DescentBB

about the fossil records, they could be wrong, about 10 years ago our cat, 6-toes, died. we burried her under one of our trees, and that tree died a year ago. so when we pulled up the tree, 6-toes came up with it. someone sugested sending the bones to a carbon dater because the bones looked fossilised. they said the bones were about 21 million years old, and were a predessesor to the common house cat. so either the machine's busted, or the technique is dead wrong.(pun intended)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
about the fossil records, they could be wrong, about 10 years ago our cat, 6-toes, died. we burried her under one of our trees, and that tree died a year ago. so when we pulled up the tree, 6-toes came up with it. someone sugested sending the bones to a carbon dater because the bones looked fossilised. they said the bones were about 21 million years old, and were a predessesor to the common house cat. so either the machine's busted, or the technique is dead wrong.(pun intended) </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how well you understand carbon-dating, but carbon dating usually isn't supposed to be used on relatively recent deaths or objects (as in... like... a few hundred years, or thousands of years) and it has a limited scope, as in... don't examine anything too young, and even sometimes too old. I'm not sure how the fellow came out with 21 million years old. Most likely, he p robably dated dissolved carbon from the surrounding sediment or pulled something out his wazoo.

The fossil record is not dependent on carbon dating. All sorts of radiometric dating is used to generalize the age of certain strata. Index fossils are used. Calling it a circular "Fossils date rock, rock dates fossil" would be a horrible oversimplification that neglects the details behind the whole process.

Man I love how you evolutionists defend your religion, you all make the same arguments that you say we make and call lame, you have NO CONCRETE PROOF of evolution, but you defend it with your dying breath I LOVE THIS THREAD!! the shoes on the other foot and they cant make thier case, someone said that its based on thousands of scientists over many years that they have reached the theory of evolution , ok if that is so then explain this to me.
1. why is it with every "NEW" find the theory changes?? not in large ways but they modify it none the less
2. why is there NO missing link found?? the key to the evolution theory.
3. why is it that the scientist that invented carbon dating said it was woefully inaccurate and should not be used as proof of the date of an object, even under the most Ideal conditions?
4. where did the matter for the big bang come from or did it just POOF appear out of no where?
4a. if it did just POOF out of no where that would kinda be creation then wouldnt it?

<font face="Arial" size="3">fossil records dating back millioss of years is what....utter nonsense? You do know how things are dated, right? You might want to do a little research on carbon dating. Very interesting stuff given that the half-life of carbon-14 is a constant value and can allow us to date fossils very accurately.</font>

I suggest *you* do some research on C-14. After ten half-lives there is a miniscule amount of radioactive carbon left in a sample, which means that the limit of the Carbon Dating method is reached at between 50,000 and 60,000 years. C-14 has a halflife of 5,568±30 years.

For C-14 dating to be accurate you'd have to assume that decay has remained a constantsince the begining of time. Changing environments will alter the decay rate. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take about 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 75% what it would be if the earth were as old as evolutionist believe.
Often times scientist will turn todendrochronology. By extending the ring patterns, according to scientists, they've been able to produce a continuous patterns of rings that go back about 9700 years.
dendrochronology doesn't hold water past 4500 years(oldest known tree). Even then the rings very with environmental changes, this can be observed on living trees.
Create your own messuring stick, anyone?

<font face="Arial" size="3">God created the world we see today in DAYS! But a day in the life of God might be millions, or billions of years in human perception.</font>

Joe, spend some time in Genesis..'and the evening and the morning were the first day' makes it perfectly clear that the "day" time frame is in fact, a 24 hour period.

I'm defending it because all I see are irrational claims to 'disprove' a huge body of knowledge without a firm understanding of how the science behind it works.

<font face="Arial" size="3">1. why is it with every "NEW" find the theory changes?? not in large ways but they modify it none the less</font>

What the hell kind of question is this? Seriously. If you find something that fills in more information than you had before, you use it. Evolution is not something written in stone somewhere, and relatively small changes are by no means a sign of weakness. It's like trying to piece together a puzzle. Sometimes you add more detail so you can get a better view of the overall picture.

<font face="Arial" size="3">2. why is there NO missing link found?? the key to the evolution theory.</font>

Well 1) there isn't all that much information on how speciation happens and 2) there isn't all that much data from the time period to begin with. It's not like there are billions of bones just sitting around waiting to be found or anything, specific things have to happen in order to preserve bodies in order for information to be extracted from them.

<font face="Arial" size="3">3. why is it that the scientist that invented carbon dating said it was woefully inaccurate and should not be used as proof of the date of an object, even under the most Ideal conditions?</font>

Beats me. Either way, there are several other methods of determinging the age of something, including geological ones.

<font face="Arial" size="3">4. where did the matter for the big bang come from or did it just POOF appear out of no where?</font>

You and a lot of other people are very curious about that as well.

The "missing link" is a key to evolution? I never would have known! Especially considering that the missing link idea has been put aside as scientists have come to realize that humans and apes are splits off of the same branch of the evolutionary tree, not a linear progression.

That too DC. I was thinking missing link as in a common ancestor to both humans and modern apes.

Why do we bother debating?

This is a question a few people have asked -- why are we doing this? We can't "prove" anything, right? So, like Viralphrame said, this is a "waste of a thread", right? Well, not exactly. It is true that we will never prove, or disprove, evolution. But that's not the point of participating in this thread, at least not for me, and I'm sure a lot of other people agree. The reason I argue is to expose flawed reasoning, and to teach people to think better -- if you can see where and why your argument (or someone else's) went wrong, you can learn not to make that same type of mistake in the future.

Furthermore, I participate in this thread in order to see what the evidence can and can't tell us. It can't "prove" or "disprove" evolution, certainly -- but it can show us that particular evolutionary mechanisms are well-supported, or poorly supported, or not at all valid. It can also show us that certain creation hypotheses are well-supported, poorly supported, or completely invalid. That is, for example, while we can't prove evolution either way, we can perhaps show that particular models of natural selection reasonably predict certain types of genetic variability, or that certain other models fail to predict the same thing. By analyzing such evidence, we can better identify what sorts of assumptions we've made in our beliefs, and what other beliefs might be reasonable. Viralphrame is right to note that "students these days are still fed meaningless reasons to believe in a mere theory" -- but hopefully at least a few of us are able to look beyond that into the actual reasons to believe or disbelieve in the aforementioned theory, and to understand what assumptions we make in doing so.

And, of course, debating can tell us how carefully or carelessly a particular person reaches their conclusion (see, for example, my response to MD, below.) All of these things make the thread at least a little bit better than a "complete waste"

GPS units on Everest: An Exercise in Careful Thinking

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">We can climb the damn thing and use GPS to see where, and how high up we are. -MD
MD, is there actually a GPS unit on top of Everest? That seems like a fairly important thing for you to establish. -Lothar
Lothar, GPS units are hand-held. -MD
they actually ended up not taking GPS's back in '99 or so because the ones that gave adequate resolution were too heavy. It was only after the GPS's were redesigned that they were able to lug them up Everest -Lothar
The article, and your post proved my point already. -MD</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here, we have an example of exactly what I mentioned above -- careless thinking. MD, you made the point that we know how high Everest is because we can measure it with GPS's, and that was a correct point. But the evidence you gave to support that point was weak, so I questioned it -- not because the point was wrong, but because I wanted to see if you could back it up with evidence, or if you'd just carelessly throw random evidence at me and hope I went away. Rather than supporting your conclusion by finding an article about Everest being measured by GPS's, you gave a response about the size of GPS's that seemed to support your point. On further inspection, though, your evidence was shown to be irrelevant, and Topher's response in support of your point was shown to be insufficient evidence. When questioned about your evidence, you didn't really back it up -- which is the exact same thing you were criticizing Meathead for. He made a point and gave some evidence that sounded sort of like it supported his point, but didn't really back it up. You did the exact same thing as he did. Now, look at what I did -- I took the same point ("Everest is measured with GPS's") and went out and found evidence that actually supported that point. Learn from this.

Now, this is fairly typical in origins debates. Evolution might be entirely true -- but more often than not, when people are questioned on a particular point, they will simply grab the nearest piece of evidence they find that seems to answer the question. Upon further inspection, the evidence often falls apart, or is completely irrelevant. If you're going to debate origins (and especially if you're going to tease someone for not backing up their claims) it's adviseable to actually take the time to understand what you're talking about, find the evidence for it, and ask the right questions about the evidence you've been given. When someone hands you evidence and says "this supports Darwin's theory of evolution" you should take the time to actually look at Darwin's theory, look at the evidence, and see if it supports the theory better than it supports other theories.

Evidences for Evolution: More Exercises in Careful Thinking

<font face="Arial" size="3">too my knowledge, the basic idea of evolution (as described by Garfield) can be shown to work in computer simulations. -Pandora</font>

Perhaps you should look into my response to Topher, which is the third post on page 2 of this thread. I won't repeat that here, except to say that every computer simulation I've seen that is claimed to be "evolutionary" has ignored population size and mean fitness, and therefore not actually shown what it was meant to show. Like MD's statement about GPS's, the conclusion might be right, but this piece of evidence doesn't help us reach it. Do you think you can provide evidence along these lines that actually legitimately supports evolution?

<font face="Arial" size="3">Evolution describes the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.... [snip: long story about rabbits and natural selection.] The change in the characteristics of a population over time due to the characteristics (and their advantages and disadvantages) yielded by certain alleles is evolution. This was observed by Darwin. From this, we extrapolate a set of ideas and hypothetical events called the "Theory of Evolution." -Garfield3d</font>

What you just described is not the whole "theory of evolution", it is only a part of it -- or, more properly, it is only a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the idea that populations change over time, and in the particular case we're interested in, we're dealing with "populations" of genes. Natural Selection is a proposed mechanism by which population change takes place; it's not evolution itself (many early evolutionists, such as Lamarck, didn't believe in natural selection.)

Natural selection is the easy-to-see mechanism by which species change over time, but natural selection alone does not explain the origin of species. Darwin was criticized fairly early on because natural selection, as Darwin described it, led to information loss and quick convergence to a popultion with zero variation (see, for example, Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 criticism, or Fisher's 1930 calculations on blending inheritance.) This was a big problem for Darwin, and the solution is to re-introduce genetic variation somehow. Natural selection only leads to information loss; you need a second mechanism to create information in order for evolution to work.

Darwin introduced variation by assuming a Lamarckian-type inheritance -- use of a trait made it stronger, and you passed on the strengthened trait to offspring, creating genetic variation compared to others who didn't use the same trait as much. Now, we can be fairly sure Darwin was wrong on this point -- modern science has shown us that "blending inheritance" and acquired characteristics are both nonsense. Inheritance comes through the process described by Mendel, which does not involve blending, and activity doesn't lead to changes in genes. Even using Mendel's inheritance instead of blending inheritance doesn't give us evolution; for most populations, some equilibrium is still reached. It is only by introducing a second mechanism -- mutation -- that we are able to reintroduce the variation that natural selection eliminates.

Now, both "natural selection" and "mutation" are easy-to-see and easy-to-describe mechanisms. Neither of these is under serious question in any but the most off-the-wall circles. What is under serious question, though, is whether or not these two mechanisms fully explain the origin of species. Do they actually lead to the sort of branching effects that are currently proposed? Are there additional mechanisms that need to be considered? Given the actual data we have about mutation rates, has anyone ever constructed even a small complete evolutionary pathway? It's easy to wave our hands and say "natural selection plus mutation equals evolution, DUH!" but it's hard to actually demonstrate it happening. Does anyone here have actual evidence of it?

<font face="Arial" size="3">the theory of natural selection has already been proven time and time again. -MD</font>

As I said above, natural selection is only a part of evolutionary theory -- it's one of the two main proposed mechanisms. Can you demonstrate how natural selection, plus whatever other mechanisms you choose, actually leads to speciation?

All of the examples you gave are things that can be explained by any number of theories, and in none of those cases did you explain how we know "why" those things happened. I don't doubt that a chameleon being able to change colors is an advantage against predators, but you haven't supported the idea that chameleons got that trait *because* it's an advantage against predators. Maybe they originally got it because it helped them in the sunlight, or because God thought they looked cool, or because it allowed them to attract mates more easily.

<font face="Arial" size="3">he provides in the book a theory as to why humans have larger brains.... to provide more redundancy for when cells die off due to running long distances.... there is a large amount of evidence to back that up, namely that certain primitive cultures today still use that technicque to catch animals, and that the remains surrounding these particular protohumans still have simple tools, which suggests that the enlarged brain had to be an evolutionary advantage for a different reason. -Tetrad</font>

Can you explain, in better detail, why that is "evidence" for that guy's particular theory? In particular, explain to me how it is that primitive cultures running animals to exhaustion, and using simple tools, supports the theory that "larger brains evolved in order to create reduncancy in distance-running" rather than, for example, the theory that larger brains evolved in order to allow better thought, and just happened to also allow for redundancy in distance-running. Roughly speaking, I'm asking the same thing I asked MD -- can you support this conclusion with legitimate evidence?

Again, this tends to be a common mistake in origins, especially in books for laymen -- assuming that, because a particular piece of evidence matches your theory, that it's "support" for that theory. In order to support a particular theory, you need evidence that matches with your theory *better than* it matches with other competing theories. And, if you're trying to show causation, you have to show the steps happened in the right order -- did humans evolve larger brains in order to hunt better, or did humans start hunting better after they'd evolved larger brains for some other purpose?

<font face="Arial" size="3">fossil records dating back millioss of years is what....utter nonsense? You do know how things are dated, right? You might want to do a little research on carbon dating. -MD</font>

Sorry to pick on you again, but uh, if you think carbon dating has anything to do with fossils dating "millions of years", perhaps you should do some research on carbon dating. IIRC, it's typical range of validity is something like 500-50,000 years, and outside that range it's not useful. Now, if you mean "radiometric dating" rather than "carbon dating", you should speak more carefully

Now, is carbon-dating "proven" time and time again? Yes, within a particular range of validity -- it's been calibrated, for example, against tree rings in thousand-year-old redwoods.

I'd be interested to see how it was used to solve a murder case. I wasn't aware it was useable on short timescales.

Nitpicky little points that I just can't let go, but have nothing to do with the subject at hand

<font face="Arial" size="3">since the units rely on satelite data, its really the fault of the sensors on the satelite -MD, commenting on why GPS's aren't that sensitive</font>

Well, you *could* blame the sattelite, but really, it's the fault of the system -- the sattelite sends data, and the GPS unit recieves the data and (IIRC) sends back more data. How accurate the measurement is depends on a number of factors -- the sensors on the sattelite, the number of measurements taken, the number of sattelites the GPS unit can get data from at once, etc. The last one has a lot to do with how sensitive the GPS unit's antenna is, and how much power it has to broadcast information to the sattelite. So the sattelite is not the only factor that leads to poor resolution. Chances are, your little handheld unit uses the same sattelites as the big survey units they use elsewhere, but you get much different sensitivity based on the quality of the land-based unit.

<font face="Arial" size="3">2. why is there NO missing link found?? the key to the evolution theory. -Cuda</font>

If it was found, then it wouldn't be missing!

Actually, I was wondering if you, like the others, could explain to me why the lack of "missing links" is a problem for evolutionary theory. Explain why the lack of missing links is actually a problem with the theory, rather than just something you think is a problem because some creation website said so.

<font face="Arial" size="3">Joe, spend some time in Genesis..'and the evening and the morning were the first day' makes it perfectly clear that the "day" time frame is in fact, a 24 hour period. -FP</font>

Perhaps you should read through How did God create the Universe? over on christianboard.com -- pay particular attention to Dove's post at the top of page 2, as well as anything by me or Mercury. We welcome any more input anyone has (except for trolls) so join up and feel free to discuss!

[edit: fixed some tpyos.]

Sorry Shawn, but I'm refusing to believe in the hocus pocus creation of the universe. The bible to me is the best storybook ever written. But since it was created and edited by man, I'm not going to take it as fact.

I don't get the missing link-- IMO, the fact that you're saying that there is a missing link doesn't refute that there ever as a chain, but, in fact, you're almost admitting to it.

Lothar, it would be pointless for me to try to summarize the book on that particular point. If you're truly interested, ask the source rather than me. Although chances are you won't particularly like it since Marvin Harris treats the subject matter like a narrative rather than some sort of infallible proof. Sure he makes lots of references, but he's not out to defend his point of view, but rather simply present the evolution of humans and culture through time. Trying to defend every point would make his 500 page book just way too long and difficult to read.

But suffice to say, it's deals primarily with the form and behavior of protohumans compared with the form and behavior of that particular species over time. It's (according to him) a natural progression of desirable traits from apes in trees to humans on land.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Sting_Ray:
Sorry Shawn, but I'm refusing to believe in the hocus pocus creation of the universe. The bible to me is the best storybook ever written. But since it was created and edited by man, I'm not going to take it as fact.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evolution was also thought up, written and taught by man. Why do you believe that?

Lothar,
Thanks for the invitation. I read through it and have nothing to offer.

..OMG .. ! This thread has me bristling ! I had to say something...! however stuttering and tangential, I type in utter disbelief that creationism can be argued about, especially argued in favor of !

Meathead, you must have a Bible implanted into that very young Nogin of yours ! So much so that you can't pay attention in Science class to learn how the Earth's magnetic field reverses.! This happens when the spinning molten iron core of our planet slows and then stops and then starts spinning in the other direction... And to know a real Trilobite from a sea monkey or what ever you have in your room ...!

Just to clarify my Gestalt: I am A spiritual person with scientific views that follows no religious dogma. ... I have "seen god", fallen close to the "white light" without a near-death experience, and so I do believe in a "creative force"... But it's not that old man with a white beard.!

IMO; Bible thumped people with IQ's of 40 to 240 are all sheep; without your shepherd you are lost, so you clutch even harder to the biblical allegory, and forget the fact that it's all metaphor.

I bet that through the mechanism of natural selection it will surely be that creationists will be dropped from the Homo Spaiens gene pool in another say, 10,000 years ..! Maybe the Mars rovers may speed up that "evolution" of our consciousness... who knows...

Meathead; have you posted your Mug shot for us to get a clearer picture of what an IQ of 137 points looks like ..? .. I'm not trying to be mean, just very curious... Who are you ?

Two questions to stir the pot:

1) Anyone here ever "seen God"..? I belive I have, but it took a dose of LSD. Anyone ever try DMT (Dimethyl tryptamine ..?), a natural neurotransmitter ..? You will likely enjoy the experience, although "seeing god" is open for interpretation, but from such an experience (i.e. DMT) you might find that the Bible is just one very old story about God. DMT is metabolized in 30 minutes, don't worry the "trip" is a short one... .. And God is not a man !

2).. Darn I forgot the title & author......What was that book that tried to show the link between a secret society that "worshiped" the amanita muscaria and Jesus ..? Has anyone else read it, ... ? ...

... I offer these two psychedelic questions remind us that every major "evolutionary" advance in a species is initiated by an advance or "change" in the species' consciousness (Ron Seigel's theory). Certainly we are all creatures of habit, but Creationists' conscious world-view seems a little "stuck" !

Ok OK .. enough of my world view... ! But what the heck is a "Marsupial Soup" .. !Lol !... Kangaroo stew ..!? HAH !

<font face="Arial" size="3">1) Anyone here ever "seen God"..? I belive I have, but it took a dose of LSD.</font>

<font face="Arial" size="3">Bible thumped people ... will be dropped from the Homo Spaiens gene pool in another say, 10,000 years ..!</font>

I'll let that pair of quotes determine who's more likely to disappear from the gene pool soon

Moses saw God's back(Exodus33:18-23) and his skin and face glowed so much the people were afraid of him. Seeing God's face is apparently lethal to all normal humans.
I have a real trylobite, I've checked pictures in books and online, I'ts just crushed in the heel print.
By the way, I wasen't "bible thumped" I chose it after a several year study of the bible, creation science, and evolutionary science.(Every sourse I looked at for Evolution had a different timeframe, evolutionary scale, Pangea, ect. ect. My creation sourses had near identical timeframes, facts, and math.

(In response to Lothar)
<i>
What you just described is not the whole "theory of evolution", it is only a part of it -- or, more properly, it is only a mechanism of evolution. Evolution is the idea that populations change over time, and in the particular case we're interested in, we're dealing with "populations" of genes. Natural Selection is a proposed mechanism by which population change takes place; it's not evolution itself (many early evolutionists, such as Lamarck, didn't believe in natural selection.)

Natural selection is the easy-to-see mechanism by which species change over time, but natural selection alone does not explain the origin of species. Darwin was criticized fairly early on because natural selection, as Darwin described it, led to information loss and quick convergence to a popultion with zero variation (see, for example, Fleeming Jenkin's 1867 criticism, or Fisher's 1930 calculations on blending inheritance.) This was a big problem for Darwin, and the solution is to re-introduce genetic variation somehow. Natural selection only leads to information loss; you need a second mechanism to create information in order for evolution to work.

Darwin introduced variation by assuming a Lamarckian-type inheritance -- use of a trait made it stronger, and you passed on the strengthened trait to offspring, creating genetic variation compared to others who didn't use the same trait as much. Now, we can be fairly sure Darwin was wrong on this point -- modern science has shown us that "blending inheritance" and acquired characteristics are both nonsense. Inheritance comes through the process described by Mendel, which does not involve blending, and activity doesn't lead to changes in genes. Even using Mendel's inheritance instead of blending inheritance doesn't give us evolution; for most populations, some equilibrium is still reached. It is only by introducing a second mechanism -- mutation -- that we are able to reintroduce the variation that natural selection eliminates.

Now, both "natural selection" and "mutation" are easy-to-see and easy-to-describe mechanisms. Neither of these is under serious question in any but the most off-the-wall circles. What is under serious question, though, is whether or not these two mechanisms fully explain the origin of species. Do they actually lead to the sort of branching effects that are currently proposed? Are there additional mechanisms that need to be considered? Given the actual data we have about mutation rates, has anyone ever constructed even a small complete evolutionary pathway? It's easy to wave our hands and say "natural selection plus mutation equals evolution, DUH!" but it's hard to actually demonstrate it happening. Does anyone here have actual evidence of it?</i>

Nononoooo.... What I meant was to just explain what "evolution" was. Viralpharme kept on saying that evolution could never be proved and seemed to be mixing evolution with the theory of evolution. I just wanted to delineate what evolution was and seperate that from the theory of evolution. It seemed like a bunch of people were clumping all the terms under some generic uber-word of "evolution" and that stepped on my toes. I don't think the evolutionary process should be under the microscope here. You've already noted how variation and selection lend to the characteristics of the population. To me, it feels like a technicality, similar to when people say "HIV doesn't cause AIDS."

As for the theory of evolution, and all the other mumbo jumbo... yes, endless debate. I think what I find so vexing is the title of the thread "disproving evolution." Well, I'm not going to prove evolution and its many tenets and theories, but good luck disproving it. Maybe we can get to 100 replies though.

Moses should of had shades !

But seriously, Biblically: I mean to offend no one, I use the coloquialism about "thumping / being thumped" too bluntly. I apologize, wondering what I've been "thumped by..". .. I went "thump" when I was born, ... I haven't got something like "a bible" in my life, so specific a thing to derive "spiritual inspiration" from, to say I know what the bible can do for you... I have to be inspired other ways, ... thump, thump ... thu..

Evolutionarily I mused: the population of those Humans who today believe in or interpret the Bible literally, will be smaller in 10,000 years due to an "advance in consciousness", what ever it is. That change in consciousness will, over some time of "selective pressures" (whatever they are, rovers on Mars for eg.) make the Biblical story less plausible as to make there be such "literal" creationists, like Meathead is being.

Could you believe that the bible would one day be seen as a "historical" artifact and not "God's Word"... A book in a museum and not churches ?

Noting your other thread Meathead, ... the Mars rovers are perfect examples of a model or "symbol" of modern human consciousness, advancing. Humans once used to argue with literal biblical interpretation about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but now we've "evolved" to the point of saying how precisely we can see sand grains on Mars !..

For what ever reason Meat-cranium wants to, or needs to be a creationist to egg us on with this long thread,It's ok..! You might, I thought, be just an alias of one of "us", ... teasing us with these stories of We-were-born-yesterday beliefs... ..! Just to get another rise outta the crowd..! (No offence otherwise, though.)

.. Lol..! @ Lothular!... ! My two little "mutants" aged 3 and 5 will be Spreading the Genes of God in about 20 years or so, ... .. .

mental murmur: The Human Geneome Project; there's a modern "bible" of sorts... Medically speaking that "book" offers "salvation", creation, ... Cures and miraculous possibilities... The consciousness that has and will "evolve" from understanding the Human Geneome Project is the thing that will propell our species, giving us tools to defy even more "selective pressures" in the universe. .. ..(... flashback to the scenes in Alien 3-Resurection when "Rippley" finds the lab full of the failed experiments they had made to clone her...!)

And so some of us ought to form a Creationist Descent 3 clan,no? And the Evolutionist Clan !?.. We'll have a pilot name contest! [ICR]TrYloBite for eg... or [Evol]KangarooStew

Meathead... !? Are you ugly-mugged enough to add a pic' to the thread still floating around in the PTMC Cafe ..? I'm here:

http://califest.org/CFST03/Trinity/page7.html

Or, show us that Cranium of yours at Califest 2K4 !... ?

Kill y'all around !

P.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> the population of those Humans who today believe in or interpret the Bible literally, will be smaller in 10,000 years due to an "advance in consciousness", what ever it is. That change in consciousness will, over some time of "selective pressures" (whatever they are, rovers on Mars for eg.) make the Biblical story less plausible as to make there be such "literal" creationists, like Meathead is being.</font>

Subtle backhanded comments like this crack me up. As if somehow, Christians are lower on the 'evolutionary chain' and those that believe in evolution are the 'fittest'.

B-

El Ka Bong, have you ever read the Bible? Be straight with me.

B-

Barry ! Maybe you posted before I reposted ?

I am Lutheran of descent ( Hah ! pun intended !)I am from Finland (religio-genetically speaking). I Lived in Italy for 7 years as a kid. I had protestant Bible studies 3 days a week in school for 4 years then, and all my Italian playmates were majorly Catholic. I read the Bible once (cover to cover) as an adult in my early 20's, to cross reference some of Carl Jung's writings. But I confess I remember little of The Book. So I have had some exposure to the Christian faith, ...

My blasphemous comments were about those who hang onto the literal meaning of the Biblical texts.... You were offended or just wondering ? ... as I clarify "who" I was talking about, .. again as not to offend... (smoking the peace pipe, PfffttT ...!@%...).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by El Ka Bong:
<b> Barry ! Maybe you posted before I reposted ?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure..

<font face="Arial" size="3">I am Lutheran of descent ( Hah ! pun intended !)I am from Finland (religio-genetically speaking). I Lived in Italy for 7 years as a kid. I had protestant Bible studies 3 days a week in school for 4 years then, and all my Italian playmates were majorly Catholic. I read the Bible once (cover to cover) as an adult in my early 20's, to cross reference some of Carl Jung's writings. But I confess I remember little of The Book. So I have had some exposure to the Christian faith, ...</font>

I appreciate your honesty..I know/have known a lot of 'Christians' who have read and gone to church and/or associated with other 'Christians' and don't know the first thing about basic Biblical principals. I think mostly because... well, I don't know. Perhaps they do it because they've been instructed since childhood that it's the 'right' thing to do or read it for its historical value and not see it as God's word.... I'm guessing.

<font face="Arial" size="3">My blasphemous comments were about those who hang onto the literal meaning of the Biblical texts....</font>

Some of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, some figurative.. context is the key. I believe I am one of whom you speak.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> You were offended or just wondering ? ... as I clarify "who" I was talking about, .. again as not to offend... (smoking the peace pipe, PfffttT ...!@%...).</font>

Well, you did offend me in the sense that your statement caused me a bit of displeasure, I wasn't angered by it if that's what you mean. I was also curious.

B-

<font face="Arial" size="3">Marvin Harris treats the subject matter like a narrative rather than some sort of infallible proof. Sure he makes lots of references, but he's not out to defend his point of view, but rather simply present the evolution of humans and culture through time. -Tetrad</font>

Then why is it that you think reading the aforementioned book would give people a "pretty good idea" of what happened, or would give an evolution-skeptic some idea of "exactly how much data has been collected"? It seems to me like exactly the sort of non-evidence my post was about -- a hand-waving attempt to explain away inquiries. Now, a book like that is all well and good for what it does -- but you presented it as if it was going to be somehow useful for actually determining what the evidence was. You presented it to back up your statements, when it doesn't actually do so.

<font face="Arial" size="3">I offer these two psychedelic questions remind us that every major "evolutionary" advance in a species is initiated by an advance or "change" in the species' consciousness (Ron Seigel's theory). -El Ka Bong</font>

So if a particular bacteria were to suddenly gain a major resistance, this would be due to an advance in the bacteria's consciousness? It seems to me you're in no position to criticize anyone's science

<font face="Arial" size="3">What I meant was to just explain what "evolution" was. -Garfield3d</font>

Yes, and I described to you why you didn't actually do so -- you only explained what natural selection (a particular *mechanism* of evolution) was. This is very different from explaining what "evolution" is. Evolution is a theory that species change over time (which you correctly stated), and it's currently thought to come about through the two mechanisms of natural selection and mutation (only one of which you mentioned).

<font face="Arial" size="3">You've already noted how variation and selection lend to the characteristics of the population. To me, it feels like a technicality, similar to when people say "HIV doesn't cause AIDS." -Garfield3d</font>

Yes, I've noted how they do so. And I've asked if they can do so on the order of magnitude that's required by the current theory. It's not so much of a technicality as you think -- I'm asking, quite simply, how far the data can be extrapolated. We all see the problem with Meathead's statement about the sun shrinking -- you can't extrapolate 400 years of data out to 400,000,000 years. You can't extrapolate a kid growing 10 inches one year to say he'll be 50 feet taller in 60 years. This is the same exact problem -- you can't extrapolate mutation-plus-natural-selection out to speciation just by waving your hands and saying it's so. You have to actually demonstrate that it works somehow. This is not something I've ever seen attempted by anyone, even as I'm working toward my PhD in mathematical biology and taking a course on evolutionary genetics.

<font face="Arial" size="3">My two little "mutants" aged 3 and 5 will be Spreading the Genes of God in about 20 years or so... -El Ka Bong</font>

Yes, but in 10,000 years the genes of people who do LSD... ah, never mind, you nita learn the art of sarcasm a little better Anyway, my parents are Christians, and they have 8 children, therefore Christians are 'fittest' and you're a rung down on the 'evolutionary chain' Check it out, proof by anecdote. ph34r.

"it's currently thought to come about through the two mechanisms of natural selection and mutation "

...and genetic drift, and migration

There are four basic mechanisms. Or weren't you paying attention the last debate?

Yes, Birds, sometimes people speak of four mechanisms, by including genetic drift (what I would call a minor mechanism, and class under the more general "stochastic effects") and migration (not a main mechanism of evolution so much as a mechanism of speciation, from what I understand. It's not strictly necessary for the evolution of a single species, at least not in any statement of the theory I've seen.) Sometimes people speak of more mechanisms -- for example, talkorigins lists mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow (as well as several sub-mechanisms.) I apologize for not listing off every single possible mechanism, though I stand by my identification of natural selection and mutation as the two "main" mechanisms of evolution (as you did in the last debate in your first post.) The main point is that there be at least one mechanism that increases variability, to complement the already-stated mechanism of natural selection that decreases it. Of course, to do solid evolutionary modelling, many more mechanisms should be included, which is why in my response to MD I allowed for "whatever other mechanisms you choose". Your list, or talkorigins' list, would be a good place to start.

By the way, if anyone wasn't "paying attention" in the last debate, I'd say it was the guy who never figured out the distinction between "evidence" and "explanation"

Lothar, the book does go into why he makes the suggestions he does about certain evolutionary processes. He just assumes (like most anthropologists would, understandably enough) that evolutionary processes are true, and puts together all the pieces that have been found into something that makes sense. So it's more like "we know this this and this about protohumans, and chimps/primitive cultures behave this way, so logically speaking this has a high probability of what happened."

Sure it could be way off, but considering the vast understanding of human culture and animal behavior this guy has, it would be quite silly for me to doubt him. Let's just say that he probably has as much of an understanding of modern anthropology as you do of the Bible.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
Evolution was also thought up, written and taught by man. Why do you believe that?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me for answering for Sting Ray, but I think the difference between the two is that he doesn't need to take evolutionary theory as gospel truth above all else. There's a big difference there that's pretty apparent.

@Lothar:

thanks for the page2 link, missed it the first time.

I remember seeing some simulations with a great number of single organisms. They could have sex, their children had small mutations, they died, etc. They also had different species...

What they checked was whether the farther down species had improved compared to the earliest ones. Don't remember, however, how "Improvement" was measured.

If you think a simulation like this would have the potential to avoid your criticisms, i'd do some research into it and look if I find something more detailed on it...

Heh, and thanks to this thread, at least it brings me up to date with the newer stuff on evolutionary theory... i stopped paying attention around 5 years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by El Ka Bong:
<b> Meathead, you must have a Bible implanted into that very young Nogin of yours ! So much so that you can't pay attention in Science class to learn how the Earth's magnetic field reverses.! This happens when the spinning molten iron core of our planet slows and then stops and then starts spinning in the other direction... And to know a real Trilobite from a sea monkey or what ever you have in your room ...!
</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm, never heard about the core changing direction, could you explain?

"The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution."
Actually those moths (1) are eaten by birds, and since the trees were white the white ones had more of a chance of surviving, and when the trees got soot on them, basicly turning them black the white ones stuck out like sore thumbs, so they were eaten first.(2)Those exact moths don't even leave the canopy in the day, so the color is a moot point. To get the moths they got the pictures pictures of, had to be fumigated to get them out of the canopy and pinned to the tree.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Meathead:
<b> "The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution."
Actually those moths (1) are eaten by birds, and since the trees were white the white ones had more of a chance of surviving, and when the trees got soot on them, basicly turning them black the white ones stuck out like sore thumbs, so they were eaten first.(2)Those exact moths don't even leave the canopy in the day, so the color is a moot point. To get the moths they got the pictures pictures of, had to be fumigated to get them out of the canopy and pinned to the tree.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive my bluntness, but what's your point? That the population changed due to arbitrary measures?

Tetrad, like I asked before, what makes you think the book would give an evolution-skeptic some idea of "exactly how much data has been collected"? Clearly the book has some use -- but not in the context you presented it in. Read back over my statements about evidence vs. explanation in the old thread for a better idea of what I mean.

Pandora, yes, a simulation like that *could* have the potential to overcome some of my criticisms, if it accounted for population growth and absolute fitness, and led to speciation (not just improvement.) It's really all in the details, though. (I should ask around my department -- I'm sure someone here would know if a study like that had been done.)

I said you wouldn't like it.

And it isn't written for the evolution skeptic, simply because the author would find such a viewpoint laughable. Now particular theories are wide open to debate, such as the enlarged brain reason I gave before, but not the mechanism itself.

Edit: as far as evidence I'm talking about archeological evidence, as well as parallelisms in other cultures and species.

Allow me to chime in and since this is not a religious debate per-se, Lothar should not get upset with me To prove evolution to the skeptic, one has to show evidence of a more recent nature, preferably something that has taken place within the last 2000 years so those of a religious confinement of mind cannot state that what happened was Gods plan and was always there.
Dogs are one example. By selective breeding (natural selection) some of the various types of dogs today were not present 2000 years ago. Staphacoccus (sp) bacterium strains of today have mutated into a different form (and more deadly) than were around even 20 years ago. Genetically modified food sources are around now that were never in existence 50 years ago. If you want to see evolution in process just look around you. While some may be tempted to respond by saying the causation of the above mentioned examples are by mankind...try to remember mankind is also a force of nature.

To clearify, I do believe that we make small adaptations over time. I do not believe that we have adapted from lower level primates to the humans we are today, so I suppose I *do* admit that evolution exists on a small scale. Evolution depends on old earth timelines for support, without an old earth, full scale evolution cannot exist...
The Bible aside, support for an old earth is more guesswork then it is fact. There is absolutely *no way* to accurately determine the conditions over 10,000 years ago. Conditions like the CO2 concentration and atmospheric pressure will drastically chance the outcome. We can barely draw a picture of conditions 5000 years ago with the data we have.

I do not care how adamantly defend an old earth idea, until you have absolute proof of the conditions from the time in question, it's just as much of a fairy-tale as you say the Bible is.

Creating your own unit of meassure based on nothing more than guesswork is not what I would tend to believe as fact.

The bottom line is, we have a different authority but our ideas both stand on faith. Any evolutionist *or* theologian that tells you otherwise is either sorely misguided or blatantly lying.

B-

My new Tank Pilot: [EvoL]BonoboChimp ...! Creationists look out for me in The Mines.. !

Bonobo Chimpanzees are my "missing link", in modern terms... That's the closest Ape to me, "man" !( & I got some sugarcane !)

Did "God" touch these creatures' evolutionary lineage some eons ago, in synch' with some Creationists clocks, to create us..?..?

<font face="Arial" size="3">Dogs are one example. By selective breeding (natural selection) some of the various types of dogs today were not present 2000 years ago. Staphacoccus (sp) bacterium strains of today have mutated into a different form (and more deadly) than were around even 20 years ago. Genetically modified food sources are around now that were never in existence 50 years ago. If you want to see evolution in process just look around you. While some may be tempted to respond by saying the causation of the above mentioned examples are by mankind...try to remember mankind is also a force of nature.</font>

Maybe those are examples of evolution in its vaguest sense, as in "things getting better" or "things changing," but they are poor examples of Darwinism, which is probably what is really being argued here.

Selective breeding is obviously not an example of Darwinism in action today, since it merely selects traits that already exist.

Nor is genetically modified food an appropriate example of Darwinism. Modified food would be more along the lines of the creation/design scenerio than a Darwinist scenario!

As far as bacteria, I can't comment specifically, other than say you would have to be absolutely positive that the traits exhibited were actually new, other than a result of natural selection. For example, when I was watching the PBS special on evolution not so long ago, they gave an example of the HIV virus for evolution today. They demonstrated a patient that, when administered medication, a lot of the virus would die off, but there was one certain strain absolutely resistant to the medication that would overwelm the patient after taking the medication for long periods of time. So the doctors concluded that taking breaks from the medication would be a more effective treatment, since then the standard strain would once again repopulate.

Now, once again, this might be some example of evolution amiguously, but as far as Darwinism goes, the example isn't very effective. Instead, what they demonstrated to me was (1) that if HIV had been just developing new, resistant traits, they wouldn't already existing in the patients body (although sparsely) and (2) that the resistant virus featured (or lacked) a trait that allowed it to be resistant to the treatment, but once under ordinary circumstances, it was inferior, and the normal strain quickly dominated.

Basically, it's unfair to say in general that the fact that the common cold seems worse now than when you were a kid is an accurate example of Darwinism without any scientific evidence demonstrating that it is because of new, beneficial traits.

edit: And, in concordance with Darwinism, one would need to show examples of speciation as well, since new, beneficial traits would typically only alter a species, not seperate it. Concluding that a new species could arise from the modification of one or two traits would be, as the theme of this thread would seem to be, "unfair extrapolation," and to try to use anything else as an example of Darwinian evolution is simply pointless.

I want so badly to apply basic physics and math to disprove this stupid conclusion drawn from inadequate data, but I'm tired and will probably make a stupid mistake in my explainations I will hear no end of.

Suffice it to say that the sun shrinking at a constant rate is a physical impossibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by CUDA:
Man I love how you evolutionists defend your religion, you all make the same arguments that you say we make and call lame, you have NO CONCRETE PROOF of evolution, but you defend it with your dying breath I LOVE THIS THREAD!!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. You have no concrete proof either.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> the shoes on the other foot and they cant make thier case, someone said that its based on thousands of scientists over many years that they have reached the theory of evolution , ok if that is so then explain this to me.</font>

I don't see you making a case either. Matter of fact, the only people on 'your side' (note the quotes) that are even putting up a good fight are Lothar and Drakona.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> 1. why is it with every "NEW" find the theory changes?? not in large ways but they modify it none the less</font>

Theories change as new evidence (either way) is discovered. I wasn't aware that theories are required to stay the same for all of time.

<font face="Arial" size="3"> 2. why is there NO missing link found?? the key to the evolution theory.</font>

Why has no proof of the existance of any supreme being been found yet?

<font face="Arial" size="3"> 3. why is it that the scientist that invented carbon dating said it was woefully inaccurate and should not be used as proof of the date of an object, even under the most Ideal conditions?</font>

And yet its used quite often today because science has made leaps and bounds since then making it more accurate?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3"><b> 4. where did the matter for the big bang come from or did it just POOF appear out of no where?
4a. if it did just POOF out of no where that would kinda be creation then wouldnt it?</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I understand the theory correct, it states that all the matter in the universe was one large spherical object. (while I seriously doubt this was the case, but thats my own personal belief) Something sparked a 'massive explosion' forcing all matter outward in a spherical pattern...kinda like setting off an m-80 inside a clay pottery ball. To my understanding, its used to explain galactic drift (which has been proven). Honestly, I don't recall it ever stating where the matter came from. It was just there.

"Why is it with every "NEW" find the theory changes?? not in large ways but they modify it none the less"

To use this as a defense, Cuda, is to call your own views wrong as well. The Bible has gone through countless edits, rewrites, translations, revisions, and interpretations over the past years... that can be considered changing the theory too.