Evolution with AIN

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Evolution with AIN

Hi everyone!

In this epic thread, AtheismIsNonsense will, using numerous irrefutable deductive arguments, overwhelming empirical evidence, and his support from the creator of the universe, indisputably prove that the unifying theory of biology, accepted by virtually every respectable scientist and science institution in the world:

- is impossible.

- is unsupported and unsubstantiated.

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of everything good and moral, including, but not limited to, families, cultures, governments, civilization in general, Black people, Jewish people, preschool, Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell.  

The first thing I want to discuss is whether evolution happens. Arguments like Social Darwinism, etc., while interesting, do not affect the validity of evolution itself; regardless of its implications, either organisms evolve or they don't. Also, while I think I have an accurate fundamental grasp of what evolution is and what it isn't, I haven't been trained in or really studied evolution, genetics, paleontology, etc. , so I'll probably make some mistakes.    

To start, evolution is simply change in genetic material. While the differences between one generation and its parent generation are usually virtually undetectable, variations can accumulate throughout successive generations to produce significant change. The theory of evolution can be defined as the overarching explanation of this process.

Mutation: In biology, a mutation is simply a copying error that occurred during genetic replication.  

According to http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html, mutations "occur at the rate of about 1 in 50 million," "but with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations."

There are multiple types of mutations, but the bottom line is that they all lead to variation.  

Genetic drift: This is the change in frequency of the presence of a specific gene in the population independent of natural selection. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

It was somewhat harder for me to wrap my brain around this process. Wikipedia has a very helpful analogy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

wikipedia wrote:
The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population. Half of them are red and half blue, and both colors correspond to two different gene alleles in the population. The offspring they reproduce for the next generation are represented in another jar. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select any marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same color as its "parent" in the second jar. Repeat the process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar will then contain a second generation of "offspring", 20 marbles of various colors. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red and 10 blue marbles, there will have been a purely random shift in the allele frequencies.

Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation will fluctuate: sometimes more red, sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.

It is even possible that in any one generation no marbles of a particular color will be chosen, meaning they have no offspring. In this example, if no red marbles are selected the jar representing the new generation will contain only blue offspring. If this happens, the red allele has been lost permanently in the population, while the remaining blue allele has become fixed: all future generations will be entirely blue. In small populations, fixation to a single surviving allele can occur in just a few generations. Given enough time, this outcome is nearly inevitable for populations of any size."

Natural selection: In the general public, this is the best known mechanism of evolution. Since organisms possess variation in characteristics and some traits are more beneficial in certain environments, natural selection postulates that some organisms will have a better chance of surviving long enough to produce offspring, thus, passing their genes to the next generation. Hence, in every specific environment, certain traits will be favored and organisms possessing these traits will thrive.

Speciation: Speciation is when two groups of organisms that were previously able to reproduce with each other are no longer able to interbreed. This is arguably the most significant development in evolution, since the two groups are now free to acculumate differences in traits and, also, branch into more varieties of organisms. One of the most obvious ways this could occur is if a single species somehow becomes separated into two or more groups due to a geographical landmark, like a range of mountains or a river.  

Evidence for evolution:

- Creationism asserts that God created all organisms at the same time, in their present forms. If this were true, then fossils of all kinds of organisms should distributed everywhere in the geological column. Upon radiometric dating, they should also be dated to all periods in natural history. However, this is not the case.

Instead, the fossil record shows a clear progression to more complicated life forms. We also observe that all organisms existed exclusively within a certain time period. So, we never find an elephant older than a Triceratops or a penguin in the pre-cambrian.

- Virtually all Creationists claim that there are no "transitional fossils," but by its very definition, all organisms are transitional forms, so every fossil ever found is a transitional fossil. The confusion lies in the fact that Creationists have an extremely undeveleped (and that's putting it nicely) idea of evolution. If scientists accept that organism A evolved into organism B, Creationists would strawman this by asking for the existence of some half A half B abomination or the exact moment act which this change occurred. This request is impossible to fulfill because this is not how evolution works. Organism A will never give produce an organism that is not organism A nor will anything other than an organism B will produce an organism B.

Some videos on Youtube explain this problem by comparing it to aging. I think this is a good analogy. When Creationists ask for the exact moment at which A becomes B, it's like asking for the exact moment at which a baby becomes an adult. There is none, nor is there a specific moment at which a baby stops being a baby or a person becomes an adult. If you look at pictures of yourself from many years ago and recall your memories of your childhood, you can easily conclude that you changed, but did you notice any day to day changes? Of course not, the changes are too small, just like the generational changes in organisms are too small to produce a different species. So, using the same analogy, we can see that every day you are alive is a day between when you are older and when you were younger.

Transitional Fossils This scientist is from my university.

Human evolution 

Transitional Fossils

(This is definitely not a complete list)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Okay, that's all I'll write for now.

Cheers.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: - will lead to the

Quote:

 

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of ........ Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell. 

 

 

How is this a bad thing?

 

 

 


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply To Post #1 & I would only like to dialogue with Butter

Hi again Butter, I have a lot of questions to ask before I respond in the form of a rebuttal.

 

butterbattle wrote:
Hi everyone!

In this epic thread, AtheismIsNonsense will, using numerous irrefutable deductive arguments, overwhelming empirical evidence, and his support from the creator of the universe, indisputably prove that the unifying theory of biology, accepted by virtually every respectable scientist and science institution in the world:

- is impossible.

- is unsupported and unsubstantiated.

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of everything good and moral, including, but not limited to, families, cultures, governments, civilization in general, Black people, Jewish people, preschool, Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell.

To clarify, I'm only claiming that the changing of one species to another is impossible.

That because it hasn't happened within the span of recorded history (the changing of one species to another), It's this fact that I claim the theory of evolution of lacking substantiated evidence.

And in the thread begun by me, I made the claim that If evolution were true, morality, science, human intelligence/rationality would be impossible (you'll have to visit my thread to read the evidence I've provided).

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17332?page=2

butterbattle wrote:
variations can accumulate throughout successive generations to produce significant change. The theory of evolution can be defined as the overarching explanation of this process...

Mutation: In biology, a mutation is simply a copying error that occurred during genetic replication.

can you provide an example of a mutation that was copied and has thrived for many generations?

butterbattle wrote:
According to http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html, mutations "occur at the rate of about 1 in 50 million," "but with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations."

There are multiple types of mutations, but the bottom line is that they all lead to variation.

what are some of the outwardly physical consequences of these mutations for humans over the thousands or hundreds of years (or animals for that matter)?

butterbattle wrote:
Genetic drift: This is the change in frequency of the presence of a specific gene in the population independent of natural selection.

would this be like taking a half german shepard / doberman and  breeding it with a pure bred german shepard, next taking one of the more german shepard looking offspring and breeding with another pure bred german shepard, repeating this process untill all the doberman genes are less frequent or non existent? If this is not a good example, can you provide an example of a species that we have observed this in? (the example you provided is too theoretical)

butterbattle wrote:
Natural selection: In the general public, this is the best known mechanism of evolution. Since organisms possess variation in characteristics and some traits are more beneficial in certain environments, natural selection postulates that some organisms will have a better chance of surviving long enough to produce offspring, thus, passing their genes to the next generation. Hence, in every specific environment, certain traits will be favored and organisms possessing these traits will thrive.

I don't follow how natural selection produces new genes? I remember the example of the light colors moths that blended in well on certain trees thus produced a natural camouflage, until the industrial revolution came about and darkened those tress, causing them to stand out more to birds and other insect feeders, but consequently caused the darker moths to survive better, thus increasing their population while causing the light colored moth's population to dwindle. But what would have caused the black colored moths to produce new genes? If anything doesn't natural selection tell us nothing more than why certain species of animals are thriving or dwindling in their population?

butterbattle wrote:
Speciation: Speciation is when two groups of organisms that were previously able to reproduce with each other are no longer able to interbreed. This is arguably the most significant development in evolution, since the two groups are now free to acculumate differences in traits and, also, branch into more varieties of organisms. One of the most obvious ways this could occur is if a single species somehow becomes separated into two or more groups due to a geographical landmark, like a range of mountains or a river.

can you provide a living example of two species that were once a common specie?

butterbattle wrote:
Evidence for evolution:

- Creationism asserts that God created all organisms at the same time, in their present forms. If this were true, then fossils of all kinds of organisms should distributed everywhere in the geological column. Upon radiometric dating, they should also be dated to all periods in natural history. However, this is not the case.

Instead, the fossil record shows a clear progression to more complicated life forms. We also observe that all organisms existed exclusively within a certain time period. So, we never find an elephant older than a Triceratops or a penguin in the pre-cambrian.

I heard examples of trees that were fossilized but cut through two or more of the geological columns. Can you shed light on this? Also wouldn't a worldwide flood like the one explained in the scriptures best explain why we have this geological stratum in the first place? Also doesn't it take natural disasters like volcanic eruptions and landslides (caused by flooding for example) to create fossils? I can't imagine decomposing animals can result in fossils (they have to be buried at least naturally or otherwise right)???

Also I'm asking these questions for clarification and apologize if you've answered some of questions at the bottom of your post like not seeing these changes today because of the changes being too small, etc.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Quote:-

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of ........ Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell. 

How is this a bad thing?

Well, I was joking, but I suppose the loss of Taco Bell would be devastating. Carrie Underwood...I don't really care. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

butterbattle wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Quote:

- will lead to the second coming and the destruction of ........ Carrie Underwood, and Taco Bell. 

How is this a bad thing?

Well, I was joking, but I suppose the loss of Taco Bell would be devastating. Carrie Underwood...I don't really care. 

 

 

Taco Bell cannot be lost. They were the only surviving restaurant from the great restaurant wars. Did you not learn this lesson from Demolition Man?

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Awww, dammit! I lost my

Awww, dammit! I lost my post.

*stamps feet*

Sorry, I just lost all of my enthusiasm. I'll respond to your post tomorrow.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:To

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

To clarify, I'm only claiming that the changing of one species to another is impossible.

That because it hasn't happened within the span of recorded history (the changing of one species to another), It's this fact that I claim the theory of evolution of lacking substantiated evidence.

That evolution is impossible is a much different claim than that it lacks positive evidence. Why is it impossible?

Anyways, by accepting "microevolution" or "adaptation," Creationists have effectively already acknowledged the entire mechanism; at this point, it seems like they simply refuse to believe that evolution occurs beyond a certain point because it clashes with their Creation stories. Creationists imply that there is some kind of threshold that cannot be passed, distinguishing between change within a species and change between species (scientists rarely use the micro/macro terms), but there is no threshold; there is no invisible line. There is only speciation, which is still a significant gray area. The entire genome is subject to change; ergo, organisms change. Thus, in order for the micro but not macro argument to be really effective, you have to propose some reason for which organisms cannot change beyond a certain point. I've never heard a Creationist address this problem.

With most organisms that we are familiar with, mammals etc, evolution is indeed too slow for us to observe speciation. However, it think it has been observed in bacteria, etc. Maybe I'll dig up some links.    

Although, talkorigins, by itself, probably contains more than enough information and evidence on evolution for any non-scientist.

Quote:
And in the thread begun by me, I made the claim that If evolution were true, morality, science, human intelligence/rationality would be impossible (you'll have to visit my thread to read the evidence I've provided).

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17332?page=2

Honestly, I've read most of that thread before, and I am simply at a loss as to how your worldview can be set up in such a way that would cause this to happen. I understand why you would claim that morality is meaningless, indeed most Creationists would make the same claim, but the rest of it just baffles me.  

Quote:
can you provide an example of a mutation that was copied and has thrived for many generations?

There's got to be at least thousands of well-documented examples. There an extremely interesting presentation on a "selfish gene" at a museum near my school, but my memory is vague.  

I just did a google search.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1928?ck=nck

Quote:
what are some of the outwardly physical consequences of these mutations for humans over the thousands or hundreds of years (or animals for that matter)?

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to ask here.

Our bodies aren't as hairy? We have ginormous cerebral cortexes?

Ah, I remember another interesting case involving the black plague. I'll look for a source for that too.

Quote:
would this be like taking a half german shepard / doberman and  breeding it with a pure bred german shepard, next taking one of the more german shepard looking offspring and breeding with another pure bred german shepard, repeating this process untill all the doberman genes are less frequent or non existent?

Something like that.

Quote:
If this is not a good example, can you provide an example of a species that we have observed this in? (the example you provided is too theoretical)

Oh man, I have no idea.

Quote:
I don't follow how natural selection produces new genes?

Natural selection doesn't produce new genes. It selects from the ones that are already present.

DNA is made up of only four bases: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine always pairs with thymine and and guanine always pairs with cytosine. These are connected to sugar and phosphate molecules. The entire thing is a nucleotide. Nucleotides form two long strings, which weave around each other in the famous double-helix configuration. A gene is a just a segment of DNA, so I'm not really sure what you mean by, "produces new genes."

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

Quote:
I remember the example of the light colors moths that blended in well on certain trees thus produced a natural camouflage, until the industrial revolution came about and darkened those tress, causing them to stand out more to birds and other insect feeders, but consequently caused the darker moths to survive better, thus increasing their population while causing the light colored moth's population to dwindle. But what would have caused the black colored moths to produce new genes? If anything doesn't natural selection tell us nothing more than why certain species of animals are thriving or dwindling in their population?

The moths don't "try" to become black.  

Regardless of the environment, there is always variation. Due several pseudo-random and non-random mechanisms, some moths will always be darker and some will always be lighter. Think of it like a bell curve. Natural selection is nothing more than the inevitable result of interaction between organisms and environments. The darker moths survive simply because they they are darker, and thus, they pass on their genes. However, evolution doesn't suddenly stop. There will always be darker moths and lighters moths. If it is beneficial to become even darker, then darkest of the dark moths will have the best chance of surviving.

Quote:
can you provide a living example of two species that were once a common specie?

Lions and tigers. The canidae family (dogs). Horses and zebras. Dolphins and whales. Etc.

Well, technically, according to common descent, we all came from the same primordial soup, so we were all the same species at some time.

Quote:
I heard examples of trees that were fossilized but cut through two or more of the geological columns. Can you shed light on this? Also wouldn't a worldwide flood like the one explained in the scriptures best explain why we have this geological stratum in the first place?

I heard that those trees were actually in only one layer. Do you have a link?

The different layers in the geological column are dated to vastly different time periods. A global flood also wouldn't create this kind of layering. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

Quote:
Also doesn't it take natural disasters like volcanic eruptions and landslides (caused by flooding for example) to create fossils? I can't imagine decomposing animals can result in fossils (they have to be buried at least naturally or otherwise right)???

They just have to be well-preserved and stand the test of time, regardless of how it happens. That's why fossilization is extremely rare. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply To Post #6 & I would only like to dialogue with Butter

MORE QUESTIONS

_____________________________________________________

butterbattle wrote:
…"microevolution" or "adaptation…

You didn’t bring up microevolution or adaptation in your first post. I have an idea what they are, but please explain what they are and provide examples observed in animals and/or humans.

butterbattle wrote:
That evolution is impossible is a much different claim than that it lacks positive evidence. Why is it impossible?...

And in the thread begun by me, I made the claim that If evolution were true, morality, science, human intelligence/rationality would be impossible (you'll have to visit my thread to read the evidence I've provided).

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17332?page=2

Honestly, I've read most of that thread before, and I am simply at a loss as to how your worldview can be set up in such a way that would cause this to happen. I understand why you would claim that morality is meaningless, indeed most Creationists would make the same claim, but the rest of it just baffles me.

for the sake of keeping the threads short and more focused, I will not clarify now. I will after the initial question/answer session is over; however before then I will visit the link.

butterbattle wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
can you provide an example of a mutation that was copied and has thrived for many generations?
There's got to be at least thousands of well-documented examples. There an extremely interesting presentation on a "selfish gene" at a museum near my school, but my memory is vague. I just did a google search.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/mutant_flies/mutant_flies.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1928?ck=nck

The second link required login info, but I did visit the first

butterbattle wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
what are some of the outwardly physical consequences of these mutations for humans over the thousands or hundreds of years (or animals for that matter)?

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to ask here.

I suppose I’m still asking for some evidence of a trait or two or more in humans that has been produced or lost in the span of recording history due to mutation. Is this still all theory (reasoned I’m assuming)?

Has any mutations in humans resulted in physical change internally or outwardly is what I’m asking.

butterbattle wrote:
Natural selection doesn't produce new genes. It selects from the ones that are already present…

The moths don't "try" to become black…

Lions and tigers. The canidae family (dogs). Horses and zebras. Dolphins and whales. Etc.

Regarding speciation (lions and tigers, horses and zebras, etc), I suppose you can’t provide the sort of evidence that documented the transition. So it’s still all hypothetical or theorized right?

So let me put this all together, mutation in genes or group of genes aided by the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest) creates new genetic characteristics and enough of this over time will result into new species of living things (speciation), right?

Concerning genes, do humans have more genes than the common house fly or an ape? Correct me if my understanding of genes is incorrect.

Do you suppose that the advent of modern chemistry and physics has any direct affect on the frequency of reported mutations? (toxic waste, man made chemicals, pollution)

butterbattle wrote:
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I heard examples of trees that were fossilized but cut through two or more of the geological columns. Can you shed light on this? Also wouldn't a worldwide flood like the one explained in the scriptures best explain why we have this geological stratum in the first place?

I heard that those trees were actually in only one layer. Do you have a link?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/184

butterbattle wrote:
They just have to be well-preserved and stand the test of time, regardless of how it happens. That's why fossilization is extremely rare.

Do you think it’s important for us to know how fossilization occurs? Simply because of the fact that we know that animal carcasses exposed to the air do not get fossilized (they eventually decompose).

butterbattle wrote:
The different layers in the geological column are dated to vastly different time periods. A global flood also wouldn't create this kind of layering. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

I watched the video (interesting) and noticed that when conducting the “Hovind” experiment, that while the water was being poured in, they were stirring it together and even some time after the water stopped being poured in. Do you think that this experiment was a good representation of what is described in the Bible?

(Gen 7:11-22) - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights… And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

(all the fountains of the great deep broken up is especially interesting, also covering the mountains even and killing all “air breathing” life)

Was there any natural “stirring” reported from the text?

Besides mud slides, volcanic eruptions, floods and other sediment depositing natural disasters, I’m assuming that the different layering only occurs in water correct? Because in the experiment, the tank is filled with water and the different sediments are dropped in.

In light of the above, could the flood described in the Bible account for a lot of the different geological layers?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:You

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

You didn’t bring up microevolution or adaptation in your first post. I have an idea what they are, but please explain what they are

Speciation is when one species evolves into two or more groups that are no longer able to interbreed.

Microevolution is considered to be change in a species. Macroevolution is considered to be change between species. I think macroevolution to be just enough microevolution for speciation to occur.

Adaptation is what the word suggests. Adapting to the environment.

Quote:
provide examples observed in animals and/or humans.

Surely, there's no disagreement here.

Well, actually, to be honest, I'm getting rather tired of digging up specific examples for everything.

Quote:
I suppose I’m still asking for some evidence of a trait or two or more in humans that has been produced or lost in the span of recording history due to mutation. Is this still all theory (reasoned I’m assuming)?

Has any mutations in humans resulted in physical change internally or outwardly is what I’m asking.

I think there one involving the Bubonic plague. I wonder if I can find it.

Quote:
Regarding speciation (lions and tigers, horses and zebras, etc), I suppose you can’t provide the sort of evidence that documented the transition. So it’s still all hypothetical or theorized right?

Well, some, like the domestication of the dog, are fairly well-documented. Often, these species can still interbreed, but with difficulty. The offspring might be sterile. Obviously, you have the similarities in DNA, and if you can find a fossil of an ancestor, that's a huge plus. There's a lot of detail here that I really don't know how to explain.  

Quote:
So let me put this all together, mutation in genes or group of genes aided by the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest) creates new genetic characteristics and enough of this over time will result into new species of living things (speciation), right?

Pretty much.

Quote:
Concerning genes, do humans have more genes than the common house fly or an ape? Correct me if my understanding of genes is incorrect.

The number of genes vary widely. Many organisms have junk DNA and genes that are turned off. People often assume that humans have the most genes, but this is incorrect. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_number_of_chromosomes_of_various_organisms

Quote:
Do you suppose that the advent of modern chemistry and physics has any direct affect on the frequency of reported mutations? (toxic waste, man made chemicals, pollution)

Possibly.

I did a search and ran into talkorigins again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

butterbattle wrote:
They just have to be well-preserved and stand the test of time, regardless of how it happens. That's why fossilization is extremely rare.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Do you think it’s important for us to know how fossilization occurs? Simply because of the fact that we know that animal carcasses exposed to the air do not get fossilized (they eventually decompose).

Yes, it's important. I was just trying to make a different point.

Quote:
I watched the video (interesting) and noticed that when conducting the “Hovind” experiment, that while the water was being poured in, they were stirring it together and even some time after the water stopped being poured in. Do you think that this experiment was a good representation of what is described in the Bible?

Oh, I don't know.

Quote:
Was there any natural “stirring” reported from the text?

A flood moves everything around. I don't know if that counts as "stirring."

Quote:
Besides mud slides, volcanic eruptions, floods and other sediment depositing natural disasters, I’m assuming that the different layering only occurs in water correct? Because in the experiment, the tank is filled with water and the different sediments are dropped in.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't only occur in water. All kinds of debris can be slowly deposited over time.

Also, he was attempting to show that the flood wouldn't create the geological column.

Quote:
In light of the above, could the flood described in the Bible account for a lot of the different geological layers?

The biggest evidence on this entire subject, for me, is still the matter of various dating methods, most notably, radiometric dating. Materials in deeper layers are dated to much older time periods than layers closer to the surface. We also observe an increasing complexity in the traits of organisms, as well as how certain types of organisms are limited to specific time periods. For example, let's say I'm trying to establish that birds evolved from small dinosaurs. Finding fossils of organisms that exhibit numerous undoubtable lizard-like and bird-like traits (like microraptor) is already fairly compelling, but if you can establish a timeline of intermediates, such that you get:

Dinosaur >> fossil >> fossil >> fossil >> bird.

I don't see how Creationists can account for these things. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Reply To Post #8 & I would only like to dialogue with Butter

butterbattle wrote:
Well, actually, to be honest, I'm getting rather tired of digging up specific examples for everything.

I apologize if this is tiresome on your part. I would just expect that this information was well studied by you and that you would have researched the topics yourself in the past and would be more convinced by living examples. Also, just so I don’t misrepresent your position on the matter in the near future, I would like to read it in your own words.

All I’m asking for are text book examples or if any new evidence has surfaced to provide that and in a short but understandable way when asked.

butterbattle wrote:
Microevolution…Adaptation

 

Tell me if this is an accurate assessment of the following terms used.

 

Mutation – change in DNA that may or may not allow the animal to proliferated (mutation is the real key to “change” – even by definition)

 

Natural selection can describe proliferation due to either mutation (change in gene giving a specie an adaptive advantage over the non mutated specie) or no mutation at all (the specie stays the same, only the environment changes and kills those less adaptive) 

 

If proliferation occurs due to the mutation this is described as microevolution.

 

If enough microevolution occurs frequently enough, it is theorized that speciation (the creation of two species from one common ancestral specie) may occur and if the this process repeats itself over vast span of years we can have, as a hypothetical example, reptilian species (scales and such) changing STRUCTURALLY into bird species (feathers and beaks and all) which would then be call macroevolution.

 

In conclusion the theory of evolution really hinges on mutations occurring and proliferation as a result of mutation, right?

 

Also how would one know between a mutation and non mutation? Would, for example, the differences we see in humans (those obvious physical features) be classified as mutations or what?

How would you respond to this? 

http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/macroevolution.htm

AtheismIsNonsense (Regarding speciation (lions and tigers, horses and zebras, etc) wrote:
, I suppose you can’t provide the sort of evidence that documented the transition. So it’s still all hypothetical or theorized right?
butterbattle wrote:
Well, some, like the domestication of the dog, are fairly well-documented. Often, these species can still interbreed, but with difficulty. The offspring might be sterile. Obviously, you have the similarities in DNA, and if you can find a fossil of an ancestor, that's a huge plus. There's a lot of detail here that I really don't know how to explain.

I really didn’t find much on the domestication of dog except theories and speculations, based on evolutionist methods. For example:

The origin of the domestic dog began with the domestication of the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) from the gray wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal, a source of food and fur, and a beast of burden. The process continues to this day, as the intentional cross-breeding of dogs continue, to create the so called "designer dogs"…

Anything else?

Also what difficulty are you talking about with interbreeding?

butterbattle wrote:
The number of genes vary widely. Many organisms have junk DNA and genes that are turned off. People often assume that humans have the most genes, but this is incorrect. Humans have 46 chromosomes. Chimpanzees have 48.

According to the theory of evolution, do DNA/genes increase or decrease in “number” over spans of thousands or millions of years? Or do all organisms have the same “number” of DNA/genes only some are turned on or off?

butterbattle wrote:
I did a search and ran into talkorigins again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

I found this, how would you respond?

http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm

butterbattle wrote:
They just have to be well-preserved and stand the test of time, regardless of how it happens. That's why fossilization is extremely rare…

Also, he was attempting to show that the flood wouldn't create the geological column.

Do you think the experiment conducted with all the stirring was even close to what happens in a real flood, not to mention a flood of the magnitude described in the scriptures?

Do you think water movement during a flood comes even close to a swirling effect or mixing like mixing ingredients in a bow?

butterbattle wrote:
The biggest evidence on this entire subject, for me, is still the matter of various dating methods, most notably, radiometric dating…

Dinosaur >> fossil >> fossil >> fossil >> bird.

I don't see how Creationists can account for these things.

What’s your response to this?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

The second link speaks on the unreliability of radiometric dating.

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:All

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

All I’m asking for are text book examples or if any new evidence has surfaced to provide that and in a short but understandable way when asked.

 

I do most humbly apologise for butting in, but if you're looking for clear and concise refutations of creationist arguments, why not simply do a search on scienceblogs ? As far as I know, they're all there. Unless you have some new ones ?


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
 Cough Cough

AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
The Bottom Line Of My QUESTIONS

 

I’m just trying to discover if there is any undeniable evidence to prove the truthfulness of evolution that is either observationally verifiable or verifiably inferred by one’s observation since that is in part if not all the evolutionist theory of knowledge. The claim of atheists is often that the evidence to support evolution is derived by “real” “scientific” methods. So far in my encounters with everyone in this site, all the evidence has been nothing but theory built upon theory of the physical evidence upon more theory of the physical evidence. That shouldn’t be very convincing to anyone. In the end it just shows me that atheists make assumptions and presume things and believe things that are not observationally verified, or observationally inferred, or experienced. (Note: my objection is on the philosophical level) What you presume is not what actually is.

I don’t have a problem with atheists making presumptions (all people do – I would argue that it’s impossible not to) but when the presumptions do not comport with what actually is empirically, then you have a huge problem.

Don’t worry though, my questioning is almost done if not done already.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
AIN, I wonder if you're

AIN, I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of a "ring species."  If so, would you mind reconciling the obvious problem it presents for anti-evolutionists?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A mutation is a permanent

A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence in the genetic material passed on by an organism to its offspring, regardless of its ultimate effects. There can be both increases and decreases in the number of genes on each strand of DNA and the number of strands in each cell.

It may or may not cause some significant change in the organism. All changes in the physical structure of an organism which persist from generation to generation are ultimately due to changes in its DNA. Since this includes changes to the brain and nervous system, this includes changes in instinctual behavior and general mental capacity.

Natural selection refers to the inevitable process by which those changes which improve the chances of the organism surviving to reproduce will be passed on to more offspring than those which don't. This is simple common sense. IOW, changes which lead to more surviving offspring will proliferate. That's it. Simple.

There is nothing to stop the changes continuing indefinitely, as long as each change does not reduce the number of offspring in the next generation, so there is nothing to stop the changes accumulating to the point that they are quite unrecognizable compared to their ancestors. 

If the environment doesn't change, the organism will often reach a point where it is well adapted, so it is unlikely that any of the small changes that can occur from one generation to the next will lead to significant improvement in reproductive success, so it may virtually stop evolving. 

If the environment is such that a wide range of broadly similar body patterns are all equally well adapted, random slow changes can still occur. and this is called 'genetic drift'.

Separation into different species typically occurs when there is some degree of isolation between different groups of what is originally one species, which reduces the amount of interbreeding. They may have spread to different islands or valleys, for example. Or different ponds, for small aquatic organisms. Darwin observed this in the finches on different islands in the Galapagos Islands, which is one of the things which first got him thinking.

If there is some measurable difference in the separate environments, adaptation may well lead to them changing in different directions. If the underlying DNA changes reduce the chance of successful inter-breeding, they will eventually be identifiable as separate species.

That is the basic process of evolution.

We know mutations occur. Genetic studies have shown many different mechanisms which lead to all kinds of changes in DNA: errors in copying individual amino acids, increases and decreases and rearrangements of the individual genes, splitting and joining of strands, and movement of genes from one strand to another.

There is no built-in limit on how much change can accumulate, no micro/macro evolution threshold. Any given set of genetic material can ultimately change into any other, by any of a large number of possible sequences of steps. No organism has any record of some ancestral or standard DNA pattern for the 'species' which it is not allowed to move too far away from, which is what would be required to stop the generation-to-generation changes eventually adding up to what could be seen as 'macro evolution'. Each mutation just happens one step at a time. 

There is no evidence of any mechanism checking the changes against some fixed reference for that species.

The onus is on someone denying evolution to present evidence for the existence of such mechanisms, which would be needed to block the observed processes from leading to the evolutionary changes we see evidence for from the fossil record AND genetic studies.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Let's take this to the other thread question beggars

Hambydammit wrote:
AIN, I wonder if you're familiar with the concept of a "ring species."  If so, would you mind reconciling the obvious problem it presents for anti-evolutionists?

BobSpence1 wrote:
There is nothing to stop the changes continuing indefinitely, as long as each change does not reduce the number of offspring in the next generation, so there is nothing to stop the changes accumulating to the point that they are quite unrecognizable compared to their ancestors.

The onus is on someone denying evolution to present evidence for the existence of such mechanisms, which would be needed to block the observed processes from leading to the evolutionary changes we see evidence for from the fossil record AND genetic studies.

 

First of all assumption one (that there exist no built in limit to mutations that occur in living things) is only that, an assumption. Even though there is evidence to suggest that "speciation" occurs (I mean the kind that reduces the chance of successful inter-breeding). It's a giant leap of faith to assume that a single cell organism over billions of years of mutation and natural selection can culminate to humans who practice politics, write poetry, contemplate philosophical theories, invent transistors and the iPhone G3.

Take the Dog "family" If we assume for example that those species classified in the same genus were once one specie. They're still Dog like in structure. Even if we assume that those species classified in the same family were once one specie, they're still dog like in structure. (I'm not admitting to any of this by the way, I'm just stating an observable fact). Dog like species remain dog like, bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain flies (no matter how disfunctional they become through controlled experimentation), humans remain humans and this has gone on for the whole of recorded history. "Domesticated" animals, livestock, and lab animals and bacteria have been selectively bred from the beginning of recorded history (for some in the list) and have not produced anything other than what they originally are; mutant or otherwise.

Anything past what is observable according to the standards of scientific inquiry and investigation is nothing but unsubstantiated theory based on biased assumptions.

(I'm not saying that critics of evolution are not biased when it comes to interpreting the empirical evidence available, they and we are. - That is why I don't argue on this level. All it ends up proving is that you're inclined to bend your interpretation of the evidence toward your side and I'm going to toward my side - and we all have reasons for doing that)

I proposed from the very beginning to look at our assumptions and judge them. To see whether or not they comport with each other and also as a whole with what we observe in the physical world.

A lot of the argument I hear from the materialist side against Christianity basically boils down to God cannot exist because He himself can't be seen, touched, heard, exhaustively known, or empirically examined (like a lab rat) by the critic personally or it doesn't meet his biased and/or arbitrary standard(s).

He misses the whole point doesn't he? He operates on assumptions that he himself has not proved and can't be proved by his own standards and therefore is a habitual question beggar and hypocrite (philosophically speaking).

How does he know that the universe is only physical?

How does he know that only what can be empirically determined accounts for all truth or is meaningful?

In light of the above, why should that be the only standard for judging truth?

Why would an all powerful Creator who's knowledge is primary subject himself to His creations finite/reflective understanding?

How could he know the limits of the possible when his own worldview limits his knowledge and understanding to the here and now of what can be observably verified or inferred from?

The atheist contradicts himself and begs questions all along the way.

What's worse, according to his own worldview's presuppositions (matter & energy and nothing else + their inherent and uniform characteristics & behavior) how can this result in free thought? I mean if your assumptions are true, it doesn't matter how much you discover in the field of neural biology, you're still nothing but the sum of what you're physically made of. Each part of you (each physical entity - memory, thoughts, etc) is subject to operate & behave uniformly internally and react uniformly externally to stimuli, so that in the end man is nothing more than a mindless organic "machine".

How much more impossible when you consider that we're arguing over the truthfulness or falsehood of something.

You wouldn't be able to help arguing your point because that's just what the electro-chemical/neurological processes in your brain and body exist to do.

The neural science that is performed in the lab is simply what matter & energy exist to do.

The transistor, super computers, air planes & jets, and the iPhone G3 were invented because that's what matter & energy exist to do.

I'm writing this even being conscious of it while writing it is what matter & energy exist to do.

Before you can argue whatever point you have Bob, I think you need to first prove that argumentation is even possible from a materialist evolutionist point of view.

________________________________________________________

I'd prefer to continue our discussion in the other thread and reserve this for me and butter.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 So... um... are you

 So... um... are you familiar with the concept of a ring species, and can you reconcile the obvious problem this observable phenomenon presents for antievolutionists?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: So...

Hambydammit wrote:

 So... um... are you familiar with the concept of a ring species, and can you reconcile the obvious problem this observable phenomenon presents for antievolutionists?

I would have mentioned it myself if you hadn't already, Hamby, and I wanted to concentrate on just how simple and virtually inevitable the evolutionary process is...

Ring species are such a clear example of the basic process and totally demolish the 'micro/macro' argument.

But even such a combined one-two punch is ineffective since it relies on logic and argument and science which apparently are totally impossible and meaningless in a materialist, deterministic world, so we should just concede, I guess....

See you at church, Hamby.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Hamby.

Oh, Hamby.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
You're 'we haven't seen it

You're 'we haven't seen it yet' argument is stupid. According to this logic it is impossible to determine who broke into a house if no one saw it. To hell with all of the rest of the evidence which may point to this, ie; to hell with all of the genetic evidence and the fossils and everything in biology which points towards evolution exclusively.

I suggest you watch the YouTube series 'Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism' by AronRa or potholer54's 'Made Easy' series. They are probably three hours in total and address every complaint you have brought up so far. Or you could look through the index of Creationist Claims I have already posted.  AronRa especially has like 3-4 videos in the series, starting around 8 I think, devoted entirely to the 'its still a dog' and related arguments, especially video 11.

You know, you could actually learn something about the subject you are arguing against.

Furthermore, aren't you supposed to be arguing against evolution? Why is evolution somehow an argument against god or only possible in a materialistic universe? Evolution is an explanation of life without magic, nothing more. Try looking up DonExodus2 on YouTube. 

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
AIN wrote:First of all

AIN wrote:
First of all assumption one (that there exist no built in limit to mutations that occur in living things) is only that, an assumption.Even though there is evidence to suggest that "speciation" occurs (I mean the kind that reduces the chance of successful inter-breeding).

Hold on... if you've agreed that offspring aren't precise copies of their parents, that is to say there is variation in each generation... and you've accepted that the selection/proliferation of these variations can result in ""speciation"" I'm not sure what you're continued problem is exactly.

Up until this point in the examination of the evidence, you appear to be in agreement with the conclusions, but then you have arbitrarily claimed a "built in limit".  Are you really claiming this due to this being your honest interpretation of the evidence, or are you doing this to shoehorn reality into a biblical account?  Either way, it is you that have claimed this limitation, and thus it is you that has the burden of proof.  To suggest otherwise would be ridiculous as this would also mean Butterbattle would have to prove the "assumption" that there exists no superdimensional computer programmer that pauses this game and manually overides the built in limitations of the genetic code for each living thing to generate a speciation, he'd have to prove the "assumption" that there exists no intermediate species between archaeopteryx and the penguin that looks like a 3 ton unicorn with 3 oarfish for a tail that can breath ultraviolet coloured fire.  In other words they aren't assumptions, there's just no evidence for them, so they don't require disproof, like the other infinity of things that don't have evidence for them.


What exactly do you see as the difference between a small amount of variation within a species from one generation to the next, and a large amount of variation from one generation to a thousand or several million/billion generations later?  None of it supposes anything different to the kind of variation you appear to accept, it's all just expressions of A, C, T and G.

AIN wrote:
Dog like species remain dog like, bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain flies (no matter how disfunctional they become through controlled experimentation), humans remain humans and this has gone on for the whole of recorded history.

How significant do you think the timescale of recorded human history is in regards to an evolutionary timescale?  It's as if you would like to see a Velociraptor egg hatch a chicken, or have one generation be as arbitrary amount of "unlikiness" to the generation before to satisfy your short-sightedness.  Unfortunately, something like this happening on a species-wide scale would be one of those kinds of events that would disprove evolution, not confirm it.  Humans have remained humans during the whole course of recorded human history... what a groundbreaking statement.  Further to this point, the term you use "like" (as in "dog like&quotEye-wink is too vague to be useful, give something falsifiable.  Of course they are still "dog like", they're DOGS!  They are starting to look pretty different though, with people simulating natural selection: http://www.petosphere.com/pics/talldogsmalldog.gif

Humans are the ones that came up with the classification system to divide the living world up into different species/phylum/kingdom, etc, and only very recently.  It shouldn't be surprising that most biological life, and particularly animals, currently fit quite neatly into these classifications.  Even so, there are some animals that had to have classifications created pretty much exclusively for them, like Monotremes.

My apologies if you have found the tone of this post overly disrespectful to yourself, but sometimes it's just too irksome to sit by quietly while people deny the keystone of modern biological science, the theory that makes a ridiculously large number of falsifiable predictions that are tested regularly.  I'm almost certain you would have benefited from evolutionary theory in terms of medicine.  Even if you've been in unparalleled good health your whole life, you must have eaten something that was available to you due to another example of humans simulating natural selection, yet you still deny it...


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Are you guys giving up? You should

I'll remind you all throughout my post that you dodged the question asked until you provide a real answer to the "mindless" objection.

__________________________________________________

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 So... um... are you familiar with the concept of a ring species, and can you reconcile the obvious problem this observable phenomenon presents for antievolutionists?

I would have mentioned it myself if you hadn't already, Hamby, and I wanted to concentrate on just how simple and virtually inevitable the evolutionary process is...

Ring species are such a clear example of the basic process and totally demolish the 'micro/macro' argument.

But even such a combined one-two punch is ineffective since it relies on logic and argument and science which apparently are totally impossible and meaningless in a materialist, deterministic world, so we should just concede, I guess....

See you at church, Hamby.

 

Since you didn't care to explain it I took the liberty of reading more about it and the example it provided was the Larus gulls, but I didn't say anything that speciation was impossible.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
...Even though there is evidence to suggest that "speciation" occurs...

***The kind (of mutations) that prevents them from breeding again***

I argued that even if I were to grant you some of what you interpret as being once one specie (Canidae or Felidae for example) in the end you still have dog looking animals and cat looking animals. Much like gulls will remain gulls. Horse looking animals (horse zebra) will remain horse looking.

I then gave the example of controlled breeding to even experiments performed to try to provide evidence to support evolutionist theory but in the end we only get from fruit flies for example the four-winged fruit fly with disabled flight. In the end the fruit fly still very much looks like a fruit fly except for its dysfunctionality.

Now for evolutionists to go on the evidence that is available and to conclude from this and questionable dating methods (where finagling the input can get you whatever outcome you want) for fossils and geological data that single cell organisms can (over billions of years of mutations) can culminate (by random chance or not) to humans who practice politics, write poetry, contemplate philosophical theories, invent transistors and the iPhone G3 requires a impossibly giant leap of faith. (does that mean the iPhone G3 is the result of random chance or maybe even one of matter's end purposes)

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

What's worse, according to his own worldview's presuppositions (matter & energy and nothing else + their inherent and uniform characteristics & behavior) how can this result in free thought? I mean if your assumptions are true, it doesn't matter how much you discover in the field of neural biology, you're still nothing but the sum of what you're physically made of. Each part of you (each physical entity - memory, thoughts, etc) is subject to operate & behave uniformly internally and react uniformly externally to stimuli, so that in the end man is nothing more than a mindless organic "machine".

How much more impossible when you consider that we're arguing over the truthfulness or falsehood of something.

You wouldn't be able to help arguing your point because that's just what the electro-chemical/neurological processes in your brain and body exist to do.

The neural science that is performed in the lab is simply what matter & energy exist to do.

The transistor, super computers, air planes & jets, and the iPhone G3 were invented because that's what matter & energy exist to do.

I'm writing this even being conscious of it while writing it is what matter & energy exist to do.

Before you can argue whatever point you have Bob, I think you need to first prove that argumentation is even possible from a materialist evolutionist point of view.

Remember people, you dodged this. I especially like Bob's way of dodging it.

But really, it's not like I simply stated that man is mindless if atheism is true and didn't provide any explanation at all. I used what is observed in the laboratories and in the physical world outside. Unless you're trying to tell me that matter & energy in whatever configuration do not behave or operate uniformly?

_____________________________________________________

Sinphanius wrote:
Furthermore, aren't you supposed to be arguing against evolution? Why is evolution somehow an argument against god or only possible in a materialistic universe? Evolution is an explanation of life without magic, nothing more. Try looking up DonExodus2 on YouTube.

Can you clarify your questions please. I think you believe by mine admitting that gulls for example have mutated to the point that some of them can longer breed with each other is an argument against God. I don't follow how that's so. I think I made it clear that gulls will remain gulls, cat looking animals will continue to look like cats and dog looking animals will continue to look like dogs (especially the wolf looking domestic dogs).

Also Sinphanius, Why don't you review the videos some more and explain it to me, I'd hate for one of you to accuse me of misinterpreting what he's saying.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
You really should give up. But answer my questions first Phooney

phooney wrote:
Either way, it is you that have claimed this limitation, and thus it is you that has the burden of proof

phooney wrote:
How significant do you think the timescale of recorded human history is in regards to an evolutionary timescale

Let me see, you assumed the evolutionary timescale to prove that the age of the earth is millions if not billions of years to make your argument meaningful and "plausible". How convenient.

So the proof is that dogs remain dogs and don't turn into some other four legged animal, gulls remain gulls, horses remain horses, and cats remain cats, etc

phooney wrote:
They are starting to look pretty different though, with people simulating natural selection: http://www.petosphere.com/pics/talldogsmalldog.gif

Does that mean that I will not be able to identify what it is. That when I see it, I'll say something like "My God, man what is that???" Will they look like the dog in "The Fly 2" with Eric Stolz that became deformed (molecularly deformed) when he passed through the transport pods?

phooney wrote:
Humans are the ones that came up with the classification system to divide the living world up into different species/phylum/kingdom, etc, and only very recently.  It shouldn't be surprising that most biological life, and particularly animals, currently fit quite neatly into these classifications

Yes, how do you like that. Humans are able to fine similarities in animals. Now who would have thought that? As if God was obligated to create every "specie" to have "absolute" distinction from one another.

phooney wrote:
I'm almost certain you would have benefited from evolutionary theory in terms of medicine.  Even if you've been in unparalleled good health your whole life, you must have eaten something that was available to you due to another example of humans simulating natural selection, yet you still deny it...

Can you provide me the examples, I'm sure you can. I don't doubt it. But I have to mention how you again assume that because you see these changes on a very minute (insignificant) scale in the span of six thousands years or so and somehow this logically concludes that single cell organisms evolved into you and I? Does evolution have to be about how life evolved from non life?

In light of what I said immediately above, try to also answer my objection (the humans being mindless if evolution is true objection - I mean as an evolutionist you do only believe that what's physical is all there is right?). Don't worry I include things like light rays, uv rays, and gravity to be physical since you can measure it's effects and reproduce them to some extent. But do try to respond to my objection. Carefully read it through in my previous posts. I've provided it twice.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Wait... so, you agree that

 Wait... so, you agree that speciation occurs, and you grant that there are blurry lines between species, and you (presumably) understand that each organism's genome is completely unique (that is, no two organisms have exactly the same genes), and you understand that recombination and outcrossing are how variation in genes occur...

and yet... you don't believe in evolution?

Really?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
AIN wrote:Let me see, you

AIN wrote:

Let me see, you assumed the evolutionary timescale to prove that the age of the earth is millions if not billions of years to make your argument meaningful and "plausible". How convenient.

So the proof is that dogs remain dogs and don't turn into some other four legged animal, gulls remain gulls, horses remain horses, and cats remain cats, etc

 

I beg your pardon, I didn't realise we also had a disagreement about the age of the earth, but my post didn't reference using fossils to date geological strata, and geological strata to date fossils, you must be thinking of somebody else.  You have ignored the point that it is you that introduced this claim of a limitation, and shirked your responsibility of the burden of proof.

AIN wrote:
Does that mean that I will not be able to identify what it is. That when I see it, I'll say something like "My God, man what is that???" Will they look like the dog in "The Fly 2" with Eric Stolz that became deformed (molecularly deformed) when he passed through the transport pods?

Obviously not, as dealt with by my velociraptor egg hatching a chicken example, which you have ignored.  This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution you are supposedly arguing against, this is some strawman theory of evolution of your own convenient concoction.  Massive mutations in the genome like shown "The Fly 2" are unlikely to result in viable animals (there's far more ways to be dead than to be alive), and are unlikely to be competitive.  Even if there is a HUGE amount of mutations like that, somehow resulting in an extremely well adapted organism, what will it breed with?  As you've already agreed, there's only so many differences that organisms can have before they are incompatible for breeding with the original population.

AIN wrote:
Yes, how do you like that. Humans are able to fine similarities in animals. Now who would have thought that? As if God was obligated to create every "specie" to have "absolute" distinction from one another.

Irrelevant, it still doesn't change the fact that humans defined this classification system and the observations of these similarities is consistent with common decent.  If there were no similarities between animals, perhaps that could be an argument for discreet creation of your "kinds" or "like" organisms.  Unfortunately for you, there are, so my point stands.

AIN wrote:
Can you provide me the examples, I'm sure you can. I don't doubt it. But I have to mention how you again assume that because you see these changes on a very minute (insignificant) scale in the span of six thousands years or so and somehow this logically concludes that single cell organisms evolved into you and I?

Yearly flu vaccines and banana's available from your local supermarket.  Like I said in my previous post, and you ignored, you're the one that has claimed a barrier of some kind, the burden of proof is on you.  Also ignored from my previous post was the question of what you see as being different between a small number of mutations in one generation, and a large number of mutations over the course of thousands, millions, billions, etc generations.

AIN wrote:
In light of what I said immediately above, try to also answer my objection (the humans being mindless if evolution is true objection - I mean as an evolutionist you do only believe that what's physical is all there is right?). Don't worry I include things like light rays, uv rays, and gravity to be physical since you can measure it's effects and reproduce them to some extent. But do try to respond to my objection. Carefully read it through in my previous posts. I've provided it twice.

Your objection in regards to what basically amounts to "do we have free will" is irrelevant to what we are discussing.  Start another thread about that if you want, it is a red herring here.

 


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Do you read anything written? Dodger

It seems all you want to do is play word games.

Let's get back to the point. Are we talking about two gulls or a gull and a lizard (or something like that)?

Also have you taken every Lesser Black-backed Gull and tried to mate it with every Herring Gull on the earth to see if maybe "interbreeding" truly is impossible with the two? And even if you can't and you assume that they once were one specie what does that prove, they're still gulls to the point that you wouldn't know they were incompatible until you tried to breed them.

But you'll use this and tell me that a single cell organism evolved into You and me???

Answer my objection (mindless human objection).

I've clearly explained my reason for rejecting evolution. You have to assume that billions of years is true which you cannot prove except give the appearance of it by assuming that billions of years is true to finagle the results of radiometric dating. When the evidence is staring you in the face that gulls stay gulls, horses stay horses, dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats, etc.

You should be trying to show me that you can create even a single cell organism from "non living" matter in the laboratory.

Changes can occur but the evolutionist theory is so much more than that. You know it and I know it, so stop trying to dodge my question.

Answer my objection (mindless human objection).

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Still Dodging! You'll have me when you answer. (Maybe)

phooney wrote:
Your objection in regards to what basically amounts to "do we have free will" is irrelevant to what we are discussing.  Start another thread about that if you want, it is a red herring here.

It's totally relevant man, so you're saying you can invent a theory that supposedly answers the observed changes in nature only to have it contradict and prove impossible human intelligence?

also it's more than free will, it means all the scientific advancements made by man are either random chance happenings or matter's purpose.

It means our arguing here is totally irrelevant because I can't help thinking what I think and you can't help thinking what you think.

It means, what the heck is everything else??? morality? rationality? logic (required for deductive reasoning)? science (I think I repeated myself)?

phooney wrote:
Massive mutations in the genome like shown "The Fly 2" are unlikely to result in viable animals

I was being sarcastic by the way

phooney wrote:
Irrelevant, it still doesn't change the fact that humans defined this classification system and the observations of these similarities is consistent with common decent.

Let's see the scientist who "invented" this system of classification was a Christian scientist who loved God and saw his God's awesome work in His creation.

Those who are trying to rationalized away the obvious signs of intelligent design are using it to further their agenda.

My answer was relevant. It was painfully and obviously relevant.

phooney wrote:
Yearly flu vaccines and banana's available from your local supermarket...you're the one that has claimed a barrier of some kind, the burden of proof is on you

Yet banana's are still bananas and the flu is still the flu.

phooney wrote:
what you see as being different between a small number of mutations in one generation, and a large number of mutations over the course of thousands, millions, billions, etc generations

Begging the question. When you can reconcile billions of years of the evolutionary theory with human intelligence, then you'll have me convinced (maybe).

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AIN, you are the one who

AIN, you are the one who appears to be dodging here. I ignored the bits about mind and so on because, just as phooney said, they are irrelevant to addressing the point that your main 'objection' to evolution is based on this imaginary limit on total change within a population over many generations, for which we have no evidence.

Bringing arguments about mind and materialism is not addressing your inability to find a problem with 'macro' evolution without introducing this idea of some magic barrier that somehow limits the total change that can accumulate. It would be like finding that our legs would stop working if we tried to walk beyond the city or state boundaries.

I see you also bring in the time-scale question, showing yet another area you totally do not understand. For radiometric dating to be as error prone and unreliable as you try to make out, whole areas of science would have to be thrown out, such as physics, including quite specifically that used in nuclear reactors, which do appear to work. It also includes he biology of tree growth, since tree-rings are used to check the shorter scale dating techniques. 

The total age of the earth is not itself dependent on radiometric dating - to question that you have to discount whole disciplines of geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, and other areas, which have been developed from massive amounts of observation and experiment.

I fully intend to take you up on the mind stuff.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Let's get back to

 

Quote:
Let's get back to the point. Are we talking about two gulls or a gull and a lizard (or something like that)?

Also have you taken every Lesser Black-backed Gull and tried to mate it with everyHerring Gull on the earth to see if maybe "interbreeding" truly is impossible with the two? And even if you can't and you assume that they once were one specie what does that prove, they're still gulls to the point that you wouldn't know they were incompatible until you tried to breed them.

We're talking about gulls and lizards and bacteria and humans.  

I'm curious whether or not you're aware of the fact that the word "species" is more or less useless beyond basic classification now.  Evolutionary biologists no longer think in terms of species because the concept itself was invented before evolution was discovered.  

I'm also curious whether or not you know how scientists determine cladistic relationships between organisms.  If you do, it's puzzling to me that you don't understand that "interbreeding" is a matter of degree, not kind.  That is, a tiger and a lion are most certainly in different clades, but they can, in fact, interbreed.  Ligers are the (usually sterile) product of this breeding arrangement.

There are almost certainly members of some populations of heron gulls that could breed with lesser black backs from a nearby population.  That's the whole point of understanding a ring species.  These are two species that could very well experience a complete speciation event in the future.  That is, for some reason or another, the chain of continuous interbreeding will be broken and the two species will, over geologic time, separate genetically to the point where all possibility of interbreeding will be gone.  At present, however, they are literally in the act of speciation.  I guess you don't realize this because you don't understand that the observable phenomenon of the gull/heron ring is the exact fulfilment of the prediction of evolutionary biology.  That is, from the theory of evolution, the prediction of how speciation occurs was made.  When scientists discovered the continuous line from black backs to herons (and other ring species, as well), they noted that the genes from these various populations were behaving exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution.

That's how science works.

The reason you don't see ring species from lizards to birds is twofold:  First, the common ancestor to lizards and birds was blown to smithereens by an asteroid 65 million years ago, and is extinct.  Once two species become incapable of interbreeding, the simple prediction is that they will move farther and farther away from each other in both morphology and genetic similarity.  For lizards and birds to get as far apart as they are, it took 65 million years, during which time, there have been thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of significant geological and ecological events which caused the extinction of intermediate species.  Natural selection makes far more mistakes than it has successes.  Estimates are that over 99% of "emerging species" go extinct before they can make an impact on the fossil record.

That's why it's so lucky that we have supercomputers and genes.  By examining the genome of various organisms, we can easily recreate the "tree of life" simply by noting genetic distance.  The "gaps" in the current menagerie of life are simply the evidence of extinct "intermediates."

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Wait...

Hambydammit wrote:

 Wait... so, you agree that speciation occurs, and you grant that there are blurry lines between species, and you (presumably) understand that each organism's genome is completely unique (that is, no two organisms have exactly the same genes), and you understand that recombination and outcrossing are how variation in genes occur...

and yet... you don't believe in evolution?

Really?

He has no choice Hamby:

"Genesis 6:15 "And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it." [KJV]

Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit (although a 21 inch cubit was the royal cubit length of Egypt), therefore, the Ark would approximately have a length of 450 feet, width of 75 feet and height of 45 feet. The Volume of Noah's Ark would have been 1,396,000 cubic feet. The Gross Tonnage of Noah's Ark would have been 13,960 tons. The Capacity of Noah's Ark would have been 522 railroad stock cars which could hold 125,280 sheep-sized animals." Divide that number by 2 for male and female and don't account for food, boyancy or room to breathe and you have a maximum of 62,640 different land based animals.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
I think the burden of proof is on you Guys

BobSpence1 wrote:
The total age of the earth is not itself dependent on radiometric dating - to question that you have to discount whole disciplines of geology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, and other areas, which have been developed from massive amounts of observation and experiment.

Bob I hate the fact that atheist's always put forth the fallacious argument that if you reject this "scientific" method you have to reject all "scientific" methods. Let's be honest and admit that radiometric dating is unreliable for the most part. You have to make 2 or more assumptions when analyzing the results, so depending on where you lean (young earth or old earth) you're going to receive varying results (huge variances). As for geology, the methods often used by evolutionists are biased also using the debatable methods of radiometric dating to date the fossils found in particular layers in the earth and turning around to use the layers to date the fossils found in it (that's unintelligible circular reasoning). Explain why there exists variances in radiometric dating for us Bob. How in most cases when we know the actual age of some geological mass, radiometric dating gets it wrong. If it's wrong on things we know the age of, what about it gives us confidence that it's reliable when dating the age of earth we don't know about?

BobSpense1 wrote:
AIN, you are the one who appears to be dodging here. I ignored the bits about mind and so on because, just as phooney said, they are irrelevant to addressing the point that your main 'objection' to evolution is based on this imaginary limit on total change within a population over many generations, for which we have no evidence.

And I pointed out that it is relevant for the fact that evolutionary theory can't account for and proves impossible human intelligent, deductive reasoning, and all the rest, what's the point of all of it when this is true? You're employing the very thing that your theory destroys to prove the validity of macro evolution that relies on the assumption ("proven" by debatable dating methods) that the earth is billions of years old.

The burden of proof is actually on you. You have proposed that macro evolution is valid. I've taken a skeptics position and asked where is the proof. Your "proof" relies on evidence that requires a theory (evolution) that depends on assumptions (old earth) (all things physical) which together can't account for human intelligence, deductive reasoning, and all the rest (including morality and science). The old earth assumption itself is based on debatable dating methods and the assumption that all things are physical is impossible to know given your epistemology (that only things that are observationally verifiable or inferred by verifiable observation can be meaningful or valid); you're short sighted in a manner of speaking.

I see horses remain horse, I see gulls remain gulls, I see cats remain cats, and I see dogs remain dogs. Past recorded human history has experienced the same thing. What we haven't seen is horses, gulls, cats, and dogs be anything else than what they've always been.

You can use all the fancy terminology you want Bob, Christian scientists can do the same, they don't need to adopt or believe in evolution (what is evolutionary biology anyway - regular biology that is studied by evolutionists?) to find cures for recent strains of bacteria or viruses.

Hambydammit wrote:
First, the common ancestor to lizards and birds was blown to smithereens by an asteroid 65 million years ago, and is extinct...

WOW! that was quite sneaky of you wasn't it Hamby. Asteroid impacted the earth 65 million years ago??? Not only do you sneak in the 65 million years but conveniently use this story to destroy all the supposed evidence ("intermediary forms&quotEye-wink that could prove your theory.

Hambydammit wrote:
Estimates are that over 99% of "emerging species" go extinct before they can make an impact on the fossil record

Hambydammit wrote:
That's how science works

what is this sham science that I'm reading? Didn't I say that earlier in this thread that evolution is nothing but theory that is based upon assumptions based on questionable/unreliable evidence/reason based upon more questionable assumptions, etc.

Real physical science is what can be proven with practical and/or observationally verifiable results.

What I see is blind superstitious speculation. Speculation that renders human intelligence impossible.

Hambydammit wrote:
That's why it's so lucky that we have supercomputers and genes

What's so "lucky" is that we have intelligence and a rational mind that the theory of evolution cannot account for but actually destroys if it's true.

______________________________________________________

Bob you sound like a some scientist, you should spend you life working to change a fruit fly or some bacteria into a rodent or an insect respectively. You should be able to speed up the process in a controlled lab environment; make it equivalent to hundred of thousands of years maybe or even more?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Speciation', or more

'Speciation', or more properly the process where one inter-breeding lineage eventually branches into two or more distinctly identifiable lineages is a slow and more or less continuous process occurring over scales of thousands to 100's of thousands of years, especially in the 'higher' life-forms, especially ones with generation times of the order of several years and up. What are initially seen as distinct sub-species or varieties eventually become more distinct, but there is not going to be any clearly identifiable moment or generation where we can unambiguously say a new species has emerged.

So it is hardly surprising that over the century or so we have been even conscious of the concept of evolutionary change and Darwin's tree of life, and of the more recent knowledge of genetics, that we have little hard evidence of speciation.

As Hamby points out, ring species are the best examples we can hope for in more complex life-forms, ie, above the level of bugs and bacteria, a 'snapshot' close to a branching point in the 'tree'.

There do seem to have been identifiable 'speciation' events in butterflies in Central America somewhere, I think.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok dude.  We're done.

 Ok dude.  We're done.  You're not interested in learning or engaging in information exchange.  You're just ranting from ignorance.

If you want to have a discussion about evolution, learn about it from scientists.  If you still don't understand it after studying it, we'll talk.  As long as you're just listening to preachers and hack apologists, I have no time for you.  I've got better things to do than teach Evolution 101 to an unwilling student.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:There do seem to

 

Quote:
There do seem to have been identifiable 'speciation' events in butterflies in Central America somewhere, I think.

And mice on Faeroe Island (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41)

And cichlids in Africa (Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

 And ferns (Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.)

And fruit flies (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971))  (Sorry, couldn't find the article reference, but I know I got the authors right.)

And Raphanobrassica.  (It's a fertile allopollyploid, meaning it's a new species.)

Speciation can be observed within several human generations, and in rare cases, within one.  It has been observed.  Many times.  (Even as a rarity, there are millions of forms of life on earth.)  As usual, the creationist twits (like our interlocutor) simply don't know what speciation is, how it happens, and for that matter, what it would look like if they were staring right at it.

Damn, I wish I could force everyone to read a goddamn textbook.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The theory of evolution is

The theory of evolution is based on some of the basic 'mechanisms' or concepts which actually provide the only coherent and plausible path leading from the state as close as conceivable to 'nothing' to the 'higher' levels of complex structure, which in turn can support the kind of subtle and complex processes which manifest as 'things' like consciousness. Any 'explanation' which is not based on this idea of emergence, whereby complexity arises from simplicity, is inherently incapable of accounting for the existence of higher level things like life and mind - it just has to assume such things always existed.

We know that complexity can spontaneously arise from certain kinds of simpler structures, organization from disorder, as when crystals form out of solution, or galaxies out of clouds of hydrogen gas, so there is no logical inconsistency in the concept of emergence.

The inability to conceive that this process of emergence of ever more subtle and complex attributes can continue indefinitely is somewhat analogous to the inability to conceive of how a sequence of simple changes from generation to generation can lead to arbitrarily large changes relative to the starting point.

Mere 'stuff', whether the energy which is the ultimate constituent of subatomic particles, atoms, stars, molecules of DNA, living cells, brain cells, and so on, or the hypothetical 'immaterial' material of which the mind and body of God, or the 'soul', would presumably be made of, is impotent until structured.

Then you should realize that it is the specific structure and process, ie the pattern, both temporal and spatial, which is the essence of higher level entities and manifestations and qualities, not essence as some thing unto itself.  Like the old ideas of 'life-force' which was supposed to be uniquely present in living creatures, rather than life being due to a special structure and organization of 'ordinary' inanimate matter. Or at a simpler level, heat as a unique fluid called 'phlogiston', rather than the energy of motion of particles of matter.

For example, what gives all the chemical elements, from the light gaseous hydrogen to the dense metallic and radioactive uranium, their distinctive individual attributes, is not their fundamental components, but how those components are structured into nucleii of specific numbers of protons and neutrons. This is in contrast to the early concept of four elements - earth, air, fire, and water - which all physical substances were imagined to contain in varying amounts.

Now all physical elements are in turn seen as ultimately composed of differently structured energy. You can't make a chunk of uranium by just stirring up the appropriate numbers of electrons, neutrons, and protons together.

EDIT: Anyway, that's a start to addressing the issues other than evolution, laying out the fundamentals, as I see them.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
There do seem to have been identifiable 'speciation' events in butterflies in Central America somewhere, I think.

And mice on Faeroe Island (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41)

And cichlids in Africa (Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

 And ferns (Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.)

And fruit flies (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971))  (Sorry, couldn't find the article reference, but I know I got the authors right.)

And Raphanobrassica.  (It's a fertile allopollyploid, meaning it's a new species.)

Speciation can be observed within several human generations, and in rare cases, within one.  It has been observed.  Many times.  (Even as a rarity, there are millions of forms of life on earth.)  As usual, the creationist twits (like our interlocutor) simply don't know what speciation is, how it happens, and for that matter, what it would look like if they were staring right at it.

Damn, I wish I could force everyone to read a goddamn textbook.

Damn, Hamby, I was way too conservative there, but I was concentrating on the typical 'examples' they talk about, like dogs and 'higher'. I should have taken him up on 'flu is still flu'...

I too am close to giving up. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Looks like you guys had some

Looks like you guys had some fun.

AiN, if you don't mind, I would like to reply to specific claims from your posts that I found interesting.

Quote:
Christian scientists can do the same, they don't need to adopt or believe in evolution

The vast majority of Christian biologists do acknowledge the validity of evolution. Based on this, I would say that Christians certainly don't need to deny evolution either.

Quote:
(what is evolutionary biology anyway - regular biology that is studied by evolutionists?)
 

I wonder, do you understand what's going on here?

In universities, laboratories, and research sites around the worlds, evolution is considered to be an overwhelmingly established fact and the unifying theory of biology; that's how strong the scientific community holds the evidence for evolution to be. Virtually all biologists accept evolution. When you make these statements to a biologist like DG or Yellow Number Five, from their perspective, it's comparable to mocking physicists that believe in gravity or chemists that believe in the periodic table.

You might think it's ridiculous, but consider the impasse we are in.

Quote:
Yet banana's are still bananas

"Banana" is just an arbitrary label. Even if the organism undergoes dramatic change, if we call it a banana, then it's a banana.

Here is a wild banana:

Quote:
When the evidence is staring you in the face that gulls stay gulls, horses stay horses, dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats, etc.

You claim that this evidence is staring me in the face, but how do you even know this? You don't think dogs and cats and horses have been domesticated to the point where some pets are barely able to reproduce with their wild ancestors? You claim that evolutionists can't know that organisms evolved because you don't think there's any evidence, but you haven't even studied the evidence. You claim that evolution is impossible, but you don't even understand evolution. You don't have the faintest idea how genetics works or how the various mechanisms in the evolution algorithm are related or how many times researchers have observed speciation or the plethora of reliable dating methods or the richness of the fossil record.

And, furthermore...

Quote:
Can you clarify your questions please. I think you believe by mine admitting that gulls for example have mutated to the point that some of them can longer breed with each other is an argument against God. I don't follow how that's so. I think I made it clear that gulls will remain gulls, cat looking animals will continue to look like cats and dog looking animals will continue to look like dogs (especially the wolf looking domestic dogs).

...holy shit, your criteria for determining whether speciation has occurred is whether, based on your intuition, they still kind of look the same!? Can you establish a position that's not a complete ad hoc, argument from ignorance?

Seriously, before you take out the speck in someone else's eye, try taking out the log in your own.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
This is pure comedy.

This is pure comedy. Evolutionists say species have gone through vast changes over billions of years. AiN says this is clearly untrue because we can't make these same drastic changes occur over a few thousand years with the same methods.

AiN wrote:
I see horses remain horse, I see gulls remain gulls, I see cats remain cats, and I see dogs remain dogs. Past recorded human history has experienced the same thing. What we haven't seen is horses, gulls, cats, and dogs be anything else than what they've always been.

Like these guys?

If you didn't already know both are dogs, how could you assert they are even closely related? In fact if you judge things by their looks alone, shouldn't this guy be more closely related to the first dog?

 

 

 

 


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
You should answer my question guys.

Hambydammit wrote:
Ok dude.  We're done.  You're not interested in learning or engaging in information exchange.  You're just ranting from ignorance...

BobSpence1 wrote:
There do seem to have been identifiable 'speciation' events in butterflies in Central America somewhere, I think.

And mice on Faeroe Island (Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41)

And cichlids in Africa (Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

 And ferns (Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.)

And fruit flies (Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971))  (Sorry, couldn't find the article reference, but I know I got the authors right.)

And Raphanobrassica.  (It's a fertile allopollyploid, meaning it's a new species.)

butterbattle wrote:
You don't have the faintest idea how genetics works or how the various mechanisms in the evolution algorithm are related or how many times researchers have observed speciation...

...holy shit, your criteria for determining whether speciation has occurred is whether, based on your intuition, they still kind of look the same!? Can you establish a position that's not a complete ad hoc, argument from ignorance?

the butterfly still looks like a butterfly and not a moth right?

the mice are still mice right and not gerbils?

...

the fruit fly is still a fruit fly right?, etc

Like I've said, How you go from this evidence to conclude that one cell organisms "evolved" into you and me is beyond me dude.

Even if I were to grant you that the earth is billions of years old you still can't explain why you and me aren't mindless complex biochemical "machines" "slaves" to our physical composition in what we "think" and do if evolution is true.

I would still have to conclude based on that and all man's intelligence has accomplished (so much more can be considered in the physical world) that the theory of evolution is still fairy tale because it would make man's intelligence impossible.

Real science is not a patchwork of unrelated and independent discoveries and/or theories that contradict it's own field or other fields of study. It's all interconnected. I'd wish you would understand that.

hambydammit wrote:
Speciation can be observed within several human generations

By all means please provide the evidence I didn't know that I shared the earth with other species of humans. This will be interesting.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Mere 'stuff', whether the energy which is the ultimate constituent of subatomic particles, atoms, stars, molecules of DNA, living cells, brain cells, and so on, or the hypothetical 'immaterial' material of which the mind and body of God, or the 'soul', would presumably be made of, is impotent until structured.

There you go again Bob, moving ahead of yourself. Not only making everything physical in your thinking (an unproven assumption - impossible to prove especially given your epistemological position) but claiming to know the "physical" or "even "spiritual" "composition" of God or even the soul. Now would you know that? Did God communicate this to you?

BobSpence1 wrote:
We know that complexity can spontaneously arise from certain kinds of simpler structures, organization from disorder, as when crystals form out of solution, or galaxies out of clouds of hydrogen gas, so there is no logical inconsistency in the concept of emergence...

Now all physical elements are in turn seen as ultimately composed of differently structured energy. You can't make a chunk of uranium by just stirring up the appropriate numbers of electrons, neutrons, and protons together.

First of all crystals are non living things. I think life itself (even a single cell organism) is more astonishing than that. Why haven't evolutionist biologist made a single cell organism out of raw chemicals?

Has man observed the galaxy form before his eye out of clouds of hydrogen gas or is this another conclusion derived from theory and speculatory assumptions?

The second part of what I quoted you say only further strengthens my argument regarding matter & energy + immutable laws = mindless biochemical "machines"

Now don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. I don't deny the observable evidence that you're providing me (I haven't denied that gulls and some other species of plants and animals observed no longer can breed or can breed only as a new "species&quotEye-wink. I'm questioning your assumptions and your conclusions based on those assumptions regarding the theory of evolution.

If evolution only speaks about the changes that have been observed, I'm totally down with that. But evolution includes the belief that man evolved from a single cell organism and that is ridiculous to believe simply (but not only) for the fact that you and me think, reason, argue & debate, do science (even in its simplest form), make moral judgments, dream, can understand philosophy and poetry, and our "species" has invented the transistor, the super computer, and the iPhone G3.

And I'll say it again as I've said it before. Making assumptions is not anti science but it is, when its logical conclusions contradict what we observe and can verify in the physical world (in this case human intelligence).

Who am I kidding aside from human intelligence it's just down right silly - single cell organism evolving into a mouse even.

butterbattle wrote:
The vast majority of Christian biologists do acknowledge the validity of evolution. Based on this, I would say that Christians certainly don't need to deny evolution either.

do you mean they see that mutations occur and can even result in animals "splintering" into two groups where the two separate still look almost exactly the same save for color or proportions of existing body parts, etc?

Or do they believe that single cell organisms eventually evolved into you and me?

if it's the former then I'm accusing you of simply playing word games. Just because the phrase "evolutionary biology" has the word evolution in it doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is true.

butterbattle wrote:
When you make these statements to a biologist like DG or Yellow Number Five, from their perspective, it's comparable to mocking physicists that believe in gravity or chemists that believe in the periodic table.

Is that how you hope to win an argument. Create fallacious conditions such as either accept evolution or reject physics and chemistry? Please butter. Let's be fair and weed out the sham "science" from the group.

butterbattle wrote:
"Banana" is just an arbitrary label. Even if the organism undergoes dramatic change, if we call it a banana, then it's a banana.

Here is a wild banana:

for a minute there I thought you were going to show me an apple or orange.

butterbattle wrote:
or the plethora of reliable dating methods or the richness of the fossil record...

I've already read the reasons and the evidence provided to make me doubt the reliability of radiometric dating methods (in the readings the method is explained, what must be assumed, etc). Please enlighten me with your understanding of the supposed reliability of radiometric dating. Using it to date the fossils and depending on where the fossils are found in the particular layers of the earth to date the earth, which in turn, often using the layers of the earth to date fossils, etc. Do you not see that this all depends on radiometric dating being accurate and reliable? Again explain to me why it's reliable and don't be hesitant to explain the difficulties faced when using them (i.e. the assumptions that must be used, etc).

Manageri wrote:
This is pure comedy. Evolutionists say species have gone through vast changes over billions of years. AiN says this is clearly untrue because we can't make these same drastic changes occur over a few thousand years with the same methods.

what is that first picture of? a rat?

man that last one doesn't look like a dog, but if you say it is, I'll have to concede.

 

Dog, Dog, Cat!

 

Next thing you'll be telling me is that little people will soon be a separate species of man or that pygmies are actually a different species already.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

hambydammit wrote:
Speciation can be observed within several human generations

By all means please provide the evidence I didn't know that I shared the earth with other species of humans. This will be interesting.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/ancient-hobbit-humans-a-new-species-20090507-avib.html

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Other Human Specie?

wkirby wrote:

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

hambydammit wrote:
Speciation can be observed within several human generations

By all means please provide the evidence I didn't know that I shared the earth with other species of humans. This will be interesting.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/ancient-hobbit-humans-a-new-species-20090507-avib.html

Hey hambydammit! Is this the example you were referring to?

 

 

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I cited everything I

 I cited everything I mentioned.  Look it up.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Mere 'stuff', whether the energy which is the ultimate constituent of subatomic particles, atoms, stars, molecules of DNA, living cells, brain cells, and so on, or the hypothetical 'immaterial' material of which the mind and body of God, or the 'soul', would presumably be made of, is impotent until structured.

There you go again Bob, moving ahead of yourself. Not only making everything physical in your thinking (an unproven assumption - impossible to prove especially given your epistemological position) but claiming to know the "physical" or "even "spiritual" "composition" of God or even the soul. Now would you know that? Did God communicate this to you?

I did (EDIT: ) NOT claim to know the composition of God, or that everything is 'physical', rather that the distinction between the 'physical' and 'non-physical' substance is artificial - the basic laws of logic should apply to all, at least to anything we can actually hope to discuss coherently;  we can say nothing meaningful whatsoever about any concept which does not conform to basic logic.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
We know that complexity can spontaneously arise from certain kinds of simpler structures, organization from disorder, as when crystals form out of solution, or galaxies out of clouds of hydrogen gas, so there is no logical inconsistency in the concept of emergence...

Now all physical elements are in turn seen as ultimately composed of differently structured energy. You can't make a chunk of uranium by just stirring up the appropriate numbers of electrons, neutrons, and protons together.

First of all crystals are non living things. I think life itself (even a single cell organism) is more astonishing than that. Why haven't evolutionist biologist made a single cell organism out of raw chemicals?

My point was that crystallization is a clear example of a simple system in which orderly structures form out of disorder, with no hint of anything magical or supernatural or design involved. The orderly structure is a mathematical consequence of the simple but regular properties of the constituent atoms. Just in case you had any problems with spontaneous emergence of order from disorder, in principle.

Of course a living cell is vastly more complex, and involves reproduction, but many of the processes within the cell involve processes similar to crystallization. I was not making an analogy to cells, more to things like the formation of more complex molecules from simpler chemicals in the early origins of life. It has recently been shown that conditions entirely likely to have been present on early earth can allow early stages of the synthesis of RNA to occur, another significant step in unravelling a very complex sequence of events which left no trace of their intermediate steps.

Quote:

Has man observed the galaxy form before his eye out of clouds of hydrogen gas or is this another conclusion derived from theory and speculatory assumptions?

As for the formation of galaxies, when we study the sky, we find millions of examples of galaxies, which are at all different stages of formation, so by analysing and comparing ones which appear to be of similar structure but either more or less 'condensed' toward what seems to be the form of mature galaxies, astronomers and cosmologists have been able to form a fairly complete picture of the process. 

So the answer is as close to a 'yes' as possible for a process taking millions of years.

Quote:

The second part of what I quoted you say only further strengthens my argument regarding matter & energy + immutable laws = mindless biochemical "machines"

Which would be irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Which was that it is structure which determines 'higher' attributes of an entity, not the elementary bits or material of which it is composed, which is the fundamental missing component in your simple equation.

It would be more accurately phrased as:

matter/energy, behaving at the base level in regular, consistent patterns ('laws') + specific complex structures supporting particular complex processes => living organisms, including those capable of consciousness.

Quote:

Now don't misinterpret what I'm saying here. I don't deny the observable evidence that you're providing me (I haven't denied that gulls and some other species of plants and animals observed no longer can breed or can breed only as a new "species&quotEye-wink. I'm questioning your assumptions and your conclusions based on those assumptions regarding the theory of evolution.

If evolution only speaks about the changes that have been observed, I'm totally down with that. But evolution includes the belief that man evolved from a single cell organism and that is ridiculous to believe simply (but not only) for the fact that you and me think, reason, argue & debate, do science (even in its simplest form), make moral judgments, dream, can understand philosophy and poetry, and our "species" has invented the transistor, the super computer, and the iPhone G3.

You assume that it is impossible, but I see no fundamental road-blocks in the path from basic nervous systems up to the ever greater complexity of organization required to support the complex processes which manifest those activities. We have mountains of evidence of the intimate association between even 'high-level' aspects of mind, and measurable brain activity. We can trace many aspects of our mentality, such as morality and original inventiveness and problem-solving in simpler but recognizable examples in other species, so the idea that as we evolved ever more complex brains, these capabilities emerged and grew is well justified to anyone well-informed on the subject and not burdened by obsolete assumptions and intuitions.

Hell, we are composed of precisely a collection of cells, which are specialized versions of those single-celled organisms you say we could not have evolved from, more evidence that simple components appropriately organized can display attributes utterly beyond those components individually,

Quote:

And I'll say it again as I've said it before. Making assumptions is not anti science but it is, when its logical conclusions contradict what we observe and can verify in the physical world (in this case human intelligence).

Detecting and rejecting assumptions that contradict verifiable observations are of course a fundamental part of the scientific method. The existence of 'human intelligence' does not contradict any accepted assumptions of science. The conclusions of science do appear to contradict your assumptions, which should be a hint that it is time for you to re-examine them.

To repeat, there is no logical problem with indefinitely increasing emergence of ever higher levels of consciousness, altho there may well be some physical limitations: energy and other constraints will almost certainly cut in before we see 'brains the size of planets'.

Quote:

Who am I kidding aside from human intelligence it's just down right silly - single cell organism evolving into a mouse even.

Your ideas are somewhat silly, yes...

The genetic evidence for evolution is much more compelling than even the fossil record - it links singe-cells very closely to the cells in animals, with many hints at the evolutionary path by which the latter evolved. We see many examples in nature of intermediate stages between free living singe cells and fully integrated multi-cellular animals, in the form of more or less closely cooperating colonies of cells. So the path from cell to mouse is not really a fundamental problem in any way

Your determination to deny or at least cast doubt on these ideas, from stellar evolution to abiogenesis, to radiometric dating, to the emergence and basis of mind, which all form part of a generally well integrated and cross-checked structure of scientific knowledge, goes way beyond the inherent degree of tentativeness which should apply to all human knowledge once we get beyond "cogito ergo sum".

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense wrote:the

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

the butterfly still looks like a butterfly and not a moth right?

the mice are still mice right and not gerbils?

...

the fruit fly is still a fruit fly right?, etc

Of course, until it no longer fits under the definition.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Like I've said, How you go from this evidence to conclude that one cell organisms "evolved" into you and me is beyond me dude.

What evidence are you referring to?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Even if I were to grant you that the earth is billions of years old you still can't explain why you and me aren't mindless complex biochemical "machines" "slaves" to our physical composition in what we "think" and do if evolution is true.

I would still have to conclude based on that and all man's intelligence has accomplished (so much more can be considered in the physical world) that the theory of evolution is still fairy tale because it would make man's intelligence impossible.

Why? Why is it impossible?

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Real science is not a patchwork of unrelated and independent discoveries and/or theories that contradict it's own field or other fields of study. It's all interconnected.

How? How does it contradict other fields of study? 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
I'd wish you would understand that.

Many people on this forum have scientific training. Don't worry. We have it down pat.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
do you mean they see that mutations occur and can even result in animals "splintering" into two groups where the two separate still look almost exactly the same save for color or proportions of existing body parts, etc?

Or do they believe that single cell organisms eventually evolved into you and me?

if it's the former then I'm accusing you of simply playing word games. Just because the phrase "evolutionary biology" has the word evolution in it doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is true.

The latter.

Common descent. Natural selection. Speciation. The whole package.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
Is that how you hope to win an argument. Create fallacious conditions such as either accept evolution or reject physics and chemistry? Please butter. Let's be fair and weed out the sham "science" from the group.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were obligated to reject physics and chemistry; I was trying to explain the disconnect in our conversation. You claim that evolution is the sham science in the group, but it is just as accepted by biologists as gravity is by physicists. So, I would wager that your understanding of evolution is approximately equal to your expertise in general relativity; the difference is that one conflicts with your worldview and the other doesn't.

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:
what is that first picture of? a rat?

man that last one doesn't look like a dog, but if you say it is, I'll have to concede. 

Dog, Dog, Cat!

*sigh*

So, why is it obvious that the third animal is the odd one out?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
AiN, I think this site

AiN, I think this site should answer many of your questions.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:AiN, I think

Manageri wrote:

AiN, I think this site should answer many of your questions.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Collectively, I think we've already referenced talkorigins 5 billion times.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
I may have missed something

I may have missed something here, so I apologise if this ground has been covered here.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

can you provide a living example of two species that were once a common specie?

 

Seeing as you mentioned them; cats and dogs.  Carnivorans evolved from the miacoids about 55 million years ago, they then split into caniforms and feliforms

 

So........... big cats, small cats, foxes, wolves, hyenas, dogs.  All once one common species.

 

M

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
BEGGING THE QUESTION AS ALWAY.

MichaelMcF wrote:

I may have missed something here, so I apologise if this ground has been covered here.

 

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

can you provide a living example of two species that were once a common specie?

 

Seeing as you mentioned them; cats and dogs.  Carnivorans evolved from the miacoids about 55 million years ago, they then split into caniforms and feliforms

 

So........... big cats, small cats, foxes, wolves, hyenas, dogs.  All once one common species.

 

M

 

Michael, unfortunately this isn’t any form of proof. Essentially you’ll just telling me more of what you believe. Aside from this, you guys can show me more of what is observed all you want; the mutations that cause the unfortunate prevention of breeding between members of one species of animal; but unless we observe one animal become a completely new animal, it’s going to be difficult to convince anyone (who doesn’t already assume evolution to be true) that something simple like a microbe can evolve into you or me. 

You’ll going from something observed that shows a gull for example not being able to breed with another similar looking gull, assuming million/billions of years using questionable techniques to produce that “evidence” (radiometric dating - eventually using this assumption to further date other physical evidence. To me you’re simply compounding “errors&rdquoEye-wink to conclude that you and I evolved from a microbe. That’s a huge “blind” leap and all the while you’re dressing it up as “real” science. 

I’ve pointed out that evolution doesn’t have to be assumed in anyway to achieve the successes experienced in science; however if one assumes evolution to be true and logically holds to a materialist view of the universe you run into all kinds of philosophical and logical inconsistencies; one of which is the logical conclusion that all processes in the entire universe are one big physical reaction/process rendering human thoughts and actions involuntary and therefore meaningless. Our discussion now would be involuntary and therefore meaningless if materialist evolution were true. 

(1) I’ve asked Bob to demonstrate how radiometric dating can be reliable. Not to hide any of the difficulties involved (assumptions that have to be made in the process); to explain the variances we often get (huge variances) and why we can’t correctly date the age of things we know the actually age of using these methods. He hasn’t given any demonstration yet. 

(2) I’ve made the objection regarding everything in the universe to be nothing more than matter in motion (involuntary thoughts/behaviors on the part of humans); that it is logically deduced from a materialist universe. Of course you can relieve yourself of this objection if you confess either (a) that the laws of physics, chemistry, etc are not immutable but what would that do to your empirical science? (I'm not in anyway denying science or anything stupid like that; I'm simply asking whether your view of the universe can even account for science) or (b) human thoughts and actions are ultimately involuntary.

(3) All I’ve received is more of the same thing; butter, hamby, & bob all demonstrating to me how much scientific vocabulary they possess, all the while my objections are being ignored and deemed irrelevant to the discussion. Respond to answer (1) and (2) properly and I might think you guys are not entirely full of crap. 

_______________________________________________________________________

Regarding Kirby’s link to the “hobbit human”, anyone, please answer the following: 

(1) They are fossils, where and how were they discovered (inside a cave - were they embedded within earth or could you see the fossil fragments out in the open)? 

(2) They are 18,000 years old. How was this determined (using radiometric dating?)? 

(3) Regarding the stone tools found, were they found grasped in the hands of the “hobbits” or found in the surrounding area? If the latter how do we know they belonged to them? Did they have disposable thumbs? Were the tools used to date the fossils?

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually I think you will

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


wkirby
Posts: 69
Joined: 2009-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AtheismIsNonsense

AtheismIsNonsense wrote:

Regarding Kirby’s link to the “hobbit human”, anyone, please answer the following: 

(1) They are fossils, where and how were they discovered (inside a cave - were they embedded within earth or could you see the fossil fragments out in the open)? 

(2) They are 18,000 years old. How was this determined (using radiometric dating?)? 

(3) Regarding the stone tools found, were they found grasped in the hands of the “hobbits” or found in the surrounding area? If the latter how do we know they belonged to them? Did they have disposable thumbs? Were the tools used to date the fossils?

From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

“...researchers discovered bones of the miniature humans in a cave on Flores, an island east of Bali and midway between Asia and Australia.”

“The skeleton was found in the same sediment deposits on Flores that have also been found to contain stone tools and the bones of dwarf elephants, giant rodents, and Komodo dragons, lizards that can grow to 10 feet (3 meters) and that still live today.”

“The researchers estimate that the tiny people lived on Flores from about 95,000 years ago until at least 13,000 years ago. The scientists base their theory on charred bones and stone tools found on the island. The blades, perforators, points, and other cutting and chopping utensils were apparently used to hunt big game.”

“The Flores people used fire in hearths for cooking and hunted stegodon, a primitive dwarf elephant found on the island. Although small, the stegodon still weighed about 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds), and would pose a significant challenge to a hunter the size of a three-year-old modern human child. Hunting must have required joint communication and planning, the researchers say.”

“The researchers found hobbit and pygmy stegodon remains only below a 12,000-year-old volcanic ash layer. Modern human remains were found only above the layer.”

"This find shows us how much we still have to learn about human evolution, particularly in Southeast Asia."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

“...recovery of a nearly complete skeleton of a hominid they dubbed LB1 from the Liang Bua limestone cave on Flores. Subsequent excavations recovered seven additional skeletons, dating from 38,000 to 13,000 years ago”

“The specimens are not fossilized, but were described by Richard Roberts of the University of Wollongong, Australia as having "the consistency of wet blotting paper"”

“Local geology suggests that a volcanic eruption on Flores approximately 12,000 years was responsible for the demise of H. floresiensis, along with other local fauna, including the dwarf elephant Stegodon.[2] Gregory Forth hypothesized that this species may have survived longer in other parts of Flores to become the source of the Ebu Gogo stories told among the local people. The Ebu Gogo are said to have been small, hairy, language-poor cave dwellers on the scale of H. floresiensis.”

If you’re genuinely interested, here’s a PDF of the discovery submitted by Wollongong University in “Nature” 28 October 2004: http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow019096.pdf
 

EDIT: BTW, I'm pretty sure they didn't have disposable thumbs. Opposable thumbs however, yes.

Why can't people accept that Atheism is by definition no faith? I don't believe in Atheism, I simply am Atheist.


AtheismIsNonsense
AtheismIsNonsense's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-04-06
User is offlineOffline
ACTUALLY YOU'RE MISTAKEN

I have some question for kirby which I'll post later

________________________________________________________

 

For Sinphanius and the rest:

I suppose any answer I give in the future should be "go and read it for yourself". First of all you haven't addressed the problem. Read my response again and answer. Respond to (1) and (2) properly. Again you still haven't furnished any evidence of a simple organism transforming over time into something complex. All you have is evidence of gulls splinting into more gulls, more fruit flies into more fruit flies, etc except for the unfortunate circumstance of not being able to produce offspring anymore.

The "proof" is from heavy inference of the physical evidence which  begs many questions and is contradictory to many things we can observe in the universe. The primary thing being human thoughts and actions. The "inference" is from the physical evidence and your theory of billions of years (based on questionable methods and reasoning) and the unprovable assumption of only physical things existing given your own epistemological position.

Explain how radiometric dating is reliable (explain what's involved and input that must be assumed). Also the other dating methods that arise from radiometric dating; the layers of the earth, etc.

And explain why all processes in the universe aren't involuntary given that this should be the case in a materialist universe.

The truth about Atheism is that everyone knows it's not true. Only for hope sake, it continues to thrive. It serves as a means to suppress the truth about the one true living God, Jesus Christ but does a really poor Job at it. I would equate it to believing in the Easter Bunny; we know he doesn't exist, but for some strange obligation we feel we have to our children, we continue with the lie. So is the case with Atheism. Have a bless day.