 Evolution debate
|
Nov. 19th, 2005 @ 02:44 pm 
|
|---|
Continued from here:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nukrof/101499.html
"ya, we can go wherever you like.
Um, well overall Moore was talking about homology, phylogeny and genetics. His message was not really based on evidence (in half parts) but on speculation and opinion. But hey, that's the same with Kent."
If he was using "homology, phylogeny and genetics" as evidence for evolution, then he was basing his argument on the evidence. Descent with modification is the best explanation we have for the patterns of similarities and differences we find in these areas, and for the fact that they form independently the same consistent picture.
"Common ancestor - common designer? I'm not too fond of the common designer arguement, i think there should be a better one than that, but i havn't looked into that."
It's not a very good argument, there's no reason for a "common designer" to build a hummingbird and a whale using the same structure, but use a different one for a bee. The "common ancestor" hypothesis also makes testable predictions, like that what similarities we should find at the genetic level among these animals, what kind of ancestral organisms we should find in the fossil record, etc.
"Well, vestigial organs is losing something not gaining something, so how could it be evidence for evolution?"
Now you accept they exist? Good.
They prove that the ancestors of an animal were different from its current form. Our ancestors had tails, whale's had legs, etc. That's evolution.
"How did we get them to begin with?"
We got them from our ancestors. Just look at the fossil record.
"On the coccyx there are muscles we can use to perform some valuable functions. The appendix reduces the likeliness of getting some diseases. Just because we can live without them doesn't mean we don't need them. We can live without both our arms, legs and eyes, doesn't mean we don't need them."
What does a blind cave fish need skin covered rudiments of eyes for? Anyway, just because a vestige still performs some function does not mean it's not a vestige.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
"I believe evolution is fairly dogmatic because of the lack of proof."
Evidence, science deals in evidence not "proof", and there certainly is no lack of evidence for evolution.
Of course, there's no "proof" or evidence for Young Earth Creationism, if evolution is "dogmatic, what does that make YEC?
"I mean, there is no proof of the big bang,"
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
"there are many evidences i am aware of, but that doesnt' prove a big bang"
Right, and as I said before, science deals in evidence not "proof". Proof implies finality and scientific explanations must always be open to modification or rejection based on new evidence, or when a better theory comes along.
"- because creationists have interpretations also."
Have these "interpretations" been tested? Do they make predictions that differ from those of the Big Bang model? Have those been independently confirmed? In what way are they better that the scientific "interpretations".
"I understand that evolution seems more credible but creation is another interpretation of evidence."
No, creationism has nothing to do with the evidence. It remains pretty much unchanged no matter what new evidence surfaces.
Glad to see you admit that "evolution seems more credible". Maybe you are beginning to open your eyes.
"When we look at a computer, there is a natural explanation inside the computer of how the computer works, but that doesnt' mean you can prove how the computer originated by looking in the computer alone, somebody outside the computer built it, you have to go outside of it to search for origins."
We do the same for living organisms, we look outside and inside them for evidence of where they came from. Also, we have to assume that someone build the computer because it doesn't reproduce itself, living organisms do.
"The big bang kinda lacks logic to me, after all, nothing never becomes something as the big bang explains."
Again, the Big Bang is not part of the theory of evolution (and Hovind is a liar, he's been told this countless times and continues to repeat it). Also, you don't understand the Big Bang, no part of the theory says that "nothing becomes something".Current Music: The Legendary Pink Dots - Fifteen Flies in the Marmalade |
| From: | ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2) nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 20th, 2005 04:54 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
"They [vestigial organs] prove that the ancestors of an animal were different from its current form. Our ancestors had tails, whale's had legs, etc. That's evolution."
-- So we have something "left over" from a previous stage as you would say. It still isn't evidence. A vestigial organ would be to lose something not gain something. How did we get it to begin with? Is that how evolution works? Lose it all to gain it all? I can see that working with the first creatures at the beginning of evolution, they change into something else and somehow lose everything? What's absurd is wondering how on earth they gained anything if part of the evolution is losing many things.
"just because a vestige still performs some function does not mean it's not a vestige."
-- And now you've left science and gone to religious speculation. The fact that "vestiges" do have functions totally over-rules the arguement that they're from past ancestors. If we truly didn't need them - they wouldn't do anything at all. And for any real evolutionary evidence to make sense on vestiges, we'd first need to see humans being born without the appendix. After all, that's how evolution works, and if we dont' need them, we should see babies being born without them. Does a mother who loses an appendix, have a baby who doesn't have an appendix? No. The appendix is built into the babies design, no matter what body parts we don't have. There's some good speculation regarding vestiges but it's not scientific as the evidence is no where near provable.
"Evidence, science deals in evidence not "proof", and there certainly is no lack of evidence for evolution.
Of course, there's no "proof" or evidence for Young Earth Creationism, if evolution is "dogmatic, what does that make YEC?"
-- I'm glad you brought that up. There are evidences for both sides, but neither are proven. There is no way we can prove it, and no evidence can act as any proof as they are both dogmatic. I can't class creationism as a science, it's not observable, testable etc, so it's dogmatic. Evolution is the same. Dogs always stay dogs, and we've never seen a dog become a non dog, or a baby be born without an appendix because the mother lacked in her appendix. It's all speculation. Evolution is tax supported, that's the only difference.
"Proof implies finality and scientific explanations must always be open to modification or rejection based on new evidence, or when a better theory comes along."
-- I agree, and the big bang is a pathetic theory that should never have infested science textbooks. Nothing will always stay nothing. And even if nothing-or something did explode, what was before that something? If the big bang produced hydrogen how did we get all 92 elements? You can't get all 92 through fusion because you can't fuse past iron. Second of all, the stars make up the elements and the elements make up the stars? Which one came first? There's a real chicken and egg problem there. - The big bang will never be logical and scientific until they accept ID/God.
"So we have something "left over" from a previous stage as you would say." Yes. "It still isn't evidence." Of course it is. "A vestigial organ would be to lose something not gain something." Right. "How did we get it to begin with?" Depends on what you mean by "it". "Is that how evolution works? Lose it all to gain it all?" Evolution works mostly by modifying existing structures. It works with what it has. "I can see that working with the first creatures at the beginning of evolution, they change into something else and somehow lose everything?" I don't understand your question. "What's absurd is wondering how on earth they gained anything if part of the evolution is losing many things." It would have been easier for simple early organisms to gain new structures than it is for highly evolved modern organisms. After a body plan has become more "fixed" evolution will work with that. "-- And now you've left science and gone to religious speculation." No, I haven't. Any scientific source will confirm what I said. "The fact that "vestiges" do have functions totally over-rules the arguement that they're from past ancestors." No, because they no longer perform the function they do in animals that still have the "full" version. "If we truly didn't need them - they wouldn't do anything at all." Like cave fish eyes? "And for any real evolutionary evidence to make sense on vestiges, we'd first need to see humans being born without the appendix. After all, that's how evolution works, and if we dont' need them, we should see babies being born without them." "However, about 1 in 100,000 people are born without an appendix; and, these individuals show no impairment to their immune system or gastrointestinal function. " http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-09-29-05.htm "Does a mother who loses an appendix, have a baby who doesn't have an appendix? No." Right, that would be Lamarkism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics), not Darwinian evolution. You really can't discuss evolution if you don't understand that distinction. "The appendix is built into the babies design, no matter what body parts we don't have." Are you aware that that "design" includes a tail and a full coat of hair? Those genes have been just "turned off", but you are right, they are still there, and sometimes they get turned on. Ditto with whale's legs, bird's teeth, blind fish eyes, etc.
"There's some good speculation regarding vestiges but it's not scientific as the evidence is no where near provable."
It's more than "speculation", vestiges are observed fact. A fact best explained by descent with modification.
"-- I'm glad you brought that up. There are evidences for both sides, but neither are proven."
Where's the evidence for creationism? In years of debating creationists and reading creationist sources I have never seen it. All I see are attacks on real science, and no evidence being presented for the creationist side.
Evolution is as "proven" as any scientific theory can possibly be.
"There is no way we can prove it, and no evidence can act as any proof as they are both dogmatic."
No, if any evidence contradicting the predictions of evolution was found, it would disproof evolution ("rabbits in the pre-cambrian" is a famous example). Science, evolution included, is not dogmatic. If it was dogmatic, evolutionary science would not have changed since Darwin's day.
"I can't class creationism as a science, it's not observable, testable etc, so it's dogmatic."
Right. We agree on something.
"Evolution is the same."
It most certainly isn't. Evolution, both "micro" and "macro" has been observed in nature and the lab.
"Dogs always stay dogs,"
How much would a dog need to change before you stop calling it a dog?
The evolution of dog breeds illustrates beautifully how much organisms can change due to selection. I man could make great danes and pugs, bulldogs and chihuahuas, etc. all from the ancestral wolf in a few thousand years, imagine what nature can do with millions of years. No, you don't even have to "imagine" all you have to do is open your eyes and look around.
"and we've never seen a dog become a non dog,"
One individual dog? That would be evidence for supernatural intervention, not evolution. A dog giving birth to a "non dog" (how do you define "dog and "non dog"?) would be saltationism (another term you need to look up), not gradual Darwinian evolution.
"or a baby be born without an appendix because the mother lacked in her appendix."
What do you mean "lacked"? Do you mean it was surgically removed? That would be Lamarckism once again. Or that she was born without it? That is perfectly possible, just like some kinds of blindness can be inherited, so can appedixlesness I expect.
"It's all speculation."
No, evolution has been put to the test for 150 years, and it has never been found to be wrong.
"Evolution is tax supported, that's the only difference."
Science is tax supported because it gets results. Understanding evolution is crucial in medicine for example.
Also, churches don't even have to pay taxes. And Hovind should not even use that word because he's a tax evader, the hypocrite.
"-- I agree, and the big bang is a pathetic theory that should never have infested science textbooks."
No, we don't agree. The Big Bang is an exellent theory that's backed by observation and universally accepted by all scientists in the field. It should be in science textbooks.
"Nothing will always stay nothing."
Then your god can't exist. Clearly, however you look at it, at some point something began.
"And even if nothing-or something did explode, what was before that something?"
The Big Banf was not an "explossion", it was an expansion. No one knows what there was "before", if we can even speak in such terms, because time itself began at the Big Bang.
"If the big bang produced hydrogen how did we get all 92 elements? You can't get all 92 through fusion because you can't fuse past iron."
I don't know, have you consulted a science book on the topic? Or asked a scientist in that field? I'd preffer we keep the topic to evolution, wich is something I know a bit about instead of trying to discuss a topic non of us understands.
"Second of all, the stars make up the elements and the elements make up the stars? Which one came first?"
The first light elements came first and formed stars, heavier elements were formed in those stars. That is as much as I know.
"There's a real chicken and egg problem there."
The "chicken and egg problem" is no problem at all, the egg came first.
"- The big bang will never be logical and scientific until they accept ID/God."
Who is they? Many scientists believe in god already, and they still accept the Big Bang. The BB is perfectly logical and scientific as it is, without any gods meddling.
If the big bang produced hydrogen how did we get all 92 elements?http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=origin+of+the+elements&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8You can't get all 92 through fusion because you can't fuse past iron.http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hs=FDJ&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=opera&rls=en&q=origin++%22heavy+elements%22&btnG=Search Second of all, the stars make up the elements and the elements make up the stars? Which one came first?http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hs=csd&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=opera&rls=en&q=stars+elements+which+one+first&btnG=SearchTranslation of all of the above "You can't bother to do my own research, so instead you make empty claims because it is my job to educate you, even though you have shown little interest in learning". Next, read this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/You really should familiarize yourself with the theory before you show your ignorance: How did we get it to begin with? Is that how evolution works? Lose it all to gain it all? I can see that working with the first creatures at the beginning of evolution, they change into something else and somehow lose everything? What's absurd is wondering how on earth they gained anything if part of the evolution is losing many things. and so on. Sorry for being rude, but it's like this: "I have never been to Australia, but I am sure it is the worst place in the world to live. It is full of poisonous spiders and alligators that kill off half the population daily. They drink beer and throw boomerangs for fun. They don't have electricity or roads. It is always hot and sandy. They are in a weird time zone that makes them a day behind the rest of the world. In conclusion, Australia is an awful place to live." What are you going to do? Try to correct all my false claims, attempt to educate me. How does it feel that I am so sure that Australia is terrible, but I have no idea what Australia is really like, and the stuff I said about it was false? Not to be rude, but that is what it is sometimes like when you post stuff like this.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 20th, 2005 04:55 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
"Have these "interpretations" been tested? Do they make predictions that differ from those of the Big Bang model? Have those been independently confirmed? In what way are they better that the scientific "interpretations"."
-- What has been tested and proven is micro-evolution. That's biblical. When you leap to macro you leave science and enter speculation and dogma. The evidence for macro is still speculation and can be interpreted from the creationist side also. The evolutionist is always trying to make us believe that the evolutionary interpretation is part of the fact, when it's no more than an interpretation, based on evidence that is founded in speculation. Creation is also based on evidence founded in speculation, so they are both dogmatic, religous theories.
You can make many thousands of predictions that differ from any big bang/evolutionary model. I won't go into them now (and i won't be able to mention literally the thousands, but if you'd like I can go into some after you next response.
"creationism has nothing to do with the evidence. It remains pretty much unchanged no matter what new evidence surfaces."
-- And that's precisely what makes evolution a theory and nothing more. Why claim it as science now when it could be dead in 100 years? Lets admit it's not proven, that it's a theory and is still just an interpretation. If evidence is always changing, how on earth can you trust new evidence when the old evidence was wrong, and all you ever do is recycle evidence? It's a viscious cycle. Further more, why trust a theory that juggles evidence and has never been proven, more than a biblical account that doesn't juggle evidence and has never been proven wrong? Creation is unchanged because you can't go back into history and change the events that happened. If it was changable there wouldn't have been a flood and so forth. I believe creation is unchangable because it's true, and because it happened. New scientific discoveries don't discredit this, they support it (through interpretation).
"What has been tested and proven is micro-evolution."
Oh no, macro-evolution has been observed as well.
"That's biblical."
It's of no concern to science, or to me, wether it's "Biblical" or "Koranic" or "Vedic". Anyway where does the Bible mention microevolution. There's a funny bit about cattle having striped ofspring if you show them sticks or something like that, but that's not "micro" or "macro" evolution, it's just retarded.
"When you leap to macro you leave science and enter speculation and dogma."
Nope, macroevolution has been observed and is also well supported by the fossil record, geographic distribution of species, genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.
"The evidence for macro is still speculation and can be interpreted from the creationist side also."
How is the creationist "interpretation" better?
"The evolutionist is always trying to make us believe that the evolutionary interpretation is part of the fact, when it's no more than an interpretation, based on evidence that is founded in speculation."
"Evidence that is founded in speculation"?
"Creation is also based on evidence founded in speculation, so they are both dogmatic, religous theories."
No, we have already gone over this.
"You can make many thousands of predictions that differ from any big bang/evolutionary model. I won't go into them now (and i won't be able to mention literally the thousands, but if you'd like I can go into some after you next response."
Do go into them, that's the whole point. That is what I want to hear.
The second paragraph is just an attack on science.
Newton had calculations that did a pretty good job of explaining planetary motion and gravity. Einstein improved these calculations. Someone a hundred years down the line might move physics even further. This is the nature of science. Do you think we should stop using the calculations we have because they could change one day (despite the fact that even Newtons equations still give us fairly good results in most cases). People used to think demons caused diseases and mental illness. We later discovered microscopic lifeforms that attacked our bodies. But that's not it, we discovered prions very recently that also can negatively effect the body. Do you think we should have given up on modern medicine along time ago because we don't know where all diseases come from?
Science is always expanding our knowledge. It is about what explanation fits the data the best. If new data arises, the explanation can change. Sometimes it is just modified, and sometimes it is replaced completely. This obviously makes you uncomfortable because it suggests that humans will always be searching and improving their knowledge, as opposed to some divine source of the Ultimate Truth. Yeah, I guess it is scary that we have to figure out the works of the world around us, and sometimes we are wrong. However, this is not a reason to say science doesn't work. This isn't a reason to throw out evolution. The Theory of Evolution does a pretty good job at explaining the diversity of life on this planet. We don't know everything yet, but that does not belittle what we do know.
Lets admit it's not proven, that it's a theory and is still just an interpretation.
This goes for ALL OF SCIENCE.
If evidence is always changing, how on earth can you trust new evidence when the old evidence was wrong, and all you ever do is recycle evidence?
Old evidence isn't necessarily wrong. We have evidence that organisms reproduce sexually and asexually. From this, we suggested that traits are always passed down from parent to offspring (vertically). New data arose which made us modify our initial suggestion, to also incorporate horizontal gene transfer. Did this change the way humans reproduce? No. But did it change the overall Theory of Evolution? Yes. How is this a problem?
and has never been proven wrong?
You can't prove a negative. However, there is NO evidence for creation. Seriously. Where is any evidence of at all that man shares a common ancestor with dirt, and woman with a rib? Seriously. Where is ONE SHRED of evidence for special creation? Stop saying creation and evolution are on equal speculative footing. They simply are not. Genetics (how genes mutate, how traits are passed on, how DNA relates to protein and function in the body, and how DNA compares between species), the fossil record/geology, observed instances of evolution, biogeography, taxanomy/comparative anatomy, etc all suggest that organisms share common ancestors and that specific mechanisms cause species to change over time. I know of NOTHING that suggests some mystical being poofed every organism into existance at some point in the past.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 21st, 2005 11:26 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
lol, of course you don't know anything of this mystical being because you won't open your heart to him.
There is plenty of evidence for creation. More than evolution! And there's no way you'll believe that because you're prejudiced just as I am. There is no way I believe your "corrections" because it's still interpretation that assumes to be fact. No evolutionary evidence is factual, it's a fairytale. With the combined lines of inquiry and different fields that discover evolution to be real - consider that satan's work. Any genius can take reality and distort it to make it look different.
If the earths geology and origin can be interpreted naturally, I have a right to say that satan has distorted that truth. There's no concise proof, but there's evidence, just like evolution, it's interpretation. No evidence for evolution can even be considered factual. Not one shred, because it's interpretation. lol, thanks for trying though.
As far as the aussie analogy goes, that's the same i'm trying to do with you guys. You're somehow decieved into thinking evolution is true because of it's faulty "science". I'm trying to help, but i realize at the same time we have prejudices and interpretations. You're no more "right" than me, we're on the same level as far as proof goes.
"There is plenty of evidence for creation. More than evolution!"
Where is it? Come on, say what it is. I've been hearing for years about all this wonderful "evidence for creation", and noone has ever shown it to me.
"No evolutionary evidence is factual, it's a fairytale. With the combined lines of inquiry and different fields that discover evolution to be real - consider that satan's work. Any genius can take reality and distort it to make it look different."
"Satan's work", oh, that's such a wonderful excuse. What is the point of this debate then?
If all geologic, genetic, fossil, etc. evidence is the work of Satan, how is Satan different from god? And how do you know the Bible isn't Satans work too? How do you know Satan didn't create the earth and everything in it (memories and all) last Tuesday?
I think you have basically admitted defeat in this debate.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 23rd, 2005 06:06 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I have not admitted defeat, i just didn't have time yesterday when making a post but i wanted to leave something so you knew I hadn't abandoned the debate. The principle in the satan arguement is saying that any truth can be distorted into a false interpretation. I can't prove mine, you can't prove yours.
"If all geologic, genetic, fossil, etc. evidence is the work of Satan, how is Satan different from god?"
-- I didn't mean it that way. The evidence for creation and evolution was formed naturally, satan has nothing to do with it. But he takes what is seen and distorts it. He makes the interpretation of evolutionist sounds factual when in fact there is no scientific basis for the assumptions. I'm not saying satan organised everything to confuse us lol, that is a silly arguement, i'd agree with you there.
-- You have to realize that the dating methods involved with geology and fossils is a flimsy house of cards. It's based on circular reasoning. You only assume the age of the fossils by the assumed age of the rocks and you date the rocks by the assumed age of the fossils. Where on earth is proof for the age of the rock or the fossil? It's all circular reasoning.
Evidence of a flood and rapid erosion:
Poly strata fossils. Petrified trees standing up connecting multiple "million year old" layers. Dead trees don't stand up for millions of years. Whats even more convincing in favor of this arguement is that many of the petrified trees are upside down connecting layers! The layers were formed by hydrologic sorting. The flood calmed before it washed away, so the waves would have ceased, allowing the sediment to sort itself properly into layers, and not get muddled up. I've read what talk origins has to say about this and it's still just their interpretation, no more factual than mine.
-- "He makes the interpretation of evolutionist sounds factual when in fact there is no scientific basis for the assumptions."
OK, and I'll say that when a a Creationist interpretation sound factual (hahaha), it's Satan's work. That ought to make for an interesting debate.
"You have to realize that the dating methods involved with geology and fossils is a flimsy house of cards. It's based on circular reasoning. You only assume the age of the fossils by the assumed age of the rocks and you date the rocks by the assumed age of the fossils. Where on earth is proof for the age of the rock or the fossil? It's all circular reasoning."
Honestly, I've heard this a million times before. It was wrong the first time I heard it, and it's still wrong.
- The relative age of strata were determined before the theory of evolution by the order in which they occurred.
- Strata can now be dated absolutely using radiometric dating.
- Fossils that only occur in certain strata can be used as index fossils because we already know the age of the strata they occur in via other methods.
"I've read what talk origins has to say about this and it's still just their interpretation, no more factual than mine."
Only their "interpretation" rests on the results of multiple studies done by experts in their fields and independently confirmed by other experts.
"Poly strata fossils. Petrified trees standing up connecting multiple "million year old" layers."
Multiple "million year old" layers? Really? Any evidence of that claim?
Layers can be deposited quickly, you know? That's no problem for orthodox geology. That does not mean all geologic layers were deposited that way, and if creationists claim they were, it's up to them to demonstrate this.
"The layers were formed by hydrologic sorting."
"Hydrologic sorting" can't expalin the fossil record. It can't explain coarse sediments being found on top fine ones, either. It can't explain why large fossils are found in fine sediments. It's useless.
It's all circular reasoning. False. CC310
How is evidence of a flood evidence for intelligent design?
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 23rd, 2005 06:06 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Lets talk about spontaneous generation as evolutionary principles are based on the assumption that life can arise from non-life. What can we ever seen? All that's been accurately and scientifically proven is that life can make life, and that life cannot arise from non-living material. Tell me how on earth spontaneous generation is scientific when it's never been 1) observed, tested or demonstrated 2) Researched to the point of a succesful conclusion in favor of evolutionary teaching. Sure, there are heaps of people trying to make life, and while these experiments are going on, it's never been done. And even if a bunch of intelligent people do make life, that prove it takes intelligence to make life!
What evidence do you have to show me life can arise from non-living material. And just saying that "we're here today so it must have occured" is not an answer. Sure we're here, that doesn't prove either interpretation of our origin. What evidence do you have? Bring on your "facts".
In order for life to arise from non-life there would have to be instant success. All the parts would suddenly have to be there and all would have to immediately function with essential perfection. Any thousand of things from a car can be removed to stop it from working. Lifeforms require a range of working systems to survive, if one is removed, the lifeform cannot live. Spontaneous generation is fantasy. Think about it. How long could you live without a beating heart? How long without blood? The situation would be no different with the simplest of lifeforms. In structure, arrangement, co-ordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation and all the rest would have to be perfect - from the start! Millions of functions would have to arise all at once.
"Lets talk about spontaneous generation as evolutionary principles are based on the assumption that life can arise from non-life."
No, evolutionary principles are based on the observation that life is capable of changing and addapting. It's irrelevant to the theory of evolution how life arose.
Now, lets talk about "spontaneous generation". SG was the idea that modern, complex organisms (flies, frogs for example) arose spontaneously from dead matter, it was disproven long ago and has nothing to do with any modern theory of abiogenesis. To pretend it does is just dishonest and fools no one but the ill-informed (who are the main target of creationists, of course).
"Sure, there are heaps of people trying to make life, and while these experiments are going on, it's never been done. And even if a bunch of intelligent people do make life, that prove it takes intelligence to make life!"
Translation: "Tails I win, heads you lose!"
I'll answer the rest later, I don't have time right now.
"In order for life to arise from non-life there would have to be instant success.
All the parts would suddenly have to be there and all would have to immediately function with essential perfection. Any thousand of things from a car can be removed to stop it from working. Lifeforms require a range of working systems to survive, if one is removed, the lifeform cannot live."
The only "instant success" needed would be the right kind of simple simple self-replicating molecule. It could scarcely be called a "life form".
"Spontaneous generation is fantasy."
Right, we established that. I wish creationists would at least be able to keep up with 19th century science. Too bad abiogenesis is not "spontaneous generation".
"Think about it. How long could you live without a beating heart? How long without blood?"
Irrelevant. I'm a highly evolved and complex life form. Viruses, bacteria, sponges, all kinds of organisms do quite well without hearts and blood, the same was true for the first organisms.
"The situation would be no different with the simplest of lifeforms."
It sure as hell would be different.
"In structure, arrangement, co-ordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation and all the rest would have to be perfect - from the start!"
Wrong, most of those things would only become necessary as organisms became more complex. Others are already present even in non-life (structure, chemical makeup). I can tell you have just copied and pasted that argument without even understanding what you are saying.
"Millions of functions would have to arise all at once."
Nope, only self-replication would need to arise first, all else could follow.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 27th, 2005 05:26 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
lol, i copied and pasted the "structure to start" bit and you're right i didn't fully understand every word mentioned there :P I am aware that simpler lifeforms don't have a problem with lack of human systems and so forth, but if humans can't live without various things, how did we get it to begin with. Sorry, i can't make this very clear, i'm trying to word it right.
So if we evolved from a blob, then at what point did we develop all of these system necessary for life? Which evolved first? Last? It's kinda hard to tell.
And if we evolved from a blob to a human, we should be able to trace back through all the species and make a "tree of life" like darwin did, in which we can go slowly back species by species and find the transitional forms that came before our ancestors. So, (hyperthetically here) if we developed blood 300 000 years ago, we can trace our closest ancestor back to a homologous animal without blood. But this isn't the case. I don't think evolution has any family tree that's plausible. It states that we evolved from this that and the other thing and mostly doesnt' even need to prove how we evolved, just that we....evolved.
"I am aware that simpler lifeforms don't have a problem with lack of human systems and so forth, but if humans can't live without various things, how did we get it to begin with. Sorry, i can't make this very clear, i'm trying to word it right." That's the whole point, we weren't humans back then. Our ancestors were simple organisms that were able to live without such systems. Then, at some point having a simple heart for example, gave them an advantage (perhaps it allowed them to grow bigger, or move faster, something like that). "So if we evolved from a blob," I'm not quite sure what you mean by "blob". "then at what point did we develop all of these system necessary for life? Which evolved first? Last? It's kinda hard to tell." Those systems are necessary for our kind of life, but not for the "blob". Let's put it like this: There are modern fighter planes that would be unable to fly without an advanced computer system, if you take it out, they would spin out of control and plummet to the ground. Does that mean planes are impossible without computers? No, of course not. Planes predate computers for many decades. It's just that as computers and planes "evolved" they became inseparable in some "lineages". "And if we evolved from a blob to a human, we should be able to trace back through all the species and make a "tree of life" like darwin did, in which we can go slowly back species by species and find the transitional forms that came before our ancestors." Oh, absolutely. We are indeed able to make a "Tree of Life". And we are not just limited to building it on the basis of what organisms "look like" each other, now we can compare species genes to see how they are related. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html"So, (hyperthetically here) if we developed blood 300 000 years ago, we can trace our closest ancestor back to a homologous animal without blood." We can look backwards through the Tree of Life, humans have blood, so do all other apes, all other primates, all other mammals, all other tetrapods, all vertebrates. So, that brings us back at least to our primitive fish ancestors. But insects also have blood, though not quite like ours, theirs doesn't carry oxigen, they get it through their skin. They have circulatory, digestive an nervous systems like "us" ( "us" as in vertebrates, including fish, birds, etc.)they are clearly related, only theirs are backwards: Their circulatory system runs trough their backs, their nervous system throug their bellies. This brings us way back to our common ancestor with insects (far, far longer ago than "300.000 years"). Lets go back to simpler animals: "Sponges are the simplest animals, yet even they have a transport system. Seawater is the medium of transport and is propelled in and out of the sponge by ciliary action." http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookcircSYS.htmlSo, before blood evolved, our common ancestor with sponges already must have had a circulatory system using sea water instead of blood to transport nutrients. From such a simple begining ours evolved gradualy. "I don't think evolution has any family tree that's plausible." I think it's more than plausible. "It states that we evolved from this that and the other thing and mostly doesnt' even need to prove how we evolved, just that we....evolved." Actually, evolutionary theory explains just that, "how we evolved". You might have heard of things like "natural selection", "sexual selection" "genetic drift", "mutations", all explain how we evolved.
Lets talk about creationism as a religious principle based on the assumption that life can arise from non-life (dirt/rib). What can we ever seen? All that's been accurately and scientifically proven is that life can make life, and that life cannot arise from non-living material. Tell me how on earth creationism is scientific when it's never been 1) observed, tested or demonstrated 2) Researched to the point of a succesful conclusion in favor of religious teaching. You understand that what you are saying is CB000 and you are also arguing AGAINST creationism. You said it yourself, there is no observed, tested, or demonstrated evidence for supernatural creation, which amounts to breaking the law of biogenesis. There is no way you can wiggle out of this one by claiming that God is life and therefore life can naturally come from Him. We do not have any evidence of God, and therefore cannot know anything scientifically about a hypothetical beings nature. We also do not have evidence of life being created ex nihilo by intelligence.
lol, of course you don't know anything of this mystical being because you won't open your heart to him.Remember when you posted in ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2) challenging_god about testing the waters? This was one of my replies. In case you don't remember, I not only prayed for God to reveal Himself to me, but I asked him to open my heart. What, it's been over 2 months and nothing yet? Anyway, you can criticize me for not actively opening my heart (whatever the heck that means) but you cannot say I haven't tried. Furthermore, I thought we were talking about science and evidence. What does the state of ones heart have to do with evidence for creation? There is plenty of evidence for creation. More than evolution! Keep saying that until your face turns blue. Doesn't make it true. Either show me the evidence, or shut up. you're prejudiced just as I am.The reason I don't believe it is not because of prejudice, but because I have YET to see this evidence. I mean, we can argue about epistemology and the meanings of words like fact, theory, evidence, truth... or we can skip the philosophical BS, and focus on the science. Your pick. No evolutionary evidence is factual, it's a fairytale.What are you talking about? All data is factual. It is a fact that a certain fossil was found in a certain rock layer. It is a fact that you get a specific result when you radiometrically date a substance. It is a fact that species change over time. It is a fact that genetic information is passed on to offspring from parents. It is a fact that mutations occur. It is a fact that some anatomical structures are similar to other anatomical structures, cross species. etc. The way we interpret these FACTS to suggest that natural selection is one of the forces behind the change in population genetics is not a fairytale. It is an interpretation of the data. If you have a better interpretation, go right ahead and submit it to Nature and The Journal of Evolutionary Biology, but you already said you had no interest in becoming a scientist, so why should we give a rats ass about your religious opinions?? Any genius can take reality and distort it to make it look different.Take out the 'genius' part, and I'd agree that this is exactly what 'creation scientists' attempt to do, except they are not fooling real scientists. They are just giving fuel to religious fanatics that do not actually care about science or data. Seriously, what you are doing is destroying faith. If there is evidence that the bible is true, if there is evidence that God created everyone, then faith is completely useless. You don't have do believe anything, you just have to accept the conclusions drawn from the facts. Proving your religion is destroying faith and belief in your God. Remember Exodus? God showed Himself to the Israelites all the time. They had 100% proof that he existed and was their deity. What did that get them? Lost in the desert for a really long time. Attempting to be factual and logical about your deity is not helping your religion. You have to understand that there IS uncertainty, and faith attempts to smooth over that uncertainty, where your anti-science reasoning is attempting to remove the uncertainty without faith. I have a right to say that satan has distorted that truth.And I have a right to say Satan is misleading you. Now where does that get us? Really, think about this one real hard. Can I get into heaven if I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Can I get into heaven if I think the Iraq had WMDs? Does someone have to have a 100% accurate belief system to get into heaven? What really matters? Did Jesus come to tell us to stop exploring the world around us, to stop thinking? Did he come to tell us how old the earth is and why there is diversity of life on this planet? What was the real meaning behind his message?? And why are you so concerned about disproving science? What is your real motivation behind your beliefs? Do they have anything to do with Christ's motivations? Please think about those questions.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 23rd, 2005 06:20 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Sorry, you're right. I shouldn't have gone into the supernatural in a natural debate. I apoligize and i'll do my best to not do that again lol. I wasn't really in the mood when i posted that the other day, all i ask is that you remain patient with me in debates. I have my good days and bad ones, the other day was a bad one. Thanks for your thoughts.
And as far as "testing the water" goes, i'm amazed you tried it! I replied to your post with the link you gave.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 23rd, 2005 06:29 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
Also, Natural selection does not accompany any evidence for macro-evolution. It is proof for micro! If I had a car factory and selected all of bad cars with mistakes out of the manufacturing process, and let all the perfect, good ones go through, how long would it take for one of the better cars to produce an aeroplane? It wont' happen. I agree that natural selection selects the better species and variations, but it will never create a new kind of animal. Eg, a dog who is dominant in the genepool will never become a non-dog.
Mutations aren't evidence for evolution. Sure i agree that they occur, that's not evolution though. All it shows is a loss of information. Scrambled information. Cows with five legs, sheep with shorter legs. First of all, those short legged sheep are the first ones the wolf is gonna ketch. Four winged fruit flies are duds as i'm sure you know, the two bonus wings don't work. It's a scrambling of existing information. Sure we may see a cow with a fifth leg (it seems like a gain of info) but it's not a gain. The gene code has been scrambled and has attatched a fifth leg to the cow. Things to consider:
1) The cows fifth leg was a cow leg. If we saw a mutation that had a scrambling of information where a horse leg came out of the cow - that would be reasonable evidence.
2) Mutations are not beneficial. They are making things worse for the animals by mutating the existing information and making things worse.
3) (Relates to point 1) - Mutations never prove macro-evolution. They are evolutionary dead ends and prove no evidence that one animal can evolve into another (eg, cow to whale).
"Also, Natural selection does not accompany any evidence for macro-evolution. It is proof for micro!" No, it is neither. Natural Selection is the main mechanism of evolution, both "macro" and "micro", it is not "evidence" for either. "If I had a car factory and selected all of bad cars with mistakes out of the manufacturing process, and let all the perfect, good ones go through, how long would it take for one of the better cars to produce an aeroplane?" If there was an unending stream of new, slightly different cars, and you kept selecting the cars with the most "aeroplanelike" characteristics (narrow, with large fins, I bet at some point you'd have a plane. "Mutations aren't evidence for evolution." They are sources of new variation that natural selection can act uppon. If there were no mutations, evolution would be impossible. "Cows with five legs, sheep with shorter legs." Or longer legs. "First of all, those short legged sheep are the first ones the wolf is gonna ketch." And the longer legged ones the last. Natural selection at work. If left to themselves in the right environment there might eventually be "sheep" (if they are even recognizable as sheep by then) as fast a gazelles. "Four winged fruit flies are duds as i'm sure you know, the two bonus wings don't work. It's a scrambling of existing information. Sure we may see a cow with a fifth leg (it seems like a gain of info) but it's not a gain. The gene code has been scrambled and has attatched a fifth leg to the cow." So what? Are you trying to say that "mutations can't produce new 'information'" in an incredibly longwinded way? It can and it does. See claim CB102
"Things to consider: 1) The cows fifth leg was a cow leg. If we saw a mutation that had a scrambling of information where a horse leg came out of the cow - that would be reasonable evidence." That would be "reasonable evidence" against the theory of evolution (not the fact of evolution though), I'm not aware of any neo-Darwinian mechanism that could even begin to explain such a thing. Scientists would be perplexed, nothing could be ruled out, not even divine intervention. Of course, such a thing wont happen, and the theory of evolution is quite safe. The extraordinary thing here, is that you understand so little about evolution, that you in your mind something that would be solid evidence </i>against</i> the theory of evolution, becomes evidence for evolution. "2) Mutations are not beneficial. They are making things worse for the animals by mutating the existing information and making things worse." Tell that to the bird flu virus. Also: CB101"3) (Relates to point 1) - Mutations never prove macro-evolution. They are evolutionary dead ends and prove no evidence that one animal can evolve into another (eg, cow to whale)." Not "cow to whale", no one expects an existing species to evolve into another distantly related already existing species. That would be like you giving birth to your cousin. Whales are however in fact descended from land mammals, there's so much evidence for that that I'll just leave it up to TalkOrigins to show you: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
I read your posts, but I somehow missed all those "facts" that "support the creation view". All I saw were inept attempts to discredit real science.
What I want to see is actual evidence that the universe, the earth and all species appeared fully formed 6000 years ago, that hawks, cheetahs, vampire bats, great white sharks, flesh eating bacteria, etc. were all vegetarians, that only 4000 years ago there was a world wide flood, that this flood wiped out nearly all life on Earth, that after the flood the Earth was repopulated by the few survivors of each species.
All of this couldn't have happened without leaving some kind of evidence,
there should be clear indications of recent migrations from the Middle East to the rest of the world, all the sloths, penguins, koalas, had to get to their current habitats, after all, they had to leave some trace. There should be evidence of a severe genetic bottleneck in the genes of all species around that time. There should be evidence of dinosaurs co-existing with modern mammals. We should not be able to look further than 6000 years into space.
So many possibilities... and yet there's nothing. Not one shred of evidence from any field of science can confirm the Creationists accounts.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 27th, 2005 05:34 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
I'll probably pop up another subject in a few days (along the lines of evolution) - but first i have a question. You know a heap about creation vs evolution. What got you interested at first and did you learn most things from talk origins alone?
Also, how old are you? lol, i know these two question don't have anything to do with this debate but i don't have time to dig up more arguements for you to have a go at so i'll ask these now and do arguements later ;) Thanks.
"I'll probably pop up another subject in a few days (along the lines of evolution) - but first i have a question. You know a heap about creation vs evolution. What got you interested at first and did you learn most things from talk origins alone?" I had only a dim idea that there were people who didn't believe in evolution, but I'd never encountered one in real life. Then I began to encounter them on the internet, at first their arguments were so bad ("why are there still monkeys") that I could counter them with what I'd learned in high school. But sometimes they were harder, or dealt with specifics I could not answer without looking them up. All this got me interested in evolution again, so I started reading more about it. I began reading a lot of Richard Dawkins work, who was able to explain things in a very understandable way. "Also, how old are you? lol, i know these two question don't have anything to do with this debate but i don't have time to dig up more arguements for you to have a go at so i'll ask these now and do arguements later ;) Thanks." I'm 26 years old. I'd recommend that before you go "dig up" more creationist arguments, you familiarize yourself with evolutionary theory, read through Talk Origins, or this site, read this book. Even if you still don't believe it, at least you'll understand what you are arguing against.
| From: | nukrof |
|---|
| Date: |
November 29th, 2005 05:45 am (UTC) |
|---|
|
|
|
|
(Link) |
|
ok, will do. I have an arguement prepared, but i won't post it yet
What about answering any of our points for once, then?
Why do these Intelligent Design people always attack the Big Bang theory, thinking it is implied by evolution?
Sheesh, don't they know that the Big Bang theory was invented by a fucking PRIEST? That it's compatible with ex nihilo creation of the universe? And, hell, that it is indeed based on evidence! Hello, the universe is expanding, people!
So Kent Hovind is the one saying this? Is he the guy who thinks dinosaurs and humans lived together? I sure hope not.
You understimate how narrowminded and dogmatic these people are, anything that contradicts the most stupid* interpretation of Genesis possible (i.e. their interpretation), must be wrong and evil. Any scientific theory that seeks to understand the origin and development of the universe and anything in it, the big bang, star and planetary formation, the origin of life, and biolical evolution, is Evolutionism in their minds. The fact that more reasonable Christians see the Big Bang as compatible with their believes doesn't matter to them, they are compromisers.
* I don't say "most literal" because Creationists have no problem adding dinosaurs, "water canopies", a giant Adam and Eve, and any kind of both uncientific and unbiblical crap they feel like, to the story.
|
|
|
