This one is particularly good, as always, because it again demonstrates that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that makes PREDICTIONS and those predictions can be tested and verified. That is what makes it science and creationism just dressed up debating skills masquerading as something resembling science.
Creationists have never made a single prediction that has been ratified by experimental evidence, just tried (badly) to refute evolution using falsified results and no actual science.
This thread had me in absolute stitches by the end of it and is more than worth looking through for a magnificent laugh. Can YOU tell the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua?
Actually I think logic and probability are enough to disprove evolution for me. I'll get back to you on the numbers. Have to get ready for class.
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is natural selection, not evolution.
Natural selection says that those that have what it takes to survive, survive while those who don't die out.
Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 6 2005, 06:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 6 2005, 06:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually I think logic and probability are enough to disprove evolution for me. I'll get back to you on the numbers. Have to get ready for class.
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is natural selection, not evolution.
Natural selection says that those that have what it takes to survive, survive while those who don't die out.
Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow.. just... sad. You dissappoint me on so many levels KFDM.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 6 2005, 07:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 6 2005, 07:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually I think logic and probability are enough to disprove evolution for me. I'll get back to you on the numbers. Have to get ready for class. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How are these numbers concocted?
It may be enough to disprove evolution for you, but for the rest of us, could you please refute some of the points raised in the linked threads/articles?
In the meantime, I will light the Apos-Signal. <i>Nananananananana Apos</i>
Something I thought of the other day (please don't take this too seriously - just an observation):
I want to link together 2 things - evolution/natural selection - and Religion.
The process of Natural Selection states that the higher evolved form (better suited, what have you) will pass on its genetic material more than a less suitable form. The proponents for this process are usually strong secular humanists - also the propontents for womens rights, abortion rights, right to die, homosexuality ... etc. etc.
On the other side of the fence you have religious folk... who tend to produce a lot of children (RCC, Muslims, and Christian being the big 3 in this department).
Being that Natural Selection is an ongoing process - with the quantity of successful procreation the measuring stick - wouldn't it logicaly conclude that the "higher evolved" or "best suited" people are those that confess a religion that supports big families?
I guess another way to look at it is this: in this day and age, when location and adaption are less deciding factors in natural selection - could religion / ethics / ideology be that factor?
Like I said - I don't honestly believe this... I just think it might make an interesting talking point in a thread that is otherwise going no-where fast.
This one is particularly good, as always, because it again demonstrates that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that makes PREDICTIONS and those predictions can be tested and verified. That is what makes it science and creationism just dressed up debating skills masquerading as something resembling science.
Creationists have never made a single prediction that has been ratified by experimental evidence, just tried (badly) to refute evolution using falsified results and no actual science.
This thread had me in absolute stitches by the end of it and is more than worth looking through for a magnificent laugh. Can YOU tell the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> IIDB pretty much owns. It's funny to see the religious types get stomped there by all the atheistic/agnostic posters...
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Apr 6 2005, 10:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Apr 6 2005, 10:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as being "higher evolved", as I understand it (I'm just a layman, so take what I say with a pinch of salt). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right. Every single life form alive today is exactly as evolved as every single other life form. Evolutionary fitness is another thing, and religious types may be more evolutionarily fit, but it doesn't imply that any one group has more merit than any other group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right. There's an infinitesimally small chance that everything that exists today would come to be. However, you're also wrong. There's a very large chance that something would come to be.
Here's an example: There's an extremely small chance that you would go to a specific class today, in a specific school, and sit in a specific seat. However, there's a very large chance that you would go to a school and have a class today and sit in a seat (assuming that you're at the normal age for someone to go to school).
Also, read the evolution thread. Pretty much everything that you've said here has been shot to pieces in that thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Apr 6 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Apr 6 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Something I thought of the other day (please don't take this too seriously - just an observation):
I want to link together 2 things - evolution/natural selection - and Religion.
The process of Natural Selection states that the higher evolved form (better suited, what have you) will pass on its genetic material more than a less suitable form. The proponents for this process are usually strong secular humanists - also the propontents for womens rights, abortion rights, right to die, homosexuality ... etc. etc.
On the other side of the fence you have religious folk... who tend to produce a lot of children (RCC, Muslims, and Christian being the big 3 in this department).
Being that Natural Selection is an ongoing process - with the quantity of successful procreation the measuring stick - wouldn't it logicaly conclude that the "higher evolved" or "best suited" people are those that confess a religion that supports big families?
I guess another way to look at it is this: in this day and age, when location and adaption are less deciding factors in natural selection - could religion / ethics / ideology be that factor?
Like I said - I don't honestly believe this... I just think it might make an interesting talking point in a thread that is otherwise going no-where fast. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If religion were passed on to children with one's genes, then I suppose that this is possible. However, as quite a few of this forum's regulars can attest, a parent's religion is not passed on to their children in all cases. In even fewer cases in this day and age are a child's religious beliefs exact carbon copies of their parents (if they were given any freedom to think and explore at all while growing up). Also, morality is a product of each individual's mind, something that is influenced far more by environment than by heredity. If a person grows up with the idea that large families are acceptable, it is not because his genes tell him this; it is because he grew up in a large house, so he learned at a young age that large families are good.
All in all, I think humans as a species have started to "outgrow" evolution. We still value beauty highly while picking 'mates', and beauty is simply an evolution-inspired ability to determine a person's health and the strength of their genes. But speciation is all but impossible nowadays in humans because of the global community; genes are being transferred between all races and nations constantly. This is definitely a good thing; humans in general are far too closely related as it is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121101&page=1&pp=25<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Holy crap, that one poster is exactly like a slightly less offensive AvengerX. It easy to beat up on craetionists when they're that..... well theres no polite way to say it: stupid.
(Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going!) I would like to thank everyone for keeping a civil discussion alive. These threads usually get shut-down.
I haven't been following this thread alot but from time-to-time I take a brief look at what is being discussed. It appears that the current topic is evolution, so I will post my thoughts.
Quoted from this link: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.
I won't refute this at all. It is my opinion that God painted with a "palette" so to speak when he created everything. We may be "like" chimps but we aren't chimps, we have reasoning skills and a concept of right and wrong. We may share genetic data but it doesn't prove anything more than what I have already stated, that God used a "palette" in painting creation's genes.
I'd be interested in hearing more on this subject and how exactly it "proves" evolution. My knowledge is quite limited in this area, so pardon my ignorance.
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Added the link I quoted from, oops, forgot it before.
The link to a currently existing evolution topic has al;ready beeen posted. There is no reason to rehash old arguemtns here. (especially since creationists never have any new arguments anyway).
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 6 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 6 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going!) I would like to thank everyone for keeping a civil discussion alive. These threads usually get shut-down.
I haven't been following this thread alot but from time-to-time I take a brief look at what is being discussed. It appears that the current topic is evolution, so I will post my thoughts.
Quoted from this link: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.
I won't refute this at all. It is my opinion that God painted with a "palette" so to speak when he created everything. We may be "like" chimps but we aren't chimps, we have reasoning skills and a concept of right and wrong. We may share genetic data but it doesn't prove anything more than what I have already stated, that God used a "palette" in painting creation's genes.
I'd be interested in hearing more on this subject and how exactly it "proves" evolution. My knowledge is quite limited in this area, so pardon my ignorance.
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Added the link I quoted from, oops, forgot it before. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you were given two engineering blueprints, one for a ChimpBot and one for a HumanBot (two robots that acted like the chimpanzees and humans, respectively) and their blueprints were 98% the same, then you would think that they were either based off the same design, or one of them was based off the other, and NOT that they arised independantly.
Now, you can make the case that God created chimpanzees and humans using a "pallette" so that he could just reuse designs and you couldn't be proven wrong. Still, the scientific community should assume that humans and chimpanzees share a recent, common ancestor (and that evolution is true, too), because there is a lot of proof for that and there is absolutely no conclusive proof in the existence of God. I don't buy the argument that God created life in a way that indicates that evolution has occured, because it adapts Christianity to changing scientific theories, rather than an absolute, eternal truth, but there is no way to prove it right or wrong.
Also, interestingly enough, we share a very large portion (maybe even a majority, but I don't have an exact figure) of our DNA with all vertabrates, suggesting that we are related to vertebrates. We even share portions of our DNA with bacteria. Even with the lifeforms that are most distant to us, we still share a system for converting DNA/RNA into amino acids that is identical (the assignment of certain arrangements of DNA to certain amino acids is completely arbitrary). There's no way not to draw a conclusion that all lifeforms on earth are related to each other in some way. <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The link to a currently existing evolution topic has al;ready beeen posted. There is no reason to rehash old arguemtns here. (especially since creationists never have any new arguments anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Come on, SkulkBait, you and I both know that Creationists change their eternal religious truths to match new scientific discoveries.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There's no way not to draw a conclusion that all lifeforms on earth are related to each other in some way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the conclusion I draw, that all lifeforms are related by God, who created all lifeforms.
Power to you, but you must understand it's not exactly a point you can debate. In my opinion, it's a perfectly valid theory, but it IS scientifically unprovable, so it doesn't have much of a chance of standing up in the scientific arena against theories that do have provable facts behind them. As for myself, a Catholic trying to blend religion with science, I have been toying around with a theory related to deism: God created the world (or more specifically, set off the Big Bang) and at the same time all of the natural laws that govern it, and for the most part left it alone to its own devices. When the Bible said that God "created" the Earth, it could very well be that the author was using figurative language to say that he "created" the Earth through natural processes, which he DID create. It works for me, anyways. Once again, I can't exactly prove it, but as I don't plan on studying physics or the Big Bang I should never run into any problems over it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm back and writing up some replys. Stay tuned <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Power to you, but you must understand it's not exactly a point you can debate. In my opinion, it's a perfectly valid theory, but it IS scientifically unprovable, so it doesn't have much of a chance of standing up in the scientific arena against theories that do have provable facts behind them. As for myself, a Catholic trying to blend religion with science, I have been toying around with a theory related to deism: God created the world (or more specifically, set off the Big Bang) and at the same time all of the natural laws that govern it, and for the most part left it alone to its own devices. When the Bible said that God "created" the Earth, it could very well be that the author was using figurative language to say that he "created" the Earth through natural processes, which he DID create. It works for me, anyways. Once again, I can't exactly prove it, but as I don't plan on studying physics or the Big Bang I should never run into any problems over it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 6 2005, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 6 2005, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Power to you, but you must understand it's not exactly a point you can debate. In my opinion, it's a perfectly valid theory, but it IS scientifically unprovable, so it doesn't have much of a chance of standing up in the scientific arena against theories that do have provable facts behind them. As for myself, a Catholic trying to blend religion with science, I have been toying around with a theory related to deism: God created the world (or more specifically, set off the Big Bang) and at the same time all of the natural laws that govern it, and for the most part left it alone to its own devices. When the Bible said that God "created" the Earth, it could very well be that the author was using figurative language to say that he "created" the Earth through natural processes, which he DID create. It works for me, anyways. Once again, I can't exactly prove it, but as I don't plan on studying physics or the Big Bang I should never run into any problems over it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Or the lack thereof. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 6 2005, 03:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 6 2005, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 6 2005, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 6 2005, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 6 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Power to you, but you must understand it's not exactly a point you can debate. In my opinion, it's a perfectly valid theory, but it IS scientifically unprovable, so it doesn't have much of a chance of standing up in the scientific arena against theories that do have provable facts behind them. As for myself, a Catholic trying to blend religion with science, I have been toying around with a theory related to deism: God created the world (or more specifically, set off the Big Bang) and at the same time all of the natural laws that govern it, and for the most part left it alone to its own devices. When the Bible said that God "created" the Earth, it could very well be that the author was using figurative language to say that he "created" the Earth through natural processes, which he DID create. It works for me, anyways. Once again, I can't exactly prove it, but as I don't plan on studying physics or the Big Bang I should never run into any problems over it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or the lack thereof. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Down boy. Let's leave that tack of conversation peacefully, eh?
I'm back and I see several people think me less intelligent for my opinion lets see what the opinion is after I'm done <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
First we're going to look at a mouse trap. For simplicity, we're going to define our mouse trap to 4 pieces: the wooden base, the arm that breaks the mouse's neck, the spring that gives force to the bar, and the piece that holds the bar in place waiting for the mouse. Now if we change a piece, the mouse trap ceases to function. That is a problem.
Next we're going to look at the human body. There isn't a pump in existence that is more efficient than the human heart. In one's lifetime, it beats millions of times in rhythm and only misses a beat when something is wrong. That's an impressive feat. We look at the circulatory system as a whole where if you take the blood vessels and put them length to length they would stretch for thousands of miles. We add in the respiratory system which puts oxygen into the blood stream and takes carbon dioxide out of the blood stream. We add in the excretory system which filters the blood and removes toxins. Add in the brain which controls all this without us having to consciously think of it
This last example will be fairly technical since I’m a programmer. One reason I could never be an evolutionist is because I code and will be coding for a living. ANYONE in here who codes know that errors in code doesn’t make the program work better. I’ll give an example, take the C code <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->q1=((unsigned)(a*b))/c;<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> this is the code in 8086 assembler <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->mov cl, [a] sub ch,ch mov al,[b] sub ah,ah mul cx mov cl, [c] sub dx,dx div cx mov [q1],al<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> this is the same C line and same symbolic assembler instructions translated into machine code (translated to the best of my ability, shouldn’t be errors but there could be) <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8A 0E 01 00 28 ED A0 02 00 28 C0 F7 E1 8A 0E 03 00 29 D2 F7 F1 88 06 04 00<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Now I apologize for going over many people’s heads but I think this shows a good point. If I changed any of the values in the machine code, what is the probability that it would work in assembler or work in C? What is the probability that it would even run or give me any useful result? And this is one single instruction in C. People are infinatly more complex than machine code and evolutionist want to say it all happened by accident. What would happen if we started changing random parts of DNA? DNA could easily be thought of as a machine code blueprint for a person.
I’m sorry I still don’t have the numbers I was going to post about the probability that shows evolution to be a blind faith, based on a previous post in this thread but I still haven’t been able to get in contact with a previous instructor. Feel free to continue thinking of me as ignorant. I have good reasons for why I belive what I do. I don't follow a blind faith.
Edit: I should point out that for my machine code example I assumed [a] to be at offset 0001h, [b] to be at offset 0002h, [c] to be at offset 0003h, and [q1] to be at offset 0004h.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 6 2005, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 6 2005, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People are infinatly more complex than machine code and evolutionist want to say it all happened by accident. What would happen if we started changing random parts of DNA? DNA could easily be thought of as a machine code blueprint for a person. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess people would start being born slightly differently, say different hair, eye, skin colour. Perhaps if the mutation/DNA damage was severe enough they would be born with genetic defects resulting in things such as haemophilia, sickle cell anemia, albinoism etc. and some offspring would be stillborn, or perhaps infertile. Of course due to natural selection carriers of these genetic defects rarely survive long enough to pass on their genes, although because of the fact that most of these are recessive they still occur.
That's not to say mutations (or errors in the code, if you will) only provide negative effects. The adaptiaton of bacteria strains is a case for proving this, due to the much faster reproduction rate compared to humans, although there is evidence that some mutations in humans can confer a better resistance to HIV or the development of HIV to AIDS. (I'm sure other people have better examples but thats all i could think of off the top of my head).
While comparing evolution to programming is a flawed analogy in some respects I'll go with it. In your code you have started by designing it pefectly with no errors. Assuming life is a program randomly thrown together (Million monkeys & typewriters etc.) You may have a certain program that runs fine until it encounters a fatal divide by zero error after going through a loop a certain number of times. What if a random change made that zero into a one? Yay, the lifespan of lifeformX.exe has doubled.
I was going to try and write some long winded explanation of why I believe KFDM's analogy to be flawed but it boils down to this.
That program is an ameoba. They have existed for millions of years and it could have taken the majority of that time to get the right simple program through nothing but pure chance. A better approximation to a fully fledged life form would be an OS. For example of one that works the majority of the time but has flaws, refer to Win 98.
If you are going to make comparisons then they should at least be relative to the target.
<!--QuoteBegin-Emsee+Apr 6 2005, 04:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emsee @ Apr 6 2005, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 6 2005, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 6 2005, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People are infinatly more complex than machine code and evolutionist want to say it all happened by accident. What would happen if we started changing random parts of DNA? DNA could easily be thought of as a machine code blueprint for a person. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess people would start being born slightly differently, say different hair, eye, skin colour. Perhaps if the mutation/DNA damage was severe enough they would be born with genetic defects resulting in things such as haemophilia, sickle cell anemia, albinoism etc. and some offspring would be stillborn, or perhaps infertile. Of course due to natural selection carriers of these genetic defects rarely survive long enough to pass on their genes, although because of the fact that most of these are recessive they still occur.
That's not to say mutations (or errors in the code, if you will) only provide negative effects. The adaptiaton of bacteria strains is a case for proving this, due to the much faster reproduction rate compared to humans, although there is evidence that some mutations in humans can confer a better resistance to HIV or the development of HIV to AIDS. (I'm sure other people have better examples but thats all i could think of off the top of my head).
While comparing evolution to programming is a flawed analogy in some respects I'll go with it. In your code you have started by designing it pefectly with no errors. Assuming life is a program randomly thrown together (Million monkeys & typewriters etc.) You may have a certain program that runs fine until it encounters a fatal divide by zero error after going through a loop a certain number of times. What if a random change made that zero into a one? Yay, the lifespan of lifeformX.exe has doubled. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for truth and quite honestly brilliance.
That logic is flawed because it is assuming perfect code. Everyone knows that all humans are flawed (In one way or another). Another reason that your logic has failed would be, that if god did guide the evolution (which has occurred) then there wouldn't be flaws in the code, because god is infalliable. However, there are flaws thus why the random generations of various mutations of DNA is quite obvious compared to a guided change. Randomness ftw!
In addition, do not post evolution in this thread, the bible never once mentions it so there is nothing to prove it does. Neither does it re-inforce evolution at all, if you wish to discuss this further KFDM, resurrect the Evo thread, it is still there and is not locked. (Link is in prior posts.)
Interestingly enough, KFDM, people have made programs that will create pieces of code and have them evolve to meet certain criteria. It's in a Wired that I remember reading, but I can't find the article.
Here's a short summary of what they did from memory: They made functions out of code to simulate organisms. They would input numbers (i.e. feeding) and have them return an answer depending on what the function did (i.e. testing for fitness). The ones that were able to output an answer close to the desired answer were able to duplicate themselves (allowing mutations, of course). The researchers restricted the supply of numbers in order to simulate scarcity of food supplies and the competition made the functions evolve even faster to reach the desired function. The researchers would sometimes give a specific input and require a specific answer, in order to get the functions to evolve to meet an already existing algorithm (like an algorithm to get an Nth digit of pi, although I don't know exactly which algorithms they used). The functions would find algorithms that were close to current algorithms, extremely different to current algorithms, and some in between. Many of the algorithms would contain pieces of code that had no purpose that the researches could understand, although they would still output the required answer. I may be wrong in remembering this, but I think that some of the functions contained algorithms that were faster than our current algorithms.
I found this article, which is similiar although it isn't the article which I am looking for: <a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.10/sims_pr.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.10/sims_pr.html</a>
As for your computer code analogy, I'm sure you realize that there are many computer programs out there that have a very large number of bugs, but still run very well. An imperfect program can sometimes work well enough to be useful, just like an imperfect creature can sometimes work well enough to reproduce. Then, random mutations and natural selection will ensure that the creature's descendants will improve on the original creature after many generations.
For an analogy that creationists love, take the human eye. They say that the human eye is so complex that it couldn't have arisen through evolution. After all, 1/2 an eye wouldn't work at all, would it? That's wrong because creatures that do have primitive, partially working eyes can still see. I've got imperfect eyes and I wear glasses, but I can still see well enough without them that I would be able to reproduce in the wild. If you look at the eyes of organisms, from cephalopods to humans to eagles to insects to planaria, you see that there are many different eyes that work, even though in many circumstances they are very primitive. The evolution of an organism is nothing like the creation of a computer program. A computer program doesn't work if it is half completed, because you're writing it in a specific order so that it is dependant on parts that haven't been written yet, much like a person can't function without a bottom half. However, organisms evolve in gradual steps, going from something like bacteria, to the higher life forms existing today (that's not to say that higher life forms are more evolved than living bacteria). It's like constantly rewriting a computer program, to refine current functions and create new ones.
<!--QuoteBegin-KungFuDiscoMonkey+Apr 6 2005, 04:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (KungFuDiscoMonkey @ Apr 6 2005, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This last example will be fairly technical since I’m a programmer. One reason I could never be an evolutionist is because I code and will be coding for a living. ANYONE in here who codes know that errors in code doesn’t make the program work better. I’ll give an example, take the C code <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Funny, as a programmer you should familiarize yourself with the work of Thomas S. Ray, who demonstrated that evolution (and speciation) in code is possible under the right conditions. He created a virtual machine, created one virtual "life form" (mearly a program that copies itself) for this virtual machine, and let it run. Pretty much all that is special about this virtual machine is that it will, occasionally, randomly flip bits as they are being copied. In a relatively short time other digital lifeforms evolved from the first one, some were parasitic, some were immune to the parasites, and a much later digital lifeform had even managed to optimise itself. The code for these evolved programs was not simple. It was certainly nothing that an ordinary human would write, even though it worked. On the flip side, the programs were doing things that no human coder would have thought to do (or at least, it isn't likely), and they worked brilliantly.
This is exactly what we see in real life life forms. There are parts of their "design" that any compotent engineer never would have avoided, yet God doesn't? The evolution thread goes into alot of detail about this in regard to the human eye. But if you wish to remain ignorant of the truth, then by all means continue to ignore the facts.
its funny how when god talks to man its a bunch of bull crap, but when some loser in his basement makes a java applet that "proves" evolution, it is considered truth.
sorry I'll trust people like Moses over computers.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ninja of The Night+Apr 6 2005, 08:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ninja of The Night @ Apr 6 2005, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> its funny how when god talks to man its a bunch of bull crap, but when some loser in his basement makes a java applet that "proves" evolution, it is considered truth. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I can prove that one of these events actually happened. Can you?
The stuff on digital evolution was just annother nail in the coffin of KFDM's argument, it was not intended to be the sole evidence that evolution occured in the real world. There is plenty (and by plenty I mean astronomical amounts) of evidence for evolution without having to delve into computer science to get it.
Seriously, READ THE GODDAMNED EVOLUTION THREAD. Ask anything at all about evolution that you want to there, and you will recieve an answer. I know you won't actually do it though, because your afraid of having your little fantasy world of ignorance shattered. If it were any other way the thread would be more active, but you creationsists would rather polute other perfectly good and completely separate threads with the same tired arguments that you always trot out.
I'm afraid I do not agree with the quote on your siggy. "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is still not important. You can't allow God to dictate how you live your life."
and this is why
lets look at an example, I live in California, and its a really nice day right now. and theres a lovely breeze so I was thinking I would go out and fly a kite. now lets say I'm out flying my kite... lets review how a kite works. a string goes from me, to the kite, so isn't it really the string thats holding the kite down? so lets say I cut the string to let the kite go higher, what would happen? oh yeah thats right... it'd crash into the ground
here's the lesson from the story, god doesn't give man commandments to chain us down, to make us lose our choice, to not let us have fun. in fact thats what satan would want you to believe because it couldn't be further from the truth.
lets look at god's comandments... lets see, thou shalt not steal... here's a good one, lets see, according to skulkbait god is not letting me do what I want to do. I should be able to steal stuff if I want to... but wait, if I steal I go to jail... now do I have more choice in the world... or in prison? I'd guess that my non criminal life would have more choice and freedom then if I were in prison
commandments like not drinking and stuff don't "limit" you they help you. gods not trying to stop you from living your life, he's trying to make you be able to live your life to the fullest of your potential.
but if you want to cut that string on your kite skulk bait, and cut yourself from the lord who loves you more then you could ever imagine, then I'm afraid I can't stop you.
Hey, I believe in God, but if I one day decided "The hell with religion" I sure as heck wouldn't immediately go out and kill someone. Better example: atheists aren't mass murderers (actually that title belongs mostly to religious people <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). The point is, man can determine his own code of morals without God. If one were to "cut the string" of the 10 Commandments, he wouldn't end up "crashing", because every single able-minded man and woman is capable of living their life as an upstanding human being without holding those Commandments up as the word of a higher power.
Comments
This one is particularly good, as always, because it again demonstrates that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that makes PREDICTIONS and those predictions can be tested and verified. That is what makes it science and creationism just dressed up debating skills masquerading as something resembling science.
Creationists have never made a single prediction that has been ratified by experimental evidence, just tried (badly) to refute evolution using falsified results and no actual science.
<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121101&page=1&pp=25' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121101&page=1&pp=25</a>
This thread had me in absolute stitches by the end of it and is more than worth looking through for a magnificent laugh. Can YOU tell the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua?
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is natural selection, not evolution.
Natural selection says that those that have what it takes to survive, survive while those who don't die out.
Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance.
<!--QuoteBegin-mr drug lord+Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (mr drug lord @ Apr 6 2005, 12:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->now, evolution is very simple - that which better handles its environment has the advantage. that is all. that which better handles its environment has the advantage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is natural selection, not evolution.
Natural selection says that those that have what it takes to survive, survive while those who don't die out.
Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow.. just... sad. You dissappoint me on so many levels KFDM.
How are these numbers concocted?
It may be enough to disprove evolution for you, but for the rest of us, could you please refute some of the points raised in the linked threads/articles?
In the meantime, I will light the Apos-Signal. <i>Nananananananana Apos</i>
I want to link together 2 things - evolution/natural selection - and Religion.
The process of Natural Selection states that the higher evolved form (better suited, what have you) will pass on its genetic material more than a less suitable form.
The proponents for this process are usually strong secular humanists - also the propontents for womens rights, abortion rights, right to die, homosexuality ... etc. etc.
On the other side of the fence you have religious folk... who tend to produce a lot of children (RCC, Muslims, and Christian being the big 3 in this department).
Being that Natural Selection is an ongoing process - with the quantity of successful procreation the measuring stick - wouldn't it logicaly conclude that the "higher evolved" or "best suited" people are those that confess a religion that supports big families?
I guess another way to look at it is this: in this day and age, when location and adaption are less deciding factors in natural selection - could religion / ethics / ideology be that factor?
Like I said - I don't honestly believe this... I just think it might make an interesting talking point in a thread that is otherwise going no-where fast.
This one is particularly good, as always, because it again demonstrates that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that makes PREDICTIONS and those predictions can be tested and verified. That is what makes it science and creationism just dressed up debating skills masquerading as something resembling science.
Creationists have never made a single prediction that has been ratified by experimental evidence, just tried (badly) to refute evolution using falsified results and no actual science.
<a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121101&page=1&pp=25' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=121101&page=1&pp=25</a>
This thread had me in absolute stitches by the end of it and is more than worth looking through for a magnificent laugh. Can YOU tell the difference between a great dane and a chihuahua? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIDB pretty much owns. It's funny to see the religious types get stomped there by all the atheistic/agnostic posters...
You're right. Every single life form alive today is exactly as evolved as every single other life form. Evolutionary fitness is another thing, and religious types may be more evolutionarily fit, but it doesn't imply that any one group has more merit than any other group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Evolution trys to say everything came to be because of random chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right. There's an infinitesimally small chance that everything that exists today would come to be. However, you're also wrong. There's a very large chance that something would come to be.
Here's an example:
There's an extremely small chance that you would go to a specific class today, in a specific school, and sit in a specific seat. However, there's a very large chance that you would go to a school and have a class today and sit in a seat (assuming that you're at the normal age for someone to go to school).
Also, read the evolution thread. Pretty much everything that you've said here has been shot to pieces in that thread.
I want to link together 2 things - evolution/natural selection - and Religion.
The process of Natural Selection states that the higher evolved form (better suited, what have you) will pass on its genetic material more than a less suitable form.
The proponents for this process are usually strong secular humanists - also the propontents for womens rights, abortion rights, right to die, homosexuality ... etc. etc.
On the other side of the fence you have religious folk... who tend to produce a lot of children (RCC, Muslims, and Christian being the big 3 in this department).
Being that Natural Selection is an ongoing process - with the quantity of successful procreation the measuring stick - wouldn't it logicaly conclude that the "higher evolved" or "best suited" people are those that confess a religion that supports big families?
I guess another way to look at it is this: in this day and age, when location and adaption are less deciding factors in natural selection - could religion / ethics / ideology be that factor?
Like I said - I don't honestly believe this... I just think it might make an interesting talking point in a thread that is otherwise going no-where fast. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If religion were passed on to children with one's genes, then I suppose that this is possible. However, as quite a few of this forum's regulars can attest, a parent's religion is not passed on to their children in all cases. In even fewer cases in this day and age are a child's religious beliefs exact carbon copies of their parents (if they were given any freedom to think and explore at all while growing up). Also, morality is a product of each individual's mind, something that is influenced far more by environment than by heredity. If a person grows up with the idea that large families are acceptable, it is not because his genes tell him this; it is because he grew up in a large house, so he learned at a young age that large families are good.
All in all, I think humans as a species have started to "outgrow" evolution. We still value beauty highly while picking 'mates', and beauty is simply an evolution-inspired ability to determine a person's health and the strength of their genes. But speciation is all but impossible nowadays in humans because of the global community; genes are being transferred between all races and nations constantly. This is definitely a good thing; humans in general are far too closely related as it is.
Holy crap, that one poster is exactly like a slightly less offensive AvengerX. It easy to beat up on craetionists when they're that..... well theres no polite way to say it: stupid.
I haven't been following this thread alot but from time-to-time I take a brief look at what is being discussed. It appears that the current topic is evolution, so I will post my thoughts.
Quoted from this link: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.
Happy refuting!
scigirl<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't refute this at all. It is my opinion that God painted with a "palette" so to speak when he created everything. We may be "like" chimps but we aren't chimps, we have reasoning skills and a concept of right and wrong. We may share genetic data but it doesn't prove anything more than what I have already stated, that God used a "palette" in painting creation's genes.
I'd be interested in hearing more on this subject and how exactly it "proves" evolution. My knowledge is quite limited in this area, so pardon my ignorance.
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Added the link I quoted from, oops, forgot it before.
I haven't been following this thread alot but from time-to-time I take a brief look at what is being discussed. It appears that the current topic is evolution, so I will post my thoughts.
Quoted from this link: <a href='http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447' target='_blank'>http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116447</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.
Happy refuting!
scigirl<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't refute this at all. It is my opinion that God painted with a "palette" so to speak when he created everything. We may be "like" chimps but we aren't chimps, we have reasoning skills and a concept of right and wrong. We may share genetic data but it doesn't prove anything more than what I have already stated, that God used a "palette" in painting creation's genes.
I'd be interested in hearing more on this subject and how exactly it "proves" evolution. My knowledge is quite limited in this area, so pardon my ignorance.
~ DarkATi
EDIT: Added the link I quoted from, oops, forgot it before. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you were given two engineering blueprints, one for a ChimpBot and one for a HumanBot (two robots that acted like the chimpanzees and humans, respectively) and their blueprints were 98% the same, then you would think that they were either based off the same design, or one of them was based off the other, and NOT that they arised independantly.
Now, you can make the case that God created chimpanzees and humans using a "pallette" so that he could just reuse designs and you couldn't be proven wrong. Still, the scientific community should assume that humans and chimpanzees share a recent, common ancestor (and that evolution is true, too), because there is a lot of proof for that and there is absolutely no conclusive proof in the existence of God. I don't buy the argument that God created life in a way that indicates that evolution has occured, because it adapts Christianity to changing scientific theories, rather than an absolute, eternal truth, but there is no way to prove it right or wrong.
Also, interestingly enough, we share a very large portion (maybe even a majority, but I don't have an exact figure) of our DNA with all vertabrates, suggesting that we are related to vertebrates. We even share portions of our DNA with bacteria. Even with the lifeforms that are most distant to us, we still share a system for converting DNA/RNA into amino acids that is identical (the assignment of certain arrangements of DNA to certain amino acids is completely arbitrary). There's no way not to draw a conclusion that all lifeforms on earth are related to each other in some way.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The link to a currently existing evolution topic has al;ready beeen posted. There is no reason to rehash old arguemtns here. (especially since creationists never have any new arguments anyway).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on, SkulkBait, you and I both know that Creationists change their eternal religious truths to match new scientific discoveries.
This is the conclusion I draw, that all lifeforms are related by God, who created all lifeforms.
~ DarkATi
I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
~ DarkATi
I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or the lack thereof. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I respect that position and you may very well be correct. This is a question to save for heaven, I think.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or the lack thereof. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Down boy. Let's leave that tack of conversation peacefully, eh?
First we're going to look at a mouse trap. For simplicity, we're going to define our mouse trap to 4 pieces: the wooden base, the arm that breaks the mouse's neck, the spring that gives force to the bar, and the piece that holds the bar in place waiting for the mouse. Now if we change a piece, the mouse trap ceases to function. That is a problem.
Next we're going to look at the human body. There isn't a pump in existence that is more efficient than the human heart. In one's lifetime, it beats millions of times in rhythm and only misses a beat when something is wrong. That's an impressive feat. We look at the circulatory system as a whole where if you take the blood vessels and put them length to length they would stretch for thousands of miles. We add in the respiratory system which puts oxygen into the blood stream and takes carbon dioxide out of the blood stream. We add in the excretory system which filters the blood and removes toxins. Add in the brain which controls all this without us having to consciously think of it
This last example will be fairly technical since I’m a programmer. One reason I could never be an evolutionist is because I code and will be coding for a living. ANYONE in here who codes know that errors in code doesn’t make the program work better. I’ll give an example, take the C code
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->q1=((unsigned)(a*b))/c;<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
this is the code in 8086 assembler
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->mov cl, [a]
sub ch,ch
mov al,[b]
sub ah,ah
mul cx
mov cl, [c]
sub dx,dx
div cx
mov [q1],al<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
this is the same C line and same symbolic assembler instructions translated into machine code (translated to the best of my ability, shouldn’t be errors but there could be)
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8A 0E 01 00 28 ED A0 02 00 28 C0 F7 E1 8A 0E 03 00 29 D2 F7 F1 88 06 04 00<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Now I apologize for going over many people’s heads but I think this shows a good point. If I changed any of the values in the machine code, what is the probability that it would work in assembler or work in C? What is the probability that it would even run or give me any useful result? And this is one single instruction in C. People are infinatly more complex than machine code and evolutionist want to say it all happened by accident. What would happen if we started changing random parts of DNA? DNA could easily be thought of as a machine code blueprint for a person.
I’m sorry I still don’t have the numbers I was going to post about the probability that shows evolution to be a blind faith, based on a previous post in this thread but I still haven’t been able to get in contact with a previous instructor. Feel free to continue thinking of me as ignorant. I have good reasons for why I belive what I do. I don't follow a blind faith.
Edit: I should point out that for my machine code example I assumed [a] to be at offset 0001h, [b] to be at offset 0002h, [c] to be at offset 0003h, and [q1] to be at offset 0004h.
I guess people would start being born slightly differently, say different hair, eye, skin colour. Perhaps if the mutation/DNA damage was severe enough they would be born with genetic defects resulting in things such as haemophilia, sickle cell anemia, albinoism etc. and some offspring would be stillborn, or perhaps infertile.
Of course due to natural selection carriers of these genetic defects rarely survive long enough to pass on their genes, although because of the fact that most of these are recessive they still occur.
That's not to say mutations (or errors in the code, if you will) only provide negative effects. The adaptiaton of bacteria strains is a case for proving this, due to the much faster reproduction rate compared to humans, although there is evidence that some mutations in humans can confer a better resistance to HIV or the development of HIV to AIDS. (I'm sure other people have better examples but thats all i could think of off the top of my head).
While comparing evolution to programming is a flawed analogy in some respects I'll go with it. In your code you have started by designing it pefectly with no errors. Assuming life is a program randomly thrown together (Million monkeys & typewriters etc.) You may have a certain program that runs fine until it encounters a fatal divide by zero error after going through a loop a certain number of times. What if a random change made that zero into a one? Yay, the lifespan of lifeformX.exe has doubled.
That program is an ameoba. They have existed for millions of years and it could have taken the majority of that time to get the right simple program through nothing but pure chance. A better approximation to a fully fledged life form would be an OS. For example of one that works the majority of the time but has flaws, refer to Win 98.
If you are going to make comparisons then they should at least be relative to the target.
I guess people would start being born slightly differently, say different hair, eye, skin colour. Perhaps if the mutation/DNA damage was severe enough they would be born with genetic defects resulting in things such as haemophilia, sickle cell anemia, albinoism etc. and some offspring would be stillborn, or perhaps infertile.
Of course due to natural selection carriers of these genetic defects rarely survive long enough to pass on their genes, although because of the fact that most of these are recessive they still occur.
That's not to say mutations (or errors in the code, if you will) only provide negative effects. The adaptiaton of bacteria strains is a case for proving this, due to the much faster reproduction rate compared to humans, although there is evidence that some mutations in humans can confer a better resistance to HIV or the development of HIV to AIDS. (I'm sure other people have better examples but thats all i could think of off the top of my head).
While comparing evolution to programming is a flawed analogy in some respects I'll go with it. In your code you have started by designing it pefectly with no errors. Assuming life is a program randomly thrown together (Million monkeys & typewriters etc.) You may have a certain program that runs fine until it encounters a fatal divide by zero error after going through a loop a certain number of times. What if a random change made that zero into a one? Yay, the lifespan of lifeformX.exe has doubled. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted for truth and quite honestly brilliance.
That logic is flawed because it is assuming perfect code. Everyone knows that all humans are flawed (In one way or another). Another reason that your logic has failed would be, that if god did guide the evolution (which has occurred) then there wouldn't be flaws in the code, because god is infalliable. However, there are flaws thus why the random generations of various mutations of DNA is quite obvious compared to a guided change. Randomness ftw!
In addition, do not post evolution in this thread, the bible never once mentions it so there is nothing to prove it does. Neither does it re-inforce evolution at all, if you wish to discuss this further KFDM, resurrect the Evo thread, it is still there and is not locked. (Link is in prior posts.)
Here's a short summary of what they did from memory:
They made functions out of code to simulate organisms. They would input numbers (i.e. feeding) and have them return an answer depending on what the function did (i.e. testing for fitness). The ones that were able to output an answer close to the desired answer were able to duplicate themselves (allowing mutations, of course). The researchers restricted the supply of numbers in order to simulate scarcity of food supplies and the competition made the functions evolve even faster to reach the desired function. The researchers would sometimes give a specific input and require a specific answer, in order to get the functions to evolve to meet an already existing algorithm (like an algorithm to get an Nth digit of pi, although I don't know exactly which algorithms they used). The functions would find algorithms that were close to current algorithms, extremely different to current algorithms, and some in between. Many of the algorithms would contain pieces of code that had no purpose that the researches could understand, although they would still output the required answer. I may be wrong in remembering this, but I think that some of the functions contained algorithms that were faster than our current algorithms.
I found this article, which is similiar although it isn't the article which I am looking for:
<a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.10/sims_pr.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.10/sims_pr.html</a>
As for your computer code analogy, I'm sure you realize that there are many computer programs out there that have a very large number of bugs, but still run very well. An imperfect program can sometimes work well enough to be useful, just like an imperfect creature can sometimes work well enough to reproduce. Then, random mutations and natural selection will ensure that the creature's descendants will improve on the original creature after many generations.
For an analogy that creationists love, take the human eye. They say that the human eye is so complex that it couldn't have arisen through evolution. After all, 1/2 an eye wouldn't work at all, would it? That's wrong because creatures that do have primitive, partially working eyes can still see. I've got imperfect eyes and I wear glasses, but I can still see well enough without them that I would be able to reproduce in the wild. If you look at the eyes of organisms, from cephalopods to humans to eagles to insects to planaria, you see that there are many different eyes that work, even though in many circumstances they are very primitive. The evolution of an organism is nothing like the creation of a computer program. A computer program doesn't work if it is half completed, because you're writing it in a specific order so that it is dependant on parts that haven't been written yet, much like a person can't function without a bottom half. However, organisms evolve in gradual steps, going from something like bacteria, to the higher life forms existing today (that's not to say that higher life forms are more evolved than living bacteria). It's like constantly rewriting a computer program, to refine current functions and create new ones.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny, as a programmer you should familiarize yourself with the work of Thomas S. Ray, who demonstrated that evolution (and speciation) in code is possible under the right conditions. He created a virtual machine, created one virtual "life form" (mearly a program that copies itself) for this virtual machine, and let it run. Pretty much all that is special about this virtual machine is that it will, occasionally, randomly flip bits as they are being copied. In a relatively short time other digital lifeforms evolved from the first one, some were parasitic, some were immune to the parasites, and a much later digital lifeform had even managed to optimise itself. The code for these evolved programs was not simple. It was certainly nothing that an ordinary human would write, even though it worked. On the flip side, the programs were doing things that no human coder would have thought to do (or at least, it isn't likely), and they worked brilliantly.
This is exactly what we see in real life life forms. There are parts of their "design" that any compotent engineer never would have avoided, yet God doesn't? The evolution thread goes into alot of detail about this in regard to the human eye. But if you wish to remain ignorant of the truth, then by all means continue to ignore the facts.
sorry I'll trust people like Moses over computers.
Well, I can prove that one of these events actually happened. Can you?
The stuff on digital evolution was just annother nail in the coffin of KFDM's argument, it was not intended to be the sole evidence that evolution occured in the real world. There is plenty (and by plenty I mean astronomical amounts) of evidence for evolution without having to delve into computer science to get it.
Seriously, READ THE GODDAMNED EVOLUTION THREAD. Ask anything at all about evolution that you want to there, and you will recieve an answer. I know you won't actually do it though, because your afraid of having your little fantasy world of ignorance shattered. If it were any other way the thread would be more active, but you creationsists would rather polute other perfectly good and completely separate threads with the same tired arguments that you always trot out.
I'm afraid I do not agree with the quote on your siggy. "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is still not important. You can't allow God to dictate how you live your life."
and this is why
lets look at an example, I live in California, and its a really nice day right now. and theres a lovely breeze so I was thinking I would go out and fly a kite. now lets say I'm out flying my kite... lets review how a kite works. a string goes from me, to the kite, so isn't it really the string thats holding the kite down? so lets say I cut the string to let the kite go higher, what would happen? oh yeah thats right... it'd crash into the ground
here's the lesson from the story, god doesn't give man commandments to chain us down, to make us lose our choice, to not let us have fun. in fact thats what satan would want you to believe because it couldn't be further from the truth.
lets look at god's comandments... lets see, thou shalt not steal... here's a good one, lets see, according to skulkbait god is not letting me do what I want to do. I should be able to steal stuff if I want to... but wait, if I steal I go to jail... now do I have more choice in the world... or in prison? I'd guess that my non criminal life would have more choice and freedom then if I were in prison
commandments like not drinking and stuff don't "limit" you they help you. gods not trying to stop you from living your life, he's trying to make you be able to live your life to the fullest of your potential.
but if you want to cut that string on your kite skulk bait, and cut yourself from the lord who loves you more then you could ever imagine, then I'm afraid I can't stop you.
The point is, man can determine his own code of morals without God. If one were to "cut the string" of the 10 Commandments, he wouldn't end up "crashing", because every single able-minded man and woman is capable of living their life as an upstanding human being without holding those Commandments up as the word of a higher power.