Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always talking about micro-evolution?
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 257 (86208)
02-14-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Mammuthus
02-12-2004 3:20 AM


Wow. Pretty amazing stuff, that DNA. VERY amazing. Must have taken a pretty sharp guy to design it.
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 3:20 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NosyNed, posted 02-14-2004 12:56 AM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 184 by Sylas, posted 02-14-2004 9:50 AM Skeptick has replied
 Message 195 by Mammuthus, posted 02-16-2004 3:27 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 182 of 257 (86209)
02-14-2004 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Skeptick
02-14-2004 12:36 AM


Clever stuff
Yup, it would take some pretty clever stuff to design it. That idea of God at least suggests he is really smart. Not like some Greek, human like God on a mountain.
However, it has the dangerous characteristic of being God in a gap. That is a gap which may well be closed in the next couple of decades

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Skeptick, posted 02-14-2004 12:36 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 257 (86227)
02-14-2004 2:47 AM


Hello everyone.
I found a place called talk origins. I am reading the things in there. I do not understand everything but there are many things I did not know and I think that evolution happened.
I think that the earth is very very old and I forget the word for the tree of all the different kinds of things. But the fossils tell us that all the things on the tree are related to each other. So if there were only the kinds that were on the Ark then where the heck did all these fossils come from. The other thing that is very difficult but I see is important is the genes. I think this is the thing that made me believe more. I believe the scientists that are saying they can read the genes. They know we are like the monkeys and had an ancestor together. We are like the whales too but the ancestor is very very old to both of us.
The people who told me there was no missing link are full of donkey doodles. There is more missing links they are finding all the time. They have some human that is like six million years ago with a little brain and big bones over his eye brows. He looks like President Bush except he does not have the lower jaw. He was using too much copenhagen. Anyway there are other ones too that came out of Africa and went all over the place pushing Mr. whats- his-name out of Europe.
I do not think the scientists would make all this up. They have the fossils and I saw the pictures. There are too many. It must be true. But I think that there is one big problem. They need to call them by names people can understand.
So I want to know why if all of this is out there that people are saying it isn't true.
I am sorry if I am not following the topic but I found this place called talk origin and I think it has very important things on it. What they are saying on this talk origins place is that a blob has great grandchildren blobbies that are different. They have great grand children that are blobbies even more different. In a million years they are so different that one of them is human and one is a toad. That explains the Vice President too.

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by NosyNed, posted 02-14-2004 11:28 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5261 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 184 of 257 (86251)
02-14-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Skeptick
02-14-2004 12:36 AM


Skeptick writes:
Wow. Pretty amazing stuff, that DNA. VERY amazing. Must have taken a pretty sharp guy to design it.
You underestimate it. It is far more amazing than anything designed.
Don't be sucked in by the content free rhetoric of the intelligent design people. Their "intelligent designer" does nothing which could not be attributed to some kind of superhuman. They claim that they can identify design, but not the designer... it could be a space alien, or a "pretty sharp guy", for all they can actually tell.
See this interview with Michael Behe. The relevant extract:
Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people -- including me -- will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that.
A designer constructs artefacts from what raw materials they can find, in an attempt to fit the artefact to circumstances. This involves tradeoffs of one capacity against another, to serve some purpose of the designer. The designed result is a thing, which is then used in a context, surrounded by an environment in which it must work.
This is how the intelligent design clowns perceive living organisms.
Part of the perversity of this is they are sometimes perceived as supporting belief in God, as opposed to a denial of God by conventional scientists.
The truth is just the reverse.
All of this debate we conduct here is, in the end, about religion. We'll continue to address various questions within the purview of empirical scientific observation and modelling. But for a moment, I'm going to try and cut to the heart of the matter.
In Christian theology, God made everything. You can't point to one thing, and say that God made this thing, in contrast to that thing. In so far as people claim to see design in one thing, they are contrasting that with other things. Whatever the designer is must thus be less than the maker of the universe; and is reduced to some kind of a manufacturer, working within the universe to make some limited set of artefacts.
The story told in the first chapter of Genesis is very different. God does not toil; but commands. He calls life forth from the waters and from the earth. He gives the Sun command of day, and the Moon of the night. He divides chaos; and order is the result.
The idea that this is somehow a literal truth is merely silly. We deal with that matter here also; but perhaps I may assume that you at least recognize this much. Of course, this does not mean Genesis is meaningless. The point of the first chapter of Genesis is to refute the pagan polytheism of the cultures within which the bible was written. It does so using the cosmology known to the time; but turns it on its head with insights that have transcended any one culture to be an inspiration for millennia. Many scientists have been inspired with a vision of a coherent, consistent universe; every part of which operates by one God given authority. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Dobzhansky, and many others, were not merely believers, but exceptionally committed and driven even by the standards of the day by their theistic faith. Unbelievers also have shared a similar wonder at the order inherent in the universe; Einstein, Davies, Dawkins, and many more.
The intelligent design advocates miss this. They dismiss the working of the world as being something "random", and somehow incapable giving rise to the phenomenal and subtle wonders of biology. They need to bring in a little manipulator of some kind, who constructs and designs analogously to a human designer. Their God is too small.
In fact, DNA, and life, are much too subtle and complex to be made by any process analogous to the workings of a designer. They are, like you as an individual and like the world in which we all live, a natural part of the universe itself.
A final thought, from Danny Hillis; on the relative merits of evolution and design. (Cut and pasted from a review of Kevein Kelly's Out of Control.)
"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things," says Hillis. "One is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex."
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Skeptick, posted 02-14-2004 12:36 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 2:18 AM Sylas has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 185 of 257 (86264)
02-14-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by q3psycho
02-14-2004 2:47 AM


You could start a new topic of your own if you'd like.
I do not think the scientists would make all this up. They have the fossils and I saw the pictures. There are too many. It must be true.
Many people who don't think it is true actually come to this judegement without haveing looked at any of that or having any clue what the whole subject is actually about. I know this seem astonishing but there you are.
But I think that there is one big problem. They need to call them by names people can understand.
LOL, yea, it is difficult isn't it? But there are good reasons for naming the way they do. Partly it is historical. That is the way the Linnean system of naming all things was set up. They fit into the big picture.
They make sure the names are very precise and argue a lot about it. If you've ever tried to buy a particular plant for the garden you might realize how necessary this precision is. You want a "sheepdog bell" and only get a blank stare or get a different plant than what you call a "sheepdog bell" (i'm making that up). However,if you ask for a Canihairous dingleous you should get precisely the plant you want because that name is world wide.
So I want to know why if all of this is out there that people are saying it isn't true.
This is the question you should us to open a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by q3psycho, posted 02-14-2004 2:47 AM q3psycho has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 257 (86372)
02-15-2004 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Sylas
02-14-2004 9:50 AM


"There are only two ways we know of to make extremely complicated things," says Hillis. "One is by engineering, and the other is evolution. And of the two, evolution will make the more complex."
So, you believe "random processes" can produce more complex things than an intelligent designer (whether you believe in God, aliens, or ghosts is not my concern at the moment)? Can you mathematically or scientifically substantiate that?
The story told in the first chapter of Genesis is very different. God does not toil; but commands. He calls life forth from the waters and from the earth. He gives the Sun command of day, and the Moon of the night. He divides chaos; and order is the result.
The idea that this is somehow a literal truth is merely silly.
Hmm. Reminds me of many businesses of today. For example, a company like Federal Express; the CEO (Fred Smith) invented door-to-door overnight express package delivery and founded the named company. As you know, Fred Smith doesn't deliver the packages to anyone's door. Instead, he initially designed and "commanded" (to use your word). He built an entire system of Planes, trucks, hubs, metroplexes, sorting facilities, customer facilities, drop boxes, information systems, and tens of thousands of employees to perform the task of picking up and delivering millions of packages each day. Fred Smith does NOT sit around handling packages each day to keep his business going. He created a SYSTEM that functions each and every day whether he is there or not. When Fred retires and disappears to his own island somewhere, his overnight delivery business will continue running each day without him.
This is like the system God has put into place, and he designed it so it would run on it's own. He gave man dominion (just like Fred Smith gave authority to his management team) and man has invented things, etc, etc, etc. However, Fred Smith can reach into his business and make minor or major changes if he sees a certain business unit is in need of it, like firing the management team of a customer location that persistently produces a high number of customer complaints. God does the same thing as he sees the need (like destroying sodom and gomorrah).
But few customers have ever met Fred Smith, and certainly weren't on hand as witnesses when he designed his business, so anyone could easily say Fred had nothing to do with designing anything. Planes were flying, trucks were rolling, packages were being delivered by USPS (please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery), and people were handling packages long before Fred ever showed up on the scene. But to deny Fred the credit for designing a brilliant world-altering system that runs by itself today, would take a blind fool.
Of course, as many of you know, Fred's college professor gave Fred only a "C" on his college project because Fred's Federal Express "idea" wasn't feasible. Smart people, those highly trained college professors are, yes sir.
However, in the case of God, he even built the foundations of the universe, including the so many of the unchangeable laws that govern things. He created everything from nothing, and hung it all in place, ready to roll immediately.
Who told you God is just a "manipulator"? A "small God"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Sylas, posted 02-14-2004 9:50 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by NosyNed, posted 02-15-2004 2:14 PM Skeptick has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 257 (86379)
02-15-2004 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by NosyNed
02-11-2004 9:22 AM


One problem with thinking that you can calculate a probablility for the woodduck's pattern is that there are a huge number of different patterns, all of which would do just as well. And how many is that? I dunno.
Yes, a problem, as you say, most certainly. But probability is certainly part of evolution theory, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by NosyNed, posted 02-11-2004 9:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:33 AM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 188 of 257 (86386)
02-15-2004 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 3:10 AM


But probability is certainly part of evolution theory, isn't it?
Yes, but that hardly implies we'll be able to calculate the probabilities of any concievable event, right?
Probability is a part of bookmaking, too, but I doubt you'd demand that a bookie tell you the precise odds of Superbowl MVP Tom Brady getting injured in next year's season.
Reasonable people don't ask for odds that can't possibly be determined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 3:10 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:15 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 257 (86387)
02-15-2004 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 3:33 AM


Probability is a part of bookmaking, too, but I doubt you'd demand that a bookie tell you the precise odds of Superbowl MVP Tom Brady getting injured in next year's season.
Reasonable people don't ask for odds that can't possibly be determined.
Really? So, if a bookie would tell you that you can comfortably put your money on the Falcons beating the 49ers in next year's superbowl, you wouldn't ask for the odds and how he arrived at those odds?
What your camp is telling me is that finding two people with a DNA match is about 1 in 2 billion (although more knowledgable sources say it's more like 1 trillion to one), and you call those odds "virtually impossible".
But yet when it comes to turning a frog into a prince over millions of years, you say the odds are "mathematically inevitable".
What you must certainly mean is, evolutionists hope they're not asked about probability. The scenarios that evolution describes is one that would create a statisical monstrosity if you were to try to calculate the odds of creating the order that we see in just one living cell (of your choice), much less the countless mutations required to turn your frog into a prince.
You know exactly where this is going. For a frog to evolve into a human is simply ludicrous. Anyone should be able to see that the color scheme on a woodduck's head is so precise and orderly that it couldn't have happened via random processes even in 100 billion years. Despite the gargantuan numbers required to demonstrate the probability of one DNA strand assembling itself, you cannot avoid the reality of it as a reasonable person.
Let's make it a little simpler. Forget the woodduck for now (we'll perhaps come back to it later).
Let's say you go for a walk in the park and come across a huge oak tree. You notice on the ground that there are 20 oak leaves that seem to have fallen from the tree. Yes, you know exactly where I'm going with this, don't you. You cannot escape it. Let's continue; these 20 oaks leaves are arranged in a straight line, 12 inches apart, and facing the same direction. Would you think these leaves arranged themselves in this manner? Or that they simply fell off the tree and landed that way through random processes involving all sorts of environmental forces like wind, gravity, etc? Or would you suspect that an intelligent being arranged them that way? Of course, as evolutionists always say, it's just a mathematical inevitability for 20 leaves to one day be found in that position. Can you calculate those odds? I'm sure their must be someone in your camp with the statisical training and ability needed to calculate those odds. And we're only talking 20 oak leaves; not the uh, "numerous" bits of information that you find in a strand of DNA.
Yes, just as Thomas Huxley's epic simile that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters could, in an infinite amount of time, type all the works of Shakespeare. Your problem though, my friend, is that you don't have an infinite amount of time to work with to turn your frog into a prince.

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:32 AM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 190 of 257 (86389)
02-15-2004 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 4:15 AM


But yet when it comes to turning a frog into a prince over millions of years, you say the odds are "mathematically inevitable".
You have to be dodging on purpose to be missing points the way you are.
What I said was not that frogs to princes was inevitable. What's inevitable is that a population of frogs will evolve into something. There's a considerable difference.
What are the odds that life as we know it should exist? Very low indeed. What are the odds that life of any kind should exist? Mathematically inevitable. Don't confuse what is with what can only be.
What you must certainly mean is, evolutionists hope they're not asked about probability.
As a matter of fact, I do hope creationists don't bring up probabilities - it's a pain in the ass to explain it to somebody who can't be bothered to actually learn something about probabilities.
For a frog to evolve into a human is simply ludicrous.
Yes. Of course, the evolutionary model doesn't predict humans evolving from frogs, or frogs from humans. Kind of a disingenuous tactic to oppose an argument we're not making, isn't it?
Anyone should be able to see that the color scheme on a woodduck's head is so precise and orderly that it couldn't have happened via random processes even in 100 billion years.
I say that it's chaotic and haphazard. Prove me wrong. (These are the assertions without evidence that we've been warning you about.)
Would you think these leaves arranged themselves in this manner?
Precisely the same as the leaves being in any other single, discreet arrangement.
Can you calculate those odds?
No, and I don't have to. It's your argument from personal incredulity - you do your own homework. Don't you find it just a little ill-advised for you to be making arguments from probability with no actual understanding of probabilities?
It's hilarious how you vacillate between arrogant ignorance and feigned supercilliousness. I threatened to stop taking with you after your next unsupported assertion - which you committed above - but it's honestly too much fun to read your attempts at trolling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:15 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:56 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 257 (86393)
02-15-2004 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 4:32 AM


What I said was not that frogs to princes was inevitable. What's inevitable is that a population of frogs will evolve into something. There's a considerable difference.
Using your reasoning, why wouldn't it be inevitable? Given an inifite amount of time, of course. Why couldn't Huxley's monkeys type out all the volumes of Encyclopedia Brittanica in the same infinite amount of time? Why limit them to just Shakespeare? Why not every book in the world? And what is eternity? Does eternity go as far back as it does forward? If so, why haven't those monkeys already cranked out every possible literary work? I understand that we haven't reached the end of eternity, but had they started at he other end (beginning) of eternity, wouldn't that also be considered somewhat infinite? (do you see why we can't comprehend God?)
I threatened to stop talking with you after your next unsupported assertion - which you committed above - but it's honestly too much fun to read your attempts at trolling.
No, I don't believe that. I believe that the law of God is written on your heart, but yet you're trying to drown out his existence using man's opinions and flawed reasoning. Your attempts at using evolution to disprove a sovereign God is on the same plane as an alcoholic drowning his sorrows with the contents of a bottle. God exists, and he is knocking on the door of your heart. Why do you continue to fight against him?

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 5:09 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 192 of 257 (86396)
02-15-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 4:56 AM


Given an inifite amount of time, of course.
Given sufficient time, everything that can happen does happen.
The question is, what is there sufficient time for?
Time for a self-replicating molecule to give rise to a vast diversity of forms, yes. Time for a highly complex organism to jump several phyla? I doubt it.
If so, why haven't those monkeys already cranked out every possible literary work?
Because neither monkeys nor typewriters have been around that long?
(do you see why we can't comprehend God?)
I don't see how you can go from "I don't understand infinity" to "nobody can understand it" in one easy step. I guess logic and sense are easily dispensed with by those too ignorant to bother with them. That's certainly true of my bosses.
I believe that the law of God is written on your heart
*Sigh..*
Like Rrhain, I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I learn so much about other people that way.
but yet you're trying to drown out his existence using man's opinions and flawed reasoning.
Funny then that the flawed reasoning always seems to be coming from those who say they're on God's side.
Your attempts at using evolution to disprove a sovereign God
Ah, more strawmen. I've never done so. I'm an atheist, but not because of the theory of evolution, which is, of course, God-neutral.
Why do you continue to fight against him?
How can I fight against what doesn't exist? How can something that doesn't exist "knock on my heart?"
How come you won't go over to that other thread and explain to me why the existence of Satan isn't God's fault?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:56 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 193 of 257 (86438)
02-15-2004 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 2:18 AM


An interesting analogy, I'm glad the POTM directed me here.
It seems most Christians would agree with you in saying God is the founder, the intiator. The systems he set up were, unlike the poorly constructed ones that a man would set up, not in need of continued tinkering.
The laws He set up have run for over 13 billion years with no obvious tinkering. Now that is impressive!
If you are one who thinks he had to tinker over and over to get it to where He wanted the God you worship is a small god indeed. Certainly compared to the God of the majority of Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 2:18 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 3:33 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 197 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 3:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 257 (86573)
02-16-2004 2:27 AM


I don't know anything about making odds and stuff like that but I don't see why its important here anyway. That stuff on talk origins is really good and I am going to read all of it.
Evolution is about change over time in the gene pool. It is natural selection that chooses what goober is going to beat out the other doo-dads. If goober makes it and doo-dad doesn't make it - that's history. What does odds and bookies have to do with history? Washington sailed across the (?) river and kicked some British tail. So why bet on it? It's over. There aren't any odds on things that happened. They did or they didn't.
So we got all these fossils and the ones at the bottom are really simple and the ones at the top are more complicated. The ones at the bottom are oldest. There's no odds making on this. That's where they are. There are not any hominoids on the bottom. They are all at the top. So why is that? Australia something or other and mr. cro magnum. The dinos are down deep. So men evolved later. Dinos before. I have to tell you though that I don't think they have all of this straightened out yet. They are saying some pretty weird stuff. But things evolve.
I understand now about natural selection. I am not so smart. I cant explain it so good. But it isn't about dumb luck making humans. Its because the ones that are better survive. The next generation is better and the next generation better and so on. Some mutations are good and make the line better. Some mutations are bad and those become government.

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 195 of 257 (86583)
02-16-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Skeptick
02-14-2004 12:36 AM


quote:
Must have taken a pretty sharp guy to design it.
Actually, it would take an unbelievable incompetent to "design" the genome as it has evolved. An incredible amount of the genome is ultimately wasted space. There are species of frogs with larger genomes than ours because they have even more repetitive sequences. The genome is a graveyard full of pseudogenes that are junked copies of replication processes gone awry. Many of the repetitive sequences make it more difficult for chromosomes to pair during mitosis and meiosis. They can also mediate disease causing deletions. It is incredibly inefficient in terms of required energy to replicate all the extra DNA. Just plain stupid design. Evolution has no problem with this..if one can survive and reproduce more than another variant, it does not matter if the design is good or bad..just has to be better at representing itself in the next generation than the others.
Bacteria are much more efficient and streamlined. Viruses even more so...I guess then god must be a microbe and we are just badly designed biological garbage...all pray to lord E. coli..god of feces. By my stink thou shall know me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Skeptick, posted 02-14-2004 12:36 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024