quote:What does it matter how I personally define complexity?
Because you made this challenge:
quote: I don't care if Natural selection + random mutations could have increased complexity. You need to prove that it did.
fugu has accepted your challenge and has asked you to define your terms so he can be precise in his answer.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those numbers change drastically when you look at countries that don't score abysmally on tests of Math and Science ability, though.
Yes, but given that science classes and tests tend to require students to accept evolution, it would be no surprise to see that in areas where science education is more emphasized there is also more acceptance of evolution.
Similarly, Christian or Islamic religious education tends to require students to accept the notion that God created man. I'd be willing to bet that if you looked only at nations who'd score higher per capita on tests of religious knowledge, or if you looked at nations where a greater percentage of youngsters went to religious schools, you'd find a slant towards creationism in those nations. (For instance, in Turkey religious education is a required part of school, and it also happens a nation that is very low in its acceptance of evolution.)
What this indicates is that what you are taught to believe, you are more likely to accept. It would not necessarily show that people who believe in creationism only do so because they aren't educated in science, or that people who believe in evolution only do so because they aren't educated in religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When we make predictions about the characteristics of genes that we haven't yet found in one species, based on genes in another species, based on how we've established they're evolutionarily related, our predictions are almost always right (that's really a lot of evidence, as we do that a lot).
This rather is evidence for evolution on the scale you're talking about.
Also, the theory of evolution predicts by itself that we won't directly see such evolution in anything less than a very long time.
However, another example of evidence for evolution at that scale is how successful we've been in predicting 'intermediary' species by the sorts of changes that would be required for evolution to have taken the paths we've predicted.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but given that science classes and tests tend to require students to accept evolution
Not necessarily. First, science aptitude will cover a broad range of subject matter. Even a biology test could only devote a small percentage to evolution. In the general scope of "science", evolution would only be a very tiny portion of the test.
Additionally, it's possible to understand the theory of evolution and still not "accept" it. I think you are less likely to not accept it if you understand it, but that's my personal bias there. But just as I can repeat religious doctrine I don't agree with, a creationist can certainly repeat evolutionary theory concepts without believing it to be true.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another way of looking at it is that Americans are more likely to retain a belief in a Creator because they have a lees effective system of atheistic indoctrination.
I personally don't find that the ability to reason out a correct solution to a problem is inconsistent with religious belief, but I understand why you might.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Another way of looking at it is that Americans are more likely to retain a belief in a Creator because they have a lees effective system of atheistic indoctrination.
No indoctrination. Just not mentioning religion.
Do you believe that every second of every day that we aren't talking about god we are, by default, promoting atheism?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: My point is that I think the labeling of macroevolution as scientific and ID as not is really a matter of preference. Wouldn't you agree?
No. Ignoring the fact that macroevolution can be inferred without any major leaps of logic, it has also been observed through the fossil record. Transitional fossils
Reading that whole page would take a ton of time but I would recommend at least reading the conclusion.
Here's an excerpt:
quote:What Does The Fossil Record Show Us Now?
I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:
1. A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor. 2. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds). 3. Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes. 4. A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.
It's important to note that while point 4 is a weakness, it is not very significant in the big picture. The exact path from cell to human is largely irrelevant to the overall theory of evolution. Regardless, a quick glance at the link I provided will reveal hundreds of documented examples of macroevolution.
Obviously, to believe these examples you have to believe that our dating methods are accurate. Here is a faq responding to common creationist objections to dating methods. Again, you don't have to read the whole thing (though you should), but I would recommend reading the section entitled "Constancy of radioactive decay rates." since that is probably most relevant to your objections.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, KoM, here's the problem: I'm not positing a theory. I think ID is what happened, but not based upon any scientific beliefs I have. I think we were created and I don't need to prove anything.
You do if you want to continue a conversation with me. If you are not interested in finding truth through debate, then I have no interest in speaking further to you. Good day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you got one thing right. I don't have to prove anything. You're the one with the outmoded concept of origins with no evidence that you expect everyone to accept despite all indications to the contrary.
Hah. Evolution is the 'outmoded concept of origins with no evidence'
See, you would like to make that claim, I'm sure, but it's something that can be factually rebuked. You're better off sticking towards your arguments by incredulity.
And besides, would I really expect everyone to accept evolution if I know people like you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Resh, here's the problem: I'm not positing a theory. I think that you are wrong, but not based upon any scientific beliefs I have. I think you are wrong and I don't need to prove anything.
Maybe you think otherwise, but it is not incumbent upon me to disprove your theory. I don't care if your arguments could have created correctness in your argument. You need to prove that it did. Remember, I don't have to prove anything because I said so, no tagbacks.
Give me an example of how you are right, not how you might've been right.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Complexity is something that cannot have evolved. How does your theory explain it now?
Can you list something that could not have evolved?
Oh, I missed that. Come on Resh, are you seriously defining complexity as "can't be evolved" and using *that* definition to claim that evolution cannot produce complexity?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So... in response to being asked for evidence, Resh simply has stated that evolution has no evidence?
Resh: Answer me, you jerk. Why are you still ignoring my questions?
Tell me what I've asked you, numerous times.
You say Intelligent Design is science, but then, whenever anyone asks you to back it up WITH some science, you then say that you don't really believe it because of science, so there. Why?
Why can't you just show a single piece of evidence? We can actually have a discussion then.
So, to repeat what I said to that other guy, who didn't respond either:
Cite your sources.
(further, I have the conversation saved, and I asked if anyone wished to see it. I forgot who asked what the point of this thread was [venting, partly], partly due to being not privy to the conversation. I have it to give. Not that I was perfect there, but it's there.)
Cite your sources, cite your sources, cite your sources!
If you want to make the claim somethin gis science, show the actual science!
Show the theory! Show the predictions! What does it predict that evolution does not predict? In what manner is it better at predicting reality?
Further: Criticizing science for changing it's mind is only something a person indoctrinated in religion falsely could do.
Religion claims absolute, unchanging truth. Science has never claimed this.
To criticize science for changing to fit the facts, for improving based on reality, is silly. Only one who thinks in terms of already holding absolute truth (with no evidence, of course!) could claim this.
So, in the end: You claim Intelligent Design is a science. Show me the evidence. Don't say "you don't want to know!" Because I do. I really do.
If you bothered to look before, I've been BEGGING you to show me, Resh.
Maybe this time you'll not ignore me. I'm starting to lose hope, but who knows?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're really defining complexity as something that couldn't evolve?
That's about as silly as defining evolution as "an attempt by atheists to find an alternative to God" like the guy I was talking to.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: (further, I have the conversation saved, and I asked if anyone wished to see it. I forgot who asked what the point of this thread was [venting, partly], partly due to being not privy to the conversation. I have it to give. Not that I was perfect there, but it's there.)
I'd be interested. You can use the private messaging if you don't want to paste it all here.
posted
I suppose not. But man, he won't answer. As I pointed out, I've been reduced to begging, which he ignores.
I think the comparatively mind thing I said was pretty accurate, considering the circumstances. But yes, it really doesn't help the situation. For that, Resh, I apologize. I certainyl do have a rude streak, and, well, you tend to fall victim to it more than anyone but Richard Dey over at Ornery.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
But unfortunately it's the sort of answer that allows a person to really wish to deny not knowing something leeway to claim they weren't really claiming that.
Furthermore, it's much more infuriating than the response of an honorable person: The honorable answer is "I don't know."
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw something interesting on the History channel last night on the development of our understanding of the universe. I only came in at the point of Copernicus' contribution to the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Notably, he waited until he was on his deathbed to publish due to fear of the Catholic church.
Fear, which of course was justified, as Galileo found out to his detriment when he had the audacity to provide mathematical support to the notion.
So Resh, how are you any different from a 16th Century geocentrist? They too felt that they just 'knew' something - obviously everything they could easily observe pointed to a geocentric model, plus the church said that the bible told them so....
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys must never have had this discussion with Resh before. He loves to stir up trouble and ignore any questions he doesn't have an answer to. Best to leave it lay.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to define "Evolution" as "anything which has happened on earth" and "ID" as "drug-induced hallucination." Let's see how effective this discussion is Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I don't answer, that's an answer in of itself, Matt? Is this debate about to be settled on a message board? I have a life outside the internet, so I don't think it's fair to decide that the loser of this debate is going to be the one who stops coming around for any length of time. I don't know how often I have to repeat iot. As a matter of fact, I'm in a computer lab at school waiting for class to start, which will be any minute now. But thanks for asking that name calling be restrained. Was it deleted? Because I don't see where Megabyte called me anything bad. Oh there it is. I'm a jerk, apparently. Whatever.
First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
Gotta go. Be back soon.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely, you have enough life to repeatedly come back and make numerous posts filled with claims you then are always too busy to back up.
And it is not easy to tell when you're being facetious, because many of your apparently serious statements are even sillier.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I don't answer, that's an answer in of itself, Matt?
Well yeah. When there are simple questions aimed at getting you to clarify your statements and you suddenly run out of time to discuss further, that's an answer that at the very least you aren't really all that interested in carrying the conversation beyond the superficial level you've been able to manage thus far. We haven't reached that point yet, but I was trying to help 0Meg through his angst about your non-response. Should you provide responses, then whatever a non-response means becomes moot.
quote:First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
Unfortunately, many common definitions of "information" and "complexity" from DI advocates work out to something pretty similar to "that which cannot be evolved" so it wasn't clear that, unlike other DI/creationism advocates, you were actually joking. We're not dense, we're just going by experience.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troubadour, how are you any different? Don't you just know Evolution to be true?
Here's how I'm different. I don't claim to know what is true. I have my beliefs. All I do know for certain (in a relative sense) is that Naturalistic Evolution is not true.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: First let me set the record straight: I was being facetious with my statement about complexity. If none of you could see that, you all must be pretty friggin dense.
The problem is that it's hard to tell the difference between a fundamentalist and a parody of a fundamentalist.
I realize that may come off as a joke, but I'm serious.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, I know you can't understand the difference between the vast amounts of objective scientific research developed over the course of a century and 'God did it'.
All-encompassing anti-christian conspiracy theories aside, you have presented nothing for your point of view except 'I feel it therefore it is'.
Yet you deign to look down on us as being brainwashed. Go figure.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've claimed to know a number of things: that evolution cannot increase complexity, that Dembski has provided evidence for ID, et cetera.
Somehow, when it comes to laying the specifics of those things on the table, you retreat into "just because".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry guys he has a life and as you should know anyone with a life who gots stuff ta do can't be expected to defend their claims without a pattern of conveniently vanishing in a predictable fashion whenever they're held to task and claim that they'll shortly be backing up the bold and broad apparently tested claims that they've laid out as the fundamentals of their argument.
If you had a life too you'd understand this, you friggin dense-oids.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thankfully, his life allows him ample time to post, as long as it's not directly answering any questions.
It's like how any time spent fishing doesn't count against your time on earth - any time Resh spends making posts which don't actually answer questions posed to him don't cut into his stuff to do time Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
How many Creation/Evolution debates has HatRack seen already, and what is the “variation” in them, besides the time frame? I myself have seen a few, and they all seem very alike.
Therefore, I propose something new: Let’s take a few steps back, toward the “square one” and see if there really is any common ground for the two sides to start from.
I mean, ask yourselves these questions: 1.1) What do I know about theology, and the premises it uses? 1.2) What do I know about science and the premises it uses, analysing also how does science use those premises? 1.3) What do I know about the “anthropic principle” and how does it relate to theology and science?
Then, if we can agree on the knowledge and the conclusions about those points, we could go further:
2.1) What do I know about ID, and how does it relate to theology in general and Creationism in particular? 2.2) What do I know about Evolutionism and how does it relate to science (and scientific method) in general and Darwinism in particular?
Then, when those points are “clear”, we could follow to search if the two scenarios (I avoid the term “theory” on purpose) are in conflict, and what each one has to back up their side on specific issues where the two sides really are in contradiction.
This, I think would help everybody to take this debate from “basis” up, toward conclusions, and not from conclusions sidewise (toward name throwing).
A.
PS: If anyone needs more explanation about why I think my post is relevant, and how, I’m willing to present it. But be warned that my posts can get fast painfully long. Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many Creation/Evolution debates has HatRack seen already, and what is the “variation” in them, besides the time frame? I myself have seen a few, and they all seem very alike.
They are similar in character, but not necessarily in specific content. We have already had discussions about the epistemological differences between the scientific method and religion and those conversations are also all rather similar.
Personally, I'd like to hold this conversation where it is now until Resh has provided his definition of complexity. It's been incredibly difficult to get Resh to follow up in the past, but this is such a very simple question. After stating simply that evolution cannot produce complexity, I can't imagine that it should take any substantial amount of time to either a) provide his definition of complexity or, b) concede that for any reasonable definition of complexity that evolutionary processes do produce complexity.
Perhaps a new, separate thread that explores your questions would be a better idea?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, I see your point. I won't insist more here.
Anyway, starting a new thread could be a bit delicate for me right now. I'll give it a little while before taking on your (very welcomed, btw) suggestion.
A.
PS: I'm also interested in hearing Resh's answer to the pending question about "complexity".
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Troubadour, how are you any different? Don't you just know Evolution to be true?
Here's how I'm different. I don't claim to know what is true. I have my beliefs. All I do know for certain (in a relative sense) is that Naturalistic Evolution is not true.
I swear, every time I think the upper limit for unintentional irony has been reached, Resh comes along (in a new thread, of course) and shatters the record.
Considering how many evolution threads we've had just within the past year, and the relative amount of data presented by the two camps, I highly doubt a single Hatrack evil-utionist "just knows" evolution is true. We've swamped this forum with so many examples of how evolutionary theory explains past data, makes testable predictions, and has been supported over and over again by new experimental and observational data, that you'd have to be actively avoiding any thread with mention of the word "science" NOT to be pretty well-versed on the evidence at this point.
So. If you "know for certain" that "Naturalistic Evolution" is not true, what is your explanation for that mountain of data? And don't resort to your usual "it's a huge conspiracy among the atheist cabal" bullcrap, please. Because for those of us who've actually bothered to read some of the primary literature, and who have first-hand experience with just how torturously exact scientists have to be in their hypotheses and conclusions to avoid being ripped apart by their own colleagues, that particular argument would be offensive if it weren't so gosh-darned hilarious.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know for certain that it's not true, hence the "relative sense" caveat. But I have still not been told anything that is evidence for Naturalistic Macroevolution, to be specific. Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that? I may as well define religion for you, and then when you hold me to my definition after using it as a weapon against me, you'll accuse me of redefining my definitions in order to avoid accepting the truth. Sorry, but I fallen victim to enough of your rhetorical traps to fall for this one.
Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
But maybe they do. I'll let you entertain me with your explanations. I've already shown how all you can do is show how Evolution could have happened. Show me how it did. Tell me one thing about Evolution that is provably true(and when I capitalize evolution like that, I mean Evolution from non-life to humanity).
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull?
Neither "fruitfly" nor "gull" is a species and even the term species as it's currently used is primarily a term of convenience. Generally accepted definitions of species usually include an element of reproductive isolation resulting in two or more populations which can no longer reproduce either with each other or with their progenitors. So, when you get a fruitfly that can reproduce with genetically similar fruitflies but can not reproduce with an earlier generation of its ancestry, you now have a new species of fruit fly.
quote:What transitional fossils exist?
Tiktaalik is an excellent example, partly because its form and location were predicted by scientists prior to its discovery.
quote:These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.
So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.
Tiktaalik had limb-like fins, with elbows and wrists, able to partly support it’s weight but not strong enough to walk fully out of the water. He lacked gill supports which gave him a more flexible neck, and he had a stronger rib cage for more support is shallow water. Tiktaalik also shows signs of both gills and lungs.
quote:And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that?
You chose the term. Try to be more precise next time. Complexity has a number of accepted meanings and none of them preclude evolution. If complexity is a meaningless or vague term to you, then don't use it.
quote:I may as well define religion for you, and then when you hold me to my definition after using it as a weapon against me, you'll accuse me of redefining my definitions in order to avoid accepting the truth.
Well that is sort of the problem. IDists routinely say evolution can't do "X" and when X is shown to be obtainable by evolution, they change the meaning of X. I'd be interested to see where this goes though. Let us know what you meant by "complexity" when you first used it and if you need to amend that definition to accommodate counterexamples, I won't hold it against you. I still submit that you won't be able to produce a reasonable definition of complexity which evolutionary processes are incapable of producing.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
Resh...from your statement above, the only conclusion I can draw is that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Perhaps you just haven't looked. Perhaps you're keeping yourself willfully ignorant on the subject. I don't know. But either way, you don't understand it.
Evolution does not say that something comes from nothing. Never has, never will, no matter how many times you say it.
Now, if you want to talk non-life to humanity, we need to touch on abiogenesis, which is not evolution. Should we cover this with you as well?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident? I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me ---which is exactly what your theory is; an explanation of how things that have order arose from chaos--- I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
- - - emphasis added - - -
I’m sorry, but I can’t help it: Are you familiar with the anthropic principle? I really think it is relevant, not because it proves anything, but because it addresses the “purpose behind the Universe” issue as a possibility.
quote:At the end of one week of continuous operation Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture. However, the experiment also produced a substance which, to most life, would be a "toxic carcinogenic"[4] substance. However, these compounds, which include formaldehyde and cyanide are "necessary building blocks for important biochemical compounds, including Amino Acids".[5]
There you have it Resh. An example of the building blocks of life being formed from non-life.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident?
I would be very interested in seeing an evolved pen Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I don't know for certain that it's not true, hence the "relative sense" caveat. But I have still not been told anything that is evidence for Naturalistic Macroevolution, to be specific.
No, you've been told a ton, you just ignore everything you are told that doesn't agree with the way you want things to be.
Did you ever read, for instance, any of the articles about the evolution of the eye?
quote:Where are the answers to my questions? When is a fruitfly no longer a fruitfly?, or a gull no longer a gull? What transitional fossils exist?
The first two are probles of labeling. At what wavelength of light is the photon blue, and not green? We observe that organisms can't be put into perfect neat boxes. We see slow transitions.
The third I am sure you have been given a thousand times. Go to the transitional fossil page on talkorigins.
quote:I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
I asked you this question on the other board, and you ignored it.
If you believe and post something factually false, something where the correct data is easily availible, who is responsible?
1) Your mommy 2) evil lib'rals 3) strangers on a message board 4) You.
We all think the answer is 4, but you seem to think the answer is 3.
You should put yourself on record explicitly before proceeding any farther. It will clear up lots of confusion.
quote: And I'm not going to play the game with the question about complexity. You expect me to specifically define a concept as vague and malleable as that?
How can you know that evolution can't look like X if you can't describe what "X" is? You might as well say that evolution can't create sploovavility, as you can't define that either.
quote:Why don't I believe in Evolution? I'm looking at a pen on my desk right now. Do you expect me to believe it just appeared out of nowhere, by accident?
No, but life doesn't look like a pen. Among other things, life reproduces, and pens don't.
quote:I don't care how elaborate an explanation you give me
Here you go again valuing "innovative" and "elaborate" explanations over, say, well-evidenced ones.
Everyone you are arguing thinks exactly opposite you on that score. See, that's why no one cares about your "elaborate" expanations. We only want the evidence.
quote:I know things don't just become, not without purpose.
Chemistry? Do you make your car rusty on purpose?
quote:I've already shown how all you can do is show how Evolution could have happened.
See again, you have a far different definition of "show" that the people on this board. They think that in order to show anyone, you have to provide evidence, not just yammer on "elaborately". No one here thinks that you have provided evidence to back up anything you've said.
quote:Show me how it did
We have. Fossil evidence. Genetic evidence. Live observations of populations. Check past discussions for links.
quote:Tell me one thing about Evolution that is provably true(and when I capitalize evolution like that, I mean Evolution from non-life to humanity).
Evolution isn't about the origin of life. It covers how life evolved from that start.
It's like how the heliocentric theory covers how the planets move today, not how the solar system began.
It is provably true that when one builds a phyogenetic tree using virtually any gene across, say, all animals, or all mammals, the sequence similairty is not random between organisms, but instead builds a nested tree, and the tree is largely the same no matter what gene you use. And it is provably true that this is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts we should get.
Or something a little shorter: It is provable that phosphplipids will spontaneously form closed cells in aqueous solutions.
quote: What transitional fossils exist? I keep being told that there are some out there, but then I get nothing.
Did you look at the transistional fossils link Threads provided earlier in this thread? There seems to be a lot of information there about what transitional fossils exist.
On a somewhat tangential note, I have a question for everybody who's trying to debate Resh, and then one for Resh. Given the following categories, which most accurately sums up your belief or position: A: Evolution with Abiogenesis, definitely without a creator/designer/deity. B: Evolutionary Theory stands up as an explanation of species on its own without a creator/deity, but doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't be a creator/deity guiding it as a process and/or getting it started. C: Evolutionary Theory is useful on some levels but can't stand on its own without a creator/deity to either guide it or start its process.
I realize these are hardly all-encompasing, of course.
Resh, if I'm understanding you correctly, C is what you're calling "micro-evolution" and A is what you're calling "Naturalistic Macro-Evolution". What I'm curious about is what you think of category B? (I don't mean this as an attack or trap, I'm mainly curious because it's my guess that nearly everybody here but KoM is more in category B than A.)
quote:On a somewhat tangential note, I have a question for everybody who's trying to debate Resh, and then one for Resh. Given the following categories, which most accurately sums up your belief or position: A: Evolution with Abiogenesis, definitely without a creator/designer/deity. B: Evolutionary Theory stands up as an explanation of species on its own without a creator/deity, but doesn't necessarily mean that there couldn't be a creator/deity guiding it as a process and/or getting it started. C: Evolutionary Theory is useful on some levels but can't stand on its own without a creator/deity to either guide it or start its process.
Definitely a B here. No evidence to which I've been exposed yet suggests that non-materialistic processes are necessary to explain the existence or diversity of life but that doesn't preclude the existence of such processes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if my signature is always "A", I'm on B by these categories. Science in general and Evolutionary Theory in particular isn't meant (to me) to disprove divinity. It merely describes the reality that we perceive.
posted
"Evolution does not say that something comes from nothing."
But, Javert, it does. In the beginning, there was no life on Earth. Now there is. Life today is the extension of the information encoded in DNA. That information did not exist at one point. But now it does. And it just came.... from nowhere!!!
Well, not nowhere. There is an imbalance of energy within the solar system, and the since life has been proven to have self-ordering properties, abiogenesis was as inevitable as salt crystals, or snowflakes (awwww!) The Miller-urey experiments show that!
No, not true. The difference between salt crystals and genetic information is the difference between abcabcabcabcabc and this sentence. This sentence has information, and it came from my intelligence. Genetic sequences have information, and natural selection + randomness does not produce information.
And if you want to actually defend the Miller-Urey experiments, be my guest. Your example of the building blocks of life being formed from non-life also included a mixture from which those building blocks could never possibly have been utilized. That experiment was a failure, and does more harm to your theory than you apparently realize. Laughable. I imagine your colleagues will quietly let you know that you're fighting a losing battle with that one.
Speaking of laughable: swbarnes. "We observe that organisms can't be put into perfect neat boxes. We see slow transitions."
No we don't. We see fully formed species appearing out of nowhere. No early bats. No early cats. No early anything. The Tiktaalik is not an early frog. It's just a Tiktaalik. There are just bats, and cats, and whales, and people. And so we have a new interpretation of what a transitional, or intermediate. "Why, they're all transitionals!" Nice try. Ok, all life forms are transitional. Do you not realize that this is not proof of evolution, but rather the consequence of evolution? You still haven't proven evolution!
"Did you ever read, for instance, any of the articles about the evolution of the eye?"
Yes, and what you have there are some nice little stories with no evidence that they actually happened. Oh, you have some things that you call evidence. But mere existence is evidence of evolution for you, because we're here right? So we must have evolved. No, conceivability does not equal necessity.
"No, but life doesn't look like a pen. Among other things, life reproduces, and pens don't."
This is your defense? Life is much more complicated than a simple pen, therefore it is the product of chance while the pen is not?
"Chemistry? Do you make your car rusty on purpose?"
I could if I wanted to. But degradation of order is what you are describing. Salt crystals forming are a better example of purposeless order, but they are the result of provably natural processes. You have no provable process for the increasing complexity of life (and by complexity here, I am referring to increasing genetic information). You have an observable process (natural selection), and you apply it to a billion year process, thereby rendering it untestable. This is science?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, now define genetic information. I should warn you, by all the definitions scientists use (which there are several), we have numerous examples of observed increases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
