Slashdot Mirror

Basicly this says that we must stop treating evolution as a theory and instead embrace it as truth.

Well, one of the wedges that Creationists use in debate and in writings is the duality of the word "Evolution". It can mean both the fact of evolution - that populations change over time, AND to refer to the Theory of Evolution based on Natural Selection. Fruitcakes like Kent Hovind even extend it to encompass the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, which is obviously completely unrelated to the biological evolution of life on Earth.

We have to be vigilant at all times over the way Creationists play with words like "Theory" and "Evolution" and pick them up on it, tie them down to which particular meaning they are using at the time. Of course, they can in turn use this to advantage in debates by accusing scientists of being pernickety fusspots, or even underhand and rhetorical themselves. It's a tightrope, Spud ! A f***ing tightrope !

These guys put it better than me.

10,000 is just as arbitrary a figure as 1,000. If it went back 10,000 years, you'd insist on 20,000 years, or 100,000. You haven't looked at the models and worked out how many years of data we need to get decent figures out.

That's still off by at least an order of magnitude. The earth is something like 4.5 billion years old and ice age cycles are something like 100,000 years in duration.

I have a BIG problem with people saying "(hot|cold)est year on record" when accurate records just do not go very far back.

References:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

An interesting read on how cellular osmosis regulation imposed evolutionary pressures on plasma concentration in vertebrates. Explains why most vertebrates have pretty similar plasma concentrations. Which is about 1/3-1/4 the salinity of the sea, which varies from 33-37%.

However, neither mutation nor natural selection have been observed on the scale required for evolution of a new organism

Incorrect. Speciation - the development of new organisms - has indeed been observed in plants, insects, bacteria, and algae.

For example, even if we leave aside all the other intricate parts of the human vision system, the relationship between the retina and the brain would be a good example. The retina does a lot of signal processing in order to the obtain 12 separate versions of a visual scene which are passed on to the brain (one is mainly a line drawing of edges, some deal with motion in a particular direction, some deal with shadows and highlights, etc.) The brain then integrates and processes all of these in order to give us a coherent perception. The retina's processing makes no sense without the capacity of the brain to make sense of it all - but the brain having the capacity to interpret this data makes no sense without the retina's abilities in place.

This does not constitute irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity would mean that vision was absolutely useless, providing no selective advantage, unless all of these systems are in place. This is obviously false. Merely being able to distinguish light from dark provides obvious advantages, such as direction-finding based upon the position of the sun--for which a retina is not even required. Each incremental improvement in vision would provide additional selective advantages. For example, if a light-sensitive patch is recessed into a pit, it will acquire improved direction-selectivity. More about evolution of the eye may be found here

I don't understand what you mean by calling it an oxymoron. To say something is "truly complex" is not concise (concise means brief, but comprehensive), it is merely vague.

In fact, there are accepted coherent mathematical descriptions of complexity. Kolmogorov complexity is measured by the number of bits of the shortest algorithm required to describe something. So something can be said to be "truly complex" if the most concise possible description is the thing itself. A random number, for example, is truly complex; there is no shorter description than the number itself. Other things, such as the chaotic patterns of the Mandelbot set, appear complex, but are algorithmically simple, being specified by short mathematical algorithms.

Natural processes produce either regularity (reoccurring and predictable), or randomness (vastly unpredictable).

I can only presume that this is written by somebody who has never looked closely at a snowflake. As every scientist well knows, natural processes may produce everything from perfect regularity (crystal structure) to complete randomness (Brownian motion) and everything in between.

The heads on Mt. Rushmore are not a regular pattern, each part is unique and not the next step in a predictable series of events. Nor are they random at all. They are the result of an intention to depict faces

However, there are many examples of natural structures that look enough like faces to have been mistaken for human sculpture. And this is in spite of the fact that we identify a sculpture as being of human design, not based upon any abstract characteristics such as degree of regularity/randomness, but also taking advantage our extensive knowledge of what human beings look like and what kinds of sculptures have been produced by human beings in the past.

The Jammal Ark Hoax fooled creationists, and CBS television. What was claimed to be a piece of Noah's Ark was really a railway tie soaked in teriyaki sauce.

...and when replicated with those conditions produced jack squat.

[citation needed]
Also, TalkOrigins.org says otherwise, with citation included.

The claim about the oxygen is also shown incorrect in the above link, as well as the next claim in the list.

Wanna try again?

...and when replicated with those conditions produced jack squat.

[citation needed]
Also, TalkOrigins.org says otherwise, with citation included.

The claim about the oxygen is also shown incorrect in the above link, as well as the next claim in the list.

Wanna try again?

I am intrigued by the gigantic faith required to believe that any good can come of this, as all know that mutations are 99.9% damaging.

I know you're being facetious, but just in case someone who doesn't know better takes you seriously:

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

That is not true. The so called evolutionary column is found NOWHERE on earth in any single spot.

Red herring.

"Earlier" life forms are at times wildly jumbled up with "later" ones, all in the same layer.

At times.

ToE is about _widely believed_ gradual change. There, fixed it for you.

Are you saying that we have not observed gradual change?

Nobody, anywhere has ever demonstrated sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds

Neither do we expect to see that.

The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that evolution doesn't happen at all, at least not the monkey to man sort.

That makes as much sense as saying:" The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that gravity doesn't happen at all, at least not the earth falling into the sun sort."

Believing that it can or did happen is OK, but it is a belief, not an observed scientific fact.

You move the goalposts all the way to exact detailed fact. That is a quite convenient rationalisation if you want to keep your belief in a young earth, a literal genesis and a global flood.

That is probably the only rationalisation you can use to keep your internal model of how the world works intact. You set the barrier for proof so high that it makes it possible for you to ignore the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence which implies that it isn't so. You eagerly grasp any tiny detail you can find that casts doubt on current scientific theory, no matter how flimsy.

Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY

That is part of science, but not the most important part. The important part is (1) the process of taking the things we observe and make reasoned guesses at how the world works and (2) then look at what those guesses imply and then go out and do observations/tests to see if those guesses have any value.

Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not.

Yup, as I said above - you set the standard for proof so high that in your mind there is no difference between (1) a scientific theory with heaps of supporting evidence and (2) what someone wrote in a book.

That is not true. The so called evolutionary column is found NOWHERE on earth in any single spot.

Red herring.

"Earlier" life forms are at times wildly jumbled up with "later" ones, all in the same layer.

At times.

ToE is about _widely believed_ gradual change. There, fixed it for you.

Are you saying that we have not observed gradual change?

Nobody, anywhere has ever demonstrated sparrows giving birth to mockingbirds

Neither do we expect to see that.

The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that evolution doesn't happen at all, at least not the monkey to man sort.

That makes as much sense as saying:" The actual real evidence we have TODAY, shows that gravity doesn't happen at all, at least not the earth falling into the sun sort."

Believing that it can or did happen is OK, but it is a belief, not an observed scientific fact.

You move the goalposts all the way to exact detailed fact. That is a quite convenient rationalisation if you want to keep your belief in a young earth, a literal genesis and a global flood.

That is probably the only rationalisation you can use to keep your internal model of how the world works intact. You set the barrier for proof so high that it makes it possible for you to ignore the substantial amount of circumstantial evidence which implies that it isn't so. You eagerly grasp any tiny detail you can find that casts doubt on current scientific theory, no matter how flimsy.

Can you not understand that science is what we observe happening TODAY

That is part of science, but not the most important part. The important part is (1) the process of taking the things we observe and make reasoned guesses at how the world works and (2) then look at what those guesses imply and then go out and do observations/tests to see if those guesses have any value.

Fossils are nature's witnesses as are radioactive rocks and light from outer space. Pyramids, cuneiform tablets, papyrus and animal skin scrolls, such as the dead sea scrolls and the books of the Bible are witnesses of human history. ALL witnesses, natural or human NEVER prove anything, but must be BELIEVED or not.

Yup, as I said above - you set the standard for proof so high that in your mind there is no difference between (1) a scientific theory with heaps of supporting evidence and (2) what someone wrote in a book.

A couple of comments on c decreasing:

Once fairly accurate measurements of c became available (post 1960), the supposed c decay seems to vanish. So, he uses the measurements of c pre-60 (which have huge potential errors) to build the case for his decaying c argument but his proposed graph conveniently levels off post-60.

A decaying c would also have wide ranging effects, which we should be able to observe today. For one, e=mc^2. With a higher c, chemical reactions would release more energy than it does today. Not to mention that it would alter the fine structure constant (α = vH/c), which we would definitely be able to observe the effects of (the temperature of stars depends strongly on α, so we should be able to detect even a slight change - one of which is that we would have been bbq'd by the sun in the 1000 or so years after genesis).

And that's only scratching the surface of the changes that c-decay would imply, change one of the basic values of physics and lots of stuff happens.

Oh, and it would be interesting to see how one would reconcile this with the idea of c-decay.

There is NO law of physics that says that the speed of light MUST be constant.

That is true, as far as I know. However, that is not the same as saying that the effects of this historic change of c would not be DETECTABLE today.

And, I'm sure that you would not want to claim responsibility for the embarrassing moves your side has made either (such as the 'discovery' of cro-magnum man or neanderthal man based entirely on archaeological unearthing of one single pig's tooth!).

Hoo boy. You might as well just paint a big sign on your forehead that says "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#cromagnon
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#neandertals

And, I'm sure that you would not want to claim responsibility for the embarrassing moves your side has made either (such as the 'discovery' of cro-magnum man or neanderthal man based entirely on archaeological unearthing of one single pig's tooth!).

Hoo boy. You might as well just paint a big sign on your forehead that says "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#cromagnon
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#neandertals

And, I'm sure that you would not want to claim responsibility for the embarrassing moves your side has made either (such as the 'discovery' of cro-magnum man or neanderthal man based entirely on archaeological unearthing of one single pig's tooth!).

Hoo boy. You might as well just paint a big sign on your forehead that says "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#cromagnon
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#neandertals

For example, it is a fact that astronomers measure what has been called a "red-shift" in the starlight they see in their telescopes.

True

There are several interpretations which could equally apply to the data we have.

False (note 34)

It is assumed that for dating purposes for example, the rate at which this radioactive decay proceeds for each element, commonly termed "half-life" has always been what we measure it to be today. That may be a valid guess, but it is not something that we really do know.

Bullshit

In short than a good neutral textbook with no dogmatic axe to grind would present the scientific facts we do observe and measure. Only after the facts are presented should ALL the interpretations and assumptions, clearly labeled as such we presented. Of course, realistically that will never happen.

What you're leaving out is that you want your interpretation presented as equally plausible as any other interpretation when in fact it is not. They only "neutral" text you would accept is one that omits substantial information in order to present the illusion that YEC is not thoroughly debunked

If memory serves me correct, Behe's books were completely and utterly shredded in the recent Kansas court case.

I doubt you will, but you can start your reading here:

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

The grandparent was probably referring to Edwards v. Aguillard.

Your science lessons obviously didn't include scientific terminology - it makes things much easier if we understand what is meant by the terms.

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural

A proposed explanation for evidence is a hypothesis. Conjecture is, well, conjecture.

well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

A scientific theory is a model that explains facts, and is supported by evidence, and has been tested. Moreover, evolution refers to both a theory and a fact. So my comparison was spot on.

The truth is that science was never designed to testify for historical events.

Well first of all, I disagree that we can't say anything about the past - historians do this all the time, as do courts of law. Clearly we can decide that some things are very likely to be true, and this is the case for evolution. The methods we use to judge such evidence can themselves be tested.

And evolution can be tested, because it (including speciation, before you draw out the micro vs. macro distinction) can and has been observed.

Historical testimony, that is something that creationism has much more of on it's side.

Historical testimony is still something that involves science (how reliable are witnesses? Are the things they claim likely to be true?) Historians and archaeologists use scientific methods - indeed, archaeology is a science. What on earth do you think counts as historical testimony for creationism, dare I ask?

If someone claimed he wasn't the murderer, when all evidence pointed towards the fact, are you telling me you'd trust his word, because you think evidence can't be obtained for the past (other than "historical testimony", which for some reason you think is different)? What if two people claimed you committed a crime, when there was no evidence for it, or even evidence against it - would you think the court should find you guilty?

I said plenty in my post, you just have your god goggles on. Creationists argue against evolution for a huge number of reasons. The origin of life is just one of them. Like I said, no FACTS support creationism, plenty of testable evidence support both evolution and big bang. That doesn't make them fact, that makes them the best explanation for what we know and can observe. Please entertain us with this prophecy that supposedly provides support. Phophecy is not fact.

There isn't a single thing in the bible which has any significant evidence of actually having happened. In fact, the most significant of the fairy tales, such as we all coming from 2 people, the flood/ark, etc have compelling evidence in science that they in fact didn't happen, or rather, if they did they left no evidence that such 'real' events would have left. Short of pulling a bag over your head and calling all science wrong, your superstition carries no more weight than following any other fantasy literature. Also, statistically makes more sense? Are you serious? That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. You are saying that explanations that can be observed, tested, and confirmed are inferior statistically to your bibles collection of nonsense that without exception requires the complete abandonment of logic, evidence, and reason? Wow, that defies belief there. You truly are a true believer.

Please, educate yourself on evolution. You keep echoing the same creationist drivel that shows complete ignorance of the subject. That referring to "just randomly combining like most 9th Grade Biology teachers hold happened". Here is some help on that particular subject.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html
No doubt that site addresses a number of your other bullshit creationist arguments as well.

Interesting article. Though, as I read it, it seemed well.... no tvery well thought out. Actually, it wasn't very convincing. Mostly because it kept saying things like "could only have".... with no mention of why that could be, and essentially makes its arguments using very bad analogy.

That doesn't make him wrong though, so I figured maybe a little reading on just what are "polonium halos" from another source... oh wait... this theory has been roundly refuted and discredited: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

but surely you knew that.

there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.

Its not scientific, but its not the the Halos article that passes my bullshit filter. The problem here is, lets say this was true, lets say polonium DID cause these rings (as highly unlikely as it is).... scientists start asking questions and asjusting their models to the new data.

This guy seems to just be taking his old idea (creationism) and finding the facts that fit it, and then calling it proof. Its not just unscientific, its intellectually dishonest.

-Steve

I'd like to see an article that clearly shows evolutions FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER as a fact, with evidence. I'm not talking about CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES.

OK, here you go. From talkorigins.org:

• A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
• Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).
  A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker's sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).
• Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

Many other examples there, too.

See here for the issue of falsifiability: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html .

And evolution has been observed, including speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It is not something that just happened in the past - but even if it did, that doesn't mean we can't determine what happened. By your logic, determining who committed a particular crime is not scientific. And does this mean that overwhelming evidence that a particular person committed the crime, should be treated on equal grounds with a made up story about someone else who did it - a story with no evidence, and even evidence to disprove it? Of course not.

See here for the issue of falsifiability: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html .

And evolution has been observed, including speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It is not something that just happened in the past - but even if it did, that doesn't mean we can't determine what happened. By your logic, determining who committed a particular crime is not scientific. And does this mean that overwhelming evidence that a particular person committed the crime, should be treated on equal grounds with a made up story about someone else who did it - a story with no evidence, and even evidence to disprove it? Of course not.

See here for the issue of falsifiability: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html .

And evolution has been observed, including speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It is not something that just happened in the past - but even if it did, that doesn't mean we can't determine what happened. By your logic, determining who committed a particular crime is not scientific. And does this mean that overwhelming evidence that a particular person committed the crime, should be treated on equal grounds with a made up story about someone else who did it - a story with no evidence, and even evidence to disprove it? Of course not.

> what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.

Speciation has been observed.

The principle of evolution is not only a theory, which withstood the test of time, but one, which has been proven to work in other fields.

Your allegations about science are unfounded as well. Contrary to your claim, science very much rewards people who find out new things and overturn old hypotheses. In practice, I admit, scientists will only listen to people who show a basic understanding of what they are talking about. Of course the "thinking has to be kept the same" - rational, sound, critical, and not ignoring unwelcome evidence. I don't think you have a better mode of thinking...

The bare-bones scientific fact is that we observe radioactive decay. We observe, that elements that decay in this manner exhibit a characteristic time in which half of a given pile of such an element is transformed. This is termed its half-life.

You're painting this picture as if we don't have any idea how radioactive decay happens and that its simply assumed that it's constant. The constancy of relevant radioactive decay rates is a consequence of both theory and observation, not simply looking at piles of radioactive material and saying, "Well, isn't that neat?" There are a few relevant facts that this ignores:

1) There are different types of radioactive decay. Suggestions of physical phenomena that affect one type do not necessarily affect others. If you can come up with a neat way to make one type of decay "break", you'll still have to explain how your phenomenon affects the others.
2) Decay rates can be derived from quantum mechanics, not just observation. The fact that those calculations match with observation is telling--it strongly supports the mathematics behind them. If quantum mechanics as we understand it is true, tweaking decay rates would change the decay rates of different isotopes differently. I know of no evidence that actually supports this having happened.
3) Observing certain natural phenomena (e.g. supernovae) give us insight into decay rates in the past.

This is much more than a shot in the dark. If you really want to suggest significant changes in half lives, especially changes that make the universe look significantly younger, there is a lot of explaining to do.

To enable an object to be dated by this method, two things have to be known. The first is, how big was the pile of atoms when the radioactive decay began. The second is, how fast the radioactive clock ticks. We can measure this one easily enough.

This is not true for all methods. Isochron dating methods such as Pb/Pb do not require the initial quantity. I would be interested in your explanation for the collinearity and slope of the points in the first graph on this page. There is a very parsimonious explanation that syncs up with our known physics and understanding of the universe quite well: the asteroids in question are about 4.55 billion years old.

There is evidence, that the so-called "constants" which govern the atomic behavior, including radioactive decay are not at all invariant.

Such as?

The intrinsic properties of space MUST affect these constants, so they are no longer constant. The properties of space itself have changed many orders of magnitude in a highly non-linear manner, over the time the universe has been in existence.

I'm very interested in a clearer explanation of this and how it applies to decay rates.

Some of this in advance written history, called prophecy, is re-told in today's newspapers and the nightly news on CNN.

I'm also interested in this. In my experience, prophecies only seem obvious in retrospect. If you're willing to apply the same standards to all post-hoc prophecies, I suspect that you'll find a surprising number of divine prophets.

You could go over to the talk.origins web site and read their FAQs, like Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, Age of the Earth, and Isochron Dating.

You could go over to the talk.origins web site and read their FAQs, like Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, Age of the Earth, and Isochron Dating.

You could go over to the talk.origins web site and read their FAQs, like Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, Age of the Earth, and Isochron Dating.

You could go over to the talk.origins web site and read their FAQs, like Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale, Age of the Earth, and Isochron Dating.

Yep, so if you demarcate science by (among other popular things) falsifiability, then Darwinism is *not* science.

Read, and be enlightened:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

At best, it is crackpot pseudo-science.

Oh. Never mind.

Experimentally verify any of the following hypotheses as false, and you've falsified creationism.

The problem isn't with those hypotheses as you've formulated them. The point where creation science ceases to be science is the point where they start appealing to magic to explain away the problems with your testable hypotheses. For example, an explanation for the slope and collinearity of the points in the the top figure here would be required for the "young earth" hypothesis to remain valid. If there is no compelling explanation, or the explanation amounts to "a magic being wanted it to be that way", you're pretty much sunk as a scientific hypothesis.

I'm with you. I'm all for playing the "let's test creationism" game as loudly and publicly as possible. Once they start appealing to magic or simply ignoring devastating points, though, I'm taking my ball and going home.

Your example does not show the change of one specie into another. THAT is what Evolution is - not your example of adaptive (to diet) changes.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were working with your own private definition of the word evolution. I'll try to be more careful.

Genetic change in humans can be as simple as children being better looking than their parents. This doesn't make them another species (though some parents might believe their children are another species for other reasons).

The word you're probably looking for is "speciation" in this case. If that's what you're looking for, start here. If you disagree, you should start by providing a very clear definition of what you're looking for and why you think we should observe it if evolutionary theory is true.

It seems the scientist who described the observed adaptations are stuck on proving Evolution instead of understanding the (adaptive) capacities of a species and have thus credited Evolution for what what is merely the natural ability of the E. coli specie.

You don't "credit evolution" for changes in genes over time. Evolution is changes in genes over time. You're going to have to share your definition of evolution with the rest of us, because it's really not apparent from your posts.

>Your example does not show the change of one specie into another. [...]After 24,000 generations they are still E. coli

The biological definition of species - an interbreeding population - breaks down in the case of asexually reproducing organisms like E. coli. For examples of speciation involving sexual organisms, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html It's an open question whether or not a speciation event would have occurred if you had put a sexually reproducing population through the hurdles these E. coli got sent through. I would say that, if it didn't, it probably wouldn't take many more generations to send them over the edge.

>THAT [speciation] is what Evolution is - not your example of adaptive (to diet) changes.

Nope, evolution refers to both speciation and adaptation.

>Ultimately, the article you linked to, shows that what they are doing is not the observation of one specie becoming another because they "...forced them to evolve back into [their original] form..."

In that particular case, the scientists forced them back into a similar phenotype, which might have very dissimilar genomes. They originally started with 24 strains of "wrinkly spreaders," and the difference in the amount of time it took them to evolve back into a "smooth form" phenotype strongly implies that these "wrinkly spreaders" were very different genetically despite their similar phenotype. This could mean that these new smooth forms are also very differently genetically.

In other words, different populations can have very similar forms/phenotypes, but still have very different essences/genomes.

>what is merely the natural ability of the E. coli specie.

It sounds like what you're describing is Lamarckism. If these E. coli showed phenotypic adaptations while remaining the same genetically, then you would be correct. Unfortunately for you, these scientists found many examples of genetic change, probably only limited by the time and cost of doing genetic assays. The only "natural adaptive ability" that these E. coli required was the ability to make errors during genetic replication. Natural (or in this case, artificial) selection took it from there.

>Your example does not show the change of one specie into another. [...]After 24,000 generations they are still E. coli

The biological definition of species - an interbreeding population - breaks down in the case of asexually reproducing organisms like E. coli. For examples of speciation involving sexual organisms, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html It's an open question whether or not a speciation event would have occurred if you had put a sexually reproducing population through the hurdles these E. coli got sent through. I would say that, if it didn't, it probably wouldn't take many more generations to send them over the edge.

>THAT [speciation] is what Evolution is - not your example of adaptive (to diet) changes.

Nope, evolution refers to both speciation and adaptation.

>Ultimately, the article you linked to, shows that what they are doing is not the observation of one specie becoming another because they "...forced them to evolve back into [their original] form..."

In that particular case, the scientists forced them back into a similar phenotype, which might have very dissimilar genomes. They originally started with 24 strains of "wrinkly spreaders," and the difference in the amount of time it took them to evolve back into a "smooth form" phenotype strongly implies that these "wrinkly spreaders" were very different genetically despite their similar phenotype. This could mean that these new smooth forms are also very differently genetically.

In other words, different populations can have very similar forms/phenotypes, but still have very different essences/genomes.

>what is merely the natural ability of the E. coli specie.

It sounds like what you're describing is Lamarckism. If these E. coli showed phenotypic adaptations while remaining the same genetically, then you would be correct. Unfortunately for you, these scientists found many examples of genetic change, probably only limited by the time and cost of doing genetic assays. The only "natural adaptive ability" that these E. coli required was the ability to make errors during genetic replication. Natural (or in this case, artificial) selection took it from there.

>Neither argument has been proven correct.

Science doesn't prove anything, it merely demonstrates. Proofs are for mathematicians and philosophers.

>And by correct I mean one animal/plant/insect changing from it's past form to a completely different present form.

1) Despite what TV SciFi will tell you (Star Trek, etc.), one animal can not evolve within it's own lifetime. Even in punctuated equilibrium, evolution happens over the course of thousands of generations.

2) Depends on what you mean by "species" or "form." The intellectuals of Darwin's day didn't believe in speciation for the same reason they didn't believe in alchemy - because it involved a change in "forms." But now we define elements by the number of protons contained in the nucleus, which can be modified. (That's how we make plutonium.) We've also redefined species. We now understand it in terms of reproductive isolation. Darwin said that if you asked the cattle breeders of his time if an Angus shared a common ancestor with a longhorn, they'd laugh at you - they're two different forms. Same thing with dog breeds - surely a dachshund and a St. Bernard are of different forms, right? Yet an Angus and a longhorn are of the same species, as are dachshund and St. Bernards. (Although that last pair is verging on a ring species...)

And, yes, speciation events (i.e., a single interbreeding population diverging into two different populations that are reproductively isolated) have been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

> The statement that some dinosaurs evolved into Birds is NOT science either, it's just Darwin's Theory.

1) Theories are the very heart of science. 2) Darwin may have created the theory, but a gigillion others have banged on it since. For example, Darwin didn't know about genetics, and genetics has been banged on so much that Mendel would no longer recognize it. 3) IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist, I'm just a philosopher), but: a) birds share several anatomic features with the fossilized dinosaurs we've found - they're more similar to dinosaurs than they are to mammals or lizards b) we've found fossils that are transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds c) a genetic analysis strongly suggests that T. rex's closest living relative is the chicken. Therefore: Along with the evidence we have for the Neo-Evolutionary Synthesis in general, we can abduct (not *deduct*!) that birds are descended from dinosaurs. (That is, birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, and we would classify the common ancestor as a dinosaur. Classification above the species level is somewhat arbitrary, and even species are fuzzy around the edges.)

> Teach both theories with evidence.

1) There is a great diversity in Creationist accounts - Old Earth vs. New Earth, just to give one. By contrast, there is a strong consensus among evolutionary biologists. There are disagreements among evolutionary biologists, but these are molehills that get turned into mountains because scientists want to spice things up a bit in their papers. They might argue about gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, but they can certainly agree on things like whether the Earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. The Creationism "debate" isn't between two theories, it's between one theory and a very large sheaf of half-baked hypotheses/conspiracy theories.

2) While I won't argue that a given Creationist hypothesis isn't testable, I will say that, without exception, they have been disconfirmed by the available evidence down to an absurdly infinitesimal probability. (I'm going with a Bayesian account of theory confirmation here.) It's not logically impossible for one of them to be true (Quine-Duhem Thesis), but they'd require some drastic ad-hockery in order to bring them into line with available evidence. We're talking

>Neither argument has been proven correct.

Science doesn't prove anything, it merely demonstrates. Proofs are for mathematicians and philosophers.

>And by correct I mean one animal/plant/insect changing from it's past form to a completely different present form.

1) Despite what TV SciFi will tell you (Star Trek, etc.), one animal can not evolve within it's own lifetime. Even in punctuated equilibrium, evolution happens over the course of thousands of generations.

2) Depends on what you mean by "species" or "form." The intellectuals of Darwin's day didn't believe in speciation for the same reason they didn't believe in alchemy - because it involved a change in "forms." But now we define elements by the number of protons contained in the nucleus, which can be modified. (That's how we make plutonium.) We've also redefined species. We now understand it in terms of reproductive isolation. Darwin said that if you asked the cattle breeders of his time if an Angus shared a common ancestor with a longhorn, they'd laugh at you - they're two different forms. Same thing with dog breeds - surely a dachshund and a St. Bernard are of different forms, right? Yet an Angus and a longhorn are of the same species, as are dachshund and St. Bernards. (Although that last pair is verging on a ring species...)

And, yes, speciation events (i.e., a single interbreeding population diverging into two different populations that are reproductively isolated) have been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

> The statement that some dinosaurs evolved into Birds is NOT science either, it's just Darwin's Theory.

1) Theories are the very heart of science. 2) Darwin may have created the theory, but a gigillion others have banged on it since. For example, Darwin didn't know about genetics, and genetics has been banged on so much that Mendel would no longer recognize it. 3) IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist, I'm just a philosopher), but: a) birds share several anatomic features with the fossilized dinosaurs we've found - they're more similar to dinosaurs than they are to mammals or lizards b) we've found fossils that are transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds c) a genetic analysis strongly suggests that T. rex's closest living relative is the chicken. Therefore: Along with the evidence we have for the Neo-Evolutionary Synthesis in general, we can abduct (not *deduct*!) that birds are descended from dinosaurs. (That is, birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor, and we would classify the common ancestor as a dinosaur. Classification above the species level is somewhat arbitrary, and even species are fuzzy around the edges.)

> Teach both theories with evidence.

1) There is a great diversity in Creationist accounts - Old Earth vs. New Earth, just to give one. By contrast, there is a strong consensus among evolutionary biologists. There are disagreements among evolutionary biologists, but these are molehills that get turned into mountains because scientists want to spice things up a bit in their papers. They might argue about gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium, but they can certainly agree on things like whether the Earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. The Creationism "debate" isn't between two theories, it's between one theory and a very large sheaf of half-baked hypotheses/conspiracy theories.

2) While I won't argue that a given Creationist hypothesis isn't testable, I will say that, without exception, they have been disconfirmed by the available evidence down to an absurdly infinitesimal probability. (I'm going with a Bayesian account of theory confirmation here.) It's not logically impossible for one of them to be true (Quine-Duhem Thesis), but they'd require some drastic ad-hockery in order to bring them into line with available evidence. We're talking

There is some detectable C-14 in some coal (and oil). AFAIAA nobody is absolutely sure where it comes from, there are several possibilities (or a combination of more than one).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

But even for the coal with the highest levels of C-14, releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere will dilute the existing C-14 in the atmosphere, not increase its concentration.

Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons caused a significant spike in C-14 concentrations in the 50s/60s.

Tim.

Whoops, here was going to be a link, but I forgot to include it. It's late, and I have to go to work in the morning...

The Theory of Evolution is a book by English evolutionary biologist [wikipedia.org] and geneticist [wikipedia.org] John Maynard Smith [wikipedia.org], originally published in 1958. It serves as a general introduction to the eponymous subject, intended to be accessible to those with little technical knowledge of the area.

What do you suppose the eponymous subject refers to in that context?

The article on "evolution", by the way, clearly states "This article is about evolution in biology. For other uses, see Evolution (disambiguation) [wikipedia.org]." In other words, "evolution" applies to biology among other things.

Yes. You've successfully shown that the word "evolution" is used in other contexts. A few things:

1) The fact that it's used in multiple contexts doesn't support your attempt to take a bunch of them and roll them up into one theory. No such singular theory exists, and attempting to paint it as such is nothing more than equivocation.
2) Did you actually look at the other uses? Apart from the Doctor Who novel and the Boyz II Men album (are those part of "evolution" as you define it?), there aren't a lot of definitions that apply to what you're claiming. Certainly, there are scientific theories that use the word "evolution" in the common name, but that doesn't mean that you can paste them all together. A mathematician would certainly slap my hand for complaining about "the uniqueness theorem" without specifying context.
3) Note that the Wikipedia article "Theory of evolution" redirects to the definition of biological evolution. This is not coincidence.

Maybe I'll try that, but I doubt you're right.

I highly recommend it. You'll typically find that scientists referring to other theories with the word "evolution" in the name will name the whole theory or process, like "stellar evolution." They tend to postdate The Theory of Evolution. That name was taken.

I'm willing to say that's a fair assessment, but it's not just those people. It's also the people who randomly say something about the universe being 10 billion years old, because they heard something about it in the news, and if I have the forthrightness to say "actually, I don't believe that" their response is (more or less) "Wow, you're dumb. Everyone believes that."

I wouldn't say "Wow, you're dumb. Everybody believes that." However, I might suggest that you probably don't have a good explanation for why the graph at the top of this article happens to plot to a beautifully straight line and that until you do, your opinion on the age of the universe, solar system, or planet is probably not as credible as the one mainstream science offers.

Evolution states that we came from a "big bang".

To quote an old post here, "You must think that we're discussing Darwin's other great scientific work, On the Origin of Spacetime." Evolution says nothing of the sort. Evolution is a theory in the field of biology.

Before this big bang, everything in the universe existed as pure energy, then for some reason, space and time came into existence and all of the matter that we see today is a result of this sudden, massive transformation of energy into matter. My question is this: First, if matter didn't exist before energy, then what triggered the "bang"? Next, for the bang to happen, laws of physics would need to be in place. So did the laws of physics always exist? did energy always exist? did time always exist, or as I said before, was time a result of the big bang? How did this explosion trigger the creation of space?

This type of thing really needs to be studied in depth. Reasoning it out by intuition alone will simply not get you anywhere.

Next, has there been any documented case in which a non-living collection of inorganic matter spontaneously became a living organism? Has this foundationally important step ever been observed, measured, or repeated? Even if I take the Big Bang by faith (is there a better description of it?), how did we end up with life?

The fact that evolutionary theory works is independent of the origin of live. Evolution is about change over time. Life could have gotten here by some fascinating chemical abiogenesis, or it could have been popped in by magic. Evolutionary theory holds either way. Again, you're pulling in ancillary topics that aren't really relevant because you're assuming that evolutionary theory's job is to replace your entire belief system about the universe. It's not.

For example, every form of life would need a means of reproduction in every generation of its existence. If there was a problem with this reproductive system at any point, it would be the end of the species since it is incapable of producing offspring.

A problem with the reproductive system would be a problem for that particular individual organism, not for the entire species. Can you describe a more specific example?

Along a similar vein, every organism has a means of sustaining itself. In most cases it's either photosynthesis, digestion, or chemical processing (as we see on the floor of the deep sea). How could the process of turning light into usable energy have been done gradually?

Have you actually looked into this to see if any work has been done, or are you simply assuming that it's a gap in humanity's knowledge because it's a gap in yours?

In the case of mammals, how could the process of digestion have been done gradually?

Digestion in its many forms predates mammals significantly. If you're asking how an organism with no digestive system at all could develop a modern human digestive system, it wouldn't. Nobody has suggested anything of the sort.

A more glaring example of this would be the Bombardier Beetle, whose defense mechanism, if incomplete, would result in the immediate death of the organism.

Again, have you actually checked this claim? It's simply not true.

The difference between myself and many of those who believe in evolution is that I have absolutely no problem admitting it.

I hate to be overly harsh here, but I think that another major difference is that you don't seem to have done much research into the actual data behind the theory of evolution.

Radiocarbon dating is a form of radiometric dating - that's a fact. :) The three radiometric dating methods I'm aware of (Carbon, Potassium & Uranium) all start out with the notion that we know isotope ratios at a given point in history. But what good is counting half-lives if you don't know the starting quantity or ratio?

Two words: Isochron dating. Uranium-lead is a good example. Please explain the collinearity of the points in the first graph here. What assumptions are problematic in this example? Please be specific.

And even though radioCARBON dating is pretty consistent with written history, archeologist almost always give deference to the carbon date, even when multiple written references say otherwise.

What is your take on the tools used to calibrate carbon dating methods over time? Ice cores, tree rings, etc?

If you recognize that there is no such magical line--just differential selective mating and hybrid infertility that eventually reaches approximately zero--then there are plenty of speciation events that have been caught in the middle. Again, talkorigins.org lists a pile of these. Macroevolution has been caught at pretty much every stage between no speciation and complete segregation, and though the 100 or 200 years (when people have been paying enough attention to collect sufficiently accurate data--not 2000 (what are you thinking?!)) are a very short time to observe much change in reproductive isolation, changes have been observed (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

If someone could some me some kinds of cross species link that show how we derived one from another then that would be a different story.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but there are numerous examples of species which are technically able to mate and create offspring, but do not - and thus speciation is occurring right before our eyes. Here is one page with a few examples.

But in my view evolution is like saying that you make apples into seed weed in a matter of a few million years. That to me just seems a little too far fetched.

You don't need a million years even. Just a few thousand can produce a radical change. Teosinte is the ancestor of corn. Corn is very, very different from teosinte - to the point where there was a lot of debate about whether or not it could even be related. And yet, man has bred corn from teosinte in a few thousand years.

I beg the question, if man did not invent computers and software, would have it come into existence in a billion years?

It's not very likely. Computers are not DNA based, or even organic. Further, they don't reproduce and are not considered "life". It's possible that another species, given a billion years, could evolve intelligence, abstract thought, and toolmaking as we did and create computers.

The act allows teachers to "use supplementary textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Teachers cannot teach ID or creationism. In fact, the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion." Additionally, Joe Cook, director of the ACLU for Louisiana has said that the act is constitutional as written. This bill is probably totally unnecessary, but simply promotes objective thinking about all scientific topics. Now that is scientific right?

But what is to stop a teacher, or some backwoods school board, from sneaking in supplementary textbooks and other materials from Answers in Genesis, or the Discovery Institute? Both AiG and the DI would argue that their materials "critically analyze" evolution; but scratch below the surface and you'll see that old time religion being preached. The usual creationist falsehoods and misrepresentations of evolution being presented as fact (eg. "there are no transitional fossils", "evolution can't produce new information in the genome", etc.).

Back in 1981 Arkansas passed Act 590, which required 'balanced treatment' of creationism and evolution in Arkansas public schools. A section of that bill read:

SECTION 6. Legislative Declaration of Purpose. This Legislature enacts this Act for public schools with the purpose of protecting academic freedom for students' differing values and beliefs; ensuring neutrality toward students' diverse religious convictions; ensuring freedom of religious exercise for students and their parents; guaranteeing freedom of belief and speech for students; preventing establishment of Theologically Liberal, Humanist, Nontheist, or Atheist religions; preventing discrimination against students on the basis of their personal beliefs concerning creation and evolution; and assisting students in their search for truth. This Legislature does not have the purpose of causing instruction in religious concepts or making an establishment of religion.

Act 590 made references to 'academic freedom' and religious neutrality. But it was ruled unconstitutional. Any competent judge can see through the language of the law and see what the true intent is.

The plaintiffs just need to get some supporters of the Louisiana law on the stand, sooner or later they will have a "Bill Buckingham moment" and the truth will come out that this law has a religious purpose.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Evolution has considerable amount of data to support it, hardly the lack of evidence you seem to believe it is. and lets not kid ourselves, the religious right won't have something as trivial as "fact" to influence their argument or belief.

An observation is some type of measurement. We could call this a fact if we like, but observation is better because is acknowledges the role of the observer in a way that "fact" does not.

Perhaps, but I think we also need the word "fact" as a subtely different meaning, to refer to something that we have overwhelming observed evidence for, but which we did not observe directly.

E.g., it is a fact that the earth is more than 3.6 billion years old - this is based on observed evidence, but we obviously didn't have someone observe the earth existing all of this time. Similarly, it is a fact that World War One took place - and it will still be considered a fact even when every last "observer" alive at the time is no longer alive.

"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Back in 1981 the Arkansas state legislature passed an 'equal time' law, Arkansas Act 590, which similarly had all sorts of language in it about 'academic freedom', equal time, etc. The law had a section in it that read:

This Legislature does not have the purpose of causing instruction in religious concepts or making an establishment of religion.

Of course that was a lie. And during the trial the judge saw right through it. He ruled Act 590 unconstitutional.