Evolution & common descent: facts. I'll answer all questions and criticisms

[Kommie]

My Question:

If god exists, and we are to take the bible literally (ie. god creates man...)... what happened to the dinosaurs?

The argument I hear is that days may have been mistranslated or one day for god may be years. Not much substance to it but hey..who looks to the bible for well thought out and logical ideas anyway. :rolling:

 

[Apos]

Obviously, strict biblical literalism is incompatible with the geological record of the earth. But then, only a minority of Christians are literalists, so it's not like being a Christian means you have to deny dinosaurs or claim that they lived during the time of Noah or something. The Catholic Church, for instance, which is the largest Christian sect, has basically said that evolution is fine with it, as long as people still believe that man specially ensouled mankind and so forth. Jews in general tend to view the Genesis story in the Bible as more poetic interpretation anyway, so they have no problems at all accepting that the Earth is old.

Again, though, this is outside the scope of a debate about evolution itself. If people have questions about how to theological accomodate the findings of science, the best people to ask are not scientists, but theologians.

 

[Apos]

The argument I hear is that days may have been mistranslated or one day for god may be years. Not much substance to it but hey..who looks to the bible for well thought out and logical ideas anyway. :rolling:

As I've noted, Jewish rabbis don't seem to have any trouble accepting that the earth is old and the Bible, because they see the genesis story in more of a poetic context than a demand that it is an absolutely litteral account of things.

 

[kirovman]

Whats the chance of a single cell organism developing a brain of human complexity in 10 billion years?

I belive in evolution but I have wondered about this for some time.

Well look at it this way...if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be around to say it hadn't happened.

 

[Apos]

Well look at it this way...if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't be around to say it hadn't happened.

Sure, but that isn't exactly a _satisfying_ answer to the question: he'd like to know HOW it happened. I think I gave it a good first go, and I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it.

Just remember: while your brain is indeed a quite complex organ, it's basic structure is actually composed of the same basic "single" cells that we started with. They are, of course, quite specialized and working in tandem towards much higher purposes than single cells are, but at base they are still cells that have arisen basically just as single-cells do (by division), expect that they function as a colony of specialized roles instead of sticking it out in the world alone.

 

[HunterSeeker]

I understand that if you let evolution last long enough it will try every advantage. The question was more like: If we find life on another planet, what are the chances it is intelligent?

Something I find weird is that I have met some people that refuses to belive in evolution becouse they take offence at the thought that they have evolved from a monkey (-like species).

 

[Apos]

Personally, I don't think the odds are very high that we are likely to find intelligent life of the sort we can relate to on another planet.

It's not every advantage that evolution will try, but just those "fitness landscapes" (to borrow a Dawkin's term) that present themselves. There's no real way to judge what these will be, because they are particular to the planet and its contingent history that it imposes on any life.

I've never really understood those that are offended to be VERY distantly related to other apes. Yes, the direct implication of evolution is that your 250,000 greats grandparent was something similar to a chimpanzee (though it may or may not have walked on two legs, albiet not very comfortably). But why is that so shocking to people? First of all, it's so distant that it's hard to get too worked up no matter what it is. But second of all, what's so bad about apes? They are quite intelligent, socialable creatures, noble and beautiful in their way. If we all know that at some point we were once blubbering drooling self-soiling babies, why should we be so offended that our ancient ancestors were apes?

 

[dys4iK]

All I can say, is wow. Very well argued, Apos.

Aside from that, I'm alarmed at how bad people are at debates. The number of people who make blatant assumptions about what you're saying AFTER you've already insisted several times that it's not the case is disturbing.

It does explain the current state of America, though.

 

[olistead]

This thread is an absolute pleasure, I must say. I must admit, Apos, that your topic is rather anti-debate. I only say this because it is _so_ solid and so well grounded. The knowledge that you, and a few others, have is such that any issue quickly becomes either a mere query (soon answered) or a major difference in conditioning. People are very, very easily offended these days - to the extent that they find offence in the most innocuous of posts. I was a little perturbed to see a halflife2.net staff member guilty of the same! I have such respect for them (meant genuinely). For those who believe in God, evolution is perhaps one of the most complimentary parts of nature - such a fantastic system, with such exciting and humbling philosophical connotations. I personally feel that God, as described by all exisiting religious sects, is not fact - it strikes me that the sheer existence of so many religious views is tantamount to proof of this. I know that that is a highly personal opinion, not intended to criticise or demean any of you. It is worrying that so many people cannot debate, spell, use grammar, logically argue, keep to the point, avoid hassling. (I am aware that I will probably make all of these mistakes now ). Those who argue sensibly and pleasantly (Hazaar (sp?), I salute, if disagree with, you) are what makes this forum. Also, Apos, I respect your slightly harrying attempts to provoke near-futile debate! Good on you. In all, if your views sit so far beyond the constructs of science, leave them out of this thread - they can't be answered. If you want to be nasty, and deliberately twist things, please take it somewhere else. To the others, thank you.

 

[Apos]

I personally feel that God, as described by all exisiting religious sects, is not fact - it strikes me that the sheer existence of so many religious views is tantamount to proof of this.

That or maybe all these different religions are on to something it's just that nobody has a clear bead on what it is yet. I'm not religious, but I do try to respect religion because it's deeply important to many people, and isn't something that just going to go away.

 

[olistead]

Definitely. It is interesting to speculate on what that might be. I would love to read a combined study of religions, a sort of analysis of their merger, to see what similarities run through them. It'd be fascinating. You're right though, it isn't going to go away. Another interesting topic is the fact that people tend to be so very insistent on the correctness of their religion. The reasons for this are many and some are common sense, but what is interesting is the question of whether this might help or hinder the ultimate truth coming out.

 

[kirovman]

Sure, but that isn't exactly a _satisfying_ answer to the question: he'd like to know HOW it happened. I think I gave it a good first go, and I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it.

It is a bunch of random chemical events that transpired in favour of today's outcome.

Remembering evolution is a random process and most of the changes are bad changes, only once in a while do you get a change for the best, ie only 1 creature in a billion will survive.

All the bad changes don't have any effect on today (bad organisms die out) and all the good changes added up over the billions of years to todays conditions.

The only definate things is that the biological processes follow physical laws.

At least that's what I piece together from my knowledge, and a couple of biology major friends are in general agreement with my philosophy.

 

[Brassm0nkey]

Apos, if you can prove evolution is true, Kent Hovind has $25,000 he would like to give you. :naughty:

 

[Pericolos0]

Apos, if you can prove evolution is true, Kent Hovind has $25,000 he would like to give you. :naughty:

noone can prove the things kent hovind means with 'evolution'.

its 250.00$ btw

http://www.kent-hovind.com/250K/challenge.htm

he's misleading the public abit with his challenge.

 

[PvtRyan]

noone can prove the things kent hovind means with 'evolution'.

its 250.00$ btw

http://www.kent-hovind.com/250K/challenge.htm

he's misleading the public abit with his challenge.

Haha, what a dumb contest, biological evolution has _NOTHING_ to do with the beginning of the universe, which is in the area of physics, not biology. For all evolutionists care, the earth was created from a shit nugget from a giant space monster called Alf. It doesn't even cover the beginning of life, that's covered by abiogenesis. Besides that, the competition basically says "give me all the answers to the universe, and I may possibly give you $250k, juuuuuust maybe". It's not feasible.

What a weird site btw, is it legal to create a site with a person's name if you're not that person?

OT: My problem with 'theistic evolution' is that it basically destroys the image of a perfect god, with perfect creations, and who were created with a goal in mind. Because, evolution isn't perfect, and it doesn't have a set goal. It goes against pretty much all christian beliefs. Evolution is in my eyes largely religion incompatible.

 

[Apos]

It is a bunch of random chemical events that transpired in favour of today's outcome.

This is what it might look like in hindsight, looking backwards. But this is actually a highly misleading picture when thinking about how the process worked constructively.

If all there was to evolution was mutation in single individuals, it really wouldn't go anywhere: there would be nothing that preserved long term directions, and the positive steps of this or that creature would be swamped out by the rest of its breeding population.

Remembering evolution is a random process and most of the changes are bad changes, only once in a while do you get a change for the best, ie only 1 creature in a billion will survive.

I don't know who told you this, but sounds a little confused. The vast majority of mutations produce small or no change: i.e. they're pretty much neutral. Basically what this does is to increase the genetic variation within a population over time: individuals of a particular breeding pool will steadily become more and more diverse, with a wider range of, say, leg lengths, beak size, neck thickness, and so on. None of this is, itself, obviously "beneficial" mutation: it just increases variation.

The reason only, perhaps, 1 creature out of a billion will survive is not because of mutation, but rather because they simply DON'T survive: life is harsh and brutual and resources scarce and most animals don't make it. The important realization that Darwin had is that the few that do survive are likely going to be those with traits that are better adapted to the environment they are in.

That means that out of that diverse breeding population, there are some who HAPPEN to have certain traits that are slightly better for the current environment than their fellows, and these then are the ones more likely to get to reproduce. So in this way, it isn't really mutations that are beneficial or not, but rather happenstance of selection picking a particular advantage out of an every growing pool of options.

So, in the end, think of mutations not as driving evolution forwards, but rather as offering an ever increasingly diverse menu. It is processes like natural selection that actually make choices from that menu: that do the real work of deciding what traits are beneficial or not, and then accumulating the directions of these changes over time.

 

[Apos]

Apos, if you can prove evolution is true, Kent Hovind has $25,000 he would like to give you. :naughty:

James Randi got 1 million indepedantly put up for his challenge, and set up a system whereby a known and specified indepedant board decides openly whether the challenge was met, on criteria agreed to beforehand by both Randi and the challenger. THAT'S a real, legitimate challenge.

Hovind is a fraud who'll doesn't even know what evolution is, much less is going to dole out his 250,000 since he's the one who decides the rules and whether anyone has met the challenge. He refuses to define his terms or explain what the exact criteria are for winning. Plenty of people have laughingly taken him up on it, but all that ever happens is that Hovind claims that the mysterious committee is looking at it.... and then nothing is ever heard ever again.

 

[Brassm0nkey]

I try to joke and everyone takes me seriously. I'm such a failure. :frown:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, your not a failure. Apos ... has a hard time understanding humor in a thread thats dedicated to christianing him with a personalized forum victory. One that he will carry to friends, and laugh about at work or amungst family.

Its nothing personal.

 

[Apos]

Hey, I'm not the one jumping into a thread who's topic I refuse to address and just slinging snarky insults. It's apparently very personal with you.

 

[BMORIN]

Hey, sorry to jump into the discussion so late. Also apologies for every idiot that tries to speak against evolution from their front-porch education.

I think even Apos will agree with me that the evolutionary theory is more challenged now scientifically than it has ever been. More top scientists challenge the theory now than ever before. Without getting into more detail than anyone will read let me point out the biggest difficulties for evolution and offer some concessions for evolution at the same time:

1) Transitional Species
Every species on planet earth alive today is fit into one of 5 distinct categories? Secondly, at this point many evolutionists will jump in and say, "What about the fossil record?" Albeit that there are a few arguable instances, the real problem here is that there should be no few arguable instances - there should be thousands and thousands of transitional species from which there is no argument. In fact, that was Darwin's original prediction about the fossil record. Even staunch evolutionists concede that amount of argued transitional species is surprisingly small.

2) Irreducibly Complex Systems
If you are familiar with microbiology you know what this refers to - Darwin's Black Box. In other words there are some systems that could not have evolved - they are not capable of functioning in a simpler form. Hundreds of examples if you were to take the time. I saw someone try to refute the idea earlier to no avail. Evolution is simple to complex and there are just some systems that are so incredibly complex that the idea of evolution becomes an absurdity. For instance, blood clotting either exists in its complex state to work or it doesn't function at all. You don't work up from a simple state of blood clotting - it either exists as complex to function or doesn't exist at all. I've read the different ways in which the dogmatic naturalists refute the irreducibly complex, but to me it's just flawed logic.

3) Only Life Produces Life
Evolutionary theory purports that somehow inanimate matter became organic. How? We don't really know. Perhaps you've heard of Miller's Experiment in the '60's trying to prove how amino acids could have been formed. He tried to recreate the earth's early atmoshphere and by giving it an electric charge he was able to creat an amino acid.
A couple things about this: A) The scientific community dismissed the experiment as flawed in the mid 90's because Miller created a hydrogen rich atmosphere which scientists now know was NOT the early atmosphere of the earth - it was hydrogen deficient. Current textbooks will note this, but interestingly they will say that even in a hydrogen deficient atmoshpere, you can still get something organic. What they don't tell you is that when you electrically charge that kind of environment, the organic compound you get is cyanide and formaldehyde - not the greatest organic substances to serve as the building block for life - lol.
B) Even if you could somehow recreate conditions to produce an amino acid, you are still light years from a living cell. Amino acids have to line up with the exact right other kinds and types of amino acids to form a protein. And even when you get a protein, you're still not even close to a living cell.
Let's say hypothetically you can get every component needed to create a living cell, the problem still exists that no scientist can create one. Take a living cell, put it in saline solution, puncture it and let out all it's contents and no mind in the world can put those pieces back together to recreate the living cell.
The problem is that even if you have an early earth with all the parts necessary for a living cell, there is no clue on how they could have merged into a living organism.

4) Cambrian Explosion
The existence of the cambrian explosion is enough in of itself to refute the entire theory of evolution. Before the cambrian geologic age we see simple life forms like invertebretes then all of the sudden out of nowhere you get an explosion of incredibly complex species. In other words, you have millions of years of incredibly simple then BANG incredibly complex. Most of the animal kingdom alive today can trace its origin to the Cambrian Explosion. If evolution is true the cambrian explosion is impossible. If it takes millions of years of slow transition from simple to complex why do we get an explosion of complex species without any warning of it coming in the previous geoligic ages.

5) DNA
Here's where I will make my concession about evolution - it is true. Did everyone hear me? Evolution is true. However, here's what it's scientifically true to - individal species. This is what is known as micro-evolution. It is an undisputed scientific fact that evolvement occurs within species. Examples would be the different breeds of dogs in existence. Other examples would be the work that evolutionary scientists have done with fruit flies. This is what led Darwin to his theory in the first place - he saw evolution within a species of insect.

But let me tell you where evolutionists make their biggest mistake. They take the truth of evolution within species and make the grand statement that it is also true cross-species otherwise known as macro-evolution. And here is where, IMO, the evolutionary theory fails. DNA ensures that every species will remain within its species. That's why you can't breed a dog with a cat and get a catdog. I am willing to make the concession that it is possible for all cats to trace their origin to a single type of cat - DNA allows that. But I cannot with any intellectual honesty trace ALL life back to a single cell organism that is the father of us all.


Obviously there are other troubles with the evolutionary theory. For instance, you cannot explain everything from a pure naturalistic standpoint. Naturalists have no explanation for the phenomenom of human conscience or human morality. They still can't approach origin - where did all the matter in the universe came from and how did a near infinite amount of energy suddenly appear to expand all of that dense matter into the universe we have today.

Someone stated earlier that the Bible and book of Genesis in particular is just a book of prose and could not be taken literally. The problem is that the days of Genesis are interpreted by some incorrectly. Most theologians today will agree that the days of Genesis can refer to either a solar day or to an indeterminate lenght of time since the Hebrew word "yom" is used through the OT referring to both instances.

If that's true, then isn't it interesting that day3 (or the 3rd geologic age) gives vegetation, the 5th gives sea life, the 6the gives the animal kingdom, and the end of the 6th gives man. Low and behold that just so happens to be the exact picture of the sequence of the fossil record today. Whoever wrote Gen.1 must have been a really good guesser.

Finally, it is also interesting the kind of God described by the Bible just so happens to be the kind of intelligence necessary to create the world that we live in. What does that mean? The universe cannot have an infinite regression of causes, at some point it needs to run into a cause that didn't need a cause to exist (God of the Bible is without cause). To expand an incomprehensibly dense universe would take a near infinite amount of energy (God of the Bible is omnipotent). To create time and space you would have to exist outside of it (God of Bible is metaphysical and timeless).

Sheesh, believe me, I did not intend to write all of that. Problem with writing that much is the fact that no one reads that much at a forum - except a few inquiring minds I guess. I think all of this is a great discussion and look forward to hearing from you as long as we can respect each others opinions. I understand that some evolutionists are as dogmatic about evolution as some zealots are about their faith. I hope there are enough people out there who may believe in evolution but have enough intellectual honesty to say that it is not a perfect theory and has some big difficulties and weaknesses. I will look forward to your responses.

 

[gcomeau]

Without getting into more detail than anyone will read let me point out the biggest difficulties for evolution and offer some concessions for evolution at the same time:

Oh, this is going to be fun... there's nothing there I haven't seen before but it's been quite a while since I've come across someone who assembled it all together into one big post.

I'll be back to address this later after I get this dang pesky work stuff out of the way (those irrational people who write my paychecks insist on getting something in return). I hope Apos doesn't beat me to it...

 

[Apos]

I think even Apos will agree with me that the evolutionary theory is more challenged now scientifically than it has ever been.

Nope. In fact, if anything, the evidence has gotten even more powerful as we learn more about genetics and unravel the so-called "Book of the Ancestral Dead" that is contained therein. The idea that evolution is under seige is almost entirely a PR movement, not one in actual scientific work.

More top scientists challenge the theory now than ever before.

Again, not true, and this statement is itself directly out of the PR releases of creationist organizations. They periodically put out lists of scientists who will agree to a very vague statement about intelligent design, and usually they snare a hundred or so non-biologists. To counter this deceptive tactic, biologists initiated project Steve. They did the same thing: passed around a statement in full support of evolution with one caveat: only people with the name Steve would be allowed to sign. After just a few months, they already have six or seven times more eager and fully cognizant signatories than the creationist list... and again this is ONLY just sampling those scientists named Steve.

Every species on planet earth alive today is fit into one of 5 distinct categories?

Uh, what? You mean kingdoms? I don't understand your point. How is this a problem for evolution? If you are refferring to the basic classification system (the conventional one that most people know of is actually fairly outdated), keep in mind that it is basically an arbitrary one used for ease rather than representing any true divisions within life itself.

Secondly, at this point many evolutionists will jump in and say, "What about the fossil record?" Albeit that there are a few arguable instances, the real problem here is that there should be no few arguable instances - there should be thousands and thousands of transitional species from which there is no argument.

Again, I don't understand your point. If you understand evolution, then you understand that there really is no such thing as a "transitional" species. All species are just as transitional as all others, and every fossil we discover is transitional. Kvetching about how we don't have a fossil record that is like a complete high-school science fair diorama of every single generation of every species line that survives today is ridiculous. By "transitional" creationists usually seem to mean fossils that have obvious and gross features like legs on fish and so forth (which, of course, we have plenty of examples of). But the vast majority of such changes aren't so obvious, and we wouldn't expect them to be (since such major transitions didn't happen very often). There is no "transitional fossil" problem.

In fact, that was Darwin's original prediction about the fossil record.

No, in fact you have it precisely backwards. Darwin never expected to find anywhere near the amount of fossils that we have since his time, and the fact that we have is fantastic luck: fossilization is very rare! His evidence for evolution, in fact, did not primarily rest on fossils at all, as many seem to think.

Even staunch evolutionists concede that amount of argued transitional species is surprisingly small.

Again, I don't really know what you think you mean here, but there is no "surprise" at the number of "transitional" fossils. As I explain above, no actual biologist would speak about the fossil record in such a way.

2) Irreducibly Complex Systems
If you are familiar with microbiology you know what this refers to - Darwin's Black Box. In other words there are some systems that could not have evolved - they are not capable of functioning in a simpler form.

The problem is, this claim is basically a rhetorical trick. First of all, most of the major claimed examples of this DO in fact have functional "simpler" forms, demonstrating that going merely on your own lack of imagination to determine whether something is IC is a pretty lousy detector. But second of all, this is thinking backwards. Evolution moves from function to function, not function back to non-function by losing parts. Most of the changes that evolution forces through are one-way: you can't as easily think them through backwards as you can forwards. And the focus on a given system having always played the SAME function when it had less parts is misguided. In many many cases, evolution adapts old functions to completely new ones. So Behe et al are also often looking in the wrong places.

Hundreds of examples if you were to take the time.

According to Behe that is (again, a fundamentalist trying to justify his own beliefs). But biochemists seem to think that he has simply ignored the copious literature discussing prior forms in his examples.

I saw someone try to refute the idea earlier to no avail.

Of perhaps you just don't understand the basic problem with claims of IC: that they are essentially appeals to ignorance or incredulity, saying "I can't imagine how this system could have arisen gradually, so it must not have been possible!" That's pretty lousy logic.

Evolution is simple to complex and there are just some systems that are so incredibly complex that the idea of evolution becomes an absurdity. For instance, blood clotting either exists in its complex state to work or it doesn't function at all. You don't work up from a simple state of blood clotting - it either exists as complex to function or doesn't exist at all. I've read the different ways in which the dogmatic naturalists refute the irreducibly complex, but to me it's just flawed logic.

Care to explain how? There are LOTS of different ways that blood clotting could have evolved from simpler or even quite different functions. Behe is just wrong on this one.

And the fact is, because IC is such a strong claim, even a SINGLE counter-example, no matter how extreme as long as it doesn't contradict other evidence, is enough to topple it in any particular case.

3) Only Life Produces Life
Evolutionary theory purports that somehow inanimate matter became organic.

Nope. Evolutionary theory does not include this claim: this is outside the scope of evolution (the field of study that addresses this is abiogenesis). But then, while we're here, I should probably point out that organic matter isn't really all that different from inanimate matter in any real way, and inanimate matter isn't really "inanimate" in any real sense either.

We don't really know. Perhaps you've heard of Miller's Experiment in the '60's trying to prove how amino acids could have been formed. He tried to recreate the earth's early atmoshphere and by giving it an electric charge he was able to creat an amino acid.

Miller and Urey's experiments were never meant to exactly reproduce the exact conditions of the early earth or exactly beign the path to recreating life, and it is simply a lie to claim that this is what even THEY claimed they had done. What was surprising about the M/U experiment was not the particular chemical environment they used, but that basic organic compounds could form from such simple combinations of chemical elements at all. Until their experiment, no one had really expected it could be that easy no matter WHAT the particular conditions were.

Of course, your discussion is a little baffling. You are saying that there was too much hydrogen in the M/U experiments... yet most ID theorists are currently busy complaining that there was too MUCH. Which is it? In any case, most modern science suggests that while the atmosphere was likely less strongly reducing than that which M/U simulated, running the same experiment with more weakly reducing environments still gives the same basic results. And good grief: the hydrogen content wasn't the same all over the planet anyway! There were LOTS of different interesting chemical environments around during the early earth, not only a single one!

And citing cyanide and formaldehyde as if these were bad things is rather embarrasing. Of course in isolated undiluted concentrations we are used to thinking of both of these things are deadly toxins to modern life (so, by the way, is oxygen!) In reality, cyanide and formaldehyde in the context of a less monocultured organic mixture, far from being toxins are actually necessary building blocks of orgnic chemicals and amino acids! I don't know where you got taught organic chemistry, but they grossly misled you if they told you that cyanide and formaldehyde were bad things to produce if you were looking for the origin of organic compounds and amino acids. They are good things! In any case, M/U type experiments do not only produce cyanide and formaldehyde anyway: they also produced amino acids, which are a step higher on the chain anyway.

 

[Apos]

Even if you could somehow recreate conditions to produce an amino acid, you are still light years from a living cell.

True, but again, that wasn't the point of the M/U experiment and no one ever claimed that it was. There is much, much more to the story after organic compounds and amino acids: but the point is that until M/U, no one had expected that the first major part of the story could be told so easily. As to where things went from there, there are a lot of interesting hypotheses. No one knows which one could be right, or what the particular mechanism is, but everyone working in the field understands, as many ID theorists seemingly do not, that what we are looking for are not completely random occurances but rather naturally available _catalyzing mechanisms_.

Amino acids have to line up with the exact right other kinds and types of amino acids to form a protein. And even when you get a protein, you're still not even close to a living cell.

Again, this is where you seem to have been misled by someone again. Abiogenesis is not looking for the origin of cells. That comes much later, likely after evolution has already taken over. What abiogenesis is seeking to explain are not cells, but heredity. It is almost certain that the first replicators were extremely simple: more like viruses or even prions than cells. If you are interested in reading about some of the heredity-machines (all that would have been necessary for evolution to take over) that are simpler than cells and are even around today, check out this website, which lists and describes many of them:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/subcellular.html

Let's say hypothetically you can get every component needed to create a living cell, the problem still exists that no scientist can create one. Take a living cell, put it in saline solution, puncture it and let out all it's contents and no mind in the world can put those pieces back together to recreate the living cell.

I don't have a clue what you think that proves. Take a puppy, bleed it to death, and no mind in the world will hesitate to call you a sadist, but it's not clear what your point would be in regards to where the puppy came from.

The problem is that even if you have an early earth with all the parts necessary for a living cell, there is no clue on how they could have merged into a living organism.

Actually, the current problem is that there are TOO MANY possible clues, and we've yet to narrow down the field to figure out which pathway was "the" one that happened with life on earth.

4) Cambrian Explosion
The existence of the cambrian explosion is enough in of itself to refute the entire theory of evolution. Before the cambrian geologic age we see simple life forms like invertebretes then all of the sudden out of nowhere you get an explosion of incredibly complex species. In other words, you have millions of years of incredibly simple then BANG incredibly complex.

Except, not. The main problem here is simply that fossilization events during and before this period were both extremely rare but also very productive when they do happen. The result is a fairly misleading sample of events that is easy to misrepresent, but still doesn't at base say what you want it to say.

Most of the animal kingdom alive today can trace its origin to the Cambrian Explosion. If evolution is true the cambrian explosion is impossible. If it takes millions of years of slow transition from simple to complex why do we get an explosion of complex species without any warning of it coming in the previous geoligic ages.

The answer is, we don't, and we didn't.

And you characterization here is just wrong. While MODERN animals are indeed very different from each other, that doesn't imply that their ancestors also had to be just as different from each other. People often foolishly speak of the Cambrian as if its amazing that we see "entire phyla" arising all at once, when normally we only see species arising. But that's nonsense. What arose during the Cambrian were just species, like everywhen else. It's only in hindsight that these were (perhaps) the particular ancestors of modern speices that diverged much, much farther from those simple beginnings.

5) DNA
Here's where I will make my concession about evolution - it is true. Did everyone hear me? Evolution is true. However, here's what it's scientifically true to - individal species. This is what is known as micro-evolution.

Do you really think this song and dance is new to me? Creationists have been making this practiced concession for decades. The problem is, the very idea of "species" is basically an illusion. It's an arbitrary distinction made basically by looking at a single slice in time. I've already in this thread explained why several times, and I invite you go back and read some of my discussion of this subject.

Examples would be the different breeds of dogs in existence.

Let me ask you: if evolution can account for the VAST amount of differences amongst dog breeds that all happened in just a few thousand years, what is to stop that change from going farther over the course of millions of years? What prevents it? The answer is: nothing prevents it. Small changes accumulate into large ones. Minor alterations of function develop into major body plan changes or even changes in function. Once you concede microevolution, you've condeded the whole game.

The differences amongst dogs are FAR wider than amonst many species (for instance, different species of newts). The only reason they are still considered a single species is because most breeds can currently still interbreed. But interbreeding is just one factor of millions that distinguish animals from each other (and there are good reasons why they would not as moved as far apart in breeding as they have in, say, size or shape)

Other examples would be the work that evolutionary scientists have done with fruit flies. This is what led Darwin to his theory in the first place - he saw evolution within a species of insect.

He saw it in finches most famously: I'm not sure what insect you think you are talking about (Darwins other major work was on barnacles).

But let me tell you where evolutionists make their biggest mistake. They take the truth of evolution within species and make the grand statement that it is also true cross-species otherwise known as macro-evolution. And here is where, IMO, the evolutionary theory fails. DNA ensures that every species will remain within its species.

Er... how? Because that's not what geneticists believe, and they know better than you.

That's why you can't breed a dog with a cat and get a catdog.

Of course you can't: the common ancestor between the too is far too distant, and their genes have changed too much.

I am willing to make the concession that it is possible for all cats to trace their origin to a single type of cat - DNA allows that. But I cannot with any intellectual honesty trace ALL life back to a single cell organism that is the father of us all.

And yet that is exactly what DNA does tell us is the case. In fact, using DNA, we can actually trace back the differences amonst modern animals to discover when their most recent common ancestors lived. We can do it for virtually any pair of modern animals an the dates we get all match with each other in addition to matching with what fossil evidence tells us, geographical distribution would imply, and so on. This is what is known as a convergence of evidence.

Obviously there are other troubles with the evolutionary theory. For instance, you cannot explain everything from a pure naturalistic standpoint. Naturalists have no explanation for the phenomenom of human conscience or human morality.

You are confused. Naturalism isn't a philosophy, at least not as most scientists use it. Naturalism is simply the body of things that we can actually test and gather evidence about. The fact that we CANNOT currently explain a given phenomenon is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not it CAN be explained naturally. The fact that the Greeks were unaware of the distance of the Earth to the Sun until a great scientist found a way to measure it did not render the distance from the Earth to the Sun an unnatural event.

They still can't approach origin - where did all the matter in the universe came from and how did a near infinite amount of energy suddenly appear to expand all of that dense matter into the universe we have today.

Well, no, evolution doesn't purport to explain that, anymore than the theory of gravity purports to explain why sushi tastes so good. That's what physics is for. However, the question of origins may ultimately turn out to be one of philosophy.

Someone stated earlier that the Bible and book of Genesis in particular is just a book of prose and could not be taken literally. The problem is that the days of Genesis are interpreted by some incorrectly. Most theologians today will agree that the days of Genesis can refer to either a solar day or to an indeterminate lenght of time since the Hebrew word "yom" is used through the OT referring to both instances.

Personally, I don't care how you choose to interpret your Bible. It's not my business.

Finally, it is also interesting the kind of God described by the Bible just so happens to be the kind of intelligence necessary to create the world that we live in.

I don't see where any intelligence was necessary, or any indication that there are particular "kinds" that would be better or worse suited for creating life. And in any case, that would be a little dull, since it's a lot more interesting if we can explain the origin of intelligence without simply positing it to have been there to begin with! What a cop-out!

What does that mean? The universe cannot have an infinite regression of causes, at some point it needs to run into a cause that didn't need a cause to exist (God of the Bible is without cause). To expand an incomprehensibly dense universe would take a near infinite amount of energy (God of the Bible is omnipotent). To create time and space you would have to exist outside of it (God of Bible is metaphysical and timeless).

This is way way outside the scope of a discussion on evolution, and I suggest you start your own thread on it if you are interested. For now, I'll just note that there are plenty of reasons to be unconvinced by your arguments here. And also, if it's okay for God to be uncaused, why not save a step and have the early universe be uncaused? I just don't see the point here. But whatever. Better for a different thread, especially since it's way outside the scope of science in general or evolution in specific.

I understand that some evolutionists are as dogmatic about evolution as some zealots are about their faith.

I suppose we can only judge the truth of this by seeing who is using evidence to support their claims, as opposed to just asserting them, or who is being judicious about what they say evolution can and cannot explain.

But the deeper problem is this: even if the case for evolution is watertight, and based on tons of confirmatory evidence, you can STILL just run around accusing everyone of being dogmatic. So what? Of what worth is that accusation if anyone can make it in the face of truths they do not like? Dogma is a _method_ of defending beliefs, not a particular set of beliefs.

I doubt you'll be much satisfied to learn that I wasn't bowled over by your recitation of classic creationist claims. But at least give my arguments a chance instead of dismissing them as dogma.

I hope there are enough people out there who may believe in evolution but have enough intellectual honesty to say that it is not a perfect theory and has some big difficulties and weaknesses.

The problem is that the ACTUAL weaknesses it has seem to differ very greatly from the weaknesses you seem to HOPE that it has in reality. You seem to hope that evolution and common descent will just go away. But that battle was over a long time ago.

 

[olistead]

Just out interest, Apos, 'cos I have no idea, what are the accepted weaknesses in evolutionary theory. That is to say, where are the areas that still puzzle biologists (if any)?

 

[Apos]

And here I was, thinking I was being bad because I left, leaving any response BMORIN might have had hanging. Yet, for all his challenges, no response? Sheesh!

olistead: Here's one interesting puzzle:
-far from the problem creationists claim about mutation not being able to make changes in species, scientists can actually measure the rates of morphological change (i.e. change in some aspect of some physical feature over the generations) directly via experiment or in the wild. And almost always, these rates are orders of magnitude FASTER than even the fastest transitions found in the fossil record. For instance, horse teeth in the fossil record grow by about .04 to .06 "darwins" (that's how we measure such changes) in one of the fastest transitions we have to worry about. But when we measure these changes directly, we find rates of change that are anywhere from 300-45000 darwins. In other words, change is happening WAY FASTER than evolution seems to require! And while we have some decent ideas as to why that would be, we don't have a perfect model: perhaps modern creatures evolve faster that ancient ones. Perhaps there is a difference in short term vs. long term variation, and in the short term, traits tend to bounce around a lot. But in the long run, what this puzzle actually seems to suggest is that natural selection doesn't just help creatures adapt: it actually stunts and slows down the amount of change that happens within a given population. Pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Applause for Apos and Gcomeau! I think I've (shock!) actually learned stuff from this post.

One comment though, you mentioned in a post waaaay back something about junk DNA. I just wanted to elaborate that recent scientific studies have shown that at least some non-protein-forming DNA (AKA junk DNA) does influence things like hair/eye colour. At least if I remember the Scientific American article correctly (from the most recent issue, I think).
So it's not as junky as once thought.

 

[Apos]

Applause for Apos and Gcomeau! I think I've (shock!) actually learned stuff from this post.

One comment though, you mentioned in a post waaaay back something about junk DNA. I just wanted to elaborate that recent scientific studies have shown that at least some non-protein-forming DNA (AKA junk DNA) does influence things like hair/eye colour. At least if I remember the Scientific American article correctly (from the most recent issue, I think).
So it's not as junky as once thought.

In which case it isn't actually junk DNA. Most junk DNA isn't actally even expressed, i.e. it doesn't get turned into a protein. i.e. it doesn't DO anything. A lot of it is just endless repeats of the exact same garbage sequence over and over and over (though not al repeats are useless: some actually do some amazing things). In fact, one of the most fascinating inhabitants of our DNA is something called Alu. Our DNA is almost 11% Alu, with almost a million copies of it! But what is it? It appears to be a sort of DNA parasite. That is, it's a useless sequence that exists only to be copied and replicated by our cell machinery. Freeloader!

 

[Tr0n]

In which case it isn't actually junk DNA. Most junk DNA isn't actally even expressed, i.e. it doesn't get turned into a protein. i.e. it doesn't DO anything. A lot of it is just endless repeats of the exact same garbage sequence over and over and over (though not al repeats are useless: some actually do some amazing things). In fact, one of the most fascinating inhabitants of our DNA is something called Alu. Our DNA is almost 11% Alu, with almost a million copies of it! But what is it? It appears to be a sort of DNA parasite. That is, it's a useless sequence that exists only to be copied and replicated by our cell machinery. Freeloader!

So this "Alu" like if you got rid of it (if thats possible) what would happen?Would it make our DNA better or somethin?

(I'm confizzled so bare with me.)

 

[Apos]

It wouldn't have much effect on our DNA. It would allow us to divide slightly faster, but unlike with single celled life, that isn't very important in more complex life since we don't constantly reproduce and have plenty of time to prepare our sex cells. So there's no real strong pressure to get rid of it. Then again, it might have some symbiotic function we aren't yet aware of.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Most junk DNA isn't actally even expressed, i.e. it doesn't get turned into a protein. i.e. it doesn't DO anything.

Well, that was point of the article. Most, but not all.
Basically, it's been ascertained that DNA's usefulness can't only be defined by protein formation.

I'll have to dig up the article to get specific, but in the meantime suffice it to say there is "junk" DNA that has use, despite never becoming a protein.

 

[Apos]

I'll have to dig up the article to get specific, but in the meantime suffice it to say there is "junk" DNA that has use, despite never becoming a protein.

That's just an issue of semantics though. There is definately stuff in there that we don't know the purpose of, but which does have a purpose. But there is also plenty of junk in there that clearly doesn't serve any purpose: we can remove it and the genome will function and act and grow just the same.

 

[jondy]

Apos, how far along the education chain are you? Just been reading this thread, and the trail of weeping creationists you've left behind.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Why defend/critique evolution? It already exists, you can't see any single item in the universe without the concrete evidence of evolution.
You don't need any theory or belief for that.

It's what happened before (and what's happening outside) evolution that's the question, in my opinion.

 

[Edcrab]

My point exactly. Suppose this whole discussion is moot- evolution exists. The real debate lies in even earlier origins and the actual events that make up the evolutionary process.

Apos is annoying... especially since I took about four posts to find out that he more-or-less shared my views

 

[Apos]

Why defend/critique evolution? It already exists, you can't see any single item in the universe without the concrete evidence of evolution.

Because a majority of Americans, at least, still think it's "just a theory" that many scientists are starting to question. The reality is, creationists have been claiming that since the early 1900s. Since they can't prove their case in terms of scientific merit, they are trying to win a PR war in the public eye, among laymen. That's inherently dangerous not only ot evolution, but to science education in general. And it deeply corrupts HOW we try to solve those harder questions of how life began or how the universe began or where humankind is going to take this crazy train ride called history.

You don't need any theory or belief for that.

Sure you need a theory. As should be obvious from threads like this, evolution isn't simple (we've really only been brushing the surface here), and it isn't always easy to grasp.

 

[Flyingdebris]

I'm Catholic...er sorta, the lazy nonpracticing kind. My view on things is basically this. The people who are telling you what God wants don't know jack squat. Until they hand me a piece of paper with Mr. God's signature on it in regards to something they are talking about, i will take it with a grain of salt.

I just try to live by the rule of don't be a jerk to others and learn everything or not when i die.

At any rate though, I am a man of science. and there is nothing funnier/pathetic than finding a Jack Chick Publication catalogue advertising creationist textbooks.

Anyhow Apos, most of us here at halflife 2.net are probably more science minded folks considering the nature of the game we all play. What you SHOULD do is find a Fundie Christian or other self righteous pro creationist organization and blast apart their creationist argument like you did here. and post links. that would own.

 

[CREMATOR666]

I was ONCE a Christian, but now I'm an atheist. Religion is just like rules, in my belief, rules that are constructed since the stone age to keep us tied to someone or something. Although I'm not saying that having no rules is proper, I believe that something that is used to control people and giving them the illusion of freedom is wrong. As for the evolution, I remains neutral, I didnt say it occured or not but I will state that I'm a person of science and will not believe inthe normal Christian beliefs that God created man simply from a piece of bone. (or something like that )

 

[Apos]

I'm Catholic...er sorta, the lazy nonpracticing kind.

Kenneth Miller, who is one of the shining stars of biologists who take time away from their valuable research to defend science from creationist assault in public, is a devout Catholic, and I highly recommend his "Finding Darwin's God" to everyone. He makes a very compelling argument both for evolution as fact and powerful theory AND that Christian theology is actually better off with evolution than with classic, or even ID, creationism.

Remember: a God which leaves the world free to evolve as it will is a God that is allowing free choice to flourish: that is allowing a creation to be indepedant of God's will. A God, on the other hand, who constantly breaks his own natural laws to micromanage everything is a God of strict determinism who cannot leave well enough alone for "free will" to have any meaning. Thus, if you particular Christian theology embraces free will, a undetermined evolutionary universe actually makes much more theological sense than a deterministic creationist one.

 

[taeil234]

Creationism is stupid. I really hate religious people. But I'm a FIRM believer in God.

Here's my point. GOD came before the bible. So what makes you think that the word of the bible has any inclination in what he wants us to do? And it isn't the bible either, it's the Quaran, the Torah, the book of latter day Saints, and even Buddhist teachings. It's dictating thought through mere words. THat's it. That's what they are. They are not carefully researched and studied facts. God gave us universe and maybe reality. How can anyone say that a book dictates what GOD wants US to do? As long as I'm not hurting another living being on this planet how can you say what happened on this Earth or what is SIN for that matter? Religion is a product of human ignorance.

I'm also here to say this: Even with science. Life. Reality. Everything in the universe is illogical. The ideas of inertia states that every single movement/force is sparked from an origin. And oh man. Don't get me started on infinite.

I really hate athiests cause they are either self centered or have faith in God or in "humanity". Humans ****ing suck. We are a bunch of animals with free will and choose to **** ourselves over with it. **** humans. We don't need this humanitarian bullshit. As a wiseman once said (Bill Hicks) we are a virus with shoes. Even Einstein can agree with me (Also a firm believer in God) that the universe may not be endless but the extent of human stupidity maybe.

So Apos. I appreciate what you are doing. But I totally kicked the creationalist argument in the balls in one post than ****ing 20.

P.S. If you take acid at the beach. You might experience devolution like I did. You first become a caveman. Get real hairy. You end up with scales on your arms. And boom you end up becoming the first land/sea dwelling creature on this planet. Hell, you then start interacting with the SOURCE itself (Yeah you know who I'm talking about. The big G).

Yes I do believe we came from ****ing monkeys. We are a bunch of monkeys with free will. Otherwise God happened to make me out of clay.... Which is really gay thing to say especially from believing what a really old book written by monkeys tell you to do. God without science is boring and pointless. Religion with science is ****ing dangerous and retarded.