Creation vs. Evolution

[Green_Manelishi]

again, that's tremendously flawed logic

you are ASSUMING that because humans exist and create, there is another entity out there (invisible and beyond comprehension) who might also exist and create, but who, unlike humans, has no physical body, is not bound by time or space, and has amazing powers to do things without need for technology

big leap

certainly a belief, but totally unfounded in logic, and a HUGE leap in reasoning

But it's logical to view old bones and speciation then leap to the conclusion that variation within a genus or species leads to completely different "kinds" such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and terrestrial mammals evolving into whales?

 

[H2Andy]

But it's logical to view old bones and speciation then leap to the conclusion that variation within a genus or species leads to completely different "kinds" such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and terrestrial mammals evolving into whales?

given all the supporting evidence in terms of the fossil record and DNA comparisons, yes, perfectly logical ...

in fact, it's almost obvious once you see the big picture. unfortunately, you neither see the big picture nor understand the processes involved, so it seems foolish to you

but to me, it's like someone still arguing that the earth is flat. it seems foolish, given all the evidence to the contrary

to clarify: your belief in God is not foolish

what is foolish is how you seem to have made up your mind about evolution without really understanding or thinking about what we know, all the evidence that exists, and basically showing complete ignorance on the subject**, yet being 100% convinced you're right


** and how do i know this? because all your arguments against evolution are either inane or stale repetitions of old arguments that have been debunked a thousand times before

 

[Soggy]

But it's logical to view old bones and speciation then leap to the conclusion that variation within a genus or species leads to completely different "kinds" such as dinosaurs evolving into birds and terrestrial mammals evolving into whales?

Yes. I'd explain why and how much more is involved than simply "viewing old bones," but it has been explained several times already and you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Soggy]

I don't believe cutting and pasting is plagiarizing.

If you represent the words as your own, which you did, it is still plagiarism.

It is in the public domain... and you all do the same thing.

No, we provide citations thus give the original author credit.

The arguments have never been shot down because there is no way to shoot them down.

Every single argument brought up here has been repeatedly shot down. Too many people have cotton in their ears, though when they should be putting it in their mouths.

I'd say absent a clue you are quite dangerous to yourself... so try to find one.

That's mighty "Christian of you." How am I dangerous to myself, exactly?

 

[Soggy]

One also might add that science has been created by close minded individuals - as it is only those with closed minds who are argumentative against ethics, morals, values and truths. Science is nothing more than a closed minded persons argument against all that is right in the world and is difintively the downfall of American culture.

How's that tin foil hat treating you? Doesn't it chafe?

You might want to shut off your computer. Science had a hand in that. Oh, and make sure to deny your kids innoculations and medical attention. Until you do those things, you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

 

[Warthaug]

Let's stick with this part for now...which part don't you think I understand?

1) Mutations. You claimed "nearly all mutations are lethal", an argument completely demolished by several of us. And you continue to show a clear lack of understanding of what "neutral" mutation means. Here's a hint; neutral does not equal no change.

2) Genetic mechanisms of evolution. You don't seem to understand the role of gene duplication, recombination, or horizontal gene transfer in the process.

3) Evolution in general. You continually make comments where in you assume one tiny part of evolutionary theory is the whole theory in its entirety, and then complain that the one tiny component you concentrated on is insufficient. For example:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3630634-post5690.html

4) How science progresses in general. You've claimed multiple times that science starts off with a predetermined conclusion, and then goes from there. Even a cursitory overview of the history of evolutionary theory shows what a joke that idea is Likewise, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what scientific theories are, how they are formed, and how you go about disproving one.

Bryan

 

[coachpill]

1) Mutations. You claimed "nearly all mutations are lethal", an argument completely demolished by several of us. And you continue to show a clear lack of understanding of what "neutral" mutation means. Here's a hint; neutral does not equal no change.

I commented on this in an earlier post...maybe you didn't read it. I'll allow you to find it.

2) Genetic mechanisms of evolution. You don't seem to understand the role of gene duplication, recombination, or horizontal gene transfer in the process.

Gene duplication does not add new information or explain the specificity of the initial. Recombination, though increasing genetic diversity does not add any information; it only acts on previously existing information.

Horizontal gene transfer also does not increase the genetic information. Granted, the organism that received the gene "gained" genes, but this does not explain the production of the gene.

3) Evolution in general. You continually make comments where in you assume one tiny part of evolutionary theory is the whole theory in its entirety, and then complain that the one tiny component you concentrated on is insufficient. For example:

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3630634-post5690.html

Seems the only mechanism to allow for new information is mutations, but the only way to allow for increased functionality would be gene duplication followed by mutation.

4) How science progresses in general. You've claimed multiple times that science starts off with a predetermined conclusion, and then goes from there. Even a cursitory overview of the history of evolutionary theory shows what a joke that idea is Likewise, you seem to lack a basic understanding of what scientific theories are, how they are formed, and how you go about disproving one.

"Science" does not. However, there are many scientists that do.

 

[Warthaug]

A bigger question...

What does science say is the statisical probability that we are alone in the universe (as rational thinking beings)

Science has no specific answer to that, as some of the values needed to calculate that number are not know. It's called the drake equation:

N = N* fP Ne fL fE fI fC (L/Tg), where

N is the number of technological civilizations in our galaxy
N* is the number of stars in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Tg is the age of the galaxy

The last 3 values deal with communication, so we can ignore those values for now.

Any ways, we do not know many of the values for the universe as a whole, but for the milky way:

Known values:
N* = 100 billion
fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
Tg = 13.5 billion

Predicted values based on limited, but existing data:
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life)

As for the rest, its all supposition, but:
fℓ probably is close to 1, as the abiogenesis research to date suggests that the formation of life is almost a given; from a chemical, physical and statistical point of view it is harder to explain why life wouldn't form, compared to why it would form.

fi = ? We've got 1 planet with life, that has intelligent life, meaning 1 is a valid number. Most predictions though are in the 0.01%-1% range.

Any ways, you run those numbers, changing fi and ne as you see fit, and you'll get anything from zero to billions. Expand that over the entierty of the known universe and you could be looking at upto 10³⁰⁰ intelligent species. When you take into account the factors that determine if they are detectable you get numbers in the range of 0-5000 in our Galaxy; that is the same for the universe as we can only detect "realistic" transmissions from intelligent life within a fairly small region of our own galaxy.

Bryan


Edit: A note on fp. To date, about 50% of stars checked have planets. Thus, the 0.5 quoted above represents a minimal value, as the methods we have to detect extrasolar planets are quite limited and more likely than not are missing the majority of planets out there. If models of solar formation are correct, fp is probably 1.

 

[Warthaug]

You might argue that intelligent design is in fact a scientific method although to date only widely recognized as theoretical or might i say logical.

This has already been covered, ad naseum, in this thread. ID fails to meet the criteria to be a scientific theory, and therefore is not scientific in any form. In brief:

To be a thoery, you must:
1) Be based on all previously existing data
2) Be testable, meaning you can use the thoery to design experiments to test the thoery
3) Be predictive, meaning the thoery accuratly predicts the results of of the experiments from #2, and finally
4) Is falsifiable, meaning if its wrong you can prove its wrong.

ID fails at all four levels:
1) ID requires that a great deal of current knowledge be ignored
2) ID does not generate any hypothesis which we can test. And until someone invents a god-o-meter, it'll remain that way.
3) Since ID cannot do #2, #3 is obviously impossible
4) ID is inherently unfalsifiable; no matter what result you get, you say "god did it", and bam - fits the "thoey"

If humans can create things, I would argue that creationism exists. We have created many things although none of it from absolutely nothing.

And since life wasn't created from nothing, but rather arose from pre-existing chemicals with a propensity towards self-polymerization, the above point is irrelevant.

If we accept the premise that in order for things to be - they must be created (at least in some manner) either by God or mechanism, and if we argue scientifically for mechanism, then it must have taken someone or something to move the mechanism... much like a watchmaker winds the watch hand.

So someone had to move the planets into orbit? Strange, considering that both the formation of planets, as well as their orbits, are the expected outcome of having a little force called "gravity".

Same goes for abiogenesis and evolution; both occur requiring nothing more than the forces of nature.

The absence of any other scientific explanation for the big bang theory

What do you mean by "any other"? As in an explanation which would fit your religious dogma?

Science explains those events quite nicely, and in the case of evolution and abiogenesis even explains why they would happen. The big bang is still a bit of an open case, largely stemming from the fact that current scientific instrumentations does not allow us to probe singularities.

In scientific reasoning, absent any other proof, this is the reigning theory. For what else is there? Someone had to smash the atoms to get things going.

Absolutely wrong. An absence of evidence for "first cause" does not automatically indicate a god. The correct, scientific answer, is "we don't know".

X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.

Neither evolution or abiogenesis are random or accidental, therefore your first premise is empirically proven to be incorrect.

Therefore, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.

And since your first premice was false, what does this say about your second premice; a premise which is 100% dependent on the first being true?

God is that sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
Therefore, God exists.

Since your starting premise, upon which your entire argument rests, is known to be false, what does that say about the above point.

And while we're at it, since we see incredibly complex systems spontaneously forming all the time, what does that say about your above statements?

X usually stands for the universe, the evolutionary process, humankind, a given animal species, or a particular organ like the eye

OMG, you didn't just say "the eye", did you? Even the creationists valued "discovery institute" tells you guys not to use that example as it is known to be wrong...

Complexity implies a designer.

Complexity in no way, shape or form indicates a designer. Complex systems are observed to form all the time purely through nothing more than physical and chemical processes.

Likewise, complexity is purely a point-of-view. What seems complex to one seems simple to others.


Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I see you continue to ignore the citations provided, as each and every one of your "points" was disproven by citations provided by myself previously. None the less, here we go:

Gene duplication does not add new information or explain the specificity of the initial. Recombination, though increasing genetic diversity does not add any information; it only acts on previously existing information. Horizontal gene transfer also does not increase the genetic information. Granted, the organism that received the gene "gained" genes, but this does not explain the production of the gene.

As pointed out numerous times before, information is not a quantifiable entity, therefore making the above statement pointless. None-the-less, using information theory (the closest we have to being able to quantify "information", though-be-it with many caveats attached), all of the above do increase "information".

Likewise, by any imprical measure, the above also increase information, as they:
1) Increase the total number of nucleotides in the genome of the organism,
2) Increase the number of discrete genes (i.e. loci) in the genome
3) Combined with mutation, all of the above also increase the number of unique proteins produced by an organism

No matter how you measure it, the total amount of "information" has gone up; regardless of what form of empirical measure you choose to use.

As for your comments on horizontal transfer, you've made me question if you even know what that is. I fail to see how the whole-sale import of genes from a different species, including genes with no homology in your genome, would not consititue an increase in "information"...


Any how, I know you wont read them, but the following articles deal specifically with information theory and genetics. As you can see, in each and every case, mutations, gene duplications, etc, all constitute increases in information entropy; which is how information theory quantifies "information".

1. cf. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielsen and J. P. Bollback (2001) Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology, Science 294:2310-2314
2. Rando Allikmets, Wyeth W. Wasserman, Amy Hutchinson, Philip Smallwood, Jeremy Nathans, Peter K. Rogan, Thomas D. Schneider, Michael Dean (1998) Organization of the ABCR gene: analysis of promoter and splice junction sequences, Gene 215:1, 111-122
3. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson D. R. (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, Second Edition (Springer Science, New York) ISBN 978-0-387-95364-9.
4. Jaynes, E. T. (1957) Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics, Phys. Rev. 106:620

Seems the only mechanism to allow for new information is mutations, but the only way to allow for increased functionality would be gene duplication followed by mutation.

Ignoring your continued incorrect assumptions that:
1) Information is quantifiable, and
2) That an increase in information is required for evolution

You're still wrong. Horizontal gene transfer, recombination, duplication, unequal crossover, indels, and several other genetic events have the capacity to create new genes with novel function.

"Science" does not. However, there are many scientists that do.

This answer doesn't even make sense, given the content of my preceding point...

Bryan