When it comes to accepting evolution, gut feelings trump facts

Jan 19, 2012 by Maureen Langlois

For students to accept the theory of evolution, an intuitive "gut feeling" may be just as important as understanding the facts, according to a new study.

In an analysis of the beliefs of biology teachers, researchers found that a quick intuitive notion of how right an idea feels was a powerful driver of whether or not accepted evolution—often trumping factors such as knowledge level or religion.

"The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it – if they really knew it – they would see the logic and accept it," said David Haury, co-author of the new study and associate professor of education at Ohio State University.

"But among all the scientific studies on the matter, the most consistent finding was inconsistency. One study would find a strong relationship between knowledge level and acceptance, and others would find no relationship. Some would find a strong relationship between religious identity and acceptance, and others would find less of a relationship."

"So our notion was, there is clearly some factor that we're not looking at," he continued. "We're assuming that people accept something or don't accept it on a completely rational basis. Or, they're part of a belief community that as a group accept or don't accept. But the findings just made those simple answers untenable."

Haury and his colleagues tapped into cognitive science research showing that our brains don't just process ideas logically—we also rely on how true something feels when judging an idea. "Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," he says.

The researchers framed a study to determine whether intuitive reasoning could help explain why some people are more accepting of evolution than others. The study, published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, included 124 pre-service biology teachers at different stages in a standard teacher preparation program at two Korean universities.

First, the students answered a standard set of questions designed to measure their overall acceptance of evolution. These questions probed whether students generally believed in the main concepts and scientific findings that underpin the theory.

Then the students took a test on the specific details of evolutionary science. To show their level of factual knowledge, students answered multiple-choice and free-response questions about processes such as natural selection. To gauge their "gut" feelings about these ideas, students wrote down how certain they felt that their factually correct answers were actually true.

The researchers then analyzed statistical correlations to see whether knowledge level or feeling of certainty best predicted students' overall acceptance of evolution. They also considered factors such as academic year and religion as potential predictors.

"What we found is that intuitive cognition has a significant impact on what people end up accepting, no matter how much they know," said Haury. The results show that even students with greater knowledge of evolutionary facts weren't likelier to accept the theory, unless they also had a strong "gut" feeling about those facts.

When trying to explain the patterns of whether people believe in evolution or not, "the results show that if we consider both feeling and knowledge level, we can explain much more than with knowledge level alone," said Minsu Ha, lead author on the paper and a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Teaching and Learning.

In particular, the research shows that it may not be accurate to portray religion and science education as competing factors in determining beliefs about evolution. For the subjects of this study, belonging to a religion had almost no additional impact on beliefs about evolution, beyond subjects' feelings of certainty.

These results also provide a useful way of looking at the perceived conflict between religion and science when it comes to teaching evolution, according to Haury. "Intuitive cognition not only opens a new door to approach the issue," he said, "it also gives us a way of addressing that issue without directly questioning religious views."

When choosing a setting for their study, the team found that Korean teacher preparation programs were ideal. "In Korea, people all take the same classes over the same time period and are all about the same age, so it takes out a lot of extraneous factors," said Haury. "We wouldn't be able to find a sample group like this in the United States."

Unlike in the U.S., about half of Koreans do not identify themselves as belonging to any particular religion. But according to Ha, who is from Korea, certain religious groups consider the topic of evolution just as controversial as in the U.S.

To ensure that their results were relevant to U.S. settings, the researchers compared how the Korean students did on the knowledge tests with previous studies of U.S. students. "We found that the both groups were comparable in terms of the overall performance," said Haury.

For teaching , the researchers suggest using exercises that allow students to become aware of their brains' dual processing. Knowing that sometimes what their "gut" says is in conflict with what their "head" knows may help students judge ideas on their merits.

"Educationally, we think that's a place to start," said Haury. "It's a concrete way to show them, look—you can be fooled and make a bad decision, because you just can't deny your gut."

Ha and Haury collaborated on this study with Ross Nehm, associate professor of education at the Ohio State University. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Explore further: Shy people use Facebook longer but disclose less

Related Stories

Science and religion do mix

Sep 21, 2011

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science ...

Teaching Biology Means Teaching Evolution

Dec 11, 2006

Evolution is a complex topic for any science teacher, given the misconceptions that some students bring to the classroom and the gaps that can occur in teacher preparation. In Investigating Evolutionary Biology in the La ...

Book: Evolution, religion are compatible

Jan 05, 2008

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has published a new book arguing that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not require giving up a belief in God.

Recommended for you

Healthy working environment is a salvation

1 hour ago

Contract workers in Norway often face the worst and most unpredictable working conditions. But good management and support from colleagues makes these workers more robust.

Why marvellous isn't awesome any more

1 hour ago

Using the Spoken British National Corpus 2014, a very large collection of recordings of real-life, informal, spoken interactions between speakers of British English from across the United Kingdom, Cambridge ...

User comments : 184

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nononoplease
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2012
This is true for everything (scientific and non-scientific), not just acceptance of evolution.
Doug_Huffman
1.4 / 5 (26) Jan 19, 2012
Heh heh heh. Here's 'science' in this failing education system. In Bayesian epistemology these gut feelings are acknowledged as Bayesian naive priors and are the formal starting point for learning.

It isn't too many pages later - in my Bayesianism textbook, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by E. T. Jaynes - that 'Converging and diverging views' describes how the incredibility of the narrator polarizes his audience into mind-numbed robots and skeptical non-believers.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (24) Jan 19, 2012
Last summer at a party, I fell into a discussion with another person about global warming. It was a friendly discussion (mostly) and we were proceeding nicely with the give and take when he said something that totally floored me.

He said the root cause of his rejection of global warming was that the earth was just so massive, and the atmosphere was so huge, he simply didn't believe that anything that human beings did was capable of effecting it. He believed this in his gut, all evidence to the contrary.

I wonder how much of AGW denialists refusal to accept scientific reality are gut level feelings of this sort?

According to this article, it could be quite a lot.
9999
1.2 / 5 (30) Jan 19, 2012
My gut feeling is that Life depends NOT only upon the right chemistry and the right temperature range but also, it depends on the correct Code, intelligently written in base-4 mathematics that directs all this incredibly complex chemistry to assemble all the myriad proteins and enzymes that enable even the simplest cells to survive. All this nonsense about natural selection is beside the point. The fittest always survive the best. But where did all the competitors come from? The whole silly notion of abiogenesis is totally irrational to me. One may as well shout in favor of perpetual motion or trying to stew gold out of cheaper stuff.
paulthebassguy
1.5 / 5 (24) Jan 19, 2012
The thing that interests me is that the article doesn't say how people come to "feel" things.

What is this "gut feeling" based on?
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (22) Jan 19, 2012
My gut feeling is that Life depends NOT only upon the right chemistry and the right temperature range but also, it depends on the correct Code, intelligently written in base-4 mathematics that directs all this incredibly complex chemistry to assemble all the myriad proteins and enzymes that enable even the simplest cells to survive. All this nonsense about natural selection is beside the point. The fittest always survive the best. But where did all the competitors come from? The whole silly notion of abiogenesis is totally irrational to me. One may as well shout in favor of perpetual motion or trying to stew gold out of cheaper stuff.


As opposed to what? What evidence do you have for the intelligence that you are proposing? And what intelligence was responsible for it, and then what intelligence was responsible for that intelligence? Ad infinitum...
Deathclock
3.8 / 5 (27) Jan 19, 2012
If you are asserting that intelligence can only come from intelligence then you have a clear problem. The traditional "solution" to this problem was to invoke magic.

I am not a fan of using "magic" to explain reality. You're going to have to do better.
nononoplease
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2012
Parsec: "I wonder how much of AGW denialists refusal to accept scientific reality are gut level feelings of this sort?"

Parsec, you miss the point of the study: The point is that most of the people in both groups, those who accept and those who deny AGW, are in their respective camp based on such gut feelings.
9999
1 / 5 (28) Jan 19, 2012
To deathclock: I suppose that if you were to find a stone arrowhead in a freshly plowed field, you would suppose that eons of wind and weather shaped it like it is. That would be an entirely irrational conclusion most folks would agree.

If you do not want to accept the Biblical account of Creation, that is your privilege - for now. The Bible teaches that the Creator God is eternal - no beginning and no end. I don't understand that either but I will take it by faith.

Also, I choose to believe that what looks designed, really was.

I would just ask that you inform me of any code that can conclusively be proven to have come into existence without the benefit of an intelligent author. I never heard of one, but then, I am the one being targeted as out of balance so how should I know unless I am shown?
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (33) Jan 19, 2012
In particular, the research shows that it may not be accurate to portray religion and science education as competing factors in determining beliefs about evolution. For the subjects of this study, belonging to a religion had almost no additional impact on beliefs about evolution, beyond subjects' feelings of certainty.


As I have said many times, religion and science are not at odds.

The problem with evolution theory is that proponents want others to believe in it. It makes little sense to believe in a theory. Theories are quite useful and evolution theory is no exception, but it is just a model like many other models -- subject to continual modification.

People should be allowed to believe whatever they find to be believable. Problems arise when someone tries to impose his beliefs on someone else.

Our knowledge of anything is always limited.
ekim
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2012
People should be allowed to believe whatever they find to be believable. Problems arise when someone tries to impose his beliefs on someone else.

Our knowledge of anything is always limited.

I agree. Knowledge is limited. That's why I don't believe that Pi is what others say it is. Instead I believe it is equal to 3. No messy, infinite decimals. I find 3 to be much more believable than 3.14.......
Also, dividing by zero should equal something, my gut says 5.
Tausch
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2012

Our knowledge of anything is always limited. - DB

Disagree. The sky's the limit. Why stop there?

To your defense you have a 'heavy weight Philo' - Wittgenstein - cheering you on:

"The limits of your world(s) are the limits of your language(s)[you use]." - Wittgenstein.

(This quote is translated. No one disputes the translation.)

Wittgenstein makes a logical mistake - he overlooks the sources and origins of worlds and languages:
Nature.

If you place a limit on Nature, (the sources/origins of humans, worlds and languages), then no one of faith or belief will believe you.

Our knowledge of anything knows no limits...
There. I fixed the usage of words for you.

Now you are free.
Your worlds and your languages now know no limits.

I apologize for Wittgenstein - if that is who led you on.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2012
Division by zero is common place. Used to extend and explore branches of mathematics.
Deathclock
3.8 / 5 (21) Jan 20, 2012
Also, I choose to believe that what looks designed, really was.


Then you are a perfect example of the subject of this article.

There are numerous examples of counter-intuitive reality. When it comes to science and discovering the nature of reality your intuition is completely useless.
Sinister1811
3.3 / 5 (23) Jan 20, 2012
Creationism is a product of fallacious thinking.

My gut feeling is that God is non-existent. lol
nononoplease
1.5 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2012
"When it comes to science and discovering the nature of reality your intuition is completely useless."

Deathclock: then you don't understand how discoveries are made. Every discovery is intuited. All the scientific method can do is generate a confirmation (or a proof of falsehood) for something that was first intuited. It is not a creative method, merely an error-checking method.
Tausch
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2012
@nono...
You disagreed with division by zero?
Or what led to the rating?
infiniteMadness
4.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2012
gut feeling is the reason we have pseudo science, bogus religions and people claiming to have seen ufos/aliens.

Its all bull!
rawa1
1.2 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2012
Theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact. Here are many evidences of gradual genome evolution, but we have many evidences of situations, when this evolutionary line appears broken, which may serve as an evidence of infection of Earth with spores from outside space or even controlled terraformation with some extraterrestrial intelligence. While I'm supporter of evolutionary theory, I don't think we are in position which would allow us to accept it as a fact. It will contradict my scientific way thinking which follows Popper's methodology. Genuine scientists are not looking for support from the facts for their theories, says Popper, so there is no need for any inductive inference from the observational to the theoretical.
bewertow
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2012
My gut feeling is that Life depends NOT only upon the right chemistry and the right temperature range but also, it depends on the correct Code, intelligently written in base-4 mathematics that directs all this incredibly complex chemistry to assemble all the myriad proteins and enzymes that enable even the simplest cells to survive. All this nonsense about natural selection is beside the point. The fittest always survive the best. But where did all the competitors come from? The whole silly notion of abiogenesis is totally irrational to me. One may as well shout in favor of perpetual motion or trying to stew gold out of cheaper stuff.


You are an idiot. DNA stores information in Binary representation. There are only 2 types of bonds: A-T and G-C. I'm a physicist, and even I know this.
mosahlah
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2012

"I agree. Knowledge is limited. That's why I don't believe that Pi is what others say it is. Instead I believe it is equal to 3. No messy, infinite decimals. I find 3 to be much more believable than 3.14.......
Also, dividing by zero should equal something, my gut says 5.

Wait a minute, Pi is 3?? Did you check that with Al Gore? Because I heard he has been right about everything so far.
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (17) Jan 20, 2012
Theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact. Here are many evidences of gradual genome evolution, but we have many evidences of situations, when this evolutionary line appears broken, which may serve as an evidence of infection of Earth with spores from outside space or even controlled terraformation with some extraterrestrial intelligence. While I'm supporter of evolutionary theory, I don't think we are in position which would allow us to accept it as a fact.


But it is a fact, and there is proof of the "theory" of evolution. That's what the fossil record is for. If you examine the fossils of ancient organisms, you can see the gradual changes over the millions of years, leading to the lifeforms that we see today (including Humans). Proof of evolution is also seen in vestigial organs; like the Human backbone, for example.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2012
DNA stores information in Binary representation.
No. First it isn't information. Its just chemical bases. Admittedly it is exceedingly hard to talk about it without using terms like codes and information but really it is just chemical reactions. I am going on about that due to Dembski and the ID information gambit.

Second the A, T, G, and C code SEPARATELY for RNA. There are 4 codons with a length of 3 codons per word. The sixty-four words code for 20, via the RNA intermediary, amino acids and a few control codes such as STOP START and SKIP ON with some redundant codes.

Your way has a binary code that has two codons with a word length of 6 codons per word but that would be ignoring the FOUR chemicals that form codons with a length of THREE units and not SIX units per codon as you would have it.

Basically your way has the DNA needing to be twice as long as it is.

Ethelred
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (27) Jan 20, 2012
Theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact.


The word "theory" and the word "fact" are not mutually exclusive alternatives to each other. A theory consists of many facts. A fact is a single atomic unit of knowledge, a theory is an overarching explanation for a general question that invokes many facts. Theories cannot be facts, that is not the goal. A theory is the BEST explanation we have for the facts.
9999
1.1 / 5 (40) Jan 20, 2012
To all those who believe in the abiogenesis aspect of evolution:

I am reluctant to believe abiogenesis because:

(1) The Bible does not support it.

(2) Many scientific experiments disprove it.
(a) While the Miller-Urey experiment showed that certain amino acids can be produced by means of the right recipe and a few sparks, it is conveniently overlooked that the dual handedness of the produced amino acids cause self destruction of the resultant molecules. Intelligent interference was required to salvage any evidence deemed valuable.

(b) Fruit flies have been persecuted by most imaginable means for the past century in an effort to prove that mutations could produce new species. However, there have been NO new useful features produced - only many grotesque deformations that are not inheritable.

(c) The evolution of gender runs counter to evolutionary theory. If gender-less creatures were successful without gender, where is the driving force for such complex inventions?

AWaB
2.8 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2012
This article is part of the root cause of the silliness. Why does it matter if people believe in evolution or not? It has no affect on your daily life. Religious people will be that way anyway. You don't see physicists running around trying to make laymen believe in quantum mechanics. Leave people alone! Trying to indoctrinate the youth of the world isn't working. Teach the poor children how to think and the world will be a much ____ place (I leave the blank for you to decide). It all starts by teaching them mathematics and allowing them to come to their own conclusions!
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (32) Jan 20, 2012
(1) The Bible does not support it.


Irrelevant, the bible is not a book of scientific knowledge.

(2) Many scientific experiments disprove it.


No, nothing has "disproven" abiogenesis... the fact that nothing has yet proven it as a plausible explanation DOES NOT mean that it has been disproven. This is the kind of faulty logic I have to expect from religionists.

(a) While the Miller-Urey experiment...


The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in 1952... let me say that again NINETEEN FIFTY TWO... If that is the extent of your knowledge of experiments involving abiogenesis then you are more behind the times than I thought possible, considering most of our parents were not born yet when this experiment occurred.

(b) Fruit flies...


Fruit flies have verified evolutionary theory over and over and over again. Not ONCE have we tried to create a new species using fruit flies, because scientists, unlike you, aren't stupid and understand that we don't have the time
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (34) Jan 20, 2012
Furthermore, regarding the Miller-Urey experiment:

"After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the MillerUrey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original MillerUrey experiment have produced more diverse molecules."

You don't even have to dig deep to find out you are full of shit, you just have to brush the dust from the surface of your arguments.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (29) Jan 20, 2012
There is a wealth of information here if you actually care about the topic and weren't just blatantly lying about the research to support your position:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
9999
1 / 5 (27) Jan 20, 2012
@ bewertow:

You may think I am an idiot but you do not seem to understand DNA very well.

As noted in other comments, there are FOUR nucleotides in DNA. They are not information but they carry information in their sequencing. DNA is actually a language written with four characters. Morse Code uses 3 and English uses 26 plus punctuation.

However, to imagine that the DNA sequence has arisen by chance is an irrational notion.

You may realize that in randomly arranging the 4 nucleotides of DNA, there are MORE THAN 1,152 quadrillion possible arrangements of a row of ONLY 30 base pairs of nucleotides.

You may also realize that there are LESS THAN 474 quadrillion seconds of time in 15 billion years.

Humans have about 3 billion base pairs in our genomes, not only 30.

If that doesn't help you understand the magnitude of the problem, I am not sure what will.
nononoplease
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2012
"Every discovery is intuited. All the scientific method can do is generate a confirmation (or a proof of falsehood) for something that was first intuited. It is not a creative method, merely an error-checking method."

The two of you who rated that a 1 must not be scientists. Seriously, read Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. They all intuited their great discoveries. The scientific method is later used by lesser minds (i.e., the vast majority of engineers and scientists like most of us) to confirm/deny but not to initially make the mental leap, the discontinuity, the "eureka" that led to the first claim.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (27) Jan 20, 2012
However, to imagine that the DNA sequence has arisen by chance is an irrational notion.


If ANYONE thought that DNA sequences suddenly came to exist in their current form by chance then yes that would be irrational... fortunately nobody thinks that.

Fortunately, "random" does NOT describe the process of biological evolution. Would you say the path of a river is random, or that it is shaped by its environment? In the same way the path of the evolution of organisms on this planet has not been random but has been shaped by the environment.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (25) Jan 20, 2012
"Every discovery is intuited. All the scientific method can do is generate a confirmation (or a proof of falsehood) for something that was first intuited. It is not a creative method, merely an error-checking method."

The two of you who rated that a 1 must not be scientists. Seriously, read Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. They all intuited their great discoveries. The scientific method is later used by lesser minds (i.e., the vast majority of engineers and scientists like most of us) to confirm/deny but not to initially make the mental leap, the discontinuity, the "eureka" that led to the first claim.


I tend to agree, but with the caveat that the application of the scientific method itself can lead to that "eureka" moment...
Lino235
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2012
gut feeling is the reason we have pseudo science, bogus religions and people claiming to have seen ufos/aliens.


I thought children were taught to go with their first instinct when answering a multiple choice question since this turned out to be right a higher percentage of the time.

It seems a "gut feeling" is closer to the actual truth. So, are we to deny what we feel is 'true' so as to be evolutionists? In fact, the answer to this question is, indeed, "yes."
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
The thing that interests me is that the article doesn't say how people come to "feel" things.

What is this "gut feeling" based on?
Strange. In German gut means good. So I guess people would prefer to believe whatever feels good. Like a convenient truth.
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2012
"random" does NOT describe the process of biological evolution.
Certainly necessary but not sufficient. Without variability there would be no natural selection, that is nothing to select from. Without variability it would be impossible to adapt to a changing environment.
Henrik
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2012
understanding the facts


There are no evolution facts. Darwinian evolution postulates that some hypothetical event in the distant past took place: the gradual evolution of a single cell to human beings via millions of intermediate life forms.

Since this historical event cannot be reproduced to study it, no direct fact can support evolution. The only support available is indirect evidence such as fossils to make the theory plausible. Scientists still have not achieved that goal, despite 150 years of effort. A credible theory would be beyond dispute after such time.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (27) Jan 20, 2012
"random" does NOT describe the process of biological evolution.
Certainly necessary but not sufficient. Without variability there would be no natural selection, that is nothing to select from. Without variability it would be impossible to adapt to a changing environment.


"Random" describes mutation and recombination, which are COMPONENTS of biological evolution.

Biological evolution is not random, it contains a random component, there is a huge difference. The non-random component is where all the interesting stuff occurs, and is the reason that life developed as it has.
9999
1.3 / 5 (29) Jan 20, 2012
@CHollman82

Evolutionists have recently begun to claim that biological evolution is not random. However, it is indisputable that random mutations are at the very root of the variability that natural selection must select from. Therefore, biological evolution, as imagined, is very definitely RANDOM. Oh dear! Such silly circular reasoning just to defend a notion that has to date been completely unprovable. Even Anthony Flew finally figured that out.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2012
@CHollman82

Evolutionists have recently begun to claim that biological evolution is not random. However, it is indisputable that random mutations are at the very root of the variability that natural selection must select from. Therefore, biological evolution, as imagined, is very definitely RANDOM. Oh dear!


Uhh... are you illiterate? He told you as much. He said that mutation and recombination are random components of evolution, but that those are only components and the overall process is not random, and he is right.

Selection is not random. Selection is just as important as mutation. Evolution of species is driven by environmental factors and is not random.

It seems like you either completely ignored what was said or you only read the first few words before deciding to respond... Try reading what others write and thinking about it next time before responding ignorantly.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2012
Evolutionists have recently begun to claim that biological evolution is not random.


Also, this sounds like you are just pulling shit out of your ass to advance your propagandist agenda. If by "evolutionists" you mean 99.7% of all physical scientists (who believe in evolution, and who's opinions on the subject are the only ones that matter) have never said that evolution is a completely random process, a completely random process will not produce anything worthwhile. Natural selection is not random, the traits that are selected for is not random, and the ultimate form of each organism because of this is again, NOT RANDOM.

No one here wants to hear your religious nonsense. Leave this website, it is dedicated to science and you clearly are not.
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2012
A credible theory would be beyond dispute after such time.


It is beyond dispute. The only people that dispute it are religious idiots who's opinions do not matter. The scientific community has reached widespread consensus.

Actually, according to this 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution:
http://en.wikiped...volution

In fact, if you read the bit about "Project Steve" a study was conducted using only scientists with the name "Steve" and it was found that there are more scientists named "Steve" that believe in evolution than there are all scientists who do not believe in evolution combined. Only about 700 scientists worldwide have denied evolution, out of MILLIONS, and most of those identified as creationists.

Sorry, you lose, there is NO dispute about evolution.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2012
"The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others."

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists say humans and other living things have evolved over time. The dominant position among scientists is that living things have evolved due to natural processes is shared by only about one third (32%) of the public."

Stop spreading your lies, I thought god commanded you to not lie.
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2012
Furthermore, if you include only the life sciences then there are only 150 scientists that do not believe in evolution, out of 1.1 MILLION total... bringing the percentage of scientists in the life sciences who do not believe in evolution to a paltry 0.015%

And you have the audacity to claim that there is a dispute... you're pathetic.

"The 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999"
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2012
This was in 1999... I guarantee there is even less support for creationism in the scientific community today.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2012
The only support available is indirect evidence such as fossils to make the theory plausible. Scientists still have not achieved that goal, despite 150 years of effort
Yes and 100 years and they're still testing relativity. I sort of like plausibility. Like where else would those fossils come from. Maybe another planet?
caitlincatwest
5 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2012
The only support available is indirect evidence such as fossils to make the theory plausible. Scientists still have not achieved that goal, despite 150 years of effort
Yes and 100 years and they're still testing relativity. I sort of like plausibility. Like where else would those fossils come from. Maybe another planet?


Are you blind? Evolution of one species into an entirely new species takes millions of years. Do you expect scientists to wait that long? They have successfully encouraged changes in genetic structure of fruit flies, rats, and various crops by altering the environment to favor certain genes, just as natural selection would in the wild. This gives a clear understanding and demonstration of the process in real time, with organisms that age quickly enough to see the beginning changes of the evolutionary process. It's all in black and white. What research have you done into the matter? Are you a scientist? Do you have a degree? Are you an expert?
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2012
I am reluctant to believe abiogenesis because:

(1) The Bible does not support it.
Unfortunately for those that consider the Bible to be inerrant it has many errors. So this not an obstacle for science. Just for minds that don't want to accept reality.

(2) Many scientific experiments disprove it.
Really. How about you posting even one. There are many proving it within the limits of observation. There is nothing showing the world is young.

t is conveniently overlooked that the dual handedness of the produced amino acids cause self destruction of the resultant molecules.
No. It did no such thing as there is no such thing.

The handedness bugaboo is crap. There is no requirement that a self-reproducing molecule have a single chirality. That is something could easily have evolved over time as the molecules got longer.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2012
there have been NO new useful features produced - only many grotesque deformations that are not inheritable
Some are inheritable. Some are not. That is how selection works. As for usefulness that is rare but it does happen. The experiments you are talking about were only looking at rather obvious mutations and not subtle changes in metabolism. Nowadays we can do that. Make fruit flys or at least C. Elegans that live twice as long.

The evolution of gender runs counter to evolutionary theory
Sure doesn't run counter to mine. Gender makes sense to me.

If gender-less creatures were successful without gender, where is the driving force for such complex inventions?
Not as complex as you think and the driving force is survival. Sexually reproducing species form a network of descent. Those that do not interbreed can only have a line of descent. The network means any successful mutation can spread through the network. In line descent it is limited to direct inheritance.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2012
This is a MAJOR advantage and that isn't counting the gene pairs wherein one version can mutate with the other still in the original form to do the original job and thus the mutation can do a different job.

You are arguing from your ignorance. Learn something about biology.

You may think I am an idiot but you do not seem to understand DNA very well.
I do.

However, to imagine that the DNA sequence has arisen by chance is an irrational notion.
It didn't. It evolved via mutation and selection. Only the mutations are random. Selection is not random.

You may realize that in randomly arranging the 4 nucleotides of DNA, there are MORE THAN 1,152 quadrillion possible
Yes. Do you realize that 3.5 billion years is a very long time?>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2012
You may also realize that there are LESS THAN 474 quadrillion seconds of time in 15 billion years.
That is 3.5 billion generations even if it takes a year each and it doesn't for single celled life. Those can have multiple generations a day. Say its three a day:

Thats about 1,000 generations a year or 3.5 trillion generations since the earliest known life. With millions or often billions of individuals in a species that, with bacteria, can interbreed. So now we have 3.5 times 10 to the 18th individual bacteria in a single network of descent. With most having a mutation of their very own and being subjected to non-random selection.

Humans have about 3 billion base pairs in our genomes, not only 30.
And we inherited those from a network of descent that goes back at least a hundred billion generations with natural selection going on for all that time.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2012
If that doesn't help you understand the magnitude of the problem, I am not sure what will.
If I didn't clear up your misunderstanding of how much selection went on you have closed your mind.

Evolutionists have recently begun to claim that biological evolution is not random.
No.

The Origin of Species by NATURAL SELECTION is the very first book and the paper by Wallace and Darwin was about Natural Selection. Not random mutation.

However, it is indisputable that random mutations are at the very root of the variability that natural selection must select from.
Absolutely. And why do you think that makes selection random when it clearly is not?

Therefore, biological evolution, as imagined, is very definitely RANDOM. Oh dear!
Yes oh dear. You even had the right parts and then ignored them. Or lied. Selection is very definitely not random. Even YOU can see that if you take off the blinders.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2012
Such silly circular reasoning just to defend a notion that has to date been completely unprovable.
Even that ludicrous non-logic you used in that paragraph didn't have circular reasoning. You simply ignored selection. There is nothing circular in the theory of evolution by natural selection. Lying about it won't change the reality.

Even Anthony Flew finally figured that out.
Then he has brain damage. There is no logic in your claim. Just a deliberate evasion of non random nature of selection.

OK he may have gone downhill but nowhere near as idiotic as you pretend.

http://en.wikiped...>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2012
Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument as a conclusive proof: "I don't think it proves anything but that it is entirely reasonable for people who already have a belief in a creating God to regard this as confirming evidence. And it's a point of argument which I think is very important - to see that what is reasonable for people to do in the face of new evidence depends on what they previously had good reason to believe." He also said it appeared that there had been progress made regarding the naturalistic origins of DNA. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions.
And more>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2012
He argues that "Even Mark Oppenheimer described the ex-atheist 'flaunt[ing] his allegiance to deism' in May 2006 to a Christian audience at Biola University."
As an Agnostic I find that a rational turn away from a belief that cannot be proven. You don't seem to be aware that Deism is about as close to being an Agnostic as it is possible to be and still think there is a god. Agnostics are right between Deists and Atheists. There MIGHT be a god but there is no way to prove it. A Deist usually only goes a bit farther to they THING there is a god but it only kick started the Universe and then watched.

He didn't say diddly about circular reasoning as far as I can see.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2012
He did say this:
Flew stated that "the most impressive arguments for Gods existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries" and that "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it".
But that isn't saying he agreed with it and I have read Behe and he is full of crap. He made it quite clear that he did not WANT to know his specious examples could have evolved.

Now could you tell us when you think the Great Flood occurred?

Ethelred
Seeker2
1.4 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2012
Selection is just as important as mutation.
Mutation is oversold. I doubt if natural selection would ever favor a one-eyed frog for example. Natural variation produces individuals with different characteristics which gives natural selection something to work with.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2012
For example take the birds. The male's main qualification is he has to be there and want a mate. But if the female doesn't like his song he's out of luck. So oddly the females may be the main driver in evolution.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2012
Selection is just as important as mutation.
Mutation is oversold. I doubt if natural selection would ever favor a one-eyed frog for example. Natural variation produces individuals with different characteristics which gives natural selection something to work with.


I'm not disagreeing (yet), but there are only two mechanisms of variation, recombination and mutation. I am not sure, but I don't think recombination alone could produce enough variability to result in the wide variety of life that exists today. I think mutation is vital, and it is true that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental, but the very few mutations that are beneficial are very significant.
dschlink
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2012
"Tertullian is credited with the motto 'Credo quia absurdum' -- 'I believe because it is impossible'. Note that he was supporting his religious beliefs, superseding any and all facts.
dschlink
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2012
So the great believer in cold fusion reveals that he has no idea what a scientific theory is and how it differs from the popular use as a synonym for 'opinion'. Somehow, I suspected as much.
9999
1.1 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2012
@Deathclock:

Yep, I am illiterate.

But however, if all the scientists in the world vote for a falsehood, that never alters the truth.

You are right on random mutation being a component of the evolutionary notion. Actually, it is the FOUNDATION upon which the whole idea rests. Usually, if the foundation is rotten, the whole house of cards soon collapses.

Also, using crude language to make a point, only underlines the weakness of the argument.

@ Ethelred:

You are correct. Sexual reproduction IS much superior to simpler cell division in many ways. However, among the original, successfully dividing single celled critters, where would they start to invent a better way? Certainly, it is a strange stretch of the imagination to suppose that the many highly specific, complex and coordinated changes required would bubble out of the same mud puddle in the same generation. There would be no use for partial sexuality so any partial component would die with its owner. :-(
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
Mutation is oversold.
That is where you can get duplication of DNA upon occasion. That is how DNA can have an increase in information.

I doubt if natural selection would ever favor a one-eyed frog for example.
Normally no but in cave yes. Saves on resources for organs that aren't contributing to survival.

Natural variation produces individuals with different characteristics which gives natural selection something to work with.
Can't add information to the genome. It can only refine what is there. Natural variation is important for providing material that can improve the chances survival when the environment changes.

So oddly the females may be the main driver in evolution.
Nothing odd about it BUT that is the main driver of sexual selection as opposed to the rest of the environment. In a few species of bird the male raises the chicks. IIRC they are mostly waterbirds.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
I am not sure, but I don't think recombination alone could produce enough variability to result in the wide variety of life that exists today
I don't think you would get much speciation without new information. Mutations provide the raw material for the environment to carve the information in.

I think of as being a bit like a sculptor with a block of marble. The mutations are basic block of raw material. The environment sculpts that raw material by cutting away what doesn't work.

and it is true that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental,
Apparently the majority are neutral. It is pretty clear though that the majority of non-neutral change is detrimental.

And then the environment changed the neutral can become non-neutral.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2012
if all the scientists in the world vote for a falsehood, that never alters the truth.
If all the Southern Baptists in the world vote to believe the world is young that won't make the world young nor create even the first shred of evidence for that or destroy the the massive, as in the entire universe, evidence that the world is old.

Actually, it is the FOUNDATION upon which the whole idea rests.
You do have a reading problem.

The Origin of Species by NATURAL SELECTION. You have reached the point on this. Mutation is the raw material not the foundation. The KEY is selection.

Usually, if the foundation is rotten, the whole house of cards soon collapses.
So why are there so many rotten homes and YECs. There was no Great Flood so that foundation of YEC thinking is false.

However, among the original, successfully dividing single celled critters, where would they start to invent a better way?
That is all wrong. There is no THEY nor INVENT.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
It was exceeding simple for bacteria. The DNA functions anywhere in the cell. Had to have started that way with eukaryotes as well since they came from bacteria.

Since any DNA could in the bacteria could be used, eating another bacteria would do the trick. A simple exchange of DNA when there is plenty of food and thus plenty of bacteria about to fission should lead to the evolution of a sort of protocol such rather being the result of eating each other. The exchange is called conjugation, I think. I know it happens but I have never taken a single course in biology so my learning has not been systematic which sometimes results in me not knowing the technical terms. At least that keeps me from using to much jargon.

For eukaryotes I think it was more complex even though it must started early on, perhaps before the nucleus evolved. Rapid evolution of fundamentally different lifeforms came long after life started. >>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
Several things seem to have been involved in the change and I think sexual reproduction was one. My guess it that some sort of chemical pathway from bacterial conjugation was the basis.

Once you think of it as evolving when things were simpler and not yet compartmented the assumed difficulties no longer look so unlikely. Remember there was no plan. Fairly simple accidents can lead to new ways of doing things even today in human behavior. I think that DNA pairing must have been the result of a failed cell split.

Have a better idea. Cells, even bacteria, can often form clusters of related cells. Two cells, in the process of fissioning, injected the new set of DNA into a single new cell OR the two new cells, being in a somewhat unstable state, merged producing DNA pairs. At the moment the latter seems very likely to me and see no reason for it not happening occasionally with organisms at some stage in the development of cell colonies.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
Certainly, it is a strange stretch of the imagination to suppose that the many highly specific, complex and coordinated changes required would bubble out of the same mud puddle in the same generation.
That is the mistake Dr. Behe made in every bloody chapter till I had enough and stopped reading it. Major developments do NOT happen that way. They happen in simpler organisms with more robust unspecialized chemical paths. It need not happen in one go despite Behe's pretense that it must. The details and specializations come later in a process of co-evolution.

Example.

The clotting cascade did NOT evolve in one single go for seven stages. Anyone that insists on that is not interested in figuring out how it could happen. He wanted to pretend it couldn't so he pretended it had to happen in modern animals that already have a blood supply. RUBBISH.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
Clotting cascades aren't needed in small animals that didn't need blood to start with. Blood and the clotting cascade co-evolved as the animals grew larger. Indeed they could not have become large without the blood. But the first such animal was the FIRST and didn't have to be perfect to vastly better than anything else.

Refusing to look at it that way is neither logical nor reasonable and Dr. Behe knew better but he refused to think about it that way anyway. So he looked pretty silly on the stand at Dover when he found out that some whales don't have the whole cascade he claimed was irreducibly complex. And even after that embarrassment he refuses to learn.

The man is pig headed and his need to support his religion is blinding him.

You don't have to go that way. You can choose to think of how things can happen instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU' as Dr. Behe so blatantly does. >>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
The end of his chapter on the bombardier beetle was an excruciatingly pig headed exercise in moving the goal posts when he had the answer to avoid the truth. Massive intellectual dishonesty is involved in that book. Four or five chapters and I had enough.

There would be no use for partial sexuality so any partial component would die with its owner. :-(
See above. That is just nonsense. THINK ON IT. See how wrong it is.

Join the enlightened. I know it will hurt to begin with but so does running and weight lifting.

Yep, I am illiterate.
I have discovered that it IS possible to be illiterate in all meaningful ways and still type actual words that give the impression of having intent behind them. I found this happening on Yahoo.

Perhaps someone is reading Yahoo for the Yahooligans and then they use Dragon Naturally or just ask the reader to type it for them. Maybe they use Dragon to read it. Either way a large percentage of Yahooligans are obviously illiterate.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2012
..it is conveniently overlooked that the dual handedness of the produced amino acids cause self destruction of the resultant molecules..
This problem is solvable with formation of micelles. Curved surface of these micelles are chiral and they do separate the biomolecules by their chirality. http://aetherwave...ity.html
If gender-less creatures were successful without gender, where is the driving force for such complex inventions?
The formation of sexual reproduction is an analogy of symmetry breaking in physical world. It will occur when the complexity of organisms and generation time increases, so that they cannot adapt to fast changes of life environment, like the bacteria (which can divide every few hours, so they can form mutations easily).
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2012
No. First it isn't information. Its just chemical bases.
- Ethelred

Of course its information. The chemical structure is specifically arranged (designed?) to impart a formative initiation of subsequent cell building. Information is is not only contained with DNA/RNA, its is also communicated.

Leave the go slow pills alone Ethelred and take a coffee or two!

bluehigh
1 / 5 (5) Jan 22, 2012
You disagreed with division by zero?
- Tausch

Hush, you know full well that division by zero is pointless except as an undergrads game. Have you been eating enough red meat lately?

Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
But however, if all the scientists in the world vote for a falsehood, that never alters the truth.


If one scientist says evolution and 10 million non-scientist religious people say creation, the odds are the scientist is right. You have no respect for authority, and scientists, particularly biologists, ARE the authority when it comes to matters of life on this planet. And they ALL (>99.9%) say that biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth according to the massive quantity of evidence that has been gathered for hundreds of years by millions of scientists.

You are right on random mutation being a component of the evolutionary notion.


I understand evolutionary theory better than you ever will.

Actually, it is the FOUNDATION upon which the whole idea rests. Usually, if the foundation is rotten, the whole house of cards soon collapses.


This is stupid. Evolution requires BOTH variation and selection, equally.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2012
cont'd.

Without variation there is no alternatives for natural selection to act on. Without natural selection there is no direction of change and no continual improvement. Neither is more important than the other, they are both utterly required for biological evolution to function. Variation comes in the form of both mutation, which we can observe, and recombination, which we can also observe. The very fact that you don't look exactly like your parents is all you need to know about recombination.

Natural selection is simply the fact that those best suited for their environment have a better chance of surviving long enough to breed. Inheritance guarantees that, on the average, the genes that produce organisms that are best suited to the environment are passed on to offspring more frequently than those less suited to the environment. This is a simple fact, you don't even need evidence for this (though there is plenty) it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
migor_igor
1 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2012

You are an idiot. DNA stores information in Binary representation. There are only 2 types of bonds: A-T and G-C. I'm a physicist, and even I know this.


You are a physicist and you can say something like this?
God save us all!
;)
kevinrtrs
Jan 22, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bewertow
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2012
@ bewertow:

You may think I am an idiot but you do not seem to understand DNA very well.

As noted in other comments, there are FOUR nucleotides in DNA. They are not information but they carry information in their sequencing. DNA is actually a language written with four characters. Morse Code uses 3 and English uses 26 plus punctuation.

However, to imagine that the DNA sequence has arisen by chance is an irrational notion.


You are an idiot. There are 2 types of connections in DNA: Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine. That's why DNA stores information in binary form.
9999
1 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2012
@Deathclock:
I totally agree with you in one of your earlier posts in this thread, that you are "not a fan of using magic to explain reality."

It is just that we differ on our description of magic. From a scientific viewpoint, "Non-living chemicals self-assembling into living cells only by chance" seems to require a lot more than magic.

I believe that abiogenesis is patently impossible for a variety of scientific reasons. Never mind the God issue.

As I have requested before, no one has yet to come forward a clear, unambiguous example of a code that has NO author but CHANCE.

Can you come to my rescue?
9999
1 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
@bewertow:
You did say that before.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2012
@dogberg The problem with evolution theory is that proponents want others to believe in it.
Is your juxtaposition of belief and knowledge due to dyslexia or deeper mental issues?
The REAL FACT is that no one has ever observed evolution occur:
Actually it works right here on my computers in real time, Bevis. Try harder.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
kochevnik,
The REAL FACT is that no one has ever observed evolution occur:


Actually it works right here on my computers in real time,


You can have Mario save the Princess on your computer in real time too. Doesn't make it real.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
kochevnik,
The REAL FACT is that no one has ever observed evolution occur:
Actually it works right here on my computers in real time,
You can have Mario save the Princess on your computer in real time too. Doesn't make it real.
They are real enough within the rules of the game. Moreover they are states in a "real" machine. Pixels can EVOLVE. Hoverer they do not create universes. The only disparity is the leap of faith in YOUR mind to anthropomorphize pixels. Much as you anthropomorphize your imaginary sky fairy friend to conceive a mythical biblical world. Your point is pointless.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
The only disparity is the leap of faith in YOUR mind to anthropomorphize pixels.


I don't anthropomorphize pixels. You are the one claiming that a game on your computer represents evolution.

Sad when people cannot distinguish between reality and a game on a computer.

animah
4.9 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
> I am reluctant to believe abiogenesis because:

> (1) The Bible does not support it.

> Then makes several scientific arguments against it.

I don't think you understand why the scientific community gets so worked up about this.

Your disbelief is absolutely not on scientific grounds.

Proof: If the bible supported evolution (or any other idea), you would willfully ignore all your other listed scientific counter-arguments.

This is extremely threatening to science's ability to enquire freely and find objective solutions to problems.

jsa09
5 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
Hey 9999
(2) Many scientific experiments disprove it.(A)...,(B)...,(C)...


You are plain wrong in your assertion. There have been NO, (ZERO,NONE) studies that disprove the Theory of evolution. There have been a number of studies attempting to revise and or enhance the Theory. A few studies attempting to find exceptions etc. These all failed. The closes anybody has come to disproving the Theory of evolution is to state that the speed of evolution can be quite quick. This is not a disproving.

Evolution is accumulation of change over time. There is no constraint as to what may change at any point in time.
barakn
5 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
There are 2 types of connections in DNA: Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine. That's why DNA stores information in binary form. -bewertow

You are forgetting the information stored in the orientation of the bases. When an A is bonded to a T, the A and T are stored on opposing DNA strands. The A can be stored on strand 1 or on strand 2 and it makes an enormous difference on which one it is found. Please cease your silly argument, it has no legs. DNA is a 4 digit code, hands down.
jsa09
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
henrik
There are no evolution facts. Darwinian evolution postulates that some hypothetical event in the distant past took place: the gradual evolution of a single cell to human beings via millions of intermediate life forms.

Since this historical event cannot be reproduced to study it, no direct fact can support evolution. The only support available is indirect evidence such as fossils to make the theory plausible. Scientists still have not achieved that goal, despite 150 years of effort. A credible theory would be beyond dispute after such time.

Are you dreaming? Darwin does not speculate on the hypothetical event in the past. He was torn with his religious upbringing, and afraid of his religious peers.
But why go from single cell to humans? Humans are an abberation on this planet and far from the peak of the evolutionary tree. Better to look at something at the peak of evolution like a nematode for example.
jsa09
5 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2012
kevinatr
The REAL FACT is that no one has ever observed evolution occur: certainly not the kind where one kind of organism changes into another, e.g. a reptile becomes a bird.

You are expecting too much. Current living reptiles are not ancestors of birds and could never evolve into birds.
People keep playing hard and fast with the word evolution so as to obscure the reality that it just doesn't happen, hasn't happened and will never happen - unless some human[or other intelligent] intervention eventually forces it to happen.

statement unsupported by evidence.
Evolution [molecules to man type] is simply the greatest piece of hogwash that is hampering real science from taking an honest course.
jsa09
5 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2012
continued: kevinatr
But there's no need to get steamed up about it. In the end we'll all know exactly what is true or not: Evolution or God. I vote for God.

Now we get down to GUT feelings that has nothing to do with evidence. Especially evidence that requires a clear understanding of the underlying factors.
We may not be able to convince you or me of anything that will change our opinion in our lifetime about evolution. For your benefit do not worry your pretty little head about how it all started - just say God did it. but consider what will happen from now on. Will everything stay the same or do you allow for change?
animah
5 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2012


Nonsense. Studying evolution is critical, including because viruses, bacterias and mosquitoes evolve all the time in response to medication.

Read up on malaria and hepatitis for example.

A long term objective of the study of evolution is to understand it well enough to be able to anticipate how these organisms evolve resistance to medical chemicals so we get better at saving lives.

We cannot do that is we ignore evolution because of this or that belief.
Thus your attitude towards evolution is not only dangerous but immoral, because it limits options to finding solutions to problems that include suffering.

And no, there is no evidence that mosquitoes would not continue to evolve over millions of years in response to ever-changing environmental threats, to the point of branching out into other species.
9999
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2012
I am an evolutionist. For scientific reasons, I believe in the evolution of the design of automobiles; the evolution of a pile of logs into a pile of ash by the application of a match; the evolution of a sperm cell and an egg cell into a Yale Professor of Psychology; the evolution of a tree into a good violin; the evolution of a transcontinental airline flight from a New York take off to a Seattle landing; the evolution of a tadpole into a frog; the evolution of simple computer programs into complex ones; the evolution of a whole bunch of mink into an expensive fur coat; the evolution of a list of ingredients into a wedding cake; the evolution of an acorn into a 10 ton oak tree; the evolution of a caterpillar into a butterfly.
Continued on next comment>>
9999
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 22, 2012
Continued:
For scientific reasons I do not believe in the evolution of a living cell from non-living chemical components by chance assembly. Such a belief is strictly that a belief without proof. It is only a hypothetical notion championed by those who are enthusiastic about what cannot be proven. It takes millions of years, you know. It is just like any religion. If you have faith in it you cannot be swayed. So, why all the smoke and mirrors? If you like it enjoy. Just dont try to push it onto others. I know, you would claim that is what religious folks do. That is what evolutionists do too. Peace.
jsa09
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 22, 2012
9999
For scientific reasons I do not believe in the evolution of a living cell from non-living chemical components by chance assembly. Such a belief is strictly that a belief without proof. It is only a hypothetical notion championed by those who are enthusiastic about what cannot be proven. It takes millions of years, you know. It is just like any religion. If you have faith in it you cannot be swayed. So, why all the smoke and mirrors? If you like it enjoy. Just dont try to push it onto others. I know, you would claim that is what religious folks do. That is what evolutionists do too. Peace.

So why do you keep arguing that there is no evolution? The answer is fear. Once you accept that nature evolves then that opens the door for you to think into the past and this obviously frightens you. So don't sweat it. Stop thinking about it. The bibles says "bring me the children" and "be like a child" so be like that and don't think about it.
jsa09
4.9 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2012
I am an evolutionist. For scientific reasons, I believe in the evolution of the design of automobiles; the evolution of a pile of logs into a pile of ash by the application of a match; the evolution of a sperm cell and an egg cell into a Yale Professor of Psychology; the evolution of a tree into a good violin; the evolution of a transcontinental airline flight from a New York take off to a Seattle landing; the evolution of a tadpole into a frog; the evolution of simple computer programs into complex ones; the evolution of a whole bunch of mink into an expensive fur coat; the evolution of a list of ingredients into a wedding cake; the evolution of an acorn into a 10 ton oak tree; the evolution of a caterpillar into a butterfly.

By the way, These things are not evolution - by normal definition. There is evolution in technical designs but not any others you mentioned.
jsa09
5 / 5 (9) Jan 22, 2012
Tadpoles do not "evolve" into frogs. Logs do not "evolve" into ash. Caterpillar does not "evolve" into a butterfly. Go and look up the term evolution and think about what is meant by it. Young men do not evolve into old men.

You are seriously confused. I suggest you attend high school it might help your education.
animah
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2012
> It takes millions of years, you know

Good to see you are not a young earther.

But here you contradict your own beliefs.

We do not find fossils of dogs, lions, foxes or eagles or of any species that exists today.

How could this be?

How could they not exist then, but exist now?

There is only one explanation: they evolved from the species we find in the fossil record.

And isn't it perfectly natural? Today's environment is unrecognizable from millions of years ago. Had ancient species not changed while their environment did, their niches would have gradually become more unfit to sustain them. And for many in fact, that's exactly what happened.

Or what about new viruses then? Did your god introduce a new type of hepatitis 25 years ago? What a weird idea.
animah
5 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2012
Question for young earthers:

If 6,000 years is enough for fossils to come to be, how come we don't find fossils of people? And I don't mean Lucy's corpse but people fossilized in stone.

If all these marine fossils we find on mountains are the result of the flood, and given that that hypothetical event resulted in the genocide of the human race, how come we don't find fossils of humans among these marine remnants? Or a single fossil of any of the millions of modern animals that were not on the arch for that matter.

I challenge you to give me an explanation that is underpinned by logic (i.e. not "my god did it!").

Kevintrs and dogbert, that means you!
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2012
The only disparity is the leap of faith in YOUR mind to anthropomorphize pixels.
I don't anthropomorphize pixels.
You just did in your prior post.
You are the one claiming that a game on your computer represents evolution. Sad when people cannot distinguish between reality and a game on a computer.
Actually, it's mathematically correct. Sad when fundies wouldn't know a math model from a supermodel.
dogbert
1 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2012
animah,
Question for young earthers: ...
dogbert, that means you!


Since I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, your question does not apply to me.

The question I must ask you is, since there are only a few people of no consequence who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, why do you care?

I know why. You want to make it appear that the majority of people who believe in the God of Abraham also believe that young earth nonsense. You would do better to spend your time in more honest pursuits.
animah
5 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2012
I can only wish a few people of no consequence believed in young Earth.

Unfortunately US statistics disprove that, and now this nonsense is finding its way into schools. Fighting that is an honest pursuit in my moral framework.

So I am grateful that you are not one of them. However as I posted earlier, ancient Earth evidence clearly demonstrates that genesis and the flood are wrong.

This is therefore a crucial argument: Bible inerrancy is a false doctrine.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2012
You are a physicist and you can say something like this?
I think it is because he is physicist and forgot that the A-T G-C bonds are not the bonds that do the actual chemistry. The A-T and G-C bonds are internal and it is the parts that face out that relevant to the actual chemistry of the ribosomes.

I think I understand how it works that only one side of the RNA produces proteins at the ribosomes. The start and stop codes are in the right order going one way and the wrong order going the other way. One side of the RNA tells the ribosomes to START and the other side says STOP and it the START side that is processed.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2012
Since I don't believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, your question does not apply to me.
Of course not, but there is still probability of various panspermia events, which would make the evolutionary model more creationist, than the schematically thinking contemporary science is willing to admit. There are some evidences of visits of extraterrestrial creatures, which could contribute to the terrestrial evolution as well. These things are simply possible and we cannot exclude them in advance. In this sense I consider the gut feelign as a more rational stance, then the stance of contemporary science, which is very biased toward its paradigms (at all areas) in its very nature. For example, by peer-reviewed physics the cold fusion is not possible and as such it's not simply researched. We are losing huge amount of money and lives in this way. http://pesn.com/2...locaust/
dogbert
1.1 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2012
animah,
I can only wish a few people of no consequence believed in young Earth. ...


I've had this argument with Ethelred, to little purpose. The people who believe in a young earth are a small, inconsequential fringe group. I live in Tennessee, heart of the bible belt and I have never met a young earth creationist. I'll wager you have not met one either. I have not met a flat earther either, for that matter, since they are also rare.

However as I posted earlier, ancient Earth evidence clearly demonstrates that genesis and the flood are wrong.


Are you perhaps Ethelred with another avatar? The flood is his constant concern.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2012
You are an idiot. There are 2 types of connections in DNA: Adenine-Thymine and Guanine-Cytosine. That's why DNA stores information in binary form.
Its base 4 not binary. Its the A or the T not the A-T bond that is involved.

And it isn't the DNA in any case. Its the RNA. The DNA is just the stored form.

http://en.wikiped...tic_code

Don't guess when someone actually knows. Logic can produce more than one way to do things. Experiment shows which is the way things are done in the real world. In the real world RNA is in base 4.

Ethelred
9999
1 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2012
@jsa09:
You claimed I did not use the proper definition of evolution. Just for the record, here are 6
Merriam Webster definitions of EVOLUTION

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2: a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c : (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state :
(2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3: the process of working out or developing 4: a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types
c : the process described by this theory
5: the extraction of a mathematical root
6: a process in which the whole universe is
9999
1 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2012
@jsa09:
You claimed I did not use the proper definition of evolution. Just for the record, here are 6
Merriam Webster definitions of EVOLUTION

1:one of a set of prescribed movements

2:
a:a process of change in a certain direction-unfolding
b:the action or an instance of forming and giving something off - emission
(1):a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
(2):a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance, something evolved

3:the process of working out or developing

4:
a:the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)phylogeny
b:a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types-the process described by this theory

5:the extraction of a mathematical root

6:a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Numbers 4&6 speak to your idea. I used numbers 1,2&3
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2012
Numbers 4&6 speak to your idea. I used numbers 1,2&3


Number 4 is the only one that has anything to do with biological evolution...
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2012
For scientific reasons I do not believe in the evolution of a living cell from non-living chemical components by chance assembly.


I'd love to hear these "scientific" reasons...

Such a belief is strictly that a belief without proof.


There is no such thing as "proof". All beliefs are without proof, by definition. Science does not try to prove anything, it tries to find the best explanation given the evidence.
animah
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2012
Not just the flood but also genesis and revelations.

But Dogbert - the flood is the moral justification of the genocide of the entire human race. Doesn't that bother you?

How can you be so casual with what is easily the most offensive concept in the history of thought?

No other writing before or since embedded greater monstrosity into our moral compass. The precedent that it set, the seed that it planted in human consciousness, is easily the worst enabler of evil to be visited on mankind in the history of civilisation.

It is absolutely worth fighting.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2012
Science does not try to prove anything, it tries to find the best explanation given the evidence.
You apparently living in alternate reality and you "forgot", the physics maintains theories like the string theory without experimental evidence for forty years and now it's trying to prove them. On the contrary, we have unexplained phenomena like the cold fusion, which mainstream science ignores heartily. When some people start to talk like you, it's evident, they have no idea how the contemporary science is really working - or they know it quite well and they just spreading the propaganda.
nononoplease
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2012
Animah: "No other writing before or since embedded greater monstrosity into our moral compass. The precedent that it set, the seed that it planted in human consciousness, is easily the worst enabler of evil to be visited on mankind in the history of civilisation."

It's hyperbole like yours that makes reasonable dialog impossible. In fact, if you were honest with yourself you'd realize that you are far more likely (if you mean what you wrote) to support the rounding up and gassing of certain demographics than any church/synagogue-goer.

Religion still has not killed as many people in all of history as "scientific" atheism did in the 20th century alone.
animah
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2012
>Hyperbole

Thank you for confirming my point: You do justify this unsurpassed atrocity in support of your supernatural beliefs.

> you are far more likely...

Even is this were true, it would make you no less culpable - especially as it's not this or that "demographic" as you write, but all humans.

But it's not true, and let's put it to the test:

Show me! because really, all I think is needed is economics:

In all the universe, sentient life is so rare it is easily a trillion times more valuable than gold. Therefore all the wealth (including oil, ahm!) and pleasures in the world do not justify the suffering of a single soul.

> Religion still has not killed as many people in all of history as "scientific" atheism did in the 20th century alone.

Nonsense. Science has saved billions since 1800. It saves millions from death everyday. It has saved you multiple times already. It gets better at it all the time.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
As I have requested before, no one has yet to come forward a clear, unambiguous example of a code that has NO author but CHANCE
No one is going to because that is a false requirement. DNA has no author except the environment NOT chance.

You keep insisting on make the false claim of CHANCE. Information is coded via selection from the environment.

the evolution of a pile of logs into a pile of ash by the application of a match
So then you really don't know the meaning of evolution. Not even close on that one.

For scientific reasons I do not believe in the evolution of a living cell from non-living chemical components by chance assembly.
Neither do I. It isn't chance. Its Natural Selection and again you are using a bogus requirement to make it look impossible. All that is needed is a chemical that can copy itself either directly or indirectly by copying another similar or equal chemical, imperfectly. Those copies that copy better and faster will evolve over time.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
It takes millions of years, you know
Gosh and how years were available. Hmmm. MILLIONS. Funny about that.

AND none of those things you mentioned have a single thing to do with evolution after life gets started.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
The people who believe in a young earth are a small, inconsequential fringe group. I live in Tennessee, heart of the bible belt and I have never met a young earth creationist.
Rubbish. There are three on this thread. And in our discussion you ignored the Southern Baptists. Their stand is that of a literal Bible and a young Earth. I posted a link to that and you ignored it.

I'll wager you have not met one either.
I will wager he has. I have met many online and in person.

I have not met a flat earther either, for that matter, since they are also rare.
Much more rare. I have only met two of those. And they published it as a joke.

The flood is his constant concern.
Not my concern. I am not the one that believes in such a thing. YOU evade the question.

Do you believe in the Great Flood with all of humanity descended from Noah? Evading by claiming it is off topic is ludicrous but that is exactly what you have done before.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2012
Ethelred,
Rubbish. There are three on this thread.

I never claimed and do not claim that young earth creationists do not exist, I only stated that I have never met one. A post on the Internet is not meeting someone.

And in our discussion you ignored the Southern Baptists.


I have not ignored Southern Baptists. I work daily with Southern Baptists. None that I know believe in a young earth.

Facts don't sway you because you have an agenda. You want to make Christians appear foolish. You do this by claiming that Christianity requires a belief in a young earth.

This is simply not true. You will continue to state it and I will continue to point out your agenda.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
None that I know believe in a young earth.
That doesn't fit the norm. You must live an unusual area.

Facts don't sway you because you have an agenda.
My agenda is to go on facts. You are not a good source for facts.

You want to make Christians appear foolish.
Nonsense. I am trying to show CREATIONISTS not Christians that they are just plain wrong. The only way I can make a Creationist look foolish is if they insist on remaining Creationists after being a acquainted with the facts.

You do this by claiming that Christianity requires a belief in a young earth.
Lie. I never made such a claim as I am not into lying. I was raised Catholic and despite the lies many protestants tell that is being a Christian. Catholics are only rarely Creationists. But they do exist.

This is simply not true
Well that is the first thing you have right in that post.>>
animah
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2012
Dogbert, christianity requires a belief in the bible. Genesis and revelations are not compatible with old earth. No biggie! That's just your god's word on the beginning and the end of the world.

Just needs a little tweaking, that's all. Nooo problem.

lol I spy an ostrich with its head in the sand
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
You will continue to state it and I will continue to point out your agenda.
Lie. I have never made such a statement so you can only lie that I have such an agenda. The FACT that a lot of Americans are Creationist will not go away just because you refuse to acknowledge reality any more than your continued evasions will go unnoticed.

Do you believe in the Great Flood with all of humanity descended from Noah? Evading by claiming it is off topic is ludicrous but that is exactly what you have done before.
Yeah that evasion. I noticed you did it again. I can't see any good reason for you not answering that question if you are rational on the subject and go with total lack evidence and against the Bible story. So it is reasonable to assume that you do believe in it. You refuse to admit it because you think it will make "make Christians appear foolish". Which again is false. It will only make YOU look foolish. Which is not my doing, it is your own.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2012
If you think your own beliefs make you look foolish then perhaps you are beginning to understand that it is the belief that is foolish and not any effort on my part.

So are you going to evade and look foolish or show some guts and answer whether it might make you look foolish or just realistic? The fixation on this is yours. Answer and then I have no reason to ask. Evade and continue to show that YOU think have a weakness on this subject.

Dogbert, christianity requires a belief in the bible. Genesis and revelations are not compatible with old earth. No biggie!
Correct that it isn't a biggie. For some. Many, but not all, Christians consider the Bible to be inspired by Jehovah but not the innerrent word of a perfect god. Keep in mind that many early Christians did not want the Old Testament, even though the Flood is mentioned in the New Testament in a way the shows the people it is about did believe in the Great Flood and Noah.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2012
animah,
Dogbert, christianity requires a belief in the bible. Genesis and revelations are not compatible with old earth.


Christianity does require a belief in God. Genesis and science are not incompatible. You may imagine false dichotomies, but Genesis is not opposed to scientific fact. Revelation deals mainly with prophecy. You may, of course, believe anything you want to believe.

Ethelred,
As you already know, I do believe there was a flood. Your next question will be "When was the flood?". Answer that yourself. I won't give you a forum to further your anti-Christian agenda. Believe and deny whatever you will.

I will just continue to point out your agenda each time you attack Christianity.
animah
5 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2012
> Genesis is not opposed to scientific fact

Genesis is irrelevant to scientific fact.

Dogbert, you come to a site that is updated every few hours with new information. To push a publication that has not been updated in 21 centuries.

It's priceless!
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
As you already know, I do believe there was a flood.
Actually I had to assume that.

Your next question will be "When was the flood?".
Not next. I have asked it before. You evaded it.

Answer that yourself
What counts is when YOU think it happened. I know it did not happen.

I won't give you a forum to further your anti-Christian agenda.
Lie. Anti CREATIONIST. And YOU are here pushing your agenda which is a Creationist agenda.

Believe and deny whatever you will.
No. I go on evidence not will nor fantasy.

I will just continue to point out your agenda each time you attack Christianity.
So then, you will continue to lie and evade reasonable questions as you go about your Creationist agenda.

Anti-Creationism is just going on the actual evidence and is in no way anti-Christian. From that continuing lie I suppose you think no one can be a Christian without being a Creationist and thinking we are all descended from one man 4400 years ago.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
Genesis and science are not incompatible. You may imagine false dichotomies, but Genesis is not opposed to scientific fact.
That is false. Unless you don't believe that Genesis is right about a lot of things as the Flood story is VERY opposed to science. We did not have just one male ancestor even once in the last 10,000 years much less the twice that Genesis has.

You are the one that tried hide an agenda. Not me.

Ethelred
dogbert
1 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
animah,
Genesis is not opposed to scientific fact


Genesis is irrelevant to scientific fact.


You express Ethelred's agenda. I asked if you were Ethelred with another name. I note that you did not answer.

You may push your agenda. I'll note that you are pushing an agenda.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
You express Ethelred's agenda.
He does seem to prefer something that resembles reality. However opposing you is not exactly a hidden agenda. Which is how you started here.

I asked if you were Ethelred with another name. I note that you did not answer.
You didn't ask me. NO.

I have never used multiple log ins except to defend against people that use them. I have stated this many times but you may not have see it as it comes up with Zephir and Marjon.

I'll note that you are pushing an agenda.
No he isn't. This is NOT a Creationist site. It is a science site and YOU are here with an agenda to push Creationism. Which you originally tried to obfuscate.

It is interesting that you are OK with Creationists having agenda but can't stand people showing that it isn't science which is not some mere agenda on a science site.

I do find it telling that you think answering my questions would make you look foolish.

Ethelred
9999
1 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
@Ethelred:
You claimed that my request for a code that has no author but CHANCE is a false requirement.
You go on to say that "Information is coded via selection from the environment."

I would simply say that the environment NEVER produced any information code that describes anything. And it never will.
Why? Because ALL codes are the product of intelligent authors.

Therefore, CHANCE assembly is all we have left as a driver for the origin of this incredibly complex and wonderful replicable CODE.

Folks who think they believe in evolution always make a brave leap of faith over the huge gap between basic elements (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) and a living, metabolizing, replicable cell.
9999
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2012
Continued to Ethelred:

Yep. After the first assembly of a cell such as an amoeba with a genome with 670,000 million base pairs, NOW we might have something that could mutate to subsequently provide CHANCE variations for natural selection to choose from.

You are right, Natural Selection is NOT a chance thing but the raw material for the selection process is very definitely provided by CHANCE. Therefore, the entire concept is BASED upon CHANCE.

Dream on!

tadchem
5 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2012
Unfortunately, most people who understand evolution are logical, and most people are not logical. The evidence for illogical humans can be seen daily in phenomena such as lotteries, religions, politics, and anywhere you see marketing or other forms of rhetoric.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
@Ethelred:
You claimed that my request for a code that has no author but CHANCE is a false requirement.


"Code" is just a concept... everything is information. There is nothing that exists in nature that is not information when CONSIDERED by an intelligent entity. Either all of nature has an author or none of it does. You believe in god, I don't, this goes all the way back to initial assumptions.

Folks who think they believe in evolution always make a brave leap of faith over the huge gap between basic elements (Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc.) and a living, metabolizing, replicable cell.


Genesis is not evolution.
9999
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
@Deathclock:
C'mon, don't be silly! YOU better look up the definition of code! I know, a mountain is 5,000 feet high; a frog is green; an apple is red. Those are partial descriptions of 3 items. The letters and words I used to describe them were code in the form of the English language. The height of a mountain, the greenness of a frog, the redness of an apple are NOT code in and of themselves.

When you get backed into a corner, don't just change the rules to suit your inability to answer in a straightforward manner.

Surely, you know better!

You are right. This discussion goes back to initial assumptions. I'll take my chances with the Bible. You may take your chances wherever you please.

The Bible claims that God created everything by the spoken Word. But, that is beside my point.

For me, it is impossible to believe that Life, complete with coded reproduction instructions, ever bubbled out of an ancient warm mud puddle, by natural means, no matter how much time you allow.
animah
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2012
9999:

> For me, it is impossible to believe that Life

This is where you lose me. Your belief is not required at all. So why do you come here and waste our time? Do we go to religious forums looking for fights? No. How can you blame us for fighting back on this site?

Dogbert: I am not Ethelred. Proof is not required.

If you must know, my position is that the bible is simply a collection of scientific articles: People you call apostles used the best evidence available at the time to make sense of the world, in an epoch where disciplines were not separated - hence merging biohistory, cosmology, religion, political science etc. Not so different from Physorg.

Then these findings were hijacked by powerful interests, just as happens today. Not so different from AGW.

The bible then, is a very natural part of our cultural evolution. But it's 21 centuries old and we've kind of moved on from the iron age, you know?

Guys, we agree to disagree. Now will you stop?
jsa09
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2012
I see it pointed out on this site time and time again and yet creationists still do not get it. But it is not just creationists that do not get it, but also Christians and muslims et. al. There is a problem in assigning over moral obligations to a mythical being of any type.

There is no such thing as RIGHT and WRONG in any moral sense. Only in sociological sense do these things exist. For many species of spiders it is morally correct to murger your mate immediately after intercourse. For people this will not be appreciated. For some species of wasps the male may mate and at the same time fertilize the unborn female young. This also is not considered good behaviour in humans. For some types of fish the male will attach itself to the female and suck her blood as the only source of food. humans do not thing that is good behaviour either.

There is no MORALY superior rules that apply across the board.
jsa09
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2012
If at some future point in time we meet some alien race and they do things so different from us such as spiders or wasps do, will that mean you will go on a crusade and accuse them of being spawn of the devil?
animah
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
jsa09:

> spiders (...) murder mate immediately after intercourse

> we meet some (sentient) alien race and they do (...) as spiders

Here you challenge my own moral framework. Thank you for this brilliant insight.

I do believe that sentient life requires protection as the rarest (therefore most precious) thing in the universe, as a matter of objective morality. But you posit that the cycles of nature that are necessary for that life to thrive require equal respect, regardless of our ingrained cultural bias. This points, I think, to the additional need for balance between these 2 principles wherever conflict may arise.
rockwolf1000
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
This entire post was refuted in it's entirety earlier.
animah
not rated yet Jan 25, 2012
Where???
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Religion still has not killed as many people in all of history as "scientific" atheism did in the 20th century alone.
Hitler was a devout Catholic with urgent backing of the Pope. Stalin was Jesuit educated. In fact most communist leaders were Jesuit educated. Christians have killed upward of a billion through history. It was standard procedure to kill anyone who didn't believe in your reanimated dead Jew zombie nailed on some sticks.
rockwolf1000
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
Where???

Sorry. Not yours. 9999 regarding the impossibility of natural origins of life.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
@9999 ...NEVER produced any information code that describes anything.
Now you're just making things up. Typical fundie...
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
I would simply say that the environment NEVER produced any information code that describes anything.
I would say the same. It pruned away the random code and left information just as a sculptor removes that which isn't the statue.

Why? Because ALL codes are the product of intelligent authors.
Circular reasoning. I just showed that the environment produces the information in the DNA. You did not show otherwise you just claimed you did.

Therefore, CHANCE assembly is all we have left as a driver
No. The selection is not random. Being pigheaded on this won't change the reality.

Folks who think they believe in evolution always make a brave leap of faith over the huge gap between basic elements
How many are going to lie that evolution is biogenesis. Evolution is NOT and does not have anything to do with biogenesis. It theory of how life evolves which is not dependent on how life started.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2012
After the first assembly of a cell such as an amoeba with a genome with 670,000 million base pairs,
Which is a highly evolved modern species and has nothing to do with how life started.

NOW we might have something that could mutate to subsequently provide CHANCE variations for natural selection to choose from.
Not now. From the first self or co-replicating molecule.

You are right, Natural Selection is NOT a chance thing but the raw material for the selection process is very definitely provided by CHANCE.
But evolution is by the natural selection of those chance mutations.

Therefore, the entire concept is BASED upon CHANCE.
NO. Quit lying. It is based on mutation AND natural selection and you lie every time you claim it is just chance.

Dream on!


Well I do have this dream that you might try being truthful but it is just a dream.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
"Code" is just a concept... everything is information.
Not to a Creationist. To them information must come from an inteligence. False definitions are bog standard for Creationists.

You believe in god, I don't, this goes all the way back to initial assumptions.
You seem to have lost track who you are talking to. Try being more careful. I know I lose track upon occasion.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2012
If you must know, my position is that the bible is simply a collection of scientific articles:
Ugh. I am speechless at this astoundingly counter factual statement.

The Bible is purely religious at all points, even the vaguely historical parts have been spun for religious purposes.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
at some future point in time we meet some alien race and they do things so different from us such as spiders or wasps do, will that mean you will go on a crusade and accuse them of being spawn of the devil?
No. Just a species that must keep to itself or be wiped out.

See the Alien movies for why this would be a vital necessity.

Ethelred
animah
4 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
Ethelred: you misunderstand - a collection of what was known 21 centuries ago as the best available logic. I mean this purely in a historical context.
jsa09
5 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
@9999
You claimed I did not use the proper definition of evolution. Just for the record, here are 6
Merriam Webster definitions of EVOLUTION

1:one of a set of prescribed movements

2:
a:a process of change in a certain direction-unfolding
b:the action or an instance of forming and giving something off - emission
(1):a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
(2):a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance, something evolved

3:the process of working out or developing


I contend that a caterpillar still does not evolve into a butterfly. Since all the complexity of the butterfly are inherent in the caterpillar.

By the came token a child does not evolve into an adult.

Even by your own selective choices of definition of the word. Which by the way are not correct definitions for Darwinian evolution.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2012
Argument by definition instead of facts is pretty much standard for Creationists and others that don't understand the difference between words and reality.

The map is not the territory.

Ethelred
9999
1 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2012
@Ethelred:
I see we are just talking past each other. Perhaps an analogy will help:

Everyone would agree that lottery is a game of chance. (except you, maybe) There are many aspects of winning a lottery that are NOT CHANCE. For instance, tickets are not printed by chance. They are not numbered by chance. When the winning number is announced, your name is not associated with that number by chance, you have a ticket stub with the number printed on it. The check that is cut does not have your name on it by chance. The bank does not accept your deposit by chance. etc. etc.

However, because the number the lottery machine spits out is strictly a random number, that means that the game is strictly a GAME OF CHANCE.

You can fuss all you want to about all sorts of admittedly non-chance aspects of the evolution of Life. But the bottom line remains - It is a CHANCE occurrence BASED on CHANCE.

As any competent mathematician will tell you, the chances are so slim as to be non-existent.
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2012
I see we are just talking past each other. Perhaps an analogy will help:
Well you are ignoring reality. Not surprising.

Everyone would agree that lottery is a game of chance. (except you, maybe)
Depends on the lottery. The original California lottery didn't mix the balls enough and and was non-random. But still a game of chance.

However, because the number the lottery machine spits out is strictly a random number, that means that the game is strictly a GAME OF CHANCE.
Which is still only related to mutation.

. But the bottom line remains - It is a CHANCE occurrence BASED on CHANCE.
It is Natural Selection by the environment that removes the randomness from the mutations leaving new information. This is not going away just because the mutations are mostly random.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 26, 2012
As any competent mathematician will tell you, the chances are so slim as to be non-existent.
For a lottery. For evolution any mathematician that is competent, which leaves out Dembski, will tell you evolution is an iterative process with the randomness being overwhelmed by the shaping of the Natural Selection. Even if Dembski had actually used his ideas to test evolution all he would have done is prove that evolution is non-random. The source of that non-randomness is Natural Selection.

Just what is it you think you are doing by pretending that non-random selection isn't involved here? Do you think the evidence will go away? That the world will magically become young? That the lack of evidence for a Great Flood will end and we will find that all sediments were deposited by density?

And when was that Great Flood anyway?

Ethelred
9999
1.5 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2012
@Ethelred
I am NOT "pretending that non-random selection isn't involved here." I have never said that, so why do you accuse me? I agree that natural selection is non-random.

I am also saying that ALL mutations are random and that is why no one can dismiss the fact that evolution is based on randomness.

Even Dawkins likes to claim that evolution is non-random, but he cannot get away from the FACT that the only material that natural selection has to work with is RANDOM.

If that doesn't ring true for you, so be it.

In any case I do not plan to make any further comments on this silly and endless debate.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2012
@9999 I am also saying that ALL mutations are random and that is why no one can dismiss the fact that evolution is based on randomness.
So too does quantum physics employ constrained randomness and hence so too does everything else. That's hardly a defeating point, but indeed a springboard to create uniqueness. Do you have a point?
cerium
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
From my personal experience, and contrary to what this study implies, I was reluctant to accept evolution because of the traditional interpretations of my religion. But looking more into the subject, and realizing that evolution is not against my belief, I accepted it.

Newton once said "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." That's exactly how I look at things when it comes to religion and science.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2012
I am also saying that ALL mutations are random and that is why no one can dismiss the fact that evolution is based on randomness.
I am not doing that. I pointing that it is based on TWO things and the pruning is not random. YOU are ONLY saying it is based on randomness which is an attempt to obfuscate the reality that evolution is not random.

Even Dawkins likes to claim that evolution is non-random
See, right there, you did it again. He told the truth and you are pretending it is not.

but he cannot get away from the FACT that the only material that natural selection has to work with is RANDOM.
And you are cannot get away from the fact that evolution is NOT RANDOM. It is DIRECTED by the environment.

If that doesn't ring true for you, so be it.
It is false. Pretending that the mutations are all that is going on is deliberately ignoring the full process of evolution to make it random when it is not.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2012
In any case I do not plan to make any further comments on this silly and endless debate.
The silliness is all yours. Feel free to run away. You are the one that brought anti-science to a science site. You can either learn or continue to silly or run from reality.

And when was the Great Flood? You refusal to answer shows you know it can not have occurred.

Ethelred
jsa09
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
When it comes to accepting evolution, gut feelings trump facts

It never ceases to amaze me how the propensity for self delusion is built into the psyche of all people.

Ethelred - You keep asking when was the flood to try and open some eyes of people that are willing to accept almost anything they are told as long as it is said with "faith".

I am completely baffled by the christian ability to put the old testament and the new testament together and somehow claim be able to make sense of the result. On one hand we have Christ (who may well have been a Buddhist missionary from reading his teachings) tacked onto the old testament which may have been written for a completely different religion.
nononoplease
2.2 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2012
Kovchevik: "Hitler was a devout Catholic with urgent backing of the Pope. Stalin was Jesuit educated. In fact most communist leaders were Jesuit educated. Christians have killed upward of a billion through history."

Holy shit... it's amazing how historically illiterate you are. Hitler was not a catholic, he was a pagan at best. Stalin was jesuit educated because EVERYONE was jesuit educated--because christians at the times were the only ones in the entire world who cared about education. Stalin was not, as you moronically imply, christian. He was a self-described angry atheist, who on his death bed shook his fist angrily at God (yes, I'm aware of the contradiction inherent in an atheist being angry at God, yet most fall into this category). And because you are historically illiterate you aren't even aware of the atheists Mao and Pol Pot, who, together killed 10 times the amount of people as hitler and stalin combined. Moron. Go ask the jesuits (or anyone) to teach you anything.
nononoplease
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2012
jsa09: "There is no such thing as RIGHT and WRONG in any moral sense."

Finally, an atheist who is honest enough to admit that his philosophy does not allow morality. You are more intelligent than Sam Harris et al. who pretend there can be a scientific basis for morality.

Atheism cannot tell you that it is wrong to round up all the jews and to gas them. Hitler and Mother Teresa are literally morally equivalent to an atheist, by philosophical necessity. Anyone who disagrees with that is either too stupid to understand his atheism with philosophical coherence or is simply lying.
nononoplease
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2012
animah: "In all the universe, sentient life is so rare it is easily a trillion times more valuable than gold. Therefore all the wealth (including oil, ahm!) and pleasures in the world do not justify the suffering of a single soul."

Great, so the philosophical basis for your morality is unintelligence. You've simply defined "value" as "rare". Ok, great, so dying from ALS, which is also far more rare than gold, is therefore more valuable than it.

You have implied that suffering is bad. Why? Atheism cannot give a reason why, say, having your limb hacked off by a dictator is "wrong" in any sense. You have borrowed the morality of religion which atheism in itself cannot generate. I'm sorry you're not intelligent enough to understand the incoherence of your worldview.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2012
For anyone to accept evolution, they need to completely ignore all facts. Evolution is the first fact free science. The pseudo-science of evolution will make highly educated men and women jump up when they discover complex coded information in living cells and say: of course that's the result of random insertions highly approved of by mother nature.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
For anyone to accept evolution, they need to completely ignore all facts
We are all waiting to see those facts. The ones that overturn all of modern biology, geology, archeology, chemistry, physics and pretty much all of science. So when are you going to post those alleged facts?

For anyone to accept evolution, they need to completely ignore all facts
Well that is a fact free lie. Megatons of fossils, the genome every animal on Earth, lab experiments, field experiments and observations going back to Lyell and even before have produced rather a lot of facts all supporting evolution and none supporting you.

The pseudo-science of evolution will make highly educated men and women jump up when they discover complex coded information in living cells and say: of course that's the result of random insertions highly approved of by mother nature.
You do lie a lot.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
What random insertions? Did mean to say mutations? Yes they are LARGELY random but that is only half the process of evolution, and 9999 ran rather than deal with the other half. Natural Selection is not random. It gives direction to the changes in the genetic code and, like a sculptor with a random crystals in rock, carves information from the environment into the genetic code.

Now since you have not produced any evidence to support those ludicrous lies perhaps you could, instead, answer a few questions.

What were the last words of Jesus on the Cross?

Has anyone seen the face of your god (Jehovah in this case or are you an Islamic Creationist)?

When was the Great Flood?

I will notice if you evade by posting another set of lies. The questions will not go away.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
Hitler was not a catholic, he was a pagan at best.
Sorry that is false. Having been raised Catholic and being mostly German two out two is rather annoying to me but I go on reality and not wishful thinking.

-because christians at the times were the only ones in the entire world who cared about education
That isn't a Christian thing. It is specifically a Jesuit thing. Probably why so many ignoramuses hate them so much. Well after the Inquisition anyway.

He was a self-described angry atheist, who on his death bed shook his fist angrily at God
Would you care to give a reliable citation for that. In any case his pathology was no more due to his being an Atheist then Hitler's was due to being a Catholic.

an atheist being angry at God, yet most fall into this category
No. Some do. They seem to be the ones, like C. S. Lewis, that fall of the wagon and pray to become irrational again.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
I have never heard of an Agnostic with that problem. One of the reasons I insist I am Agnostic. And no I can't be angry with something that never existed.

Mao and Pol Pot, who, together killed 10 times the amount of people as hitler and stalin
Again in those cases the behavior was completely unrelated to being Atheists. It was due to a religious fanatic like belief in a bad theory.

Go ask the jesuits (or anyone) to teach you anything
I am sure one could teach you about Evolution.

Finally, an atheist who is honest enough to admit that his philosophy does not allow morality
False. Maybe HIS philosophy but few Atheists and no Agnostics have a philosophy that does not allow morality. Indeed he did NOT say there was no morality. I believe he previously made it clear that there is no OBJECTIVE morality. Which is true. If morals were based on the Bible than those tyrants you mentioned would be moral as they did nothing the Bible does not have Jehovah doing.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
who pretend there can be a scientific basis for morality.
Its not a pretense. Its real.

Atheism cannot tell you that it is wrong to round up all the jews and to gas them.
Funny how many Atheists and Agnostics have said it is wrong so I guess you just lied on that.

Hitler and Mother Teresa are literally morally equivalent to an atheist, by philosophical necessity.
Lie. If you have make stuff up to support your religion you really need to quit it. Those lies are going damage your morals. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So do you really want others to tell lies about you as you just did?

Anyone who disagrees with that is either too stupid to understand his atheism with philosophical coherence or is simply lying.
Or is telling the truth and YOU are lying. And considering the twisted anti-logic you use it is clear just who is the liar.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
Great, so the philosophical basis for your morality is unintelligence.
Lie. Its a silly way to look at for me but it sure isn't based on unintelligence.

Why? Atheism cannot give a reason why, say, having your limb hacked off by a dictator is "wrong" in any sense.
Lie. Why do you lie so much.

If the dictator is cool with having his arm hacked off then I suppose to him it wouldn't be wrong. But somehow I don't think that is the case.

Of course if we go on the Bible the Dictator would have ample examples to support that kind of behavior. Such as torturing people to death by stoning for saying Jehovah.

You have borrowed the morality of religion which atheism in itself cannot generate.
Lie. The Golden Rule covers it and that is not from religion. Especially from a religion whose god supports slavery and demanded genocide.>>
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
You have borrowed the morality of religion which atheism in itself cannot generate.
I am sorry you need to lie so much. Perhaps if you were to actually read Genesis and Exodus you would gain a better appreciation of modern Agnostic morality where people try to treat others as they hope to be treated.

And perhaps YOU could answer the questions that Henrik is going to run away from.

What were the last words of Jesus on the Cross?

Has anyone seen the face of your god (Jehovah in this case or are you an Islamic Creationist)?

When was the Great Flood?

These questions will not go away. It is surprising how inconvenient Creationists have been finding them lately. I used to see Creationists with guts. On this site is very rare.

I wish to commend Yellowdart on this and Drkim answered the Flood question as well. I have not seen his response to my reply yet. I am reading it while waiting out the three minutes.

Ah, he ignored it. Not a surprise.

Ethelred
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
It gives direction to the changes in the genetic code and, like a sculptor


You are personalizing an abstract concept. That is unscientific and false. You are in fact indirectly admitting that evolution looks more like intelligent design upon closer inspection.

Direction can only be provided by a purpose driven intelligence. Evolution however is undirected and blind, there is no goal setting involved.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
carves information from the environment into the genetic code.


False. Natural selection does not insert any information. Natural selection in fact does nothing. It is a concept to describe how certain mutations spread within a species. You can only select what already exists.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
You are personalizing an abstract concept.
Nonsense. I did no such thing. I am using a language that doesn't have the perfect words for all concepts. Which you knew and chose to lie about.

That is unscientific and false.
That is a lie.

You are in fact indirectly admitting that evolution looks more like intelligent design upon closer inspection.
That is a lie. I did no such thing.

Natural Selection is due to differential reproductive rates. The rates are determined by the organisms ability to survive and reproduce within its environment. Mutations that lower the rate of reproduction will decline in comparison to the mutations that are neutral towards reproduction and more so in comparison to mutations that increase reproduction.

Is that pedantic enough for you?>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
Direction can only be provided by a purpose driven intelligence.
No. We can SEE the environment controlling the rate of reproduction. Bald claims of an intelligence being needed are unsupported by anything except pure bullshit. OK impure bullshit as well. The sort you use.

Evolution however is undirected and blind, there is no goal setting involved.
False. Blind yes. But directed by the environment. There is not goal. It is process that cannot not happen.

Mutations happen. Death happens. Reproduction happens. Mutations effect the rate of reproduction. The environment effects the rate of reproduction. Thus evolution by Natural Selection MUST happen every bit as a much as pressure differential causes lift.

False. Natural selection does not insert any information.
Lie. I didn't say it did. I said it CARVES out from random mutations. It inserts nothing. It cuts out what doesn't work. Increased reproduction ADDS what does work.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
. It is a concept to describe how certain mutations spread within a species.
Rubbish. It CONTROLS what survives and what doesn't.

You can only select what already exists.
Absolutely. Mutations change what exists.

You just went around in circle telling lies at all stops. Very consistent.

Now about those evasions.

Questions Henrik hasn't answered.

What are last words of Jesus on the Cross?

Where is the physical evidence showing there was a Great Flood?

When did this Flood occur according to the Bible in your opinion?

Has anyone ever seen the face of Jehovah?

Ethelred
9999
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2012
@ Ethgelred:
Henrik said: "Evolution however is undirected and blind, there is no goal setting involved."

You responded: "False. Blind yes. But directed by the environment. There is not goal. It is process that cannot not happen."

I cannot imagine how you fail to see how you contradict yourself. This type of rabid response is precisely why I have stopped responding to your irrational chatter. Even though Henrik made a completely true statement as even defined by evolutionists, you cry, "False."

I am glad that I have given up trying to explain anything to you.
9999
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
Sorry I bumped the "g" when typing your ID handle. I am not known for my excellent typing skills. I can think, however.
animah
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2012
Nononoplease:

> dying from ALS

Wow. You can't analyse an argument you don't agree with. A skill first introduced in 3rd grade. Good luck with life.

Ethelred:

Of course it's silly. Try this, the naturalist's view:

We desire to be good to others because we are social animals.

The point was always that there are hundreds of frameworks practiced by billions that don't require the supernatural.

I would not even begrudge churchianism its views, if they did not insist on treating everybody else like inferior humans.
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2012
It CONTROLS what survives and what doesn't.


You are consistenly presenting natural selection as some form of divine intelligence. Control implies a form of goal directed behavior. But natural selection does not do anything, it is just a human concept to explain how certain mutations affect the organism.

The engine of evolution is the random mutation. Mutations produce the change to be selected. But since mutations cannot create any information out of nothing (they only change or use already existing information), evolution can never explain the origin of the many life forms on earth. The best thing it can achieve is explain how already existing life forms (like finches) undergo small adaptive changes.

To jump from that to the hypothesis that mankind developed from a single cell millions of years ago is unwarranted, as it is not based on any direct observational evidence. It can only be accepted by faith.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2012
But since mutations cannot create any information out of nothing (they only change or use already existing information), evolution can never explain the origin of the many life forms on earth.


You don't know what information is. Information is the perceptual understanding of something, the transmission of information is done in physical mediums. Information doesn't exist if sufficiently intelligent conscious entities do not exist to discern meaning from pattern. There is information in DNA *ONLY* because humans exist to analyze it. Prior to humans DNA did not contain information. Information is not a property of matter, it is a property of cognition. Whether or not a specific chunk of matter qualifies as information is utterly dependent on whether or not an intelligence can garner knowledge from it. Anything can be information, but nothing is information until knowledge is gained from it.

You don't understand things... I mean, in general, you don't understand almost anything

Deathclock
2 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2012
For example, if I make up a code and write an encoded message and NO ONE knows how to decode it then that encoded message is not information. If however I teach someone else how to decode my message and they do and they gain knowledge from it then and ONLY then is that message "information".

You (Henrik) don't understand the terms or concepts that you use, hardly any of them... that is why you make such ignorant statements and that is why you are so confused.
9999
1 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
@Deathclock:
I would be careful who you call confused. I am surprised at your poor understanding of information theory!

The point you tried to make with Henrik is just as foolish as the silly old argument that, "There is no sound if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it."

The existence of sound is NEVER dependent on a hearer. The existence of information is NEVER dependent on an interpreter.

In both of these scenarios, both "hearing sounds" and "interpreting information" are all very fine, but they have nothing whatever to do with the production of these signals.

Fortunately ALL biological entities have been given, by their Creator, built-in interpreting mechanisms for the codes that have been placed there.

Continually coming up with demonstrably false explanations and accusations, only underlines the ignorance of the accuser.

As the author points out, our perception of reality certainly depends on our prior world view!
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
The point you tried to make with Henrik is just as foolish as the silly old argument that, "There is no sound if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it."

The existence of sound is NEVER dependent on a hearer. The existence of information is NEVER dependent on an interpreter.


No, sound does not exist without a hearer, the pressure waves that allow someone to hear sound do of course exist regardless of whether or not they are heard. There is a physical reality to sound that exists independent of observation, but those pressure waves are only "sound" if they are heard.

Any physical matter can represent information, but it is only information if and when it imparts knowledge. We are researching ways to store information in the spin of electrons... would you say the spin of all electrons in the universe is information right now (apart from info about itself)? Of course not, but it may be if and when we can transmit knowledge through that medium.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Another prime example of human perceptual bias, assuming pressure waves are always "sound" just because we can perceive them as such IF they vibrate our ear drum...
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Fortunately ALL biological entities have been given, by their Creator, built-in interpreting mechanisms for the codes that have been placed there.


...and here you tip your hand. You're nowhere near as bad as Henrik though...
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
I cannot imagine how you fail to see how you contradict yourself
I know you can't. You don't imagine anything.

Can't even see that you contradicted yourself in this post.

This type of rabid response is precisely why I have stopped responding to your irrational chatter.
That is a response. Mine was not rabid. It was purely rational. Just as this one is.

Even though Henrik made a completely true statement as even defined by evolutionists, you cry, "False."
No. Henrik made a false statement. Evolution is directed by the environment. That is not contradicting it being blind. Evolution is a process not a being. It is not aimed at any goal except reproduction. It does not aim at the future just reproduction.

I am glad that I have given up trying to explain anything to you.
That is so self contradictory. I now see how you can read Genesis one and two and not see that they are contradictory. You can't see any contradiction.

Ethelred
Ethelred
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.