why DID we evolve into humans?

You're using a definition of "information" that is irrelevant to biology and at odds with information theory.Adaptation and evolution don't require the kind of information that you're talking about. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not new mutations can produce "information". After all DNA doesn't code for information, it codes for proteins. And mutations can and do produce new protiens. Eh? What do you mean by this? If you mean that the mentally handicapped tend to miss out on reading The New York Times, then yes, I guess they lack information. However if you're talking about genetic information, you may be interested to know that Down's Syndrome (for instance) is caused by an additional copy of one of their chromosomes. They don't lack information; they have more of it than they're supposed to, apparently. Ah, I see. The bacterium was smart enough to know exactly which new protiens to mutate to?Adaptation is natural selection. Some of the bacteria were born with mutations that allowed them to survive where their peers died. As a result they took over the population. Your statement shows a common misunderstanding about adaptation: Individuals don't adapt. Populations do. Well, they were. If they weren't, you'll have to show us the mechanism that allows bacteria to direct their own mutations. Again, you're making the same mistake. Individuals don't "decide" to adapt. They survive, or they die, based on what mutations they had when they were born. Only populations adapt. Penicillin is a natural product of certain types of mold. How do you think we discovered it? (Look it up.) Anyway there's no magic influence that's changing the nature of the mutations in the bacteria, just because you exposed them to greater concentrations than they usually find. It's still an environment, and whether it's a natural environment or not has nothing to do with how the population will adapt to live in it.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-06-2003]

You've never made information, have you? I mean, really? If you had you would know that "originality is the art of concealing your sources." If copying information isn't making new information, and modifying information isn't making new information, guess what? There's no process that can result in new information, intelligent or non. So clearly your definition of "information" is at odds with any practical use of the term. How else could it have metabolized penecillin? All DNA codes for is protiens. If an effacious mutation occured, then new protiens were formed. It's pretty simple. You seem to have a real problem with the difference between an individual and a population. Natural selection happens to individuals. Adaptation happens to populations, and is caused by natural selection on individuals. This isn't hard to grasp. Why? Why does evolution require new information? Evolution requires new protiens, yes, but new protiens don't require new information, in the sense you're talking about. You have yet to explain why your definition of information is the least relevant to biology. Well, then how did a population of bacteria which lacked the ability to process penecillin - to such a degree that exposure to penicillin was immediately fatal - come to possess an ability to tolerate it? Remember there's not much in bacteria besides DNA and the cellular mechanisms to generate protiens. They don't have livers or other filtering organs. All they can do is make protiens from genetic templates.If they gained an ability they didn't have before, it came from new protiens that they didn't have before. If they have new protiens, it can only be because of mutation. Again, this isn't hard to grasp. It's not a cop out, it's just pointing out an error you keep making. Adaptation happens to populations. Not individuals.Evolution is the answer to the question "how do new species arise?" Species arise when they change a certain amount. How do they change? Through adaptation to their environment. How do they adapt? A process of natural selection favors individuals with mutations that are beneficial in their environment. ...which causes adaptation. Again, I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this, unless you don't understand the terms...

Ok, I've done so, and am beginning to get a better idea of what you're talking about.You're still making mistakes, though. Evolutionists do claim that mutation itself is random and un-directed. (That's why we call it "random mutation.") But natural selection is anything but random. Selection pressures are very specific and are driven by the environment. It's the combination of random mutation and very, very un-random natural selection that leads to adaptation.Mark isn't saying that the population didn't adapt to an environment of penicillin, because that's clearly what they did. What's he's saying is that the mutation that ultimately gave them the ability to deal with the penicillin was random. It just happened. It wasn't directed in any way. But once it happened, natural selection favored individuals with that mutation to the point that they took over the population. Hence, adaptation.Evolution says that populations will tend to adapt to their environment (or go extinct.) The mutations that will allow them to do so are random in origin. But the selection pressure that produces an adapted population is anything but random.

But evolution isn't "something coming from nothing". It's all life coming from life, descent with modification. There's relatively little novelty in the evolutionary process. Every step it's just tiny changes to already-existing organs and systems. Why? Life is just a special kind of chemistry. There's nothing magic about life. Says you. Anyway, as it turns out, evolution is a far better creator than human design. After all, if it wasn't, why would so many engineers and circuit designers use evolutionary algorhythms to design circuits and jet planes? Not so. You have this idea that the only mutation that occured in the population was the resitance to penicillin. That's not the case. When the population was introduced to the penicillin substrate, yes, some individuals in the population had a mutation that conferred resistance. But guess what? Other individuals had a mutation that conferred resistance to (for instance) higher levels of salinity. Other individuals had a mutation that made them larger, or breed faster. There were thousands of mutations already in the population, all with differing degrees of potential usefulness. It's just that, in the penicillin environment, the mutation for resistance was the only one that was selected for. All other individuals without that mutation - but with their own, different mutations - died.Mutation is happening all the time, randomly. Once again you're mistaking directed natural selection for the random mutation and ignoring all the random mutations that didn't allow bacteria to survive. It's funny you mention that, because engineers use evolution to design jets. Says you. On the other hand, Mark article says it can and does happen, and you've presented no rebuttal except "I can't believe it works like that." Well, guess what? What you will or won't believe has nothing to do with it.

Evolution doesn't demand new things to come from nowhere. Evolution is a process by which new organs and structures are made from pre-existing ones. That's why dolphins have pelvises, and bat wings are really elongated wrist bones. There's really very little novelty in evolution. It's all minor changes adding up over time.

Yeah, but so is the Theory of Gravity. But I don't see you jumping off any bridges...I'll be absoluetly clear: "Theory" doesn't mean what you think it means when scientists say it. I'd wager that most scientific theories - including evolution - are considerably more true than those things you think are "facts".

Ok, so tell me which of these statements is more true for you:"I've stopped beating my wife.""I haven't stopped beating my wife."Given that these statements are opposites, and given your perception that things are either true or false, one of these statements must be true, and the other false. So, which is it? Have you stopped beating your wife, or not?Anyway, to get back to the point, I was pointing out that "theory" doesn't mean "guess" when scientists use the word. And if you object to the construction "more true", then I'll rephrase: More scientific theories are true than things you think are fact.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-11-2003]

Actually he's just talking about another poster on this board, in another topic. Maybe if you'd chill out a little bit you'd have caught on, instead of looking like a crank and calling people "retards". Honestly is name-calling how God wants you to witness to people? I doubt it.

Right, but if there's only things that are true, and things that are false, then for any two opposite statements, one of them must be true and the other must be false.It's your position that things are either true or false; there's no middle ground. If that's the case than you should be able to tell me which of those two statements is the true one.On the other hand, if neither of them are true, then you have to grant that there's intermediate levels of truth. Asking you if you believed iin "truth" or not. Some people (like Syamsu) appear not to. He wasn't calling you anything. It's a public board. Anyone can play. If you don't like that, then you can take your ball and go home. Christians witness in every action they make. I should know, I was one. And what you're giving witness to is that creationists rely on swearing and name-calling when they get backed into a corner. Now, I don't know that you're a Christian, but most people who take a creationist view are. If you're not a Christian, just say so. But if you are, shouldn't you be acting like one? I'm just curious.Now, remember how we (well, me) were talking about how "theory" doesn't mean "guess"? Are you prepared to address this oversight of yours or not? Or should we assume that when you say "evolution is just a theory" you mean to say that it's a verified and accurate scientific model? That's what a "theory" is in this context, after all.

Actuallly it would be more correct to say I meant "more accurate" or "less accurate", in terms of how accurately certain models (aka "theories") represent reality. Again, my point was to say that those models that you have incorrectly implied are "guesses" are actually more accurate in describing reality than many of the things you probably hold as fact. Probably, because it wasn't a stupid statement. In the English-speaking world, almost every Creationist is a Chrisitian. This is one of the things that most typifies the movement - it's primarily composed of evangelical, Biblically literalist Christians. If you don't believe me, do the research. Find me a Buddist group that believes God created everything. Sure. As it turns out, no religions besides literalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam (probably, I haven't asked) take creationism seriously. Most religions are surprisingly accepting of the findings of science - except for literalist Christianity. To the contrary - I would assume that Christians, who claim to follow the teachings of Christ, would ack Christlike. Did Jesus call people "retards"? You're free to disagree, but then you would be in the position of asserting that Christians aren't supposed to act like Christ, which is simply bizarre. Hey, I'm not telling you. I'm just telling you what the Bible tells you. If you don't believe me, why don't you go ask your pastor if you should call people "retards"? Well, why don't you look at the major creationist organizations and tell me what religion they appear to be. After all, if the creationist position is that the Chrisitan Bible is literally true, don't you think that would put Buddist or even Jewish creationists in kind of a bind?

Not nessicarily special, magic creation. I have no problem with people who believe that God created the universe and humanity by setting up initial conditions such that humans evolved through a process consistent with the scientific evidence. That's not Creationism, though.So, no, the Jews aren't largely Creationists, just as the Catholics aren't. They believe in a Creator God, I suppose, but they're theistic evolutionists, largely. Not creationists. Again, no. Creationism isn't just Christians "believing what they believe." It's unique among religions in that it actually perverts science to vcreate false support for the tenants of it's holy book. The Jews don't do this. The Catholics don't. Why do Protestant Christians feel the need to?Believe it or not, it's possible to have both faith in God and a belief in evolution. I don't personally, but many evolutionists here are people of faith. You might go ask them how it's done before you assume that any religious faith whatsoever discounts your ability to be an evolutionist. As one of the leftwingers you're talking about, I assure you that liberals prize diversity of viewpoint - except for the viewpoint that there can be no diversity of viewpoint. This is not contradictory. It's impossible to be so welcoming of others that you welcome those who won't welcome others. I know that you do. So ask yourself, "does God want me calling people retards?" I'm surprised that you haven't asked yourself that already, in fact. I would assume that the Commandment against bearing false witness against people would preclude you from calling people who aren't retarded "retards". But, you know. Who cares about the commandments? They're only God's word. Romans 6:1-2

quote:

---

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

---

Sorry, dude. The Bible says that you don't get a pass on sinning just because you've been saved. Part of having faith and being saved is that you stop sinning. What did Jesus say to the adulteress? "Go and sin no more." How come you're still sinning so unrepentantly?I realize that you're not perfect. But it seems to me the thing to do here, if you admit that what you called WK was wrong, would be to apologize. Not to defend the sin. Well, jeez, here's a crazy idea - if you just got mad, and said something you regret, why not apologize? It's what adults do when they say things they didn't mean. Why not? You argue a position held only by persons of Christian faith - the need to challenge science that doesn't agree with the Bible. I assumed therefore that you were of that faith. Faith isn't just an idea, it's something you have to put into practice, therefore I pointed out an inconsistency between your faith and your practice.I defend my assumption, because it was clearly dead on. Were you not actually a Christian, your objection might have merit. Honestly I don't see what you're so ashamed about that you have to hide your faith on the internet. I seriously don't care if your Christian or not. But shouldn't you care?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-13-2003]

I'm sorry, you're just wrong about this. Why don't you ask theistic evolutionists like Percipient here, who runs the board, if he thinks of himself as a creationist?People who believe that God made life through a process of natural evolution simply aren't creationists. They don't think of themselves as creationists, and creationist organizations like Answers In Genesis don't think of them as creationists. So if nobody thinks of them as creationists but you, who are you to tell both the people in question and creationist organizations like Answers In Genesis that they're wrong? Right, but that's not what it means to be a creationist. Creationism is the position that life on earth (or human beings at least) were specifically and specially created by God some 6000 years ago. Anything less than that is evolutionism. Now, there's varieties of creationism, to be sure, but none of them say that humans evolved naturally from other life in the way suggested by the fossil record, absent of divine intervention. That's the evolutionary position, and it's sufficiently broad to include people who believe in God, like Percipient, and persons like myself, who do not. Good thing I'm not angry about it. We can talk about it. Nope. Again, I know what Chrisitans are supposed to be like, because I was one. And when I was one, if you had been acting the way you are around me, I would have been ashamed that you called yourself Christian, as you should be ashamed now. Ah, yes. When Scripture is telling you not to do something you want to do, it's just being taken "out of context". Again we see the escape hatch of the Biblical Literalist. Pray tell, explain to me the context that allows Romans 6:1-2 to allow you to sin whenever you like without contrition. I never had a problem with your swearing, despite your rather flimsy justification for it. Again, I challenge you to run your interpretations of the Bible past your pastor, not because you answer to him, but because he has more experience reading the Bible than you do. It's the same view of creationists. Shouldn't I take their word for it? You need to tell that to Answers In Genesis, and the ICR, and other leading creationist organizations, because they have a differing definition than you. And as they are in the business of knowing who the creationists are and aren't, I'm more inclined to take their word over yours. Um, when you argued. That's what an argument is - persons taking opposing positions to defend them. It's ludricous to suggest you've argued without taking a position. Like I said, explain to me the context that makes Romans 6:1-2 say that you can sin whenever you like without contrition.

Again, I don't give a damn about swearing. I swear too. What I care about is that you called a person retarded in anger and confusion and now don't even begin to appear remorseful about it. I'm sure WK doesn't care that you told him he was a retard, but I do. You've made a sufficiently big deal about it that I think you owe him an apology for your ill-chosen words.I'm sorry that you don't find it Chrisitan to apologize when you've done something wrong. I can't imagine what interpetation of the Bible allows you to be a dick and not feel bad about it, though. Could you stop for a minute and explain to me what you're going on about? I never told you you couldn't swear. Swear all you like. I don't care, and I've never told you otherwise. What I don't like is somebody who calls people "retarded" simply because he doesn't agree with what they're saying. That's bearing false witness, and just plain rude, to boot.

I concur wholeheartedly. I hadn't realized that was misattributed to Twain. I thought he had actually said it. But then, to (mis?)wuote Twain:"It seems to me that any quotation, delivered with sufficient confidence, stands an equal chance to deceive." But, no. The "kid" stuff isn't bothering me. He can say what he likes about me. None of it's true, of course. I assume that you've payed enough attention to my posts to glean that I'm a person old enough to be married, at least.

This: is not generally considered an apology. It's called "making excuses". But, since I had overlooked it, I guess I'll let it go. Thank you for pointing it out, though.