12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
-
Since I am sure that you are psychologically immune to information from any other source, perhaps you might be interested in an evangelical Christian who thinks creationism is nonsense. Personal story[^] Main site[^] John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Thanks for the link. I was ready for this to be a simple case of a man not hearing good creationist attempts to explain what he was seeing. Reading through the first link indicated that this was not the case. So, I started looking at some of the articles. He wrote Young-earth creationists claim that all the sediments on earth were deposited within a one year time frame and Young-earth creationists believe that the geologic record is the result of a major catastrophe in which everything (or nearly everything) was deposited within a single year. That is just plain wrong. If that is what he was struggling with the whole time, then I understand his problems. However, only confused creationists would argue that all sedimentation occurred during the year of the global flood. It is rather obvious that erosion, sedimentation, and minor catastrophes still took place after the flood. That misunderstanding would explain a large portion of his problems. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
A "kind" is well defined. It is the group of plants or animals that were originally capable of reproducing with each other, and who throughout a few thousand years succumbed to mutations and loss of genetic information through inbreeding, resulting in species no longer capable of interbreeding. Wjousts wrote: This doesn't make any sense, for information to change the data (the geneome) has to lose or swap or even gain base pairs, all of these happen through mutation This is a common misunderstanding of the average person who believes in evolution. You can flip genes on and off all you want, replace them with bad ones, or even accidentally make extra copies. But this isn't new information, it is existing information that got mangled. It doesn't provide a way to move from one kind of animal with say 20,000 genes to another kind of animal with say 40,000 genes. Those additional genes do completely different things together. It wasn't the result of a few of those first 20,000 being accidentally modified. Wjousts wrote: Believe it or not, but frogs and elephants actually share a huge amount of their geneome, but this is a distraction since elephants are not descended from frogs! I quite agree. Wjousts wrote: It's only your lack of imagination that stops you from seeing that the simple steps of evolution can result in the glorious diversity of life we see today, millions of years later. Well, if you want to claim imagination as a basis for evolution, I won't argue about that. Fiction is usually interesting to read. Wjousts wrote: humans can take wolfs and turn them into both chihuahuas and bull mastifs over the course of just a few hundred years, imagine what natural selection can do over hundreds of millions of years! This is a clear example of what I tried to explain to you. Speciation without new information. The genese found in those dogs are all found in the original wolves. The genes have been rearranged and some were bred out of certain groups of dogs, who are now incapable of regaining those genes because of the inability to interbreed. No new information was generated when a genetically inferior chihuahua or bull mastif was bred. In fact, dog breeders all over the place are concerned with the deterioration of the gene pool as they try to breed their dogs to win prizes. This is an example of variation (or even devolution), but not movement from one kind of
John Fisher wrote: A "kind" is well defined. It is the group of plants or animals that were originally capable of reproducing with each other, and who throughout a few thousand years succumbed to mutations and loss of genetic information through inbreeding, resulting in species no longer capable of interbreeding. No it isn't. Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. Explain why they are not easily observable in nature. Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). John Fisher wrote: This is a common misunderstanding of the average person who believes in evolution. You can flip genes on and off all you want, replace them with bad ones, or even accidentally make extra copies. But this isn't new information, it is existing information that got mangled. It doesn't provide a way to move from one kind of animal with say 20,000 genes to another kind of animal with say 40,000 genes. Those additional genes do completely different things together. It wasn't the result of a few of those first 20,000 being accidentally modified. A couple of points here, you may say a mutation isn't new information, but you are missing a very important point, if a mutation is selected for, it becomes information. It's about the difference between data and information. The data is the genome sequence itself, natural selection is what turns it into information. It the process of natural selection that turns raw data (the genome) into information. If a mutation is selected, it is information!!! You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. O. gigas has twice the number of genes as O. lamarckiana. Mutations in a key gene can lead to dramatic results. Even a doubling the amount of DNA each cell contains. John Fisher wrote: Well, if you want to claim imagination as a basis for evolution, I won't argue about that. Fiction is usually interesting to read. The imagination you lack is that ability to see what the long t
-
John Fisher wrote: A "kind" is well defined. It is the group of plants or animals that were originally capable of reproducing with each other, and who throughout a few thousand years succumbed to mutations and loss of genetic information through inbreeding, resulting in species no longer capable of interbreeding. No it isn't. Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. Explain why they are not easily observable in nature. Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). John Fisher wrote: This is a common misunderstanding of the average person who believes in evolution. You can flip genes on and off all you want, replace them with bad ones, or even accidentally make extra copies. But this isn't new information, it is existing information that got mangled. It doesn't provide a way to move from one kind of animal with say 20,000 genes to another kind of animal with say 40,000 genes. Those additional genes do completely different things together. It wasn't the result of a few of those first 20,000 being accidentally modified. A couple of points here, you may say a mutation isn't new information, but you are missing a very important point, if a mutation is selected for, it becomes information. It's about the difference between data and information. The data is the genome sequence itself, natural selection is what turns it into information. It the process of natural selection that turns raw data (the genome) into information. If a mutation is selected, it is information!!! You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. O. gigas has twice the number of genes as O. lamarckiana. Mutations in a key gene can lead to dramatic results. Even a doubling the amount of DNA each cell contains. John Fisher wrote: Well, if you want to claim imagination as a basis for evolution, I won't argue about that. Fiction is usually interesting to read. The imagination you lack is that ability to see what the long t
Wjousts wrote: Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. I did. Unless you want me to list names of different plants and animals and group them together for you, you'll need to ask a specific question about the definition I already provided. You seem to understand the concept of a species without listing names of animals, why is it so hard to understand the concept of a kind? Wjousts wrote: Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). The "tree of life" type picture is not nearly as clear as you might hope it to be, as drawn by textbooks teaching evolution. Non-creationist scientists have debated the way they are arranged and still disagree. (Some say birds descended from dinosaurs, others say they didn't, etc.) But, the small portions of this "tree of life" which are rather plainly seen (like all the different dog species which are descended from a wolf-kind), are likely to have a direct correlation with the "kind" creationists refer to. Wjousts wrote: You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. I read that, and even understood it! Apparently you haven't quite comprehended my point about information. Let's take an example: Pick an article on CodeProject that contains useful information. People read it and value it for the things it helps them do. If I edit that article so there are two copies of it on the same page, it doesn't help anyone do anything different. In fact, it is likely to cause people just a little bit of confusion. Someone would come along and ask for Chris to correct the problem. In the case of O. gigas, it ended up with duplicate genes. The end result was nothing obviously different, or the scientist wouldn't have needed to bother with attempting to breed it with its parent. In fact, a as result of the duplication (or its cause), this variant was actually unable to breed with other plants that it should have been able to breed with -- a deficiency, not a benefit. Now, unless that plant was asexual, we would have a species that was quite obviously selected against, since it would be completely unable to breed.
-
Ian Darling wrote: So I would prefer that "Evolutionist" was used purely for biologists whom subscribe to that theory, rather than attach it to the distinct and differing scientific disciplines of astrophysics and geology. I guess it's my turn to say that this way of looking at things hadn't occurred to me before. The idea of evolution has always gone hand in hand with long periods of time (basically required it). What is it about biology that makes anyone believe in evolution? Living things that we find today don't tell us of evolutionary history. Speculation certainly takes place about how they got here, but what part of observed biology would you point to that makes biologists the main supporters of the theory of evolution? My studies left me under the impression that uniformitarianism, geology, and archeology were the primary movers in getting the long ages and evolutionary developmental theories into scientific opinion. I haven't heard what role actual biology (as opposed to speculation about biological development) played in evolution's formation (other than the comparison of fossils with other fossils and known living things, etc.) I took a look at the link you provided, and it had some reasonable information. Then I wondered if they commented on the related Mt. St. Hellens eruption and events following. They did, and the information they supplied was interesting. I'll reply to some of the points, and also point you to this link[^] which doesn't initally look related, but definitely covers related material. Point #1. The author assumes many things about floods, passing a blanket over them all as if every flood dug through the same sort of materials in the same quantities, and in the same states of solidification. Point #2,4. The proposed Grand Canyon carving theories that I've read include enough time for a lake to form after the flood itself was finished. The lake then broke some time later. I'm not sure why he's limitting it to a single event. Point #3. Water meanders in many different situations. I've personally witnessed 'trickles' carving paths through soft soil and running around the harder soil in its flow. His assumptions here appear to be that all the ground was/is of the same consistency. Point #5. I'm not familiar with
John Fisher wrote: I guess it's my turn to say that this way of looking at things hadn't occurred to me before. The idea of evolution has always gone hand in hand with long periods of time (basically required it). What is it about biology that makes anyone believe in evolution? Living things that we find today don't tell us of evolutionary history. Speculation certainly takes place about how they got here, but what part of observed biology would you point to that makes biologists the main supporters of the theory of evolution? Well, I would suggest that given the foremost proponents of "evolution through natural selection" are biologists of some form or other (Dawkins, for example). I would also suggest that biologists are interested in more than just the here and now of life and want a historical/chronological view - although that would move into aspects of paeleontology as well - and when studying animals on a biological level, the fact that there are very small variations between individual animals, larger variations between species, (which form some of the grounds for accepting the notion of common descent). I'll have to address the Grand Canyon points later on today - I've only had a couple of hours sleep and I'm still groggy :-) John Fisher wrote: uniformitarianism So what's one of them then? I've seen the term bandied about a couple of times, but I'm none-the-wiser as to what it means. John Fisher wrote: That was a much longer response than I had planned, and I don't claim to have all the answers. However, I do wish to point out the less-than-solid state of the supposed refutation of many creationist arguments. Well, I thank you for taking the time. Given that (I think) the overwhelming majority of evidence still indicates a multi-billion (approx 14?) year old universe, and that the life we have today resulted from evolution through natural selection over a couple of billion years, a problematic Grand Canyon would hardly bring that down, and only serves to say that more research (or better refutations on both sides :-D) is needed to resolve it outright. I think we both share the belief that we do need good research and science - reproducable experiments where ever possible. And this is why I cannot accept Creationism (minor modifier - at this time) - because the standard of research, experimentation, and science needed to support it and also replace the current "evolutioni
-
Jason Henderson wrote: You think religious people blindly believe, yet you will blindly believe that life created itself or suddenly appeared out of nothing. The point is moot. We both have no proof, so it's no longer about logic. Which demostrates your ignorance of evolutional theory. The current theories have nothing to say about how life first appeared, only how it evolved to it's current state. The question of neogenesis is still very much open and hotly debated. But evolution stands on it's own as a theory with out needing to deal with the question of the ultimate origins of life. If it was proven that life on earth sprang from nothing, was planted by some supreme being, or brought over by aliens, it has no effect on the validity of evolution. It's like saying how can gravity be true unless you can explain where the earth came. It's irrelevent. Jason Henderson wrote: What would it hurt to mention that some people believe the world was created rather than came from nothing. I don't think evolution should be removed from teaching, but it should be noted that not everyone believes it and it has never been proven. Are you that afraid of a different viewpoint? Yes, why teach religion as science? Creationism is not science by even the most generous standards so it has no place in a science class room. Do you have biology lectures during bible study?
Wjousts wrote: The current theories have nothing to say about how life first appeared, only how it evolved to it's current state. The question of neogenesis is still very much open and hotly debated. You mean abiogenesis, not neogenesis :-) One possibility which seems plausible to me (from Dawkins) is where an inorganic replicator (which do exist - ever do the crystal growing experiment?) is used as a form of scaffolding that suitable organic chemicals could use to assist in forming organic replicators. Once you have some form of organic replicator, evolution through natural selection can kick in, where copying errors in making a replicator provide new versions (mutation), and different replicators meet and either one out-competes the other in the environment, or they form a symbiotic relationship where both replicators will have a better chance of replicating again. Of course, this is still conjecture and hypothesis, yet to be proven.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Wjousts wrote: The current theories have nothing to say about how life first appeared, only how it evolved to it's current state. The question of neogenesis is still very much open and hotly debated. You mean abiogenesis, not neogenesis :-) One possibility which seems plausible to me (from Dawkins) is where an inorganic replicator (which do exist - ever do the crystal growing experiment?) is used as a form of scaffolding that suitable organic chemicals could use to assist in forming organic replicators. Once you have some form of organic replicator, evolution through natural selection can kick in, where copying errors in making a replicator provide new versions (mutation), and different replicators meet and either one out-competes the other in the environment, or they form a symbiotic relationship where both replicators will have a better chance of replicating again. Of course, this is still conjecture and hypothesis, yet to be proven.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: One possibility which seems plausible to me (from Dawkins) is where an inorganic replicator (which do exist - ever do the crystal growing experiment?) is used as a form of scaffolding that suitable organic chemicals could use to assist in forming organic replicators. Yeah, I've heard that theory before. There have been many experiments aimed at addressing this question of abiogenesis and several theories floating around. I'm sure over time we'll be able to thin them down to a few really plausible theories, but we might never be able to completely nail it down. Whats clear is that once you produce something capable of replicating itself and carrying information from one generation to the next, evolution kicks in and the thing will take off. Either way, the question of abiogenesis really has no bearing on the validity of evolution since evolution is a theory that addresses what happens after life has arisen. It's a common creationist trick to bring it up to try and attack evolution. It would be like challenging Newton on his theories of gravity because he didn't know the ultimate origin of the earth.
-
Wjousts wrote: Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. I did. Unless you want me to list names of different plants and animals and group them together for you, you'll need to ask a specific question about the definition I already provided. You seem to understand the concept of a species without listing names of animals, why is it so hard to understand the concept of a kind? Wjousts wrote: Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). The "tree of life" type picture is not nearly as clear as you might hope it to be, as drawn by textbooks teaching evolution. Non-creationist scientists have debated the way they are arranged and still disagree. (Some say birds descended from dinosaurs, others say they didn't, etc.) But, the small portions of this "tree of life" which are rather plainly seen (like all the different dog species which are descended from a wolf-kind), are likely to have a direct correlation with the "kind" creationists refer to. Wjousts wrote: You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. I read that, and even understood it! Apparently you haven't quite comprehended my point about information. Let's take an example: Pick an article on CodeProject that contains useful information. People read it and value it for the things it helps them do. If I edit that article so there are two copies of it on the same page, it doesn't help anyone do anything different. In fact, it is likely to cause people just a little bit of confusion. Someone would come along and ask for Chris to correct the problem. In the case of O. gigas, it ended up with duplicate genes. The end result was nothing obviously different, or the scientist wouldn't have needed to bother with attempting to breed it with its parent. In fact, a as result of the duplication (or its cause), this variant was actually unable to breed with other plants that it should have been able to breed with -- a deficiency, not a benefit. Now, unless that plant was asexual, we would have a species that was quite obviously selected against, since it would be completely unable to breed.
John Fisher wrote: did. Unless you want me to list names of different plants and animals and group them together for you, you'll need to ask a specific question about the definition I already provided. That's exactly what I want you to do. As far as I know, such a list doesn't exist. It would need to group the entire animal kingdom into distinct "kinds" and explain why they are grouped that way and not any other way. It would need to explain why cases on the boundary are kept on one side and not the other and explain why it is impossible for the boundary to be crossed, including a mechanism that maintains these boundaries. If the theory can't do that, then it is useless, plain and simple. Here's a link[^] which has some more information on the problem with kinds. John Fisher wrote: I read that, and even understood it! Apparently you haven't quite comprehended my point about information. Let's take an example: Pick an article on CodeProject that contains useful information. People read it and value it for the things it helps them do. If I edit that article so there are two copies of it on the same page, it doesn't help anyone do anything different. In fact, it is likely to cause people just a little bit of confusion. Someone would come along and ask for Chris to correct the problem. The problem here is with what you want to call information isn't at all clear. I've stated (and you've agreed) that genes can be altered, deleted and copied through mutation yet you don't see how that can become new information. If it is selected by natural selection, it is information, regardless of where it came from. If a whole set of genes are copied, they can then mutate independent of the original set and become information. If you took you codeproject article, copied it, then edited the copy so it said something different, it would be information! Here's another link[^] on the question of information.
-
Wjousts wrote: Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. I did. Unless you want me to list names of different plants and animals and group them together for you, you'll need to ask a specific question about the definition I already provided. You seem to understand the concept of a species without listing names of animals, why is it so hard to understand the concept of a kind? Wjousts wrote: Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). The "tree of life" type picture is not nearly as clear as you might hope it to be, as drawn by textbooks teaching evolution. Non-creationist scientists have debated the way they are arranged and still disagree. (Some say birds descended from dinosaurs, others say they didn't, etc.) But, the small portions of this "tree of life" which are rather plainly seen (like all the different dog species which are descended from a wolf-kind), are likely to have a direct correlation with the "kind" creationists refer to. Wjousts wrote: You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. I read that, and even understood it! Apparently you haven't quite comprehended my point about information. Let's take an example: Pick an article on CodeProject that contains useful information. People read it and value it for the things it helps them do. If I edit that article so there are two copies of it on the same page, it doesn't help anyone do anything different. In fact, it is likely to cause people just a little bit of confusion. Someone would come along and ask for Chris to correct the problem. In the case of O. gigas, it ended up with duplicate genes. The end result was nothing obviously different, or the scientist wouldn't have needed to bother with attempting to breed it with its parent. In fact, a as result of the duplication (or its cause), this variant was actually unable to breed with other plants that it should have been able to breed with -- a deficiency, not a benefit. Now, unless that plant was asexual, we would have a species that was quite obviously selected against, since it would be completely unable to breed.
John Fisher wrote: The "tree of life" type picture is not nearly as clear as you might hope it to be, as drawn by textbooks teaching evolution. Non-creationist scientists have debated the way they are arranged and still disagree. (Some say birds descended from dinosaurs, others say they didn't, etc.) Phylogenetic analysis is a very complex subject and there is always going to be debate about what is the best picture. Older pictures were based mostly on anatomical similarities and those are now being revised in light of new information from molecular biology. The fact that there are still disagreements over parts of the picture is not a weakness of the whole methodology, the fact that it continues to be debated is a strength. Creationists dishonestly pick out a few inconsistencies while ignore the vast body of consistent results. The majority of biologists would probably agree on 90% of the "tree of life" without any major disagreements. Phylogeny is not in the disarray that creationists would have you believe.
-
Ian Darling wrote: So I would prefer that "Evolutionist" was used purely for biologists whom subscribe to that theory, rather than attach it to the distinct and differing scientific disciplines of astrophysics and geology. I guess it's my turn to say that this way of looking at things hadn't occurred to me before. The idea of evolution has always gone hand in hand with long periods of time (basically required it). What is it about biology that makes anyone believe in evolution? Living things that we find today don't tell us of evolutionary history. Speculation certainly takes place about how they got here, but what part of observed biology would you point to that makes biologists the main supporters of the theory of evolution? My studies left me under the impression that uniformitarianism, geology, and archeology were the primary movers in getting the long ages and evolutionary developmental theories into scientific opinion. I haven't heard what role actual biology (as opposed to speculation about biological development) played in evolution's formation (other than the comparison of fossils with other fossils and known living things, etc.) I took a look at the link you provided, and it had some reasonable information. Then I wondered if they commented on the related Mt. St. Hellens eruption and events following. They did, and the information they supplied was interesting. I'll reply to some of the points, and also point you to this link[^] which doesn't initally look related, but definitely covers related material. Point #1. The author assumes many things about floods, passing a blanket over them all as if every flood dug through the same sort of materials in the same quantities, and in the same states of solidification. Point #2,4. The proposed Grand Canyon carving theories that I've read include enough time for a lake to form after the flood itself was finished. The lake then broke some time later. I'm not sure why he's limitting it to a single event. Point #3. Water meanders in many different situations. I've personally witnessed 'trickles' carving paths through soft soil and running around the harder soil in its flow. His assumptions here appear to be that all the ground was/is of the same consistency. Point #5. I'm not familiar with
OK, now looking at this again. In your refutation of #1 while you may have a point, it would seem to me that if you had different density rocks with similar water flows, you'd get the same effect, just on different timescales. #2 - you say that "I'm not sure why he's limitting it to a single event", yet isn't this exactly what Noahs Flood is (and therefore what the refutation is pointing out)? Adding a lake post-Flood and then having that subsequently breaking it is not the same thing as saying the Flood did it. #3 - I guess this boils down to one thing that I can think of - was the shape of the Grand Canyon already present in a form of easily eroded rocks, surrounded by a harder shell? This may even be testable - if the sediment was found to be a really easily erodable rock and the surrounding rock wasn't, that might back up your point that a large force of water could cut out the Canyon in one go. Of course, this doesn't automatically lead to Creationism as described in a Literalistic reading of Genesis. #4 - I don't have anything to add to this (save what I say to #2) #5 - Well, how much water, what pressure/speed and what density rock - this too is testable. But yeah, I'm not sure about the technical terms - but hard rock is hard rock :-) #6 - Unsupported? True, there doesn't appear to be a reference for this. But again, this is testable - all you need is a tape measure to check the depth. And you have to admit - water carving tributaries at perpendicular angles from one flood? I'm going to argue this one from incredulity :-). See also my comments on #3. #7 - Hmm. I think he means that the sediments in the delta are further north than they would be if they all got flushed out in one go. I would have to go to the paper referenced to further this. #8 - I would need to read the research to comment further. #9 - I don't think he's missing the point entirely, and I suspect it ties in with #1. The reasoning seesm to be along the lines of "If the Flood did carve this, why aren't there any other similar Canyons of the same or simliar age?". Again, this is something that needs addressing by Creationist scientific research. #10 - You're right - that link does look totally unrelated ("huh, this is just some loser sending some flamage") until you get part way down. Looking at one of the papers referred to ("Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!"), this is also indexed[
-
I was thinking about this yesterday. One of my coworkers was arguing that gays are like blacks and women - i.e. deprived of rights. In the spirit of equal rights (like we've done for women and blacks), we need to give gays the right to marry. Like women and blacks, gays were born that way. They have no choice, so we shouldn't deny them rights because of who they are. Well, no one wants to be the oppressor. I was a little uncomfortable with the argument, though. I like to have reasons for the ideas I support, not emotional appeals. I began to wonder "If people who are into beastiality and pedophilia are born that way, and they want to marry their dog or a young child, on what logical basis do we deny them that right?" For some people, the answer is "it's icky", which is pretty much the same argument for denying gays the right to marry. I came to the conclusion that consent is the critical factor. Animals and young children cannot give consent. Two adult homosexuals can give consent. Everyone already agrees in the idea of consent, so that draws a clear line to allow gay marriage, but not beastiality marriages or child marriages. But, then I began to wonder, "On what logical priniciple do we prevent polygamy?" I really have no answer because the consent argument doesn't prevent polygamy. I agree with Brian, then. Sure, the government can make any law that it wants - i.e. it can prevent polygamy but allow gay marriage - but on what principle does it do that? One solution is to say "polygamy is okay, too". But, now you've just agreed with the conservative's view of the slippery slope. Another solution might be to say, "limiting a marriage to two heterosexuals is as arbitrary as limiting it to two people and we're just going to draw an arbitrary line allowing gay marriage but not polygamy". Unfortunately, you're admitting that accepting gay marriage but not polygamy is arbitrary - putting you in pretty much the same category as the conservatives who want to draw that line elsewhere - i.e. preventing gay marriage. In that case, you allow gay marriage but not polygamy for purely emotional reasons (or practical reasons, as Ian pointed out), but not for principled reasons and not for "civil rights reasons". All of this destroys the gay-marriage backer's argument that "we're enlightened because we're giving rights to people who have been denied the right to marry". I'm not actually opposed to gay marriage myself. If it were put to a vote, I'd say, "sure". But, I'm not sure on what basis I
Heh Brit, You pretty much captured the argument, here. Great post! JM
-
John Fisher wrote: I guess it's my turn to say that this way of looking at things hadn't occurred to me before. The idea of evolution has always gone hand in hand with long periods of time (basically required it). What is it about biology that makes anyone believe in evolution? Living things that we find today don't tell us of evolutionary history. Speculation certainly takes place about how they got here, but what part of observed biology would you point to that makes biologists the main supporters of the theory of evolution? Well, I would suggest that given the foremost proponents of "evolution through natural selection" are biologists of some form or other (Dawkins, for example). I would also suggest that biologists are interested in more than just the here and now of life and want a historical/chronological view - although that would move into aspects of paeleontology as well - and when studying animals on a biological level, the fact that there are very small variations between individual animals, larger variations between species, (which form some of the grounds for accepting the notion of common descent). I'll have to address the Grand Canyon points later on today - I've only had a couple of hours sleep and I'm still groggy :-) John Fisher wrote: uniformitarianism So what's one of them then? I've seen the term bandied about a couple of times, but I'm none-the-wiser as to what it means. John Fisher wrote: That was a much longer response than I had planned, and I don't claim to have all the answers. However, I do wish to point out the less-than-solid state of the supposed refutation of many creationist arguments. Well, I thank you for taking the time. Given that (I think) the overwhelming majority of evidence still indicates a multi-billion (approx 14?) year old universe, and that the life we have today resulted from evolution through natural selection over a couple of billion years, a problematic Grand Canyon would hardly bring that down, and only serves to say that more research (or better refutations on both sides :-D) is needed to resolve it outright. I think we both share the belief that we do need good research and science - reproducable experiments where ever possible. And this is why I cannot accept Creationism (minor modifier - at this time) - because the standard of research, experimentation, and science needed to support it and also replace the current "evolutioni
Ian Darling wrote: I would suggest that given the foremost proponents of "evolution through natural selection" are biologists of some form or other and that biologists are interested in more than just the here and now of life and want a historical/chronological view Fair enough. A vocal supporter of evolution who is also a biologist would lend credence to the idea that the science of biology supports evolution. Without having read Dawkin's books (and not being anxious to do so), the arguments I have heard from them have not been actual biological arguments. Instead they have been speculation or simulations based upon a mix of scientific observation and assumptions. That is really all I was intending to say about biology's relationship to evolution. Ian Darling wrote: I'll have to address the Grand Canyon points later on today - I've only had a couple of hours sleep and I'm still groggy I'll wait until you feel like responding. I needed a break for a day or two, since this was getting to be a chore in combination with the more emotional posts from Wjousts. Ian Darling wrote: I think we both share the belief that we do need good research and science - reproducable experiments where ever possible. You are very right in that statement. True science only states facts that can be experimentally proved. Neither belief in creation, nor belief in evolution fit in that category. Of course, they both attempt to explain what we see, and true science can aid in the validation of some of those claims. In the case of the Grand Canyon, specific explanations about how it happened are likely to continue to change on both sides. With respect to science itself, the arguments between creationists and evolutionists are a good thing. It encourages exchange of ideas and more study of the evidence. With respect to the other implications of these opposing views, we have a very different story. Ian Darling wrote: I'll also point out that if Creationism is right - that there is a creator deity (or aliens from another universe messing about in their labs) - having someone describing it in Genesis doesn't automatically mean that the Creator is the Christian God, just that the Judeo-Christian religions adopted that writing as part of their belief system You're right, and I've even told that to other people I've talked with. That brings us back to the beginning
-
OK, now looking at this again. In your refutation of #1 while you may have a point, it would seem to me that if you had different density rocks with similar water flows, you'd get the same effect, just on different timescales. #2 - you say that "I'm not sure why he's limitting it to a single event", yet isn't this exactly what Noahs Flood is (and therefore what the refutation is pointing out)? Adding a lake post-Flood and then having that subsequently breaking it is not the same thing as saying the Flood did it. #3 - I guess this boils down to one thing that I can think of - was the shape of the Grand Canyon already present in a form of easily eroded rocks, surrounded by a harder shell? This may even be testable - if the sediment was found to be a really easily erodable rock and the surrounding rock wasn't, that might back up your point that a large force of water could cut out the Canyon in one go. Of course, this doesn't automatically lead to Creationism as described in a Literalistic reading of Genesis. #4 - I don't have anything to add to this (save what I say to #2) #5 - Well, how much water, what pressure/speed and what density rock - this too is testable. But yeah, I'm not sure about the technical terms - but hard rock is hard rock :-) #6 - Unsupported? True, there doesn't appear to be a reference for this. But again, this is testable - all you need is a tape measure to check the depth. And you have to admit - water carving tributaries at perpendicular angles from one flood? I'm going to argue this one from incredulity :-). See also my comments on #3. #7 - Hmm. I think he means that the sediments in the delta are further north than they would be if they all got flushed out in one go. I would have to go to the paper referenced to further this. #8 - I would need to read the research to comment further. #9 - I don't think he's missing the point entirely, and I suspect it ties in with #1. The reasoning seesm to be along the lines of "If the Flood did carve this, why aren't there any other similar Canyons of the same or simliar age?". Again, this is something that needs addressing by Creationist scientific research. #10 - You're right - that link does look totally unrelated ("huh, this is just some loser sending some flamage") until you get part way down. Looking at one of the papers referred to ("Sedimentation Experiments: Nature Finally Catches Up!"), this is also indexed[
Without direct quotes, or the time to address each point, I think I can safely conclude that you believe the same as I do about the Grand Canyon information -- the debate rages and does not conclusively prove that Creationism's explanation is invalid. To be complete, I do need to answer the question raise in your response to #2. No, we don't claim that everything happened during Noah's Fload ("we" being people who believe in the Bible's version of history and look to logical scientific study to fill in the gaps). Rather we believe that Noah's Flood is a critical piece in the explanation of the evidence we see around the world (the Grand Canyon being part of that). If creationists do limit all formation of things like the Grand Canyon to that one event, they are making a serious scientific mistake (and one that is not at all suggested by the Bible). Even a 10-year old can deduce that other things have happened to the canyon after the flood. Ian Darling wrote: I'll be slightly facetious here (with humourous intent) and put forward the alternative notion that most real "evolutionist" scientists don't find them worth the effort to refute. Which is a shame, because it means fifth-rate scientists like myself are left to do it That's saddening, since I'm only a 10th rate scientist... ;P John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: A "kind" is well defined. It is the group of plants or animals that were originally capable of reproducing with each other, and who throughout a few thousand years succumbed to mutations and loss of genetic information through inbreeding, resulting in species no longer capable of interbreeding. No it isn't. Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. Explain why they are not easily observable in nature. Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). John Fisher wrote: This is a common misunderstanding of the average person who believes in evolution. You can flip genes on and off all you want, replace them with bad ones, or even accidentally make extra copies. But this isn't new information, it is existing information that got mangled. It doesn't provide a way to move from one kind of animal with say 20,000 genes to another kind of animal with say 40,000 genes. Those additional genes do completely different things together. It wasn't the result of a few of those first 20,000 being accidentally modified. A couple of points here, you may say a mutation isn't new information, but you are missing a very important point, if a mutation is selected for, it becomes information. It's about the difference between data and information. The data is the genome sequence itself, natural selection is what turns it into information. It the process of natural selection that turns raw data (the genome) into information. If a mutation is selected, it is information!!! You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. O. gigas has twice the number of genes as O. lamarckiana. Mutations in a key gene can lead to dramatic results. Even a doubling the amount of DNA each cell contains. John Fisher wrote: Well, if you want to claim imagination as a basis for evolution, I won't argue about that. Fiction is usually interesting to read. The imagination you lack is that ability to see what the long t
I can't successfully reply to your two last posts. CP keeps giving me an error, so I'm trying it here. Here is a link that should satisfy your desire for a clearer explanation of "kinds". (We actually think the term "baramin" is less confusing, but it is not a commonly known term, yet.) http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm[^] Wjousts wrote: The problem here is with what you want to call information isn't at all clear I think I see the source of your confusion now. In my arguments about information, I have been concerned with the part of evolutionary theory that speculates about a fish eventually becoming a land creature and other such drastic changes. (Evolution as taught in schools and books is presented in a way that merges natural selection with these huge changes and everything in between. Terms like microevolution and macroevolution partly separate the concepts, but the teaching still tends to muddy the distinction.) Yes, a mutated gene could be considered new information, but it is not the type of information that can bridge the enormous gaps between kinds. This is where the evidence is lacking, and this is also why believers in evolution get excited when they hear claims that someone has found a "missing link". John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ian Darling wrote: I would suggest that given the foremost proponents of "evolution through natural selection" are biologists of some form or other and that biologists are interested in more than just the here and now of life and want a historical/chronological view Fair enough. A vocal supporter of evolution who is also a biologist would lend credence to the idea that the science of biology supports evolution. Without having read Dawkin's books (and not being anxious to do so), the arguments I have heard from them have not been actual biological arguments. Instead they have been speculation or simulations based upon a mix of scientific observation and assumptions. That is really all I was intending to say about biology's relationship to evolution. Ian Darling wrote: I'll have to address the Grand Canyon points later on today - I've only had a couple of hours sleep and I'm still groggy I'll wait until you feel like responding. I needed a break for a day or two, since this was getting to be a chore in combination with the more emotional posts from Wjousts. Ian Darling wrote: I think we both share the belief that we do need good research and science - reproducable experiments where ever possible. You are very right in that statement. True science only states facts that can be experimentally proved. Neither belief in creation, nor belief in evolution fit in that category. Of course, they both attempt to explain what we see, and true science can aid in the validation of some of those claims. In the case of the Grand Canyon, specific explanations about how it happened are likely to continue to change on both sides. With respect to science itself, the arguments between creationists and evolutionists are a good thing. It encourages exchange of ideas and more study of the evidence. With respect to the other implications of these opposing views, we have a very different story. Ian Darling wrote: I'll also point out that if Creationism is right - that there is a creator deity (or aliens from another universe messing about in their labs) - having someone describing it in Genesis doesn't automatically mean that the Creator is the Christian God, just that the Judeo-Christian religions adopted that writing as part of their belief system You're right, and I've even told that to other people I've talked with. That brings us back to the beginning
John Fisher wrote: A vocal supporter of evolution who is also a biologist would lend credence to the idea that the science of biology supports evolution. Without having read Dawkin's books (and not being anxious to do so), the arguments I have heard from them have not been actual biological arguments. I think you would find Dawkin's books interesting. I can't speak for all of them, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype - although I haven't really got to grips with the last one in any way. As for the nature of the arguments - the early chapters of TBW are broadly biological and zoological, with a sidetracking into some details wabout what cumulative selection is and how it works with simpler examples (the METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL bit), as well as describing the notion of genetic space (his BIOMORPHS) and how this is one useful way of determining how related a species is to another - these appear to be regularly criticised in IDist circles at least - although they are purely about demonstrating the nature of cumulative selection, etc, and are not meant to be the main thrust of the argument, purely information describing some of the possible mechanisms evolution uses (Dawkins even admits in the book that the WEASEL analogy is somewhat faulty, and is only using it to illustrate a point). One wonders if many non-evolutionists get to this part of the book, and then stop reading, thinking that because this can be considered faulty under a certain interpretation, the rest of the book is. After this the book does go into more detail, and while there are some analogies that use non-biological metaphors, the general content is exactly as it should be - about biology and zoology and how it supports evolution. The final chapters discuss some technical aspects of taxonomy, and then a chapter discussion surrounding "alternative" theories - although Creationism is only dealt with relatively briefly0, and the larger proportion of the chapter is spent discussing theories what have more commonalities with Darwinian evolution. The Selfish Gene is more about the effects of evolution rather than an exposition on why evolution is essentially true - and goes into a much lower-level discussion on genetic influences of behavioural traits in species. I would say this is a much more technical book, and operates on the basis that evolution is an essentailly accurate theory. This is also the book where Dawki
-
I can't successfully reply to your two last posts. CP keeps giving me an error, so I'm trying it here. Here is a link that should satisfy your desire for a clearer explanation of "kinds". (We actually think the term "baramin" is less confusing, but it is not a commonly known term, yet.) http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_2/baraminology.htm[^] Wjousts wrote: The problem here is with what you want to call information isn't at all clear I think I see the source of your confusion now. In my arguments about information, I have been concerned with the part of evolutionary theory that speculates about a fish eventually becoming a land creature and other such drastic changes. (Evolution as taught in schools and books is presented in a way that merges natural selection with these huge changes and everything in between. Terms like microevolution and macroevolution partly separate the concepts, but the teaching still tends to muddy the distinction.) Yes, a mutated gene could be considered new information, but it is not the type of information that can bridge the enormous gaps between kinds. This is where the evidence is lacking, and this is also why believers in evolution get excited when they hear claims that someone has found a "missing link". John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.I was going to let this go, because I'm pretty sure that nobody else is paying any attention anymore, but I felt I need to make this point. John Fisher wrote: I think I see the source of your confusion now. In my arguments about information, I have been concerned with the part of evolutionary theory that speculates about a fish eventually becoming a land creature and other such drastic changes. (Evolution as taught in schools and books is presented in a way that merges natural selection with these huge changes and everything in between. Terms like microevolution and macroevolution partly separate the concepts, but the teaching still tends to muddy the distinction.) Yes, a mutated gene could be considered new information, but it is not the type of information that can bridge the enormous gaps between kinds. This is where the evidence is lacking, and this is also why believers in evolution get excited when they hear claims that someone has found a "missing link". I think, and correct me if I wrong here, that at least part of the confusion comes from this idea of DNA as the "blueprint" of life. The "blueprint" is actually a very misleading analogy and a much better one is to think of DNA as a "recipe for life". With a blueprint of let's say a house, it's easy to see that adding an extra window would count as a drastic change and not something that can be explained as a random smudge introduced by the photocopier. But a recipe is a whole different situation, even slight changes in a recipe can lead to a whole different outcome as may a frustrated cook is only too aware. DNA doesn't contain a blueprint for making organisms, it doesn't have a gene for making arms and a gene for making legs. DNA is a recipe for building organisms. The DNA codes for amino acids which are assembled into proteins than in turn interact with each other in complicated ways that are challenging to trace. When you consider that it is, I think, easy to see that a change in a gene, especially one that is active early in the development of an organism, can lead to dramatically different results. This is why there is actually suprisingly little variation in the genomes of radically different organisms (e.g. the frog and the elephant we talked about earlier) because it only takes a few key variations to produce dramatic results. So a mutated gene is exactly the kind of information that can produce dramatic changes and no other mechanism is necessary. Macro- and micro- evolution are exactly the same mechanism altho
-
John Fisher wrote: A "kind" is well defined. It is the group of plants or animals that were originally capable of reproducing with each other, and who throughout a few thousand years succumbed to mutations and loss of genetic information through inbreeding, resulting in species no longer capable of interbreeding. No it isn't. Specify what these "kinds" are exactly. Explain why they are not easily observable in nature. Explain why, instead of distinct "kinds" we can clearly see nested hierarchies in nature (the common "tree of life" type picture). John Fisher wrote: This is a common misunderstanding of the average person who believes in evolution. You can flip genes on and off all you want, replace them with bad ones, or even accidentally make extra copies. But this isn't new information, it is existing information that got mangled. It doesn't provide a way to move from one kind of animal with say 20,000 genes to another kind of animal with say 40,000 genes. Those additional genes do completely different things together. It wasn't the result of a few of those first 20,000 being accidentally modified. A couple of points here, you may say a mutation isn't new information, but you are missing a very important point, if a mutation is selected for, it becomes information. It's about the difference between data and information. The data is the genome sequence itself, natural selection is what turns it into information. It the process of natural selection that turns raw data (the genome) into information. If a mutation is selected, it is information!!! You point about 20,000 genes to 40,000 genes obviously missed this from my earlier link of speciation: 5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas) While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. O. gigas has twice the number of genes as O. lamarckiana. Mutations in a key gene can lead to dramatic results. Even a doubling the amount of DNA each cell contains. John Fisher wrote: Well, if you want to claim imagination as a basis for evolution, I won't argue about that. Fiction is usually interesting to read. The imagination you lack is that ability to see what the long t
Wjousts wrote: So a mutated gene is exactly the kind of information that can produce dramatic changes and no other mechanism is necessary. Based upon your own comments, this would be the equivalent of increasing or decreasing baking time, or temprature, or changing the measurement of a certain ingredient. Following that logic, you end up with a modified version of the same thing, not something new. Wjousts wrote: Macro- and micro- evolution are exactly the same mechanism although there is still much debate about which is really more important (compare Dawkins to Gould). I seriously doubt that you'd find an evolutionist book which says these are the same thing, but it doesn't really matter to me. Wjousts wrote: The other question of "links" missing or not, actually makes perfect sense when you think it. Yes, from a creationist model. But evolutionists have been hunting for and not finding them for so long, it's about time they came up with a way of reasoning around what their model so clearly expects. Is this taught by any respectable evolutionary scientists? Wjousts wrote: The links between a fish and a land dwelling creature by necessity are nether as good as being a fish as a real fish or as good at being a land creature as our land creature, therefore they will struggle to survive in a ecology that includes both the real fish and the land creatures and will die out. Which is exactly why they wouldn't last long enough to finish the transition to another kind of animal. It looks like you understand my point without wanting to deal with its implications. Trusting natural selection to weed out less viable organisms is fine, but to ignore that basic principle expressly for the purpose of keeping something around long enough to change into something else which the becomes viable again is a big stretch. Wjousts wrote: I believe there is a lung fish and a mudskipper (can't be bother looking this up, they may in fact be the same thing) that still live lifes that could be consider transitional. I googled these for a while, and didn't find anything said about them by evolutionists other than that they exist. Obviously they are still alive, and therefore quite viable on their own. This doesn't really prove anything either way, since both models can adequately explain its presence. The fact that there is only speculative evidence rather than s
-
John Fisher wrote: A vocal supporter of evolution who is also a biologist would lend credence to the idea that the science of biology supports evolution. Without having read Dawkin's books (and not being anxious to do so), the arguments I have heard from them have not been actual biological arguments. I think you would find Dawkin's books interesting. I can't speak for all of them, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype - although I haven't really got to grips with the last one in any way. As for the nature of the arguments - the early chapters of TBW are broadly biological and zoological, with a sidetracking into some details wabout what cumulative selection is and how it works with simpler examples (the METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL bit), as well as describing the notion of genetic space (his BIOMORPHS) and how this is one useful way of determining how related a species is to another - these appear to be regularly criticised in IDist circles at least - although they are purely about demonstrating the nature of cumulative selection, etc, and are not meant to be the main thrust of the argument, purely information describing some of the possible mechanisms evolution uses (Dawkins even admits in the book that the WEASEL analogy is somewhat faulty, and is only using it to illustrate a point). One wonders if many non-evolutionists get to this part of the book, and then stop reading, thinking that because this can be considered faulty under a certain interpretation, the rest of the book is. After this the book does go into more detail, and while there are some analogies that use non-biological metaphors, the general content is exactly as it should be - about biology and zoology and how it supports evolution. The final chapters discuss some technical aspects of taxonomy, and then a chapter discussion surrounding "alternative" theories - although Creationism is only dealt with relatively briefly0, and the larger proportion of the chapter is spent discussing theories what have more commonalities with Darwinian evolution. The Selfish Gene is more about the effects of evolution rather than an exposition on why evolution is essentially true - and goes into a much lower-level discussion on genetic influences of behavioural traits in species. I would say this is a much more technical book, and operates on the basis that evolution is an essentailly accurate theory. This is also the book where Dawki
Ian Darling wrote: I think you would find Dawkin's books interesting. I can't speak for all of them, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype For a while I've been contemplating checking one out of the library here. Which would you suggest? (Based upon your comments, I assume The Blind Watchmaker with the suggestion that I not stop in the middle of the book. ;) Ian Darling wrote: Well, I did some more googling today. Someone who appears to have a more solid grounding in geology reviews a book written by a YEC about the Grand Canyon. That's the problem with the internet, people can so easily appear to know more than they do. (Not that that is neccessarily the case in this instance.) I didn't read the whole thing, but did notice that the review was of a book published in 1994. Research and thinking has been done by both sides since then. Ian Darling wrote: The most important quote in the last chapter is probably this: ... Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life's complex design I assume that some level of belief in that quote is the reason you posted it, but that really surprises me. Why? The only basis for a statement like that is Dawkins' well-known atheist bias. It is common sense and basic logic for you to walk into a clean, well-furnished room and assume that 1) someone built it, 2) someone has kept it clean (even if it was just built), and 3) someone organized the furniture and decorations. Postulating an intelligent designer easily accounts for the existence of order and elegance in the structure and behavior of things. That particular statement flies in the face of basic logic, and is clearly more rhetoric than logic. Ian Darling wrote: I also found an interesting thread on the talk.origins newsgroup - it appears to be the most comprehensive discussion I can find on the subject of the Grand Canyon. The two posts I found most interesting are linked to here: I haven't really looked at those talkorigins links you posted, though I know they would be interesting. Unless you really believe that information from one of them shows that the creationist model cannot account for the canyon's existence, I'd like to switch the discussion to another area. One way of looking at evidence is to dig down
-
Ian Darling wrote: I think you would find Dawkin's books interesting. I can't speak for all of them, but I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype For a while I've been contemplating checking one out of the library here. Which would you suggest? (Based upon your comments, I assume The Blind Watchmaker with the suggestion that I not stop in the middle of the book. ;) Ian Darling wrote: Well, I did some more googling today. Someone who appears to have a more solid grounding in geology reviews a book written by a YEC about the Grand Canyon. That's the problem with the internet, people can so easily appear to know more than they do. (Not that that is neccessarily the case in this instance.) I didn't read the whole thing, but did notice that the review was of a book published in 1994. Research and thinking has been done by both sides since then. Ian Darling wrote: The most important quote in the last chapter is probably this: ... Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of life's complex design I assume that some level of belief in that quote is the reason you posted it, but that really surprises me. Why? The only basis for a statement like that is Dawkins' well-known atheist bias. It is common sense and basic logic for you to walk into a clean, well-furnished room and assume that 1) someone built it, 2) someone has kept it clean (even if it was just built), and 3) someone organized the furniture and decorations. Postulating an intelligent designer easily accounts for the existence of order and elegance in the structure and behavior of things. That particular statement flies in the face of basic logic, and is clearly more rhetoric than logic. Ian Darling wrote: I also found an interesting thread on the talk.origins newsgroup - it appears to be the most comprehensive discussion I can find on the subject of the Grand Canyon. The two posts I found most interesting are linked to here: I haven't really looked at those talkorigins links you posted, though I know they would be interesting. Unless you really believe that information from one of them shows that the creationist model cannot account for the canyon's existence, I'd like to switch the discussion to another area. One way of looking at evidence is to dig down
John Fisher wrote: I assume that some level of belief in that quote is the reason you posted it, but that really surprises me. Why? The only basis for a statement like that is Dawkins' well-known atheist bias. It is common sense and basic logic for you to walk into a clean, well-furnished room and assume that 1) someone built it, 2) someone has kept it clean (even if it was just built), and 3) someone organized the furniture and decorations. Postulating an intelligent designer easily accounts for the existence of order and elegance in the structure and behavior of things. That particular statement flies in the face of basic logic, and is clearly more rhetoric than logic. Ah, this is the real crux of the matter, and I'll deal with this separately. This is also the central discussion of The Blind Watchmaker (which is probably what I'd suggest you read). Postulating design purely because something exhibits what appears to be design is the result of incorrect thinking - and this argument (which originated with Paley) has been supremely debunked - not just by Dawkins (although his is the most comprehensive), but by people prior to Darwin's birth (Hume, I believe) I can accept Dawkins proprosition because my own CS undergraduate thesis covered similar ground but with regard to computer simulations - that is to say that simple laws represented in a system (such as Conway's Game of Life as I used in my thesis) can result in emergent and complex behaviour, with replicators appearing that showed what could be considered design, yet was brought about by natural processes. In the same way, physics and chemistry and so forth, when allowed adequate time, can produce (initially simple) replicators without needing aby sort of Designer. Once you bring in notions of copying errors (mutation), natural selection, and so forth, you result in replicators that are better suited to the environment, which means that the probability of their continued replication increases. Over billions of years, we can end up with the species we recognise today.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Wjousts wrote: So a mutated gene is exactly the kind of information that can produce dramatic changes and no other mechanism is necessary. Based upon your own comments, this would be the equivalent of increasing or decreasing baking time, or temprature, or changing the measurement of a certain ingredient. Following that logic, you end up with a modified version of the same thing, not something new. Wjousts wrote: Macro- and micro- evolution are exactly the same mechanism although there is still much debate about which is really more important (compare Dawkins to Gould). I seriously doubt that you'd find an evolutionist book which says these are the same thing, but it doesn't really matter to me. Wjousts wrote: The other question of "links" missing or not, actually makes perfect sense when you think it. Yes, from a creationist model. But evolutionists have been hunting for and not finding them for so long, it's about time they came up with a way of reasoning around what their model so clearly expects. Is this taught by any respectable evolutionary scientists? Wjousts wrote: The links between a fish and a land dwelling creature by necessity are nether as good as being a fish as a real fish or as good at being a land creature as our land creature, therefore they will struggle to survive in a ecology that includes both the real fish and the land creatures and will die out. Which is exactly why they wouldn't last long enough to finish the transition to another kind of animal. It looks like you understand my point without wanting to deal with its implications. Trusting natural selection to weed out less viable organisms is fine, but to ignore that basic principle expressly for the purpose of keeping something around long enough to change into something else which the becomes viable again is a big stretch. Wjousts wrote: I believe there is a lung fish and a mudskipper (can't be bother looking this up, they may in fact be the same thing) that still live lifes that could be consider transitional. I googled these for a while, and didn't find anything said about them by evolutionists other than that they exist. Obviously they are still alive, and therefore quite viable on their own. This doesn't really prove anything either way, since both models can adequately explain its presence. The fact that there is only speculative evidence rather than s
John Fisher wrote: Based upon your own comments, this would be the equivalent of increasing or decreasing baking time, or temprature, or changing the measurement of a certain ingredient. Following that logic, you end up with a modified version of the same thing, not something new. Obviously you haven't tried baking cakes! If you bake for 20 seconds instead or 20 minutes or at 0 degrees instead of 350 or you leave out the flour you end up with something that is in no way shape or form a cake. But this is irrelevent because you are trying to push the analogy too far. John Fisher wrote: I seriously doubt that you'd find an evolutionist book which says these are the same thing, but it doesn't really matter to me. I doubt you'd find a book that doesn't say that at their root, they have the same mechanism - i.e. natural selection. John Fisher wrote: Yes, from a creationist model. But evolutionists have been hunting for and not finding them for so long, it's about time they came up with a way of reasoning around what their model so clearly expects. Is this taught by any respectable evolutionary scientists? What I meant was that the existance of "missing links" alive today is, in fact predicted, by evolution. The existance of transition fossils is another question. There are in fact plenty of transitional fossils that have been found, but not having a complete fossil record of every creature that has every existed is not suprising since fossilization is a very rare occurence. It is again a creationist trick when presented with a fossil (let's call it B) that appears to be transitional between two others (call them A and C) to then say "But there are no transitional fossils between A and B and B and C so they must have been created by god". It's a "god of the gaps" arguement and totally bogus. Here's a link[^] with some more of transitional fossils. John Fisher wrote: Which is exactly why they wouldn't last long enough to finish the transition to another kind of animal. It looks like you understand my point without wanting to deal with its implications. Trusting natural selection to weed out less viable organisms is fine, but to ignore that basic principle expressly for the purpose of keeping something around long enough to change
-
John Fisher wrote: I assume that some level of belief in that quote is the reason you posted it, but that really surprises me. Why? The only basis for a statement like that is Dawkins' well-known atheist bias. It is common sense and basic logic for you to walk into a clean, well-furnished room and assume that 1) someone built it, 2) someone has kept it clean (even if it was just built), and 3) someone organized the furniture and decorations. Postulating an intelligent designer easily accounts for the existence of order and elegance in the structure and behavior of things. That particular statement flies in the face of basic logic, and is clearly more rhetoric than logic. Ah, this is the real crux of the matter, and I'll deal with this separately. This is also the central discussion of The Blind Watchmaker (which is probably what I'd suggest you read). Postulating design purely because something exhibits what appears to be design is the result of incorrect thinking - and this argument (which originated with Paley) has been supremely debunked - not just by Dawkins (although his is the most comprehensive), but by people prior to Darwin's birth (Hume, I believe) I can accept Dawkins proprosition because my own CS undergraduate thesis covered similar ground but with regard to computer simulations - that is to say that simple laws represented in a system (such as Conway's Game of Life as I used in my thesis) can result in emergent and complex behaviour, with replicators appearing that showed what could be considered design, yet was brought about by natural processes. In the same way, physics and chemistry and so forth, when allowed adequate time, can produce (initially simple) replicators without needing aby sort of Designer. Once you bring in notions of copying errors (mutation), natural selection, and so forth, you result in replicators that are better suited to the environment, which means that the probability of their continued replication increases. Over billions of years, we can end up with the species we recognise today.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: This is also the central discussion of The Blind Watchmaker (which is probably what I'd suggest you read). Ok. I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it, but that book is now on my to-read list. Ian Darling wrote: Postulating design purely because something exhibits what appears to be design is the result of incorrect thinking I would venture to say that it is no less correct than thinking that "the present is the key to the past" (the basis of uniformitarianism and evolutionary research). Both ideas are logical extensions of common sense. (I would say that "the present is the key to the past" is less of a logical extension, because common sense also tells us that unexpected and unexplained things happen often.) Ian Darling wrote: simple laws represented in a system (such as Conway's Game of Life as I used in my thesis) can result in emergent and complex behaviour I have no problem with that statement. In fact, it is an expectation of the creationist model as well. However, if we concern ourselves with the origination of said laws, the problem remains. Unless we appeal to some entity that is capable of generating both the matter and the governing laws of our universe, there would be nothing from which apparent design could emerge. You were the intelligent being behind the creation of the simulations you used in your thesis. So, why not postulate an intelligent being behind the creation of the laws on which this universe operates? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.