New mathematics research proves there's plenty of time for evolution

Dec 14, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new mathematical model developed by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania has offered even more evidence of the correctness of evolutionary theory.

Herbert Wilf, Penn’s Thomas A. Scott Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, and Warren Ewens, emeritus professor of biology, say their model directly challenges the long-standing contention among some doubters that couldn't have happened because the small changes in species outlined by the theory simply would have taken too much time to be completed.

Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false.

Wilf and Ewens’ model is described in the paper "There's Plenty of Time for Evolution," which will appear in an upcoming issue of .

According to Wilf, the understanding of evolution reached in the paper can best be illustrated by thinking about the two different ways a hacker might try to break into a computer.

Suppose for a moment that a computer's password is 12 letters long. Simple math dictates that because there are 12 characters in the password and 26 letters in the alphabet, there are approximately 10,000,000,000,000,000 (26 to the 12th power) possible iterations of the password.

One way to hack this password would be to guess a random string of 12 letters and keep doing so until the right combination was found. That process, however, would take an extremely long time.

A better strategy, Wilf said, would be to use a "spy." After each guess, the spy could tell the hacker which, if any, of the 12 letters were correct. If, for instance, the spy told the hacker that two of the 12 letters were correct, it would leave only 10 letters to be discovered. Extrapolate that spying-and-guessing process over the entire hack attempt, and it's clear that the amount of time required would be greatly reduced.

"When you have this spy inside, it means that each letter is essentially operating independently in the [password] you're trying to guess," Wilf said. "Instead of trying to worry about the whole word, you just have to worry about each letter individually. When you get it right, it stays there; it doesn't change."

But what does hacking have to do with the evolution of species?

Simple, Wilf said. In the case of evolution, the hacker is evolution itself. The password is the string of codons that describes, for example, a butterfly. And the spy is natural selection.

"If, when we guess the full string of letters [for a new species], one of the letters is correct — for instance, one that describes correctly the eyes of a butterfly — then that letter has survival value," he said.

"It will not be discarded as future mutations take place because the intermediate creatures are seeing very well, and they will live and reproduce. So although it seems at first glance that the process of random mutations will take a very long time to produce a higher organism, thanks to the spying of natural selection, the process can go very rapidly.

“In the paper, these ideas are precisely quantified, according to this model, and the extent of the speedup is found. It is enormous, and shows that there is indeed plenty of time for evolution."

Explore further: Christmas cracker pulling: How to send everyone home a winner

Related Stories

Are you any good at creating passwords?

Jan 30, 2010

There's an interesting little study that's been done by security firm Imperva, which analyzed some 32 million passwords posted online in December by some enterprising hacker.

Imitation is not just flattery for Amazon butterfly species

Dec 02, 2008

Many studies of evolution focus on the benefits to the individual of competing successfully – those who survive produce the most offspring, in Darwin's classic 'survival of the fittest'. But how does this translate to the ...

Recommended for you

Ancient clay seals may shed light on biblical era

9 hours ago

Impressions from ancient clay seals found at a small site in Israel east of Gaza are signs of government in an area thought to be entirely rural during the 10th century B.C., says Mississippi State University archaeologist ...

Digging up the 'Spanish Vikings'

Dec 19, 2014

The fearsome reputation of the Vikings has made them the subject of countless exhibitions, books and films - however, surprisingly little is known about their more southerly exploits in Spain.

User comments : 166

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

A2G
1.2 / 5 (47) Dec 14, 2010
Again with the COMPUTER SIMLATIONS..

Does this magical computer how long until pigs fly?

Garbage in Garbage out.
A2G
1 / 5 (37) Dec 14, 2010
Man, is my spelling crappy.. I should of drank some coffee before I replied..

Corrections..SIMULATIONS and grammar

Does this magical computer tell us how long until pigs fly?

Raveon
5 / 5 (44) Dec 14, 2010
They are merely proving what is already obvious to those of us with a brain and no amount of proof will change the minds of those without, there has been ample proof since almost the time of Darwin. You can't educate them. Besides, education makes people knowledgeable, not smarter.
epsi00
3.8 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2010
Well, don't ask someone to comprehend evolution if they can't learn something as simple as English grammar.
It's not more coffee that is needed, it's a good English grammar book where you will learn that there is not such a thing as " should of ".
jscroft
4.2 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2010
@Raveon: Wrong.

The time argument is a reasonable objection to the evolutionary model. Since we are scientists, we ADDRESS objections rather than sweep them under the rug.

We also understand that, outside of pure mathematics, proof is impossible. What these researchers did was to falsify the conjecture that biological evolution CAN'T take place in geological time. Before now, this result may have been "obvious," but nobody KNEW it because nobody had DEMONSTRATED it.

This is a significant result.
jscroft
4.2 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2010
@A2G: This model, like the climate models you probably have in mind, is incomplete. The difference is that politicians have found a vested interest in treating incomplete climate models as if they WERE complete.

On the other hand, this model--while deliberately abstract--may actually retain all the elements essential to demonstrating its (rather limited) point. In other words, while this evolutionary model may be incomplete, it may very likely also be SUFFICIENT.

That's a critical distinction.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (14) Dec 14, 2010
@epsi00: come on, I disagree with A2G's ideas, but it's a real cop-out to attack someone's spelling/grammar. If you can get the sense of what their idea is, that's sufficient to make the idea the debatable point, not the means of conveyance.
Cornflower
4.9 / 5 (18) Dec 14, 2010
Does this magical computer tell us how long until pigs fly?


It does tell us that pigs will continue evolve. Does flying help a pig in the near evolutionary future? I'd think much better an invisibility cloak to hide from humans!
CSharpner
5 / 5 (15) Dec 14, 2010
Besides, education makes people knowledgeable, not smarter.

You get an A+ for that comment!
Sean_W
1.7 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2010
Damn climate quacks. I knew letting them pretend to be scientists would be bad mojo. Ironically, they are the left's version of creationists but they have been much more successful getting their religion into schools.

What the mathamagicians have done here is not remotely like what the climate wacks do, i.e. create a "simulation" of a complex phenomenon and think they can use it to make predictions even though these simulations are not able to take old data and predict the present. What is described here is a simple model (are we even sure they used a computer - other than as a calculator?) of a computational problem. They did not simulate evolution but merely showed that the time objection is false because complex solution can be solved without trying every possible solution.

Frankly, they have proved the obvious mathematically. Well done.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.1 / 5 (30) Dec 14, 2010
Actually, your "spy" wouldn't be able to say any character is correct unless the entire password was correct.

Think about it. If even one term is wrong you get locked out, and the computer doesn't tell you how many characters were wrong, nor which characters were wrong.

That analogy fails, and the "model" fails for the same reason.
PhysicsVanAwesome
4.9 / 5 (19) Dec 14, 2010
@Quantum_Conundrum:

The use of analogy/metaphor is obviously lost on you.
Royale
5 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2010
Q_C:
You really are a lost cause. I mean hell man they even say, "Suppose for a moment...". Yes, what you said is true. But, suppose for a moment that 'spy' has been implanted into the OS to spit out the exact state that was explained. Once again, you'll need to "suppose".
bfast
1 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2010
This looks like Dawkin's Weasel program. Alas, one must first prove that each "correct" guess produces improvement. What if multiple correct guesses are required simultaneously before any improvement can be detected by natural selection.

Bottom line, this "simulation" is childish.
Shootist
4.5 / 5 (26) Dec 14, 2010
This looks like Dawkin's Weasel program. Alas, one must first prove that each "correct" guess produces improvement. What if multiple correct guesses are required simultaneously before any improvement can be detected by natural selection.


No. Correct, "guesses" as you call them, do not have to be "improvement". Sickle cell anemia is not an improvement (unless you live in an area where malaria is prevalent).

Bottom line, this "simulation" is childish.


Not so. Nits, with abnormally tiny, wits have have been saying for years that an eye cannot evolve due to the complexities involved. Now it have been shown, within several Standard Deviations, that, yes, an eye can evolve.

Good Show!
jscroft
4.6 / 5 (22) Dec 14, 2010
@Q_C: The "spy" analogy is EXACTLY what a lockpicker does when uses a stethoscope to listen to tumblers falling into place in an old-fashioned combination lock. In natural selection, the "truth test" is survival. Is the analogy perfect? No... because it's an ANALOGY. But it IS mathematically precise.
tkjtkj
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2010
@epsi00: come on, I disagree with A2G's ideas, but it's a real cop-out to attack someone's spelling/grammar. If you can get the sense of what their idea is, that's sufficient to make the idea the debatable point, not the means of conveyance.

i could not agree less with you. Grammar is 'evidence' of education. It's possible for an uneducated mind to manage scientific thinking, but its unlikely. It's also possible for an educated person to be a dolt in logical thinking, but again, unlikely.
My point is just that we 'are taken to be how we communicate'.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (21) Dec 14, 2010
You know I just watched Wargames the other night...

Anyway, the problem is, is that the password will change, when the eye of a butterfly is no longer suitable.

Of course it will work in the preset environment. And dthat is all this is based off of. A preset password with a preset outcome. It's pretty fast to arrive at that.

However, this isnt even needed. Evolution occurs at every reproduction. The combination of genes at reproduction can naturally select a certain range.

To determine that range, one should ask the limitations of how many components of the password can you lock in at once! And there are far more letters to work with than just 12...

This model only proves the speed of their computer...not much else.
CSharpner
4.8 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2010
Another thing to consider is that in evolution, there's not just ONE "correct" password. There are many that work. Suppose certain classes of passwords give you more features in the software you're logging into. When people successfully log into more feature rich software, that software EATS the logons of the lesser feature software. And/Or, the more feature rich software competes for the computer resources (memory, disk, CPU) with the lesser software and is more efficient at doing so, slowly eliminating instances of the lesser software. In both cases, the more "evolved" passwords weed out the lesser ones.

This is really quite simple. In my experience, the only people that argue against this are people that for whatever reason believe that if this is true, then their particular brand of religion would have to be false. This seems to be evidence of very weak faith, IMO. It's entirely possible to accept both evolution AND the existence of (pick your favorite religion).
pauljpease
2.2 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2010
Does this magical computer tell us how long until pigs fly?


It does tell us that pigs will continue evolve. Does flying help a pig in the near evolutionary future? I'd think much better an invisibility cloak to hide from humans!


But if they hid from humans, we wouldn't be able to find them, thus they would have no use to us so we would no longer breed them and they would become extinct, like every other species whose niche and habitat we have destroyed that wasn't directly useful to us. Notice that the only species that have survived coexistence with humans are the ones we find useful for some reason? Being a favorite human food source is a population boon to those lucky few species. Case in point, there are certainly more pigs now than before we domesticated them. Also see: wheat, corn, rice, cows, soybeans, etc. etc. etc.
Bog_Mire
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2010
paulipease, I beg to differ. Feral oinkers absolutely thrive here in Australia, to the point of becoming a huge problem for farmers and native flora and fauna. They have proven to be extremely adaptable and no amount of trapping and shooting impacts their overall numbers; despite being deposited in an extremely alien environment their numbers increase every year. If humans disappeared from the continent tomorrow I am certain that in 100 or 1000 years from now they would still be thriving.
Bog_Mire
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 14, 2010
same goes for feral goats, horses, camels (largest wild population on earth) donkeys and goats. We eat very few of them, they thrive independent of humans.
_elcrosky
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2010
paulipease, while there is some truth in what you are saying, it's estimated that there are many millions of species of animals out there, most of which we haven't even discovered yet. So, your statement can't be true.

@Q_C - That's not necessarily true. You are correct, that sometimes 1 incorrect number would lock you out - this happens all the time, and that mutation is non-viable = dead-end. And there is the natural selection - a trial and error system. You should also keep in mind that the complexity has grown from very simple sequences to the large and complex sequences that you have today - all going through the gradual refining process. Further, most of your DNA is complete junk, which is a buffer that is built in, allowing a huge number of random errors to occur without effect.

It amazes me that there is still such vociferous discussion on this topic.
Danthrax
1 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2010
Their model only proves what has long been known: that an intelligent filter, which knows its target, would enable evolution. Without an intelligent filter, evolution fails.

But here's why their password analogy is stupid. If I'm coding for a new protein, I need something like a 1000 character password. Do you REALLY think that my spy will magically retain 50 "correct" guesses, freeze them (but not freeze the other 950 letters) for the next generation, freeze 50 more correct letters in the next generation (while leaving 900 free to mutate), and so on till I have my new protein 20 generations later? That's what really has to happen for their model to reflect the biological world.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (11) Dec 14, 2010
Further, most of your DNA is complete junk, which is a buffer that is built in, allowing a huge number of random errors to occur without effect.


False.

The whole premise of "Junk DNA" has been proven to be incorrect, and by the evolutionist's own camp, no less.
trekgeek1
4.9 / 5 (10) Dec 14, 2010
Their model only proves what has long been known: that an intelligent filter, which knows its target, would enable evolution. Without an intelligent filter, evolution fails.


I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to say "what has long been known" when it's been long known only to those who oppose the scientific grain. That's like saying, "it's long been known that the sun orbits the earth". It hasn't been known, just irrationally thought by those unconvinced by evidence. Evolution has long been known to be true.
dogbert
1 / 5 (16) Dec 14, 2010
The computer simulation proves or demonstrates nothing. The presumption that any change which tends toward a particular outcome is in itself beneficial is not demonstrated. The simulation itself is not in any sense validated.

The whole assertion is just a reflection of the desires of the authors.
LivingstoneMorford
1 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2010
This computer simulation in no way falsifies the thesis that highly specified biochemical systems cannot and have not evolved through a Darwinian model of descent. It only proves that the argument "evolution is just chance" is an egregious one. However, this does not take into account the factor that to get from biological system A to biological system B, there must be a beneficial pathway. If no such pathway exists, then one cannot argue that Darwinian evolution is a more adequate explanation for the origin of that system than intelligent design. To posit that this simulation demonstrates that highly specified biochemical systems can evolve is nonsense.
DamienS
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
Further, most of your DNA is complete junk, which is a buffer that is built in, allowing a huge number of random errors to occur without effect.


False.

The whole premise of "Junk DNA" has been proven to be incorrect, and by the evolutionist's own camp, no less.

True, it is false, but there are no 'camps' or indeed 'evolutionists', just observational facts.
tkjtkj
2 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to say "what has long been known" when it's been long known only to those who oppose the scientific grain. That's like saying, "it's long been known that the sun orbits the earth". It hasn't been known, just irrationally thought by those unconvinced by evidence.


But the sun *does* orbit the earth, as the earth orbits the sun. True, the sun's radius of its earthly orbit is miniscule .. but that doesn't negate the fact of it.
BillFox
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
TK... follow your skewed logic and you would be classified into your own level of inferiority. Honestly, if you are going to bitch about the fucking semantics of something like that and in the same sentence fuck up your own English, then you're most likely better off keeping your ignorant comments locked soundly inside your head where they won't waste the time of intelligent people having to explain to you why to shut up.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
Actually, your "spy" wouldn't be able to say any character is correct unless the entire password was correct.
True. Its a bad analogy. The original version by Dawkins was a GOOD analogy using Shakespeare not a password. And even that version makes thing look harder than they really are. The random changes of mutations do have to match a preset change in the DNA. ANY small improvement will do. Then Natural Selection either selects out the failed mutations or the successful mutations will increase the rate of reproduction.

The ANALOGY fails but the method was fine as they WEREN'T trying to hack a password. They were testing the process of evolution so they CAN know if ANY change is an improvement.

I suspect that Wilf didn't want to repeat Dawkins analogy and he doesn't have clue about hacking passwords.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
And there are far more letters to work with than just 12...
Yes its 64 but there are a lot of codons that are redundant so in practice it is less than 64.

This model only proves the speed of their computer...not much else.
No. It shows that there is time for evolution to occur but that was already clear. However until we get to see the actual paper we don't know what they really tested. My guess it that rather Dawkins use of English they simulated actual DNA codons and did a much larger test than Dawkins did since all he was doing was creating an example not doing a full on statistical study.

Ethelred
Veneficus
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
Why do I get the feeling that lately there are a lot of publications on open doors being kicked in?
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
1/2
Their model only proves what has long been known: that an intelligent filter, which knows its target, would enable evolution. Without an intelligent filter, evolution fails
Horse manure. The filter is the environment. Intelligence is NOT needed for that.
But here's why their password analogy is stupid
Yes its stupid. I doubt that it matches the actual experiment.
If I'm coding for a new protein, I need something like a 1000 character password
That isn't how evolution works. There is no coding for a NEW protein. There is only MODIFIED DNA. Each modification is subject to selection. One modification at a time in most cases.
That's what really has to happen for their model to reflect the biological world.
No. That is a bogus model that doesn't fit reality.

More
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2010
2/2

Start with a protein that is already 1000 units long. Which is a rather large protein. Change ONE unit at a time, or maybe a few, or toss in some repeats to make it longer. Each change is subject to Natural Selection. Those the don't hurt will usually remain. Those that do hurt get selected out. Those that help will increase in the gene pool.

Fake requirements like the one you used are very popular with people that don't know how evolution works, don't want to know, and are only interested in making it go away.

Do you really think continued ignorance on your part will change reality? OC sure thinks so but he is wrong on so very much. Do you want to go the way he is? Active ignorance.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
The whole premise of "Junk DNA" has been proved to be incorrect, and by the evolutionist's own camp, no less.
And predicted by me on Apolyton.com around 2001. Some DNA IS nonfunctional. However much codes for RNA that actually has a function as RNA. Never could figure out why that was so hard for bio-chemists to figure out. The idea that DNA that doesn't code for proteins has to be junk was just plain foolish because they already knew that proteins are manufactured by huge compound molecules made of protein AND RNA thus there had to be large sections of DNA that coded for the RNA in the Ribosomes.

There is not mRNA or tRNA there is only RNA. True it can have a tag to mark it for those functions but it can also function in other ways.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (19) Dec 15, 2010
The computer simulation proves or demonstrates nothing.
That statement proves ignorance.
The presumption that any change which tends toward a particular outcome is in itself beneficial is not demonstrated.
That wasn't the point. The idea was to see how FAST the change could come.
The whole assertion is just a reflection of the desires of the authors.
That sentence a sign of a desire to remain ignorant. They proved that the evolution does not take as long as some think. Which is not a surprise since some people simply don't understand how change accumulates in the gene pool. You for instance.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (17) Dec 15, 2010
1/2
This computer simulation in no way falsifies the thesis that highly specified biochemical systems cannot and have not evolved through a Darwinian model of descent
Nor was intended to falsify that dubious non-theory.
It only proves that the argument "evolution is just chance" is an egregious one
Absolutely. So whay did you make it up. No one that understands evolution makes that claim. Just people that want reality to go away because it inteferes with their beliefs. Evolution is NOT random.

Mutations are random. Selection ISN'T. See many of my replies to OC or Kevin. Or read ANY book on evolution that isn't by someone with a religious axe to grind.
owever, this does not take into account the factor that to get from biological system A to biological system B, there must be a beneficial pathway.
This simulation may not. Or it may but other experiments and fossil evidence do support that. Thinking on evolution has taken that into account since Darwin.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
2/2
If no such pathway exists, then one cannot argue that Darwinian evolution is a more adequate explanation for the origin of that system than intelligent design.
No one has show such situation yet. Behe has CLAIMED that he did but he was ignorant and never bothered to check if he was right. He got whipped pretty badly because that failure to check in the Dover case.

To posit that this simulation demonstrates that highly specified biochemical systems can evolve is nonsense.
To claim that it had to is nonsense since it was about the speed of evolution not the details of individual proteins or species.

Now are you another one the stealth fundamentalists YECs hiding behind Dr. Behe or are you an Old Earth Creationist like he is. Dr. Behe KNOWS that evolution occurs. He said so in Darwin's Black Box.

Ethelred
CSharpner
4.7 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2010
Danthrax,
Their model only proves what has long been known: that an intelligent filter, which knows its target, would enable evolution. Without an intelligent filter, evolution fails.

That's not true by any /logical/ stretch of the imagination. Random mutations occur. The environment in which the mutated organism attempts to survive will either be hospitable or non-hospitable. If it's hospitable, the mutation lives on. If it's not, the mutation is a dead end. If the mutation happens to give the organism an advantage (runs faster, sees sharper, stronger sens of smell or hearing or smarter), it'll increase its odds of reproducing, thereby increasing the reproduction of that mutation.

Intelligent control is not required. Simply mutations + "survive or die" is all that is needed. There are many random mutations. Most are probably negative and die off. Some are null. A few provide an advantage. We are all descendants of those that survived and had an advantage.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
We know evolution happened because of observations, not computer models.

Redundant BS IMO.

A more useful application of computer modeling of this kind would be to try to explain the Cambrian explosion or something we DON'T already know...
Tesla444
1 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
Ethelred:
"Evolution is NOT random. Mutations are random. Selection ISN'T." If Mutations are the critical activity that moves Evolution forward by Selection then it follows that Evolution (including Selection) IS random.

You might also be interested to read:
Natural selection is not the only process that drives evolution - Physorg, January 27th, 2009

You are correct, we need to see the actual study but what is written in this article is drivel. "Their works shows that, under a very reasonable model of mutations and natural selection, the time required to evolve a very complex organism is vastly smaller than might be presumed. As a result, the idea that evolution would require "too much time" to be true is proved false." The flaw is in "under a very reasonable model of mutations" - so what is very reasonable - we don't know. Anyone could simply just keep adjusting the numbers in the model until they made it work, then call it 'reasonable'.

Maybe this is just an early April Fools
Javinator
4.5 / 5 (11) Dec 15, 2010
@tkjtkj

i could not agree less with you.


Small i instead of large I.

Grammar is 'evidence' of education.


No need for quotes. In your argument it is literally evidence.

It's possible for an uneducated mind to manage scientific thinking, but its unlikely.


No apostrophe on the second "it's".

My point is just that we 'are taken to be how we communicate'.


Don't take grammar in internet comments to seriously. I'd hate to see how you take yourself.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2010
Redundant BS IMO.
Redundant I agree but not BS.
A more useful application of computer modeling of this kind would be to try to explain the Cambrian explosion or something we DON'T already know...
Unfortunatly that is the sort of thing computers aren't particularly good at. The modeling was being used to the ratcheting nature of selection. That is amenable to computational testing.

There are at least two ideas of what new biological components brought about the Cambrian Explosion. One is pretty obvious, the development of bony body parts. The other is eyesight but the author thinks that vision has only developed once or twice. Seems way low to me, at least in regards to eyes. Once for the protein Rhodospin seems possible as its a pretty complex molecule. Eyes themselves have gone along at least three major paths.

I think calcification was the more important cause. One change that opens lots of niches and creates new niches on top of that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2010
If Mutations are the critical activity that moves Evolution forward by Selection then it follows that Evolution (including Selection) IS random
My that is messy. Wrong also.

Mutations have to occur for there to be changes in the DNA and they seem to be mostly random. BUT it is complete rubbish to claim mutation moves life in directions. Selection is from the environment and that gives direction.
Natural selection is not the only process that drives evolution - Physorg, January 27th, 2009
Bogus claim, its another source of genetic mutations, see MOSTLY random above, which are still subject to selection. You should read the comments.
The flaw is in "under a very reasonable model of mutations" - so what is very reasonable - we don't know
The article is limited as the paper hasn't been published. An algorithm that fits the know processes would be reasonable. A subset would be reasonable in this case.

Making up nonsense won't make the fossils go away.

Ethelred
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
No. It shows that there is time for evolution to occur but that was already clear.

That wasn't the point. The idea was to see how FAST the change could come.


So? Unimpeded by wind, you can run faster. Would it be a good simulation, to calculate how fast I can run in Chicago with no wind or the direction against which I am running?

What is the reality of the current conditions? Evolution is highly dependent upon the rate of reproduction and environment in/stability.

These were not measured in this.

keratl
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
Since "advantageous" mutation is inferred by evolution and natural selection and not directly observed, the critical phrase here is "under a very reasonable model of mutations". How will it be known what is a reasonable model? Any reasonable model should deal credibly with the irreducible complexity challenge to random mutations giving rise to complex structures/organs.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 15, 2010
Would it be a good simulation, to calculate how fast I can run in Chicago with no wind or the direction against which I am running?
That as silly an analogy as the one in the article.
What is the reality of the current conditions? Evolution is highly dependent upon the rate of reproduction and environment in/stability.
Current non current whatever. They clearly testing what is possible not the present conditions. You seem to be looking for reasons to ignore the study.
These aren't relevant to this study.
While that is likely you simply don't know that. In any case it isn't relevant to what they apear to have been studying. It isn't relevant to any individual species in any case.

I am pretty sure are engaged in stealth creationism. You aren't talking about what you think and you are attempting to obfuscate a study that seems to have some significance. If you want to discuss evolution fine. If you want to discuss the study you aren't doing that.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Dec 15, 2010
Any reasonable model should deal credibly with the irreducible complexity challenge to random mutations giving rise to complex structures/organs.
There is no irreducible complexity challenge. IC wasn't only outlined but predicted and explained as far back as Darwin.
These were not measured in this.
Because this is a calculative model that addresses changes in the structure of DNA, not the survivability conferred by said changes.

The rate of change in a DNA molecule over any amount of generations is calculable based on the allele count. You deviate from your father by x, who deviates from his father by x, and so on and on and on.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 15, 2010
Any reasonable model should deal credibly with the irreducible complexity challenge to random mutations giving rise to complex structures/organs.
Read up on this. There is challenge in regards to any known organ or structure. Just a lot of obfuscation form people that don't want to think about how things evolve. Behe's book was crap. Chapter after chapter making the same errors every time.

Ethelred
LivingstoneMorford
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2010
“Nor was intended to falsify that dubious non-theory.”

Actually, I was referring to the statement made by AOL News that “pushed by groups like the Discovery Institute, a central argument against Darwin's theory is that the presumed timeline for evolutionalry change is too short to account for the number of genetic mutations posited by the Theory of Evolution.”

“Absolutely. So whay did you make it up.”

I wasn’t the one who made that argument.

“No one that understands evolution makes that claim.”

Which is why I didn’t make that claim.

“Just people that want reality to go away because it inteferes with their beliefs.”

I’m glad evolution is compatible with my religion.

“Evolution is NOT random.”

It looks like we can agree one some things, at least.

“Mutations are random. Selection ISN'T.”

I know that.

“See many of my replies to OC or Kevin.”

No need for me to do that, since I happen to know that natural selection removes the chance behind evolution.

LivingstoneMorford
1 / 5 (8) Dec 15, 2010
"Or read ANY book on evolution..."

Thankfully, I've got my lecture notes from molecular evolution class.

"Or it may but other experiments and fossil evidence do support that."

Fossils support the notion that highly specified biochemical systems evolved through a model of random mutation and natural selection? Hilarious.
Raveon
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2010
@Raveon: Wrong.

The time argument is a reasonable objection to the evolutionary model. Since we are scientists, we ADDRESS objections rather than sweep them under the rug.

We also understand that, outside of pure mathematics, proof is impossible. What these researchers did was to falsify the conjecture that biological evolution CAN'T take place in geological time. Before now, this result may have been "obvious," but nobody KNEW it because nobody had DEMONSTRATED it.

This is a significant result.


Which part of what I said is wrong?

It isn't a reasonable objection unless you consider an objection reasonable that says 2 and 2 isn't 4. The fact of evolution exists in the fossil record as well as the DNA record. Addressing gross objections to evolution merely empowers them and they will continue with more and new objections. Objections to the details of evolution is one thing, objecting to evolution as a whole is quite another and the same as denying 2+2=4
LivingstoneMorford
1 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2010
1/3
No one has show such situation yet.


I take it that you will agree that it is an empirical observation of the biological world that the more and more specifically arranged amino acid residues (working in concert) a given protein function requires, in order to maintain that function, then the odds of that function decreases exponentially.

(continued)
LivingstoneMorford
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
2/3
Ethelred:
For example, a single amino acid substitution in position 988 in yeast results in a novel function [Safi et al. 2008]. A host of other examples could be cited. An amino acid substitution in the EP2 prostaglandin receptor (cellular receptor that binds to prostaglandin, a lipid) results in a selective gain of function [Kedzie et al. 1998]. The substitution of a single amino acid at position 662 in Dnmt3b (DNA methyltransferase) efficiently methylates repetitive sequences in mammalian genomes, resulting in a novel and selectable function [Shen et al. 2010]. In E. coli, the substitution of an amino acid at position 240 results in a novel enzyme that confers resistance to various antibiotics [Cartelle et al. 2004]. However, there are fewer examples of novel protein functions that require two specified amino acid residues evolving in vivo. There are even fewer examples of novel protein functions evolving that require three specified residues.

(continued)
LivingstoneMorford
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2010
3/3
Ethelred:
In short, the odds of a novel protein function evolving decreases exponentially the more specified residues that function requires in order to be maintained. This is an empirical observation of the biological world.
That said, what is the implication of this for the evolution of highly specified biochemical systems that require dozens of very specifically arranged residues in order to function (a la Dr. Sean Pitman)?
This should be good.

Safi Alexias, et al. Evolution of New Function through a Single Amino Acid Change in the Yeast Repressor Sum1p. Mol Cell Biol, 28(8): 2567–2578 (2008).

Kedzie Karen M., et al. A Single Amino-Acid Substitution in the EP2Prostaglandin Receptor Confers Responsiveness to Prostacyclin Analogs. Molecular Pharmacology, 54(3):584-590 (1998).

Shen Li, et al. A single amino acid substitution confers enhanced methylation activity of mammalian Dnmt3b on chromatin DNA. Nucl. Acids Res. (2010).

Danthrax
1 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
@trekgeek1, you are correct. It has, indeed, been long known, but only in some pretty narrow circles. It is inappropriate for me to use that phrase for something that goes against the grain of the majority of the scientific community, even if they are wrong. I stand corrected.

@Csharpner, did you read the rest of what I said? The problem is that no advantage can be conferred until the "password" is complete, in other words until the advantageous protein is coded for. You have so much faith in your religion that you are not analyzing the situation dispassionately.

Since your name contains C#, I assume you are well informed in the information sciences. Take a snippet of object code sometime and modify it randomly. See how often your program works better.
Amorpheous
5 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
I still can't understand why mankind is still debating Evolution vs Creationism since there is absolutely NO testable, observable evidence for a supernatural God when experiments are conducted. And all of science points to the validity of Evolution. Creationism is entirely based on belief, and observations being made to fit assumptions. Even mentioning kooks like the Discovery Institute or the Creation Museum should discredit anything associated with them.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
1/2
that “pushed by groups like the Discovery Institute,
Who's leadership is Creationist.
central argument against Darwin's theory is that the presumed timeline for evolutionalry change is too short to account for the number of genetic mutations posited by the Theory of Evolution.”
Which this simulation apparently shows false.
No need for me to do that, since I happen to know that natural selection removes the chance behind evolution.
Which makes the wording in your post a tad strange.
Thankfully, I've got my lecture notes from molecular evolution class.
So why the odd pro creationist post?
Fossils support the notion that highly specified biochemical systems evolved through a model of random mutation and natural selection?
They certainly do. The biochemical systems include lungs, eyes, and bloodstreams which imply the chemistry that they depend on.
Hilarious.
Its hilarious that you can't see it.

More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
2/2

Highly specified by the environment. The environment thus chooses which mutations survive. Whats your problem with this?

If you want to discuss it thats fine. Its why I post here. The two people pushing this, Dr. Behe and Walter Dembski, simply don't understand how evolution works. What is the difficulty YOU see in evolution. The study here seems to have the covered the time issue. Perhaps they blew it but we can't tell till its published.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Dec 16, 2010
1/2
then the odds of that function decreases exponentially.
No. That is assuming that it has to all come at once. Which is false. And use of the phrase 'specifically arranged' shows a failure of understanding of how evolution works. There is no such specification. There is only the environment.
For example,
OK.
A host of other examples could be cited
Fine.
The substitution of a single amino acid
Cool.
results in a novel enzyme that confers resistance
Got it. Nice examples of helpful mutations.
However, there are fewer examples of novel protein functions that require two specified amino acid residues evolving in vivo.
No need. They likely come one at a time. And single point is easier to search for.
There are even fewer examples of novel protein functions evolving that require three specified residues.
Which again is fine. As long it contributes.

More
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 16, 2010
1/2
In short, the odds of a novel protein function evolving decreases exponentially the more specified residues that function requires in order to be maintained.
One builds on another and no proteins are specified ahead of time.

highly specified biochemical systems that require dozens of very specifically arranged residues in order to function (a la Dr. Sean Pitman)?
Two errors there. One, any change that helps will be conserved. There is NO specification ahead of time and you are acting as if there is. Two, is that DNA sequences are often doubled even in non-sexual species thus producing one protein that can evolve while the other does the old job. In sexual species it is standard operating procedure.

You are trying to require that evolution produce exactly what you see NOW. Which is not the way it works. Change happens. Then selection. If it helps then it is conserved. There is no specification besides survival. Highly specified is not reality.

Ethelred
pauljpease
1.2 / 5 (5) Dec 16, 2010
paulipease, I beg to differ. Feral oinkers absolutely thrive here in Australia, to the point of becoming a huge problem for farmers and native flora and fauna. They have proven to be extremely adaptable and no amount of trapping and shooting impacts their overall numbers; despite being deposited in an extremely alien environment their numbers increase every year. If humans disappeared from the continent tomorrow I am certain that in 100 or 1000 years from now they would still be thriving.


Haha, the exception that proves the rule. They are a problem for farmers because they are eating food grown by humans. Same as rats. Rats would mostly die off without humans, because they get most of their food from human sources. Once native vegetation takes over from cultivated crops, there is no longer a huge niche for so many oinkers. So I'll amend my original comment to say that successful species are either useful to us or benefit from our alteration of the natural environment.
pauljpease
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
paulipease, while there is some truth in what you are saying, it's estimated that there are many millions of species of animals out there, most of which we haven't even discovered yet. So, your statement can't be true.



Um, last I heard, we didn't need to discover a species to destroy it...
pauljpease
1 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
same goes for feral goats, horses, camels (largest wild population on earth) donkeys and goats. We eat very few of them, they thrive independent of humans.


Yes, FOR NOW. What about in 100 years? Just because there are still wild populations that thrive (arguably) independently of humans, it doesn't follow that they will therefore continue to survive indefinitely into the future. My statement was a suggestion that continued human presence on Earth will create "have" and "have not" species. Those that have a use for humans and so will be propagated, and those that don't have a use for humans so will EVENTUALLY be squeezed out of their habitat or niche. You're arguing PRESENT, I'm talking about extrapolation. Extrapolate current trends a couple hundred years into future...
docroc
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
Dawkins addresses this question and approaches it by doing simulations that show very clear progress to complexity in only a few iterations, given that certain information can be used to refine successive iterations -- or at least that's what I think he's saying. This seems quite similar.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
Any reasonable model should deal credibly with the irreducible complexity challenge to random mutations giving rise to complex structures/organs.


They can't explain this randomly.

See the discussions between myself, adoucette, and FBM on A.I./ INTELLIGENCE on the main forum.

After we fully comprehend just what "Intelligence" is, as in the workings of our own brains as compared to our electronic computers, you will see just how completely ABSURD the theory of "Molecule to man evolution" really is.
tkjtkj
3 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
TK... follow your skewed logic and you would be classified into your own level of inferiority. Honestly, if you are going to bitch about the fucking semantics of something like that and in the same sentence fuck up your own English, then you're most likely better off keeping your ignorant comments locked soundly inside your head where they won't waste the time of intelligent people having to explain to you why to shut up.

"skewed logic"?? Please inform us of the basis for that allegation? Are you actually saying i am incorrect? Are you that foolish? I dare say that the great percentage of those here who are qualified in science will agree with what i stated. And yes, i have my doctorate, do you??

Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
They can't explain this randomly.


Nor has anyone tried. Evolution is NOT random.

Mutation ONLY is random. Selection, by the environment, is NOT random. This has been pointed out to you before and is on the thread already. Your aggressive ignorance on this matter won't change it.

Natural Selection is in no way random.

Ethelred
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
Mutation ONLY is random. Selection, by the environment, is NOT random. This has been pointed out to you before and is on the thread already. Your aggressive ignorance on this matter won't change it.

Natural Selection is in no way random.


Global Catastrophism and even local catastrophism completely refutes this, because organisms are killed for 100% irrelevant reasons to which there are no "adaptaptions" even remotely possible: pathogen, volcano, meteor, etc.

Over the long haul, all organisms are equally likely to be exterminated by any of the above, making survival purely "Random" in every sense of the word. More random than the "random" numbers your computer can even generate.

Something like 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct for this very reason. There morphology or DNA didn't even matter.

So, try again. You can start with physical geology, for one, and learn how random "death for irrelevant reasons" really is.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
Global Catastrophism and even local catastrophism completely refutes this, because organisms are killed for 100% irrelevant reasons to which there are no "adaptaptions" even remotely possible: pathogen, volcano, meteor, etc.
No, it drives this. ie:The black plauge wiped out a significant portion of northern europeans, resulting in immune systems well tuned to dealing with viral and bacterial infections. Introduction of these same bacteria wiped out the Native American populations, those with the strongest immune systems survived and now that same resilience found in Europeans is dominant within Native blooded populations due to interbreeding and disease culling the weaker immune systems.
Something like 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct for this very reason. There morphology or DNA didn't even matter.
Actually it did. Life continued through catastrophy due to morphology. The survivors are the important part, not the dead. ie: Us.
Bog_Mire
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
look Pauli, I get what you are trying to say, and we are getting off topic, but I must point out that your knowledge of these feral animals is lacking. Feral pigs, goats, horses, camels and donkeys all thrive in vast areas of Australia's interior, which is unfarmed and essentially untouched by man. These ferals do not need any assistance or contact from man to thrive. They survive and breed in untouched unpopulated native semi arid wilderness. Trust me, they are a HUGE problem for our native flora and fauna because of how well they do without us.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2010
1/2
Global Catastrophism and even local catastrophism completely refutes this,
Are you referring to the Great Flood you believe in? The one that DID NOT happen.

In any case that is nonsense. Extinctions are part of evolution. Those that can't survive the hard times die out. The environment did it. Then the remaining species evolve to fit the niches available in the new environment. Thus the environment drives these large changes. There is actual fossil evidence that makes this clear.
Over the long haul, all organisms are equally likely to be exterminated by any of the above,
No. Many of the survivors from the K-T extinction event were either animals that could go long periods with little food or animals that lived underground. And the birds which could scarper off for better conditions.

More
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2010
2/2

The technical term is Pre-Adaptation which does not mean that the species had evolved for future conditions, merely that they happened to have the right adaptations at the right time. Most of the survivors of extinctions are generalists or just plain tough. Crocodilians and cockroaches are both.

The extinctions select out those that can't adapt and the new environment afterwards drives the survivors to adapt to conditions. This is pretty well understood these days.
Something like 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct for this very reason.
No. ALL living species had ancestors that go back all the way to first forms of life. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And all those ancestor are extinct despite having descendants. So that 99 percent plus number makes sense in terms of evolution and none at all in Biblical terms where all the species are supposed to have been perfectly designed by a perfect designer.

Ethelred
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
Do you people HONESTLY believe that all life, including your own brains, formed in this manner?

You're completely ROFLMAO insane.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
Do you people HONESTLY believe that all life, including your own brains, formed in this manner?
We don't believe it, we have primary indication that this was the manner in which we came to be.
You're completely ROFLMAO insane.
Insane is believing in a "creator" that you have no evidence of in spite of the mountains of contradictory evidence. After all, that is what you're trying to get at.

If your stance is "we must've been created" then two questions logically follow:
1) Why does all evidence contradict this?
2) Through what manner or method did the creator come from?

Failing to answer both of those questions concisely shows error in your understanding.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
1) Why does all evidence contradict this?


What evidence contradicts creation? Every example atheists have ever tried to give has been refuted.

The fact that life was created is so obvious (i.e. "Clearly seen",) that it is completely ridiculous.

Let me know when you even find a theoretical method of non-intelligent abiogenesis that isn't completely laughable.

2) Through what manner or method did the creator come from?


I cannot explain that any more than you can explain through what manner or method the crackpot Big Bang or crackpot branes come from.

The Big Bang and String Theory are in every sense of the word just as religious, if not more so, than "creationism". You attempt to quantify God in mathematics, all the while denying he exists, yet wonder why nothing ever quite works.

It is not physically or philosophically possible to explain "existence" itself. It simply is.

No matter how many layers of abstraction, the bottom foundation simply "is".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
2) Through what manner or method did the creator come from?


By definition and nature, God is the first cause (Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, first and the last.)

Therefore, there is no "How". If there was a "How" then God would not be the first cause.

The question "How does God exist?" is nonsense, because you are asking for a cause of the first cause.

You question = "What caused the first cause" = "How does God exist?" = nonsense.

There simply is NO "How" as it regards the first cause, the "beginning".

The "first cause" caused all other things and events.

Neither something nor nothing nor no thing caused the first cause because neither something nor nothing nor no thing existed before the first cause.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
Mathematical models are an attempt to measure and understand reality, but they cannot EVER do this 100% accurately.

Take for example the real paradox in modern physics, Relativity and Quantum Theory both appear to be very, very good at what they were individually designed to explain even to the greatest extent of our abiity to measure, and yet they completely contradict one another because relativity assume continuity of space and time on the range of v= 0 -> c, while quantum theory both assumes and alleges to prove space, matter, and time are not continuous even if they appear to be on the macroscopic or cosmic scale.

Ultimately, the joke is on atheists, because "God did it" is the only true "Theory of Everything".

It is physically, metaphysically, philosophically, and ontologically impossible to produce a mathematical theory of everything.

You can make a model that closely describes reality internally, or closely predicts events, but never "existence" or "First Cause".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
1000 years from now, when the physics texts are ten times as thick, they'll still be having this debate because atheists still don't get it yet.

you'll probably have a model that will probably be slightly more accurate internally for the range of phenomenon it's designed to explain, but it still won't explain existence itself.

As an "ontological assymptote" is approached the models might become dozens or hundreds of times more complex, and technology bordering on what we would today call fantasy, but it won't even matter.

You will be no closer to answering the question of existence or God via mathematical "proofs" or models, because it's a fallacious and vain endeavour.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
What evidence contradicts creation?
Well we've now proved that you're a loon.
The fact that life was created is so obvious (i.e. "Clearly seen",) that it is completely ridiculous.
Then why can't you prove it?

Let me know when you even find a theoretical method of non-intelligent abiogenesis that isn't completely laughable.
The Shostak hypothesis for one. Then we have the Thermal vent hypothesis, panspermia, etc. None of which are laughable as compared to the "magic" method you're referring to.
Ultimately, the joke is on atheists, because "God did it" is the only true "Theory of Everything".
No, that's merely the excuse you use to stop looking for the answer.
The question "How does God exist?" is nonsense, because you are asking for a cause of the first cause.
So you're saying that an infinitely complex intelligence came from nowhere and started everything.

And you say the scientific theories of abiogenesis are laughable.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
Panspermia doesn't explain anything either. All it really does is say, "Life could somehow move from one large object to another." It doesn't provide any mechanism to create life. Do you get that yet?

As for hydrothermal vents. I've seen and read about those theories and laughed too. Try again.

So you're saying that an infinitely complex intelligence came from nowhere and started everything.


No, I didn't say infinitely complex.

In fact, by definition, God couldn't be complex in any sense of the word as we know it, because ding, ding, that would imply a cause before the cause.

God cannot literally be "composed" of things or events because he is the first cause.

No. He came from neither "nowhere" nor "somewhere," because neither "nowhere" nor "somewhere" existed.

There is no cause for the first cause, and the first cause is not a "mechanism." It simply "is".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
No, that's merely the excuse you use to stop looking for the answer.


No, that IS the answer.

"God did it."

You won't find another answer. Someone may, and probably will, find a mathematical construct that describes reality internally more and more accurately, even a better model every few decades or centuries, but they will not find a mathematical or physical theory of everything, nor a theory that answers how or why existence exists.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
Panspermia doesn't explain anything either. All it really does is say, "Life could somehow move from one large object to another." It doesn't provide any mechanism to create life. Do you get that yet?
You're not well read on Panspermia. Panspermia doesn't exclusively posit that life itself came from elsewhere, it posits that the organic molecules that led to life through natural chemical affinity were created in space through multiple mechanisms.
As for hydrothermal vents. I've seen and read about those theories and laughed too. Try again.
Then you've shown that you're a fool, keep laughing, or find a natural mechanism that defeats the hypothesis.
No, I didn't say infinitely complex. In fact, by definition, God couldn't be complex in any sense of the word...God cannot literally be "composed" of things or events because he is the first cause.
You're calling for something from nothing, that's nonsense.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
You're calling for something from nothing, that's nonsense.


No I'm not. I'm doing exactly the opposite, but you cannot comprehend that.

In fact, I'm even arguing against "something from nothing." Do you comprehend that "nothing" does not exist?

Do you also comprehend that "something" cannot have existed before the first cause?

the irony is that the original versions of the Big Bang theory most certainly called for "something from nothing," and then when it was realized how absurd that was, they invented mathematical constructs to try to explain away the absurdity: twistors, strings, branes, etc, and yet they STILL haven't avoided the problem because they still end up with "something from nothing" in a causality-based model...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
No I'm not. I'm doing exactly the opposite, but you cannot comprehend that.
No, I fully can. You're looking for a magical creation event. You're stating that an eternal intelligence spoke reality into existence. Prior to that he has no origin and nothing outside of it existed forever. That's nonsense.
Do you also comprehend that "something" cannot have existed before the first cause?
You're assuming there's a cause. Causality isn't proved, it is only necessary to explain time, another concept that we do not understand.
the irony is that the original versions of the Big Bang theory most certainly called for "something from nothing"
No, actually we stated that there was a cause, and prior to that we did not know what could have happened as we didn't have a conceptual framework to explore it. We now have several and those couold be incorrect, but they are not science, they are philosophy, much like your construct.

(TBC)
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
Think about this hilarious truth.

Atheists mock God with the spaghetti monster thing, and yet THEY are the ones who believe a flying ball of strings made everything.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
and then when it was realized how absurd that was, they invented mathematical constructs to try to explain away the absurdity: twistors, strings, branes, etc, and yet they STILL haven't avoided the problem because they still end up with "something from nothing" in a causality-based model...
That's not a correct understanding. We've followed the information gained through observation and logical inference of reality. We're measuring reality, something that you refuse to do as you think the question is too big to be explained. You say God, and run away from logical inquiry. I refuse to do so. I continue to explore, content and unafraid that I don't know everything.

The best part of a book is the beginning, because you have so much left out ahead to discover as you turn each page. I turn the page. You're not even reading.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
Think about this hilarious truth.

Atheists mock God with the spaghetti monster thing, and yet THEY are the ones who believe a flying ball of strings made everything.
Another incorrect understanding, and still speaking about philosophy and not science.

Are you going to continue in this manner? You're embarassing yourself through mocking our mocking of you and forwarding ignorant misunderstandings of concepts you haven't bothered to explore.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
I have bothered to explore them. I've read hawking and sagan and asimov and string theory and texts on these things. So wow. You don't know what you're saying.

The problem is:

1) you are too hard headed to believe anyone who tells you that, but doesn't follow your own conclusions.

2) It does not matter because you still do not even understand the nature of the problem, which is obvious from earlier when you ask "how does God exist" (paraphrase.)

Physics itself is a philosophical question and endeavour. Yet you can't seem to grasp that either.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
The problem is:
1) you are too hard headed to believe anyone who tells you that, but doesn't follow your own conclusions.
Who tells me what? I follow evidence. If someone tells me something they need to be able to demostrate what they know, otherwise they could be lying. It's called 'skepticism'.
2) It does not matter because you still do not even understand the nature of the problem
No, I fully understand that you're afraid to not know things.
which is obvious from earlier when you ask "how does God exist" (paraphrase.)
It's a real question, and thus far you can't answer it. So why should I believe what you believe when you can't even say "I don't know"?
Physics itself is a philosophical question and endeavour.
Not really. Science is the child of Philosophy, that's why everything is a theory, however, that doesn't mean there is no knowledge within it, or that it is wholly bullshit. Science works, religion doesn't. That's the truth.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
1/4
Do you people HONESTLY believe that all life, including your own brains, formed in this manner
Yes
You're completely ROFLMAO insane
No. You believe that ancient ignorant men with no knowledge of science, logic or anything beyond arithmetic could tell us how Life, the Universe and Everything started. Simply because someone told you the Bible was gods word. Even though it contradicts itself in the very first chapters on the order of creation and NEITHER fits the evidence.

An inability to deal with reality IS a fairly standard way of defining insanity
What evidence contradicts creation
The entire Universe. Then are those Egyptians the didn't notice being drowned 4400 years ago
Every example atheists have ever tried to give has been refuted
Holding your breath and shouting NO NO NO does not constitute refutation
The fact that life was created is so obvious
Funny how there is no evidence to support that and megatons of fossils that show the contrary.

More
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
2/4
Let me know when you even find a theoretical method of non-intelligent abiogenesis that isn't completely laughable.
The fact that we do not know everything doesn't mean that everything we do know is wrong. There are a number of models of how life might got started. The only people that laugh at them also laugh at dating. Because they don't have any evidence against radioactive don't so laugh and pretend that will make it go away.

explain through what manner or method the crackpot Big Bang or crackpot branes come from.
I can. Nobody agrees with me but I can. The Universe exists because it can exist. It is mathematically valid and there is no reason for it not to exist. This idea implies that ALL possible Universes exist and all possible paths of history exist. People find that disturbing. Even me but that doesn't stop if from being a valid way of looking at things.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
3/4
The Big Bang and String Theory are in every sense of the word just as religious, if not more so, than "creationism".
Nonsense. They are NOT something believed on pure faith. So far they fit the evidence. The Bible doesn't fit history. Those Egyptians and Sumerians that are supposed to have drowned for instance.
You attempt to quantify God in mathematics, all the while denying he exists, yet wonder why nothing ever quite works.
That is silly. If a person doesn't believe in Jehovah then they aren't trying to quantify Jehovah.

More
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
4/4
It is not physically or philosophically possible to explain "existence" itself. It simply is.
Go back up again and reread the part where I did exactly that. Been doing it for years and no one has been able to do anything more than say they don't believe. Not a jot of evidence goes against it. None can without proving that the Universe is mathematically inconsistent. It IS philosophy and not science because it is not presently falsifiable. If anyone can ever prove other Universes exist than it will have some physical standing as well.
No matter how many layers of abstraction, the bottom foundation simply "is".
Yes. Mathematics and logic just are. They don't need a god or a Universe to exist.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
1000 years from now, when the physics texts are ten times as thick, they'll still be having this debate because atheists still don't get it yet.
And the Bible will STILL have the wrong order of Creation. Twice and they contradict each other. It will still have a Flood that never happened that killed people that lived in known history. It will still have that remarkably silly Tower of Babel story that makes the Flood story even more impossible.

And even sillier is claiming that Jehovah is the only god when the Bible says otherwise. Biblical Fundamentalists don't believe in the Bible either. After all why would Jehovah tell people to not have OTHER gods before him unless Jehovah believed in other gods. Well the people that made up Jehovah anyway.

, because it's a fallacious and vain endeavour.
A vain endevor is insisting that we believe something that has been disproved. So how do you convince yourself the Egyptians all drowned?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
the irony is that the original versions of the Big Bang theory most certainly called for "something from nothing,"
Not really. The BB simply is based on the evidence and then extrapolated into the past. Which made some predictions which have been found true. It said NOTHING about how that Bang came to be.

However since gravity is negative energy and matter is positive and the two seem to balance out then the overall energy of the Universe IS nothing.

Matter
-Gravity
--------
Zero

Which is bit better than believing in book that has two contradictory creation stories where neither fits the evidence. Then there is that Flood that did not happen.
Atheists mock God with the spaghetti monster thing, and yet THEY are the ones who believe a flying ball of strings made everything.
The Spaghetti thingee is a mere upstart god. Kind of like Jehovah. The Giant Invisible Orbiting Aardvark came first.

Ethelred
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
@Quantum_Conundrum
If you'd been born in China you'd be a Bhuddist.
If you'd been born in Norway several centuries ago you'd be trying to tell us that Odin rules things on top of a giant tree...

As Ethelred says: Simply because someone told you the Bible was God's word doesn't make it true... and not knowing everything is absolutely no grounds for refuting the things we currently theorise that fit the observable evidence.

Apart from loud denials, confusing the issue, and avoiding actually answering the points returned to you, the only 'evidence' you seem to have offered so far is:
- Because you can 'clearly see' it.
- Because it just is.

I think you're in the wrong forum.
Hunt the Intertubes... There will be a forum for faith-based blindness and deliberate hypocrisy somewhere or other...
In fact there will probably be porn of it, too. ;)
Rule 34'd..
CSharpner
not rated yet Dec 20, 2010
Danthrax:
@Csharpner, did you read the rest of what I said? The problem is that no advantage can be conferred until the "password" is complete,

Yes, and I addressed it in an early post, before you posted that.

Since your name contains C#, I assume you are well informed in the information sciences.

Very much so, Yes.

Take a snippet of object code sometime and modify it randomly. See how often your program works better.

Funny you should mention that. Sometimes my typos are better than what I originally intended and I keep it.

Computer code is more in line with the laws of physics. The data, on the other hand, is more appropriately aligned with DNA.

If you want examples of evolution in computer code, here are many examples... the first one is in C#.
http://www.codepr...p;sbo=kw

You have so much faith in your religion that you are not analyzing the situation dispassionately.

:) And what religion do you think that is??
Tesla444
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
Both sides need to back off a bit. I do appreciate your abilities to clarify and support your positions.

To God guy: Why are you engaging scientists about a belief system. You know your belief in God is just that, you act based on Faith, not on facts -- what is wrong with that, just accept it, you don't need to prove anything. There are lots of scientists who also believe in God, just as their are lots of believers who accept Science as a valid endeavor.

To Science guys: You can't win an argument with the God guys, they don't care about facts or theories. You offer some excellent insights into why Science is so important and we all appreciate that. But you do sometimes seem to get a little bit on the 'belief' side of the equation and that doesn't help. Remember, not everyone who questions Evolution is a Creationist, but you ALWAYS assume they are. Accepting/discussing contrary positions is what makes Science work and we will all be better off if we continue to consider them.
Thanks!
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
Run a program in a vaccuum and you get a vaccuum answer...once again, this model fails to consider actual real world conditions.

No, it drives this. ie:The black plauge wiped out a significant portion of northern europeans, resulting in immune systems well tuned to dealing with viral and bacterial infections.


First, it's also plausible it simply left those who were immune to begin with. The immune systems ability to create antibodies to combat is its natural function. That is not evolution as much as it simply is a response action.

Secondly, the rate of death by plague was much slower than say a volcano eruption engulfing a town. Species, must adapt within a generation or two of a substantial change in env.

The problem for evolution is when there is little to no time to reproduce. An elephant for instance takes over 30 months in pregnancy. Dinosaurs being slapped with an asteroid in the face due not have the luxury of becoming birds over multiple generations
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
You can't win an argument with the God guys, they don't care about facts or theories
I can and have. Pretty rare for them to admit it though. Well to explicitly admit anyway.
Remember, not everyone who questions Evolution is a Creationist, but you ALWAYS assume they are.
Haven't met one such person that wasn't some sort of Creationist. Some aren't YECs yes. Some are Old Earth Creationists and even many of them believe in the Flood. IDers ARE Creationists. Many IDers are YEC like the head of the Discovery Institute. They just pretend.
ccepting/discussing contrary positions is what makes Science work and we will all be better off if we continue to consider them.
I am curious. Why should I accept disproved positions that are clearly in contradiction to reality? Science is NOT improved by accepting a claim of GodDIDIT so don't look or study anything that might overturn that.

You might keep in mind that diplomacy needs two sides that want peace. Discussion is fun.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 20, 2010
First, it's also plausible it simply left those who were immune to begin with. The immune systems ability to create antibodies to combat is its natural function. That is not evolution as much as it simply is a response action.
Another brutal misunderstanding of evolution. It is evolution as only those who had the mutations necessary to provide immunity survived in these populations. As such, all further decendents held this propensity for immunity. That is evolution. The unadaptable immune systems died off within those populations.
Secondly, the rate of death by plague was much slower than say a volcano eruption engulfing a town. Species, must adapt within a generation or two of a substantial change in env.
Again, PRE-EXISTING traits brought about through mutation allowed for survival by being beneficial under the extreme circumstance.

The problem for evolution is when there is little to no time to reproduce.
PRE-EXISTING TRAITS.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2010
YD, Are you left handed or right handed?

Let's say you're right handed, and I'm left handed and that comes from a genetic basis (this is a hypothetical, I don't know if this is genetic or not). Socially, being right handed is in vogue, a la the early days of Protestant superstition. This is a trait you were born with and I was not. You get to survive and reproduce while I'm branded as a witch and killed in childhood.

Are your children going to be left handed or right handed based on the genetic propensity for dominant handedness? Are the majority of children going to be left handed or right handed based on genetic propensity? Repeat over twenty generations. How many left handers do you think you'll find?

Pre-existing traits that offer greater survivability under selective pressure drive evolution. The spontaneous generation of traits after selective pressure has been applied is not the formative basis of natural selection.
Starry_Night
1 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2010
Ok

What does this prove ???
Like you would survive with 2/12 th of a leg and a bunch of predators on your back
and be able to pass on your genes

That would be an disadvantage

U guys make me lol so much

So many of you claim evolution is A PROVEN FACT
And use it to attack the "God guys"

What is the God or(vs) evolution thing ???

Evolution doesnt prove that God doesnt exist or vicev.

U have no PROOF that homo s. sapiens
came from the apes

O lets see you can find bones from older species
But magically the link between vaporised?
Like some large ape group mutated instantly
More then 200 years of digging ,where do u plan to find it ???

Btw the second law of thermodynamics
forgot that one ?

Why cant u explain ??
U refuse to speak abt it and hope that ppl will forget??

Science is truth

But If you research only the aspects that you would like to be true (becoz u try to prove there is no God),and WANT IT TO BE TRUE it will seem for u .

The curch did that sayin the earth was flat
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
SH,

I beleive you misunderstood.

Pre-existing traits that offer greater survivability under selective pressure drive evolution.


I have no disagreement with that.

Simply because my car requires gas to be driven, does not excuse other forces that oppose its movement or other forces that require it to work properly.

Evolution is the variation that occurs at reproduction. It requires successive generations.

My point is that, there are selective pressures that do not allow you 20 generations.

Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
Take your handness example. If the lefties are being killed (I'm actually a lefty). I can do one of two things. Die OR learn to use my right hand. Since the information to do so already exists, it is simply a race against time. I must learn to be right handed, before I am found for execution.

The study above, removes any rounding up of left handers so to speak. In other words, the selective pressure is a bare minimum.

What we need to know, is can say a group of dinosaurs evolve into birds after being subjected to a asteriod impact that drastically changes their environment? They dont have 20 generations to make an adjustment whether the info exists or not.

It is more likely as you describe..birds (righties) exist, and the killing off of the lefties(dinos) leaves them as the winner. Not that lefties became righties...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2010
Starry_Night,

Please, respectfully retype your post with readable grammar, some attempt at proper spelling, and avoid teenager style texting. Then, present your points in a valid argument and we'll be happy to respond. If you put thoughtful effort in your post, you'll receive some reciprocation of the same respect. I personally won't waste my time responding to a "drive by" insult. If I think you're serious about real discussion, I'll engage.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
My point is that, there are selective pressures that do not allow you 20 generations.

And that point is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.

Like I said, it is the living that matter, not the dead in terms of evolution and survival.
What we need to know, is can say a group of dinosaurs evolve into birds after being subjected to a asteriod impact that drastically changes their environment? They dont have 20 generations to make an adjustment whether the info exists or not.
You're ignoring ALL of the important pieces.

1) Some dinosaurs had to have survived.
2) They had traits that allowed such survival

If you iterate 1 and 2 over and over you get birds from dinosaurs within our past. You're words show that you're assuming an endpoint, an intelligent push towards birds. There is no such push.

The non-random survival of randomly generated organisms is evolution.
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2010
@YellowDart
I realise that analogy and metaphor don't seem to thrive at all here but try to think of it like this..

Assume that a hypothetical lifeform is a mechanic, born with a toolbox of 200 tools of which they use about 50 different sized spanners to open containers to get food.

Suddenly all the containers change to Philips-head screws instead (environmental shift = natural selection). Those with something looking like a Philips-head screwdriver already existing in their other, generally unused, 150-odd tools, survive.
Those that have something that can be kludged to perform the same role will survive poorly.
Those that have nothing that can fulfill this role, die.

Dinos->Birds is incorrectly assuming that a sudden environmental pressure has only one, very extreme, predetermined, solution. If the diversity of life shows us anything it is that there are many many adaptations, some very unexpected, that allow survival.

@Starry_Night
Terrible. Just terrible.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
Take your handness example. If the lefties are being killed ... I can do one of two things. Die OR learn to use my right hand. Since the information to do so already exists, it is simply a race against time. I must learn to be right handed, before I am found for execution.


Assuming that left-handedness was a genetic trait as is being done above, even if you learned to use your right hand before you were executed, your child(ren) would have a good chance of being left handed.

Now assuming that the ability to quickly learn new tasks is also genetic, quick learning left-handed people would be selected for since those that could not were killed off.

Thus lefties would EVOLVE to be quick learners since almost all remaining lefties would have these genetic traits.

Mutation would suggest that slow righties could have slow lefty children, however only the quick ones would live on and pass their lefty genes.

You're arguing FOR natural selection.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
I have nothing to add other than to tell Quantum_Conundrum that he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to biological evolution... Though I enjoyed reading his nonsensical ramblings.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
You're arguing FOR natural selection.


Of course, I have no objection to natural selection.

And that point is irrelevant to the discussion of evolution.


It's very relevant. For intance, take your disease analogy above. If you have the immunity, thats great...but your body still has to reproduce antibodies faster than the replication of the disease it is threatened with.

If you iterate 1 and 2 over and over you get birds from dinosaurs within our past. You're words show that you're assuming an endpoint, an intelligent push towards birds. There is no such push.


If there is no push, then you can not argue your first sentence as fact. It is only an assumption based entirely off of the suggestion that at least a pair of the species remain no matter the selective pressure.

Since there are plenty of extinct species, most do to a lack of evolution...I'd say there are plenty of instances in which natural selection is unable or not fast enough.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
It's very relevant. For intance, take your disease analogy above. If you have the immunity, thats great...but your body still has to reproduce antibodies faster than the replication of the disease it is threatened with.
Again, irrelevant. If your body cannot produce the antibodies fast enough, you do not have immunity. Stop the semantics argument and simply say, "ok, I'm incorrect." It won't hurt, I promise.
Since there are plenty of extinct species, most do to a lack of evolution...I'd say there are plenty of instances in which natural selection is unable or not fast enough.
That is not natural selection, nor is it evolution.

You're comparing 1 organism to itself, on a case by case.

Evolution and natural selection work within populations, not individuals. How are you not seeing the conceptual error you're making?
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
Evolution and natural selection work within populations, not individuals. How are you not seeing the conceptual error you're making?


It is my hypothesis that some people are genetically predisposed to an inherent inability to understand evolution.
CHollman82
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2010
Since there are plenty of extinct species, most do to a lack of evolution...I'd say there are plenty of instances in which natural selection is unable or not fast enough.


This is hilarious!

Species don't go extinct do [sic] to a lack of evolution. Species go extinct (in the way you are thinking) due to rapid changes in the environment that they are unable to cope with.

Extinction events actually drive evolution, individuals with unique traits that better equip them to cope with the rapidly changing environment will thrive... this is called selection pressure and mass extinction events are some of the most significant and rapid changes in selection pressure in nature.

Remember, evolution is just a natural byproduct of competing forces and as such it doesn't "want" anything. When species go extinct it is not a "failure" of the mechanism, it is just something that happens.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
1/2
once again, this model fails to consider actual real world conditions
Considering that none of us have seen the actual article that seems a bit premature.
First, it's also plausible it simply left those who were immune to begin with.
Of course. They are the ones that survived. Those that died were selected out.
The immune systems ability to create antibodies to combat is its natural function
The immune system failed for a lot of people. They were unable to produce the needed antibodies. Because people don't all have the same genes.
Secondly, the rate of death by plague was much slower than say a volcano eruption engulfing a town.
Yep. Volcanoes don't select out the same things plagues do. Ability to run fast under poor conditions help. Greater willingness to run early helps. Such things are effected by your DNA.
Species, must adapt within a generation or two of a substantial change in env.
Not really. Species that become extinct don't adapt.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
2/2

The survivors already managed to do that. All the survivors had some sort of adaptation and usually those are a matter of flexibility and toughness. After that there is a rather empty world. THAT is when new mutations have an relativly open field. Plus there are a lot of groups that are cut off from the rest of their species and those groups can all adapt in different directions. Thus many new species arise in short order. Not a few generations though. More like dozens or hundreds. They ALREADY fit the new conditions better than the extinct species did
An elephant for instance takes over 30 months in pregnancy
Yes. Those kinds of species tend to die out when things get tough. Then again if it doesn't last too long elephants can survive a lot of crap. They do very well in droughts.
Dinosaurs being slapped with an asteroid in the face due not have the luxury of becoming birds over multiple generations
No they didn't. But birds were already around before then.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
1/4
Like you would survive with 2/12 th of a leg and a bunch of predators on your back
Where did that come from? Kent Hovind? Silly statement.
U guys make me lol so much
I am glad to be of service. I hope you try learning as well.
So many of you claim evolution is A PROVEN FACT
The fossils and lab experiments show actual evolution. The theory is HOW things evolve. That you aren't aware of this is ignorance on your part not a lack of evidence.
Evolution doesnt prove that God doesnt exist or vicev.
No it doesn't. It does disprove many people's specific religious beliefs. Especially those that claim the world is young.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
2/4
U have no PROOF that homo s. sapiens came from the apes
We ARE apes. Pure arrogance to claim we aren't. However we don't have much in the way of fossils for the time between Afarensis and the dryopithicene apes. The cool part is that when the Creationist looked a Lucy one said Lucy was an ape and another said Lucy was human. Which a pretty good indication that Lucy was a transitional species between modern humans and apes. By the way chimps are NOT our ancestor. We and chimps and gorillas had a common ancestor.
O lets see you can find bones from older species
But magically the link between vaporised?
No. We have a lot links as well. Lucy for instance. Fossils are rare for primates. Forests are acidic and that means that any fossils of the common ancestor of hominids and the rest of the apes will be few and far between at best.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
3/3
Btw the second law of thermodynamics forgot that one ?
No. Even the idiots at the Discovery Asylum don't try that crap anymore. If your idea of the second law was correct NOTHING could grow. Nothing could reproduce. The second law is for CLOSED systems. We have that big glowing thing in the sky pumping energy into the OPEN system of life on Earth.
Why cant u explain ??
Just did.
U refuse to speak abt it and hope that ppl will forget??
Nope. Have no problem writing either. Perhaps you noticed that by now. I can even type PEOPLE. I hope YOU try learning. Get a book or a clue. Something not written by a Creationist.

Here are some sites that can alleviate that ignorance you have.

http://pandasthumb.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.nhm.ac...olution/
http://tolweb.org...eny.html
http://www.nap.ed...id=11876
http://www.archae...cies.htm

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
4/4

Let me know what parts you need more explanations on. Read some of those first.
Science is truth
YES, though its more of a search for the truth. Now look at those sites and LEARN some science.
becoz u try to prove there is no God
No. If your god gets disproved its an accident for most people in science. If your idea of a god can't stand up to reality it really isn't much of an idea for a god.
The curch did that sayin the earth was flat
I think you should calm down a bit before you write and then read it over a few times before you post. That didn't make any sense and I am not talking about the spelling. I have written a few bad sentences upon occasion but I caught most of them before posting.

READ WHAT YOU WROTE BEFORE POSTING. Use a spell check. I do.

Please don't run away. Stay and learn. Try to join in but THINK a bit more first. Clarity of thought is a learned skill.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
What we need to know, is can say a group of dinosaurs evolve into birds after being subjected to a asteriod impact that drastically changes their environment?
We don't need to know that. Most of the dinosaurs did go extinct. The birds were around already. BEFORE the impact. The only question is when did MODERN birds show up. Before or after but either way birds were already around.

Remember most species went extinct without ancestors. All of life today are the ancestors of those that DID succeed. Birds succeeded. The dinosaurs that couldn't fly did not.

.I'd say there are plenty of instances in which natural selection is unable or not fast enough.
Absolutely. Which doesn't change the article in question. They appear to have testing how fast change can accumulate. Maybe they didn't. Won't know till it published but that idiotic analogy they used showed that they MIGHT have been running an extended version of Dawkin's experiment with text.

Ethelred
natbi
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
Ethelred
You say that evolution is not random, then what is it? how can an animal just happen to have adaptable charecteristics that will by luck help it to survive after a catastrophie. and what was said about death at a catastrophie is true. a coment slaming into earth will kill any animal without distinction. yes the tough ones will survive, or the lucky ones who happen to be in the right place at the right time. How is all of this not chance? or is the Evolution god a guideing intelegence? and how can a small change in the DNA bring about large change? For a change to be made it must be dominant or noticable. sickle cell for example is harmful even deadly when it is a dominat trait. only when it is resesive does it provide a benefit, protection against malaria, that is if it doesn't still kill the person in the long run. and if only one thing needsd to change as long as it is beneficial then what makes it beneficial?
more
natbi
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
also i read further about saying the universe exsist because it can. what kind of logic is that? that is no different that saying God exsits because He can. And read up on the bible before you make claims. how can a book that claims this is how creation happen contradict the very claim it made, or don't you mean that it contradicts what you believe? fossils are evidence of death, not life. for a fossil to be made it must be buried rapidly. a dead animal laying in the sun would decay or be eaten before it could be buried. but most fossils show signs of rapid burial. evidence of a flood to me. your logic is based in a belief that you are right and creationists are wrong. kind of one sided and biased if you ask me. there is no real reason to argue the point between the two because you will find something to say to the contrary but the fact remains that evolution and creation are outside the realms of real science, that is operational science.
natbi
1 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
That is why they are classified as historical science. they can be thought about, specualted and both CAN even be supported by the evidence, geology, fossils, but can never be proven as no one was there to see it happen. Not observable. the laws of probability and thermodynamics fit more readily in a creation model than in an evolutionary one. also you can apply Occam's razor to the two models and ultimatly special creation has fewer assumptions so it is the better model. life forming on its own from nothing is not possible with our a cause. Louis Pastuer found that out, oh wait, he believed in a young earth created by God. does that negate his science. also one of scientific thoughts greatest men was Johanes Keplar. He is quoted as saying he was simply thinking God's thoughts after Him. But all creation science is not valid. Interesting. no, i think evolutionary science is the closed system of thought. but you won't admit that, it goes against your religion.
natbi
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
You also are telling people to read a book, especially one not written by a creationist. So you mean you want me to go out and read a book by an atheist because he will be more objective? Do you not even realize how biased you are already? And do you not think that an atheist trying to prove God does not exsit is going to be objective in his arguments? He is going to stand on evolutionary dogma just as strongly as anyone else because to admit any thing else admits God may just exsit, and that is unthinkable. But we should all just read the evolutionists books because creationism is wrong,so you say. So that means we shoudl not use our intelegence to look at both sides of the coin and make a choice based on what we think comes to the best conclusion? Sounds to me we should just blindly follow our leaders, teachers without thought. Loose all system of educated thought because the majority says that evolution is true. What next, if everyone jumps off a cliff should we jump too?
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
This is going to go on and on. Sorry about that. You don't have to read it.

You say that evolution is not random, then what is it?
Something other than random obviously.

Its not like I haven't posted nearly every week:

Mutations are random or mostly so.
Selection is NOT random. Selection is by the environment. Those mutations or even combinations of genes that lower an individuals odds of survival tend to get selected out. Which means DEAD or failure to reproduce. Those genes or combinations thereof that improve chances of survival or reproduction tend to accumulate over time because those individuals that those advantageous genes have more offspring.
how can an animal just happen to have adaptable charecteristics that will by luck help it to survive after a catastrophie.
How can it not. That is if it is a survivor. Luck counts. Also adaptability.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
and what was said about death at a catastrophie is true. a coment slaming into earth will kill any animal without distinction.
Yes, and I agreed. Sometimes the luck is bad. The Universe doesn't care.
yes the tough ones will survive, or the lucky ones who happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Yes.
How is all of this not chance?
It is. Selection includes disasters. Life has to adapt to that or die.

Are you getting the idea? DEATH, or failure to reproduce, is what drives evolution. Those bangs don't happen that often but they do open the field for change.
or is the Evolution god a guideing intelegence?
What god? Evolution is just a matter of survival and reproduction. Changes that increase the odds of doing that are conserved. By surviving. In the words of Robert A. Heinlein "survivors survive".
and how can a small change in the DNA bring about large change?
Any change can. A single DNA unit being changed with another can.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
For a change to be made it must be dominant or noticable.
For SOME changes. Not for all. Of course it must have an effect to be either conserved or selected out. For life that doesn't have pairs of chromosomes there is not such dominant or recessive. Many genes are neither. The whole idea of dominant and recessive produces a poor model. Active or inactive in and paired on not is better fit to the actual biochemistry now that we have better understanding of what is really going on.

sickle cell for example is harmful even deadly when it is a dominat trait. only when it is resesive does it provide a benefit,
Which is EXACTLY what I meant above. That is WRONG.

IF you have no copies of the Sickle cell gene then you have normal blood cells.
IF you have ONE copy then your blood cells are slightly different and resist malaria.
IF you have TWO copies then your blood cells are a bit more different and under stress change shape and things get bad.

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
Classically, it is a recessive trait. But in fact it ALWAYS has an effect. A little for one copy and a lot for two. A little is good and a lot is very bad.
and if only one thing needsd to change as long as it is beneficial then what makes it beneficial?
The environment. If there is no malaria around then the sickle cell trait is bad. Its nasty even when malaria is around but if you have ONE copy you are better off and will have more successful children.
also i read further about saying the universe exsist because it can.
That is speculation on my part. It may be true it may not. Ranting about it would make me another Crank on the site.

It is A POSSIBLE answer to the question:
Why something instead of nothing? Because its mathematically valid and therefor CAN exist, so why shouldn't exist?

Its philosophy not science. If you want to say as god did it and no the god doesn't need a god that is your choice but it is a bit less sound logically.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
that is no different that saying God exsits because He can.
Not quite. Jehovah, as described in the Bible, is NOT mathematically valid. And we both know that most people mean Jehovah when they say God in capital letters. Around here anyway.
And read up on the bible before you make claims.
I did. I have been discussing it for a decade on the net.
how can a book that claims this is how creation happen contradict the very claim it made,
Read Genesis ONE and TWO. They contradict. I don't how people managed to do something that stupid. And BOTH fail to match the evidence around us.
fossils are evidence of death, not life.
Death IS evidence of life. Nothing can die without having lived.

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
evidence of a flood to me.
No. SOME fossils ARE from floods. Not one giant flood but small ones. One cluster of dinosaur fossils seem to be from a flooded river during a migration. Many fossils are buried by ash. Many by landslide. Many were washed down rivers. Somethings living in water died near the surface and then drifted down to water with little oxygen. There is absolutely no sign of them all being drowned 4400 years ago. Few can be C14 dated and life form 4400 years ago CAN be c14 dated as long as there is no contamination from old carbon sources.

your logic is based in a belief that you are right and creationists are wrong.
No. Its based on evidence and reason, not mere belief that must ignore evidence and reason as Creationists must. Sometimes they even knowingly lie about things.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
but the fact remains that evolution and creation are outside the realms of real science, that is operational science.
You clearly are speaking from ignorance. There is NO evidence that the world is young. NONE. I have been challenging Creationist for a decade to produce evidence that is real and can stand up to a few moments thought. That challenge has never been met.

If the world was young the evidence would be clear. C14 dating would show that nothing is older than 6000 or so years. There would be evidence right outside my door of a world wide flood 4400 years ago. The Egyptians were building pyramids then. They never noticed being wiped out. Which is why the Discovery Asylum tells people to avoid discussing the flood. They tell people to NEVER support themselves but just push an alleged controversy. There is no controversy. Just ignorance vs science.

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
That is why they are classified as historical science.
Those are real sciences. The only reason to claim they are not is because they show that Genesis is wrong. Heck Genesis One and Two show each other wrong.

geology, fossils, but can never be proven
They can be tested in labs and simulations as well and THAT is PROOF. Not mathematical proof. Even physics cannot be proved by that thinking. The evidence for evolution is every bit as good as the evidence for atoms.

as no one was there to see it happen.
That is pretty silly. Physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitness accounts. And why should I believe a book that can't even go two chapters without botching it. If you have a witness that says no one hit the ball through the window and you have broken window and a ball on the other side YOU are telling me I should believe the witness.
Not observable.
Fossils ARE observable.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
the laws of probability and thermodynamics fit more readily in a creation model
My that is bad. You have been lied to about the second law of thermodynamics and you bought into the lie because someone told you to believe an ancient book written by men that knew even less than you do about the thermodynamics.

This is going on long. Have link to reality and the 2nd law.
http://www.talkor...rmo.html

one. also you can apply Occam's razor to the two models and ultimatly special creation has fewer assumptions
Bad to worse. Occam's razor

http://en.wikiped...'s_razor

The key to why you were wrong as can be.
The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one".
Which is what you just did.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism)
So by your standards Solipsism is ever better. You only need you for that one.
life forming on its own from nothing is not possible with our a cause.
And you know this how? If nothing else life is here and this proof your wrong. Silly isn't that. But no sillier than yours. You have no idea what the odds are yet you claim it can't happen. In any case evolution is not dependent on HOW life got started. Only that life did get started. Those fossils aren't going to disappears just because we don't know everything. The Egyptians that didn't drown aren't going to have all history change and them erased just because we don't yet know how life started.

More
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Loose all system of educated thought because the majority says that evolution is true. What next, if everyone jumps off a cliff should we jump too?
So natbi sockpuppet, because you are a sockpuppet, tell us, do you think that Magic is real?

If your answer is no, creation is false. Otherwise you'll need to then demonstrate that magic and particularly "spontaneous generation" are real.

Both of these have been disproved by science. If you can demonstrate either one, I'll start paying attention to those who think creationism is the correct origin of the Universe.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
I could just as claim that YOUR book has two contradictory creations and therefor the world was created by a giant cow licking an iceberg. The Norse legends only have ONE version not two so THEY MUST BE RIGHT.
Louis Pastuer found that out, oh wait, he believed in a young earth created by God.
No he didn't. He proved that PRESENT life can't get started by magic. He proved nothing about how life could start on the early Earth.

How long did it take you find EVERY false claim Creationists make? And you didn't notice the level of bull shit at all.
also one of scientific thoughts greatest men was Johanes Keplar.
Now the bandwagon cliche. Someone from long ago believed the Bible therefor you should too. That kid jumped off a cliff so maybe you should also. Do you have any ability to think critically? Do you take EVERY bit of nonsense from Creationists as true just because they said so?

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
He is quoted as saying he was simply thinking God's thoughts after Him.
And that has meaning in what way?
But all creation science is not valid.
There isn't any. So it is kind of hard for it be valid. The Creation Science Institute AND the Discovery Asylum have produce exactly ZERO research to support themselves. They have an alleged theory. They should be able to make predictions and test them.

NOT ONCE HAVE THEY DONE SO. NEVER.

That is not science.
i think evolutionary science is the closed system of thought
I know you think that. You don't know anything about it that didn't come from a Creationist.
but you won't admit that, it goes against your religion.
It goes against the evidence. Just because YOU can only think in religious terms it does not mean I am that handicapped.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
You also are telling people to read a book, especially one not written by a creationist
No. Not especially. EXACTLY. If you only read the side that refuses to do any science than you are never going to see any science.
So you mean you want me to go out and read a book by an atheist because he will be more objective
You could go out and read a Christian. Darwin was a Christian at one time. Or you could read an Agnostic which is what I am. Atheists mostly became that way because they were objective. I became an Agnostic that way. They chose to go on the evidence instead of belief.
Do you not even realize how biased you are already
Since I am going on evidence I have to say that it is you that are biased. You seem to think that disagreeing with you makes me biased. THAT is what biased is. YOU.

This is typical Creationist crap. 'Oh dear a terrible evil Atheist said I was using religious thinking had a closed mind and was biased. WELL YOU'RE BIASED YOU EVIL ATHEIST'.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
And do you not think that an atheist trying to prove God does not exsit is going to be objective in his arguments?
Bull. I never suggested that you read Dawkin's tirade against religion. Just a book on evolution. Darwin never tried to prove that there is no god. Neither have I. Lots of people believe in some sort of god without denying reality like you are doing. Even the POPE believes in evolution.

He is going to stand on evolutionary dogma
Evidence not dogma. Learn the difference.

admit any thing else admits God may just exsit, and that is unthinkable
Some sort of god may exist. There. I not only wrote I thought it. Have posted it many times. Heck I even saw Dawkins admit it was possible. Not likely, not even close to likely but possible. Which is what a lot of Atheists think.

More
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
I see no reason to go either way on it. I don't believe in any god but I don't actively disbelieve any sufficiently vaguely defined god. IF your god MUST be a god of a 6000 year old Earth with NO evolution and a Great Flood to murder all life not on Noah's Big Ass Boat then that one I have to say doesn't exist. All the evidence is against it and none is for it. And no one was there to see Jehovah say let there be light.
But we should all just read the evolutionists books because creationism is wrong,so you say
No. I say you should read it so you can learn something REAL about evolution instead of the nonsense you your head filled with.
So that means we shoudl not use our intelegence to look at both sides of the coin
NO. But thank you for that since that is what I am trying to get you to do.

GO READ BOTH SIDES.

You have already read the side that refuses to test their belief with actual experiments. Now go read the other side.

More
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
Sounds to me we should just blindly follow our leaders, teachers without thought.
Yes I know you think that way. You have just insisted on continuing to do that. Refused to even look at the other side.

Loose all system of educated thought because the majority says that evolution is true.
You really are pretty ignorant on this. In the US the majority doesn't believe in evolution.

What next, if everyone jumps off a cliff should we jump too?
No. I am asking that you STOP jumping off the cliff just because someone told you God said you should.

You really did hit every cliche. Every possible line of ignorance. You are even refusing to look at the other side because that would be NOT looking at both sides. Are you the person that wrote those contradictions in Genesis One and Two?

You did do one thing I have not seen before. You claimed that reading the other side would be NOT looking at both sides. How can a person write such crap?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
also you can apply Occam's razor to the two models and ultimatly special creation has fewer assumptions


Model 1) Evolution: The non-random survival of randomly generated organisms.

Support: Organisms are random, survival is not. Pretty basic to me.

Model 2) Creationism: An infinitely complex being that exists, has existed, and will always exist and encompasses everything through spoken word created everything in the observable universe in a period of 6 days (before the concept of a day could have ever been thought of) and built the incredibly massive momument to a species that existed for less than a billionth of the time of the existence of the Universe, and occupies less than 0.0000000000000001% of it.

Support: nothing

Which theory is less complex again?
natbi
1 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Skeptichectic. to respond to you i will just say that to use an insult rather than an intelegnet remark tastefull written and thought out betrays a lack of social interaction. Ethelred to use vulger language to prove apoint such as Noah's Big Ass Boat just shows a bitterness that so many people actually believe this for you to spend decades doing nothing but arguing it on line. I studied in a secular state university and even my own anthropology professer spent the whole term pushing evolutoin as if it was fact and then at the end of the class told us how they needed more evidence to make it a proven fact but that she would BELIEVE it. Believe it being the key phrase. you spout the very phrases and topics i have heard in many college classes. so when i say dogma it is because evolution really is a belief with little evidence to support it, but i am getting off work now and have more important things to do than to continue to argue this with you.
natbi
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Merry Christmas. i am getting off work now. Yes creationists are educated and can hold down actual jobs and i did study many of the evolutionsit side in my secular state university and it did not hold any water for me. call me stuborn or whatever you like. and darwin did believe in God, until he became bitter at the death of his daughter so he tried to explain the world around him without a god. have a merry christmas.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
Ethelred to use vulger language to prove apoint such as Noah's Big Ass Boat just shows a bitterness
Its a quote from SOMEONE ELSE. Its funny. The pictures of the Ark always show a boat with a big rear end. I find your lies about me offensive.
my own anthropology professer spent the whole term pushing evolutoin as if it was fact
Well it is a fact.
more evidence to make it a proven fact but that she would BELIEVE it.
The evidence is extremely sound. The theory fits that evidence and in science that IS as proven as it gets.
you spout the very phrases and topics i have heard in many college classes.
Sounds like one class. That you didn't learn in.
so when i say dogma it is because evolution really is a belief with little evidence to support it
Then you lie. EVERY fossil is evidence.
have more important things to do than to continue to argue this with you.
I expected that sort of surrender. If SH is right that is TWICE you have done that.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
Evolution is a fact...but there is a lot of stuff in the theory that people treat like dogma.

CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Ethelred you have tremendous patience, this natbi guy is an idiot.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Evolution is a fact...but there is a lot of stuff in the theory that people treat like dogma.


Surely you must have something in mind...
CSharpner
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
natbi,

how can a book that claims this is how creation happen contradict the very claim it made, or don't you mean that it contradicts what you believe?

Logically, any book can contradict itself. It can say X and not Y, then later say something that supports Y. The Bible's a big book and there are contradictions in it. Does that mean the WHOLE book is wrong? Not necessarily, but at least one or both of the contradictions.

fossils are evidence of death, not life.

??? A fossil is the remains of a creature that once lived.

but most fossils show signs of rapid burial.

Because, just like natural selection of life, natural selection of fossils preserves only the ones that randomly died in an area that was able to preserve it (rapid burial).

evidence of a flood to me.

Just one? Why not many? Do you have any evidence that they were all covered up at the same time?

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
your logic is based in a belief that you are right and creationists are wrong. kind of one sided and biased if you ask me.

Everyone that debates believes their side is right.

there is no real reason to argue the point between the two because you will find something to say to the contrary

Then that means he's educated and smart.

life forming on its own from nothing is not possible with our a cause

Who said life emerged without a cause? Something caused the first self replicating molecule got its atoms arranged in a particular order... The cause would be the forces of nature (gravity, magnetism, heat, etc...). Also, how life got started is a COMPLETELY different discussion as to how it's been going since then. Evn IF the world were created only thousands of years ago, evolution has been going since then... But the world has clearly been around much longer.

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
And do you not think that an atheist trying to prove God does not exsit is going to be objective in his arguments?

Personally, I'm agnostic with a Christian baground and a bias towards Christianity, but I can say that athiests, on average, are more objective in these matters. There's no earth-shattering loss to them if they're wrong. The opposite is true for people who's faith is so weak it can't withstand the existence of evolution. They desperately do NOT want evolution to be true.

it goes against your religion.

My fellow Christians need to stop saying this. Evolution is NOT a religion. Evolution can exist simultaneously with a God. The existence of evolution does NOT prove there's no God. Science is NOT on a task to disprove (pick your favorite religion). Scientists are interested in the physical truth, whatever it may be.

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
You also are telling people to read a book, especially one not written by a creationist. [...] But we should all just read the evolutionists books because creationism is wrong,so you say

You give the strong impression that you read ONLY anti-evolution books. He's asking you to read BOTH sides. I know you said you took a class in college, but you were skeptical going in and held on to that skepticism. Read a good book on evolution and be as skeptical as you want, but analyze the facts and the logic... LOGICALLY.

how can an animal just happen to have adaptable charecteristics that will by luck help it to survive after a catastrophie.

If you'd studied evolution, you'd know the answer to this. It's quite simple. After a catastrophe, resources are limited. Just about ANY advantage it has over its neighbors will help it survive. After an asteroid impact, it would be dark for a long time, so better light sensitivity would help.

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Those with less light sensitivity will die out. This is just one of many examples. Millions (or billions) of individuals have an enormous amount of random mutations. SOME of them are bound to have an advantage. This is very simple to understand.

For a change to be made it must be dominant or noticable.

Define "noticable". Do you notice whn one antelope's top speed is 40mph and another is 40.5mph? Maybe over many generations you'll notice that antelope get faster (the slower ones get caught by lions and leopards). A change does NOT need to be "noticable" (whatever that means). It needs to provide an advantage to reproduce more.

and if only one thing needsd to change as long as it is beneficial then what makes it beneficial?

Seriously? Obviously it's if it increases its odds of reproducing.

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
So you mean you want me to go out and read a book by an atheist because he will be more objective

You simply need to read books that aren't anti-evolution or anti-science. There's no need that it be written by an atheist.

admit any thing else admits God may just exsit, and that is unthinkable

This is a common mistake my fellow Christians make all the time and it's a mistake of arragance. You need to understand: Scientists don't put your (our) religion on a pedastol. They simply look at the facts and make determinations based on what they find. Proving or disproving one religion or another is the furthest thing from their minds. The only time it gets on their mind is when people start yelling at them that they're trying to disprove (pick your favorite religion). It's arragont to think that your religion has any importance whatsoever to them.

continued...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
evolution really is a belief with little evidence to support it

As has been explained ad infitum; evolution is the RESULT of physical evidence. The amount of evidence is staggering and completely overwhelming. You COMPLETELY discredit yourself by saying there's no or little evidence.

(done).
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
Well written CSharpner...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2010
to respond to you i will just say that to use an insult rather than an intelegnet remark tastefull written and thought out betrays a lack of social interaction.
First, your posts are not well written, intelligent, or thoughtful. For you to claim what you do of evolution shows that you have zero social interaction outside fo your very small circle of belief.
I studied in a secular state university and even my own anthropology professer spent the whole term pushing evolutoin as if it was fact
Because it is.
and then at the end of the class told us how they needed more evidence to make it a proven fact but that she would BELIEVE it.
Doubtful.
you spout the very phrases and topics i have heard in many college classes.
and?
so when i say dogma it is because evolution really is a belief with little evidence to support it
You're jsut about as thick as you can get. Your final statements here have proved that your assertion of study above are false.
CSharpner
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
I think natbi bailed.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
Maybe he was fired after he left work for posting from work and no longer can get on line.

Ethelred
Tesla444
4 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2010
Ethelred;
Hey, remember I warned you; "You can't win an argument with the God guys, they don't care about facts or theories."
Maybe he'll be back for more once he realizes that he can believe in whatever God he wants and still accept Science as a valid way to view the Universe! I'm not sure I get why some religious people think Science is out to disprove God -- I only seem to hear this from believers. I think if a Scientist found some 'proof' of God I think he/she would be pretty excited to repeat it and publish it.
I think I lost any respect for the concept when I read 'in the Bible' how God would randomly slaughter/smote those he didn't like, create massive disasters and allow innocence people to die in Wars & Crime. Seems contrary to what a true God would be about -- hence NO God for me! The God of Christianity and more so in Islam seemed to behave like he/she was 'anything but a God'. The Bible & Coran are full of horrific death actions or instructions to appease 'God'.
flicktheswitch
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2010
It amazes me that after such a clear, point by point response from many posters, especially Ethelred, that the individuals pushing creationism don't even bother to answer the responses, points and arguments that were made.
Their reply to careful logic, links and facts is nearly always a diversion, an insult, or something irrelevant.

Stunning.

I guess that's why arguing with them is futile... the concept of 'an argument' implies the other person will listen to your points and either rebutt them, or, if they can't, admit they were wrong.

Full marks Ethel, SH and Csharp.
Merry Xmas to all. ;)
CSharpner
not rated yet Dec 25, 2010
Merry Christmas right back atcha, including to all our creationist neighbors. No arguments today (well, not from me, anyway! :).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.