Life began 25 years ago

quote:

---

This is false...The only thing that is certain is that...I...misunderstand science

---

Does that make you mad? Then don't take quotes out of context.. Conversations are built on previous posts, if you had read my previous ones, I've touched on, and you may see that I agree with, just about everything you wrote. You got me on technical issues, which you would have taken as a given had you read the previous conversation...

quote:

---

This is false. Evolution is presently observed in real time. Take a look at Rrhain's description of a common labratory experiment and other similar evidences in this post here.

---

yes, microevolution. Now pull a rabbit out of your e.coli-test-tube hat.

quote:

---

This is abiogenesis, for which there is no explanation as of yet. The only thing that is certain is that it happened.

---

Another ziontist? Come on, the only thing that is maybe close to certain is that you slept through probability class.Ok, now test for me with your evolution theory, test I did say, as in, "show me the money", as to the missing links in an evolutionary line such as from a cat to a bear or more simply from Lucy our most recent ancestors. You cannot test. You can postulate and theorize by providing more evidence which just proves there are more missing links. I'll make a film for you, and charge you $20, and you'll get to watch my film. At the beginning, there is nothing, at around 20 minutes into my film, you'll see a brief glimpse of a woman. At around 50 minutes into it, maybe if you're not asleep you'll see a brief picture of a naked woman followed at 1 hour by the full scene of a grapefruit in an art museum. Highly erotic stuff, my film, and very convincing that you made a good choice in seeing my film, right? Well, that's what you get when we call a film something which it is not. At least, you'd probably want your money back.
However, if you can justify your faith in evolution--oops, you almost got me, macroevolution with real-time proof, then I'm joining your side.Please check out the previous posts here before jumping to conclusions about my beliefs and "misconceptions"...-Brian

Here's the money, some transitional hominids: The key:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modernWhat else do you want? Horse evolution, land mammal to whale intermediates, Reptile jaw with one middle ear ossicle to mammalian jaw with three middle ear ossicles transitional intermediates, etc? Or, maybe you could tell us how many transitionals it will take before you "believe" in the theory of evolution? Mark24 can go into this with more depth, but we can test. We can test changes in morphology with time, and what we end up with is nested hierarchies. Both the dating of the fossils and the changes in morphology are done in separate tests and they both match up. So, yes we can test, sorry for the dissapointment. Show me creation in real time and I will join your side. Until then, I will observe evolution (no difference between micro and macro) in real time and in the fossil record and draw from evidence the most likely theory. You, on the other hand, can believe a book written by men claiming to be inerrant as your singular proof of creation.Maybe you could give us actual physical evidence for creation that we can test and theorize with. Refutating evolution does not count, creation would still be without evidence. Real, hard, hold in your hand evidence would be a good start. Also, could you work out a falsification for creation, if you want to claim creationism as a theory it needs a method for falsification just like the theory of evolution has.

Not in the least. Is that what you were going for? Why would you want to make me mad? What purpose would that serve? Please elucidate for me the barriers you believe to exist between what you think is "microevolution" and "macroevolution." I assure you, the only ones that exist are in the imaginations of creationists. Your pathetic insult notwithstanding, it is indeed certain that abiogenesis happened. What is uncertain is how it happened. Creationists propose that their God caused it, naturalists propose that no such supernatural assistance was required. Neither dispute the fact that at one point there was no living matter, and then at a later point there was. That's all abiogenesis is. Are you saying that there was always living matter? Even Genesis disagrees with you there, since it does not describe animals as being created on the first day, let alone before any other matter. You again betray your ignorance of what evolutionary evidence exists. See fossil hominids, and take a look at this diagram here: The existence of each of these, as well as their morphological procession through time, is a prediction of evolutionary theory. Is there a creationist explanation for them, apart from the perennially useless "Goddidit"? It is you that claims that there exists barriers between what you call "microevolution" and "macroevolution." It is therefore you that needs to demonstrate that your imagined barriers indeed exist. The mechanisms for evolution (and the mechanisms are the same at any scale) have been observed in real time. Your claim is akin to insisting that it is unreasonable to believe that I can walk from my doorway to the end of the block since you've only observed me walk as far as the end of my driveway.

DANG! Beat me by a minute.

quote:

---

The theory of gravity can be witnessed

---

Wrong. Effects of gravity can be witnessed. Gravity itself cannot. Before, the standard theory of gravity - based on the witnessed effects - was that it pulled things down toward a flat earth, and the sun and moon were not affected by it. The theory of gravitation is an interpolation on the available evidence that fits all data points.

quote:

---

diseases can be witnessed, the Universe can be seen to turn each day and that the Sun is at the center of our orbit.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Having faith in evolution is like having faith that a certain man really is guilty of a crime when no one was there to see it and he left no trace at the scene

---

No. Having "faith in evolution" is like having faith that a certain man really is guilty of a crime when he left his DNA all over the scene, was found with the murder weapon, and left footprints all the way from the crime scene to his apartment. One thing that really bothers me about creationists it that, not knowing about what fossil evidence is out there, they assume there is little or none.Try and wrap your head around this: There have been *millions* of fossils dig up and categorized, each one studied in intense detail, across the entire planet.. What does this study get us? Far more than most uneducated creationists realize; you can see where muscle attaches to bone, and consequently determine how the organism moved. There are different textures and surface patterns between broken bone and normal bone surfaces. That, and the fact that bones have consistant, unique shapes, allow for consistant reconstructing of fossil skeletons in the exact same way that we can construct the skulls of crime scene victims. How can we tell that a species is bipedal? There's literally several dozen ways (such as the angle the spinal cord fits into the pelvis, and where the femur applies pressure on the pelvis). How can we tell what a species ate? There, again, are dozens of ways, ranging from the shape and type of wear on the teeth, to the size of the muscles that attach to the jaw and its degree of mobility in its socket, to even internal structural characteristics - all of which we know from the millions of modern species studied. This isn't guesswork; there is a huge wealth of information you can glean from even a single piece of bone, let alone a complete skeleton, let alone millions of categorized fossils.

quote:

---

(yes, I know there are traces left for one to postulate evolution, but no one can witness it in motion)

---

Name something that you don't think has been witnessed; I'll give you an example of where it has.

quote:

---

but we cannot call an unobservable phenomenon "certain".

---

We (currently) cannot observe the fundamentals of string theory. Thus, it is uncertain. We can, and do, observe evolution, and the fossil record backs it up 100%, with millions of datapoints. You can't get any better than that.

quote:

---

to say that life came from non-living matter and that humans came indirectly from bacteria, or what have you, and then calling this a certainty--this is bad science.

---

Name a step along the way that you want an observed example of, and I'll show it to you, present day. Also, while we're at it, would you like pictures of the fossils of the organisms that led up to our species? (I'm about halfway done assembling a link list)? I'm sure, to you, it's quite the coincidence that there just happened to be a smooth transition at exactly the points in the rock (despite geographical and environmental differences) that dated to exactly where they'd need to be for a biological succession.

quote:

---

It may be true, but the chickens have not yet hatched...

---

But they do have dinosaur-style teeth when they're still embryos. Now why did God do that one? A joke? Trying to trick us into believing in evolution?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

"The theory of gravity can be witnessed,"

---

This is an interesting mistake. Rei already discusses it, but I want to talk about it too.I think many folks are under the impression that they drop a pencil to the floor, and that's showing the "theory of gravity". Nonsense. That's a pencil falling to the floor. A piece of data. The inference of "gravity", a single construct that also bends the path of light, shapes planetary orbits, and effects the evolution of stars, is complicated and indirect. There are numerous competing "theories of gravity", not a single obvious uncontroversial "truth".[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 12-15-2003]

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Having faith in evolution is like having faith that a certain man really is guilty of a crime when no one was there to see it and he left no trace at the scene.
----------------------------------------------------------------------A jury having faith in forensic pathology is like having faith that a certain man is guilty of a crime when no one was there to see it and the perp (thought) he left no trace at the scene?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-15-2003]

brdean responds to me:

quote:

---

But of course someone would have to inhabit this body, else I be dead.

---

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about your consciousness. I'm talking about your body. If your parents had not had sex that particular moment, if another sperm had made it to the egg, if a different ovum had matured during that cycle, if the entire succession of ancestors in your line hadn't had similar once-in-a-lifetime occurrences, then you literally would not be here. Everything about you would vanish.But somebody else with a different body and a different past would be here.When you flip a coin and it lands heads, are you surprised that it landed at all? What would be amazing is if you flipped a coin and it showed up the Queen of Clubs. But since coins only land heads or tails (or in the truly amazing instance, on its edge), we aren't surprised to find that a coin, when flipped, comes up with some result. It has to.

quote:

---

But the difference is that I have a consciousness and can look out from within.

---

Irrelevant. If a whole sequence of amazingly improbable events hadn't happened, you, specifically, would not be here. However, somebody else would. The process still spits out a result. You as a specific result might be highly improbable, but the likelihood that some result comes around is practically guaranteed.

quote:

---

Consciousness seems to me to exist as a product of individual, well, consciousness.

---

Irrelevant. That you can think about it means nothing. If you weren't here, somebody else would be. We are not surprised to find that a process that necessarily gives a result actually produces one.

quote:

---

My existence is a product of something higher than chance, in other words

---

Why? Improbable things happen all the time. In a six-deck shoe (such as one might find in a gambling table at a casino), there are 312! or on the order of 10^644 possible ways to deal it out. And yet, every day, thousands of shoes are dealt out. A truly astronomical outcome appears right before your very eyes, but nobody finds it to be anything special. And to think that in a single casino, you've got at least a dozen such shoes being played at any given moment (on the order of 10^11754 different ways for them to play out). Are you saying that something other than chance is making those cards land the way they do?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

Call it what you will, but I am not the only scientific type to believe in something higher

---

Irrelevant.The question isn't about what you believe. It's only about what you can prove. Your argument is one based upon probability: It can't have happened through mundane means because you find it to be too improbable to happen. And yet, you provide no analysis of why it is improbable and make some fundamental errors...such as confusion over what you're trying to calculate in the first place.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

brdean responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you were to draw a card, why is there any significance to the fact that you drew the Ace of Spades as opposed to the Four of Diamonds? Each one was equally likely to appear. The only conceivable difference is that you have attached an emotional significance to one of the cards and not to the other. That is irrelevant and doesn't mean anything.

---

​

In an atheistic evolutionary perspective,

---

Just a parboiled second there.What is this "atheistic evolutionary" thing of which you speak? You seem to be under the impression that evolutionary theory starts with the assumption that there is no god. If you would be so kind, could you show me a single paper on evolutionary biology that starts with, "Since there is no god," or concludes with, "Thus, there is no god"?Heck, even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only scientifically valid explanation we have for the diversification of life on this planet. Surely you aren't saying the Pope is an atheist, are you? I'm not saying you need to agree with the Pope's theology. I'm merely asking if you are claiming that the Pope doesn't believe in god.

quote:

---

there are infinite beings that will always be placed into a body,

---

Non sequitur. It doesn't even make semantic sense.

quote:

---

But your example of the 52 cards is very similar to what I feel,

---

So you're saying that when you draw the Ace of Spades, it's because god made you do it?Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

brdean responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

but my argument rests on the atheistic evolutionary perspective

---

Just a parboiled second there.What is this "atheistic evolutionary" thing of which you speak? You seem to be under the impression that evolutionary theory starts with the assumption that there is no god. If you would be so kind, could you show me a single paper on evolutionary biology that starts with, "Since there is no god," or concludes with, "Thus, there is no god"?Heck, even the Pope agrees that evolution is the only scientifically valid explanation we have for the diversification of life on this planet. Surely you aren't saying the Pope is an atheist, are you? I'm not saying you need to agree with the Pope's theology. I'm merely asking if you are claiming that the Pope doesn't believe in god.

quote:

---

An atheistic believer in evolution has a million reasons to justify why his body exists, but, correct me if I am wrong, absolutely none to explain his individuality among other beings.

---

You assume that this needs explaining. In essence, your argument is that there is a soul. You have not provided any justification for this claim.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No life is a product of chance alone.
The Theory of Evolution postulates that chance, in the form of random genetic mutation, combined with natural selection, which is the very opposite of chance, is how species change over time.

​

Evolution, in other words, does not work by random chance alone. Why did you think it did?

---

​

You stand corrected, the very basis of evolution is the mutation of the reproductive genome, this requires an error in replication, and this error is a product of chance unless one is in a laboratory.

---

You stand corrected. Did you even bother to read schraf's reply before responding? You even quoted the most important part, but you seem to have completely missed it:Natural selection.Why are you forgetting about natural selection? You're absolutely right that the only way things can change is to have the genome change, which for all intents and purposes is a random process.But you're forgetting about natural selection: Not all random mutations are created equal. Some get chosen over others.When you roll a die, you get a random result (assuming the die and roll are fair). But before you even roll that die, it has been constrained to land between 1 and 6. You don't roll a die and get the Seven of Hearts. A die roll is random, but not so random as to result in something other than a die roll.

quote:

---

My body was _sure_ to be born

---

No, it wasn't. If your parents hadn't had sex at that time, if a different sperm had made it to the egg, if a different egg had matured during the cycle, if all of your ancestors hadn't had similar once-in-a-lifetime improbabilities happen, then your body wouldn't be here.A different body would, however.Your argument boils down to the claim of the existence of a soul. You have provided no evidence that such a thing exists.

quote:

---

Let me break it down and say it then, you may not believe in God because by first and foremost concluding arrogantly that he probably does not exist (or if you do leave some chance that he may exist, this statement doesn't apply to you).

---

I love people who try to psychoanalyze people over the internet...we always learn such amazing things about ourselves!Your argument boils down to accusing scraf of being insane. Not exactly a basis for a pleasant conversation, now is it?

quote:

---

This has been my experience

---

Who cares? Until you can have somebody else duplicate your experience, it will remain your experience and nobody else's.

quote:

---

one cannot fathom the idea of God until one has learned to give him a try

---

Logical error: Circular reasoning.In order to experience god, one needs to believe in god but you can't believe in god until you experience god.Also, logical error: Affirming the consequent.In the attempt to show the existence of god, one must assume the existence of god which is what one was trying to show in the first place.

quote:

---

your stating that I have them implies you have none.

---

Incorrect.Our stating that you have them implies we don't have the same ones you do. We might have even more misconceptions than you do, but we do not have the ones you have.

quote:

---

Have many of you considered that God can be the most cool, accepting, and kind friend?

---

Have you considered that god doesn't care?Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?

quote:

---

the biggest woman chaser, the most honorable

---

You do realize that those two traits contradict each other, yes?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

brdean writes:

quote:

---

The theory of gravity can be witnessed

---

No, the fact of gravity can be witnessed. That is, when I drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We call the force that pulls it to the ground "gravity." The theory of gravity seeks to explain that fact by describing its functioning (F = Gm₁m₂/r²).That said, evolution can be witnessed, too.Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they should all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.There is a similar experiment where you take bacteria that have had their lactose operons removed and they evolve to be able to digest lactose again.You might want to look up the information regarding the development of bacteria capable of digesting nylon oligimers. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation.Therefore, since we can watch evolution happen right before our eyes, by what justification does one claim that it cannot happen or is unobserved?

quote:

---

Having faith in evolution is like having faith that a certain man really is guilty of a crime when no one was there to see it and he left no trace at the scene

---

So by this logic, we should open up the prisons and let most of the inmates out. Most crimes have no witnesses. In fact, eye-witness testimony is the worst sort of testimony one can have since it relies upon unreliable memories and suffers from people deliberately lying let alone being simply mistaken.Instead, we have this thing called "forensics" that allows us to make conclusions about things even though we weren't personally there to witness them. That's because when physical things happen, they leave physical evidence behind. By examining the physical evidence, we can come to conclusions about what happened.While we can witness evolution right before our eyes, you're right that we didn't witness, say, the dinosaurs. However, the dinosaurs were there at the time and they left remains that we can directly observe those fossils and make conclusions about what happened.

quote:

---

but we cannot call an unobservable phenomenon "certain".

---

Indeed. But since we can observe evolution, not only in the present but in the remnants of the past, one wonders why you would have us deny those observations simply to satisfy your personal distaste.

quote:

---

What is observable in evolution theory can be accepted (finches, fish, and hummingbirds adapting to their environments),

---

No, not "adapting." Evolving. The organisms that come after are not genetically identical to the ones that came before.When your dog gets a thicker coat for the winter, that's adaptation. When his offspring lose that ability (and aren't affected by it because they are living in a much milder climate), that's evolution.

quote:

---

to say that life came from non-living matter

---

Evolution doesn't say that. Could you find me any peer reviewed journal article that says, "Since life started via abiogenesis"?And then, while you're at it, could you explain to me what would be different in evolutionary theory if life were created by god zap-poofing it into existence? Or if life on this planet came from alien seeding or panspermia? Or a rift through space time? Or any other method you could possibly think of?

quote:

---

humans came indirectly from bacteria, or what have you, and then calling this a certainty--this is bad science.

---

Why? It's what all the evidence suggests. Why are you asking us to deny the data? Why are you asking us to lie?

quote:

---

It may be true, but the chickens have not yet hatched

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? What journals, articles, studies, experiments, or data are you using to justify your claim?Do not confuse what you know with what everybody else knows.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

brdean writes:

quote:

---

yes, microevolution

---

What is the difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"?In biology, "microevolution" is evolution that happens below the species level. "Macroevolution" is evolution that happens above the species level. You will note that the evolutionary processes don't change. In short, "macroevolution" is nothing more than a whole bunch of "microevolutionary" steps.If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

quote:

---

Now pull a rabbit out of your e.coli-test-tube hat.

---

That's what the fossil record is for. Why are you denying the very data that is right before your eyes?But if you want more specific examples of observed speciation, here you go:Observed Instances of SpeciationSome More Observed Speciation EventsIshikawa M, Ishizaki S, Yamamoto Y, Yamasato K.
Paraliobacillus ryukyuensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a new Gram-positive, slightly halophilic, extremely halotolerant, facultative anaerobe isolated from a decomposing marine alga.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Oct;48(5):269-79.
PMID: 12501437 [PubMed - in process]Kanamori T, Rashid N, Morikawa M, Atomi H, Imanaka T.
Oleomonas sagaranensis gen. nov., sp. nov., represents a novel genus in the alpha-Proteobacteria.
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17;217(2):255-261.
PMID: 12480113 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Fudou R, Jojima Y, Iizuka T, Yamanaka S.
Haliangium ochraceum gen. nov., sp. nov. and Haliangium tepidum sp. nov.: Novel moderately halophilic myxobacteria isolated from coastal saline environments.
J Gen Appl Microbiol. 2002 Apr;48(2):109-16.
PMID: 12469307 [PubMed - in process]Golyshin PN, Chernikova TN, Abraham WR, Lunsdorf H, Timmis KN, Yakimov MM.
Oleiphilaceae fam. nov., to include Oleiphilus messinensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002 May;52(Pt 3):901-11.
PMID: 12054256 [PubMed - in process]Ivanova EP, Mikhailov VV.
[A new family of Alteromonadaceae fam. nov., including the marine proteobacteria species Alteromonas, Pseudoalteromonas, Idiomarina i Colwellia.]
Mikrobiologiia. 2001 Jan-Feb;70(1):15-23. Review. Russian.
PMID: 11338830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Stackebrandt E, Schumann P.
Description of Bogoriellaceae fam. nov., Dermacoccaceae fam. nov., Rarobacteraceae fam. nov. and Sanguibacteraceae fam. nov. and emendation of some families of the suborder Micrococcineae.
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2000 May;50 Pt 3:1279-85.
PMID: 10843073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Notice that we have instances of even higher orders of taxa beyond species showing up.So if we can see it right before our very eyes, why would you have us deny it?

quote:

---

Ok, now test for me with your evolution theory, test I did say, as in, "show me the money", as to the missing links in an evolutionary line such as from a cat to a bear or more simply from Lucy our most recent ancestors.

---

Done and done:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
Fossil HominidsDo not confuse your ignorance with a universal lack of knowledge.

quote:

---

You cannot test.

---

Sure you can. What do you think the fossils are?

quote:

---

You can postulate and theorize by providing more evidence which just proves there are more missing links.

---

Ah, so basically what you are saying is that until you can be shown every single parent-offspring relationship, one cannot make any claims at all. If we know the name of the grandfather and we know the name of the granddaughter, it is impossible to infer the generation between them, is that what you're saying?You know, I don't remember anything about my birth. And yet, even though I don't have any personal recollection of the event, I'm pretty sure I was born. And no, I don't need my parents' word for it. I've never seen any other human being appearing except through birth. Why should I be any different?

quote:

---

Please check out the previous posts here before jumping to conclusions about my beliefs and "misconceptions"...

---

Nope, no jumping required. Based upon this and your previous posts, you have some serious misconceptions about what evolutionary theory is, what it says, and what is used to justify it.This is a typical creationist claim: Because we don't know everything, then that means we know nothing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

What is the difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"?

​

In biology, "microevolution" is evolution that happens below the species level. "Macroevolution" is evolution that happens above the species level.

---

Your definitions are what I had in mind. The pictures quoted often show a line of somewhat monkey-looking dudes, to a modern human. I see things from your perspective now. At which point in this line back from humans, to the monkey-relative were the number of pairs of chromosomes different than 23? Is there any similar picture or diagram showing how many chromosomes each of these guys had along their journey? And how did the first 23-pair, like us, overcome his chromosome incompatibility with his mate?I guess our trouble lies in what we call microevolution. In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother. While it is seems at first glance a bit too highly specific, it makes perfect sense.

quote:

---

brdean writes:
...to say that life came from non-living matter...

---

quote:

---

ae writes:This is abiogenesis, for which there is no explanation as of yet. The only thing that is certain is that it happened...

​

...it is indeed certain that abiogenesis happened. What is uncertain is how it happened.

---

quote:

---

Rrhain writes: Evolution doesn't say that. Could you find me any peer reviewed journal article that says, "Since life started via abiogenesis"?

---

No, I didn't find any such articles. It does seem though that there is division in the camp over abiogenesis, as shown above. Obviously that one can't be settled today..I read one of your other posts that interested me:

quote:

---

Life could have started chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method I haven't mentioned. So long as that life did not reproduce itself perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.

---

Glad to hear some level headedness. I had never heard it put that way by my biology professors. But, and this is no condemnation, you'll probably never get past the blacklist in science if you mention God at all. Just look how often in this thread people related what I said to "Genesis" and creationism like the Bible tells it. It is assumed though I never supported Biblical Genesis even once. All I was saying is as follows:
1. Don't leave God out of the picture
2. Don't put all your eggs in the evolutionary basket
You may not agree, but my agrumentation was never intended to be in any way saying that God DID create the Universe, only that he may have, and that I have a tendency to believe that he played some part, though I do not know which and to what extent.You'll notice I have no dogma, I am open to all possibilities. What angers me is people who dogmatically proclaim scientific truth where there is still uncertainty, even if it is a very convincing bet. The proof of the uncertainty is here: Would we even be having this discussion if there was no debate to be had? There is division among the population, and this means science has not proved itself adequately on the point. It may be adequate for you, but now I have the chance to say that your feelings are irrelevant in the matter. That evolution will have been proved beyond a doubt will be evidenced not before you see the hard-core Christians committing hara-kiri in the streets as their God "has left them".Funny, you stated that being honorable to more than 1 woman is not possible for God, that it is "contradictory." Is it? Maybe the rule of where God lives is happiness without shame? Shame is a man made concept, assuming morality is man made as well. Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong? What makes this bad for God to do so as well? You think he is going to use and mistreat his lovers? Maybe you have the idea of God as a boring old man who has trouble getting around heaven with his walking stick. Maybe you think he doesn't care. Evidence is there for me that God cares about me. I have no business relating to you the signs that God gave me to show me each time I questioned and was in need that he was there. Don't get mad that I can't give you my evidence in scientific terms and repeatable proofs, God is not our order-taker. And I retain this for myself not because I do not want to give it freely, but because it is a personal matter just as you do not share all of your personal experiences with your girlfriend with your buddies. She would be angry, most likely. I have found that when I told even to people close to me, these things that God showed me, that they no longer occurred for a time. Not to mention they thought it too fantastic. ("Oh, that can't be." Is it? "Is anything too wonderful for God?") It was like it was not meant for others to hear until they would learn to open their own hearts and pay attention to what is being shown. If that sounds cheezy to you then find your own way of doing it. God is not limited to how he can communicate with you, try and find a way if you have not already.
Look to books of spiritual wisdom from across the world, not for concrete answers, but for hints at how others have done it, then look inside yourself and find a way which fits you. My only vested interest in this is seeing the world a more loving and happy place. Dogmatism in religion or science has never provided such a thing.------------------
--+--+--+--+--+--+--
1: God is capable of all on all levels
2: Science is capable of all on the material platform only
3: God rules the material platform as well as any other that may exist.
4: Science, and all of its products, is therefore ruled by God.
5: Scietific facts are relative and subject to change.
6: My list may change

quote:

---

You tend to think I am scared of one day not existing, when that is not true.

---

Hey, you are the one who said that you don't care to think of yourself as a "robot" and ceasing to exist after your body dies.

quote:

---

How can fear exist if consciousness were to evaporate into nothingness? There is nothing to fear in that.

---

Yet, you prefer to not think that this might be the case. I assume you prefer to believe in something else because you are uncomfortable with "nothingness".

quote:

---

And please take note, the supernatural, which God is a part of if he exists, is also a part of nature.

---

Um, no, that is contradictory. Supernatural means "above nature", and used in in this way means "outside nature". If God is detectable by our senses, God is therefore natural, not supernatural.

quote:

---

I agree one hundred percent, but my argument rests on the atheistic evolutionary perspective, not a theistic one.

---

1) I'm not an Atheist.2) My acceptance of the ToE has nothing at all with the rejection of theism.

quote:

---

An atheistic believer in evolution has a million reasons to justify why his body exists, but, correct me if I am wrong, absolutely none to explain his individuality among other beings.

---

Who cares? What does this have to do with the observence of a change of allele frequencies in a population over time?

quote:

---

I justify this as follows: Why do you not have a long tongue and live in a swamp with other frogs, instead of having taken up residence in a human body? Notice the difference between "you" and "your body" in the question. Every human being has a complex set of processes firing millions of times every second in their brains. What makes it that _your_ consciousness rules over these processes and resides there instead of in one of the other beings, and at this particular moment in time?

---

I don't think there is any difference at all between brain activity and consciousness. In other words, the brain produces consciousness. Do you have any evidence that consciousness exists independently from the neurobiology of the brain?

quote:

---

In your belief, if your mother had waited 31 days before deciding to have you, would _you_ exist?

---

No, I wouldn't, because that egg and sperm that combined to make me would not have met. What's so amazing about that?

quote:

---

You stand corrected, the very basis of evolution is the mutation of the reproductive genome, this requires an error in replication, and this error is a product of chance unless one is in a laboratory.

---

and SELECTION. SELECTION. You forgot to absorb what I explained about SELECTION.Selection, as in selecting something, is not random, but selective.

quote:

---

Second, this was entirely off my point. Lets get back to it. My existence and my body are two completely different things. So are yours.

---

Really? You have evidence of this? Or do you simply assert it without evidence?

quote:

---

My body was _sure_ to be born as my mother had to have the baby come out. This was 100% sure even if my body was stillborn. A body exited my mother. But why _me_?

---

Because that particular sperm from your father and that particular egg from your mother happened to combine. It's simple, really.

quote:

---

Millions of babies are born all the time, each one an individual personality. Each one infused with the something that makes them alive and feeling.

---

That's called metabolism.

quote:

---

One step further, when someone dies, it is evident that something about the body is different. No one is interested in marrying and starting a family with a beautiful dead body. The spark of life must be there. That is what sets me apart from my body and you apart from yours. Your brain contains your memories, but _you_ are consciousness itself.

---

OK, take away someone's brain.Now, show me their consciousness.

quote:

---

You are correct that gut feeling does not play a role in the conclusions science makes. Let me break it down and say it then, you may not believe in God because by first and foremost concluding arrogantly that he probably does not exist (or if you do leave some chance that he may exist, this statement doesn't apply to you).

---

Look, why do you care if I believe in God or not, and what does this belief have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?

quote:

---

"Hey dad, I know you don't really exist, in fact I dislike the very thought that you may exist, but can I have my allowance now?" No, leave some chance that he may be a kinder God than you ever dreamed, leave some room in your science that he may very well have a place in the Universe, and try to find evidence in the way that God communicates it, and then you will have practical scientific experience of this God who eludes you so.

---

Science is a lot like plumbing.Neither science nor plumbing consider God, yet they both work just fine without including God.

quote:

---

This has been my experience which I can in no way communicate to you because one cannot fathom the idea of God until one has learned to give him a try, see the evidence which most are too proud to try and see, and once you have this, learn to trust him, and eventually love him as you'd love your parents or greater.

---

Ok, that's a very nice sermon and example of circular reasoning, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in a population over time?

quote:

---

Look, man, I may have misconceptions about evolution, even though it was my greatest area of interest throughout high school and much of college (Virginia Tech tho we's just a bunch o country bumpkins aint we, uhhuh), but think about this: your stating that I have them implies you have none.

---

Hardly. It just means that I am pretty sure you do, as I have pointed out to you. I certainly have some misconceptions, and I never said I didn't. I would hope that someone wouold point them out to me.

quote:

---

This pride in knowing a little bit more than your average fellow implies that real knowledge eludes you. The more one knows, the more one realizes that one does not know. Einstein would have concurred.

---

And yet, you are perfectly willing to claim all sorts of things as true without evidence, and you are also willing to reject the evidence for Evolution seemingly based upon your religious preference that it not be reality.Maybe you might apply your sage advice to yourself.I am actually pretty sure that I know quite a bit more about this subject than the average person, but quite a lot less than many of my fellow posters here.The truth is, there's lots that all of us don't know. However, I have confidence that I have a pretty firm understanding of how science is done and the evidence for evolution. I'm also pretty sure, and explained how, you do not have such a firm grasp of either subject. What you don't know about science and evolution is a lot.

quote:

---

I'll let bygones be bygones before this turns into Jerry Springer. Let's quit the accusatory tone of our discussions (me too) and get down to the science of it.

---

Hmm, I don't recall having any kind of "tone" at all.

quote:

---

Have many of you considered that God can be the most cool, accepting, and kind friend? That he has the best sense of humor, is the nicest of the nice, the biggest party-animal, the biggest woman chaser, the most honorable, the most fun, and that he likes his black and tan just a bit heavy on the Guinness?

---

God is the biggest woman chaser? Women chasing is a good, moral, godly thing to do? Why don't you ask some women how much they like women chasers?So, God is male, then? And a fratboy?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

At which point in this line back from humans, to the monkey-relative were the number of pairs of chromosomes different than 23?

---

We don't know. If you've got their genes, by all means, share them with the scientific community, we'd love them!

quote:

---

Is there any similar picture or diagram showing how many chromosomes each of these guys had along their journey? And how did the first 23-pair, like us, overcome his chromosome incompatibility with his mate?

---

Perhaps the same way that Persian onagers (either 55 or 56 chromosomes), kiangs (same), and kulans (54 or 55 chromosomes) do it. In fact, Equus as a whole has a very broad range of chromosome counts, and has little trouble with the issue.

quote:

---

I guess our trouble lies in what we call microevolution. In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother.

---

To some extent. I don't think much natural selection has gone on in your one generation, however

quote:

---

Glad to hear some level headedness. I had never heard it put that way by my biology professors.

---

About 40% of scientists believe in theistic evolution. Hardly a "blacklist".(skipping the womanizing-promoting paragraph)

quote:

---

1: God is capable of all on all levels
2: Science is capable of all on the material platform only
3: God rules the material platform as well as any other that may exist.
4: Science, and all of its products, is therefore ruled by God.
5: Scietific facts are relative and subject to change.
6: My list may change

---

I would only ask one thing of a creationist, that they accept:1. God does not deliberately deceive humankind.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-16-2003]