Evolution......?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]Hello Mark,
Evolution is the development of organisms from a common ancestor. However, if evolution was defined as "small changes accumulating in higher strata", then the observation of small changes accumulating in higher strata would make evolution fact.

​

I will concede, however, that small changes accumulating in higher strata is probably the best evidence for evolution. [/QUOTE]

​

One question Cobra, by your statement above were you defining evolution as one common ancestor for all organisms or per major family group? I do not mean to nit pick but common descent with modification is a hall mark of Natural Selection, not evolution persay. Evolution of unrelated family groups could have occured (although the genetic evidence points away from this) which would remove a section of NS and leave evolution, as change of living organisms over time, intact.

quote:

---

Well, in regards to evolution, the Cambrian explosion points away from this.

---

​

I have heard this a number of times and have never really gotten why people think that this is a problem.
1)The "explosion" occured over roughly a 500 million year period with predating fossils from various areas of the world.
2) There was not hierarchal constraint or historical constraint so of course the earliest genetic and morphological patterns would occur here. Some occured earlier as has been seen by further fossil work. One wonderful book is "Crucible of Creation" by Simon Morris, it gives a wonderful account of the most recent (as of 1998) research into the Cambrian "Explosion".

quote:

---

Thus, I would like to know what you would consider "positive evidence" before I present anything. However, I will give it a shot.

​

"1/positive evidence of creation"

​

1. Design in living organisms
2. Irreducibly Complex Structures
3. Symbiotic Relationships

---

​

Well, first off I have to disagree with design being currently available as evidence. So far the ID group at the Discovery Institute has yet to be able to generate ANY data for design. And they have made some substantial financial arangements for the "research" into this area of biology without success. The same holds true for Irreducibly complex system, most of Behe's examples are erroneous. Finally, why are symbiotic relationships a problem? There is a great deal of research into both symbiotic relationships and into "altruistic" behavior and how it can be defined in Neo-Darwinian terms by the application of Game theory.

quote:

---

"2/ God/Supernatural"

​

Well, I don't really see why evidence for God is NECCESARY, but I will attempt.

​

1. Cause and effect principle (more on that later)
2. Second Law of Thermodynamics vs a closed system (the universe). Unless a creative force was responsible for the creation of the cosmos, it makes no sense that the universe would go from the hypothetical "Big-bang" scenario into a universe with galaxies, stars, planets, and living life forms.

---

​

OK, for number one can I assume that you are refering to First and second or Primary and Secondary causes? As for the second, I am sorry but this is just plain wrong from a Thermodynamic point of view. This arguement pretty much assumes that all thermo is irreversible, this is incorrect. There is a whole sub-field within thermo that deals with reversible thermodynamic reactions, events ect. Entropy can be transferred within a system and the whole system will still have increased entropy even if small areas within it have decreased entropy.

quote:

---

You could easily say it, but it is not a valid argument. God is beyond the limits of time and natural laws. Only things that had a beginning require a cause. God requires no beginning, thus he requires no cause.

---

​

This is what I mean by primary and secondary cause. And it does nothing to prove design or to disprove evolution. In fact, God by this definition can neither be proven nor disproven.

quote:

---

Once again, what constitutes "positive evidence". Unless I recieve some guidelines, I'm afraid that your not going to be convinced (If the human brain with 120 trillion connections doesn't constitute "positive evidence" of design, I need some guidelines here.)

---

​

I think that if you followed any of the general guidelines or philosophical underpinings for science that you would be able to satify most of the people on this board. Unfortunately going over these is not a simple matter. I think that you already know about falsification, another is simplest fit to the evidence. However, that does not mean that "God" or any other non-defined designer is the simplest fit because then you need to define the mechanism that this designer used. That is rather a problem to define a natural occurance with a supernatural (in the case of God) means.

quote:

---

"1/ Produce this well established historic event from independent, non-religious sources please."

​

I was under the impression that the existence of Christ and his crusifiction were generally acknowledged, as well as the empty tomb.

---

​

I think that Joshua of Aramethia is generally acknowledged as having existed as was his death by crucifction but that does not prove that he rose from the dead or was the son of God.

quote:

---

"2/ Written historical documents aren't admissable as evidence anyway."

​

Yeah, I can't believe my teacher looked at me funny when I told him that the existence of Abraham Lincoln was obviously a conspiracy set up by Republicans to portray a great president.

---

​

I think that the point was that the bible was written well after the fact, somewhere between 100 and 300 AD and by people who were not part of the events of 30 AD.

quote:

---

"The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause."

---

​

Sorry but this just proves that a cause is needed, it does not prove god or God. You are picking one possible (and supernatural) explanation for the start of the universe. Maybe was are all just living in negative gravity flux and the flux is contained within something which has no beginning and no end, ala Steven Hawkins. [QUOTE] The desing IS the evidence for the Creator. I don't understand why this is so unreasonable.[/b]

---

The problem is that neither you nor anyone else to my knowledge has proven design. Linkage could provide the answers as to why the universal constants are as they are, or the multiuniverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the strict Copenhagen interpretation. A creator is not the only alternative, and the creator of christian religion is only one potential candidate within this small are of the total possibilities.I do have to say that if we continue to try to solve these problems that we will never be bored.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz