Evolution

Ness · October 2003

What we need is some magical unbiased third party to take a fair look at the facts you lot are presenting, because I'm seeing "you creationists" and "you evolutionists" way too much. Anyone can get a website based on their "facts", and shove it on a search engine, but that certainly doesn't make them right, or their facts sound. Advising people to search on Google helps nothing. If you have the facts to back up your claims, that's fine, present them. If you don't, I see no reason why you can't present your belief, but do not expect anyone to take it seriously. If your point was made in another thread, or a very sound link was in another thread, either quote yourself or sit down and shut up. This is a seperate topic, and since many people don't have all day to spend on the forums, they most likely missed the earlier topic (most people are on this forum to persuade people towards something, and that is generally not acheived by "Yeah, I made my point in that other thread, just so you all know"). Please try to stick to the discussion though, since this has gone from "Please present facts giving credibility to your statements", to "Group X is close-minded, Group Y is close-minded". Of course, this is all just IMHO.

I myself see nothing really disproving Evolution at this time, therefore I'm going with it as the most likely reason we are currently what we are. People who are making statments such as "The Big Bang couldn't have happened unless God started it" or perhaps "There is no way we could have gotten this way just by chance" might want to consider what we know know compared to 100-200 years ago. The more discoveries we make, the faster the new ones seem to be coming. What may have taken 300 years of speculation and research before may be accomplished in 20 years now. Who knows what new devices or theories may pop up next year. I doubt people in the early 1900's would have guessed we would be landing on the moon only 50 years later. Maybe over the next few years time travel, or a completely new theory explaining exactly how events such as the Big Bang occured could pop up. It really isn't enough to say "it couldn't have happened" when you are dealing with things like Evolution (or possibly religion, you never know when some amazing find or revelation will come along to completely change people's views of religion).

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But the analogy is supposed to mean that there is many many equations that could equal one conclusion. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The most amazing statement I've EVER seen from a creationist. Quite frankly that is utterly ridiculous.

Creationism more than anything assumes a conclusion and does ANYTHING to prove it. Data that disproves that equation is ignored. The amazing thing is in creationism you do not start with ANYTHING other than God created the world. Hence why "<i>scientific</i>" creationism is regarded as a complete joke.

Again, you can think I'm being as close minded as you want Sirus, but creationism is nothing more than witty debating skills dressed up with poor pseudo-science.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Evolutionists are pretty much saying that they know for sure, out of all the different theories one could make they think that scientifically its only possible for one to happen.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But you do not read evolutionary journals to have any idea of the actual debates that DO go on. Evolutionists hardly agree with eachother at all really. Debates in the past between Gradualism (classic Darwininian process) and newer ideas like Punctuated equilibrium are rife. Debates on the evolution of bacteria, proteins and even things like viruses are also very healthy.

There is a lot of 'debate', 'fact changing/altering' and new things being discovered all the time in this field that make that statement utterly false (or ignorant if nothing else).

Evolution as a theory has changed in almost every way since Darwins origin of species. It has changed not only due to the increase of evidence for it, but largely due to the genetic revolution that has occured.

In addition, we still (and I still) maintain that Evolution is the best idea to explain the origin of life based on current evidence. And it's as simple as that. When you demonstrate logical evidence, and Gibbering in Genesis doesn't count, then evolution will be refuted.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Example meaning, they are saying that you can only get the a conclusion with 4 x 3, although it's obvious that 11 + 1 could also be an answer in explaining why something happened.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Funnily enough, had you not come out with this, it is EXACTLY what I would of accused creationism of.

Aren't the double standards we like holding always interesting to find out?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There's plenty of things scientifically that would suggest a creator,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And in every previous thread the creationists have failed to make even a remotely logical case for it.

Not a single journal article link to nature or science.

Not one.

Think about that for a bit.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>evolutionists refuse to consider it because they think that scientifically, they can only prove evolution is true.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Which is wrong, but I've already covered your ranting above.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you want to know some truth, Evolution might be on it's way out.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I think you need to look up a bit of 'truth'. Evolution as a theory is stronger now than it ever has been since it's very odd start. If it's on the way out, then it's probably just as logical to state that the laws of gravity are about to reverse soon also.

Aegeri · October 2003

[Note this is an addendum to the above post. Due to some funny reason, the editing has gone really really funny for some really strange reason. This is meant to sound a bit more complete than the one I posted at the time, which I felt after rereading it again didn't really make my point as well as I should have. I wish I know what caused that funny editing bug O_o]

Creationism more than anything assumes a conclusion and does ANYTHING to prove it. Data that disproves that equation is ignored. The amazing thing is in creationism you do not start with ANYTHING other than God created the world and then certain events 'have' to occur. Hence why "<i>scientific</i>" creationism is regarded as a complete joke. It is very dodgy science combined with brilliant debating skills (and I mean the kind that would of won debating championships at high school debating skills). I've always maintained that creationism relies more on debating, the evolutionist conspiracy (to explain why they can't get published in any journals of importance) and any 'funny' facts they can dig up at the time.

This isn't to say that creationism has never changed it's arguments <i>sometimes</i>. Long dead creationist arguments include the human dinosaur footprints (to the best of my memory though) and Darwins deathbed 'retraction' of evolution for example. But in general the same ideas are usually present from the start till now. Of course, they've usually had to clever themselves up [against genetics] or go further back in time for references (IE hillarious appendix references in a now posted TWICE article from the infamous GiG) . You should notice how few creationist articles reference recent scientific journals, but you frequently encounter a random reference from a book from 1980's and below O_o.

[Original]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Creationism more than anything assumes a conclusion and does ANYTHING to prove it. Data that disproves that equation is ignored. The amazing thing is in creationism you do not start with ANYTHING other than God created the world. Hence why "scientific" creationism is regarded as a complete joke.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Sorry for the double post.

RyoOhki · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People will believe what they believe, rare is the person that even wishes to have an open mind. I couldn't prove that evolution doesn't exist, not on a basis of fact, although technically possible, I could never convince an evolutionist otherwise. They simply don't want to believe, even if religion never comes into the picture, they simply don't want to believe that there's another answer.
</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Sirus, the reason Evolutionists, as people insist on calling us, believe in Evolution is because it's supported by mountains of evidance. It's like trying to convince someone that the sky is actually red. Anyone can look up and see for themselves that the sky is, in fact, blue. The same way that anyone can look at the fossil record and see for themselves that evolution is a very real thing. We can trace the development of mankind back from Homo sapiens sapiens all the way to our first ape ancestors. We can trace them back all the way to proto-mammals in the Permian period. We can trace them back to reptiles, who we can trace back to anphibians, who we can trace back to fish, who we can trace back to multicellular organisms, who we can trace back to single celled organisms.

But that's not taking into account the endless offshoots and mutations that have also occured. Humans have not just evolved straight from apes; there have been a myriad of offshoots that eventually failed, such as some species of Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens Neanderthal, almost all of the species prior to the first Homo and on and on. The sheer diversity here provides an overwhelming proof for natural selection and the evolutionary process. Constant mutations and changes were occuring that produced a whole range of differant species. One type, a little more slender and gracile, and with a slightly larger brain, proved more adaptable. It's young were thus more likely to survive. The mutation process continued, with some individuals with larger brains and a more upright stance coming into being. They in turn were better suited to their environment than their predecesors. They would thus be more likely to bear offspring that would survive to reproduce. This keeps on happening until the species with the most adaptability, humans, evolved. We would eventually spread to every corner of the globe and be able to take on any environmental condition. We are the logical result of an evolutionary process.

Now as for the beginnings of life, I know that scientists have been working to prove that life can spontaneously begin from non-living materials. I don't have links because I do not follow this sort of thing closely. However it's not enough to say "Well God started it" because there's absolutly no evidance for that.

Sirus · October 2003

First, SkulkBait, I don't think you understood the analogy from square one, and I'm not sure what your objective is.

Aegeri, I understand that when Evolution is in question, Creationism always comes to butt heads.

I wanted to stray away from that for many reasons, one is that it's not applicable if it's not relevant to you. So I didn't bother stating any of scripture. I also noted that there was a previous thread about Evolution, and I listed about 20 different links, I was at work when I first did that, and was in a big rush to finish some new plans for a client.

Also, my analogy is simply that the conclusion (12 used in the analogy) could be the product of many things, whether is be Creation or Evolution or a random explosion, there's evidence for all of them, that's the absolute truth, so on a basis to claim that one theory is absolute truth scientifically is very difficult to say the least, because despite what the theory is, there's at least one fact that would reinforce that it could be the creation of the universe, and/or life.

I'm sorry if my wording, or my logic wasn't on par with everyone else, sometimes it's hard to be on the same wavelength of everyone else, and sometimes things need to "click" so to speak for the notion to make any sense at all. (I believe SkulkBait was having this problem)

As I said before, there is plenty of information supporting Evolution, as well as Creationism, if this wasn't so, there would wouldn't be either side, and yes, there are Christian scientists, and there are non-Evolutionist Atheists. This alone reinforces that theres information for both sides, that's all we need to even know for now. (I'm not going to dig for more resources, we both know that theres facts for each case, you know that, and I know that )

The whole basis of my disagreement isn't that on a factual basis, I know I'm not an expert on Evolution, and I never said I was. I purposely didn't engage in an information battle, because it's been done before, and done to death. I was trying to connect with people on an intellectual level. Which I believe can sufficiently draw some light on the "absolute truth" of Evolution (Please don't bring Creation in here, since Christianity is based on direct Historical events, although it is reinforced in some modern-day science).

I don't appreciate when people attempt to try and categorize Creationism, there's plenty of historical, and concrete evidence of Biblical events. However, Evolution isn't based on viewable events by humans, it's based on science and some archaeology ( Notice : Yes, some arguments for Evolution in the fossil record, but also some unexplainable bursts in the appearance of fossils, Cambrian explosion-correct?). However, on the basis of science and archaeology it's in the realm of context and translation of facts that would lead to being the basis of Evolution being true. I think on a basis of the progression of Evolution from it's Darwinian roots to modern day is questionable, I honestly think, in my subjective opinion, that it's a great aspiration for science to prove our "creation", through some means of science, in addition to some scientists elation in that they can define their own/disenfranchise religion.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Creationism more than anything assumes a conclusion and does ANYTHING to prove it. Data that disproves that equation is ignored. The amazing thing is in creationism you do not start with ANYTHING other than God created the world. Hence why "scientific" creationism is regarded as a complete joke.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Creationism is based on things taught by a man who was very real, and did some very real and amazing things. In addition to the history of Jesus, you cannot find his bones, because he rose from the dead. It's this historical fact that reinforces Christianity, Christianity NEVER started as a theory, it was the DIRECT progression of REAL HISTORICAL EVENTS. Read: HISTORICAL, Written DOCUMENTED, VIEWED events. NOT speculated.

Evolution was just a <b>thought-up</b> theory concocted by a man with a lack of modern-science. So it begins ALL that is questionable, since it started as a theory with a lack of outstanding evidence. This alone strikes me with doubt. However, I completely understand that it does have some good facts behind it, but many facts are independent of the hypothesis, they can exist yet not collaborate to create evolution.

Also, I bring up the situation in that in the case of the hypothesis, it can be readily provable in almost every case, so can many other hypothesis with the correct selection of facts, now, I'm not going to claim that it's a conspiracy of all evolutionists to discard other information, but sometimes other information is readily ignored.

I don't ask you to change your views, but on a basis of Science vs. Science, I ask you to weigh some other facts.

"<u>The Problem of the Evolutionary Tree</u>
When scientists classify groups, they can classify them by various characteristics—for example, by field characteristics, bone patterns, internal organs, or other methods. But these different methods lead to different conclusions about taxonomy, suggesting that life forms are non-branching—a problem for the evolutionist. For example, Parker explains that when his students classified lizards by different systems, they noticed that, "The pattern is not a branching one suggesting evolutionary descent from a common ancestor; rather, it is a mosaic or modular pattern ... suggesting creation." (14, pgs. 41-42)
Every student has been shown the "evolutionary tree," with a nice sequence of life from ooze to zoo to you. That tree does not exist in the real world, as those simple illustrations would have us believe. Denton devotes an entire chapter (2, pgs. 119-141) demonstrating the numerous problems with Haeckel's famous evolutionary tree. Some of his comments are: "..many groups are so isolated and unique and of such doubtful affinities that there is complete disagreement as to where they should be placed in the tree." And, he says, "direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes." He quotes Patterson as to ancestors, "they exist not in nature but in the mind of the taxonomist, as abstractions ... yet they are always discussed as if they have some reality." "

"<u>The Problem of Biased Assumptions</u> (Notice : Similar to what I was saying above.)
Evolutionists rely heavily on similarity to demonstrate evolution. Apes have much in common with man, they point out, including their genetic makeup. While apes and humans are similar in some ways, they are very different in other ways. But to conclude evolution is the cause of the observed similarity is a matter of assumption (preconception).
Similarity does not prove evolution, but merely proves similarity. If anything, similarity provides evidence of creation. A fork and a spoon may look similar, but that is not evidence of a common ancestor, but rather is evidence of a common designer using common materials. (14, pgs. 38-47)
Denton is more scientifically critical. He points out that what appear to be similar structures or organs develop from different embryological paths or even different genes. For example, forelimbs appear similar to hindlimbs, but nobody believes that one evolved from the other.
Marvin Lubenow in his interesting book (listed below) points out a fundamental flaw in the logic of evolutionists. He notes that studies on the anatomy of living primates are used to support evolution. But all of these studies are fundamentally flawed in regard to a rule of logic called "begging the question." In begging the question, one assumes to be true the very thing you are trying to prove."

"<u>The Problem of Pre-Cursors</u>
Evolution is sometimes explained by the notion of "pre-cursors." At first glance, a bicycle seems enough like a motorcycle to be its precursor. On deeper investigation, while a bicycle resembles a motorcycle, the parts of a bicycle cannot be molded into a motorcycle by a process resembling evolution. As explained by Behe, a bicycle has nothing that can be modified to become a gasoline tank, for example. He states: "A bicycle thus may be a conceptual pre-cursor to a motorcycle, but it is not a physical one. Darwinian evolution requires physical pre-cursors." (1, pgs. 44-45)
As an example, Denton discusses mammalian hair, and points out that there is no evolutionary pre-cursor. While hair comes in different varieties—from quills in porcupine to soft fur of a kitten-no structures are known which can be considered in any sense transitional between any other vertebrate structure and hair. (2, pg. 106)
Or consider the metamorphosis of the butterfly. There is no conceivable evolutionary precursor to this astounding event. Biology is fraught with such problems for evolution. "

"<u>The Problem of Sudden Appearance in the Fossil Record</u>
If evolution were true, we should find a few simple lifeforms in the lowest level of the geologic strata, with a consistent upward progression of lifeforms of a more advanced nature in the next highest strata, etc. But we don't find that at all. Instead, what we find is the "Cambrian Explosion," the existence of many and varied lifeforms found together near the bottom of the geologic column. It is well known by paleontologists that virtually all the plant and animal "phyla" (basic body plans) appear suddenly in the rocks of the Cambrian era. (7, pg. 87, 3, pg. 123)
Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould acknowledges this severe problem for evolution. He said, "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." (5, pg. 50) Gould is here admitting that the fossil record does not record gradual evolution. The geologic column as shown in textbooks is an example of artistic speculation.
When asked why they believe in evolution, many people simply say "dinosaurs," without having really thought through why they think dinosaurs indicate evolution. It is important to see dinosaurs for what they were—part of the process of decline (including extinctions) that has been going on since creation. The Bible outlines a process which began with creation as a completed event in the past, then then decline set in.
Instead of expanding numbers of organisms over time as predicted by evolution, we find the fossils substantially present early in the fossil record, then a decline in the number of organisms over time (extinction). The fossil evidence better fits the the biblical model than the evolutionary model. "

"<u>The Problem of the Missing Links</u>
Where are the missing links? Darwin recognized that his theory implied that "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." And yet he acknowledged that the missing links were not to be found. Darwin himself wavered over his theory and asked, "Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined." (5, pg. 46)
Darwin could only assume that over time, we would find the missing links in the form of fossils. But, a century and a half later, the fossil record is empty of such missing links—not only between man and apes, but also between all other groups.
This is not just the view of creationists, but is widely acknowledged by evolutionists. Evolutionist R.B. Goldschmidt said "...practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions." (3, pg. 377) Evolutionist David B. Kitts said, "evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (3, pg. 378) Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, described "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record" as "the trade secret of paleontology." (5, pg. 59) A paleontologist at the University of Texas candidly admitted to the author of this essay that not only are there no missing links found in the fossil record but, "We gave up looking for them years ago."
No link has been found from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc. According to creation scientist Duane Gish, the two most notable gaps in the fossil record are (1) the gap between microscopic, single-celled organisms and the complex, multicellular invertebrates, and (2) the vast gap between these invertebrates and fish. These gaps "are so immense and indisputable that any further discussion of the fossil record becomes superfluous." (3, pg. 115) Further, these breaks establish "beyond doubt that evolution has not occurred." (3, pg. 127)
Gish explains that there should be billions times billions of intermediates between these major groups, if evolution was true. But there is not a single one! It is impossible, given the evolutionists' time scale of millions of years, that not one intermediate could be found.
Evolutionist Steven Stanley put it this way, "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (2, pg. 182)
Examples of animals once held up as intermediates have systematically been thrown out. You may ask, "What about such examples as Archaeopteryx, the flying animal with some reptilian features?" Archaeopteryx is now widely admitted to be a bird, plain and simple, complete with feathers. (14, pgs. 148-150 and 2, pgs. 175-178)
Using Archaeopteryx as an example, scientists now know that the problem of getting a reptile to evolve into a bird is horrendously problematic. Here are some of the difficulties: (1) Feathers are fundamentally different structures than scales, arising from different layers of skin. Scales are merely folds in the epidermis, while feathers and hairs develop from follicles. (3, pg. 323) (2) In theory, feathers may have arisen from frayed outer edges of scales, but it is difficult to understand what the adaptive value of frayed scales would be to an organism. (3) To get from a reptile to a bird, you need more than feathers. A bird has very different respiratory, cardiovascular, muscular, and gastrointestinal systems than a reptile. At this point one has run into the problem of irreducibly complex systems.
But the problem is more than just a few critters in the fossil record that don't appear to fit neatly into well-defined classifications. Darwin's theory implied not merely that fossil transitionals would be found, but it predicted that a truly complete fossil record would be mostly transitionals. The world's museums should be bursting at the seams with transitional fossils. Instead of transitionals, the fossil record shows completely formed organisms, well adapted to their environments—just as we find today.
The most logical conclusion is that the so-called missing links were impossible creatures that never existed."

<u>The Problem of Stasis</u>
As acknowledged by evolutionist Gould, "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." (5, pg. 50) The fossil record shows stability, not change.
The problem of stasis in the fossil record is particularly evident in plants. Though unwilling to give up on evolution, Professor of Botany, E. J. H. Corner of Cambridge University, admitted, "...to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (14, pg. 148)

<u>The Problem of Convergence</u>
Convergence is similarity without a common ancestor. The eyes of vertebrates and the eyes of squids have many similarities. Evolutionists, however, cannot find or even imagine a common ancestor that would explain their similarities. This problem is common in morphology. Of course, convergence in the sense of similar structures to meet similar needs would be expected on the basis of creation according to a common design, but creates problems for the evolutionist. (14, pg. 42)

<u>The Problem of Symbiosis</u>
There are many examples of how different animals cooperate. For example, certain fish have smaller fish that clean their teeth of parasites. The larger fish could eat the smaller fish, but do not. Evolution cannot explain this, as there is simply no common ancestor for these two separate organisms.

<u>The Problem of Embryology</u>
In an idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," students have been taught that embryos show evidence of evolution. The idea was that embryos of advanced organisms go through developmental stages similar to evolution. Thus, while in your mother's womb, you go through a fish stage, with gill slits and even have a tail which you outgrow, etc.
The only problem with all of this is that it is not true. This idea was an unsophisticated notion that was discarded by embryologists over 50 years ago. Yet students are still taught this myth sometimes, and it has been stuck in the consciousness of many people as evidence for evolution. (14, pg. 47-56)
Not only has this theory been totally discarded, it is well known that organisms undergo development characteristics of their own class. Fishes follow one pattern, amphibians another, birds yet another. Modern embryology tends to confirm the separate nature of animal kinds, rather than the similarities hoped for by evolutionists. "

"<u>The Problem of Vestigial Organs</u>
It was once believed that there were numerous organs in the body that had no function, the appendix being an example. This supposedly was evidence for evolution, as these organs were left over from the process of evolution. Science has eliminated all such idea, as all 180 organs once listed as having no function in human beings have been found to have significant functions. "

A little older but I still think it has shreds of validity

"<u>Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. </u>

The human brain consists of approximately 12 billion cells, forming 120 trillion interconnections. The light sensitive retina of the eye (which is really part of the brain) contains over 10 million photoreceptor cells. These cells capture the light pattern formed by the lens and convert it into complex electrical signals, which are then sent to a special area of the brain where they are transformed into the sensation we call vision.

In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

"While today's digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina's real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."

If a supercomputer is obviously the product of intelligent design, how much more obviously is the eye a product of intelligent design? And yet, evolutionists are dead certain that the human eye (and everything else in nature) came into being by pure chance and the intrinsic properties of nature! Evolutionists occasionally admit that it is difficult for even them to believe such a thing. Ernst Mayr, for example, has conceded that:

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations." (Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296).

Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.

Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.

Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.

Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 -- for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that's the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a "room" full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our "room" full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, more over, that "natural selection" makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution) Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:

"The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete."

I will leave it to the reader to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.

Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, April 1994, Vol. 4, No. 4 "

Anyways, that's just some of the evidence, now, don't confuse me with trying to prove Creationism, but to challenge the complete validity of Evolution. I agree, it can be founded, and it can make sense. But I believe with so many problems, and so much controversy to the intentions of scientists it cannot be taken as a fact. It's a very novel theory, and it is making progress, but I think it has some fundamental flaws that it probably can't overcome, most noticeably, the fossil record, the best and most accurate way of proving evolution. However, the fossil record has been treacherous to Evolution, with a lack of intermediates and other complications with phyla.

Yes, it may be gaining more technology, and despite the growing science in genetics, and other sciences, I believe that without the complete support from the fossil record, it can be nothing more than a nice attempt using the application of modern science.

kida · October 2003

Ness:

If what you said became true, I might as well shoot myself and end the misery of the object we all so hold dearly: life. If we are born to die, then why not end the suffering right now? Whats in it for me? Sure I could help people, or live as a decent human being. But then, knowing the knowledge that there is no God tells me that people should be doing the most immoral things: adultery, murder; basically anything, period. As long as we have the desire to do, we can.

The fact is: people need God. Our world needs moral order, without it we are nothing but chaos. Look at the laws around you, do they not fit accordingly with the bible? Even tribes, who don't have a base of belief in God, have moral structure based on a higher entity. What I am saying is: the morals we humans have created (possibly) are used to control humans. All of it is common sense.

If such evidence came around that refuted the existence of God, I could see the government putting high priority as to not letting the public know. Akin to what I am saying, imagine scenes from Independence Day, when the aliens came, what did the humans do? Run like hell...

Aegeri:

Although I agree with most of what you said, you missed an important point, which I think is really critical.

First of all, I have to ask you something aegeri. Judging by the way you write, you don't sound very open minded (not that I'm not). It seems that anything that comes into your view concerning creationism, is quickly debunked. It is my philosophy that in order to understand the top of a cone you must understand the bottom. In essence, have you read the bible with an open mind, knowing the possibilities that this stuff might be true? What makes your scientific journals, sarcastically, more authentic than the bible? They both lack one thing, absolute truth. You can never prove if something is one-hundred percent true. Science is based on the experementation method: observe, test, prediction, and conclusion. The problem is, observation can be misleading. What we see in this point of the universe as true, can be totally different somewhere else. For example: Look at the theory of Gravity, although you could explain simple daily things with it, it could not itself explain the deeper fathoms, which Einstein touched on, much later. Creationism is faith, reason and faith don't mix together, that is why there is very little to prove Creationism. The point of my post: possibility. The possibilities are limtless; nothing is absolute, and will never be! Trying to understand the most of them gets you two steps further.
The mind is linked to everything, everything corelates whether you see it or not.

Now my stance on evolution. Although I am not adept in the fields as the knowledgable Aegeri, it doesn't take a monkey's uncle to understand how the human genitalia works. It is my guess that there is very little biology in evolution; evolution is not restricted only to that field, but can also be used to explain things on the cosmic scale. As for evolution itself, you cannot mathematically prove it. You can't also go to a museum and objectively say, "Dad look at that! Actual Proof of Evolution!" And then there are theories of evolution, theories of development, and theories of molecular interactions, that are linked in chains, but don't agree to make evolution comprehensive. The fact is, evolution isn't conclusive, but the outstanding possibility is there.

Thanks, and yes, you will own me next round. Trust me, don't take it to heart from a guy who doesn't know much.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done."
Charles Darwin.

FilthyLarry · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Oct 8 2003, 01:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If what you say became true, I might as well shoot myself and end the misery of life. If we are born to die, then why not end the suffering right now? Whats in it for me? Sure I could help people, or live as a decent human being. But knowing the knowledge that there is no God tells me that I might as well do the most immoral things: sexual delusions, murder; basically anything, period.

The fact is: people need God. Our world needs moral order, without it we are nothing but chaos. Look at the laws around you, do they not fit accordingly with the bible? Even tribes, who don't have a base of belief in God, have moral structure based on a higher entity. What I am saying is: the morals we humans have created (possibly) are used to control humans. It is pretty much common sense.

If such evidence came around that refuted the existence of God, I could see the government putting high priority as to not letting the public know. Akin to what I am saying, imagine scenes from Independence Day, when the aliens came, what did the humans do? Run like hell.

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
I'm not sure I understand why having a God is necessary to prevent the masses from "raging against the machine". I think places like China demonstrate that bullets tend to discourage this sort of thing.

Seriously though, Kida. Why would not having a God suddenly turn you into a murderer ? I would think that a loving family is worth living for no matter what eh ? As for what's in it for you ?.. you make it sound like all of life is misery. What about exploring, listening to good music ... enjoying the fact of simply being alive.

The world is a mess with or without religion. Although religion does seem to present itself as a handy excuse for war.

If it could be proven that there is no God, after things calm down... you would see an ordered society regardless. Why ? Because the drive to live is strong, people group together for protection and so on and so forth. There would always be those that refuse to accept your proof though, that I'm convinced of.

Marine0I · October 2003

Ah-ha, another one. Must tread verryyyy carefully here, I dont want to get it locked like last time <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

As I have said in a previous thread, there is absolutely no point in bringing up scientific arguements against evolution in these forums. Scientific arguements usually revolve around biology, Aegeri knows biol like the back of his hand, and that makes it impossible for anyone to argue unless they are on his level. Doesnt make him right - but he knows his stuff.

However, to back up what Sirius said, there are some very highly respected biologists (Atheist biologists), who believe the theory of evolution is rubbish. These people cannot be discredited by screaming "FUNDAMENTALIST!!!!" I'd be interesting what you people think of these guys? Are they just idiots?

Second of all, creationism makes no pretence that it doesnt start out with some heavy bias. That evolutionist try and paint a picture of themselves as "pure fact based science" seems a bit rough to me. All sciences start out with assumptions, and evolutionairy science is no different.

But something I have discovered since coming onto these boards - neither side of the argument, be it creationism or evolution, has the slightest respect for truth and evidence. If you have a look at most of the pro evolution/anti evolution sites on the web, they are engaged in a giant flamewar, using what ever they can. I have lost a lot of respect for the AiG, I still believe in creationism but I dont agree with their methods. The same is true for the evolutionairy scientists arguing against creationism. The only people who I have the slightest bit of respect for is those in Scientific Journals who ignore the creation/evolution flamewar and just get on with it.

Kida, very few things are completely and utterly proved by "THIS" hard peice of evidence. You take a lot of evidence, you try and be objective in your study, and then you come to a conclusion, you try and work out where this evidence points to. Evolutionairy scientists are already convinced beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is true, and thus they interpret everything that comes to their door as such. Creation scientists do exactly the same, but they are young earth biased.

DiscoZombie · October 2003

wow, the only thing I've looked at in this thread has been the size of the posts; my brain hurts just from thinking about reading it. All I can say is that I hope no creationists intend to become scientists, because creationism isn't condusive to science. A scientist seeks explanations and evidence; leaps of faith are anathema to him. If you believe in creationism, why would you ever strive to understand anything in your life? You could just say "this disease is killing people because God wills it" or "we cannot explore the ocean because God didn't will it," when you're fully capable of researching cures and furthering civilization...

yeah, creationism is best suited for those of a backwater persuasion who'd rather not bother thinking outside the box... we'd still be stuck in the dark ages if the catholic church had anything to say about it...

Aegeri · October 2003

Sirus and Kida. Kida, I'm talking to you down the bottom, please feel free to hit ctrl F and type your name to find my stuff to you. Sirus, most of this relates to you. I'm not going to go quote by every little piece. That would just be completely inane and would seriously annoy someone due to length.

Firstly, I'm skipping a few paragraphs because I don't think I have a lot to say about them. I will say this, I read your entire post, was entirely unenthused by the large amount of stuff to do so I thought.

But I was so very wrong, little did I know you would prove everything I had said in previous posts. Debating skills are rife in your 'evidence', but importantly, so is the butchering of facts. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who using Haeckel to disprove anything hasn't done enough research. He reguritates standard creatonist pony arguments and does all the usual tricks.

In one post, albeit extraordinarily long, you proved my point.

You won't see that unfortunately, you'll go on seeing these as facts and will probably still think that embryology is wrong blah blah. None the less, you shot yourself in the foot as far as I can tell.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Notice : Yes, some arguments for Evolution in the fossil record, but also some unexplainable bursts in the appearance of fossils, Cambrian explosion-correct? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

I'm getting so tired of screaming punctuated equilibrium, READ the journals, READ the genetic studies etc. Keep up to date, stop arguing against the 100 odd year old theory and realise it is the year 2003 and we know a lot more. This isn't unexplained now, because a while ago nobody thought at all that organisms would do anything other than evolve very slowly. Todays ideas have 'evolved' so to speak past that point.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> honestly think, in my subjective opinion, that it's a great aspiration for science to prove our "creation",</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Prepare to be horrifically disappointed.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Creationism is based on things taught by a man who was very real, and did some very real and amazing things. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In addition to the history of Jesus, you cannot find his bones, because he rose from the dead.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Either that he did not exist or wasn't who people thought at the time.

In any event, I've already stated I believe in the new testament and that is rather irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody from the time of creation/noah etc wrote their respective part of the bible, therefore your point is rather irrelevant in that respect.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Evolution was just a thought-up theory concocted by a man with a lack of modern-science. So it begins ALL that is questionable, since it started as a theory with a lack of outstanding evidence.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

So you come up with an intellectual achievement as fundamentally important to biology as Darwin did. While you sit there, not managing to do it, I'll simply ignore your completely ignorant comments on this issue. Perhaps you should read origin of species for a bit.

As for this next part, copying and pasting a lot of rubbish from one biased book isn't really going to make me that enthusiastic about your points. His evidence is extraordinarily weak at best, and blatantly ignores facts at worst. It is disturbing to see a so called PhD demonstrate numerous critical mistakes that even basic stage 1 zoology students would pick out with ease.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of the Evolutionary Tree
for example, by field characteristics, bone patterns, internal organs, or other methods. But these different methods lead to different conclusions about taxonomy, suggesting that life forms are non-branching—a problem for the evolutionist. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And he utterly and completely ignores genetics. Genetic analysis has taught us a hell of a lot about how organisms are in fact related to one another. Looking at structures on the outside only helps us determine what something can do, or how it lives and why.

Why does he ignore genetics? Because his point is thrown straight into the garbage bin. Morphology alone isn't telling us a lot about evolutionary relationships anymore.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Every student has been shown the "evolutionary tree," </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

We called it the evolutionary fungus actually.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"The Problem of Biased Assumptions </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is simply philosophy and general flopping about. This merely indicates 'debating' skills and not science.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of Pre-Cursors
blah blah porcupine to soft fur of a kitten-no structures are known which can be considered in any sense transitional between any other vertebrate structure and hair. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Hair is actually a structure called keratin. Keratin is used in an amazng amount of things other than hair, your fingernails, scales of a fish and many other structures. It does also have a similar internalised molecule, but it evades me right now so I'll look it up.

In short, he's really got a funny idea here.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"The Problem of Sudden Appearance in the Fossil Record</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Ignores punctuated equilibrium, more importantly he does my pet hate of quoting people out of context too.

Once again, Sirus, are you trying your best to prove my point that Creationism is all about debating? I'm seeing no science here, I'm seeing debating.

I've covered this in previous threads.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of the Missing Links</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This again ignores the punctuated equilibrium theory completely.

Also, no science again, merely debating skills. This is a common trend, however:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1) the gap between microscopic, single-celled organisms and the complex, multicellular invertebrates, and (2) the vast gap between these invertebrates and fish. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Strange, that we go from multicellularity to fish in their view. What about Porifera and Cnidaria? Do these organisms only exist when creationists feel it important?

Honestly Sirus, you're just proving my point at the moment.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of Stasis</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Again, ignores punctuated equilibrium.

Again, I've covered this in earlier threads.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of Convergence</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well not really, and his point has utterly no facts.

Again, are we debating or are you trying to show some sort of fact? Why have you given me tons of pages from a book from someone I'm firmly convinced hasn't read a thing about evolution other than Origin of Species [And finding evolutionists in the Gradualism vs PE debate to quote].

However, this is at least one of his more intelligent points.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The eyes of vertebrates and the eyes of squids have many similarities.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

They are also very similar in a lot of respects but different in others. Squid rhodopsin is different from that in our eyes for example. Squid eyes also use a more primitive lens, but they have a higher amount of light amplification than ours do (depending on if you're a deep sea squid or not). Their eyes though are different. The eye IS a similar structure that has evolved via convergent evolution, but it is not the SAME structure.

Both our eyes and squid eyes are merely takes on specialised light gathering spots called ocelli, commonly found in more primitive organisms including Cnidarians.

Hardly a problem though, that is, if you're a zoologist and actually take time to look at all the other structures that ALSO exist in nature for the same purpose.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of Symbiosis
There are many examples of how different animals cooperate. For example, certain fish have smaller fish that clean their teeth of parasites. The larger fish could eat the smaller fish, but do not. Evolution cannot explain this, as there is simply no common ancestor for these two separate organisms. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This point is utterly nonsensical. I'm not even sure if I should dignify it with a responce. Is he implying that all symbiotic relationships are impossible? Is he implying the problem of mutalism? Does he understand anything about proper scientific nomenclature? Does he even have a real PhD?

Honestly Sirus, this is just debating skills dressed up as 'evidence'. This isn't a single solid fact in anything he's written so far!

But there are some good points, but they are merely difficult questions, not unanswerable.

I'm loathe to go on, but I'd hate someone to think I was deliberately trying to ignore arguments.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Problem of Embryology
In an idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I can't believe he used this argument, I'm astounded actually. What did I say about reading your sources Sirus?

THIS HASN'T BEEN TAUGHT IN MODERN EVOLUTION BASICALLY EVER! IT IS A FLAWED ARGUMENT THAT CREATIONISTS USE TO TRY AND REFUTE BASIC FACTS!

I love it when creationists bring this up because it proves how blantantly ignorant they are about scientific FACTS. I love it too because in one fell swoop managed to make Sirus source more irrelevant than I could of hoped. It just demonstrates that this author didn't do much research at all and is merely regurgitating random facts and debating. ONWARDS TO REBUTTAL!

FACT: Embryos do undergo similar stages in development, but do NOT go through a fish phase, frog phase etc.

FACT: Similar structures in an embryo, despite what it is, appear at similar stages of development. These include a post anal tail, pharangeal gill slits. Pictures of embryos of different animals PROVE this to be true. It's undeniable, you can even observe it under a microscope.

FACT: The "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was made by a German scientist called Ernst Haeckel who looked at embryos.

FACT: In trying to prove his theory (Biogenetic Law I think it was) he changed his plate cuttings to make embryos more like eachother: IE he made bird embryos have a 'fish' stage etc etc in accordance with his theory.

FACT: He was quickly found out for this deception, but he did have supporters for a while. It wasn't long until his theory was debunked and disgraced.

FACT: Embryos STILL show similar structures at different stages of development, but no 'fish' stage, 'frog' phase etc as Ernst Haeckel proposed. This is what this whole whoopla is all about.

<b>FACT: Embryos STILL show similar structures at different stages of development, but no 'fish' stage, 'frog' phase etc as Ernst Haeckel proposed. This is what this whole whoopla is all about.</b>

<b>FACT: Embryos STILL show similar structures at different stages of development, but no 'fish' stage, 'frog' phase etc as Ernst Haeckel proposed. This is what this whole whoopla is all about.</b>

Repeated 3 times so everyone is 100% certain about just what this is about. It's highly confusing however, but if you can name any evolutionary or biology textbook(s) that tries to support Haeckels idea, I want first go at tearing into them <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> However it was discredited a long time ago, and to the best of my knowledge is no longer taught at any university.

To clarify on this: Using Haeckels lie as evidence that embryology does not show anything of evolutionary importance is UTTERLY wrong. There are still many links between embryos of different species, just not what Haeckel had in mind (or should I say fabricated?). Any evolutionist who believes Haeckel was right though isn't very well educated (I'd like to pwn them though <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'>).

I found a picture (yay me). This is an example of what Haeckel did:

<img src='http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/ontogeny1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>

(and yes, it is a random website too <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"The Problem of Vestigial Organs
It was once believed that there were numerous organs in the body that had no function, the appendix being an example. "</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Except ear muscles, and the appendix still has no meaningful function making it vestigial.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> little older but I still think it has shreds of validity

"Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

If I were you, I'd keep away from those shreads, viscious paper cuts could result.

Debating skills however, is not evidence.

Getting basic facts blatantly wrong, is not a good way to make an argument.

You then engage in more debating skills, however you are only serving to prove my point with essentially this entire post.

Where is your science Sirus?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> don't ask you to change your views, but on a basis of Science vs. Science, I ask you to weigh some other facts.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I don't ask you too either, but I do ask you to correct what you wrote. It should read "Debating skills vs science". There is none in what you have posted.

Blatantly wrong statements? Yes. Random ranting? Yes. No scientific journal references or evidence? Yes. Quoting out of context without mention of punctuated equilibrium? Yes.

Most importantly: Using an out of date, disproved theory that is no longer used and SHOWS he didn't do sufficient research? YES.

I fail to see any science in all of that.

BTW did he have photos of entire cycles of embryos disproving that the above similar structures I mentioned do NOT appear at all? I severely doubt that.

Down further:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

And many other factors, but they understandably aren't trying to make much of a scientifc point.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Amino acids are coded on RNA which is itself stored as DNA. Why are we talking about proteins when it is believed to be DNA that controls what proteins inevitably do.

Why in all that is there no mention of the molecular functions of RNA? Such as in replication, protein reading (ribosomes are made of RNA incidently) and catalysing certain reactions?

Again, you post more debating skills, without any science at all. Someone can use a calculator though, I grant them that. Maybe they would be further amazed if I actually told them some molecular biology, like how 1 gene gives multiple products, acetylation/methylation/glycosylation of proteins determines other biological activity, how we have a poly A tail and a 5' cap on our DNA. Perhaps they could add that to their improbability equation to try and make it sound even more rocksolid.

But there is nothing there that has any science, it is still just debating skills dressed up to look like 'science'.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anyways, that's just some of the evidence, </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I think you need to get better evidence, some scientific evidence would be greatly appreciated.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> However, the fossil record has been treacherous to Evolution, with a lack of intermediates and other complications with phyla.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You mean how there aren't phyla between bacteria and fish like your 'evidence' seems to suggest? O_o

I remember there being porifera, cnidaria, annelids, nematodes, rotifers (similar to first one), arthropods and many more.

Funny that.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>believe that without the complete support from the fossil record, it can be nothing more than a nice attempt using the application of modern science. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Creation is simply poor science withe debating skills wrapped around it. You're own example cements this view nicely and proves my point nicely at the same time.

Thank you, you proved my own point and provided me with a wealth of evidence showing it too.

<b>Kida</b>:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It seems that anything that comes into your view, concerning creationism, is quickly debunked. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Because I've seen past a lot of the common debating skills and such used. I also know sufficient biology to form my own opinions without anything else. The difference really is that I make my opinions based on what I do for a living and what I read.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In essence, have you read the bible with an open mind, knowing the possibilities that this stuff might be true? What makes your scientific journals, sarcastically, more authentic than the bible?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I have, and I've stated before, that I do believe in the new testament. However, I view the old testament as merely a collection of stories that are there to explain things to a people who weren't very scientifically inclined, and to record some historical events.

There was however, in my view (see previous threads) no world flood and that sort of thing.

People like Sirus rely that evolutionists are all godless narrow minded heathans. Yet, I believe in the new testament, and rather like Jesus in general. This doesn't mean I have to believe all the bible, nor is anyone (Christian or otherwise) trying to force me too. I need not care if God created the world or if I'm related to a paramecia (probably am).

I suppose if we want to *debate* evolution instead of talk about it scientifically which I've always maintained, then I could say I wouldn't EVER believe in a God that would think up Ebola. But then, in the end, I barely worry, because I believe what I feel like and based on evidence, I'll accept Evolution thank you very much.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is my guess that there is very little biology </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

That is the problem with this whole argument. I've mentioned now (and Sirus so elegantly proved) that Creationism is all about debating, but evolution is a massively complex beast that expands more fields of science than anything else.

It will come as a surprise to you to hear me say this, but I always wonder why the general public is starting to agree with evolution. It's so horrifically complex and difficult to understand without years of study in biology (even then you'll still be deficient in things like Geology, physics, chemistry...). Creationism is much simpler and has fewer logical problems to fill in without a lot of work because that is in essence debating.

It just amazes me how anyone can accept evolution based on the mass of evidence they never bother reading on a day to day basis.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thanks, and yes, you will pwn me next round. Trust me, don't take it to heart from a guy who doesn't know much</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The funny thing is, I don't go out to pwn you, Sirus or anyone else. If I wanted to pwn someone, I wouldn't be on my home computer. I'd be at the science library with about 15-20 Journals in front of me, and you'd get a 30-40 page rebuttal (peice by piece style) with the general mass of evidence from molecular genetics.

From the above, if I had webspace, time and a feeling to do an 'pwning' properly, I would of gone into massive detail on molecular clocks. I would of talked more in detail about how the eye has in fact developed in molluscan species (with diagrams), I would of posted a fair amount of scanned pictures of embryos showing similar developmental structures.

A detailed discussion on punctuated equilibrium, with the fossil evidence for it, where it occurs and why etc etc.

I just don't have the time (and I'm not sure if I want to go that far just to say my e-**** is bigger or something).

O_o

Bogglesteinsky · October 2003

Aegeri: Punctuated equilibrium: I will get back to you on that. I dont have the book with me.

Fossil record:

The main form of dating - Carbon dating, as any self-respecting scientist will tell you, is remarkably inaccurate. Despite other forms of dating, C14 is still the most widely used method

How do scientists tell how old rocks are? By the fossils found in them - Carbon dating doesnt work on non living tissue. How do scientists tell ow old fossils are? by the rock layer thay were found in. You with me? Its like one scientist finding a fossil in a rock and saying that it is 60 million years old. Another scientist asks him "how do you know?" He replies "Because the rock i found it in was 60 million years old" The second scientist asks him "how do you know?" The first scientist replies "Because i found a 60 million year old fossil in it"

<b>its a circular argument</b> Fossils are a certain age because they were found in a certain age rock, which is a certain age because they found fossils of a certain age in it

Dinosaurs can be explained by the theory that the atmoshperic pressure was twice as high before the flood this was ideal for life (in hospitals now doctors still put some patients in double pressure chambers to help them heal quicker), and the climate change after the flood was too much that they couldn't cope.

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fossil record:

The main form of dating - Carbon dating, as any self-respecting scientist will tell you, is remarkably inaccurate. Despite other forms of dating, C14 is still the most widely used method</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Well yes and no. It is inaccurate AFTER a certain date (About 30,000 years) which is why it isn't used to date things older than that. However it is relatively accurate for dating things around that time period, it is widely used because it is easy to perform and that's about the sort of things we're wanting to date. This isn't to say it has other problems, it is known that over a long period the faction of carbon 14 does change. This is why we have other checks in place however, and do not use carbon dating ALL the time as you appear to imply.

-Contemporary College Physics, Jones and Childers (2001). Pgs 843-844.
(incidently they say it is 40,000 years)

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How do scientists tell how old rocks are? By the fossils found in them - Carbon dating doesnt work on non living tissue.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oddly, you fail to mention that potassium-argon dating is also used to date rocks, and these are generally in accordance with findings from carbon dating. It is also quite accurate and less prone to error too.

However that is still true, but also false (making it semi-true O_o). I've already stated why because carbon doesn't have the long half life to date REALLY REALLY old stuff. So you have to use something else, making that statement only semi true.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its like one scientist finding a fossil in a rock and saying that it is 60 million years old.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Carbon doesn't last that long, you'd have to go to another radio isotope to date that. Making your example irrelevant.

In addition, the dates picked up are actually compared to other methods of dating. For example the growth rings around trees that are nearby and other examples. Finally, carbon can't date rocks anyway, and with very old fossils you have to determine their age using other techniques.

Given that C14 has a half life of around 5700 years, if you can find carbon14 in a sample then it probably is older than that at least.

I guess that leaves only 300 years for a young earth then eh <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>its a circular argument</b> Fossils are a certain age because they were found in a certain age rock, which is a certain age because they found fossils of a certain age in i</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I could say, Boggle is wrong because he doesn't know enough about radio carbon dating (or dating techniques as a general rule).

And I wouldn't need to go any further because the initial premise is true <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

Can I expect this accuracy about punctuated equilibrium as well?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Dinosaurs can be explained by the theory that the atmoshperic pressure was twice as high before the flood this was ideal for life (in hospitals now doctors still put some patients in double pressure chambers to help them heal quicker)</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Low pressure chambers are to keep out infectious organisms. The theory is that if you keep the pressure inside the chamber low then when you open the door, stuff will be sucked in, and not out. Thus this confines pathogens inside of the room and keeps them there. I know this because I see this in high security microbiology labs.

Unless you meant something else... I've never heard of a 'double pressure' room however, but I do know that patients with diseases like TB and Sars are confined in such rooms as the above. I think that is what you are implying.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> and the climate change after the flood was too much that they couldn't cope.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

However, you're still wrong, because Carbon dating is only used up to 30,000 years, and other techniques are used for older fossils. As for the flood, mind explaining how anything on the planets surface is still alive, either crushed from the pressure or with it's guts over several miles as the pressure reverses?

Edit: Sigh, there I go. I'm starting to get a little annoyed though. You made me look up a physics textbook.

CommunistWithAGun · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 7 2003, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have some questions for you evolutionists out there:

If it (evolution) takes millions of years to occur, <i>How can we be sure it is happening?</i>

Is humankind as we now experiance it merly an intermediate satge leading to a more complex and intelligent life-form?

If humans are the product of random mutations, sifted by the process of natural selection, how can we be sure this statement is true?

How can natural processes, operating by blind chance, generate complex, functioning mechanisms, let alone intelligent human beings, out of random particles?

What objective value or dignity does humanity have if it owes its existence to nothing more then millions of accidents?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Evolution dosen't take millions of years. Why do you think bacteria grow immune to drugs?

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Evolution dosen't take millions of years. Why do you think bacteria grow immune to drugs? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Normal macroevolution does, that other kind of evolution is usually either microevolution (a novel mutation that leads to a resistant phenotype, like in VRE) or they are just naturally resistant (Streptomycin resistance).

Depends on bacteria, where it came from, what it has been exchanging DNA with etc.

However, you're still right because bacteria can exchange chunks of DNA effectively allowing them to evolve much faster than mutation ever would allow them too.

Edit: Decided to add an example to the above.

A good example of this is the nodulation factor genes that allow bacteria to colonise plants and fix nitrogen (think legumes). This is encoded on a rather large stretch of DNA and originally took millions of years to evolve probably. However, many bacteria today can fix nitrogen and use similar gene set (with differences though). This is believed to be because the bacteria have procured the genes from the original in one go. As bacteria in the soil have been shown to actively swap genes often this is a very likely idea.

Bogglesteinsky · October 2003

answer this then aegeri.

A scientist studied a type of bacteria that replicates 400,000 times faster than humans. This allowed him to observe the equivalent of millions of years of human evolution. At the end of the period, the bacteria in studied were essentially the same. Virtually nothing had happened throughout the whole period

I have downloaded Samwise's Genesaver - something that is supposed to mimic evolution through mutation. It has been running for absolutely ages, yet there are no new species.

Micro Evolution: Essentially, An animal survives because it is the strongest, and it is hte strongest because it survives. yes! another circular argument

TractorCow · October 2003

Remind me never to argue with Aegeris about anything... he's too smart for me. ^_^

And I have this very valid and useful contribution: I respect people's ideas and beliefs without criticising them for them. That's why I don't argue about things like this. Especially not with friends I want to keep! (Especially not people who are smarter than me, and **** Aeg' is one smart cookie).

Melatonin · October 2003

heres my problem.
if it comes down to a choice between evolution and creationism, you can give me all the fact and figures, statistics and quotes in the world, but at the end of the day, when the theories point to my being made by and invisible man who lives in the sky, all your arguments become meaningless.

there is just no way i can accept this as fact.

Bogglesteinsky · October 2003

so, instead of feeling you have a purpose, a reason for existing apart from just reproduction, you would rather believe that you are just the product of millions of random accidents.

How can you have any moral virtues at all if you believe that? Why do we have medicine? Keeping "deformed" (i use this word for lack of a better one)people alive is going against the one thing that makes us human: to better our species. Why do we fight to save sepcies from extinction? If they cant keep up with the changes, tough. Why dont we just kill everyone with cancer? They are going to die anyway, and killing them off improves the gene pool.

Aegeri · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>answer this then aegeri.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

O_o ok

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A scientist studied a type of bacteria that replicates 400,000 times faster than humans. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Is this a philosophical question or what? Does it have any relevance whatsoever? <i>E. coli</i> breeds faster than you, but <i>Mycobacteria tuberculosis</i> divides once every 14 days. Evolution has been observed (on a relatively rapid scale) in both organisms. TB deletes portions of its genome and has spread throughout mammalian animal populations (badgers, cows, possums etc). <i>E. coli</i> has mutated and formed antibiotic resistant strains (VRE) and also aquired pathogenicity islands (EPEC).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This allowed him to observe the equivalent of millions of years of human evolution. At the end of the period, the bacteria in studied were essentially the same. Virtually nothing had happened throughout the whole period</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Depends on how long he left them, in addition to this without any sort of natural selection pressures, the population probably did maintain at a constant level. However, this rarely (in fact never) happens in the real world, and mutations in bacteria are extremely common. In addition, bacteria as previously mentioned are brilliant at grabbing genes from other bacteria.

You are failing to make any point here however.

If you are saying that bacterial cells do not behave as human ones do, then that is simply 'duh'. If you are saying that you can put bacteria in an environment with no external selective forces or competition and they'll remain relatively constant, again, 'duh'.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I have downloaded Samwise's Genesaver - something that is supposed to mimic evolution through mutation. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Computer models rarely ever represent the 'real world' very well at all. I still have no idea if you're making any particular point or not.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Micro Evolution: Essentially, An animal survives because it is the strongest, and it is hte strongest because it survives. yes! another circular argument</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

No actually. An animal survives due to having beneficial mutations that help it to survive better in its environment. If that helps it to find a mate and importantly, BREED and pass said mutation on, then it is selected for. Genes that favour animals living in their environment (and this always comes down to breeding) aid their owner is spreading said genes more.

There isn't a circular argument here at all.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>so, instead of feeling you have a purpose,</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I'm a sack for my genes, and I'm rather proud of them actually. I'll happily propagate them when the time comes, and assist (via vaccine development, or something, haven't decided what I'll do yet) others to spread their genes too.

I view that as a rather good thing.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>a reason for existing apart from just reproduction, you would rather believe that you are just the product of millions of random accidents.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why not?

Some people just prefer the idea that most miserable diseases in this world came about by accident (and usually do) rather than being deliberately created. I certainly would be a bit dubious about a God who was bored enough one day to create ebola.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How can you have any moral virtues at all if you believe that?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Is this going into a whole "evolutionists are tools of the devil" kind of crap?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why do we have medicine?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

'Duh'.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Keeping "deformed" (i use this word for lack of a better one)people alive is going against the one thing that makes us human: to better our species.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Not really, such people are likely to be genetically dead anyway or have unfavourable characteristics from a sexual selection point of view. Humans are also very altruistic as a species.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why do we fight to save sepcies from extinction?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Why not O_o. Many reasons why people do this, the first is that many animals are of significant economic importance. Sure, nobody gives a damn if some random beetle goes extinct, but a native parrot or similar? Hmmmmm.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If they cant keep up with the changes, tough.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

But then, the animals that can keep up with the changes start to predominate, and you have a larger problem than you did the first time. Keeping an ecological system in balance is being increasingly seen as important now.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why dont we just kill everyone with cancer? They are going to die anyway, and killing them off improves the gene pool. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually wrong, once again demonstrating your lack of knowledge about these biological concepts. Cancer generally kills people once they are well past reproductive age (some examples though do not). If someone has bred it doesn't matter what happens after that, natural selection has more or less lifted off them once they've spread their genes. It doesn't matter if they die after that, their genes will survive on in the gene pool from having reproduced.

moultano · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 8 2003, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have downloaded Samwise's Genesaver - something that is supposed to mimic evolution through mutation. It has been running for absolutely ages, yet there are no new species.
 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Turn on wierdness and you'll see tons of speciation going on. None of what goes on in that is <i>technically</i> speciation because I think according to the specifications in the program any of the organisms can breed with any other. You will however see drastically different behaviors. The limitation of that type of computer program is that there is a finite number of organisms that can be created (very large, but finite) because they are limited to having a certain datasize. Organisms in the real world don't have this restriction, and the possibilities for their development are infinite (1 to 1 onto correspondence with the natural numbers I might add <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> )

I've seen things that zoomed around as fast as possible looking for food frantically, things that sat there waiting for food to pop up under them (not just initially, they evolved to be this way) things that sit in one place peering around them and dashing out to eat anything that runs by, and all types of other complex behaviors that I can't describe satisfactorially.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>their genes will survive on in the gene pool </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yeah, the cancer genes...

But anyway, not what I wanted to post about.

Back to your dating methods. You already have said that C14 dating is inaccurate past 30,000 years (well actually after about 50,000 there would be no traces of C14 left, so yeah, that is true).

What other methods do you propose that bring about dates of millions+ of years?

Forlorn · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Oct 7 2003, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Anyways, the past should be left to history, not science. Science is too speculative, anyone could weed out some or certain facts to prove their hypothesis, a true scientist tries to prove himself wrong anyways not right.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Any historian will tell you that history is the most imperfect science out there.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Oct 8 2003, 09:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Any historian will tell you that history is the most imperfect science out there.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
And why is this? Because History is written by those who survived. In other words, an automatic bias is in place when you study History. The Victor praises himself and eviscerates his enemies.

Thus the study of History is imperfect, because History itself is imperfect.

Translate biased study and assumption-mongering over to our discussion on evolution/creationism, and a few things come to light.

1. Both sides of the argument use heavy assumptions in their view.
2. Both sides are biased by their assumptions.
3. Neither side can state FACT that shows that their side is correct. Only opinion/belief.

Show me a FACT that proves evolution and I will give you a counter. But then again, I believe in a literal creator so I am rather biased aren't I.

Forlorn · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Donnel @ Oct 8 2003, 10:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [/QUOTE]
And why is this? Because History is written by those who survived. In other words, an automatic bias is in place when you study History. The Victor praises himself and eviscerates his enemies.

Thus the study of History is imperfect, because History itself is imperfect.

Translate biased study and assumption-mongering over to our discussion on evolution/creationism, and a few things come to light.

1. Both sides of the argument use heavy assumptions in their view.
2. Both sides are biased by their assumptions.
3. Neither side can state FACT that shows that their side is correct. Only opinion/belief.

Show me a FACT that proves evolution and I will give you a counter. But then again, I believe in a literal creator so I am rather biased aren't I.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Historian's will use fact's. However, facts only tell the basics. It will take inferences to tell the complete story, resulting in many different views of history.

Also, your sentence is flawed:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Thus the study of History is imperfect, because History itself is imperfect.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

It should read: "Thus the study of History is imperfect, because <b>humanity</b> itself is imperfect."

Sorry for nitpicking, but I'd hate to see a good sentence go to waste.

As far as evolution vs. creation:

Evolution is based on FACTS.

Creation is based on OPPINIONS.

I'm no atheist, but I certainly recognize the fact that orginal religions were formed as a form of enternal government. Only later did they start to focus on more philiosophical things.

It seems to me that evolution stares us right in the face yet people still deny it. Oh well, it's only human to do so.

Donnel · October 2003

You missed my whole point...

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It will take inferences to tell the complete story</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Inferences = Bias and assumption.

And I stand by my sentence. Humanity is imperfect, but when someone studies History, they are getting the biased view of the person who recorded said History. Bias in this case = imperfect. It really was a nitpick and really just semantics, since the persons recorded bias just shows the imperfect human behind it.

Now... for the other point you missed...

Evolution is not based on FACTS, but based on opinions, speculations and assumptions just as Creationism is. I'm not asking anyone to change their view here. Simply to realize that neither side can prove to the other that what it says is true. I believe in Creationism because of evidence that I see that SUPPORTS it. The funny thing is, the evidence that I see debunks evolution.

Give me some FACTS that support evolution.

Then we will talk again.

RyoOhki · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And why is this? Because History is written by those who survived. In other words, an automatic bias is in place when you study History. The Victor praises himself and eviscerates his enemies.

Thus the study of History is imperfect, because History itself is imperfect.

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

As Forlorn said, historians like myself must look at the facts that we can find in history. Sometimes it's pretty bloody difficult, because if say only one source remains, it will display bias most of the time. Thus you try and remove the bias. The vast majority of human writing however helps us here, because most of it is boring, factual stuff: government records of things like grain collection, taxation and census reports. This is good meaty material that we can use to help us sift through the bias in other historical documents.

Also, it's quite rare to only have one side's opinion with regards to a historical event. A war for example, will have a victor and a loser. Unless the victor is a people such as the Mongols, who often would leave absolutly no-one alive in the regions they conquored (even then though there were slaves and isolated settlements), the loser will still have people and records. Thus they will write their accounts just as the victors write theirs. Take the case of the North American Native Indians: certainly they lost their lands and the wars they fought for them, but their voices are not silent. By taking the accounts from both sides you can arrive at an "average" conclusion, that you can then cross-referance with other sources. This is where archaeology comes into play, along with genetics, biology and above all, additional research.

The idea that "history is written by the victors" is generally false: the only real place where that holds true is in regard to European conquest of indigenous people, who usually do not have writing and thus can't write their version of events. Yet as we see today, many of these people are literate and do write of their experiances. Thus their voices are not silent, and their version of history can be heard.

Donnel · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>From the defense of the Bible thread.

Often people will see what they want to see and write accordingly - Ryo-Ohki

</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Conceded that "History is written by the victor" is inherently inaccurate by and large, however bias exists both ways. Those same indigenous people who were conquored and seen as savages tell in their own tales about the trickery and misery inflicted upon them by the "white man" (put your own conquoring peoples in this place).

How much of what the "loser" has to say is biased against their captors?

How much is just retribution.

I still contend that History is imperfect. And always will be because of bias both recorded and the bias that we bring to the table when we study History.

Now this is getting way off track though...

Bogglesteinsky · October 2003

As promised aegeris, Punctuated equilibrium (in laymans terms):

Developed in the 1970's by Niles Eldredge and Stepthen Jay Gould (N. Eldredge and S. J. Gould, 'Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism', in Models in Palaeobiology, ed. T. L. M. Schorpf, Freem, Cooper & Co)

In this model, millions of year with little or no change (equilibrium), followed by worldwide cataclysms (punctuations) causing wholesale extinctions and new life-forms, then another period of equilibrium, anything up to 10 million generations, then another burst of life.

It wiggles evolutionists out of the big gaps in the fossil record, <i>but as yet it has offered no genetic or mechanic evidence in suppor of its own major premise</i>

Luther Sunderland: "The theory of punctuated equilibrium is causing much turmoil amongst the evolutionists. <i>They know that there is no actual mechanism that would explain large rapid jumps from one species to another, yet they also know the fossil record does not support gradualism. they are left on the horns of a dilemma</i>"

Niles Eldredge admits the idea is still very 'evolutionary' (Luther D Sunderland, 'Darwin's Enigma', p 104) and argumenst about mechanisims are still going on in the evolutionary camp

Martin Lubenow [the equilibirum model of evolution was] "invented to explain why [transitional fossils] were not found" He also adds "However, it is imperitive to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria model does not <i>remove</i> the need for transtional fossils. It just explains why those transitions have not been found. Certainly, the punctuated equlibra theory is unique. It must be the only theory put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found"

DiscoZombie · October 2003

I know *I* stopped trying...

<span style='color:white'>Then stop viewing this forum and don't flame those still interested in a discurse.</span>

Eviscerator · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JDawg @ Oct 7 2003, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Just think of it. Man is the only self-aware being, and highly intelligent on this planet.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Well right away you're just wrong. Gorillas are self-aware. Dolphins are self-aware. Chimpanzees are self-aware. Some birds are self-aware. Many of these same species are also very intelligent. Gorillas can learn sign language, and are capable of teaching their offspring sign language, too. Chimps understand that other chimps, and even other humans, do not necessarily know the same things that they know. Countless experiments have been done to prove that these species are capable of understanding their knowledge in terms of all other knowledge. They are completely self-aware and might even have their own beliefs as to what their meaning of life is. Who are we to say they can't think like we do? That is just human arrogance.

Evolution

Comments