Message 196 of 268 (598253) 12-29-2010 6:35 PM

Reply to: Message 194 by Philip Johnson 12-29-2010 6:30 PM

Can you explain (with supporting evidence) why you think this is so? As it stands you are making an unsupported assertion.

You say 'we should expect x,y and z' without giving us any reason to believe you.

If you can put into words why all the bacteria should have evolved to different things I would be very grateful.

Message 197 of 268 (598256) 12-29-2010 6:48 PM

Reply to: Message 191 by jar 12-29-2010 6:13 PM

Agreed

That is opinion which goes beyond the T of E.

Again, that is opinion

Which goes back to the last two points. The theory is a theory as to what happened, not why it happened. It is no different that the scientific answers for how the universe was formed. Science can observe what happened and even how it happened but it can only speculate between random chance, directionality or some combination of the two.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Message 198 of 268 (598258) 12-29-2010 6:52 PM

Reply to: Message 197 by GDR 12-29-2010 6:48 PM

But that wouldn't be the Theory of Evolution would it. It would be something else.

Message 199 of 268 (598259) 12-29-2010 6:58 PM

Reply to: Message 197 by GDR 12-29-2010 6:48 PM

How? Why is it opinion? Is there any evidence of some directed force?

No, it is observation. We see things becoming more complex and less complex. No directionality.

Nonsense. We can look and see that there is no directionality, things both living and non-living become more complex and less complex. There is no directionality.

Message 200 of 268 (598261) 12-29-2010 7:12 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate 09-13-2010 1:28 PM

The priori of the Buzsaw infinite life and infinite energy hypothesis involves (but is not limited to) evidence of the existence of the Biblical infinite god, Jehovah.

The priori of the evolutionist SM is that of a temporal relative (I say relative) uniformitarian universe all the way back to the beginning. It's other priori is that life had a beginning.

Question: Which priori is most compatible to 1 Lot science law and which is more compatible to probability theory?

Since evidencing the Biblical god, Jehovah would likely not be acceptable here in science I won't go there. That has been addressed in other appropriate forums.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct misspelling of priori

Message 201 of 268 (598285) 12-29-2010 11:55 PM

Reply to: Message 200 by Buzsaw 12-29-2010 7:12 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priory

quote:

---

A priory is a house of men or women under religious vows headed by a prior or prioress.

---

Buz, I can't help but feel that you're now working the "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" methodology. Call it word salad, call it gibberish, call it (?) - I haven't a clue of what you're trying to say.

What do mean by using the terms "priory" and "priories"? Please reply at the Whine list topic.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Screwed up subtitle.

Message 202 of 268 (598308) 12-30-2010 9:18 AM

Reply to: Message 199 by jar 12-29-2010 6:58 PM

If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality.

However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality.

Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity. Things began very simple and are becoming more complex.

Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.

Message 203 of 268 (598310) 12-30-2010 9:30 AM

Reply to: Message 184 by Philip Johnson 12-29-2010 5:13 PM

Organisms don't evolve.

I hate to sound pedantic, but in science it's fairly important to be precise in vocabulary. If you're going to insist on being wrong about the science, could you at least try and use the right words in doing so?

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Message 204 of 268 (598313) 12-30-2010 9:45 AM

Reply to: Message 202 by Philip Johnson 12-30-2010 9:18 AM

I'm sorry but again that is simply nonsense. I'm not even sure how you are proposing measuring complexity.

But please stop and think.

If things become more and also become less complex, then there is not a uniform directionality.

Granted, the very first life was almost certainly very simple. At that point in time, there was only one direction possible, to become less complex would mean becoming non-living.

Once though multicelled individuals existed, then there was the possibility of bi-directionality; and it has been that way ever since.

Nor does the existence of single celled organisms have any bearing on the issue. For example, just in diatoms there are over 100,000 different species extant. And the diatoms that are extant are different than the diatoms that are extinct. They evolved while still remaining single celled critters.

BUT WAIT ... there is more ...

looking still at diatoms we also find species that are colonial; not yet multicelled organisms but on that pathway.

They might well believe that, but yet again that is simply another incorrect position, totally refuted by the evidence available.

And you still have not provided your model for measuring complexity or contributed anything towards the topic of the thread which is "What is Life?"

Message 205 of 268 (598319) 12-30-2010 10:16 AM

Reply to: Message 184 by Philip Johnson 12-29-2010 5:13 PM

Some of the first shelters were made of tree branches. Our houses today are considerably more complex, yet we still use a simple stick to hold up a flag. By your logic, a flagpole should have thousands of parts.

Message 206 of 268 (598322) 12-30-2010 10:27 AM

Reply to: Message 202 by Philip Johnson 12-30-2010 9:18 AM

Welcome to EvC!

First, you might be interested in learning the formatting codes that we use here:

If you type [qs]This is a quote box[/qs], you get this:

You can also put [qs=Name of quoted person] instead of the [qs] to get this:

That ought to help you out some.

There's also a "peek" button at the bottom right of each message. You can click on that to see what codes were used for different formatting styles.

-----

You suspect wrong.

I agree with Jar that "complexity" is a nearly useless word from a scientific standpoint, but I'll use it here just for the sake of argument.

Evolution doesn't take place on a gradient of complexity from "simple" to "complex": evolution takes place across a large number of gradients and other axes of variation, such as "body size, small to large," "finger length, short to long," "digestive system compartmentalization," etc. The interactions of all these gradients make a wide diversity of organisms that are not very easy to arrange on a basic gradient from "simple" to "complex.

Some lineages indeed show a trend toward increasing complexity. But, equally many show a trend toward decreasing complexity. And, by far the majority of lineages show a combination of both.

For example, you could argue that the brain has become more complex in the lineage that went from basal mammals, to basal primates, to monkeys, to apes to humans. But, at the same time, you could also argue that the digestive system and the teeth have become less complex in that same lineage. In fact, the teeth may have repeatedly vacillated between more complex and less complex over time, depending on how you define "complex."

-----

But, evolutionists only believe that this is the case for evolutionary lineages that are more complex than their ancestors. Evolutionists do not think that all evolutionary lineages have increased in complexity over time.

For example, look up "scale insect": these are insects that, as adults, lose all of their extremities and resemble a flat scale on the bark of a tree. Related insects and "more primitive" insects have legs, antennae, eyes and wings. In terms of limb diversity, scale insects are less complex than their evolutionary ancestors.

Once again, some lineages have become more complex, some have become less complex, some have alternated between becoming more complex and becoming less complex, and some have become more complex in some ways and less complex in other ways. This is what we mean when we say there is no directionality.

However, I fear that we've moved a considerable distance away from the topic of this thread, and perhaps we should be finding a way to get back to the discussion of the question, "What is life?"

Edited by Bluejay, : Half a sentence was missing.

Darwin loves you.

Message 207 of 268 (598323) 12-30-2010 10:34 AM

Reply to: Message 182 by Philip Johnson 12-29-2010 5:06 PM

There's no reason there shouldn't be. This is a common misunderstanding when it comes to evolution.

You need to realize that mutations can be selected against and that some mutations actually remove a part of the genome.

We don't expect the genome to just keep getting bigger and bigger over time. Also, just because a genome is larger, doesn't mean that it has to have a lot of morphological affects.

Interestingly, the Amoeba is something that you would think "has not evolved very far" but it has a genome that is, like, 200 times the size as a humans! Sizing up Genomes

FYI, Berkely has a great Evolution 101 site:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

From Message 192:

That's not all it is... NS also weeds out things that don't work.

It depends on what kind of selective pressure there is. Stasis in evolution is not neglected.

If a species happens to fit really well within its niche, and the niche hasn't changed, then we'd expect them to maintain those things that make it fit and avoid those things that don't.

Take the crocodile as an example. Its almost perfect for laying in the river and chomping on passing buffalo, there's no selective pressure driving the change and it is actually working against it.

Same goes for bacteria.

From Message 202:

No, not like you're using it. Sure, we can look back through history and see the trend that things have become more complex, but the Theory of Evolution doesn't have parts in it about that. A complexity trend is all about the environment and the selective pressure it offers.

Not true. It all depends on the environment and the selective pressure it offers. If its conducive to less complexity than that is what will happen. You know, we do see birds that have lost the ability to fly.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Message 208 of 268 (598324) 12-30-2010 10:55 AM

Reply to: Message 182 by Philip Johnson 12-29-2010 5:06 PM

Since the common idea is that all humans originated in Africa, why are there still some people that "have not moved very far?"

You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some people are "further from Africa" than others, whereas all people have actually been mobile for the same amount of time.

Message 209 of 268 (598327) 12-30-2010 11:05 AM

Reply to: Message 202 by Philip Johnson 12-30-2010 9:18 AM

If it is just as likely that a person will move towards Africa as away from it then there is no directionality.

Perhaps instead of telling evolutionists what they believe, you could ask them.

Evolution will favor loss of complexity wherever this is adaptive. This is such a trivially obvious point that you must be a creationist or you'd have grasped it.

This is only one of many amusing ways in which creationists are wrong.

Message 210 of 268 (598417) 12-30-2010 7:43 PM

I'm working to expand my vocabulary. This is a handy word for some occasions such as the present one.