Slashdot Mirror
Evidence of the Missing Link Found?
HUADPE writes to tell us CNN is reporting that scientists in northeastern Ethiopia recently discovered a skull that they think may be evidence of the "missing link" between Homo erectus and modern man. From the article: "The hominid cranium -- found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old -- 'comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human,' said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."
the flying spaghetti monster burried it there!
oO
-- ubersonic Kfz Versicherung
Hey, I think I need that and a Ball of Everlasting Golem for war epic 1.0. Oh, wait...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Really. Who cares. There's no teaching those people. Saw off the coasts and let the middle rot.
We should be interested in what these things discoveries can teach us. We should absolutely not be interested in trying to convince people who are unwilling to be convinced that this is just a link in a longer chain.
Evolution is at work. We leave them to themselves and we'll stick to ourselves, and in another 250,000 years we can eat them as either game or domesticated farm animals. God knows we don't have to selectively breed them for size.
"...between 500,000 and 250,000 years old..."
9 comments and there no "Earth os only 6,000 years old" comments yet. It's a good day.
Cue evolution vs. creationism debate in 5... 4... 3... 2...
Seriously, I almost dread stories like this for a couple of reasons:
- Talking about "missing links" puts the idea in creationists' minds that the evolution from apes to man took place in discrete steps, and that the fact that such "missing links" exist is proof that the Theory of Evolution is still just a hunch unsupported by proof. The fact is that the evolution from apes to man is a continuum, and there are a lot of fossils from lots of time periods along that continuum.
- Because this discovery is relatively recent, there's a chance that it still may turn out to be something other than what this article purports it to be. The real research is just starting. If it turns out that it's for real, it will be valuable insight into our species's evolution, though creationists will still refuse to believe it. If it turns out to not be an intermediary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, the creationists will accuse the scientists of everything from fabricating evidence to trying to pull a hoax as part of some weird conspiracy. The irony is that if it is discovered that this fossil is not the intermediary that it is suspected to be, it is scientists who will determine that, and unlike creationists who have a nasty habit of wanting to dismiss or even repress evidence, those scientists will let us know as soon as they find any inconsistencies, and the data will be there in the open for us to evaulate and form our own opinions.
I still say that this is the true test for whether a creationist can actually be open-minded or not. Ask them this one question:
What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true and that creationism is not?
If the answer is "None," as it is with almost every creationist I've ever met, then don't bother wasting your time arguing with them. Nothing you say will ever convince them, as they have deliberately closed themselves off to any kind of rational conclusion based on reality instead of blind faith.
The nice thing about the question is that it's not a double standard. There are several things that would convince me that creationism is true and not evolution. The most obvious would be if God came and spoke to me in a burning bush. I know that sounds facetious, but it's really not; that really would do it. Or, if compelling scientific evidence were to arise that evolution is a crock, such as discovery of a natural chimera skeleton. These are just a couple of examples, I'm sure there are many more.
I'm always amused at creationists who think that scientists are in some kind of dark conspiracy to push "the agenda" of evolution. What they don't realize is that if a scientist could discover some piece of incontrovertible proof that the Theory of Evolution is all just a bunch of hooey, he would undoubtedly be one of the most famous people in the world, winning all sorts of Nobel Prizes and recognition in his field. Proving the Theory of Evolution wrong would be one of the greatest, not notorious, scientific finds ever, on the level of Michaelson-Morley experiment that proved that there is no aether and set the stage for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and you'd better believe that any decent scientists would kill to disprove the Theory of Evolution.
I mean sure this sounds like an interesting find but let's not break out the party hats and kazoos just yet. Don't anomalies exist in all of this? I mean we have examples of anomalies today, ala MIDGET. Let's say a million years from now a civilization is studying our planet and finds the remains of a midget. The find in this article is like saying "we've found the midget and its the missing link!" Of course we know midgets have nothing in common with the speculated evolutionary path of humans.
..that happens over time. We just happen to dig up random fossils and see dramatic changes from the previous, older species. We forget that there were sometimes 10,000's or 100,000's of years in between the two species.
There isn't one "link" between two species. A situation where one day a parent gives birth to a dramatically different, more advanced offspring that is more evolved then the parents doesn't happen. And even if they was a missing link, the chances of that fossil surviving and us finding itwould be near impossible.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Nice headline but since the fossil record is an incomplete record, not just because we haven't found all the fossils out there but also because not all animals that have existed became fossils. So when looking at the tree of life it's perfectly fine to call any fossil we dig up a missing link. But then again it's also safe to say the missing link is still yet to be dug up and in fact never will be dug up. So it's a meaningless term. All this talk of the "missing link" is just rhetoric that keeps people studying and enjoying what is actually being discovered.
To a depressingly huge percentage of the US and UK population this will just disprove THE THEORY even more. They'll point out scornfully that you now have TWO missing links where previously you jst had the one. 'Silly scientists' they'll say to themselves, laughing ruefully as they prepare for their next bible meeting.
...or is "the missing link" found every couple of months?
(1) This is only one skull. Weigh in the likelihood that it could be just a deformity of something distinctly not a missing link.
(2) Evolution occurs through generation and elimination of lines. Is there even the slightest evidence that this is not from one of the extinct lines? It's fully possible (and likely) that the species in question doesn't even have modern living descendants.
(3) If it *looks* like a human....
(4) And for good measure, color me suspicious that the estimated age is on the same order of magnitude as the estimated error in that measurement.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Satan put it there to trick us.
said Sileshi Semaw, director of the Gona Paleoanthropological Research Project in Ethiopia."
'Sileshi' -> 'His Lies'
See? It's obvious that this man is the devil and is trying to test our faith with false fossils and his lies.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
I don't know why it took them so long to find it. I mean, you just need to look at me when I drag myself out of bed in the morning.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
am I the only one who giggles like a school girl when they read "homo erectus"?
So the mars face DOES depict the missing link!
.. and they dared calling me crazy.. Ill show them - Ill show them ALL!.
I knew it!
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
I'm replying to you because you sound like you might actually get something from this, but just so you know, most people don't care about the creationism vs. evolution debate. The two views are not contradictory. Understanding *how* something functions or was put together doesn't mean it wasn't made. That logic is akin to:
That's a really fallacious argument. I am fully capable of simultanesouly understanding how computers are made and still believing that Dell exists. Now, not to knock your or anybody else's intelligence, but most people are average, by the very definition of average. The problem is most people also think they're smarter than average, which is statistically impossible. So just face facts and realize that if you "get it", most everybody else probably does too. Your're arguing a debate that doesn't really exist.Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. Cheers.
It's Ballmer, right?
"The fact is that the evolution from apes to man is a continuum,"
Sure, but you should be careful. Saying it that way is a bit confusing too. It is a *branching* continuum. To say "from apes to man" is as much an oversimplification of the situation as saying a tree looks like a single stick. Life diversifies and spreads out during biological evolution, and extinction prunes the tree along the way. Many branches can exist at the same time, and it is challenging to find fossils from the branch points themselves (if you think of the sum total of wood in a tree with branches all the same diameter, the branch points are only a small fraction, and that's assuming you have all the wood from the tree preserved).
Exactly where this skull fits in is debatable, but the authors are reasonably confident is from a time when there are few remains known, close to the branch between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, so it is bound to be an interesting addition to the puzzle.
Anyone care to speculate where this will leave us in 50 years, let alone 250,000?
I clicked the link and all I got was 404 page not found, I guess it really is the missing link :)
No what I mean?
So you're an omniscient deity who doesn't "no" how to spell?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
The middle of the country feeds you
Yes, and if you had a server room temperature IQ, you'd have noticed that I in fact posit that in 250,000 years they will continue to do so.
Antonio, you want a burning bush? Well here it is. I am God. Yes, the One! No, really. Listen. I'm tired of trying to reach you through indirect means. (Jeez, how many students do I have to be??) Creationism is true. I created the world in 6 days. How? How do you think, peabrain? I spoke the word and it was created. It's like magic, but when you're omnipotent it's not such a big deal. No what I mean? No, of course you don't... No one really does.
Huh. I'd think an omnipotent and omniscient being such as yourself would have a better grasp of the English language.
But what do I know? I'm just a mere mortal and you are obviously God.
My blog
Even leading evolutionists no longer claim that evolution was a slow graduate change. Because, if it was a slow gradual change than there would be lots and lots of transitionary species as predicted by Charles Darwin. Darwin knew there was a scarcity of these transitionary species, but he predicted that a lot of them would be found.
Today there are only a few, disputable, examples of transitionary species. What the fossil record appears to show is that species appears suddenly, then they stay unchanged (or with minor changes) for the rest of their existance.
This is why evolutionists have now come up with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium basically states that when evolution happens, it happens so fast that it can't be observed. The punctuated equilibrium theory is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable.
"Another basic characteristics of life is the use of symbolic information. Symbolic information is part of the genetic code. There are no mechanisms by which symbolic information can arise through physical processes."
Say what?
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
I decided to pay Epcot a visit last night to kill some time and I went into Ellen's Universe of Energy where they talk about the Big Bang, the creation of the Universe, dinosaurs, petroleum, etc.
On the way out, a lady behind me was talking to her husband and said "what about Intelligent Design? They didn't cover that! You should email them!" and the husband replied "I think I will!"
Insert bad Zelda joke here.
if so it was a pretty funny parody.. nice one.
No need to insult people who go to church meetings there (no, I'm not one of them). The people who reject that stuff probably read as little scriptural text as they do scientific text. I'm sure there are a number of church-goers involved, but I suspect a lot of them would call you crazy for not believing in ghosts or aliens too, neither of which is a biblical thing.
So this missing link links Steve Ballmer with modern man...?
(http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html : lest we forget...)
Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
"The fact is that the evolution from apes to man is a continuum"
It would be a continuum if, if you selected any of the infinite points on the 'path' from ape to man, that point would be embodied in a real creature at some point in history. Since there are a finite number of generations between 'ape' and 'human', the process is necessarily stepped, not continuous.
We understand the situation you're complaining about, but making statements that don't hold up to basic logic isn't going to make creationists any more reasonable about their standards of proof.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
It is imposible to prove (or disprove) the existenec of God. There is no piece of evidence that will do it. But you don't need to prove God to show that evolution is wrong (and proving God will not be enough to show it either), you simply need to get evidence of changes that don't obey evolution's axioms.
That said, disproving evolution would be much more important than disproving aether. The entire biology field is based on this theory, and its axioms are mostly our definition of life. If evolution is wrong, there is something very wrong with math or there is something very different with life. Both discoveries could very well be classified between the most important discoveries of history.
Rethinking email
So far, I've only skimmed the /. comments, but i'm getting some pretty distinct bad feeling against christians here... I'd just like to make one thing clear; not all of us christians are into bible-thumping and trying to put the 'fun' back into 'funadmentalist'. I've always considered God to be a craftsman. mayber there's just the off chance that this '6000 years' bollocks is because humans can't count in terms of the infinite. sounds weird, i know, but hear me out. we've already managed to establish a decent and pretty reliable form of carbon dating, yes? comparing half-lives of fairly inert materials gives us a good idea of temporal scale, right? maybe the seven days that the bible mentions is God's idea of seven days, and not ours... i think it's fair to say that the first, say, 5 billion years of the planet's existence were the prototyping stages; the whole 'right, i've got the ball of rock, let's make it habitable' period. we're already starting to consider some of the problems that we'd come up against when it involves terraforming, so it's fair to say that if you include planetary formation into that stretch of time, it increases significantly.
i reckon that yes, God made us; there's got to be a motive force behind it all: i believe it's a sapient beneficiary; otherwise we're all gonna go nuts with loneliness, in the existential sense. however, i also think that evolution is a matter of prototyping, and the design process. not all of us religious types are unreasonable; some of us realise that our holy books may have started as the word of God, but they were ultimately recorded by Man.
just my two pence. if you're gonna shoot me down in flames, then please do it in the form of a decent argument. otherwise, you're just as bad as the next fundamentalist...
http://xkcd.com/313/
I'm really unimpressed with the "ancient human" fossils, and frankly am tired of seeing new "missing link" fossils discovered. These things always end up failing to live up to the headlines. 90% of these ancient human reconstructions turn out to be complete garbage. But hey, they get the headlines and they have icons, what other scientific evidence do you need? I mean we all know the lochness monster really exists too, right?
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
One nineteenth century minister, considering the then brand new evolution debate, had an idea.
When Adam was created, why didn't he immediately collapse from low blood sugar? Because he had the products of digestion already in his veins -- he probably even had the remains of a meal in his belly. This was a meal which he never actually ate , as moments earlier he'd been an inanimate lump. A human adult is the product of a long developmental process; his bones and sinews are knit through a lifetime of activity, which in Adam's case never happened. Adam was conceived as if he were the product of an ongoing process, even if that process never happened. And thus Adam would have had a belly button of course.
If not Adam, why not the world, and all the creatures in it? Clearly the world God conceived, in order to operate, would have to be the product of a similar process of development, and it would show all of the manifestations of that process, even if that process never actually happened. Indeed, evidence for evolution would be the very hallmark of the Creator Himself.
This seemed to the poor fellow a splendid idea. He felt certain the the religious side of the debate would lay down its arms and embrace evolution. Naturally, he was completely wrong. The religious side of the debate was the forerunner of the modern Fundamentalist movement, and much preferred a science whose purpose was to prove religious dogma. Under this naive man's idea, the free inquiry into evolution becomes practically sacred, something that no human authority has any right to tinker with.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I suspect you could find other examples of this in upstate New York and and other northern coastal areas if you wanted to look, but I really don't. I will assume you were going to saw off Georgia and the other southern coastal states.
How god would convince you that he is indeed god the creator of all things? Would he have to performing tricks, like splitting bodies of water or multiplying fish (I would prefer the turn water into wine)? Let's suppose that someone has shown to you and speaked, "I am god, the creator of all things, behold my power" at that time the nearby river splits in two. He then continue, "I must ask you to spread my word, that I and I alone created all things as they are now and you must have faith that this is the only truth there is". Would you turn into a believer?
If this experience have convinced you, to stop your questioning on the natures of things, then you must excuse the other for simply having lower levels of demands to believe in a god. Let me explain, other would be happy with the multiplying of the fish, others like the cure the sick person trick and some simply look out to flower or whatever and think as them as a miracle that proves the existence of god.
You see, different people, different demands. You, for instance, could be fooled by a very advanced technological alien race or maybe some well funded Cristian organization with clever engineers.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
When the great Cola plague of 2012 arrives after a bottling plant leak in Atlanta, Georgia, we will all be consumed by gallons and gallons of Coca cola. If it can eat a steak in 4 days, imagine how much YOU it can eat! The ones who survive will be lucky and/or have figured out stairs or stilts. They will live off of elephants, tree nuts, fruit, and giraffe will become a main course. The bones in our coffins will be disintegrated, and there shall be nothing left!
Of course, geeks have nothing to worry about anyway, seeing as how being a missing link means that you were actually a link to something. Too bad socks and pr0n are killing you guys off in record numbers!
Really. Every fossil found is touted by the media as a "missing link" between this and that. The "missing link" hysteria in the media is ridiculous. How many times have we already found the "missing link"? Every fossil that is found is a link between creatures that lived before and after it. Every new fossil can give us a clearer picture of how evolution has worked (and very often they mess up our nice concepts), but they can never give us a complete lineage, and thus the media can always gloat over a new "missing link".
(1) Residual magnetism-- moderately reliable, but a healthy margin of error.
(2) Other isotopes-- there's other airborne materials that can be used in ways similar to c13.
Modelling-- as a species that's been building stuff out of earth for a million years or so, we've developed a decent set of analysis tools for the materials involved.
(4) No, they aren't (dated solely by fossils contained, except by your volunteering park ranger tour guide)
(5) Cyclic distribution patterns -- we have these things called 'seasons' that cause regular yearly variations in deposition of sediment, wear on rocks, etc, and there are various other such cycles (lunar, etc.)
(6) Relative distribution-- we can tell what came before what in an area by fossil distributions, comparing distributions gives us a general idea of the timescales involved.
I know you're just trolling, but in case anyone legitimately wanted to know the answer to your question, I figured I'd post enough info on the subject to at least point them toward topics of interest in the field.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
FYI, here's a better reason why it's silly to argue that Dell doesn't make PCs: because we have evidence that Dell makes PCs. Dell has factories. Dell has designers. You can visit the factories and meet the designers.
I don't know if youre all aware that this so called debate is pretty much limited to the US. I live in France, and when I tell friends about the mere existence of the debate in the US their mouths open in disbelief and they try to make me say that I refer to old debates, say in the 1920s. Doesn't that surprise anyone caught in that debate that they're the only ones in the world to have it? I think that here claiming evolutionism is wrong can only be prompted by the need for promotion for your own personnal sect or a secret desire for public humiliation.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
If fossils cannot generally be carbon dated, how do you tell the age of it? We can also date fossils by geological layers in which the fossils are found. But how are geological layers dated? By the fossils that are found in them! This is circular reasoning!
This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming you can use radiocarbon dating on anything but recent fossils. Geological layers are dated by a variety of means, including radiological dating of isotopes much longer-lived than carbon-14. I watched as much of the video you linked to as I could stomach, and I think a few of my brain cells committed suicide in protest. Why are you taking this creationist crackpot seriously?
Really? He taught high-school science for fifteen whole years? Wow, I bet he knows more than the millions of serious scientists that disagree with him! Those high-school teachers are smart.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
At this point being a "creationist" includes disbelief in evolution. I think that is fundamental to the definition. If you are a regular Christian like so many of us that believe the theory of evolution is possible and still believe God created man, you can't be called a creationist. Christian will do nicely though.
"Theory of evolution", not just "Evolution". Evolution itself isn't science, it's the basic data that science starts out with: we see species change over the course of generations, changes accumulating with reproductive cycles. While the "Theory" can be disproved, in that our explanation of the phenomenon can (and probably will, at some point) be shown to be mostly or partly incorrect, "evolution" itself isn't an explanation, it's a thing we see, and is thus "true" in the sense that it's a fact.
So saying "disproving evolution" is just stupid, as the phrase itself is fundamentally incorrect. Say "Disproving the theory of evolution" or "disproving evolutionary theory" instead, because that's what you mean.
This lesson in "using the fucking english language properly" brought to you by Jim. Have a nice day.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Everyday I see more of them.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Well, no. The problem is that evolution as a theory has many different forms accepted by today's biologists and scientists. Evolution has been molded from its original versions back in the 17th and 18th centuries into what we see today. When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it. It almost reminds me of the formation of denominations in Christianity.
I'm going to assume that you believe in God, from your post. If not, please by all means disregard what I'm about to say. Trying to score a point for God will never happen at the creation vs. evolution table. Like you said, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, unless God proves himself. If the theory of evolution is ever completely debunked by man, those who "convert" from evolutionism will likely find some other theory to put force behind that still doesn't affirm God's existence.
And yes, I'm a Christian and I'm not here to get into the creation/evolution debate. I used to be a firm believer in evolution, so I know many of its weaknesses and not once have I been successful in sharing the news of Christ by attempting to disprove evolution. I can vouch that the general concept of macroevolution is fundamentally flawed at most every level. But that's like declaring a problem without offering a fix... it comes down gracelessly and makes it less likely for a person I'm conversing with to actually come to me for answers.
Sharing Christ effectively means putting behind such useless debate. God proves himself without our help, so all we can do is share his word in a loving manner and tell those we care about what He has done in our lives. And if that's hard, we can point them to useful Bible reading. Take for instance the book of Romans, where Paul debunks some of the myths about God which are sadly still believed by very many Christians today and have become the unloving face of Christianity that repels non-believers.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
(1) Residual magnetism---"Magnetism remaining in the core of an electromagnet after the coil current is removed" from Answers.com. Can you explain more? I don't see how this can be applied to dating geological artifects.
(2) Why don't you list the isotopes, the half-lives, and their current dating limits, and we can talk about it more?
(4) The point is the article does not specify how. One should not automatically assume for them their dating is legitimate.
(5) Seasonal growth pattern applies to living things, but other things are not reliable. Can you tell the age of a brownstone building by the layers of dust on it, or by the stone carving that says MCMXXVIII?
(6) Relative distribution requires a priori knowledge of the age of layers and fossils, which you don't have.
I once had a signature.
I know you're just trolling
How can I be trolling when I'm presenting only the facts? I'm only saying Wikipedia says so and so, and Kent Hovind says so and so. I'm not even giving out my personal opinion about this matter.
Moderators: if you disagree with me, please just leave me alone. Why are you suppressing a legitimate voice to be heard by modding me overrated? There is no way I can fight with a crowd of fools, and I hope you're not one of them.
I once had a signature.
We will all learn the answer one day. On that die when you die.
Then at least that answer will solved and everyone can get along at least on that point. Either in the afterlife or oblivion.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
LEts just hope its not another Pildown man of having a the skull of a chimpanzee and the jaw of a man covered in chemicals
SolarVPS - Quality Windows and Linux Virtual Servers
Animosity against Christians? Oh hogwash, that is just a vast oversimplification of a set of very complex socio-political dynamics which play out here on Slashdot. Christian folks like yourself are quite welsome to join in and partcipate in any capacity.
Anyway, we have some activities planned this afternoon over at the Coliseum. Invite your friends, and don't forget to bring a loincloth. Lunch will be served.
There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
Yeah, nice one. Maybe it's all a form of intellectual masochism. An attempt to make people all over the world laugh at them... I would sleep easier in my bed knowing it was some form of sexual perversion than if they actually were this stupid.
I fear that truth is stranger than fiction; and creationists are stranger than either.
the layman's guide to computer science
*Everyone* knows by now that every time they find another fossil, was also have another gap in the fossil record. As time goes on, the number of gaps just keeps increasing!
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
If your brain cells committed suicide because of the annoying way Kent Hovind talks, I agree with you. I find his accent extremely annoying. But how does it have to do with his actual argument? Does his accent make his argument automatically wrong?
I once had a signature.
Now that's just nitpicking. The change between two consecutive generations is subtle enough to be unnoticeable. That makes it a continuum for all practical purposes.
We understand the situation you're complaining about, but making statements that don't hold up to basic logic isn't going to make creationists any more reasonable about their standards of proof.
Nothing you say will make creationists any more reasonable about their standards of proof. Nothing whatsoever. It is a complete waste of time to try. Blind faith doesn't require evidence and doesn't acknowledge evidence.
Proof here!
http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html
Sorry...but someone had to do it!
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
It'd be important to consider that:
- we most likely lack any significant amount of information from that period of time of our ancestors; the amount of data present today amounts to little more than "anecdotical" evidence, and thus the only cogent interpretation is that of "anecdotical" evidence;
- anthropologists are masters in the art of selling their "anecdotical" interpretation as "science", whereas in reality, paleoanthropology is a field where we are very often looking at intrinsically unverifiable claims, which puts the technical aspects of the arguments of these prophets into the same class as the technical aspects of arguments of priests: proof by intimidation, proof by "nice pictures", or proof by reversal of prejudiced assumptions, et cetera;
- we have thus no idea whether the remains found belong to healthy, socially integrated, or unhealthy, maybe not socially integrated individuums; so there's no way of integrating that piece of information with the society at-the-time, with any "evolutionary tree" of any sorts, and certainly not with any wider meaning;
- based on a striking absence of data, it appears to be entirely elusive whether human / primate evolution went straight forward in economical minimal small steps that equal mathematical models (i.e., 'parsimony'), or whether such mathematical expectations that modern anthropologists have were not met by the reality of evolution; in addition, morphology and genetics seem to show a striking mismatch particularly in biological entities that are close to each other: so particularly the differentiation between who was, or was not, genetical ancestor to homo sapiens, is going to be hard even in presence of full morphological (i.e., skeletal) data;
Thus, those guys are probably the wrong ones to cite in any "theory of evolution against creationism" debate. It's "time to take the shovel" and dig out some one to ten thousand more skulls, but most certainly not "time to trumpet around assumptions". Looks like it's fun to do - but why do we have to buy the advertising?
I have no doubt that evolution will prevail over creationism, but THAT RIGHT HERE does NOT seem to be the way to do it. Missing links all over.
Very insightful post, though there is plenty of egotism in science. Sometimes it takes a generation for a new hypothesis to be accepted in science, even if a hypothesis fits the available evidence a bit better than the current prevailing theory. Evidence that contradicts the prevailing idea needs to be found.
The main type of argument for creationism (or ID or what have you) seems to be to plant doubt about the various pieces of evidence about evolution rather than present an equally or more cohesive explaination of all the evidence found so far. They say that it makes more sense that an intelligent designer made all life than for life to evolve, but that leaves out a massive hole in forgetting to ask where that intelligent designer came from, which is more unlikely that an intelligent designer would come to exist out of the chaos than biological life.
Hey now!
Look at any 2004 election returns by county map. See that tiny blue due east of Atlanta? That's me!!!
UGA has very fine biology and life sciences departments. You'd be getting rid of some fine scientists.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
My point is any evidence can be rationalized away if you really try
Actually, what you critise is anecdotal evidence, and here I am with you. However, I do not agree that any evidence can be rationalized away. I would like to argue that anecdotal evidence is in fact no evidence at all. Scientific evidence, at least, is something completely different from a reported sighting.
Let me give a simple example. I propose the following (maybe over-simplified) theory: Anywhere on the surface of the Earth a stone you hold in your hand will fall towards the surface of the Earth once you let it go. Now you can say "This is crazy, I don't believe in this silly idea!". Now we can conduct a series of experiments, traveling around and observing the direction in which the stones we drop are accelerated. I predict the outcome of these experiments will provide strong evidence supporting my theory. Furthermore we can describe the experiments in great detail and everybody sceptical of the results can do their own, independent, experiments.
Now this is evidence you can not seriously rationalize away. (And no, my theory is not trivial -- I claimed that something observed locally is true everywhere on the surface of the Earth.)
What about evidence in court? Isn't this often just anecdotal in the form of the testimony of eye witnesses? Yes, and if this is the only evidence it might actually be aproblem. Independent of that, this is different from reports of burning bushes talking to you. Namely because of the a priori probability of the reported event. If a corpse was found in an empty warehouse, peppered with bullet holes, a report of someone running away wielding a gun is very plausible.
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
If your brain cells committed suicide because of the annoying way Kent Hovind talks, I agree with you. I find his accent extremely annoying. But how does it have to do with his actual argument? Does his accent make his argument automatically wrong?
I admit, I find the manner in which he speaks intensely irritating. Not the accent so much as the smug self-righteousness of it. I watched about five minutes of this whackjob, and he never actually made any argument. He repeated -- over and over and over again -- that students are being "lied to", but never said anything of substance. I'm sure he says something more substantial at some point, but I'm not interested in watching an hour of mindless evangelical rhetoric just so I can argue with the few actual points he makes.
If someone would care to summarize his arguments, I would be happy to debunk this crap. Otherwise, I have better things to do on a Sunday morning than listen to him.
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Uh, not quite. There is a lot of compelling evidence for evolution. There's not a scrap for God. Its all faith.
Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence, and have been mounting a lot of it for a long, long time.
WTF? What does that sentence even mean?
You say that nothing will sway the creationists; I say that BOTH sides are firmly entrenched on this issue, and it's going to take a lot more than circumstantial evidence to convince either side.
The creationists have faith; this is irrational belief. If they want to go ahead and argue that its irrational, I certainly wouldn't stop them. You are framing this like it is some kind of CNN two-party debate. Listen carefully: there are not two sides. There just aren't. There is empirical evidence for evolution, and a bunch of people who refuse to believe it. That's it.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
It's the OP that is in error, not TFA. There is a big difference between the missing link and a missing link. The former is a 19th century semi-religious concept that has no scientific value. The article however uses the latter phrase, which just means that we had no knowledge of the species that was intermediary between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and now we do, which is scientifically interesting.
Also, see this:
Human - apes, transitional forms
So you tell me what that accomplished?
But that's just the point! People should be and have to be accountable for their own belief, that's certainly not the same as (comfortable?) blind faith.
Only by making up your own mind using your own sources you can become a whole and balanced person.
Lifelong study is the duty of a religious person.
I think the critical teacher has done her a great favour.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I think it gets worse as you get further from proper science and more into pseudo-science (political, social etc). I'm surprised that views on evolution are so firm, but that may be an effect of creationism. It would be better though if they'd rallied around the scientific method rather than the theory itself, but that's humans for you!
Science needs true debuggers. There ought to be a significant ongoing effort in disproving. The best part is that the creationists are an easy source of funding, at least for disproving evolution. Build a reputation for your work there, and maybe you'll be able to move on to work on global warming or something. I'm sure OPEC or Bush will oblige.
> You, for instance, could be fooled by
Very good choice of words.
>You see, different people, different demands.
Yep different people, different demands but everybody can be fooled.
I don't think you mean "disparage", meaning "To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle", because disparaging a theory is not part of doing science. You probably mean "disconfirm" or "disprove". The reason scientists don't try to disprove evolution - by which I mean the common descent of all life on earth from a small set of ancestral organisms over about three billion years - is that there is an immense quantitiy of interconnected evidence that supports it. DNA, fossil evidence, biogeography, etcetera. Trying to claim that life isn't the product of evolution is like claiming that ordinary matter isn't made of atoms. Scientists do attempt to explain particular facets and processes within evolutionary history, and in doing so they necessarily argue over particular theories. This leads to...
There is no way to definitively prove one that either evolution has occured or that God created everything. Both sides rest on circumstantial evidence
Not at all. Evolution rests on evidence, yes. The evidence is widely available, can be examined by many, many people, and is agreed on by people with widely varying religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs. As a theory, it makes predictions about things we haven't seen yet (such as the fossil skull in the article) and more importantly, predicts things we will not see, such as Precambrian reptile fossils, or mammals with feathers.
By contrast, the idea that "God created everything" rests on no evidence at all. It makes no predictions about things that we will see or not see in the world. There is no conceivable evidence that would weigh against it. In short, it's not science.
The missing link? Right in the story synopsis, I found http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing .link.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories -- Now we can use the link to RTFA.
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
The process of evolution is a fact, backed up by mountains of evidence. We can even see it happen over short timescales of a few days or weeks.
The exact details of how mankind evolved are always being rethought and sometimes we discard an old theory when we find contrary evidence. Nothing in our lack of knowledge or the mistakes of the past invalidates anything related to the theory itself.
I think that creationists sometimes have an opposite problem as well. They may well be happy to accept the fact of animal evolution but be unable to apply it to mankind. Their church teaches that Man is "special", made in God's image and so on, and so therefore Man could not have evolved from Apes or lesser species.
It's probably a case of one's religious beliefs causing bias in the evaluation of the independent evidence supporting evolution. www.philosophers.co.uk has some great games related to religion and logic, and they explain the results they get from large numbers of people playing their games.
Here's a relevant analysis from the site:
And here's another relevant quote (this one from the 'Taboo' game)...
The analogy is that refusal to accept the theory of evolution despite the many, many facts in its favour is a consequence of one's deeply held religious beliefs causing an inability to rationally evaluate new (and conflicting) evidence. To accept wholeheartedly the truth of the evolution theory may require abandonment of prior beliefs. The adherent has some investment in those beliefs, and to abandon them is just like selling shares when the market is low.
The people who attempt to argue against evolution never use the scientific method, and produce untestable hypotheses (e.g. "the flying spaghetti monster created the universe"). Why should other scientists NOT ostracize people who claim to be scientists but have demonstrated that, for issues that are important to them, they won't actually use science?
My server
Misguided or stupid are (not yet) available.
Kent Hovind is possibly misguided or simply plain stupid.
You put his shame on your head by following him.
Just his diatribe about the Grand Canyon should wake up a self-thinking person, it's so irrelevant to the issue!
At best the man is "Willingly Ignorant".
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Did they fing this so-called arc, too?
Just ask Lucy.. maybe she knew him.
What's evident to be me is neither side can prove what they are trying to prove, not yet. Both sides have are incesant in a religious way about their beliefs and not enough proof is in existence for any side to win or stand down. Good arguments and rebuttals from both sides. I expect to pop into another such conversation thread a decade from now and see the exact same stuff, even 50 years from now. And then shortly thereafter I will be dead.
What if "God" planted humans on the Earth as miniature monkeys in the "beginning" and thought that they uncover their own past through their own ingenuity rather than baby-like reliance on a bigger "fatherly figure"? If we are all "God's Children", maybe "He" is doing all the steps to ensure we grow up.
and for the f'bait remark: Well, we all know who are still sitting and waiting for miracles, salvation, and reading human-tampered books; still breast-feeding, in a way.
There is no way to definitively prove one that either evolution has occured or that God created everything.
Right. But this is not at all what this is about. In a sense, this is trivial: scientific methods are not striving to "definitely prove" something (unlike mathematics, where you can definitely prove something given a formal framework) and religions invoking supernatural beings tend to call "blasphemy!" when you aks for a prove.
Be this as it may, there is generally quite some confusion in discussions about "Theory of Evolution". It often goes unnoticed that it is a completely different question whether evolution works or whether a known species evolved in a specific, reonstructable, way.
I dare to say that the mechanism of evolution is a very well established fact. Two pieces of evidence. Firstly, you can simulate it on a computer, showing that the frequency of replicators which undergo small random changes is indeed subject to "environmental" pressure you impose on their "phenotypes" and that this can yield complexity without design. Secondly, breeding: mankind has very successfully altered species by artifically selecting small variations of animals and plants. (Breeding is actually the example used to introduce the idea of natural selection of variations by Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species"). So the mechanism is very well established.
What one usually can not easily establish is how exactly a specific species evolved. One can invent some stories of why certain features of a phenotype helped to increase the frequency of the genes it carries. However, these always remain "just so stories", and the geological record is imperfect. Nevertheless we can observe evolution at work when it proceeds at a fast pace, for instance in the appearance of germs immune to antibiotics in hospitals.
You suggest that there is some symmetry between the concept of evolution and ID because neither can be proved definitively. In addition to my above argument, I think this gives ID far too much merit. The concept of evloution has greatly improved our understanding of how complexity can come about. It explains something. The invokation of a designer, on the other hand, explains nothing. It just raises the question where the designer came from in the first place.
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
Stephen Jay Gould attacked the mainstream continuous evolution theory and wrote a paper on punctuated equilibrium in 1972. Look how it ended his career.
But the Babelfish is kind of a dead giveaway, isn't it?
Rhapsody in Numbers
What, brownstone buildings are a sedimentation product? Amazing!
The GP talks about seasons having an effect on the rate at which sediments collect (which makes sense as most rivers have seasonal changes in the amount of water carried) etc. Your analogy is deliberately flawed (because I can't believe that someone who's even considering real discussion would make such an unfitting analogy). It is possible to date something by looking at how much dust there is on it, comparing that to how much dust can be expected to collect per day, whether the air is undisturbed or not and so on. Yes, you can just look at the carving in some buildings and get something that might be an accurate age (the carving could be lying). Earth, however, seems to lack such a carving - so we have to look at what we have and analyze the data until we can guess the age of what we see.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The change between two consecutive generations is subtle enough to be unnoticeable.
Tiger Woods' parents look nothing like him.
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
So, both sides are wrong, you claim.
One side says that there was a supernatural being who did it all.
The other side says that no supernatural being did it.
So, your "middle ground" is that a supernatural being did it. But the way it did it was by a means that looks like it wasn't involved.
So, where did the supernatural being in the "middle ground" come from? Was it also "intelligently designed"? If so, by what? The cycle continues on to infinity.
If the supernatural being was not "intelligently designed", then why are there two processes (one for supernatural beings and one for every speck of life we can study)?
Existence exists (if it didn't you wouldn't even have a mind to read /., let alone have /. itself exist), and everything exists as something. Because everything exists as something (at a minimum with a spatial/temporal relationship to the rest of reality) it can produce affirmative evidence of itself. Things which do not exist cannot produce evidence of themselves, because if they could, they would exist. Therefore, if there is no evidence regarding an argument, the null-hypothesis of non-existence must be held. In the case of God, absent direct affirmative proof, I assume God.
The burden of proof falls upon whoever makes an affirmative statement, because negative statements cannot be proven (there would be no evidence if the negative statement were correct.) This argument is also useful in explaining why we should not think we are in a matrix/under control of aliens/etc.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
hehe! that takes me back.
I really hate all these statements about spectrum vs steps of evolution. YES. evolution (if its true) occurs as a continuous spectrum. BUT. there is no way for us to ever perceive this spectrum as one. we can only see specific samples of it, and thus must classify these samples as descrete steps. for example, take random samples of the COLOR SPECTRUM. pick red, greed, orange, and blue. lets say that is all we know of the spectrum. if we believe the "spectrum" exists, then there must also be a "missing link" called yellow between orange and green. it is a continuous transition, but we classify it as a descrete steps to differentiate it from the others. so please, stop this nonsense about continuity or discrete steps you're all talking about the SAME THING!
well, i'm noticing this thread spiralling off-topic, but i'm not all that bothered. either way, my point is this; if you constantly question and challenge your faith, and then find that it's still there - doesn't that tell you something?
http://xkcd.com/313/
- In the book "The Science of Discworld" by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen the authors talk about the concept of "lies for kids". Essentially a lie for kids is a simplified version of reality intended to convey as much information as necessary, but not too much. For examle, it's necessary for most non-biologists to know about 14C dating, they don't need to be taught about 238U, 235U, 232Th, 87Rb, 147Sm and 40K dating and abou when which method is appropriate. Just like you tell your $NON_TECHIE_RELATIVE that he needs to keep his virus scanner up-to-date to keep his computer safe (not telling him that really new worms might still strike him or that he might be reasonably safe even with outdated virus definitions by hiding beind NAT and so on).
- My geology knowledge isn't up to snuff, I can't answer this one.
- When trees grow they tend to do so from a point near the surface. As the tree grows so do the roots. Some trees have shallow roots that cover a wide area while some have deep roots that grow downwards, allowing the tree to tap into the ground water. So a tree doesn't have to have started growing when the lowest geological layer it's in was current, it might as well have reached that layer by growing deep roots.
- Land rises and sinks. The Colorado's source might have been higher (relative to the rest of the GC area) in the past.
- Color me surprised. People who have radically different thoughts on how the world around them works have different thoughts about how the world around them works. Whoa.
- My knowledge of geology, American geology and hydrodynamics is nut sufficient to answer this question.
- It's not possible to determine the age just by looking at the fossil, but the fossils can bej used in conjunction with other data. For example the fossil might be of an animal that couldn't live in that area under modern conditions. With knowledge about the past movement of the continental plates and past meteorological condtions (which, for example, are derived from arctic ice samples) one can determine how much time must have passed since the area had conditions under which the animal has lived.
- But the two heads might pose an advantage under some conditions, making it more probable that the two-headed turle reproduces. After several generations of selection towards two heads it might have becme the standar for that turle population to have two heads. Further mutations would cause further development. The new information created is that the head grows twice. It's not radically different but it is different.
- Note that selective breeding is merely the use of genetic mutation to improve the plant/animal at hand. Modern crops are the result of selective breeding towards more grain and better resistance against pests. Modern cows give more milk than in the past due to selective breeding. Rottweilers are bigger than poodles due to selective breeding. If mutation would always cause degeneration modern dogs, cows and crops would be impossible.
- It does. If you take something and make enough incremental changes to it you end up with something that is much different. Take, for example, Linux 2.6.1 and 2.6.15. Natural selection is all about incremental changes.
- Once more I point out that incremental changes can make huge differences when you make enough of them.
- I won't comment on that as it's an obvious argumentum ad hominem.
Like with most one-sided arguments most of his argumentation only works as long as no one actually cares to read up on the subject.USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
True, but SJG didn't break entirely from the mainstream, he was still defending Darwinism. Note the phrase in your Wiki link, "is mistakenly thought to oppose gradualism... though it is actually more appropriately understood as a form of gradualism."
Conflict from within and conflict from without are two separate things entirely. SJG was still able to make his case in the universities and in the scholarly journals, and was therefore able to engage a spirited debate. That's the ideal situation.
Right. But I think that "theory" is implicit when I talk abouth math. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Anyway, your comment help clarifying it. Thanks.
Rethinking email
So what? The Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster tells me we were all created by his noodly appendage. The only thing the bible has over http://www.venganza.org/ is that it's been around a bit longer. Length of tradition of course proves nothing. Hinduism has been around considerably longer than Judaism yet you are choosing to believe the newcomer.
Science, and evolution, rest on proof in the fossil and genetic records. The bible has no such proof behind it and so for the purposes of this discussion should be thrown on the junk heap along with all other 'sacred' texts.
You are really missing the point. This seems to be a common problem, but let me explain - the parent of my comment discussed creationism. Discussing creationism without reference to its underlying beliefs is asinine. The point is not that the Bible is proven correct - the point is that a belief system based in the Bible is not fundamentally inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution.
I do, however, have to thank you for not disproving my hypothesis that the people who understand that this is a false dichotomy form a tiny minority of the people who speak out loudly about it on one side or the other.
I belive in God, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that God has no means of proving itself. No one, not moving mountais (literaly), not converting people, not sending messages, not even appearing to all people and telling us something. No one of those would prove the existence of God.
And there is no known flaw at the theory of evolution. And macroevolution is a fact. My point was exactly that the GP underestimated how much the scientists want to find a flaw at the theory (his estimate was: "everybody want to win a Nobel price", mine was: "everybody wants to make a revolution on all sciences"), and tell that to all the world. And until now, no one was able to do that.
Rethinking email
7. That assumes that the animal in question lived in the same area that it's fossil was found. If you remove that assumption, the house of cards falls.
8. The point is that it isn't new genetic information. It's simply a copy of existing information that got copied to the wrong place.
9. Note that in all the examples you pointed out, there was an intelligence (i.e., man) that directed (selected) what mutations would survive to the next generation(s).
10. Once again, the Linux kernel has intelligent design behind it; it didn't just mutate over those generations. But, I see the point you're trying to make. However, show me an example of some animal that incrementally changed to another animal (which, in order to be a valid set of examples, requires a number of intermediate generations to be shown also).
12. ad hominem = name calling (e.g., 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'uneducated jerk,' etc). But I saw no name calling in pikine's point. He merely pointed out that these men had other motives, other than advancing the cause of science or the knowledge of man kind.
Now we need to find two missing links. Arrrgh! It's getting worse!
They fail miserably even when explaining their own theory... what prevent God from creating life trough evolution?
I think you're forgetting the growing muslim population.
"Only by making up your own mind using your own sources you can become a whole and balanced person.
Lifelong study is the duty of a religious person."
So how does that work. You sit down, think about it and say "YES, there is a God, and by golly, He's Almighty!"
I think, therefore I am...I think.
let me check the Bible to see if it's true or not.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
I was waiting for someone to point out that creationism and the theory of evolution aren't completely incompatible. :)
The problem is some people aren't willing to see that the Bible is not a historical document, it's a religious document. It's an instruction manual on how to build a relationship with God. Unfortunately, I wasn't taught that creationism and evolutionism might be compatible until college. All through my earlier years I had thought of them as completely incompatible, until I learned more about evolution and I, without having heard of Intelligent Design, came up with the idea independantly.
The early church made critical errors when it took the Bible literally, which has referred to the earth as flat and the earth at the center of the universe, and the sun as moving through the skies (as opposed to the earth moving around the sun). The church backed up the latter two as far as I know, and any scientists who claimed otherwise were in danger of being called heretics. Which would have been bad.
Eventually the church was forced to admit (only last century, I think) that the Bible is not to be taken literally word-for-word all the time.
Now, the question is, is the church making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE again by assuming the Genesis creation story is 100% factual? I'm not going to try and argue for Intelligent Design, but I do want to make it clear that I believe the church needs to be more open-minded, otherwise we very well may end up looking silly again.
I say Intelligent Design paints an even more beautiful picture of creation than what I originally learned in sunday school. What more magnificent way to create the world! In sunday school I learned that God was with His creation and molded it for the entire period He created it. But the idea of him simply setting it all in motion with a single creation of the matter that would then go on to form the Big Bang... and then would form our solar system, and eventually all life on our planet. God set everything in motion and watched as His creation assembled itself. That shows me a more powerful God than the sunday school stories.
That is a very rational way of looking at the situation. Lets face it, until we have overwhelming evidence for one or the other, either theory could be "right" and/or both could be "Right". Your approach leaves room for everyone to be "right" until we learn more and discover more.
I will point out one flaw that I see. To make your analogy more accurate, I would suggest replacing dell with an entity that is not universally accepted to exist or universally accepted to manufacture the product. (just like god) For instance, this statement...
That statement does not really make much sense because most people (some would disagree), but most rational people do not assume that aliens make PC's. And some percentage of rational people do not believe that aliens exist at all. (again, some would disagree)
So, I think a more meaningful analogy might be...
That statement does not really say much about the existence, or non-existence of god, but it says you may be able to build a really bitchin gaming rig. :)
On the other side, there are those who say that there is no Easter Bunny. The eggs and candies are delivered/hidden by other humans.Damn those Easter Bunny deniers and their closed minds! Damn those secular "Human Deliverers".
You say that "Intelligent Delivery" is the "middle ground". The existance of the Holy Hopper is not questioned. But he delivers the eggs and candies through his influencing human minds.
The Written Rabbit tells us only that He does deliver the eggs. It does not say HOW he delivers them. Intelligent Delivery is the answer.
Again, your comment was mod'ed up?
Dude, you're going extinct!
You don't have the proper survival traits, do you? I know people who think birth control is a sin. (don't even mention abortion) Their descendants will rule the Earth.
Explaining evolution to a fundamentalist bible literalist is like trying to convert an Afghani Muslim to Christianity, it'll never happen.
-Abdul Rahman
Oh You POS
These scientists are incredible! Has anyone ever read Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo. Apparently, we may be even older than that..... http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/
I can definitely imagine forms of "Intelligent Design" that occupy the middle ground. That's not what we are being offered. We are being offered sewage, and told that it's "good for you".
... evil is too strong a word, because you don't intend harm. Nevertheless you are committing evil actions by arguing in this way to those who may not recognize the fallacy. To hold a fallacious belief is error, not evil. To attempt to induce others to hold it may not have an evil motive, but it *IS* an evil action.
Pan Spermia is a plausible scenario, and there's nothing that says that those original seed carrying meteors couldn't have been intelligently built. THAT'S a middle ground hypothesis. There's still no way to prove it, but it's middle ground.
What you are asking is that people first accept the conclusion that you wish to reach, and then shape their evidence to fit that conclusion. This is
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There's a good (fiction) book called "Link" by Walt Becker that deals with the discovery of evidence of a new species. Summary from Amazon: Paleoanthropologist Samantha Colby and her team have discovered a skeleton of humanoid but not human origin in West Africa. In addition, they found an artifact composed of metal not found on Earth. Samantha asks her former lover, renegade scientist Jack Austin, to assist her in solving the mystery. Austin has long proposed the interaction of extraterrestrials with early man, but he has been the laughing stock of the scientific community. As they unravel the mystery, their journey takes them from Central Africa to the Andes and what they discover might kill the laughter in the throats of Jack's detractors. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0380731614/qid=11 43397139/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-1883774-52033 25?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I'm going to skip several points of yours because they're either well-made or that I don't personally know enough to argue about it.
I don't see how you could dismiss his arguments altogether when there are obviously open issues. This is certainly not the scientific attitude cherished by Evolutionism.
I once had a signature.
The two views are not contradictory. Understanding *how* something functions or was put together doesn't mean it wasn't made. That logic is akin to:
I know how a PC works, and how it is put together, therefore Dell does not make PCs.
No, it isn't akin to that at all. It is akin to:
I know how a PC is assembled automatically, therefore I don't believe they are hand-made.
We have a vast amount of evidence that life evolves complexity, and we know an awful lot about how it can do this unaided. To assume that there is a designer when no designer is needed is irrational.
That's a really fallacious argument. I am fully capable of simultanesouly understanding how computers are made and still believing that Dell exists.
Trouble is, PCs aren't like organisms.
So just face facts and realize that if you "get it", most everybody else probably does too. Your're arguing a debate that doesn't really exist.
The debate exists, and is important.
Only produces bad movies and even worse wine? Surely you jest. California has huge amounts of farm land, a large tech industry and other various industries. In fact, without CA, the rest of the US economy would likely collapse rather quickly.
We don't need all you guys, you need us.
A blog about stuff.
Great, now we have two missing links.
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
A writer promotes the isolation and eventual hunting and eating of a huge fraction of a country's population, based solely on their beliefs, which he sees as evidence of hopeless intellectual inferiority. His statements receive overwhelming agreement from the forum in which he is published.
How is this viewpoint is morally superior to those which wrought genocides in Biafra, Croatia, Nigeria, Rwanda, East Timor and dozens of other places in our lifetimes? Are we really so willfully ignorant that we believe all these atrocities didn't start this way? So filled with hubris that we believe America (or our intelligencia, which has itself been targeted in other times and places) incapable of such virulent hatred?
If you still aren't taking me seriously, consider this: Orthodox Judaism posits a literal six-day Creation. If the writer had singled out this group instead of attacking all Genesis believers and the geographic region which he believes contains them, would any of us have called his diatribe anything but hate speech of the most vitriolic and unconscionable sort?
Please read the parent post again, examine its +5 Insightful score, and tell me how far removed we are from that mindset. And please be intellectually honest; if you plan to claim that BadAnalogyGuy was only trying to be funny, or that the moderators were only moderating ironically, please provide supporting evidence.
Sorry. You are making lots of assumptions about the facts. The facts are that objects with certain characteristics have been observed (are reported to have been observed) in certain backgrounds.
These become fossils when you assume that these objects are the remains of previously existing animals. Detecting patterns of changes requires presuming dates. (Yes, there is evidence, and I find it convincing, but the dates aren't facts, they are deductions.)
Etc.
Evolution doesn't show up until you are quite distant from the original raw facts.
OTOH, Evolution isn't only biological. One can observe evolution, as "the survival of the most stable" in everything from sub-atomic particles to topography to galactic structures to mathematical proofs. Biological Evolution is the most complex, and thus the one with more unexplained nooks and crannies. (Others are hard to observe, and this can generate it's own unexplained nooks and crannies.)
People have the strongest emotional response to biological evolution, particularly when it touches on their own ancestry. This doesn't make it the only form of evolution, but it tends to be the only place where evolution is ever disputed.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We might note here that the mere use of the phrase "missing link" pretty much discredits the writer in scientific circles. This is one of the many phrases that gets you classified as clueless, either a journalist or a creationist.
A common observation is that the "evolutionary gap" idea is a traditional red herring. If you find a fossil that fits in a gap, you haven't filled the gap. You have replaced the gap with two gaps. Trying to fill in all the holes in the fossil record is about as sensible as trying to fill in the gaps in a list of real numbers by adding new numbers to the list.
You can't win the pseudo-debate with the creationists this way. All you can do is give them another gap that "science hasn't filled". Anyone who thinks that filling a gap is significant just doesn't understand how the whole process works.
From a scientific point of view, this is potentially an interesting fossil. It may tell us a bit more about our own primate ancestry. Or maybe not; maybe it will turn out to be a close relative of fossils already found. We'll see.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
...really?
I wish more christians were like you and actually, you know, followed the teachings of Christ. I have known a few of these sorts of christians in my life, people who quietly lived their faith and were happy to share it if asked, but who never used their faith as a pedastal to put themselves above others.
If Christ's teachings really have value, you don't need to preach. Live your life well and people will ask you "How is it that you are so happy and fulfilled? How did you come to be such a good person?" Then you can tell them.
If you aren't happy and fulfilled, if you are mean, bitter or judgemental, I could care less what religion or philosophy you follow. It obviously isn't doing you any good, why would I want to know about it?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
8. It might as well be that the instruction for "build once" gets changed to "build twice". By the way, if the information was copied and both copies would be used that means that now there's more data, which means that there's more data that can change.
9. Your point? I used the examples to point out that genetic mutation does not generally cause degeneration, as the GP's paraphrase implied. The GP never said that "natural mutation" in item 9, he said "genetic mutation". Since the assumption as that all genetic mutations cause degeneration it was necessary to show an examply of any kind of mutation that is not degenerative to refute the statement.
12. "argumentum ad hominem" == "argument against the person". You might want to look it up on the 'Pedia. The GP's paraphrase claimed that since Darwin "opposed the teaching of the bible" he has an "ulterior motive". That is an attack on the person responsible for the theory in an attempt to discredit the theory - a classical argumentum ad hominem.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Thank you, I appreciate the help.
I once had a signature.
It depends on whether he was espousing rationality or not. Evangelical atheists are a pretty close-minded spiteful faith unto themselves. At least you can appreciate agnosticism for being logical, but agnostics usually live and let live and don't set out to tear other people down. Evangelical atheists actively work to share their faith. And I say faith, because what they claim cannot be proven, it can only be disproven. Evangelical atheists don't encourage people to make up their own minds; they have made up their own with no scientific data to prove their claims and hate those who disagree-- the same thing fundies of any religion do. I wouldn't be so proud of the guy from the OP's description. Evangelical atheists are no better than those they hate.
I dare to say that the mechanism of evolution is a very well established fact. Two pieces of evidence. Firstly, you can simulate it on a computer, showing that the frequency of replicators which undergo small random changes is indeed subject to "environmental" pressure you impose on their "phenotypes" and that this can yield complexity without design. Secondly, breeding: mankind has very successfully altered species by artifically selecting small variations of animals and plants. (Breeding is actually the example used to introduce the idea of natural selection of variations by Darwin in his "On the Origin of Species"). So the mechanism is very well established.
Both examples are completely bogus. The parameters of the computer program are set up by the program's designers, and therefore do not reflect real world events. I also have a computer program that shows you are rewarded for eating blue dots in a maze and will advance in status if you can avoid being killed by the wandering ghosts. It doesn't prove anything, except how adept we've become at playing games.
Second, selective breeding, or what's known as "microevolution" has never been in dispute. Nobody has ever contested that there are wide variations within a species as a result of breeding. Macroevolution is where the division is. Show me the evidence that a frog became a horse. That's another story.
What one usually can not easily establish is how exactly a specific species evolved. One can invent some stories of why certain features of a phenotype helped to increase the frequency of the genes it carries. However, these always remain "just so stories", and the geological record is imperfect. Nevertheless we can observe evolution at work when it proceeds at a fast pace, for instance in the appearance of germs immune to antibiotics in hospitals.
Again, microevolution, not macroevolution. Also, survival of the fittest, which is also generally agreed upon.
You suggest that there is some symmetry between the concept of evolution and ID because neither can be proved definitively. In addition to my above argument, I think this gives ID far too much merit. The concept of evloution has greatly improved our understanding of how complexity can come about. It explains something. The invokation of a designer, on the other hand, explains nothing. It just raises the question where the designer came from in the first place.
Rubbish. What evolution has given us is a complex system as a starting point for critically evaluating the world around us. Whether or not its the correct one is a separate argument.
In similar fashion, mankind has almost always had some form of government. For many millenia, we've struggled to figure out the best way to manage societies and economies, and at no point along the path could we say, "We've arrived!" Rather, what we have are several millenia worth of experience in various systems of governing.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by the concept of removing God from scientific inquiry. Absolutely keep digging, keep searching, keep looking for answers. My problem is twofold: one, that the scientific method does not and cannot answer all of the questions of life, and therefore cannot be used in and of itself to rule out a discussion of God. Secondly, the belief in Darwin's theory is so firmly entrenched that to question it goes against a "scientific orthodoxy". What was found was a skull, nothing more. No bubblegum card was found alongside it saying, "This is missing link number 11... Collect all 24!" And yet, immediately the scientists want to shoehorn it into the geneology of mankind, as the link between man and ape.
Hey, scientists are people; they don't live in a vacuum. They want awards and accolades and recognition, just like the rest of us. They also have to prove their value in order to receive funding to continue their research work. So that puts pressure on them to actually discover something of great value. And I'm sure that the scientists truly believe in what they are doing and saying. But let's not kid ourselves; there's definitely a bias that's inherent in the system.
You're the third person to respond to my comment, and the third to do so without completely wrapping your mind around my actual point. Evidently, I have once again succeeded in hiding my point underneath my words. I apologize for this shortcoming.
You are, however, the first response with anything intelligent to say that's even remotely on topic. I am not asking anyone to accept any conclusions - I am only asking them to stop bowing to the false dichotomy of Evolution vs. Creationism. You seem to have focused in on my invocation of Intelligent Design as an example of middle ground. Anything other than "evolution is right and creation is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" and "creation is right and evolution is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" qualifies as middle ground in this debate. I only used ID as an example because it is well-known, and then I went on and stated that because of how it has been (misre)presented it is not all that popular of an example.
Focus on my point, not on my invocation of a controversial term that I freely say is controversial and poorly-received because of its poorer presentation in recent years. The point is simply that it is possible to reconcile the scientific theory of creation with the religious belief in creation. Anyone who thinks that scientific theory and religious beliefs are fundamentally mutually exclusive is in most cases (but not all) making the grave error of mistaking science for religion or, equally bad, religion for science.
I never asked anyone to accept creationism, evolution, or intelligent design in any form. For at least the fourth time today, I will restate my point: This is not a situation of "A if and only if not B." A and B are independent facts, the truth of either of which has no bearing on the truth of the other. It is possible that evolution and creation are both right, that only one is right, or that both are wrong.
I do not push my beliefs on this matter on anyone. I just want them to terminate their stubborn insistence that A <---> !B for independent A and B.
But you are also missing the point. If you take an 'Anglican' compromise such that Creatanism is compatible with evolution then evolution could also be said to be compatible with Confuscism, Hinduism and Buddism too, or more particularly is is compatible with none. Evolution doesn't need a Christian context to provide the universe with meaning, in point of fact what it shows is that it, together with modern cosmology, can offer a pretty good framework to explain how we got here with absolutly no need for any gods whatsoever.
Which is why the fundies have the problems they do and why they end up ID or 6-day Creationism. If you go for the compromise approach then the requirement for god shrinks as knowledge advances, to the point of no requirement whatsoever. At which point were back to the 'I believe because I'd like to believe' state and the question of why the Judaochristian tradition over Hinduism applies.
You're high, right? California is responsible for about 15% of the rest of the US's GDP. If we were our own Soverign Nation, we'd be in the Top-10 Strongest Economies in the world (between France and Italy).
We produce the majority of the food you eat everyday. Take this example: Florida makes Oranges, but the oranges there are watery, overly-tart, and have terrible texture. That's why they go into juice. 99% of the Oranges you eat (table oranges) come from California (although Austrialia has some tasty naval varieties too), because they have superior flavor, and texture.
More Software companies call Silicon Valley home than anywhere else in the country, including Google.
And our Wine is better than the rest of the countrie, even the cheap stuff. Go down to Trader Joe's and pick up a bottle of Charles Shaw, aka 2-Buck-Chuck. Best $2 you'll ever spend on wine. I work in a restaurant that deals almost exclusivly with California wine, and most stuff I try is on par with anything you'd find from, say, France or Italy...
If we cut ourselves off from the rest of the nation, it'd be you guys who'd be hurting. We could jack up Ag tarrifs and laugh all the way to the bank.
"All warfare is based on deception."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
We should absolutely not be interested in trying to convince people who are unwilling to be convinced that this is just a link in a longer chain.
That is the same as saying you should not question this yourself, but aim to see how you can make it fit.
Yes it is. Science is such a noble proposition.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Easy, Vlad the Impaler.
You, sir, are an idiot. Please cite for me the exact language I used to say that Intelligent Design is the middle ground. I used it as an example, not as an explanation. Again, read my comment and this time, when you look up the difficult words in the dictionary, look up the difficult words in the definitions as well. Eventually, you might be able to comprehend what I wrote. Please stop replying until that time - you aren't doing the discussion any favors by picking two words I used and acting like they were my entire comment, and the fact that you're receiving +1 Funny points shows just how seriously you are being taken in that endeavor.
I'll take your False Dichotomy and raise you a False Compromise.
Anyone who gets his hopes up this might end the bullspit about creationism should realize one thing: Religions were never really bothered by facts.
You can fly back in time 250,000 years and prove that Earth existed before the Bible tells you. You'll get 3 reactions (in this order):
1. They'll claim your results are just fabricated.
2. If your results are simply true and claiming them as fabricated even they can't pretend anymore it's not there, they'll claim that God tricks you into believing it, to test your faith.
3. Once it's proven past the point of any doubt, they'll find a new pet project to "prove" the existance of God.
Take a look at the debate whether the sun revolves around the earth or v.v.
First the observations were called false, since the telescope produces false results.
Once it could no longer be blamed on the telescopes, it was a test of God to ridicule scientists and test the strength of their faith.
Once our probes went to every corner of the solar system and found moons around other planets, proved that the sun is the center etc., the matter was dropped and we got a new "proof" for the Bible's story.
Simply stop listening to those who do not want to learn. If they want to be happy in their own little world, leave them there and let them enjoy being stuck in the past. Should creationism be taught in your school, explain to your kids that the schools have to do that to appease the religious fanatics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If we dig up bones from hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago, how can we show that bones from one era are from an animal/human that evolved later into another animal/human? That is, why couldn't both of those animals/humans have lived at the same time, independent of each other? We don't have all that many samples, considering the life of the earth. How can we show anything more than that bones from one era look similar and have similar characteristics to bones in another era?
And Dawkins was heretical when he originally published "The Selfish Gene". (Actually, I think that was a popularization of something more technical.)
But no scientist worthy of then name is against evolution, except for some minor details. The evidence is just too strong.
N.B.: This doesn't mean that no scientist accepts creationism. The Deists have modern descendants who still believe that "God created the universe in the distant past, and then sat on his hands to watch the fireworks" (my phrasing). But even those, if they are scientists, believe in evolution.
Personally, I see as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as I do for the objectively external God. I.e., there are many facts that don't contradict that assumption, but no fact, or collection of facts, that is best explained by presuming it. (Note that I said external. I do believe not only God, but gods are genuine entities, however I differ as to where they reside and how they operate. [Hint: The kingdom of God is within you.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
See my other response in this thread here regarding mistaking science for religion or vice versa. What point am I missing? You claim that, because evolution is compatible with the Anglican view and also compatible with the Confucianist view, it is therefore incompatible with any religious views. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises. The correct conclusion to draw is that, for all religious beliefs which are not incompatible with evolution, those religious beliefs can be held by a person without stubbornly denying on purely religious grounds the veracity of the theory of evolution. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Keep religion and science separate. Both are important parts of human history and culture, and adherence to either should not be a badge of ignorance. Again, all I'm asking is for people to stop bowing to a false dichotomy. If you can't follow my point, don't tell me I'm missing yours when it defies all logic. And if you follow my point and disagree with it, then debate me about it. I am always open to criticism, but you are going to look foolish if you do nothing but throw red herrings at me.
Macroevolution is, and probably always will be, the "theory" part of the "theory of evolution". From there, I make no claim in this post to its truth because quite frankly, it will make no difference to the fundamental views of anyone reading it. And please, don't make assumptions about how much I do or don't understand. That's what most non-Christians hate about many Christians, is it not?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
You're the fourth person to reply to my comment, and you take first place for the most succinct response. However, your response misses the point. Read my other replies to help you find it, but the key is not to read my use of an example of middle ground as my endorsement of that middle ground as the only possible explanation. I am really beginning to wish I had used a different middle ground as an example, but ID is the most commonly-known example.
Are you arguing that only one of the two extremes must be correct? If not, then are you arguing that the words "a middle ground" mean the same thing as "the only possible explanation"? If not that, then what exactly are you saying? As far as I can tell, you are making one of those two statements. If a third exists, I am unaware of it and will await your explanation.
Meanwhile, you have still been unable to explain why your proposed "middle ground" contains a supernatural being who is exempt from evolution AND intelligent design/creationism.
No, your "middle ground" is nothing more (or less) than wrapping the scientific findings in your belief that "God wanted it done that way".
Science is not faith.
Faith is not science.
There is no "false dichotomy".
I've thought about this one, and a burning bush or being spoken to directly by God probably wouldn't do it for me. It would be far more likely that I was experiencing a hallucination or some other psychological phenomena, which is probably a good reason for God to pick someone other than me if He decides to reveal Himself to humanity (again).
Reality has a liberal bias
That, sir, is an *excellent* riposte.
Excuse me while I start to 'fish' my tuna sandwich out of the gaps in my keyboard...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
My wife was a very strong Christian with absolute faith in her life and her life after death until she took a theology class with a very obviously biased professor who spent a great deal of effort convincing his class of the folly of such belief. Now she questions her faith and correctness every day.
All it took was ONE "obviously biased" professor to break her absolute faith?
Yeah, that's some absolute faith there, buddy! Sheesh!
You think maybe she just internalises anything told to her by a person of authority?
She accepted blindly (what you called 'absolute faith') what her preacher told her, until she met a professor and then she accepted THAT blindly? That's the problem with accepting to be a lamb: You'll get taken on a ride by every sheep herder you meet.
You can't take the sky from me...
He'd/She/it would have to open all registers to make me believe. And would have to promise to make an appearance every time I'd be making a convert. Or else agree to the fact that all his other believers wouldn't actually believe in HIM/HER/IT but in my poor attempts at demagogy or enlightened self-interest or be sheep or indoctrinated at extreme young age.
Those prophets sure had a raw deal (or ate too many mushrooms).
I think, therefore I am...I think.
8. I still don't see how a copy error is new information. Your use of the phrase 'gets changed to' suggests that there was something to begin with, not _new_ information being _added_. But, maybe we're just splitting hairs of the use of terms. Most creationists will readily agree that micro-evolution occurs, because there is obvious evidence to support it. The problem is that macro-evolution is a big assumption that this process occuring over millions/billions of years (depending on who you talk to) produces different animals. This hypothesis has yet to be backed up by any evidence that doesn't involve a serious number of assumptions. :) ). And those examples themselves may or may not be genetic mutations: A cow producing more milk, or the different sized dogs sounds a lot more like genetic traits (like me and my Dad having dark hair) than mutations, but I'm not a geneticist so... :)
9. No, the assumption is not that all genetic mutations causes degeneration, he said that it _generally_ causes degeneration. Be careful about using absolutes (especially when referring to someone else's point
12. Point taken
1. Geological layers and fossil age. He quotes directly from textbooks used at school exhibiting this circular reasoning. As his objective is to eliminate lies from textbooks, I think this point alone fulfills the thesis of his talk.
There is nothing wrong with a textbook containing a simplified version of reality in order to get the point across. I might say that "a thrown baseball flies in a parabolic arc". And you could answer "no it doesn't, you forgot air resistance." And that's true. So, "a thrown baseball flies in a parabolic arc in a vacuum". And then you point out that as the height and speed of the baseball change, incredibly miniscule amounts of time dilation and length contraction alter its path in accordance with general relativity. I'm sure there are quantum effects as well that (again, incredibly slightly) affect its path.
That, of course, is entirely correct. But that doesn't make the statement "a thrown baseball flies in a parabolic arc" a lie, it just makes it not quite as precise as it could be. So when a textbook says that fossils can be dated using radiocarbon dating, well, that's close enough for anyone that doesn't intend to become a paleontologist.
2. He argues that if geological layers are formed chronically, the same ordering of layers should be widely observable, but only a few sites today show the correct layer order.
I can't comment on this without more information, but I've seen claims like this before -- and they always turn out to be based on complete and utter misunderstandings of what geologists are actually claiming. How likely is it that tens of thousands of geologists haven't noticed something as simple and basic as layers being "in the wrong order", while some random high school science teacher has?
3. He argues that geological layers can be formed in a matter of a few years due to relative particle density, similar to the way a stirred glass of mud water quickly settles down to layers. He uses the findings of standing trees that crosses geological layers to support this argument.
When did anyone claim otherwise? Yes, catastrophic events like floods and mudslides can build up huge amounts of silt and debris very quickly. The fact that it can happen doesn't mean that it's the norm.
4. He argues that the Grand Canyon cannot result from Colorado river cutting the rocks slowly, since the peak of the rocks are much more elevated than the source of the river, and that water does not flow uphills.
That assumes that the source of the river is still at the same elevation it was millions of years ago. Since the river itself is obviously much lower than it was millions of years ago (it's at the bottom of a canyon now), why assume that the height of the source has remained constant?
5. He uses the Grand Canyon example to show how Evolutionism and Creationism can cause people to interpret natural phenomenon differently. Evolutionists would claim that Grand Canyon is formed over a long period of time even when the conjecture clearly violates laws of physics.
So his point is that people can look at natural phenomena and reach incorrect conclusions? Wow, stop the presses, I never would have suspected that. Religious types have been rejecting rational explanations for millenia, that's hardly news. In what way does he claim a violation of the laws of physics?
6. Furthermore, he argues that Grand Canyon was formed due to a large body of water breaking through the surrounding land that was what the canyon used to be. The outburst of water body etched the canyon in a short amount of time.
Based on what evidence? It is, of course, possible that EVERY SINGLE GEOLOGIST IN THE WORLD is wrong. But unless I hear some damned good arguments, I'm tending to side with the geologists.
7. He argues that, since some fossilized ancient creatures, onced believed to be extinct, are still found alive today, it is generally not possible to iden
ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
Thus we have a condition under which it is favorable to carry the genetic information for sickle cell disese, even though that means that less of the offspring have a chance of reproduction. Everywhere else this advantage turns into a disadvantage. Note that very few mutations result in additional limbs or similarly drastic changes. A mutation might cause a bird's bill to be 2 mm longer or a human's skin to be slightly darker than that of the parents.
Now we have two groups that move in distinct directions. The effect you have talked about in item 8 comes to effect: Birds with strong bills prefer other birds with stron
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Well, no one really needs to make any assumptions about what you do or do not understand, since you yourself prove your ignorance about what a scientific "theory" is, along with using the term creationists made up, macroevolution
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The scary thing here is nothing to do with what 'BadAnalogyGuy' was posting, it's that you're too intellectually-challenged to recognise it as humour - it was in bad taste, malicious, and morally bankrupt, just like most good humour. I would point out that there is a difference between satire and genocide, and that a lot of the most lauded works of literature exhibit "the pen is mightier than the sword" characteristics.
Humour is a sophisticated weapon, no-one likes being the butt of a joke, and cracking jokes at these folks expense is one way of getting them to examine their beliefs in a social context. It may not be the most persuasive of options, but hell, we've *tried* reasoning with them... [sigh] the problem is that they insist on believing their 2000-year-old fairytale. Just because it's old, doesn't make it right.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
"Missing link"? That's not scientific terminology, and it hasn't been scientific terminology for many, many decades now. The only ones talking about "missing links" these days are creationists who are under the impression that Darwin's Origin of Species is the latest and the greatest on the science front.
My other body is also not wearing any.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we could somehow genetically reengineer Home Erectus and revive the species? Imagine how much we would learn.
I would be content with this except for one worry; social evolution, as far as I can see, seems to be the survival of the "worst", not really the best. Look at society and tell me, who's making the babies, raising them and indoctrinating them? It's not the smarties, it's the dumb ones.
Too bad he'll spend forever whining about how 8 high is the highest hand in poker because his religion told him it was, so you'll never get the pot.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Perhaps in the 4th sense of the word, but christianity is a religion in the first sense.
This is a tad like the whole "theory" extravaganza. You can use the same word to mean two different things, and then confuse everyone by equating these two different things with a crossover use of that word.
So people can be religious about their atheism, but atheism is not a religion in the sense that christianity is a religion.
You can't take the sky from me...
Evolutionists like to use the phrase "clearly debunked myth" to mock opposing arguments, but they're vulnerable to more debunks.
[CC310] (1) It glossed over how the index fossils are dated. (2) Although the strati are dated before evolution, this does not mean the dating is accurate.
[CC102] Since great natural forces can alter the columns, why are you still saying geological column dating is feasible? How can one tell the few areas that are undisturbed represent repeatable finding?
[CC335] It describes a specific case, but it doesn't explain the standing trees phenomenon.
[CC332.2] I think the question is not whether the trees were transported by flood, but the fact that these trees grew across the layers.
[CH581] I can't refute this one, but this has little importance in the actual evolution argument.
[CB102] I have a short debunk of this debunk. The structure of living things are highly ordered (low entropy). By second law of thermodynamics, entropy in any system can only increase or stay the same over time. Mutation is a random process that corresponds to raise in entropy, and leads to destruction of living organisms.
[CB101_2] (1) The accumulation of traits is not the basis of evolution, since evolution does not produce a different kind. If so, it wouldn't survive since it cannot breed with existing kinds. This contradicts with (3). (2) the ability for a bacteria to digest nylon is either created by scientists or is already part of the biochemistry in that bacteria that wasn't obvious except in adverse conditions.
[CB902] This one claims that creationists don't have a definition for macroevolution, which looks like what I mean by evolution across a kind. However, unless we can agree on what it is, I do not see a need to argue with this.
[11] False can imply truth. It is truth that cannot imply falsehood.
[12] I agree, and I hesitated including that in the summary, but I decided it'd be more honest if I do. In any case, someone asked for a summary because they don't want to watch the hour long video, and that's a summary they get.
I once had a signature.
Australia won't be producing oranges for much longer. Every time I go to the supermarket, the only oranges (and table grapes) they sell are from California. Meanwhile Australian friut growers in the Riverland are plowing their produce into the ground and ripping up fruit trees. It's a fucking disgrace.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Hooray! Yet another person who entirely missed the point. What I would actually say is that my religion and the game of poker have entirely separate rules. Thanks for playing and for helping to further verify my point in the minds of those who actually understood it.
Anyone care to speculate where this will leave us in 50 years, let alone 250,000?
It's been done -- look up the old SF short story "The Marching Morons". Brilliant story, Swiftian humour. 1930's I think. Read it.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Show me the evidence that a frog became a horse.
You can not be serious.
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
Creationists co-opted the term "Macroevolution". They didn't invent it.
No data, no cry
That's as maybe, but the real argument (at least in my view) is down to whether there is a divine creator intelligently guiding/controlling the development of species on earth or not.
8. Information isn't added, it's only changed. However, the amount of information can be increased (for example when a gene gets copied twice) and the additional information can then be changed, which leads to a result that is the same as if information had been added. I won't comment on the whole "micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution" thing. 9. How do new genetic traits appear? Mutation. The gene(s) responsible for udder development get copied incorrectly, leading to an udder that produces milk faster than the parent's does. The milk production speed is a genetic trait, but it was changed by mutation.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
(1: Reference fossils and accuracy) If you want more detail on how dating is established you can try here for a summary, or go to your library and get "Relative age inference in paleontology. Lethaia, v.13, p.239-248" by Harper which contains the technical details. The methods are meticulous and well understood if you actually bother to check the references.
(2: Determining column correctness) Please see the above references for the details. Essentially it is a matter of cross referencing all the various dating methods against each other from a wide variety of sources. The technical details that ensure this works and is valid can be foudn in the article by Harper.
(3: Trees) The "phenomenon" is essentially the same and can be explained in much the same way. Is it really so hard to believe that a tree, particularly one with deep roots, may have remained standing and fossilised/petrified while layers were deposited around it? When we excavate ruins that have been buried do you expect all the buildings to be lying flat and in only one layer of deposition?
(4: New information) That's just a terrible misapplication and misinterpretation of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics posit a closed system and total entropy. The system isn't closed - it gets plenty of energy input from elsewhere, and you are talking about local entropy not global entropy. The brief debunk is here, but seeing as you prefer detail you can try this fuller explanation of why you are misapplying things or this slightly different explanation.
(5: Different kinds) Again this seems to be a misinterpretation of evolutions claims. Changes can be subtle an allow interbreeding, but those changes can accumulate so that while interbreeding with those that are similar and possess most of the same accumulated changes is possible, interbredding with those who accunulated different changes from the outset is no impossible. For a practical example see Ring species which actually present exactly such a situation existing right now. Further your explanation is in complete contradiction to observed speciation which I gave several links to. In case you missed those, here they are again: Speciation, more observed speciation, yet more observed speciation. Feel free to check the references sections of those article for more detailed information on those observed speciation events.
(6: Macroevolution) The issue here is one of shifting goal posts. What constitutes a kind? Originally it was a species, but then after significant speciation was observed that was recanted and it was decided to be broader - how broad was generally left open so as to allow further restreats without having to recant anything. The question is "what actually constitutes a different kind?" I agree that unless we have an agreed definition that makes sense there's no point in arguing this one.
(7: Logic) Yes, false can imply true, but it most certainly doesn't follow by logical necessity anymore. Yes the final claim could be true, but given that all the claimed evidence for it isn't valid it isn't really worth arguing about.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The Easter Bunny?? I've always seen religious types as being children who never stopped believing in Santa Clause and the holy scripture 'Twas The Night Before Christmas.
As for "Intelligent Delivery", as you can see from the following passages [Moore, 1:49-52]:
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
the Holy Scriptures don't actually say that Santa Clause puts the presents under the tree himself; he only fills the stockings. So, the "middle ground" is that Santa brings the presents to the parents, and they put them under the tree.
But then, maybe it's all metaphors.
It was dated with Argon decay. Go read the real press release by the original author at http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/. Press releases by the popular press are often only mangled versions written by some liberal arts major and often contain errors.
>Radiocarbon dating only works up to about 50,000 years.
Other atoms has longer decay times, giving the ability to date rock up to billions of years.
> As the result, the meaning of that skull can be seen to be entirely fabricated.
Interesting interpretation by you.
> But how are geological layers dated? By the fossils that are found in them! This is circular reasoning!
Yes, your reasoning is very roundish.
Another method they are using to date this fossil is by the chemical composition. It was buried in volcanic ash and each volcanic eruption has a unique chemical signature. By matching the chemicals in the fossil to the eruption they can use other methods to match the eruption to a date.
It sounds like the fossil might have been a "float", meaning that it was eroded out of it's original bedding and washed downhill. Unfortunately that would mess up the context a bit. Still, a nice find and with some more detective work they can narrow down the date (hopefully).
This news was just a press release from the group that is studying the fossils and a full blown paper with more details should come out later.
True.
Hate is bad in any context, it's not rational (and that's what brings the circle round in a discussion about religion...)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Exactly my point. :) Whether there is or is not a divine creator/guider/designer/whatever is entirely separate from the question of how species evolve and develop. The problem is that too few people actually discuss the real question because everyone is too focused on claiming that they are right and thus everyone else is wrong, committing themselves to the false dichotomy. If people would cure themselves of the false dichotomy, they would be able to actually think about the real issues.
:)
I don't know for a fact that the theory of evolution explains everything about life on Earth, but it does a good enough job that I tend to trust it unless the small blanks left on the page get filled in with entirely inconsistent entries. I also can't prove that there's been divine intervention in the evolutionary process at some point, nor can anyone prove that there hasn't been.
These are entirely separate concerns. I like discussing either of them. I like discussing their interplay. I don't, however, like dealing with stubborn ignorami who can't understand that they are separate discussions. Thanks for reminding me that I'm not alone.
I love how every creationist is an expert on all things related to evolution. They alway bring up some insignificant little issue with carbon dating or the theory of evolution, and parade it around as if all the scientists in the world had never even considered them. God, you creationists are so smart!
Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is always the correct one and the simplest explanation in this case is that god created the entire universe in 7 days! So simple a child could understand! Now, THAT is how it's done. Scienced.
"I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
Except, of course, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is of recent origin, an attempt to ridicule any theistic belief.
The Judeo-Christian God spans at least 6,000 years of oral and written history.
An attempt to compare the two is completely disingenuous.
I dated a fossil once. We split up long ago. She didn't like carbonated.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
And please, don't make assumptions about how much I do or don't understand.
Didn't you express that you understand microevolution, and that you don't understand macroevolution? That's ok; its not the easiest science to come to grips with. It took me years to pull out of creationism and study evolution. Its worth studying though, and it'll aid your understanding of astronomy, biology, and geology, because they all tie together.
Just remember that you can't learn science through creationism.
No data, no cry
It doesn't matter what support either side has. The issue here isn't the merits of either side of the dichotomy. The issue is that it is a false dichotomy.
Wouldn't God just simply have the power to make you believe? If you didn't, or had doubts, not god. All that free will stuff seems like rationalizations to explain why skeptics exists, and why real miracles (not the faces on grilled cheese crap) are not regular occurances.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
People are welcome to believe whatever they want about religion and I don't care. They just can't call it science, and that's where your post goes horribly wrong. Intelligent Design's most recent reincarnation began in 1987. This was the year that teaching "scientific creationism" in public schools was struck down by the courts as unconstitutional in Edwards v. Aguilard. Also in this year, early drafts of the book Of Pandas and People started swapping out references of "creationism" and replacing it with "intelligent design" and "creationist" with "design propent," so at the beginning intelligent design == creationism, using little more than a word processor's search and replace function. This is exemplified by the instance of "cdesign proponentists" in place of "creationist," being found out in the the recent intelligent design lawsuit in Dover.
The Pandas wordswap was not the only piece of evidence in the Dover trial showing that Intelligent Design is just warmed over creationism, or even the most significant. Probably the most damning evidence came from the statements of the defense (Dover school board IDers). Classic bits from the trial transcript include moments where a member of the school board is shown to lie under oath to conceal the role of his church in procuring the alledgedly scientific and entirely non-religious Pandas book. Another is where Michael Behe admits under oath that calling Intelligent Design science requires revising the very definition of science, with the new definition making astrology science as well. Behe also admits that there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. Fellow witnesses for the defense also provided ammunition in Jones' decision against ID. Wikipedia has writeups on both Of Pandas and People as well as on the Kitmiller v. Dover decision, together with links to the trial transcripts, Judge Jones' decision, and other relevant material.
So if ID isn't science, than what is it? It seems clear that it's religion. Besides the Dover trial, here's some supporting evidence ripped from a post I made a while back: 1. The Wedge Document, 2. the Discovery Institute is funded largely by Howard Ahmanson, a person who also funds relgious extremists such as the Chalcedon Foundation, which has the express aim of turning the US into a theocracy, 3. Prominent proponents of ID frequently speak in churches, just like proponents of creation science, 4. the Dover school board was defended by the Thomas Moore Law Center, which is "...a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square." (from their own website, 5. "Of Pandas and People" despite being an ID textbook was written by creationists, 6. Bill Dembski says "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" (quoted from wikipedia, refering to Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4. July/August, 1999, the entire issue being devoted to supporting ID).
So again if someone wants to believe in god or not, that's fine by me. They can even believe that periodically God stops by to bring a flagella or something into existance in a "puff of smoke," to use Behe's view of Intelligent Design. They just can't call it science.
I don't think it is a continuum. More like a really tall, yet discrete, family tree. If you figure 1 million years of evolution and 20 years per generation then the tree has about 50,000 generations between us and the common ancestor at the root.
All right. Slightly more seriously, then. Your "frog becomes horse" example tries to ridicule the whole concept of evolution, using the fact that nobody ever saw a frog becoming a horse (or a gay prince, for that matter) over night (or in an instance, after being kissed).
/. readers, have had a good chance of dying before the first post without some rather simple, evidence based, procedures applied in the maternity room.
Nobody claims that ever happened. The distinction between micro and macro evolution you invoke is pretty artifical. This is all about timescales. The point is that it is indeed possible to increase the complexitiy of an organism by variation and natural selection, but only by a sequence of very small variations, accumulated over a very long time. If you want "macro evolution", just wait. Maybe nothing happens. Maybe complexity decreases. There is no goal. But it can happen. So, indeed, in principle a horse might have ancestors similar to frogs. Whether this is true of the species we call horses today is a completely different question -- a "just so story". Nevertheless, the species we call horses today almost certainly has some ancestors not looking like horses at all.
A famous example is the question how the human eye comes about. It was invoked by critics of the concept of evolution in order to prove that it must be wrong. The argument goes like this: "You can not seriously claim that something as comlex and wonderful like the human eye just accidently popped into existence!" But nobody claims that. It takes time. Big leaps are dangerous -- there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive. This is reflected by the fact that the organisation of the human eye has serious flaws. Evolution has no way to "correct" them because fundamental changes to the way it is organised are not favoured by small inceremental changes. This, in combination with the completely different types of eyes observed in nature (like, e.g. the eyes of squids), provides a strong hint towards evolutionary mechanisms at work.
So where do we come from? I do not know. I find it plausible that we are the product of accumulating small changes, and that we are actually still subject to change. I have to confess, I like the idea. What I like most, is the idea that we are going to learn more and more about all this, thereby, on many occasions, proving our previous assumptions wrong. If we find evidence that life on Earth was designed to some extent this would be thrilling news. Imagine! Somewhere out there is (or at least was) somebody who visited our planet! If so, let's find out where, when and why she did this. In my opiniion, this would be worth every effort.
One more thing, independent of the topic we discuss here. Science indeed has no means to "rule out a discussion of God". I never claimed that. Science is simply not interested in God. Supernatural entities are by definition not a subject of science. All I am saying is that God (which one?) is not a valid way to explain natural phenomena. Personally, I think the term "supernatural phenomena" consitutes a contradiction in terms.
And yes, you are right, scientists are ordinary people. And yes, there is bias and intertia in the communitiy. But the very method is constructed to overcome these flaws in the long run (a certain amount of intertia is helpful, though). This eveidence based approach is the most successful one ever applied. You and I, and very likely a significant number of
You say you are a Christian. Fine, I do not see how this is related to the subject at hand. As I understand, however, it is very much related to the way you are supposed to treat people. I, for one, wish you love and peace. Live long and prosper.
617B3B7F7E7C7D7F00EOF
enter the most awesome quote ever: "Praise me, for I am zombie Jesus. Behold my glory and stuff your kids with caffeine and chocolate."
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
whenever it wasn't vacationing at the ranch in Texas.
Clearing brush is a job the missing link can handle.
If we had more missing links clearing brush, we wouldn't need all those immigrants the missing links want to make felons for being here.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I was hoping they found the missing symlink to a file I lost ages ago.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The nice thing about evolutionary theory is that it explains the following observation: At one point, there was life, but there were no rabbits. Now there are rabbits. Where did the rabbits come from? Is the entire geological column nonsense, or did the rabbits just poof in from nowhere?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Here's a better question: What is it that evolution does that violates the second law that an embryo growing into an adult human being doesn't do? What's the thermodynamic distiction? Please show your work.
It drives me NUTS when somebody takes rigorous concepts like thermodynamics and information theory and applies them in a wishy-washy hand-waving way and then claims to have rigorously refuted over a century of good science. What is it that you know that all of the physicists in the world seem to have missed?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Is this before or after California kicks out all the illegal immigrants?
Because if you keep them they will continue to multiply while eating all of California's food.
If you kick them out, you will have nobody to pick the fruit.
........What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true......
Come up with a repeatable EXPERIMENT that disproves the second law of thermodynamics. Do an experiment that demonstrates by purely statistical, probabilistic methods or any other means you wish, a progression from simplicity to complexity. Show how a collection of simpler components self organizes into a complex system without the application of THOUGHT.
Even WITH the application of all the smarts of all scientists to help, take a collection of the 92 elements and make a "simple" one celled replicating organism, such as an amoeba. You may use any and all methods your imagination can come up with to assemble atoms into a living cell. If that is too difficult, make a virus from these same 92 kinds of atoms and inject it into an already existing cell and see if your newly created virus replicates.
Evolution's central tenet is that the complex life forms we observe came about by means other than involving the activity of mind or intellect. It preaches that simplicity goes to complexity when all we ever observe experientially and experimentally is exactly the opposite. Complex system, left to themselves, always tend to break down into simpler components.
Anyone who can do such an experiment will certainly deserve a nobel prize.
All theory is gray
The creationists are the ones that keep pushing their views, which have been proven wrong time and time again. They just won't stop. I think their main method of defending creationism is "repeat it enough times and people will start to believe it"... and it works!
Meh.
People need to learn, they need to think... blindly following what some ancient religion tells you is not productive. Why would you not want to progress? Well, I guess that would answer the reason why people are conservative.... they are scared of change. But people can do it, it just takes a LOT of time. This professor is doing his part in educating the masses.
Meh.
Why is it that a certain group of Christians (the so-called creationists) insist on taking the creation account literally instead of figuratively as it should be? The Bible is not meant to be a book of science... STOP TREATING IT LIKE ONE!!!
Meh.
Actually, no. Christianity as it's taught by a loud minority says this, but there's more to it than that.
For example, Paul says in one of the letters to the Corinthians that our faith won't be perfected until we have seen God. In other words, perfect faith can't be attained without perfect evidence. The Bible also has a lot to say about questioning everything that you are told.
It's just easier to tell people that your position is better because they don't have to think about it. Of course, it's also a lot creepier.
Cogito, ergo sig.
> Anyone else want their name stricken from the Book of Life?
Thankfully there is such a thing as "lawyer", I'll simply get another name!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Great statement... from somebody that does not understand the 2nd law. Yes, in a large sense, systems break down over time, or better, they diversify. But you can see systems coming together in real time all over. Evolution is happening RIGHT NOW. It is testable, it is observable, it is fact. Why argue that evolution doesn't happen over very large periods of time when we can watch it happening in short periods of time? Or do you not see evolution happening? Do you choose to ignore it because it complicates your belief?
Meh.
But but... God put the beams of light between us and the stars to test our faith!!!
Meh.
There is no such thing as a "missing link" between species, only a continuum of links. CNN needs better science writers.
Excuse me, I hear the Joke Police sirens...
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
You're right! It's gravity down. Gravity spends all of it's time trying to keep the religious people down (literally)!
The point is well made though, it doesn't count as a conspiracy if everybody is just advancing science.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
.....Or do you not see evolution happening?......
As a matter of fact, I don't know of any EXPERIMENT that was ever done to show how simple parts self assemble into more complex systems. Has anyone even made a structure like a hemoglobin or related chlorophyll molecule by even the application of human intelligence, let alone some mechanistic, probability driven means? We can take such a molecule apart and learn exactly what elements it is composed of. Can anyone now take these elemental parts and build one of these, even though we have an example? Using a living system to make these or using components that were once alive to do this is is not allowed since the experiment must assume that life doesn't exist and needs to be created from the most basic elements. Anyone who manages to do the above, proves evolution's central tenet, namely that simple elements can spontaneously unite to form very complex molecular structures.
It is you that doesn't understand the second law. The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container.
True science involves repeatable experiments that can be done TODAY, not philosophizing about what may have takes place millions of years ago. Do just ONE repeatable experiment that clearly demonstrates how a collection of parts assembles itself into some kind of functioning device that can make copies of itself.
All theory is gray
A drop in the bucket as far as the universe is concerned. 6,000 years isn't much... not even the entirety of human civilization. Nowhere near the million+ of years that humans have existed, and indiscernable amongst the billions of years the universe has been around. Having said that, may His noodly appendage cast me into eternal torment.
I disagree, I think the Creationism vs. Evolution debate is alive and strong. There are two contradictory views: one, that mankind was created by God as described in Genesis, and the other, that mankind evolved from a lower species. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who you ask, I guess), one's viewpoint on this issue and the rationale behind arriving at it is important for developing viewpoints on other scientific theories and moral stances on other seemingly non-related issues.
Now I will admit that there are a lot of intelligent Christians (and of other religions, for that matter) out there who believe in evolution as a tool used by God and that the book of Genesis is metaphorical, not a literal and historically accurate accounting of man's creation. Still others (an interesting set of folks, honestly) believe that God is nature, and that evolution is His spirit at work.
Me, I don't believe either of those philosophies, but at any rate, I still think your anology is incorrect. I'd word it more like the following.
Evolutionist:
Creationist:Well, I would definitely probably get my noggin' checked out if I really saw a burning bush, but even if it's not considered scientific evidence, yes, it would probably convince me.
I guess what it boils down to is that I'm a Doubting Thomas. I like to base my beliefs on what can be seen, touched, observed, repeated, predicted, and so on. If Doubting Thomas were alive today, according to most Christians, he'd probably go to hell because without being able to see and poke around on the evidence, he wouldn't have believed the story of the resurrection.
Now here's something to wrap your brain around. If I'm like Doubting Thomas, why is it that I go to hell for being the same type of person, when he got the proof he wanted and demanded, and that would also have convinced me?
I'm sorry, but it seems that the Christian god, as described in the Bible, has a nasty habit of playing favorites, capriciously sending people to heaven or hell based on whim and when and where they happened to be alive. Moses gets a burning bush, and all I get are "mysterious ways."
If God wants me to give up rational thought and to reject well over a century of thought, research, and evidence, it's going to cost Him more than 2000-year-old stories about His only begotton Son.
I agree with your comment, even though when I first read it, I thought you'd be getting a lot of flack. I guess I was right. :/
If I understand correctly, you're saying that evolution and creation are (for the most part) orthogonal concepts, the truth of one having little to do with the truth of the other. Even as an atheist, I agree with this. In fact, this is what many scientists (many of whom were atheists) have tried for decades to tell creationists (the science-denying kind) to no effect.
[Aside: I also understand (but perhaps not totally agree with) atheists who consider evolution to be evidence against God. It is certainly evidence against one rigid reading of the Bible; a reading and conception of God believed even by its proponents to be a virtual house of cards. It forces a more metaphorical account of Eden, which may be troubling since the fall was a main theodicy and is featured in understandings of Jesus' sacrifice. Evolution is also an explanation that makes parsimony more of an issue. (Is God superfluous?) And evolution does, in the least, remove the argument from design from the table. (Is belief then too difficult to justify?)]
On the matter of language... I guess you found out that using "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" to mean only that God is responsible for Creation (and not to refer to the crazy pseudo-science) is just simply begging for misunderstanding. In today's language, the specific pseudo-scientific theories are all that the words refer to. I think most today speak of "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism" in order to keep things clear.
Well, I agreed with you except on: "Evolutionists tend to take the closed-minded view that, because evolution happened, it must have happened entirely spontaneously and creationism of any sort must therefore be false."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "evolutionists." Most people who accept evolution are also religious. I believe the rate in the US is 40-50%, which by simple force of numbers requires atheists to be far outnumbered. Perhaps you mean just those who promote an exclusively materialistic account. (I would certainly argue that an exclusively materialistic account fits all the known scientific facts.)
But I would like it to be clear one way or the other, if you wouldn't mind responding.
......we see species change over the course of generations.....
None of the changes we have actually SEEN have evolved one species into another. Innumerable genetic experiments of every sort have been done with one celled organisms which make many generations in a short time. Yet not so much as ONE of these has resulted in a new species. E-coli and other bacteria and moths can respond to environmental stresses, but have and always will remain in their own group.
Countless generations of fruit flies (drosophila) have been subject to all sorts of chemical and radiative mutation inducing experiments. Some rather grotesque aberrations have come from these experiments, but all of them are still fruit flies. No jump from one kind or grouping generally dubbed species, has ever been observed to have actually happened in all this experimentation.
You are correct instating that "Evolution itself isn't science", because it is a system or doctrine based on faith, much like any other religion.
All theory is gray
So we don't have to hear any more arguing over terminology and research as its being reported from the field. Then we can put aside all the religious arguments, segmented scientists on theories and update how "where we came from" is taught in school.
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.
There is evidence that evolution is correct. I have encountered no plausible evidence that evolution is incorrect. Therefore I tentatively accept evolution. (Everything is tentative. Certainty is an illusion. Don't take this as an argument against evolution.)
I have encountered no plausible evidence that creationism is correct. It violates Occam's Razor to accept it. This isn't proof. Occam's Razor isn't always correct, but it's the best heuristic we have.
I don't see a dichotomy. It would be logically consistent to have both creationsism and evolution, and also to lack both, and have some other explanation (yet to be devised). Therefore it's not Creationism vs. Evolution. That is a false picture. But I also don't see any reason for including Creationism.
I see your point, but do you see mine? There isn't any evidence for creationism. None. What evidence would you accept as proof that creationism was incorrect?
(P.S.: This is a rhetorical question. I won't believe what you say, because I've argued with creationists before, and if I successfully produce the evidence they have always defaulted. I may be being unfair to you, but I'm more willing to be unfair to you than to expect you to live up to the agreement. I don't think you know yourself well enough. [I'm accepting that you are arguing honestly. I admit this is an assumption, but it's one that seems reasonable.])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Excuse me, 6,000+ years of RECORDED human history. The earliest known writings only go back about 6,000 years.
But why should that signify? Also I would deny that the current gods of the various sects of jews and christians are either unitary or the same as the older versions. I've read that bloody book, and the god of the older chapters is closer to Yog Sototh than to the god of most of the later chapters. I'm not sure of the spelling, but Yog Sototh is from H.P. Lovecraft. You can almost hear him slavering "The blood is the life! The blood is the life!" as you read some of the earlier books of the bible. Not at all what you encounter in the later books. Or read Job again, and then tell me that this is the same loving god spoken of by Jesus.
Yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is recent. Why is that any argument that it isn't the one true god? Perhaps the entire universe was created within the last five minutes? In that case the FSM would be "older than the universe", and you can't demonstrate that this is impossible, merely that it's not a parsimonious assumption. But then believing in any god at all is not a parsimonious assumption. And if you believe in one, why should any one option be favored over the others. Because my mother said so is not an acceptable answer. Perhaps my mother said something different.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Unfortunately the rot IS spreading. Australia also now has a growing factional political party bordering on these notions. And don't be fooled by the name (Family First)... they are determined to bring extreme christian religious doctrine into the political process.
Down under we used to have a phrase "only in america...", usually accompanied by a slow shake of the head. However, I haven't heard it used lately, as I think that the US has lost the status of "world leaders of irrational thought".
....God proves himself without our help, so all we can do is share his word in a loving manner and tell those we care about what He has done in our lives......
Indeed true. The supreme way that God has proved Himself, is the fact that He raised Jesus from the dead, THE central belief of Christians. If the resurrection of Jesus is not true, then what difference does it make whether a person believes in evolution or creation?
It is indisputable that everyone dies. Yet the resurrection provided proof from God that the death of Jesus on the cross does provide forgiveness from God and a hope, not only for beyond the grave, but also the joy here and now that such a hope provides.
Jesus promises life, eternal life, here right now and after physical death, to everyone who is willing to BELIEVE in His death and resurrection. It's that simple.
All theory is gray
....macroevolution occurred is a factual part of evolution.....
Can you give a definition of what you mean by this term and an example of its occurrence that has been experimentally verified?
All theory is gray
.....One must believe with no proof at all,....
The depends on what you consider "proof". In a court of law, nothing is ever "proved", but evidence and witness testimony is presented and you as a juror must decide whether to believe the evidence presented.
The Bible gives the testimony of eye witnesses and other evidence to the most stupendous event that ever happened on this planet. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead. You, the juror must carefully and impartially consider the evidence, as presented and judge from that alone. You may not take into account any evidence you may have heard from other sources other than what is directly presented. Read the record as presented in the Gospels for yourself.
Arguing about evolution or creation is minor, compared to the issue of death. You WILL die. By returning from death, God demonstrated through Jesus that death is not the end of your existence. God, in love, offers you life through Jesus. You may accept that by believing God's testimony that He raised Jesus back to life. You may reject that and you will get death, which simply means you will will have an existence apart from God forever. Life is light and the absence of life is death and darkness.
All theory is gray
They just found the dumb thing and because its not a dinasaur its a "possible missing link" it could probably be a cure for cancer too - like the blind sea horses they found last week. Its way too early to say anything.
This seemingly goes against your second law... a system seems to be organising itself, rather than tending towards higher entropy.
Now, fortunately for you, the second law applies to thermodynamically *isolated* systems, and the Himalayas alone are not isolated (ie, they interact with their environment, ie the earth's crust).
One could certainly argue that the first organic compounds that came together in some chemical pools in the distant past were, likewise, not thermodynamically isolated, and therefore do not counter the second law of thermodynamics.
Thank you for reading my comment and comprehending it before responding. As the moderation spree (up and then back down) and flurry of responses shows, you are lonely in having done so. I always respond to reasoned responses and sensible questions about what I've said. After all, I'm not a total asshole. ;)
;)
Your "perhaps" nails it. When I said "evolutionists" in that sentence, I meant to refer only to those who say that, because of evolution and for no other reason, creationism is dead wrong; the same as my references to "creationists" tend to be for those who deny evolution for the sole reason that they believe in creation.
So yes, contrary to popular belief, I was only attacking the false dichotomy argument that people on both extremes tend to make. To me, the response that I received proves the related point that the majority of people suck at logic, even the majority of people on Slashdot who ought to pride themselves on being able to think rationally.
So anyhow, I spent my Sunday mastering the art of using the wrong words to get a simple point across. How was yours?
After reading through evolutionists and creationists views in this discussion I think everybody (as in the-whole-society) would benefit from attempt from both groups at the following question:
/. ?
/. the missing meta-link ?)
Why did god create
(with a sub-theme: Is
---
Out of sigs.
If people wouldn't miss that point, there wouldn't be a point to be missed.
Play Command HQ online
By macroevolution, I mean changes that occur between species rather than within species. An example is some primates losing tails, with traces remaining, even in humans. A species getting taller or fatter over time would be an example of microevolution, not macroevolution. A detailed comparison between creatures can show where macroevolution has occurred. Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals. (Their lack of vertabrae makes this clear too, of course.) Dissection, fossils, and examining ebroyos are all experimental tools. One very important thing to look out for is correlation; one discovery or experiment that points to an evolutionary occurance is just fodder for skeptics, but when many different experiments support it, the conclusion becomes clear.
Wikipedia describes it here.
You can find web evidence to pore over here.
No data, no cry
Here is the REAL missing link.
This is from the scientists themselves, not CNN (note, the term "missing link" is absent).And it goes on to give details of the discovery and some photos of the skull and its discoverers. Seeing as it was only found a few weeks ago, there obviously is lots more work before any conclusions can be drawn.
And though it's predicable, of the 500 or so comments so far, about 99% are just recycling the same boring fucking flamewar about creationism vs evolution that happens every time an excuse occurs in an article here. No one is paying any attention to the specific discovery.
Personally, for instance, I found it interesting that it was an Ethiopian scientist credited with the discovery, though sponsored by an American university. That this terribly poor country can still contribute to real science is heartening. So when Americans make evolution illegal, there will be someone to carry on the torch of scientific enquiry.
It's a news article. It only has the amusing details.
People usually believe that you can carbon date a piece of fossil and make a statement that it is 250,000 years old, but it is not the case. Radiocarbon dating only works up to about 50,000 years.
Fortunately they didn't use carbon dating for this fossil.
University of Arizona page about this discovery:
I thought dragging his wife around by the hair was a little weird.
I hope they take the large black rectangle off his lawn too, too many "friends" hootin' n hollerin' and beating the ground at night around it.
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
>>Did Adam have a belly button? :) - i've just found it on amazon for 7 quid
>Cheers
As a matter of fact, I don't know of any EXPERIMENT that was ever done to show how simple parts self assemble into more complex systems.
Apparently you are unaware of crystal formations or, for that matter, the emergence of multicellular organisms from zygote form.
It is you that doesn't understand the second law. The principle of entropy has far wider applicability than only thermodynamics.
Then perhaps you could cite a peer reviewed scientific article that comes to the conclusion that complex systems cannot form.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Except, of course, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is of recent origin, an attempt to ridicule any theistic belief.
Curious. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created as a means of mocking the "Intelligent Design" movement. Are you saying that the proponents of Intelligent Design, who state that ID is not religious in nature, are lying?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Evolution occurs by natural selection, not by divine guidance. Evolution by divine guidance is just a slowed down version of intelligent design. It's fundamentally wrong.
How can I be trolling when I'm presenting only the facts? I'm only saying Wikipedia says so and so, and Kent Hovind says so and so.
To be fair, it is difficult to distinguish between an act of trolling and mere repetition of Kent Hovind's claims.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
Hell, I'd be flabbergasted if he could indicate how the slow formation of the Grand Canyon violates the laws of physics without being specific and without showing his work. Heh.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
No, he is correct. He (correctly) says that 'evolution' means the change of frequency in alleles over time. This is not a theory. This is data. We see the gene pool change. Generations are genetically varied. What he is saying is that while this evolution cannot be disproved (and so, it follows one should not use the phrase "disproving evolution", because it makes as much sense as "disproving the existence of hands"), the theory of evolution, holding that all organisms are descended, with modification, from one or many less complex organisms, can potentially be disproved. Thus, the correct phrase to use would be "disproving the theory of evolution".
The missing link is in the cubical beside me. The pungent smell of pits combined with grunting and keyboard pounding are a sure sign.
"Never say Never."
Not so
When certain aspects have either been proven wrong or shown quite improbable, most of the accepted theories of evolution change to account for it
I get the impression that you think this is a bad thing. Indeed, I have heard this many times before - "whenever new data arrives, the evilutionists just change the theory!" I cannot understand this. Evolution has consistently made predictions which have subsequently been confirmed, and it has also changed to reflect newer data. The predictive power shows that it is not merely an ad hoc theory thrown together to give scientists something to believe instead of God, and as for changing to include current understanding of phenomena: this is merely the logical position. To not alter the theory would not make sense.
The usual meaning of 'Creation' is "belief that, at some point within the last 10,000 years, God created the universe, the planet and all life ex nihilo, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis." The Creation myths of other religions are usually described as "(adjective-form of religion-name) Creationism", e.g. Islamic Creationism etc. What you describe as your belief is called "theistic evolution".
What you describe as your belief is called "theistic evolution". :) Nice... what a cool name...
California's economy would collapse because it produces nothing but bad movies and even worse wine
Obviously you know nothing about California. That state is the largest producer of food in USA by quite a bit. And as for the the wine, you must be a white zinfendel drinker. California wines are world renown. When France had the blight killing off it vineyards, where did they go to get cuttings to replant? California. Now, as an avid wine drinker, there are many good places to grow wine, and trying to pick the best is silly. Fifty years from now, great wine will grow all over the world. But California is a huge state with many types of climate. And great wine are made there. Napa Valley Stags Leap district is absolutely awesome.
Now the movie stuff may be true, but who cares, it seems that middle America sure watches all that reality TV crap.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
I agree that it's wrong, but only because I don't believe that there is such thing as a divine intelligence.
However, if such a thing did exist, there is nothing in what we see in evolution that would prevent it being guided by that being. Take selective breading in farm animals as an example - the underlying principles are those of evolution through genetic variation, and there is some form of selection going on, but in this case it's the farmer that's deciding which animals are 'fittest' to breed.
The proof you're asking for will be difficult to provide since a species doesn't evolve in to a new one within a time-period we can observe. However, science is also based on observation. There are solar systems and planets we can't directly see but we know they are there because of the gravitation effects they have on their neighbours. We know that evolution is a valid theory because we can observe the species on this planet. Combining geographical distribution, the fossil record and genetics we can surmise that shared ancestory is the logical explanation.
The argument from credulity is a poor rehashing of Palley's watchmaker. Crystals are complicated structures but this doesn't mean that it had to be designed. Regards the eye, if it was designed you'd have to wonder why it was designed with so many flaws. The routing of the optic nerve means that the each eye has a blind-spot. The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency. Retinas can become dettached. In the animal world we can see eyes in various stages of development. At the high end we have eyes like ours. At the low end, we have worms with light sensitive rods that can do little else than detect the presence of light.
The eye of an octopus in comparison seems better thought-through. For one, the routing of the optic nerve in the octopus eye doesn't create a blind spot. If God is the designer here, he didn't do a terribly good job.
All these mechanisms are imperfect because they evolved over time through a process of natural selection. Adaptations with a benefit have a greater chance of surviving. To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote. The odds of life existing are very remote but we know it's possible since we exist.
If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution then I suggest you publish it in a peer reviewed scientific paper and win the Nobel Prize. Science would benefit from evolution being proved false if that is the case.
You are perfectly entitled to believe that an all-knowing God designed these imperfect machines but it's silly to claim that ID is as valid a theory as evolution. ID is a religious theory with a complete lack of verifiable evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence that continues to accumulate. Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision on par with believing that we were created by a god? Perhaps heliocentricity is also something that could be considered a faith based decision.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
It is very rare that I have anything nice to say about Florida, but I have to call BS. Every California orange I've had has been thick skinned, bitter, tasteless and mealy compared to FL oranges. I spent many days of my childhood riding horses in FL orange groves and sampling fruit. There are oranges out there that would blow your mind they are so good.
Granted, I haven't had a California orange since 1978 so things may have changed since.
I suspect if FL oranges truly are inferior now, it is because of economic reasons. Perhaps people are more likely to drink OJ than they are to eat fresh fruit? In the 1980's we had severe freezes which wiped out many thousands of acres of groves. That would have been an opportunity to replant with more profitable juice trees. Just a guess.
Say all you want about the Bible thumping homophobic bitch who used to be spokeswoman for FL oranges. She knew oranges, but she didn't know about the better bipedal fruits that have evolved:-) >sorry
http://www.marxist.com/
It is interesting that when the news media reports on a crime, it is an alleged homicide that someone allegedly committed. It has to be tested and proven before they will make a definitive statement about it.
/. or CNN or whatever...then it is up for debate - why? Because debate among amateurs who have little to no access to the entire story is much more arousing than the scientific process. I'd much rather speculate and hear myself pontificate among other equally bullheaded individuals than put in the lab time and maintain perspective on the bigger picture.
On the contrary (IMHO) it seems that a scientific "find" is automatically classified as "evidence of" some theory without being tested or proven at the point on which it is reported to a journalistic/blogging community like
Could it be that we just blindly trust whatever "scientists" tell us? I have my theories on different scientific hot-button issues, but they are irrelevant as news or banter because some are faith-based and others are just how I process bits and pieces of scientific information I receive (not being a professional scientist, my opinion isn't one to lean on unless you are, well...me).
Maybe this is the long way around just saying that we should take what we hear with a grain of salt. Finding a missing link doesn't change my life. Finding a missing remote changes my life. What I think about a missing link doesn't ultimately make much difference in your life. What I think about you and how I treat you does.
Wasn't the missing link found quite a while ago? I think I read about it over at this site...
Frog blast the vent core.
I apologise for being blunt, but your post is creationist BS. You mention the only two fakes known and all of a sudden all hominid fossils are labeled "faked" by you. The moderators are doing the right thing when they mod you down, disinformation should not be encouraged.
Nebraska Man? It never even made it into wider public knowledge. Only some stubborn creationists keep mentioning the creature (which quickly turned out to be a pig tooth - being omnivorous creatures, pigs have molars that look a lot like ours).
Piltdown Man? A much, much worse case, since unlike the Nebraska Man this critter got lots of publicity and was even scientifically described and accepted, but guess what? Science, being a self-correcting process, worked the whole thing out and although it took a long time, the "fossil" was proved to be a hoax. Great, if you ask me.
Of course, now you'd have to explain away fossil hominids like Australopithecus, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus, several species of Homo and so on. But you can't. Nobody can, because all those fossils are real remains of real human-like creatures. Tough luck, creationists.
If you studied Biology you would know that the simpilest forms of life are barely more then basic proteins linked together. They really aren't that complex at all. You can also follow how each organism through time got more and more complex by the smallest of increments. There is no magic, just ALOT of time and ALOT of simple proteins combining.
Actually, the idea of change in species gained a foothold at least a century before Darwin. What Darwin provided was a reason for such -- the conflict between population growth and the environment. That conflict results in precisely the same pressure on breeding stock that human farmers and pet owners have been artificially imposing on their animals for the last few thousand years to spectacular result.
He was preceeded by a century or more of geologists who had started systematically studying strata and noticed that the Earth was at least several million years old. They also noticed lots of funny fossils in their rocks. People such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others had proposed systematic change in species, but they didn't have a reason for such.
Darwin didn't just jump up and scream "Eureka". He noticed the variation in Galapagos Finches and went over his notes from the voyage. He then spent the next ten years studying variation and diversity of barnacles, thus becoming a very respected naturalist. He only started writing the Origin of Species when Alfred Russell Wallace sent Darwin a paper for proofing that described the same sort of evolutionary pressure that Darwin had been pondering for the last decade.
It's important that we are not just talking about humans -- Africa's fossil record for the last 25 million years is crap. There is a much richer wealth of fossils on other continents and for different eras, and 19th century geologists had already started cataloguing such by the time Darwin was choosing between joining the clergy or first sailing around the world.
My other body is also not wearing any.
......Apparently you are unaware of crystal formations.....
A crystal is nothing more than a repeating structure of atoms arranged by the "shape" of the atoms. Comparing a crystal to a living cell is like having a 800 page book filled with pages of "aaaaaaaaaaaaa" or "ababababababab" as compared to "The Lord of the Rings" or a similar work.
Evolution has no way to account for a structure like the human eye or the existence of consciousness. Perhaps you can show me a peer reviewed scientific article that describes a procedure on how to duplicate any of the complex sensory systems found in mammals. Even today, there exists no manmade image sensor that can register a single photon and yet also not be instantly destroyed by the light input of a snowy, sunny winter scene. Yet your eye can do this. How did it "evolve" to have such a huge dynamic range of light? Even more, man made image sensors come nowhere close to having the sensitivity to light and the incredibly high resolution, all in one instrument. If man cannot duplicate the performance of such structures by intelligent efforts, you expect me to believe they came about by chance? You may have that kind of faith, but I don't.
All theory is gray
....are barely more then basic proteins linked together.....
This statement shows how ignorant you are in micro-biochemistry. Do you know how many atoms have to be precisely arranged in order to make even the simplest functional protein? Has even the best scientist ever synthesized a chlorophyll molecule from basic elements, as found in the so called "simple" algae? Exactly how the chlorophyll molecule in green things captures sunlight and enables green plants to make the food you eat is still largely a mystery. Yet just by "chance" it's process tailored to spectrum of the sun's light. Even WITH our intelligence and a working prototype to study, humans cannot make a working chlorophyll molecule. Do you really expect me to believe that random, probabilistic processes occurring over millions or even billions of years have accomplished to build functional molecular structures such as chlorophyll, hemoglobin and DNA information storage systems? Scientists have actual examples of all of these, yet, by the best INTELLIGENT efforts have never duplicated any of these mentioned. Scientists are learning that the biochemical processes in living cells are unimaginably complex.
All theory is gray
Ever watched Stargate SG-1? It would take quite a bit of convincing for any being to prove to me that he/she/it is God. Maybe collapsing the entire universe into a black hole would do it for me...
.....Crystals are complicated structures.....
Crystals are really primitive, endlessly repeating structures compared to even the simplest proteins.
(.....The light having to pass though a layer of blood vessels reduces it's efficiency.....)
Nevertheless, the eye can detect a single photon, yet not be destroyed by the light intesity of a sunny, snowy winter scene. Nobody has made a camera that has the resolution of a healthy human eye, yet is as sensitive to light. High resolution sensors or film are not very sensitive to light and highly sensitive film doesn't have good resolution. When someone builds a camera that can equal this, I'll buy your argument that the eye is a poor design. An Octopus and its eye is designed for a water environment and has a different function for that creature.
(......To dismiss this on the grounds of probability is like being dealt a hand of cards and then claiming it can't be possible since the odds on receiving that hand are so remote.....)
Anybody who has ever done any probability calculations for the formation of even only the basic molecular structures in life forms quickly learns to write double and even triple digit exponents. Study the chlorophyll, hemoglobin or DNA data storage molecules and calculate the chances of any one of such functioning structures evolving by probability mechanisms. Measuring the age of the universe in nanoseconds will still yield numbers many orders of magnitude smaller than these calculations.
(.....If you know of a way to refute the broad theory of evolution.....)
There is no way to refute evolution, because it is based on belief, just like all the other theories of origins. Evolution preaches that the simple became complex over time. That is not according to what we experience in the universe we currently live in. Here everything tends to break down from the complex to the simple.
(.....Would it be right to claim that the theory of gravity is a faith-based decision.....)
No, unlike evolution, the theory of gravity can be and has been experimentally tested TODAY. It is not based on what gravity may have been like in the distant past. Evolution postulates things that supposedly happened in the past, but cannot be tested experimentally today.
All theory is gray
You may not take into account any evidence you may have heard from other sources other than what is directly presented.
Huh?
Your argument by analogy is incredibly flawed, in multiple ways.
*Even* if I stipulate that the New Testament is, indeed, eyewitness testimony (although we have no concrete proof that the writers of any particular text we have were actually eyewitnesses, as opposed to second- or third-hand reporters), it is hardly unbiased.
You miss the most important aspect about the rules of evidence in a court of law: that the judge is presumed to be applying the rules of evidence in an impartial way. Reasons to exclude evidence include that it is inflammatory, or that it cannot be properly contested by cross-examination, that it cannot be authenticated, etc., etc. If the jury were to see such evidence, they would be improperly influenced, and the judge's role is to prevent that.
Gospels are not evidence in the legal sense. They were written *specifically* to persuade people to believe in the Christian religion. They are *not* impartial accounts. We cannot cross-examine the writers of the Gospel to get them to explain certain unclear points of authorship and motivation.
For instance, the Gospels do not, and would not, include any accounts from the thousands of people in and around Jerusalem who did NOT see Christ after the resurrection. Instead, we are left pretty much with those accounts that third-century authorities decided would be most proper for use in Christian worship. Everything else was to be suppressed.
....Not so...
There has been a lot of disagreement about the definition of species and other biological groupings. The point is that there are distinct groupings, whatever they may be called, that cannot cross from one to the other. All the fruit flies in the article (drosophila) always were and remained fruit flies, even though their behavior and other characteristics were different. None of them ever became some entirely new creature.
All theory is gray
.....You miss the most important aspect about the rules of evidence in a court of law.....
So do you. A witness is assumed to be telling the truth unless other evidence also PRESENTED IN court contradicts such a witness. The gospels are four witnesses to the event of the resurrection.
Every lawyer in the US is required to study an extensive volume written by a law scholar by the name of Simon Greeenleaf. It is called simply "The Rules of Evidence" and is still used as the basis of operation of every court of law. This highly esteemed legal scholar has also written a book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists" wherein he examines the biblical record of the four Gospels as we now have, by the same rules of evidence used in our courts today. You may still be able to get a copy for yourself. Its ISBN= 0825427479 I recommend you read that and thereafter read the four Gospel accounts in light of the rules of evidence.
All theory is gray
A crystal is nothing more than a repeating structure of atoms arranged by the "shape" of the atoms.
I am aware of this. However, crystal formation creates structures corresponding to a complex "pattern", which -- according to your interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- is impossible. I would suggest that it is your understanding of the Second Law that is in error, rather than a case of every biologist on the planet simply not considering fundamental chemistry.
How did it "evolve" to have such a huge dynamic range of light?
Very simply. Biological photoreceptor structures that could not handle such a dynamic range resulted in the organism with such structures not surviving to reproduce.
If man cannot duplicate the performance of such structures by intelligent efforts, you expect me to believe they came about by chance?
You are appealing to incredulity, and you are also demonstrating a lack of understanding of the process of evolution. While mutation and environmental shifts are themselves "random" events, the result of natural selection is not "random", and is what creates the specialized structures found in living organisms. The result is that a diverse number of structures can come to exist, but only a select few will remain in existence for a significant length of time. Human development techniques do not tend to use such a process, because such processes are cost-prohibitive.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I just finished reading Graham Phillips' book about the Knights Templar and the Ark of the Covenant. He has some interesting thoughts on that very intriguing question, based on a stone slab he supposedly found:
http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages .nsf/Links/B2A5F18842CF06918025708C0050F483
You can't just go around applying physical law by analogy or equivocation. I can't say that a person's attraction to sweet food is "like gravity" and start applying relativistic calculations to strawberry shortcake. Likewise, I can't say that the government forces me to pay taxes, so we can apply force = mass*acceleration and figure out my income based on how long it takes the check to get to the Treasury department. Somehow, tortured analogies and equivocation become fair game with thermodnyamics. I just don't get it.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Here's a worthwhile question to consider, though: Why have you noticed this calculation but hordes of biochemists appear to have missed it? Do they just hate religion, or could it be something in their years of study that the average armchair physical chemist is missing?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
.....a little bit of cherry picking from Wikipedia......
I'll give you a little "cherry picking".
The second law of thermodynamics encompasses more than just temperature.
A quote from the WIKI article: "Unlike most other laws of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is statistical in nature, and its reliability arises from the huge number of particles present in macroscopic systems. It is not impossible, in principle, for all 10^23 atoms in a gas to spontaneously migrate to one half of container; it is only fantastically unlikely -- so unlikely that no macroscopic violation of the Second Law has ever been observed."
Evolution of simple life forms into complex ones has also never been observed, and although not impossible, it is just as unlikely as the atoms all migrating to only one part of a container. If you have two such containers connected with a pipe, the pressure in both of them will be equal. If you replace the pipe with an intelligently designed power-driven pump, you can get all or most of the atoms into one container only. If you supply energy only, such as heating the pipe, there will be be an equal increase of pressure in both containers. Only the designed pump, supplying energy does the job.
All present experience shows the opposite of the evolution dogma, namely that complex things fall apart into simpler pieces. Do an experiment TODAY that shows the opposite. There is no mechanisms you can show today of what evolution conjectures by faith happened by whatever processes you care to name in the past. You don't have to use the "expensive" processes evolution supposedly employs. Just come up with a plausible experimental simulation. Write a computer program that shows how an eye might "evolve".
All theory is gray
......So, you seem to have a pretty good idea of what constitutes speciation.....
Scientists have argued over the exact definition of this term for a long time. How many kinds of dogs are there? How close to dogs are coyotes, foxes and wolves? Want to call them all a species? Probably not. Mice, rats, rabbits and so forth are classed as rodents and house cats, tigers, leopards, lions etc. are all some kind of cat. Evolution claims that all of these had a common ancestor, eventually going back all the way to the primordial ooze. The biblical presentation is that these various "kinds" were created each of them distinct with no crossovers between them. This is what we still find today. Nobody has ever made a transition creature nor found one between say a reptile and a bird. That line has not and cannot be crossed. Yet evolutionists claim that birds descended from reptiles.
All theory is gray
Indeed you did. You just whacked my entire post and all of the arguments in it. Touché.
And that's all very true. That's NOT where your argument falls flat on its face.
This is where you're failing. You CAN create localized decreases in entropy by applying energy. The entropy merely moves elsewhere. That's how life stays alive. That's how you end up with salt crystals and steam when you boil salt water. Your particular experiment demonstrates the second law, but it doesn't demonstrate the concept I'm trying to point out to you. You have yet to explain how life holds itself together by taking in energy without violating your understanding of the second law. You have yet to explain how we ended up with crystals and steam without violating the second law. The bottom line is, you have only a peripheral understanding of the second law and you're using it the wrong way.
This sentence is an oversimplification, so any experiment I do to demonstrate that it's wrong has no bearing on thermodynamics. The salt water experiment I linked to in my post does, though. You've been ignoring it consistently. Why?
Go back to the salt water experiment and explain how it fails. We start with a pot of salt water. We apply heat (and heat alone!). The water boils off and we get high entropy steam and low entropy crystals. The net entropy has not decreased, but localized entropy has. Does this violate the second law? Now, think about a living being growing: It's bringing about all sorts of order and complexity by taking in energy from the sun and producing entropy. Its body remains a localized area of steady or decreasing entropy until it dies and stops converting energy. The same thing happens for evolution.
Or, to take another approach: A strand of DNA can be viewed as a bit stream (although small changes in DNA can result in HUGE changes in protein functionality, we'll ignore this fact for the moment). We have observed that natural mutations can substitute, duplicate, insert, and delete base pairs. Those things can and do increase the entropy of the string. You can calculate it. In fact, why not start there? Define what you mean by complexity (Shannon entropy, Kolmogorov complexity, e
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
......Comparing the compound eyes in insects to the kind of eyes that fish, reptiles, and mammals have is enough to show that insects branched off from fish much earlier than reptiles or mammals......
:-) !!
All these are interpretations of the past. Nobody has ever done an experiment today, that such things really happen. The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here)
Neither evolution nor ID can demonstrate their conjectures by present day experimentation, but you may choose which one you wish to BELIEVE.
All theory is gray
So what's your take on archaeopteryx? In fact, given that the existence of something like an archaeopteryx (not just the general form, but the time period when it would be expected to have existed) was predicted before the fossil was found, what's your take on the prediction that evolutoinary made? Just good luck?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
True that the octopus eye is suited to it's environment. Dark skin is better suited to hot regions and light skin better suited to areas where the sunlight is less harsh. This would suggest that species have adapted to their environment since the environment has changed substantially over the past 10,000 years. Either these species were all lucky and managed to find their way to environments suited to them or they evolved in response to their environment.
A computer hard drive is better at storing and retrieving raw data in a lossless format than the brain is. This doesn't prove or disprove the fact that the brain evolved.
If you have compelling evidence that would disprove the broad theory of evolution, I would strongly advise you publish it. Newton has been proven wrong, I'm sure Darwin can be if there is sufficient evidence.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
No, the jury (or the judge, acting as finder of "fact" when there is no jury) can choose to ignore testimony or evidence that it believes not to be credible. Just because. It does not need to be explicitly questioned by the other side.
It is, of course, in the interest of the other side to elicit testimony or produce evidence that tends to question the credibility of witness testimony that was harmful to the case. But not required.
The point still remains that the rules followed in a court of law are not meant to establish "absolute truth." They are intended to provide a fair, just, and hopefully reliable system for determining outcomes of trials. That the O.J. Simpson jury decided that the government had not met the burden of proof to convict O.J. does not mean that it is conclusively proven that O.J. did not actually kill Nicole Simpson.
The judicial rules of evidence are completely and totally irrelevant to questions of historical fact or religious belief. That you have confused these very different fields is evidence that you are a clueless nut.
The fact that you seem to think the Gospels are some objective eyewitness testimony, as if they were simply wire service bulletins "This just in: Reuters reports Jesus Christ found risen from the dead. Interviewed at the scene, Mary Magdalene stated that..." is additional evidence you are a clueless nut.
They are written accounts, probably written many years after the events, by people who were hardly objective in their descriptions, and often wrote about events (like the Annunciation and the Nativity) they were highly unlikely to have any first hand knowledge of. They got important historical and geographical details confused. Where they share common text, it often appears they are quoting from each other or from an earlier common source. They have clumsy patch jobs on them, like John 21:23. They were deliberately chosen because they were in accord with a particular Orthodox school of thought, and other texts were deliberately suppressed.
Now this is a fascinating claim. You seem to be saying that, even if God was standing right in fron of me, it wouldn't prove the existence of God. Please explain ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I'm always amused at creationists who think that scientists are in some kind of dark conspiracy to push "the agenda" of evolution.
I thought that the agenda was to push naturalism and atheism. (Hint: science cannot use, assume, or conclude supernatural things; it would then have to explain how they work under the laws of nature.)
What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true and that creationism is not?
How about this: analize DNA on a base-pair by base-pair level. The statistics should say whether the DNA can reasonably be explained by chance; if so the Bible is wrong (I don't think people can honestly reinterpret the Bible as saying that creation took millions of years and occured by chance).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
....Why have you noticed this calculation but hordes of biochemists appear to have missed it?....... ...It's not that they missed it, but that they have deliberately ignored it. In Darwin's time, nobody knew of the incredible complexity of what was then and is still often today called a "simple" cell. Even the tiniest bacterial cell contains trillions of atoms arranged to perform elaborate synthesis of a variety of complex products. Such a cell is in effect an incredibly complex machine or factory making some intricate products. The pancreas cells make a complex hormone family collectively called insulin. The cells in your bone marrow make the molecule hemoglobin that carries oxygen to every one of the cells of your body. Large human factories do not produce products even having even remotely as many working parts as a hemoglobin molecule. It is incredibly complicated. You can see a representation thereof here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemoglobin
In a lottery, your chances of winning are determined by a series of numbers. If you get 6 of them right, you win the jackpot. However, you only have to get the numbers, but not the order in which they appear, in order to win. Using the lottery kind of math, figure out how many atoms have to be arranged in the correct positions and ORDER for a hemoglobin molecule and then calculate the probability that this will happen. In figuring the probability that all these atoms will self assemble into a hemoglobin molecule, you'll quickly get into numbers that boggle the human imagination.
In the random shuffling of cards, as per the article "bad math" you are looking for one and only one particular sequence, not any outcome. Substitute atoms for cards and there is only ONE combination that will make a properly functioning hemoglobin molecule.
Life at the molecular level is far too complex to have arisen by any probabilistic known mechanism in the time available in the supposed age of the universe.
All theory is gray
No jump from one kind or grouping generally dubbed species, has ever been observed to have actually happened in all this experimentation.
Careful there; species seems to be defined as a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, though there seems to be plenty of exceptions. It's actually quite easy to create a group that cannot interbreed with the original species, even if it does look exactly like the same critter.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So what's your take on archaeopteryx?
arminw: None of the changes we have actually SEEN have evolved one species into another.
Though by 'species' I think he means 'what the layman would call the same species'
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
.....They are written accounts, probably written many years after the events, by people who were hardly objective in their descriptions, and often wrote about events (like the Annunciation and the Nativity) they were highly unlikely to have any first hand knowledge of......
These people claimed to be eye witnesses of the resurrection and were willing to and did die for the truth thereof. How many people do you know that are willing to die for a story the KNOW to be false or mere hearsay? The enemies of Jesus would have dearly loved to squelch these rumors by producing the dead remains of Jesus.
Peter writes in one of his letter to early Christians:
2Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Peter and many others have since died for disseminating these "stories" about the resurrection and the life of Jesus.
Just read the book the told you about. It may be in your library and then tell me your considered opinion. The work itself is in the public domain, so you might even find the text thereof online.
All theory is gray
The process of evolution is a fact, backed up by mountains of evidence. We can even see it happen over short timescales of a few days or weeks.
Care to give an example of evoultion that we have observed adding new information? Eg not a change that simply rearranges a protein without changing any functionality other than that it is no longer recognized by antibodies, or actually removing information (such as the regulatory mechanisms that prevent a bacteria from using too much of its resources on a resistance)?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Parents pass on traits to their children, and siblings and cousins share many traits that non-siblings. Tracing how macroevolution occurred is based on this. In the case of fish, we share more traits them than with insects, so the pattern is clear.
The ID camp can just point out that the good, workable aspects of a design gets re-used, just as we do in human designs. (Put an automobile analogy here) :-) !!
Sometimes something like this happens, i.e. how birds, bats, and insects independently developed wings. Sure their wings are very different, and its clear that bats didn't evolve from birds or insects, but wings are a "good design."
No data, no cry
.....So what's your take on archaeopteryx?.....
Its first fossils were discovered in Germany about 90 years ago. Recent fossil discoveries and recent research on Archaeopteryx argue strongly against the suggestion that it is transitional between reptiles and birds. The rocks in which fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found are designated Upper Jurassic, and thus are dated at about 150 million years on the standard evolutionary geological time scale.
However, since the time of this discovery, Archaeopteryx has become more and more reptile-like until it is now fashionable to declare that Archaeopteryx was hardly more than a feathered reptile. In 90 years, Archaeopteryx has thus evolved from a creature so emphatically bird-like its reptilian ancestry was barely hinted at into a creature some evolutionists declare to be nothing more than a reptile with feathers!
The sudden appearance, in the fossil record, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, is strong evidence that evolution as commonly taught has not occurred.
All theory is gray
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Better question: Why don't we find any rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian layers? Do rabbits just not sink as deeply into the mud, or did they arrive later via some as yet unexplained path?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
By contrast, the idea that "God created everything" rests on no evidence at all. It makes no predictions about things that we will see or not see in the world. There is no conceivable evidence that would weigh against it. In short, it's not science.
If God and a bunch of angels showed up at a scientific meeting to tell the scientists how He created the universe in six days from nothing, that would still not be scientific evidence for God's existence. Everyone was just having a hallucination. Science can only accept a god that is predictable and repeatable and follows the laws of nature; not surprisingly, science only sees evidence that has nothing supernatural in it.
As for predictions:
DNA should probably look designed
What would be the effects of a huge global flood?
Humans could, in theory, live 1000 years.
We are all descended from Adam and Eve. Also from Noah's sons and his sons' wives.
Much of the gene pool had to fit in an ark of said measurements for a year; and spread from one spot to the rest of the world.
Humans have only been around for less than 10,000 years (Israel's family tree is traced down to Adam and up to Jesus, usually with birth and death dates)
Predicts life after death, and that the dead have interacted somewhat with the living.
There's a bibleful of predictions out there, and be sure check out Revelations for your observational science.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
.....Better question: Why don't we find any rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian layers? Do rabbits just not sink as deeply into the mud, or did they arrive later via some as yet unexplained path?.....
:-)! like an ancient wheelbarrow evolving into a modern automobile. If living systems, even at the molecular, cellular levels are compared to machines, they are unbelievably advanced. I am an engineer, not a biologist, but I am greatly impressed by the incredible engineering evidenced by living devices like the eyes and ears. The radar (sonar really) of bats is an incredible feat of engineering. The navigation systems of migratory birds and insects still hold deep mysteries in their operation. The fact that wales seem to be able to communicate via sub-sonic waves over vast distances is a relatively new discovery. How did some of the complex, multi-host parasitic and symbiotic relationships evolve? Does metamorphosis of a what most people term an ugly caterpillar crawling on a leaf, becoming a beautiful, iridescent butterfly destined for the sunny spring skies, point to something far greater for us humans in an entirely different existence and dimension?
All of the various fossil finds and their supposed indications of evolution don't give me that much problem. The big problem in my mind with evolution is its idea of simple structures "evolving" into the incredible complex biological systems we see today. It is (another dumb automobile analogy
I believe that there is some merit to the idea of evolution, but it fails to satisfy my sense as an engineer that all this complexity came to be without the direct activity of a great mind. There is no way of course to "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God, but the natural world to me speaks of a designer, an "engineer" if you will, who conceived and executed this marvelous design of the entire cosmos, both living and non-living. I want to believe that there is a purpose to my existence and it somehow ties in with the purpose for which God designed all these marvels in the first place. The Bible presents a much more satisfying view of our existence, purpose and destiny that any other religion or philosophy. Evolution's godless explanation of how things came to be and its ultimate purposelessness is not very satisfying, neither spiritually nor intellectually. The expensive SETI search testifies that there are others that hope that we are not alone in a cosmos that apart from God seems to have no specific direction and purpose.
All theory is gray
Hate to break it to you, but only the most credulous readers of the New Testament believe 2 Peter to actually have been written by Peter. It was almost certainly written by someone who wanted to claim the authority of Peter, but was not Peter himself. It was probably written sometime between 100 and 160 A.D., after Peter himself was martyred.
People have been willing to die for all sorts of baseless ideas; people poison themselves so they can hitch rides on comets, they blow themselves up because they think Osama bin Laden wants them to. The willingness to die speaks only to the psychological hold these ideas have on the believer. They are not objective evidence as to the factual basis for these beliefs.
I don't need to waste my time reading what some 19th century lawyer thought was proved by it. I already know that legal standards of evidence developed starting in the 13th century in England are irrelevant for evaluating the truth of statements in manuscripts which were written in the first few centuries A.D.
....Can you describe the shape of the search space?.....
The hemoglobin molecule is a three dimensional structure of thousands of atoms, each of which, like a complex machine must be in the correct place, in order for the machine to fulfill its function. Making such a structure by any means other than careful attention to the intended application of such a complex machine is incredibly unlikely.
There are various orders of machines. The simplest are like a lever, one input and one direct output. A higher order is the feedback mechanism enabling self correction. The thermostatic heating system is a common example. Still higher on the scale are self modifying machines like computers that can tailor their algorithms and programming to a large number of inputs, producing a number of desired outputs or actions. Next come self repairing machines. We haven't dome very much here yet, but in biological systems this is common. A broken bone or cut finger will heal. Higher up yet are self-reproducing machines. Again we have not achieved this technology yet, but it is a very fundamental activity, if not the defining activity of what we call 'life".
Evolution, ID and creationism are all unprovable and ultimately must be taken by faith. In reading evolutionary literature, it is the rare article that doesn't include phrases such as "it is believed", or "we assume", or "it appears that" or "we surmise"and other uncertainties. These imply that we don't really KNOW for sure about all these things. So you may continue to believe in purposeless evolution, but I prefer to assume that a wise and powerful God is the author of both creation and the Bible.
All theory is gray
I never said that there weren't other religions 6,000 years ago.
Are you suggesting that Hebrew is some sort of sacred language? You'll have to give me proof why. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, parts of Daniel was written in Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Greek.
Languages generally don't "pop" into existence. The ancient Hebrew of the Bible is part of a family of semitic languages, but not the first. If Hebrew did not exist at the time then it's likely that the Ten Commandments were written in whatever language was common with the Hebrew people, and probably in a language that evolved into Hebrew.
Besides, being raised as a prince in Egypt, Moses was one of the most educated men of his day. Who is to say that Moses did not have a strong hand in crafting the Hebrew language, as Eliezer Ben Yehuda had in reviving it in modern day?
Also, I'm interested in why you're responding consistently to everything except the thermodynamics thread. You're not going to jump into another discussion with the same incorrect thermodynamics claims you made before without thinking a bit about it, are you? You've gone through a couple of Slashdot topics with the same platitudes about disorder without addressing those basic challenges.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
.....Go back to the salt water experiment and explain how it fails. We start with a pot of salt water. We apply heat (and heat alone!). The water boils off and we get high entropy steam and low entropy crystals....
Anything that has a specific structure, such as molecules and atoms also contains information inherent in the structure. Sodium chloride molecules are included in this. When they form crystals they arrange themselves according to the structure information inherent in their nature. The level or amount of information in atoms and molecules is sufficient to allow them to form regular, repeating structures under the right conditions. Living structures contain orders of magnitude more information. We see this in manmade things also. An automobile contains much more information than a wheelbarrow.
To reduce entropy requires not only energy, but also information that directs how and where to apply this energy. In my pump example the pump applies energy in a specific way. Increasing entropy also decreases the information or order and vice-versa. Any kind of order is the direct result of adding information to the system. In living systems this information is resident in a storage device called the DNA molecule. Unlike computers, which work on a binary system, DNA operates with a four level code. It is these codes, in combination with energy, that direct the assembly and function of all living things.
A computer is a very good analogy. It consists of hardware, which in itself contains a large amount of information in its very structure, put there by the engineers who designed its chips and circuits. However, that in itself only gives you a very expensive doorstop. In order for a compute to function, it also has to have software, additional information that really determines how it operates. The new Intel based Macs normally run the OSX OS, but with a little judicious hacking can also be made to run Windows. It is the software that determines the "personality" of a computer. In addition to software, every computer requires a source of energy, electrical power.
Living system, especially man, mirror this. You have a physical body which in itself contains and is determined by the codes stored in your DNA. After your body was formed a large amount of information was and is still being loaded, by a process we call education, into a special part of you called the mind. All of this is driven by an energy source called food.
A major problem with evolution is that it really has no good explanation of where information originates. Information or knowledge, software, these are immaterial products of MIND. Software as such has certain properties that exempt it from some laws of physics. It has no mass and therefore is may be transmitted at the speed of light. In itself it is not subject to entropy or decay. Its carriers of course are. That's why computer engineers take great pains to ensure data integrity in spite of hardware failures.
ID and creationism posit that there is a mind wherein all information originates. The nature of this mind however cannot be explored by any science we presently know about. That is where faith comes in. You can have faith in evolution which specifically excludes reference to any mind. However, I have chosen to include the idea of God, the great mind and source of information. He tells us in the Bible, which I believe is His communication to us, in 1Corinthians 13:11-13, the great chapter on the nature of love:
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. Now we see only a blurred reflection in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. Right now three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.
It is my hope that you may decide by faith to seek this God of love and get to know Him, as I have. You WILL find Him if you seek Him with all of your being.
All theory is gray
Your overall thesis seems to be that anything that allows even a localized reduction in entropy contains information, and anything that contains information is intelligently designed. It follows from the premise, that sodium chloride molecules and life are intelligently designed. OK. We'll go with that particular piece of circular reasoning. My gripe isn't really with the fact that ID supporters are using flawed logic and assuming their conclusion at every turn as long as they do it outside the school system. My problem comes when ID supporters use their whacko ideas of actual scientific principles to shoot down the GOOD work of real scientists.
Case in point: Your abuse of thermodynamics and rather unconventional take on the concept of information as it applies to physical systems. If equivocating terms and spinning those laws makes you feel better about your underlying belief, that's fine by me. It is, however, insulting to the people whose life's work you're smearing. We've observed and recorded genetic mutations adding information by any reasonable definition of the word. You're claiming that those observations are wrong, the entire world of biologists is out of their minds, and that your touchy feely interpretation of physical law invalidates it all. My only concern is that there are people out there who don't have the time to study information theory or thermodynamics who might believe you.
Think of it this way: I'm betting that you're a computer engineer or computer scientist. That's OK. I'm a CE myself. I think we differ in an important way, though. When my reasoning conflicts with the experts in topics outside of my field, I assume that I'm probably missing something and I should study it more deeply. I don't claim that the experts are all wrong, or that their entire field of study is a fanciful waste of time, or that there is a vast conspiracy to shut down my insight (an insight which, by the way, is only shared by other people with an equal lack of expertise). Imagine a biologist haranguing you about cache design, claiming that direct mapped cache should be far faster than fully associative cache. Reason? It's well known that a DIRECT route is always faster than any other. Computer engineers just choose to ignore the fact because of indoctrination! Teach the controversy! Stop silencing us!
My guess is that you'd try to point out that the word "direct" perhaps does not mean what they think it means. You'd probably also be a little bit miffed at a person dumping on your design decisions based on a deeply flawed understanding of basic principles. The worst part? Imagine he's going to your boss. Or trying to change the computer engineering curriculum at your local university. You can see where I'm going with this.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
....My gripe isn't really with the fact that ID supporters are using flawed logic and assuming their conclusion at every turn as long as they do it outside the school system. My problem comes when ID supporters use their whacko ideas of actual scientific principles to shoot down the GOOD work of real scientists.......
You have it wrong if you think I am saying that ALL of evolutionary theory is wrong. I would not dispute that living things are able to make changes in their structures and operation that allows them to survive often severe environmental stresses. The fossil record is fascinating
evidence of creatures, many of which no longer are around today. Frankly, I'd hate to be a snack for a Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Actually I am an electronics engineer specializing in control systems. In my beginnings these were all analog electric or pneumatic. I was, as it were, dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. From my perspective as an engineer, I have come to understand that living systems are far too complex to have arisen spontaneously, without the input of thought. Every true science involves experiments and current observations. I believe this must be applied to the study of origins also. The problem is that the main tenet of evolution cannot be experimentally verified. The core of evolutionary teaching I greatly disagree with is that simple parts self assemble into complex systems. Ordinary, every day life, as well as scientific experimentation show exactly the opposite. If your car has a worn, broken part, energy and intelligence must be applied to make your car work properly again.
Any subject not experimentally verifiable is beyond the reach of science. Evolution, ID and creationism are all part of the study of origins and all are unfortunately, not subject to true experimental scientific investigations.
I agree with you that ID and creationism should not be taught in a science classroom, but neither should evolution, at least not that aspect of it that asserts that living systems are the result of mindless processes. The study of origins could be taught on an equal footing in a philosophy or religion course.
Do you deny that electrons, atoms, stars, planets and living things ALL have some level of coherent organization, ie. structure? Structure or coherent organization cannot be achieved without the information that determines that structure. It is that very organization and reliability all throughout the universe, that even makes science possible. All of nature operates by certain universal laws and principles. Again, laws and principles of operation are at their core consistent information that tells use how things work. By understanding, again the application of THOUGHT, we can use the information conveyed by these laws to make predictions and then test these by experiments and careful observations of what is happening NOW. We are creatures essentially bound to the present. Whatever happened in the past cannot be changed, although hopefully we may learn something. The future is unknown. None of us know when we will draw our last breath.
(....We've observed and recorded genetic mutations adding information by any reasonable definition of the word...)
Unfortunately mutations never ADD information but lose or garble it every time. Information is stored in physical systems and because these are subject to decay, (entropy) the information stored therein is never increased, but always lost or corrupted in some way. As a CE you surely know of the elaborate measures taken to ensure that physical entropy does not change the data in any way. The DNA coding system also uses error correcting schemes and redundancy to minimize the loss of and corruption of vital data.
(.....I don't claim that the experts are all wrong....)
If you have studied the history of science at all, you should know, that it often was the lone "voice in the wilderness" that was right, against the prevailing wisdom of the large majority of "experts". Many theories have only fall
All theory is gray
I suppose, if by "structure" you mean "the way things fall together based on fundamental forces." A star has structure that appears to be subject to the nature of gravity and nuclear fusion.
And my problem here is that you appear to be calling the laws of gravity and nuclear forces "information" and then attempting to apply information theory to them. I acknowledge that the laws of physics are "set up" one way or another and that matter and energy obey them. The question of where those laws come from is, for me, well outside of anything that I've been interested in thinking about. You're falling back on the idea that the fact that the universe has rules indicates an intelligent designer. I agree that an intelligent designer could cause rules. I disagree that having rules indicates an intelligent designer to the exclusion of other possibilities.
An interesting aside that falls out of this is that the claim "order can't arise from disorder without the application of intelligence" becomes tautological if you assume that everything in the universe is "pre-programmed" by intelligence. Any example that I give of order spontaneously arising to indicate that intelligence is not necessary, you refute with the idea that the intelligent designer has preprogrammed some unquantifiable "information" into the physical laws that caused it to happen. That's why ID is a completely uninteresting premise to me. Any observation and test you could possibly make is simply explained by "the intelligent designer pre-programmed the universe to work that way." So now we have salt crystals forming not because thermodynamics allows localized decreases in entropy (it does... and that's why arguments against evolution based on thermodynamics are still silly), but rather because the intelligent designer pre-programmed NaCl with "information."
As yet another aside on the entropy and thermodynamics topic, it is worth noting that normal heat flow causes localized decreases in entropy all the time. A variation on your very own experiment demonstrates this fact. Take a hot block of steel and put it up against a cold block of steel. Heat will flow from one block to the other. The net entropy remains the same. The entropy in the block that was originally cold increases. What does that say about the entropy in the hot block? That's right--a localized decrease. No intelligence required, unless we go back to the assumption that some intelligence pre-programmed the steel with the "information" necessary to cause that heat flow. I don't see how the data supports that idea, though.
This statement is flatly false, as has been observed in any number of experiments. All of the following mutations have been observed occurring randomly:
* Substitution of base pairs
* Deletion of base pairs
* Addition of base pairs
I challenge you to find any definition of "information" that cannot be increased by these operations being performed randomly. Any change in DNA sequence (even those that "increase information") at all is simply an additive combination of the above. All it takes is one base pair to change in such a way that a different but passably useful protein is created, and we have another step in the stochastic hill climbing process. We have observed mutations that add novel proteins and structures. To say otherwise is simply to ignore the data.
Interestingly, for all of the arguments about "inform
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
....I acknowledge that the laws of physics are "set up" one way or another and that matter and energy obey them. The question of where those laws come from is, for me, well outside of anything that I've been interested in thinking about.....
/. don't seem to be capable of such.
First of all let me say that I appreciate that you are discussing these admittedly controversial things with me without name calling, profanity and personal attacks. Many on
In don't see nearly the chasm or distinction between things and principles of nature and the manmade systems and knowledge. You cannot deny that human laws are made by intelligent beings. Sometimes though the stuff that our politicians come up with may cast doubt on that. (-: !! Why then should natural laws and objects not also be the result of deliberate thought, although an infinitely higher level?
Can you deny that evolution is also subject to these laws "of nature"? If the underlying laws were random, then random evolution would result from them. The fact is that we observe a highly ordered universe obeying consistent unchanging rules. Do the rules by which evolution operated REALLY disinterest you? To me that is akin to seeing a marvelous building and not wanting to learn of its foundations and exploring the wisdom of the architect. This universe is a fascinating place and science to me is one avenue to learn about its designer. By knowing even the tiny amount I do, I stand in awe and respect of the One who formulated its rules by which it was constructed and still operates. However, I also see that there are some serious flaws in the design. The question now is: Were these flaws there in the beginning? Unfortunately science can only study things as they are, not how they may have once been.
From the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, I have always been keenly interested in "what makes it tick?" This was and still is true of both manmade and natural technology. Science is much better at telling how things work than why. Yet the most profound questions we humans ask usually begin with "why". Why is there so much trouble and evil? Why are humans almost constantly at war? There seems to be no end to these "why" questions.
There are still very many gaps in our understanding of even the how questions. Is the brain REALLY the seat of intelligence and consciousness? How does consciousness and thought arise from a pile of cleverly arranged atoms? I'm sure you can think of many others.
Science may, with time answer some of these "how" questions, but the more important "why" questions are outside of its grasp. If you find a watch on a beach, you can study it's design and make certain inferences of the designer. You could examine the watch down to the atomic level, but would never learn WHY the designer made it. Only if the designer decided to communicate with you, could you really know, at least to some degree who he is and what he is like and why he made the watch. If he did communicate, you would have to BELIEVE by faith in such a communication.
I believe, for reasons I could tell you, if you are interested, that the Bible is the authoritative message of the Universe's designer to mankind. He does therein answer many, but not all of the burning "why" question most humans ask in their life. He tells us why there is death and decay. He tells us that there is a purpose and reason for our existence. He tell us of our origin and eventual destiny. The Bible tells us that this One is not disinterested in human affairs and suffering. At one point in time, almost 2000 years ago, he laid aside the privileges and powers of deity and limited Himself to time and space and clothed Himself in a human body and dwelt on earth for 33 years. He entered our world the same way we all do, as a baby.
There are many religions and philosophies and various gurus and teachers have come and gone. None of them claimed to be God and proved it by conquering our greatest, final enemy -- death. If you meet some nuts who claims to b
All theory is gray
The definititon of the word often would suggest that what you're describing is a frequent event but it isn't when you consider how many 'frustrated geniuses' there are out there. For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.
Since the chances of the lone voice being right are pretty remote when we look at all the lone voices, I don't think we can consider it a frequent event.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
......For every Galileo there are a thousand "voices in the wilderness" being ignored by the scientific community simply because their work has no merit.....
I would agree with you that the word "often" is probably misapplied here. The scientific community only ignores the ones that don't cause too many waves by their ideas. The real troublemakers are the ones that come up with evidence that totally destroys the house of cards that the scientific establishment has built up over, sometimes the course of an entire lifetime.
Anyone who brings evidence against the tottering edifice of evolution is going to be violently opposed, no matter what and how much evidence there is brought. It doesn't matter that evolutionary theory makes assertions for what happened in the past, that we do not see happening today nor can be duplicated by experiment. Nothing like this happens in manmade systems either. No human made system ever becomes more complex or sophisticated on its own, yet that is what evolutionists ascribe to the natural world.
All theory is gray
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
Some computer scientists have worked on a genetic algorithm modeled after evolution theory. The objective is to see if natural selection and mutation can produce desired computer functions. For a simple function, such as taking the average of two numbers, this can be done easily, but as function gets more complicated, its syntax tree deepens and causes exponential growth of the search space that is so large to yield any sensible functions at all even when you prune the searches using "natural selection."
And how do genes of any specie get into that particular alignment?
Suppose humans have 20,000 genes each carrying just one bit of information, then the number of searches to achieve that alignment is on the magnitude of 2^20,000. Try to punch that number on your calculator.
The reason why I quoted thermodynamics is because it has a probability cause. It is not impossible for a closed system to decrease entropy, just improbable. You mentioned that thermodynamics law can only apply to closed systems, but one must make an assumption somewhere to define closed system. Is the combustion engine a closed system? What about its exhaust? How can you ensure the universe is a closed system? Is God outside of this universe adding information into it?
For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that exchage of genetic sequences falls under a closed system because I don't want to involve "heat" or anything like that when I'm talking about "information." With that clarification, my argument should follow through as I originally planned.
It looks though we're both talking science, but our assumptions are different.
I'm sick and tired of evolutionists who just add more assumptions into the argument and claim that my reasoning is flawed, or that I'm stupid for not buying into their assumptions. Imagine that day I spent 6 straight hours just checking all the facts poured towards me and still found the whole evolution thing a hogwash.
What amazes me is the large amount of organized effort at talkorigins.org to "debunk" intelligent design, but talkdesign.org makes no comparable effort at all, which is really sad.
I once had a signature.
Higher up yet are self-reproducing machines. Again we have not achieved this technology yet, but it is a very fundamental activity, if not the defining activity of what we call 'life".
With computer programs this is already possible. A compiler that can compile itself is an example (most compilers do that nowadays).
The question is if a lot of monkeys sitting at the keyboard entering random keystrokes can write a program that actually does something.
I once had a signature.
once you start certain chains of molecules, the order in which they bond is far from uniformly distributed. It strongly favors certain patterns
But as long as there are variations, such as orientation and symmetry, to the way these molecules are bonded, you still have an exponential search space.
I can't see why you would dismiss intellectual design so easily.
I once had a signature.
Your problem here is you're trying to evolve a complex function from nothing in one go. There are a few problems with that. The first is that you'd probably get better results if you target stopping points along the way. Averaging three numbers, for example, is easier to arrive at if you've already evolved a function that averages two numbers. More importantly, testing evolution in general with algorithms like this fails on assumption that there is only one viable final target in your search space. Evolution doesn't have targets that specify functionality (e.g. "must average 10 numbers" or "must climb trees"). Anything that turns out to be useful is a good thing, whether it's averaging numbers or performing FFTs.
You're assuming that that specific sequence of 20,000 bits is the only valid goal and that the genes are randomly changed, one bit at a time, in uniformly distributed random trials. Neither of these is true. It's like calculating the probability of a particular poker hand (infinitesimally small) vs. having any playable hand at all (not small at all). Also, I can't really apply the idea of "20,000 1-bit genes" to anything I know of in actual biology or genetics. I have an idea of what you're thinking, but I'm not entirely sure that you're clear on the process you're trying to model. The average person has 50-100 mutations. On average, about 3 of those result in a different protein from the one that the original DNA coded for. What's the probability of producing a given sequence? Extremely small. What's the probability of creating novel proteins? Pretty high.
You make a correct statement about entropy and thermodynamics. My point is that you're applying it incorrectly to the system you're modeling. "Entropy" has a very specific meaning, and you're not applying that meaning to the system, making any appeal to the laws of thermodynamics essentially meaningless.
I actually didn't mention that directly, but the gist of the point is correct. The obvious fact, though, is that life organizes itself by pulling in energy from the outside world in the form of food / sun / etc. As such, it can't possibly be described as a closed system. The same principles that allow a single celled embryo to turn into a complex, adult human being allow life to evolve. You'll have to draw a thermodynamic distinction between the two if you believe otherwise, and fortunately, there is no such distinction to be drawn.
Nope.
Exhaust. And the fuel that is put into it. Exactly. The engine, like a living organism, exists by exploiting the flow of available energy from one form to another. As long as there are pockets of energy and entropy gradients, it is possibl
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
So in summary, we don't know the probabilities of each step or how they affect one another, we don't know the number of potentially valid targets there are in the search space, but we can confidently conclude that the probabilities are too small. You have to admit that you're making sort of a leap there. I think that we can agree on my point that any numbers that people are trying to sell you with regards to probability are essentially completely made up.
Now, I'm not sure what you mean by an "exponential" search space. The point is that the valid amino acids for a given position in a protein are not independent of position or content. The number of valid outcomes shrinks as stuff gets added to the protein. So, until somebody comes up with a model for that, applies it to a specific protein or class of proteins, and shows that there are not (or, at least, it's unlikely that there are) other valid target proteins, they're just guessing. If they're right, it's a major result. But until then, I put the mountains of evidence for evolution ahead of back of the napkin calcluations with fabricated values for input variables.
I can give you a few reasons. First, it's not a theory in and of itself. It makes no predictions. It has no model. It just says that there is something out there other than evolution at work. All arguments in favor of intelligent design are actually just arguments against evolution with the assumption that intelligent design somehow "wins" by default if the prevailing answer turns out to be wrong.
Second, the arguments are usually mathematics without data, mathematics without a model, or hand-wavy mis-application of well understood science. The "thermodynamics" challenge is a classic.
Third, their model produces nothing interesting. Even if it is true, the idea that there is something magic out there tinkering with the universe in an unspecified and unmeasurable way contributes nothing to my understanding of the world and could be true no matter what I observe. Twin nested hierarchy? Could be evolution or could be magic. No twin nested hierarchy? Could be magic. Apples fall to the ground? Could be gravity or could be magic (or both!). I prefer that the phrase "or it could be magic" remain implicit at the end of every statement of fact. Sure, it's true, but do we even need to bother thinking about it?
ID folks will impress me when they do the following:
1) Come up with a cohesive theory that they can all somewhat agree on. Right now the ID camp is simply the creationists rebranded. And of course we have young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and anybody else who has a religious beef with evolution. They don't agree on anything, but they're banding together to fight the common enemy and being really quiet about the details in hopes that nobody notices.
2) Come up with a mechanism. How was this design accomplished? Is it still happening now? Did it stop years ago? Was it done by periodically beaming information into the genome? Go out on a limb. Make some statement of fact somewhere.
3) Define their terms. Complex specified information? Only Dembski seems to understand what that is. We have an ill-defined quantity and lots of math manipulating it. The result? GIGO.
4) Come up with a test. Right now, there is no imaginable observation that could possibly falsify the idea that something, somewhere, is designing things and making those designs reality in some unspecified way using an unspecified mechanism over an unspecified timeline. If they can do 1-3 and use those to make some sort of real prediction, they can come up with an objective test to see if their ideas hold any water.
The simple fact is t
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I really appreciate you putting so much time constructing an essay, and I hate to see it go to waste, but I really don't have time to read carefully through every single words.
I just have a question for you. What does evolution buy us? Other than the purpose of back-tracking to the origin of species, what does it predict of the future species? Genetics is science. Natural selection is science. But evolution for explaining the origin of species is not.
From my point of view (cut and pasted from your own words with evolution and intelligent design exchanging places), all arguments in favor of evolution are actually just arguments against intelligent design with the assumption that evolution somehow "wins" by default if the prevailing answer turns out to be wrong. And the reason why evolution "wins" by default is due to some faulty application of science.
I once had a signature.