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

ruiner · Feb 22, 2004, 08:23 pm

Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary

Edge · Feb 22, 2004, 10:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Congratulations! You win the kewpie doll. (mostly)
*The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution.
*Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it.
*Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it.
*Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual.
*Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution.

Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.

shunyadragon · Feb 23, 2004, 08:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The evolution of today does not believe the sequence of events came about by chance. This is old misunderstood. There are many controls on what takes place within the laws of nature and the new chaos theory shows that there is an underlieing pattern in all events that in the past were called random or by chance. Like weather the specific events are difficult to predict, but the occurance of events that lead to life and evolution are repetitive enough in an observable and predictable pattern that the resulting course of existence is not by chance. The dice are loaded.

shunyadragon · Feb 23, 2004, 08:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
Congratulations! You win the kewpie doll. (mostly)
*The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution.
*Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it.
*Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it.
*Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual.
*Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution.

Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms.

Feb 23, 2004, 12:25 pm

http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles.

Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site.

If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 23, 2004, 01:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,)
http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles.

Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site.

If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Dr Dino, Kent Hovind also has some a nice criminal record.

He's a tax fraud.

Meatros · Feb 23, 2004, 02:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,)
http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles.

Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site.

If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Both sites are crap; the Hovind one is embarrassing crap and if you bring him up as an 'authority' in a discussion you will get laughed at.

Edge · Feb 23, 2004, 03:10 pm

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

Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations[emphasis mine] seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner)
Incedently, Chain was an evolutionist who dealt in parasites and bacteria, who's awareness of the issues with classical evolution would likely dwarf any in this forum.
Your opinion notwithstanding, evolution, by its fundemental tenent cannot have a designer.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 23, 2004, 03:28 pm

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

The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet:

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Present evidence of design please.

ruiner · Feb 23, 2004, 04:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The evolution of today does not believe the sequence of events came about by chance. This is old misunderstood. There are many controls on what takes place within the laws of nature and the new chaos theory shows that there is an underlieing pattern in all events that in the past were called random or by chance. Like weather the specific events are difficult to predict, but the occurance of events that lead to life and evolution are repetitive enough in an observable and predictable pattern that the resulting course of existence is not by chance. The dice are loaded.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.

ruiner · Feb 23, 2004, 04:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Incedently, Chain was an evolutionist who dealt in parasites and bacteria, who's awareness of the issues with classical evolution would likely dwarf any in this forum<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Rubbish, he was a biochemist and none of the work he did had anything to do with evolution. Here's his biography in case you are in any doubt:http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/194.../chain-bio.html
Notice his words:
"seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence"
Ie he didn't know. He just overstepped his field like so many physicists, chemists and the like have, falsely thinking that they know anything about evolution.
Anyway, appeals to authority backfire on you, I could cite dozens of biologists in recent times (not 30 year ago quotes as you use) who's "awareness of the issues with classical evolution" dwarf Chains and they all think evolution is beyond doubt

**Pooeypants** · Feb 23, 2004, 05:43 pm

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

No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So you're saying that the ability to create tools (no matter how primitive) is not an advantage?

Edge · Feb 23, 2004, 08:55 pm

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

The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet:

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Present evidence of design please.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution.

Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine)

Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.

Edge · Feb 23, 2004, 09:09 pm

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

Rubbish, he was a biochemist and none of the work he did had anything to do with evolution. Here's his biography in case you are in any doubt:http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/194.../chain-bio.html
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

He was an evolutionist because he believed in evolution. As are you. He did not overstep his bounds, but understood the limitations of them. His work with bacteria dealt with bacterial resistance and at least one paper (I cannot recall which, so pummel me if you wish) dealt with the adaptations that made resistance possible.

Regardless, my point dealt not with evolution per ce', but with the assertion that evolution can occur absent chance. If you are so determined that evolution did not involve chance, then present your case! I'd love to hear it. I have an open mind and am receptive to increasing my knowledge base. Please tell me by what method, other than chance, that mutation and variation can occur without it being design.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 24, 2004, 05:37 am

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

I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution.

Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine)

Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Misread. My bad.

floridian · Feb 24, 2004, 08:41 am

Which creationism are we talking about? Is it Hindu creationism, or Voudu creationism, or fundamentalist Christian creationism?

shunyadragon · Feb 24, 2004, 09:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (floridian,)
Which creationism are we talking about? Is it Hindu creationism, or Voudu creationism, or fundamentalist Christian creationism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Were are dealing with 'Creation Science' advoctaed by many Fundimentalist Christians.

shunyadragon · Feb 24, 2004, 10:09 am

Purely by chance?

There is a big misunderstanding by many layman and some scientists of the meaning of 'randomness' and 'chance'. Statements that things happen 'purely by chance' ignore two basic principles of science. The first is all events must follow the laws of nature. Second is the model 'Chaos model' shows that all events, even the role of dice, occur in a predictable repetative pattern and not totally by chance as the old view of randomness believed. These two limits on events determine the order we see in the universe that the opportunity for the events in the history of existence and evolution repeat over and over again in a predictable pattern controled by the laws of nature and the nonlinear pattern in events with many variables we call 'chaos'. The dice are loaded.

Whether this order is the hand of the Creator some call God, others call Allah and others by many other names, or as some scientist believe it just happened is another debate.

ruiner · Feb 24, 2004, 10:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So you're saying that the ability to create tools (no matter how primitive) is not an advantage?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the ability to create tools was just one evolutionary path out of lots of them. Look at all the creatures out there that would benefit from tool use, but haven't evolved the intelligence to create tools. Whatever happened to us, it was a chance event that lead us down this path.

It is much like how a certain mammal population millions of years ago returned to the rivers and ultimately the seas and become modern whales. No selective force made them do that, perhaps if a slightly different event happened (no river nearby) they would have evolved as land animals instead. So it was a change event that lead them on the evolutionary path they took, even though that path is heavily moderated by evolutionary pressures

Feb 24, 2004, 03:46 pm

The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms.[/quote]

When Darwin came up with this THEORY he had no idea it would turn into what is has become. He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. And as a physics major I do understand the percentages of how our earth came about. But you know what, who can take what people say now and commit to that forever. Thats why most of all of the papers on the origins of life are all theories. And they will always remain that way, unless the public decides to accept it. Which is still only personal beliefs. Think of it this. The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question. Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.

Feb 22, 2004, 10:34 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Congratulations! You win the kewpie doll. (mostly) The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution. Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it. Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it. Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual. *Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution. Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:11 am	#63 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The evolution of today does not believe the sequence of events came about by chance. This is old misunderstood. There are many controls on what takes place within the laws of nature and the new chaos theory shows that there is an underlieing pattern in all events that in the past were called random or by chance. Like weather the specific events are difficult to predict, but the occurance of events that lead to life and evolution are repetitive enough in an observable and predictable pattern that the resulting course of existence is not by chance. The dice are loaded. 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 . . .

Feb 23, 2004, 08:25 am	#64 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Congratulations! You win the kewpie doll. (mostly) The theory of evolution mandates that ALL change is by chance. Any design at all; even by aliens, obviates evolution. Creation science says God made it the way he wanted it. Anthropic principle: An observation that it seems that the entire world, solar system, universe is designed especial for man, or man for it. Intelligent design says that since it seems that so much of life was designed, it must be. The identiy of the designer is left to the individual. *Theistic evolution: (Worst of both worlds) It's not evolution, because it was designed by God, and it's not Creation because God is a (albeit powerful, but) bumbling idiot who could only guide evolution. Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms. 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 . . .

Feb 23, 2004, 01:39 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,595	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,) http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles. Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site. If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Dr Dino, Kent Hovind also has some a nice criminal record. He's a tax fraud. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 23, 2004, 02:08 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (StoneWT,) http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles. Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site. If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Both sites are crap; the Hovind one is embarrassing crap and if you bring him up as an 'authority' in a discussion you will get laughed at.

Feb 22, 2004, 08:23 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary

Feb 23, 2004, 12:25 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.drdino.com is a young-earth creation website. It is run by Kent Hovind. The site has dozens of hours of his radio show (free to isten to or download) covering many, many topics. He directly addresses the claims of old-earth 'creationists' and evolutionists. It also has a great collection of free articles. Answers in Genesis is another excellent young-earth creation site. If you want to see and evaluate the claims of the young-earth creationists, the above two sites are excellent starting points.

Feb 23, 2004, 03:10 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (EDGE,) Creation is not evolution. Evolution mandates a godless accident, Creation mandates a creation by God. Equating them does a disservice to the both of them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations[emphasis mine] seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest." (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner) Incedently, Chain was an evolutionist who dealt in parasites and bacteria, who's awareness of the issues with classical evolution would likely dwarf any in this forum. Your opinion notwithstanding, evolution, by its fundemental tenent cannot have a designer.

Feb 23, 2004, 03:28 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,595	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet: <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Present evidence of design please. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 23, 2004, 04:22 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Lots of evolution is by chance. It was only by chance events that humans became bipedalular and developed vocal chords as well as growing sufficiently large brains to become intelligent. The initial push into these specialisations would have been accidental but their improvement would have been evolutionary<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The evolution of today does not believe the sequence of events came about by chance. This is old misunderstood. There are many controls on what takes place within the laws of nature and the new chaos theory shows that there is an underlieing pattern in all events that in the past were called random or by chance. Like weather the specific events are difficult to predict, but the occurance of events that lead to life and evolution are repetitive enough in an observable and predictable pattern that the resulting course of existence is not by chance. The dice are loaded.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.

Feb 23, 2004, 04:41 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Incedently, Chain was an evolutionist who dealt in parasites and bacteria, who's awareness of the issues with classical evolution would likely dwarf any in this forum<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Rubbish, he was a biochemist and none of the work he did had anything to do with evolution. Here's his biography in case you are in any doubt:http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/194.../chain-bio.html Notice his words: "seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence" Ie he didn't know. He just overstepped his field like so many physicists, chemists and the like have, falsely thinking that they know anything about evolution. Anyway, appeals to authority backfire on you, I could cite dozens of biologists in recent times (not 30 year ago quotes as you use) who's "awareness of the issues with classical evolution" dwarf Chains and they all think evolution is beyond doubt

Feb 23, 2004, 05:43 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,595	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) No I think chance has a lot to do with specific evolutionary events happenning in the past. Why for example did some primates millions of years ago split off to found the homnid lineage? It certainly wasn't the force of natural selection that drove this to happen, it would have required a chance first step. Perhaps some of our ancestors by chance were forced to leave their traditional forest habitat for one on the grasslands. In this new environment there was a benefit in walking upright and skeletons adapted to be better suited to do this over time. Perhaps the needed adaption of the spinal column caused the emergance of better vocal system, and language and larger brains developed as a result. Who knows, but I am sure that language, bipedularism and large brains didn't happen simply because they provided an advantage.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you're saying that the ability to create tools (no matter how primitive) is not an advantage? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 23, 2004, 08:55 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) The theory of evolution states that the progression from simple to complex forms is a result of random (chance) mutations followed by natural selection. If anything had a hand in it, it is DESIGN, not Evolution. In the words of Sir Ernest Chain, noted nobel lauriet: <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Present evidence of design please.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution. Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine) Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.

Feb 23, 2004, 09:09 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Rubbish, he was a biochemist and none of the work he did had anything to do with evolution. Here's his biography in case you are in any doubt:http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/194.../chain-bio.html <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He was an evolutionist because he believed in evolution. As are you. He did not overstep his bounds, but understood the limitations of them. His work with bacteria dealt with bacterial resistance and at least one paper (I cannot recall which, so pummel me if you wish) dealt with the adaptations that made resistance possible. Regardless, my point dealt not with evolution per ce', but with the assertion that evolution can occur absent chance. If you are so determined that evolution did not involve chance, then present your case! I'd love to hear it. I have an open mind and am receptive to increasing my knowledge base. Please tell me by what method, other than chance, that mutation and variation can occur without it being design.

Feb 24, 2004, 05:37 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,595	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) I din't claim evidense of design in my post. I simply state that if anything OTHER than chance created mutations/variation then you have design, not evolution. Example: I like dogs. I like dogs so much that I create a new breed by crossing terriers with great danes. This is not evolution. This is design (mine) Example 2: I like dogs, but I wish they were more like cats. So I splice their genes to create cat-dogs. This too is not evolution, but design.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Misread. My bad. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 24, 2004, 08:41 am	#76 (permalink) (top)
floridian Molten Ash Posts: 84	Which creationism are we talking about? Is it Hindu creationism, or Voudu creationism, or fundamentalist Christian creationism?

Feb 24, 2004, 09:56 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (floridian,) Which creationism are we talking about? Is it Hindu creationism, or Voudu creationism, or fundamentalist Christian creationism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Were are dealing with 'Creation Science' advoctaed by many Fundimentalist Christians. 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 . . .

Feb 24, 2004, 10:09 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	Purely by chance? There is a big misunderstanding by many layman and some scientists of the meaning of 'randomness' and 'chance'. Statements that things happen 'purely by chance' ignore two basic principles of science. The first is all events must follow the laws of nature. Second is the model 'Chaos model' shows that all events, even the role of dice, occur in a predictable repetative pattern and not totally by chance as the old view of randomness believed. These two limits on events determine the order we see in the universe that the opportunity for the events in the history of existence and evolution repeat over and over again in a predictable pattern controled by the laws of nature and the nonlinear pattern in events with many variables we call 'chaos'. The dice are loaded. Whether this order is the hand of the Creator some call God, others call Allah and others by many other names, or as some scientist believe it just happened is another debate. 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 . . .

Feb 24, 2004, 10:27 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So you're saying that the ability to create tools (no matter how primitive) is not an advantage?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the ability to create tools was just one evolutionary path out of lots of them. Look at all the creatures out there that would benefit from tool use, but haven't evolved the intelligence to create tools. Whatever happened to us, it was a chance event that lead us down this path. It is much like how a certain mammal population millions of years ago returned to the rivers and ultimately the seas and become modern whales. No selective force made them do that, perhaps if a slightly different event happened (no river nearby) they would have evolved as land animals instead. So it was a change event that lead them on the evolutionary path they took, even though that path is heavily moderated by evolutionary pressures

Feb 24, 2004, 03:46 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
theophysics Guest Posts: n/a	The theory of evolution does not require a Godless act because it does not deal with the origins of life. This a separate field of research and is dealt with in wnat is called the 'Theories of the origins of life'. It is related to evolution, but since Darwin's work was unable to deal with the biochemistry of the origins of life, his theory dealt only with evolution from primative life forms to the complx life forms.[/quote] When Darwin came up with this THEORY he had no idea it would turn into what is has become. He was ashamed to say the least about what he had done when he was on his death bed[FACT]. And as a physics major I do understand the percentages of how our earth came about. But you know what, who can take what people say now and commit to that forever. Thats why most of all of the papers on the origins of life are all theories. And they will always remain that way, unless the public decides to accept it. Which is still only personal beliefs. Think of it this. The New York Times said, a million mathematicians and a million engineers in a million years will never get man to fly. In two weeks two bicycle makers flew. So take what this world gives to you, but always question. Never assume something is just because a "scientist" says it is. Believe me.