Take the Atheist Challenge!!!

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

But everyone in here is telling me that evolution is fact, and proven.

---

Incorrect.What everyone is telling you is that there is the fact of evolution and then there is the theory of evolution just as there is the fact of gravity and then there is the theory of gravity.You see, facts are things that we observe. The bacteria experiment is a demonstration of the fact of evolution. It's proof. When organisms reproduce over time, they change. We call that change "evolution."Theories, however, can never be proven. That evolution is driven by mutation and selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc., is all theory and while it is heavily justified, it is not proven. Theory is based upon analysis of observed facts. But since we cannot observe absolutely everything, there is always the possibility that we missed something.The fact that things evolve is proven. The why of evolution, however, can never be proven.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Sorry for two successive posts; I'm responding to two successive questions. Only one does, because mutations are not directed to circumstances. They occur pretty much at random. However, once they do occur, they can spread through the entire population over successive generations. A "beneficial" mutation is one which makes it more likely for a carrier to leave more descendents. A "detrimental" mutation is one which makes it more likely for a carrier to leave fewer or no descendents. Selection refers to the increased probability of a beneficial mutation spreading right through a population over many successive generations.A mutation is said to become fixed when every individual of the population carries the mutation. This occurs because by this stage, everyone is descended from that one original individual who had the mutation, and they all inherited it from that one source. The chance of getting the exact same mutation in two individuals is very small (though not zero). It is effectively impossible for many individuals to get the same mutation all at the same time.A beneficial mutation is more likely to become fixed; but it can also happen with neutral mutations. This is called "drift". Even a detrimental mutation can become fixed, especially if you have a small population, though this is less likely.If you find whole populations changing at the same time, you'll have refuted evolution -- or more correctly, you'll have identified a new process quite different from what we consider at present. We don't observe change like that, and we don't expect to.Evolution refers to the changes over time in the distributions of inherited characteristics. If a mutation arises, that introduces a new heritable characteristic, and thus is an example of an evolutionary change. If over several generations, the number of carriers of a mutation increases from 10% to 15%, or if the mutation is lost altogether because none of the carriers pass it on; then that too is an example of an evolutionary change. It's not necessary; though of course you can learn a lot that way. I did go to Uni, but I never studied any of this stuff in my courses. I picked it all up later, over time, by reading and asking questions and (it must be said) by making a substantial number of errors along the way.Cheers -- Sylas

riVeRraT responds to :::

quote:

---

quote:

---

To the best of my knowledge ANY biological organism's genes can mutate.

---

​

Is that evolultion?

---

Yes.Mutation and selection is, by definition, evolution.If you allow mutation, then you must allow evolution for evolution is defined by mutation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because they did not carry the allele for resistance to the T4 phage

---

​

So did they evolve or not? Did only some evolve? I'm not getting this.

---

They all evolved.They didn't all evolve in the same way, though. Mutation is random. Some may have evolved to become resistant to a different phage. Some may have evolved to become capable of digesting nylon oligimers. Some may have evolved to be resistant to penicillin.But none of those selective pressures came to bear. Instead, the selective pressure of the T4 phage came along. Only those bacteria that had evolved resistance to T4 phage would survive. All the other mutants died.Suppose 100 people have identical dice. Each of us rolls the die he has and notes the number. We take that number to a door that only allows those who have rolled a certain number to pass.We all rolled the dice, but only some of us are going to be able to get through the door.

quote:

---

If something evolves back to its former state, does this fit the model of evolution?

---

Yes.But in this specific example of the bacteria/phage experiment, it cannot be an example of a reversion to wild-type. Again, the individual reversion of wild-type is surrounded by K-4 type. The phage will kill off the wild-type but the K-4 will move in to fill the gaps. We will never notice any plaques because the phage can never get the upper hand.And yet, the phage does get the upper hand. Therefore, it cannot be that the bacteria reverted back to wild. It necessarily is the case that the phage evolved.

quote:

---

If so, that means we could possibly become "apes" again?

---

No.Some mutations, such as single point mutations, can be quite likely to revert, but other mutations, such as frame-shift mutations, are next to impossible to revert.Add on top of that the difference between humans and other apes is not a single mutation but hundreds upon hundreds, it then becomes impossible to revert back to our ancestor species.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Love is a psychological process whereas evolution is a biological process. I don't think psychological processes are adequately explain biologically. Evolution might tell us HOW we got brains capable of loving, but it will never tell us WHY we love.

---

​

Why not? Isn't that narrow thinking?

---

No. It's recognizing reality.Science is not philosophy. It is incapable of answering philosophical questions.When you are trying to determine the charge on the electron, do you whip out your copy of 501 Spanish Verbs? Are you seriously saying that that is an example of "narrow thinking"? That there really is something within the rules of conjugation of Spanish verbs that will help you determine what the charge of the electron is?Science and philosophies are tools that we use to help us answer questions.Not every tool is useful for every question.

quote:

---

Several people all wrote about things that Jesus did.

---

No, several people wrote about things that other people said that yet other people said Jesus did.None of the books of the Bible were written by anybody who was even alive at the time of Jesus.

quote:

---

If I really feel God, isn't that reality for me?

---

You miss the point.The question is not do you feel. The question is: Could you possibly be wrong about the source of your feelings?If there is absolutely nothing that could convince you that you might possibly be wrong, then your claims are unfalsifiable and your mind is closed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's rather irrelevant in this case since I've shown quite clearly that you don't know what you're talking about

---

​

Thanks again. Hurt my feelings won't you.

---

So you're saying that reality is beholden to your feelings? That if it might cause you mental anguish, we should just ignore your errors and treat your mistakes as if they were correct?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Even evolutionists will have different perspectives; you should not expect any of us here to give you final answers to anything. I'm going to explore some differences in the way Rrhain and I express matters.... I disagree. I think that facts are things established beyond reasonable doubt; and that direct observation is not the only way this happens. Indeed, direct observation is often not as good as a strong indirect case through traces left behind. Direct witnesses play well to a jury, but it is surprising how often they get things wrong. I disagree. It is true that there is never a final mathematical proof, but the more usual form of "proof", which applies in law courts and bar room arguments and science and real life, is that something is stringently tested and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. This can apply to theories.Of course; a proven theory can still often be refined.It is interesting to note that I use the word "proof" in much the same way as the bible. For example, 1 Peter 1:7: Proved means thoroughly tested to the point where you can have confidence in its validity. The theory of evolution is proved in just this sense; the only sense we can use in science.Cheers -- Sylas

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Now tell me that you don't have faith in science by definition.

---

I don't.I don't believe in science. Instead, I have direct proof that it works. But if you were to come along and show me direct evidence that it didn't work, that there was something else that worked better, then I would drop science in a hearbeat.You see, to accept science on faith defeats the entire point.

quote:

---

Tell me you have faith in nothing.

---

Ah, see, you're trying to get me to say that I am an atheist.I thought we'd been through this before. You are never going to know my personal opinions about god. It is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Yet you also never really state anything. Just try to prove things wrong.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?I show you how to have evolution happen right before your eyes and you claim I don't state anything?By the way, burden of proof is always on the claimant. It is not up to me to come up with an alternative to your god. I am not the one making claims about your god. You are.In order to prove that 2 + 2 != 5, I do not have to show that it equals 4:Assume 2 + 2 = 5.
Then (2 + 2) - 2 = 5 - 2.
Thus, 2 + (2 - 2) = 5 - 2.
Thus, 2 + 0 = 5 - 2.
Thus, 2 = 3.But, 2 != 3, therefore 2 + 2 != 5.

quote:

---

Anyway, you have called me several names so far

---

Prove it. What name have I called you? Be specific. Link to my direct words.

quote:

---

Again, how would I know any of this, unless you tell me your stance on God.

---

Because you are assuming that I am an atheist. Your arrogance that you understand the drives of those who don't believe in your god has led you to an incorrect conclusion.C'mon, riVeRraT. If someone were to take this "challenge" and come out the other side still not believing that your god exists, would you admit that you made a mistake, that the other person was being completely sincere, and that the Bible isn't a guarantee of connection to god?

quote:

---

You won't really tell us how you feel?

---

Nope.Why should I? You'll only twist it around and it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

quote:

---

The Jews believe in the same God I do

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?No, the Jews do not believe in the same god you do. It is a typical arrogant Christian attitude to say that they do.What part of "Jesus was not the Messiah" do you not understand?

quote:

---

No, it makes them not saved

---

But there is nothing to save them from, in the Jews' opinion. God is not like what Jesus said, according to Judaism.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

No one here has told you, that you should give up your belief's.

---

Then what is the point of the "challenge" if not to make me give up my god in order to take up yours? To give up my beliefs to follow yours?

quote:

---

and call me names

---

That's the second time you've made this claim without evidence.Please show me where I have called you names.Note, pointing out arrogance is not "calling names." It merely points out that you have made an assumption and an obnoxious one at that.

quote:

---

So you see, I feel no need to give up my God at this point for purpose of this arguement/challenge.

---

Then why do you dare others to do so? If you don't have the decency or integrity to do it, why should anybody else?

quote:

---

I hope this explains it better to you, where I'm coming from.

---

What did any of that have to do with whether or not somebody should take a "challenge" that cannot result in you admitting you were wrong?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That, by definition, is preaching and that, by definition, is obnoxious and rude. It is disrespectful to all other religious opinions.

---

​

This is America, and freedom of speech still reigns.

---

Well, actually...I think this web site is hosted in Germany.That said, do you truly not understand the difference between the law and etiquette? Did I say it was illegal? No. I said it was obnoxious.Yes, you have every right to free speech. That doesn't mean it is polite to exercise it everywhere. It is not illegal (in the US) to sit in the park and loudly tell racist jokes with your buddy.It is rude, however.I'm not siccing the cops on you. I am simply pointing out that your behaviour is not nearly as benevolent and "loving" as you seem to think it is and perhaps you ought to reconsider and take into account the thoughts and feelings of others.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no other conclusion.

---

​

Isn't this narrow minded?

---

No.It is good to have an open mind...but not so open that your brain falls out. If I stand before you and say, "My name is Rrhain," there is no other conclusion one can derive from that other than my name is Rrhain. It isn't "narrow minded." It is recognizing reality.

quote:

---

Are you saying its proven, cause I missed those headlines.

---

Why would it make headlines? It's a high school biology experiment. They do physics experiments measuring the gravitational constant of the universe in high school, too. Are you surprised that doesn't make headlines?Did you know that 1 + 1 = 2? Stop the presses! What an amazing discovery!

quote:

---

What about the flagellum?

---

What about it? E. coli don't have flagella.If you're trying to invoke Behe, I should point out that it's been shown that cillia and flagella evolved, too.

quote:

---

I'm sorry rhain, but I think you are wrong on this subject, the way you are claiming it.

​

Let me also follow by saying, I am not in anyway qualified to argue this.

---

You do realize that the second sentence completely negates any validity that may exist for the former, yes?If you are in no way qualified to argue a position, did it ever occur to you that your opinion is therefore absolutely worthless?Even if it's right, it is of no value because you have no justification for it. I'm reminded of a review session for my bio class. The professor said he would answer any of our questions and jokingly, I asked, "What's the answer to #4?" Without missing a beat, he said, "17."He then proceeded to explain that one of his professors had a habit that the answer to #4 on all of his exams was 17. You had to explain why it was 17 in order to get any credit, but it was always 17.Turns out that on the test we were reviewing for, however, #4 was a graphing question (graph the PO2 curve of fetal hemoglobin compared to adult hemoblogin.) My best friend who was taking the class with me, however, was having problem with that question (couldn't remember which was which) so, remembering his comment, put down "17."She got a point.Do you get the point?

quote:

---

The only thing that remains consistant is that some would use it as a reason to not believe in God.

---

And they would be wrong to.Where in the experiment as I wrote it do we find the statement, "Thus, there is no god"? Where can one possibly conclude that because organisms evolve, that means there is no god? Surely the existence of god is not conditioned on the fixity of morphology, is it?

quote:

---

The challenge is for those who want to take it.

---

But if you won't take it, why should anybody else?If you won't risk giving up your god, why do you demand others to risk losing theirs?

quote:

---

How does the bacteria defend itself from the infection?

---

Chemically. It isn't like the bacteria have a will or need to think in order to respond to a phage attaching itself to the membrane and injecting its genes into the bacterium.You see, the way the phage attaches to the bacterium is not by some piercing hooks on its legs. Instead, it's a chemical reaction: There are proteins on the surface of the bacterium. There are proteins on the surface of the phage. The two fit together like a lock and key. When they meet, a chemical reaction takes place that results in the phage attaching and inserting its genetic material into the bacterium.Change the protein on the surface of the bacterium and the phage won't be able to attach.

quote:

---

Do genes tell the flagellum what to do?

---

Non sequitur. E. coli don't have flagella.But to answer your question, no. Genes don't tell the flagellum what to do. Chemistry does.

quote:

---

2 people could be infected with west nile, and only one die. Is this something different than what is happening in the bacteria?

---

Maybe. Depends upon why.You see, when a bacterium becomes infected with a phage, the final step of the phage's reproductive cycle is to lyse the bacterium. That means the bacterium pops open, its innard leak out, and the new phage particles are released.Humans, however, are multi-cellular organisms. The loss of some of our cells does not necessarily mean death the way the loss of a single cell to a bacterium does.

quote:

---

Is it proven that the mutation was permanent or are we only guessing that selective pressure will make it so?

---

What does "permanence" have to do with anything? Why does it matter?

quote:

---

More likely to survive? So that means that it still isn't proven, and that makes evolution not a fact? Correct?

---

Incorrect. "More likely to survive" is a hallmark of evolution. It means that not all mutations are created equal. Your mutation that makes you capable of running faster and thus more likely to outrun the lion doesn't really help when there aren't any lions and the real threat is that it's freaking cold.It is proven. There is a mutation. There is a selection. That, by definition, is evolution. We can see it with our own eyes and thus it is a fact.

quote:

---

Maybe this whole process you are witnessing could fit into another description or theory about life? (you better not say no)

---

No.Serioulsy, it could fit into another theory about life, but we don't have any other theory. The only one that has managed to survive is the current theory of evolution. If you can come up with a new one, by all means do so. If you were to manage to overturn the dominant paradigm of all biology, we're talking Nobel Prize-winning stuff (I think it's over a million dollars these days.) You'd have the entire world beating a path to your door trying to get you to join their lab, their university, their think tank.

quote:

---

Does infact the DNA change during this process?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Is that even required to prove evolution?

---

Not to the point of having to sequence the chromosome, no. We don't need to know about genes in order to show that evolution has taken place.All we need to show is that there is a method of heritability.

quote:

---

Does the DNA have to change for it to evolve?

---

Yes.You are half a step away from arguing for Lamarckian evolution.The classic example showing the difference between Lamarckian and Darwinian evolution is the giraffe's neck.Lamarckain evolution would say that during the lifespan of an individual giraffe, it would spend its life stretching its neck up to reach the higher leaves on the trees. That physical lifetime would result in a longer neck and its offspring would start off life reflecting that and having a longer neck than its parents. Repeated over many generations, eventually the giraffe gets an extremely long neck.Darwinian evolution, however, would say that each population of giraffes has a variety of neck lengths that are fixed and determined by the genes of the organism. Those giraffes that had longer necks would have an easier time getting food, thus leading to them being stronger and healthier and thus more likely not only to survive to reproductive age but also more likely to win any mating fights. Thus their children would inherit the longer neck and over many generations of this, we end up with the giraffe's long neck.(Note: This is not why giraffes have long necks. It has nothing to do with eating leaves and everything to do with mating fights. Giraffes fight by "necking," bashing their necks against each other. They can and do break their necks in the process sometimes. Those that have bigger, stronger necks are more likely to win the fight and mate.)But as we found out when we discovered the gene (and remember, Darwin had never heard of the gene), environmental factors have no effect upon your genetic traits. While poor nutrition can stunt your growth, it can't stunt your as-yet-unborn children's growth. They will inherit whatever genes you have and if you have genes for great height, they will have them, too.So no, the reaction of the bacteria to the phage cannot be an "adaptation." It is a genetic response.Therefore, it has to be Darwinian evolution, not an "adaptation" to the environment.

quote:

---

So is it then possible the way they evolove would be different, and natural selection might not apply to one or the other?

---

No.

quote:

---

Doen't also mean that the processes are so different that witnessing something in one, would have nothing to do with the other?

---

No. The processes are the same.

quote:

---

When I recieve a vacination, and I am then immune to something, how come it is not passed down like the bacteria?

---

Because vaccinations don't change your chromosomes.There are genetic changes, however, that can result in immunity to certain infectious agents, however. Take sickle cell anemia. It causes a deformation of the red blood cells. But one side effect of this deformation is that it makes you resistant to malaria. And that resistance is heritable.

quote:

---

I would appreciate it if, you would admit to not knowing what really happened at all.

---

Why? I can watch what's going on. I can radioactively tag the agents involved and literally watch them as they physically move through the bacterium and see precisely which genes are involved in the process.Why do you want me to plead ignorance just because you don't have the same level of comprehension and knowledge?

quote:

---

quote:

---

But if I have two genetically identical bacteria, what unique property could one give to the other?

---

​

Ah, they are the same, but different

---

Incorrect. I said they were identical.You do know what the word "identical" means, don't you?

quote:

---

Using genetically identical structures for purpose of proving evolution is mute,

---

"Moot." The word you're looking for is "moot.""Mute" means "unable to make sound, especially speech."

quote:

---

since genetically indentical stuctures don't behave the same.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Identical genes don't behave identically? How? How do they behave differently? How could they possibly behave differently?

quote:

---

Isn't mutation common place in nature?

---

Yes.That means everything is evolving.

quote:

---

Don't many things mutate without evolving?

---

No.If it mutates, it evolves by definition. There is no way to have mutation without evolution.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Evolution has not been observed. Only evidences of it.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that.What is observation if not the evidence of what is being observed?

quote:

---

Again, I am not qualified to argue this with you.

---

Then why are you?

quote:

---

So much so, that I would even say that what happened in the dish might not be viewing evolution.

---

But there is no other conclusion.If there were no evolution, the entire lawn would die.The entire lawn does not die.Therefore, there is evolution.It really is that simple.

quote:

---

Isn't carbon dating based on an assumption?

---

No.And you don't carbon date fossils. Carbon dating can only be used on organic substances like cloth or hair. Fossils are made of rock.

quote:

---

Have you found every single plant fossil that ever existed?

---

No.But I don't need to in order to make a solid conclusion. I could be wrong. All you have to do is find fossils that show fruit-bearing plants existing before the animals that pollinate them (and thus allow them to reproduce) came into existence.Do you have such evidence?Given that we cannot observe everything, what would it take to convince you?Your argument is akin to saying that yes, 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that is evidence that 1 + 1 = 2.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Irrelevant. How does my answer affect the veracity of my statements? Is evolution any more true if I say yes?

---

​

Is God not there if you say no? What are you afraid of?

---

Non sequitur. Please answer my question.How does my answer affect the veracity of my statements? Is evolution any more true if I say yes?

quote:

---

You won't say because you probably don't

---

From whence comes this attitude that I'm an atheist? Just because I don't believe in your god?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you refuse to learn how the rainbow gets made for fear of losing your sense of awe, you'll never learn where the best place is to stand in order to see it in its full glory.

---

​

That is the coldest definition of Love I have ever heard.

---

Then you must not know true love.Didn't you read what I said?If you refuse to learn how the rainbow forms for fear of losing your sense of awe, you'll never learn where the best place to stand is to see it in its full glory.Knowing what love is does not make it any less mysterious or intoxicating. It only makes it more so.

quote:

---

I find tones of anger in your arguements

---

Incorrect.You imagine tones of anger in my arguments.From the remake of DOA:What I say? That's "imply." The way you take it? That's "infer."You seem to think that if I remain steadfast in my insistence that you show some evidence for your claims, that means I have made an emotional investment in you. After all, why wouldn't someone take this "challenge" to try your god unless he had some deep-seated hatred and anger? It can't possibly be because you're spouting nonsense. It has to be because I am psychically broken.Stop trying to psychoanalyse me. I don't know you from Adam. To be angry with you requires me to care about you and your opinion and I don't.

quote:

---

All I know is you started telling me about evolution for one reason or another.

---

That's because you brought it up. Nobody mentioned anything about science until you did in Message 26: And again in Message 29: That last one was in response to me referring to the NIV translation of the Bible as propaganda.

quote:

---

It really has nothing to do with the challenge.

---

Then why did you bring it up?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved

---

You have the NT (Acts 2) and the OT (Joel 2) saying the same thing. So the question now is "What IS the name of the Lord?"

Who said they were, and what does that have to do with the topic.but since you went there, I will point out that someone else in this thread, and webster says that fact does not mean absolute certainty.
So if God fills me with his presense, exactly the way the Bible said it would happen, then it becomes fact to me, because I observed it.
Others have observed a change in me, which could lead to it being fact for them also.
Also when God uses me to give the Holy spirit to someone.
there is no scientifical explanation for it, but that does not make it a non-fact. Or does it mean that it didn't happen.So the existance of God is fact.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 05-14-2004 07:28 AM

Then this would be a gradual change in what we are, which doesn't match the fossil record.
If it was that gradual, wouldn't there be more evidence of the change?
Instead I think we find none?

Ok this makes alot of sense to me, but again its a gradual change and goes against the fossil record which shows dramatic change over a short period of time, correct?Also, I am still amazed that only one monkey would have evolved when the whole group could have, like the bacteria. I am sure somewhere along the line a group of animals would have evolved like this.
But maybe due to the complexity of the speicies, it doesn't happen like that?And watch out for those blue monkeys

Er, in the fossil record, "gradual" means "over a few thousand years". In the monkey example, "gradual" means "over a few geenrations; maybe 50 years". In terms of the fossil record, the monkey example would happen instantaneously. One monky had a mutation but did not evolve. The population of monkeys (meaning "all the monkeys alive at a chosen time") evolved (meaning "at different times, the makeup of the poupulation of monkeys was different"). The whole group did evolve.

I agree with you 100%.
This is what I am saying inother words, you put it better than me.But comparing gravity with evolution, is not fair. If people believe in gravity, it doesn't interfere with thier belief in the Bible, which is a big thing for many people.
So if you go around claiming that evolution is fact, it could be taken the wrong way, and mis-lead people into not believing in God. Doubt is a #1 demon IMO for not finding God.
I feel as though scienctists do this just to make peole believe in science and not God. I also am not sure about your figures of 40% of scientists believing in God.
I have yet to meet but a few who do. Doctors are more likely to believe in God, but even a large number of them don't believe either.I don't think science has a right to mis-lead the public in this sense, and our schools should be teaching the possibility of God, or creation. The mere fact that so many people believe in God, is enough evidence to justify it.
I don't have any answers about how God would have created the world. For him a day is like a 1000. Most likely because he doesn't exist in our dimension, and not restricted by time. Therefor he could have created it any way he wanted too. And we can't prove it, either way.Our souls could exist in this other dimension as well. If we theoritcally existed in the 4th dimension where there is no time, we would be able to see things both past present and future at the same time. Evidence, however ridiculous you might think this, is when we close our eyes and can see images of the past, or when people predict the future, or see things happening in the future. If you are one of those people that can see into the future.I mean aren't there theory's of when something happens here, that the same exact thing happens somewhere else in the universe? How is this comunicated? If.

I believe you meant to say "creationalist contradict themselves"?Either way that is not what I meant. I am saying that is it possible that this is all that bacteria will ever be capable of evoloving into, just another bacteria? Because yes, it was designed to do that?

Do we actually know how this is done, and don't say evolution. I want to know the mechanics of it.
Its not magic is it?