based on what? How does a reptile develop GRADUALLY over millions of years develop feathers? Where does it get the additional genetic information to construct feathers? Feathers are VERY complex. Like I wrote, have YOU ever looked at a feather under a microscope? How does selection work to gradually, over a many generations prod a reptile to make feathers? Incomplete, nonfunctional feathers or other structures are useless for survival and are therefore not passed on to succeeding generations. Unless a feature confers a distinct advantage on an organism, it is invisible to the natural selection mechanism.
(... by choosing which wolves to mate we've managed to created teacup poodles, bulldogs and Saint Bernards in a fairly short time - don't you think similar things happen in the wild?...)
The fact is that none of these things happen in the wild, because the selective breeding of dogs is accomplished by means of the application of human intelligence. In other words there is intelligent design to produce a desired result.
(...It's the scientific theory about why biological organisms have evolved,...)
No, it is a fiction that has to be believed in the same way that various religions are believed. It is a tale that substitutes huge amounts of time, probability and a nebulous thing called selection in place of the application of intelligence to account for the incredible complexity and diversity of living things, including ourselves. There is no human effort to does not involve a measure of intelligence. Why is it that otherwise highly intelligent humans credit the existence of even the existence of a single living cell to processes NOT ALSO involving intelligence and thought?
(...Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching....)
students the truth by not telling them the fiction that biological structures and systems, far more complex devices and functions than anything people have ever done by intelligent design, came about by random probabilistic means over immense periods of time. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to tie theories of origins to the present day workings of all systems, including biological ones. That sort of teaching belongs in history and philosophy classes. Science is not about what was thought to have taken place an unimaginably long time ago.
...God isn't standing in the courtroom (or lecture theater) giving testimony...
I guess you have never heard of a deposition, a written document of one or more witnesses. How do historians verify the accuracy and truthfulness of ancient works such as by Homer and Aristotle? How do we know that even more recent works, such as Shakespeare for example, are preserved in an authentic manner? Do we have a video or a direct evidence of reliable witnesses that can authenticate the musical works of Mozart or Beethoven? Are the writings of Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin really authored by men of those names? We don't have a video of George Washington or any of the men who signed the Constitution. How do we know that the piece of paper enshrined in the national archives is not an elaborate fake?
I find it incongruous that you, a/.er would even name a video as a means of authentication for anything. I am almost positive that you know for a fact that any electronic information is more easily falsified in an untraceable way, than any record any human being might have been capable of making before electronic records were invented.
It seems strange to me that people are willing to readily believe documents from history that don't even have a small fraction of the number of ancient manuscripts still available, than the thousands of independently written and compiled documents available for the Bible.
(..Calling the Bible direct testimony is a bit of an over-statement...)
Based on historical and legal methodologies, it is possible to establish the correctness of the biblical record far more certainly than any other written document older than a few human lifetimes. The science of archaeology also has never refuted so much as a single biblical reference to events and places in the ancient lands where the Chronicles of the Bible were written and take place.
I have just finished reading the New York Times bestseller titled "The Case For Christ". In it, the author brings up almost all of the common charges of inaccuracies and far-fetched stories contained in, in this case, the New Testament and the life of Jesus Christ as chronicled therein. If you are brave enough to get it and read it, your view of the Bible and the Christian message therein could change your mind and indeed your whole life.
So do I, but we differ on how we believe these got here. Fairies and magic don't have anywhere near a power that evolutionists ascribe to time and chance. In children's stories, a beautiful maiden's magic kiss can turn a frog into a prince. In adults children's stories, called evolution, the much more powerful magic of lots of time combined with chance can turn even a rock into a prince.
Children's stories often begin with "Once upon a time...." The evolutionary tale is similar. You can find the intoning magic words: "Billions of years ago...." in big thick books with lots of fanciful, beautifully done illustrations. It is amazing how often the word "assume" is found in these authoritative appearing tomes. "Assume" is a more educated way of saying "believe", but when you assume something, you don't know it, but are guessing.
Somewhere near the beginning of such books you can read: Billions of years ago, ceaseless torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky (minerals come from rocks) land and other compounds formed by the aid of innumerable lightening bolts into the pre-biotic soup of the warm seas. There these compounds, bumping into each other, by chance over time, made larger molecules called amino acids. These are the basic building blocks of all life, sort of like the bricks of a house.
After more time, (magic) these amino acids and other components organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple bacteria. (actually, bacteria are anything but simple) Some of them called algae, in time evolved to use sunlight to get energy. Green algae are part of the plant kingdom. In the course of millions of years, algae turned into roses, sunflowers and 300 foot tall redwood trees as well as all other plants we have today.
In further chapters of such textbooks we read: Some sea dwellers, after several million years, got bored with the ocean and were able to also live on land. When the tide went out, some of them were left stuck on the beach. Somehow, maybe by trial and error (chance) some did not dry out, but figured out how to breathe air for a while. Creatures that can live both in the water and on land are called amphibians. This is where the frogs come into the story.
In subsequent chapters such textbooks continue with the evolutionary narrative with: After more time, some of these left the water and evolved to live entirely on land. They found they could also make a good living there, eating plants and each other. After a lot more time some even figured out how to fly. Such fliers had first been insects or reptiles, some of which could fly, but then after more time, evolved into birds, which are much better fliers, partly because they somehow learned how to regulate their body temperatures independently of their environment. In their bird brains they also figured out how to construct strong yet light hollow bones and invent feathers. Have you ever looked at a feather under a microscope? Feathers are complicated and beautiful.
Still further inside these beautifully illustrated so-called science books the story continues with: In time, (more magic) some evolved to bear their young alive, rather than laying eggs. These are called mammals such as elephants, dogs, cats and bats. In time, some of the four legged mammals practiced walking on their hind legs, became good at it and soon made a habit walking upright. These are the monkeys and apes. They could use what used to be front legs and feet as arms with hands on them for grabbing and hugging. They learned how to modify two of their fingers into thumbs. Some of them use their tails for these activities also.
In the final chapters of such textbooks they get around to this: Eventually, after more, still much more time, one of these apes developed a bigger brain, lost most body hair and the tail and thus at last became human. Humans are the result of the most powerful magic time is capable of. That big brain gave humans a huge advantage over any other animal.
...What "we" call science didn't exist before the 17th century, give or take....
That is exactly right and is essentially what I said in different words.
(...you should have said "One of the fundamental concepts of evolution [is] the selection of mutations...)
For any selection of mutations to occur, mutations themselves must be shown to happen. This has definitely been demonstrated in laboratory, but the same experiments also show that most mutations are overwhelmingly disadvantageous to an organism.
(...what you actually *mean* is "shed light on which beneficial mutations can and cannot arise at all...)
No, it has been experimentally established that beneficial mutations do occur. What the experiments which Dr. Seelke's reports give us an insight into, it is what such beneficial mutations can accomplish in the evolutionary process. If only ONE mutation confers a substantial benefit to any organism, such as the bacteria that were used, then it demonstrates in a valid statistical way, that a mutation can definitely make evolutionary changes that are conferred to succeeding generations. However, as the experiment shows, when MORE than one mutation is needed in a given organism in order to confer a usable advantage, the probability of evolutionary success is quickly reduced to the statistical probability equivalent of zero.
(...We can't fit an Earth ecosystem into a laboratory...)
Exactly, but we can fit billions or even trillions of bacteria into a laboratory and watch them evolve 10s of thousands of generations on a human timescale. This is what Dr. Seelke and others have done and are simply reporting the result. Is that not the essence of science, to do a careful experiment and then write a report? He makes some philosophical interpretations according to his worldview, you may strongly disagree with, but you will find it hard to argue with the data he reports. I would be interested to know how you interpret the actual data, the actual results, according to your philosophical worldview.
....Actually the Drake equation has held for some time...
Just because someone comes with an equation does not at all mean that such an equation reflects reality.
The factor R, listed first has absolutely no bearing at all since a star may not have any planets at all. Giving the number two for a factor Ne is so ridiculous to be laughable. Half of all existing stars in all galaxies are too close to each other in order to have *any* planet that could have a stable orbit needed for a temperature range to allow liquid water. No liquid water, -- no life. If two or more stars are closer than about 3.8 ly to each other, none of such stars can ever have a habitable zone for any planet. The nearest star to the sun is Alpha Centauri, about 4.2 ly distant. There is a distinct habitable zone for a planet around only ONE star and there is also a distinct habitable zone for a star/planet system in a galaxy.
The chemical makeup parameters of a planet to support intelligent life is also rather narrow. There has to be a moon that is large is relation to the planet. This keeps the axis of the planet steady. A suitable magnetic field is also needed to shield complex life forms from damaging radiation. Of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only a very tiny fraction is useful to support life. It "happens" to be the part of the spectrum that is visible and is also finely matched to the energy requirements of photosynthesis. It also just "so happens" that the spectral output of the sun is centered on the visible part of the spectrum. If you would do the multiplicative mathematics for the factor of Ne all by itself, it would come up to be a number in the order of one in 10^-15.
There are also a number of other requirements in the laws of physics that you can search out on your own. The relationships among the four forces that govern all matter and energy are precisely what is needed in order for life to form anywhere at all in the entire universe. Many scientists have realized this and try to get around it by postulating the existence of many universes. That is a fine fairy tale but it is not science. Only the universe we are in is accessible to scientific investigation.
Even if only a conservative one in 50 probability is assigned to each of the parameters needed to have a universe with a habitable planet, the probability of all of these coming together by any known statistical process is so tiny, that it may be confidently set to zero. There is no way of getting around the mathematics of probability that inform us that a universe containing place like our earth is exceedingly rare. It behooves us therefore to take good care of it, because it is not likely that we will find another place to live anytime soon.
....If you are personally convinced of anything by this paper you provided and things like it....
This paper makes a distinction between historical and experimental science. The claims of evolution are necessarily historical and are therefore much more subject to interpretation. The study of evolution is a forensic science. A crime has been committed and now scientists must examine the evidence and tried to determine what really happened.
If a theory can be verified by present-day experiment, rather than speculation about what may have happened in the past, then such an experiment is much more valuable in refuting or bolstering any theory.
Until modern times, the discipline of what we now call science was almost exclusively philosophical as opposed to experiments and careful observations. One of the fundamental concepts of evolution are the existence of mutations beneficial to an organism. It is also well known that most mutations are not beneficial or are even harmful. Therefore, any present-day experiment that can shed light on what beneficial mutations can and cannot do in the evolution of life helps scientists increase their understanding of the mystery of life.
Whether you agree to the irreducible complexity theory or not is irrelevant. What is important is that the author did a present day experiment to shed light on the processes of selection and mutations.
As always, attacking your opponent's person is a sure sign that you are on the losing end of the discussion.
....is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc,....
That is not a belief, but a scientific, experimentally established FACT. Here are some introductory paragraphs of the transcript a microbiologist's oral presentation. Experiment shows that evolutionary mutations have distinct limits. The name of the article is: "What can evolution really do?"
I. Introduction: How historical and experimental sciences approach the study of evolution.
Hello- I'm Ralph Seelke, and I'm a microbiologist who's obsessed with answering one basic question: What can evolution really do??? By this I mean: What can we really SHOW it to be capable of doing? I want to cut through the theory and inference and speculation, and get down to what it has been shown capable of doing, and what it has been shown to be incapable of doing IN THE LABORATORY.
In this talk I want to introduce you to the notion of experimental science, as opposed to historical science, and then convince you that actual, real-time experiments can help us understand the capabilities and limitations of evolution. Then, we'll take a tour of some of the things researchers have discovered about evolution through experimentation.
If you are interested to read the rest, look at the following link.
Do you not know yet, that when you personally attack the messenger, rather than the message you have lost all credibility? Don't be calling people names just because you disagree with them.
...could simply rewire my brain to make me believe anything he wanted me to believe...
So if you've programmed or someone else programmed your computer to display an expression of love of the computer for you, would you believe that said computer truly loves you?
God tells us in the Bible that he wants you to love him. Obviously he could reprogram you, but then could any response you make to him be labeled with the word "love" as we commonly understand it? You obviously cannot love somebody who you believe does not even exist.
The questions of authentication and identification are not really all that academic, but are crucial in all of life. If you receive a message, especially an improbable message from an improbable source, at least according to your present knowledge, how can you determine the authenticity of both the message and its source?
If the Bible truly is a message from God, is there any way we could be reasonably sure that it is just that and not some huge fraud? In computers, for example, authentication involves something you know or something you have or both, which the computer can unambiguously associate with you. What knowledge could ONLY God provide that you personally or anybody else generally would accept as sufficient evidence of authenticity?
....If you hold a lottery ticket that can issue new copies of itself with more favorable numbers, what does that do for your "odds"?....
Absolutely nothing, unless that magic lottery ticket can accurately predict the future. Human beings can do quite a few amazing things, but are singularly bad at predicting the future. If that were not true, we would not now be in a recession with hundreds of thousands of unemployed.
As an electronics engineer I probably know more than most/.ers about positive and negative feedback systems. Any system with positive feedback as to be carefully controlled by intelligent means, or it will break into oscillation and be entirely useless for transmitting any sort of information or most anything else. If you have ever been subject to the excruciating howl of a public address system, you have experienced an example of positive feedback.
It is a basic mathematical fact that any positive feedback in any system can easily cause such a system to become unstable to the point of even destroying or at least severely damaging it.
...given the size of the universe, I would expect it to actually be fairly large that there is at least one other planet similar to ours....
That would SEEM to be true until you balance it against all the parameters that have to be correct in order for a planet that can support intelligent life to come into existence by any unplanned means.
If you want to learn more about this you can read this book:
Life is we know it, must have water in liquid form. That implies a very narrow temperature range. In addition to temperature, the chemical and physical necessities of life are very specific and quite narrow. This is especially true of any intelligent life forms that could exist to observe and try to understand the universe.
When all these factors are evaluated and balanced against the billions and billions of stars and galaxies, the probability of another earth-like planet in the entire universe coming into existence by any statistical, unplanned process, not involving intelligence is so tiny as to be essentially zero.
....By reserving the Christian label for people who believe in the Christian faith, you can demonstrate that the rest of us are decent people too.....
Jesus himself gave a very simple test plan which outsiders could determine who is and who is not a Christian, that is a disciple of Jesus.
(Joh 13:34) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another. (Joh 13:35) By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another.
For a good description of what this love looks like, read 1 Corinthians 13.
It is impossible for any person to have this kind of love in them unless they are in-dwelt and empowered by the Spirit of God which Jesus Christ has gives to all who put their complete trust and confidence into Him.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.
Anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit of God living within may still label him or herself a Christian, but is not considered to be such by God. Someone may be a good and decent person, at least as far as is possible to tell from external behavior, but that by itself is not sufficient for God to consider such a one as one of His own.
.... but why is it necessary for it to be anything more than one attempt at explaining that which is out of scope of our experience.....
But why is it necessary for EVOLUTION to be anything more than one MORE attempt at explaining that which is out of scope of our experience? After all, nobody has ever seen the reptile becomes bird evolution myth happen, as commonly depicted in every science textbook. Yet, dyed in the wool evolutionists sincerely BELIEVE that their explanation is the right one. They attempt to get around this problem by postulating the magic of time, immense periods of time.
..I have a star atop my Christmas tree. But I'm still an atheist...
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
...So the bible is fact until science disproves some part of it,...
Which so far has never happened yet. Of course many theories (beliefs) of scientists and others contradict what is written in the Bible. So far though, no actual FACT of science has ever contradicted anything written scriptures. The interpretation of these facts is the only thing that ever differs, not the facts in and of themselves.
... I just believe that it is not a fully accurate description of what happened....
Of course it is not a FULLY accurate description of what God did because that is not the purpose of the Bible, His communication to mankind. It is however accurate as far as it goes.
If God had wanted to give us a fully accurate description of everything he created, several thousand Library of Congress would be too small to hold all the details of creation. The bottom line is this: God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing. He left it as a challenge to human scientists to try and figure out the details.
....Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic....
Do you see everything around you, including yourself, your own existence as allegorical and poetic? Most of us, perceive the world as real and tangible, as being really here, not just a program in some computer or a metaphorical poem. If God did not create the world, as we read in Genesis 1, then it must have created itself, which of course is logically absurd. The eternal existence of the universe is what was believed by Darwin and his contemporaries and those that lived before him.
Modern science has much evidence that space-time, matter and energy have not always existed. Present evidence screams loudly that the universe is not eternal, but had a definite beginning. If you accept the law of cause and effect, then the universe must have a cause, a first cause. The Bible calls his first cause "Elohim", a Hebrew word with a plural ending. We have translated this word as "God". The prophet Isaiah tells us that this God exists in eternity, that is outside of our time space universe. Genesis simply tells us that this eternal uncaused God is the creator of everything that exists. Since no scientists was around to observe the creation event and the events immediately thereafter, we have to BELIEVE the evidence still available from the distant past.
In a court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness has great importance. Witnesses are generally assumed to be truthful, unless it can be unambiguously shown that a witness is lying or untrustworthy. Witness testimony is, more often than not, the deciding factor in the outcome of a court case, circumstantial evidence notwithstanding.
Contrary to every paper on evolution I have ever read, the creation account in the Bible does not contain uncertainty phrases such as, it is believed that, it appears to be that, the commonly accepted view is, and other such weasel constructs. The Bible in general and the creation account in particular present straightforward statements claimed to originate with the One who was there and did the work. The Bible provides direct testimony from the creator Himself, whereas all of evolution's so called evidence is at best inferred and circumstantial. The question you, as part of the jury must decide is whether to BELIEVE the witness or some circumstantial evidence gathered after the fact. In the end, it all comes down to belief.
How is there any difference? There is plenty of evidence that the laws of physics are pretty uniform throughout the observable universe. Therefore, any life form subject to these laws would have to be based on a carbon atom, as it is here on earth. This is especially true of any life form that could reasonably bear the label "intelligent".
....Probably - over a few hundred million years.....
Probably is a statistical word. Do you have an idea what the probability is that a fish can evolve into a horse? I'll give you a hint. Your probability of winning next 23 consecutive lotteries is significantly higher than that a fish will evolve into a horse. The probability of another planet existing in the universe that can support intelligent life is about the same. Mathematicians consider any probability less than about 1 in 10^-42 equal to zero.
...So far Obama is very good at promises, they don't cost a dime...
Even for a dime, Government can print a lot of money or even more efficiently, tweak a few bits in some computers of the debt finance system. Then those promises can be fulfilled.
...Is it just me, or does no one realize that the country is bankrupt?....
It is impossible for anyone who can legally print money, (or nowadays increment some digital files somewhere), to ever go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is only for those who would be put in prison if they created money from nothing.
For Millennia of human history, until modern times, the medium of exchange (money) always had SOME intrinsic value, in and of itself, preventing the effortless creation of the debt house of cards financing employed by those (usually governments) who have given themselves the right to artificially create wealth, where there really is nothing.
I wonder what it will look like WHEN (not if) that house of cards finally collapses, world wide. The Emperor is quite naked already, but most people don't want to be thought of as fools and won't even admit it to themselves, let alone publicly.
....If he installs the software on a non-Apple computer, he is committing copyright infringement...
No, he very definitely is not. Do you think that a CD publisher such as Sony, could enforce a EULA that says the music may only be played on a device with Sony's logo on it? As long as Apple sells valid copies of OSX to all comers, there is no legal way they can prevent the installation of the software on any and all hardware, even a refrigerator. It may not run very well on non-Apple hardware and may break with each upgrade, but it is perfectly legal for anyone to install a genuine purchased copy anywhere they feel like doing so.
If Apple really wants to prevent the use of their software on any hardware other than their own, they have to restrict the sale thereof to people who can prove they already own a Mac. I don't see where they would want to do that at this time. They could wait and see if any manufacturer started selling a substantial number of systems. After all, they are getting $129 for each copy of their OSX, which is more than MS gets from an OEM. If such a cloner becomes too successful and affects the sales of genuine Macs in a serious way, Apple could increase the upgrade price of OSX to everybody who cannot prove that they already own a genuine Mac computer.
....park a retired police cruiser with light bar & logo by the side of the road....
The county did that here for a while and found that they had to move it from time to time, because regular commuters got used to it and ignored it. But it does generally slow down many drivers.
....That is, you and I are required to buy a computer from Apple and only from Apple if we want it to run Mac OS X.....
You are required to buy a Honda car if you want to run it with a Honda engine. Honda can take any steps they want to prevent you from running their engines in a Toyota. That is not illegal.
Apple could destroy Pystar's OSX stealing instantaneously by simply withdrawing OSX from the retail channel and selling only to people who can prove they already own a Macintosh computer. There is no need to waste another dime on lawyers or court costs.
Slashdot Mirror
...And selection - that's an important part.....
based on what? How does a reptile develop GRADUALLY over millions of years develop feathers? Where does it get the additional genetic information to construct feathers? Feathers are VERY complex. Like I wrote, have YOU ever looked at a feather under a microscope? How does selection work to gradually, over a many generations prod a reptile to make feathers? Incomplete, nonfunctional feathers or other structures are useless for survival and are therefore not passed on to succeeding generations. Unless a feature confers a distinct advantage on an organism, it is invisible to the natural selection mechanism.
(... by choosing which wolves to mate we've managed to created teacup poodles, bulldogs and Saint Bernards in a fairly short time - don't you think similar things happen in the wild?...)
The fact is that none of these things happen in the wild, because the selective breeding of dogs is accomplished by means of the application of human intelligence. In other words there is intelligent design to produce a desired result.
(...It's the scientific theory about why biological organisms have evolved,...)
No, it is a fiction that has to be believed in the same way that various religions are believed. It is a tale that substitutes huge amounts of time, probability and a nebulous thing called selection in place of the application of intelligence to account for the incredible complexity and diversity of living things, including ourselves. There is no human effort to does not involve a measure of intelligence. Why is it that otherwise highly intelligent humans credit the existence of even the existence of a single living cell to processes NOT ALSO involving intelligence and thought?
(...Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching ....)
students the truth by not telling them the fiction that biological structures and systems, far more complex devices and functions than anything people have ever done by intelligent design, came about by random probabilistic means over immense periods of time. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to tie theories of origins to the present day workings of all systems, including biological ones. That sort of teaching belongs in history and philosophy classes. Science is not about what was thought to have taken place an unimaginably long time ago.
...God isn't standing in the courtroom (or lecture theater) giving testimony...
I guess you have never heard of a deposition, a written document of one or more witnesses. How do historians verify the accuracy and truthfulness of ancient works such as by Homer and Aristotle? How do we know that even more recent works, such as Shakespeare for example, are preserved in an authentic manner? Do we have a video or a direct evidence of reliable witnesses that can authenticate the musical works of Mozart or Beethoven? Are the writings of Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin really authored by men of those names? We don't have a video of George Washington or any of the men who signed the Constitution. How do we know that the piece of paper enshrined in the national archives is not an elaborate fake?
I find it incongruous that you, a /.er would even name a video as a means of authentication for anything. I am almost positive that you know for a fact that any electronic information is more easily falsified in an untraceable way, than any record any human being might have been capable of making before electronic records were invented.
It seems strange to me that people are willing to readily believe documents from history that don't even have a small fraction of the number of ancient manuscripts still available, than the thousands of independently written and compiled documents available for the Bible.
(..Calling the Bible direct testimony is a bit of an over-statement...)
Based on historical and legal methodologies, it is possible to establish the correctness of the biblical record far more certainly than any other written document older than a few human lifetimes. The science of archaeology also has never refuted so much as a single biblical reference to events and places in the ancient lands where the Chronicles of the Bible were written and take place.
I have just finished reading the New York Times bestseller titled "The Case For Christ". In it, the author brings up almost all of the common charges of inaccuracies and far-fetched stories contained in, in this case, the New Testament and the life of Jesus Christ as chronicled therein. If you are brave enough to get it and read it, your view of the Bible and the Christian message therein could change your mind and indeed your whole life.
...I'll believe DNA, fossils, and rocks....
So do I, but we differ on how we believe these got here. Fairies and magic don't have anywhere near a power that evolutionists ascribe to time and chance. In children's stories, a beautiful maiden's magic kiss can turn a frog into a prince. In adults children's stories, called evolution, the much more powerful magic of lots of time combined with chance can turn even a rock into a prince.
Children's stories often begin with "Once upon a time...." The evolutionary tale is similar. You can find the intoning magic words: "Billions of years ago...." in big thick books with lots of fanciful, beautifully done illustrations. It is amazing how often the word "assume" is found in these authoritative appearing tomes. "Assume" is a more educated way of saying "believe", but when you assume something, you don't know it, but are guessing.
Somewhere near the beginning of such books you can read: Billions of years ago, ceaseless torrents of rain washed minerals from the rocky (minerals come from rocks) land and other compounds formed by the aid of innumerable lightening bolts into the pre-biotic soup of the warm seas. There these compounds, bumping into each other, by chance over time, made larger molecules called amino acids. These are the basic building blocks of all life, sort of like the bricks of a house.
After more time, (magic) these amino acids and other components organized themselves into single celled organisms, such as simple bacteria. (actually, bacteria are anything but simple) Some of them called algae, in time evolved to use sunlight to get energy. Green algae are part of the plant kingdom. In the course of millions of years, algae turned into roses, sunflowers and 300 foot tall redwood trees as well as all other plants we have today.
In further chapters of such textbooks we read: Some sea dwellers, after several million years, got bored with the ocean and were able to also live on land. When the tide went out, some of them were left stuck on the beach. Somehow, maybe by trial and error (chance) some did not dry out, but figured out how to breathe air for a while. Creatures that can live both in the water and on land are called amphibians. This is where the frogs come into the story.
In subsequent chapters such textbooks continue with the evolutionary narrative with: After more time, some of these left the water and evolved to live entirely on land. They found they could also make a good living there, eating plants and each other. After a lot more time some even figured out how to fly. Such fliers had first been insects or reptiles, some of which could fly, but then after more time, evolved into birds, which are much better fliers, partly because they somehow learned how to regulate their body temperatures independently of their environment. In their bird brains they also figured out how to construct strong yet light hollow bones and invent feathers. Have you ever looked at a feather under a microscope? Feathers are complicated and beautiful.
Still further inside these beautifully illustrated so-called science books the story continues with: In time, (more magic) some evolved to bear their young alive, rather than laying eggs. These are called mammals such as elephants, dogs, cats and bats. In time, some of the four legged mammals practiced walking on their hind legs, became good at it and soon made a habit walking upright. These are the monkeys and apes. They could use what used to be front legs and feet as arms with hands on them for grabbing and hugging. They learned how to modify two of their fingers into thumbs. Some of them use their tails for these activities also.
In the final chapters of such textbooks they get around to this: Eventually, after more, still much more time, one of these apes developed a bigger brain, lost most body hair and the tail and thus at last became human. Humans are the result of the most powerful magic time is capable of. That big brain gave humans a huge advantage over any other animal.
...What "we" call science didn't exist before the 17th century, give or take....
That is exactly right and is essentially what I said in different words.
(...you should have said "One of the fundamental concepts of evolution [is] the selection of mutations...)
For any selection of mutations to occur, mutations themselves must be shown to happen. This has definitely been demonstrated in laboratory, but the same experiments also show that most mutations are overwhelmingly disadvantageous to an organism.
(...what you actually *mean* is "shed light on which beneficial mutations can and cannot arise at all...)
No, it has been experimentally established that beneficial mutations do occur. What the experiments which Dr. Seelke's reports give us an insight into, it is what such beneficial mutations can accomplish in the evolutionary process. If only ONE mutation confers a substantial benefit to any organism, such as the bacteria that were used, then it demonstrates in a valid statistical way, that a mutation can definitely make evolutionary changes that are conferred to succeeding generations. However, as the experiment shows, when MORE than one mutation is needed in a given organism in order to confer a usable advantage, the probability of evolutionary success is quickly reduced to the statistical probability equivalent of zero.
(...We can't fit an Earth ecosystem into a laboratory...)
Exactly, but we can fit billions or even trillions of bacteria into a laboratory and watch them evolve 10s of thousands of generations on a human timescale. This is what Dr. Seelke and others have done and are simply reporting the result. Is that not the essence of science, to do a careful experiment and then write a report? He makes some philosophical interpretations according to his worldview, you may strongly disagree with, but you will find it hard to argue with the data he reports. I would be interested to know how you interpret the actual data, the actual results, according to your philosophical worldview.
....Actually the Drake equation has held for some time...
Just because someone comes with an equation does not at all mean that such an equation reflects reality.
The factor R, listed first has absolutely no bearing at all since a star may not have any planets at all. Giving the number two for a factor Ne is so ridiculous to be laughable. Half of all existing stars in all galaxies are too close to each other in order to have *any* planet that could have a stable orbit needed for a temperature range to allow liquid water. No liquid water, -- no life. If two or more stars are closer than about 3.8 ly to each other, none of such stars can ever have a habitable zone for any planet. The nearest star to the sun is Alpha Centauri, about 4.2 ly distant. There is a distinct habitable zone for a planet around only ONE star and there is also a distinct habitable zone for a star/planet system in a galaxy.
The chemical makeup parameters of a planet to support intelligent life is also rather narrow. There has to be a moon that is large is relation to the planet. This keeps the axis of the planet steady. A suitable magnetic field is also needed to shield complex life forms from damaging radiation. Of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, only a very tiny fraction is useful to support life. It "happens" to be the part of the spectrum that is visible and is also finely matched to the energy requirements of photosynthesis. It also just "so happens" that the spectral output of the sun is centered on the visible part of the spectrum. If you would do the multiplicative mathematics for the factor of Ne all by itself, it would come up to be a number in the order of one in 10^-15.
There are also a number of other requirements in the laws of physics that you can search out on your own. The relationships among the four forces that govern all matter and energy are precisely what is needed in order for life to form anywhere at all in the entire universe. Many scientists have realized this and try to get around it by postulating the existence of many universes. That is a fine fairy tale but it is not science. Only the universe we are in is accessible to scientific investigation.
Even if only a conservative one in 50 probability is assigned to each of the parameters needed to have a universe with a habitable planet, the probability of all of these coming together by any known statistical process is so tiny, that it may be confidently set to zero. There is no way of getting around the mathematics of probability that inform us that a universe containing place like our earth is exceedingly rare. It behooves us therefore to take good care of it, because it is not likely that we will find another place to live anytime soon.
....If you are personally convinced of anything by this paper you provided and things like it....
This paper makes a distinction between historical and experimental science. The claims of evolution are necessarily historical and are therefore much more subject to interpretation. The study of evolution is a forensic science. A crime has been committed and now scientists must examine the evidence and tried to determine what really happened.
If a theory can be verified by present-day experiment, rather than speculation about what may have happened in the past, then such an experiment is much more valuable in refuting or bolstering any theory.
Until modern times, the discipline of what we now call science was almost exclusively philosophical as opposed to experiments and careful observations. One of the fundamental concepts of evolution are the existence of mutations beneficial to an organism. It is also well known that most mutations are not beneficial or are even harmful. Therefore, any present-day experiment that can shed light on what beneficial mutations can and cannot do in the evolution of life helps scientists increase their understanding of the mystery of life.
Whether you agree to the irreducible complexity theory or not is irrelevant. What is important is that the author did a present day experiment to shed light on the processes of selection and mutations.
As always, attacking your opponent's person is a sure sign that you are on the losing end of the discussion.
....is tantamount to the belief that, inside every cell, there exists a mechanism that prevents mutations which would give rise to offspring if that offspring could not produce fertile progeny with not just its parents' generation, but its grandparents', great-grandparents', etc,....
That is not a belief, but a scientific, experimentally established FACT. Here are some introductory paragraphs of the transcript a microbiologist's oral presentation. Experiment shows that evolutionary mutations have distinct limits. The name of the article is: "What can evolution really do?"
I. Introduction: How historical and experimental sciences approach the study of evolution.
Hello- I'm Ralph Seelke, and I'm a microbiologist who's obsessed with answering one basic question: What can evolution really do??? By this I mean: What can we really SHOW it to be capable of doing? I want to cut through the theory and inference and speculation, and get down to what it has been shown capable of doing, and what it has been shown to be incapable of doing IN THE LABORATORY.
In this talk I want to introduce you to the notion of experimental science, as opposed to historical science, and then convince you that actual, real-time experiments can help us understand the capabilities and limitations of evolution. Then, we'll take a tour of some of the things researchers have discovered about evolution through experimentation.
If you are interested to read the rest, look at the following link.
http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/What%20Can%20Evolution%20Really%20Do_05.doc
The author outlines what experimental evidence there is for evolution as well as its limitations.
....you are both evil and stupid....
Do you not know yet, that when you personally attack the messenger, rather than the message you have lost all credibility? Don't be calling people names just because you disagree with them.
...could simply rewire my brain to make me believe anything he wanted me to believe...
So if you've programmed or someone else programmed your computer to display an expression of love of the computer for you, would you believe that said computer truly loves you?
God tells us in the Bible that he wants you to love him. Obviously he could reprogram you, but then could any response you make to him be labeled with the word "love" as we commonly understand it? You obviously cannot love somebody who you believe does not even exist.
The questions of authentication and identification are not really all that academic, but are crucial in all of life. If you receive a message, especially an improbable message from an improbable source, at least according to your present knowledge, how can you determine the authenticity of both the message and its source?
If the Bible truly is a message from God, is there any way we could be reasonably sure that it is just that and not some huge fraud? In computers, for example, authentication involves something you know or something you have or both, which the computer can unambiguously associate with you. What knowledge could ONLY God provide that you personally or anybody else generally would accept as sufficient evidence of authenticity?
....If you hold a lottery ticket that can issue new copies of itself with more favorable numbers, what does that do for your "odds"?....
Absolutely nothing, unless that magic lottery ticket can accurately predict the future. Human beings can do quite a few amazing things, but are singularly bad at predicting the future. If that were not true, we would not now be in a recession with hundreds of thousands of unemployed.
As an electronics engineer I probably know more than most /.ers about positive and negative feedback systems. Any system with positive feedback as to be carefully controlled by intelligent means, or it will break into oscillation and be entirely useless for transmitting any sort of information or most anything else. If you have ever been subject to the excruciating howl of a public address system, you have experienced an example of positive feedback.
It is a basic mathematical fact that any positive feedback in any system can easily cause such a system to become unstable to the point of even destroying or at least severely damaging it.
...given the size of the universe, I would expect it to actually be fairly large that there is at least one other planet similar to ours....
That would SEEM to be true until you balance it against all the parameters that have to be correct in order for a planet that can support intelligent life to come into existence by any unplanned means.
If you want to learn more about this you can read this book:
ISBN-13: 978-0895260659
or if you don't like to read watch this DVD.
http://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0
Life is we know it, must have water in liquid form. That implies a very narrow temperature range. In addition to temperature, the chemical and physical necessities of life are very specific and quite narrow. This is especially true of any intelligent life forms that could exist to observe and try to understand the universe.
When all these factors are evaluated and balanced against the billions and billions of stars and galaxies, the probability of another earth-like planet in the entire universe coming into existence by any statistical, unplanned process, not involving intelligence is so tiny as to be essentially zero.
....By reserving the Christian label for people who believe in the Christian faith, you can demonstrate that the rest of us are decent people too.....
Jesus himself gave a very simple test plan which outsiders could determine who is and who is not a Christian, that is a disciple of Jesus.
(Joh 13:34) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another.
(Joh 13:35) By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another.
For a good description of what this love looks like, read 1 Corinthians 13.
It is impossible for any person to have this kind of love in them unless they are in-dwelt and empowered by the Spirit of God which Jesus Christ has gives to all who put their complete trust and confidence into Him.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.
Anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit of God living within may still label him or herself a Christian, but is not considered to be such by God. Someone may be a good and decent person, at least as far as is possible to tell from external behavior, but that by itself is not sufficient for God to consider such a one as one of His own.
.... but why is it necessary for it to be anything more than one attempt at explaining that which is out of scope of our experience.....
But why is it necessary for EVOLUTION to be anything more than one MORE attempt at explaining that which is out of scope of our experience? After all, nobody has ever seen the reptile becomes bird evolution myth happen, as commonly depicted in every science textbook. Yet, dyed in the wool evolutionists sincerely BELIEVE that their explanation is the right one. They attempt to get around this problem by postulating the magic of time, immense periods of time.
..I have a star atop my Christmas tree. But I'm still an atheist...
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
...So the bible is fact until science disproves some part of it,...
Which so far has never happened yet. Of course many theories (beliefs) of scientists and others contradict what is written in the Bible. So far though, no actual FACT of science has ever contradicted anything written scriptures. The interpretation of these facts is the only thing that ever differs, not the facts in and of themselves.
... I just believe that it is not a fully accurate description of what happened....
Of course it is not a FULLY accurate description of what God did because that is not the purpose of the Bible, His communication to mankind. It is however accurate as far as it goes.
If God had wanted to give us a fully accurate description of everything he created, several thousand Library of Congress would be too small to hold all the details of creation. The bottom line is this: God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing. He left it as a challenge to human scientists to try and figure out the details.
....Rather, we see the creation story in Genesis to be allegorical and poetic....
Do you see everything around you, including yourself, your own existence as allegorical and poetic? Most of us, perceive the world as real and tangible, as being really here, not just a program in some computer or a metaphorical poem. If God did not create the world, as we read in Genesis 1, then it must have created itself, which of course is logically absurd. The eternal existence of the universe is what was believed by Darwin and his contemporaries and those that lived before him.
Modern science has much evidence that space-time, matter and energy have not always existed. Present evidence screams loudly that the universe is not eternal, but had a definite beginning. If you accept the law of cause and effect, then the universe must have a cause, a first cause. The Bible calls his first cause "Elohim", a Hebrew word with a plural ending. We have translated this word as "God". The prophet Isaiah tells us that this God exists in eternity, that is outside of our time space universe. Genesis simply tells us that this eternal uncaused God is the creator of everything that exists. Since no scientists was around to observe the creation event and the events immediately thereafter, we have to BELIEVE the evidence still available from the distant past.
In a court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness has great importance. Witnesses are generally assumed to be truthful, unless it can be unambiguously shown that a witness is lying or untrustworthy. Witness testimony is, more often than not, the deciding factor in the outcome of a court case, circumstantial evidence notwithstanding.
Contrary to every paper on evolution I have ever read, the creation account in the Bible does not contain uncertainty phrases such as, it is believed that, it appears to be that, the commonly accepted view is, and other such weasel constructs. The Bible in general and the creation account in particular present straightforward statements claimed to originate with the One who was there and did the work. The Bible provides direct testimony from the creator Himself, whereas all of evolution's so called evidence is at best inferred and circumstantial. The question you, as part of the jury must decide is whether to BELIEVE the witness or some circumstantial evidence gathered after the fact. In the end, it all comes down to belief.
... life on Earth, not life in "the universe"....
How is there any difference? There is plenty of evidence that the laws of physics are pretty uniform throughout the observable universe. Therefore, any life form subject to these laws would have to be based on a carbon atom, as it is here on earth. This is especially true of any life form that could reasonably bear the label "intelligent".
....Probably - over a few hundred million years.....
Probably is a statistical word. Do you have an idea what the probability is that a fish can evolve into a horse? I'll give you a hint. Your probability of winning next 23 consecutive lotteries is significantly higher than that a fish will evolve into a horse. The probability of another planet existing in the universe that can support intelligent life is about the same. Mathematicians consider any probability less than about 1 in 10^-42 equal to zero.
...To hell with universal broadband....
Indeed you are right, everybody will have broadband but only dry bread, if that, to eat.
Even so enjoy Christmas still.
...So far Obama is very good at promises, they don't cost a dime...
Even for a dime, Government can print a lot of money or even more efficiently, tweak a few bits in some computers of the debt finance system. Then those promises can be fulfilled.
...Is it just me, or does no one realize that the country is bankrupt?....
It is impossible for anyone who can legally print money, (or nowadays increment some digital files somewhere), to ever go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is only for those who would be put in prison if they created money from nothing.
For Millennia of human history, until modern times, the medium of exchange (money) always had SOME intrinsic value, in and of itself, preventing the effortless creation of the debt house of cards financing employed by those (usually governments) who have given themselves the right to artificially create wealth, where there really is nothing.
I wonder what it will look like WHEN (not if) that house of cards finally collapses, world wide. The Emperor is quite naked already, but most people don't want to be thought of as fools and won't even admit it to themselves, let alone publicly.
....If he installs the software on a non-Apple computer, he is committing copyright infringement...
No, he very definitely is not. Do you think that a CD publisher such as Sony, could enforce a EULA that says the music may only be played on a device with Sony's logo on it? As long as Apple sells valid copies of OSX to all comers, there is no legal way they can prevent the installation of the software on any and all hardware, even a refrigerator. It may not run very well on non-Apple hardware and may break with each upgrade, but it is perfectly legal for anyone to install a genuine purchased copy anywhere they feel like doing so.
If Apple really wants to prevent the use of their software on any hardware other than their own, they have to restrict the sale thereof to people who can prove they already own a Mac. I don't see where they would want to do that at this time. They could wait and see if any manufacturer started selling a substantial number of systems. After all, they are getting $129 for each copy of their OSX, which is more than MS gets from an OEM. If such a cloner becomes too successful and affects the sales of genuine Macs in a serious way, Apple could increase the upgrade price of OSX to everybody who cannot prove that they already own a genuine Mac computer.
....park a retired police cruiser with light bar & logo by the side of the road....
The county did that here for a while and found that they had to move it from time to time, because regular commuters got used to it and ignored it. But it does generally slow down many drivers.
....That is, you and I are required to buy a computer from Apple and only from Apple if we want it to run Mac OS X.....
You are required to buy a Honda car if you want to run it with a Honda engine. Honda can take any steps they want to prevent you from running their engines in a Toyota. That is not illegal.
Apple could destroy Pystar's OSX stealing instantaneously by simply withdrawing OSX from the retail channel and selling only to people who can prove they already own a Macintosh computer. There is no need to waste another dime on lawyers or court costs.