Slashdot Mirror

That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out. Whoops, there goes macroevolution*. Whoops, there goes the big bang. Whoops, there goes the primordial soup.

Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet. Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not. So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite. And what if it isn't definite and never will be? Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!

Oh? What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway? Hey, how about this! You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.

*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.

When you actually come up with a scientific theory for I.D. or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, even macro) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.

Science is forming a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and weighing it against evidence, and either discarding it or promoting it to a theory.

Jumping straight to a theory that can’t be tested isn’t scientific.

So we can't make potentially falsifiable predictions, right?

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

As to the other part, there is no scientific theory of Creationism, so there's nothing to debate. And even if there were, it hardly seems fitting to use a school classroom as a place to debate it. The overwhelming majority of scientists, and more to the point, scientists who work in fields related to evolution, accept that evolution happened. Even Michael Behe, one of the founders of Intelligent Design, accepts common descent and evolution, he just wants to believe that his god somehow did something somewhere to help it along (he's what one might call a theistic evolutionist).

There is no scientific debate. Evolution happens. Period.

Creationists demand proof of evolution in the way that I demand a pony when my kids are being whiny. I don't really want a pony and I wouldn't know what to do with one if my demand was met.

If their demands reflected a sincere desire for proof, then they could easily find and understand it.. No, what Creationists want is to have everyone adhere to their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God no matter what proof or common sense may contradict that belief.

Demanding proof is just an act of posturing to make it look like they're having a real battle of ideas about the nature of reality. Proof is not what they're looking for.

Effectively, having been asked why an incredibly unlikely event came about, you have responded "why not?". It's a non-answer, try again.

You've not given any reason to think it is incredibly unlikely apart from your belief. Try again :-)

Unfortunately the neo-darwinian hypothesis of evolution by natural selection of traits arising from random mutation CANNOT account for biology as we observe it.

Be careful of such sweeping statements, someone may ask you to demonstrate it is the case :-)

If you are simply pointing out we have gaps in our understanding then I agree. If you're claiming those gaps = god, then I guess Zeus causes lightning and Poseidon storms at sea.

Here's a start for soft tissue, whale evolution. I'm sure google could help as well :-)

Yes I'm a fan of CMI's website :)

You probably should be more skeptical of your sources. CMI (and other "creationist" organisations) tend to ignore evidence against their claims, over play the evidence which lends some support to their position, misrepresent research and quote mine, all seemingly driven by ideology and not a desire for understanding.

As a person is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of an integrated circuit, so an intelligent agent well beyond humans is our only seriously tenable explanation for the existence of even a single cell.

If you can find me the blueprints of the cell, describe the manufacturing process, show me the design steps, etc (all things we have for the IC), then perhaps you'd have a point. As it is, you are unable even to point to the "intelligent agent" responsible, let alone supply all of the other information. Your analogy fails :-)

I'll recant my whole setup if you can get a cell to arise from non-living components without human intervention. And pay you every cent in my bank account :)

Perhaps you need to read more scientific research into abiogenesis, as you don't seem to have an understanding of the current state.
This and this are pretty interesting to start with.

So again, what is your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

To put it simply, what evidence we actually have indicates the universe appears to be open to investigation (through intersubjective empiricism), and as a result of that study there appears to be no rational intelligence behind it, or at least no decent evidence in it's favour.

Agreed, but lets not get ahead of ourselves ;)

I don't think we are. You seem to be arguing specifically for an interventionist deity. If that's the case, it would be nice to have the coherence and correspondence to reality of this being presented, else we should surely just ignore the concept? :-)

let's turn that around, and use the evolutionist's argument against him.

Fail #1: "evolutionist" isn't a word.

The appendix has no function that we know of, so it must have evolved away.

I don't believe I've ever claimed that.

The point is, rather, that it makes sense as a vestigal organ. Look it up.

That is: Evolution actually can explain the appendix, easily, without the handwaving you've just accused us of. Watchmaker arguments, as yet, cannot.

This is, by the way, why there's no such word as "evolutionist" -- those who reject evolution tend not to have a very good understanding of it.

Recent studies, as already pointed out in this thread, have begun to hint at current functions of the appendix. So, all of a sudden, the "proves evolution because it evolved away" becomes "proves evolution because it's so useful."

I don't think I've ever said that, either. In fact, I'll PayPal you $5 if you can find me saying that, ever.

So no matter what you come up with, and whatever things change, it's _always_ taken as proof for evolution.

Actually, there's one very obvious thing you could do to disprove Evolution:

Bunnies in the Cambrian!

I'm sure you can think of something yourself. Fact is, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, and there are all kinds of falsifiable predictions it makes -- meaning, there are specific ways you could prove them wrong, if they were wrong.

On the contrary, many Christians profess unshakable faith. Several, when I have asked them point-blank, claim that nothing could shake their faith -- that faith is thus un-falsifiable.

I'm familiar with the notion of a fallen world. I didn't address it above for the simple reason that the individual wanted more examples. If we want to discuss that bit of apologetics we can. First of all, the whole notion of a fallen world really only makes much theological sense in Judaism and Christianity not for Islam or the Ba'hai. So we need to narrow the set of discussion a lot if we are going to use that particular argument.

The entire claim has much less theological justification in either Judaism or Christianity than one might think otherwise. In particular, the general pointer made is to the "fall" after Adam and Eve eat from the tree. Yet the Biblical text itself has very little to say about this. Eve is cursed in childbirth and Adam is cursed that the ground will be hard to work. There's no broad "fall" that makes everything worse. There's no claim in the text that the world as a whole has fallen. That's very late claim being read into the text. The verses that talk about waxing old really don't help matters at all. The two verses that do so are in Psalm 102 and in Isaiah 51. (There's another verse in the New Testament in Hebrews but it is a paraphrase of Isaiah. I don't know much Both those verses talk about the world falling apart in the indefinite future in contrast to God's eternal nature. That's not claiming that the world has fallen apart but that eventually all things come to an end but God.

This should be a serious problem for Protestants who emphasize the direct Biblical text. Less of an issue for Catholics, Orthodox and liberal Protestants, but they generally aren't shouting about ID. Jews actually have a slightly better position here theologically in that they can point to the larger body of tradition, the midrash, and note how it has elements that support the notion of a more general Fall or at least that things have gotten a lot worse since Adam (they use a phrase that translates as "the decline of the generations"). However, they are minor elements. Moreover, there are sections of midrash which only make sense if the Earth is flat, others seem to think that the phoenix is a real bird, and still others tell of Alexander the Great fighting the Amazons (not kidding. This is in one of the later sections in Tamid). So the Jews don't really have a great defense of this either. Better than the Christian one, but it takes a lot of picking and choosing from various texts.

Even if one did grant the notion of a fallen world, it really doesn't help with most of these sorts of examples. The notion of a fall as it is generally described is that things are getting worse due to the presence of sin. But the sort of examples we are discussing aren't just things getting worse due to decline or problems. The laryngeal nerve example used elsewhere is a good example. It isn't even inconvenient to humans. It is just freaking weird and unnecessarily complicated. Doesn't seem to be part of the punishment of Adam or anything like that. Contrast this for example with the human tendency to occasionally have babies born with a small, non-functional tale. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2. Some sort of explanation akin to the Fall might actually work here if one posited that Adam and Eve had tales and that we've lost most of the ability to have them. Indeed, that would fit in some interesting ways with the Biblical text about their curse. But most of the major examples don't fit this mold unless you believe that at the Fall the entire world got redesigned more or less from the ground up, and that you had a seriously deceitful redesigner.

It is an odd coincidence that the bad things from the fall exactly mimic what evolution actually explains in detail. The fall is theologically unsound, Biblically unsupported, philosophically untenable, and scientifically useless. It is an ad hoc argument to preserve faith in a view directly counter to reality in the face of overw

Perhaps you should define as to what you think evolution is, before you say you don't see any.

I thought I did. E. Coli still remainds E. Coli. Perhaps I should have said I don't see anything significant about this study. I have no problem accepting that genetic mutations occur. However, it seems that this study is inferring that this is the first witnessed proof for evolution. I would be interested at the lead researchers definition of evolution.

It's a fair request that you ask. I looked it up. Good ol' Google:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

I looked at other pages as well but it seems the most standard definition I could find was on the above page and read:

"Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

Also reading further into other articles about this study it would seem that Richard Lenski and many other evolutionists hold this study as a holy grail (in comparison to other studies before it) in the debate of creation vs. evolution. If all evolution is defined as being is the heritable change in a population spread over many generations then why would there be any debate at all?

Perhaps the debate is mearly by what process did life evolve. If this study holds any significance in that debate I am not seeing one. If this study is of significance in the study of mutation then I suggest there are more clear and abundant examples elsewhere.

20 years of study for what?

I digress a bit from the original request of a definition but I believe you should now understand the point I am making.

Increasing information is trivially easy. DNA sequence before mutation: AAAAATTTTT but after mutation AAAAATTTTG. Blammo you've increased the information. As for macroevolution it's happened and the evidence that it has happened in the past increases constantly. For instance, the monumental studies on Ardipethecus ramidus that have been in every single news source in the industrialized world recently. The latest discovery in human evolution, joining a huge and growing collection.

I've been reading creationist pamphlets for nearly 20 years--a perverse hobby of mine. Along with tortured logic, profound ignorance of the subject material, quotemining and other intellectual dishonesty, one of the greatest commonalities in creationist writing is projection, vividly demonstrated in your post.

No such thing? Are you retarded or willfully ignorant: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

The only difference between macro- and micro- evolution is the time-line.

The way I heard, the difference is one is rearranging what's already there (allele frequencies changing), and the other is actual new stuff (like these particular e coli being able to eat citric acid).

From looking at that link it looks like this actually is one of the ways those terms are really used, although they're quite fuzzy and don't always mean the same thing.

I still find it difficult to understand that someone could be so analytical in one part of their life and entertain irrational dogma in another.

Perhaps they do not see it as irrational or have other reasons for entertaining it. Most people can compartmentalize pretty well. It's as simple as saying in this we do that and in that we do this. Even kids can do this pretty well as you see them adapting to different controls in video games and so on.

Galileo's work in astronomy considered heresy and so all his works from that point on were banned. There may have only been two or three people involved in the actual decision making but would you believe that anyone with these beliefs would make their own decision after the Pope declared them heresy?

I'd think this tainted a large population perception on the basic mechanics of our universe for generations. Not something I'd call small.

The problem with Galileo was that he didn't have sufficient proof of his theories and taught them anyways. The bigger picture is- does anyone still believe the earth is at the center of the universe? Does the church still make that claim (a claim that wasn't made in the bible BTW)? Obviously, this is proof that religion is not unbending. Some people might be- but as well should know, some is not all.

Perhaps my perception of religious is tainted by my own experiences and I never tried to imply that I was unbiased. I don't think that makes my skepticism misplaced. I wouldn't trust an atheist to give me a unbiased opinion on religion.

Actually, your bias is presenting a problem because your skepticism contains tenets that are completely unfounded outside of it. As I have shown, there are quite a few scientist who believe in a god and quite a few more who participate in a religion in some form or another. Religion is philosophy and can be compartmentalized away from science and the same for science. They really do not need to connect.

To take anything as an absolute truth is fairly foolish. I'd likely categorize people such as this slightly less annoying than religious people. I'm not familiar enough with evolution theory to give a proper argument but I was under the impression that speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlTo be honest I don't really care about the origins of life as I don't expect the question to be settled in my lifetime or that would have a marked impact on how I live my life.

I thought you would be skeptical of an Atheist pushing a religion. Talk Origins is basically that. However, if you read my statements, The speciation aspect of evolution hasn't been observed without messing with the definition of species. You will find that the site you referenced lists several definitions of species. You will also find that these definitions often do not stand up to the simplest real life scenarios. For instance, Able to interbreed with offspring able to do the same is a concept well founded in the definitions but when they cite instances of speciation, they no longer look at able and focus on does not interbreed. Ironically, this would mean that homosexuals would be a different species because they choose not to interbreed. But you will find points on that site that declare salamanders as speciation events because they choose not to interbreed. They also claim that bacteria which develops defensive mechanisms which destroy the same bacteria without the same mutations is a speciation event. However, this would mean that two waring countries would become separate species because they kill the other side instead of breeding with them. There is also the claim that any geological or natural boundary would create speciation but that's sort of ridiculous when you have to call a Collie Puppy in New Yo

NO it wouldn't be in conflict. It can be but that doesn't make it a constant problem. The only time it would be in conflict is when it is replacing the scientific method when the scientific method was claimed to of been deployed. Both faith and the scientific method have places in society but neither is a full time requirement.

I still find it difficult to understand that someone could be so analytical in one part of their life and entertain irrational dogma in another.

The disregards are small and limited in regards to science and the base of knowledge around it. It's also small in the amounts of people in religion who do it. Science actually started in religious universities. They are not incompatible.

Galileo's work in astronomy considered heresy and so all his works from that point on were banned. There may have only been two or three people involved in the actual decision making but would you believe that anyone with these beliefs would make their own decision after the Pope declared them heresy?

I'd think this tainted a large population perception on the basic mechanics of our universe for generations. Not something I'd call small.

And I;m merely stating that your concerns are unfounded and shooting or ignoring the messenger instead of the message is not a valid point of debate. You are being blinded by your extreme views which is allowing your ignorance to triumph. You can be skeptical of the claims but there is nothing to suggest the source is biased and lying or anything. IF the facts don't pan out, then you will have a valid concern over the content instead of bashing it for the messenger. It happens all the time. Your lack of knowledge or ignorance is proving your own bias. About 40% [findarticles.com] of scientist do believe in god and Only 52 percent of scientists [physorg.com] identified themselves as having no current religious affiliation. That is something completely counter to your opinion.

Perhaps my perception of religious is tainted by my own experiences and I never tried to imply that I was unbiased. I don't think that makes my skepticism misplaced. I wouldn't trust an atheist to give me a unbiased opinion on religion.

Science is a belief for some. Take a look at the people claiming biological evolution theory as a whole is fact. Obviously this violates the scientific method in several places because it doesn't allow us to increase our knowledge or the possibility of falsification. It's even more problematic considering that when you separate evolution into adaptation and speciation, we have no no empirical evidence of it's existence without mucking with the definition of species in order to show it. Now it's likely that it's close enough to one day be proven right, but as of now, these people claiming it is fact instead of probable or likely are employing the very same belief system and mental processing as with the any religion and faith.

To take anything as an absolute truth is fairly foolish. I'd likely categorize people such as this slightly less annoying than religious people. I'm not familiar enough with evolution theory to give a proper argument but I was under the impression that speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html To be honest I don't really care about the origins of life as I don't expect the question to be settled in my lifetime or that would have a marked impact on how I live my life.

I also do not agree with codifying religion into laws. But I have no disagreement with someone taking time off to attend church or a business coming to it's own conclusion to shut down on S

Citation needed - which US schools, that children were required to attend, were teaching that God doesn't exist or that religion is false?

The only case this might indirectly apply is when it comes to the falsifiable disproven beliefs (e.g., the story of Genesis). When it comes to the ones that can't be disproven, I know of no school that has claimed they are false.

Evolution and the big bang is not fact, it can be wrong, there are several different theories within the subjects

Evolution is a fact, and the fact of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution.

But hang on - if you really believed that science isn't incompatible with religion, why did you try to discredit scientific facts (that have overwhelming amounts of evidence supporting them, btw)? If your religion is incompatible with scientific facts such as evolution or the big bang, then it's no longer true to say that science can't disprove it!

Fairly good post btw, but could do better. Maybe we'll see improvement in your other 9 posts.

Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it. We've observed speciation in plants for almost a hundred years and observed it in insects since the 1960s. Speciation in birds and mammals have also been repeatedly observed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

At this point the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that even many young earth creationists acknowledge that it occurs. See http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use. At this point anyone who is who thinks that speciation doesn't occur is so colossally ignorant that discussing matters with them should probably be done only if one is amused by talking to people under mass delusions by people so estranged from reality that reality probably got a restraining order against them.

Why whenever we observe speciation people make such a big deal about it. We've observed speciation in plants for almost a hundred years and observed it in insects since the 1960s. Speciation in birds and mammals have also been repeatedly observed. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

At this point the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that even many young earth creationists acknowledge that it occurs. See http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use. At this point anyone who is who thinks that speciation doesn't occur is so colossally ignorant that discussing matters with them should probably be done only if one is amused by talking to people under mass delusions by people so estranged from reality that reality probably got a restraining order against them.

I gave you a link to dozens of examples. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Interbreeding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding

Get back to me when you're more educated. You are a virtual clone of millions of other uneducated people who know nothing about biology or evolution yet think they are fit to argue what they don't comprehend. You are not unique, your arguments have been made and refuted a million times before. It gets boring.

Tiktaalik says suck it. Or did you mean hominid fossils? OK, here, here, and here.

The real shame of the article is the misinformation about creationists that it peddles. Creationists do NOT in general deny speciation. The quote used does state that speciation has not actually been observed which is pretty much true. If an argument against someone cannot stand without disinformation, it's time to shut up. It's a shame the author of TFA didn't do just that...

"Pretty much true"??? But we've observed it repeatedly.

And Jonathan Wells is not a random guy, he's a senior guy at the Discovery Institute. He's lying, and he knows he's lying. His entire book "Icons of Evolution" was a horrible misrepresentation of evolutionary evidence. The real shame is that someone like that gets any interest by real scientists at all.

The real shame of the article is the misinformation about creationists that it peddles. Creationists do NOT in general deny speciation. The quote used does state that speciation has not actually been observed which is pretty much true. If an argument against someone cannot stand without disinformation, it's time to shut up. It's a shame the author of TFA didn't do just that...

"Pretty much true"??? But we've observed it repeatedly.

And Jonathan Wells is not a random guy, he's a senior guy at the Discovery Institute. He's lying, and he knows he's lying. His entire book "Icons of Evolution" was a horrible misrepresentation of evolutionary evidence. The real shame is that someone like that gets any interest by real scientists at all.

WCguru42 wrote:

Right now we only have after the fact observations (which I personally believe to provide strong proof of evolution) but we don't have any observed speciation (to my knowledge) and until we do there really is no way to convince creationists that evolution is a correct theory.

The observed instances of speciation are legion.

Cheers,

b&

WCguru42 wrote:

Right now we only have after the fact observations (which I personally believe to provide strong proof of evolution) but we don't have any observed speciation (to my knowledge) and until we do there really is no way to convince creationists that evolution is a correct theory.

The observed instances of speciation are legion.

Cheers,

b&

The basic argument in the piece seems to assume that speciation hasn't been observed. But that's simply not true. We've observed speciation many times in action. This has occurred both in the lab and outside it. For example, there are experiments dating back to the 1970s using selective pressure on fruit flies to produce different strains that were not interfertile. (Dobzhansky had a 1971 paper in Nature on this and there has been a lot of similar followup work since then). Plant speciation experiments have been around since much earlier. Plant speciation events have been observed at least since the 1930s. To good lists (which are slightly out of date but have many examples) are at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. There might be good reasons to view dogs as part of different species. And the general problems with precisely defining what constitute species are a deep and fascinating issue (philosopher John Wilkins has written a lot on this subject) but redefining things to show up the creationists isn't only stupid and not funny, it is also unnecessary.

The basic argument in the piece seems to assume that speciation hasn't been observed. But that's simply not true. We've observed speciation many times in action. This has occurred both in the lab and outside it. For example, there are experiments dating back to the 1970s using selective pressure on fruit flies to produce different strains that were not interfertile. (Dobzhansky had a 1971 paper in Nature on this and there has been a lot of similar followup work since then). Plant speciation experiments have been around since much earlier. Plant speciation events have been observed at least since the 1930s. To good lists (which are slightly out of date but have many examples) are at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html. There might be good reasons to view dogs as part of different species. And the general problems with precisely defining what constitute species are a deep and fascinating issue (philosopher John Wilkins has written a lot on this subject) but redefining things to show up the creationists isn't only stupid and not funny, it is also unnecessary.

The Earth 'grows' by 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year from meteoritic dust influx.

Nope.

It's more like http://www.talkorigins.org/ where whole lists of stock creationists' claims are gathered with stock refutations.

PS: I'd be curious to see such list for ID supporters.

Petit et al. (1999) takes no effort to describe the methodologies used in handling ice cores, which raises questions on the process used.

That's because they didn't handle the ice core at all. They simply applied a newer computational algorithm to the data collected from the ice core by other scientists years before they published. In fact, the second to last sentence in the paper says "We thank C. Genthon and J. Jouzel for performing the CO2 spectral analysis..." Their papers are, of course, listed at the end with all the other references.

But just in case you don't have free access to Nature articles, I've found a source (see section II) that provides a rough overview of the way the ice core was handled. It was sliced into 1.5m sections, put into a clean stainless steel tube in Grenoble, France and melted so that various types of spectroscopic and chemical analysis could be performed.

But, let me stress that a deep understanding of this process is only available from the original peer-reviewed articles. I only linked that website for the benefit of people who don't have free access to journals through their universities.

The line "Ice cores give access to palaeoclimate series that includes local temperature and precipitation rate, moisture source conditions, wind strength and aerosol fluxes of marine, volcanic, terrestrial, cosmogenic and anthropogenic origin" is not attributed, which leads it reading as opinion or possible plagerism (Petit et al., 1999, p. 429). Since it is the bases of the work's analysis, it would make sense to give that sentence more concrete foothold in established theory.

It might be a good idea to read at least the next few sentences before hurling accusations of plagiarism around. When you do, notice that the sentence you quoted is the "topic sentence" of the paragraph. Other sentences in that paragraph serve to expand on individual points in the topic sentence, and they're all referenced. In fact, there are no less than 14 references you can read (they're all listed at the end of the article) to catch up on the science contained in that sentence.

There is no discussion on this approach's appropriateness or flaws.

Really? How about...

1. Page 431, paragraph 2, sentence 4: "This approach underestimated deltaTs by a factor of ~2 in Greenland (ref 22) and, possibly, by up to 50% in Antarctica (ref 23)."
2. Page 431, paragraph 3. (Virtually the entire paragraph is devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection.)
3. Page 431, paragraph 4, sentence 3: "... the Vostok record may differ from coastal (ref 28) sites in E. Antarctica and perhaps from West Antarctica as well."
4. Page 434, paragraph 6, sentence 4: "However, considering the large gas-age/ice-age uncertainty (1000 years, or even more if we consider the accumulation-rate uncertainty), we feel that it is premature to infer the sign of the phase relationship between CO2 and temperature at the start of the terminations."

There is a good discussion on the research team's reason for limiting the data set but not the impact of that limitation.

Limiting the data set in what sense? If you're referring to the fact that they stopped drilling to avoid contaminating Lake Vostok, the impact of that limitation is that the time series stops roughly 500,000 years ago rather than extending slightly farther back in time. If you're talking about some other data set limitation, you'll need to be a little more specific so I know precisely what you mean.

There is no review of further research questions.

Really? how about...

1. Page 433, paragraph 4, sentence 3: "We suggest that there also may be some link between the Vostok dust record and deep ocean circulation th

It took me only 2 minutes to Google over five independent sites listing the recorded interbreeding of said gulls, with successful offspring...

Um, horses and donkeys can interbreed, but the mules produced are sterile. Hence they are separate species. It would help if you would cite some sources or at least list the search terms you used - makes it hard to check your results. Hybrid gulls have been noted (even the wikipedia article I linked you to said they "do not normally hybridize"), but viable populations of hybrids have not.

There are plenty of other ring species (I pointed you to some). And then there's speciation observed in the lab. (See particularly 5.7 in the latter, and all the plant examples in both.)

You keep alluding to a non event where something happens over time, but can't be identified at any point in time...

What's the exact femtosecond day becomes night? Is it when the sun goes below the horizon? (Just the actual disc, or the corona too? What if the corona goes below the horizon for a moment, then there's a flare that peeks back up?) Is there a period called 'twilight' that can't exactly be called day or night?

I do see that part of my statement wasn't phrased very well. Instead of "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Okay, at this point we're at a new species.'", I should have said, "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Here's the exact line where we went from one species to another.'" Is my meaning a little more clear?

in order for there to be a new species there has to be a moment in time where a member that can no longer mate with the rest of his species is born

Again, that's the problem. You're insisting that 'hopeful monsters' are required, when they are not. It may be possible that an individual is born with a mutation that makes them unable to mate with some of the rest of their species, though even then, it's far more common that they are just less likely to be able to successfully mate with some other individuals in the species. There will be other individuals in the same species that they can breed with just fine.

Then, in some other individual - a descendent of the one with the first mutation - a different mutation happens. This makes them less likely still to be able successfully produce fertile offspring with other members of the species that don't have both mutations, but they can still breed well enough with the ones with only the first mutation. (Genes are discrete, but there are a lot of them, with complicated and interlocking effects. The colors on your monitor are discrete, too, but that doesn't mean you can't display something that's awfully hard to tell from a continuous spectrum.)

Enough of these mutations accumulate, and the likelihood of successful interbreeding of these subpopulations falls to zero. Bob's your uncle, new species. At no point in the transition was there an individual who could "no longer mate with the rest of his species". There were collections of individuals that bred poorly with other collections of individuals, though they could breed successfully within the collections, and quite possibly with intermediate subpopulations.

Now, you can claim that you're not convinced by the evidence that this does happen. But there's no way to claim that this logically can't happen. When we see ring species in the wild, and records of transitions in the fossil record, though, I find the evidence pretty darn conclusive. Then you add the genetic evidence - undreamed of in Darwin's time, but

It took me only 2 minutes to Google over five independent sites listing the recorded interbreeding of said gulls, with successful offspring...

Um, horses and donkeys can interbreed, but the mules produced are sterile. Hence they are separate species. It would help if you would cite some sources or at least list the search terms you used - makes it hard to check your results. Hybrid gulls have been noted (even the wikipedia article I linked you to said they "do not normally hybridize"), but viable populations of hybrids have not.

There are plenty of other ring species (I pointed you to some). And then there's speciation observed in the lab. (See particularly 5.7 in the latter, and all the plant examples in both.)

You keep alluding to a non event where something happens over time, but can't be identified at any point in time...

What's the exact femtosecond day becomes night? Is it when the sun goes below the horizon? (Just the actual disc, or the corona too? What if the corona goes below the horizon for a moment, then there's a flare that peeks back up?) Is there a period called 'twilight' that can't exactly be called day or night?

I do see that part of my statement wasn't phrased very well. Instead of "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Okay, at this point we're at a new species.'", I should have said, "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Here's the exact line where we went from one species to another.'" Is my meaning a little more clear?

in order for there to be a new species there has to be a moment in time where a member that can no longer mate with the rest of his species is born

Again, that's the problem. You're insisting that 'hopeful monsters' are required, when they are not. It may be possible that an individual is born with a mutation that makes them unable to mate with some of the rest of their species, though even then, it's far more common that they are just less likely to be able to successfully mate with some other individuals in the species. There will be other individuals in the same species that they can breed with just fine.

Then, in some other individual - a descendent of the one with the first mutation - a different mutation happens. This makes them less likely still to be able successfully produce fertile offspring with other members of the species that don't have both mutations, but they can still breed well enough with the ones with only the first mutation. (Genes are discrete, but there are a lot of them, with complicated and interlocking effects. The colors on your monitor are discrete, too, but that doesn't mean you can't display something that's awfully hard to tell from a continuous spectrum.)

Enough of these mutations accumulate, and the likelihood of successful interbreeding of these subpopulations falls to zero. Bob's your uncle, new species. At no point in the transition was there an individual who could "no longer mate with the rest of his species". There were collections of individuals that bred poorly with other collections of individuals, though they could breed successfully within the collections, and quite possibly with intermediate subpopulations.

Now, you can claim that you're not convinced by the evidence that this does happen. But there's no way to claim that this logically can't happen. When we see ring species in the wild, and records of transitions in the fossil record, though, I find the evidence pretty darn conclusive. Then you add the genetic evidence - undreamed of in Darwin's time, but

It took me only 2 minutes to Google over five independent sites listing the recorded interbreeding of said gulls, with successful offspring...

Um, horses and donkeys can interbreed, but the mules produced are sterile. Hence they are separate species. It would help if you would cite some sources or at least list the search terms you used - makes it hard to check your results. Hybrid gulls have been noted (even the wikipedia article I linked you to said they "do not normally hybridize"), but viable populations of hybrids have not.

There are plenty of other ring species (I pointed you to some). And then there's speciation observed in the lab. (See particularly 5.7 in the latter, and all the plant examples in both.)

You keep alluding to a non event where something happens over time, but can't be identified at any point in time...

What's the exact femtosecond day becomes night? Is it when the sun goes below the horizon? (Just the actual disc, or the corona too? What if the corona goes below the horizon for a moment, then there's a flare that peeks back up?) Is there a period called 'twilight' that can't exactly be called day or night?

I do see that part of my statement wasn't phrased very well. Instead of "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Okay, at this point we're at a new species.'", I should have said, "there's no point where you can conclusively say, 'Here's the exact line where we went from one species to another.'" Is my meaning a little more clear?

in order for there to be a new species there has to be a moment in time where a member that can no longer mate with the rest of his species is born

Again, that's the problem. You're insisting that 'hopeful monsters' are required, when they are not. It may be possible that an individual is born with a mutation that makes them unable to mate with some of the rest of their species, though even then, it's far more common that they are just less likely to be able to successfully mate with some other individuals in the species. There will be other individuals in the same species that they can breed with just fine.

Then, in some other individual - a descendent of the one with the first mutation - a different mutation happens. This makes them less likely still to be able successfully produce fertile offspring with other members of the species that don't have both mutations, but they can still breed well enough with the ones with only the first mutation. (Genes are discrete, but there are a lot of them, with complicated and interlocking effects. The colors on your monitor are discrete, too, but that doesn't mean you can't display something that's awfully hard to tell from a continuous spectrum.)

Enough of these mutations accumulate, and the likelihood of successful interbreeding of these subpopulations falls to zero. Bob's your uncle, new species. At no point in the transition was there an individual who could "no longer mate with the rest of his species". There were collections of individuals that bred poorly with other collections of individuals, though they could breed successfully within the collections, and quite possibly with intermediate subpopulations.

Now, you can claim that you're not convinced by the evidence that this does happen. But there's no way to claim that this logically can't happen. When we see ring species in the wild, and records of transitions in the fossil record, though, I find the evidence pretty darn conclusive. Then you add the genetic evidence - undreamed of in Darwin's time, but

If it's unlikely that an individual could mutate, survive, retain the power to pro-create, yet not with the larger population, yet be more robust and prone to survive than the population at large

I've highlighted the problem. That's it right there. Evolution doesn't predict hopeful monsters. A new species doesn't arrive in one mutation. Individual mutations arise in individuals, yes. But they don't produce reproductive isolation in one shot. They spread if they are beneficial (or even neutral, often enough). The American Gull population only has a few mutations relative to the Herring Gull population, enough to be a subspecies but not enough to cause reproductive isolation. A few more have accumulated in the the Vega, and so forth.

Eventually, we get to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull. Multiple mutations have accumulated (over distance, in this case), to the point where they're not cross-fertile with the Herring Gull. The entire point of the example, though, is that there's no sharp dividing line. (There are, of course, more examples.) The sub-populations can breed with each other, there's no point where you can conclusively say, "Okay, at this point we're at a new species."

Now, explain to me why mutations can't accumulate exactly this way in time? Especially if two sub-populations get separated by whatever means - a new river, a new mountain, a forest burning down, whatever?

I can understand why you have such problems with evolution if you have a saltationist misconception like that. But, seriously, check out that book I recommended. It'll help. You might also want to look at this, which may help you understand why so many people - including creationists in the 18th century who started finding things that just didn't fit - came to accept common descent and the rest.

Welcome to the fascinating world of creationists.

Citation NEEDED!!!

"Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed."
"The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994). "

But faith in God DEMANDS a verdict. If you earnestly seek out the truth and read and study the Bible.. the claims made by it and those that follow its teaching .. well - those claims DEMAND a verdict. You must choose whether or not you believe. You will either have eternal life with the Father (eternal joy) or with the condemned (weeping and gnashing of teeth galore). Christ was either who the Bible claims, a liar, or crazy. You must decide. Evolution presents nothing similar. That alone distinguishes faith in God.

No, that means that if "God" exists it is sadistic. If something will inflict an eternity of suffering on someone just because that person does not believe in the right "God" without proof then it is sadistic and not worth being worshiped.

I choose meaning and purpose and hope and joy and TRUTH over a theory filled with innumerable holes.

Where are these supposed holes?

Falcon

1. You don't know what you're talking about.

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

But I'm interested in a real evolutionist's answer to how critters like the bombardier beetle evolved/survived to live in their present state.

Basically, it's not that different from any other evolutionary process, like eyes, which we have all sorts of stages of in various animals. Bombardier beetles were used as an example by several creationist speakers and writers, but sadly they got a lot of their facts completely wrong in the process. Simple things like, that the three chemicals used aren't present or useful in other animals (they are and are common in many species other than the bombardier beetle). If you're actually curious a good explanation is available: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html. For that matter, it's a good site if you have any questions about the evolution versus creation debate as they go through most of the creationist talking points and explain the errors and misconceptions.

While Dover wasn't a precedent-setting case per se, Judge Jones final decision, in particular the elements of it demonstrating how evolution had been picked out of all the sciences for "special treatment" will be applicable if this reaches Federal court. Simply put, as much as the Fundies dishonest and fundamentally immoral argument that they're just trying to teach the flaws, they are in fact simply trying to get Creationism through the backdoor.

Let's be clear here. Creationism is dead Edwards v. Aguillard), Intelligent Design is dead (Kitzmiller v. Dover), and now all these incredibly dishonest scam artists and their ignorant followers (most of which probably aren't even aware they're being scammed) have got left is Teach the Controversy.

Here's the news, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY OVER BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. The number of real scientists (and no, engineers and mathematicians are not scientists) who disagree with evolutionary is so exceedingly small to be utterly irrelevant. Even one of ID's biggest formulators, Michael Behe, doesn't disagree with evolution or Common Descent.

What I'm wondering, when this is handed back to them by the courts, where will they go next? What's left after "Teach the Controversy"?

Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.

Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.

Nice try. But nope, even though you are free to ignore all the evidence supporting evolution. Creationism does not even qualify as a scientific theory, it is not even wrong.

Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.

Umm... there is no such faith. Only a layman believes that relativity is believed "true for all situations". At the very small, relativity breaks down, which is why quantum theory exists, and why there's an effort to reconcile the two.

But more fundamentally, the only reason, say, an engineer will "assume" relativity works is because, in general, it's predictions match expectations, and so it acts as a reasonable approximation of how the universe works. But if it turned out to be wrong? Big deal. It gets replaced, much like Newton's Laws, and we all move on.

Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense.

Also wrong. Evolution has been observed happening in the frickin' wild. No "faith" or "assumptions" required.

Of course, perhaps your complaint is with "macroevolution"? Also silly. Macroevolution is just microevolution in the large. Change an organism over millions and millions of generations, and yeah, believe it or not, it could become something completely different.

Maybe just go read this.

Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution?

Umm... why would it say anything? Evolution doesn't preclude organisms remain unchanged. Here, let me describe, very simply, the theory of evolution:

1) Each generation, individuals may experience random mutations.
2) Evolutionary pressures then act as a fitness function, giving some individuals a higher or lower probability of reproducing.
3) The fit traits, based on the aforementioned fitness function, are thus passed on.

In this case, the explanation is simple: either the Octopus hasn't experienced any new, significant evolutionary pressures to warrant dominance of new mutations (because it's already very well adapted), or the pressures applied to it continually select for the current form of Octopus.

Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?

Because they aren't "assumptions and faith". They're hypothesis backed by, and this is the most vital bit, *evidence*. Further, those hypothesis predict things, and we can test for them. And any new observations must fit in with said hypothesis. If predictions fail to manifest, or evidence arises that cannot be explain by the hypothesis, then scientists alter or replace the hypothesis in order to fit the new body of evidence.

How you can't see that this is *completely* different from "assumptions and faith", I honestly do not understand.

The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything

Here. Go get your learn on. Not that I expect you to actually believe any of that... after all, it doesn't fit with your worldview, and an echo chamber combined with a heavy dose of confirmation bias is ever so comforting...

Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.

Umm... there is no such faith. Only a layman believes that relativity is believed "true for all situations". At the very small, relativity breaks down, which is why quantum theory exists, and why there's an effort to reconcile the two.

But more fundamentally, the only reason, say, an engineer will "assume" relativity works is because, in general, it's predictions match expectations, and so it acts as a reasonable approximation of how the universe works. But if it turned out to be wrong? Big deal. It gets replaced, much like Newton's Laws, and we all move on.

Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense.

Also wrong. Evolution has been observed happening in the frickin' wild. No "faith" or "assumptions" required.

Of course, perhaps your complaint is with "macroevolution"? Also silly. Macroevolution is just microevolution in the large. Change an organism over millions and millions of generations, and yeah, believe it or not, it could become something completely different.

Maybe just go read this.

Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution?

Umm... why would it say anything? Evolution doesn't preclude organisms remain unchanged. Here, let me describe, very simply, the theory of evolution:

1) Each generation, individuals may experience random mutations.
2) Evolutionary pressures then act as a fitness function, giving some individuals a higher or lower probability of reproducing.
3) The fit traits, based on the aforementioned fitness function, are thus passed on.

In this case, the explanation is simple: either the Octopus hasn't experienced any new, significant evolutionary pressures to warrant dominance of new mutations (because it's already very well adapted), or the pressures applied to it continually select for the current form of Octopus.

Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?

Because they aren't "assumptions and faith". They're hypothesis backed by, and this is the most vital bit, *evidence*. Further, those hypothesis predict things, and we can test for them. And any new observations must fit in with said hypothesis. If predictions fail to manifest, or evidence arises that cannot be explain by the hypothesis, then scientists alter or replace the hypothesis in order to fit the new body of evidence.

How you can't see that this is *completely* different from "assumptions and faith", I honestly do not understand.

The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything

Here. Go get your learn on. Not that I expect you to actually believe any of that... after all, it doesn't fit with your worldview, and an echo chamber combined with a heavy dose of confirmation bias is ever so comforting...

59% of adults polled think humans and dinosaurs lived together at one point in time. This was a WTF type of statistic. I hope they did this poll evenly spread out and not in say the deep south!

Seeing as how there's religious amusement parks showing dinosaurs and humans living together it's not surprising some people do believe they've lived together. There are a lot of young earthers.

Falcon

I would, as number (0) understanding what is and what isn't science.

Obvious example: "intelligent design"

That's more difficult than most people think. Karl Popper recognised that the boundary between metaphysics and science can only ever be a convention (in his introduction to the 2nd edition of "The Logic of Science"). "Falsifiability" only works as an abstract concept; it doesn't actually reflect how science really works in practice or what counts as science in practice. That means that although there's stuff that is decidedly within science (eg, heliocentric solar system) and stuff that is decidedly outside science (eg, ID), there's a huge fuzzy area that may or not be science depending on the definitions you take. There's a discussion here about this problem in the context of evolution. (For those who can't be bothered clicking links -- this is /. after all -- it concludes that evolution is science, because science isn't all about falsifiability).

Most people don't need a complex working knowledge of physics. They only need to know that hot things might burn you and so on. They're not building rockets. The problem comes from the fact that people won't trust scientists, either. If you don't understand science, and you don't trust the people who do to tell you what to do, then you're not going to be able to take advantage of the benefits of the scientific method, except indirectly (e.g. by purchasing products.)

The masses of asses have always been more concerned with scratching out an existence than controlling the universe. It's probably a good thing.

Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time. O RLY? This is not proven as you can see - there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. It's hard to find good citations because there's so much dizzy-headed creationist crap out there complicating the issue, but that period leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The problem with the fossil record, which Darwin recognized in Origin is that it's lumpy. It doesn't show us every stage, because everything that dies doesn't make a fossil. The statement that "humans and dinosaurs never coexisted" has always bothered me for that reason. It doesn't seem very scientific.

Oh, and another bit of trivia: they actually had a higher average brain size than Homo Sapiens.

Larger than that of modern humans, and thus certainly larger than that of contemporaneous humans, yes. But:

And in a smaller body, too.

No. They were "shorter" in stature than humans, but more massive even than *modern* humans (*fit* specimens anyway, which is what we're considering): ~75kg "inhumanly"-well-muscled frame on a very heavily-built skeleton about 166cm tall for males. ref

Their body surface area to mass ratio is also smaller than that of humans. ref

So if we go by the popular brain-mass/body-mass metric...

...they should actually be a little *less* intelligent, on average; after all, the ratio of their body mass to cranial capacity (to say nothing of their brain size, of which cranial capacity is only an upper limit) is smaller, not larger. As for the brain morphology itself, the braincase and likely the brain were both shorter and more elongated than those of humans. Hard to imagine a more developed neocortex on such a brain, though perhaps it's possible. I don't have a source offhand.

So we're not talking just as in "looks like a human", but something that was definitely [!?] just as sentient and self-aware as a human.

You mean probably as sentient, or approximately as sentient. Nice try at perpetuating a false inferiority complex though.

Otherwise I agree with your sentiment that we ought to accord "being" or "right" to other intelligent creatures, except I wouldn't base this on something so philosophically shaky as mere "empathy" (which perhaps you used for expedience rather than precision).

Check this out for some fun reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html/

All hominid fossils are either humans, or apes. Never anything intermediate between the two. Which is which, well... that depends who you ask.

Observed instances of speciation

.

Speciation has been observed.

But of course, you probably had in mind cats turning into dogs, or some other straw man version of evolution.

Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.

Carl Popper thoroughly dismantled that idea in his 1935 book "Logic der Forschung". You should try reading it; the English translation of the main text is quite accessible. Looking at the problems you have with logic you may struggle with some of the appendices, but they're not necessary for the main argument. It may help bring your thinking from the 19th to the 20th century. Incidentally, I am aware about the controversy in science regarding falsification, but it doesn't apply here -- I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claim that what Popper described isn't science (isn't to "be taken seriously"); the controversy is whether Popper's method is the only thing science is.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven

A perfect illustration of what the RA was saying. You think the claim that Darwin didn't do it is the same as the claim that it hasn't been done. You think work stopped on the subject 150 years ago.

As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true

That's not what you said before. What you said before was "if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true" (my emphasis), which is a completely different statement.

The whole issue of what is valid science and what isn't is a fascinating one, and you touch on some important issues, but you bury them in such sloppy logic it's no wonder you've been modded down. If you really care about this stuff -- and it seems you do -- then, seriously, take a philosophy 101 course where they'll teach you the basics of how to put an argument together (and how to take one apart.

For the moment, it might be worth a look at this article, which addresses some of the issues you raise and describes more current thinking on those issues (although it's a bit unfair to Popper: it claims that "One thing [Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos] thought in opposition to Popper - there was no point that could be ruled off as the dividing line between 'rational' science and 'non-rational' non-science." In fact, Popper argued the same thing: "My criterion of demarcation will accordingly have to be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention" (Carl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", Routledge Classics 2002, p15, author's emphasis) -- in other words Popper doesn't believe the dividing line to be absolute either).

Come back when you can discuss coherently the 21st century questions about the relationship between evolutionary theory and the scientific method, instead of the 19th century questions.

You misunderstand the most basic principles.

Genetic mutations are more-or-less random, being as they are based on unpredictable matings.

Natural selection says in any given generation, organisms that are better adapted for the environment they're in at the time are more likely to survive and procreate than organisms that aren't. Over multiple generations, if the environment is stable, those advantageous genetics stay in place.

Most of the rest of your complaints are based around the strawman arguments that "natural selection says once you're the best, you're always the best" and "natural selection says some traits are always better in all circumstances". Both are utter bollocks.

Finally, the very man who championed falsifiability, Popper, wrote the falsifiable form of Darwin's theory of natural selection.