DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[David Sklansky]

I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are full of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

edit: I guess the point is that creationists do see mutations as possible, including huge ones. Their beef is that the structures of life aren't possible given the 3 points above (they are wrong, of course).

[vhawk01]

Probability is what is to stop an animal from ever being born with enough mutations to be considered a different species. Actually, only probability+our definition of species. I think it is fairly safe to assume that never in the history of life have two organisms of a single species both randomly mutated in such a way as to be considered entirely different species, at the same approximate time, and mutated in such a similar way that they were capable of mating, and they found each other, and they mated, and their offspring survived.

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are teeming with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

[/ QUOTE ]

The eye isn't irreducibly complex, but I think your point is that it is prohibitively unlikely to mutate de novo.

[David Sklansky]

But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people are really, really dishonest?

[Phil153]

I'd say because it's repeated so often, and on the surface seems reasonable. No one ever saw a lion turn into a zebra, or a monkey into a person. It's a similar thing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which many fundies claim disproves evolution. This is of course nonsense.

If you want a simple debunking, the detailed fossil record of the horse, or the reptile-mammal transition fossils are amazingly complete evidences for "macroevolution".

A more recent example of huge changes in phenotype is the breeding of wild cabbage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea) into cauliflower, broccoli, etc.

[m_the0ry]

Differentiating between 'new species' and 'mutation' definitely results in a gray area. I personally don't see the necessity for single generational 'leap' mutations in the framework of evolution. A lot of people have difficulty visualizing and conceptually understanding the magnitudes of time involved in evolution. Isolated ecosystems and gradual mutation together can explain current biodiversity. Proving there were no intermediary stages in evolutionary bounds and leaps is difficult to say the least and I would bet almost all of them can be quickly traced back to this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html) practice that a lot of IDer's like to ignore.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept.

Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence?

[m_the0ry]

I think David knows math cannot be applied to determining God's existence. I'll elaborate


<rational thought>
(Math Lives here)
Burden of Proof on the believer
counterexample yields disproof.
</rational thought>

<theistic thought>
Burden of Disproof on disbeliever
example yields proof
</theistic thought>


Incompatible schools of thought - can't be integrated.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think David knows math cannot be applied to determining God's existence


[/ QUOTE ]

Coulda fooled me.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Lemark had studied certain plants (like flax for instance) he would have been hailed as a genius, instead of a punchline.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

What math? What mathematical model of probabilty? You started a thread recently about "Belief" and how you thought a Belief was just an estimate of a probability. You were presented with a great deal of discussion about why that is a naive concept. I don't think you ever responded to that discussion. You have evidently just ignored it and continue on with your naive concept of belief hoping that your use of psuedo math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" will automatically legitimize it for your readers and convince them you are saying something meaningful.

I don't believe that "God" magically steps in and bypasses nature to perform magical supernatural feats. I believe that science is best equiped to explain how nature works. But these beliefs are not based on a psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" to God. They are based on my understanding of what the word "God" might reasonably mean in relation to my subjective experience of the spiritual.

Given these beliefs I have no problem looking at the scientific theory of evolution and discussing it on its own merits. No need to bring "God" into the picture at all. How well does the scientific theory of evolution actually explain the evidence? As phil pointed out, there is substantial fossil evidence pointing to the reality of macroevolution. The question is whether mutation is a powerful enough force for altering dna to explain it - along with natural selection. I have my doubts about this.

Yes, the time scales are large. But are they large enough? Just pointing out that given enough time random changes can do almost anything does not show that the time actually alloted was indeed enough time. Given enough time a monkey could randomly type all the works of Shakespeare. That doesn't mean 6 billion years is enough time for him to do it. Things like (.5)^100 get too small too fast.

The theory of evolution is still in its infancy in my opinion. We have been suprised recently by discoveries about the merging of bacteria into other organisms and possibly even into cells of larger creatures, thus altering the dna in a way other than Mutation. The links by phil and m_the0ry about cross breeding of both plant and animal species show another possibility for species level change in dna structure. We also have recent discoveries for changes of gene regulation without dna alteration called Epigenetics. Who knows where these advances in the theory will lead and who knows what new discoveries wait around the corner? There may even be something to the idea of a general Gaia type Planet Wide evolutionary paradigm.

Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science. I don't know why some people insist on a "God" that tinkers with nature but if that's what they want to believe I guess that's going to be their Religious belief. They are not going to be swayed by psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" nor should they. In fact, you are doing exactly the same kind of thing that we resist when Religious people try to pawn off their Religious terms as science. You are trying to pawn off mathematical terms as Religious.

PairTheBoard

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm a lurker and I've recently started posting so I haven't quite figured out your faith and what it is but clearly you're one of the more illuminated theists who value science and don't clinge into biblical mythologies as true. You also talk a lot about Love etc. so I'm guessing you're a lot like my brother who also believes in God, emphasizes the meaning of Love but isn't against evolution and is actually quite liberal with his beliefs.

I guess my main point is that these sort of arguments which put science vs. God are directed towards those theists who do that themselves. Not all religious people think science and religion are incompatible and especially in Europe where I live that's very rare. That's an American thing with all the ID nonsense so therefore there is need for atheists/secularists/scientists whatever to bring God into discussion when talking about evolution etc.

[soon2bepro]

Phil: The eye isn't irreducibly complex. You may learn about it from Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.
Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sezfMGjRQEg) to a video of a childrens' lectures he did back in 1991 (5 years before publishing the book), where he explains why the eye can definitely evolve step by step just like any other complex trait.

Another thing: evolution doesn't say lions turned into zebras or monkeys into people. Nowadays lions, zebras, monkeys, and people are more or less equally complex. We all have a common, less complex ancestor a long long time ago.

[Phil153]

I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

I was trying to provide the creationist objections to David's idea below, which I don't think any creationist would dispute, but which is irrelevant to the question of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Drew_aces15]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them. These imaginary "light sensitive patches" are only found one place - the imagination. The fossil record, shows the most primitive of animals with fully formed eyes. And even if we found one with "light sensitive patches" that wouldn't explain their origins either - unless we were to imagine one.

But it's cool- really. I can imagine things too, just don't keep telling me it's on based on science. I'd like someone to admit that they have a belief in naturalism and when the evidence isn't there for their belief they have no problem imagining it. We'd save a lot of time that way.

The same is true for Sklansky's original post. Once we find DNA, it's only a logical progression until we find it feasible to believe in common descent? Perhaps, but that's not science - it's philosophy. This equivocation is frustrating. Am I the only one to see that science and evolutionary thought are not the same thing?

[Alex-db]

The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe anyone is still arguing the eye as too complex with too many adaptive valleys, etc. to have evolved.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Borodog smacked crationists with a version of this in a previous thread. They didn't really have an answer.

[David Steele]

Why is it that so many talk only about mutation and
ignore crossover?

Crossover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) plays a more dramatic role in variation than mutation.

D.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the limited use part (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Without the concept of species our understanding of evolution and its processes does not exist and we may as well all be creationists.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the limited use part (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Without the concept of species our understanding of evolution and its processes does not exist and we may as well all be creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]


I wrote this whole thing out and then i realized we are just talking past each other.
I'm just saying the definition of species and the concept of species are two different things. The definition being to rigid for the gray areas as gene frequencies change over time (amongst other gray areas), but the concept of speciation and the existence of species is not at all limiting in the same way (you dig?).

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused. The scenario you describe is extremely unlikely ever to happen, and it certainly has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

I'm not a microbiologist, but my understanding is that actual "mutations" in DNA are only a small part of overall genetic (and also therefore morphologic) variability. And speciation certainly does not occur in one generation. The idea is that genetic variation + differential reproductive success = inevitable biological diversity over time.


[ QUOTE ]

Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would not be "reasonable" at all. Evolution was accepted as the explanation for biological diversity long before DNA was discovered, and for good reason: the strong evidence which supports it. Even before DNA was discovered, the mechanisms of Mendelian heredity, variation, and natural selection were known. Not to mention the evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and geology, etc, all of which conclusively support evolution.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a similar argument here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4318615&page=0&vc=1) , where I asked what magical mechanism prevents evolution:

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).
<font color="white"> . </font>
So let me pose this question. If you have:
<font color="white"> . </font>
a) Self-replicator[ing] organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
d) The differential reproductive success of individual replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then
<font color="white"> . </font>
Evolution is inevitable.
<font color="white"> . </font>
So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept.

Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with this. To assign any sort of "probability" to the arbitrary, meaningless concept of God is too much of a concession that the concept makes rational sense. Belief in God simply requires faith.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with this. To assign any sort of "probability" to the arbitrary, meaningless concept of God


[/ QUOTE ]

Right answer, wrong reason.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it "was", it would most likely just mean we haven't found the way by which we think it evolved. If it really was, however, then perhaps it could suggest design (perhaps not), but it would definitely not suggest an idea as particular as God.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing. If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

Therefore, magical tricks performed by "God" can never prove the existence of God. Neither can science ever prove God is not performing such magical tricks as long as science has any shortfalls in its ability to explain everything. Science cannot find evidence For Divine magic tricks. Science can only expand scientific explanation. There is no reason for science to say anything one way or the other about the possibilty of Divine magic tricks taking place in the gaps of scientific explantion. That is a Religious issue, not a scientific one.

If Religious people want to believe Divine magic tricks take place in the gaps of scientific explanation that's their perogative. However they are wrong to say a scientific shortfall implies Divine magic tricks. It doesn't. And Religious people are especially foolish when they assert the existence of Divine magic tricks in scientific gaps that are likely to be filled in the near future. They can do so if they wish, and maybe the gaps won't be filled so quickly, if at all. But regardless it remains a Religious assertion.

PairTheBoard

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayr's definitions are becoming increasingly dated, the inaccuracies are highlighted by interpecies sex. Which gene pools are allowed to mingle with others is a highly dynamic process.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayr's definitions are becoming increasingly dated, the inaccuracies are highlighted by interpecies sex. Which gene pools are allowed to mingle with others is a highly dynamic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

Also, I'm not saying that there aren't problems with defining "species" or that transitional organisms or exceptions can't be found - this is biology after all.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is as if a vague and formless being, whom we may call, as we will, man or superman, had sought to realize himself, and had succeeded only by abandoning a part of himself on the way. The losses are represented by the rest of the animal world, and even by the vegetable world, at least in what these have that is positive and above the accidents of evolution. (Creative Evolution)

From lightly woven and easily attainable thoughts like this, Bergson produces an idea of evolution that had been expressed previously in a profound mode of thought by W. H. Preuss in his book, Spirit and Matter (1882). Preuss also held that man has not developed from the other natural beings but is, from the beginning the fundamental entity, which had first to eject his preliminary stages into the other living beings before he could give himself the form appropriate for him on earth. We read in the above-mentioned book:

The time should have come . . . to establish a theory of origin of organic species that is not based solely on one-sidedly proclaimed theorems from descriptive natural science, but is also in agreement with the other natural laws that are at the same time the laws of human thinking. What is necessary is a theory that is free from all hypothesizing and that rests solely on strict conclusions from natural scientific observations in the widest sense of the word; a theory that saves the concept of the species according to the actual possibility, but at the same time adapts Darwin's concept of evolution to its own field and tries to make it fruitful. The center of this new theory is man, the species unique on our planet: [censored] sapiens. It is strange that the older observers began with the objects of nature and then went astray to such an extent that they did not find the way that leads to the human being. This aim had been attained by Darwin only in an insufficient and unsatisfactory way as he sought the ancestor of the lord of creation among the animals, while the naturalist should begin with himself as a human being in order to proceed through the entire realm of existence and of thinking and to return finally to humanity. . . . It was not by accident that the human nature resulted from the entire terrestrial evolution, but by necessity. Man is the aim of all telluric processes and every other form that occurs beside him has borrowed its traits from him. Man is the first-born being of the entire cosmos. . . . When his germinating state (man in his potentiality) had come into being, the remaining organic substance no longer had the power to produce further human possibilities. What developed thereafter became animal or plan. . . .

Such a view attempts to recognize man as placed on his ground by the development of modern world conception, that is to say, outside nature, in order to find something in such a knowledge of man that throws light on the world surrounding him. In the little known thinker from Elsfleth, W. H. Preuss, the ardent wish arises to gain a knowledge of the world at once through an insight into man. His forceful and significant ideas are immediately directed to the human being. He sees how this being struggles its way into existence. What it must leave behind on its way, what it must slough off, remains as nature with its entities on a lower stage of evolution surrounding man as his environment. The way toward the riddles of the world in modern philosophy must go through an investigation of the human entity manifested in the self-conscious ego. This becomes apparent through the development of this philosophy. The more one tries to enter into its striving and its search, the more one becomes aware of the fact that this search aims at such experiences in the human soul that do not only produce an insight into the human soul itself, but also kindles a light by means of which a certain knowledge concerning the world outside man can be secured. In looking at the views of Hegel and related thinkers, more recent philosophers came to doubt that there could be the power in the life of thought to spread its light beyond the realm of the soul itself. The element of thought seemed not strong enough to engender an activity that could explain the being and the meaning of the world. By contrast, the natural scientific mode of conception demanded a penetration into the core of the soul that rested on a firmer ground than thought can supply.

Steiner"Riddles of Philosophy"

[iversonian]

Can someone explain to me how the number of chromosomes in sexually reproducing organisms can change and those altered beings can continue to mate and produce offspring? In all my readings of Dawkins and Co., I haven't heard an explanation of this.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me how the number of chromosomes in sexually reproducing organisms can change and those altered beings can continue to mate and produce offspring? In all my readings of Dawkins and Co., I haven't heard an explanation of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have no idea-not my work. But I suppose an armless, legless, chinless man can still reproduce. Obvioulsy didn't chop off the right chromosome. But then again, if the leg chromosome is missing from both how does one produce a leg?

I know, there is the "creative chromosome" which includes all the rest but exists and within the chromosome and who's existance lies within itself within its own justification.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. Education.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, absolutely, and it is a somewhat meaningful distinction. I should not have used the word arbitrary. It just doesn't mean what the creationists want it to mean.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that so many talk only about mutation and
ignore crossover?

Crossover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover) plays a more dramatic role in variation than mutation.

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lump them into the same category. Also, chromosomal duplication, non-homologous recombination, so on. All of these are 'mutational' events, in that the product is different than either of the inputs.

[Inso0]

This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept.

Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't apply probability to the existence of a God in general. (And if I have ever said otherwise I was using sloppy language). But you can apply probability to the existence of a God who sets aside the laws of physics to intervene on this Earth. You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all. Which the non gullible know is tiny. Whether it be Jeanne Dixon, Doyle Brunson, Uri Geller or God the perpetrater.

If you want to talk about a God who sparked consciousness in humans or who will reward people after death probability can not be so obviously applied.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point?

When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce?

That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?)

While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point?

When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce?

That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?)

While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I was answering this EXACT question, this EXACT general point. Whatever new species or animal you have in mind here...the first X never existed.

[Inso0]

Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next?

There is always a "first" (insert whatever here)

There was a first cell.

There was a first amino acid.

There was a first sentient being.

There was a first primate.

There was a first reptile.

There was a first fish.


By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next?

There is always a "first" (insert whatever here)

There was a first cell.

There was a first amino acid.


[/ QUOTE ]
Probably...maybe.
[ QUOTE ]

There was a first sentient being.

There was a first primate.

There was a first reptile.

There was a first fish.


[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. I do understand this is a tricky point, but your lack of imagination isn't something I'm too concerned with.
[ QUOTE ]

By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

I'm going to resort to using the most cliched analogy, Inso.

Was there ever a "first heap?"

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to tell me that .999999999 = 1 next?

There is always a "first" (insert whatever here)

There was a first cell.

There was a first amino acid.

There was a first sentient being.

There was a first primate.

There was a first reptile.

There was a first fish.


By you trying to explain this way by "change over time" brings everything full circle to where I ask you to point out hard proof of this supposed change over time that doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vhawk, here would be a good place for you to explain transitions, ring species, etc.

[Inso0]

Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, yer the best, NR.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't these the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think so.

[Inso0]

Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).
<font color="white"> . </font>
So let me pose this question. If you have:
<font color="white"> . </font>
a) Self-replicator[ing] organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
d) The differential reproductive success of individual replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then
<font color="white"> . </font>
Evolution is inevitable.
<font color="white"> . </font>
So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1)

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only difference between microevolution (which all accept, creationists and normal people alike) and macroevolution is the Sorites paradox. I figured it would just be easier to explain the Sorites paradox to you, rather than go through gobs and gobs of scientific evidence only to have you reject them on faulty logical premises.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you're back to basics and claiming that birds, primates, and reptiles all evolved from wet rocks over billions of years. You could have skipped the whole sand dune analogy and just went with the mantra.

I'm sorry, but I can't compete with that. I respect your opinion, but find it abhorrent that you call it scientific.

You can't prove your theory in a true scientific arena any more than I can prove that "God" exists.

Which brings us back to MY underlying point, which is that we need to stop indoctrinating our children with unscientific macroevolution claims and calling it fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your plan was just to not listen to anything I said, huh? I'm giving you a logical framework for 'macroevolution' (a term I never use) and you resort to these kind of tactics? Why don't you address the points? It is a very fundamental point that there never, ever was a first bird.

I was willing to show you the scientific evidence for macroevolution as well, I just wanted to get the logical problems out of the way first. Its important you don't think its IMPOSSIBLE for macroevolution to occur, or else what is the purpose of me showing your scientific evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your problem is that you think I have an issue with the basic idea of evolution.

I don't.

It's a fine theory... and all the pretty pictures over the years are excellent tools to try and drum up support your theory.

My problem is that a completely unprovable THEORY is being passed off as fact to hundreds of millions of children who dont' know any better, and this indoctrination is being supported by my tax dollars.

That's my problem.

But no one seems to be able to grasp that. I think we should only teach actual facts as facts in science text books. Not showing them a few choice facts and then using those to try and swindle the readers of said text book into following a certain religion on the backs of tax payers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You don't know the difference between a theory and a fact? I thought we were WAY past this. I can't even imagine how you could teach a science class using only facts and no theories. It would surely be the worst class ever taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

I see a lot of illustrations and not a lot of actual bones.

However, the bones that I DO see start with a modern day chimpanzee, and has 12 "intermediate" skulls that lead up to modern day humans.

Am I seriously the only one who can find fault with the fact that the two skulls on each end are still alive today, and all the supposed "upgrades" to the original have died off?!?


Surely I can't be the only one who finds this a little ridiculous. Stop trying to 15th level yourself here, and just use common sense. Why, if the 12 skulls in the middle were better than the chimp, do we only find the chimps and the [censored] sapiens still alive!?

These are the simple questions that all evolutionists cannot answer, which is why you need to stop trying to pawn this theory off as fact!

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can. Try here, take your time. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

I see a lot of illustrations and not a lot of actual bones.

However, the bones that I DO see start with a modern day chimpanzee, and has 12 "intermediate" skulls that lead up to modern day humans.

Am I seriously the only one who can find fault with the fact that the two skulls on each end are still alive today, and all the supposed "upgrades" to the original have died off?!?


Surely I can't be the only one who finds this a little ridiculous. Stop trying to 15th level yourself here, and just use common sense. Why, if the 12 skulls in the middle were better than the chimp, do we only find the chimps and the [censored] sapiens still alive!?

These are the simple questions that all evolutionists cannot answer, which is why you need to stop trying to pawn this theory off as fact!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a link to reptile-bird transitions, and from there a fossil record of reptiles to birds. Not sure what more you really want...if you wanted to see the fossils yourself you could probably arrange it, might cost you some time and money though.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this would be comical.

Teacher: You see, if you drop an object from a certain height, it will fall at a constant acceleration of 9.8 m2/s, until it reaches terminal velocity.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm.....ummm...like I was saying, 9.8 m2/s.

The evolution part of the class would go like this:

Teacher: So, as you can see, all life on earth has evolved from a single common ancestor, and the 'tree of life' looks something like this.

Student: Why?

Teacher: Ahermm...ummm...like I said, common ancestor.

[/ QUOTE ]

/sigh


Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.

I don't know how much more simple this differentiation can be.

Do I have to repeat myself until you understand?

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated.


Evolution cannot! And the copout that evolutionists use to justify this is "well it happened over millions of years, we can't demonstrate it!"

Sorry, no dice.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.

Second, LOL that evolution cannot be tested. Why do you think that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[Jetboy2]

Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't apply probability to the existence of a God in general. (And if I have ever said otherwise I was using sloppy language). But you can apply probability to the existence of a God who sets aside the laws of physics to intervene on this Earth. You can say with certainty that the probability that God has done such a thing is less than or equal to the probability that such an event has ever happened at all. Which the non gullible know is tiny. Whether it be Jeanne Dixon, Doyle Brunson, Uri Geller or God the perpetrater.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are wrong even on this restricted basis David. There is no way of knowing if "God" does magic tricks in areas beyond explanation by science. And there is no way of knowing how to measure how large that area might be. You could conceive of the area explained by science as the Unit Interval with everything else the Real Line, with the uniform measure on the Real Line. God may be playing magic tricks in places of infinite measure away from the Interval Explained by Science.

If the Interval explained by science expands a little so as to rule out Magic Tricks in the expanded Interval, it makes absolutely no mathematical sense to say the probability of God playing Magic Tricks somewhere else on the Infinite Line has been Reduced. You have no mathematical model for such a probability statement. Not only do you fail to understand the mathematics for the probability terms you toss around in this context, you fail to grasp the following fundamental concept.


If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.


PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

No, when he said that we shouldn't allow theories to be taught in schools, he just meant we shouldn't allow theories that he doesn't like to be taught in schools. This was made clear with the gravity example. Its possible he doesn't know the difference between a theory and a fact, and if so, you cant really blame him. He should try to educate himself a little though.

[David Steele]

[ QUOTE ]
I lump them into the same category.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it seems that many others don't and end up seeing much less opportunity for variation by ignoring these. They wonder how rare mutations can accomplish so much when it is really other variation doing most of the work.

D.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be less?

Take the probability of all the atoms and molecules in a volume of water behaving in such a way as to form a parting of the Red Sea.

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
Can plate tectonics be tested and demonstrated?

The fact is that you can find some obviously oceanic fossils at very high altitudes. The theory of plate tectonics does a good job at explaining how that occurred.

So, are you saying that the theory of plate tectonics should be deleted from textbooks?

In the same way, the theory of evolution works quite well to explain the diversity of life on earth.

Just curious....

[/ QUOTE ]

No informed person is going to deny that the earths crust is moving.

However, Pangea is a ridiculous theory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to calculate the probability of an event for which there is no known natural explanation is basically the same as doing it for an event caused by God. Even if you could how could you compare it to the same event caused by God?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

First off, that isn't what you said. Stop moving goalposts. You said no theories. Gravity is a theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you nitpick details when you and I both know that you have the intelligence to know what I was getting at.

Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, while it is an unprovable theory, it is certainly not a disputed theory because it can be tested and demonstrated.

Macro/Cosmic/Chemical/Organic evolution cannot.

[Jetboy2]

Here's my dog experiment.

Dogs. You name it in terms of variety, yet, they're all the same species. Look at a pug vs. a German Shepard...get the drift. Extreme variety within a species.

Say you have 3 islands that will converge and join due to plate tectonics in 10 million years in a temperate climate zone. Each variety of dog is wild and has their prey of choice (No humans involved - these dogs get to evolve naturally) Island-1 starts out in a semi-arctic world with German Shepherds. Island-2 starts in a sub-tropical zone with Pugs. Island-3 starts out in an equatorial zone with Fox Terriers.

In 10 million years, do you have dogs? Or 3 new species?

Please apply the Bayes theory to this. I'm not a math guy, but interested to know what Baye's will predict.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would think so.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how can the probability of A be less than A?

And how would you calculate the probablity of the second part if it's the same as the first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be less?

Take the probability of all the atoms and molecules in a volume of water behaving in such a way as to form a parting of the Red Sea.

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, NotReady is correct on this one. Just because science expands its ability to explain things, thus ruling out magical intervention where the explanation of science applies, does not mean that magical intervention can't be taking place in areas still left unexplained by science. We don't even know what all those areas might be.

Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

This is fundamental. There is no way science can know if such magic tricks are even taking place. Either they are or they are not, and there is no mathematical model to even talk about the "probability" for whether they are or aren't. The question is therefore fundamentally a Religious one. Science and psuedo-probabilility do not apply. Either you Believe or you don't.

However, reports of miracles like the parting of the Red Sea are a different matter. These are not scientific observations which science cannot explain. These are reports in a book filled with symbolism, allegory, metaphors and story telling. If we had video tape of the Red Sea's parting it would fall in the category I describe in bold above. But we don't have that. It's an event like nobody has ever seen since. In this case the focus is on the meaning of the text and the credulity of the report if taken literally. That's a different thing than the principle of whether God might or might not be doing magical tricks in general.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if the odds for such an event to occur naturally by random chance were the same as "God did it", it would still be astronomically low.


[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to calculate the probability of an event for which there is no known natural explanation is basically the same as doing it for an event caused by God. Even if you could how could you compare it to the same event caused by God?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not the best person to correspond with on this one, because I am terrible at math.

However, I'm pretty sure that it is theoretically possible for all the molecules to align up in such a way as to cause the parting of the Red Sea as described in the bible. That you would need an almost infinite amount of time before we would expect a single occurance, is irrelevant. The fact is, it is theoretically possible and given enough time (infinity?), we shouldn't be surprised if it happened once.

As a side subject, I think this puts evolution in perspective. People don't realize (or can't fathom), the odds for life originating by chance on our planet. They can't comprehend the BILLIONS of years it took for evolution to produce life as we now see it. But in an infinite universe, over the course of billions of years, a lot of things that might seem impossible to the human mind can happen.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation. </font>

Of course, I, nor anyone else can falsify such a statement, but it is too convenient to merit serious discussion.

"Let's apply logic for everything else we do, except... We'll place a god outside the physical universe and give him magical powers. This way, we are not bound to logic and anything we say about such a god is untouchable for falsification or refutation."

I used to, but I don't engage is such arguments anymore.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, I'm pretty sure that it is theoretically possible for all the molecules to align up in such a way as to cause the parting of the Red Sea as described in the bible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which would make it a natural event. The issue isn't whether something can happen naturally. The issue is how do you apply probability to God's activity. That applies to any natural event, even if we think we can explain it completely scientifically, we don't know that God isn't involved, even necessary - the Bible indicates that He is involved in everything. But how can probability be applied to God? What's the probability that an apple falls to the ground without God's involvement?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, please explain to me how birds, reptiles, and primates are not different from one another.

If you tell me it's because they're all made up of G's T's C's and A's, you're not going to win any points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, they are definitely different. Just as a heap and a grain of sand are different. But there was never a first heap, and there was never a first bird. The point is, we call them "birds" and "primates" based on their endpoints. These endpoints are very easy to distinguish from each other, because they are thousands/millions of generations apart. The point is, if we had followed them, generation to generation, there would never have been an animal that we would call a BIRD and one we would call a REPTILE sitting next to each other. Just as, if we add one grain of sand at a time, there is never a point where we say "NOW this is a heap."

As RDuke mentioned, ring species are fascinating and illustrate this as well, but we'll see what questions you have with this first before moving on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing. You could define a heap of sand to be something like "any pile with more than 5,000 grains in it." Then, there would be a clear point at which your pile became a heap, and this paradox is resolved. But most people would think your definition was ludicrous. But lets just pretend we accept it, and apply it to evolution.

A bird is any organism that, defined a posteriori, has 50% of the genes that modern birds have. Under this definition, there probably WAS a first bird, although maybe his offspring weren't birds, and then theirs were, as they hovered around the 50% point for a few generations. But we can ignore that. There was now a first bird. I'm going to call him Tweety. Who did Tweety mate with? Why, all these reptiles, of course. Because he isn't going to be reproductively isolated from them, not in the least, he is WAY to closely related. He had little birdtile babies with all the reptiles, and he probably never knew he was (some idiots definition of) the first bird ever!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Futhermore, If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation. </font>

Of course, I, nor anyone else can falsify such a statement, but it is too convenient to merit serious discussion.

"Let's apply logic for everything else we do, except... We'll place a god outside the physical universe and give him magical powers. This way, we are not bound to logic and anything we say about such a god is untouchable for falsification or refutation."

I used to, but I don't engage is such arguments anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such are matters of Religious Belief. If you want to avoid such matters, fine. But in that case it behoves you to be aware of when a subect is of such a nature. Thus the point of my statement above.

PairTheBoard

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity can be tested and demonstrated, while it is an unprovable theory, it is certainly not a disputed theory because it can be tested and demonstrated.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that evolution is completely undisputed, right? That 99%+ of scientists, and almost all intelligent people, completely accept it?

You do realize that the ONLY dispute comes from Theists, right?

Edit: What would your explanation of that be?

[Lestat]

You're right. This one caught me offguard. But I don't see why matters of religion can't be discussed from a point of logic. Although, I admit it's difficult depending on how much "magic" one wants to invoke. I'm still trying to figure out how to context my reply to you regarding spiritual matters without using words like "feelings", etc.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it has. It has been tested and demonstrated millions of times. The triply-redundant nested hierarchy of all life, phenotypic, genotypic and the fossil record, is trivially explained by common descent plus evolution. Did God produce this triply-redundant nested hierarchy that is so trivially explained by evolution and common descent just to trick scientists?

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have two questions:

1. Do you really think quoting one professor is tantamount to proving a claim? I'm sure I can find multiple professors who are leaders in their field and who work at reputable universities who disagree.

2. More importantly, could you define what a "birdtile" is so that I can find you an example of one? I pointed to the Archaeopteryx because it has many "reptilian" features.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have two questions:

1. Do you really think quoting one professor is tantamount to proving a claim? I'm sure I can find multiple professors who are leaders in their field and who work at reputable universities who disagree.

2. More importantly, could you define what a "birdtile" is so that I can find you an example of one? I pointed to the Archaeopteryx because it has many "reptilian" features.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the beauty of it all. Whenever you find a species that fills a gap, what have you really done? Why, created two more gaps! So, the Archaeopteryx fills in the gap between birds and reptiles, but he is going to claim it is a bird. Find a more reptile-like species, and he will claim it is a reptile. All the while, most of use look at the fossils and realize there are no lines! Since there are no lines, you cannot find anything that straddles a line...what would that even mean?

Inso, what exactly are the characteristics you are looking for in a birdtile? I mean, its obviously going to be somewhat birdlike, like the Archaopteryx. Its also going to be somewhat reptilelike....like the Archaopteryx. Intelligent minds can disagree about how many grains of sand are in a heap, right? Or how tall is 'tall?'

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is it safe to assume you are ok with 'microevolution' being taught in schools? Stuff like dog breeds, cauliflower, viruses? I want to get a feel for where we are at. Is that a type of evolution you are ok with? Its still a theory, just so you know. Do you contend that this evolution is untestable? That it isn't science?

[/ QUOTE ]


Only a fool would deny microevolution as reality.

It has been demonstrated and tested.

Macro has not, and cannot be tested or demonstrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to propose some mechanism that allows micro and forbids macro.

And then you are going to have to retract your previous statement about theories, because while you may think microevolution is a more ROBUST theory, it is still certainly a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, micro evolution can be testable and demonstrable.

Macro is not.


Micro Evolution is demonstrated every single time someone creates a new breed of chicken, or new type of corn. Genetic engineering itself is forced micro evolution.

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, seriously, WHY? You can't just say one is testable and the other isn't. What PREVENTS macro from being testable? Your fiat?

Also, this is at least the second time you've 'threatened' to stop posting here. If you want to leave, we can't make you stay, but if you want to learn something, it takes a little work. I think I've been fairly patient with you, and I have no intention of stopping. This is always a fun discussion for me, and I like to think I have some chance at changing your mind, if only in small, subtle ways. If you want to leave, thats fine, but don't pin your wounded ego on us.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly.


Show me your fossilized skeletal remains of all the "birdtiles" over the last few billion years and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

What, you can't? Precisely.


So stop trying to pretend your version of history is scientific fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good example of a "birdtile":

Archaeopteryx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx)

[/ QUOTE ]



To that I say this:




[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, said: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course its a bird. Remember the whole discussion we had about the meaninglessness of these distinctions? Its a bird, its a reptile, its a birdtile...just depends on what you want to call it. I'd LOVE to hear how he so cavalierly decided it was a bird. What characteristics did he use? What are the hallmarks of Birdhood?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you essentially saying that, when put to the question of "What is Archaeopteryx MORE like, a bird or a reptile?" he answers bird? That is no biggie at all then. He's got to answer something! There isn't anything that is "halfway in between" or "exactly equally a bird and a reptile." I hope thats not what the anti-macroevolutionists are expecting. I know almost nothing about birds, so I will take his expert opinion that it is more birdlike than reptilelike. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional, far from it.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Dr. Feduccia (and he is one of the most noted experts on bird origins and evolution) uses the argument that archaeopteryx talons are more similar to tree-dwelling birds than land-based reptiles' claws to distinguish it as a bird. But just as important, he also concludes that birds evolved from reptile, in spite of his contention that archaeopteryx is a bird. So his opinion doesn't help the whole "macro evolution is a farce" stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but aren't you essentially saying that, when put to the question of "What is Archaeopteryx MORE like, a bird or a reptile?" he answers bird? That is no biggie at all then. He's got to answer something! There isn't anything that is "halfway in between" or "exactly equally a bird and a reptile." I hope thats not what the anti-macroevolutionists are expecting. I know almost nothing about birds, so I will take his expert opinion that it is more birdlike than reptilelike. That doesn't mean it isn't transitional, far from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I completely agree. I've never seen that exact question posed to him, but I assume he would say "bird". I'm merely pointing out that Dr. Feduccia's conclusions about archaeopteryx being a bird, even if we grant it's NOT a transitional form, says nothing about the (in)validity of evolution.

But yes, I do think anti-macroevolutionists are expecting exactly that. Even more, they are expecting that AND using their own definition of "50/50 birdtile" thus making the claim always refutable.

Link to Dr. Feduccia's Science abstract about archaeopteryx (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/259/5096/790?maxtoshow=&amp;HITS=10&amp;hits=10&amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;andor exacttitleabs=and&amp;andorexactfulltext=and&amp;searchid= 1&amp;FIRSTINDEX=0&amp;volume=259&amp;firstpage=790&amp;resourcety pe=HWCIT)

[m_the0ry]

If written history had existed for one macroevolutionary epoch then it most certainly would be provable. It's a classic argument of scale versus probability; the probability of continuous fossil record over a large timespan and species development is incredibly low. Of course it's not easy to demonstrate macroevolution. That doesn't mean it's impossible to prove.


I'm surprised the species differentiation discussion is still going. It you can't see the futility here, create a Venn Diagram, label it 'cellular life' and try and complete it. Evolution defines species differentiation as a function of time. Life can only be classified when time is frozen, or else we're classifying based on arbitrary connections to parent life forms.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I've been fairly patient with you, and I have no intention of stopping. This is always a fun discussion for me, and I like to think I have some chance at changing your mind, if only in small, subtle ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you don't have any chance of convincing him, people like me get a lot out of these debates you engage in, so please continue for my sake if nothing else. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[daman123]

i have not read this entire thread, but David and anyone interested in his OP should take a look at The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins. It deals with mutation and probability quite a bit.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about the apple? That happened to me this afternoon.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to your arguments if NotReady admits that All such accounts in the Bible were allegorical and making use of symbolic language?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to your arguments if NotReady admits that All such accounts in the Bible were allegorical and making use of symbolic language?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its off to other forums. Where some people still think they should play AJ offsuit under the gun. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cop out. At least give me the definition of a "birdtile".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to stop posting in this thread now. My statements are becoming repetitive, as are your "rebuttals".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cop out. At least give me the definition of a "birdtile".

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that was my off-the-cuff invention, but I am interested to know what the anti-macroevolutionist crowd thinks that it is.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying now, and I have to agree. There doesn't seem to be any way to assign a probability of God's involvement for event.

Of course, I'm going to say that's because we're dealing with an unfalsifiable made up entity. What's the probability that an apple falls without Wotan's involvement? But I think your point stands and look forward to David's response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only discussing a God who does stuff that is considered physically impossible (or unlikely to an incredible degree, such as lining up all the molecules of the Red Sea.) Not Ready is tougher to argue with on these points than other theists because he only cares about a handful of miracles of this type, all a long time ago, and is willing to admit that most of the others could be frauds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to your arguments if NotReady admits that All such accounts in the Bible were allegorical and making use of symbolic language?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its off to other forums. Where some people still think they should play AJ offsuit under the gun. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

[/ QUOTE ]



Will you be giving Religious arguments to convince people not to play AJ offsuit?


Focusing on the literal Parting of the Red Sea. Suppose this were to happen today, with TV cameras rolling and scientists taking measurements. Suppose the scientists are baffled and cannot explain it. This would NOT be proof that God did it. It might convince a lot of people to Believe that God did it. But it would still not make sense to talk about a "probability" that God did it, unless you are speaking loosely. Strictly speaking, you have no mathematical probability model to apply. Loosely speaking, if you say the probability is high it just translates to saying that it convinces you. In other words, it causes You to Believe. It has brought about a Religious Belief for You. However, scientifically speaking, even this "miracle" cannot be distinguished as other than something science just can't explain yet.

So how is the Biblical Account different? The difference is in the nature of the Report. It's not the Report of TV cameras rolling and scientists taking measurements. It's an account in a Book full of allegories, symbolism, morality tales, and metaphors.

The legitimate line of attack on NotReady's position has nothing to do with psuedo-probability statements about God which just amount to statements of Religious Belief couched in ill applied math sounding terms. The legitimate line of attack is to look at the Credibility of a Literal Reading of this particular Biblical Account. NotReady "can read". The question is, how well can he read?

PairTheBoard

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point?

When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce?

That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?)

While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so you know, regardless of how many times you multiply (1) by itself, you still get (1).

You're welcome.