Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
22 online now:
caffeine, Faith, kjsimons (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,617 Year: 16,653/19,786 Month: 778/2,598 Week: 24/251 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 752 (565940)
06-22-2010 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Flyer75
06-22-2010 1:58 AM


If comets have been proven by all scientists alike to only be able to "survive" for roughly 100,000 years ...

They haven't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Flyer75, posted 06-22-2010 1:58 AM Flyer75 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 752 (566055)
06-22-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ICANT
06-22-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Question
I take information to be a message with a sender that is responsible for the information and a receiver.

The information is any message the sender chooses to compose.

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.


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 38 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 9:45 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 752 (566122)
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: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 752 (566127)
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: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 752 (566129)
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

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 752 (566169)
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 responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 61 of 752 (566268)
06-23-2010 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
06-23-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Question
How does the mutation or natural selection produce new information?

By producing new information.

This is the reason why people wanted you to be more precise in your definition.

Do you have an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally?

Yeah, the human genome.

I can beg the question just as much as you can. Bite me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 3:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 62 of 752 (566271)
06-23-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
06-23-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Question
My question was where does all this information come from?

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

By selection and drift acting on random mutations, recombination, lateral gene transfer, and so forth.

You may disagree with the answer that scientists give to your question, but don't go around pretending that you don't know what their answer is. You know perfectly well.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 63 of 752 (566272)
06-23-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
06-23-2010 2:05 PM


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

Well, that depends what you mean by "created".

If you mean "caused to begin to exist", then the answer is NO.

If you mean "poofed into existence out of nothing by an invisible magical fairy in the sky who doesn't actually exist", then the answer is YES.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 2:05 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 66 of 752 (566292)
06-24-2010 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
06-23-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Question
My parents produced my DNA I don't know where you got yours from.

You are to my knowledge the first creationist honest enough to admit that information comes from natural causes rather than an invisible fairy who lives in the sky.

I salute you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2010 11:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 77 of 752 (575105)
08-18-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tram law
08-18-2010 4:20 PM


Does DNA disprove evolution? [...] If it can't be mapped all the way back to the time when life first began?

But why should it be?

The way to test a theory is to see whether our observations match its predictions.

Now, the concept of evolution does not in any way predict that we should be able to map the genomes of long-extinct species. This is something that we wouldn't be able to do no matter how true or false neo-Darwinism is.

As such it can have no bearing on the correctness of the theory.

One might as well argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because we can't describe the orbits of the bodies in the gravitational field of Aldebaran. To be sure, this is a gravity-related question, and one that we can't answer, but the theory does not in any way imply that we should be able to answer it --- so it is not a test of the theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Tram law, posted 08-18-2010 4:20 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 12:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 752 (575109)
08-18-2010 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Tram law
08-18-2010 9:37 PM


In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science?

It's already plenty falsifiable; and creationists will come up with bad arguments under any conceivable set of circumstances.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Tram law, posted 08-18-2010 9:37 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 752 (575445)
08-20-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Bolder-dash
08-20-2010 12:53 AM


I'll start a thread, hold on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 12:53 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 752 (575481)
08-20-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Bolder-dash
08-20-2010 3:34 AM


I can make a theory that says all of human emotions are created by the remnants of the fragrance of apples in the air. And to prove my theory through predictions, I predict some people will get upset tomorrow, and some will be happy, and some will laugh.

See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true.

I love science!

What does your theory predict if you:

(a) Isolate people from the fragrance of apples by putting them in an environment where they only breathe "scrubbed" air, as in a clean room?

(b) Expose them to extra-large quantities of the esters in question?

(c) Put them in scuba suits breathing an artificial oxygen-helium mix and send them diving?

(d) Observe an anosmic person to see if they have emotions?

Bear in mind that for an idea to count as a theory at all it must be falsifiable. Bear in mind also that a theory is judged by the sum total of its predictions --- obviously one is not allowed to cherry-pick.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 3:34 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 6:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 752 (575488)
08-20-2010 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Bolder-dash
08-20-2010 6:35 AM


So, your "theory" is not a theory, because it makes no testable predictions whatsoever.

Thank you for playing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 6:35 AM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-20-2010 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has 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