Slashdot Mirror
Evolution - Beyond the Popular Science
In Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution Carroll undertook an ambitious project - nothing less than to update George Gaylord Simpson's classic works from the 1940s and 50s, Tempo and Mode in Evolution and The Major Features of Evolution. The result is a "broad picture" overview of the processes of evolutionary change, centred on paleontology but attempting to integrate that with the rest of biology. Patterns and Processes is aimed at students of paleontology and specialists in that and related fields, but it should also be considered by general readers: while it goes into quite involved details, they are always used to illustrate broader ideas and there is solid motivation for persevering with them. It is especially recommended to those unhappy with the lack of substance in popular debates over the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which Carroll critically appraises. Patterns and Processes is effectively illustrated with line-drawings and figures and has a useful glossary.
Carroll begins with an overview of current problems in evolutionary theory and in particular of the "gap" between short- and long-term processes in evolution, and between paleontology and other disciplines. He also discusses the choice of the vertebrates as a testing ground (which is picked up at the end of the book in a brief comparison with invertebrate metazoa, prokaryotes, protists, and vascular plants). He then provides an overview of theories of evolution, at the level of populations and species, from Darwin through Dobzhansky and Mayr to Gould and Eldredge.
Two chapters present some essential background. The first looks at evolution in modern populations, in particular at rates of evolution among the Galapagos island finches, where significant directional change does occur and doesn't appear to be correlated with speciation. The second considers some of the limitations of fossil evidence, the irregularity of fossilization and other stratigraphic issues and problems with the dating of events and processes and the measurement of rates of evolution.
Next come two case studies. The rates and directions of change among late Cenozoic mammals are examined with an eye to testing theories of punctuated equilibrium and species selection. Many lineages exhibit stasis "of particular characters and character complexes," but in none is there stasis of all characters and phyletic evolution is common. And "no major trends involving a complex of character changes can be demonstrated as having resulted from species selection." In contrast, the rapid radiation of the cichlid fish of the East African Great Lakes provides some evidence for species level evolution, and a bridge between macroevolution and microevolution.
Four separate chapters focus on related disciplines, in an attempt to reunify different fields. Taxonomy influences our basic concepts of evolutionary patterns as well as providing tools for discovering them; phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) has been particular influential, offering "an objective way to compare patterns of large-scale evolution from group to group and within groups over time" and forcing reconsideration of traditional naming schemes in the vertebrates. With evolutionary genetics Carroll presents some basic models, focusing on quantitative traits; he touches on the enigma of low selection coefficients and on genetic constraints.
Turning to developmental biology, Carroll surveys heterochrony, homeobox and Hox genes, and the phylotypic stage. He then applies this to the origin of craniates and skull and axial skeleton development, but above all to tetrapod limbs, to their origins, developmental processes, morphogenesis, and evolution. He also considers the integration of developmental biology with the evolutionary synthesis and its possible connections with macroevolution. Other constraints are imposed by physics: Carroll considers vertebrate locomotion in water, in the air, and on land, and touches on membrane transport, heat transfer, and size scaling.
Three chapters then look at large scale structure and patterns in evolution. A chapter on "major transitions" focuses on movements between environments: the most detailed study is of the origin of birds, but others cover the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, mosasaurs, and whales. Critical periods saw rates of change exceeding those in ancestral and descendant groups, but not those observed in modern populations; more importantly, directions of change were sustained for long periods. Turning to radiations, Carroll treats at length the Cambrian explosion and the radiation of early Cenozoic mammals: occurring in intervals of 10 million years or less; these differ from other, slower radiations into already occupied environments and "can certainly be attributed to factors that were not considered by Darwin". At the largest scales, vertebrate evolution has been irregular, driven by "forces" that can't be extrapolated from those operating at the level of populations and species: among them sustained evolutionary trends, continental drift, and mass extinctions.
Among Carroll's overall conclusions:
"Evolutionary forces that can be studied in modern populations are sufficiently powerful to account for the amount and rate of morphological change throughout the entire course of vertebrate history."
and
"Transitions between environments governed by major differences in physical constraints do not necessarily require special evolutionary processes."
but at the same time
"Large-scale patterns of evolution cannot be fully explained by processes that are directly observable at the level of modern populations and species.... the patterns, rates, and controlling forces of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by either Darwin or Simpson."
And macroevolution is essentially historical, with each major event "unique and worthy of detailed study in its own right".
Patterns and Processes in Vertebrate Evolution combines clear exposition of details - and what appears to be an encyclopedic knowledge of vertebrate history - with a willingness to tackle big questions. Sometimes Carroll seems to take both sides of debates, but that is a reflection of respect for complexity, not of unengaged fence-sitting. The result is a useful overview for students or outsiders; it also seems to have established itself as a minor classic within the field.
You might want to purchase Patterns and Processes in Vertebrate Evolution from bn.com or read some of Danny's other evolution book reviews. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Yesterday I found out my boss is a devout 7-day creationist. I myself am an athiest, but I did not admit this to her for fear of my job :P Anyway we entered a heated discussion about the origins of the universe, and frankly I provided more evidence through the big bang theory and our information about human vs. ape genetics that she simply back into the "faith" arguement. This article will give me the fodder I need to lay her flat on her ass the next time discussion of such things comes up. Thanks slashdot!
Hey, dude, if you honestly need to believe in a God that will sentence you to eternal torture in order to keep yourself from raping, stealing, and killing, then .. wow. Please, by all means, continue to believe. My personal concern is for the safety of my family, and if your beliefs will prevent you from harming them, then please hold on to them.
Some of us have gotten past all of that and have realized that you don't need a vengeful deity holding a metaphorical shotgun to your head in order to behave in a moral and ethical matter. But if you're not there yet, then please do whatever it takes, dude.
With all of this talk about order and Disorder, perhaps someone should attempt to define order or disorder, without being circular in their definitions.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
As an example closer to home take a look at common dogs. I can bet that some biologist in the far future (say 100 million years from now) is going to find all of these dog fossils, especially in pet cemetaries, etc. and conclude that these were all different species of animal. A chihauhau vs a Saint Bernard? the same species? come on now.... ;-)
This loose grey zone is probably part of the problem. and I can see them trying desperately trying to find the intermediate forms in the fossil record. They will have just "mysteriously appeared"
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Evolution is always promoted as being founded on scientific facts that were collected by Darwin, and this was why it gradually gained acceptance in the universities, schools etc. This book demonstrates that it was promoted for many years before Darwin, his Origin of Species only appearing at the right time.
The ground work for the acceptance of evolution was laid by Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology. He quickly befriended Darwin when he returned from the Beagle voyage and the circumstantial evidence is that it was he who suggested to Darwin he should write about evolution. Darwin had no thought of it before then.
Throughout the famous Beagle voyage, Darwin was far more interested in geology than biology. He did NOT think of evolution whilst visiting the Galapagos and seeing the various beaks of the finches. This was pointed out to him by the ornithologist entrusted with his collection AFTER he had returned to England. He made many such (false) claims in his "biography" which he wrote late in his life.
No morals, no absolute truth; no right or wrong.
Wrong. Morals are created by human beings.
The moral code YOU apparently believe in was created by a band of savage goat herders in the Middle East thousands of years ago, not by some spook. The spook part is just to delude the ignorant.
If you want to see the consequence of applying the moral code of savage Middle Eastern goat herders to the modern world, I direct you to Ground Zero, New York, New York.
You think Christanity or Judaism are any better? Try actually READING your Bible, rather than thumping it. Start with Numbers Chapter 31.
It may give you a whole different perspective on the presumed raping, killing, and murdering that you allege will be committed by nonbelievers.
Your moral code sucks. It was designed for ignorant savages. If you adhere to it, that makes YOU an ignorant savage.
The concepts of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are basically arbitrary distinctions invented by people who are forced to admit that biological evolution does, in fact, happen, but cannot accept that twin-nested hierarchies of evolutionary common descent are the source of the biodiversity on Earth.
Let me give you an example. If I stand on one side of my living room and take tiny toe-to-heel steps, I will reach the other side of my living room within a minute or so. If I stand on one edge of my town and do the same thing, I'll reach the other side in a day or so. If I stand in New York and do the same thing, I'll reach Los Angeles in a few hundred years (just a guess, really.)
The point is this: in each of the three examples, the results are increasingly visible and dramatic, but the process is exactly the same. You would not, I presume, suggest that I was "micro-walking" in my living room and "macro-walking" across America. Some people seem to think that evolution is some sort of directed Black Magik. It's not. Biological evolution is variation in the gene pool of a population over time. That's it. That's all it is. The fact that its results are more visible and dramatic over time should not be particularly surprising to anybody.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I guess the real problem is that science demands theories that can be tested for falsehood..
Consider that I can substitue ANY imagined creature for God and end up in the same place.
Faires created species.. is as valid as God.. or..Zeus.. No I can't show you a fairy.. Nor you show me God.. It's an impasse.
What you end up with is what is sometimes called 'God in the cracks' That is, anything that we can't explain yet, is assumed to be the part that God did.
As soon as we fill in that crack with science.. God must move to the next problem.
Chuck
Without god, there are no moral absolutes, goes the argument. And without moral absolutes, why, what's to prevent all sorts of immorality?
Therefore, attempts to debate the theory of evolution with "christian" fundamentalists, or their fellow travelers, is pointless, because you are challenging their entire world view, not objectively evaluating competing scientific theories.
FWIW, almost all thinking non-fundamentalist Christians, as do most educated people regardless of religious belief/nonbelief, realize evolution is a scientific reality.
And we, the vast majority, further realize that evolution doesn't imply anything about morality, or the existence of god, one way or the other.
And therefore there is no reason to waste time in high school science classes teaching theories like creationism that are neither theologically nor scientifically interesting.
Darwin certainly did not claim to have discovered evolution. The evidence for evolution of some sort was accepted by a large number (though far from all) scientists and interested people for some time before Darwin - amongst them, Darwin's Grandfather, Josiah Wedgewood, so the idea was far from new.
What Darwin did was find an explanation for evolution - a mechanism by which it occurred. Undoubtedly Lyell believed in, and pointed out to Darwin, the operation of evolution. And the ornithologist certainly pointed that all the finches he had brought back (and carelessly jumbled up) appeared to be descended from a singel ancestor. His book is titled "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", and it is the "Means of natural Selection" bit that is original.
To assert that Darwin claimed to have discovered Evolution is like claiming that Columbus discovered the Atlantic. Columbnus dicovered how to cross the atlantic, and Darwin discovered hopw to explain Evolution.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Well, part of the reason the idea of a billion-year old Earth came about was that explanations of how the geological record fit with a young (7,000-10,000 year old) earth became increasingly clumsy and klugy, like trying to fit 80 pounds of lard in a five-pound can. So a very literal 7-day creationism, which, from the info from the Genesis geneologies would require an earth about 7,000-10,000 year old, wouldn't stand up.
,can refer to a period longer that 24 hours, it is questionable whether an ancient Hebrew reading Genesis would have naturally read "yom" as some long time period, rather than the default interpretation of "yom" as a regular old day.
A 7-day creationism that allows for a creation "day" to be longer than 24 hours has a better chance, but one would still have to account for things like dinosaurs, which don't quite fit even in a stretched-out biblical creation timeline. Also, while the Hebrew word for "day," yom
Offhand, I'd say that 7-day creationism doesn't quite square with the current evidence.
For all you fools out there who think evolution is a proven fact, please read a book called Not By Chance! by Lee Spetner, an information theorist from MIT who has studied evolution on the side since the 1960's. He proves rigorously that Neo-Carwinian evolution could not have happened -- or rather is about as unlikely as tossing 10,000,000 coins at random and having them all come up heads (yes, that is "possible", I guess).
On second thought, don't bother. Your mind is made up and you wouldn't want to be confused with the facts. And Spetner offers no religious alternative, so you cannot attack him as a religious fanatic, so what strawman argument will you fall back on instead?
Just for the record, I do not personally believe in "creation science", nor do I think that science can explain how "creation" occurred, but I am amazed at how completely fooled Slashdot readers are by the completely discredited neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. If Darwin were here, I think he'd slap you all upside the head.
RussP.org
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Order cannot happen without disorder, beings can't just become more orderly beings by themself
That's not true! Why just the other day, I cleaned my apartment. Bingo, order from disorder.
Seriously, you have a pretty bad grasp of the 2nd theory of thermodynamics there. Entropy must increase only for a closed thermodynamic system. Earth is not such a system, because we have a constant influx of energy in the form of light and heat from the Sun. Perhaps you've heard that the Sun is the source of all energy used by life on Earth; it is this energy that allows the order of complex life to arise from chaos of the proverbial primordial ooze.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
This seems like a good forum to get responses to a theory I've had in my head for about a year now.
Given a mass of matter, floating in space, its atoms interacting with one another making random combinations. Eventually, over billions or even trillions of years, every possible combination of molecular structures will be created from these random interactions.
What if one of these random structures coming out of this process naturally attempts to create copies of itself, using the resources around it? What if this structure doesn't make perfect copies, but creates copies that are the closest it can come to an exact copy with the resources around it? Exactly at what point does this molecular compound become life?
I'm not looking for flames, just good arguments why this can't happen. It's the most reasonable explaination of the source of life that I have come up with.
If you do actually study The Bible, you'll see that the Isrealites never commited genocide without a direct order from God, as punishment on a completely corrupted race.
Apart from obedience to a direct order from God to carry out His judgement, the Isrealites could not have accomplished these military conquests within the bounds of the Moral Law. To do so would have VIOLATED their morality by presuming to pass judgement in God's place.
As for the events of 9-11-01, what makes you think those attacks were compatable with Hebrew morality? Don't assess a morality by those who don't adhere to it. The same goes for the Crusades. That whole series of atrocities may have happened in the "name" of Christianity, but not within any Christian morality or obedience to God. Don't mistake the Pope for God.
All things short of a methematical 'proof' in science is theory, including gravitation and even cause-and-effect itself. The word 'theory' in science has an entirely different connotation to what it has in common parlence, and in particular to the way you use it here.
What you are equating evolution with is a hypothesis, not a theory, and the two are very different. Or, put another way,
The theory is not did evolution happen. We already know evolution did and does happen, there is a mountain of factual data underscoring that point. What is theoretical and debated (by scientists) is what the mechanism is by which primates became human and dinasaurs became birds. The fact that it happened is denied only by those with a religious agenda, whose fragile beliefs are challenged by the factual data collected by thousands of researches all over the face of the planet.
And I know this non-fundamental Christian believes God could have used evolution to create us.
And I know this Athiest believes aliens could have seeded the Earth with proto-human life, but until I see some sensible evidence indicating that such might be the case, I'm not going to pay the notion much heed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Next you'll ask why God allows us to hurt each other by sinning. Briefly, because this is a necessary component of the creation of creatures with free will. We have the free will to make choices. Those choices can impact the world around us. Also, there is a reason why we are given free will.
The problem that the day-age people have is that the order is all wrong. Fruit trees before fish. Plants before the sun.
That is kinda strange as all religions believe in creationism. However, people of most other religions seem to realize the distinction between faith-based religious beliefs and scientific facts like evolution. Also, this debate seems to be the hottest in America alone. Why is that?
I don't want to hurt anyone's sensibilities, but history is filled with instances of the Christian church condemning the scientific world and trying to regulate what the scientists say.
I am interested in knowing the views of all you calm people out there as to why evolution is so vigorously attacked by America's religious Christians alone and not so much by other religions/countries?
All your favorite sites in one place!
Of all the topics that come up regularly on Slashdot, this is certainly the least productive. I doubt that anyone is interested in hearing anything other than their own comfortable beliefs. For those that don't mind being challenged, here is a discussion from a radio program called The White Horse Inn entitled "How Can I Believe in Creation when Evolution is a Scientific Fact?" I expect it should make everyone unhappy, but perhaps it will make some on this forum rethink their positions - at least about Christians if not on the evolution/creation debate.
For those who might be interested in the differences between the various creation theories in the Christian community, there is also part 1 and part 2 of a debate on the subject.
All three are RealAudio, about 25 minutes long.
Was everyone who was killed corrupt?
Even the infants?
Or do you believe that genocide can be considered justice?
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Yes, of course it happened. The question is not whether it happened or not, but how it happened. You seem to be assuming that the mere fact that it happened proves that it happened without any intelligent design. In other words, you are confusing your premise with your conclusion. That's alright, evolutionists do it all the time.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Macro evolution as described in the big bang theory says simple cell or single cell organisms evolved gradually over billions of years into the animals and people we have today.
Micro evolution is like the finches that are so often discussed. They were move from one part of the world to some island. Their beaks changed shapes and there were other changes. Another type is the mice that were moved that they say have developed into a "different species".
I have no problem with micro evolution. Animals (and probably people) will change biologically to some extent if given the proper conditions. This is no proof for macro evolution. The finches are still birds and the mice are still mice. Since they are not breeding with a large a gene pool as before, they change over time. They will have LESS genetic information. Which is a loss (duh). Macro evolution states things go from least complex to more complex. Single cell to animals we have today. It can't be proven that the changes in the finces prove this aspect of Macro evolutoin.
It seems like evidence for macroevolution on the changing species level is what is missing. The cichlid fish is an interesting case study but from my minimal research on the matter it does not seem to provide that needed "bridge". It still seems to be firmly in the realm of microevolution.
I wish this review has discussed how this book compares to other books written on this topic, say A.S. Romer's _The Vertebrate Story_ (4th. ed., Chicago, 1959) or the well-known works of Stephen S. Gould.
If nothing else, a suggestion for future reviews.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I hate to intrude into the creationism vs. evolution debates which seem to be dominating this discussion, but I actually have a _different_ question. We all know that high school and perhaps introductory college texts on general biology have often become seriously watered down and error-ridden. Stephen Jay Gould wrote one amusing essay on how a particular error (something to do with _Eohippus_, which isn't named _Eohippus_ anymore I guess, but I like the old name) has propagated itself, unchecked, from text to text.
Frankly I don't trust many high school or freshman level textbooks in _any_ subject. So I'd like to know: can anyone recommend a scholarly, well-referenced textbook, aimed about about the twelfth-grade level, in biology, in particular one which does a good job of covering evolution? Any particular authors and titles stand out? Any good resources to reviews and critiques of popular science textbooks?
The popular works have their place, but they're all deficient in some way. Gould is too scattershot--he's an essayist, really--and Dawkins is too polemical (frankly I think Dawkins has become an unmitigated jackass in recent years, and I'm not a creationist.)
hyacinthus.
It's always possible, for instance, to claim that the Universe just sprang into being, and has been evolving as it is supposed to ever since. Sure. There's no problem with that, it's perfectly consistent, and impossible to disprove. It's also a meaningless statement, from a logic point of view.
Let me put it this way: what's the fundamental difference between instantaneous creation and subsequent evolution and evolution straight from the beginning? The difference is whether or not the ten billion years that it took for the Universe to get to this point actually happened. However, from our point of view, this doesn't matter - the atoms in our body and everything else move just as if the Universe had been here for 10 billion years, and so whether or not it "actually happened" is a statement without a heck of a lot of merit. To us, it did happen: we evolve, and live, as if the Universe is 10 billion years old, and Earth is 5 billion years old, and the Sun is 6 billion years old. Asking whether or not it "actually happened" is not a question for man, science, or anyone in this Universe, because whether or not it "actually happened" is only answerable by something outside this Universe.
So, the basic answer is: of course it is possible. The problem is that there's no reason to believe it - it's not important for the Universe whether or not it was "created" five seconds ago, or ten billion years ago. If you want to believe that, sure, go ahead. Ask God when you die.
But most importantly, don't argue against the "created 10 billion years ago" theory. That's being arrogant - it's claiming that you know something that only God could know.
Shannon entropy is not the same as thermodynamic entropy. As I said before, it's common to confuse the two.
Even Maxwell's demon example shows this. The demon sits in a box, decreasing entropy. But what work does the demon do to decrease that entropy? None, from a thermodynamic perspective. Any information work that the demon does has no correspondance to work in the thermodynamic system.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Talk to Jaynes.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Maybe Jaynes and Lambert should arm wrestle to find out who wins!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
> I bet it's easy to go through life thinking you're a biological mistake. No morals, no absolute truth; no right or wrong. It's all random chemical interactions in your brain. Rape, steal, kill. No reason not to if this is all there is.
And how is divine creation any different? In a divinely created universe it's perfectly OK to commit genocide against a tribe competing with yours for the possession of a land you think your god promised to your people, or to fly a passenger plane into a building, if that's what you think your god wants you to do.
There is no morality in religion, just self-justification. I'll take my chances in a secular universe.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Yes, of course it happened. The question is not whether it happened or not, but how it happened.
FYI, scientists aren't keen on "random chance" as an explanation of anything either. The whole history of science can be understood as an investigation of why lots of really interesting stuff doesn't happen by "random chance".
In a universe ruled by randomness there wouldn't be any regularity to which direction something moves when you drop it; the theory of gravity explains why you get a result contrary to "random chance".
In a universe ruled by randomness there wouldn't be any regularity to what happens when you mix two chemicals in a beaker; the atomic theory explains why you get a result contrary to "random chance".
In a universe ruled by randomness there wouldn't be any pattern in the fossil record; the theory of evolution explains why we see a pattern contrary to "random chance".
In a universe ruled by randomness there wouldn't be any relationship between the genomes of different species, families, orders, etc; the theory of evolution explains why we see a relationship contrary to "random chance".
Scientists know darn well that things are very surprising if you consider them to be the result of "random chance". The difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists want to know why things are the way they are rather than a random smear of matter-energy.
The whole probability argument is a red herring that serves no purpose other than to excuse not looking for an explanation. You can't disprove biology with a probability argument any more than you can disprove physics, chemistry, astronomy, or any other branch of science with it. Arguments involving probability and information are, as they say, "not even wrong".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nevertheless, entropy is a statement of volume of phase space. If you can define your system well enough to understand what your phase space is, you can define an entropy. Once you do that, you can come up with analogues to temperature. An article in (fer cryin out loud) the Journal of Chemical Education which has only hand-wavy refutation of some things which have been defined and explained in a careful, logical, scientific and mathematical fashion is singularly unconvincing.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
I think we're violently agreeing now.
If you can define your system well enough to understand what your phase space is, you can define an entropy.
That's the exception that I mentioned above. The information system has to match the thermodynamic system. My original objection was to the generalized idea that informational entropy was exactly the same as thermodynamic entropy. In the case of dirty room vs. clean room it's not, unless you properly define the states of dirty and clean, which you did.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
> Maybe I am coming at this the wrong way, but can someone explain how evolution would even get off the ground? If we start near the beginning (if there is such a thing) where we have a single-celled organism (how that organism came about we can leave to another discussion), how did it become multi-cellular?
I am not very expert on this, but I know that there are unicellular organisms in the world now that group themselves into "multicellular" colonies, somewhat blurring the distinction between unicellular and multicellular. And things like sponges are only a short step beyond that.
> With the little biology I know, single-celled organisms reproduce by creating an exact copy of themselves. Without sexual reproduction, then there is no change in the next creature that comes out. That leaves us to random mutations to somehow create more complex living multi-cellular organisms.
I think that's correct. Notice also that even sexually reproducing species would simply reshuffle existing genetic material, if there were no mutations. So evolution ultimately depends on mutations, regardless of species' erotic habits.
> Now I may be wrong, but if I remember from my biology book, mutations are most of the time harmful (if not always -- especially dealing at this level of simplicity, mess with anything and it will probably die).
Actually, I think most mutations are neutral. Regardless of that, the relevant point is that some are "good", and that natural selection leverages them by giving them preference in the construction of the next generation. Think of natural selection as a filter, and remember that there can be a lot of qualitative difference between a filtered substance and the unfiltered substance it was derived from. (Think of all the rock that comes out of a diamond mine, vs the little bag of raw diamonds at the end of the process.)
At any rate, genetic algorithms demonstrate very clearly that random mutations can contribute to evolutionary "progress". I have seen a plot somewhere on the Web where someone had an A/B comparison between running a GA with mutations turned on and then running it again with mutations turned off, and there was an astonishing difference in the performance of the two runs.
The key to understanding evolution is not to focus on the mutations, but to focus on the process that exploits those mutations. To paraphrase the US Marines' recruitment slogan, "All we need is a few good mutations."
Remember, Darwin published the basic theory while Mendel was still playing gardner, and we didn't have any clue about genetic mutations. But the process of leveraging variation was still discernable in nature.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
While we're recommending books to each other, you might want to try Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for some info on the subject of how science works - it's not the last word, but it serves as a good intro. I'll give you the ten-cent synopsis: just because someone comes along with a possibly plausible-sounding hypothesis, doesn't mean it's correct.
If Spetner does turn out to have a point, evolution would be changed fairly dramatically, but it is not really replaced, since crucial basic aspects of the theory remain unchanged. Saying that you are "amazed at how completely fooled Slashdot readers are" is a little like saying that you're amazed at how completely fooled people were by Newton's theory of gravity, right around the time Einstein first published his papers on General Relativity.
Slashdot readers are wise to reserve judgement on hypotheses like this one, until the affected discipline has had a chance to properly debate, test, and possibly assimilate the ideas.
Spatner's statistics often remind me of the statistics used to determine the probability of alien life in the universe: the results are all over the map, depending on who's doing the calculating and what their assumptions are. You could accept almost all of Spatner's logic and simply change a few assumptions, and come to a completely different conclusion.
An additional and unfortunate problem with Spetner's work is that the nature of the hypothesis is such that almost every crackpot religious group seems to have jumped on it as proof that "evolution can't be right", despite the fact that if anything, the hypothesis might in fact help to produce a more sophisticated theory of evolution. Blind religious crackpottery doesn't help in having a reasoned debate on the topic.
"Order cannot come without disorder. Period."
Well, that statement is true, but it's a rather sloppy way of putting it. How about: "For a closed system, the total amount of entropy must increase or stay the same".
When you consider the Earth as a thermodynamic system, it is not closed. It has a vast energy input from the Sun, and a waste energy output in the form of heat re-radiated into space. Thus, it is trivially easy to increase the amount of order locally on Earth. No, really, you can try it yourself! Empty your pocket change onto your desk. Now separate the dimes from the nickels and quarters. Voila! You have increased Order locally. Congratulations.
Again, this is no thermodynamic paradox; you had to exert energy to rearrange the coins; some of this energy was wasted as heat, such that the total entropy of the entire system increased. It's the same principle that allows crystals to grow spontaneously from liquid, and trees from acorns, and any other apparent local reversals of Entropy. All you need is energy. It's easy.
I'm sorry if that's too complicated; I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms. Just because something is complex, however, does not make it untrue.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
> But even a single cell is ridiculously complex; even a small strand of DNA is amazinglycomplicated. How did these form in the first place?
That's not the question I was answering, but the answer is probably essentially the same: bootstrapped from simpler precursors.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So how do you explain all the living, ordered, things on the Earth?
Anarchists never rule
I wasn't trying to sound arrogant or all-knowing. Often I hear people talk (or write in forums) about biological evolution as if it were a single event of distinct speciation, that maybe happened once or twice some millions of years ago, when the monkeys turned into people, when in fact it is nothing more than "...a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html). I was just trying to make the point that evolution is an ongoing and observable phenomenon, not a single event that turns species A into species B (though this may happen occasionally, according to some) or some wild speculation by a bunch of heathen scientists to disprove the existence of <favorite higher power>. I'll admit I'm not a evolutionary biologist, but I am extremely fascinated by evolution, so I tend to read a lot of the current literature, and have what is best called a well-informed layperson's understanding, so I try to at least make sure we are all talking about the real theory of evolution as we understand it today, not some uninformed assumptions about what it is, as the original poster was trying to do. If someone wanted to discuss with you that they thought computers were evil because they are powered by little demons inside (please refrain from Wintel jokes), before continuing the discussion you'd probably want to bring them around to see that computers are mostly just a bunch of tiny electronic switches and wires.
I agree. We only know what we know, and we'll probably never know everything, but that shouldn't stop us from accepting today what we know as true today, until something proves it false, or not so much false, but maybe as less-encompassing. Newtonian physics is as valid today as it was in 1700 or so. Gravity didn't stop working when Einstein put forth his realtivity theories, but we now know that classic Newtonian physics only explains a subset of the universe. However, if you want to plot the course of a rocket, you still only need to know what Newtown knew.
"frankly I think Dawkins has become an unmitigated jackass in recent years, and I'm not a creationist"
Agreed and true of me as well.
Dawkin's recent popular examples and computer models have been so flawed in their basic assumptions that I just have to shake my head. Yet he, and many others, seem to treat even a basic critique of such models as "Creationist Propaganda".
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Evolution is, in fact, losing credibility as people begin to look at it critically. Witness the fac that the journal Natural History, hardly a bastion of creationist thought, recognized the validity of Intelligent Design enough to give three ID proponents (Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Jonathan Wells) an unprecedented page and a half each to present thier arguments in favor of ID in the April 2002 issue.
The Behe argument is really nothing more than a complaint that knowledge of biochemical evolution is not well understood so far. A typical "Gaps equal God" argument.
He suggests that because nobody knows what the intermediate (simpler) versions of complex biochemical processes are, that intermediate versions likely are impossible, and thus they must have appeared as-is in their full, complex forms.
This of course is silly. Often "good enough" simple chemical processes are later replaced by more complex processes section by section (WRT "chain"). Just because we don't know what these earlier simpler forms are right now does NOT mean that they *cannot* exist.
Behe confuses "don't know" with "cannot".
If we did not have the Flying Squirrel as a living example, the evolution of bat flight might be harder to imagine, for example.
Table-ized A.I.
The Behe argument is really nothing more than a complaint that knowledge of biochemical evolution is not well understood so far. A typical "Gaps equal God" argument.
:-)
He suggests that because nobody knows what the intermediate (simpler) versions of complex biochemical processes are, that intermediate versions likely are impossible, and thus they must have appeared as-is in their full, complex forms.
This is not at all true, and pretty much proves you've not read what he's written. Behe's entire point is that there *is* such a thing as irreducible complexity, meaning that there cannot be any "intermediate versions" to find, for the simple reason that they cannot exist, since any partial or intermediate state would result in a non-functioning organism that could not survive. Some things simply had to be created all at once, whether you like the worldview implications of that or not...
If we did not have the Flying Squirrel as a living example, the evolution of bat flight might be harder to imagine, for example.
And if this doesn't illustrate the shallowness of evolutionist argument, I don't know what does. I'm pretty darn sure that no evolutionary scientist is willing to stand up and say that bats evolved from flying squirrels. Perhaps they evolved from flying snakes instead?
(Valid question: if evolution is as strong as it must be to support your argument, why would you argue against bats evolving from snakes? The reason is that even evolutionists recognize that the transition from reptile to mammal is effectively impossible, so they take pains to paint it as happening only once. See Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles for more on this topic...)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
OK: you're assuming that astrophysicists are accurate to 50%? You have a lot of faith - usually if I ever got within a factor of 2, I'm happy. Being perfectly serious, though, I usually use 10 billion years because that's the order of magnitude that it is. With regard to the other two ages, blah, should've said 4 and 5.
Anyway, your last statement amused me: if we ever found evidence that the Universe was really created just recently, would God pop out of existence like in Hitchhiker's Guide? Heh.
Some things simply had to be created all at once
For someone flaming evolutionists for making unsupported statements, that's a pretty big claim. What had to be created all at once? How do we know that? A long time example was the eye, but that's pretty much been shattered.
If we did not have the Flying Squirrel as a living example, the evolution of bat flight might be harder to imagine, for example.
And if this doesn't illustrate the shallowness of evolutionist argument, I don't know what does.
Wha? Read what was written. Flying squirrels were given as an example of similiarity, not evolution. An example of an intermdiate step.
See Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles for more on this topic...)
Which asks questions like:
How did a reptile with one vagina, that reproduces by expelling hard-shelled eggs, become a marsupial?
There are snakes that give live birth, so the concept of a group of reptiles developing live birth isn't at all implausible. Bifurcated/multiple vaginas is also a common mutation, even in humans.
Behe's entire point is that there *is* such a thing as irreducible complexity, meaning that there cannot be any "intermediate versions" to find, for the simple reason that they cannot exist, since any partial or intermediate state would result in a non-functioning organism that could not survive.
He has not *proven* that there cannot be an intermediate form. He is simply removing links from the current chain instead of testing all posible substitutions. IOW, he is doing only DELETE in his tests and not REPLACE.
He has not invalidated all possible combinations, but JUST the ones that he personally tested.
And if this doesn't illustrate the shallowness of evolutionist argument, I don't know what does. I'm pretty darn sure that no evolutionary scientist is willing to stand up and say that bats evolved from flying squirrels.
I am talking about the flight *mechanism* and NOT the species itself. You missed my point entirely. I could have used birds as an example, but they are too different from mammals to easy visualize a similar transformation.
Table-ized A.I.
The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution says that all life evolved as the result of random mutations combined with natural selection. The driving force is therefore random mutation. Natural selection can do nothing except select the random mutations that happen to occur. The point is that no intelligent design is necessary, according to the theory. Spetner argues conclusively that this model does not cut it. RTFB.
Oh, I know. It's an unfair debating tactic to simply refer you to the book. OK, fine. RTFB.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
Anyway, I wrote "dismayed" in the above paragraph because so many Christians I've known accept the King James as just as much the "perfect" inspired "word of God" as the works it was translated from.
My sister, who's now a minister and missionary, about six years ago when she was in with a more, shall we say, "unlearned" crowd, tried to convince me that "logos" meant primarily and exclusively "Word of God". I tried to explain to her that logos was a very, very important word in Greek; and it had several related meanings. She didn't really believe me. This is the problem with religion-based teaching -- it's very narrow but goes to pains to disguise its narrowness so the the student has a tendency both to think they know more than they do, and to misapply what they know.
And this describes so-called "creation science" pretty accurately.
Quick answers:
Basically, our copy of the record seems to be missing millions of species.
Fossilization is very rare. But since the fossil record is the weakest evidence for evolution, it's not that important.
The second problem I have with the theory is the lack of evidence for mutations increasing the amount of information in a gene pool.
1) Why do you think there has to be "increasing information".
2) What do you mean by "information" anyway?
> The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution says that all life evolved as the result of random mutations combined with natural selection. The driving force is therefore random mutation. Natural selection can do nothing except select the random mutations that happen to occur.
Yep, that's pretty much it, though a biologist would probably insist on a footnote about genetic drift, sexual selection, and maybe symbiosis. But in general I think the mutations are critical, since otherwise there would never be any new material to work with.
> The point is that no intelligent design is necessary, according to the theory.
Yep. It's also what we see with genetic algorithms: mutation and natural selection have amazing powers.
> Spetner argues conclusively that this model does not cut it. RTFB. Oh, I know. It's an unfair debating tactic to simply refer you to the book. OK, fine. RTFB.
Unfortunately, creationist arguments have such a dismal track record that I have to be motivated before I invest the time it takes to read one of their books. (You wouldn't expect me to read a book on astrology without some solid motivation, would you?)
As I mentioned in another post, I have recently read a review that claims that Spetner used a bait-and-switch tactic when it came to the rub in his book. I was wondering whether any of the creationists pushing his book in this thread have actually read it and understood it well enough to give me a summary of his main argument, and to defend it if I think I see a defect in the summary. Maybe you? I'll undertake to read the book if I see a summary of the main argument that's both concrete and error-free.
In lieu of that, I'll stick with what the review says, based on nothing more than past experience with creationist arguments. For that matter, it's not at all uncommon to hear a creationist push this or that source of "proof" for something, and then discover that the creationist in question hasn't even read it, or didn't understand the subject matter if he did read it.
Forgive my cynicism toward your cause, but I've heard hundreds of creationists give thousands of arguments, but I've never seen one that would stand up. Most can be discarded due to logical fallacies, before you ever get to the biology. Can you convince me that Spetner is different from, say, Walter ReMine? [Lurkers, please visit the talk.origins newsgroup, find the thread with initial subject line "Weasel program", trace it down to where ReMine joins in and changes the subject line, and read the rest of the thread from there. Pay particular attention to his "I didn't say that" assertions, and then ask yourself why I might be just a wee bit skeptical about the claims of creationist authors posing as subject matter experts. Then come back and tell everyone what you found in the thread.]
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The first problem I have is the small number of species in the fossil record. Evolution predicts the past existence of millions of species and we've only got thousands of different fossils.
First, I suspect you underestimate the number of fossils we have by several orders of magnitude. Second, there's nothing in the ToE that predicts that fossils will be preserved.
Question: How many people lived in the Roman Empire in 31 BCE? Question: How many of those people's bones could you find if you spent the rest of your life looking for them? Question: How many would alien archaeologists be able to find if they started looking 100,000,000 years from now? Question: How much harder would it be to find the fossilized remains of an organism that died on a mountainside, in a jungle, swamp, or shallow sea, and was left to be scavenged and/or rot without a protective burial like so many Roman citizens benefitted from?
The sparsity of the fossil record is completely unsurprising. In fact we can explain many of the gaps by examining the evidence that tells us what the environment was like at certain places and times where gaps exist.
But focusing on the gaps is a red herring. What paleontologists need is an explanation for the astonishing fossil evidence that we do have, and that is completely incompatible with all pre-scientific notions of the world's history. The theory of evolution was conceived, in part, to meet that requirement.
> The second problem I have with the theory is the lack of evidence for mutations increasing the amount of information in a gene pool.
I see this argument a lot, but I've never seen it presented by anyone who offered a definition of "information" to go along with it. You can't make arguments about constraints on the increase or decrease of some quantity that you can't measure, and you can't measure a quantity that hasn't even been defined.
The best I can do with this handwavy argument is assume that you are talking about Shannon information. It turns out that there are several ways of applying Shannon information to biology, though AFAIK none of them tell us very much useful.
Possibly of more concern to evolution deniers is the fact that it can't be taken for granted that Shannon information does increase during evolution. Shannon information boils down to predictability, with "more predictable" being associated with "less information". The maladaptive genetic meltdown that creationists predict as the result of mutations would actually be an increase in Shannon information!
Sorry, but handwavy arguments are useless for refuting theories - let alone for understanding the universe.
> In contrast, mutation doesn't have any real world examples (again, that I know) of increasing the information of a gene pool over time. Basically, I'm saying that it is not sufficient to say that randomness 'just works'. At least show me how it works or, failing that, at least provide an actual working experiment showing randomness adding information to a system.
Have you tried this?
> Sorry for the long winded response but I really think there are some fatal flaws in the present theory. Anyone who knows better, please feel free correct this post.
Hopefully I've done so with as little flamebait as I can manage on a tetchy topic. The important thing to realize is that biology, like geology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc., has gone far beyond the naive intuitions that bronze age mythology was founded on, and unfortunately it's now really difficult for amateurs (including myself, BTW) to offer cogent criticisms of the various theories, because there's just so damn much you need to know before you can even comment on them intelligently.
Sadly, the hail of criticisms of the theory of evolution is politically motivated, and I suspect that the majority of critics understand that they're completely incompetent to criticise the theories of other fields. With few exceptions it's loyalty to their religion that makes them forget to think when it comes to evolution. But don't mistake the political controversy surrounding the ToE for a scientific controversy. That issue was settled well over a century ago. Those who continue to hurl poorly framed arguments against it need to realize that vehement ignorance can never invalidate a scientific theory. Those few better informed parties who spend their time rallying the masses with bad arguments need to pray that there isn't a place in hell for liars.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I will grant you that there is much data concerning evolution. What I disagree with is the interpretation of that data. Most evolutionary theory ideas do not hold up to simple logical scrutiny, much less scientific scrutiny. Yes, science will eventually straighten itself out in this regard, but in the meantime, many, many people will believe things that will later be shown to be false. Imagine the shock when some 25th century Galileo shows that evolution couldn't possibly be true!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As a Christian who Actually Thinks (TM) I am going to take issue with several of your arguments:
... waters rushed off the rising mountains into the new ocean basins. This rapid-erosion through still-soft, unprotected sediments formed the topography we still see today, in places like the Grand Canyon.
The Bible teaches that: God created the universe approximately 6000 years ago, ex nihilo (out of nothing) in six literal, twenty-four hour days.
That's one interpretation. The other is that God took six days to reveal the creation to Moses (who wrote Genesis) and took the seventh day off, more to let Moses rest and deal with the magnitude of information he had received, than to rest himself (Why does an omnipotent being need rest???)
That fails to explain (1) Dinosaur footprints on some of the layers. The flood took 40 days and nights, right? Well, there was a lot more walking on the sands than 40 days and nights would allow. In addition, there is no evidence of trapped water in most of the layers in that area, and there are also periods of organic development. It can be shown that most of the layers of sands were deposited in a dry climate, not a soaking wet one. In addition, the entire structure of the sand layers in Utah and Arizona is counter to an overwhelming flood. (The Paradox layer, composed of salt, is one.) I argue that the sands got there after any great flooding.
The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. (2, p. 26; 3, p. 22; 4, p. 15; 6, p. 35; 7; 9, p. 25) *Insufficient evidence to be positive (almost all estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.)
You are completely ignoring newer observations of the moon. I suppose you don't know that the moon has a very extremely thin atmosphere, do you? It does, and it's composed of lunar dust that gets kicked up from rocks pelting the surface. Some of that dust escapes into space. Larger inpacts have happened that were perfectly capable of ejecting LOTS of material into space.
You also ignore the fact that the moon has had great lava flows, before it finished cooling, and that would, of course, have covered up previous layers of dust.
At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveling for billions of years.
Conveniently leaving out the idea that the stars clusters aren't necessarily that old.
Saturn?s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.
Nobody has ever suggested that Saturn's rings must be billions of years old. All it would take is for the right comet/asteroid/whatever getting stuck there and being crushed by tidal forces.
The decaying magnetic field limits earth?s age to less than billions.
Not if the core is composed of fissionable materials. You are not paying kind to modern theories.
Since you are just pointing out speculations and things that ignore other associated circumstances, I'll pick and choose the ones I know most about:
The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
How long did it take to make the cave? Don't forget eartquakes. Also, the same process that makes stalactites can easily take them away when more water goes through them. Many caves don't have stalactite/stalagmite structures at all.
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were billions of years old, they would be much saltier than they are now.
There is also evidence that this is cyclical and related to climate cycling and oceanic conveyors.
Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. (7)
If it never melted in the meantime, and if deposit rates were consistent, and if the material of the airplane didn't tend to absorb more solar heat and therefore melt the ice around it and sink.
The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years. (1, p. 167; 3, p. 27; 6, p. 41; 7)
If people always reproduced at their current (alarming) rate, and there were no war or plague.
The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old. (1, p. 160)
Not necessarily correct. In addition, you forget that Homo spp. existed without keeping records before then, and many modern-era cultures still hadn't developed written communications on their own when Columbus stubled on America.
That's about it for me. I think I've refuted enough of the claims you took from obviously extremely biased sources.
You give Christians like me a bad name, and are of the same band that goes out on the street corners and tell people that we need to kill homosexuals because the law God gave to Hebrews said we should. I, like most Christians, am not a Hebrew, and am not bound to their law. I'm bound to Jesus' law.
Thanks for playing.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Are you exactly the same as your siblings? No, because you are the product of random mutations in your parents zygotes, which combined to produce you, a unique individual. Lather, rinse, repeat, over the course of the next million years. Will your decendants be exactly the same as you? Will they be taller, smarter, thinner? Short, fat and uglier? Who knows? Maybe only those with mutated immune systems, with built in immunities to HIV, malaria, small pox, ebola and carcinogens will be here to see it.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
I'm getting really sick of this.
Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist.
The main point I am arguing is, if it looks like a banana, smells like a banana, and tastes like a banana, it's likely a banana.
One thing is, the process of Creation isn't core to a Christian's belief. The Creation, as described in Genesis, is pretty much irrelevant. If it had been eliminated when the Bible was put together, you'd never have noticed. It's not a central issue, and questioning or invalidating the Creation doesn't destroy Christianity. Don't feel so threatened.
Remember, that the translations into English are not always accurate as they are in the original language, and in the original Hebrew, it is possible to interpret the description of the Creation in a way that indicates that it took six days for God to reveal the Creation to Moses, not that it took six days for God to do it.
But this really is about interpretation, ien't it? Keep in mind that many so-called Christians interpret the bible in very interesting ways.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
A long time example was the eye, but that's pretty much been shattered.
Don't be ridiculous, NO ONE has proposed a reasonable explanation for how an eye might even hypothetically develop, even assuming that beneficial mutations that create new genetic information exist, a crucial prerequisite for which there is no evidence at all.
Please explain to me, for instance, how a unique structure like the optic nreve unconnected to either the retina (that's not there yet, because it's still waiting to evolve rods and cones), or the brain (that has no visual cortex for processing any signals it might send) might stand even a snowball's chance in Hell of being selected as a beneficial mutation, and carried along as excess baggage for the geologic eras required for the rest of the mechanism to fall into place. To get around this problem, you need to have thousands of such impossibilities all resolve themselves simultaneously in order to produce an eye that might confer some advantage in natural selection.
You make a brash claim, one that I have yet to see any actual scientist claiming to be an evolutionist want to make in public. That's because it is totally indefensible.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
You make a brash claim, one that I have yet to see any actual scientist claiming to be an evolutionist want to make in public.
Dawkins claims to explain the evolution of the eye in several of his books.
a unique structure like the optic nreve [..] or the brain (that has no visual cortex for processing any signals it might send)
Nerves run everywhere in the body, and all lead to the brain. The brain is fairly adaptable - if one nerve starts giving different information, it can handle that through non-evolutionary (intra-creature) adaptation. Yes, as the eyes develop over geological time, the optic nerve is going to get larger, as is the part of brain it hooks up to, but that's exactly what evolution claims.
Just one question: Why did God create the universe so that all scientific applications and measurments make it *look* like it's billions of years old? The methodology is not broken, if the universe's basic mechanism is unchanged, e.g. the speed of light has always been the same.
If He created it looking that way, than for all scientific intents and purposes, this is exactly how it is. Billions of years old.
If I bring up the point that light that is millions of years old is reaching the Earth right now, you only have two ways to counter that statement.
1. The speed of light is not constant. This is not likely since the universe has to work within the rules that were set for it.
2. God created the light in-flight and made it appear that old. Scientifically, this makes the light *that old* even if, under God's frame of reference, it is newer.
So, explain?
Furthermore, on your literal view of creation and tying it in to the death and ressurection of Jesus, I will point out that nobody saw the Creation happen, but thousands of people witnessed the events in the New Testament, that's why it can be taken as literal.
You want to argue with Jesus? Jesus didn't have to read Genesis to know about creation; He was there! He is part of the Tri-Unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
That has no bearing on this. Jesus didn't touch on the topic of the Creation at all. Just like he didn't talk much about masturbation.
You must know the Bible, my friend. The best commentary and study aid of the Bible is the Bible itself. If you interpret the Bible through the worldview of Bible-haters, you are bound to end up with some "very interesting" interpretations
Actually, I used to be a fundamental creationist, too, and then I realized that fretting about how the world got here is really not worth it. Focusing on how we got here is really irrelevant, what's important is *why* we are here.
So tell me, do you think we should kill all the homosexuals in the world, or carry on God's command to destroy the infidels in the promised land?
-- or --
Do you think we should carry out Jesus' command against putting anyone to death as a punishment? ("He who has no sin cast the first stone.")
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Kymermosst, I hope I haven't misrepresented your position, but I'm concerned about your lack of faith.
I don't think I have a lack of faith. The reason I haven't asked the mountain to throw itself into the sea is, because I'm afraid it'll happen, and that scares me.
Just remember, we're on he same side, and I'm not out to convert people away from creationism, really. I just think that God made science, and also made a universe of laws, and that He makes those laws consistent.
The universe could only be 6000 years old, but it still *looks* billions of years old to science, and I don't think God would have it any other way. He made us to conquer the stars, and the better we understand them, the better our chances are at doing it.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.