the thing is though if you read most of this shit is and even in the vid ……thats not what the argument is. your not arguing whether or not evolution happened or is happeing for that matter…your arguing how life started in the first place which is a different matter all together.

what i dont get is why there are so many people in america fighting about this its not something thats really happening in any other first world country.

the reason in my opinion is because americans are taught to be quite fundamentalist, about their religtion, about their patriotism, about science, you salute flags every morning in class, you changed your countrys motto to in “god we trust” ffs because you clearly dont stand as one anymore. in such a culture where being right is so ingrained in your phycology its no real suprise that you get so many hard line people on things like this.

its not that one is right and wrong …its just that you guys cant stand to say “i dont know”

You say that evolution isn’t happening now. In fact, all evidence points to the fact that it is. The problem is that it’s just happening so slowly we can’t observe it until afterwards. Much like you can’t see a child growing from one day to the next, but you can see a huge difference if you look back a year, or two years, etc.

“The odds of it happening are really, really long.” Actually, no. The evidence for one multi-celled animal evolving into another over millions of years suggests that this has happened over and over and over again. So the odds are, in fact, really short.

And there is evidence. Huge amounts of it. And it is definitely concrete. The fossil record is just a tiny part of the evidence for evolution. This is such a debated topic that evolution is almost certainly one of the most studied theories in all of science. People have looked into it, experimented, expanded on the theory, come up with new ways of testing it, and still keep finding that evolution is the most fitting theory.

It’s not an undeniable fact. Nothing in science ever is. Once something has been tested enough times and all evidence points to it being true, we start to accept it as fact. But the whole point of science is that someone might uncover new evidence that contradicts it. Someone might find out tomorrow that gravity is actually caused by pixies in the Earth’s core waving fairy wands to stop things flying out into space. If that happens, scientists will have to rewrite half the theories of physics to fit with the new evidence. Until it happens, they’ll keep going with the theory that most fits the evidence. And evolution does fit the gigantic mass of evidence. It passes hugely rigorous tests that have been applied over decades.

You make comments about “higher” forms of life. This is, I feel, one of the problems with understanding evolution. Who decides what’s a higher form of life? Oh yeah. We do. As a species, we’re arrogant enough to believe we’re higher than other species. But are we a higher form of life than the dinosaurs? A lot of them were bigger than us. A lot were faster. A lot were stronger. They certainly beat us on the awesome scale! One species evolves into another, but that doesn’t mean that the new species is higher than the other; it’s just more suited to surviving and reproducing in the current environment.

Your point about bacteria is very good though. This is one thing I’ve not seen a satisfactory explanation for. Even Richard Dawkins could only compare it to the growth of an embryo from a single cell. He couldn’t explain how a single celled organism could evolve into a multi-celled creature. Maybe this is where a higher power got involved. Maybe it was aliens. Maybe it was God. Maybe it was the gravity pixies.

Another part of the video that deserves flaming – was that meant to be an English accent?!

I say macro evolution is a bunch of nonsence. Micro evolution is possible though. A single cell can’t turn into a complex organism! It’s like a bike. You can take a bike and make slight changes to it (Micro evolution), but you cant take a bike and turn it into a motorscycle! There just arn’t enough parts!AND THEN you have natural selection! The evolutionists say “mutations will make one species into another”, but that’s just not right! Usually, mutations are a BAD thing. Catch that? Mutation=NOT GOOD! For instance, a turtle can have two heads to catch more fish, but does that second head function correctly? Probably not. Now, you could have yellow bugs in a forrest, then a bug is born green. Then that bug has green babies. The green bugs will outlive the yellow ones because they’re harder to spot. That’s micro evolution. AND ANOTHER THING! Why, oh why, is there no evidence for evolution in the fossil record? Yes I know the evolutionist make the excuse “Fossilization rarelly happens”, buy you’d think they would have found at leas ONE fossil. Even if it were at the middle of the devolpment! Another thing. Take whales for instance. They have no connection between their mouth and their blowhole. In evolution, the whale would have a connection at one point. But you just can’t have that! If you have a half devoloped system, you’re dead! It just doesn’t work! And look at the evidence for Creationism! Take the human imune system. It can search out and destroy most viruses. And then it ADAPTS so that it can fight off the infection more easily the next time. Evolution just can’t be proven. It’s just not possible! And what’s the problem with a God? Do you HAVE to worship him? No! Religion is a choice! If you’re FORCED to be a Muslim, then you’re not really a Muslim! It would be like worshiping aliens! Do we know they’re there? No, we don’t! My point is, Macro evolution is nonsense, and what does it matter if there’s a god? Just think about it before you start agueing.

The Guy Who Knows.

1. He drastically, and I mean HORRIBLY DRASTICALLY DOESN’T EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE of the amount of evidence for evolution. Every field of biological science from embryology to dentistry to everything else is able to construct the same phylogenetic tree of species based on their own evidence completely independent of each other and have a 100% matching tree. For comparison saying we don’t have good evidence for evolution would be like saying you just assembled a 2 billion piece puzzle that formed a beautiful picture seamlessly and did it entirely wrong.

2. No science has ever proven anything. It has predicted, but no law or theory has ever been proven. It simply describes everything we have seen thus far. A third option could emerge tomorrow and change the world. It probably won’t because we have a shit load of evidence for evolution, but its possible. He apparently doesn’t understand this.

However, the evidence is very strongly in favor of evolution. Yes, it is a theory, and in the strictest of scientific rigor, that means it will never be a fact (only observations get that privilege), however, at every point where we find we can disprove evolution, we instead find the evidence to support it. —

I could go point by point and explain why your reasoning is wrong (in many cases, your reasoning is OK, but you chose bad examples). So instead I prepared 2 excellent links and 2 excellent books that you should watch and read. —

However, before the links, I would like to mention one notable logical fallacy that bothered me. —

When you talked about bacteria, you mentioned that the same amount of change that exists between Lucy and modern man should occur in bacteria in about 6 weeks. You didn’t explain your reasoning, but I think I see where you’re getting that. Bacteria reproduce much faster, so they should evolve much faster. —

You’re half right. Bacteria do evolve much faster. However, their evolution is very uncoordinated. They reproduce asexually, so mutations take a very long time to take hold and every line of bacteria has to “re-evolve” every useful mutation. Sex mitigates this problem, thereby speeding evolution considerably. So, comparing the evolution of bacteria to the evolution of anything more complex, you need to consider this fact. (It doesn’t change the theory, but it does modify its application.) —

The other problem with this thinking is that, with bacteria, they change substantially all the time. You can’t see it — the changes are behavioral (what they eat, how they metabolize it, and so forth), not visual. In order to change into anything more complex than a bacteria, one single, significant mutation must occur: to become multicellular. The fossil record shows this to have taken several billion years, leaving only the last about 400 million years for all more complex life to evolve. If you want to observe bacteria becoming something more complex, that’s the timeline you should expect. If you want to observe already-more-complex life becoming (even) more complex, a few hundred thousand years will suffice. Anything faster isn’t going to be as dramatic a change. —

Anyway, as I said, I don’t want to embark on a point-by-point discussion, because that is far too long for this comment box. Here are my links, enjoy, keep an open mind, and whether you decide to change your mind or not, please don’t misrepresent the theory you’re trying to refute! —

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html Of particular interest, this Nova documentary about the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District trial. Very informative, and free to watch online. —

http://ebonmusings.org/evolution/index.html Ebon Musings has created a large volume of articles about evolution, in particular with respect to creationism and intelligent design. He is an excellent writer, all of his information is well-sourced and researched, and you will find his presentation very clear and precise. —

The two books I mentioned are:
“Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne, and “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin. Both are excellent reads, you’ll have a hard time putting them down (OK, “Your Inner Fish” is fascinating, although I’ll admit that the writing style is somewhat dry.) —

I am genuinely interested in why you think that evolution is a sound theory (no I truly am I promise).I have a list of doubts that I haven’t been able to get plausible answers for. You must have done your research on this. Tell me the answer to the question I really want answered.

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in the magnetic field of the earth. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength just 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form.

I saw this and his work is valid. (I looked into it myself and did research.) So there could be no life anywhere near 20,000 years ago. That’s a problem with the earth’s age.

That and they say fossils take millions of years to form but people find fossilized things like spark plugs every day. They don’t take millions of years and I hear that as a excuse for evolution all the time.

I don’t want to start a flame war on a 2 year old post but this comment is recent enough to deserve some attention. I want questions and this is more than a nagging doubt to me. this is a giant hole in the theory. At least IE and creationism make a LOT more sense and I don’t have any problems with them. They aren’t science but they hold water and what is true science anyway?

So if natural selection were to wipe out all but a few, one or more which turned into us, would have had to give the missing link an advantage using these traits: bipedal motion, and a a larger but not too large brain-to-boddy mass ratio.

So logically, the only way for the 100 missing link contestants to reduce to a few would literally require it to use the advantage of a larger brain to survive– which is stupid because chimpanzees, orangutans, apes, gorillas, bonobos, and all kinds of others survived too.

So for evolution to do this, it would either mean that the missing link(s) were somehow able to survive the natural threat and– for whatever reason– helped the apes and gorrilas we see today to survive as well.

Maybe they made an Ark out of bamboo and called it “Apeman’s Ark.”

Show me how the sucessful missing link(s) survived, along with the apes we see today, and why they chose to either murder the other weirdos they were competing with– which is the only way I can see it. In your evolution “religion” maybe you can finally shut up and understand the Adam was the missing link? Noah? That big boat? Nephilim were the other missing links?

I recognize natural selection, but the ony human mutations we see today have some realtion to a human caused event, or inbreeding…

Actually, unless I am confused (which I might be) the video just gave an example of why people believe intelligent design. Because it appears that life forms don’t naturally evolve into higher life forms.

But, you are right, creationism isn’t science. Notably, Christianity isn’t science. Also Notably, no form of history is science. Because an event can be reconstructed doesn’t make it reproducible, or even provable. Christianity has very little to do with science, the only potentially testable events are miracles, and they are generally held to be “super natural”, thus beyond our ability to test scientifically.

Science is a complex set of conclusions based on observable evidence, and is highly mutable. Christianity is not constructed on a complex web of conclusions, but on a core group of assertions that are not linked to any scientific ideas.

btw, i LOVE your show.

You also perform an all-out character attack on Dawkin’s without addressing his arguments at all. How can you blatantly be so fallacious while purporting to be a voice of reason? So you quote-mined his use of the word “doctrine”. Big deal. So he’s passionate about teaching science and thinks that religion is harmful. Big deal. Address his arguments, not his character.

As they say, “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”. You seem to be part of the way there; just far enough to question what you’re told but not enough to have the facts on your side to do so with a great deal of accuracy.

He did this by actually circling the world over a (5) year period and physically investigating, observing, discussing, cataloging and witnessing the world first hand, and having all this evidence. He came to the conclusion that his Theory of Evolution fit with the facts, even at a time, where many Sciences where either incomplete or unknown; he himself couldn’t believe the final answer.

The evidence he collected was so vast and detailed, but his conclusion was so simple and followed an undemanding logic. The Theory of Evolution is a change through a combination of successive, small, random changes in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These combined changes are caused by variation, reproduction, and selection.

If you follow Daniel Dennett’s logic – paraphrased ‘Life exists because it can exist, not because it was suppose to exist, but rather life exists, because in can exist’. The moment after life came into existence, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, came into effect. The first organism had to adapt and change within its environment, in order to survive and reproduce. It started out as a primitive single cell organism, its many children evolved – into better one singled organisms, fish, reptiles all the way to today’s mammals – especially humans.

We are all part of the circle of life, on this small planet, which is so beautiful and elegant, that saying the ‘Intelligent Designer did it’, takes away the wonderment of it all. Trying to jam the IDer and/or God in Science, is simply wrong. I can easily state this – God is Nature, God is Everywhere and God Created Everything, but this is known in Theology and taught in Sunday School, which discusses that ‘God did it’. But I’m more interested in the Science – to ‘explain how God did it’.

Posted for debate:

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=6&id=50803

My mom’s thinks this site is great!

man and our ape cousins , we have not grown in complexity but adapted to enviroments and stresses . We the Savannha Ape the Fire plains ape has not chnged much more that the toy poodle has changed from the Great DAne .

I keep my mind open to the answers of how we were created, but I lean towards evolution because of this thing in our body called a tail bone and we don’t have a tail so where did it come from?

Also, I wanted to address some criticisms others are making here:

Post 5, by Someone: There is an alternative concept proposed by creationists, that evolution is actually two concepts, microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (evolution between species). In short, there is no species change, just core species that adapted to their environments. Also, you say ID is different than Evolution because God can’t be tested. However, the changes He makes in our universe are the same ‘circumstantial evidence’ that Dawkins claims supports evolution! We may not be able to see them happening (and with Evolution, that problem remains because of the vast time periods) but we can see the ensuing results.

Post 6, Anonymous: Yet as the article itself admits, we can’t decide on what a species is, so how we can decide that species change has occurred? If the alternate theory is correct, these are simply examples of adaptation to the environment by classes within a species, and still provide no evidence for such hard-to-believe transformations as apes magically turning into humans.

Post 7, Ingrid: Just because something is a theory, doesn’t mean it can’t be a fact. It simply means it’s not yet proven to be a fact.

Also, the different parts of the ring species can all have babies and even transfer genomic information through intermediaries, so genetic diversity (which YOU might take is information) has increased.

http://biologicinstitute.org/

Old earth / universe / etc. See that starlight? That’s what happened millions of years ago. Or did God create false images of supernovae in transit 6k years ago? What a prankster!

Carbon 14 explained:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

Don’t worry about the naval gazing. Her statement of faith means she’s concluded before she’s investigated. And that aint science.

“So why doesn’t the amoeba move when the vacuole empties” are you SURE it doesn’t?

You most certainly do. You have book, called a biology book, that says that a cell can put itself together when operational science says that life comes only from life (biogenesis). That book claims that mutations are the source of novel and new structures that have not existed before which transform a sponge into a human being. That book claims that carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years, yet we find it in coal and diamonds which are supposed to be millions of years older. That book claims that the earth put itself together from planetesimals and therefore was once molten. So how come granite cannot be formed in the lab as it would form layers of crystals due to differential sorting of minerial densities?

You still avoid which phrases are naval gazing. You still avoid the huge difference between origin ideas and how things work now. A contractile vacuole co-opted from a propulsion use? So why doesn’t the amoeba move when the vacuole empties?

I have read the definition of naval gazing. Please tell me the phrase(s) where Dr. Pudom was naval gazing. I couldn’t tell when she was doing that specifically.

Finally you admit your philosophical construct! But you still have not shown how my adherence to creation as being true knocks out my ability to be of scientific mind. Does this mean I cannot apply science to create a new technology? What does evolution have to do with applied science? One of my graduates went on to get her doctorate in oncology. She said that evolution was never mentioned in her work or teaching. It had nothing to do with her doctoral thesis which she earned very well.

Dawkins says that items have the appearance of being designed, but they aren’t. I can say that anything you show me has the appearance of being evolved, but it isn’t. Same thing huh?

Dear Squeezed,

Note who does most of the name calling and it is not my side!

Science is a doctrine, a doctrine that works, if that is an article of faith, then so is everything else in life. Saying “belief” about the scientific method and its conclusion that evolution is a demonstrable fact in no way reduces the validity of the scientific conclusion.

Remember Science is not a book where we look up the true facts, it’s a system.

1. hypothesis
2. try to disprove
3. refine hypothesis
4. repeat steps 1-3 for 20-50 years
5. If no significant change in hypothesis is required in that time, and the topic has been widely studied, we are likely to call it a theory.

Evolution is a theory just like gravity, relativity, electromagnetism. You can’t “see” any of these things, only their results. If you make predictions of what results you will find in the future base on a hypothesis of how these things work, and these predictions are supported by the evidence, then your hypothesis has more credibility, until it has so much it’s functionally absurd to question it without a better alternative hypothesis, then it gets to be called a theory.

That is science in a nutshell, you can’t call out Evolution for special criticism, if it fails your sniff test, so dose the theory that allowed the design of your computer. If you “believe” in the electromagnetic principles that make your computer work, or the theories of gravity/inertia that keeps you from worrying about the earth doing a 90 degree nose dive into the sun, you are just as faith based and dogmatic as Dawkins.

(but not nearly as funny as the raucous debate [and I do mean raucous in the formal definition of the word] that’s raging here)

As for me, I think I may stick with the Theory (oops, I mean Doctine) Of The Forming Of Humans And All Living Things From Tiny Particles Of Colony Earth By The All Powerful All Knowing Ants etc.etc. (don’t forget the Antennae part), after all, it does seem to address both the questions at hand.
a. Intelligence behind design: Ants look like aliens (I’m pretty sure they are), They’ve been here a really really long time, there’s lots and lot’s and lots of them, and ants work really well together! (“really really” and “lots and lots”, there’s some science for you!)
b. Species: There’s lots of different kinds of ants, they like to make all kinds of different things!
And, even better, almost no one would be stupid enough to try and argue with me about it, so I can be as “opposing-opinion averse” (how’s that for politically correct) as I want to be!
So, my theory (oops…,Doctrine) really solves three problems.
Meanwhile, you guys keep trying to convert each other, it’s fun to watch! (Especially the name calling and personal insults, very scientific!)

oh and by the way,
(we are annnt peopllle! annnt-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle..)

Let my highlight the difference

Bible -> Observation -> interpretation -> Bible based conjecture.

Observe -> Hypothesis -> test -> theory -> continunal testing.

We don’t start with the assumption ‘how did god do this”.

Arguing to concequences doesn’t chage the fact of evolution / gravity / germ theory / plate techtonics…

Intelligent design isn’t researched. so me ANY positive evidence for design.

Regards to 2. Why aren’t you the same way in your statements? Consider your statement of faith. No one! Nature! Billions of years! All the evidence in interpreted in the light of evolution…just like Gould said is done. (Facts are interpreted in the light of theory.) You ignored the carbon 14 facts I presented. They really ought to carbon date the next batch of soft tissue found in dino thigh bones!

3. Don Baars is an evolution-believing geologist refering to extinction theories and the theorists who make them. So what is your point? All sides of the extinction debate interpreted the facts to fit his/her own pet theory. You find what you seek, so do we. It doesn’t really matter to operational science, the true and useful science which gives us medicine, technology, etc.

4. Arguing to cosequences is said to be valid if we are discussing policy. Okay. Hitler was one who based his policy upon evolution. The discrimination of science research into intelligent design is being squelched by policy, which is based upon the notion that only evolution is true. So intelligent design is researched, how does that hurt you?

“- Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

Why? This got through:

“AnotherSqueezedRadish(or Turnip?)

I proclaim you both evil heretics and servants of Orycteropus Afer and I rebuke you!
You will be consigned to the Borborygmus of Orycteropus Afer to suffer for all eternity! (or until you are expunged onto the tortured plains by Orycteropus Afer, to be recycled into building material by the all powerful, all knowing ants)….”

2. Dr. Purdom has signed AIG’s statement of faith:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

She already has all her answers: Jesus! God! 6000 years! so she’s not doing science, she’s trying to affirm a book.

3. You are perhaps talking around ‘confirmation bias’. See point 2.

4. That would be arguing to consequences:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

reality isn’t contingent on you (or I) liking its outcomes.

While I await Dr. Purdom’s response, thank you for your patience towards me and that you have not resorted to calling me names…yet. (What an idiot)

Please help me out here.

1. What is naval gazing? Not sure what this is or what you mean by it.

2. Dr. Purdom stated that much is to be learned yet in this field. You don’t make any mention of this nor, apparently, do you accept that. Yet when we discussed abiogenesis, you stated that “The correct answer is we have some ideas but the field is very young.” So you can say it is young, but she can’t?

3. React to this quote and no this is not quote mined…the entire review says this same thing.

“A philosophical truth in the geological sciences seems to have been validated – we find what we look for.” Don Baars Book Review Geotimes 9/1994 P. 23

Possibly true of biological evolution evidence?

4. Soon I shall return to a discussion of consequences as this is one area most evolutionists will not discuss. Perhaps you are more open minded?

Here’s the deal. You can piece the ERV LTRs back together and get a working virus. We’ve done it. So they ain’t “design elements”, the world isn’t 6000 years old and here’s how we got them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif

Go here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1219herv.asp

Dr.Purdom – her bio. is below

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp

is qualified to respond. It wuold be interesting to get these two women together to see what is what. Note that it does not matter where these things come from. Whether I believe in evolution or creation they are still what they are and still do what they do. You have still not answered the interpretation issue yet, why it matters and how what interpretation one has will be bad for science.

Let’s see this creationist interpretation. I look forward to shredding it. To save you some time, here are most of the canards already debunked by Abbie Smith:

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/index-to-common-creationist-claims.html

Now onto ‘interpretations’. You have ‘interpretations’, I have theories and hypothesis, which are different. You can advance this PoMo pluralistic view of science, but you can’t get me to think that 2+2=5 is as valid as 2+2=4. So whilst you’re welcome to a creationist viewpoint, I don’t respect it, because I’ve never seen any datum or experimentation to confirm it.

Fond Regards,
Rich

For the most part I agree with your fine and respectful presentation of ideas. Now I’d like to present one for you to consider. Those I’ve read and one I know in person, have said that whenever the Hebrew word for day has a cardinal number before it (first, second, etc.) that the word day has no other meaning than a 24 hour day.

Another fact is that the verb forms used in Genesis 1 and 2 are not poetic, but narrative. So Genesis is an historical document, not a poem at all. Besides, read Exodus 20 : 8-11. This commandment makes no sense if Genesis 1 is not what it says it is. Worse, it makes God out to be a liar. Have fun with this one!

If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then why is it in every section of every Biology book I have ever taught with…including Miller’s?

Okay, so your viruses are your “ace-in-the-hole”. What is interesting is that creationist scientists can explain those. Yup! Both sides look at the same items (viruses, proteins, DNA, stars, you name it!) What both then do is come up with what the facts are telling them…an interpretation. All interpretations are the result of using the worldview or philosophy to make an interpretation.

So react to this…what we have is two differeing interpretations. Neither affect true science (defined as operational science) in any way. So what does it matter if some believe it was God, god, nothing, or space aliens that caused us to be here, the facts are still the same.

I have been tempted by Orycteropus afer, I have associated with the infidels, I must now recite the litany to purge myself of the ’tain’t:
Harrrdcorrre Evolutionissstsss are The Greeeat Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, Harrrdcorrre Creationissstsss are The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, I must not become adulterated by the heresy of the Greeeat or The Little Orycteropus Aaaferrrr, lest I be consigned to the hell that is the Borborygmi of the Orycteropus Aaaferrrr… Aaameeennn

Alll Haiiil The All Powerful All Knowing Annnnts!

Weee arrre ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE!

ant-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle…

Sources of Heritable Variation (both genotype and phenotype) Among Individuals in Populations:

Gene Structure (in DNA)

1) single point mutations

2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift”) mutations

3) inversion and translocation mutations

Gene Expression in Prokaryotes

4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)

5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites

6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers

7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors

Gene Expression in Eukaryotes

8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)

9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs

10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)

Gene Interactions

11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways

12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways

13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways

14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits

Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure

15) gene duplication within chromosomes

16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes

17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome

18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes

19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons

20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments

21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments

22) changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)

23) changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)

24) changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)

Eukaryotic Chromosome Function

25) changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes

26) changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation

27) changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding

Genetic Recombination

28) the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)

29) lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)

30) crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis

31) crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis

32) Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis

33) hybridization

Genome Structure and Function

34) genome reorganization and/or reintegration

35) partial or complete genome duplication

36) partial or complete genome fusion

Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)

37) changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes

38) changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes

39) genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation

Symbiosis

40) partial or complete endosymbiosis

41) partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)

42) changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites

Behavior/Neurobiology

43) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

44) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

45) learning (including effects of use and disuse)

Physiological Ecology

46) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

47) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

(thanks to Allen MacNeil) – But I’m sure you new this as you’ve stated above.

Now back to Gravity. No one has seen a graviton. Or detected one. So Gravity, as a theory, is also incomplete. But here’s the kicker – Modern science, that is Popper’s empirical falsificationism, is NEVER complete. You keep testing, learning, revising. It’s never ‘Done’, never ‘whole’, never ‘complete’. That is the role of Dogma, which science isn’t.

Now to reconcile. Faith and science aren’t necessarily at odds. But if you think your faith suggests that it didn’t happen, then you must have a prankster god who is trying really hard to trick us by putting overwhelming evidence for evolution everywhere we look:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Hardcore Creationist = Blankly grinning robot, hobbling unsteadily through the death-tainted vapors that emanate from the frog-like mouths of the clergy…

The Informed Minority Of The Enlightened Colony knowww the truuuth…
Huuumans were made by the aaants, slowwwly built from the particles of Colony Earrrth,
the semblance of life transmitted into their lifeless brains through the twittering antennae of the all powerful all knowing annnts!
Weee arrre ANNNT PEEEOPLLLE!

ant-people-ant-people-annnt-peeeopllle…

(for the ultra sensitive, this is meant as biting humor) wow, I just made a pun (I think)

Big Bang?

May I suggest you become familiar with the terms you use before criticizing people’s understanding of science?

Evolution is concerned with the diversity of life, not its first beginning (abiogenesis). It also doesn’t addresses origins of the universe, the uniformity of nature or any other red herrings you may want to throw out there.

next you might want to look at ‘Occam’s Razor’, the scientist’s friend. ‘God did it’ will answer a lot of questions, but not in a very satisfying way. When you postulate an answer more fabulous than the question, you may have a problem.

As see you interpret some of the bible allagorically. Have fun on that slipperly slope…

And just to recap.. you’ve read a book and are keen for the universe to conform to its story. Is *that* science?

Here’s an edited excerpt from another comment I posted about this subject:
“What made the lightening that struck the mud that came to life and became everything that’s um, alive?
Not just “what made the lightening”, but you know, what made the like, kinda just slightly complex and very elegant laws of physics that govern how lightening is formed and how it behaves. Where did these amazing and complex processes come from, where did atoms come from? Why do electrons behave the way they do? Where did matter come from, and why is it arranged in such uniform and spectacularly useful ways? Why does it all behave in specific, very meaningful and very beneficial, useful and predictable ways that we call “Laws”?
How did the complexities of gravity and electromagnetism get worked out, things we don’t even fully understand yet, but somehow they work, perfectly!
They just, formed? Out of, stuff? Stuff that floats? And ummm… Well, it’s a mystery. Like magic, you just have to have faith, it all just happened. You gotta have faith! It just…appeared ok! That’s what happened! I know it because….well, because…, Well, anyway, yeah, it all just appeared on its own. I wasn’t there, but I know it happened that way, because somebody said it, and wrote it! So that’s how it happened! (Kind of like in religionists beliefs! But without any sense of logic behind it! It all just happened without cause!) Greeaaat, and very scientific.
No cause and effect here huh? But a whoooole lotta faith…
(Oh wait, it was a BIG BANG that made all that complicated stuff! Like Atoms and Time and Space and Gravity and the Laws of Physics… A really SMART big bang!)
Oh, and by the way, if there is an all powerful intelligent designer of the universe, then all bets are off as far as speciation and how living things, including humans, have developed throughout time, why some didn’t make and some did, the whole shebang, if there is an all powerful designer, forget trying to figure out any sensible progressive systems, because any changes could be made at any time, at will, no holds barred.
And here’s something else interesting: The “7 (actually 6) Creative Days” teaching found in the Bible is a major sticking point between the three “faiths” (Evolutionist, Intelligent Designists, and Creationists), but if you check into it in depth, you find out something very interesting: The ancient Hebrew word used in Genesis for “Day” in regard to the creative days (and in many other instances) was a very flexible word, and was used in ancient Hebrew to refer to any set period of time with a beginning and an end, no matter how long. Something like, “back in my day”, or “in my grandfathers day”, or “in the days of the dinosaurs”, but with even more flexibility than we use the word “Day” in our time. It could be used to represent any period of time with a beginning and an end.
To be repetitive, one of the major sticking points between evolutionists and creationists is the idea that the whole Universe and the Earth were created in six 24 hour days. If the Bible record is looked at very carefully, with the view that the creative days mentioned were figurative, simply representing specific unknowable time periods, known to an intelligent designer but not yet fully known to humankind, where the designer was active throughout, and if that is compared to the fossil record, things get quite a bit more interesting.
It’s interesting to note that the first 6 creative “days” in Genesis mention a “morning” and “evening”, but the last, the 7th “Day”, the “Day” indicated as a time of the creators resting (ceasing creative activity) only has a “morning”, but no “evening”, indicating that the “day” (epoch? era?) during which this intelligent designer had ceased creative activity had begun, but not ended yet. It’s, at very least, interesting to think about.
Well, there you have it!!!
Avenge me that, Mr, Uh “Science”

Moving along to the courtroom analogy. How doesn’t it hold? The argument was whether circumstantial evidence was credible or not, and it is. For example suppose you have a rape/murder. You are the investigator and you have no direct witnesses. All you have is a suspect with a clear motive, his semen inside the victim, his shoe prints in the pool of blood, his skin under the victims nails, a large number of inconsistencies in his interview, and you find the murder weapon in his home. Never mind the courtroom, do we as rational beings conclude that our suspect committed the murder?

As for why I introduced electrons, well that should be obvious. Electrons are theoretical constructs and supported by strong credible circumstantial evidence. The fact that you’re still on the fence about electrons does much to explain your skepticism regarding evolution. I think I understand now. ;) Best,

If “Bacterial mutation is not itself evidence for evolution” why do so many people try to use it as such? I believe that is what he is addressing. And if “Bacterial mutation is a demonstration of one of the proposed mechanisms for evolution” shouldn’t we be seeing it filling that role right now? I think that is his point.

“he should address inadequacies with the information” In a five minute video? Are you mad? There are libraries full of this stuff. You couldn’t even scratch the surface. It is a ridiculous request following a string of ridiculous (and innacurate) arguments. I think the point is to get closed-minded people like you look at all the holes in the theory to which you cling so tightly.

The following is some horribly, misrepresentative misquoting! You say “He asserts that there exists no evidence in support of evolution, ignoring fossil evidence and DNA evidence.” Wrong, wrong, wrong – a thousand times wrong. That is NOT what is said or asserted in the video. Go back and watch it again! He said it has not been observed. And by the way, Dawkins said the same thing to Bill Moyer (see above). He does claim that it isn’t happening now – true. But its not an unreasonable position because NO ONE has been able to show it happening. (Again see the above quote.) He concludes that his own judgement the evidence is insufficient. And science intentionally leaves that interpretation open to individuals to determine themselves. All you can really say is – “I think the data supports a different conclusion.” Oh and you can apologies for all the grevious errors in you previous arguments.

Clearly the you are far less qualified to address this subject than he is.

Do you know what arguing to consequences is? You might want to research it. Reality is not contingent on your approval of it or its perceived consequences.

I find your mirror faulty.. but you might apply it to the rapture and make the same *bad* arguments…

the arguments against old earth / old universe are legion and multidisciplinary. Starlight – it’s what happened millions / billions of years ago, for example.

My Favourite line of evidence (and of sommon descent) is Endogenous Retro Viruses. Have a google – fascining stuff.. and 8% of your genome.

Ooops! Sorry for not proof-reading my text. I should have said that “…such and such cities or persons did NOT exist…”

I apologize for that benficial mutation of my earlier work.

I clicked on the link and was amazed to find that they did not date the artifact, but the ash deposits. Did you know that carbon-14 has been found in coal dated millions of years old by evolutionary reckoning? One of the arguemtns used against the Biblical histories, not stories, was that such and such cities or persons existed. Lo and behold, they were later discovered to exist.

Rich, so if evolution is true, then why do we care at all about endangered species? According to Miller “99% of all the species on Earth have gone extinct.” So if that’s the case, we are no more unnatural than a periodic asteroid that wipes out most of life. So what if the human race destroys the planet, big deal. What does it matter to the cosmos?

But if Biblical creation is true, then I ought to take care of the Garden, as we were told to do. If Biblical creation is true, then the only science I cannot do is evolutionary Biology, which contributes nothing to our way of life.

Bacterial mutation is not itself evidence for evolution. Bacterial mutation is a demonstration of one of the proposed mechanisms for evolution.

“Lucy” — assuming that the narrator is referring to Australopithecus afarensis — is not thought to be a human ancestor. The narrator has apparently not studied hominid evolution and, as such, he is not qualified to speak on the subject.

PRICELESS!

WRONG. Biblical Christianity says the world is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, was a mass culling of humanity followed by respeciation of life from pairs of animals and one human family.

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/artifacts.html

Oops.

The bible makes origin claims that are incongruent with reality. Now we can say they are allegorical, but if its not all true, is any of it?

Does it amaze me that we use similar solutions to nature to solve problems? No. A good solution is a good solution. Much of our design is inspired by nature.

RE: contractile vacuole . Are you sure it goes Freshwater > Saltwater and not the other way ’round? Also the contractile vacuole is co-opted for motility, no?

Yes, and no. It depends on your religion. For example if you examine Biblical Christianity, you will find that it is supported by the science of archeolgy. Religions like Mormonism are not, ie, the places mentioned in that bokk have never been found.

Both sides need to consider this point. How we got here is NOT an issue of science, it is an issue of philosophy or religion. Science concerns itself with two basic areas…this is what it is, and this is what it does. This is the stuff that gives us our technology, which by the way tries to mimic what was designed or do I say mutated by nature. Rich, look at the contrctile vacuole found in all freshwater protozoans. So you are telling me that this sump pump (oh darn! an anology!) existed in ocean livng protos for no apparent reason and then just happened to be available for the freshwater ones. Wow! What a fortuitous coincedence as S. gould would say.

I don’t want to use analogy really. It’s the tentative tool of lazy minds IMHO.

Agreed that it is an analogy. So is nature (or do you say Nature?) the designer of the arthropod “car” series? If you want to use an analogy, then all parts of it should be able to fit.

Try this. Miller describes DNA as a molecule which transmits information. It has also been described as instructions/bluprints/plans/etc. We use messages as a way to transmit information, and DNA-ese has been analogized to our alphabet-word system.

So if DNA is a message, then it contains information. Show me a message with no intelligence behind it.

Rich,
Good job on that stellar research! How astute of you. What a fantastic point.
`
Now, just so I understand …
`
Are you saying that no proposition that is now known to be incorrect ever generated a scientific research program?
Are you saying that science can only investigate propositions that turn out to be correct?
And if science discovers that a proposition is not correct, does that render the entire investigation unscientific? (But if it was not a scientific investigation, how then did you determine that the proposition was incorrect? oi!)
`
You obviously have no idea what Behe was talking about. I can hardly blame you though, since it must be very difficult to see with all that venom skewing your vision.
`
I challenge you to show me how “astrology” does NOT fit the NAS definition of science. Do that, and then we can start talking about Behe.

To the lovers of Ken Miller,et al. you need to read his Biology Text “Biology” Prentice Hall (2002) on P. 716.

“These gradual changes in arthropods are similar to the changes in modern cars since the Model T, the first mass produced automobile.” He goes on in the paragraph to point out the many changes in design and style of cars are analogous to the modifications in arthropods producing creatures as different as a tick and a lobster.

Hmmm…everyone should know that cars are not changed by mutations of the blueprints, but are changed by intelligent agents. So if the arthropods’ changes are like those of cars, ther must have been an intelligent agent.

More on this later, but suffice it to say that I love Miller’s and Levine’s book. I use it to show how illogical evolution is. Speciation, yes, although limited. Bacteria becoming biologists, NO!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

“Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
”

Primary Source. Thanks for playing.

Behe was the best witness the plaintiffs had. Read the transcript here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

My favorite part is where he claims there are peer-reviewed papers that support his hypothesis, but that he didn’t write any of them, and none of the authors accept his interpretation of their work. Pseudoscientist incarnate.

Alright, let’s take a look at the passage: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

In this passage we can see that the main reason for writing off the 58 papers is the fact that they don’t give a step-by-step description of how the evolution happened. Now, assuming that evolution is a series of random iterative steps would it not be impossible to give such a description?
Besides, if they are in fact giving a method to arrive at the end answer the point is proven. It’s just like looking at a method for counting to a million (add one until you are there) and saying that the method must be wrong as they did not in fact count to a million but they sure did describe a method that arrives there.
His objection to the articles is just insane.
.
I think that is the point Mr. Miller was trying to make.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178.html

“Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

…”

Quack quack quack..

The Moon over Uranus suggests this isn’t science!

… This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the ‘fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system’ and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them?

… In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase ‘random mutation’; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system.”
:
So … We shouldn’t use Behe as an authority because he refuses to concede the point when no argument has been made? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense.
:
What does make sense, since I don’t think you are stupid enough to fall for such cheap and obviously fallacious argumentation, is that you would LOVE to find a reason to discredit Behe and any other ID scientist. Thus, in the absence of more substative protests, you are content to grasp at this straw.
:
And I suspect it is one straw of many.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/dissenting_from_darwinism.php

What a joke!

Look into the Dean Kenyon story at SF State – how ’bout J.C. Sanford – professor at Cornell and the inventor of the “gene gun.” These guys are part of a ploy? Phil Skell, member of the NAS. Henry “Fritz” Schaefer – major computational chemistry researcher. Come-on. They may be wrong, but they are not part of some smokescreen.
On another issue raised, with the exception of one fellow (Paul Nelson) everyone of the IDers that I have either talked to or read extensively about came to ID NOT from a Creationist perspective – but from an orthodox Darwinian perspective. I’ll say that again – they did not come from Creationism to ID, they came from orthodox neoDarwinsim to ID. Check it out yourself and see. There IS an argument – but you have to be willing to look at both sides to see it.

If a charge has been leveled that freedom to investigate is being oppressed – what sense does it make to only go to the ones in power to ask if this is true?

If you’ve read Behe, Debmski, Johnson, Wells, Sanford, or somebody significant in the ID movement, then I’ll be happy to keep going. If you haven’t – then let’s just stop. I’m in the midst of finals week. Thanks.

For speaking so confidently, you sure focus an awful lot of time on motives and conspiracies than you do on debunking what ID proponents say are their scientific arguments. From your comments, it appears that you will talk about anything BUT that.

This is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument: appeal to motive.

To speak nothing of the errors in your post … Your modus operandi speaks for itself.

If a charge has been leveled that freedom to investigate is being oppressed – what sense does it make to only go to the ones in power to ask if this is true?

If you’ve read Behe, Debmski, Johnson, Wells, Sanford, or somebody significant in the ID movement, then I’ll be happy to keep going. If you haven’t – then let’s just stop. I’m in the midst of finals week. Thanks.

What I mean is ID proponents will not publish their theories in the peer reviewed literature. They couldn’t even keep their own journal going for lack of material. Its a con, plain and simple.

Conspiracy theories are for people who can’t accept defeat. It’s the equivalent of the kid in 3rd grade who claimed he never lost because the refs always cheated. Sternberg had nothing done to him. He never worked for the Smoith., so he couldn’t be fired. Gonzales wasn’t graduating students or bringing in grant money, and sadly, that’s what tenure is all about. Their cases have no substance whatever. Check out http://www.Expelledexposed.com

All the ID arguments have been shredded…ALL OF THEM. All it takes is time and google to find it. ERV took Behe apart, and Demski has been shredded all over. If you don’t know that, you aren’t keeping up. They are a joke to real researchers.

I am also refuting arguments like yours about “scientism”. You want to claim biologists are biased for evolution, fine, that has some plausibility. But mathematicians and physicists don’t. And yet the overwhelming majority of them say creationist arguments regarding physics and math are garbage. Now, isn’t it FAR more plausible that they are correct, than it is to think that somehow there is a pro-evolution bias among mathematicians?

You are right, science is not about arguing from authority. Modern science is about posing hypotheses, subjecting them to falsifiable experimental testing, and publishing one’s findings in the peer-reviewed literature. And that is the very thing the ID proponents flat refuse to do. What does that tell you?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

(I’m often amazed at the willingness of those who make the scientific method the final arbitrator of everything factual to simply stop questioning and listen to what they are being told by “consensus” science – never considering the possibility that the sociological effects that we see in every other aspect of life may also be present in science – producing a sort of “scientism.” It’s ironic, really. It’s like the priests and the illiterate masses a few hundred years ago – just now its the scientists are wearing the robes and telling everyone “there’s no controversy here – we have it all figured out”.)

Sorry to get so cynical – it’s just so frustrating when folks step into really interesting debates and, with sneering tone, pronounce from on high (or in these cases, pronounce that they have heard from on high) that there is no real controversy here. It’s ridiculous – there are a lot of interesting questions here. If you’re content with the answers you’re getting – fine. Just let us ignorant peons keep talking rubbish.

Consider as the most glaring example, this whole argument about how “unlikely” evolution is. People (99% of which are neither mathematicians nor biologists) have been making this claim for decades at least, the most famous being Hoyle’s 747-in-a-junkyard analogy, and they always make the same mistake he did, namely, assuming all the events in question are independent, when in fact they are VERY dependent, which reduces the probability calculations by many orders of magnitude. This can be verified quite easily by surfing around the net. Talkorigins is the best summary for my money.

If you still have doubts, consider this. Mathematicians and physicists, the experts in the areas touched on by these probabilistic arguments, are smarter than biologists. Just ask them. And if there were something wrong with MET that fell into their fields, no force on earth could shut them up about it. They be all over the biologists just like they were all over the cold-fusion guys. Yet 99% of them say those arguments are nonsense. What’s that tell you?

what do you mean by the term “evolution”? It has multiple definitions. Obviously you don’t mean blind processes responsible for creating major biological body plans (aka macroevolution) – or if you do mean this you have a very weak definition of the term “fact.” (Show me – or even create a plausible set of steps to go from one body plan to another – none exist, I assure you.) NeoDarwinism may end up being true – but we are so far from knowing that that we could not in any way say it’s a fact. (In fact, I would say the more we learn the more unlikely it looks.) Lots of real interesting questions out there, my friend. If you’re interested in this stuff, I’d encourage you to start reading arguments from various perspectives.

thanks for responding. You need to read Behe’s “Edge of Evolution” – there are all kinds of selection pressures placed on those little critters (fruit flies) – and yet nothing positive has happened (selection pressures refer to what you were talking about when you said “changing environments”). You see it’s one thing to agree that the theory sounds plausible (natural selection working on random errors can create) but it’s another to actually look at the data and let it lead you. Darwinism, I’m afraid, is much heavier on theory and lighter on data than it’s proponents would have you believe.

As to your other point. I’ll look into it that program. Thanks. One question I have from the outset is whether this program creates more complex systems that demonstrate reducible or irreducible complexity. Livings systems often display a form of complexity that has been termed “irreducible” – because you cannot get partially functioning systems when pieces are removed – you get zero functioning. It’s either all there and it works, or it’s not all there and it doesn’t work at all. How do blind systems create irreducibly complex structures? A watch doesn’t function as a watch unless all of the pieces – or virtually all – are present. How did the micromachines that have dozens of working parts that were all assembled in a precise sequence get up and going? intermediates have no function whatsoever. We can keep chanting the mantra, if we want (by selection pressures operating on mutations) but if we actually look at what the data are telling us, it’s far from a satisfactory explanation.

So sit on that fence my friend, sit on it hard!

HORRIBLE arguments. Guys, try again.

Needless to say, there are no easy answers to these lofty questions and to date, nobody has found a terribly satisfactory way to find them, save declaration of belief.

The best our modern toolbox can provide is hints at the best path, in the form of AI research, brain scans, unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, genetics and microbiology. And these hints don’t always point in the same direction.

this is not my area of study, but I do understand that there are multiple levels of organization for proteins. The AA sequence itself, the 3D folding, the fit with other proteins, etc. I guess my point is that suggesting that blind processes can account for moving a living organ from the capacities of a typical primate brain to the capacities represented here of two humans carrying on a debate on the topic of origins and utilizing reason, evidence, inference, historical recollections from previous readings, hypothetical notions, etc. is a rather fantastic claim. Showing that bird beaks cyclically change or that bacteria can gain resistance to some drugs (by LOSS of info, most people think) is not convincing to me. I’d like to reserve the right to question the efficacy of blind mechanisms to account for this.

Rhetorical question: If there were design involved in biological life, does our scientific toolbox allow us to be able to detect it? If so, how? If not, why not?

ok – fair enough. We disagree. Just for the record, I do think chimps are smart (I know of your reference to Kohler’s work with chimps and so forth) but figuring out how to stack boxes or put sticks together to get a banana is a world away from designing a computer chip (to my way of thinking). (I would argue that ant behavior could be argued to be more intelligent than primate.)

Can I assert that there is a bit of faith involved on your part for believing that blind processes can take a common ancestor with the chimps and produce the human mind. Let’s just look at one area – language development. Chimps can, to some degree, associate random symbols with real objects – but that is such a far cry from humans at age 4 generating novel sentences, understanding abstract syntax rules, noticing semantic differences between words, etc. I feel the burden or proof rests with the person who claims this can happen by copying mistakes in the DNA.

I appreciate your tone and your willingness to discuss this difficult topic in a language that is not your first. Thanks!

This most recent post from “No blind belief” is a perfect example of which side usually brings in theological arguments to make their case. In this example we have the following argument: I know God wouldn’t do it this way, so therefore he didn’t do it – and Darwinism is the only game left in town. Decent argument – but it’s not a scientific one – it’s theological. And ID isn’t biblical creationism – so for someone like me, this argument carries no weight. I’m not beholden to an apriori commitment to some specific creation story.

On your second point. Make sure the programs that claim to demonstrate movements from simple systems to more complex ones don’t smuggle in information through the mechanism – much like Dawkins number generator that can supposedly construct the phrase, “Methinks it is a weasel” or whatever that phrase was he used. The mechanism smuggled in info by the selection mechanism used. Lots of stuff out there on this point. Look at it critically. Can random mutations really cross tremendous canyons of dysfunctionality? The more we learn about functional proteins the more it looks like they are little islands of functionality surrounded by oceans of dysfunctionality. Can blind processes really do this kind of work?

I disagree. Read Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”. We’ve had plenty of time and used tons of selection pressure to try to move fruit flies off of their basic form and get some novel development. No success. I believe the makers of this video on this site try to make this very point.

I found some quotes in the area of systematics from researchers that, perhaps, will shed some better light on the point I’m trying to make.

“When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species’ morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. (“Bones, Molecules or Both” by Trisha Gura in Nature vol 406, 230 – 233 (2000).)

And here’s another:

“New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists .. . on one front the study of evolution-the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers though they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms”
(Science V. 280, May 1, 1998 pg. 672)

I found many other similar one’s and can give you references if you’d like.

My point is that systematic thought based on morphology doesn’t match up that well with systematic thought based on genetic similarity. This, I think, fits much better with the idea of similar designer than it does similar blind mechanism.

Secondly: In simulations it is possible to use evolution as a way to evolve simple robots. The principles on which evolution is based are really a reproducable phenomenon. This should at least teach us that the principles are sound. If they actually happen in our world is another thing of course. It is very very likely though.

Thanks for responding – let me clarify on the genetic similarity thing. I gave the banana reference as an example of things that surely aren’t more similar but genetically are. I just pulled two things off the top of my head – not meaning that they were actually two examples (I think i mentioned “or things of that kind.”) My point here is that morphological trees do not match up real well with genetic trees – in fact there is some really bizarre stuff in there.

In terms of your argument that genetic similarity is strong evidence of common descent – i have two responses. First, common descent is not necessarily anti-ID. I mean Mike Behe, a prominent IDer, believes in common descent – though most don’t. The issue here is mechanism. How are they linked? How do we know that selection and mutation is creative enough to do the heavy-lifting of crossing immense probability fields to get to functionality? This is a Darwin-of-the-gaps way of thinking. Secondly, common genetic material is just as consistent with common design and it is common descent. Do you see what I mean here? Suppose there is a designer – would you not expect the designer to use similar blueprints when making similar constructions? We see this in intelligent planning and construction all the time. Finally – if chimps and humans are only 1 – 5% genetically different (I’ll accept that, but note that these numbers seem to change all the time), what accounts for the universe of differences between their abilities? I mean it is dramatic. In terms of functionality i would put a chimp 1000 times closer to a badger or robin or tuna than a human. Subjective number there, I’ll admit, but I hope I’m making my point. I remember hearing a Psych prof from Stanford (Bob Zajonc) talking at a conference talking about what that 2% difference must be responsible for – that is if we are genetic determinists.

hope this helps elaborate a bit more on my points – and sorry to leave the impression that i was really talking about a banana and a mouse (although i vaguely do remember reading about some protein sequences where the amount of similarity between some plants and animals was far closer than between two animals – sorry though, i’m just not familiar enough with the material to pull it out.

I’m sorry if my post came across as hostile. I’m simply very matter-of-fact when I exchange ideas. I thought the Ben Stein reference was humorous as a couple posts up someone was saying “go see Expelled”…

I believe your statement about humans being more genetically similar to bananas than we are to mice is false. I did some quick googles but couldn’t find anything on the subject. It sounds like misinformation to me. However, if you can point me to the source of any credible data that supports your statement I may very well change my position. I’m “open” to new ideas. I simply demand that those ideas be backed up with evidence and data that can be scruitinized by peers.

Also, I feel that a common genetic base definitely does infer common ancestry. In fact, that’s PRECISELY what it does above all else. It’s better than a fingerprint if you’re into forensics, and we can use mitochondrial to track back hundreds of generations (through the female). In fact, I’m watching the news right now and they’re talking about using DNA to determine the paternal and maternal links to all those kids who were removed from that compound in Texas a couple weeks ago!

I’d love to see any info you can provide showing that a plant is more closely related to us genetically than another mammal like a mouse. It would be very devastating to my support of common descent.

However, if this is not the case, and my statement holds that genetic differences increase as species spread out from like species on the tree of life, would you re-evaluate your support for Evolution via Natural Selection and common descent?

Cheers and happy friday!

This is not proof of evolution, but it does clearly demonstrate that such wide variety is at least possible.

Behe’s argument is much more sound if you’re looking for science to discredit the theory of evolution.

Well, first of all, the genetic similarity studies aren’t that cut-n-dried. There’s a lot of weird stuff out there – like humans having more similarity with bananas than mice – or things of that kind. But, your point still stands – to some degree. There does appear to be a basic correlation between genetic material and apparent similarity as judged by sources independent of genes. But the problem with going from this to Darwinism is the mechanism of change. These similarities tell us nothing about how things changes might have occurred. Actually, they don’t even tell us there is a common history – though I think that’s at least suggested by the similarities. Here’s another idea – common construction could imply common design just as logically as it could imply common descent with blind modifications. There are some interesting ideas out there on this issue. The first that comes to mind is “Message” theory. I forget the fellow’s name – he’s a prof at U of Minnesota.

By the way, the tone of your remarks really highlight what this discussion doesn’t need. Don’t you agree? It represents a position of foreclosure on the issue. But clearly that is not a defendable position. (And it’s been tried for decades and the issue isn’t going away.)

We share 95-99% of our Genome (DNA) with Chimps, who are our closest relatives on the tree of life.
We share less with dogs and pigs, but enough that we see stories all the time about using our genetic links with other mammals to help fight diseases.
And we share much less with reptiles, and so on and so forth.

So why is there this stiking genetic similarity with our closest mammal relatives, with a divergence observed in DNA as we move to species further from us on the tree of life? How would you explain it? Someone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

“But at what point of complexity?… where to you draw the line?”

At the.. universal probability bound.

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Universal_Probability_Bound

how does this just-so story get you the eye in the first place? Yes, everyone agrees that loss of genetic information is a real phenomenon. But…how did it get there in the first place? Big question – and the only thing we have to go on are “just-so” stories postulating hypothetical light-sensitive spots, imaginary intermediates that we can’t really even describe, etc.

My history teacher was on vacation and told us about this lizard he was. It was in like 4th grade or something, I don’t know what kind this lizard is.

The lizard had no eyes but it had this dent, which was a clear sign of an eye having been there at one point.

It is like a crimescene, we don’t know what happened, but there is a big clue that spells it out in English.

I may not know who this Dawkin is, but I do know who Gauss is.

Since the cave had no light, an eye didn’t increase the possibilities of survival. In fact since an eye is a big vulnerable spot, having eyes would decrease you it’s chance of survival.

One day one lizard got a genetic mutation during conception which made it have no or smaller eyes. This gave the lizard a statistically higher chance – higher than his other eyefull friends- of passing it’s genes on to the next generation

And after every generations, the eyeless lizard would dominate the colony more and more, until all the lizards had no eyes. And that is when my old teacher happens to visit whatever country it was that has these lizards.

Had the lizards not evolved into this eyeless state, who knows, maybe thy would go extinct and we would never hd known about these eyeless lizards.

One small (maybe not so small) comment. The ID folks don’t define ID the same way you did. They say ID is the study of things that are best explained by making reference to intelligent causation. ID doesn’t claim to “know” it was designed. This is important as both Creationism and Darwinism already know the “truth” of the matter and their definitions of science focus on completeness (a very Cartesian understanding of science). ID folks opt for a more Baconian definition of science – one that favors accuracy over completeness. So, we may not know the total story, but what we’re telling you we’re pretty sure about – and that is this stuff looks designed. (By the way, I think a Cartesian definition of science, in the long run, does the most damage to the concept of science.) Furthermore, ID does lead to research questions. It can be used as a heuristic for how to figure something out. If something is designed, we look at reverse-engineering principles to help understand something. If it was cobbled together in a blind way, the questions we ask and the places we look are oftentimes very different. So, perhaps this still doesn’t make it a science – I don’t know. But ID theorizing does help push research along.

Keep all of this stuff up – it’s very good to have voices like this in the discussion.

Knowing that the ‘We’ of an Intelligent Mind Soul, are Beings of a ‘’Complex Designed Circuitry of Intelligent Energy’; and knowing that a Soul is that ghost-like Energy which engulfs the Mind at all times; and knowing that the Spirit is but the accelerated state of any energy: I am comfortable being rooted in the knowledge that ‘We’ were brought into existence by the Master Creator.

So Knowing what I am sure of, there is no need to debate rather or not that ‘We’ of Intelligent Mind Souls were Designed or a mishap of evolutionized procedures of a natural development. I stand In full knowledge of my Creator. I am just an Old Sold passing through, with something important to say.

http://sod2008.multiply.com
evelynseedofdavid@gmail.com

because you are

1. Natural selection IS the process of evolution and requires selective pressures and changing conditions to take place. We have no way to monitor wild populations of bacteria and their environment for 6 continuous years. Petri dish populations don’t experience selective pressures.

2. We teach false theories all the time. Newtonian mechanics is the best known example, although more people learn Copernican astronomy than Kepler’s model of the solar system.

3. I think most science teachers point out that evolution is a theory. But theory is a very prestigious position, because it means that the hypothesis is backed up by other well-established theories and empirical evidence.

4. Punctuated equilibrium, which is reasonably well accepted and tested through models, can explain away concerns about the difficulty of seeing speciation. The process is likely. The event is not. And as you correctly pointed out, the concept of species is fuzzy, so it is entirely possible (although improbable) that we’ve seen it and not realized it.

I wanna comment on when you said “its the best we got so we have to believe it , which is a pretty bad qualifier…” if another ‘scientific’ theory comes up i’m pretty sure that will find its way into text-books as well. Not every one is teaching evolution as an undeniable fact, and i’m sure if you come up with another theory that explains species change Dawkins will not hate you but congratulate you. Still if there is only one theory that can explain something why not believe it.
We must admit that the scientific method requires a hypothesis to be testable and many could argue that is not the case for evolution, but is then again it is just a theory :). How much better than a theory can you get though ?
Well i can call ID a theory as well and you cant disprove it , you say. let me point out a small difference ID has. It requires things that are outside our ability to comprehend or ever sense, GOD, evolution on the other hand just bases itself on the world we can see and know.
Also evolution is not the only theory in a scientific field that tries to explain something but has not been proven, gees i mean look at psychology. We only point this out for evolution because religious ppl get defensive if something interferes with their so perfectly constructed web of lies :) :) :) :) :)