Evolution for Dummies...Edit.....is for Dummies

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:16 PM

Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us. Read. or don't, you can always keep on believing in a ridiculously flawed philosophy

.... http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:32 PM

Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.

But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."

As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:

1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Creationism matches none of these criteria.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:34 PM

You are doing what has hampered mankind from divorcing ourselves from ridiculous theories since we crawled out of the primordial soup, not listening to the truth because we hate the messenger. The argument against evolution is made in the paper. That he believes in god is irrelevant. Is he correct about mutations, statistics, physics, the made up fudge factor, genetics, or Darwinism. He maybe a religious man, but that does not negate evolution being wrong. Accepting that as truth does not mean god did it..Just that evolution, as we spout it, is wrong.

P.s. And you could not have read that paper in 16 minutes. So, let those that do comment. You, obviously are closed minded and not open to anything that goes against your beliefs.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.

But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."

As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:

1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Creationism matches none of these criteria.

While I do agree with your conclusion, I want to quibble about your ( their? ) definition of " postulate"

When I learned it, a long time ago when we were still evolving, a postulate was a preliminary assumption, a thing agreed or accepted to be true, much like a laywer's stipulated fact, at least as the starting point for argument. A postulate could be hypothetical :" If faster than light travel is possible, then--"

I just looked it up in my Webster's Unabridged, where it says, in part:

"a position or supposition assumed without proof,or one that is considered self-evident, or too plain to require illustration; a propostion of which the truth is demanded or assumed for the purpose of further reasoning; a necessary assumption"

SO, if you start with the postulate, " Evolution is wrong, " you get one conclusion. If you start with a postulate of, " Evolution *M*A*Y* be right--" then the argument takes another shape, and the conclusion may be different.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:15 PM

I started reading it and ran into a problem in the first three paras....

Quote:
But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.

Why look at the words of an amateur? If you're talking about science, it seems to me that he should be quoting scientists. He uses this straw-man argument because a real scientist wouldn't make the mistake that the amateur did. If the rest of the website is as duplicitous and manipulative as the intro, why should I bother reading the rest???

---------------------------------
It don't make no sense.

RUE

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:25 PM

I found MAJOR problems in the first section alone. This is just a small sampling of the errors. Either this person doesn't know anything about the topic OR they are deliberately whole-cloth fabricating their 'information'.

PLEASE educate yourself before you waste my time and try to foist this off on me.

"Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept."

So this person is not talking abut the 'creation' of life, but about major changes from one life form to another. Dude, there is common biochemistry across all life forms. In fact, there is common DNA across all life forms. This supports macro-evolution. It does fly in the face of creationism - if you are the creator, why use the same template over and over?

"Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety." I googled this phrase carefully, as it is a supposed quote. The only place I found it was your linked site. So this is a straw-man argument. By mis-stating the evolutionary argument, the person creates an easy target. From a supposedly religious person interested in 'truth', it's very dishonest.

"Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. ... there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. Duplication - Inversion - Deletion - Insertion - Transposition - (Recombination) - Point Mutation -
none of these (first six) processes can add any data to the genome.
1) Mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation.."

The person who is writing this is seriously mis-informed about the biochemistry of the genome. Duplication, deletion, insertion, and transposition cause MAJOR changes in biochemistry and anatomy. Loss of a single gene function is how whales lost their legs. These genetic changes which the author dismisses so casually can cause major heritable changes in biochemistry and anatomy. (To say that NO EVOLUTIONIST can point to this kind of mutation is a bald lie.)

"Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the “noise” of random events in the population."
Again this is a complete mis-representation of what population genetics shows. Population genetics show that in a stable population, the relative distribution of genes (even the shiny new mutations) will stay the same. Under environmental pressure favorable variations will be selected.

"Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped."
Actually, molecular biology has been a boon to evolution as more and more conserved sequences - between say bacteria, yeast and man - not only support the 'common ancestor' concept of evolution, but allow basic research - on say human aging - to be performed on yeast.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
That he believes in god is irrelevant.

Sure it is.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:51 PM

I think the tile of this post should be "This website is for dummies" with the link. Not saying Kaneman is one.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:18 PM

I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:19 PM

Rue, his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact. So, if you want to make a case for "De-evolution" feel free, but don't use it for a pro evolution argument. I am not a creationist by any stretch, I am saying the gaping holes in evolution cannot be overlooked by anyone being intellectually honest. To believe evolution we would have to forget all the scientific disciplines and laws that show it not only unlikely, but impossible. I am not willing to abandon established laws and sciences in favor of a "Philosophy".

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Who says that?

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Who says that?

Religious fanatics (you know Fundementalist, Evangelists) oh and you, here:

Quote:
Whoot! chalk one up for creationism.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24550

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:22 PM

Quote:
his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact.

What about insertions and multiple copies (which are then mutated)?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

RUE

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:05 PM

"Rue, his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact." Actually, this is NOT a fact. They can change genomes in helpful ways - for example sickle-cell trait (a single point mutation - look it up) which confers resistance to malaria.

As SignyM pointed out, other mechanisms besides point mutations - like repeats and insertions - do add genetic material and change DNA function. So does viral carried DNA. The vast majority of human DNA appears to orginate from retroviruses. (BTW, the so called 'non-coding' or junk DNA controlls expression of the rest of the DNA.)

The POINT is, the site you think is so exquisite is bull. So PLEASE, educate your self. I don't have time to go around and around your bogus assertions.

SIMONWHO

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:23 PM

Is it even worth trying to educate the uneducatable? If someone won't even listen to an argument, what hope is there of persuading them of anything?

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:56 PM

What you are missing is that no new materials are added. They are just different errors within the gene during replication the genome stays the same. It can never result in a new species..never. A simple Google of genetic insertions what is on top....
. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/PhysicalAnthr
opology/EvolutionFact/GeneticMutation/GeneticMutation.htm

Instead of spouting basic crap. Oh.. ah, insertions, point mutations yatayata ya. Learn something, or show data that disproves these two sites. How do insertions cause species to change? How long would it take to replace the general population of a species with a new phenotype because of a genetic change? Is the earth even old enough to do it even once? Give one example of an evolutionary change in a species that can't be disproved in 4 seconds? Have fun.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:04 PM

No one has been able to debunk the fossil record. Until that happens, don't waste my time.

A girl named Sue.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:20 PM

The fossil record. Wow now talk about being misnamed. As if it is a liner record of life. Or branched record of life. Yah right. Not one species can ever be shown to split, never mind change all together. The missing link, what a joke. Stop looking for it. Try looking for any of the billions of missing links..Billions. When one is found let me know Don't waste my time. An alien once landed in Roswell. Don't look I think there is a monster in the closet.

STORYMARK

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:28 PM

Kaneman is right. Can't everone see it?

Overwhelming evidence doesn't matter. The fact that not every singe element of evolutionary theory have been proven clearly proves that we were all created by the big invisible man in the sky. It says so in an old book. So it's irrefutable.

Or maybe it was the flying spaghetti monster

One of those, I'm sure of it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

MINK

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 10:21 PM

Good grief . . . the guy doesn't even comprehend the difference between Darwinism and Lamarckism, forget about molecular biology. OK, on the one hand we have Mr. Website Guy, citing amateur evolutionists and New Scientist articles, not one bit of his own published investigative work in the field.

On the other hand, we've got many thousands of researchers diligently observing nature, publishing study after peer-reviewed study, yet all somehow clinging desperately to a discredited and deeply flawed philosophy.

Sue is DA BOMB! I used to be a Field member when I lived out that way.

It's okay to leave them to die.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:32 PM

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch,Evolution or Creation (1966)

"Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world."

Show me one.

RUE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:59 AM

Legged mammals to whales. Well documented in the fossil record and independently supported by genetics/ biochemistry.

PS THIS IS A TRAP ! I've predicted your response and I already have the answer to your next post. I'm curious to see how predictable (and deliberately ignorant) you are.

MINK

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:08 AM

Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.

RUE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:26 AM

Just musing - hell must be having a cold snap. I and the poster formerly known as AUrpator agree.

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:49 AM

Of course you know my side of this debate, you willy creature you

Wonderful whales
Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing adaptation of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.

Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.

I will post a study from oxford about genetics and biochemistry. Their conclusion is that changes in molecular proteins and DNA cannot explain macro evolution. So what is the mechanism for evolution? Magic or Space Aliens? (Please don't say natural selection, I am getting

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mink:
Transitions in Action:

1) Fish - lives in water

2) Amphibian - can live on land for brief periods but must lay eggs in water and loses moisture rapidly through skin

3) Reptile - can live on land exclusively due to watertight skin and watertight eggs

Too broad for you? Okay:

1) Monkey-like ancestor - smallish, hunched semi-bipedal stature, moderate brainpan with distinct snout shape

2) Early Proto-human from fossil record - intermediate size, hunched but bipedal, intermediate brainpan and flatter face

3) Modern human - you know

What do you make of the lobe-finned fishes? What do you make of a flatworm with light-sensitive eyespots? What about mitochondrial DNA and the theory of its symbiotic origin? What about the fossils they've been turning up recently showing new transitional forms between dinosaur and bird, appearing to have both feathers and scales?

It's okay to leave them to die.

That is ridiculous. You are fully aware of that. Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles evolved in a linear fashion? Since when? Third grade?

Dinosaurs that APPEAR to have feathers and scales..Wow, that is a great argument.

Too broad for me? Yes. I haven't seen that poster since elementary school.

Night night folks. Don't go chang'n on me over night now.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:06 AM

Auraptor, well said.

To the non-believers in evolution,

You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe. It's like saying "Math is wrong"

Consider the argument:

Math is wrong. You can't say 5+5=10 because of you're theory of math, it equal ten because God wants it to.

Evolution says far less about biology than it says about statistics. Perhaps you're throwing out statistics as a science as well. Why stop there? Here's an idea: Just throw out language altogether. Language after all can't have evolved through human efforts to communicate, it must have been handed to us by God. Perhaps we're all babbling because of the tower of babel, and everything about animal communication and development of language was made up. Well, since God gave us a sacred speaking in tongues, why screw around with english?

Zwarp Gorfu Nod Haddem Hdaem

RUE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:33 AM

You missed the point and failed to do a basic search, which I anticipated.

But rather than give you the answer as I intended, let me demonstrate how easy it is to find. Click on google. Enter: whales fossil record

Read the entire first site you find. Then get back to me.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:52 AM

im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter; or how an inanimate, lifeless object then evolves into a living organism; which sounds equally as 'mystical' as the theistic theories. i mean.. what process, or 'law' are you guys aware of the gives life (in essence) to death?

that makes the universe, or nature itself a "god", as it gives life to lifeless matter. believe it or not, this is not a new concept, and is an occult one at that

Quote:
Naturalism works in tandem with materialism because it attempts to sustain the primacy of matter with the metaphysical claim of "self-creation" (i.e., abiogenesis). Of course, this claim suggests that living and dead matter are inseparable. Thus, living things are literally artificial entities that create themselves, an occult theme communicated through the Kabalistic myth of the golem.

Quote:
"the golem is based on faith that dead matter is not really dead, but can be brought to life.

Quote:
As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim. . . Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being;

Quote:
“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry."

i only bring this up because the golem is a Kabbalistic myth, which shares a fundemental premise with Evolution; and the Kabbala is a primary influence of the ancient mysteries, which the Freemasons and Illuminati practice; secret societies intent on establishing a NWO global dictatorship(not to change the subject)

check the link out for yourself and see what you make of it. Kaneman -im curious of our opinion to this link
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Prima_Materia.htm

REAVERMAN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:32 AM

Okay, I read to the genetics section and just had to call BS on this guy. He says that an evolutionist says that "Evolution is not random", which the author says contradicts the random mutations aspect of evolution.

This is utter foolishness. We all know that random mutations occur all the time. HOWEVER, evolutionary theory states that, in nature, only those mutations that give the organism an advantage in their specific environment survive. For example: There are two members of the same species born in the arctic with different mutations. One has a thinner fur coat than normal, forcing it to expend more energy keeping warm than anything else. When winter hits it will probably freeze to death, preventing the flawed mutation from gaining a foothold in the gene pool.

The other is born with a much thicker than normal fur coat, allowing it to expend more energy looking for food and a mate. Winter comes and goes. Meanwhile, creature number 2 has not only survived during winter, but thrived, giving it much better chances when it comes to mates. It's offspring inherit the thick coat, and, through thousands of years of inter-breeding, the majority of the species has a thick coat.

Evolution IS random in the sense that the mutations are random. However, evolution IS NOT random in the sense that only those mutations that are beneficial for the organism survive, leading to species that are specialized to their specific environments. The author is taking things completely out of context.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:37 AM

such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

im more curious how non-living matter mutates into living matter

Organic matter from inorganic matter although not understood is /partially/ understood. I remember reading an article in that someone figured out one of the steps. It probably made its way onto /., so check there and you'll probably find a link to the original article. That or someone far more knowledgable than I should be along shortly.

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in. The thread:

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365

with my post with an exert from the article:

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24365#388048

Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists. We also don't deny when contradictions occur, but instead seek to resolve the conflict and/or find a new better solution. I've shown this mentality above and you would do well to do the same.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

ROCKETJOCK

Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:32 PM

My favorite specious argument in all of this is the assertion that a lack of transitional form fossils disproves evolution. Anyone who postulates this obviously has no idea how rare the conditions are that create a fossil. There are at least three unlikely requirements:

1. The life form needs to die under such conditions that its body will be buried, or otherwise encased, such as in amber.

2. Its internment needs to be under such conditions that it will not deteriorate by normal biological functions, such as decay.

3. The resultant proto-fossil needs to remain undisturbed by geologic action (such as erosion) or catastrophic destruction (volcanic/earthquake activity, etc.) for several million years.

Add to this the additional condition that it must be discovered by someone who is capable of recognizing it as a fossil and we have what might be considered a minor miracle of unlikeliness. That few transitional forms are caught in this web of improbabilities is hardly surprising.

In fact, using the Intelligent Design Theory postulate that high odds against something equal proof of a guiding intellect, we must logicaly conclude that someone (God?) wants us to find fossils!

Proof positive that God wants us to believe in Evolution!

(In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic...)

"So Satan buried fossils to mislead mankind? So what? No God worthy of worship would condemn someone for losing in a fixed game." -- Solomon Short

OLDENGLANDDRY

Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:41 PM

The size of KANEMAN's arse is proof positive on it's own that there is no god.
God would not have made such a horrible mistake.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:46 PM

Anti- I'm not an expert in the field, but there ARE self-replicating bits of DNA, RNA, or just plain simple protein that are borderline "life": viruses, reverse transcriptase viruses, and prion proteins. Altho I can't spell out in detail how "life" could have evolved from non-life, I can imagine how simple molecules can self-assemble into more complex forms. We're taking advantage of that concept in the self-assembly of nanoparticles. (Personally I think that's a very dangerous field of study, since nano-particles can penetrate cells and cause damage.) In any case, the current focus on the "cradle of life" is submarine volcanic vents.

Quote:
Self-assembly is a branch of nanotechnology in which objects, devices, and systems form structures without external prodding. Nanotechnology is a field of engineering that deals with design, manufacture, and control on a scale of a few nanometers (nm) or less, where 1 nm = 10-9 meters. In self-assembly, the individual components contain in themselves enough information to build a template for a structure composed of multiple units. An example is the construction of a monolayer, in which a single layer of closely-packed molecules sticks to a surface in an orderly and closely-packed fashion.... Also see dendrimer, exponential assembly, positional assembly, and self-replication.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CARTOON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To the non-believers in evolution, You miss the point. Entirely. Evolution is not a theory of biology, it's one of the key fundamental principles of the universe.

Hello. Perhaps some of the folks in here have missed the thread on Smoot ( http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24550)?

If evolution is one of the "key fundamental prinicipals of the universe", then why has the man who just won the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics endorsed (and written the foreward) for a book by Fred Heeren which claims that evolution never could have happened? Apparently this Nobel Prize winner in Physics disagrees with some of the people in here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigmanunki:
Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.

Would "default(ing) to a greater authority when one exists" include the current Nobel Prize winner for physics, George Smoot (who, clearly doesn't believe that the universe evolved)?

Granted, many can accuse myself and others who believe that evolution is a load of bunk (including Fred Heeren) of being "idiots", but until someone in here produces their Nobel Prize in physics, I doubt they can summarily dismiss someone who actually has one in a like manner.

Am I proposing that Nobel laureates cannot be mistaken? Obviously not. Many of them disagree with each other (not just on evolution, but on many things). What I am saying is that they cannot be readily dismissed as "idiots" by people with a far lesser knowledge in their field of expertise -- as I imagine would be a description applicable to every single person in this forum.

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.

RUE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:02 PM

Carton,

That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.

SIMONWHO

Thursday, October 12, 2006 6:33 PM

The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense. In much the same way as when you fall in love, you ignore the warning signs that your girlfriend is a lying, cheating, coniving bitch, people who believe absolutely in the literal word of the Bible will layer God wherever they can.

It doesn't mean they're stupid or ignorant. It just means that when they see a rainbow, they think "That's God's promise to us that he won't send a flood again". All the stuff about how it's defraction of light and how there is plenty of proof that no flood covered the Earth as described in the Bible: that gets shoved to one side as irrelevant.

No-one said scientists had to be perfect.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Carton,

That's why I asked you for quotes in the other thread. I was trying to find what was in the book. The best I can tell, it's a collection of musings of various scientists about the universe, and doesn't specifically address evolution. You say that "Fred Heeren ... claims that evolution never could have happened" in the book, and I was looking for quotes that show that.

The guys a Evangalist lunatic, it would be more worthy of your time to speak to a troll. He believes that all non-Christians should be killed and sent to hell, and he has nothing of worth to say on any subject, including Christianity.

Best to ignore him.

Oh and I don't have a Nobel Prize but this fella does:
“Let us not beat about the bush—the common assumption that evolution through natural selection is a ‘theory’ in the same way as string theory is a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro’s law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation.”—James D. Watson, Nobel Laureate
Now why are we giving Cartoon this moron of the lowest calibre even the time of day, let alone attempting to converse on a level above basic grunts, which he is woefully unable to understand?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:27 PM

Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

Quote:
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.

The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''

The proposed standards, which could come up for final Board of Education approval later this year, are designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution but state in an introduction that they do not endorse intelligent design.

That increasingly popular idea argues that some features of the natural world are best explained as having an intelligent cause because they are well-ordered and complex. Its followers attack Darwin's evolutionary theory, which says natural chemical processes could have created the basic building blocks of life on Earth, that all life had a common ancestor and that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a conservative Republican who has supported the proposed standards, said he was unmoved by the scientists' plea, which became public Thursday.

"I don't think anything should be taught as dogma,'' Abrams told the Lawrence Journal-World.

The standards, used in developing tests for students, came up for update under state law.

Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.

In their letter, they lauded evolution, saying "its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA.''

The group said intelligent design can't be tested scientifically "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.''

So you have one physicists who's comments you are probably lying about, here's 38 against your one.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MINK

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:31 PM

But... but...

I can't believe he shot down my fish to reptiles argument so easily.

I remember reading once about how the fossil record suggests that fish existed for quite some time before the first appearance of terrestrial vertebrates...hundreds of millions of years in fact.

Perhaps I am not remembering correctly, it's been a long time since the third grade.

It's okay to leave them to die.

HEB

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:52 PM

He has a Nobel Prize in physics not biology. That's like saying that a Dr who has a pHD in English is capable of performing brain surgery on you. Just because you're an expert in one field doesn't mean you're an expert in another.

I'm in the final year of a genetics course and I can guarantee you that the guy in the article kaneman quoted doesn't know what he's talking about.

The information in DNA is encoded by 4 bases (mainly), sets of three bases (a codon) code for one amino acid. A run of codons code for the chain of amino acids that make up a protein. Changing just one codon can change an important amino acid in a protein, completely changing the function of a protein.

Insertion,deletion, transposition and point mutation can all change the code of a gene, changing the protein it is coding for.

Duplication causes two identical DNA sequences to form that can then diverge to give two very different sequences with very different proteins.

It's not about magically "adding data". It's about altering the sequence of bases that completely changes the code.

Saying that these things don't "add new data" is like saying that I haven't made a difference to

the word 'firefly' if I rearrange it to 'I fry elf'.

Also things like the partial evolution of a whale have been answered time and time again. A common argument that is cited by creationists is that humans can't clot their blood without half of the blood clotting system so how can an organism have existed with only a partial blood clotting system. The answer to this is, the turtle.

...................

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

HEB

Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

Actually it's better than he deserves.

I still don't get why we're giving religious fanatics like Cartoon the satisfaction of discussing with them. Let them live in ignorance if that's what they want.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Point of fact, one CAN be religous AND still believe in evolution. The problem with fundamentalists (and people like you) is that they (you) don't understand this concept. Hell, in the 50's we understood this. And you should know better than to say such things as I cited an article showing such in a thread just a little while ago that you participated in.

if youll notice, i said "athiest" not evolutionist. i dont dispute that a degree of evolution does occur, i just dont think it is the sole mechanism of creation in the universe. an athiest does not subscribe to any omnipresent being.. that is what im talking about

CARTOON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...and I was looking for quotes that show that.

Hi, Rue. Yes, I can give quotes, but can anyone adequately summarize a 400 page book with a few quotes? If you accept Smoot's credentials -- and he recommended it -- you would be far better off reading it, than going by a few quotes which could easily be used to misdirect you (not that I would do that). Even if you don't want to dish out $13 (or whatever it's going for now), I'm sure your library has it.

BTW, I've posted Smoot's entire foreward to the book in that other thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by Simonwho:
The trouble is that if you bring in a Nobel prize winner and say "Look, here's an expert, he believes in creationism", we can produce a dozen who don't. Pure faith overwrites basic sense.

Yes, I agree. Trouble is, people who believe in evolution are just as tainted with preconceptions.

Thing is, you're assuming that because Smoot doesn't believe in evolution that he's automatically a "believer". However, to my knowledge, Smoot has never declared that he's a "believer". I mean, he went to Berkeley!! Seriously. How many "believers" have come out of Berkeley?!?!?

And regarding Nobel prize winners, I never said believe him because he's a nobel prize winner. To quote the last two paragraphs of my above post...

Am I proposing that Nobel laureates cannot be mistaken? Obviously not. Many of them disagree with each other (not just on evolution, but on many things). What I am saying is that they cannot be readily dismissed as "idiots" by people with a far lesser knowledge in their field of expertise -- as I imagine would be a description applicable to every single person in this forum.

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.

Quote:
Originally posted by Heb:
He has a Nobel Prize in physics not biology.

Hi, Heb. No. I can understand you're saying this, and you are correct -- if indeed, Smoot was endorsing a book about "biology". He wasn't. Heeren's book ("Show Me God") is not about the origin of "life", but is about the origins of the cosmos, its make-up, and fine-tuning (something about which Mr. Smoot is eminently qualified to comment). (BTW, Heeren's second volume is going to be about the origin of life.)

HEB

Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:57 PM

This is what annoyed me about the article Kaneman cited:

He says the following:

"There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome."

No-one I know who calls themselve an evolutionist would say that they deal with those first 3. Evolutionists, in the normal sense of the word, study biologial evolution.

The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CARTOON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

No need to apologize.

You had no way of knowing the gist of Heeren's book.

The second volume of his series was supposed to deal with the subject about which you are referring. After reading the first volume (5 years ago), I contacted his publisher, eager to get the second volume, and was informed that the second volume was essentially already "finished", and merely awaiting some updates and revisions. Well, I'm glad I didn't hold my breath, waiting for it.

Some of the first volume deals with the "conditions" necessary to sustain life in the universe, however, particularly a lengthy section called "Bottlenecks on the Road to Intelligence" (in chapter 2). It discusses 12 major requisites necessary for life to form, and how exactly fine-tuned things would have to be in order for them to form anywhere in the universe.

If your library has this book, you'd probably enjoy it.

HEB

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:28 PM

I haven't read the book but I'll check it out if they've got it. But one answer to this problem is the Anthropic principle.

The gist of it is that factors must have been fine-tuned to allow life to evolve, otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss this. So there may an infinite number of other universes out there, but we have to be in the one that happened to have the right constants to be fine tuned for life because otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Also I'd ask how fine tuned things would have to be in order for a Creator to come into existence that could fine tune these constants, I think the same argument would apply.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CARTOON

Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I haven't read the book but I'll check it out if they've got it. But one answer to this problem is the Anthropic principle.

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Also I'd ask how fine tuned things would have to be in order for a Creator to come into existence that could fine tune these constants, I think the same argument would apply.

The Creator (as the scriptures teach) was Himself never created, and beyond all of creation. Yes, I admit it's nearly impossible for our finite minds to comprehend an always-existing entity, but I'm sure an amoeba can't comprehend us, either -- and in relation to things, we've far more in common with an amoeba than we have with our Creator.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Heeren's book, once you've had a chance to read it.

If nothing else, I believe that Smoot's award of the Nobel Prize for physics (given his prior endorsement of the book) will make others (who might've previously been inclined to dismiss the book outright) now take a look at it for themselves, and not have to take someone else's word for what it says (pro or con).

HEB

Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:41 PM

The anthropic principle does at least fit in with mathematical theories like String theory which proposes a large number of universes. I wasn't saying that the anthropic principle was the answer but that it is an answer to that problem that is equally (if not more) valid an answer to that question than God. I would also argue that since we know that this universe exists, it takes less faith to believe that there are more universes out there than it does to believe that there is a creator out there.

Well if the Creator has always existed then why can't the universe have always existed? Perhaps bouncing back and forth in a infinite number of different forms, in which case we could just happen to be in the one correctly fine tuned for life to exist.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The fossil record. Wow now talk about being misnamed. As if it is a liner record of life. Or branched record of life. Yah right. Not one species can ever be shown to split, never mind change all together. The missing link, what a joke. Stop looking for it. Try looking for any of the billions of missing links..Billions. When one is found let me know Don't waste my time. An alien once landed in Roswell. Don't look I think there is a monster in the closet.

Right. There are no missing links. That's because the term is a misnomer. Life is NOT linear, but then no one ever said it was.(Despite what some lame a$$ H.S. biology books tout. ) Life evolves more in a tree like fashion, with many branches sprouting off of one. Many branches come to dead ends, but not all. The fossil record is a history of those items which have become fossilized. There are gaps simply because not everything that has ever lived dies in a fossil friendly enviroment. Since kaneman can't explain why there are no dinosaurs ever found in strata which is younger than 67 million yrs, or why no dinosaur fossils have ever been found in the same strata as say.... any contemporary animals, any further discussion is pointless.

Learn some paleontology before you make any more idiotic comments.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

REAVERMAN

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

SIMONWHO

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

It doesn't have to be an infinite number. That's just a concept but the only universe in which a lifeform can think "How did this universe end up so?" is one where life can be produced.

Now explain to me why that requires more faith than imagining a magical being with omnipotent powers came into being (in a manner beyond our comprehension) and set up our universe.

RUE

Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:54 PM

"Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it."

I can't remember the name of the book - it came out about 2yrs ago I think. It was written by a mathemetician.

In it he shows how simple rules, with repetition, generate complex, non-repeating, asymmetrical patterns that 'evolve'. And there are 'evolutionary' mathematical models that demonstrate survival and reproduction using simple random changes and 'fitness' rules.

Generation of complex creations and survival of the fittest are completely mathematically proven as inevitable outcomes of simple rules applied over time.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 13, 2006 12:47 AM

Yeah, Stephen Wolfram. I skimmed thru his book when it came out... I think its a good point (kind of like how fractals create very recognizable "natural" forms).

www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-52?firstview=1

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

YINYANG

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:30 AM

Quote:
such pride coming from the athiest camp; you guys really are the supreme intellects of space and time

who are we to argue with such omniscient beings as yourselves, knowing both the seen and unseen forces of the universe

i now bow to man, god of his own conscience

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, antimason. It's like me calling you a selfish right-wing Republican fundamentalist, or dismissing you as someone who can't even be bothered to read the book their entire religion revolves around. I think I'm correct when I say neither is true...

(/random comment)

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

Trouble-Maker in the House!

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

RUE

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:44 AM

SignyM

THANK YOU. It was driving me crazy* ! For the life of me I couldn't remember either the title or the author.

* Some might say it's a short trip.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, October 13, 2006 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Quote:
Originally posted by Sigmanunki:

Also, we science minded people are not "supreme intellects of space and time" etc etc etc. We do the work, publish, reproduce (verify) results, and default to a greater authority when one exists.

Would "default(ing) to a greater authority when one exists" include the current Nobel Prize winner for physics, George Smoot (who, clearly doesn't believe that the universe evolved)?

Don't cherry pick your examples and expect someone not to point it out. So, with that in mind, I call bullshit on this so called example as he is just one voice against... well... couldn't count them all. Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

And unless anyone thinks Smoot was a "fringe lunatic" who just happened to slip past the Nobel committee... Stephen Hawking called Smoot’s 1992 discovery of small ripples in the fabric of the early universe as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time." So, apparently, Hawking doesn't think Smoot's an "idiot", either.

Just b/c someone isn't a idiot in his own feild does NOT mean that they aren't an idiot in another.

Nice try, but again, bullshit.

Care to take another try?

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

if youll notice, i said "athiest" not evolutionist. i dont dispute that a degree of evolution does occur, i just dont think it is the sole mechanism of creation in the universe. an athiest does not subscribe to any omnipresent being.. that is what im talking about

Please re-read my post. You clearly haven't understood it.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Seriously. How many "believers" have come out of Berkeley?!?!?

Assloads! The problem with you, is that you equate "believer" with exactly what you believe.

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Hi, Heb. No. I can understand you're saying this, and you are correct -- if indeed, Smoot was endorsing a book about "biology". He wasn't. Heeren's book ("Show Me God") is not about the origin of "life", but is about the origins of the cosmos, its make-up, and fine-tuning (something about which Mr. Smoot is eminently qualified to comment). (BTW, Heeren's second volume is going to be about the origin of life.)

Yay, well, how about giving us the title of that book. Or better yet the ISBN or a link to somewhere that we can actually look at it?

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually, from the wife (phd in theoretical physics) the many worlds theory is a well worked out mathematical theory. So...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Yeah, Stephen Wolfram. I skimmed thru his book when it came out... I think its a good point (kind of like how fractals create very recognizable "natural" forms).

There's actually significant problems with that book. The main one being that it was self-published. Wolfram himself isn't exactly the most stable person in the world either.

EDIT: It's not the fractal thing that I disagree w/. It's just that Wolfram has seemed to take the approach that everything comes from celluar autommata, which IMO is rather... um... yay.

Sorry about the spelling, it's a late night.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CARTOON

Friday, October 13, 2006 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

You obviously failed to read my previous post. Heeren's book is about cosmology, and that is Smoot's field of expertise. Of course, I don't know how seriously I can take the comments of someone who claims to respect science, yet refuses to believe what Stephen Hawking says about Smoot (also mentioned above) -- not to mention the Nobel committee -- and recognize him as a "greater authority".

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Just b/c someone isn't a idiot in his own feild does NOT mean that they aren't an idiot in another.

Again, I refer to the comments made about Smoot by Stephen Hawking and his recent Nobel prize. What praise has Hawking brandished about anyone in this forum?

And again---Smoot was commenting about a book precisely within his field of expertise -- cosmology. Maybe large segments of my posts have become invisible, that I have to keep repeating myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Nice try, but again, bullshit.

Easily, a well-thought, scientific response. Clearly more superior to my inane ramblings. (And certain people wonder why I ignore things posted by them.)

CITIZEN

Friday, October 13, 2006 11:41 PM

Quote:
(And certain people wonder why I ignore things posted by them.)

Because they prove you wrong and unlike in real life you can't tie them to a stake and set fire to them so you just ignore them. Wouldn't want to let your tiny brainless head get educmacated now would we, would probably cause some sort of faliure.

I think everyone should ignore you. You're a religious fanatic, an idiot and a sociopath.

Nothing you say is worth listening too, nothing you say has an ounce of truth, nothing you say has an ounce of intelligence.

You'd be a Troll but you're lower than that.

A loud fart is supirior to you're inane ramblings, fuck off back under the evil freedom hating hole you came from you evangelist terrorist.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:08 AM

Quote:
There's actually significant problems with that book. The main one being that it was self-published. Wolfram himself isn't exactly the most stable person in the world either.

EDIT: It's not the fractal thing that I disagree w/. It's just that Wolfram has seemed to take the approach that everything comes from celluar autommata, which IMO is rather... um... yay.

That's why I skimmed thru the book. It was all in chapter one. The rest was.. "And here's ANOTHER example!... And look at THIS example!" Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

REAVERMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Not to mention that evolution isn't exactly his field. So, this guy isn't even a "greater authority".

You obviously failed to read my previous post. Heeren's book is about cosmology, and that is Smoot's field of expertise.

No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes. Evolution of the cosmos goes along smooth, fairly predictable lines. It is relatively simple, because it is dealing with lifeless matter.

Biological evolution is very different because it deals with organisms. An asteroid cannot mutate or reproduce or breath or excrete waste or die, because it is essentially already dead. An organism can. So, while this guy has probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about cosmology, he's no more qualified to comment on evolution than some Joe Shmoe off the street.

Quote:
Of course, I don't know how seriously I can take the comments of someone who claims to respect science, yet refuses to believe what Stephen Hawking says about Smoot (also mentioned above) -- not to mention the Nobel committee -- and recognize him as a "greater authority".

Okay, first of all, Steven Hawking is a genius with MATH and PHYSICS, NOT BIOLOGY. Secondly, Hawking was admiring his work on cosmic ripples which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

What you need to figure out is that cosmic evolution and biological evolution are two radically different concepts. Just because they share a word in their titles doesn't mean they are the same thing.

While Im sure your physicist is very good at what he does, biology is not what he does. Take Einstein as an example. He was arguably one of the greatest physicists ever produced by mankind, but he was an utter failure in feilds like politics and fatherhood. Just because you're a good basketball player, you aren't automatically a good football player.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Kind of like reading a guy obsessively mumbling the same to himself over and over....

LOL, too true!

@Citizen:

Gotta agree w/ you there. Cartoon certainly is showing himself to be a... um... yah. Think I'm going to join that group of people that ignore this joker.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CARTOON

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
No, what you fail to understand is that biological and cosmological evolution are two completely different processes.

Hi.

No, actually I do understand. But, perhaps I'm not explaining myself, or people are missing what I've written.

Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Heeren planned a second volume (on biological evoltuion), but it is not yet published. Naturally, Smoot would not be writing the foreward for that book, as (as you correctly stated) that's not his area of expertise.

So, to clarify once again, Heeren's book is not on biological evolution/the origin of life, etc.

I would surmise, however, that if Heeren (and Smoot) are correct, and that the cosmos were created (Heeren believes that God created them; Smoot, to my knowledge, has made no specific comment as to "who" created the cosmos, but seems to have no doubt that they did not come into existence by chance, but were intelligently designed by a designer), then the next step (life) would logically, also not have originated by chance, but by design.

However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:23 AM

Cartoon,

'eminently' qualified

'imminently' relates to Kim Jong Il and nukes.

Fascinating subject though. Myself, I'm pretty well convinced some form of cosmological evolution took place, but I don't buy the big bang as it is. It reads too much like a theory based on facts which were bent continuously around a pre-conceived result that the scientists were trying to find. The data seems to me to lend itself to a universe of infinite size and age, and I studied it a fair amount. But I might take a look at the book.

My strongest suspicion is that creation is not an event, but an ongoing process, and matter, space, stars, galaxies, quarks and electrons are constantly being created, as are not only species, but also life, in its orignal form. Most of the so called scientific theories we get revolve around some sort of genesis event, just in scientific terms. I don't think the universe works that way, just based on what I've seen.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Heeren's book is on cosmological evolution, NOT biological evolution. Smoot endorses Heeren's book. Heeren is NOT (at least not in this volume) commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution. Likewise, Smoot is NOT commenting on biological evolution, but on cosmic evolution -- something for which he is immanently qualified.

Heeren's book states that cosmic evolution is a fallacy, and he goes to great lengths to illustrate that (go to the Smoot thread to read Heeren's acknowledgements, and Smoot's foreward, if you'd like)(I'd also highly recommend the book, itself -- which, I'm sure you can find at your library). Apparently, Smoot agrees, as he wrote the foreward and endorses the volume.

Damage control on fanatic lies:

Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), in which capacity he won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The COBE project has probably done more to cement the Big Bang Theory than any other.

Headed by a man this lunatic would have us believe doesn't believe in the Big Bang Theory.

Here's what Barkley's page on George Smoot has to say:

Quote:
Experimental Astrophysicist George Smoot is an active researcher in observational astrophysics and cosmology. Smoot’s group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley is observing our Galaxy and the cosmic background radiation that is remnant from the fiery beginning of our Universe. Projects include ground-based radio-telescope observations, balloon-borne instrumentation and satellite experiments. The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite) which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe.

Using NASA’s COBE DMR, Smoot and his colleagues have made a map of the early Universe discovering the seeds of present day galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These seeds show up as variations at the part in 100,000 level in density from place to place. They also reveal information on the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe.

http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/faculty/Smoot.html
Smoots page at the University of South Dakota:

Quote:
In 1974, Smoot headed a project called COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) whose purpose was to seek out and examine evidence of the universe's origin.
...
The data from COBE helped to reinforce the big bang theory and point out the appearance of overlaps in the universe. This evidence has been included in Smoot's book Wrinkles in Time.

http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300/gallery/clark/smoot.html

And the most amusing part, while this joker is trying to tell us Smoot doesn't believe in the Big Bang and he has a Nobel Prize so he knows what he is talking about let's take a look at what the research he won the Nobel Prize for was about:

Quote:
Big-Bang Detective Work Wins Physics Nobel
The Nobel Prize in Physics will be awarded to two Americans whose findings lend support to the big-bang scenario of the universe's origins.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6189865

Oh and just so we know how callous and low a liar Cartoon is lets place his comments together:

Quote:
However, as Heeren's first volume does not go into the origins of life, it would be presumptuous of me to assume what Smoot (or even Heeren) believes along those lines.

Doesn't really gel with:

Quote:
It's been many months since a post in here on evolution vs creationism, but I recall having cited many quotations from Fred Heeren's "Show Me God", where he scientifically explains how evolution could never have happened.

It is obvious which type of Evolution Cartoon is talking about. He now tries to back peddle when his lies are exposed.

Remember people that Fanatics only have power and a voice if we give it to them. They are exceedingly i

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Cartoon:
I expect you to ignore this because you're a liar and a coward.

Wow I don't know what's going on between you two but that seems really out of order.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Out of order? Not for him.

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
This is what annoyed me about the article Kaneman cited:

He says the following:

"There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome."

No-one I know who calls themselve an evolutionist would say that they deal with those first 3. Evolutionists, in the normal sense of the word, study biologial evolution.

The two arguments are getting confused which is why I assumed he was commenting on evolution in the traditional sense sorry.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

Actually, they are essential to terrestrial evolution. You have to decide what the composition of the early atmosphere was etc.. It all really is a bunch of junk science. Everything from the big bang(getting everything from nothing) to inorganic into living. Just think about it.

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Yes, I've heard of that. But certainly, you aren't proposing there's any "evidence" for any such theory. It takes a far greater degree of faith to believe in the occurrence of an infinite number of alternate universes than it does to believe that an infinite God exists who made everything "just right" to sustain life.

Actually there is more evidence for that than for creationism. I am not familiar with the mathmatics involved, but there is mathematical evidence for it. Just ask a theoretical physicist and they'll tell you all about it.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

HEB

Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:59 PM

Well the inorganic into organic thing isn't that difficult to understand because things like viruses are on the blurring line all the time.

Evolution could have happened even if the big bang didn't and vice-versa, they are separable.

Also what would you consider non-junk science if you don't trust biochemistry and things like results from the COBE satellite?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Everything from the big bang(getting everything from nothing)

You mean the theory that has loads of experimental evidence to back it up?

Also, the big bang is NOT something from nothing. You should try to learn about something before you go spouting off about how it isn't true. As in the first

sentence here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
"""
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.
"""

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

Yay sure, we can't measure it.

You see, what we can do is look for objects that have an attraction to an unseen object. So, we can measure it even though it isn't seen. Since we have measured such objects we know that something like what we think is out there is actually out there.

And again, go look up many worlds. It's a very well worked out (mathematically) theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

It's people like you that have no clue how science actually works, nor what the claims actually say, nor what is actually claimed that are the problem. Please, stop spreading around your provably false fud.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Out of order? Not for him.

You're absolutly right, no matter how you speak to Cartoon it is never out of order.

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Not true. That is the rub, it doesn't "add up", so we just make up... stuff like dark matter. You know stuff that can't be seen, measured, or proven to exist. You know real scientific kinda stuff.

Actually no one 'made up' dark matter. Certain observations were found to only be possible if the was greater mass than could be detected.

Fritz Zwicky estimated the total mass of galaxies in the Coma cluster using observational data to be 400 times that of the visible galaxies in 1933.

We've since seen the effects of Dark Matter through various means, you can tell of the existance of a large body by it's gravity, and as I'm sure you know gravity bends light. This is called Grvitic Lensing. If we notice the effect of Gravitic Lensing without any apparent visible mass to cause it, then we know we've found dark matter.

It can be measured, observed and proven to exist, thus it is very scientific.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIMONWHO

Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:05 AM

Why do I get the feeling if we explained quantum theory to Kaneman, his head would explode?

No, wait, he'd just jump up and down and say "It's not true, it's not true, the universe is as limited as my imagination."

CARTOON

Monday, October 16, 2006 2:11 PM

There's an old adage that offspring tend to exhibit the traits of their parents.

Given that, compare the behavior and civility of the posters in this thread between those who believe they were descended from monkeys, to those who believe they were created by an intelligent Designer.

The irony of that observation hasn't been lost on me.

CITIZEN

Monday, October 16, 2006 2:23 PM

In other words your intelligent designer is an idiot and a lier prepared to murder anyone who doesn't think and say exactly what Cartoon wants too hear?

Well I must say that's one nasty god you worship.

Oh and insulting someone with a smile on your face and in such away as to say "what me, insult, oh no I wouldn't do something like that" is cowardly, not better. In fact it's worse, because it shows you aren't insulting someone out of an emotional reaction, but in order to cause offence and anger, as a rhetorical technique one might say.

In other words the behaviour of one certain individual who believes they're descended from an intelligent designer (BTW you think God is your Father, how arrogant and delusional are you?) is worse and more cowardly than those who know they're species descended from Apes.

Like a bitchy twelve year old girl whispering to another "you're mums a slag" then batting her eyelids at teacher and saying "no I don't know why she got so upset, maybe she's insane". But hey you wish to act like a bitchy twelve year old girl, who am I to argue.

But I suppose what else would we expect from a Troll

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Monday, October 16, 2006 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
There's an old adage that offspring tend to exhibit the traits of their parents.

Given that, compare the behavior and civility of the posters in this thread between those who believe they were descended from monkeys, to those who believe they were created by an intelligent Designer.

The irony of that observation hasn't been lost on me.

Don't make me start hurling poo!

STORYMARK

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:05 PM

Citizen - I agree with all your points, and think Cartoon is just spinning the same creationist crap over and again. But you are the one acting like a troll in this particular case.

You keep saying ignore Cartoon, but you're the one that keeps replying.

Just take a deep breath, listen to your own advice, and move on. Hurtling insults in every post just weakens your position, and makes you look like the raving troll you're accusing others of being.

And if you are right about Cartoon, then you're just playing into his/her game anyway.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CITIZEN

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:38 PM

No, I'm just throwing a few truism at someone who desperatly deserves them.

Cartoon is a liar, he's demonstratably lied several times in this thread. He does hate freedom of speech, he pretty much said so back when he was last here. He is a Christian Fanatic, again something he freely admits too. He does believe it's his right and duty to force his religion on other people he said this last time he was here.

And yeah, Kaneman is a Troll, and Cartoon and Kaneman are tag teaming, that should tell people something. You can say I'm acting like a Troll if you like, but Cartoon is a troll, that's the difference.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

STORYMARK

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:45 PM

My point is, they make their points civilly, at least in this thread. I disagree with them on every point, but they aren't resorting to name calling and mud-slinging. You, on the other hand, seem to be on the verge of throwing a temper tantrum.

It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. You're not going to change their minds, thay're not going to change yours, or mine. Making constant personal attacks makes you out to be an ass, regardless of the points you are trying to make.

And again, you keep saying "ignore them", and then reply to every post they make. Why do you not take your own advice?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CITIZEN

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
My point is, they make their points civilly, at least in this thread. I disagree with them on every point, but they aren't resorting to name calling and mud-slinging. You, on the other hand, seem to be on the verge of throwing a temper tantrum.

No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.

Quote:
And again, you keep saying "ignore them", and then reply to every post they make. Why do you not take your own advice?

Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

STORYMARK

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.

Fine continue if you like. But you've made it fairly clear that it's a personal with you. And your raging undermines your otherwise well-thought-out responses to the point that even someone who agrees with you (like me), is starting to skip your posts.

Quote:
Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.

So, do as I say, not as I do?

You're just perpetuating the issue, and playing into their hands. Have fun with that.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RUE

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:56 PM

Lies repeated over and over without refutation gain credibility. One HAS to refute them - otherwise they stand as truth.

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

PS There are posters I personally cannot treat with any level of civility. They lie, bait, and derail any substantive discussion with rhetorical tactics - and not as a sometime thing but as a universal approach to any discussion. I spent over a year uniformly responding civilly and at length - and finally I got tired of dealing with their crap. I refuse to hold myself to a standard that's far above theirs.

CARTOON

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:14 PM

Just saw the following program on TV: ( http://www.illustramedia.com/reviewpage.htm), then checked the web, where I found the script in PDF format here: http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.p
df

CAUSAL

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us.

So...is being a philosopher identical to being an evolutionist? I'm pretty sure Alvin Plantinga, Willian Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland would take issue with that (and so would I).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

CAUSAL

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".

Mmm...fallacy of false dilemma...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

RUE

Thursday, November 2, 2006 2:57 AM

This is like getting your info on global warming from Shell and Arco. Oh, that's right. You do.

------------------

Michael Behe
Lehigh University biochemist
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
intelligent design advocate

Dean Kenyon
Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University
author of a controversial textbook on intelligent design
"As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory. Kenyon himself and researchers in laboratories around the world for years (roughly 6) tried unsuccessfully to recreate the scenario described in his book."*

Paul Nelson
PhD in philosophy
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
American young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate.

Phil Johnson
retired UC Berkeley American law professor
born-again Christian
intelligent design advocate

William A. Dembski
Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Executive Director International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design

Stephen C. Meyer
Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science
Founder Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
which advocates intelligent design

* "As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory." How to interpret this: I'm a smart guy. My idea doesn't work. Therefore, the whole field is wrong.

------------------------

stellar references, just smashing

RUE

Thursday, November 2, 2006 3:33 AM

So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant. Their (collective) rationale is: 'I'm really smart and since I can't imagine it let alone figure it out, it must be wrong'. They are using themselves as the measure of all things. And posit them just as small as they are.

For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.

Here's another example - Dean Kenyon spent roughly 6 years trying to figure out how proteins could have accidentally constructed themselves. First of all, most PhD students in the 'hard sciences' spend more time than that getting their (fairly limited) research done. Six years is nothing. But he never considered clay-templates, and that he might possibly have had the wrong molecule. He was so convinced it just had to be a protein he never considered a simple sugar - kind of like DNA.

And so on. Every argument they bring up has a potential avenue for research that doesn't seem to have been explored. They go immediately from 'I just can't imagine ...' to 'the butler did it !'

TAKEMEFLYING

Thursday, November 2, 2006 3:54 AM

I really wish people would leave faith and science in their own boxes, because we're talking entirely different realms, here.

Science is the study of the world that can be observed, measured, or proven in some way - it has nothing to say about matters of belief - the questions it addresses are 'What is this?' 'How does it work?' and 'How does it affect and get affected by other things?'.

Faith is about things that cannot be observed or proven in any way, shape or form - that is its nature - the question it answers is 'Why does everything exist?' or 'What meaning is there in existence?'.

And if scientific inquiry should inequivocally disprove biological evolution, it will take us in another *scientific* direction, not an abdication of scientific search to the tenets of whatever given faith exists in the socio-cultural environment at the time.

Again, faith and science are in two entirely different areas that cannot be interchanged or mixed and matched to suit an agenda.

Whoa. Good myth.

CARTOON

Thursday, November 2, 2006 4:24 PM

Hi. Firstly, I have to say that while you and I disagree on this (and likely some other things as well), that I respect your taking the time to read it. (You said you did, and you've given me no reason to doubt your word, so I accept that you did.)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant.

I do find it troubling that whenever someone (particularly someone highly educated and likely far more qualified than anyone else in this forum) finds evidence to contradict evolution, they are immediately dismissed as idiots.

When Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination (a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution) in 1969, they were highly acclaimed as visionaries by the evolutionary community. However, Kenyon examines the matter further, finding staggering evidence to the contrary, publically refutes his original theory, and he is suddenly "kinda dumb" (-- which, to your credit, is actually rather mild compared to what many other evolutionary advocates have called him since he turned on them in the past couple decades).

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.

Again, I think it's a much larger stretch to imagine your scenario than the conclusion that the complex machinery of the bacterial flagellum was actually, intentionally and purposely designed that way.

I take your word that you read the whole thing (which I applaud), but the last quarter of the program dealt with the "design inference", which explains how science infers design in every area of scientific study except evolution -- where it is automatically ruled out in favor of methological naturalism, because (as Steve Meyer explained) "...if you're going to be scientific, you must limit yourselves to explanations that invoke only natural causes. You can't invoke intelligence as a cause."

As he continued, "And yet, curiously, we make inferences to intelligence all the time. It's part of our ordinary reasoning... to recognize the effects of intelligence."

They then pointed to heirogylphics found on rocks, which no one assumes to have derived through methological naturalism. Likewise, writing in the sand at the beach, the heads on Mount Rushmore, etc. Even if no one else was around to see their origin, they'd never infer that these things happened naturally, apart from intelligence.

Yet, it baffles me (who admittedly isn't the brightest bulb in the socket) that the very same people who declare that heiroglyphics on the side of a rock did not occur naturally, would look at something like the infinitely more complex DNA molecule and reason that it did occur naturally.

I realize we aren't likely to change each other's minds, but I welcome the decency of your restrained, non-insulting reply.

I also realize that I have nothing to lose in this argument. If I'm wrong, when I breathe my last, it won't matter. If I was not a product of Divine Intelligence who was created for a purpose (to worship and honor that Creator), but rather a product of chance, then I won't know it, and not a single thing that I (nor anyone else who ever lived) has said wil

CITIZEN

Thursday, November 2, 2006 5:39 PM

Proof positive that 'scientists' that support intelligent design aren't really scientists at all. At best they're like the scientists that refused to accept Einstien over Newton, despite it being plain that they were wrong.

Thanks Rue, undeniable evidence that intelligent design isn't science for anyone with any amount of cognitive intelligence whatsoever.

Of course being wrong has never stopped the violent hate filled Evangalists that want little more than too crush all freedom of thought and expression and revert to the good old days where they could murder and torture at will. They have no interest in truth or knowledge, neither the capacity for same, they try to sound reasonable, but in the end it's plain they merely want to kill you.

Such a pity, such a waste of human life

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

KANEMAN

Friday, November 3, 2006 5:50 AM

Please citz, shut up...When there is any proof for evolution let us know, till then SSShush!
We are a monkey / alien hybrid....Think about it? ROFL

CITIZEN

Friday, November 3, 2006 9:13 AM

There is plenty of proof, it requires a brain to understand it.

When there is proof you have one let me know, untill then shhh.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:01 AM

[Quote}originally posted by Citizen-

Of course being wrong has never stopped the violent hate filled Evangalists that want little more than too crush all freedom of thought and expression and revert to the good old days where they could murder and torture at will.

it depends on whos really pulling the strings behind the world stage. i believe its the central banks, super rich families and elite transnationalists... but if christians are behind it, then why does the media and academia promote evolution? if christianity is fake altogether, then why do many of the world elite take part in occult ceremonies like skull and bones or bohemian grove? is it just a coincidence.. that some of the most prominant people in global finance and politics lend credibility to satanic masonic idealogies?

if you go back through history youll notice a fascinating succession of secret societies, which originated in europe like the knights templars, rosicrucians, the jesuits, the illuminati, the black nobility, and eventually the freemasons..and all these groups can be exposed as Luciferian, by anyone willing to scrutinize their idealogies and decipher their symbolism. to understand modern Israel, and the church history under the vatican.. you need to think seriously about a few things. when the Israelites were in Babylon, they were among a culture that still worshipped the fallen angels and the prince of demons Lucifer. during this time a lot of these concepts were adopted by the jews and became incorporated into what became the heretical Kabbala and Talmud of the pharisee sects. these descrepencies between yahweh and satan worship represent distinct opposing philosophies , so its important to emphasize that their is a difference between christianity and occultism; and its the kabbala that gave way to gnosticism and later to freemasonry, which conspired to create Americas central bank the Federal reserve(which is printing satanic symbolism on its money). to me.. this is where the real conspiracy lies, with those groups who hold as principle the denial of Jesus' deity

CITIZEN

Friday, November 3, 2006 10:31 AM

I never said Christians were behind anything. I said Evangalists are hatefilled often violent and would be terrorists if they lived in say the middle east. Cartoon here isn't interested in the truth, Cartoon is interested in destroying the truth and forcing his own beliefs down other peoples throats, and if they don't like, well Cartoon will have them murdered.

That's the perfect little world Cartoon wants.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

TAKEMEFLYING

Friday, November 3, 2006 3:31 PM

The fact of the matter is simply that throughout human history, people have used any number of social mechanisms to increase their own safety and survival - of themselves, their family, their property. Laws -religious or secular-, customs, norms: they are all social constructs that help separate individuals live and function together as a relatively orderly whole. One of the most easily manipulated dynamics are simply Us vs Them, and the most empowering validations of that distinction is "my God said so." It's also one of the most inflamatory and intractable, because, interpreted and written in stone by men and women just as worried and alnoe as any of us today, it requires everyone but those within "Us" to be wrong.
Spirituality, shared and private, can provide comfort, guidance, a sense of belonging, of right and wrong, a connectedness to something more than one's self. But when it solidifies into a rigid social construct that demands complete compliance from everything and everyone, it stops being anything more than a tool for the powerful and the unscrupulous. Anything one thinks, believes, loves can be turned to chains in the wrong hands, if you let them.
Believe anything you want, it is a human drive and priviledge to reach to the heavens for meaning and comfort, but water will freeze or turn to steam under consistent conditions, and that is science, and it isn't subject to faith.
Believe with all your heart, pray with every breath, see the world with the eyes of your faith - but accept that others have the same right, and there is a basic, physical reality to this world that does not require your faith or mine to exist.
Science & faith are *independent* of each other.

RUE

Friday, November 3, 2006 11:04 PM

I just thought this was interesting. It has to do with a retrovirus that added new - but viral - DNA into the human genome abut 5 million years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030183232.htm

"A team of scientists has reconstructed the DNA sequence of a 5-million-year-old retrovirus and shown that it is able to produce infectious particles. The retrovirus--named Phoenix--is the ancestor of a large family of mobile DNA elements, some of which may play a role in cancer. The study, which is the first to generate an infectious retrovirus from a mobile element in the human genome, is considered a breakthrough for the field of retrovirus research. The findings are reported in Genome Research.

"Phoenix became frozen in time after it integrated into the human genome about 5 million years ago," explains Dr. Thierry Heidmann, lead investigator on the project. "In our study, we've recovered this ancestral state and shown that it has the potential for infectivity."

RUE

Sunday, February 4, 2007 10:31 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070129114638.htm

It's a mystery why the speed and complexity of evolution appear to increase with time. For example, the fossil record indicates that single-celled life first appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, and it then took about 2.5 billion more years for multi-cellular life to evolve. That leaves just a billion years or so for the evolution of the diverse menagerie of plants, mammals, insects, birds and other species that populate the earth.

New studies by Rice University scientists suggest a possible answer; the speed of evolution has increased over time because bacteria and viruses constantly exchange transposable chunks of DNA between species, thus making it possible for life forms to evolve faster than they would if they relied only on sexual selection or random genetic mutations.

KHYRON

Sunday, February 4, 2007 10:36 PM

Creationism is the devil's work...

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, February 4, 2007 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"A team of scientists has reconstructed the DNA sequence of a 5-million-year-old retrovirus and shown that it is able to produce infectious particles. The retrovirus--named Phoenix--is the ancestor of a large family of mobile DNA elements, some of which may play a role in cancer.

Obviously planted by time-traveling agents of the NWO.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies

Evolution for Dummies...Edit.....is for Dummies