Out of Africa?

[Rockstar]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/07/news-china-human-tools-africa-shangchen-hominin-paleoanthropology/

Modern humans' distant relatives left Africa earlier than previously thought—rewriting a key chapter in humankind's epic prequel, according to a discovery unveiled on Wednesday in Nature.It doesn't make sense, decades ago they hyped the story which say humanoids left the supposed well spring of life called Africa 60,000 thousand years ago. But now they find tools in China dating back 2 million years ago. Wouldn't the tools found in China and Pakistan suggest humanoids may have originated from someplace other than Africa?

[Skybird]

I cannot prove it, by I sometimes "feel" that history indeed just runs in cycles - cycles spanning eons and being much longer than what we could imagine possible.

But then I think the whole universe cannot be like our senses tell us it is. Because that only tells us how our senses work, how our brains sorts all that into its own order, and we cannot really know about what and how things really are. For that we would need to overcome ourselves, or better: our selfs.

We do not find realities, maybe, not ophysical realities, and not historical ones (and the latter are not real and are just imaginatiosn anyway). We invent our idea of how things are - or have been.

And why not, as long as pool billiard nevertheless works according to Newtonian physics. I mean, they work well enough for that purpose.

[Rockstar]

When evolutionists can tell show me at what point did a mere piece of matter become a conscience animated being I will be interested in what they have to say.

Reading things like this article just tells me they are more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities. Just think how much the Smithsonian alone has invested in all those displays. They cant afford to entertain other ideas. :har:

[Dowly]

https://i.imgur.com/Pj7d8NL.gif

[Mr Quatro]

I can't really understand who 'they' are ... all I know is that 'they' have been telling me what 'they' think for a long time now, but 'they' aren't always right, so I think 'they' should have their own web page where 'they' can explain what 'they' think and leave us normal people alone. :D

[Rockstar]

https://i.imgur.com/Pj7d8NL.gif


How did the writer conclude the 2 million year old tools found in China really are from immigrants that latest evidence suggest left Africa 60,000 years ago? Where did he get the idea that to force the theory to fit these African immigrants MUST have left earlier than latest evidence indicates or first thought? All I'm saying is the article doesn't make sense TOO ME.

Wouldn't the latest discovery in China make the writer think just for a moment of the possibility that maybe, just maybe East Asia or another location other than Africa may be the well spring of life? Hence my remark how places like the Smithsonian cant afford to entertain other ideas.

Do you have opinion thought or idea on the matter?

[Dowly]

Do you have opinion thought or idea on the matter?
None. I was replying to your second post.

[Rockstar]

None. I was replying to your second post.


Oh, I see. Desiring to hear evolutionists explain how a mere piece of matter became a conscience animated being is a low I.Q. question? Or was it my opinion they are more interested in protecting ego and funds than entertaining other ideas. Such as the possibility Africa may not be the cradle of humankind?

[Sailor Steve]

It doesn't make sense, decades ago they hyped the story which say humanoids left the supposed well spring of life called Africa 60,000 thousand years ago. But now they find tools in China dating back 2 million years ago. Wouldn't the tools found in China and Pakistan suggest humanoids may have originated from someplace other than Africa?
It makes perfect sense if you read the article carefully. The toolmakers in question are referred to as "...our ancient cousins—hominins..." The 60,000 year date is for modern humans - Homo Sapiens.

[Sailor Steve]

When evolutionists can tell show me at what point did a mere piece of matter become a conscience animated being I will be interested in what they have to say.
This shows me that you don't really understand what the Theory of Evolution is about. "Evolutionists" study how life changes, not how it originated. Any good scientist lives with the constant awareness that today's pet theory might become tomorrow's laughingstock. The purpose is to discover and try to explain how things work. They know they might be wrong, but for today all any dedicated scientist can do is look at the evidence and attempt to discover what offers the best explanation.

Reading things like this article just tells me they are more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities. Just think how much the Smithsonian alone has invested in all those displays. They cant afford to entertain other ideas. :har:
What other possibilities would you have them explore? What you don't seem to grasp is that the scientist who discovers they've all been wrong all these years isn't going to lose anything. He or She rather will lauded, honored and respected, given a Nobel Prize and all that. Scientists live to find new things, not to defend their egos. Well, yes, ego would have a lot to do with it, but it would be the pride of changing the way we look at the world, not the covering up of treasured beliefs.

[Sailor Steve]

As for Africa being the starting point, you could find out everything you wanted to know about it, if you were really interested. This is only the tip of the iceberg, but it's a good starting point, especially the section on "Mitochondrial Haplogroups".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

[Dowly]

Your (Rockstar) signature quote is also wrong.


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine#Misattributed

[Rhodes]

https://juicyecumenism.com/wp-content/uploads/image01-3.jpg


Out of Africa was something that I was hit in the head since 2000. At least with the Piltdown Man, it was simple. It was him and period, because, shut up!:O:


Our Genus - Homo, is now dated to 2 million years BC. 60.000 years is our kind Homo Sapiens, as Steve refered and even that can be debatable with Homo Sapiens Sapiens or Homo Sapiens Arcaicus - that I think it is not use any more.

The appearance of our species had or has the Out of Africa theory or the "multispot" theory - the modern man appears in several places, not only in Africa, but middle east and near Orient, I think. I am talking about memory and from classes almost 10 years ago, I had to have human evolution again in my master degree.
Human Evolution study is tricky, my idea is that many of the investigators want their name writing in history in finding the so call missing link, even if that will be impossible.

I remember listening to my teacher that it is possible the finest in the area here in Portugal and she told in one conference of the matter why no one talked about the Tomai mandible that had been discovered that year (I think). The answer was simple, the Leakey family didn't acknowledge that find and since they were the hosts of the conference, no one would dare to talk about it, during the expositions of ideas.

And many times, new taxa are created because the enamel of the teeth is more tick than the other one that is species X, so this has to be a new one and so on.

So thats why I prefer to study modern (homo sapiens sapiens) skeletons, at least it is only one specie and everything is equal to the other, in a broad sense...:D

[Rockstar]

This shows me that you don't really understand what the Theory of Evolution is about. "Evolutionists" study how life changes, not how it originated. Any good scientist lives with the constant awareness that today's pet theory might become tomorrow's laughingstock. The purpose is to discover and try to explain how things work. They know they might be wrong, but for today all any dedicated scientist can do is look at the evidence and attempt to discover what offers the best explanation.

What other possibilities would you have them explore? What you don't seem to grasp is that the scientist who discovers they've all been wrong all these years isn't going to lose anything. He or She rather will lauded, honored and respected, given a Nobel Prize and all that. Scientists live to find new things, not to defend their egos. Well, yes, ego would have a lot to do with it, but it would be the pride of changing the way we look at the world, not the covering up of treasured beliefs.

What do you mean they study how life changes, biology changes every day but I'm not evolving into a something else, I'm just getting older. Don't evolusionists attempt to expound upon the observations of a 22 year old man of how homo sapiens evolved from apes? Wouldn't it be better to say Evolusionists study... evolution?

I see the same similarities as Darwinists do. But to jump to the conclusion that similarities is evidence of a common ancestry isnt evidence, no matter how elaborate and colorful an artists rendition of a humanities family tree may be. Evolustionist have not found one iota of evidence which shows the ever illusive 'inbetween'. Yet there are drawings of invertebrate species having all of its hard parts on the outside evolving into a fish which has all of its hard parts on the inside. But absolutley nothing inbetween.

There is another possibility that other possibility is design. Modern day science and discoveries in DNA has arrived. Darwinism predicted that most of our DNA is just useless junk left over from a blind process of trial-and-error. Design theorists predictedthat most junk DNA would prove to have function. And as DNA research has discovered it is not as evolusionist predicted it does have a function.

But Darwinists object to that the design hypothesis “isn’t science.” But that is what I think is called petitio principii. It’s no way to advance knowledge. Science shouldn't be rigged it MUST be about seeking truth and evidence. Hence my remark about egos and funding. Also in my world as far as honor and awards go. Science isnt different than anything else in life. Achievment and discovery is the name of the game thats what gets you recogition. Failure, even in science, gets you nothing ones legacy is simply known as the guy or gal who got it wrong.

[Sailor Steve]

What do you mean they study how life changes, biology changes every day...
I said they study how it changes, i.e. the process itself. Evolution does not involve how life came to be in the first place. That's another field of study altogether.

...but I'm not evolving into a something else, I'm just getting older.
Actually you are. No, individuals don't change, not even into other individuals. That said, every child we have is different, as different genes take precedence. Every child inherits traits from both parents, which is why my dad had perfect eyesight but I inherited my mom's nearsightedness. With each child there is a chance of mutations, some of which can kill the individual, and some can be beneficial, with most doing nothing at all.

Don't evolusionists attempt to expound upon the observations of a 22 year old man of how homo sapiens evolved from apes? Wouldn't it be better to say Evolusionists study... evolution?
That's exactly what they do study, in the field and in the lab, every day. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that every scientist who uses evolution to create new medicines to fight the new strains of bacteria and viruses that have evolved do so solely by reading Darwin's books?

I see the same similarities as Darwinists do. But to jump to the conclusion that similarities is evidence of a common ancestry isnt evidence, no matter how elaborate and colorful an artists rendition of a humanities family tree may be.
They didn't just "jump to the conclusion". The study has been conducted by large numbers of scientists over a great many years. Neanderthals were a separate species who coexisted with early modern humans until they died out around 40,000 years ago. Around 400 Neanderthal skeletons have been found, enough to verify that they were more than just a handful of individuals who happened to look like that. There is ongoing discussion within scientific circles, with some arguing that these were just a subspecies and that the two could interbreed, and others arguing for a completely different species having pretty much nothing to do with modern humans. Either way, there is sufficient evidence to believe that these were a separate line of development.

If you want to argue that these were also "designed" you first need to show why they are never mentioned anywhere in any ancient books.

Evolustionist have not found one iota of evidence which shows the ever illusive 'inbetween'. Yet there are drawings of invertebrate species having all of its hard parts on the outside evolving into a fish which has all of its hard parts on the inside. But absolutley nothing inbetween.
Oh, let's start with whales and dolphins. A great many skeletons exist that are recognizably whales, but with the nostrils at the end of the snout, just like pretty much all land mammals. there are whale skeletons found in higher layers with nostrils halfway up the snout, and of course there are later whales with the current blowhole on top of the head. It's pretty obvious that there are older whale-like skeletons found with legs. The front flippers of whales and dolphins, unlike fish, actually still have five finger bones.

I've heard apologists argue for their ideas on what the Bible says using scientific terms like "best explanatory value" while ignoring that phrase when it concerns evolution. The simple fact is that evolution offers the best explanation for what we find in nature, which is why scientists almost universally accept it. It's not "belief", it's simply that nothing with better explanatory value has come along. It's possible that something might, but until then nothing else explains what we've found anywhere near as well.

There is another possibility that other possibility is design. Modern day science and discoveries in DNA has arrived. Darwinism predicted that most of our DNA is just junk left over from a blind process of trial-and-error. Intelligent design theorists predictedthat most “junk DNA” would prove to have function. Score one for the design hypothesis.
First, Darwin never heard of DNA, so saying "Darwinism" predicted something about it is a diversion. Second, where in any scientific literature does anything like what you described occur? Yes, I've read the Answers In Genesis articles too. It's interesting that while scientists who actually work in that field change their positions from time to time (scientists are in the business of discovery, so they necessarily do that a lot), and yet the "Design" people, who don't contribute to the science at all, use that course of discovery to claim that since scientists don't always agree and since they change their minds with new discoveries, then "Design" must be true.

But Darwinists object to that the design hypothesis “isn’t science.” But that is what IO think is called petitio principii. It’s no way to advance knowledge. Science shouldn't be rigged it MUST be about seeking truth and evidence. Hence my remark about egos and funding. Also in my world as far as honor and awards go. Science isnt different than anything else in life. Achievment and discovery is the name of the game thats what gets you recogition. Failure, even in science, gets you nothing.
That's because it isn't science. Proponents of ID contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Their "hypothesis" is based not on scientific study of any kind but in trying to justify their belief in ancient religious texts that say nothing about the subject at hand. You used "petitio principii" where the simple English "begging the question" would have sufficed. ID proponents (who used to call themselves "Creationists" until that received so much ridicule they had to change the name and pretend it was something else) start from the premise that there is a Designer and work backwards from there. That is a classic textbook example of "petitio principii". As if that wasn't enough, they seem to have the mindset that if they can prove one thing about Evolution to be flawed then their "hypothesis" must be right. "I don't understand, therefore God." (Another classic fallacy, the "Argument from Ignorance.") ID "science" isn't about "seeking truth and evidence", it's about trying to prove that their Religious beliefs are real and nothing more. They don't care about science at all.

[Skybird]

Just for the record, the often used phrasing that "man evolves from apes", is wrong. Once there was a pre-ape population in which sub-populations formed up, the one being the earliest "forefathers" :) of man, the other being the early ancestors of apes. Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".

Evolutionary strains of different eras do not always necessarily follow in a linear fashion one after the other, but species from different eras can and do coexist at the same time. Some species have not chnaged since incredibly long times, other have moved back to earlier phases of their evolutionary forming-up.

It is a wild misunderstanding that evolution always works linear. It does not. Also, it is no "driving force" of anythging. It is just an observation of for exmaple a species and its alteration over time. This then is called its evolution, its coming-about. Gravity is an external variable, a force that causally causes the apple I let slip off my hand falling to the ground. The idea of evolution has not this causing, causal quality. Its in principle just an abstract construction used by theoretists. It is no force in itself, like gravity.

Our use of the term makes it easy and more comfortable to talk about the idea behind evolution, but the language we use on it bear the risk to fundamentally misunderstand what really is meant by it.

[Rockstar]

I said they study how it changes, i.e. the process itself. Evolution does not involve how life came to be in the first place. That's another field of study altogether.

Actually you are. No, individuals don't change, not even into other individuals. That said, every child we have is different, as different genes take precedence. Every child inherits traits from both parents, which is why my dad had perfect eyesight but I inherited my mom's nearsightedness. With each child there is a chance of mutations, some of which can kill the individual, and some can be beneficial, with most doing nothing at all.

Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?

That's exactly what they do study, in the field and in the lab, every day. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you saying that every scientist who uses evolution to create new medicines to fight the new strains of bacteria and viruses that have evolved do so solely by reading Darwin's books?Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.

They didn't just "jump to the conclusion". The study has been conducted by large numbers of scientists over a great many years. Neanderthals were a separate species who coexisted with early modern humans until they died out around 40,000 years ago. Around 400 Neanderthal skeletons have been found, enough to verify that they were more than just a handful of individuals who happened to look like that. There is ongoing discussion within scientific circles, with some arguing that these were just a subspecies and that the two could interbreed, and others arguing for a completely different species having pretty much nothing to do with modern humans. Either way, there is sufficient evidence to believe that these were a separate line of development.Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess, much like these arguments.


Oh, let's start with whales and dolphins. A great many skeletons exist that are recognizably whales, but with the nostrils at the end of the snout, just like pretty much all land mammals. there are whale skeletons found in higher layers with nostrils halfway up the snout, and of course there are later whales with the current blowhole on top of the head. It's pretty obvious that there are older whale-like skeletons found with legs. The front flippers of whales and dolphins, unlike fish, actually still have five finger bones.You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet. Try thinking along the lines of cars. A clunky piece of junk like the British made Jaguar. Oh wait the Brits dont make them anymore. How about a Bentley, umm nope they dont make them either. Mini Cooper maybe? Yes, and The All American made muscle car the Ford GT500 Mustang. They share many features four wheels, all wheel ABS, wipers, headlights, internal combustion engines. That doesn’t mean the Mustang evolved from the Jaguar. All that means is designers reuse design features proven to work for specific engineering needs.

I've heard apologists argue for their ideas on what the Bible says using scientific terms like "best explanatory value" while ignoring that phrase when it concerns evolution. The simple fact is that evolution offers the best explanation for what we find in nature, which is why scientists almost universally accept it. It's not "belief", it's simply that nothing with better explanatory value has come along. It's possible that something might, but until then nothing else explains what we've found anywhere near as well.Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.

First, Darwin never heard of DNA, so saying "Darwinism" predicted something about it is a diversion. Second, where in any scientific literature does anything like what you described occur? Yes, I've read the Answers In Genesis articles too. It's interesting that while scientists who actually work in that field change their positions from time to time (scientists are in the business of discovery, so they necessarily do that a lot), and yet the "Design" people, who don't contribute to the science at all, use that course of discovery to claim that since scientists don't always agree and since they change their minds with new discoveries, then "Design" must be true. I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."

Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe, Ralph Seekl, Scott Minnich, Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig, Gilermo Gonzalas

That's because it isn't science. Proponents of ID contribute nothing to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Their "hypothesis" is based not on scientific study of any kind but in trying to justify their belief in ancient religious texts that say nothing about the subject at hand. You used "petitio principii" where the simple English "begging the question" would have sufficed. ID proponents (who used to call themselves "Creationists" until that received so much ridicule they had to change the name and pretend it was something else) start from the premise that there is a Designer and work backwards from there. That is a classic textbook example of "petitio principii". As if that wasn't enough, they seem to have the mindset that if they can prove one thing about Evolution to be flawed then their "hypothesis" must be right. "I don't understand, therefore God." (Another classic fallacy, the "Argument from Ignorance.") ID "science" isn't about "seeking truth and evidence", it's about trying to prove that their Religious beliefs are real and nothing more. They don't care about science at all.Why bring wikipedia and religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you immediately equate it too god and bibles.

As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really. I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal. Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago. Quantum theory seems to be walking closely too with the idea what many religions have purported. Rather than random selection we are the product of a design and something greater than us. But that is my opinion and my opinion only.

I.D. scientists take a different approach than what you have been lead to believe to their methods "One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed," said Douglas H. Erwin, a paleobiologist at the Smithsonian Institution. "That's a fundamental presumption of what we do." That does not mean that scientists do not believe in God. Many do. But they see science as an effort to find out how the material world works, with nothing to say about why we are here or how we should live.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/us/in-explaining-lifes-complexity-darwinists-and-doubters-clash.html

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, I know I inherit physical and quite possibly some say personality traits from my parents. Some good, some bad, some beneficial and not so beneficial but its within a group called homo sapien. Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved?
Nylon-eating flavobacterim. Bacteria can't ingest artificial substances. Then in 1975 one was discovered that could. It seems a group of flavobacteria living in ponds near a nylon-manufacturing plant had developed an enzyme that could dissolve nylon, allowing the bacteria to eat something that was thought to be impossible. In other words, they evolved to survive their environment.

Evolutionary medicine? From what I've read about evolutionary medicine its not as wide spread school of thought or practice as one may be lead to believe. Oh sure there are many trying to promote it. But "Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications." Hmmm wonder why? There are a tremendous amount of success stories that owe more to pediatrics, microbiology and genetics physiology, zoology, botany and absolutley nothing whatsoever to evolutionary theory. All of which got along quite well before and after without it.
And yet new strains of infectious evolve every day, and understanding that is what propels the means to fight them.

Its called hybridization and if there is evidence I'll ask again that you produce it. And yes, its been a great many a years alright. From the days of Socrates the ideas sprouted we came from apes. And after over two thousand five hundred years or so it has produced absolutely no evidence of any species ever evolving from one form into another. Yes there are similarities between certain species in the fossil record but so far no evidence of how a hard shelled arthropod morphed into a fish a fish into a rodent a rodent into an ape an ape into a man. It has become such a convoluted mess.[/quote]
Neanderthal wasn't a hybrid. It was its own species. And now it's gone, along with 99% of every species that's ever lived on this planet. The ancient Greeks, if any of them actually said we come from apes, probably noticed the similarities in structure, group conduct and problem-solving abilities. The connection isn't hard to make. And we didn't come from apes...we still are apes. Just because we're aware of our existence and able to realize we're going to die and worry about that doesn't really make us special.

You are observing similarities that does not prove the whale came from the one with legs or vice versa. All it tells me is that another animal with similar features lived on this planet.
No, it doesn't prove it, but the evidence does point in that direction.

Try thinking along the lines of cars.
Let's not. That kind of analogy never fails to fail.

Contrary to what you just said bible or no bible unless you have proof. 'best explanations can still be qualified as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.
And any scientist worth his salt is aware that he might be wrong. I said as much earlier. In the world of discovery "the best explanation" is often the only thing we have. As flawed as you may think it is, it still has more substance to it than saying "It was Designed". There's no evidence for that claim at all.

I;ve never read Answers in Genisis. But I do know even in Darwin's times and before animal breeders knew there was a means to pass on information from one generation to another. They didn’t need evolutionary theory to predict it. Yet Darwinist love to claim credit for it.
You've never read the biggest ID-proponent website there is? Or maybe there's a bigger one I've forgotten about. It doesn't matter. You parrot word-for-word the stock Creationist arguments, so you didn't come up with these objections on your own.

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."[/quote]
Scientists sometimes get it wrong. It's one of the pitfalls of exploration and discovery. And who sorted it out? The ID people? No, but they love to claim credit for it. Just as with the fossil hoaxes, it was scientists who pointed it out.

Anyway, here are some in the I.D. science fields, read about there work. Michael Behe,
Whose own biology department published a paper disavowing his ideas concerning ID. Also shown to be foolish in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Says that there is no ID without the Christian God.

Ralph Seekl,
Can't find any such person online. Please show.

Scott Minnich,
Cohort of Michael Behe. Also testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover. He has done good work, mostly for The Discovery Institute, which is the prime force behind the ID movement. He's better than most of them, but you can hardly call him unbiased.

Wolf-Ekkerd Lonnig,
Also a big ID proponent. Also not a good example of an average scientist.

Gilermo Gonzalas
Another member of the Discovery Institute. I don't say these people aren't legitimate, but they do all have an agenda. In that they are no different than what you claim of "Evolutionists".

Why bring religion into the argument? I didn't, I simply suggest intelligent design you equate it too god and bibles.
Yes, you did, the moment you suggested Intelligent Design you also suggested an Intelligent Designer. Were you talking about some amorphous plasma that had a brain, or were you talking about a God? The entire ID movement is centered around the Christian faith.

As for the term creationists nothing wrong with that term really.
Nothing wrong with it, except that it was coined by the original Creation Science movement and refers specifically to someone who adheres to the Biblical six-days Creation. That's why God and Bibles come into it. Without Christianity there is no Creationism, no ID. The real reason they fight Evolution so hard is that it means the Earth is more - a lot more - than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC start date.

I remember a day when a scientist could have lost tenure or been the butt of many jokes had he said the universe was created Ex Nihilo. It was within our lifetime that science just knew the universe was eternal.
I've already addressed the fact that scientists can be wrong, and often are. It's part of the process of discovery.

Looking at the WMAP it seems NASA agrees with what those desert sheep herders wrote in a book several thousand years ago.
How so? I've just done some quick research and saw nothing that would support that claim.

But that is my opinion and my opinion only.
That's more than most Creationists would admit. Their usual arguing point is that they're right, period.

So if not God, who is this Designer? It seems to me there's no reason to believe in one unless you really want to "believe" in one. The Deists seem to come closer to what is described than any other God I've heard of. Made the universe and then left, leaving us with a brain so we could explore it for ourselves. The only problem with that scenario is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No evidence at all.

Understand one thing though: Despite this line of argument, I'm not a supporter of Evolution. I consider myself a true skeptic, not believing in anything and not accepting anything without proof. Evolution? The experts in the field are mostly agreed that that's the way it happened. Who am I to argue? More importantly, it doesn't affect my life at all. It doesn't command me to believe anything, or threaten me with punishment if I don't. I don't really care about it, except when people make a big fuss about its problems without offering any real explanations of their own.

Design? Well, looking at the human body, given the complications of everything from nearsightedness to wisdom teeth that don't fit our mouths to diabetes to cancer, I have to say it looks to me like a pretty poor design. Any competent engineer could have done better.

[Rockstar]

[QUOTE=Skybird;2561257] Man and ape are related. Man did not "evolve from ape".[QUOTE]




According to this guy we're just little fish. :D



Prosanta Chakrabarty is an ichthyologist at Louisiana State University, and says of himself that he teaches “one of the largest evolutionary biology classes in the U.S.” God help us all!



https://youtu.be/XyTcINLKq4c

[Rockstar]

Nylon-eating flavobacterim. Bacteria can't ingest artificial substances. Then in 1975 one was discovered that could. It seems a group of flavobacteria living in ponds near a nylon-manufacturing plant had developed an enzyme that could dissolve nylon, allowing the bacteria to eat something that was thought to be impossible. In other words, they evolved to survive their environment.


Three nylon eating genes NylA, NylB, NylC were discovered on the Flavobacteria plasmid pOAD2 from 1977-1992, but the researchers concede none of the three have significant sequence homology. Worse, in papers published in 2007, they reported other bacteria contain those same genes in their chromosomes. Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. The claim that NylB’s nylon eating ability evolved by gene duplication from a non-functional NylB-prime gene could just as well be interpreted that a functionless NylB-prime gene is a defective copy of a functioning NylB gene!


What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.



And yet new strains of infectious evolve every day, and understanding that is what propels the means to fight them. Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.




Neanderthal wasn't a hybrid. It was its own species. And now it's gone, along with 99% of every species that's ever lived on this planet. The ancient Greeks, if any of them actually said we come from apes, probably noticed the similarities in structure, group conduct and problem-solving abilities. The connection isn't hard to make. And we didn't come from apes...we still are apes. Just because we're aware of our existence and able to realize we're going to die and worry about that doesn't really make us special.



I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies



And any scientist worth his salt is aware that he might be wrong. I said as much earlier. In the world of discovery "the best explanation" is often the only thing we have. As flawed as you may think it is, it still has more substance to it than saying "It was Designed". There's no evidence for that claim at all.


And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either


You've never read the biggest ID-proponent website there is? Or maybe there's a bigger one I've forgotten about. It doesn't matter. You parrot word-for-word the stock Creationist arguments, so you didn't come up with these objections on your own. Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions

"ENCODE, established after the Genome Project to make sense of our newly sequenced DNA, published in 2012 the results from more than 1,000 experiments, conducted in dozens of laboratories by hundreds of scientists on three continents—hardly a body of evidence to be ignored. But evolutionists try, hard. The latest Darwinist salvo comes from a July article in Science Daily reporting the claim of Oxford University researchers that only 8.2 percent of our DNA appears functional. Toss the rest in the junk pile, they say. It’s useless."




Scientists sometimes get it wrong. It's one of the pitfalls of exploration and discovery. And who sorted it out? The ID people? No, but they love to claim credit for it. Just as with the fossil hoaxes, it was scientists who pointed it out.


I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery. Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.


Whose own biology department published a paper disavowing his ideas concerning ID. Also shown to be foolish in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Says that there is no ID without the Christian God.

BEHES TESIMONY


Q: So is it accurate for people to claim or to represent that intelligent design holds that the designer was God?
Behe: No, that is completely inaccurate.
Q: Well, people have asked you your opinion as to who you believe the designer is, is that correct?
Behe: That is right.
Q: Has science answered that question?
Behe: No, science has not done so.
Q: And I believe you have answered on occasion that you believe the designer is God, is that correct?
Behe: Yes, that’s correct.
Q: Are you making a scientific claim with that answer?
Behe: No, I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors.
(Michael Behe, October 17 Testimony, AM Session.)




Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.
[…]
Q. Does intelligent design require the action of a supernatural creator acting outside the laws of nature?
A. No.
(Scott Minnich, Nov. 3 PM Testimony, pp. 45-46, 135.)


Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation. :D



Yes, you did, the moment you suggested Intelligent Design you also suggested an Intelligent Designer. Were you talking about some amorphous plasma that had a brain, or were you talking about a God? The entire ID movement is centered around the Christian faith.


I also said my identification of the designer is of my own religious opinion which is a far cry from scientific opinion. Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.


Nothing wrong with it, except that it was coined by the original Creation Science movement and refers specifically to someone who adheres to the Biblical six-days Creation. That's why God and Bibles come into it. Without Christianity there is no Creationism, no ID. The real reason they fight Evolution so hard is that it means the Earth is more - a lot more - than Bishop Ussher's 4004 BC start date.


Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?


So if not God, who is this Designer? It seems to me there's no reason to believe in one unless you really want to "believe" in one. The Deists seem to come closer to what is described than any other God I've heard of. Made the universe and then left, leaving us with a brain so we could explore it for ourselves. The only problem with that scenario is that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. No evidence at all.


I think Einstein maybe said something to that effect as well.



Understand one thing though: Despite this line of argument, I'm not a supporter of Evolution. I consider myself a true skeptic, not believing in anything and not accepting anything without proof. Evolution? The experts in the field are mostly agreed that that's the way it happened. Who am I to argue? More importantly, it doesn't affect my life at all. It doesn't command me to believe anything, or threaten me with punishment if I don't. I don't really care about it, except when people make a big fuss about its problems without offering any real explanations of their own.

Design? Well, looking at the human body, given the complications of everything from nearsightedness to wisdom teeth that don't fit our mouths to diabetes to cancer, I have to say it looks to me like a pretty poor design. Any competent engineer could have done better.


Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.

Someone said God does not play dice with the universe. But maybe he allows the universe to play dice. As I wrote in another topic how we live it now through all the joy and sorrow plays a part in the evolution of humanity as we move from a lower to a higher form of life. Opps did I just say evolution?



All of us get to find out one day what the truth is.

[Sailor Steve]

What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.
Even if they had older bacteria, there would likely be a pointing out that that wasn't proof either. That's the problem with missing links. Whenever a new fossil is discovered that apparently fills a gap the reaction is the question of the missing link between that one and the previous and later ones.

The sad fact is that there is no "slam dunk" proof of anything, anywhere. Nothing is ever final in any science and every answer just raises more questions. Even something as simple as electricity. We use it, we know how it works, but there is no real understanding of why. There is even speculation that the basic particles aren't particles at all, and that we really are made up of nothing. You're never going to get a definitive final answer, and neither am I.

Yep and like I said very seldom if ever does evolutionary theory ever play a role in those discoveries.
But evolutionary fact is the basis for everything they do.

I thought you were talking about Neanderthal and homo sapiens bumping uglies
That, I've just found out, is a topic of much discussion. Some believe Neanderthalis and Sapiens couldn't interbreed. Now some are saying they did exactly that, and rather than kill them off we actually absorbed their population into our own, and we have a certain amount of Neanderthal DNA. Me, I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

And so far as noted above no evidence for nylon eating bacteria either
I think there's plenty of evidence that they exist. Did they evolve or were they there all along? Good question.

Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion. I have my own theological opinions
Fair enough.

I dont think I.D. scientists assume rights to the discovery.
Perhaps not, but a lot of people make hay out of pointing out that the hoaxes are "proof" that Evolution is false.

Darwinists however got wrong when they said the majority of DNA was non-functional. A paper by geneticists comes out saying it is mostly all functional. Evolutionists still wont accept it and say throw it out and write their own paper.
And yet Ewan Birney, the leader of those 400 geneticists, is himself what you derisively call an "Evolutionist". There are scientists on both sides of the ENCODE debate, and because some of them disagree doesn't mean they have an agenda.




BEHES TESIMONY
Talk about cherry picking. You left out all the good parts. It's far too long to quote here, but I'll link it. I especially like the part where Behe admits that by his standards Astrology is a scientific theory.
Anyway, if anyone here has the stomach to read it, this is just the beginning of the cross-examination. If you really like to torture yourself, read the entire trial.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Or watch the abridged video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Scott Minnich's testimony isn't really any better.

Above is the testimony of the two witnesses you refer too. It is my opinion that evolutionists and I.D. scientistist can and do have a religious affiliatation. But like Strozyk Im sure personal beliefs never affect their investigation. :D
I'm not sure if the smiley means to say that you actually think their beliefs do affect their work. If not, I would remind you that Behe was called as a witness because a book he had a hand in writing was part of the conflict at the school, and in that book he talks about ID.

Also Im not Christian, nor is Christianity the only religion which claims divine inspiration and design.
No, it's not, but Christians do claim to be the dominant force in this country, and ID's main support comes from them. Other religions do, as you say, believe in a very specific designer, though not always the same one. That supports, rather than denies, the concept that ID is basically a religious concept.

Thats some crazy stuff there what books are you reading?
Of course people have believed in some God or other creating the universe since ancient times. "Creation" as a term goes back a long way as well. That said, "Creation Science" and the resultant "Young-Earth Creationism" are products of the 1960s. The movement was an attempt by Fundamentalist Christians to use science to "prove" the late date for the Earth's origin and the Biblical Flood.

While "Intelligent Design" was used as a term in religious circles for quite some time, it's introduction into common usage came with the 1989 publication of Of Pandas and People, which just happened to be the main subject of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. So yes, ID is an offshoot of the earlier "Creation Science" movement, and had its origins in a purely religious context.

Nice thing about my religion you dont have to believe. You are just expected to do i.e. love your neighbor and the stranger, cloth the naked, feed the hungry, etc etc etc, you get the picture be good to one another.
A great many Atheists would agree with that concept.

Oh, and I'm not an Atheist, in case you were wondering. I'm just a poor sod who doesn't believe in anything, including myself. I jumped into this not because I disagree, but because you started off not with an attempt at discussion, but with a tirade so virulent it really did sound just like a Fundamentalist attack. Using derogatory terms like "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" seem more designed to provoke a fight rather that promote a discussion.

I don't know if there's a God or not, and I don't know if evolution really happens the way its proponents say it does. What I do accept is that their investigations and their arguments seem to have some justification, whereas I see no more evidence for Design than Michael Behe's admission that the best evidence he can give is "It looks designed to me." If the theory of evolution is somehow proved completely wrong tomorrow the vast majority of scientists will likely be shocked for a very short time, and then start working hard to try to be the one who figures out what really happened. And if proof comes out tomorrow that the Universe was not designed in any way, shape or form and there is no God of any kind, I suspect the vast majority of believers in those things will likely say that it's not really proof, and go on as if nothing had happened.

Me, I'm curious, but that's about it.

[Dowly]

Believe it or not its true. I am aware of the website but tend to stay away from religious sources when it comes to scientific opinion.
Instead, you use blogs.

Three nylon eating genes NylA, NylB, NylC were discovered on the Flavobacteria plasmid pOAD2 from 1977-1992, but the researchers concede none of the three have significant sequence homology. Worse, in papers published in 2007, they reported other bacteria contain those same genes in their chromosomes. Unless the researchers have access to pre-1935 bacteria sitting in lab refrigerators, the claim that the genes actually evolved new proteins via mutation is dubious since we have no pre-1935 bacterial samples to actually do a comparison with, especially in the case of NylC. The claim that NylB’s nylon eating ability evolved by gene duplication from a non-functional NylB-prime gene could just as well be interpreted that a functionless NylB-prime gene is a defective copy of a functioning NylB gene!


What’s the proof new nylon eating genes actually evolved after 1940, or is it just speculation? Slam dunk proof would entail having strains of pre-1935 bacteria and then comparing it with the strains after 1935 that supposedly evolved new genes. Is that the case? No. Just speculation which began in 1977 but got less defensible over the next 40 years as more bacteria and non-sequence-homologous genes were discovered to have nylon eating capability.


The above is a word for word copy&paste from here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-did-nylon-eating-proteins-actually-evolve-the-ability-to-eat-nylon/


Do you actually know what any of that means?

[Rockstar]

Instead, you use blogs.[QUOTE]

Too a certain extent yes. But here's the thing, I don't give a rats arse if the intelligent design community thinks it was baby jesus, cthulhu, the flying spaghetti monster, or the God of Spinoza. All I am saying if the possibility exists we are here by design not a random selection it should be examined. If you can make the argument about that instead of derping on about religion all the time we could possibily learn something.


Btw, Dick Tracey here's your secret decoder ring you've been promoted to internet super sleuth.



https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bf/bf/11/bfbf11d7850a06662d8d6e8310f479e5.jpg


[QUOTE]The above is a word for word copy&paste from here:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/when-did-nylon-eating-proteins-actually-evolve-the-ability-to-eat-nylon/


Do you actually know what any of that means?Do you?


My initial request was for proof of Darwinism's random selection evolution. I got something about a nylon eating bacteria. But it wasn't proof. If it was we wouldn't be having this argument now would we? Anyway, My understanding of the argument from one side is that the bacteria in a forty year span developed a random mutation which allowed it to feed on nylon. The otherside of the argument is this:A significant problem for the neo-Darwinian story is the origin of new biological information. Clearly, information has increased over the course of life’s history — new life forms appeared, requiring new genes, proteins, and other functional information. The question is — how did it happen? This is the central question concerning the origin of living things.[a question neither evolutionists or intelligent design have yet to answer]
Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe have made this strong claim:
[T]he neo-Darwinian mechanism — with its reliance on a random mutational search to generate novel gene sequences — is not an adequate mechanism to produce the information necessary for even a single new protein fold, let alone a novel animal form, in available evolutionary deep time.
Their claim is based on the experimental finding by Doug Axe that functional protein folds are exceedingly rare, on the order on 1 in 10 to the 77th power, meaning that all the creatures of the Earth searching for the age of the Earth by random mutation could not find even one medium-size protein fold. [also please note baby jesus wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with the experiment either]

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-nylon-eating-bacteria-show-that-new-functional-information-is-easy-to-evolve/

Put religion aside for just for a moment and consider their argument about the DNA before you pass judgement on it because of their personal beliefs, religion or website the information is found on. Im not asking you to follow any religion, I'm not saying you have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. My argument is other possibilities should be examined.

For me my reasons for thinking it ought to be examined is this 1. In my bible like others it is said God created the universe with wisdom/information/mind. My bibles creation timeline of night and day has been viewed by certain sages of bringing order out of chaos. Scientists in Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics seem to agree. 2. That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA. Instead of God they found quantum fluctuation as the source but as I said before both can be defined in much the same way. In that they both are non-physical, both act upon the physical, both created something from nothing, both predate the universe.
As for number 3. Because of the first two rather than random selection from a fish I think we should at least look at the other possibility that we homo sapien were designed/created. Buts that me and my personal thoughts and ideas.

If they come to find out it is by design you can if you like believe it was the turnip god Pyhä Äkräs, I dont give a rats arse. I just want to know I want all avenues explored - scientifically. Maybe its a combination of both design evolution who the fark knows.

As Anthony Flew once said "from Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."

[Sailor Steve]

All I am saying if the possibility exists we are here by design not a random selection it should be examined. If you can make the argument about that instead of derping on about religion all the time we could possibily learn something.
Here's the problem: All of the leading ID proponents are deeply religious, and all within the same religion, and despite claims to the contrary they all contribute to and publish from the same religious foundations. You claim to hold different ideas, but you sound exactly like them. What's a body supposed to think?

My initial request was for proof of Darwinism's random selection evolution.
No, your initial request was for an explanation of the differing date ranges given for the "exodus" of humankind from Africa. After that was given you didn't "request" proof, as in honestly seeking an answer, you immediately started in with mockery and insults.

Stephen Meyer
One of the founders of the modern ID movement.
Douglas Axe
One of the directors of the Discovery Institute.

I'm not saying their credentials aren't valid, or even that I think they're wrong. At the start you accused Evolutionary scientists of being "more interested in defending their egos and funding than exploring other possibilities." and said "They cant afford to entertain other ideas." (Followed by a rolling-on-the-floor-laughing emoticon). What I am saying is that the ID proponents you use in your arguments have even more to defend, and more to lose. What they are defending is their Faith. They are just as heavily biased as any "Evolutionist" you chose to deride.

And while we're on that subject, you can insult the leading evolutionary scientists all you want, but do you really think the thousands of people working in that field are all interested only in their egos and funding?

[also please note baby jesus wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with the experiment either]
And neither did I, but you feel the need to keep harping on your pet strawman. What I said was that the ID movement was founded by Christians for Christians, and that statement still stands. It's easy enough to look up.

Put religion aside for just for a moment and consider their argument about the DNA before you pass judgement on it because of their personal beliefs, religion or website the information is found on. Im not asking you to follow any religion, I'm not saying you have to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. My argument is other possibilities should be examined.
I agree. The problem there is that other possibilities should be examined scientifically, and there is no way to do that with ID. It's not even a theory, it's a construct. They seem convinced that if they can prove Evolution to be just a little bit wrong then ID is the only remaining answer. They are not interested in examining other possibilities, only in proving that their Belief is Truth.

1. In my bible...
Wait. I thought you didn't care which god it was. Now you use the Jewish/Christian Bible as your starting point?

Scientists in Quantum Mechanics and Nuclear Physics seem to agree.
Where?

2. That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA.
Where? Who says that?

Instead of God they found quantum fluctuation as the source but as I said before both can be defined in much the same way. In that they both are non-physical, both act upon the physical, both created something from nothing, both predate the universe.
So now your belief in ID is based on God again?

As for number 3. Because of the first two rather than random selection from a fish I think we should at least look at the other possibility that we homo sapien were designed/created. Buts that me and my personal thoughts and ideas.
Okay. Since you've finally gone down that road, show one piece of evidence from anywhere that would indicate a God even exists.

I dont give a rats arse. I just want to know I want all avenues explored - scientifically. Maybe its a combination of both design evolution who the fark knows.
And yet you talk exactly like they do, arguing from the Biblical standpoint, mocking rather than exploring, but denying it at the same time.

As Anthony Flew once said "from Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of "follow[ing] the argument wherever it leads."
And yet your starting point was that you already know the answers, or at least you already know what the answers aren't. You don't even admit Evolution as a possibility, which is hardly a part of honest argument.

Evolution may indeed turn out to be wrong. If if does, it will be the same scientists working in that field who discover it, and if it does happen they will work just as hard to find out what the reality is, because that's what scientists do (at least the good ones).

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is based on no science at all. It's not a theory, it's a belief. Of course to justify their claims they have to also claim that those who stand behind Evolution do the same. But ID isn't even a theory. It's an attempt to justify that very Bible and it's Six-Days Creation, and nothing more. I don't deny it, just the way they have to go about it. It may turn out to be true. So may the Koran. And so may the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But so far there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for any of those.

[Rockstar]

Here's the problem: All of the leading ID proponents are deeply religious, and all within the same religion, and despite claims to the contrary they all contribute to and publish from the same religious foundations. You claim to hold different ideas, but you sound exactly like them. What's a body supposed to think?[QUOTE]

Again I dont dont give a rats arse what their religion is or YOUR perception of how religious they are or what websites they post on or frequent. I offered their research opinion which if you read it didn't have jack squat to do with baby jesus ,christianity, six day creation, the flying spaghetti monster or any other religion.

They offered a counter to the idea that random selection was the cause of the bacteria ability to eat nylon.

[QUOTE]No, your initial request was for an explanation of the differing date ranges given for the "exodus" of humankind from Africa. After that was given you didn't "request" proof, as in honestly seeking an answer, you immediately started in with mockery and insults.:doh:

This was my question: " Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved? You came up with the nylon eating bacteria.

What I said was that the ID movement was founded by Christians for Christians, and that statement still stands. It's easy enough to look up.Ok fair enough, but what of the opinion offered that random selection may not have influenced the bacteria?

I agree. The problem there is that other possibilities should be examined scientifically, and there is no way to do that with ID. It's not even a theory, it's a construct. They seem convinced that if they can prove Evolution to be just a little bit wrong then ID is the only remaining answer. They are not interested in examining other possibilities, only in proving that their Belief is Truth.Again what of the opinion offered that random selection may not have played a part in the nylon eating bacteria?


Wait. I thought you didn't care which god it was. Now you use the Jewish/Christian Bible as your starting point?Its the one Im most familiar with but I am aware other ancient texts have similar beginnings.

Where? I believe I posted this before

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg/600px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

Who says that?


Max Planck


George Wald


James Jean


Arno Penzias


to name a few


And then there is another design theory:
The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. Richard Dawkins


Aliens

[Dowly]

And then there is another design theory:
The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. Richard Dawkins
Why did you leave the rest of the quote out?


That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.


[..]My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

[Catfish]

^^ @Rockstar i think you misunderstand some things here.
What t.h. they teach in schools, in the US? Life on earth, Miller experiment, the russian coacervates?

The "creation" of the universe 14 billion years ago was probably not happening for the first time, we just do not know enough yet. The initial explosion of whatever was before (from a superdense collapsing object to some quantum mixture) created mass and energy (which is the same, as Einstein had predicted, and the Manhattan project demonstrated), and time, while cooling down and expanding. There was no mass or energy or time before this.

If you want to know what this beginning was like around 14,000 million years ago, you could read Steven Weinberg's "The first three minutes". Be aware that the concept of "time" or "space" did not exist at this point, which makes the "first three minutes" rather absurd – as Weinberg expects you to understand when you read it.
For us humans, a minute today would have been a minute back then (of course we did not exist back then yet), but for an exterior observer one of our minutes would have been gone in what was a second for him, at that "time".

Since this very hot explosion, by the expansion of the universe the latter has become cooler, and darker. Also what we call time is getting slower ("by the minute", which also gets longer lol)

We have developed in this system after a quite long time, but since we exist here we cannot look at it from outside, or see the outside, if there even is an "outside". We are trapped in mass, energy and time of our peculiar system. There could be a million others, and we will never see or know of them. At least with the knowledge of today.

So, 14,000 million years ago the "universe" began to exist, from itself due to some contraction, or quantum mix beforehand, or a "god", no one can prove.
No suns, no planets nothing, just a very hot expanding mass which not even had 'elements', it was still just too hot for them to fall out of this melange.

Suns began to form appx. 100 million and 250 million years after the initial explosion we call the "big bang", and planets came even later. Life on earth started appx. 640 million years ago, before that there was no life on earth, most probably not even bacteria or any life.
When the earth's crust had formed out of molten lava and lots of meteorites and other 'planetesimals', it became cool enough to bear living organisms.

As the Miller experiment (and lots of others in the later years) proved, what we define as "life" can originate from lifeless "dead" matter. Man can do that, and it also happens by itself. Indeed it did happen by itself, you do neither need aliens nor a god for creating the first life, if some basic conditions exist. Indeed it is inevitable if there is no catastrophy like a big enough meteorite, a sun flare or some other major influence.
And if you give those early life forms enough time, they will specialise, become more complex and adapt to situations and conditions they have to survive in. This is evolution.

We can speculate whether there is some unbelievable mighty being that created this "big bang" explosion alright.
But:
1. If there was such a "being" or god or whatever you call it, it did not create the universe especially to create the earth, birds, bees and mankind. Or Dickinsonia, for that matter.
2. If this being is still there somwhere (or somewhen) outside our system, it has no influence on us, nor can we see or prove it.
3. What happened after the initial explosion could not be planned, nor has it been influenced by anything outside of this system.
4. If we believe in a superior mighty being to have created this universe, it has created billions of billions of galaxies, consisting of billions of suns like our sun, with even more planets, and life. And it will not have created humans/mankind to look like it.

So, this is my more or less educated idea of life and mankind, at the moment.
When the bible claims that the earth is 7500 years old, you can believe it or not. You can believe that man walked with dinosaurs, but then you have to disregard logic, experience and science.

[mapuc]

I'm fascinated by these things.

When one of our public service tv-channel is broadcasting a program about this or one of my science channel is, I try to see as much as I can.

I have however not enough knowledge to engage in a discussion and because it's not exactly science.

In 10 or 20 years from now our school books will have been rewritten again.

Markus

[Skybird]

"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" - Richard Dawkins

"Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice their incompatibility, and let them draw their own conclusions about the consequences of that incompatibility. As for whether they are "valid," let them make up their own minds when they are old enough to do so. (...)
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that."
- Richard Dawkins

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

"One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all." - Richard Dawkins

Dawkins must not be introduced, but beside his atheist engagement and publications, in the first he was and is one of the most brilliant biologists of the past generation. His book "The Selfish Gene" got praised by scientific magazine to be one of the most important science books of all times. His introduction of the term "meme" in genetics and the explanation of its theoretical conception is seen as a profound contribution to modern science. I have read three books on Darwin over the past 30 years. His was by far the best.

Like Sailor Steve, Dawkins describes himself as agnostic. He does not rule out with a 100% certainty that a god may exist. He is just quite militant in insisting that the probability for that is damn low, he also furiously objects to claims that the chance for gods existing and not existing are equally distributed. He describes himself further a a radical sceptic and is member in organisations linked to the tradition of British scepticism.

His education surpasses mine by one and a half lightyears, so do his skills to argue and to freeely speak. Else, he could be me. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Again I dont dont give a rats arse what their religion is or YOUR perception of how religious they are or what websites they post on or frequent. I offered their research opinion which if you read it didn't have jack squat to do with baby jesus ,christianity, six day creation, the flying spaghetti monster or any other religion.
The point was that you accuse "Evolutionists" of having something to lose, but it's obvious that these guys have even more to lose. They have a predetermined agenda that guides everything they do.

You, for your part, don't actually discuss evolution, you start and end bashing it, without any real consideration.


You didn't immediately start in with mockery and insults?

This was my question: " Prove that I am evolving into something else. Heck I'll make it easier on you prove anything is or has evolved? You came up with the nylon eating bacteria.

[quote]Ok fair enough, but what of the opinion offered that random selection may not have influenced the bacteria?
It's perfectly fine. I have no problem with educated people disagreeing with each other. It's what makes the world go 'round. It's fine that you want to argue ID vs Evolution. The reason I came into this wasn't your opinion on the subject. I've said many times that I don't even claim to be right. In fact I know next to nothing. The reason I came into this was because you didn't start off with a discussion, an opinion or even an argument. You started off with open mockery and ridicule. Do you deny that?

Where? I believe I posted this before
And how does that equate to "My bibles creation timeline of night and day has been viewed by certain sages of bringing order out of chaos."?

Who says that?
I was referring specifically to your claim that "That desert sheep herders wrote the universe was created is the current scientific thinking by NASA." When I asked "Who says that?" I was referring to who says NASA's scientists think that way.

As I've said, I don't know if there's a designer or not. That said, while you ask consideration for the Design concept, you don't give that same consideration to anything else. You dismiss it out of hand, with mockery and emoticons. That's hardly the way to have a discussion.

[Skybird]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[Rockstar]

Thats true it should also include the Darwinian theory of evolution which teaches everything was just random chance.


It was supposed to be a clear and relatively low humidity night. I had every intention to take the opportunity to photograph Mars tonight as its that time of year again when its in opposition and closest to Earth. Even without a focal extender I can pick up some really nice surfaces detail. But once again the science of meteorology lied too me AGAIN ;) Instead of a breezy clear sky's, I was met with low clouds, stagnant air, bugs and high humidity. With Mars being so close to the horizon there was too much atmospheric interference for me to bother. So here I am.


I want to clarify a few words when I use the word religion I do not in anyway shape or form mean the historically and embarrassing moral influences of religion. I use the word strictly in matters concerning the possible cause of our existence. Also, when I speak of evolution it is not always in regards to Darwinian or neo-Darwinian ideas of evolution which is too say we are just a random selection on the dart board of life. The universe proves we have evolved. From the energy of the big bang into a physical sentient being shows that but I believe by design not by random chance.


In my opinion the greatest self revelation of a Creator is the creation It brought into being.


Big Bang creation of energy ---> matter ---> life ---> brain ---> mind and sentience.


There are two aspects in nature's march toward life that call out for commentary: the creation of the universe perfect for life, and the formation of sentient life able to experience the wonders of love, joy, and compassion, but built of combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons that have not the vaguest hint of sentience within their structures. Life and consciousness emerged from non living matter. But how?


The Bible of course gives God the credit for that event. “God created the heavens and earth” That is the very first sentence of my Bible, Genesis 1:1. But the Bible being God oriented, has a vested interest in listing God as the Creator. Secular science even as it embraces the concept of creation, does not necessarily turn to God for the beginning. But there are aspects of quantum physics that allow the creation of something from nothing. Science posits that the big bang was the beginning of time and space. But what about matter? That is considerably more enlightening (literally). The big bang did not produce matter as we know it, not any of the ninety two elements. The primary material product of big bang was exquisitely intense energy or light. The wonder or argument is not whether this genesis took six days or as NASA has computed 13.75 billion years looking back from our position in space and time. The wonder is that it happened. And today's science agrees with those desert sheep herders who wrote in a book 4,000 years ago that it did “In the beginning...”



It also speaks of man being created. Admittedly neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design have proved how that happened or by whom. Darwinism and neo-Darwinism espouse that we evolved by random selection. But is it really possible we are here by chance? The late Dr. Robley D. Evans urged, always repeat in summary what you have just espoused. Consider the string of assumptions for which supporting data, if any, are vanishingly scant in an unguided random chance world.




A prebiotic atmosphere and hydrosphere existed that could support the reactions among methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, a few amino acids, and water leading to the complex substrates of RNA. Current understanding of prebiotic atmosphere make it hostile to such reactions.
The assumed substrates, though diverse in properties and chemically unstable, assembled locally so that they could interact.
These substrates combined to form chains of polynucleotides.
These polynucleotides became self replicating molecules able to cull from an adjacent medium the necessary components to rebuild themselves, though with slight variations – mutations – that allowed evolution to progress from prebiotic to life.
FINALLY a cell appeared complete with gated membrane to regulate entrance and egress, housing DNA that codes via its four nucleotides for RNA found much earlier in this process.



Each of those stages presents chemical and physical hurdles for which there are no logical solutions. And yet we have life.


But lets take a look closer look accepting that somehow life started and now we need that early life form to mutate and climb step by step the fabled mountain of improbability. Mutations that are to be passed on to the next generation must occur in the genetic material, that is, in the DNA of the reproductive line. Such a mutation might result in a variant (mutated) protein that might produce a new effective organ, say, a system leading to a kidney or the precursor of a pump that might develop into a heart. The neo-Darwinian concept of evolution claims the development of life resulted from random mutation in the DNA that yielded these varied organic structures. Some of variations were beneficial, some not. The rigors of the environment selected for the beneficial changes and eliminated those that were detrimental.


Its a persuasively devised theory, but lets look at that process a bit closer with the insights of molecular biology. The building blocks of all life are proteins. And proteins are precisely organized strings of amino acids. Information held in DNA determines which and in what order the amino acids are formed and yield the end product, the protein. If the DNA mutates, we get a different amino acid and hence a different protein. And now comes the problem of random mutations in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The genetic system of all life is totally coded.


Assume the the entire hydrosphere, all of the approximately 1.4 x 1033 liters of water in all the oceans and icebergs and lakes on earth, was imbibed in biological cells each weighing a billionth of a gram. We would have had 1033 cells reproducing, mutating, actively moving this grand process of evolution. If each cell divided each and every second since the appearance of liquid water on earth some four billion years ago, the total number of mutations, or stated in another way, the number of evolutionary trials, would be 1050. Although vast, this number pales when compared to the 10260 potential failing options for a single protein. Hitting upon the useful combinations did not, and could not, and will not happen by chance.


All biologists enamored with neo-Darwinian evolution know this truth. Their hopeful reply goes something along the line that, although we now have a DNA world, other worlds may have been possible, and DNA, being the first to form and survive, merely took over. Other systems might have used other types of proteins that we see as lethal or useless in today's DNA world. There is no evidence that this is true; however, let us assume its truth. Now we have the DNA dominated world we know. And so we are back to the above calculations as the first form of life, a microbe, mutates, and either advances or perishes as it starts to climb the mountain of improbability by random mutations on the DNA that will in time lead to kidneys, bones, liver, heart, eyes, brains, mind, sentience. It has to choose randomly from the vast hyperspace of possible biological combinations the tiny fraction that are beneficial or at least neutral. Clearly there must be other factors that limit the types of mutations that can occur. There are, but not as random as some biologists would have it.
One of the most widely used biology textbooks, Biochemistry, by Voet states, though in subtle wording 'Keep in mind that only a small fraction of the myriads of possible peptide sequences are likely to have stable conformation. Evolution has, of course, selected such sequences for use in biological systems'. Just how did “evolution' become so clever that it could “of course select” from the “myriads” of failures the few that function?


Darwinism simply ignores the statistical unrealistic possibility that the fabrication of viable proteins could have occurred by unguided random mutation. That life developed from the simple to the complex is, in opinion, a certainty. What drove that development is the central debate.


There is a proverb that is actually true and worthy of repeating which states: the song a sparrow learns in its youth is its song for life. And we humans, at our deepest emotional level, are not so different. What we learn in our youth is with us for life. And we all learned in school that Darwin got it right didn't we? Not withstanding the article “Did Darwin Get It Right?” in the peer reviewed science journal, Science, maintains he didn't. Some here may or may not agree but I think we can thank lawyers and judges not science to continue the argument that only Darwin's version of evolution can be taught in our schools. As witnessed here at Subsim they attack ones personal beliefs and character rather than look at the data. The game is rigged in such a way that you are fed from your earliest days the saga that unguided random mutations produced life, then arguing from the major to the minor, certainly, you believe Hawking's untruth that monkeys banging away on typewriters could with time produce sonnets!


It is the DNA research and the data it produces not ones religion or a religion which appears to have persuaded Anthony Flew to change his mind or for people like Dawkins to squirm in their seats and admit to the possibility of design but assure us that it must be aliens from another world. Look at the scientific data, consider the probabilities and possibilities. Instead of the straw man argument that because a scientist is religious or has personal beliefs his research, mathematics, micro biology and DNA research isn't science.


Whats the verdict? Neither Darwin nor Intelligent design knows I can dismiss either one as neither can prove their theory. As for me I just have my personal beliefs which isn't even enough to get a free cup of coffee around here.

[Obltn Strand]

Real life example of natural selection and evolution: Mosquitoes...those pesky little blood suckers.

Every where you go they produce this recognizable buzzing sound. This doesn't really matter in wilderness because they have ample nesting grounds. However in urban areas with fewer locations to for their young ones to develop their numbers drop.

Late in evening they penetrate defence grid and start looking for "donors". Now because urban mosquitoes have small numbers they have to rely on stealth. Buzzing sound is a sure way to alert target of it's presence and thus more likely to get itself killed before laying it's eggs.

So one mutation allows mosquitoes to operate more successful in urban environment and thus are better able to continue their family line...

Natural selection and evolution...I don't think any(one)/(thing) which produces better mosquitoes is worth worshiping as god...

[Catfish]

@Oltn Strand [...] I don't think any(one)/(thing) which produces better mosquitoes is worth worshiping as god...I agree, though it is not the scientific approach :haha::up:

@Rockstar this is at least something to work with and discuss.

Darwin travelled the world, and came to certain conclusions; he was the first internationally, to write it all down. There were others from The Netherlands to Germany who had come to similar results, but Darwin was the first to dare writing it down, and publishing it. He caught a lot of fire for this, since people did not want to stem from apes, nor were they content to see "their" (religion's) view of god changed.
Darwin had not said that man is the successor of 'apes', which is impossible since the apes of today have also changed a lot. But both branches of species go indeed back to one progenitor.
Still at Darwin's time the western religion's dogma was that the earth is 7500 years old, and Darwin's and other's discoveries publicly doubted that. As had Kepler and others before, who were killed for religious reasons.

But what Darwin wrote is stilll the best working theory today, which can be trusted as long as there are no better arguments and evidence for a newer, other, or improved theory.
What is true is that there has been a lot of research and developing theories since then, and indeed it looks as if there should be small adjustments made, to Darwin, so they have been included. This still does not render his general theory obsolete.

When I read about the probability of 'erroneous' or better random changes in the text above (wherever it is from?) there are a lot of misconceptions here. We have not yet discovered all secrets of the DNA, RNA and mRNA and so forth, especially not how it came into being. But we can assume that it was indeed the kind of material that was suited best to survive the impact of the environment, from heat/cold, to changes in salinity, UV light, radiation, and whatnot. The other randomly evolved techniques of transferring information of how the phenotype should look like, did not make it over the millions of years.
Though this is not quite true, we may still find other biological techniques (on earth or other planets, and then there is the problem with virusses, which do not 'live' at all).

But to speak of an impossible probability due to sheer numbers here is wrong. It is not an on/off mechanism, changed phenotypes due to changed DNA information are not completely unable to survive, but the changes are indeed very tiny. Some get blue eyes, another one green, or brown. Each colour may have an advantage or disadvantage, then there is man-own preferences apart from direct physical advantages or disadvantages, which may favour one or another in the long run.

This is too much stuff to write here and now, but one thing is sure and proven: When the DNA splits due to coyping itself, there are alot of things that can go 'wrong'. The presumed 'exact copies' are sometimes not so exact, so small aberrations may occur. Over the time, some will offer an advantage to the phenotype, so they will have a better chance in getting on.
The dinosaurs. They died out because they grew too big, were slow, had small brains, or whatever prejudice we insert to prove how advanced we humans are. Only that this is nonsense. First, not all dinosaurs died out. We humans still have to make our way of some 400 million years in time.

The dinosaurs adapted, changed, and they did it pretty well, they are still all around us.
Their special appearance and properties of their time back then gave them the advantage they needed. When the environment changed, those who had advantages in that new situation due to changes in the DNA, survived. Smaller, other teeth, insulation, whatever.
But it was not the entire gene that changed, only parts here and there, and sometimes some parts were not changed, but just switched on or off by environmantal influnce, or by some decay or improvement within the gene.
So the probability of survival and change is not small at all, it will not make a whole species die out just so.

During the time of life on earth, there have been some "die-outs" and some being better adapted "survived" (Wich is b.t.w. what Darwin says in "Survival of the fittest"). Fittest does not mean stronger, or bigger, it means better adapted to the environment.
Those who "survived" often did not do that in their unchanged form though, over the time. ALso that change does not mean they died out. Their phenotype changed, along with inner adaptions.

The question is always posed wrong: We see there is O2 in the atmosphere, the temperature is at 20 degrees (well in the habitable zones, and average value ok), and men think female bodies are perfect, hopefully the other way round too but i digress :D.
So there must be someone/thing who arranged it all for us in the way it now is, so that all fits together so perfectly? No.
We are how we are, because we continously adapted to this situation we now have, we will still adapt to coming changes, and if we do not we die, as a species.

[Skybird]

Fittest does not mean stronger, or bigger, it means better adapted to the environment.
This cannot be reiterated too often!!!


So there must be someone/thing who arranged it all for us in the way it now is, so that all fits together so perfectly? No.
We are how we are, because we continously adapted to this situation we now have, we will still adapt to coming changes, and if we do not we die, as a species.
Perfect!


Every species is "perfect". Perfect means that the species adapted to the state of things in the way it was possible in the amount of time it had for that.

[Sailor Steve]

Thats true it should also include the Darwinian theory of evolution which teaches everything was just random chance.
That's part of the problem. The Theory of Evolution does not teach anything. It is an attempt to explain what we see in nature. As for random chance, this should help a little.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

In my opinion the greatest self revelation of a Creator is the creation It brought into being.
Opinions are great, and you may be right, but I have yet to see any evidence for the existence of any kind of creator. Calling the universe "creation" doesn't make it so. This is what caused my loss of faith.

the creation of the universe perfect for life,
But the universe is not perfect for life. We can't survive on 90% of our own planet, let alone any others we are only vaguely aware of. And none of this proves the universe was created. There is nothing in nature to indicate this other than our wanting it to be so.

and the formation of sentient life able to experience the wonders of love, joy, and compassion, but built of combinations of protons, neutrons, and electrons that have not the vaguest hint of sentience within their structures. Life and consciousness emerged from non living matter. But how?
So far no one knows for sure. That's why we keep exploring and investigating.

Science posits that the big bang was the beginning of time and space.
Not really. Scientists posit a great variety of things, but so far those really are just speculations. The only thing the Big Bang tells us is that the universe started expanding 13.8 billion years ago. What started it? What came before it? How did it happen? Why? The "whats" are educated guesses, based on what we do currently know about how things work. The "hows" and "why"s are open to debate. God? Chance? Who knows?

And today's science agrees with those desert sheep herders who wrote in a book 4,000 years ago that it did “In the beginning...”
You keep saying that. I want to know exactly what "today's science" has to say about that. Or "NASA" as you quoted earlier.

It also speaks of man being created.
Where? Nothing in today's scientific research indicates anything of the kind, one way or the other. If it did it would be front-page news.

Admittedly neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design have proved how that happened or by whom.
The first is because the Theory of Evolution has nothing at all to do with how anything came to be. It is solely about how life changes over the millennia. Intelligent Design starts from the belief that everything was created, but can provide no proof of that or even real evidence.

Darwinism and neo-Darwinism espouse that we evolved by random selection. But is it really possible we are here by chance? The late Dr. Robley D. Evans urged, always repeat in summary what you have just espoused. Consider the string of assumptions for which supporting data, if any, are vanishingly scant in an unguided random chance world.
You keep quoting people's opinions as if they constitute fact, and attempting to use that as an argument. This is called the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

As for it being possible that we are here by chance, the odds are also very much against us having this discussion today, considering all the decisions that take place in a lifetime. Yet here we are. The same is true of the universe. People can talk about probabilities all they like, but once something happens the odds are suddenly 1-to-0. We don't know if it's possible or not, and attempting to use probability to argue for or against something may sway some, but more often it's the other way around - the arguer already believes it so any argument is justified.

Darwinism simply ignores the statistical unrealistic possibility that the fabrication of viable proteins could have occurred by unguided random mutation. That life developed from the simple to the complex is, in opinion, a certainty. What drove that development is the central debate.
You keep saying "Darwinism" as if it's a group collective thing. Thousands of scientists working in the field of Evolution have thousands of differing opinions. It's easy to lump them all together, but they are not a collective mind. As for statistical probabilities, as I've tried to point out while on the whole they can be useful in determining trends they don't prove anything at all.

Not withstanding the article “Did Darwin Get It Right?” in the peer reviewed science journal, Science, maintains he didn't.
First, you need to be more precise in your labels. Did Darwin Get It Right? is the title of a book subtitled Catholics and the Theory of Evolution. The title of the article you reference is Did Darwin get it ALL Right? (Caps are mine) Here is the article itself, and it doesn't maintain that Darwin didn't get it right, as you state, but that he was wrong in one very specific area. Yes, it's peer-reviewed, but using that label to support your argument isn't helpful when you misrepresent the article itself, and its meaning.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5203/1421

Some here may or may not agree but I think we can thank lawyers and judges not science to continue the argument that only Darwin's version of evolution can be taught in our schools.
As as been said repeatedly, Evolution may or may not be right but it is science. Intelligent Design starts from a belief and attempts to use science to support itself. It's not even a theory. Whether you believe as they do is irrelevant. ID at its core is nothing more than an attempt to have someone's religion taught in schools as "science".

As witnessed here at Subsim they attack ones personal beliefs and character rather than look at the data.
No need to be coy, you're talking about me. I would argue that I haven't attacked your beliefs, but rather those of the people who push ID as "science". I also don't believe I've attacked your character, but rather your manner of "discussion". As I said, you started this with derision rather than discussion. I even answered you query (as mocking as your tone was) on the dates for the African migrations, and you never even addressed that. Instead you launched directly into a tirade against "Evolutionists", complete with ROTF smileys and Dick Tracy Decoder Ring insults. Is pointing that out "attacking your character"? If so, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

As for "the data", what you've presented so far has been negligible. As I've also pointed out, it's pretty standard Creationist fare to assume that if you can show just one flaw in "Darwinism" then of course what you espouse must be the answer. This works because Evolution, like any science, is not perfect. Nor is it complete, and likely never will be. The alternative you offer, however, relies on the conviction that something we can't see, taste, touch, feel, hear or sense yet is somehow intelligent made it all happen. That "Theory" not only can't be proven, it can't be disproven for the simple reason that it can't be tested.

The game is rigged in such a way that you are fed from your earliest days the saga that unguided random mutations produced life, then arguing from the major to the minor, certainly, you believe Hawking's untruth that monkeys banging away on typewriters could with time produce sonnets!
Again, look before you leap. First, you didn't mean Stephen Hawking but Richard Dawkins. Second, he only quoted the old saying. It originated at least one hundred and fifty years ago, old enough to be misatributed to Thomas Huxley. And no, I don't believe it. But then I don't believe anything.

Instead of the straw man argument that because a scientist is religious or has personal beliefs his research, mathematics, micro biology and DNA research isn't science.
Not a straw man at all. Scientists personal beliefs do not usually affect their work, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who discovered the so-called soft tissue samples in dinosaur bones, describes herself as a devout Christian, who also believes in a very old Earth. The problem I have is when that personal belief drives an agenda, as with Michael Behe. You talked about lawyers and judges, but it was a lawyer who got Behe to admit that the sole evidence he could actually provide for ID was "It looks designed to me."

Whats the verdict? Neither Darwin nor Intelligent design knows I can dismiss either one as neither can prove their theory.
Again you try to be dismissive by using "Darwin" rather than Evolution. I don't here you using "Johnsonitsts" or "Thaxonists" when describing ID proponents. Hence, you show a definite bias. There's nothing wrong with that, except when that bias drives your whole argument.

As for me I just have my personal beliefs which isn't even enough to get a free cup of coffee around here.
Personal beliefs are fine when you discuss them. When you start of blatantly attacking an entire field of endeavor and openly mocking people who work in that field? That's when you get an argument. If your argument was openly hostile from the start you can't complain when people reply in kind.

[Skybird]

Need dictates form/design.

The laws of physics rule what goes in building planes, and what not. Want to float on the water? You need to make it such that you are lighter than water.

An ocean of O2-saturated water rules the ways in which carbon-based multi-cellular life forms adapt to breathing in it - by forming out gills. The ocean was not made to support fish - fish became fish in order to be able to live in the ocean.

The process of such adaptation to the environment takes time, and the current status any species has reached is what time so far allowed. Thus, no species' design is miraculous or a random event, but an expression of the needs dictated by its environment, and that time it had for that adapatation process. Its neither ahead in time, nor behind. Its always "perfect" as it is. More was and is not yet possible after this amount of time passed by.

Rockstar, you time and again get caught in admiration for that shadowplay on the wall. But the shadows and the events they depict are your own hands and fingers and what you hold up with them. Keep your hands down, and you see the shadows will be gone. Then you can start wondering about the wall itself, its structure and material, the light reflected by it, its colour and origin. But when you always focus only on the shadowplays, you admire a miracle that you yourself have called into being. Its quite circular what you are doing.

Sorry, cant find better English words to express what I mean. I am certain Steve understands what I am after, but in your case I am not so certain.

"Keep your hands down!"

[Von Due]

About statistics and probability in this context:


Current theories about the age of the Universe say that it's between 13 and 14 billion years old. Steve mentioned 13.8 billion years so let's use that figure.


Let's build a scale where 1000 years is represented by 1mm on aline going left to right and the rightmost end is the presence.


2mm left of now is roughly where they say Jesus walked around. Roughly 2mm.


On the same scale, according to the theories, Earth and the rest of this solar system formed 4.5 kilometer to the left of now.


Compare 2mm to 4.5km.


Lifeforms formed, according to the most popular theories now, some 300 million years after Earth was formed. That's 300 meters on our scale. 4.2km left of now where 5mm represent 5000 years. The Cambrian explosion happended somewhere in the vicinity of 500 million years ago, or 500 meters left of now, 3.7km to the right of the beginning of what one can call life in its simplest, most unevolved form.


3.7km on a scale where 1mm represents 1000 years.



Chemical reactions, including mutations, in a living organism happen real fast. Like really really fast. A single reaction can happen in a matter of femtoseconds or even attoseconds. Let's go with femtoseconds.



Let's make 1 femtosecond 1mm on our scale
0.000000000000001 second is 1mm. 0.000000000001 second is 1 meter.
0.000000001 second is 1km
1 second is 1,000,000,000 km.
1 year is approx. 31,556,000,000,000,000 km or about 3335 light years.
500,000,000 years (the time since the Cambrian explosion) is about 1.7 trillion light years away from now where a single chemical/biological reaction can happen over a "distance" of a dozen or so mm.


The probability of an evolution ruled solely by physics (and in extension of that, chemistry then biology) is far from zero.

[Skybird]

About statistics and probability in this context:


Current theories about the age of the Universe say that it's between 13 and 14 billion years old. Steve mentioned 13.8 billion years so let's use that figure.


Let's build a scale where 1000 years is represented by 1mm on aline going left to right and the rightmost end is the presence.


2mm left of now is roughly where they say Jesus walked around. Roughly 2mm.


On the same scale, according to the theories, Earth and the rest of this solar system formed 4.5 kilometer to the left of now.


Compare 2mm to 4.5km.


Lifeforms formed, according to the most popular theories now, some 300 million years after Earth was formed. That's 300 meters on our scale. 4.2km left of now where 5mm represent 5000 years. The Cambrian explosion happended somewhere in the vicinity of 500 million years ago, or 500 meters left of now, 3.7km to the right of the beginning of what one can call life in its simplest, most unevolved form.


3.7km on a scale where 1mm represents 1000 years.



Chemical reactions, including mutations, in a living organism happen real fast. Like really really fast. A single reaction can happen in a matter of femtoseconds or even attoseconds. Let's go with femtoseconds.



Let's make 1 femtosecond 1mm on our scale
0.000000000000001 second is 1mm. 0.000000000001 second is 1 meter.
0.000000001 second is 1km
1 second is 1,000,000,000 km.
1 year is approx. 31,556,000,000,000,000 km or about 3335 light years.
500,000,000 years (the time since the Cambrian explosion) is about 1.7 trillion light years away from now where a single chemical/biological reaction can happen over a "distance" of a dozen or so mm.


The probability of an evolution ruled solely by physics (and in extension of that, chemistry then biology) is far from zero.
Eh - in how far leads the panorama of long times and eons and their visualization via your distance model to your last sentence'S conclusion...?


I listened with interest to your model description - until the last sentence.

[Von Due]

Eh - in how far leads the panorama of long times and eons and their visualization via your distance model to your last sentence'S conclusion...?


I listened with interest to your model description - until the last sentence.


Assuming that evolution is only ruled by what is physically possible in any given instance, stack up the number of possible instances and this is as close to the Shakespeare-typing chimps we get. The chance of no biological evolution happening out of the chemical soup in the very beginning is what is really remote. In this universe anyway :p


EDIT: Just a few speculations that entered my mind now: The Crab Nebula is probably the remnant of a super nova that was observed less than 1000 years ago. 1000 years is next to nothing compared to the time it would have taken to form the solar system. Its current diameter as we see it now, is about 11 light years. The closest star to our is only 4-5 light years away. A super nova not only produces heavy elements, but is really good at spreading them. A super nova happening relatively near the cloud that would eventually form our solar system, or happening within a few thousands or few million light years away from a fully formed system, would have given future life the elements it would need in abundance.


Forming building blocks for amino acids, proteins and so on is well within reach for nature. Building blocks, complex molecules, have been detected floating around in deep space. It is not unlikely that several such building blocks were formed shortly after a super nova went off, and kept forming, and keep forming, as long as the right elements were there.


After Earth's surface was filled with water to have everything from puddles to oceans, I see no reason why these complex molecules wouldn't be present here, kickstarting the chemical evolution that preceded the biological one. So in a way, life did start "out of nothing", if by nothing one mean the inevitable exploding of massive stars, the inevitable spreading of heavy elements and complex molecules and the laws of physics binding elements and molecules together.

[Skybird]

And now you have completely u-turned? Sorry, I am in total confusion about what you originally wanted to say. I took it that your time model was your aegument, in a way I do not follow, that life is so unlikelys to form up that itz is unlikely that there is no intention behind its showing up, and so it was "dsigned". Thats how I understood your first post. In the second you seem to explain why that now is not so?


I'm lost on what you want to say...!?

[Von Due]

Ah. I see and I'm sorry for any confusion but there was no u-turn. Both posts were just me loosely thinking out loud that given the huge amount of time evolution is talking about, the beginning of life and the following evolution here on earth is close to inevitable and not, as some others claim, impossible.


EDIT: What impresses me a great deal more than the beginning of life, is how resilient life is. Snowball Earth (1, 2 and 3??), the Permian Extinction, and life still clings on. That to me is really impressive!

[Skybird]

Ah. I see and I'm sorry for any confusion but there was no u-turn. Both posts were just me loosely thinking out loud that given the huge amount of time evolution is talking about, the beginning of life and the following evolution here on earth is close to inevitable and not, as some others claim, impossible.
Ah, that clears it. I got the completely opposite impression of what you meant. :up:


Modern cosmological theory seems to postulate that "nothing" cannot avoid to result in "something". "Nothing" is not the absence of anything, but is somethign which has traits, qualities, namely the one to let thing sspring into existence. My question there just is if this pragmatical understanding of "nothing" as just the astronomical void (which is not really all that empty) indeed is the nothing that philosophy means. Obviously it is not. "Nothing" in the meaning of absence of anything existing cannot carry traits, obviously. Traits are not nothing.



This stuff makes me dizzy at times.

[Von Due]

No worries at all :up:


Someone in the physics world once said something to the effect of
- Our best theory is the best of bad ideas.
I tend to favour that view. We know so little and yet our limited knowledge has produced results that you would burn for a few hundred years earlier.



According to quantum physics, nothing is indeed full of stuff. How this nothing-stuff interacts with well behaved stuff is still being heavily researched. Furthermore, on one hand, quantum physics appears to many to be nothing more than ideas in the minds of madmen and yet, these ideas produced the CD player which I know works.


The idea that a clock hand has more mass* when it's moving than when it's not moving seems ridiculous but that fact is key to nuclear power.


Physics can be torture for the human mind.


*mass-energy but that's not something one learn until way down the line.