Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Faith, Tanypteryx (4 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,716 Year: 18,752/19,786 Month: 1,172/1,705 Week: 424/518 Day: 42/58 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 31 of 60 (566106)
06-23-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Kitsune
06-23-2010 2:45 AM


Re: Comets
Kitsune, that's a fair enough post. I never said that an Oort Cloud wouldn't be discovered someday, or something resembling one, but until now, one has not been observed, only hypothesized.

The absence of proof does not mean that proof does not exist somewhere. It just means we haven't found it yet OR it really doesn't exist. Like you said, time will tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Kitsune, posted 06-23-2010 2:45 AM Kitsune has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Huntard, posted 06-23-2010 3:02 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2010 4:33 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 5:23 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 32 of 60 (566108)
06-23-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Flyer75
06-23-2010 2:48 AM


Re: Comets
Flyer75 writes:

The absence of proof does not mean that proof does not exist somewhere. It just means we haven't found it yet OR it really doesn't exist. Like you said, time will tell.


Of course. However the problem with the creationist argument is that they turn this into a false dichotomy:

"Because we haven't discovered the Oort cloud yet, God must've made the earth and everything else 6000 years ago!"

I hope you see the flaw with this reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:48 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 33 of 60 (566115)
06-23-2010 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Flyer75
06-23-2010 2:48 AM


Re: Comets
quote:

The absence of proof does not mean that proof does not exist somewhere. It just means we haven't found it yet OR it really doesn't exist. Like you said, time will tell.

In the case of the Oort Cloud there are very good reasons to think that the cloud is there but hasn't been found yet.

Firstly we have solid evidence that the Earth and the Solar System really are old.

Secondly, all that is being proposed is that the Solar System stretches out further than the furthest observed object. There's no good reason to suppose that there is a sudden "stop" rather than more gradual "thinning out" of material that is proposed.

Thirdly we have observed objects in the Kuiper Belt (which is more important for the short period comets that the Creationist argument deals with anyway).

Fourthly comet nuclei at that distance are incredibly difficult to observe. There is no good reason to think that we would have seen them yet.

Because of the evidence of age we can't simply discard the idea, we must look at reconciling the evidence. The Oort Cloud is a highly plausible hypothesis given the evidence that we do have. It is not nearly so plausible that all the evidence of age just happens to be wrong (check out RAZD's thread on correlations). So the rational conclusion is that the Oort Cloud does exist. Even if it turned out that it did not then we should still have to consider alternative explanations (maybe involving the Kuiper Belt) before concluding that the Earth was young. Only someone driven by the conviction that the Earth was young, and looking for excuses to reject the evidence, could think otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:48 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 34 of 60 (566121)
06-23-2010 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Flyer75
06-23-2010 2:48 AM


Re: Comets
Kitsune, that's a fair enough post. I never said that an Oort Cloud wouldn't be discovered someday, or something resembling one, but until now, one has not been observed, only hypothesized.

Also, remember that the reason that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt were hypothesized is that we know that new inner-solar-system comets are coming from somewhere.

An astronomer explains:

Because of their high mortality rates, periodic comets cannot have been periodic for long but must originally have been comets of very long periods having nearly parabolic orbits. Within the recent past (perhaps the last few thousand years) their orbits have been drastically altered to their present relatively small size by perturbations produced by the planets, especially Jupiter. Those occasional comets that are highly spectacular, and hence cannot have suffered appreciable disintegration, almost invariably have nearly parabolic orbits, and also they have not been seen before in recorded history. --- George Abell, Exploring the Universe

New comets turn up. The hypotheses of Oort and Kuiper try to explain where they come from, but the creationist argument is shot down by the fact that they do.

---

This was one of the first YEC arguments I came across. Short orbit comets, I was told, can only go fifty times round the Sun before evaporating completely.

So I googled to find out the comet with the shortest known orbit. It's Enke's Comet, and it has a period of 3.3 years. If comets only get fifty trips round the Sun, and if you can use them to date the solar system ... then the solar system was created in 1845, tops.

The alternative explanation is that it only recently became a short-orbit comet, and used to be further out. Unless you believe that the solar system was created eighteen-and-a-half centuries after Christ, you have to believe that explanation.

So whether it came from the Oort cloud, from the Kuiper belt, from the depths of galactic space, or from giant space aliens having a snowball fight, is immaterial to the question of whether you can use such comets to date the solar system. Clearly, you can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:48 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 35 of 60 (566126)
06-23-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SwampDonkey
06-20-2010 2:51 AM


The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that bananas are the atheist's worst nightmare. But monkeys don't believe in God, because they have no souls. So why are there still monkeys?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SwampDonkey, posted 06-20-2010 2:51 AM SwampDonkey has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 36 of 60 (566128)
06-23-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by articulett
06-23-2010 2:21 AM


Re: sorry
Huntard, message #13 writes:

What does this have to do with evolution?

articulett, message #28 writes:

And what does this have to do with evolution?

Given the rate at which evolution occurs, the notion that all present species were produced by evolutionary mechanisms from a common ancestor predicts that the Earth is old (and therefore that the solar system is old, and therefore that the universe is old).

This prediction has been independently confirmed by geologists, physicists, and cosmologists, which is a score for Darwin.

Proof that the universe is only a few thousand years old would falsify this prediction.

I think this is why the vast majority of creationists are YECs. If they can manage to be wrong about the age of the Earth, they don't need to be wrong about anything else. (Of course, they are, but that would suffice.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by articulett, posted 06-23-2010 2:21 AM articulett has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 60 (566137)
06-23-2010 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Flyer75
06-23-2010 2:08 AM


Reading the page in it's entirety I don't see any factual evidence that this cloud exists.

But we have the evidence of comets on parabolic orbits, direct or retrograde, with every angle of inclination you can think of. That IS factual evidence - they are coming from somewhere.

Does the YEC model have a place for comet storage? I know that Job mentions snow and hail storehouses....


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Flyer75, posted 06-23-2010 2:08 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 38 of 60 (566145)
06-23-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2010 5:00 PM


Re: Question
Hi Dr,

Dr Adequate writes:

OK, so I suppose in the biological case the sender is evolution, the message is the genomes ... and the receivers, I guess, are the ribosomes.

How can evolution be the producer of the information?

If evolution is the result of the processing of the information that is sent to the receiver by the sender.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 5:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 11:28 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 11:57 AM ICANT has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 60 (566162)
06-23-2010 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
06-23-2010 9:45 AM


Re: Question
How can evolution be the producer of the information?

If the message is the genome, then evolution is the producer because random mutations modify and add information to the message.

But still, with you're view on information, there is no "receiver" of the message in DNA, so DNA cannot contain information.

If evolution is the result of the processing of the information that is sent to the receiver by the sender.

Who is the receiver?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 9:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 40 of 60 (566168)
06-23-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
06-23-2010 9:45 AM


Re: Question
How can evolution be the producer of the information?

Uh ... by evolution being the producer of the information?

If evolution is the result of the processing of the information that is sent to the receiver by the sender.

But as I understood your post, evolution is the sender.

Try to be more specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 9:45 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 41 of 60 (566179)
06-23-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ICANT
06-22-2010 1:33 PM


information origins.
DNA has a tremendous amount of informatin stored in it, where did all that information come from?

It was inherited from the parents. If you go back far enough, then the answer becomes less known, and less about evolution and more about biochemistry.

So where did the information come from in biochemistry? Presumably from the laws of chemistry and physics. Some things do some things. Some of those things might inadvertantly allow for preferential reproductive success (there doesn't need to be information in the 'genome' on how to reproduce in order to reproduce, the laws of biochemistry and physics can do that work).

The answer therefore is: From the laws of physics. How did it get into the genome? Work was done. Where did the information from the laws of physics come from? Not a question for evolution.

Satisfied?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 1:33 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:59 PM Modulous has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 42 of 60 (566188)
06-23-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
06-22-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Question
I know this won't meet your approval but so what?

The problem with your description is twofold:

1. It does not tell us how to determine if information has decreased or increased. We need a way to compare the information content of two messages.

2. It's not obvious how it applies to evolution. What is the sender? What is the receiver? What is the message?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2010 3:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 3:32 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 43 of 60 (566196)
06-23-2010 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
06-23-2010 11:57 AM


Re: Question
Hi Dr.

Dr Adequate writes:

Uh ... by evolution being the producer of the information?

I am asking the questions because I don't have a clue.

You are supposed to be the one with the answers according to what you put forth in Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution.

So let me rephrase my question.

Evolution is produced by mutations, and natural selection.

Without information nothing can take place.

Information is contained in a cell nucleus the size of a pin point. The human genome stored on DNA in this nucleus is over six billion letters total. A copy of this information is contained in almost every cell in our body.

My question was where does all this information come from?

If evolution produces this information, how does it produce it?

If mutations produce this information, how does it produce it?

Which brings me back to my original question.

DNA has a tremendous amount of information stored in it, where did all that information come from?

As I understand information it has to be created.

Is there anyway that information can begin to exist without being created?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 11:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 06-23-2010 2:57 PM ICANT has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 44 of 60 (566200)
06-23-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
06-23-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Question
DNA has a tremendous amount of information stored in it, where did all that information come from?

From mutations in the DNA of earlier generations of organisms, ICANT.

You can point a telescope equipped with a spectrograph at a star and figure out what elements and molecules are present in the star's atmosphere, whether the star is moving towards us, how strong its surface magnetic fields are, its temperature, how fast it rotates......lots of things.

Does that spectrum contain information? If not, why not? If so, where did it come from? Is there an intelligent angel on each star in the universe making up things like D-lines and Zeeman effects?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 3:06 PM Coragyps has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6258
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 45 of 60 (566203)
06-23-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
06-23-2010 12:28 PM


Re: information origins.
Hi Mod,

Modulous writes:

The answer therefore is: From the laws of physics. How did it get into the genome? Work was done. Where did the information from the laws of physics come from? Not a question for evolution.

Satisfied?

No.

Because there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 12:28 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 3:25 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 4:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019