone not taking into account evidence against evolution, Evolution as it is currently being taught, requires great amounts of faith. Faith in what though? Faith in time. With enough time, the impossible becomes possible. I disagree with this premise, but many do not. They have faith in Time. I have faith in God. This might at least explain why everything must be "umpteen-million' years old. Fact is, dating in all of it's forms (unless you're talking about the geological column-we can touch on the fallacies there if you like) is flawed because it relies on constants when we know our environment has been anything, but constant. Let's visit some 'constants' though for fun.

Alleged age of earth; 4.5 billion years old.
- the sun is shrinking approximately one tenth of a percent per century. A young earth is okay in this because the sun will have only shrunk 6-7%, but back only 100,000 years ago, the sun will have been double the size it is today. What about gravitational pull? What about even 20 million years ago, the sun would've been so large that it met the earth! What about 4.5 billion years. Eesh, I hate to think of it.
- the moon is moving slowly away from earth at a rate of what; 182.5 of an inch annually. Well, if you were to run some crude math that puts the moon squarely on top of New York City about 2 million years ago. That's not good.
- In looking at the second law of thermodynamics for example; The magnetic field is currently decaying (as all other things along with it) and would not have sustained life more than 10,000 years ago from what we know.

We have observational science to show age among other methods of man, yet we ignore simplicity in favor of a more vague interpretation of time to suit other presuppositions. There's literally thousands of examples of inconsistencies with regard to the 'old earth' theory.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by mikellanes:

(interesting post)

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Excellent contribution mikellanes!

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Science is a method but it's also important to remember it's a community. Known science or popular science is entirely dependent upon dissemination of information. You must be published. A rock dated to be 2 million years old, with hammer found inside, or a Tyrannosaur's skeleton with spears in it's side, or dinosaur footprints with human footprints inside, -these are all things many can't see. They exist, but they contradict popular science therefore, popular science will not publish them. There's a creation-science museum in Texas chalk-full of this kind of stuff, it's open to study and scrutiny.

Regarding the need for faith in religion, but not science you're forgetting something. Macro-evolution is necessary for all species to have had a common ancestor. The chances of macro (divergence of genes) happening successfully are like 1 in 10 plus 38 zeros. (This means it is literally statistically impossible). Science is not supposed to embrace statistical impossibilities. I'd say in light of that fact alone not taking into account evidence against evolution, Evolution as it is currently being taught, requires great amounts of faith. Faith in what though? Faith in time. With enough time, the impossible becomes possible. I disagree with this premise, but many do not. They have faith in Time. I have faith in God. This might at least explain why everything must be "umpteen-million' years old. Fact is, dating in all of it's forms (unless you're talking about the geological column-we can touch on the fallacies there if you like) is flawed because it relies on constants when we know our environment has been anything, but constant. Let's visit some 'constants' though for fun.

Alleged age of earth; 4.5 billion years old.
- the sun is shrinking approximately one tenth of a percent per century. A young earth is okay in this because the sun will have only shrunk 6-7%, but back only 100,000 years ago, the sun will have been double the size it is today. What about gravitational pull? What about even 20 million years ago, the sun would've been so large that it met the earth! What about 4.5 billion years. Eesh, I hate to think of it.
- the moon is moving slowly away from earth at a rate of what; 182.5 of an inch annually. Well, if you were to run some crude math that puts the moon squarely on top of New York City about 2 million years ago. That's not good.
- In looking at the second law of thermodynamics for example; The magnetic field is currently decaying (as all other things along with it) and would not have sustained life more than 10,000 years ago from what we know.

We have observational science to show age among other methods of man, yet we ignore simplicity in favor of a more vague interpretation of time to suit other presuppositions. There's literally thousands of examples of inconsistencies with regard to the 'old earth' theory.

I am not going to correct your posts.

Although in general your criticism has valid points, the fact handling part is really really weak. I'd review the litterature if I were you. Posting links with references might be interesting as well for further discussions.

[ebuddy]

I am not going to correct your posts.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Although in general your criticism has valid points, the fact handling part is really really weak.

I agree actually, especially in regards to the thermodynamics piece, suffice it to say that to really hash out details we'd likely end up with a several hundred page thread. I mentioned this at the beginning. It can become absurdly complex, we'd lose 99% of the readership and come to the same conclusion at the end. I just thought I'd pop open the surface for quick scrutiny. Information that is really crude to say the least, but you get the idea. There are some very obvious questions regarding our environment if you prescribe to the ideal that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. All I'm really trying to say is that's awfully old.

I'd review the litterature if I were you. Posting links with references might be interesting as well for further discussions.

Actually, there really should be no problem debating the ideals regardless of where they came from. I'll be honest with you, I've been posting here for quite a while and I find that links and references are more useful for insulting the credibility of the author and/or scientist than they are in educational experience. I'd rather avoid links and references unless we're talking about specific experiments. For example; If I quote a reference or link of a scientist who made 3 errors in their career, but uncovered 15 important fallacies of evolution or contributed greatly to science in other areas, the focus in this thread would likely be the 3 mistakes regardless of whether or not they're relevant to the subject at hand.

[ebuddy]

Your dead wrong again, did you ever even study darwin? or is this from scienceagainstevolution? LOL

That's funny. I suppose I could plagiarize quotes from Francis Crick and James Watson to appear more intellectual? I'll forgive you the dig however, on to the subject matter...

Evolution adds to the mix, it adds more and more variation of DNA

This is circular reasoning here in the least. Where is this 'new' data coming from to be added?

I think the major smoking gun for evolution is DNA. In fact, it�s not only a smoking gun, it�s a signed confession, 4 eyewitnesses, and a security video. We know for a fact that all life around us uses the exact same basic code to control how we are assembled. We know for a fact that that code is imperfectly replicated, so it will drift and change over time. Since nobody can find any limits that prevent changes from accumulating over the long term, extremely large changes are inevitable. What exactly a does a large change in DNA imply? Significantly different creatures, speciation, production of whole new body types and forms. In short, what many people call Macroevolution.

Close, but don't forget-for this to work the 'mutation' must be random and able to survive. At the molecular level, this is simply not plausible from what I know. That's interesting though and we'll discuss frame shift mutation here in a bit. The new enzymes produced in the nylon bug conclusion is admittedly having only 2% the efficiency of the regular enzymes. It is important to remember that this bacterium availed itself of the more prominent food source (which in this case was nylon in a waste pond) and was able to successfully ingest it. This is extremely fascinating however, this does not establish the formation of 'new' data. This only suggests that those possessing the data necessary to ingest nylon waste, survived. The others did not. You may say; nylon is a synthetic created by man in the 1930's. I may say, matter was designed with extreme resiliance and the 'new' gene is nothing more than the working and coming forth of old for needed benefit. This indeed constitutes a 'change' if you will, but not the kind we're talking about. I'm not debating micro-evolution. Similar studies have been conducted on the bacteria; klebsiella aerogenes in which the bacteria was denied it's normal sustainance for a synthetic sugar. It worked, however due to directed 'point'-mutations the resultant gene actually lost data and...nonetheless, the bacterium were still distinctly klebsiella aerogenes, hence a variety. In short, I believe the ability to ingest nylon existed prior which may seem proposterous to you however, we must know what constitues nylon. Is it possible for the enzyme (enzyme 2 in this example) to posess a trait that was simply triggered by the environment or vise-versa. Well, unfortunately for me and in fairness to you, it seems some 40+ substrates were tested and no activity was found to suggest I'm correct however, we are still at a very juvenile level in testing such, but we know that activity in enzyme 2 (the enzyme capable of ingesting nylon) had extremely minimal activity, but was enough to succeed. What I'm saying is it's entirely possible there are many more books in the library of 'capabilities' and I think we're aware of many, but not all. Besides, I never said I knew it all.

As has already been mentioned, mutations commonly duplicate a chunk of DNA, or even entire chromosomes (polyploidy). This makes the genome bigger, and allows further mutations to occur in the duplicated section without eliminating already-useful traits.

These were still distinctly after their own 'kind' if you will. This is where arguments of speciation come into play, but suffice it to say-if random mutation were plausible to the extent of what is in known existence today, indeed many billions of years would be required. Does observational science allow for this amount of time? In my view, no it does not.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Close, but don't forget-for this to work the 'mutation' must be random and able to survive. At the molecular level, this is simply not plausible from what I know.

To reach the same level here we have to agree on that life exists. I assume we can.

Since life exists the system that drives it works. The genome of each organism works.

The genome is sometimes compared to a computer program. It is a fair comparison in many ways, especially in the way that DNA is read like computer-program code is read.

HOWEVER unlike computer code the genome is far more forgiving concerning errors and can work with what would be serious errors in computer code.

These mutations are called silent mutations. The silent mutations are a part of the genome and are inherited but either are not read or give the same result as the code they mutated from.

Then there are introns. They are the areas of the genome that are not translated at all because they are cut out of the final tRNA. They are subject to mutations too however and CAN become exons.

Even when the mutations aren't silent the system is very forgiving. It might or might not affect the fitness of the individual organism. Proteins are most of the time made of hundreds of amino-acids. One or two misplaced may not affect the fitness.

All organisms that have two genders use meiosis to prepare their genes for the next generation. Meiosis creates 4 strands of 23 chromosome DNA of which NONE are identical - either between themselves or the parent DNA.

Mixing and shuffling the ENTIRE DNA is standard practice in every single generation. Add Mutation to that and the effects on fitness.

The instruments of evolution and adaption are many.

From what I know as a biologist (and a christian) evolution is very plausible on the molecular level. Evolution happens. We'd be wise to think about that.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm sorry to hear that.

I agree actually, especially in regards to the thermodynamics piece, suffice it to say that to really hash out details we'd likely end up with a several hundred page thread. I mentioned this at the beginning. It can become absurdly complex, we'd lose 99% of the readership and come to the same conclusion at the end. I just thought I'd pop open the surface for quick scrutiny. Information that is really crude to say the least, but you get the idea. There are some very obvious questions regarding our environment if you prescribe to the ideal that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. All I'm really trying to say is that's awfully old.

Actually, there really should be no problem debating the ideals regardless of where they came from. I'll be honest with you, I've been posting here for quite a while and I find that links and references are more useful for insulting the credibility of the author and/or scientist than they are in educational experience. I'd rather avoid links and references unless we're talking about specific experiments. For example; If I quote a reference or link of a scientist who made 3 errors in their career, but uncovered 15 important fallacies of evolution or contributed greatly to science in other areas, the focus in this thread would likely be the 3 mistakes regardless of whether or not they're relevant to the subject at hand.

I agree that posting is quite a dangerous activity. Even bringing references is risky. But at least, you provide more than one opinion, and that makes you stronger. But I agree that even then, it is still tricky.

I have to admit I barely ever bring references...

Whenever you get to see a debate amongts scientists, it is interesting how human they turn out to be with their different interpretation of the facts. That is why I would value any type of belief in regard of Creation. But it seems to me that some beliefs have a stronger hold because of how they impact our senses.

Truly enough, the joy of appreciation to live through the witnessing of morning and the God-Sun radiating in all its glory makes me full of Joy, as well as the Moon shining back its rays to my retina by a set of photons that are either waves or particles of a specific frequency that cannot be halved because of rules set by Planck's lenght...

It makes me feel very small and appreciative for the beauty and complexity of this world.

And I am grateful to live through all this.

That is all I have left when thinking about appreciation. Maybe, as the Greek philosopher said, "Being is the only important thing".

[SimpleLife]

Where Science and Religion meet and shake hands.

[ebuddy]

To reach the same level here we have to agree on that life exists. I assume we can.

of course.

Since life exists the system that drives it works. The genome of each organism works.

Agreed and they work in magnificent harmony. Even the 'simplest' of cells.

The genome is sometimes compared to a computer program. It is a fair comparison in many ways, especially in the way that DNA is read like computer-program code is read.

agreed. In fact, this is why I'm compelled to believe in 'design' as are several I admit.

HOWEVER unlike computer code the genome is far more forgiving concerning errors and can work with what would be serious errors in computer code.

Yes and no. A mutation by fair definition is failure of DNA repair correct? I say this only because this is at the core of gene divergence. If you consider DNA enduring frequent changes generally due to replication, the change not corrected or resolved constitutes the mutation. Now, observation tells us that almost all mutations are harmful, the ones that are not immediately harmful or more generally speaking 'neutral' are called silent mutations.

Then there are introns. They are the areas of the genome that are not translated at all because they are cut out of the final tRNA. They are subject to mutations too however and CAN become exons.

Let's go back to phenotypes for a sec. We're not discussing mild or minute differences, we're talking about the difference between a crocodile and me. The number of functional 'changes' that need to occur in a phenotype to account for speciation is far more than an account of successful mutations among single protein products. The odds again are statistical impossibilities in my view.

All organisms that have two genders use meiosis to prepare their genes for the next generation. Meiosis creates 4 strands of 23 chromosome DNA of which NONE are identical - either between themselves or the parent DNA.
Mixing and shuffling the ENTIRE DNA is standard practice in every single generation. Add Mutation to that and the effects on fitness.

add mutation to that and you generally have a problem.

The instruments of evolution and adaption are many.

I agree in that the instruments of micro-evolution known as 'adaptation' are common. We're not talking about adapting among your kind, we're talking about creating new kind eventually. How long? Extraordinarily long and don't be surprised if by 2008 it's much longer.

From what I know as a biologist (and a christian) evolution is very plausible on the molecular level. Evolution happens. We'd be wise to think about that.

I agree with you 100% on this. I believe biology has probably helped you believe in God with enhanced conviction. I respect that greatly. Aferall, we all want to know how and why. In answering that question we may find many parts of most arguments useful and we may find today's data compelling only to have to challenge it again tomorrow. That's the beautiful thing about all this.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The chances of macro (divergence of genes) happening successfully are like 1 in 10 plus 38 zeros.

reference please. i have never heard this claim before. and by reference, i mean "in a peer-reviewed scientific journal", not "frothing on some random website".

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Alleged age of earth; 4.5 billion years old.
- the sun is shrinking approximately one tenth of a percent per century.

ditto, reference please. make sure that your reference clearly states that this rate of shrinkage, if true, is constant and nonvariant. otherwise your "logic" is bunk.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
- the moon is moving slowly away from earth at a rate of what; 182.5 of an inch annually. Well, if you were to run some crude math that puts the moon squarely on top of New York City about 2 million years ago. That's not good.

again, please provide a reference, with the same caveat as above (constant, invariant rate).

Originally posted by ebuddy:
- In looking at the second law of thermodynamics for example; The magnetic field is currently decaying (as all other things along with it) and would not have sustained life more than 10,000 years ago from what we know.

what does the decay of the magnetic field (of what? of the earth? reference?) have to do with the second law of thermodynamics? iirc, the 2nd law deals with entropy increasing in closed systems...

in short, you seem well convinced yourself, yet you have set forth no evidence. this kind of sloppy thinking is science's true nemesis -- if valid and compelling evidence were set forth that contradicted the "old earth" theory, as you so name it, then science would adapt to it. that's the point of it -- it represents our best model of the truth at the moment, and is thus malleable.

from your more recent post:

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The number of functional 'changes' that need to occur in a phenotype to account for speciation is far more than an account of successful mutations among single protein products. The odds again are statistical impossibilities in my view.

please post a reference for these "odds" that constitute "statistical impossibilities". you are aware that many key genes are conserved over many species, often going all the way back to yeast, no? what is this "number of functional 'changes' that need to occur in a phenotype to account for speciation"? who has written about this? which journal was it published in? where is the evidence?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Regarding the need for faith in religion, but not science you're forgetting something. Macro-evolution is necessary for all species to have had a common ancestor. The chances of macro (divergence of genes) happening successfully are like 1 in 10 plus 38 zeros. (This means it is literally statistically impossible). Science is not supposed to embrace statistical impossibilities. I'd say in light of that fact alone not taking into account evidence against evolution, Evolution as it is currently being taught, requires great amounts of faith. Faith in what though? Faith in time. With enough time, the impossible becomes possible. I disagree with this premise, but many do not. They have faith in Time. I have faith in God.

Is your alter ego Kent Hovind?

Speciation has been observed many times just during the last ~50 years

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.


Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719


Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41


Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

- the sun is shrinking approximately one tenth of a percent per century. A young earth is okay in this because the sun will have only shrunk 6-7%, but back only 100,000 years ago, the sun will have been double the size it is today. What about gravitational pull? What about even 20 million years ago, the sun would've been so large that it met the earth! What about 4.5 billion years. Eesh, I hate to think of it.

You can check out this article:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astro...86VanTill.html
"The Legend of the Shrinking Sun-_A Case Study Comparing Professional Science
and "Creation Science" in Action"

And also, this assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades.

- the moon is moving slowly away from earth at a rate of what; 182.5 of an inch annually. Well, if you were to run some crude math that puts the moon squarely on top of New York City about 2 million years ago. That's not good.

The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm/year. Since the moon is 3.85 * 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old.

The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years [Eicher 1976].

The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 - 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year [Wells 1963; 1970; Scrutton 1970; Eicher 1976]. Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in molluscs [Scrutton 1978; Pannella 1976] and stromatolites [Pannella et al. 1968; Mohr 1975] and from sediment deposition patterns [Williams 1997]. All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years.

The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth.

- In looking at the second law of thermodynamics for example; The magnetic field is currently decaying (as all other things along with it) and would not have sustained life more than 10,000 years ago from what we know.

Empirical measurement of earth's magnetic field doesn't show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity [Gee et al. 2000] and reversed in polarity numerous times in Earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models [Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995] and geophysical evidence [Song and Richards 1996] of the earth's interior.

Barnes [1973] relies on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He views it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cites Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.


I call upon MacNN to not thank you for this post, full of lies and almost seems a shill to refute your own points?

[ebuddy]

Spikey Dog, I must ask in light of what I know from posting in this forum, you must do the research on your own. I've already established why I'm not posting links. You want to refute the author, not the data. You do not strike me as interested in learning. Are you saying these things are not so?

Surely you know that challenging the basic precepts of evolution should not be construed as anti-science as many in the scientific community are debating these very issues. We simply must rely on observation if we are to have a firm foundation of science. Theory is theory and I'm open to that, I'm also open to why theory could be mistaken and even more mistakenly taught as fact. I dare say you're sounding like a science crusader when if you look closely, we are discussing-not arguing. I've offered up a view, my view. I'm not saying I'm right just as many scientists cannot unequivocally say they are right. We examine evidence as we are availed of it. For example;
John A. Eddy *Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder and Aram A. Boornazian, a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston have, by studying data compiled over 400 years of solar observation found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. Has the shrinkage been consistent or 'constant'? We don't know for sure, but what we do know is our gauge of the sun's size has been quite accurate over the last 100 years specifically and that data shows consistent shrinkage. Physics teaches us that the nature of the spherical shape of our sun allows the assumption that the rate of shrinkage would decline as the solar radius declines, meaning it should have shrunk more quickly in the past than it is today. Some suggest that this is not so, that the size of the sun pulsates according to it's usage of energy. Data does not support this claim. If the sun is indeed shrinking, that means it was larger correct? How much larger? How far in the past does this allow existence of what we know today? Argument; not near as long as it would take for the successful 'chance' multiple mutation of genes to take us from primordial soup to human kind and certainly not under the conditions of a much larger sun. If indeed the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 5.8 centimeters/year, it must've been closer. How much closer? What are the implications? With all due respect, you've never heard of or considered these things?

Chemist Henry Schaefer, a five-time Nobel nominee, said, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."

Are you aware of what constitutes dvergence as described? Mutations, many working in accordance with one another to eventually create a new genome entirely independant from their parents. (a very crude summary as you may have guessed) Are you familiar with the amount of time this would take? Those adhering to Darwinian principle do. This is why our earth is getting older as more evidence is made available for the likelihood of macro-evolution. Mutations affecting single protein products is one thing, primordial soup to mankind is entirely another. I don't know it all, it would be unwise for anyone to claim they did by attempting to make a mockery of opposing ideals. Just a thought.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
If the sun is indeed shrinking, that means it was larger correct? How much larger? How far in the past does this allow existence of what we know today? Argument; not near as long as it would take for the successful 'chance' multiple mutation of genes to take us from primordial soup to human kind and certainly not under the conditions of a much larger sun. If indeed the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 5.8 centimeters/year, it must've been closer. How much closer? What are the implications? With all due respect, you've never heard of or considered these things?

Have you ever even studied stars? A star of one solar mass remains in main sequence for about 10 billion years, until all of the hydrogen has fused to form helium.

[ebuddy]

Is your alter ego Kent Hovind?

This is precisely why productive banter can never be had by some. I'd say you're certainly faithful, though you're not very humble.
In one sentence you're calling evidence of a shrinking sun old and outdated by claiming I cited data from 1980 then went on to repeat a study on the faeroe island house mouse conducted in what-1979? It should be noted contrary to your certainty on the matter the conclusions on sun-size are still being debated today. How relaxing it must be to sit back and know everything for certain. ??? What is the conclusion, the conclusion is that it is in fact shrinking my friend. The argument is now how much.

Your cases are compelling ones and show micro-evolution quite thoroughly. You're citing 5 species of cichlid fishes yet all are cichlid fishes. The genes existed, new ones weren't created. Are you trying to tell me the Faeroe Island House Mouse has developed into a duplex wolf?

You reported me for lies? I'm not sure I understand how you could've done so, but it certainly displays a desparate attempt to shut me up. Nothing new there with folks like you. It should be observed by all that the subject matter and banter was relatively free from attack until Mikellanes posted. Thank you Mikellanes.

[ebuddy]

Establish proof that we know stars form. How many have we witnessed? Do they form or are the moving gases moving to expose the star behind it? What are you a self-proclaimed nuclear physicist? Are you even aware of the arguments among the scientific community?

I refuse to debate with you Mikellanes as some basic fundamentals needed to have honest discourse cannot be had with you. I'd like to summarize by saying that many of these things no one can know for certain and the increasing data made available to us challenges what we thought we knew years prior. Science, is not an exact science and some things simply cannot be presented as irrefutable fact. To remain ignorant of this hinders productive banter. gotta go, so fear not in trying to silence me.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is precisely why productive banter can never be had by some. I'd say you're certainly faithful, though you're not very humble.
In one sentence you're calling evidence of a shrinking sun old and outdated by claiming I cited data from 1980 then went on to repeat a study on the faeroe island house mouse conducted in what-1979? It should be noted contrary to your certainty on the matter the conclusions on sun-size are still being debated today. How relaxing it must be to sit back and know everything for certain. ??? What is the conclusion, the conclusion is that it is in fact shrinking my friend. The argument is now how much.

"Oscillation" is a good word to know.

Main sequence stars change size ever so slightly, with kind of a pulsing effect due to the not quite 100% constant rate of fusion at the core. And the Earth's magnetic field does weaken and reverse itself over time.

You can dig down and find minerals aligned in the opposite direction, as if the poles had been switched. And they switch again and again for quite a while...and we're due for another switch sometime soon.

And by "sometime soon" I mean within a few million years. So there's nothing to worry about.

I'd also be wary of your number for 5.8cm/year for the moon moving away. That sounds like an extremely large number. The moon currently is moving away, and was probably formed just when the Earth was also forming, and it is the result of all of the debris forming into a satellite once it had calmed down a bit. Small planets crashing into one another will give you enough energy to put plenty of stuff into orbit

You reported me for lies? I'm not sure I understand how you could've done so, but it certainly displays a desparate attempt to shut me up.

Oh I was joking, refering to your signature, get over yourself

This discussion ended when certain people started ignoring reasonable questions, some even left all together when things weren't going their way...

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I refuse to debate with you Mikellanes as some basic fundamentals needed to have honest discourse cannot be had with you.

Thats on par for the course I'd say, only thing you have done is regurgitate creationists standings.

I have posted nothing dishonest and have researched and spoke with others about some of the points you have made.

[ebuddy]

This discussion ended when certain people started ignoring reasonable questions, some even left all together when things weren't going their way...

You'll notice some 14 people voted against evolution in the poll yet here I am, all alone.
I usually try to stick it out until someone says something like; "stupid Christians" "Hovindites", etc...it almost always digresses as does matter in general. At that point, anger ensues and nothing productive comes of it. In one post you say I'm "lieing" yet none of these things can be established irrefutable. When I'm angered by this and reply, I then see; "heehee, I was just kidding...get over yourself." This is what constitutes an inability to engage productive discourse. We should probably stick with saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I usually try to stick it out until someone says something like; "stupid Christians" "Hovindites", etc...it almost always digresses as does matter in general. At that point, anger ensues and nothing productive comes of it. In one post you say I'm "lieing" yet none of these things can be established irrefutable. When I'm angered by this and reply, I then see; "heehee

I have said none of the above (including the "heehee" don't know where you got that)

You are just conveniently avoiding discussion for which you have no answer or the answer lies outside your beliefs.

EDIT: I will say id have to agree to disagree with regards to some issues with genes, what we know so far is not enough to argue some of these points (unless you are one who is working on some current projects... )

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Spikey Dog, I must ask in light of what I know from posting in this forum, you must do the research on your own. I've already established why I'm not posting links. You want to refute the author, not the data. You do not strike me as interested in learning. Are you saying these things are not so?

no, the responsibility lies on YOU to provide the evidence. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all. also, i'm not asking for links, i'm asking for citations.

i'm not attacking you, i'm attacking your hand-wavy line of thinking that has made you susceptible to ideas that are quite out of the mainstream, not for some vast conspiracy, but because there is no evidence that points to them as the most plausible theory (or theories).

furthermore you haven't posted any data that backs up your claims. sure, the sun and/or its magnetic field may be contracting now. unless you can show that its not a cyclical process, or that the rate has not changed, then you cannot make the leap to assume that it has been contracting at a fixed rate, and therefore your "sun in new york" line of thought is invalid.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Are you aware of what constitutes dvergence as described? Mutations, many working in accordance with one another to eventually create a new genome entirely independant from their parents. (a very crude summary as you may have guessed) Are you familiar with the amount of time this would take? Those adhering to Darwinian principle do.

no, i am not familiar with your pet definition for divergence. please describe it in technical terms. your "crude summary" could mean anything, and no discussion can result from it. certainly no conclusion such as yours can be drawn from such a definition -- am i supposed to know the time you assume "divergence" will take because i "adhere to Darwinian principle"?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Your cases are compelling ones and show micro-evolution quite thoroughly. You're citing 5 species of cichlid fishes yet all are cichlid fishes. The genes existed, new ones weren't created. Are you trying to tell me the Faeroe Island House Mouse has developed into a duplex wolf?

I don't understand how people can accept micro-evolution and not macro-evolution considering they're the exact same process. How is it so hard to believe that when the genetic material in two individuals gets too different, they can't produce fertile off-spring? That's so obvious considering that's the very definition of species in the first place. Speciation demonstrates macro-evolution and not micro-evolution. Mutation can duplicate, modify and rearrange genes in many different ways. Gene duplication is fairly common, so no, the genes doesn't have to be there in the first place.

You can add two and two together, right?
Duplication + modification = wow, a new gene
BTW. How do you know new genes weren't added in these cases?

I'm sure if you saw a genetic algorithm in action you'll change your mind about "something from nothing".

Check this out: http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Proof positive that new information is added...

Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome. They say that mutations can only scramble the information that's there, and that mutations cannot produce new "information." This page shows why they are wrong.

Subtle changes in "old" genes can make proteins with novel functions.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Creationists often say that all mutations are harmful and deleterious, and degrade the genome. They say that mutations can only scramble the information that's there, and that mutations cannot produce new "information." This page shows why they are wrong.

Subtle changes in "old" genes can make proteins with novel functions.

the funny thing is that creationists are right in a literal sense here. in the biochem world, my understanding is that "mutation" is reserved for deleterious changes. a neutral change would be a "polymorphism." nevertheless, this does not change the conclusion one bit, that the creationist biology behind this particular claim does not have a leg to stand on.

perhaps the best example of why this is true would be in the b-cell maturation, where somatic mutations of the genome of immature b-cells are encouraged by the body in order to try all permutations of the genes coding recognition sequences (on the light chains, iirc, a bit fuzzy on this). most of these mutations are useless or deleterious, and the resulting cells are encouraged to die through apoptosis, but the ones that aren't (technically polymorphisms at this point) are a large part of why your immune system can recognize so many foreign compounds with high affinity and specificity.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
perhaps the best example of why this is true would be in the b-cell maturation, where somatic mutations of the genome of immature b-cells are encouraged by the body in order to try all permutations of the genes coding recognition sequences (on the light chains, iirc, a bit fuzzy on this). most of these mutations are useless or deleterious, and the resulting cells are encouraged to die through apoptosis, but the ones that aren't (technically polymorphisms at this point) are a large part of why your immune system can recognize so many foreign compounds with high affinity and specificity.

Good memory, I have a recent study of this somewhere, ill have to dig it out I know it is quite a recent pub though.

[ebuddy]

Oh I was joking, refering to your signature, get over yourself

"oh I was joking" = heehee. You get the idea. I'm honored to know you're discussing these things among other people. I've mentioned on several occasions that I'm not certain how we came to be and that we should argue Evolution with the same level of scrutiny for which we've generally reserved for Creationists. Some are entirely unwilling to accept the vast difference between beneficial mutation affecting single protein products and those affecting much more complex organisms in speciation. I've given creedence and acceptance of the experimentation you cite, but I urge you to consider that in nature these things are not as deliberate. I'm not here to tell you you're wrong. I wouldn't know. I dare say most don't know and we banter about what is "plausible" or not plausible. I believe it is mistaken to lump micro and macro together in one convoluted theory. For one thing, it detracts from the credibility of micro. Micro is the combining of genes and the allowance for beneficial variance among like "kinds". In none of the examples you cite, has one kind become entirely another. Period. But ebuddy, this takes millions of years of 'chance' mutations in accordance with one another, there's no way we could observe evolution in it's entirety. You're right. Enter dogma.

In one sentence I'm told that science requires no faith. In the next sentence I hear that lving matter should have come from non-living matter at some point, but we don't know for sure. We could assume maybe a life-infested Martian rock hit the earth and propogated it with it's first living cell. Okay, where did that cell come from? Well, it always was from the beginning. Sound familiar? Genetic engineering in a labratory is very, very different to the chance environment in which we live. Fair enough? We've found in genetic engineering that amino acids can exist by chance, but can they also combine in sequence to form protein by chance or accident?

We know there are 4 basic nucleic acids in DNA, arranged in thousands and millions of varying sequences (we'll call this data, or binary code to be real crude) that establish the directives if you will, or the instructions needed by the amino acids to organize in the formation of proteins which establish tissue, organs and ultimately, a 'kind'. Yet, proteins happened by accident? We know even the simplest of cells is comprised of millions of proteins organized within a government or hierarchy of directives. No scientist has ever established that DNA can form without DNA. Life cannot form without the directives given by life before it. To suggest otherwise would be unwise at best, scientifically dogmatic in the least. Now, what of the 'known'?

I've been told that I'm mistaken in assuming a linear pattern. We know that the simplest of organisms or bacterium is comprised of 3 million sequenced nucleic acids while the human is comprised of 3 billion sequenced nucleic acids. This is beyond debate. The pattern would have to have been linear. In other words, for a bird it's not enough to have DNA encoding for feathers, you must also have encoding for the bone structure to support and move the wings, talons, eyesight, beak, brain, etc...I find it hard to believe that you can closely examine the immense design found among these traits and not come to the conclusion that we are designed beings, but aside from that I believe it has been well-established through observational science that there is a limit to variation. Generally, one would consider speciation to be within the ability to cross-breed successfully. However, we know a Great Dane cannot mate with a chihuahua and bring forth even though they are well known to be of like kind and only because of vast physical size differences, etc...We also know that 'like' organisms through mutation have a diminished ability to reproduce even within their own kind. In short, an organism found unable to reproduce with host is not sufficient evidence for a differing kind. This has not stopped many from supposing this establishes the engineered 'new' kind, but that supposistion is a giant leap in my view. Genetic engineering encourages mutation in a very controlled environment and no conclusion to date has separated differing kinds solely by it's ability to reproduce with parent successfully or unsuccessfully. In short, the conclusions as always are debateable at best, unless you examine the evidence with an established emotional litmus fomed prior which I find to be the case from both sides of the debate. In order for macro-evolution to occur, you cannot use 'already existing' genes to formulate 'new' kinds. New kinds would require new genes. The examples cited proclaim new genes when in fact the result was the same kind. This means the 'new' genes supposition is debateable at it's core, but in fairness we're still learning. Can I get an amen?

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
there's no way we could observe evolution in it's entirety. You're right. Enter dogma.

and that's why seeing intermediate steps in the evolution of species are enlightening. austrolopithecus, for example. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor...ces_start.html

Originally posted by ebuddy:
In one sentence I'm told that science requires no faith. In the next sentence I hear that lving matter should have come from non-living matter at some point, but we don't know for sure. We could assume maybe a life-infested Martian rock hit the earth and propogated it with it's first living cell. Okay, where did that cell come from? Well, it always was from the beginning. Sound familiar?

no one here is arguing that science has ALL of the answers. the question of when and how life first arose is very much open to debate. francis crick likes the martian seeding theory, just to show how diverse the opinions are even within the scientific community.

however, this is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Genetic engineering in a labratory is very, very different to the chance environment in which we live. Fair enough? We've found in genetic engineering that amino acids can exist by chance, but can they also combine in sequence to form protein by chance or accident?

um, you do realize that proteins are polypeptides, strings of amino acids, no? and yes, systems of self-propogating bilipid vesicles, polypeptides, and rna have been demonstrated: http://ool.weizmann.ac.il/courses/oo...powerpoint.ppt offers one lecturer's take.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We know there are 4 basic nucleic acids in DNA, arranged in thousands and millions of varying sequences (we'll call this data, or binary code to be real crude) that establish the directives if you will, or the instructions needed by the amino acids to organize in the formation of proteins which establish tissue, organs and ultimately, a 'kind'. Yet, proteins happened by accident? We know even the simplest of cells is comprised of millions of proteins organized within a government or hierarchy of directives. No scientist has ever established that DNA can form without DNA. Life cannot form without the directives given by life before it. To suggest otherwise would be unwise at best, scientifically dogmatic in the least. Now, what of the 'known'?

read the link above. my summary: self-catalyzing rna forms spontaneously by combination of primitive nucleic acids floating about. it catalyzes its own replication, and thus confers an advantage over other rna fragments. by chance one of them is enveloped in a bilipid membrane, call this the first cell membrane. either before or after this, some peptides glom onto the rna and enhance its catalytic activity. further advantage is conferred, and this pattern is thus conserved in future generations.

sound contrived? take a look at the ribosome some time, then: its structure is of RNA, which accomplishes the crucial catalytic task (peptidyl transferase activity in its case) while the protein provides structure and presumably enhances the catalytic activity. given the reality of structures like this "on the ground", in cells actually observed, i don't see where your illogical stream of facts followed by conjecture plays into it. what of the known indeed?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I've been told that I'm mistaken in assuming a linear pattern. We know that the simplest of organisms or bacterium is comprised of 3 million sequenced nucleic acids while the human is comprised of 3 billion sequenced nucleic acids. This is beyond debate.

actually, no. i don't know the figures off of the top of my head, but viruses can harbor much simpler "genomes" (quotes due to their living/non-living status). furthermore, the division of genomes into conserved genes, and genes into exons and introns allows for a quite rational way to account for the diversity of proteins that make up a living organism.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The pattern would have to have been linear. In other words, for a bird it's not enough to have DNA encoding for feathers, you must also have encoding for the bone structure to support and move the wings, talons, eyesight, beak, brain, etc...I find it hard to believe that you can closely examine the immense design found among these traits and not come to the conclusion that we are designed beings, but aside from that I believe it has been well-established through observational science that there is a limit to variation.

you are wandering all over the place here. see discussion above of genes (combined with methods of duplicating, modifying and enhancing genes AS SEEN IN MY EXAMPLE OF B-CELL MATURATION WHICH YOU SO CONVENIENTLY IGNORED).

Originally posted by ebuddy:
[rambling about chihuahuas breeding snipped] In order for macro-evolution to occur, you cannot use 'already existing' genes to formulate 'new' kinds. New kinds would require new genes. The examples cited proclaim new genes when in fact the result was the same kind. This means the 'new' genes supposition is debateable at it's core, but in fairness we're still learning. Can I get an amen?

re-read (read for the first time?) my example on b-cell maturation. novel genes are being formed through intentional mutation, and some of these are wonderfully productive.

another example that i just recalled of combination of two distinct genes forming a third with wildly variant capabilities is bcr-abl. bcr and abl have their own functions, but when they are combined you get chronic myelogenous leukemia. admittedly this is a deleterious effect, but my point is that saying that "the 'new' genes supposition is debateable[sic] at it's[sic] core" is plain wrong.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:I'm honored to know you're discussing these things among other people.

It's cause I care

I've mentioned on several occasions that I'm not certain how we came to be and that we should argue Evolution with the same level of scrutiny for which we've generally reserved for Creationists. Some are entirely unwilling to accept the vast difference between beneficial mutation affecting single protein products and those affecting much more complex organisms in speciation. I've given creedence and acceptance of the experimentation you cite, but I urge you to consider that in nature these things are not as deliberate. I'm not here to tell you you're wrong. I wouldn't know. I dare say most don't know and we banter about what is "plausible" or not plausible. I believe it is mistaken to lump micro and macro together in one convoluted theory. For one thing, it detracts from the credibility of micro. Micro is the combining of genes and the allowance for beneficial variance among like "kinds". In none of the examples you cite, has one kind become entirely another. Period. But ebuddy, this takes millions of years of 'chance' mutations in accordance with one another, there's no way we could observe evolution in it's entirety. You're right. Enter dogma.

This demonstrates lack of understanding of evolution. It's not about 'chance' or seemingly improbable events. There's mountains of evidence that all points to the fact that evolution happened on earth. It doesn't matter how improbable a certain path is, or how many "random" mutations you need from here to there, the evidence that it happened is there

In one sentence I'm told that science requires no faith. In the next sentence I hear that lving matter should have come from non-living matter at some point, but we don't know for sure.

Do you suggest this didn't happen one way or another? "living matter" and "non-living matter" are just man-made definitions. It's the same atoms at the bottom.

We could assume maybe a life-infested Martian rock hit the earth and propogated it with it's first living cell. Okay, where did that cell come from? Well, it always was from the beginning. Sound familiar? Genetic engineering in a labratory is very, very different to the chance environment in which we live. Fair enough? We've found in genetic engineering that amino acids can exist by chance, but can they also combine in sequence to form protein by chance or accident?

It's not 'chance' or 'accident'. It's not like chemicals behave totally randomly. It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution in any case.

We know there are 4 basic nucleic acids in DNA,

5 in fact.

...arranged in thousands and millions of varying sequences (we'll call this data, or binary code to be real crude) that establish the directives if you will, or the instructions needed by the amino acids to organize in the formation of proteins which establish tissue, organs and ultimately, a 'kind'. Yet, proteins happened by accident? We know even the simplest of cells is comprised of millions of proteins organized within a government or hierarchy of directives. No scientist has ever established that DNA can form without DNA. Life cannot form without the directives given by life before it. To suggest otherwise would be unwise at best, scientifically dogmatic in the least. Now, what of the 'known'?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I've been told that I'm mistaken in assuming a linear pattern. We know that the simplest of organisms or bacterium is comprised of 3 million sequenced nucleic acids while the human is comprised of 3 billion sequenced nucleic acids. This is beyond debate. The pattern would have to have been linear. In other words, for a bird it's not enough to have DNA encoding for feathers, you must also have encoding for the bone structure to support and move the wings, talons, eyesight, beak, brain, etc...I find it hard to believe that you can closely examine the immense design found among these traits and not come to the conclusion that we are designed beings,

EVERYTHING points to that it has been evolved. If it was designed, it was designed by a moron.

but aside from that I believe it has been well-established through observational science that there is a limit to variation.

What limits? Yes, there's constraints such as the historical constraints imposed by evolution of traits. Nothing has shown to break this however.

Generally, one would consider speciation to be within the ability to cross-breed successfully. However, we know a Great Dane cannot mate with a chihuahua and bring forth even though they are well known to be of like kind and only because of vast physical size differences, etc...We also know that 'like' organisms through mutation have a diminished ability to reproduce even within their own kind. In short, an organism found unable to reproduce with host is not sufficient evidence for a differing kind.

You keep talking about 'kind'. Science doesn't know what a 'kind' is.

K = number of kinds
S = number of species today

If K < S then macro-evolution happened. If they suggest K = S, you might want to explain how to fit a number of million species on a 450 foot long boat.

This has not stopped many from supposing this establishes the engineered 'new' kind, but that supposistion is a giant leap in my view. Genetic engineering encourages mutation in a very controlled environment and no conclusion to date has separated differing kinds solely by it's ability to reproduce with parent successfully or unsuccessfully. In short, the conclusions as always are debateable at best, unless you examine the evidence with an established emotional litmus fomed prior which I find to be the case from both sides of the debate. In order for macro-evolution to occur, you cannot use 'already existing' genes to formulate 'new' kinds. New kinds would require new genes. The examples cited proclaim new genes when in fact the result was the same kind. This means the 'new' genes supposition is debateable at it's core, but in fairness we're still learning. Can I get an amen?

Do you also expect a dog to give birth to a pine tree? Please, before you debate a theory, at least you should know what the theory says and doesn't say.

[deej5871]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Can I get an amen?

AMEN!

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I seem to remember a quote from EInstein to the effect of, "What interests me isn't whether God created the universe, but whether he had any choice in the matter."

I like this one:

"I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are details." --- Albert Einstein

[slow moe]

I think life was created, and then evolution took over from there. I believe that's pretty accurate, at least until someone proves DNA evolved from dirt and rocks as a way to create more dirt and rocks.

[ebuddy]

Someone mentioned I'm all over the place. Of course I am. I'm debating 1 nuclear phycisisct, one evo-biologist, and one Christian-evo-biologist.

Slow down hoss, must...ingest...data...comprise...reply

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Someone mentioned I'm all over the place. Of course I am. I'm debating 1 nuclear phycisisct, one evo-biologist, and one Christian-evo-biologist.
Slow down hoss, must...ingest...data...comprise...reply

If it was me I am sorry, I understand how it is, I am up to my ears in compromised voting machine tapes

[GORDYmac]

Should be a 'don't know' option. Didn't vote.

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by slow moe:
I think life was created, and then evolution took over from there. I believe that's pretty accurate, at least until someone proves DNA evolved from dirt and rocks as a way to create more dirt and rocks.

rna is believed to have come first:

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
self-catalyzing rna forms spontaneously by combination of primitive nucleic acids floating about. it catalyzes its own replication, and thus confers an advantage over other rna fragments. by chance one of them is enveloped in a bilipid membrane, call this the first cell membrane. either before or after this, some peptides glom onto the rna and enhance its catalytic activity. further advantage is conferred, and this pattern is thus conserved in future generations.

sound contrived? take a look at the ribosome some time, then: its structure is of RNA, which accomplishes the crucial catalytic task (peptidyl transferase activity in its case) while the protein provides structure and presumably enhances the catalytic activity.

one thing i should add to this is that ribosomes retain their catalytic activity even when all of the protein is dissolved away, that is, when they solely consist of rna. food for thought.

[ebuddy]

by spikey_dog with whom I hold great respect for educational value; and that's why seeing intermediate steps in the evolution of species are enlightening. austrolopithecus, for example. http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humano...nces_start.html

These examples establish for you, unmistakeable evidence of intermediate steps to the evolution of species? I urge you to first take a good hard look at the actual skeletons, not artist depictions of such and then consider the debates within the scientific community regarding this supposition. I'll start with a simple one for example; 'pithecus' means ape. If the example of austrolopithecus was so characteristically human, why the 'ape' classification. I know this is debateable, but begs of a more open mind. There's also considerable debate concerning their 'relation' and the fact that they are merely variations among the same species, not different species entirely. The fact of the matter is that evidence of 'transitional species' is highly debateable yet always presented as though it's some irrefutable fact. This is what I'm talking about here. It should also be noted that evolution does not necessarily presume man came from ape, but it seems the manner in which evidence is presented would leave you thinking no other way.

however, how the cell came to be is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

I wholly disagree for it is at the very core of understanding evolution. I'm not to question this? I'll deal with the rest later, must get on to work...