I'm back, much to the chagrin of many of you out there, I'm sure.
Now, right to buisness:
LIE no.18. Running away when you've been owned, a common creationist trait.
Don't forget to research both sides of the argument if you want to be honest and maintain integrity. There are no personal questions here, I am just asking for the evidence of your 'scientific' theory.
Cannot you at least define 'information' in Scientific terms before you go?
How pathetic. Unlike some of you (evidently), I have stuff going on outside of appleinsider.
I actually put work into my posts, and link to articles that I've actually read (do you hear me hassan?). I don't just go on here and spout drivel and call people names.
That reminds me.
Funny which side of this debate always has to resort to name-calling
Eh. I'm used to it.
hassan i sabbah
I was trying to get you to see that the evidence that the planet is very ancient indeed is ludicrously, ridiculously, there's-an-elephant-having-a-shit-in-my-living-room, preposterously, superabundantly obvious. So obvious that it takes a huge effort of will to ignore it. So obvious that you have to disregard the evidence of your own eyes and hold your own reason in the sink until it stops squirming.
Other than the radiometric dating methods, which are calibrated using fossils which are (very conveiently) dated by paleontologists, there is no hard-and-fast way of deciding (as simple as it may be) how old the world is.
Humphrey is a joke, so much so that some of his biggest critics are christian cosmologists. Next time cite something that hasn't been totally discredited and, please, take the time to look up why he's wrong. THe whole 'head hurt' tactic is the pseudoscientist's primary weapon.
Humphrey is a joke, huh? That's a lot of supporting evidence you've stated there. Also, your comrades have just finished calling christians a bunch of stupid dolts, and now you're referencing them as experts? Quite quaint. As for the head hurt, you've obviously never tried to pick apart the theory of relativity. Fitting a 10m car in a 5m garage is a trial for the mind comprehend, to be sure. However, the theory of relativity says it can be done. You try and understand it and your head will hurt too.
Link to material, or be ignored.
For one thing he forgets the statistical nature of thermodynamics -- a big mistake to make at the molecular level.
Yes, statistics state that something with a probablility of 10^-400 is well nigh impossible.
Invoking statistics does not automagically get rid of all the insurmountable thermodynamic barriers.
I say there's nothing about evolution or biogenesis which is incompatible with thermodynamics. You say back that there's nothing in thermodynamics that proves that evolution or biogenesis are possible.
Don't misquote me. I only said that thermodynamics definitely precludes abiogenesis. I very clearly said that thermodynamic precludes the following:
1) cellular machinery is much to complex for random events to generate
2) living organisms get around the entropy barrier by linking unfavorable reactions (whether they be entropically or enthalpically unfavorable) to favorable reactions
3) the very coupling mechanisms required are themselves ordered machinery (enzymes, etc)
No one, ever
has worked up a reasonable theory to support this. Statements like "and then life appeared in the ooze" just don't cut it. I'm calling all the naturalists out on the floor on this one, once and for all. Link to a paper that has addressed a mechanism by which a prebiotic "soup" could have generated a coupling mechanism.
Hardeeharhar has proferred several theories of his own, but I have already addressed their problems.
The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that merely not running afoul of thermodynamics in any clear-cut way is more than good enough.
And that is where you are absolutely wrong. The points I have stated are very clear, and very basic. They are key, fundamental issues that absolutely must be addressed for a purely naturalistic hypothesis to even get off the ground.
How did complex living organic chemistry arise from pre-biotic matter? Good question.
You're right. It is a good question, and one that has not been answered, which is telling because as I've said over and over again, it is absolutely key. Explain how life began.
That seems pretty key to this entire argument.
How does natural selection do such a good job of generating novel structures and adaptations? Another good question. Having answers for those questions would be great, but having those answers is not necessary for proving evolution, nor is having those answers necessary for proving compatibility with thermodynamics.
Having answers for the probably most fundamental question facing naturalists today would be a good idea, don't you think?
If you're right, you should have the answers. Your theory should be able to explain all of the questions put to it, or otherwise it's not a good theory, is it?
LIE no.1: I pointed out on page 1 that a known deception of Creationists is to claim such a thing. Evolution does not say that cows turn into whales. Another strawman. Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today. I suspect you know this.
Actually, every biology textbook I've had states that whales evolved from a "cow-like" creature. Check yours.
As for "Evolution does not say that anything alive today will ever turn into something else living today", evolution states that one form of life will eventually evolve into another form of life.
Stupidity 1: Every fossil ever found is a species in transit. Or are you pretending that once a cow always the same cow? Oh yes, the Creation theory strawman "Why did a cow become a cow and then stop evolving?"
You are deliberately mistating what I said. I asked where all of the "in-between" species were, because evolution (as has been admitted several times in this thread) takes quite some time, and we would therefore expect to see lots of creatures with arms/legs/necks/heads/etc. in transit.
You don't just go: leg-boom-flipper.
LIE no.3: So the theory says that it takes a +/-million years to produce macroevolution from thousands of instances of microevolution, and you claim that because we havn't seen macroE directly, is proof that the theory is wrong. Mmmmkay. I suspect you know this.
You sure suspect a lot of things to be a self-portrayed dealer in truth.
I'm saying we don't see any of the "inbetween" examples of micro evolution in the fossil record, like we would expect. We (as you correctly stated below) see perfectly-fit animals at every point.
LIE no.4: As for the fossil record, largely we find exactly what is predicted by the theory. Lots of incremental small changes between perfectly fit animals. I suspect you know this.
However, the theory also states that there are lots of half-developed creatures. These we don't see, and thats a Problem. (Note the capital P).
Tell me, do you expect to find proof of a half whale, half cow that was really unfit for its environment?
Yes, because you can't magically go from one type of animal to another.
Oh wait! I get it:
Evolution happens so slowly, we don't see it happening, but when it does happen, it occurs so quickly it leaves no trace. Riiiiight.
AND, if cows did turn into whales, how would you recognise the fossil as a transitory one?
I would expect to find a fossil record showing a believable spacing of events. Artist's fanciful imagnations do not, sir, pass muster.
All these variations of the homo species, were they all specifically designed by God, and then discarded because he thought they were no good. Where is the explanation of that in the Book of Genesis? Oh wait, they were planted by Satan?
Actually, post a paper that gives the supposed timeline from ape to human, with all of the correct intervening fossils. That would actually be informative, and I can have the pleasure of tearing it apart with only my hobbyists knowledge of paleontology.
I wonder if a Duck thinks its half formed flipper is pathetic for swimming or cumbersome for walking. I wonder if a flying squirrels think their half formed wings and arms are useless for flying and climbing at the same time?
Actually, I would think that your examples are very happy with their features because they allow them to live perfectly in their habitat.
i.e. Ducks swim AND walk, flying squirrels glide from tree to tree. Their design works pretty darn well, i'd say. Oh wait, were you trying to pass off the flying squirrels as an example of wing evolution?
I wonder if a flamingo thinks its flightless wing is useless for running and pathetic for quick movement. I wonder if flatworms, clams, scallops, spiders, think their light sensive cells are useless eyes?
Wow, you are in a tub of crap here.
First, flamingos aren't flightless.
Second, many spiders have excellent vision, as a matter of fact this page
says that they have "among the highest acuities in invertebrates." Light sensitive cells, my ass. NASA has used spider eyes as models for their mars rovers.
BTW, Clams have very developed eyes as well, just follow this link
LIE no.6. Flippers, wings, antenaa, etc didn't just form from thin air according to the theory, they are modified legs, arms, that happened because the environment selected the adaption that best suited the environment. I suspect you know this.
Well then, I'd expect to see creatures in the process of changing from one form to another, because it doesn't happen quickly, by any means. Why would you need millions of years otherwise? Something as supposedly "simple" as clam eyes turn out to be very complex.
LIE no.8: Every scientific theory is a paradigm if you want to nit-pick. There is no absolute proof. Fact does not mean 100% true.
"No absolute proof" huh? You see, I have the easy job here. All I have to do is point out one area where evolution falls down, and I've proved that the theory of evolution is wrong. You have to try and keep plugging all of the holes I make.
But poking holes isn't my style. I went straight for the root problem: How life began. If you can't demonstrate how that happened, you're headed for lots of problems.
Evolution has as much supporting evidence as any other scientific theory. Even I know that einsteins theories are not 100% true, same with Quantum Mechanics, same with fluid dynamics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Lack of 100% truth does not mean your God did it.
You don't seem to get it. Comparing the models of quantum mechanics and einstein to a theory is like comparing apples and oranges. Quantum mechanics is a MODEL to explain what happens. Scientists use models to PREDICT and UNDERSTAND.
Evolution is not a model, in that it's statements cannot be tested, and that it's action cannot be observed (especially if it happens too slow to see, and too fast to leave a record, as you conveniently state).
LIE no 9. In the directly testable area of microevolution it has been observed and confirmed. I suspect you know this.
Yes, but evolution on anything even resembling a scale like you so desperately need has never been observed or confirmed. As I've said many many times, the mechanisms and abilities of microevolution are incomparable to that needed by macroevolution.
TRUTH 1.: Creation Theory is completely untestable, so that makes it useless and irrelavent according to your very definition.
You obviously did not carefully read my post on dembski. If nature was created, we would expect to see integrated systems expressly designed to function. And guess what? We do. Every metabolic pathway, every ecosystem, every organism
functions just like a well oiled machine, doing exactly what it was designed to do.
STUPIDITY NO 2. Your logic is drivel. If we were near a very dense part of the universe and time went really slowly for us, that doesn't mean that the universe was created at different times. It just means that we perceive it as slower, meaning that 14 billion years have still passed as we measure it in our frame of reference, regardless of wether 10000 years have passed in a very undense part of the universe as measured in that specific frame of reference using our frame as a benchmark. But if such an absolute frame of reference existed, the amount of time that passed in every part of the universe would be the same because all light and all mass has to be traceable back to the same point at the same time. In our frame of reference it is +/-14 billion years.
You don't get relativity, do you?
I didn't say that the universe was created at separate times. I said it was created. If time runs at different speeds, then portions of the universe would be older. Everybody knows that the universe is expanding, and that time is affected by speed. It has also been suspected, and recently proven
My entire point was to state that everytime we experience a few seconds here, at some other place in the universe, several hundered or more years have been burnt away. There is no absolute frame of reference, every point and object only has it's frame in which to experience time.
Does thermodynamics have a mechanism that prevents simple molecules from arranging themselves in any meaningful pattern with the addition of energy?
Yes. I've been saying it over and over again. It's called entropy. And this nonsense about adding energy to a system (closed or not) adding order is crap.
hasan i sabbah
While this is just, well, contemptible. This is just wrong; it is not true, or right, or accurate (or 'correct', if you like). There's been no sudden controversy. Researchers in laboratories across the globe aren't stepping away from their computers shaking their heads, going 'something's just not... right. ' The letters pages in peer-reviewed journals aren't filled with articles with new evidence causing people to reappraise their lives' work
Actually, there's not a lot of research in the field of evolution, because there's nothing to observe. Most of the existing material is in the form of possible examples or thought experiments. Most scientists treat evolution as a given, and don't even bother about investigating deeper. It's just the way they're taught, and what they're used to. Added to this the historical disdain of science by the established "church" system, and you have a bunch of pretty ambivalent scientists.
See trisomy. (I wish I had a big smilie). Down syndrom (which causes varying degrees of physical ailments/mental retardation, suggesting that the various isoforms of the proteins encoded on chromosome 18 could potentially be subverted causing a silent down syndrom) does not prevent people from reproducing. If two down syndrom people have a child together there is a significant chance that their offspring could have a self sustaining quatromy-trisomy cycle (especially if in the process of cell division the proteins responsible for the disorder's effects are mutated or otherwise silenced). In a closed environment, such as a village, it is possible that there could be people with two extra chromosomes, chalk full of information... Extra information.
Oh come on har, you know as well as I do that that is not an example of new information, just copies of already existing data. However, you are about to cover my next point:
That is the simply way shite loads of info can be added -- see wheat (and most crop plants). The most likely mechanisms are based upon mistakes that have been observed, such as gene duplication.
Yes, this added chromosome or two does provide an unused copy upon which changes can be made. However, this is no more an example of evolution than a ream of white paper is an encyclopedia.
In any event, down syndrome is hardly a good example of a step toward greater fitness.
Come and get it, boys.
Oh, and to the mods out there, how come I get slammed for calling someone a troll when I get called lots of other really nasty names, eh?