Right, there is no proof of macro evolution.

Respectfuly, I do not think we are on the same subject. Do you understand what I mean between micro and macro evolution? I'm not refering to microevolution (same as adaption). That is proven, and not being doubted here.

Respectfully, I have answered this by stating it would change many things. I compared a false story to a false story. Superman/macroevolution.

I am assuming you re refering to adaption as your solid evidence to microevolution. That is why I am asking you these things.

I know what the theory of evolution is, and what a comparison is. I'm aware of what I am saying.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that gravity didn't exist a couple million years ago? I don't follow how you are applying time to gravity?

Birds of flight that over time become birds of swimming. We see them now as birds with mishappen wings. Is this what you would call adaptation. It's changing from one thing to another thing. Granted it is still a bird, but where once it flew, now it can't.


Micro/macro,who dictates this line of significance? As if there is a difference beyond severity of change.

The idea that the information is already there, in our DNA for mutations only leads to strengthen the idea of evlution. THe possibility for change is built into the core of life. The building blocks of life come equipt with everything needed to make change. It is the rest of the world( I mean climate, preditors, ect) that dictates what makes it and what doesn't.

Alright, show me the birds inbetween. Are you saying there is evidence, or are you saying it's there, and now we have this different bird?


Well it started decades ago by some scientist, but what difference does it make who dictates this?


There is a difference between severity of change. One is observed, the other isn't. One has evidence, and the other is theorized.

But as rogue has been saying, you don't have the transitional species.  You don't have any proto-penguins which can fly AND swim (of course, that's because they couldn't compete against birds which were better fliers and other birds which were better swimmers, but his point still stands).  The problem with Rogue's problem is its a tautology.  There's no such thing as a living transitional species because the assumption is a transitional species will fall between species A and B, rather than have traits that neither A nor B currently have.  Transitional species by definition are those that fill the gap between a previous species and a new species.  Because species are constantly changing, the previous species are all dead and the new species haven't come around yet, so there are, by definition, no living transitional species (although they will be considered transitional in the future).



This is a flaw with science.  Humans like sharp lines to define continuous changes.  We define the difference as being when two groups cannot produce viable offspring, but really this isn't a sharp definition (however it will have to suffice).  Because this is a continuum, not distinct steps, micro and macro evolution are one and the same, or else they are useless, just like centimeters and meters are the same, just on different scales.



Again, this is another one of Rogue's points (and definitely one of his better ones, one which I'm hoping Falkus will address).  A protozoa does NOT have the genetic material of a human.  It has only a small fraction of the DNA a human has.  Clearly, at many points along the line, genetic material was ADDED to that of our ancestors.  So no, not all the information is 'already there', it needs to be added at points to allow for more complex species.

First off, nicely said. My hats off to you Katisara.

Clearly, at many points along the line, genetic material was ADDED to that of our ancestors.  So no, not all the information is 'already there', it needs to be added at points to allow for more complex species.

But what if the less evolved version of a thing, is the only thing that has the building materal to become something else. So, we won't find anything with our building blocks because we are it. We are that thing with the DNA capabilities of become what we are. And who knows what potential is till locked in there?

Respectfully, Nerdicus, what you are saying isn't really what DNA is done.

For example, a one celled organism is theorized to be able to change into a higher organism. What we see in observable science is that there isn't any one celled organism giving birth to a frog. It doesn't result in new additonal information needed to be able to be a frog. There's just not enough information for a frog.

That is what the theory of evolution requires, where a simple life form has evolved into very advanced life forms such as humans.

A challenge to you Nerdicus. Can you tell me something about evolution that is a fact, and not just assumed? I don't mean to be above you, or say I know everything. To be specific, I too believed evolution to be factual for most of my life. It was what I was taught, with zero other possibilities. (after all it was taught as a fact)
I actually had to go on my own to learn what is fact and what is assumed.

So the challenge is, what evidence do we have that one cell organism to human being has occurred?
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:05, Thu 04 May 2006.

Well, we'll never see that. Evolution is a slow proccess, and we will not be able to see this proof you seem to need to accept it.

You are saying that you need to watch a creature turn from one to another. Or more specifically, you need to see something evolve from something simple to something advanced.

The theory of evolution does not say that a one celled organism can turn into a complex cellular creature. It is a long proccess spanning huge amount of years.

That is what the theory of evolution requires, where a simple life form has evolved into very advanced life forms such as humans.

No, that is what you need.  That is what you require to believe in evolution, not what evolution needs to exsist.

So you're saying it is only made up? That the evidence is not actually there?

Correct, without evidence, it is only guessing.

Respectfully, that is exactly what evolution is saying. How did humans get to be here? Do you think the only life on earth came from one celled oragnisms or no? If no, then what did life evolve from?

Again, respectfully, you are in error. It is what evolution is based on.

You make it sound like it is a great leap in evolution. I acknowledge that it is a proccess involving untold numbers of other proccess all interlocked and interwoven. Much like the comlexity of....say life.

So you're saying it is only made up? That the evidence is not actually there?
No. I'm saying that the evidence you need to see isn't there. Actually, wait, it is there. That transitional species we were looking for, it's there. It's that bird I refered to, the one that used to fly, but now it swims, but it still has wings. And I am not talking about penguins. I can't remember the name of them, but they are in the Gallopogus islands. Of course, we can only hypothisize that they once flew, but we can say for certain that the wings they still have, impede there swimming.


Again, respectfully, you are in error. It is what evolution is based on.
I amnot in error, those who believe in evolution are willing to except the proof we do have. You are not. THe idea that we as a being will be able to witness a stage in a creatures evolutionary saga, meens that we have to learn how to live longer then we do. I mean, shoot, I guess we could start filming animals in the wild and hope that in the future someone see's it and is able to put the peices together to witnees the evolution. Given that we don't have those capabilities though, we just have to make do with what we do have as proof of evolution.

To turn this around, it is like saying I refuse to believe in a God until he comes and talks to me. Until I see him, in front of me, or witness his presence he does not exsist.

I understand that not everyone is an expert. I'm not either. But that is not a transitional species just because it can swim. Penguins can swin as well. There are still some birds that swin underwater, and fly.

I can use my hands to pull, pick up, push to swim, and so on. An animal that can multi function does not mean transitional.


Sorry you feel this way. I do not know how else to tell you this, but evolutionists really do believe that all creatures have evolved from one celled organisms. I did not make this up. Check out some of Darwin's research, it might make you realize that it is in fact true.

I understand and agree with the concept of evolution. Right to the fact that it all started form tiny one celled creatures. I just don't see the journey from that to where we are as one step.

Perhaps the parts that are missing form the equation are God's hand in things?

I understand that not everyone is an expert. I'm not either. But that is not a transitional species just because it can swim. Penguins can swin as well. There are still some birds that swin underwater, and fly.

You are not aware of the species that I am speaking of. It is not simply a bird that can fly and swim at the same time. I am talking about something that swims at a disadvantage due to the wing like extremities that it has. A bird that most likely flew in the not too distant past. Relative to how it takes for things to evolve that is. I will do my best to find info on this bird to show you.

Who said one step? A little miscommunication then?


It's not a matter of me knowing or not knowing. I can rightly imagine what you are refering to. It's likely the penguin from the islands you speak of. They aren't just in the the Antartic.

Now having said that, that's still not what a transitional species. Let me give you an example. A transitional species is the animal that is the inbetweener. Evolutionists have come up with a theory to explain why they are not found in the fossil record, it's called Punctuated Equilibrium. Basically since they believe evolution took place, but it happened extrememly fast. So instead of taking hundreds and thousands of slight mutations, it took only a few, large and radical changes to alter the animals.

 Why do you think it is close to the mark? Wouldn't that by default make an ostrich and an emu and a penguin close to the mark as well?

So I think maybe you might be agreeing with me now on the difficulty of transitional.

I don't consider transitional species really an issue for or against evolution. With most fossils as a result from the great flood, fossils are pretty rare, and limited to environments where sudden death, and rapid covering with mineral rich layers happening, that's why we don't find many transitional fossils, since fossils are not like pennies, and just tossed anywhere.

The problem isn't so much finding an animal with more DNA compared to one with less, but seeing the addition of completely new genetic material (in regards to amount) to a creature's reproductive cells, and then that genetic material is successfully combined with other members of the species to create a new breed that has more DNA than its predecessors.  Even if this is only an addition of a few little amino acids on the end of an existing chromosome, I personally am not aware of science having documented this sort of change happening.  And if we can't be certain that DNA can be added on, or that that added on DNA will be passed on to younger generations, the theory of evolution has a big question to be answered.



This is not precisely true.  A one celled organism is not believed to be able to change into a multi-celled organism.  A single-celled organism is believed to be able to *create* a multi-celled organism, but both organisms are otherwise exceptionally similar.  The multi-celled organism is capable of creating another organism with other changes not reflected in either parent.  But no single celled organism will turn into a frog, rather one of their descendents will be a frog (if we're talking about a particular organism far in the past).  The parents of this frog will be so much like frogs, people will likely call them frogs too (and only a specialist in frogs would be able to point out the difference, likely based on a simple structure being a different direction or a millimeter longer than it should or some other technicality), just like their parents and theirs before that, and you'll have to go back quite a ways until the accumulated changes become such that it's clearly not a frog.

(Well, what I said isn't precisely true either.  A zygote is a single celled organism that changes into a multi-celled organism.)



I had never heard that, and I suspect you'll find that Punctuated Equilibrium is not held by all evolutionists.  We HAVE found evidence of transitional species.  We've found dozens of species between us and apes, sharing qualities of both, but fully matching neither.

But rogue is right in his last post, fossils are unusual enough that it's difficult to find even a few transitional species, muchless the thousands or hundreds that would be required to fully illustrate the change over time.

Punctuated Equilibrium actually was thought up around 30 years ago. It was suggested mainly because of the lack of transitional fossils.

I obviously don't believe it either, but it was something sugested because the lack of evidence was troubling.

I don't think you are willing to accept the concept of the Flightless Cormerant as a transitional species, though it is. All other Breeds of Cormerants on the planet fly and swim. They are sleek diving birds that can fly great. THe Cormerant for the Galapogus islands, can no longer fly, though it still has wings designed for flight. THe wings don't work for flight, but are still there.

In time it is likely that the wings will EVOLVE into devices more suited to swimming. Provided the little guys can survive. Given that they have not had any preditors for so long and have been nearly wiped out because of it.

Your concept of a transitional species isn't really realistic. This chimerac like creature of dual design. If we switch this to humans and primates, as Kat said, we have indeed found what could be the remains of "transisitonal species" but they most likely would not have what is required for you to call it a transitional. IE, the poster of an ape and the skull =sized to fit a big brain. Or evidence of a leranx(SP?) in the correct position to offer the ability to speak. Which is one of mans fisrt real steps forward in the evolutionary train of change.

I fully realize that as a theory, Evolution still has far to go before it is more fully proven. I mean, relatively speaking, it is a fledgling concept. We as a species are still fledglings. Our exsistance is still in it's early stages. Unless of course we manage to destroy ourselves before too long.

Nerdicus, have I offended you? It seems like you are saying that I have made up terms used by evolution. Saying things such that I have an unrealistic view of transitional because you think of it differently isn't a very strong argument. Respectfully, you've said this a few times, and to be honest, it seems like you have been basing this on how you view it, rather than based on actual research.

Nope, I'm not offended at all. Perhaps if I was related to Darwin I might be, but I don't really care. I've been reserching as we have been discussing this.  I am not saying that you are making up terms used by evolution, but rather miss using the terms. The flightless Cormerant is a transitional species. I mean, if you refuse to acknowledge this, that is your own choice, but it doen't negate that fact that they are indeed transitional.

 The more I have looked into this subject as we discuss it, the more I find to give weight to the theory of evolution. Granted, it is still a theory, and that means that there are many aspects of it that are unfinished and are yet to be uncovered, but what we do have is pretty solid.

I honestly think we have beaten the dead horse so to speak. By that I mean, we have reached an impass. YOu don't want to believe in evolution. Thats ok. I don't want to believe in Genisis. That's ok too.

Ok, so let's look at transitional species as something we can understand. Car's( i know they are not a species, but let's pretend) started out as a steam powered invention. I tthen evolved into the combustion engine. Now we have a plethera of cars on the planet, the remains of which can be found in the front lawns of rednecks( I couldn't resist). If we look at the remains, we would have a very slim chance of finding any with a steam engine. That doesn't mean that they didn't exsist but rahter, because of their unstable exsistance, we have much lesss of the remains to look at.
Here is a quote:
Consider transitional species like experimental prototypes. For example, steam-powered automobiles existed for a hundred years before the internal combustion engine. Then there was a short period of innovation, including the invention of four-wheel breaks, the independent suspension, and the electric ignition -- the accoutrements of all modern cars. After that, major innovations ended, and a tremendous population expansion occurred. The car, once modernized into a viable mass-market product, exploded onto the scene. The billions of cars since then have remained as a cohesive species, with only superficial and minor changes. And so, from our aliens' perspective, having not seen the horse-and-carriage, nor any of the pre-modern cars before the 1930s, they would conclude that the modern car emerged spontaneously, fully-formed.



The transitional species you are looking for is like the Bird/lizard that would show that dinosaurs turned to birds, or the dog/whale that would show that Dolphins did indeed turn from land mammal resembling the dog, into a small whale. These things would have been an oddity and so would be difficult to find.

I found a reference by a scientist that said our fossil data base has probably around one billionth of the fossils that are actually out there.

Good theories take evidence and then arrive at a conclusion. Unsound theories, like intelligent design, take a lack of evidence, then turn it into a suggestion, and then finally conclude that they have a valid theory.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:15, Thu 04 May 2006.

Nerdicus, I know what a transition is. I am aware that an animal that has any changes whatsoever is a transition.

Here's a challenge. What "facts" are there for evolution?

We have a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly. We have time as evidence for evolution. We have .....what else?

What we don't have is a basic creature turning into a complex creature.

You said for evolution, that it is not based on a lack of evidence, right? So please go on with the evidence you speak of.

Let's just look at the evolution of man. We have evidence of our ancestral man and the changes to man of today. Ie, starting out like a primate and evolving into man. Skull changes to allow for a bigger brain. Changes in posture.

The fruit fly that evolves into a fruit fly that you so put, is a key example. THe two variations of fruit fly came form one, but are two totally didfefrent types. As in they can't reproduce together, but can on their own. As in each type can reproduce with it's own kind.

I want to point out that the examples you're using is a common thought process, and at first glance may seem to support evolution. Really what is happening though is a loss of information in a sense. Other cormorants can swim, and fly. This particular bird you speak of is actually losing flight. (and it is dying off since it can no longer handle the environment it is now in.) This is the opposite of becoming more complex. This is not evidence for one celled organism to man evolution. This is support for mutation, and possibly adaption, but not on what the theory of evolution tells us.


I found it just the opposite, everything I was taught about evolution I have found is based on assumptions.

It's not a matter of wanting to believe in Evolution. You could say I just don't have enough faith to believe in the theory. But really, follow the evidence. It's based on assumptions. You must realize that is why evolution is still only a theory.

Where the theory of evolution is a theory based on scientific practices, Ie, taking evidence and building a theory from it, Intelegent design builds its concept on the lack of evidence. That is not science. Building an idea out of a lack of proof is....like building a house on the sand.

Your comment on the Cormerant is choosing to look at the fact that it is evolving. Granted it is not a change that is going to help it out in the long run(maybe) it is a ohysiological change at a genetic level.

 because we don't see simple forms evolving into complex forms doesn't mean it doesn't or hasn't happened, it means we have yet to find evidence of it. But we have found evidence of it.

Are you aware of the fact that all forms of life are carbon based? As in, we are all formed of the same stuff. everyhithng in exsistance on our planet that lives is carbon based. Why do you thing that is? Perhaps because we all evolved form a carbon based one celled organism.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:58, Thu 04 May 2006.

Could you explain what you mean? What evidence do you speak of? Are you going by evidence, or that people say we evolved from ape?

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.
This message was lightly edited by the GM at 15:57, Thu 04 May 2006.

Could you explain what you mean? What evidence do you speak of? Are you going by evidence, or that people say we evolved from ape?
They are things called bones and fossils. We have them. they show us our evolution. there are several fossil remains of homanids that show our evolution.

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.
Yes, but how many of those were created in a lab from one species? By man?

Could you explain this once more? A loss of information is evidence of a theory that states things evolved from lower life forms?

We don't have evidence of it, and then the next line says we do? I agree with you lack of evidence does not mean it hasn't happened. However, I am stating you said it was based on evidence of it that we have the theory.

Why can't that argument be said to be just as valid for a common design, and designer?

Common design features is not evidence for one or the other.

So your evidence is that people say there is, so it must be true? Could you show me some evidence?

Obviously none of them. So your evidence is that we copied something that already happens? That still doesn't prove a lower life form evolving into a higher life form.

So your evidence is that people say there is, so it must be true? Could you show me some evidence?

I don't have any fossils at my disposal, nor do I have the ability to show them to you if I did. But they do exsist. That is why they are used as evidence in university text books discussing biology. Perhaps you should find yourself a text book that discusses these things.

 Obviously none of them. So your evidence is that we copied something that already happens? That still doesn't prove a lower life form evolving into a higher life form.

Yes, that is my point. By using a lab to create a controlled eco system, scientists have used breeding to create two seperate species of fruit flies out one species, that can not breed together. This is a controlled situation in which we( I mean man kind) had been able to emmulate evolution.

I think for you to understand what is being discussed here you should take it apon yourself to find the evidence you are looking for. Or rather, the lack of evidence as you think it is. By this I mean, look at some biology text books. Entry level university or colloege texts will give you a whole lot of evidence that supports evolution. Granted, until you see it and touch it with your own eyes and hands, I'm quite certain you won't be willing to accept it as truth, but that again will have to be your own journey for truth.

There are thousands and thousands of species of spiders. Not all can cross breed either. And yet they are still all spiders. A fly that is a fly isn't proof of a life form evolvng into a higher life form.

Tell me, what exactly qualifies you to make that statement about what does and doesn't constitute scientific proof of evolution? It's proof enough to the rest of the scientific community, what makes your standards better than theirs?
This message was last edited by the player at 14:35, Fri 05 May 2006.

Falkus, I previously provided you with evidence of scientists who dispute the theory of evolution, some of the Nobel Prize laureates.  What makes you more qualified than they are?  Why do you insist on saying this is something that is conclusively proven when it is not, even in the scientific community?  You keep assuming a premise that has not been proven conclusively and then rejecting any possibility that there may be flaws in it despite the many experts in the field and scientists that have pointed out flaws.

I understand that you believe in evolution.  Frankly, so do I.  But I feel like you are trying to tell people they're wrong by sweeping aside their statements instead of allowing for the possibility that evolution is not as conclusive as you may think.  Parts of it have certainly been proven, but not the entire theory as it relates to all of existence of life on earth.

Falkus, I previously provided you with evidence of scientists who dispute the theory of evolution, some of the Nobel Prize laureates.  What makes you more qualified than they are?

99.97% of all scientists in fields related to evolution accept it as true.

?  Why do you insist on saying this is something that is conclusively proven when it is not, even in the scientific community?

0.03% of a community does not represent a significant divide.

And 86% of all statistics are made up :P

Anyway, the fact that a lot of people agree on something isn't indicative of much of anything. A lot of people have agreed on things that are very foolish indeed (and smart people at that!)  If you want to convince people like Rogue that evolution exists and resulted in life as we know it, you will have to rely on evidence and strong theories (as well as by answering questions) rather than quoting authorities.  I can tell you that just telling him that other people believe in evolution so he should too won't work.

Where do you get these statistics?  Further, it is the caliber of scientists more than the number that really is impactive anyway, and since they are well-reknowned scientists and Nobel laureates, I think that there is a significant divide.

Here is a list of 481 well respected scientists who have problems with evolution:  http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm

And that just scratches the surface.  I think your .03% number is inaccurate, to say the least, unless there are over 16,000 scientists with these credentials and every single one of them fully accepted all aspects of evolution.  Even if they didn't, this number is still quite significant given the credentials involved.

Besides, it only takes one man.  One Darwin.  One Einstein.  One Newton.  And the whole body of science can be turned upside down.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:42, Sat 06 May 2006.

That's what I mean. People hear it so often they believe it true with only being told it's a sequence.

My suggestion to help make this easier instead of going over all the sequence at once, is to pick one skeletal structure at a time. Pick one, and we can discuss it. Neanderthal is well documented, do you want to go over the "proof" of that one first, or would you rather pick a different one such as Homo Habilis, made famous by "Lucy"?

  I think you missed what I said. That doesn't prove where evolution says that a lower life form evolves into a higher life form.

I understand that you see me as a christian, one who lives perhaps in a small town out in the country, perhaps educated in a christian school where only creation is taught.

But I was raised in the city, and grew up on evolution, and believed it to be true for about 27 years until I actually delved deeper. I really did go to museums, and see dinosaurs, and cave man landscapes, and the like. I even did plenty of reading on the topic. I'm willing to discuss this much deeper, because I have been there, and can go over the evidence with you. I am confident enough to say that the reason you are having trouble finding evidence is precisely because of what you are limited to.

The challenge is put forth,a nd I understand it's a difficult stance to back up with facts. There's not much to go with, is there?

This is a slightly different approach.

Imagine today if we genetically altered a life form and set it loose among its kind.  We certainly have the power and knowledge to do so and can literally do it overnight.  Imagine we took an ape and genetically altered it to be as smart as a human.  Again, possible in the not too distant future.  Then we set them loose in Africa among their kind with no humans around.

All the apes would begin their scientific experiments and decide that evolution works, it's a grand and conclusive theory, and therefore they must have evolved from something.  They find their ancient cousins, untouched by human genetic alterations.  Ah!  There is the proof that they evolved.

But did they?  The touch of a wise and powerful hand can do much to make mischief with our working theories, even making overnight changes.  The Uplift novels by David Brinn are interesting in this theory.  The Darwin's Radio books by Greg Bear are interesting to show genetic jumps based on dormant viruses.  So there are many things that could interfere with the evolution of Man.  Quite frankly, I've heard several facts about humans that seem to defy evolution, thus indicating an intelligent hand in our development.  So although I believe evolution as a theory, I do not completely accept it as definitive for human development.

But I was raised in the city, and grew up on evolution, and believed it to be true for about 27 years until I actually delved deeper. I really did go to museums, and see dinosaurs, and cave man landscapes, and the like. I even did plenty of reading on the topic. I'm willing to discuss this much deeper, because I have been there, and can go over the evidence with you. I am confident enough to say that the reason you are having trouble finding evidence is precisely because of what you are limited to.

Actually the reason I am having trouble finding you the evidence you are asking for, Ie, proof that a less complicated genetic structure evolved into a more complex one, is because it is one of those few things to do with evolution that litterally has no proof. It does not mean that this is proof that it can't be, but merely that you are asking for soemthing you know is next to impsoosable to provide. That is hardly a fair challenge, but I'm not saying it can't be done. It just makes this tough that you are limiting the proof you will accept to something you know or at least think you know, isn't out there.

It is like someone who doesn't believe in a God saying show me proof that he exsists. And then is only willing to accept the presence of God if he see's and talks to Him. But yet continue's to debate the topic.

I don't assume you live anywhere are are anything. I honestly try to avoid assumptions, sepcially of that sort. The only assumptions of you that I have are that you are most likely a rather intelegent person who likes to build your arguments out of the stuff that is just about impossable to refute. I must admit it is a good way of remaining right, in your own mind, but not a fair way to enter a debate.

Side not here, I was raised in the opposite way of thinking. Grew up in a christian family that chooses not to hold any faith in evolution. I have come to belive what I beilve through the learning of the huge amount of information I have found that supports evolution. It is the information I have learned, my own reasoning, and my gut instincts that keep me believing what I beilve.

That said, I am out of my depth trying to find the information that you require for this debate. I am NOT giving up though. I just need to do some reserch. Never fear, I have my wife's univeristy text book, Biological Anthropology, a great book that very fully looks at the evolutionary proccess and the proccess  of learning about it, and will be reading it to find factual proof for you.

When I said that I thought you should do some resrch, I ment go to university or gollege and take a course on this, or, find some text books and do some reserch.  It is obvious that you have learned some stuff about evolution, or rather it's unlikely hood. I think that you should expand what you are looking for, in your pursuit for knowledge. Try not to limit yourself to harping on what you can't find, but rather, attempt to learn all that you can from what info there is.

Just to be clear on what it is that you are looking for, you want some evidence that shows how a simple life form evolved into a more complex life form, right?

 That's what I mean. People hear it so often they believe it true with only being told it's a sequence.
this isn't information I picked up at the local tavern, these bones aren't rumors I heard about at a crib game, they are the stuff that anthroplgy, or specificaly, Biological Anthropology is built on.

My suggestion to help make this easier instead of going over all the sequence at once, is to pick one skeletal structure at a time. Pick one, and we can discuss it. Neanderthal is well documented, do you want to go over the "proof" of that one first, or would you rather pick a different one such as Homo Habilis, made famous by "Lucy"? Here is a stem to your problems in understanding the evolutionary concept I believe. We can not pick one well documented skeletal form to discuss this, because it is all of them that make the argument. but, let's take your suggestion and build on it.

Lets look at the evolution of man, where we can see how we evolved from something a tad less complex, to something more complex. Given the enormity of this subject, and your pension for structoring your argument on a lack of evidence, I'll let you start this. Let's rememebr though that we are going to be discussing all the homonid forms, and not just one or two. We are discussing man's evolutionary walk, or lack there of, how ever you might see it.

In science, making sure your position has a way of being tested is the ONLY way of being right, and hence, at least this one point of Rogue's is very scientific.

If evolution is not testable, it is not a scientific theory of any weight.  There are many theories which have been put aside because they couldn't be tested at the time.  Since in this case it isn't all of evolution that's in question, but rather the concept of creatures gaining genetic material through mutation, and the fact that there is no other scientific theory on the matter that is testable, we accept evolution not as The Truth, but as the best understanding currently available to us.  It is unfortunate that many people in our society seem to confuse religion and science (and I'm not pointing fingers here) in that they demand proof of God, but accept things like evolution with blind faith.

Evolution is a theory in a field built entirely upon the concept that everything we knew before could be wrong.  Evolution is not guaranteed to be right, nor is it provably right.  However, it is the best theory we have available right now, so it wins by default.  Should a better supported theory come along, say the Theory of Staged Biodiversity (I'm making that up), which is testable and all tests come back supporting the theory, we will forget the Theory of Evolution in favor of our new theory.  That's just how science works and how it has worked since the invention of the scientific method.

Hi Nerdicus. Thanks for the response, and I don't want to frighten you off. But I do want to point out the challenge was actually asking for what the "facts" are for evolution.



Ceratinly looking at adaption of animals is evidence for evolution, but not a fact for what the theory claims. I'm glad you were willing to agree that for evidence of an animal becoming more complex is not a fact.

Feel free to believe in evolution, based on gut feelings, or the repetition of scientists. Essentially, faith is fine for many things. I freely admit I'm not trying to prove God when talking of evolution. Even if evolution is proven false with zero merit, that is still not proof for God.



Thanks for the intelligent comment, but as to the assumptions, you have to realize that telling me to go do some extra research of any sorts is actually making an assumption that I have not done those activities.

As to my arguments, that's assuming I only make arguments that are not desputable. Basically, you're basing this on the evolution thread only, and considering that it's only a theory, that's an unfair statement. How can I make a point about something with a lack of facts, and be considered unfair? Unless it has facts to show the theory, my statement is the only one I can make. It's not a matter of being right all the time. (More so, I'd say me taking the side of problems evolution is quite fair. It does have problems.)


Well evolution does say that, but you will find zero evidence for it.

What I origially said was this,



I'm aware of this, but as you are aware, science changes all the time. The theroy of evolution even has to evolve all the time to stay with science. Just because something was thought before, doesn't mean it is always true.  Look at the appendix for example. It was thought vestigal for many years. It's been about 30 years now that they have known it served a function after all.



My "pension for structuring my argument on a lack of evidence?" Plain and simple, an unfair statement. I don't know your age, but assuming you're over 18, let's stick to facts, and not any form of posts that call into question about poor tactics, or abilities. I don't do it to you, so don't do it to me. (more so, I'm more proactive when it comes to these kind of comments directed towards other users of the forum.) I don't accept it. It's a weak way to debate, as it's meant to "push" the person, and not the points of the argument.

I will start a new thread just for evolution about ape to man.

Evolution in action?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/...eofevolutionarysplit

Why does there NEED to be a conflict its clear scientifically Evolution is what we see as the mechanism for all life? That doesn't mean that a creator couldn't have formed the universe to appear old and even make a creation before the Biblical one.

And all scientific theory always COULD be wrong. The Theory of Gravity is just a theory we could prove its wrong- unlikely but no theory is 100% certain. The best we can do is apply the most rigourous proofs and tests to show its true or not. But Evolution is testable by looking into the past through dating fossils, genetic studies in the DNA and other means including Archeology which studies early human civilization.

Think of it like this:  Why would God go to some great deception to humanity about making the earth appear old?  1 year is the same as billions to someone as omnipotent and eternal as that.

Is it to test faith?  Well, could be, but then again, studying the language of the Old Testament shows that the seven days was not meant to be literal at all, but represent merely "time periods."  So it's not really a critical part of Judeo-Christian beliefs at all, but perhaps just a great mistranslation (not unlike the imagery of "Hell").

I do not feel the evidence for evolution is compelling. Really, the strongest evidence for it, is a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly.

That may be cryptic to you ruby, but that comment seems to have a bit of history here at CC:R. Basically, the evidence for evolution is a bunch of people saying it happened.

Really, the strongest evidence for it, is a fruit fly turning into a fruit fly.

Do we really need to have another discussion on the meaning of speciation again, and that the difference between two species of fruit flies is essentially the same as it is between a fruit fly and a human?

And that is exactly why I feel that the idea of a one celled organism having evolved it's way eventually into a man is fully based on the idea it could happen, and not because it has been shown it could happen.

Basically, it takes too much faith to believe in evolution for me.

You are aware of the fallacy of argument from incredulity, correct?

I wasn't aware of it. I had to look it up.

I wasn't trying to compare that it is so unbelieveable that is why I don't believe it. I was trying to compare that the actual facts of evolution leaves a lot of problems that create bigger problems in the theory.

I was trying to compare that the actual facts of evolution leaves a lot of problems that create bigger problems in the theory.

Could it be that you don't fully understand the theory?

The problem with evolution as a theory is that there is not a second model which it can be tested against apart from creationism, which is a theory which many (oh, so many!) people hold as being based on unscientific beliefs. But, as a theory, evolution is being constantly rewritten and refined to try and fit things which do not fit into it's current configuration, while many attempts at an alternate theory are label as "attacks".

When I speak of evolution as being faulty, I mean that it is faulty as the sole paradigm driving the appearance of all present life on Earth, and the disappearance of many species we have fossil records of. For instance, the idea of all life evolving from a single primordial form (not my words, by the way, but they sound so cool) is not only hard to believe, but possibly completely wrong. Illinois has a professor named Carl Woese who a few years back found evidence that there would have to be at least three different simple organisms to account for the various cell structures we see today. What's more, these organisms destroy all hopes of accurately charting their genealogy, because they would share RNA horizontally. It's only after one of these organisms broke the Darwinian Threshold that more traditional vertical evolution could occur. While he never comes out and says so, there is a feel from his writings (at least what I read of them) that this Threshold is the first multi-celluar organism. What he does say is that, prior to the Threshold, the currently accepted and supported theory of evolution breaks down.

For now, the theory of evolution is the only theory out there which can help students (and their professors, for that matter) understand how biology interacts today, and how it probably interacted when the dinosaurs where around, but it isn't perfect. Much like Einstein's general relativity in physics, biology is in need of a new theory to explain those things which evolution can't. But, much like Newton's laws, evolution is useful to help with understanding the world. It just may not be 100% accurate.

Perhaps, but I have to say in my own defense, it's not from lack of trying.I have actually discovered quite a few holes that cannot be explained, and are problematic the theory. You have seen these in previous threads, and they have yet to be answered.

Perhaps, but I have to say in my own defense, it's not from lack of trying.

Really? You've acquired a PhD in biology?

Falkus, please.  A person can try to learn without getting a PhD.  Anyway, by that argument, how can you say Rogue is wrong without your having a PhD in biology (or theology, for that matter)?

A person can try to learn without getting a PhD.

But without formal education, you cannot truly claim to be fully capable of understanding the theory. Evolution is not simple, and it takes a significant amount of education to fully understand.

Anyway, by that argument, how can you say Rogue is wrong without your having a PhD in biology

I'm not the one challenging the theory.

(or theology, for that matter)?

I've never challenged Rogue on theological matters, only on moral issues involving religion.

I disagree with you on every point except evolution not being simple.  You can learn and understand it without a formal education (how do you think Darwin learned about it?)  You can understand it without 'significant education' (which, given your post, is 8+ years of higher education plus high school).  The most basic premises are fairly straightforward.

I will say that rogue has presented questions neither he nor I nor (apparently) you have answers to.  It is possible that people with PhDs have answers, but my (small amount of) research hasn't turned said answers up anywhere.  If people are genuinely interested, I have a friend with a bachelor's degree in biology.  I can forward these questions on to him and see what someone with more education says.

I will also say that it IS a theory that is still being refined, shaped and redefined, and at points it is based on tautologies.  That's to be expected when studying things that take millions of years to occur and are largely not testable.  The theory is barely a hundred years old.  We SHOULD expect questions, holes, misunderstandings and the like.  We should expect it's wrong at points.  I don't know of any grand theory of import (outside of mathematics) that wasn't modified substantially, and most grand theories have been completely disregarded, despite how certain the scientists were at the theories' conception.

I doubt the following is going to be very scientific but its why I (with my high school education only) believe in evolutionary theory over creationism.

From a young age I built up a body of knowledge starting with basic kiddy facts like 'plants breath in CO₂ and breath out O₂' {Which is an over-simplification you learn later} or that there is a third less gravity on the moon coz its a smaller mass. It rolls on like an avalanche - some facts are taken on an authority's say so till you can comprehend - others like the theory of optics, being so predictable as they are, can be reconciled at the time with the rest of the body of knowledge that you've earned with observation or learning.

And from a young age we are all {or mostly all} taught evolutionary theory - and it starts explaining so much. Why was there an organ in my body that's only purpose was to enlarge, become inflamed and threaten to rupture and kill me if it hadn't been removed by surgery? God put appendixes in people as another way to kill indiscriminately or is it a vestigial, withered organ that lost its role since grass isn't on the top of my food pyramid any more. Why do foetuses look strongly like some sort of fish man out of a HP Lovecraft novel in early development? Yesh.

And then there is the world itself. I come from New Zealand. A young land that is trapped between the forces of two tectonic plates. Sharp cliffs, shear mountains still new and bearing the signs of the earth's growing pains. You can see rock strata - and actually witness layers of shells going around in a quarter meter band in a mountain range cliff that is elevated high above sea level. A 10,000 year old universe? It just seems so unlikely. What a deceptive deity would fool our best powers of observation so?

So it comes down to a feeling. I don't want to believe in a god like that. How could flightless kiwi get to New Zealand, an island nation, from Mt Ararat? It made more sense for me to believe that the kiwi's precursors came to New Zealand when it broke from Australian, found no preditors so then their wings went the way of the appendix.

Isolation and adaptation and freak chance. Very sketchy reasoning but in a way its not. For me to throw out evolution I would have to examine the other tendrils that link to it in my collective body of knowledge. Geology, physics, biology, animal behaviour, astronomy. They would have to be thrown out too.

Not when I grew up on a sheep farm and seen the flock change over the generations with different hybrids and breeds of rams. I also work for the mentality disabled - Put a gene wrong and you end up with one fingernail running along the breadth of your fused fingers. It feels to me that genetic identity is a recipe, one that changes over time. Paired with isolation you can get splits, blunders and adaptations. Animals do not have a scietient mind but who would you rather mate with? A partner that is doing well in your enviroment or someone who is doing poorly?

Meh, that is all. As you were.

Told you it wasn't scientific!

- Peace.

The problem with your argument, Falkus, is that there are scientists who are also dubious about the credulity of evolution as a whole.  I previously cited to references on this.  So it's not really like rogue is out there with no scientists backing his side.  He's not making it up, but instead taking it from the scientific resources.

Did you know that the appendix is not vestigal? I thought it was because that was what I was taught as well. You're probably thinking this is a brand new emergence, something discovered in the last year or something. Oddly enough, they had learned of the use of the appendix back in 1976, or at least published the article in 1976. I took sciences all through school, and even biology in 1989. Seems like plenty of time to inform the world that they knew it did have a function. But odder yet, they are still teaching it it seems when they have known for around 30 years.

As to fetuses, did you know that Darwin used faked science when developing the theory of evolution? Originally, back in the 1860's a man by the name of Ernst Haeckel made some drawings of embryonic developement, and showed how similar several species were as they grew, right up till near birth where they made dramatic changes. Essentially, it was to show how all creatures are based on simple DNA, and that DNA makes minute changes to create various animals. The unfortunate part, though the science was considered strong evidence for evolution, it took many years before people found out all the drawings were faked, and the evidence was made up.

The truth is that many years agao, the list of vestigal organs would have numbered in the hundreds a hundred years ago. That we can function without an appendix shows how versatile the body is to take over when something goes wrong.

Actully, the longer something goes on, the more evidence against sharp mountains. Weathering is often faster than the pushing up action. That would result in soft edges from weathering, and mountains that shrink. Certainly mountains do rise, but there is evidence that it can be quick and dramatic. I'll have to show some examples of this when I have more time.

The problem is that evolution is merely observational.  If this and this, then this must have happened.  As I pointed out, some recent scientists are claiming that the theory as propogated will turn out to be like saying the earth was flat in olden days.

Not that they're replacing it with Creation theory, just rejecting the evolutionary process as we now see it.

The problem with your argument, Falkus, is that there are scientists who are also dubious about the credulity of evolution as a whole.

Who make up, at most, a tiny handful of the biological community.

Not that they're replacing it with Creation theory, just rejecting the evolutionary process as we now see it.

And what they can get their claims published in a peer reviewed magazine, I'll give them the credit they would deserve at that time.

I will also say that it IS a theory that is still being refined, shaped and redefined, and at points it is based on tautologies

I won't argue that, and I'd be the last one to claim that evolution is flawless, but what I will stringently argue against is that these flaws some disprove evolution.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:23, Tue 13 June 2006.

Well, at most it is superfluous -- I haven't been able to find your Bockus reference yet, but would you mind enlightening us on what it actually is used for?  I was under the impression it was to help in the digestion of raw meat (which is why it is believed to have degenerated).

This is a matter of prospective but I find it funny how you consider the appendix as an example of how versitile the body is when Tasidar and myself seem to think of it more of a blemish or a mistake (or perhaps just vestigial)



I realize that you prefice this with as to fetuses but Darwin's theory was not in the least dependent on that research.  Darwin's studies began with studying island finches that were markedly different than those that lived on other islands and the mainland.  Attempting to disprove decades of research because a single reference on a sidepoint proves to be wrong is reckless ignorance.



You are ignoring what Tasidar is saying.  She is saying that New Zealand is a young land.  Therefore, plates are still moving, pushing up mountains, etc.  Your statment is the whole point, newer mountains, which are still attempting to settle like the Himalayas (and now I'm assuming) New Zealand still have a bevy of forces on them including growing structure and balance issues, and rockslides to keep fresh and jagged faces, where other, older mountain ranges, such as the appalachian in the eastern United States have in most places weathered just as you have described.

As I've tried to explain before, weathering occurs, but it's not the only thing, and it certainly can't be isolated as proof that the earth is 10,000 years old.

I'll look forward to your references on mountain growth
This message was last edited by the player at 22:09, Tue 13 June 2006.

This is not true, as I previously pointed out (but you seem to have ignored again).

Why do you assume they haven't?  Have you even looked at their reasons for disbelieving it?  I'd think you might be the first one to question something that has so many holes in it instead of just believing.

Well, I guess you haven't read the sources yet.

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the origin of species, not adaptation or natural selection.

Here's from our previous discussion because you're arguing the same loop again without recognizing what I previously posted.


Here's one book exploring the issue in a nonreligious manner:  http://www.sedin.org/propeng/shatter.htm

As this site ( http://www.taemag.com/issues/a...2/article_detail.asp discusses )

Here's from our previous discussion because you're arguing the same loop again without recognizing what I previously posted.

Yes, I remember that list. I also note that a large number of the names on that list are scientists in fields of study completed unrelated to evolution. And some of them aren't even scientists at all.

As this site ( http://www.taemag.com/issues/a...2/article_detail.asp discusses )

Hmm, that article's notes on fossil theory fail to account for the fact that we KNOW now that most species do not leave fossils, due to the very specific circumstances required for fossilization to occur. The authory's observances on new species completly fails to note that we've observed literally dozens of cases of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...peciation.html#part5). The author also brings up Hoyle's DISPROVEN use of probability theory for the formation of life. Ooh, let's not forget his claim about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

Got anything else?

The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is "a generally silent group" of biological scientists "who tend to disagree with much of the current thought" about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. What does he think this is, the tenth century? There is bias in some scientists, yes, that's natural, they're only human, but the scientific community as a whole is not some entity devoted towards maintaining the status quo. Modern science thrives on overturning yesterday's beliefs and theories in favor of new ones in order to expand our knowledge. That's the whole goal of science.

http://www.answersingenesis.or.../v20/i1/appendix.asp

The appendix is part of the immune system. You may have misunderstand what I meant by versatile body. The point was the human body has redundancy systems. If the appendix is removed, other organs step up, and work harder. I think you may be under the impression the appendix is vestigial. I can understand that position, as I felt it was vestigial before as well. But we should not be surprised that organs do have functions.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that I'm that wrong evidence disproves evolution? I didn't suggest that.

Rubbish? Other than your opinion, anything to back it up with?

Perhaps this is just an incorrect reading on my part, but your wording seems to suggest that Darwin based his theories on another persons drawings that have been found to be falsified and therefore Darwin's theory is moot.  If that wasn't what you were intending no harm done -- I'm just making the point that pictures aren't the only thing holding up the fact that things change over time.

I'm not sure who originally posted it, but thanks for the http://www.taemag.com/issues/a...2/article_detail.asp link, It's nice to see some rational arguement showing the flaws and successes of Darwinism and though it seems the author is fairly biased (books and discussion below) it didn't show in his actual work.

And to raise another point, the Christian-Darwinism battle is not one-sided bashing.  There have been just as many intelligent design proponents hurtling insults the last time I checked.

Lastly, about the appendix article you linked rogue, I can't honestly glean much from it other than the appendix has lymph nodes in it or on it.  Maybe something about keeping bacteria in the colon?  It still hasn't mentioned any clear function of the appendix, or what organ or system "takes it's place" when an appendix is removed.

Also, when I mentioned the appendix as a blemish, that isn't exactly how I meant it.  I'm an engineer, and really how it strikes me is that it is a waste of space.  I fully realize the concept of redundancy, but I still have no evidence of what takes over when the appendix stops working.  Also, why would a more reliable system be a backup for the appendix?  It just doesn't make sense looking at it from an intelligent design perspective, let alone a perfect creation one unless it's true function is no longer really needed.

Actually, strangely enough, there was a video article on CNN about a renowned scientist who contradicts global warming.  The video is interesting because the first half of the video is this guy, who is a noted environmental scientist, saying how a lot of people don't like what he's saying, but how none of the younger scientists are willing to say it because they don't get government funding if they're working to disprove global warming.  He says he'll say it basically because he's an old, crotchety environmental scientist of some note in the field and he's already established, so he doesn't mind going against the grain.  Keep in mind, global warming is a hot topic that's still not understood.  Evolution we "understand".

So biologists who contradict evolution have to consider where their funding is from.  If the people paying for their work think the work is worthless or contradictory to what they want to do, they won't fund it and some other scientist will make his career.  So there may be a very good, practical reason why people in the field will either actively support evolution or just shut up.  The question is simply, to what degree is this pressure there and where can we look for people who get their funding regardless of what they're actually studying?


I do recollect reading something about the appendix offering some help in breaking down particular foods.  I think that even now it's a bit of a question mark in science.  The human body is simply tremendously complex though, which makes it hard to be sure.  I do know tonsils used to be considered extraneous and useless, but certainly the body made up for the loss of them without too much difficulty.

The scientist who could disprove evolution would be on the gravy train for life. He'd be as famous as Darwin, and have his name put next to Darwin's in future biology textbooks. I really don't see a downside here.

Rubbish? Other than your opinion, anything to back it up with?

Right back at you. Can Olson prove his statement?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:46, Wed 14 June 2006.

Ah, but that's the clincher, isn't it?  "Disprove".  Not just 'throw doubt upon', but disprove.  And of course, such a thing requires funding and time to do.  Evolution wasn't proven in a day, nor can we expect a proper test will be finished in a short time.  If disproving a scientific theory were as easy as sitting down for a few weeks with a pen and paper, the stories of our great scientific genuises and explorers would be a lot more dull.

It was a brief article, but I think you get the point. It goes over the point that the appendix does have functionable infection fighting lymphoid cells.

A google search of appendix leads to tons of laws or rules and such. Adding Vestigal leads to many vestigal arguments with brief details about the appendix. I'm not sure how to google doctor reports about the appendix.

None the less, at least you are now aware of the appendix, and that it has been researched.

There's a more reliable back up for the appendix? How much better is the back up? Tongue in cheek yes, but I suspect that making up your own conclusion that the back up must be better isn't the best argument. Incidently, the human body is not a perfect design anymore. Sin entered, and by that so has death. These bodies are not designed to last forever.

Falkus, the embryos that Haeckel faked didn't stop the theory. Neither did the falsified research with the peppered moth. Showing that the horse did not evolve in that order that was pictured did not stop the theory. And neither did the lack of transitional fossils that Darwin said should be found all over as more and more fossils were found. Speaking against Evolution does not mean evolution will lose support, it just means your funding may not have support depending on the supporter. so your argument doesn't seem that strong. Even when evolution "scientists" were shown to be faking their research, evolution did not go away.

If you don't see a downside, maybe you're not looking for one?

You're asking if one can show that there are scientists who have issues with evolution, and don't go public about it? And you really believe that doesn't happen? That doesn't make much sense. I find many people do not like confrontation, and placing yourself against the flow can be confrontational at many points. I'd like to present myself as an example of that. Being a christian that takes the bible as truth puts me in several confrontations just for letting that be known. I have had even moderators give me flak for being christian, (however to note, they did apologize and correct the matter right away).

It is normal to not want to confront as it means additional stress. (sometimes people like stress, but not everyone does does.) So i'm stating that what is being said seems to match society, and seems likely people will avoid going against the flow. What you state seems to go against what is usual, and doesn't seem to match what we know about people. I just don't see everyone in the entire world as willing to voice their opinions, consquences be darned.

Falkus, the embryos that Haeckel faked didn't stop the theory.

His claims on fetal development had little to do with the theory of evolution.

Neither did the falsified research with the peppered moth.

Rudge and Young proved that Judith Hooper's allegations were unjustified.

Showing that the horse did not evolve in that order that was pictured did not stop the theory.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The horse is one of the few animals that we have a near complete understandning of the history of its evolution.

And neither did the lack of transitional fossils that Darwin said should be found all over as more and more fossils were found.

Actually, what we've learnt about fossil records since Darwin is that we're lucky to have found the fossils we have so far, given the very specific conditions required for fossilization to occur.

And you really believe that doesn't happen?

No, I simply refuse to believe that the scientific community as a whole is opposed to advances in scientific knowledge.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:23, Wed 14 June 2006.

Did Olsen say the community as a whole opposed evolution? We were talking about that weren't we?

Falkus, I think you missed the point, which is that the theory of evolution of the species is based on a tautology and is therefore not really fit to be called a "theory" that we can put forth like a scientifically proven theory.  This is why the scientists are doing this.

You pretty much disregarded the many problems presented in the site I showed and called the other scientific beliefs "rubbish," so I don't think we're really having a conversation here.  If you think there is no politics in the scientific community about belief systems, then you haven't been around the scientific community very much.  Modern science may be as it is, but modern scientists are worried about reputation in the community and getting the next grant.  It's sort of like scientists stepping up with proof about paranormal phenomena -- doesn't help their reputation.  So, no, it's really not rubbish at all.

I myself belief in evolution to a point.  But any theory based on a tautology, particularly when there is evidence on both sides, is not one I would believe as the Gospel Truth.

Devil's Advocate -- I posted that link originally.  I thought it was a fairly good rundown of both sides, fact and fable.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:54, Wed 14 June 2006.

Well, I disagree. Survival of the fittest is only a slogan. Darwin's point was that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success.

A quick question...

I understand that we are seeing fewer and fewer adults with wisdom teeth.  They simply don't grow.  In my case, my mother only had two of her teeth come in, while I've had none at all.  This has been sited as an example of micro-evolution.

But I have to ask, at least in the US, what sort of evolutionary factors are at work that would cause this in the human population?  I can't see wisdom teeth as having any effect on whether people successfully breed or not.  So why is microevolution still working for humans?  Am I missing a detail, or is this evidence of another factor acting on our genetic diversity?

If I was looking for a partner right now i'm certainly not choosing them for their lack of or presence of wisdom teeth. I think it is a trait that will 'float' about going unexpressed or expressed. I could only think of it being a deciding factor in microevolution if a population was put under stress and suddenly access to dentists were taken away...

Actually, it doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, it's just simply a case of hypodontia, having fewer natural teeth than normal. It's a condition caused by both genetic and environmental factors.

Can you elaborate?  I'd not heard of this.  Will my children have wisdom teeth?  My siblings (who aren't quite old enough yet)?

They're more likely to have it, but it's not guaranteed. It's a polygenic condition, it's both genetic and environmental. About 4.61% of the population is affected by it.

Isn't the evolution part here:  If you don't use it, you lose it?  In other words, not really relevant to reproduction.

(Sniped for brevity only).

Vestigial does not mean “without function” in biology it means “No longer serving the original function”.  Although I have my doubts about the apendix being vestigeial (and I should point out its hardly my strong point, when I was a biologist before becoming a social scientist my interest lay in genetics and biochemistry raher than the abdominal organs)



Hardly, since we did not discover DNA until 1952.  100 years earlier Gregor Mendel had recognised the importance of hereditary in the development of similarity in offspring to their progenitors and by the turn of the century we were aware of the idea of genes, but to claim some one working in 1860 was doing so to “show all creatures are based in simple DNA” when we didn’t discover DNA for another 92 years is rather dubious.

Further more I should point out you have the cart before the horse.  Charles Darwin published “The origin of the Species” in 1859 based on the observations he had carried out between 1831 and 1836 and the further research he carried out on his return to London to more closely investigate his observations of the 1831-1836 expedition.

Ernst Haeckel was not born until 1834, by which time Darwin was 3 years into his expeditions on the Beagle.  By the 1860s Darwin had already published “Origins” so it clearly erroneous to claim he based anything in it on the work of the decade after it was published.

In fact it was Haeckel who based much of his work on Darwin's and not the other way around as you claim.  Haeckel was always considered something of a maverick as he was given to large inductive leaps, although some of them were later supported by evidence found by other scientists, (some trying to verify his claims, some trying to falsify his claims and some having nothing at all to do with Haeckels claims), many of his other ideas and hypothesis have been rejected or falsified.

  In fact Haeckel rejected some of Darwins theories and hypothesis, most notably natural selection.  Haeckel was a champion of Lamarkainism and rejected Darwinian natural selection as a mechanism by which evolutionary processes occurred.

Ghost

Howdy all.  I'm going to toss my hat in the ring and join the conversation here.  As this is my first post, and it may get a little long, and I apologize in advance for that.

As you'll soon see, I believe the case for evolution is quite solid, and I'll admit I get quite frustrated when people claim otherwise.  I try very hard to keep discussion civil, however, and it seems most of you guys do too, so I think we should all get all smashingly.

As a first point, I'd like to address the fellow who keeps mentioning the list of scientists that don't believe in evolution as evidence that there is significant debate in the field about whether or not evolution happens.  You should check out http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc...e_list_2_16_2003.asp for a list of over 600 scientists named Steve who do believe evolution!  This should give an idea of just how common the belief in evolution is among biologists, if there's more scientists with the same name who believe in in than all of those that don't (granted, not everyone who doesn't believe in it signed the first list, and not every scientists in favor of evolution named steve signed the second, but in general terms I think the example serves its purpose).

Second, early on in this talk there was a call for the "facts" in support of evolution.  I'll try to list some of the big ones here:

1.  The fossil record.  The oldest fossils are single-celled life.  Fish appear before amphibians.  Amphibians before reptiles.  Reptiles before mamals.  Etc.  It seems clear that either new types of life were born in the usual fashion to parents different from them (ie, evolution) or appeared out of no where over, and over again.

2.  Evolution requires only a few things to occur, all of which we know to be present in nature.  Darwinian evolution requires replication with the possibility for error/change, and differential surviability/reproducability based on heritable traits.  We can easily witness these things today.

3.  We have seen evolution occur first hand.  The so-called "micro-evolution" that no-one (or almost no-one) denies anymore is not fundamentally different from "macro-evolution."  Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution iterated many times.  No new processes is needed beyond what we can already observe.

4.  Selection works!  People use the ideas of darwinian evolution to solve practical problems today.  The "genetic algorithm" is used to solve non-linear problems in mathematics computationally.

5.  Speciation has been observed.  In mosquitos, plants, flies, fish, etc.  See: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

6.  The basic simularity of all life on earth suggests common ancestry.

7.  Ring-species are evidence of speciation in progress.

I think I'll call that good for the moment, to give people a chance to comment.

I'm not sure how much of the wisdom tooth thing is evolution, and how much is some other cause, but one explanation is that since wisdom teeth no longer make much difference in survivability/reproducability, genes for having wisdom teeth are no longer being selected for, and thus genes for having no or fewer wisdom teeth are becoming more common.  A long time ago, if you lost your molars, your chances of survival were greatly decreased.  Also, losing teeth was probably much more common.  People who had "spares" in the form of wisdom teeth had a better chance of surviving.  These days, losing teeth isn't all that common, and isn't a very big problem even if it happens, so having wisdom teeth doesn't affect your chances of surviving.  People without them aren't dying off more rapidly than those that have them, so these genes are becoming more equally distributed within the gene pool.

There are gaps in evolution, every evolutionist agree there are gaps that cannot be explained. (Though many of those feel one day they may be discovered, currently they agree they exist).


Agreement or disagreement doesn't make something true. It just makes it more believed in. For example, I think there are more people who believe the big bang is not true, then there are those who do. However, it really doesn't matter how many people believe the big bang is real or not. The truth does not depend on belief.

There is no place in the world where the life forms can be tracked back in order through time. Every evolutionist is aware there are fossils of complex organisms that appear before what was supposed to be the original. A bigger confusion comes from the Cambrian explosion, where a multitude of species complex and simple appear to just be there, with no build up to explain such a large variety of complex life.

When you say evolution, which version do you mean?

Micro evolution is different than macro evolution. A fruit fly turned to a fruit fly, is vastly differently than a one cell organism turned into a multi cell organism.

Micro evolution, which is also caled adaption, is the rearranging of information already there. A one celled organism that becomes more complex and adds information than was originally there is far different than adaption.

I don't think selection is an issue.

Adaption is not an issue.

One intelligent designer can account for that as well. Common design is sued in other theories, and cannot be held by only evolution.

Could you elaborate?

Agreed.  However, people often use the list of scientists who don't believe in evolution as evidence that there is a great deal of debate amongst biologists (the people in the best position to determine) that it occurs.  Proponents of intelligent design or creationism often say we should "teach the controversy" in schools, when in fact there isn't really any significant controversy.


Of course not.  We know that life moves spatially today.  To expect it not to have done so in the past would be quite strange.  One of the key factors in evolution is geographically isolated populations.  The easiest way for this to occur is for one part of a population to move into a new region where it wasn't before.


A common misconception is that when speciation events occur, the original species disappears.  This need not be the case.  If species A evolved from species B, both A and B could be alive at the same time and in the same place.


I believe most scientists now think that the cambrian explosion is more an issue of fossilization than of speciation.  Before that time, very few life forms had easily-fossilizable shells, and thus aren't present in the fossil record.  However, I grant that the cambrian explosion is an impressive display of rapid variation of life.


What is usually refered to as "neo-darwinian"  or "selfish gene" theory of evolution.  But the statement holds for plain old natural selection that people are most familiar with as well.


How do you define information in this case?  I think you would have a very hard time defining it in such a way that I couldn't come up with an example in which the total information in one offspring is greater than that of its parent.  Also, to say that a fruit fly evolved into a fruit fly is somewhat misleading.  These are different species, even though they may seem quite similar to us.  Calling them the same thing doesn't make them the same thing.  If small changes can occur, why shouldn't many small changes, which in sum appear to be a large change, occur over a long enough time?


I have to disagree here.  Adaptation is THE issue!  Repeated adaptation is evolution.


Fair enough.  Though ID doesn't explain the mechanism by which evolution or creation happens.  It just claims that some intelligence "had to do it, somehow."  ID's arguement is essentially that nature couldn't do it by itself.  However, evolutionary theory explains how nature does do it by itself.



Yes.  Ring species are perhaps best described with a picture:
    /b1-b2-b3-b4\
  a|             b5&c5
    \c1-c2-c3-c4/
At some location there is a population of animals, a.  In two slightly different locations, there are other populations b1 and c1 that don't see each other.  But they both see a, and breed freely with a.  Thus a, b1, and c1 could all be considered the same species.  However b1 also breeds with population b2.  Which breeds with population b3, which can breed with b4.  Likewise for populations c1,c2,c3, and c4.  Each can breed with it's nearest neighbors, but doesn't come into contact with the other populations.  At some other location, populations b5 and c5 occur in the same spot, but can't interbreed, and thus look like seperate species.  In some examples, it's just one chain (say the b1-b2-b3-b4 chain) that has both ends in the same spot, but the last member can't breed with the a population.  Probably the two best known examples of ring species are the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii in the central valley of california, and Herring gulls (populations of which breed in a ring around the pole until they get back to the start (britian in this case) as lesser black-backed gulls.  ie, herring gulls in england can breed with herring gulls in the eastern US, who can breed with herring gulls in the western US, who canbreed with birds in Alaska, who can breed with birds in siberia, who can breed with the less black-backed gull in england.  But lesser black-backed gulls in england to not breed with herring gulls in england).  Ring species show that repeated minor adaptation can lead to seperate species.

I see. But the controversy asked to be taught is that there are things that evolution cannot explain, and is a problem to the theory.

So then if a new species occurs somewhere else, then that in itself cannot be used to show that one organism evolving into a more compex one? You're argument was that things could be tracked in order, and yet they are not in order. Specifically, there are organisms that are more advanced in earlier layers. That alone speaks that the order you speak of earlier was not accurate.


You said that fossils show simple to advanced. I am saying that evolutionsists also admit that are also advanced in the same layers as simple, near the beginning. The fossil record is incomplete. This is a fact. Advanced fossils are found with simple fossils.

That's adaption, and no one disputes that it happens. (At least I think no one does?)

For example, every fruit fly used in the experiment after hundreds of thousands of changes was still a fruit fly. It may have had extra wings, or a lwoer immune system, or die sooner, but it was still a fruiit fly.

None of the fruit flies became spiders. None grew noses. They did not grow hooves. They took previous information, and either lost some, or increased the already known information. They did not increase in information to become sonar equiped fruit flies. There was not an increase of information, just a rearrangement of previous information.

You're argument is that if small changes can occur, why can't there be many small changes to make large changes? the theory is ok, but currently, that's just believed, and not in evidence. Currently, a simple life form does not add additional inforamtion to become more complex. The theory says it must, the science says there is no evidence other than there being more complex life around.
Yes, that's the theory, now where's the evidence?

Actually, ID says that a designer created life. Evolution does not suggest in any way how life began.


I'd have to say that adaption is not really an issue at all for those who believe in alternate theories of any sort, ID, Evolution.

Which things, specifically, are you referring to?


There are always simple fossils found, because "simple" life didn't go away.  However, there isn't always "complex" life found, because it wasn't always there.  The oldest fossils are of very simple, single-celled life.  The oldest fish fossils are not found with amphibian fossiles.  The oldest amphibian fossils are not found with reptile fossils.  The oldest reptile fossils are not found with mammal fossils.  And so on.  Yes, you will find mammal, reptile, amphibian fossils all together.  But the order of their first appearance shows the progression.  Yes, the fossil record is incomplete.  Only a very tiny fraction of life becomes fossilized.  But if you look at the order in which types of animals make their appearance in the fossil record you will clearly see that not everything was living at the same time, throughout all of history.



Depending upon how you define a fruit fly, yes.  If a frog somehow magically turned into a tiger, you might say "it was an animal before, and now it's still an animal," but that doesn't change the fact that a change has occurred.  The fruit flies you're talking about are different creatures than the population they started from.  Just because we call them all fruit flies doesn't mean no change occurred.



No one believes that evolution involves fruitflies turning into spiders.  Well, actually, people who don't believe in evolution think that's what evolution is, I guess, but no one actually claims that you can turn a fruit fly into a spider.


Again I say, how do you define information in this case?  Do you mean the number of chromosomes hasn't increased, or that the number of sequences in the DNA hasn't increased?  Because we have observed cases of polyploidy, so we know that kind of "information" can increase.  If you mean information in another sense, please explain.



Again, what do you mean by additional information?  If you believe small changes are not only possible, but have been observed to occur, why do you not believe that many small changes are possible, and that viewed together they can seem large?




The evidence of what?  You've said that you believe adaptation occurs.  That's all that's needed.  Many small changes can look like a big change.  Are you asking for me to show you many small changes?  The ring species I mentioned are a start on that.  Of course, since we only live a few decades, we're not going to see many small changes in any one species during our lifetime.  You can't expect to see large scale changes in the genetic makeup of a population over your life time anymore than you can expect to see plate tectonics move continents around the planet.  You have to look at the small changes that you can see (a small adaptation in a population, or the few centimeters of movement of a plates along a fault line), and say "what would happen if this same process repeats itself over a long period of time?"



Yes, the question of how life began is a separate subject, abiogenesis.  My personal views on that subject are related to evolution (I suspect pre-biotic replicators of some sort are the key), but the theory of evolution is a separate issue than the origin of life.  Evolution just covers how life changes over time.


And once more I say, it's THE issue.  Adaptation is how evolution occurs.  To ignore it as "not an issue" is to not understand what evolutionists are actually claiming.

I get the impression that your complaint about evolution is that you can get from something that looks like X to something that looks 99.9% like X, but you can't get to something that looks like Y.  The evolutionist reply is that no one is claiming X changes into Y directly.  X changes into something 99.9% like X.  And that changes into something 99.9% like the second thing.  And that changes into something 99.9% like the third thing.  And so on.  After enough iterations, you're not very much like X anymore at all (after 6000 iterations, you'd only be .25% like X in this over simplified example).  You think lots of little jumps cant get you there, and thus we need some big jump, that we've never observed.  But evolutionists don't claim the big jump you're looking for.  They only claim the little jumps that you've already agreed happen.  I'm guessing that you think evolution can't happen because you think evolution is something different from what people who believe in it think it is.

Some simple things to start with?
Why did male and female multi cell organisms evolve at the exact same time?
No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
How did insects evolve?
I'm sure that you are aware of other things that have not been answered. It is a theory after all, and not a fact.

I'll step back to the beginning. The point was originally aboutorder of fossils. You have already stated that the layers are not in order. I do believe you will agree that there have been many times where species have been found in earlier layers than what they are supposed to be found in. Considering that the layers are not in order, how do you suppose that the order of the species have been established? Remember it's not their first appearance, it's the first fossil apearance. They could, and i believe that they could still have been around but just not dying as quickly as simpler lifeforms.


I'm not saying there is no change.


The theory of evolution states that a simple life form turned into an advanced life form over time. The evidence for that is there is advanced life form.

I meant a simple lifeform gaining information that makes the lifeform more complex. I don't mean a rearrangement of information already available. A fruit fly with 4 wings is stil a fruit fly. A fruit fly with hooves now has information that was not previously available.

I'm talking about the additional information that was not available.


I suppose I could believe in it, but I am saying the evidence is not there. Belief of something and evidence of something is different. I'm not saying that lack of belief does not make it untrue, but it does make it unproven.

I really meant the evidence that adaption leads to changes into animals that are more complex. Like the theory states one celled organims evolved into humans, but that's quite difficult to actually prove. The evidence is not actually there, although it is theorized.



I think this is a communication issue. Few are disagreeing with adaption occuring. What is being disagreed with is that adaption leads to simple life changing into complex life. This is where people disagree, not on adaption happening.

Actually, I simply state that the evidence for macroevolution doesn't exist, and that adaption is only theorized to lead into the changes that are between simple and complex.

Adaption is well known, and accepted.

Male and female multi-celled organisms need not have evolved at the same exact time.  There are examples of sexual reproduction without the male/female distinction.  Types of fungi for example, in which each member essentially supplies half an egg.  In such a case, the evolution of male and female roles is not hard to imagine.  For example, it might improve the chance of your offspring surviving if you added more energy/nurshement/etc. into your half of the egg.  As this becomes more and more common, it becomes possible for other members of the species to exploit this by generating more half-eggs that have less energy in them.  Each individually might not have as good a chance of surviving, but the over all chances of any surviving become better.  As these two competing strategies go on, the two roles could become more and more specialized, to the point where you have male and female roles.

The 2nd point I'll address later, as it seems to be the whole point of contention here.

The third I don't follow.  What do you mean by how did they evolve?  In the same way as everything else:  natural selection.  What about insects in particular requires additional information?

Lastly, yes evolution is a theory.  But that does not mean that it is not also a fact.  Gravity is a theory.  Electro-magnetism is a theory.  Quantum mechanics is a theory.  Saying something is a theory does not mean it's false, or that it's untested, or that it shouldn't be believed.



I don't believe I stated that the layers are not in order.  I said that complex fossils are found with simple ones.  But I maintain that the earliest fossils have no complex fossils with them.  There are numerous techniques on dating the layers in which fossils are found.  The order of the first appearance of types of life in the fossil record can be determined from the age of the sediment layers in which they are found.  I say again, the oldest fossils are single celled life.  The oldest fish fossils are not found with amphibian fossils.  The oldest amphibian fossils are not found with reptiles.  And so on.  If you are saying the fossils cannot be dated, we can discuss that point as well.


I find it troubling that you are using the incompleteness of the fossil record as an arguement against evolution, but have no trouble hypothesizing that all life existed for billions of years, but no fish left any fossils until around 500 million years ago, no amphibians left any fossils until about 400 million years ago, no reptiles left any fossils until around 320 million years ago, no mammals left any fossils until around 220 million years ago, and no birds birds left any fossils until around 170 million years ago.


And that that there didn't used to be advanced life.  And that we have observed adaptation, showing that changes are possible.


Yet again I say, how are you defining information?  You say that a fruit fly with more wings didn't gain information, but that a fruit fly with hooves did.  I don't understand what the defination of information would be that makes this true.  I'm pretty sure you don't mean that hooves are information, and that wings aren't.  But I'm not sure what you do mean.

Do you mean that the DNA sequence isn't any longer?  Because we have observed mutations that do that.  Do you mean that more chromosomes aren't available than before?  Because we have observed mutations that do that.  Do you mean that more cells aren't present in the offspring in than in the parent, because we can see examples of that all the time.

I would argue that under any useful definition of information, your claim that we haven't observed an increase in information from parent to offspring is simply false.  All that we haven't observed is extremely large changes all in one step.  But no one is claiming that such large steps can happen, let alone must happen.



Evidence that adaptation can lead to animals that are more complex?  How about disease-resistant bacteria?  How about those fruit flies with extra wings?  What you seem to be asking for is to watch a single-celled species evolve into people, or something equal complex.  But this clearly takes a very long time.  All that is required is for lots of little changes to add up.  And you've agreed that little changes do occur.  If you agree that a long time has passed, you should expect the little changes to add up to some very large change.  That we have complex life now, where we didn't 4.5 billion years ago shows that either it evolved, or it's been continuously popping into existance out of no-where.



I agree entirely that communication is an issue here.  I'll ask for another definition here.  What do you mean by complex and simple?  The number of cells?  The number of chromosomes?  Are whales more complex than humans because they're bigger?  Are salamanders because they have more chromosomes?



I will agree with you that macroevolution (as a seperate mechanism from adaptation) doesn't exist.  I think this is the entire hold up.  You think evolutionists believe in something called macro-evolution, that is somehow different from adaptation.  Since nobody has ever observed this macro-evolution, there's no reason to believe it happens.  The thing is, no one is claiming it does happen.  All evolutionists say happens is adaptation.  Over, and over.  Do you disagree that lots and lots of little changes will look like a big change?  Do you disagree that little changes do occur, and over long amounts of time lots of them should occur?

I get the impression that the sticking point for you is the "simple-to-complex" thing.  How could anything simple adapt to something more complex?  Lets look at it from a DNA standpoint.  Hopefully you will agree that DNA determines what the animal will end up like.  And that it's "just" a very long string of bases.  And that the order of the bases carries the instructions for building the life form.  So far I think we're on the same page.  The difference between one animal and the next is its DNA.  But DNA is just a list of letters.  You agree that adaptation occurs, which means you'll accept that some of the letters can be mixed up, changed, altered, whatever.  All that it takes to get from some "simple" life form to some "complex" life form is a series of changes in the DNA that are all stable (ie, the life they create is able to live, reproduce, etc.) that leads from the first list to the last.  You seem to be asking for a "1-step" jump from something very simple to something very complex to prove evolution.  But that's not how evolution works.  No one is saying that's what evolution does.  No one is claiming "macro-evolution" happens.  You keep asking for proof of something that no one believes in.  Or asking to be shown something that takes millions of years.  If you believe that a man can take 1 step in one day, why do you doubt he can walk a mile given enough time?  Why ask for flies to suddenly sprout hooves?  No one is saying that's possible.  The only things necessary for evolution to occur are the small changes that you've already said you accept, and some selection pressure to determine which of those changes become more common and which become less common.

Are you saying this is what actually happened, or is this just assuming because we have makle and female, and therefore, there must be an answer, because it would seem unusual to have male and female evolve at the same time? To be honest, I don't see how one could have evolved into a male, and have lived long enough without a female to procreate with. I would think not needing two sexes would have enabled to have mono sexual organisms to be stronger when it comes to survival. A moot point, as it doesn't really matter which is the bigger advcantage.



What did they evolve from? Fish, or reptiles? Birds? Plants? See what I mean now?

I didn't say it couldn't be believed, only that there are facts missing that fill the gaps. It can be unexplained and be true. But it is not explained fully, and therefore can also stil be untrue.


I looked back, and realized you didn't state layers are not in order. However, I feel that you would agree that layers do not always occur in order, and can be mixed up, or missing layers.

Fossils are dated, and layers are dated. However, they date the layer by the fossil it is found in. How do they date the fossil? By the layer it is found in. How do you know if the dating technique is accurate? If it jives by the expected age of the layer/ fossils. It's circular. Using the various dating techniques, we know that they don't always agree. We also know that we can find things dating very old, and yet they are not as old as the technique says.

Assumptions are being made. I do not feel that the earth has been around for billions of years. I can show several flaws with a timeline that old. The most obvious, would be our magnetic field which is growing weaker over time. Going back in time, that would make the magnetic field stronger.  At one point, only thousands of years ago, that would make the magnetic field esxtremely powerful, close to that of the sun. Technically that would be impossible, so it is suggested that the Earth could not have been around for billions of years.

That's what I'm saying. It is assumed, rather than evidenced how this occurred.

The fruit fly with additional wings, already had information for wings. It was already there. The information for hooves never existed in a fruit fly, and if the information did appear, it would be brand new information that never existed in the fruit fly.



I mean more information of an organism becoming more complex.

I think we're on different subects. Adaption occurs. I'm not going against that premise.


Actually, I'm not asking for one celled organisms to turn directly into humans. I understand the theory requires all these changes to occur, but this isn't actually seen, only assumed. Just as you point out, it must have occured, but we have advanced life forms. That's generally what I mean by lack of evidence, and only assumed.


Certainly complex is based on the complexity of the life form. One cell being lowest, humans being highest.


I'm used to speaking with evolutionists, and certainly I can assure you that the term macroevolution does not mean a frog turning into a cat over one generation. I'll go with the term macroevolution as defind by other evolutionists. so respectfully, I'm not using the version you have provided above.

I have denied the above from the very beginning. i am not saying one generation changes from one cell to man is required. I'm saying there needs to be evidence of a simple life form evolving into something more complex. Loss of information, or rearranging of information is not becoming more complex. That is simple adaption. Which isn't in dispute.


What is in dispute, is that there is no evidence of a life form adding new information that allows it to become more complex.

That's not just a problem of evolution, that's a problem of ANY scientific theory.  Every theory arises from a limited amount of evidence which leads to the formation of an idea, which may then be modified over time.  If the theory is not 100% accurate and/or does not cover 100% of cases right from the start, there will of course be something it cannot explain.  Eventually, researchers collect new data and revise the theory so that it can explain what it previously couldn't.  That's how science works.

The controversy in school comes from the creationist lobby wanting to treat evolution differently from the rest of science because it contradicts a strictly literal interpretation of the Biblical story of creation.  They have no problem (as far as I know) with kids learning Newtonian physics, even though there are many observed circumstances under which Newtonian physics is inaccurate.  But the entire history of evolution hasn't been caught on video, so we have to teach kids that there is less scientific evidence for evolution than for God clapping his hands and suddenly Adam is there with a brontosaurus burger in hand.



Alright, let's stick with the development of hoofs as your "new information" example.  Here's how it goes:  A primitive mammal has feet, and lives in an environment where feet are useful.  Over time, genetic mutations pop up, and a subset of this species develops little calcium deposits in its feet (hoofs are made of calcium, right?  if not, then replace that with whatever the right component is; the explanation still works).  At first this has no significant effect on the population, and the calcium deposit allele floats around but doesn't really do much.

Then the environment changes, and the terrain becomes a lot more rough and jagged.  As this occurs, the calcium deposits become more useful, because the animals without them get hurt and can't do as much walking (which means less hunting or foraging, and less looking for mates)(and remember, this is that adaptation thing that you said you agree with).  Now the deposits are advantageous, and after a couple dozen generations they are present in the whole species.  Not only that, but more mutations have shows up, as they have a habit of doing, and one of these is a new allele that codes for larger deposits.  The individuals with that allele can withstand even more walking than their comrades with the small deposits, so they get more food and make more babies.

The environment keeps changing as time goes on, and mutations continue to show up that affect the calcium deposit trait.  Over the millenia, the deposits get bigger, and they change shape to accomodate the terrain better, and they develop more efficient growth patterns.  Sometimes a change will occur that provides no advantage, and it floats around or gets selected out.  Other times, a change will provide a definite advantage, and the laws of natural selection will ensure that most or all of the species eventually incorporates those changes.  And after a while, you get mountain goats.

(And as for those animals that have hooves but live in pastures, I suppose they had more evolutionary worries than just how to make their feet stop hurting.  You know, stuff like where to find food that they were able to digest, since that series of mutations worked out a little differently)

Josh, I agree with you on the flaws of a theory, and I accept that is ho science works. I don't see why there should be any problem with me admitting there are flaws. They are accepted and known. Even Hawkings admits to the problems that occurs, and what evolution does not answer.

As to evolution and teaching, the controversy isn't that at all. People are arguing to get additional theories taught along with evolution. Currently, they are only teaching one theory.

Josh, thanks for the break down of adaption, but I know how adaption works. The finch is another comon example given with environment and food sources. I'm not disagreeing with adaption.

I understand that people believe that accounts for all lifeforms. But really, assuming just because they need to make it fit a theory isn't proof. It's only a belief.

Okay I understand now.  You want history.  We don't know all of history.  That's not a flaw in the theory.  It's a flaw in the record.



Layers generally get older as you go down.  Except in cases where overturning has occured, and they get younger.  It is possible for layers to be absent.  But you don't see random layering with ages in no way related to depth.  There are numerous dating techniques, including radiometric dating, specific event location (eg, an ash layer known to be from a specific volcano), varve counting, etc.  And their answers are consistant.  They may disagree a few percent here or there.  That's doing science in the real world.  But no one other than someone trying to prove genesis correct thinks we have absolutely no ability to date fossils whatsoever.


Are you aware that we can track the magentic field of the earth back in time millions of years by looking at rocks formed at the midatlantic ridge?  We know that the change is not constant over time because we have a record of how it changes.  Out of curiosity, how old do you think the earth is?





How it happened is adaptation.  Which you agree happens.  We are not proposing anything other than adaptation and time.  You say "show me that it works," and we show you adaptation.  Clearly we cannot show you long periods of time, because we don't live long enough.  We can't show you that gravity holds the moon in orbit.  We can't show you that electrons exist.  Compared to many theories you believe, we can show you a lot more evidence of evolution.  You've said yourself, that it happens, in the form of adapation.  That's all there is to it.  You're the one saying there has to be more to it than that.  Evolutionists don't believe there has to be more to it.


Okay, we're not making much progress here.  Let me asking again.  What is your definition of information?  I'm not asking for another example.  I realize that you think new wings aren't information, and that hooves are.  But I don't know how you define information so that that is true.  I would say a fly with extra wings does have brand new information.  It's the information that says "put another set of wings here."  That's new information.  It may not be as impressive as "put hooves here," but it's still information the fly didn't contain before.  As far as I can tell, what you mean by new information is a large change.  If that's what you mean, sure, information isn't added.  But since that's not required for evolution to take place, it's not a problem for the theory.


I don't understand what you mean by this.  Please elaborate.  Again, a definition of what you mean by both information and complexity would be very helpful.



Yes, we are on different subjects.  You say evolution requires more than adaptation.  I'm saying it doesn't.  You keep asking for proof of something other than adaptation, and I'm saying there isn't anything other than adaptation.


Yes, it is correct that I we don't know everything that happenned at every instant in time at every place throughout history.  Is your suggestion that we can therefore make no useful theories about what's happenned in the past?  If we didn't see it happen, we have no hope of figuring out what happenned?  We don't have a complete record of everything that's ever happenned.  But evolution fits the the record that we do have extremely well.  That's as good as it can possibly do.  The flaw is not in the theory, but in our record.


Okay, lets try that again.  "Complex is based on the complexity" is not a useful definition, as I hope you'll agree.  What do you mean by complexity?  A definition, not just an example would be helpful.  As far as I can tell, you mean "most human-like," which I find a very troubling defintion of complex.  Is a colony of 10k single-celled organisms more complex than a colony of 5k?  Is an adult human more complex than a child?  You ask for an example of complexity increasing, but can't tell us what you mean by complexity.  You claim that new information is never added, but you won't define information beyond "a fly with hooves has more information than a fly without."


Okay fair enough.  Will you please give me that definition then, so I'll know what you're talking about?  Right now all I can tell about your definition of macroevolution is that one example of it would be a fly with hooves.  And that a fly with an extra set of wings is not an example of it.



You say there needs to be evidence of something simple becoming more complex, but won't tell us what you mean by complex, beyond "it's based on the complexity."  What do you mean by information, and what do you mean by complexity.


Just to be thorough, I'll ask one more time.  What do you mean by information?  What do you mean by more complex?

They're only teaching one theory because that's the only one there is that qualifies as science.  Call creationism ID a theory all you want, but it lacks the most basic scientific criteria - it's not falsifiable, and it doesn't generate hypotheses that can be empirically tested.  Therefore, it does not belong in a science class, except as an example of what is not science.  Believe me, as soon as anyone provides empirical support for an alternate theory of biological development and speciation, the scientific press will be all over it, and it WILL make it into classrooms.



And like Tycho said, that's all there is to it.  You asked how hooves would develop, and I showed you.  What more do you want?



Hence agnosticism ;)

I'll come back to you Tycho.

Josh, Intelligent Design has science backing it up. It has been taught in some secular schools already. I'm thinking you may be thinking that it's based on Genesis or something. I'm thinking you are basing your argument on some assumptions, as what you are opposing has already been put into the classroom, and is being put into law courts for various states to teach, or offer the information.

Maybe a misunderstanding? I don't think I asked how hooves developed. You actually didn't show me how hooves developed, you just put things together in an order that you think makes sense.

So what more do I want? Well, really nothing. I stated that one of the flaws was that is is not actually in evidence things occurred in that manner, but assumed. It really is not evidence.

Really?  I checked the Discovery Institute's website and found a page listing academic publications which directly or indirectly support ID ( http://www.discovery.org/scrip...and=view&id=2640 ).  Summaries were given for each item.  Not one of them was an actual scientific experiment.  There was a lot of debate and a lot of hypothesizing, but not one single actual bit of empirical evidence.  The closest they came was one article, whose summary included this bit:

That's all they have.  One guy comes up with what should be a testable hypothesis.  That's pretty good, but there's no indication anywhere that it was ever actually tested.  And all this comes from the largest organization working in support of ID.  So I think it's safe to conclude that at this point in time, ID does not have any actual science backing it up.

And before we have to get into a battle of definitions, I'll clear up what I mean by "science" and what I would consider to be scientific support.  I want to see a case where the following things happen:
1) A hypothesis is developed which, if correct, could potentially support ID
2) An experiment is conducted in a laboratory or other controlled setting to provide evidence for or against the hypothesis
3) Data collected in step 2 are compared with the hypothesis using standard methods of statistical analysis
4) If statistical analysis does not refute the hypothesis, then this can be considered scientific support for ID

Once ID has experimental support, it will lend validity to support from the fossil record or other historical data.  Lab science should be a higher priority though, at least at first, since it is harder to refute the results of a controlled, replicable experiment.




And have you noticed what happens every time a school board adds ID to the scientific curriculum of a public school district?  Pretty much everyone but the local church groups and the Discovery Institute protests the decision.  Most teachers oppose it.  Someone usually sues the school board to have it removed (which is why it shows up in court - and the consensus among courts is that ID is a religious theory, not a scientific one, and therefore cannot be presented as factual information in a public school or other government program).  Did you notice what happened in Dover, PA, after they added ID to the curriculum?  Every single person who voted in favor of that got booted out in the next election.  And that's even in one of the more conservative parts of the state.

Oh, and while I was looking for information for this post, I came across <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601559.html">this article</a>, which gives an interesting example of ID-style "scientific" education.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:30, Mon 21 Aug 2006.

You get mad if people question science?  Isn't that what science is for?  To question and improve on.

The point was not to say that no scientists support evolution.  Of course they do.  The point was to show that there is a rising trend of scientists questioning some of its basic hypotheses...a point of rebuttal since Falkus refused to even accept the idea that intelligent people could have questions about the validity of evolution.

And a hundred years for now, Darwin's theories may seem to us to be like when scientists claimed the earth was flat:  a convenient way to explain many things but not entirely accurate because it did not contain all the information.


Even if that is true, not all scientists are exactly well versed in evolution to the point that they could be experts in the field.  My points were for illustration only, not proof.  To say more people believe one thing than another does not make it true (my list of 481, including Nobel Laureats, compared with your list of 600).  In fact, that would be a great disservice to science.  The only point was to show that we should question the basic hypotheses --and that many intelligent people do-- or we will only continue down a path that could be wrong.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:42, Mon 21 Aug 2006.

No.  As I said, I get frustrated when people claim that the case for evolution isn't quite solid.  The theory of evolution fits our observations incredibly well.  To claim otherwise isn't questioning science, it's denying what we observe.  Questioning science is good.  Claiming a theory that explains so much of what we observe is entirely false is bad.  And frustrating.


To call it a "rising trend" is misleading, however.  It is still a very, very small minority.  And in the world overall, I think you'll find the number of people questioning evolution is decreasing.


Or, more likely, a hundred years from now people will realize that people who didn't accept the theory of evolution do so for purely religious reasons.  But speculation on something 100 years in the future isn't getting us anywhere.


It is good to question the basic hypotheses.  What is bad is after having questioned them, and found them sound, to reject them anyway because they do not square with your religion.  If you're saying that a list of 600 scientists named Steve means nothing, I reply that a list of 481 scientists who oppose evolution means nothing as well.  The 481 people you list constitute a tiny, tiny minority.  To use the list as evidence that "many" intelligent people reject evolution is simply misleading.

EDIT:  Also, just in case anyone doubts that the motivation for the people on the list in question is religious, the page contianing the list to which Heath linked ends with the following:  "Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever." (Psalm 118:1)
This message was last edited by the player at 23:39, Mon 21 Aug 2006.

I myself once thought the same way.  Then I started reading about the scientific problems related to it.  It's not nearly so "proven" as you suggest, but instead is mostly conclusions based on filling in gaps.

...as I said, exactly the same way scientists once thought the earth was flat.


Not according to the article I read and cited to, although it may have been on another thread.  Unfortunately, I think you have jumped into the middle of some conversations that have spanned many threads over the last two years or so.  Please don't jump to the conclusion that I am making unsupported assertions.

Where's your statistic to support this number.

Whoa there, cowboy.  I never said anything about religion.  Take that up with rogue.  I said I believed mostly in evolution until I started reading some of the recent reports.  I think you are ignoring some of the up and coming science and still clinging to a dinosaur.


Again, you're talking about someone else, as I never made remarks like that.  I always said that religion is simply science we do not yet understand.

I think you need to read the articles I cited to.  I'll have to look them up again if you don't see them on one of these threads.  I've presented pure science here, and an up and coming trend in scientists to question a lot about traditional notions of evolution.  Don't dismiss them until you gather all the facts.

Can you elaborate on the problems related to it?


Can you give an example of a scientist who came to the conclusion that the earth was flat?  While it was common "folk knowledge" that the earth was flat for much of the past, those who actually studied the subject concluded the earth was round at least as far back as 500BC.  This knowledge may have been lost to europe during the dark ages, but there weren't many people doing science in europe during the dark ages.  To say scientists once thought the earth was flat is a bit misleading.  People have thought it was flat, but those who actually studied the problem in what could be considered a scientific manner came to the conclusion that it was not.





I will agree that in the US more and more people are rejecting evolution.  I have seen no evidence (if you have some, I'd be happy to look at it) that the same trend is observable in other countries, or within Biologists in the US.




http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html
lists a somewhat dated (1987) poll that indicated less than 1% of biologists or geologists rejected evolution.
The list of Steves should indicate how small a group the anti-evolutionists are.  There are more scientists with the same first name that support evolution than those opposed to it!  i don't think anyone anywhere is claiming that anti-evolutionists make up even 1% of biologists.  Especially not world-wide.




I didn't mean to imply you said anything about religion.  I'm saying something about it.  And I'm saying that those who are anti-evolutionists are motivated by religious beliefs.  Can you point me to some of this up and coming science that disproves evolution?




Again, I didn't mean to imply you had said anything.  I fully claim the the things I've said here as my own.  I should probably start using "ones" instead of "your" when I refer to an arbitrary hypothetical person, and I'll try to remember to do that from here out to avoid confusion.  My apologies.



I'd be happy to read anything you can point me to.  I do realize I've come in on an on-going debate, and have missed many things that you guys have discussed already.  I will say that "questioning a lot about traditional notions of evolution" is not the same as saying "evolution didn't happen."  Evolution is part of science, and the theory will continuously be updated as our understanding grows.  But it seems very unlikely that we'll say, "Oh wait, we had everything totally wrong, evolution never happened!"  Einstein didn't cause us to forget everything Newton said.  Our current theory of evolution is almost certainly not 100% right.  But it's much closer to that than it is to being 100% wrong.

That's sort of accurate. Evolution does not actually expalin how insects came about. It's only assumed, rather than shown in the theory. You'll find many assumptions being made, and not facts.

Actually, you're making assumptions that this knowledge of circular evidence for dating is somehow a christian concept. Athiest, and evolutionists have admitted to this.



That was from Dr. Colbert's book, The Age of Reptiles, published 1965. This circular reasoning has been around for a long time.

But here's the kicker Tycho. If you use a dating technique for a fossil, and it comes up with a date 5000 years okld, and you believe the layer is 30,000, will you not try a different dating techniue, or try and find out what has affected the dating test to be different than expected?

In actuality, using different dating methods do result in different ages. The ones that don't make sense, (folow what is expected), are tossed out in favor of the result that makes sense, (follows the expected)

Incidently, how do they know the dating techniques are accurate? Do they match the expected age of objects found?



Actually, that explantion is wrong about the magnetic field. I think what you meant to say was the mid atlantic ridge shows magnetic reversals. But really that is incorrect.

A more thorough break down of what is going on can be found here
http://www.creationscience.com...oplateOverview3.html

You ask how old do I believe the Earth, well science shows that around 6000-10000 years seems about right. The magnetic field would have increased too much past that point. Also the Earth would have been spinning too fast, and the moon would have orbitted far too close if the timeline were billions of years.


That's what i mean by assumption rather than evidence. Sure you can compare it anything you like, but we're talking about evolution theory, which is based on assumptions, and is not proven. No more no less. You can suggest things about it, but it doesn't make it less assumed.

I earlier gave the example of a simplest lifeform as one cell, and the most complex as human.
I think you made a mistake about me saying wings aren't information in DNA. I didn't say that. But then in 2nd and 3rd last sentences of that quote, you see that I said new information, and information being added. You were right in that part, I did say it was about adding new information. So just ignore that part about wings not being inforamtion in DNA.

You had it right when you spoke of me saying that new information being a large change. Plus you also are on the money about information being added.

Information being DNA, (single cell has smallest amount of DNA, while humans have the largest amount of DNA)


I don't believe you have shown an increase of information to show a simple life becoming more complex, or even a somewhat complex life becoming even more complex. I think it might be word games here, but if I were to ask you how insects came about, the answer would be evolution from you. Therefore, evolution does say that simple life has evolved over time into complex life.


My suggestion isn't that you can't make theries. It's simply that I am stating that is an assumption. No more, no less. Yuo state evolution fits the record of everything happened, but let's not forget, that the way things are looked at are based on what is believed. How do we know dating techniques work? Well because it matches the age of the fossil. How old is the fossil? It matches the age of the layer.

I gave talkorigins version of macroevolution, is that ok?


I am talking about evolution, and how it is used to explain how life has evolved from one cell organisms all the way through time into the most complex lifeforms on the planet. That requires life adding information to its DNA that was not previously available. For example, in order for a fish to evolve to an amphibian, it had to grow lungs, when before that, it had only gills.

One website, and you have concluded Intelligent Design has nothing for science?Science is the search for knowledge based on principles that can be tested. There are scientists who study the magnetic field, and find it makes Earth younger. There are scientists who show problems with the fossil record, and scientists who find evidence for common design. There's more, but you're getting the idea that is science.
Do you mean like evolution? We have proven that life has gotten more complex in the lab right? We have taken a simple life form, and made it more complex, evolving it into a higher life form? Just as the theory states how humans came to be?

Admittedly, I don't believe we can create life, and prove that life can be created. Ergo a flaw in creation. At the same time, we cannot show life evolves into higher lifeforms as the theory states. However, we can show scientific research that is researched in labs, and tested to show evidence of intelligent design.We cannot show God creating life, but that's not what intelligent design needs to show in the classroom to teach the theory. Just as we do not need to take a simple form and evolve it into higher lifeform to teach evolution.


That doesn't actually disprove it, it just shows one group dislikeg it. I do believe that at one time Darwin was disliked for his theory, to you does that mean Darwin had no right to bring it up?

Of course the entire sequence of evolution cannot be produced in a lab, and no scientifically literate person expects it to be.  What happens is that the overall process described in the theory allows researchers to develop specific hypotheses of smaller-scale processes that CAN be produced in a lab.  While I don't know the results of every single experiment, I do know that the general trend is for controlled lab experiments to support hypotheses which are in line with the theory of evolution.  That's all that science can do, and that's what we've got.







I was addressing your previous statement, which seemed to be an argument that ID is (and should be) accepted as science because some secular schools teach it and some courts are considering it.  I was refuting this argument.  I am familiar with the trouble evolution went through to be taught in schools and to eventually be accepted by the general population.  I don't think evolution should be taught because it's popular or accepted; I think it should be taught because, to the best of our knowledge at this time, it is correct science.  ID is not, and shouldn't be in science classes no matter how popular it gets.



Thank you for finally defining your terms.  Now that you have done so, I must point out a mistake in your assertion - humans do not have the most DNA.  The human genome (and, incidentally, the mouse genome) contains approximately 3 billion base pairs.  The largest known genome, estimated at 90 billion base pairs, belongs to the trumpet lily (Lilium longiflorum).

Do you know the results of any of these experiments?



You were refuting the argument by stating it was met with challenge. I pointed out the counter that if challenge meant it was not worthy, then neither would have Darwin.

I'm not sure why you feel that ID should not be taught, why would the science used to show the theory be so opposed? Why are you opposed to science being used in such a manner? You are stating that if science was there, it could then be taught, right? Or are you opposing it for another reason?

Thanks for defining my terms? I don't believe that you didn't know humans were more complex than single cell lifeforms like I earlier stated. Did you read that I stated about humans being more complex than one cell organisms?

Now as to length of DNA, let's keep in mind I was trying to clarify my earlier statements about complexity and evolution. We're still on that subject. Humans are the most complex lifeform on Earth, and according to therory, have evolved to that point.

Are you saying that since we can't reconstruct everything that's ever happened in the past, no theory, ever, will be able to explain what happened in the past?


No, what I'm saying is that the claim that we have no idea how old any fossils or sediment layers are is a christian (specifically fundamentalist christian) concept.  To say that the field of stratigraphy is complicated, and difficult is one thing.  To say that every conclusion that's ever been reached in the field is wrong is another thing entirely.  And to say that it's not possible to date fossils or sediment layers at all is yet another thing, which is something that only people who take a literal interpretation of gensis claim.






However this makes no mention of the numerous other ways in which sediments are dated, such as radiometric dating, varve-counting, or identification of specific events.  If the only way people dated fossils was the sediment layer and the only way that people dated sediment layers was the fossils in them, yes it would be circular.  However, the addition of other dating techniques break the cycle.




Yes, different dating methods do result in different ages.  There are error bars in each case.  Measuring the same item with two different rulers will result in a different length at some level.  Also, sediment can be contaminated, mixed, etc.  However, using statistical analysis it is possible to show the likelihood that any member of a group of measurements is likely to be correct.  Yes, some data are tossed out.  This is not unique to sediment dating.  It occurs in every single field that involves large data sets.  In order to get something signicantly different from the accepted dates, you'd have to throw out far more data.



When we know the date of an object, yes, generally it matches fairly well.







Okay, this is going to sound harsh, but please, never ever read anything by whoever wrote this again.  He or she is 100%, verifiably wrong in this statement.  It has been observed that the polarity of magnetic dipoles in rocks in bands parallel to the mid-atlantic ridge are reversed.  This has been observed, and documented, and is not challenged by anyone other than people who believe in a literal interpretation of genesis.  The fluctuations the author talks about are measurements made at the ocean surface in the 50s, not the fields in the rocks themselves.  Further, the fields in the rocks mirror each other on either side of the mid atlantic ridge, just as one would expect.  The person you quote above is either grossly misinformed, or trying to mislead people.  Either way, you shouldn't be using them as a primary source.



I see you've bumped the age of the earth thread.  I've read the first few pages, and was heartbroken at how little understanding of earth science there was on both sides of the debate.  There's a lot I still have to read, and when I get through it all, I'll post my thoughts there.  I will say, that only scientists who first believed in a literal interpretation of genesis have ever concluded a thousands of years old earth.
I will ask a related question to you here, though:  Is there any situation in which you would believe any scientific finding that contradicted any part of the bible?



Science doesn't prove things, only disproves them or fails to disprove them.  In all the tests put to the theory of evolution, none of them have falsified the theory.  That's as good as you can get in the field of science.






Okay, consider it ignored.





Okay, now we're making a bit of progress.  Information being added to you means a large change.  Evolution doesn't predict a large change within your life time.  So to ask for such as evidence of theory is nonsensical.  If we found such a change, it wouldn't support the theory, but rather show it had flaws, because we expected those kinds of changes to take a long time.  You ask for something that the theory doesn't predict, and say the lack of that thing is proof the theory doesn't work.  Do you see that this makes no sense?  Again I will say that I think the problem here is that what you think evolution means isn't what evolutionists mean when they say it.  You think evolution is flies with hooves, of some other huge change in a short amount of time.  But no one is claiming that happens.  We all agree with you that "macro-evolution" (under your large change in a small time definition) doesn't happen.



Alright, finally we've got a definition of information.  And one that shows that all along your claim has been false.  First, as psychojosh13 pointed out, humans don't have the largest amount of DNA.  Second, and more importantly, we have observed cases in which the amount of DNA increases from one generation to the next (polyploidy being one example, insertion mutations being another).  Thus, your claim that we have never seen new information added in the lab is simply not true.



Yes, complex life (under whatever your definition of complex life is) did evolve from simplier life.  No, I can't show you a single-celled organism evolving into a human.  It takes (took!) billions of years.  However, under your definition of information, we can show you an organism that has more information (and thus is more complex?) than its parents.  If it can happen once in a short period of time, there seems to me to be no reason it couldn't happen many many times over billions of years.



The thing about taxa is that they aren't taxa until a large group of different species can be traced back to it.  The definition of the first fish, for example, is also somewhat arbitrary.  The first fish problably look for all intents and purposes, just like it's non-fish parents.  It's only the fact that it's decendents millions of years later look so different from the decendents of the first fish's siblings that make it the first fish.  The splitting off of taxa is no different than the slight differences between two offspring at the time.  It's only their decendents that cause us to seperate the siblings into different groups.



Everything involves assumptions.  Everything.  There is no field, anywhere, science or otherwise, that is not based on assumptions.  In fact, you can't argue anything at all without assumptions.  Its a rule of logic.  If you are saying the assumptions upon which evolutionary theory is based are not valid ones, fair enough, we can discuss that.  But saying "it's based on assumptions" is not an arguement against evolution.


Also because we understand the mechanism on which the dating technique is based.  And because we can correctly date material of known ages.


Sure, it's fine.  And I'll say that you can't observe macroevolution occuring in real time (by the definition you give) because new taxa aren't form with the first member, but rather by the descendents.  Any of the animals you see today could be the start of a new taxa.  We won't know, though, until millions of years from now when we see how different their descendents are from those of their brothers and sisters.  You see, evolutionary theory predicts that the members of two branches of the evolutionary tree right near the split are almost identical.  You wouldn't put them into different family or taxa or anything at the moment they split. It's only well after the fact that we look back and say, "ah, that's the point where two now very different lineages went different ways."


As I said, under your definition of information, we have observed life adding new information.  To say that we haven't is simply incorrect.  Yes, in order for amphibians to evolve it may have been necessary to add DNA (alternatively it could have been a re-arangement of DNA already present).  But since we know that DNA can be added from one generation to the next, this isn't a flaw in the theory.

The reason people are opposed to ID being taught in science class rooms is that it's not science.  Teach it in a comparitive religion class, philosophy class, current topics class, fine.  But it's not science (because it has no testable hypotheses), so it doesn't belong in a science class.


It's not that we didn't know that humans are more complex than single-celled life.  What we didn't know what precisely what you meant by more complex.  I'm still a bit unclear as to just what you mean, exactly, to be honest.  I know you think humans are the most complex, and single-celled life is the least.  But I don't know how to rank everything else.  Especially two different types of single celled life.


Again, unless you tell us just what you mean by complex, we can't give you an example of a life form more complex than its parents.  You say "show me increasing complexity," and we ask, "how do you measure complexity, so we can know when it's increased?"  Your reply seems to be, "Humans are the most complex,"  Which only helps us if we can show something evolving into a human.  Do you see the problem?

And how do you test macroevolution?

I don't understand why when talking about evolution, complexity of life seems difficult to understand. Particulary since we are talking about simple life forms evolving into more complex lifeforms, which is a requirement of evlution. This is evolution, everyone is aware that it is the theory that shows life had to evolve from simple lifeforms, into lifeforms that are far more complex. Evolutionists have admitted, and understand that this addition of information has not been proven. I could get some quotes from Hawkings on the matter if you like.

No I don't see the problem. Humans are more complex than single cell organisms. You did state this


So I do not see the problem of understanding complexity if you say you do understand it.

No, I'm not saying that.

I've already included an evolutionist saying it was circular, so the christian stance of it being circular is definitely not true.

I actually didn't say you couldn't date fossils. I said the current techniques are backed up by previous beliefs. Circular.

I understand you disagree, but on what basis? Just because the current beliefs back up previous beliefs?

So then you do agree that they believe it accurate because it matches the expected age of the object? Even though you agree different methods result in different ages?

They actually tested, and used science in a repeatable experiment.

I've stated before that your definition of macro-evolution doesn't occur.  We know this because we can observe long lineages of animals and not observe flies growing hooves, or similar "grand scale" changes over short periods of time.  That is the test.  And your definition of macro-evolution has failed that test.  It is discarded.  Fortunately, no evolutionists belive that your definition of macroevolution occurs.  Evolution doesn't involved "grand scale" changes.  Only the very small ones that we have observed.


I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm just dumb.  If you the complexity of life doesn't seem hard to understand to you, maybe I'm just obtuse.  But, if that's the case, you can show it by giving me a simple definition of complexity.  I've asked for one a number of times now, and each time you just say "humans are more complex than single-celled organisms."  That's all well and good for comparing humans and bacteria.  It's entirely useless when comparing two very similar organisms.  Yes, I accept that evolution says very simple life over long periods of time evolved into more complex life.  You've asked me to give you an example of simple life evolving into more complex life.  Which I'd love to do.  But because of the nature of evolution, I can't show you a bacteria evolving into a human.  I can show you lots of things evolving into other things.  This is the adaptation you accept.  However, in order to show you that in some of these cases complexity has increased, I need to know how you define complexity.  And to prove anyone wrong, Hawkings or otherwise, who claims that evolutionists have no examples of increasing complexity, I have to know how they define complexity.  That's all there is to it.  I'm doing my best to rise to your challenge.  Define complexity for me, and I'll try to find an example of it increasing.


I'm saying right now, as clearly as I can, I don't understand what you mean when you say complexity.  I can't say how complex an organism is if hand it to me.  I know the endpoints (single cell is least, humans are most), but I don't understand anything in between.  Please tell me the definition you are using.

Yes, previous independent beliefs.  There are multiple dating techniques, which are based on separate assumptions.  And they agree very well.  That makes it seem likely they're all working.  If not, you have to accept that multiple methods all came to the same wrong answer by chance.  Over and over again.

You realize the numbers the method use is due to people putting those numbers in the forumla, right? It's not like they stick a metal rod in, and it measures time in years days and minutes. They take the date, and apply a man made formula to it.

I think you might also be aware the the same dating methods can result in different ages of objects. Such a s a wolly mammoth that had a stomach that outlived another part of the mammoth by over a thousand years. So if the same method can result in differing ages, and different methods will result in differing ages, I think you might be basing this idea of accurate on belief. Not a problem if belief is all you need, but then that's not science.

Okay, please note that what I said earlier remains true:  We have verified the reversal of the fields.  Your original quote says otherwise.  I maintain that you should ignore this source as either grossly misinformed, or attempting to mislead.  Your second source discredits the claims of the first (that there are no actual reversals of field).

Second, both your sources show evidence of my other claim:  The only people who reject the old earth hypothesis are those who already believed in a literal interpretation of genesis.

My definiton isn't different than evolutionists. Look at Talk origins for some of this. They are a evolutionist supporting site.

Are you reading all my posts? What's going on here?

Certainly, I may be making assumptions on what you know about evolution. Really though, If Hawkings can't do it, I don't expect you can. I know it is one of the things evolution cannot do, and at this point, that is just a limitation of the theory.

It's ok. Even the most knowledgable of evolutionist admit to this.

Yes, I realize this.
Do you realize that the analogy you make to a thermometer (sticking a metal rod in, and getting the time) is based on a formula as well?  The ticks on the thermometer didn't get there without people putting them there.  You might think they tested every single tick on the thermometer, but I can assure you they didn't.  They test one or two, and then use what they know about the rate of expansion of mercury or alcohol with temperature.
Some of the methods, like radiometric dating, involve more formulae than others.  Varve counting, for example involves the pretty simple "formula" of one (or two often) layers means one year.


Different dating methods are valid in different regimes.  Carbon dating can only go back a few tens of thousands of years.  Other methods can't measure anything younger than a few million years.  The vast majority of discrepencies listed by the creationist community are due to applying the wrong method to the subject.  A classic example is the Mt. St. Helens material sent to a lab that came back with an age of a few million years (don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head).  Creationists were elated, and said "see, radiometric dating doesn't work!"  Of course, they don't point out that the lab publicly states it can't accurately measure dates younger than a few million years.  All the material the recieved came back essentially "as young as we can measure."  It's like giving someone a blank yard stick and asking them to measure the width of a hair.  And when they say, "I don't know, a millimeter or so?"  you say, "Ha!  You're way, off!  yard sticks don't work!"

Yes, we can all agree that there no dating technique is 100% precise.  But to claim that none of them work at all, is to require that a number of different methods all come to the same wrong answer by chance.

Your definition of macroevolution was a large change in a short time. Evolutionists don't believe large changes happen in short time periods.

I am reading your posts.  Are you reading mine?  I've asked over and over for a definition of complexity, and you have yet to give me one.



Your inability to define a term is a limitation to the theory of evolution?  I don't see how that follows at all, I'm afraid.





But you seem to know exactly what it means, since you claim its never been observed.  Please tell us what you mean now.  And in case it wasn't clear before, I'm not asking for an example, but for a definition.

I suspect you're playing games here. I understand that several posts are quite large, but I have spoke on this several times now. I even included a pro evolution website to go on macroevolution. Don't you feel that is a bit dishonest to say things about what I said that differ from what I said?

Complex DNA has been spoken of a few times.  This is from the perspective of the discussion of evolution.


Low blow. Try and not to do that, it's a very disrespectful way to debate by suggesting that one's inability means there is no issue.



Complexity of DNA. There is no increase of information.

Those who subscribe to punctuated equilibrium do, more or less, don't they?

Alright, so we are at the point about agreement that the small amount is felt true, and therefore, the base the rest of the formula on that.

Here's the assumptions being made then



How do some methods back the other up, when some are used for thousands of years, and another is used for millions? That suggests the thing that backs up the dating methods are things such as expected layers and fossils.

Let's keep in mind that creationists have plenty of evidence of wrong dating techniques and can show this evidence. Additionally, anyone can point out a flaw in a dating method that is based on assuptions of consistent decay rates, when science has proven decay rates are not consistent.

No, not by the way rogue4jc has asked for.  Punctuated equilibrium advocates still believe in small changes over very large (relative to our lifetimes) periods of time.  The key part of punctuated equillibrium is the equillibrium: that during most of any species existance, the selection pressure is to remain as they are, rather than to drive them to another state via adaptation.

rogue4jc has asked to see large changes within his lifetime.  This simply is not predicted by evolution, and to ask for it as proof of evolution is simply nonsensical.  Even under the theory of punctuated equillibrium the large changes rouge4jc is asking for (eg, flies with hooves) would simply take longer than rouge4jc thinks the world has existed (6k-10k years).

I don't feel it is in the slightest bit dishonest.  Here is what you said:


Since you're asking to see new information, you obviously want to see a large change during your lifetime (otherwise you wouldn't get to see it).  Thus you are, as far as I can tell from what you say, defining macroevolution as a large change over a short time period.  If that is not what you mean, I'm happy to listen to another definition.  But so far, all you've said are that you want a large change, and that macroevolution is evolution on a "grand scale" which is rather vague to say the least.  As I said before, talking about branching of taxa is impossible at the time it occurs, as it's no different from a speciation event.  It is only well after the fact, when you can compare the descendants of the organisms, that you can say it was the start of a new taxa.



Yet again I will say, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION?  Yes, you have spoken about the complexity of DNA before.  But even though I've asked you over and over again for it, you haven't given me a definition of complexity.




I didn't mean to be disrespectful.  Perhaps I should have said your unwillingness rather than your innability.  Maybe you can define complexity and information, and just choose not to share.  If that is the case, I apologize for implying that the reason you haven't provided those definitions after repeated requests is that you don't have them.  Once again, all I'm asking for is the definition of the words you are using.  Words that you use in very bold claims about what we haven't seen in evolution.






Okay, one more time.  Please define complexity and information.  Don't just use them in a sentance.  Don't just tell me that humans are more complex than bacteria.  Tell me how to tell which of two organisms is the more complex.
You did give one definition (the amount of DNA), which made your statements false.  It also made your statement that humans are the most complex organisms false.  Do you see why I'm asking you for definitions?  Because when you give them, we see that what you're saying is actually not true.

You are contradicting yourself. You second sentence says small changes, and your last sentence says large changes.


Remember, I have said that evolution has not proven macroevolution. That's true. Assumptions are made about it, and that's fine, but this is not exactly a secret, is it?

The part in red is an odd statement. You keep holding views as if they were seperate. If things evolved over time into more and more complex lifeforms, then evolution does speak of things in that manner.

In the second sentance, I was referring to what happens.  In the last I was referring to what you ask for.  Small changes add up over long time periods, and thus appear large.  What you have asked for over and over is to see a large change in a short time.  What I've said over and over is that evolution does not predict that.  Therefore asking for it as proof of evolution makes no sense.



And I've agreed.  Evolution hasn't proven your definition of macroevolution.  It also doesn't predict your definition of macroevolution, so it makes perfect sense that we haven't seen it.  Do you understand me on this?


Evolution predicts that small changes will add up to large changes only over a very large period of time (relative to your lifetime).  Thus to ask to see such changes within your life is nonsense.  You want to see someone take a fly, and evolve it to some animal with hooves within your lifetime.  But evolution predicts that won't happen.  Evolution predicts something will evolve that looks almost exactly like the fly you started with, but is a tiny bit different.  And that's exactly what we see.  What we observe is just what evolution predicts.  What you keep asking for, is something that evolution doesn't predict.  Do you see why this doesn't make much sense?

You spoke clearly that my view of macroevolution did not occur, and yet I have included a pro evolution sites wording of macroevolution. The result is that therefore, I must mean something else. Well, simple, don't tell me what my view of it must be. I have said that's not it several times. When you keep saying it is, that's being dishonest. Even if I did not provide enough explanation, that does not mean you can keep saying I'm saying something else over and over. That's dishonest.


 

I thought you have been asking for what makes something more complex than something else.
Mewrriam Webster defines Complexity as something complex. Complex is something that consists of several complicated parts.

What do you mean you want a definition of complexity, as I thought explaining it's DNA becoming more complex as it evolves into higher and higher life forms in the context of evolution should be clear about what we are talking about.


I don't think the statements are false. Evolution really does speak of one celled organisms needing to evolve into higher and higher life forms, culminating in the most complex lifeform, humans. There is no evidence of additional DNA becoming more complex to allow for any lifeform, to evolve into the slightest more complex organism.


If you are aware of any, feel free to let me know, using any definitions you please. Mine, someone else's Hawkings, Gould's, Darwin's, etc.

I am saying what it is, nothing more. Some people will say science cannot prove that, and so am I. No shocking secrets.

So you can have large changes that aren't large? Evolution does not predict large changes over a short time? Then what is mutation?


What is this my view of macroevolution? Like I have made up my own view or something.

Let's go with


I'm not sure why you are so opposed to this defintion. Microevolution is the adaption we see every day. This is observed, and known. Macroevolution is simply not observed, and I have said this. No shockers here. It really should not be such a big deal. I am not breaking the science barrier or anything by stating it. It is known.


I have stated there is no evidence of macroevolution, no more no less.

If using your own words (see above) is dishonest, I'm sorry for being dishonest.  If you are not asking to see large changes in your life time, please tell me what you are asking to see.


So according to the definition you list, something that had more parts than its parents would be more complex? This is not rhetorical.  I would like very much for you to answer this question with a yes or no.


Your definition of complexity is DNA becoming complex as it evolves into higher life forms.  What does "higher" mean?  You keep using terms but not defining them.  Sometimes you give examples, but you never make it clear how to tell which of two very similar organisms are more complex.  Is antibiotic resistant bacteria more complex than non-resistant strains?  Is it less complex?  Is it higher?





Okay, under your definition of the amount of DNA being a measure of complexity, we have observed polyploidy (de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon  20: 29-35. and  Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.), which is when the chromosome count increases by a factor of 2 or more.

I would suggest that the adaptation you agree happens is at times an increase in complexity.  It's a resistance that didn't exist before.

We have examples of micro-organisms that have evolved the ability to metabolize man-made substances ( Jenkins, R. O. et al., 2003. Bacterial degradation of arsenobetaine via dimethylarsinoylacetate. Archives of Microbiology 180(2):142-150.,  Johnson, G. R., R. K. Jain, and J. C. Spain, 2002. Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway. Journal of Bacteriology 184(15): 4219-4232. (Erratum in Journal of Bacteriology 184(21): 6084.))

We have even observed a single-celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular colony ( Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS 64: 1102. and  Boraas, M. E., D. B. Seale, and J. E. Boxhorn. 1998. Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity. Evolutionary Ecology 12: 153-164.)

If you don't think that any of these represent an increase in complexity, please explain why.  A good start at explaining why would be a definition of complexity, especially one that could be used to tell if one organism was more complex than its parent.

Mutuations are generally small changes.  Large mutations are very unlikely to be beneficial.  However, if you accept mutations as large changes, and you accept that mutations occur, you have your evidence of macro-evolution.




Didn't mean to imply you made it up.  When I say it's your definition, I just mean it's the definition you are using.



If you consider speciation to be macroevolution, we have observed macroevolution (see my references for polyploidy).  Ring species are examples of speciation in progress.  See also  Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.



I'm not opposed to the definition.  I'm opposed to your statement that it simply hasn't been observed.  I've listed a number of observations of it that fit your definition.  My guess is that you'll say all the things I've listed aren't actually macroevolution.  That the changes in them aren't big enough.  To which I say evolution doesn't predict large changes over short time scales.  If you need to see larger changes in front of your own eyes to believe in evolution you simply don't understand evolution.



Yes, and this statement is made false by the definition of macroevolution that you give.  We HAVE observed speciation events.  If speciation is macroevolution (your definition lists it as an example), then it is verifiably false to claim that there is no evidence of macroevolution.

I see the route you are taking. I think there are better ways to debate.


That's not a yes or no answer. A fruit fly with four wings is stil a fruit fly, yes? So the answer to your question can be no. If a fish evolved into having a lung along with gills, the answer would be yes. The observed answer can therefore be no. The assumed answer could also be yes.

More complex? No. Adaption, yes. It's from a lateral gene transfer. The ability to fight off the antibiotics were already part of the strain. What has been happening is that people don't take the full amount of antibiotic, and those with hte strongest antibiotic properties lived long enough to reproduce more of these stronger strains. So no, that's not more complex, it's available in previous and current bacteria.

So far adaption, not macroevolution.

The last one is better, why didn't you just use that example two days ago? I'll look more into that, and provide a counter once I'm more familar with it.

Okay, this is why I'm asking for your definition.  The definition you provide implies something with more parts is more complex.  But you say that's not always the case.  Which means you are using a different definition of complex.  And I would still like to know how you define complexity in such a way that your statements are true.  Neither of the definitions you've listed so far (more DNA or more parts) seems to be what you mean, because you don't consider cases of increased DNA or increased number of parts to be more complex.



I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Please define complexity so that no form of adaptation results in increased complexity.

As for antibiotic-resistant bacteria, are you aware that there have been cases where a dose that would have killed 100% of the original population doesn't kill all of a descendant population?  The ability to survive that high a dose was NOT present in the original population.


Before you have even looked at it, you've decided that you'll provide a counter?  You don't even admit the possibility that it could be just the information you've been asking for all this time?

increased DNA? That does not increase DNA. How would photocopying a written page provide more information? It's simply extra information, but it is not additional information that wasn't already there.


I'm not willing to spend days on end defining the word complex. Plain and simple, the idea of evolution says that new information that was not previously available. It's the idea that allows for one life form to become more complex over time.

Lowering the definition of evolution to adaption alone isn't what evolution stops at. Evolution doesn't stop at saying it allows for spiders to change into other spiders. Evolution theory allows for the change of lifeforms into ever more complex organisms over time.

Context evolution. If all you can show is adaption, then the point is still about what is actually proven versus which is assumed.

I guess I disagree then. As it's because of improper antibiotic use that resulted in bacteria getting used to antibiotics.

Yes, I feel I can provide a counter. There are a lot of scientists, and I seriously dounbt what you have provided is so recent that other scientists couldn't have studied it as well.

Correct about me not even admiting the possibility it could be the missing link. Evolution is so strong a belief for some people, they automatically assume it is truth since they have been told it is. Would you consider evolution is wrong? Why is it any different for me on the reverse?

Actually, it at least doubles the amount of DNA.  To call a doubling not an increase is a bit silly.


Okay, if "extra" information isn't "more" information, I don't know what is.
Also, we also have seen insertion mutation, where a completely random bit of DNA is added to a sequence.  We've seen reversal mutations, where chunks of DNA are inserted backwards.  Would accept that 12345 is different information than 54321?


You haven't spent any time defining the word complex.  You toss it around like everyone should know exactly what you mean, but I don't!  I'm asking you what you mean when you say it.  I'm asking for a definition.


I will agree with you that the theory of evolution says that things have gotten more complex over time.  That is not our point of disagreement.  What is is your claim that we have never seen an increase in complexity.  I disagree with that statement.  My arguement is that there is no reasonable definition of complexity which makes your claim true.  The only way it can be made true is with absurd definitions of complexity, such as huge changes over very small times, flies with hooves, and other things that evolution doesn't predict.  This is why I keep asking you to define complexity.  Because I'm convinced that you can't do it and still have your original claim be true.  I am challenging you to prove me wrong.  All you have to do is give me a definition of a word that you think everyone knows the meaning of that makes your statement true.



Yes, the theory of evolution does stop at adaptation.  Adaptation allows lifeforms to evolve into more complex lifeforms over long periods of time.  It is you who are claiming that there is something more than adaptation to evolution, not evolutionists.  You admit adaption occurs, but say it's not enough.  When I ask you why its not enough, you say because adaptation can't increase complexity.  But you can't define complexity anyway that makes that true.


If you take one population of bacteria, and divide it in two, and give one population small doses of the antibiotic, and let it regrow, then give it slightly larger doses, and let it regrow, and so on with ever increasing doses, it is possible (in the sense that it has been done!) to reach a point where the second population can survive doses that would kill 100% of the first population.  Clearly the info wasn't present in the original population, or the large dose wouldn't kill every member.  You are right that people not using the rull amount of antibiotic is the problem.  It's a problem because if they had taken the full amount, it would have killed the whole population.  But because they only took part of it, and let the survivors grow back, that the remaining population can now sustain a dose that would have killed 100% of the original population.  There are members of surviving group that can survive doses that would have killed every member of the original group.  If the information that allowed them to survive that dose were in the original group, the antibiotic wouldn't have worked in the first place, because even taking the full amount wouldn't have killed off the entire population.







"Context evolution" isn't even a complete sentance, let alone a definition.  I'm not asking for much here.  Just a simple definition of a word that you obviously feel is blatantly clear.  Coming up with a definition for such a word should not be difficult.


I'll I've hypothesized is adaptation.  Why do I need to prove something that I don't believe happens?


Fair enough, at least you're honest enough to say it:  Your view of evolution cannot be changed by any amount of evidence.  Your thoughts are based on something else (I'm guessing the bible), not on what people can show you.

rogue4jc typed:




I've actually heard that resistance to anti-biotics is caused by the the killing off of the population that could be killed by it.  In effect making the gene pool that much more shallow.  To be fair I haven't kept up on these threads espically the evolution ones for a while now but thought that I'd toss in this little tidbit.

:)

Yes Paulos, I agree.  If you select so strongly for one single trait, the surviving population is likely to have very little diversity.  A "shallower gene pool," if you will.  However, those surviving members will all have an ability that no members of the original population did not: the ability to survive a large dose of the antibiotic.  One could easily argue that the population as a whole was weaker for the lost diversity, especially if it was very unlikely that they'd ever encounter a large dose of the antibiotic.  But rouge4jc wasn't asking for a stronger population, he was asking for an example of new traits that weren't there before.

I think the theory of evolution is a great thing to be taught at schools, along with the flaws that theory has. Religion is to be taught at church and home, not at school.

Also I think that science should be doing a better job to support the theories presented in the bible, however in LDS theology the gap of what to believe in is so big there isn't really an official point of view on creation and evolution.

I think you misunderstand the role of science if you think it should be doing a better job of supporting theories presented in the bible.  The point of science is to find out what happens in nature.  If you already know what happens (from some book), and want to do whatever it takes to prove it, that's not science.  You might ask science to do more testing of the theories presented in the bible, which may end up supporting or disproving those theories, but if you assume from the start that the result has to match the bible, you're not doing science.

Wrong.  Just plain, blatantly wrong.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about humans being a "culmination" of the process.  It says (by implication) that we are just another accident in a long, long line of accidents.  A lot of people have a problem with this because they think it means that we're not as special as they want us to be.  What they don't consider is that we could also be special because, as far as we can tell, we are the first accident in that long, long line to develop verbal language, logical reasoning, and all those other wonderful things that coming with having a human (and only a human) brain.  But to say that Homo sapiens is some kind of goal of evolution shows a complete failure to understand evolution.  We just happened to turn out this way, and if the world survives another million years our descendents will probably have turned out some other way that makes our present selves look as special as sea slugs.

As for the assertion about DNA, that is an outright denial of how genetic coding works.  No, an increase in DNA is not necessary to change an organism's traits from one generation to the next... to a point.  Each biological trait is the result of one or more proteins existing and acting as they do, and each protein is coded for by a specific section of DNA.  If the amount of DNA remains set at a certain amount, then proteins can never be added or expanded without removing or reducing other proteins.  In order for new traits to arise without changing or removing old ones, DNA must be added.  So if you want to define complexity as something in the region of having more parts, you HAVE TO add more DNA to get a more complex organism.




Science should keep doing what it does, which is explaining the workings of the world in empirical and mechanistic means.  When a scientific finding happens to support a religious belief*, great, preach it all you want.  When a scientific finding contradicts a religious belief, then it's up to you to decide which one you want to believe; don't go telling scientists their results need to be more "bible-friendly."


*incidentally, many findings in the field of quantum mechanics are eerily close to Buddhist beliefs about the makeup of the universe.  Sadly, in my mind this information has faded to a vague memory of a class I took in college, but this was one of the things we discussed and it was pretty cool when I heard about it.

I think you may have read something more into what i said. I said evolution is the theory used to explain the process. I didn't say goal, or that it was trying to make organisms into humans. The process of life starting at one celled organisms all the way to human is assumed to be evolution by some people.

Yes, I am aware that DNA must change in order to advance.


Deg can tell as many scientists as he likes to be more bible friendly, just as you can tell them to be less. Remember, you said that intelligent deign scientific principles should not be taught in school. How is that right for you, but wrong for Deg?

There is a big difference between the two examples you give.  Asking a scientists to give you a particular result is asking him or her not to do science.  Saying "show me that this is true," is not science.  Asking for results to be changed so that they match your view of bible is very much not science.

Asking people not to teach ID in schools is a different topic altogether.  The arguement there is that ID is not science, and thus not appropriate for a science classroom.  If you want to teach it in a comparative religions class, or a philosophy class, or a current events class, fine.  But it's not science, so it doesn't belong in a science class room.  We're not asking scientists to show us ID is false.  We're asking teachers not to teach something in a science class that's not science.  No one is asking scientists to be less bible friendly.  People are asking public schools to be less bible friendly.

Why does science and religion have to be enemies here- before the Enlightenment science and religion were treated together under natural law. In this we must treat it as one of the universes great mysteries under God but since my conscious mind and heart say there is a God then he created what we are and what we see. Under defined laws that are in place so precise as to allow life and the creation to exist. As for evolution as the means I tend to believe in the young universe created the age needed to work so it indeed appears to be billions of years old. And life genetically must appear to be also ancient for life to work- this is a matter of faith not science. So if animals and plants share genetic age and the same structures its just the blueprint of that genius of design created by God. Of course we share genetic ties a wise creator would use the same basic design and alter it as needed to make life as wonderful and diverse as it is.

[emphasis added by Tycho]

You seem to realize that your position is based purely on faith, so I'm cool with that.  Your faith is your business, so do what makes you happy.  What ruffles my feathers is when people try to call their faith science, and get it pushed into science classes.

No one is trying to teach psalms in school. At least regualr school. I think you may be mistaken on what intelligent design talks about? They don't use scripture or anything like that. They bring up science, and various theories, and how they could be applied. Science.

Intelligent design is thinly veiled creationism. It is not science, since it involves falsifying evidence, ignoring information that runs contradictory to its expected conclusions, and outright making things up.

Again, rogue4jc, I think the problem here is that you don't fully understand what Science is.  Using test tubes in a lab doesn't make you a scientist.  Using theories, and talking about science doesn't make you a scientist.  What IDers are doing isn't science, because they start with an extra assumption (which they usually avoid stating explicitly).  IDers aren't trying to figure things out, they are trying to prove what they already know (that God made everything).

As Falkus said, ID is simply thinly veiled creationism.  If you don't believe this, consider the book Of Pandas and People, a book that many ID proponents try to get used in public school classrooms.  Early versions of the text (~1987) actually used the words "creationism" and "creationist," but later versions changed those to "Intelligent design" and "Intelligent design proponent," presumably in attempts to make the book legal to teach in a science class room.  Further, the foundation that owns the rights to the book, and who sponsered its publishing is the Foundation for Thoughts and Ethics, which is a creationist organization.  One of the authors is a known creation-scientist.  One of the editors is a minister!

IDers try very hard to present themselves as scientists rather than religiously motivated creationists.  And unsurprisingly, the people who tend to believe them are religous people who think it's great that 'science' is finally getting around to proving right what they've known all along.

I think I know how to read a dictionary.

I don't think science in the manner I have used it, differs from the definition in the dictionary. I understand you disagree with what intelligent design says, but you'll have to explain why the definition of Science is different than the one used in the dictionary.

[emphasis added by Tycho]
As you can see in defination 2, science is restricted to natural phenomena.  That does not include super-natural phenomena.  The theories of IDers are heavily influenced by their belief in super-natural causes, such as the acount in genesis.  IDers are trying to prove supernatural events, and thus are not doing science.

You realize what you are doing, correct?

There are better ways to debate. But selectively responding to a dictionary is dishonest.

Actually, I guess I don't know what I'm doing.  Or at least I don't see how what I'm doing is dishonest.  I said that ID isn't science.  You said it was and put up a definition (and a very brief one at that) as evidence.  I pointed out that by the very definition you used as evidence, ID isn't science.  And I stand by that claim.  Any theory that is based on beliefs of the supernatural is not science.

Ok, what you're doing is saying that the dictionary was proving ID was wrong, because it didn't match one of the meanings of the word science.

The dictionary does not suggest that a word must mean all of the meanings at the same time. That you take one meaning, and now state that the other two meaning are not valid, is plain dishonest. You pointed out that one of the three meanings did not apply to ID. By misleading on purpose as you did, that's being deceiving.

I'm not saying the defination proves ID is wrong, just that it's not science.


Of the three definitions you gave, the second is the one scientists would agree with.  The same dictionary you used gives as a definition of god "a powerful ruler or despot," but if I said 'God is dead,' I think you'd agree that my statement means something different.

I've been arguing that ID isn't science, and by the best definition on your list, it isn't.  You seem to want to choose to use a different definition just so ID can be considered science, and that seems dishonest to me.  Would you find it acceptable if it were taught in public schools that God is dead, using the definition of God above?

For the record, I also didn't address defintions from the same dictionary such as
"An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing," or "Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science," or "Knowledge, especially that gained through experience."  These definitions aren't sufficient for what we're discussing.  Likewise with the other definations you listed.

If you think the first of the three definitions you gave is the best one, then my original claim that you don't understand what science means seems to be true.

If you are saying ID is science in the sense that it's a theoretical explanation  of something, fine.  But that's not the sense of the word science that I want taught in public school science classes.

But then, you are saying the dictionary was wrong on what science means. That's your choice, but I was saying your response was deceiving, which it was.

I was using the definition given for science in a dictionary. You said my definition proves it is not science by taking one of the three meanings. That is deceiving.

If the dictionary said that, I'd go by that definition. Just as we use words from common usage, I am not trying to trick anyone with what the word science means. I grabbed a dictionary, and used it. I didn't use some special biblical concordance.

This is weird. I pull out a dictionary, and use it to show what science means, point out how you purposely deceived, and now you conclude I do not know what science means?

It's science in the definition of the word science.

Okay, now things are just getting weird.  You're saying that one of three given definitions of science is the "right" one (one that allows for ID to be science), but when I say that one of three given definitions is the "right" one (the one that requires science to study natural phenomena), I am being dishonest.

In the dictionary you used, one definition doesn't fit ID, and two do.  You seem to be saying that anything that fits any of those three definition should be allowed in a public school science classroom.  What about the other definitions of science in the same dictionary?  Should anything that is "an activity that appears to require study and method," be taught as science?

What I'm saying now, and have been saying all along, is that the definition of science that scientists use excludes things such as ID and creation science because they invoke and depend upon supernatural causes.  If IDers need to make use of a different definition of science than most scientists use, that should be made clear.  They should not try to get their "science" into public school classrooms by changing the definition of science.

If you had looked in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology you would have found these definitions:

None of these allow for ID to be considered science.

Correct, I am saying you were dishonest.

No, I am saying that it is science as defined by the definition of science. You saw what was written, and you chose a very poor way to debate.

Changing the definition?  That's a strange assertion. I don't believe the dictionary is owned by religious organization. Why would the dictionary change the definition for science?

That's precisely why I feel ID talks about science. In many of our discussions, we have talked astronomy, biology, and geology.

If you feel otherwise, I understand. But I'm still sticking with the dictionary of what science means. Feel free to use any dictionary.

But what you were doing (selecting one of the 3 definitions as the "correct" one) isn't dishonest?  Why was it dishonest for me to pick one of the three, but not for you to do so?



Not the definition, but a definition.  By selecting a different definition from your list, we get different results.  For clarity, are you saying that you think science doesn't need to restrict itself to natural phenomena?



I'm afraid I don't see it that way.  You gave a list of definitions that you said showed that ID is science.  I pointed out that one of those definitions excluded ID.  That seems fair enough to me.


I didn't say the dictionary changed the definition.  I'm saying that IDers are attempting to use a different definition of science than scientists use.  To me, that's "changing the definition."



Read the definition above again.  It doesn't say that science is "the act of talking about a specific branch of this general body of knowledge."  Talking about science and doing science are different things.  IDers may talk about science, but they're not doing science.  To do science you have to be studying natural phenomena.  Supernatural events just aren't part of science.  Trying to prove supernatural events isn't science.  If you say "quantum mechanics proves there are magical unicorns living in my mail box," you're not doing science, even though you mention quantum mechanics.  Mentioning science doesn't make your theories scientific.


Okay, but for the record, please let us know if you think that a field that invokes supernatural events can be considered science.

Because a dictionary provides all meanings for a word. I'm not sure what's going on here. I really don't know why this was not understood that a dictionary does not need all meanings for a word to mean just one of those meanings.

For clarity, just use a dictionary. Like we already have both used.

We weren't discussing that there is a definition, we were discussing that ID does or does not use science. According to the dictionary, it does.

They have changed the definition? But if it matches the dictionary, how is it changed?

They use astronomy, geology,a nd biology. Science.

I really don't understand what is being asked. I have said ID uses science, and they study science, and I have pointed out the definition of what science means,a nd I have agreed with your dictionary use of science that you have brought up. What exactly is not clear?

Apparently I wasn't clear last time.  We both agree that there are multiple definitions of "science."  My position is that the best definition of science includes the restriction to only natural phenomena.  When I say best, I mean that is the definition that scientists would agree with.

What I am asking you, is do you agree with this definition?  When you say that ID is science, which definition of science are you using?  One that allows theories invoking supernatural phenomena, or not?

Put another way:  Do you consider it possible for a theory that relies on supernatural phenomena to be scientific?

Why would scientists disagree with a dictionary?

Do I agree with it? No. I do not feel we can remove various definitions from the dictionary so that it makes it appear in a certain light.

Well, simply put, since I think God is real, then the supernatural, is still natural. Do I think science defines God? No. Do I think God defines science? Yes.

Science is about study, research, explanation, etc. Can science prove intelligent Design, I don't see why it can't. If it occurred, then science can be used to show that, can it not?

Let's not forget, the intelligent Design theory being taught, is to show what science can show. It's not about bringing psalms, and Luke into the classroom.

Are you alright with just the science being shown? Like if Intelligent Design simply showed science used, and evidence for such ideas? Or are you opposed to any science that shows this?

I wouldn't say they disagree with a dictionary.  They simply choose one single definition in the dictionary, rather than assuming that all are equally valid.  I assume you will agree that when you use the term God here that you're not talking about a warlord or despot, correct?  It's not that you don't agree with the dictionary, it's just that you're using one definition, not all of them, when you use a word.  Same with scientists.



Again, we're not removing definitions, we're just using the one that's most appropriate.





Okay, just realize that a lot of people don't believe that, and would rather not have your religion taught in public schools.  If you think God defines science, and thus should be part of the science classroom, I and a lot of other people are going to disagree with you strongly.


Science is about more than just study, research, and explanation.  If it weren't, english class would be science.  History class would be science.  Spelling class would be science.  But these aren't science.  There are certainly qualities of science that set it apart from other fields.  There are certain restrictions that must be followed for what you're doing to be considered science.  Intelligent design doesn't follow those restrictions, because it requires a supernatural event, and because it is based on the assumption (though not explicitly) that there is a God.  Science cannot be used to show that supernatural events occured.  The whole thing that makes them supernatural is that they don't follow the rules of nature.  Science doesn't do miracles.



I'm okay with just science being used, as long as it's not based on religious assumptions.  The "science" used by IDers generally isn't published in scientific peer-reviewed journals.  It's published in things like Creation and other overtly religious journals.  ID hasn't been accepted by the scientific community.  In fact, it's been rejected by the scientific community.  But who knows, maybe someday IDers will convince scientists by publishing non-religious theories in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals.  If so, great, put it in the classroom.  But at the moment, it's just a theory by strongly religious people that has no predictive power, no testable hypotheses, and doesn't explain any data better than the theories of mainstream science.

I disagree. I am not   saying that God doesn't mean different things to different people. I may feel one definition for God is true, but that doesn't mean that God is not used in other ways.

I do not feel scientists say that the dictionary has it wrong.

Using the one that's most appropriate? So science doesn't mean the other meanings now? You're disagreeing with a dictionary on what science means.


That's fine, I wasn't discussing bringing psalms and Luke into the classroom.


Sorry, I was using context of the discussion of science. I intended that to read study research, and explantion of science. I didn't intend to change the direction of the conversation, and wanted to keep on subject.
Again, we're talking about the science they are using. I'm not sure if you didn't see me type that before or not? I'm not sure if you missed it, or forgot? It wasn't on purpose, was it?



I'm okay with just science being used, as long as it's not based on religious assumptions.  The "science" used by IDers generally isn't published in scientific peer-reviewed journals.  It's published in things like Creation and other overtly religious journals.  ID hasn't been accepted by the scientific community.  In fact, it's been rejected by the scientific community.  But who knows, maybe someday IDers will convince scientists by publishing non-religious theories in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals.  If so, great, put it in the classroom.  But at the moment, it's just a theory by strongly religious people that has no predictive power, no testable hypotheses, and doesn't explain any data better than the theories of mainstream science.
</quote>Then I'm glad you're ok with science being used.

Okay rouge4jc, after that last response, I realize I no longer understand what you're trying to say, and it seems like you don't understand what I'm trying to say, so let's start over from the top.  I'll lay out my position as clearly as possible, and then lay out what I think your position is.  Feel free to correct me on your position, and/or just write it up yourself so that we can both know what the other is trying to say.  I'll go first:

What I think:  ID should not be taught in public school science classrooms.

Why I think it:  Only good science should be taught in public school science classes.  By good science I mean science that is based on the methods and assumptions of mainstream scientists.  That means no miracles, no deities, no magic, no religious texts, etc.  Just what we can observe in the real world.  ID fails to be good science because it requires supernatural phenomena and a deity.  Also, the fact that people behind the ID movement are religiously motivated people who believe that they already know the answers before they do the research shows that IDers don't follow the scientific method (i.e. they won't change their minds given any amount of contrary evidence), and aren't doing good science.

Further, even if IDers did use good science, their results are still only accepted by a tiny fraction of scientists.  The vast majority of the scientific community have looked at their work and found that the conclusions don't follow logically from the data.  IDers also genearally don't publish in scientific journals.  Anything that has so little support from scientists should not be taught in the science classroom.

Okay, that's what I think.  Now I'll try to write out what I understand your position to be.  Very likely, I'll get something wrong, since I don't understand your position fully.  Please correct any mistakes I make, and elaborate on what I type so that I'll know what you're really trying to say.

What you think:  ID should be taught in public school science classrooms.

Why you think it:  ID is science, so it should be taught in science classrooms.  It is science because it involves research, experiments, and study, and talks about fields such as biology, astronomy, geology, etc., which are accepted as science.  The fact that it involves supernatural occurances and deities doesn't mean it's not science.  If those things are real, science should be able to prove them.  As long as they don't mention the bible, it's not religion that's being taught, so it's totally appropriate in a public school science classroom.  Also, it's not based on anyone's religious beliefs, but purely on evidence, and is in no way influenced by their religion.  It doesn't matter how many scientists accept it.  As long as some people do, and it's science, then it deserves a place in the classroom.

Okay, am I close on that?  Lets get to a point where we both agree on what we're actually saying, and go from there.  We're clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on this definition thing, so lets try this new tack.

Both parts were correct. I know what you and I have been saying the whole time. I addressed the points as they were posted one at a time.

It was never about seeing eye to eye on the definition. You said ID did not use science, and I said it does, and included some meanings of science.

You responded by taking one of the meanings of science, and tried to suggest that one of those meanings was showing me incorrect about science used in ID, which ignored the clearly posted part of the other two did fit.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:43, Thu 07 Sept 2006.

Okay, we're making progress.  Lets go another step.  Is there anything that you feel shouldn't be allowed in public school science classes?

Should we teach about alien abductions?  Big foot?  Flat-earth theory?  Wicca?  Leprechauns?  Ghosts?  Atlantis?  Vampires?

What if at least 1 "scientist" studies, researchs, and does experiments on these things?  Does that qualify them for the classroom?

If crop circles have research showing the fields that have crop circles have a higher nitrogen content, and it occurs each time, why couldmn't they conduct science experiments on the properties of fields with crop circles, versus fields without?

If rooms that have had ghosts in them can be measured to have a drop in temperature while nothing else changes in other areas, could this not be tested further?

I'm not sure how to test vampires, if there is no indication of one. With atlantis, would that be more about history? Leperchauns might be mythology. Alien abductions, I'd have to say I'd be alright with a field trip to Roswell to test soil conditions there. Flat earth might be more about history, but maybe you know of the science used with the theory. Wicca, not sure how to theorize anything with that. Big foot, I'm guessing taking plaster molds of footprints would be great, and then you could apply biology, and try and determine how tall big foot would be if you have a foot that is 19 inches long, and 8 inches wide.

I'm not opposed to science here. Simply going over science would help the kids understand how it is used, and how to apply it.

I remember an experiment with blot paper, salt water, pennies and copper wire. We oput the wire to our tongue, and tasted salt, even though the wire never went into the salt water. Then we went over the science about the idea. I'm not opposed to science. I enjoy it very much.

If you test crop circles and find strong evidence about them being chemically different than neighboring fields (e.g. more nitrogen), you can make one definite conclusion: that crop circles are chemically different than neighboring fields.  Nothing about aliens, though.  You can guess that aliens were involved, but unless you already have some concrete evidence that alien activity causes an increase in nitrogen levels, it will be nothing more than a guess.

If you test rooms where ghosts have recently been sighted and find that they are significantly colder than rooms with no ghosts, the only evidence you have is for cold rooms.  Sure, you were there because someone said they saw a ghost, but unless you get concrete evidence that a ghost was there, it's just hearsay, not science.

If you test radioactive decay in soil samples and find that the soil is 6000 years old, the only conclusion you can make is that the soil where you tested is 6000 years old (we'll assume that your method of testing was accurate).  Nothing there about God or any other designer.  Unless you have concrete scientific evidence that a 6000-year-old planet MUST have been created by a designer, claiming that it was is nothing more than a guess.

Now, if you don't mind, I'll take this a step further.  One of the more popular arguments for ID is that evolution doesn't have all the answers, and some events assumed by evolution or related theories are so unlikely they should be considered impossible, and therefore, ID must be right.  This argument of course runs into a rather serious logical snag, which can be summarized by the old saying "absence of proof is not proof of absence."  In other words, just because evolution hasn't (yet?) been 100% proven doesn't automatically make it wrong, and it certainly doesn't automatically make one specific alternative theory right.

Okay, it seems we've reached our impasse rouge4jc.  You're in favor of (or at least okay with) teaching crop circles, big foot, ghosts, alien abductions, and intelligent design in science classes, whereas I am not.  If you consider all those things to be just as legitimate as intelligent design, I guess we can at least agree on that, even if we don't agree if they belong in the classroom.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:58, Thu 07 Sept 2006.

Correct, it is only science being used to show nitrogen. It does not prove alien.

Well, remember, it's only the science being used. We're not proving ghosts with science, we're proving a cold room.

Again, correct. We're not trying to prove pslams is wonderful through science.

That's where we disagree. Intelligent design isn't about proving evolution false. I can show flaws in evolution, without using intelligent design.

Well, you are misrepresenting what I said. Considering your habit of this, I suspect it's not truly out of misunderstanding, but one more chance at misdirection. I'm not trying to get aliens, and big foot taught in classes. I'm simply stating science is to be encouraged, and I have no problems in the science being shown on various ideas.

It's too bad we don't agree. But that's ok. Not everyone will agree on things.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:59, Thu 07 Sept 2006.

So if you agree that science (including the findings of ID supporters) is not proving religion beliefs, then where is the support for an intelligent designer?  What scientific discoveries to date necessitate the existence of a sentient creator?

That's where we disagree. Intelligent design isn't about proving evolution false. I can show flaws in evolution, without using intelligent design.
</quote>

I realize that the main goal of ID is not to simply disprove evolution, but if you Google the phrase "evidence for intelligent design," you will find that a number of the arguments that come up are basically "evolution must be wrong for this reason, therefore ID must be right."

If you want to search out God, I think you would have a much better go through reading the bible. If you want to learn more intelligent design, then I would suggest going through science. I think you are associating intelliegnt design and psalms or something like that.

What scientific discoveries are there for a designer? Well, there is evidence that the Earth was not here for billions of years. For example, the speed in which the earth spins is slowing down. Also, the distance of the moon is getting further and further. It couldn't have been billions of years, else the moon would have been touching earth far sooner than that. Another would be that we still have comets flying by earth. Since they are constantly losing matter, then they would lost all their material long before we could have seen them. Our magma in the earth is still liquid. If billions of years old, it should be cold, and rock by now.

That was just evidence for a much younger earth than the one needed by evolution. Evolution apparantly needs a long time, since there seem to be very little changes over millions of years. So a shorter time is evidence for design, since things do not evolve radically over a short time.

Things that are explained through a designer.
- Life being developed at all is amazingingly complex, being developed from non life is considered near impossible.
- Life being developed that could reproduce.
- Life being produced that could feed itself, and know what to eat
- Life that could use photosynthesis for food, how did it know there was sunlight?
- Male and female needing to be developed at the same time.
- Eyes, which are very complex on their own appear all of a sudden, not a build up.
- Lungs, which are needed to breathe air, are completely useless without a throat, muscus lining the lungs, and the correct mixture of air being there at the same time.
- Bones, completely useless without muscles, ligaments, tendons, and a blood supply.

Correct. Many people accept there are likely two scenario's. Either there was a design, or there was not. If there was a design, that removes natural selection.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:51, Thu 07 Sept 2006.

(for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 )

Now let's see how that applies to what you said:


(emphasis added)

To break it down syllogistically, here's what you said:
1) An old Earth is necessary for evolution.
2) Scientific evidence does not support an old Earth.
3) Therefore, intelligent design is correct.

How do they relate?  1 is a premise.  2 is a premise.  The two of them do relate to each other, which means that a conclusion may be drawn from them.  Is 3 a valid conclusion?  No.  Not at all.  Why not?  Because it requires premises that were never made.  "Evolution is not correct" would have been a valid conclusion, because it is based on connecting the two premises that are there.  However, no mention is made of ID or the criteria needed to declare ID correct, so a conclusion discussing ID is not logically valid.
(Yes, I realize you said "a shorter time is evidence for design," but that sentence began with the word "So," which signifies a conclusion, not a premise)



Yes, those things could be explained by a designer.  But they can also be explained by evolution.  Nothing about this list requires a designer, so simply listing things that could be explained by ID is not a sufficient argument.



Who accepts only two possible scenarios?  Where do you get that from?  Certainly no legitimate scientist would say that; the scientific method necessarily acknowledges that there is always the possibility that the truth lies in a theory which has not yet been developed, perhaps based on a discovery which has not yet been made.  If evolution is false, then ID may be true, or a 3rd option may be true, and is just waiting for us to figure it out.  So once again, this is not a valid argument for ID.

Intelligent Design is just a theory. I'm not trying to confuse anything. Is there evidence? Yes. Proven? Not by science.

You asked for support. If one way is not possible, and that leads to the theory that best supports it next, and that theory does explain things better, it is support.

And to be sure, evolution does not answer how life started, nor how it started able to feed itself, nor it's ability to reproduce. Intelligent Design is a theory which does support life starting with a design that is able to support itself, and reproduce.

Who accepts only two scenarios? Actually, I might present the idea that there are some people who will only accept one scenario. Any science used is automatically dismissed for other theories for some people, aren't they?

Okay, now we're back on evidence, so we have some things to discuss.


Yes, at about .005 seconds per year per year.  So 4.6 billion years ago, we probably had a 14 hour day.  Further, corral records show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, which fits pretty well with the 22.7 hour day predicted by a constant rate of slowing.  Check here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html for citations.


The moon is receding at 3.8 cm/year.  The moon is 3.85x10^10 cm from the earth.  Fits pretty well with a system that's billions of years old, even if you make the assumption that the rate at which it recedes is constant.



New comets ocassionally enter the solar system from the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt.  All comets that entered the solar system when it first started have indeed evaporated.  We know that all comets aren't the same age, though, because some have lots of gas left, and some are mostly gravel.


This arguement is based on calcluations made in 1862.  We've learned a few things since then.  Most notably that radioactive decay can increase the heat content of the planet.




It is considered near impossible by IDers, not everyone.

Reproduction is a requirement of most definitions of life.  To claim it as unique to an intelligent designer is quite strange to me.

Evolutionary theory has no problem with this point.  Life didn't "know" what to eat when it started.  Various behaviors were likely "tried" and those that worked stuck around.  Those that didnt, didn't.  Note that very simple life doesn't actually feed itself, it just takes in nutrients from its surroundings by direct contact.  No knowlege, or even action, needed.

It didn't know there was sunlight.  Evolution doesn't require foreknowledge for things to work.  Photosynthesis happenned to work, so the life that was able to do it benefited from it.  It something conciously attempted.
Male and females need not have developed at the same time.  In fact, evolutionary theory doesn't claim that they did.

Actually we have examples of eyes of differeing levels of complexity, from the simple light/dark detectors that are aggregates of pigment-cells to those with small depressions around the light-detecting cells, all the way through pin-hole camera style eyes, to eyes with lenses.  In fact, in modern snails alone we can see all the intermediate stages of the eye, from light-sensative spot to full lense and retina eye.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

What does that tell you then?  That lungs didn't appear fully formed as lungs all in one go to be used as lungs are used now.  Anti-evolutionists often make the mistake of assuming that evolutionists claim that all organs suddenly evolved from nothing to do their final task with no intermediate uses.  They tend to assume that the old way is given up as soon as a new way is available.  That the fish must have lost his gills as soon as he gained lungs (the same mistaken assumption is why they tend to claim that males and females must have evolved at the same time).  All that is necessary for lungs to evolve is a series of gradual steps, each of which has some use for whatever form the pre-lung takes.  Buoyancy is one possibility.  To say that lungs are completely useless without all the components that they currently have is to assume their only possible use is for respiration.  There are other possible uses for a non-breathing proto-lung.

Hmm, there are animals with exo-skeletons without muscles, ligaments, or tendons.  If you consider exo-skeletongs bones, I think they would disagree with your statement.  If you mean only internal skeletons, consider that there are bone-less fish that have all the things needed to make bones useful, so perhaps bones could evolve from there?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:38, Fri 08 Sept 2006.

The explanation of ID is that "Some big powerful intelligent thing made it that way."  It doesn't actually explain how anything happened.  It was, for all intents and purposes, magic.  He/she/it just did it.  It doesn't explain anything, it just says "it happened."  If ID had theories such as "the big powerful smart guy added X to Y and Z was the result, which we can test in the lab by adding X to Y" that'd be different.  ID doesn't actually explain any of the things you mention.  How did life start?  How was it able to feed itself?  How was it able to reproduce?  The answer to all of these, according to ID, is simply, "the smart guy made it that way."  There's no explanation of 'how' in there at all.  It's just "snap" and it's so.

Evolution doesn't answer how life started, because that's a question of a different field (abiogensis), not of evolution.  That life was able to feed itself and reproduce are requirements to consider it life, not something that evolution needs to explain.  Biological evolution doesn't start until you have something that already does those things.  How something appeared that could do those things is the separate field of abiogensis.  We can discuss that too, if you like, but realize it's a separate issue from evolution.

Actually, let's look at that one more time. I'll gladly use your numbers. It makes a point.
.005 times 4.6 billions years means a difference of 23 million seconds, which is the same thing as 383,333 minutes. That's the ame thing as 6,388 hours. What those numbers mean is that Earth would have been spinning about 266 times faster that it is now, if i have my math right.


I'm not sure if you read that right. 3.8 cm further times 4.6 billion years has a result of 174800 km difference closer to Earth. (Inicidently, the moon's gravitational pull is one of the factors slowing down earth. Which means if the moon was closer, earth by default would have been spinning even faster than 266 times faster, since the gravtation would have been a much buigger factor)


Now, I've heard of the oort cloud, and kuiper belt. Basically, the theory of the Kuiper Belt, is that there are billions of asteroids waiting to fall into orbit to be burned up. The science though, shows hundreds, not billions of asteroids, that are 10 to 50 times bigger than the typical comet. Apparantly many of the ones discovered are binary, and rotate around each other in two's.

The Oort cloud, is something even more theorized. Since even Oort has never seen the Oort cloud, but developed the idea to explain why we see comets, when science shows that could not last for billions of years.

As to age of comets, certainly depending on orbit, they will burn up faster if they go closer to the sun , than another that has a much more distant orbit.

Oh, it is agreed that radioactive decay adds heat. But enough to heat a planet for 4.5 billion years?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/kelvin.asp



You're suggesting that not only did life beat the odds of beginning on it's own, but it did so multiple times till it came out with all the factors needed to survive? How many multiple lotteries in a row does life have to win? Odds are far too small.
Before the life could provide energy for itself, it developed several methods, including photosynthesis? Good thing it developed it, since it had no idea light existed before that. That seems rather far fetched. Think about it. Let's say you make an engine to run on Gargun fuel. What is gargen fuel? Don't know, but once you design an engine to run on it, you can start looking for gargen fuel.
Doesn't really matter if evlution says it did or not. Without a female at the same time, any males would just be killed off within one generation. In other words, by the time a female was created, the males had dies off in previous generations.


I think we should keep in mind, seeing aninals with a variety of ways to see, is just as strong for creation, there from the beginning. Eyes do appear fully formed on early fossils, correct? I understand what you are saying, with eyes believed to be able to be viewed in progression on how they might have developed. But I am saying that the eye was fully formed in early creatures as well.
Yes, i'm sure there are plenty of uses for a non functional lung. None the less, imagine the creature that starts developing lungs, and a throat, and the muscus to line it, and then it takes a breath for the first time. Imagine the sheer luck of developing lungs that just happen to be able to breathe the atmosphere that it takes a breathe of.

boneless fish? Sounds like a frozen dinner. :) Seriously however, please elaborate. Bones need marrow, blood supply, tendons, and ligaments. Else a bone is useless. I wasn't trying to show that muscles could not be used, however, without a network of this, bones cannot be used at all. The point was about what is needed for bones, not what can exist without bones.

thanks for the time to respond.

Unfortunately, your math isn't right.  But the units are rather tricky, so I don't fault you there.  Took me a few looks over to get it myself.  Check out the units.  .005 seconds per year per year.  That's the same as .000000058 days per year per year.  Multiply that by 4.6 billion, and you get 266 days per year of change.  So we add our current number of days per year to that and get 631 days per year.  Assuming the number of hours in a year remains constant we get 13.9 hours per day.  Which isn't too hard to believe.




Yes, I did read that right.  174800 km is 1.748x10^10 cm, or about half the current earth-moon distance.  I have no trouble accepting that the moon was about half its current distance from earth 4.6 billion years ago.





You're surprised that the kuiper belt objects that we can see are much bigger than typical comets?  Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that we couldn't see pluto.  We've only recently discovered objects bigger than pluto in the kuiper belt.  It's very far way, and thus, we can't see small things in it.

You say science has shown the Oort cloud couldn't have existed for billions of years.  Can you give a citation?




This misses the critical fact that the heat flow due to radioactive decay would have been significantly larger in the past, since there would have been much more of it going on.  As radioactive decay occurs, there is less of the decaying element left over.

Note that in the link you provide, even without radioactive decay, Kelvin estimated the age of the earth to be 100 million years.  A factor of about 50 from the age favored by scientists, and a factor of 10,000 away from the age esimated by creationists.




No, I'm suggesting that anything that couldn't feed itself couldn't be considered life.  We see things occur naturally that aren't life all the time.  Their coming into existance really shouldn't surprise anyone.  You're trying to get multiple uses out of the same thing.  You're saying "not only did life have to evolve, but it also had to evolve reproduction, and survivability, and this, and that."  But anything that didn't reproduce or survive wouldn't be life.  It's not an independent thing to heap on top of "life evolving."  It's part of the same event.




You seem to think that concious decisions go into all this.  That some single-celled creature sat around thinking up photosynthesis on a whim.  That's not how it works.  It was a random mutation that happened to be useful.  Because it was useful, the gene was spread.




Actually, it's kind of critical that evolution says it didn't happened.  Because by proving it didn't happen, you aren't disproving evolution.  You're only disproving your own idea of evolution, which no one in the world believes happened anyway.

The critical flaw in your assumption is that you think evolutionists claim that an asexual creature gave birth to a fully male creature that could only reproduce with a fully female creature.  That's not what evolutionists claim, so convincing anyone it couldn't happen is pointless.  Everyone agrees that didn't happen.  What more likely happenned is that members of a genderless, sexually reproducing community (like Fungi) started developing certain strategies, such as producing numerous, poorly nurished half-eggs, or small numbers of highly-nurished half-eggs that benefitted their reproductive abilities at the time.  As these two strategies evolved, they became more and more different, to the point that they dependent upon one another.  The poorly nurished half-eggs could only survive if they combined with a highly-nurished half-egg.  Genders likely evolved in parrallel over a long period of time from sexual but genderless organisms.  No fully-formed male popped into existance from a genderless organism wondering where all the females were.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of very large, sudden changes that simply aren't predicted by evolution.  What you seem to think evolution is, really is impossible.  We all agree with you!  The trouble is that evolutionists don't think evolution is what you think it is.





Just as strong for creation?  If the "fully evolved" eye is best, why would an intelligent designer give out the less than optimal versions?  Why not give every creature lenses and retinas?  How does creationism explain this better than evolution?  That's the real question.  If ID explains it just as well as evolution, but requires an additional assumption (of an intelligent designer), we should keep evolution and toss out ID.  'Just as strong' isn't good enough for us to believe ID.  Because it requires an additional assumtion, it neesd to do better than evolution in order for us to accept it.




Again, you seem to think there must be some plan, and that the planner just got amazingly lucky.  That's not how evolution works.  Each step is a tiny bit lucky.  It's a rachet effect.  If something is the least bit beneficial, it'll stick around.  If the next mutation makes it even more beneficial, that'll stick around too.  If it makes it less beneficial, that mutation won't stick around.  Only the good luck gets passed on.  So yes, the path leading up to functional lungs might seem unlikely, but each step is entirely believable.

An example might be useful here.  What are the odds of rolling 1 million 6's in a row on a normal die?  Pretty unlikely.  But say instead you get to roll one die until you get a 6.  And then roll the next one until you get a 6.  And then the next until you get a 6.  And so on.  You're going to end up with a very large nubmer of 6s.  Evolution is similar.  Because beneficial muations are selected for (that's what makes them beneficial), they're likely to stick around.  Once you get lucky that one time, you don't need to keep rolling that die.  On the other hand, harmful mutations get weeded out, so they don't stick around.  You do get to re-roll that die.  So essentially at each step you get to keep trying until you get the 6.

Granted, this is artifical because evolution isn't trying for any particular goal.  It's not aiming for all 6s.  But if 6s are the rolls that stay, you'll end up with lots of 6s even if you're not going for them.




Some fish have proper bones with marrow, etc.  Some (like sharks) have only cartilage.
My point about what can exist without bones is important, though.  Sure, bones need all those things to be useful.  But all those things don't need bones to be useful.  So they could have come first, and bones evolved after all the necessary pieces were there to make them useful.

As a general rule, whenever you come up with a situation where you think, "evolution could never have done this!" there's a good chance you're correct.  But that doesn't mean evolution didn't occur.  More likely it means that you haven't thought of the way that evolution would solve the problem you're thinking of.  So when you think "evolution couldn't have made bones, because without marrow, tendons, etc., bones wouldn't be helpful!"  You should think, "Oh, so probably bones didn't evolve before all those things.  They must have come first, and then bones could evolve."  This is a very common problem with anti-evolutionists.  They come up with a scenario that's impossible, and conclude "therefor evolution didn't occur."  But if no one is saying that evolution requires that the impossible scenario occurred, then that conclusion doesn't follow.


Quite welcome.  I look forward to seeing what you have to say.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:46, Sat 09 Sept 2006.