Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shunyadragon · Jan 27, 2004, 07:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants

What I'm trying to get across @ is that science is not infallible. I'm not saying [u)
some[/u] new contradictory data can refute a theory, but if we found a lifeform on earth which did not use nucleic acids as a genetic material, we'd have to re-examine the common origins model. Although its more likely that the hypothetical lifeform would be an extra terrestial in this case. :p<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Science is far from being infallible. In fact it is religion that makes the common claim of infallibility not science. Science changes based on the principle of new discoveries, inventions, inovations and evidence. Science lives on change and fallibility.

Yes, that discovery would be quite a surprize, but I don't think it would refute evolutionary science, because it would evidence of another life form ourside evolution possibly extraterrestrial, etc.

fogus · Jan 29, 2004, 07:39 pm

Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 08:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
The arguement by those who believe in 'Creation Science' that evolution between species has not been observed is valid if you are not allowed to submit geologic evidence. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' do not accept the geologic evidence for the progressive evolution of life. They believe these are distincly different species and unrelated, so 'Einstein's Gulf' is apparently how they view what they call the lack of evidence.

The actual evolution of species and the related genetic changes occur tens of thousands of years at least. There is no way science could ever 'directly observe' these changes.

They often point out the lack of intermediate examples of fossils as support for their argument. The best examples today science has for many intermediate stages of evolution, mixed populations with different stages of development is the horse and the whale.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, there is no agreement on what a species is. It is usually defined in terms of the limits within which animals can sexually produce fertile offspring; but this is our definition, and the biological world is much more complicated. And the definition obviously does not apply to organisms that do not reproduce sexually. Even if there is agreement on a set of criteria, it is sometimes difficult to apply even to living organisms -- so we can get widely-different numbers of species depending on whether the classifyers are 'lumpers' or 'splitters.' Further, even if there is agreement about living organisms, the past must be judged from fossils, which sometimes lack characteristics that would help in classifying (most obviously, a fossil has a current inability to produce fertile offspring through sexual reproduction). Thus, how long it takes to produce a new species differs, and is most-often an unknown. We do know that some species of mammals (i.e., mice) have speciated in a matter of hundreds of years, because we know approximately (or even exactly) when they were introduced to islands as pre-existing species and that they now constitute new species that cannot productively mate with members of the progenitor species. Still, tens of thousands of years is probably accurate for many species.

To see evolution in action in the lab, one would usually be looking at bacteria or other micro-organisms, so again there are issues about what constitutes speciation. Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 08:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
I'm adding this without reading ALL of the posts but if I'm not correct, Sicle Cell Anemia IS in fact a beneficial mutation. People that have that mutation are far less likely to die from Malaria.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, having a single allele is a beneficial mutation. Unfortunately for those who get both alleles, it is not beneficial at all, rather the painful, deadly disease. But you are right that the disease exists because of the mutation that confers beneficial immunity on the larger number who will inherit the single allele.

damnrad · Jan 29, 2004, 08:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Deal out a pack of well-shuffled playing cards. What is the probability of the specific sequence of cards dealt. It is very small, (1 in 52 factorial). Is it impossible? Toss a coin one million times (start early -- it will take a while) and record the sequence of heads and tails (have some assistants to help). What is the probability of the specific sequence you end up with (some considerable time later). That probability is very low -- 1 in 2 to the 1,000,000th. Is it impossible? What is impossible in biological evolution? Oh, you'll get into it later. Well Behe and Dembski have tried to show that numerous times, but they'll have to get into it later, too, because their demonstrations to date have been debunked. And, no, a mathematician will not consider the probability of an occurrance such as you speak of to be zero, rather to approach zero. And any mathematician will tell you that approaching aint being there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Shunyadragon and LogicaLunatic, you do bring up some good points on the idea of observation. Actually, my husband mentioned to me the other day that technically, ideas such as gravity have never been proven scientifically, but they are held to be true because of the other evidence. I simply forgot. I don't believe there is enough evidence for evolution, however.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution. Well, good for you -- you've gotten beyond the Seventeenth Century churchmen who couldn't believe in gravity. But you belief or disbelief is only that -- it has nothing to do with science. Hey, God may be Coyote the Trickster, and maybe Coyote did create a young earth but stuck in lots of fossils to trick some folks into believing in evolution. I don't believe that; but science can't disprove it -- well, at least not if Coyote is a competent trickster. So much for religious beliefs as a guide to science.

jpapadpapa · Jan 29, 2004, 08:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That the "naysayers" are operationg from religious ideology that "overrules any evidence" is simply not true. The key here is that you can, contrary to what many of you seem to feel, accept the idea of a Creator without accepting Him as your God. You can be completely unreligious, yet recognize that there is plenty of evidence supporting a Creator. Whether or not you accept Him as your personal God is entirely different. Let's go back to Einstein: From everything I have read, Einstein believed in a creator who was directly involved with the creation, not a "Great Clockwinder" type of belief. Yet, Einsten was not what we would consider a "Christian" man. He recognized God, but did not accept Him as his personal God. Even if you disagree with me about this example (I know some of you are still convinced that Einstein was not a Creationist), there are others. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that many of you have not really explored the evidence of creation with an open mind, weighing the facts objectively. You don't have to become "religious" to recognize that there may be entirely credible evidence in support of a Creator.

jpapadpapa · Jan 29, 2004, 08:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution. Well, good for you -- you've gotten beyond the Seventeenth Century churchmen who couldn't believe in gravity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Now, come on. We were doing so well at treating eachother with respect. Honestly, I can't understand why some of you seem to get so emotional about evolution. If it is just a scientific theory, what is there to be so defensive about? You don't have to insult others who have different opinions. I happen to be the only Creationist here to debate (unless fogus is also), so you need to be patient for my replies instead of discrediting my belief because I don't have the time to defend it against an onslaught of about ten other people.

jpapadpapa · Jan 29, 2004, 09:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Because, as I said, there is not sufficient proof.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But you belief or disbelief is only that -- it has nothing to do with science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Again, an assumption.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Hey, God may be Coyote the Trickster, and maybe Coyote did create a young earth but stuck in lots of fossils to trick some folks into believing in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As for the first part, I find it offensive. As for the second, the fossil record does not prove evolution. Can you give me an example of a fossil of a "missing link?" With the thousands of fossils that have been found and the millions of changes that would need to occur within species to evolve, we should have thousands of fossils that clearly show evolution. Are there any?

shunyadragon · Jan 29, 2004, 09:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Actually, there is no agreement on what a species is. It is usually defined in terms of the limits within which animals can sexually produce fertile offspring; but this is our definition, and the biological world is much more complicated. And the definition obviously does not apply to organisms that do not reproduce sexually. Even if there is agreement on a set of criteria, it is sometimes difficult to apply even to living organisms -- so we can get widely-different numbers of species depending on whether the classifyers are 'lumpers' or 'splitters.' Further, even if there is agreement about living organisms, the past must be judged from fossils, which sometimes lack characteristics that would help in classifying (most obviously, a fossil has a current inability to produce fertile offspring through sexual reproduction). Thus, how long it takes to produce a new species differs, and is most-often an unknown. We do know that some species of mammals (i.e., mice) have speciated in a matter of hundreds of years, because we know approximately (or even exactly) when they were introduced to islands as pre-existing species and that they now constitute new species that cannot productively mate with members of the progenitor species. Still, tens of thousands of years is probably accurate for many species.

To see evolution in action in the lab, one would usually be looking at bacteria or other micro-organisms, so again there are issues about what constitutes speciation. Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is true. The fundimentalists are not going to accept observations of micro-organism evolution in the lab. I have read their stuff. The problems you presented as to how a species is defined makes it difficult to demonstrate this in micro-organisms. Despite the difficulty of actually defining what a species is, our observations in animal and plant populations in recent years combined with recent fossils and genetic material we have demonstrated speciation, but this is not considered 'PROOF' to those who believe in 'Creation Science'.

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 12:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Can you give me an example of a fossil of a "missing link?" With the thousands of fossils that have been found and the millions of changes that would need to occur within species to evolve, we should have thousands of fossils that clearly show evolution. Are there any?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Quick Answer: Archeopteryx

Long Answer:

I've found that there are two main reasons why a person (religious or not) has trouble seeing evolution in the fossil record. One has to do with how we see the world today and the different species that exist in it. The other has to do with the process of fossilization itself.

First, the species that we see today are highly varied. There are some that appear closely related (Horse/Donkey, Mouse/Rat etc.) and others that are, sometimes literally, a world apart. If we ONLY look at the species that exist today (looking horizontally) it is very hard to see that we're all related. But, when we start looking at the species that USED to exist (looking vertically) we can start to see a pattern. And now for an analogy.

Take the wild world of computer software for instance. If we take a look at what is being sold on the shelves today (looking horizonally) we see a very wide variety of applications for every available operating system. We see products for Graphic Design, Web Development, Web Servers, FTP Servers, Time Tracking Utilities, Email Clients, Email Servers, Calendar and Contact management software, War Games, Space Games, Fantasy Games, Single Player games, Online Multiplayer games, Word Processors, Databases (I think the plural of database should be databi but thats just me.), Data Management Tools, Software for Macs, Software for Windows, Software for Unix and Linux, I could go on and on and on. You could even classify all of this using a method VERY similar to how a biologist classifies living organisms. It could all be broken down by Operating System (Mac, Win, Unix, Linux), Function(Data creation, Data manipulation, Data storage, Data services), Programming Language(C, C+, C#, VB, VBScript, PHP, Perl, Python), etc.

Now when we take a look horizontally it is hard to see that each piece of software is related to every other piece of software. But, that IS the case. All of the software we have available today can be traced back to one or a few common ancestors. There HAD to have been "The First Piece of Software" and it was probably inseparable from the computer it was designed on. But, as the environment changed (different/better computers and changes in users' needs), software evolved. As the software evolved different kinds of software popped up to fill different needs (similar to ecological niches) until we have the huge selection that we see today.

This isn't a perfect analogy. Computers and Software actually are intelligently designed. Well, some software is. Take a good look at IIS and you might disagree with me. But all in all, software is created by intelligent (but fallible) beings. Fortunately, this is only an analogy for the fossil record, not evolution or the processes of it.

How this relates to the fossil record is very simple. With software, when a better version comes out, the older versions of it are used less and less until they finally disappear. This is why you don't see Office 97 on the shelves with Office XP. The same holds for species. When a new version of an organism evolves it could be only slightly different from its parents. Perhaps even so slight that you can't tell the difference between them. But, it is still slightly better, say a slightly longer neck so it can get a little more food out of tall trees. No matter how small the change is the organism has a statistical advantage over its predecessors. After many small changes like this the new version may still look only slightly different than its parents but it will surely look different than its great-great-great-great-great grand parents. Perhaps even so different that they wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring if they were to mate.

The point is that too often people are looking for changes horizontally and not vertically. Too often people who misunderstand evolution expect to see one viable species give birth to different viable species which is something that even I don't believe will happen.

Now that we have that out of the way your next question is likely to be... "But if organisms DID change gradually over long periods of time why can't we see this continuum in all of the fossils that we've collected?"

Great question. And the answer is that fossilization is rare. Less than a single percent of organisms that have ever lived have been fossilized. This isn't just a convenience for proponents of evolution, it is a fact. Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize. Given this, instead of looking for a continuum in the fossil record we really should be looking for a trend. And the trend we need to look for is a gradual increase in general complexity which there SURELY is. If that didn't exist, neither would the theory of evolution. Also, evolution would fall apart if we found, say a fossil of a half digested human in a T-Rex gut. The theory of evolution predicts that we will NOT find things like that and to this day, we haven't.

The fossil record is like a box of 64 crayons. While it is possible to have a smooth transition between ALL of the colors in the box it just isn't going to happen. Say we find 5 different crayons that appear to change in color gradually from one to another. There will always be a different shade that we could stick between two of them to make it even more gradual. This is what is happening with fossils. As soon as we find a link between reptiles and birds (Archeopteryx - Arch for short) the "nay sayers" ask for a link between Reptiles and Arch, Arch and birds. When one can't yet be found they feel they've proven their point. Most of those who criticize the fossil record won't be happy until we have the equivalent of a box of 5 billion crayons, each transitioning smoothly into the next.

LogicaLunatic

fogus · Jan 30, 2004, 02:33 am

"Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize."

Could a world wide flood, quickly covering many animals, explain the fossels we have today?

I have heard people talk about the conditions needed for a fossel to be made, many sceintists referr to "quick burrial" as nessisary. how would this be possible for something such as a dinosaur? a sand storm? If you leave a carcuss outside it will be eaten very quickly, i have seen an elephant been eaten in a week, by the animals today, imagine what would happen to the dinosaurs when the t-rex was around. how would things such as jellyfish be burried without distorting them? was darwin wrong when he said that nothing wholy soft could be fossilized? how could fish be fossilized when they float when they die? why are some fossels burried accross layers which supposedly span millions of years of time?
just some thoughts
fogus

fogus · Jan 30, 2004, 02:34 am

and how do you make your signature? (in the quick reply box (not that i have got it to work in the regular resopnce))

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 07:52 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Here you go have fun.

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 07:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

That the "naysayers" are operationg from religious ideology that "overrules any evidence" is simply not true. The key here is that you can, contrary to what many of you seem to feel, accept the idea of a Creator without accepting Him as your God. You can be completely unreligious, yet recognize that there is plenty of evidence supporting a Creator. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Let's see this evidence that supports a creator? (remember, arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Whether or not you accept Him as your personal God is entirely different. Let's go back to Einstein: From everything I have read, Einstein believed in a creator who was directly involved with the creation, not a "Great Clockwinder" type of belief. Yet, Einsten was not what we would consider a "Christian" man. He recognized God, but did not accept Him as his personal God. Even if you disagree with me about this example (I know some of you are still convinced that Einstein was not a Creationist), there are others. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that many of you have not really explored the evidence of creation with an open mind, weighing the facts objectively. You don't have to become "religious" to recognize that there may be entirely credible evidence in support of a Creator<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Arguing from authority does not constitute evidence of God.

Although, seeing as you seem to like Einstein, you must realize that his general/special relativity theory cancel out any possiblity for a young universe.

So I wonder why you bring him up?

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 08:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
"Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize."

Could a world wide flood, quickly covering many animals, explain the fossels we have today?

I have heard people talk about the conditions needed for a fossel to be made, many sceintists referr to "quick burrial" as nessisary. how would this be possible for something such as a dinosaur? a sand storm? If you leave a carcuss outside it will be eaten very quickly, i have seen an elephant been eaten in a week, by the animals today, imagine what would happen to the dinosaurs when the t-rex was around. how would things such as jellyfish be burried without distorting them? was darwin wrong when he said that nothing wholy soft could be fossilized? how could fish be fossilized when they float when they die? why are some fossels burried accross layers which supposedly span millions of years of time?
just some thoughts
fogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No.

In addition there is no evidence of a world wide flood and a lot of problems with a world wide flood.

As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils.

Here's some more information.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 08:20 am

As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.

A questioner asked the late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms in his book, Evolution. He replied:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.1<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

According to evolutionist and Marxist Stephen Jay Gould:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.2 <hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Were the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds fully fledged flyers?

Evolutionists have admited ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ Since ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates,’ they can’t use the arguement of an incomplete fossil record.3 What about the ‘oldest known sea turtle’? Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one?

1 C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to change his statement somewhat, apparently surprised that creationists would utilize this truth.
2 S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint by Gould regarding creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He unjustly accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. Creationists clearly state that he is a staunch evolutionist.
3 Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 08:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Let's see this evidence that supports a creator? (remember, arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The purpose set out at the beginning of this discussion was to debate evolution, not Creation. I could get into evidences of a Creator, but 1) I think it would get even more hostile here and 2) We would be on an endless debate because there are many of you who would simply not accept the evidence. I would be happy to provide the evidence to anyone personally, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place. I was simply making a broad point.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Arguing from authority does not constitute evidence of God.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I never implied that I was trying to "prove" that there is a God. I was simply giving an example to support the fact that one does not have to accept a "personal" God to accept the idea of a "Creator." You need to read my posts a little better before responding so you don't misunderstand and thus, misrepresent them.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 08:47 am

Fogus, for adding your signature, go up to the top right-hand side of the screen. Click on "my controls" and on the left you will see something like "edit signature." Hope this helps! (:

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 09:07 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I see you haven't provided the sources to support that statement.

Here's a link refute your proposal, and here's the conclusion at the end incase you miss it:
"Conclusions
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible."

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 09:51 am

Yeah, yeah, I figured you'd call me on that. (; The reason was that I wanted to explain it myself instead of just posting another link, but I didn't have the time at the moment. But, I will go ahead and post a link since that is what you did. It just seems like even when I do post a link people either don't read it, don't read it with an open mind, or simply dismiss it because they don't like my source. At any rate, here's a link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

Jan 27, 2004, 07:20 pm	#121 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	<!--QuoteBegin-Pooeypants What I'm trying to get across+ is that science is not infallible. I'm not saying [u--></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants What I'm trying to get across @ is that science is not infallible. I'm not saying [u) some[/u] new contradictory data can refute a theory, but if we found a lifeform on earth which did not use nucleic acids as a genetic material, we'd have to re-examine the common origins model. Although its more likely that the hypothetical lifeform would be an extra terrestial in this case. :p<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Science is far from being infallible. In fact it is religion that makes the common claim of infallibility not science. Science changes based on the principle of new discoveries, inventions, inovations and evidence. Science lives on change and fallibility. Yes, that discovery would be quite a surprize, but I don't think it would refute evolutionary science, because it would evidence of another life form ourside evolution possibly extraterrestrial, etc. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 29, 2004, 07:39 pm	#122 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism? ~Fogus

Jan 29, 2004, 08:09 pm	#123 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) The arguement by those who believe in 'Creation Science' that evolution between species has not been observed is valid if you are not allowed to submit geologic evidence. Those who believe in 'Creation Science' do not accept the geologic evidence for the progressive evolution of life. They believe these are distincly different species and unrelated, so 'Einstein's Gulf' is apparently how they view what they call the lack of evidence. The actual evolution of species and the related genetic changes occur tens of thousands of years at least. There is no way science could ever 'directly observe' these changes. They often point out the lack of intermediate examples of fossils as support for their argument. The best examples today science has for many intermediate stages of evolution, mixed populations with different stages of development is the horse and the whale.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, there is no agreement on what a species is. It is usually defined in terms of the limits within which animals can sexually produce fertile offspring; but this is our definition, and the biological world is much more complicated. And the definition obviously does not apply to organisms that do not reproduce sexually. Even if there is agreement on a set of criteria, it is sometimes difficult to apply even to living organisms -- so we can get widely-different numbers of species depending on whether the classifyers are 'lumpers' or 'splitters.' Further, even if there is agreement about living organisms, the past must be judged from fossils, which sometimes lack characteristics that would help in classifying (most obviously, a fossil has a current inability to produce fertile offspring through sexual reproduction). Thus, how long it takes to produce a new species differs, and is most-often an unknown. We do know that some species of mammals (i.e., mice) have speciated in a matter of hundreds of years, because we know approximately (or even exactly) when they were introduced to islands as pre-existing species and that they now constitute new species that cannot productively mate with members of the progenitor species. Still, tens of thousands of years is probably accurate for many species. To see evolution in action in the lab, one would usually be looking at bacteria or other micro-organisms, so again there are issues about what constitutes speciation. Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.

Jan 29, 2004, 08:11 pm	#124 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) I'm adding this without reading ALL of the posts but if I'm not correct, Sicle Cell Anemia IS in fact a beneficial mutation. People that have that mutation are far less likely to die from Malaria.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, having a single allele is a beneficial mutation. Unfortunately for those who get both alleles, it is not beneficial at all, rather the painful, deadly disease. But you are right that the disease exists because of the mutation that confers beneficial immunity on the larger number who will inherit the single allele.

Jan 29, 2004, 08:30 pm	#125 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) There comes a point when, based on probability calculations, a mathmetician will consider the probability of an occurance to be zero. The probability of evolution is zero. I will get into that more later. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Deal out a pack of well-shuffled playing cards. What is the probability of the specific sequence of cards dealt. It is very small, (1 in 52 factorial). Is it impossible? Toss a coin one million times (start early -- it will take a while) and record the sequence of heads and tails (have some assistants to help). What is the probability of the specific sequence you end up with (some considerable time later). That probability is very low -- 1 in 2 to the 1,000,000th. Is it impossible? What is impossible in biological evolution? Oh, you'll get into it later. Well Behe and Dembski have tried to show that numerous times, but they'll have to get into it later, too, because their demonstrations to date have been debunked. And, no, a mathematician will not consider the probability of an occurrance such as you speak of to be zero, rather to approach zero. And any mathematician will tell you that approaching aint being there. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Shunyadragon and LogicaLunatic, you do bring up some good points on the idea of observation. Actually, my husband mentioned to me the other day that technically, ideas such as gravity have never been proven scientifically, but they are held to be true because of the other evidence. I simply forgot. I don't believe there is enough evidence for evolution, however.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution. Well, good for you -- you've gotten beyond the Seventeenth Century churchmen who couldn't believe in gravity. But you belief or disbelief is only that -- it has nothing to do with science. Hey, God may be Coyote the Trickster, and maybe Coyote did create a young earth but stuck in lots of fossils to trick some folks into believing in evolution. I don't believe that; but science can't disprove it -- well, at least not if Coyote is a competent trickster. So much for religious beliefs as a guide to science.

Jan 29, 2004, 08:41 pm	#126 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That the "naysayers" are operationg from religious ideology that "overrules any evidence" is simply not true. The key here is that you can, contrary to what many of you seem to feel, accept the idea of a Creator without accepting Him as your God. You can be completely unreligious, yet recognize that there is plenty of evidence supporting a Creator. Whether or not you accept Him as your personal God is entirely different. Let's go back to Einstein: From everything I have read, Einstein believed in a creator who was directly involved with the creation, not a "Great Clockwinder" type of belief. Yet, Einsten was not what we would consider a "Christian" man. He recognized God, but did not accept Him as his personal God. Even if you disagree with me about this example (I know some of you are still convinced that Einstein was not a Creationist), there are others. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that many of you have not really explored the evidence of creation with an open mind, weighing the facts objectively. You don't have to become "religious" to recognize that there may be entirely credible evidence in support of a Creator. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 29, 2004, 08:53 pm	#127 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution. Well, good for you -- you've gotten beyond the Seventeenth Century churchmen who couldn't believe in gravity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Now, come on. We were doing so well at treating eachother with respect. Honestly, I can't understand why some of you seem to get so emotional about evolution. If it is just a scientific theory, what is there to be so defensive about? You don't have to insult others who have different opinions. I happen to be the only Creationist here to debate (unless fogus is also), so you need to be patient for my replies instead of discrediting my belief because I don't have the time to defend it against an onslaught of about ten other people. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 29, 2004, 09:09 pm	#128 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So, you are willing to believe in gravity but not in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Because, as I said, there is not sufficient proof. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But you belief or disbelief is only that -- it has nothing to do with science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Again, an assumption. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Hey, God may be Coyote the Trickster, and maybe Coyote did create a young earth but stuck in lots of fossils to trick some folks into believing in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As for the first part, I find it offensive. As for the second, the fossil record does not prove evolution. Can you give me an example of a fossil of a "missing link?" With the thousands of fossils that have been found and the millions of changes that would need to occur within species to evolve, we should have thousands of fossils that clearly show evolution. Are there any? I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 29, 2004, 09:31 pm	#129 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Actually, there is no agreement on what a species is. It is usually defined in terms of the limits within which animals can sexually produce fertile offspring; but this is our definition, and the biological world is much more complicated. And the definition obviously does not apply to organisms that do not reproduce sexually. Even if there is agreement on a set of criteria, it is sometimes difficult to apply even to living organisms -- so we can get widely-different numbers of species depending on whether the classifyers are 'lumpers' or 'splitters.' Further, even if there is agreement about living organisms, the past must be judged from fossils, which sometimes lack characteristics that would help in classifying (most obviously, a fossil has a current inability to produce fertile offspring through sexual reproduction). Thus, how long it takes to produce a new species differs, and is most-often an unknown. We do know that some species of mammals (i.e., mice) have speciated in a matter of hundreds of years, because we know approximately (or even exactly) when they were introduced to islands as pre-existing species and that they now constitute new species that cannot productively mate with members of the progenitor species. Still, tens of thousands of years is probably accurate for many species. To see evolution in action in the lab, one would usually be looking at bacteria or other micro-organisms, so again there are issues about what constitutes speciation. Still, scientists do see evolution in action in the lab, even if the changes they observe do not satisfy the naysayers. It is doubtful that any demonstration would satisfy many naysayers, anyway, because they are operating from religious ideology that overrules any evidence.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is true. The fundimentalists are not going to accept observations of micro-organism evolution in the lab. I have read their stuff. The problems you presented as to how a species is defined makes it difficult to demonstrate this in micro-organisms. Despite the difficulty of actually defining what a species is, our observations in animal and plant populations in recent years combined with recent fossils and genetic material we have demonstrated speciation, but this is not considered 'PROOF' to those who believe in 'Creation Science'. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Jan 30, 2004, 12:34 am	#130 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Can you give me an example of a fossil of a "missing link?" With the thousands of fossils that have been found and the millions of changes that would need to occur within species to evolve, we should have thousands of fossils that clearly show evolution. Are there any?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Quick Answer: Archeopteryx Long Answer: I've found that there are two main reasons why a person (religious or not) has trouble seeing evolution in the fossil record. One has to do with how we see the world today and the different species that exist in it. The other has to do with the process of fossilization itself. First, the species that we see today are highly varied. There are some that appear closely related (Horse/Donkey, Mouse/Rat etc.) and others that are, sometimes literally, a world apart. If we ONLY look at the species that exist today (looking horizontally) it is very hard to see that we're all related. But, when we start looking at the species that USED to exist (looking vertically) we can start to see a pattern. And now for an analogy. Take the wild world of computer software for instance. If we take a look at what is being sold on the shelves today (looking horizonally) we see a very wide variety of applications for every available operating system. We see products for Graphic Design, Web Development, Web Servers, FTP Servers, Time Tracking Utilities, Email Clients, Email Servers, Calendar and Contact management software, War Games, Space Games, Fantasy Games, Single Player games, Online Multiplayer games, Word Processors, Databases (I think the plural of database should be databi but thats just me.), Data Management Tools, Software for Macs, Software for Windows, Software for Unix and Linux, I could go on and on and on. You could even classify all of this using a method VERY similar to how a biologist classifies living organisms. It could all be broken down by Operating System (Mac, Win, Unix, Linux), Function(Data creation, Data manipulation, Data storage, Data services), Programming Language(C, C+, C#, VB, VBScript, PHP, Perl, Python), etc. Now when we take a look horizontally it is hard to see that each piece of software is related to every other piece of software. But, that IS the case. All of the software we have available today can be traced back to one or a few common ancestors. There HAD to have been "The First Piece of Software" and it was probably inseparable from the computer it was designed on. But, as the environment changed (different/better computers and changes in users' needs), software evolved. As the software evolved different kinds of software popped up to fill different needs (similar to ecological niches) until we have the huge selection that we see today. This isn't a perfect analogy. Computers and Software actually are intelligently designed. Well, some software is. Take a good look at IIS and you might disagree with me. But all in all, software is created by intelligent (but fallible) beings. Fortunately, this is only an analogy for the fossil record, not evolution or the processes of it. How this relates to the fossil record is very simple. With software, when a better version comes out, the older versions of it are used less and less until they finally disappear. This is why you don't see Office 97 on the shelves with Office XP. The same holds for species. When a new version of an organism evolves it could be only slightly different from its parents. Perhaps even so slight that you can't tell the difference between them. But, it is still slightly better, say a slightly longer neck so it can get a little more food out of tall trees. No matter how small the change is the organism has a statistical advantage over its predecessors. After many small changes like this the new version may still look only slightly different than its parents but it will surely look different than its great-great-great-great-great grand parents. Perhaps even so different that they wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring if they were to mate. The point is that too often people are looking for changes horizontally and not vertically. Too often people who misunderstand evolution expect to see one viable species give birth to different viable species which is something that even I don't believe will happen. Now that we have that out of the way your next question is likely to be... "But if organisms DID change gradually over long periods of time why can't we see this continuum in all of the fossils that we've collected?" Great question. And the answer is that fossilization is rare. Less than a single percent of organisms that have ever lived have been fossilized. This isn't just a convenience for proponents of evolution, it is a fact. Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize. Given this, instead of looking for a continuum in the fossil record we really should be looking for a trend. And the trend we need to look for is a gradual increase in general complexity which there SURELY is. If that didn't exist, neither would the theory of evolution. Also, evolution would fall apart if we found, say a fossil of a half digested human in a T-Rex gut. The theory of evolution predicts that we will NOT find things like that and to this day, we haven't. The fossil record is like a box of 64 crayons. While it is possible to have a smooth transition between ALL of the colors in the box it just isn't going to happen. Say we find 5 different crayons that appear to change in color gradually from one to another. There will always be a different shade that we could stick between two of them to make it even more gradual. This is what is happening with fossils. As soon as we find a link between reptiles and birds (Archeopteryx - Arch for short) the "nay sayers" ask for a link between Reptiles and Arch, Arch and birds. When one can't yet be found they feel they've proven their point. Most of those who criticize the fossil record won't be happy until we have the equivalent of a box of 5 billion crayons, each transitioning smoothly into the next. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 02:33 am	#131 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	"Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize." Could a world wide flood, quickly covering many animals, explain the fossels we have today? I have heard people talk about the conditions needed for a fossel to be made, many sceintists referr to "quick burrial" as nessisary. how would this be possible for something such as a dinosaur? a sand storm? If you leave a carcuss outside it will be eaten very quickly, i have seen an elephant been eaten in a week, by the animals today, imagine what would happen to the dinosaurs when the t-rex was around. how would things such as jellyfish be burried without distorting them? was darwin wrong when he said that nothing wholy soft could be fossilized? how could fish be fossilized when they float when they die? why are some fossels burried accross layers which supposedly span millions of years of time? just some thoughts fogus ~Fogus

Jan 30, 2004, 02:34 am	#132 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	and how do you make your signature? (in the quick reply box (not that i have got it to work in the regular resopnce)) ~Fogus

Jan 30, 2004, 07:52 am	#133 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here you go have fun.

Jan 30, 2004, 07:55 am	#134 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) That the "naysayers" are operationg from religious ideology that "overrules any evidence" is simply not true. The key here is that you can, contrary to what many of you seem to feel, accept the idea of a Creator without accepting Him as your God. You can be completely unreligious, yet recognize that there is plenty of evidence supporting a Creator. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Let's see this evidence that supports a creator? (remember, arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Whether or not you accept Him as your personal God is entirely different. Let's go back to Einstein: From everything I have read, Einstein believed in a creator who was directly involved with the creation, not a "Great Clockwinder" type of belief. Yet, Einsten was not what we would consider a "Christian" man. He recognized God, but did not accept Him as his personal God. Even if you disagree with me about this example (I know some of you are still convinced that Einstein was not a Creationist), there are others. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that many of you have not really explored the evidence of creation with an open mind, weighing the facts objectively. You don't have to become "religious" to recognize that there may be entirely credible evidence in support of a Creator<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Arguing from authority does not constitute evidence of God. Although, seeing as you seem to like Einstein, you must realize that his general/special relativity theory cancel out any possiblity for a young universe. So I wonder why you bring him up?

Jan 30, 2004, 08:00 am	#135 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) "Conditions have to be JUST RIGHT for an organism to fossilize." Could a world wide flood, quickly covering many animals, explain the fossels we have today? I have heard people talk about the conditions needed for a fossel to be made, many sceintists referr to "quick burrial" as nessisary. how would this be possible for something such as a dinosaur? a sand storm? If you leave a carcuss outside it will be eaten very quickly, i have seen an elephant been eaten in a week, by the animals today, imagine what would happen to the dinosaurs when the t-rex was around. how would things such as jellyfish be burried without distorting them? was darwin wrong when he said that nothing wholy soft could be fossilized? how could fish be fossilized when they float when they die? why are some fossels burried accross layers which supposedly span millions of years of time? just some thoughts fogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. In addition there is no evidence of a world wide flood and a lot of problems with a world wide flood. As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils. Here's some more information.

Jan 30, 2004, 08:20 am	#136 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct. A questioner asked the late Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms in his book, Evolution. He replied: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.1<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> According to evolutionist and Marxist Stephen Jay Gould: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.2 <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Were the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds fully fledged flyers? Evolutionists have admited ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ Since ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates,’ they can’t use the arguement of an incomplete fossil record.3 What about the ‘oldest known sea turtle’? Do we see a fully formed turtle or a transitional one? 1 C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to change his statement somewhat, apparently surprised that creationists would utilize this truth. 2 S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint by Gould regarding creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He unjustly accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. Creationists clearly state that he is a staunch evolutionist. 3 Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 08:32 am	#137 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Let's see this evidence that supports a creator? (remember, arguments from ignorance are logical fallacies)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The purpose set out at the beginning of this discussion was to debate evolution, not Creation. I could get into evidences of a Creator, but 1) I think it would get even more hostile here and 2) We would be on an endless debate because there are many of you who would simply not accept the evidence. I would be happy to provide the evidence to anyone personally, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place. I was simply making a broad point. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Arguing from authority does not constitute evidence of God.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I never implied that I was trying to "prove" that there is a God. I was simply giving an example to support the fact that one does not have to accept a "personal" God to accept the idea of a "Creator." You need to read my posts a little better before responding so you don't misunderstand and thus, misrepresent them. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 08:47 am	#138 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Fogus, for adding your signature, go up to the top right-hand side of the screen. Click on "my controls" and on the left you will see something like "edit signature." Hope this helps! (: I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 09:07 am	#139 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) As for Archaeopteryx, there is evidence that it is simply a different species of bird, now extinct. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I see you haven't provided the sources to support that statement. Here's a link refute your proposal, and here's the conclusion at the end incase you miss it: "Conclusions Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible." War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 09:51 am	#140 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Yeah, yeah, I figured you'd call me on that. (; The reason was that I wanted to explain it myself instead of just posting another link, but I didn't have the time at the moment. But, I will go ahead and post a link since that is what you did. It just seems like even when I do post a link people either don't read it, don't read it with an open mind, or simply dismiss it because they don't like my source. At any rate, here's a link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.