Slashdot Mirror

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

First two minor points, then I'll get to the real subject, the math of evolution.

theory is a theory my friend

Every field of science is a theory, my friend. Everything from the theory of the atom to the theory of zymosis (that's fermentaion). You may as well try to attack relativity as being "just a theory".

sortof like the unprovable assumption of evolution?????

What unprovable assumption of evolution? Evolution fundamentally says that if if you have heritable variation and mutations and selection pressures on that variation then you will get evolution over generations. This is trivially observable fact. There is no genuine scientific dispute over biological evolution exacly because there is so much evidence that cross checks and cross validates across so many feilds, both current observations and study of prehistorical evidence left behind. Trying to even scratch the surface of this mountain of evidence in this post would be hopeless. If you are questioning the quantity and quality of the evidence, I suggest you either crack open a text book on the subject or at least browse the talkorigins website. It's all well documented if you actually question the issue. If you don't truely question the issue and you instead simply reject the entire subject on non-rational grounds, well obviously you're not going to be swayed by something silly like actual evidence and actual science.

Anyway, the real issue I wanted to address was this one:

the sheer numeric improbability of evolution

Correction, the sheer numeric CERTIANTY. There's powerful mathematics to evolution, powerful effects going on that you don't hear about in the common explanations of evolution. The common idea of evolution is as a sequence of individual beneficial mutations, like climbing a ladder. If that's how evolution actually worked then critics would be right, it would have been mathematically impossible for evolution to produce the incredible complexity we see today.

To show the true mathematical power of evolution I will first abandon that "ladder climbing" of beneficial mutaions. In fact lets assume that every single mutation that occurs is either neutral or harmful. I'll demonstrate that we still get the real and powerful mechanism of evolution, the math of evolution.

A good place to start is with the common complaint of creationists that mutation and evolution "cannot create information". Well in the initial mutation phase they are right. When a mutation occurs it introduces noise, it tends to degrade information. But look what happens the moment that mutation gets passed on to an offspring. That mutation is now no longer random noise, it now carries a small bit on information. It carries a little tag saying "this is a nonfatal mutation". The presence of this mutation in the offspring is new and created information, the discovery and living record of a new nonfatal mutation. Over time the population builds up a LIBRARY of nonfatal mutations. This library is a vast accumulation of new information.

That information actually undergoes even more processing and synthesis. Over generations beneficial mutations would obviously multiply, but we're assuming there are none of those here. However entirely neutral mutations will also tend to accumulate and multiply. Nearly harmless mutations would also accumulate and multiply to a lesser extent. Somewhat harmful mutations will even accumulate, and extremely harmful-but-nonfatal mutations will pop up and disappear at the rarest frequencies. So not only do we build up a library of nonfatal mutations, the mutations get tagged with a tagged with a frequency, the percentage of the population carrying that mutation. Each mutation is tagged with a measurement. Every mutation now carries a cost/benefit information tag at the population level. The best ones have a high percentage representation and the most harmful ones have a near

First of all the Bible makes it very clear why we were created, God got bored and wanted toys.

And you think this makes me more likely to worship a god like that? A god that thinks of me as a toy?

And what if the rules of the game are that you can try and win souls, but you cant steal one anothers souls.

So not only am I a toy, but the only reason the god wants me to love him is so he can win a game? Again, do you think this makes me more likely to worship a god like that?

you can't have humans who choose to love you and then only give them the choice to love you.

You think that there is a meaningful difference between creating humans that have no choice but to love you and creating humans that are given the choice between eternal torture and saying they love you?

Suppose the god you describe exists in the circumstances you describe. There is no need for hell. Just give the humans the option of loving you and don't punish the ones that don't love you. Simple.

I also think that this article doesn't prove macro evolution, which never has been proven. Micro evolution has time and time again. Most creationist will agree that this butterfly "anomaly" when the butterfly becomes a bird or a new species now you have something.

Speciation has been observed several times.

For cogent replies to all his points, check out the Talk.Origins Archive.

Speciation has been observed. Repeatedly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

I'd suggest you not call someone "uninformed" when you have no idea what you are talking about. Throwing around simple rhetorical terms as if they are proof does little to help your case, either.

...the researchers found that our learning process was similar to other biological organisms....

That makes perfect sense, seeing as our brains evolved from other biological organisms.

Check out evolutionary psychology for some information. You'll view the world differently afterwards.

Evolutionary psychology (or EP) proposes that human and primate cognition and behavior could be better understood by examining them in light of human and primate evolutionary history... The idea that organisms are machines that are designed to function in particular environments was argued by William Paley (who, in turn, drew upon the work of many others).

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

No -- the problem is that your use of phrases like "it is the will of Nature to improve upon itself" puts you on the (currently) losing side of a long and bitter scientific dispute over the nature of evolution. But surely you must realize that your intuitive appeals to progress and directedness are the same as those made by the IDers. This is why you get lumped in with the thumpers -- you are making their argument!

Chordonblue, they say, it is so simple -- your unconscious force is my conscious force -- you say tomato and so forth. But it is not so simple. Evolution by natural selection cannot make a claim about a drive to higher, more complex life because it cannot produce a mechanism to provide such a direction. The end result of a man contemplating a lichen is not contained in the lichen plus evolution by natural selection. But he could be, if we introduced a hidden hand -- a god, or a drive of Nature to improve itself. Do you see the difference?

Here is a web page that describes the debate in more detail, even if it is more generous with certain kinds of arguments than it should be.

> In conclusion, speciation by natural selection does occur (at least in a few cases demonstrably -- polar gulls, etc.), but I think there has to be another mechanism in there, and the evolutionary apologists don't seem to be coming up with a hypothesis [...]

You sound inquisitive enough to read more about evolution. There are other "mechanisms of evolution" listed at talkorigins' intro to evolutionary biology. Some of them are: mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and of course natural selection.

That thought experiment looks like it was designed to generate big numbers and sow doubt in armchair evolutionary enthusiasts. I don't know any biologists personally, but they probably wouldn't bat an eyelash when presented with this thought experiment.

Nothing dramatic, but we haven't been keeping track for that long.

Nothing dramatic, but we haven't been keeping track for that long.

There is a staggering compendium of evolution information at talkorigins.org, you can get tons of transitional information from this talkorigins site search: transitional, and the majority of the whale stuff I mentioned is covered on this page.

where did this 'spark of human intelligence' come from?

Well, if you believe in an interventionist God and the human soul, then God could have used evolution as his Creation mechanism and perhaps guided it and this point was the 6th day where God created man and imbued that soul.

If you believe in a noninterventionist God, then he created the universe and set it into motion... perfectly designed to exactly run the evolution he wanted, including the predestined next step...

If you are atheist (or continuing from the above deism), well the expanding brain and probably some mutation probably hit some positive feedback tipping point. It was most likely a language mutation trigger - a brain mutation and/or voicebox mutation. The voicebox modification is one I missed in my last post. Homo Sapiens have a slight modification there that happens to greatly increase vocalization range and flexibilty.

What I mean by reaching a tipping point - say a species has some random arm modification that will eventually happen to develop into wings and flight. That modification could float around at random for a million years, just below the level of useful effect. Then at some point is randomly goes just above that tipping poit - the first useful primative glide. At that point evolution will latch onto that useful ability and drive it to completion. There will be competition inside the species... the ones that are better gliders will either evade predators or they will snatch scarce food. Either way the non-gliders (who used to be just fine before) suddenly start to suffer and die. Now it becomes a race between the gliders. A race to full flight and an exhaustion of all the "easy" changes to improve flight.

I'd expect tehre's be a similar tipping point with intelligence or language. It could be the first primative tool user, it could be passing on information to offspring (the origin of culture), communication for hunting, and/or it could be something as simple better communication making for a more sexually attractive mate. Communicating individuals can not only hunt better, but they can conspire against noncommunicators. The more communication becomes a part of the social enviornment the more pressure there is to select for it. A race to the top. A race to "finish building" communicative intellect - just like a race to "finish building" wings.

And actually "more sexually attractive mate" is perhaps the most powerful positive feedback loop. Just look at peacocks. Some female randomly has a prefference for a bigger tail. That select for and amplifies bigger tails... and also passes on the trait for females liking bigger tails. It selects for and amplifies females identifying their own species and being attracted to mates by looking for a bigger tail. If it has no tail, it must not be a male peacock. Runaway feedback. Males with obscenely big tails, and females who only identify potential mates by looking for big tails. A supercharged race to the top and over the top. Even with no underlying rational function, sexual attractiveness based selection means tails only stops being selected for when they begin to have a substantial crippling effect on survival. Would you rather be a super-sexy cripple that gets all the women he wants, or be a healthy drab virgin?

And while I'm pretty much in wild speculation mode - I have another suspiction at what drove the split to human speciation. Our closest relatives have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs. What happened was a mutation that basicly glued two of the primate chromoso

There is a staggering compendium of evolution information at talkorigins.org, you can get tons of transitional information from this talkorigins site search: transitional, and the majority of the whale stuff I mentioned is covered on this page.

where did this 'spark of human intelligence' come from?

Well, if you believe in an interventionist God and the human soul, then God could have used evolution as his Creation mechanism and perhaps guided it and this point was the 6th day where God created man and imbued that soul.

If you believe in a noninterventionist God, then he created the universe and set it into motion... perfectly designed to exactly run the evolution he wanted, including the predestined next step...

If you are atheist (or continuing from the above deism), well the expanding brain and probably some mutation probably hit some positive feedback tipping point. It was most likely a language mutation trigger - a brain mutation and/or voicebox mutation. The voicebox modification is one I missed in my last post. Homo Sapiens have a slight modification there that happens to greatly increase vocalization range and flexibilty.

What I mean by reaching a tipping point - say a species has some random arm modification that will eventually happen to develop into wings and flight. That modification could float around at random for a million years, just below the level of useful effect. Then at some point is randomly goes just above that tipping poit - the first useful primative glide. At that point evolution will latch onto that useful ability and drive it to completion. There will be competition inside the species... the ones that are better gliders will either evade predators or they will snatch scarce food. Either way the non-gliders (who used to be just fine before) suddenly start to suffer and die. Now it becomes a race between the gliders. A race to full flight and an exhaustion of all the "easy" changes to improve flight.

I'd expect tehre's be a similar tipping point with intelligence or language. It could be the first primative tool user, it could be passing on information to offspring (the origin of culture), communication for hunting, and/or it could be something as simple better communication making for a more sexually attractive mate. Communicating individuals can not only hunt better, but they can conspire against noncommunicators. The more communication becomes a part of the social enviornment the more pressure there is to select for it. A race to the top. A race to "finish building" communicative intellect - just like a race to "finish building" wings.

And actually "more sexually attractive mate" is perhaps the most powerful positive feedback loop. Just look at peacocks. Some female randomly has a prefference for a bigger tail. That select for and amplifies bigger tails... and also passes on the trait for females liking bigger tails. It selects for and amplifies females identifying their own species and being attracted to mates by looking for a bigger tail. If it has no tail, it must not be a male peacock. Runaway feedback. Males with obscenely big tails, and females who only identify potential mates by looking for big tails. A supercharged race to the top and over the top. Even with no underlying rational function, sexual attractiveness based selection means tails only stops being selected for when they begin to have a substantial crippling effect on survival. Would you rather be a super-sexy cripple that gets all the women he wants, or be a healthy drab virgin?

And while I'm pretty much in wild speculation mode - I have another suspiction at what drove the split to human speciation. Our closest relatives have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs. What happened was a mutation that basicly glued two of the primate chromoso

I found this collection of quotations from MANY pro-evolution scientists/believers to be quite interesting...

I don't. I'm quite familiar with the dishonest creationist practice of quote-mining.

Just looking at #29, a quote from Darwin himself
"I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy."

No context beyond that is given. However, if you actually dig up the original reference, you see that a more complete quote is "For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace."

In other words, Darwin was humbly explaining that he had concerns over the validity of his theory, but that he has been reassured of its validity by other scientists who peer-reviewed his work. The creationist mined quote makes it look like Darwin was expressing doubt with his work, when in reality Darwin was explaining that he has been doubly assured of its validity!

It left me puzzled as to why there is even a debate.

Same here. I can't believe that there are so many stupid people who are so easily swayed by the flagrant dishonesty of the creationist camp.

Hi, I am a Christian but for the majority of my life I was not.

Which does not say anything whatsoever about your level of knowledge on any particular subject, so why do you bring it up?

I have quite a few friends who are Ph.D's or currently doing there's.

And their Ph.Ds are in what, exactly?

The common viewpoint I see with them is that they believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution.

What barrier exists that prevents "micro evolution" from accumulating into "macro evolution".

Also, again, for what are they obtaining a Ph.D? If they're getting a degree in astrophysics, then their opinion on biological evolution is worth squat.

The book looks at the scientific truth that points towards God.

An example, perhaps?

. It is interesting to learn that incorrect information (e.g. Stanley Miller Experienment

What incorrect information is being presented about the Stanley Miller Experiment?

Ernst Haeckel's drawing of Embryos) that has been scientifically proven to be wrong is still included in textbooks as factual information.

Are Hacekel's drawings being presented as examples of embryos, or do the textbooks in question actually try to claim that they are evidence for his failed hypothesis?

They shouldn't be used at all, because they're known to be so flawed, but the real dishonesty would be if the textbook was claiming that his hypothesis had been supported with evidence. Thus far, whenever creationists bring up Haeckel's drawings in textbooks, they are unable to demonstrate that the intent of the inclusion of the drawings was to show support for Haeckel's hypothesis.

I might also add that Hacekel's hypothesis was rejected by his contemporaries, who were themselves biologists and they were not Biblical creationists. (I find it important to note that when creationists trot out "frauds" within evolution science, they neglect to point out that the fraids were always exposed by other evolution scientists, and never by creationists, who have yet to actually expose a single evolution fraud

Another interesting thing to research is the Cambrian Explosion. All of a sudden a ton of new species came into existence where there were no creatures similar to them previously.

It helps if some of your arguments aren't already well-addressed before you make them.

There are these places called "libraries" where you can get "books" which can be "read." There are places called "colleges" and "universities" where you can "enroll" and take "classes" with learned "professors" who give "lectures."

I suggest you avoid the internet unless you are careful to consider the biases of the maintainers of each site. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html is possibly a reasonable starting point to address your questions.

However, slashdot is not some personal tutorial for settsu. And unless you want to pay me to be your individual tutor, I have neither the time nor the patience to remedy your lack of learning.

My positions largely agree with the currently accepted modern synthesis of evolutionary theory and scientific cosmology. I believe the big bang happened roughly 15 billion years ago, with an rapid inflationary phase needed to explain such things as the distribution of galaxies in large-scale structures, as well as details of nucleosynthesis in the early universe. These beliefs have been informed by my studies, and I have earned a Ph.D. in experimental physics from a major research university.

Janatha, Thank for asking, here is an article that discuss this very subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability .html/

Roflcoptor.

I cannot believe people still believe this.

Evolution does not require entropy as a whole to decrease.

More information here

Yeah, unfortunately you will not find agreement in the scientific community that this is actual proof, only a nice story that sounds plausible!!!

Not find agreement? Ok, yes, not 100% agreement, but there will always be dissenters out there... however, don't make it sound like there is is questioned support for Evolution. I direct you here to Project Steve (in honor of Steven Jay Gould) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the _list_2_16_2003.asp . This is a list of 540 scientists named Steve (or variants of) who support evolution. (there's a FAQ for what the number represents) Basically it is a response to the claims of ID proponents that Evolution is going through some great debate in the scientific community. It is not. There is huge majority of evolution supporters in the scientific community.

When I studied Physics in college I had to build a math model of a 10 pole system, the math model worked!!! Experimentally I could only prove a dipole system that actually refuted the 10 pole system!!!

when you built the math model in physics, was there evidence of a 5,6, and 7 pole model? feh. nevermind. See, this is my problem. Evolution necessarily doesn't reufte ID, ID doesn't necessarily refute evolution, they can and should be mutually exclusive things. Evolution is concerned with how an organism changes in reaction to its environment to ensure its survival over time. ID is concerned with how that organism came to be in that environment. You wanna believe that God or Aliens put us here, fine...but he/they did so in a way that took millions of years to shape and refine.

A theory does not make truth, you need evidence to back it up, and evolution dose not only not have evidence it is built on a house of cards!!!

yes, a theory doesn't make truth, because science isn't democracy...i never claimed that evolution is truth, it's just the best theory to fit the facts. Much more so than ID. But, i'm open to being proven wrong. Please examine this list and let me know which cards I can take out of my deck http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is a big difference between science fiction and science fact!!!

I completely agree.

offhand, and seriously, what would it take for you to see things the evolutionists way? what evidence would you need to be presented with...or are you ID all the way?

is that like "microgravity"?

If you know anything about biology, you know about DNA, right? DNA changes over time and through selection, that's evolution.

Terms like species, genera, family, etc. are just made up categories we place on degrees of differences in DNA between groups of organisms.

As there is no real difference between the principles that make an apple fall and the principles that make a planet orbit a sun, or a sun orbit a galaxy, there are no actual differences between the forces that cause "micro-evolution" and the forces that cause "macro-evolution".

More:

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Read the references for the "proof".

I'm a Kansan, and graduate of a Kansan public school. I was a student when the first time this "Debate" flourished. The problem is that most people see the Board of Education as a political springboard into a more mainstream political body,such as Congress. There's no other reasons to hold a "hearing" when the members holding the hearing have all already made up their minds. What they typically don't realize is that making this into a national spectacle rouses the typical non-voters out of their complacency, who aren't quite that conservative. Notice, the average Kansan isn't very supportive of such things, but the average Kansan doesn't vote either.

The thing is, there is no controversy over evolution within biological sciences. Creationism (and that's what intelligent design is) was an okay starting point for scientific theories, but LeMarckian evolution has a far better scientific standing. Creationism doesn't publish in journals. It doesn't seek to examine how that intelligent designer worked. It simply exists to refute the evolutionary theory which generates so much ire in literal interpretations of the Bible.

The evidence for and against evolution are complex, and I pity the high schooler who may soon be forced to wade through it all. High school science is really just supposed to be a good approximation of the scientific theory. You don't solve waveform equations in chemistry, and the few students that choose to take physics rarely go through the calculatory rigor of special relativity. Even in college, it was mentioned that the formulas we were using for equalibrium calculations weren't exactly correct, that instead of concentration we should be using "activity" or something like that. I'm sure a slashdotter chemist can correct me on what I was told. Point is, Conservation of Mass is slightly flawed, but we don't go round telling our students that wine can transform into blood.

I welcome the next board of education elections, and I suspect that most of our citizens do as well.

humans didn't evolve from apes, humans and apes came from the same ancestor.

Present day humans and present day apes split from this ancestor, we evolved to exploit different niches in the environment.

There is a wealth of hard, scientific, evidence for this, see Hominid Species for more.

many of the world's greatest scientists believe in a god of some sort.

However, none of them (at least the ones with backgrounds in biology) believe in intelligent design. Part of the reason being that we aren't designed particularly intelligently.

PS, a great computer scientist, for instance, probably knows less biology than your average nurse, so one has to make sure the opinions of the great scientists are actually based on their knowledge of the particular branch of science in question.

From a google search: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

By this time there already were continents and oceans and plants (day 3).

Do they really want a literal interpretation of the King James version of Genesis to be opened up for Scientific debate? Let's just keep Genesis out of Science classes and put it in Religion and Philosophy classes. That's the best thing for everyone.

What's really a shame about this is the tendency for such a battle to characterize Christianity as being so tied to literal interpretations of the Bible. I went to a Jesuit high school, where religion and science teachers alike were happy to assign God the role of "root cause", or simply, the reason why anything exists at all. You can get into the implications of assuming a natural state of nothingness before divine intervention, but at the moment, that's hardly much of a scientific issue. The point is that you can say something like the infamous bombardier beetle is another sign of an amazingly complex and wonderful universe, without concluding that God must have snapped his fingers and made them appear. I think most Christians realize that, at the very least, religion has far more pressing issues to confront than whether or not whales used to be wolves.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Has anyone ever created even a single living cell from non-living matter.

That's ABIOGENESIS, not evolution. Learn the difference, chuckles.

Oh, and you might want to know that gravity is a theory, too. Quantum THEORY of Gravity.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Has anyone ever created even a single living cell from non-living matter.

That's ABIOGENESIS, not evolution. Learn the difference, chuckles.

Oh, and you might want to know that gravity is a theory, too. Quantum THEORY of Gravity.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Has anyone ever created even a single living cell from non-living matter.

That's ABIOGENESIS, not evolution. Learn the difference, chuckles.

Oh, and you might want to know that gravity is a theory, too. Quantum THEORY of Gravity.

Those are the facts. Your claims against various radioactive dating were long ago debunked. Repeating lies makes me question your morality. If you have any doubts at all, by all means visit http://talkorigins.org/ and read articles by actual researchers, as opposed to Biblical literalist apologists.

I can present any number of hypotheses that could alternately explain how the earth came to be, some using the existing evidence and others that do not

Yes you can. And here's what science should do with your theories

- the hypotheses with no existing evidence will be summarily ignored. If you want them to have credence, go do some research and find some evidence for them.

- the hypotheses with existing evidence may cause people to examine the evidence. If it's evidence that is already explained by an existing scientific theory, and you don't have any sound reasoning as to why your theory explains it better than the existing one, then your hypothesis will be summarily ignored. In the evolution debate, a lot of this ground has been covered (and been ignored by anti-evolutionists) aready. See the talk.origins, archive, for instance.

The only theories that should be "considered" are those that explain more evidence, better than what we currently have. And even then it'll take a lot of evidence and a long time for a revolutionary theory to come into acceptance. Until that time, there's no reason anyone should give your theory the same status as well-founded, mainstream, scientific theories.

That's how science works. It isn't some sort of "everybody's right in their own way" feel-good conjecture. It's about applying facts to hypotheses in repeatable ways, and narrowing down to the best theory that fits the evidence. Period.

The creationists have been playing the "don't trust the evolutionist because they're all liars" game for quite a while. You might want to look up information on creationist quote mining (the common tactic creationists use to pull an evolutionist's statement out-of-context, making it look like it says something different or completely contradictory to what was actually being said).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1- 1.html

If you're for complex design, who's to say it wasn't designed to evolve?

And that idea fits much better with Darwinian evolution than "Intelligent Design" or creationism. So, have fun convincing the religious fundamentists.

It left me puzzled as to why there is even a debate. We've got one faith based opinion vs. another as far as I can tell.
Have a read on my website: http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writings/Evolution/ evolution.html

The creationists have been playing the "don't trust the evolutionist because they're all liars" game for quite a while. You might want to look up information on creationist quote mining (the common tactic creationists use to pull an evolutionist's statement out-of-context, making it look like it says something different or completely contradictory to what was actually being said).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1- 1.html

If you're for complex design, who's to say it wasn't designed to evolve?

And that idea fits much better with Darwinian evolution than "Intelligent Design" or creationism. So, have fun convincing the religious fundamentists.

It left me puzzled as to why there is even a debate. We've got one faith based opinion vs. another as far as I can tell.
Have a read on my website: http://www.turbulentplanet.com/Writings/Evolution/ evolution.html

> The known facts for the most part support both camps (with a couple exceptions, like fossilized whales standing vertically through "THOUSANDS" of years worth of strata).

No, in most cases, the creationists are misrepresenting the evidence.

The fossil was not vertical. It was 40 to 50 degrees off horizontal, and the fossil was oriented parallel to the strata.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC335.html

Of course, you can see why creationists would be happy to misrepresent this information - it helps them reinforce the idea that creationism might be true, just like their religious book says.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

The fossil record claims are false and over simplified. See here, here, here, and here.

There are plausible evolutionary models for Flagellum. See here.

Abiogenesis statistics are bullshit and its not like an entire prokareotic cell needs to be be the first self-replicating molecule. See
here.

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

A direct rebuttal to your trueorigins.org link.

Ahem

Here is the definite web repository on Evolution. Feel free to look around and refute any of the evidence for evolution they present.

Here's another.

And another.

Not quack pages. Real, serious pages.

Oh, and thousands of Christian clergy also support the truth of evolution.

Now, nobody can take YOU seriously when all you do is claim there is no evidence for evolution (which there is, see above for but a small sampling), talk about the multitudes of evidence for ID, yet fail to show any such evidence?

So let me ask:

What is the process of speciation that ID endorses?
What observed or experimental evidence is there for this?
Where is the evidence for this from other fields, such as physics, chemistry or archeology\anthropology?

Let me know when you can present this.

I am more than willing to change my view of ID if the evidence is presented and can be verified and can hold up to scrutiny. Are you willing to do the same in regard to evolution? Are you prepared to admit that evolution is correct if the evidence is shown? Even if that means the Bible is wrong or it opens the possiblility that God doesn't exist or isn't needed?

Now, perhaps you were talking about the probability of the _first_ self-replicating molecule. While abiogenesis is NOT evolution, the talkorigins site does address some of the common abiogenesis probability arguments. Namely, that the simplest self-replicating molecules do not have to be hundreds of base pairs long, and again, once you've gotten one self-replicator, the magic of natural selection plus billions of years plus billions of self-replicators can get you some pretty neat things.

Now, can I prove that God or some alien didn't step in and tweak a step in the evolution process? No, I can't. But the point is that we don't need to appeal to the supernatural to explain anything we currently observe. And the advantage of scientific over supernatural explanations is that science enables us to make predictions. For example, science will predict that where synonomous codons exist (eg, UUU and UUC both code for phenylalanine), two closely related organisms will use the same coding more often than two distantly related organisms. Intelligent design would predict absolutely nothing useful about this issue. And the fact that time and time again, the predictions of science turn out to be right shows that either evolution is right or God really wants to screw with our heads.

As to whether he's a "real" doctor or not, that same site quotes Dr. Hovind's response to this very question. It's interesting to note that this site is indulging in the very sort of ad hominem attack that he discusses in his response.

Are you choosing to ignore the parts that demonstrate that he's a liar?

Also, read the talkorigins page for a complete refutation of his "arguments". For example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html #G4

Please some me some evidence of it. I'd love to see it. Observed evidence?

http://talkorigins.org/

A bacterium cell that's become resistant isn't a mutation

Um, yes it is. You can start with a single non-resistant bacterium and grow a culture. Some of the resulting culture will be resistant and some won't.

It takes more faith to believe that we came from some dust and gravity than to believe that there is a God that made us.

No, it doesn't. It just brings up more unanswered questions, like, where did God come from then?

How about this: In my kitchen, I have a container full of sodium and chlorine atoms. They are joined into pairs and are all arranged in a crystalline pattern such that they are grouped into tiny cubes. Did some entity produce all that order or is it simply the natural result of some simple rules?

Or are you just an atheist who doesn't believe in God so that you can do whatever you want without consequences?

Look out, he comes another rampaging mob of atheists, raping and pillaging across the countryside!

How about the way that your eyes and ears are made? They can't evolve. They need everything the way that it is right now for them to be able to work.

Prove it, and you will win the Nobel Prize. If you're going to use our eyes as an example of perfection, please answer this: All of our eyes have a blind spot because they are wired backwards. Other organisms aren't hampered by this mistake. Why did an omnipotent creator do such a botched job?