Slashdot Mirror

> Evolution attempts to explain the past, but what predictions does it make of the future than
> could be checked out by experiment? I'm not taking about breeding or adaptation here, but the > jumps from simple organisms to more complex.

Organisms evolve to better fit their environment. As you've conceded, this can be seen via breeding experiments. So if by `more complex` you mean `better apapted to fit their environment` then that's what is shown by breeding experiments.

> Even more so, why has nobody yet done by diligent effort what supposedly happened by
> accident--- the creation of life from non-life? How about putting one or two, or even a
> hundred non-life derived chemicals together and making a simple cell or even a virus?
> Evolution makes no predictions on how this might be done.

If you're suggesting that because the theory of evolution hasn't explained everything means that it's yet to be proved, then you're wrong. Also, the gap between life and non-life is not as clear cut as you suggest.

You might want to read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Wow. You sir, are an idiot.

Dating methods are, in essance, foolproof. They are foolproof becuase they all corespond to one another. If the methods were flawed, they would all come up with different mesurements. But They don't.
See here for more information.

In short, don't beleive what your sunday school teacher tells you. There is no debate on the age of the earth. As is always true in science the number could change, but they will never become 6,000 , 600,000 , 6,000,000 , or even 600,000,000. The earth, as has been determined by a legion of independent dating methods, is billions of years old.

Did you read the papers? Probably not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

Is this what you are suggesting that I read?

You're indeed correct (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l). I was actually under the impression that the terms had been introduced by creationists, and just adopted by the scientific community, but I was wrong.

In effect macroevolution is speciation and above. The poor creationists are now in a pickle because the speciation has been observed, and thus macroevolution has too.

Thanks for correcting me.

Glad to see you deadpost, so most people won't reply; I'll bite though
Here's just a few documented speciation events which have occurred in recent times. Finding this was easy, as it was document number #2 in a google search for "Documented speciation event".
Ask the right places, and you will recieve and answer. Better yet, go research.

Just another added note, to all of you clinging on to evolution being a theory, and not a belief.

from Stephen Hawking: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Yes everything in science is a theory, nothing can ever be proven outright since there's always the possibility that some new evidence will come along and that's why its called the theory of evolution. 'Theory' in the scientific sense of the word (not the common colloquial usage which is more like a synonym of speculation or conjecture), ie. 'A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory).

More Info: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm l

So, I propose a theory based on a common belief, one which a large majority of the world has, and thus points to truth. The theory is: "God exists".

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true - we all believed the earth was flat for centuries for example. Science is based on evidence, not getting people to believe. A scientific theory can still be valid if no-one believes it as long as there's evidence to support it.

It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution

No its not as valid as Evolution since evolution can be disproven and can be tested, making it a valid scientific theory. The idea that god exists or not is purely conjecture or faith and is not incompatible with Evolution since Evolution says nothing about wether god does or does not exist.

A bad one, perhaps, but a theory none the less.

Its not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, see above.

Most scientists' theories are treated with skepticism at first, despite having proof. See for yourself:
http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol04_intro.htm
remained skeptical in their responses to Einstein's recent work
Even scientists having proof cannot convince other scientists. Why is that if science is based purely on truths? Scientists are people too, just like religious people. They too become emotional about their truths when someone else tries to show them they're incorrect.

Einstein didn't have 'proof' he had evidence in support of his theories, nothing in science can ever be proven because there's always the possibility of a new theory or evidence being found. Science sets the bar high on supporting evidence for new theories otherwise it would have no legitimacy - it'd swing from one half-baked theory to the next year-by-year. As it is a hypothesis has to have significant supporting evidence that has been independently repeated or verified before it becomes acceptable.

We have never seen the CREATION of a specialized cell from NOTHINGNESS.

Which is exactly what creationism/ID proposes.

Please note that in that context, I meant "everything" to mean everything in the realm of evolutionary science. The point was that evolutionary science only explains about 40%, yet you claim it explaisn EVERYTHING about how current species came to be.

Huh? 40%? Did you just pull that out of your arse? Why doesn't the evidence we have for evolution explain the development of organs such as the eye? What are you basing this on?

Yah, and religion X is better than religion Y because I think so also. Natural laws explain how atoms bond, how a book falls due to gravity. "Eye balls form due to pure chance and natural selection" is not natural law, it is an opinion.

Science is based on observations of the physical universe, not blind faith. Saying eye balls can be explained by evolution is supported by real scientific evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Most scientists' theories are treated with skepticism at first, despite having proof. See for yourself:
http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol04_intro.htm
remained skeptical in their responses to Einstein's recent work
Even scientists having proof cannot convince other scientists. Why is that if science is based purely on truths? Scientists are people too, just like religious people. They too become emotional about their truths when someone else tries to show them they're incorrect.

Einstein didn't have 'proof' he had evidence in support of his theories, nothing in science can ever be proven because there's always the possibility of a new theory or evidence being found. Science sets the bar high on supporting evidence for new theories otherwise it would have no legitimacy - it'd swing from one half-baked theory to the next year-by-year. As it is a hypothesis has to have significant supporting evidence that has been independently repeated or verified before it becomes acceptable.

We have never seen the CREATION of a specialized cell from NOTHINGNESS.

Which is exactly what creationism/ID proposes.

Please note that in that context, I meant "everything" to mean everything in the realm of evolutionary science. The point was that evolutionary science only explains about 40%, yet you claim it explaisn EVERYTHING about how current species came to be.

Huh? 40%? Did you just pull that out of your arse? Why doesn't the evidence we have for evolution explain the development of organs such as the eye? What are you basing this on?

Yah, and religion X is better than religion Y because I think so also. Natural laws explain how atoms bond, how a book falls due to gravity. "Eye balls form due to pure chance and natural selection" is not natural law, it is an opinion.

Science is based on observations of the physical universe, not blind faith. Saying eye balls can be explained by evolution is supported by real scientific evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

Its not the count, its the content. Chromosomes are just the packaging for genes, and gene duplication or deletion can happen without reproductive failure. Science sees that happening today. Chromosomes' breaking or merging can happen, and as long as the genes are still there it doesn't automatically mean reproductive failure.

Anyways, on your chromosome question: humans have one less chromosome, but all the same genes, because 2 'chimp' genes simply fused together. Human chromosome 2 is chimp chromosomes 2P and 2Q fused together- it even still has all the broken bits of telomeres at the fusion point. Its just like someone combined 2 chapters together in a Word document by only removing the 'chapter break' mark, but forgot to remove all the end and start chapter formatting.

If you compare us with chimps, you see something like:

• Modern Chimps: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End" "Start gene4A gene5A gene6C End"
• Modern Human: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A En"Starf gene4A gene5A gene6B End" thus the evidence points to...
• Last Common Ancestor: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End" "Start gene4A gene5A gene6A End"
• Earliest Human Group: "Start gene1A gene2A gene3A End"Start gene4A gene5A gene6A End"

Take a group of "last common ancestors" that's moved away from others (is reproductively isolated). if one of them gets the 2 genes fused, they would have no problem reproducing within the group- the genes still line up. If the group never rejoins other lca hominids, then the fused gene trait gets fixed in the now-speciating group. Note that they're speciating not because they can't interbreed but because they don't interbreed. Later on some ancestral chimp (post lca split) has a change on 'gene6,' as do the humans (but a different mutation) so that we get the 98% similarity instead of identical genes.

You can compare them yourself: check out what it looks like if you line up human and chimp genes next to each other. Not at all different by the plagarism standard. In fact, you can do a letter by letter comparison nowadays: here is the human genome, and here is the chimp genome.

And to cover a few well-refuted but always repeated creationist / ID claims made in slashdot threads, as I summarized elsewhere:

• A transitional species- a missing link- will always itself be a species Because "species" are actual lifeforms, everything else is just a clade- a grouping. So if you have a an animal species that becomes another species, the transitional form can't be anything but a species. This is because evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species. Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.
• There are excellent examples of transitional species Check out Ape to Modern Man. Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (Note how you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tin

"What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

You're a font of creationist talking-points.

Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Here is the rest of creationist claims and their counter-arguments. Next time you're being brainwashed by creationists, try looking up their arguments there, and see if it's already been shot down.

Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Here is the rest of creationist claims and their counter-arguments. Next time you're being brainwashed by creationists, try looking up their arguments there, and see if it's already been shot down.

Most evolutionists from what I've seen will dispute my argument here pulling out dates and timelines. But if I'm not mistaken, these timelines were created with carbon dating, which has been shown to yield inaccurate results.

This is not true. Dates are obtained using different radiometric and non-radiometric methods, and cross-checking the dates with each other for verification wherever possible. Carbon dating is only one method, and it's only accurate during relatively recent (in geological terms) time periods. See the talk.origins General Radiometric Dating and Isochron Dating articles for information.

The reason you hear 14C brought up so often when discussing things that are millions/billions of years old (far outside the scope of its accuracy) is because it's an easy target to attack. Usually someone shows a couple of cases where 14C fails, then makes an unjustified leap and says, "something is wrong with the core assumptions behind radiometric dating!", then makes another unjustified leap and says "the geological timeline doesn't have a leg to stand on!"

Most evolutionists from what I've seen will dispute my argument here pulling out dates and timelines. But if I'm not mistaken, these timelines were created with carbon dating, which has been shown to yield inaccurate results.

This is not true. Dates are obtained using different radiometric and non-radiometric methods, and cross-checking the dates with each other for verification wherever possible. Carbon dating is only one method, and it's only accurate during relatively recent (in geological terms) time periods. See the talk.origins General Radiometric Dating and Isochron Dating articles for information.

The reason you hear 14C brought up so often when discussing things that are millions/billions of years old (far outside the scope of its accuracy) is because it's an easy target to attack. Usually someone shows a couple of cases where 14C fails, then makes an unjustified leap and says, "something is wrong with the core assumptions behind radiometric dating!", then makes another unjustified leap and says "the geological timeline doesn't have a leg to stand on!"

I'm not sure I agree. Creationism seems to be the "traditional" God creation myth from the Bible. I think "intelligent design" advocates could arguably be a bit more enlightened. Consider the following argument.
[snip AI argument]

In the end, ID removed from explicit creationism is vacuous. There is at most a trivial amount of science to it. When formalized, it falls apart. Heck, even when examined critically (yet short of formalization,) it falls apart.

Cheers,
Craig

"They loose objectivity and scream "I AM A STUPID IDIOT" to the masses of people as they intimidate and stick their collective tounge out at the very people who are interested in really understanding it."

Sorry, but I can assist people IRL with their personal failings, however I can't make up for years of poor science teachers and countless hours of study in a couple of paragraphs. It's not as if the people will actually READ the links we could post to http://talkorigins.org/ that counter every single creationist talking-point.

not to religious fanatics determined to refuse to believe in it because they think doing so would send them to hell. those are, by and large, the only people who haven't been convinced by the evidence for evolution by this time; those, and perhaps a silent majority of people who haven't bothered to even try to study basic biology at all.

Again, these creatures are not humans, nor chimpanzees, nor any other modern ape. The article mentions the Tuang child skull, which is thought to be an Australopithecus Afarensis. While it's not a tree swinging ape, is still pretty petite.

The article has an image of a modern raptor of the alleged raptor-pecked skull. The skull fits comfortably in one grown man's hand. My unscientific guess is that the owner of the skull weight probably 20-30 pounds at the time of death. Remember, if this is an immature mammal, the skull is going to be disproportionatly large in comparison to the body.

This article claims that "Height varied between about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0")." It also says that "The finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in humans, but the hands are similar to humans in most other details (Johanson and Edey 1981). Most scientists consider this evidence that afarensis was still partially adapted to climbing in trees, others consider it evolutionary baggage." If this animal did get around in trees, espcially to escape, it would have to be fairly slender and acrobatic in order for this to be a successful strategy.

So hopefully now we are talking about the actual predated animal, not modern humans or chimpanzees.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

Something worth remembering is that whenever a potential explanation for an "irreducibly complex" structure is proposed, ID proponents say at least one of two things:

1) You have no evidence that it DID happen that way. Of course, that's not relevant given that the argument is that such things are impossible due to their logical construct of irreducible complexity. The examples serve as simple counterexamples showing that it's ridiculous to make the leap from "I can't explain it" to "It can't be explained."

2) OK, but what about structure X? There is an essentially infinite number of example structures one could pull from, so if they want to play the game that way, they can do so forever. The goalposts just keep moving. Behe's challenge can remain unanswered as long as he wants it to because, once again, it's just god-in-the-gaps.

You don't believe in macroevolution? Here's 29+ cases for it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

And, I'd bet those "days" preceded the 'invention' of ID by years, or maybe even, decades?

But I have yet to encounter a SINGLE instance of an anti-ID debater engaging the 'strong' idea behind ID, which is the concept of "irreducible complexity"*. So far as I know, this idea has not even been addressed in any general discussion of ID, much less demolished! My guess is that 99% or more of those who have heard of ID via the popular media has NOT heard of "irreducible complexity".

Specifically, there's a goodly list of publications that address some of his examples here. Of course, with those examples taken care of, it's always possible to posit more irreducibly complex looking structures. You can do it forever, but it's still nothing more than god-in-the-gaps.

AFAIK, both this concept, and the half dozen or so specific cases, were originally proposed by the biochemist, Michael Behe. His challenge, offered some 15 or so years ago, was that no biochemist or evolutionary biologist has offered even a plausible theoretical process by which such "irreducibly complex" biological systems could develop. I know that, in the interim, some claims have been made that such proposals have been made, but the references I can find all appear in 'popular' scientific media, and not in the peer-reviewed journals referred to in Behe's origial challenge. It's my understanding that Behe still considers his original challenge unanswered.

You could try An Index to Creationist Claims, which is an attempt (by the science side) to figure out exactly what ID is claiming. It deals in detail with claims like Neanderthals were humans with rickets, providing claim, source and rebuttal. A seriously interesting read.

You could try An Index to Creationist Claims, which is an attempt (by the science side) to figure out exactly what ID is claiming. It deals in detail with claims like Neanderthals were humans with rickets, providing claim, source and rebuttal. A seriously interesting read.

*sigh* Phillip Johnson was a legal-beagle with an interest in protecting his mythology from science. Virtualy everything he's writing has been proven wrong by the scientific community. Of course you won't hear that from the Creationist money launderers.While we're trading links, here's one on Johnson.

(E.g. early Australians were H. erectus; later they had mixed erectus and sap. characteristics; eventually the erectus features faded and vanished, leaving pure H. sap.)

Your argument would be stronger if there were any non-controversial evidence for H. erectus in Australia:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html

But I take that to be an unfortunately-choosen hypothetical example, rather than an actual error.

Your position is not entirely-dissimilar to the old The Multiregional Evolution Model: http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herect us.html

Gene complexes hardly ever travel without organisms wrapped around them, so what you seem to be arguing for is a specific mechanism for multi-regional evolution. It isn't impossible, but whatever happened is radically under-determined by the data, and it is very likely that we are quite wrong about at least some major components of any story we tell about human evolution.

For example, it is virtually certain that H. sapiens evolved much earlier than the earliest currently-known examples, simply because the sampling rate due to fossilazation and discovery is so fantastically low. The sum total of H. sapiens fossils antedating 10000 years ago is only a few dozen, out of hundreds of thousands or more inviduals who lived over the early history of our species. The odds of us just happening to have found a skeleton from the very earliest period, when the smallest numbers of individuals would be around, is very unlikely.

Indeed, the apparent concordance between the current "earliest human skeleton" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/0502 23122209.htm) and the most-likely genetic date based on mitocondrial DNA is so improbable as to be disturbing.

I am therefore betting we will eventually find that H. sapiens evolved much earlier, but went through a genetic bottleneck 200,000 years ago, giving us our most recent common ancestor. Such bottlenecks can be seen in a lot of North American fauna, where you frequently see populations that can be traced back to a single, small, non-diverse population 10,000 years ago that was in a geographically-restricted range due to the last ice age.

Evolution is observable? Who has observed the spontaneous mutation of one species into another through the process of natural selection?

Yes, that was a serious question!

And the serious answer is of course! You'll see quite a few examples described there. As for who, you'll find over a hundred scientists listed at the bottom by name, and that is just a sampling on the scientific literature on the subject. Evolution really is solid extensively supported science.

Or have I got the word "evolution" wrong again?

Well you didn't write much that post, but as far as I can see everything was A-OK! :)

-

Sadly a lack of transitional forms in this area leads me to doubt the fossil record. What lack? Check here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml

The Radioisotope dating method also has its problems and has widely varying results.

Not when it's used correctly. You establish certain timeframes for a given isotope, and within those it's highly accurate. You cannot used C14 dating for things beyond some 50 thousand years because of its relatively short half life, but you can use potassium/argon dating, and others.

The problem with inserting God into the theories is not that God can't exist. He certainly can, but it's dead weight. It's not a necessary component for the model to exist. Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being.

Also there are some interesting theories from PhD Scientists that show how our galaxy or even our planet could be at the center of the universe.

I'm an astronomy minor and I've never heard of anything like this. What I have heard, however, is that the Universe does not appear to have any center. All galaxies (outside of their respective local groups) are moving away from each other. If you look at our place in the universe and see that everything seems to be receding from us, as Hubble did when he discovered cosmic expansion, he was thrown for a loop. The idea that we were the center of the universe fell out of favor as heliocentrism rose. The solution to this problem is pretty easy though. Imagine yourself in a galaxy a hundred thousand light years from here. Well, the Milky Way is moving away from you, and so is every other galaxy. Is this galaxy also at the center of the universe? No. The universe has no center because everything is moving away from everything else.

As for the Earth, we absolutely know that we are not in the center of our galaxy. We can look through our galaxy and plainly see this. We can also look at the structure of other galaxies and see that the types of stars around us, the orientation of the stars towards each other, are like those in the discs of other galaxies. We can "see" the supermassive black hole in our own galaxy, and at the center of nearly every galaxy. We are nowhere near this.

As I said in an earlier post, there are no absolute certainties in science. It always allows for something to be overturned, but evolution and some of these basic observations about the structure of the universe and our place in it, are about as certain as can come. The precise details of their workings are especially likely to be overturned or in some cases just plain dsicovered in time, but as a general idea, we think we know with a great deal of certainty that evolution and certain features of astronomy are correct.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I would recommend looking there if you want to see evidence of evolution, and here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.h tml

for a general explanation of the workings and philosophy of science.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I would recommend looking there if you want to see evidence of evolution, and here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.h tml

for a general explanation of the workings and philosophy of science.

"if a pattern cannot be found it is called random. If God is behind random that is fine but because God cannot be proven or disproved scientifically,"

I don't think you have read the same explanation of the evolution theory as I did. Could it be that you only read summaries in ID books? If so, and if you are open to other ideas at all, read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html ('what's wrong with creationists' "abiogenesis is so improbable" calculations') and if you dare http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_ev o_science.htm

Kudos for a well-written and intellectually honest reply.

You might wish to browse through http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for direct non-circular evidence of speciation from less to more complex forms.

To state that there is no "minimal or no willingness to offer convincing evidence" is just plain wrong.

Evolution is considered to be both s theory and a fact (see http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). It is also science in the strict sense of being able to generate hypothesis which are falsifiable by observation. It is as much a science as astronomy and archaeology are. Creationalism (and it's modern version, intelligent design) is not.

I agree with you that in principle, evolution does not contradict the existence of a diety. Particularly so since evolution does not claim to deal with the question of the origin of life. This distinction, however,is lost on many beleivers, Christian and otherwise, particularly in the USA. Perhaps they feel that the removal of the need of a god as a creator of species (and man in particular) leaves the diety as nothing more than a master of ceremony, as Daniel Dennett recently put it.

Corresponding disclaimer: I'm an atheist - a member of the only minority against which discrimination is both politically correct and actively encouraged.

Kudos for a well-written and intellectually honest reply.

You might wish to browse through http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ for direct non-circular evidence of speciation from less to more complex forms.

To state that there is no "minimal or no willingness to offer convincing evidence" is just plain wrong.

Evolution is considered to be both s theory and a fact (see http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html). It is also science in the strict sense of being able to generate hypothesis which are falsifiable by observation. It is as much a science as astronomy and archaeology are. Creationalism (and it's modern version, intelligent design) is not.

I agree with you that in principle, evolution does not contradict the existence of a diety. Particularly so since evolution does not claim to deal with the question of the origin of life. This distinction, however,is lost on many beleivers, Christian and otherwise, particularly in the USA. Perhaps they feel that the removal of the need of a god as a creator of species (and man in particular) leaves the diety as nothing more than a master of ceremony, as Daniel Dennett recently put it.

Corresponding disclaimer: I'm an atheist - a member of the only minority against which discrimination is both politically correct and actively encouraged.

Try this. For your confusion.

Quote #79 of the Quote Mine project [talkorigins.org].

Why are so many creationists such shameless liars?

1. I'm not a creationist.
2. Quote #79 is about Robert A. Millikan. I've never heard of him. I was quoting someone named Charles Darwin. Maybe you've heard of him.

Why are so many Slashdotters such incredible ignoramuses?

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&act io n=view&ID=242. The Cambrian Explosions is called an explosion exactly because there was very little life below it, then boom mega population explosion of various life forms. An explosion of life! The exact oposite of what darwinists expected. They expected many more prior slow transitions through the sediment layers below to more simple lifeforms, leading right back to the common ancestors.

Not exactly a scientific journal, but interesting reading all the same. Many other dating methods shown to be flakey also. How do we really know how old the earth is?

Your first clause, "Not exactly a scientific journal" is an understatement. One of the links appears to be from ICR's Grand Canyon Project, which is critiqued extensively here. Pay special attention to Figure 2. I would be particularly interested in how isochron critics explain the remarkable colinearity of the samples. They're easily explained by nuclear physics and all of the observations supporting it, but I'm sure that a number of creationists have figured out ways of tweaking cosmic constants to explain it. Whether those tweaks result in the laws of physics fundamentally changing is another matter.

Not to continue too deeply with "dueling links" but there is a good discussion of the K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating here. If you're really interested in the dating end of things (which I see as the most telling evidence for evolution and an old earth), I recommend poking through the talk.origins usenet archives or posting a question there. You should note that the newsgroup is full of physicists and geologists who can talk about this stuff in detail. The discussions about biology all seem to boil down to somebody saying "well, I've decided to interpret the evidence differently, and even though I haven't looked at nearly as much of it as you have, my opinion is as good as yours." The debates on the physics and geology of the dating process usually come to a much more clear resolution as the data and physics behind it are extremely difficult to dispute.

Anyway, I'm still not surprised to see that essentially 100% of the criticisms of radiometric dating and other old earth evidence all go straight back to ICR (including the Wikipedia entry). It should not be surprising to the outside observer that the only noise that is being made is being made by an organization with specific religious objections to the implications of the prevailing theory. You never hear anybody say, "I really have no interest in the theological implications of this, but the data really shows a young earth." That is probbly one of the data points that made it so easy for Judge Jones to reach his conclusion.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&act io n=view&ID=242. The Cambrian Explosions is called an explosion exactly because there was very little life below it, then boom mega population explosion of various life forms. An explosion of life! The exact oposite of what darwinists expected. They expected many more prior slow transitions through the sediment layers below to more simple lifeforms, leading right back to the common ancestors.

Not exactly a scientific journal, but interesting reading all the same. Many other dating methods shown to be flakey also. How do we really know how old the earth is?

Your first clause, "Not exactly a scientific journal" is an understatement. One of the links appears to be from ICR's Grand Canyon Project, which is critiqued extensively here. Pay special attention to Figure 2. I would be particularly interested in how isochron critics explain the remarkable colinearity of the samples. They're easily explained by nuclear physics and all of the observations supporting it, but I'm sure that a number of creationists have figured out ways of tweaking cosmic constants to explain it. Whether those tweaks result in the laws of physics fundamentally changing is another matter.

Not to continue too deeply with "dueling links" but there is a good discussion of the K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating here. If you're really interested in the dating end of things (which I see as the most telling evidence for evolution and an old earth), I recommend poking through the talk.origins usenet archives or posting a question there. You should note that the newsgroup is full of physicists and geologists who can talk about this stuff in detail. The discussions about biology all seem to boil down to somebody saying "well, I've decided to interpret the evidence differently, and even though I haven't looked at nearly as much of it as you have, my opinion is as good as yours." The debates on the physics and geology of the dating process usually come to a much more clear resolution as the data and physics behind it are extremely difficult to dispute.

Anyway, I'm still not surprised to see that essentially 100% of the criticisms of radiometric dating and other old earth evidence all go straight back to ICR (including the Wikipedia entry). It should not be surprising to the outside observer that the only noise that is being made is being made by an organization with specific religious objections to the implications of the prevailing theory. You never hear anybody say, "I really have no interest in the theological implications of this, but the data really shows a young earth." That is probbly one of the data points that made it so easy for Judge Jones to reach his conclusion.

Interestingly enough, personal beliefs aside, I think the *evolution* people are looking at ID the wrong way, insisting that "ID proponents are all religious whackos!" and "ID rules out evolution!".

This comment bespeaks an incredible lack of understanding of the issues involved. Perhaps you should read up on concepts like "irreducible complexity"... ?

You ignore one little point.

We assign logical meaning to our painting after it is finished.

It only means something because we are here to say it means something.

I compare creationism to saying that painting came into being completely finished.

I compare evolutionary theory to saying the painting was built up in stages of increasing complexity- the input of each being the outputs of the previous.

---

You know snowflakes and crystals are really complex. I suppose by your theory you must conclude that every single one is made by god.

---
A final comment. You say the other would require millions of years. We have had -BILLIONS- of years. Four thousand million years and more.

It only takes 10,000 years for a mouse to be bred into an elephant under the right pressures. I hope, that regarding what man has done to wolves (all breeds of dogs from great danes to chihuahua's), that you will concede we could do that.

Now, what is going to happen under even stronger pressure where 99% fail to reproduce* if they lack a certain trait. How quickly they will adapt to the new environment.

Please read the articles here... http://www.talkorigins.org/

*It's interesting to consider that modern industrial society seems to currently cut the birthrate below replacement- so I assume humans will adapt in some way- currently my bet is on the catholic and similar religions growing dominant).

And where was that published? In that very own Quarterly newsletter. Please, don't insult my intelligence. Send me a link to a publication in Science or Nature or something reputable.

I work in a research lab and have access to oodles of online journals. Guess how many published papers I find when I search for anything supporting Creationism? You guessed it: zero.

While we're swapping links, here's one for you.

Irreducible complexity: certain things like the human eye and bacterial flagellum are so complex, relying on so many independent pieces, that it could not have evolved from chance.

For example, if evolution occurs through gradations, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

Feel free to take four minutes and eight seconds to learn precisely how the human eye probably evolved.

If you can handle the four minutes and eight seconds, perhaps you'd be willing to do some reading about how a bacterial flagellum could form without a designer.

I'm also sure you've heard the name Behe before. Did you know that in 2001 Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." Futhermore, irreducible complexity is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. The main concerns with the concept are that it utilises an argument from ignorance, that Behe fails to provide a testable hypothesis, and that there is a lack of evidence in support of the concept. As such, irreducible complexity is seen by the supporters of evolutionary theory as an example of creationist pseudoscience and amounts to a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Can ID answer the following questions?

• Why do we have vestigial fingers on our feet?
• Why do our nasal passages drain into our lungs?
• Why are our ankles so damn thin and weak compared to our weight and height?
• Why are our ribs "designed" to carry weight horizontally?
• Why are some whales born with legs?
• Why do our eyes have blood vessels directly in front of our field of vision?

If you can't answer the last one at the very least, stop reading now. Go back to the link above, click on it, and spend the four minutes and eight seconds educating yourself.

The point to those questions is that NONE of them can be answered with ID. Can't be predicted with. Can't be tested with. None. Zero.

But do you know what can? Evolution, every one of them.

That said, while you accuse others of not understanding what ID actually is, I contend that you do not understand what evolution is.

(1) the specifics of how life evolved from a scientific point of view, ie natural selection etc.
(2) The "big picture" of how the planet is full of human beings now where it was once only a molten planet.

First of all, the article this discussion is linked to references how scientists have learned new "specifics of how life evolved from a scientific point of view..."

Second, evolution has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how life was created on what was once only a molten planet. Nothing. At all. Evolution is the transition -- of a population -- from one form of life to others forms of life over (usually long periods of) time.

Creation of life where there is no life is what is known as abiogenesis, not evolution. Now stop what you're doing! I can see you reaching for that reply button and Googling for references to the Miller-Urey experiments from the 1950s.

Stop it! You didn't even read that abiogenesis link, did you? I didn't think so. Nothing I can say can convince you to if your mind is already made up (read: clouded by mindless dogma). However I will leave you with one thing so that you can look it up yourself and do the research.

Abiogenesis experiments conducted by Dr. Sidney Fox. Don't even b

Sorry, but the guy is a well known kook who is so far off the beaten path that most of his fellow Creationists have basically abandoned him. And if you buy into his nonsense, then your claim that you're a nuclear physicist is something, that to be blunt, I think is a load of bullshit.

Actually, they are whacko. Believing so strongly in a myth that you are willing to lie and deceive to make your point makes you whacko. This has been my personal experience and the judge in the case made the point that the people with the deep religious convictions were liars. As a wise man once told me, jesus is just santa claus for grownups.

If you want to be in the camp that seeks to push id, you're in for some very bad company.

Speaking of whackos, you've got some whackiness showing of your own. (Thanks for the google suggestion, I'd never have thought of that :-) If by Behe you're referring to the 'irreducibly complex' crap, at least read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

As for your misappropriation of Crick, read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/. The Project Steve pages made me laugh a coupla times and the reference to Crick gets a Steve-o-meter rating of 9.

Actually, they are whacko. Believing so strongly in a myth that you are willing to lie and deceive to make your point makes you whacko. This has been my personal experience and the judge in the case made the point that the people with the deep religious convictions were liars. As a wise man once told me, jesus is just santa claus for grownups.

If you want to be in the camp that seeks to push id, you're in for some very bad company.

Speaking of whackos, you've got some whackiness showing of your own. (Thanks for the google suggestion, I'd never have thought of that :-) If by Behe you're referring to the 'irreducibly complex' crap, at least read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

As for your misappropriation of Crick, read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/. The Project Steve pages made me laugh a coupla times and the reference to Crick gets a Steve-o-meter rating of 9.

As a liberal Christian, I have a certain passionate hatred for creationism. I despise creationism because it makes Christians look like a bunch of narrow-minded idiots. For example, I was reading in a Christian newspaper an article about the ICR, which stated the earth was young, and cited four reasons for this. All four reasons [1] have been long-since refuted over at Talkorigins.org or the Evolution Wiki. I was able to refute three of the four points off of the top of my head.

I have seen creationist after creationist come to this Creation-Evolution debate board I lurk on, tell us the Earth must be young because of XXX and that we are all wrong. Once we present to them some scientific evidence that the Earth is old, they get real quiet real fast.

Basically, believing in an old Earth is only possible when a creationist is in a serious state of denial. Case in point: The only people who believe in a young Earth have a religious reason for doing so. Many Christians believe in an old Earth; not one atheist believes in a young Earth.

[1] The original offending article can be seen here. The refutations can be found here (just because you can come up with one case where we got different dates doesn't mean the 99+% of cases where we get the same age via different techniques is invalid) here, here, and here (the refutation is for creationist claims for c14 levels in coals, but the process in question can make diamonds have c14 atoms also).

As a liberal Christian, I have a certain passionate hatred for creationism. I despise creationism because it makes Christians look like a bunch of narrow-minded idiots. For example, I was reading in a Christian newspaper an article about the ICR, which stated the earth was young, and cited four reasons for this. All four reasons [1] have been long-since refuted over at Talkorigins.org or the Evolution Wiki. I was able to refute three of the four points off of the top of my head.

I have seen creationist after creationist come to this Creation-Evolution debate board I lurk on, tell us the Earth must be young because of XXX and that we are all wrong. Once we present to them some scientific evidence that the Earth is old, they get real quiet real fast.

Basically, believing in an old Earth is only possible when a creationist is in a serious state of denial. Case in point: The only people who believe in a young Earth have a religious reason for doing so. Many Christians believe in an old Earth; not one atheist believes in a young Earth.

[1] The original offending article can be seen here. The refutations can be found here (just because you can come up with one case where we got different dates doesn't mean the 99+% of cases where we get the same age via different techniques is invalid) here, here, and here (the refutation is for creationist claims for c14 levels in coals, but the process in question can make diamonds have c14 atoms also).

As a liberal Christian, I have a certain passionate hatred for creationism. I despise creationism because it makes Christians look like a bunch of narrow-minded idiots. For example, I was reading in a Christian newspaper an article about the ICR, which stated the earth was young, and cited four reasons for this. All four reasons [1] have been long-since refuted over at Talkorigins.org or the Evolution Wiki. I was able to refute three of the four points off of the top of my head.

I have seen creationist after creationist come to this Creation-Evolution debate board I lurk on, tell us the Earth must be young because of XXX and that we are all wrong. Once we present to them some scientific evidence that the Earth is old, they get real quiet real fast.

Basically, believing in an old Earth is only possible when a creationist is in a serious state of denial. Case in point: The only people who believe in a young Earth have a religious reason for doing so. Many Christians believe in an old Earth; not one atheist believes in a young Earth.

[1] The original offending article can be seen here. The refutations can be found here (just because you can come up with one case where we got different dates doesn't mean the 99+% of cases where we get the same age via different techniques is invalid) here, here, and here (the refutation is for creationist claims for c14 levels in coals, but the process in question can make diamonds have c14 atoms also).

Intelligent Design would be far more likely to produce bacteria/viruses harmful to us originating from a comet. An intelligent designer can design such things however they like, and could thus think "I'm going do design a life form which could live on a comet but which could also be dangerous to humans!".

You don't know anything about intelligent design beyond reading those that hate/strongly dislike it.

I have read arguments for it as presented by the Discovery Institute and others. Invariably, their supposed examples of biological systems which are too complex and "irreducible" are really not. They use obscure cases which the average person knows nothing about (microbiology and such) so that the average person is unable to understand the details of their argument. Real biologists routinely counter their examples by demonstrating how these systems might be evolved.

Evolution is extremely testable and has been tested in many different ways. This article presents 29+ extremely strong tests which evolution passes. I find prediction 1.3 to be particularly amazing.

IMO, Intelligent Design is also testable. If we were intelligently designed, we would expect not to see aspects of our design which are utterly bad or easily fixed. In reality, our bodies are full of horrible design. For instance, our pelvises are slanted forward, and the base of our spines must slant back to compensate. This leads to all manner of back pain as we get older. This design flaw makes a lot of sense in evolutionary terms -- we evolved from knuckle-dragging apes -- but no self-respecting engineer would come up with such a design.

Speaking of our spine: it is composed of a whole bunch of vertebrae, which would be great if we were walking around on four legs and didn't need to support our full weight on it vertically. The flexibility would be perfect for galloping like a horse. But, again, it mostly causes problems for us.

Oh, and we have too many teeth to fit in our mouth. What's up with that?

These are just a few small examples. Honestly, I would give God more credit than to think that he designed such poorly-engineered creatures as us.

Intelligent Design would be far more likely to produce bacteria/viruses harmful to us originating from a comet. An intelligent designer can design such things however they like, and could thus think "I'm going do design a life form which could live on a comet but which could also be dangerous to humans!".

You don't know anything about intelligent design beyond reading those that hate/strongly dislike it.

I have read arguments for it as presented by the Discovery Institute and others. Invariably, their supposed examples of biological systems which are too complex and "irreducible" are really not. They use obscure cases which the average person knows nothing about (microbiology and such) so that the average person is unable to understand the details of their argument. Real biologists routinely counter their examples by demonstrating how these systems might be evolved.

Evolution is extremely testable and has been tested in many different ways. This article presents 29+ extremely strong tests which evolution passes. I find prediction 1.3 to be particularly amazing.

IMO, Intelligent Design is also testable. If we were intelligently designed, we would expect not to see aspects of our design which are utterly bad or easily fixed. In reality, our bodies are full of horrible design. For instance, our pelvises are slanted forward, and the base of our spines must slant back to compensate. This leads to all manner of back pain as we get older. This design flaw makes a lot of sense in evolutionary terms -- we evolved from knuckle-dragging apes -- but no self-respecting engineer would come up with such a design.

Speaking of our spine: it is composed of a whole bunch of vertebrae, which would be great if we were walking around on four legs and didn't need to support our full weight on it vertically. The flexibility would be perfect for galloping like a horse. But, again, it mostly causes problems for us.

Oh, and we have too many teeth to fit in our mouth. What's up with that?

These are just a few small examples. Honestly, I would give God more credit than to think that he designed such poorly-engineered creatures as us.

The Big Bang produced very little but hydrogen and helium, with some lithium (Thielemann et al. 2001). Various other elements (heavier than carbon but lighter than iron) are produced by fusion in the red giant stage of stars (Table 3). ... most of the elements that make up the computer you're using to view this article, the world around you, the solar system and your body, were originally produced in a supernova (Cameron & Truran 1977; Harper 1996).