How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

"And something that I hope you can agree with me on - just because there is a lot of time, doesn't mean ANYTHING can happen! "

Umm.. actually, given infinity, and an infinite amount of time, I'm going to actually hazard a guess and say that EVERYTHING has ALREADY happened. The whole thing about infinity though is that the chance of you actually PERSONALLY running into any of those occurences is vanishingly small. So no, I can't agree.

Somewhere out there, there is an entire planet where nubile beautiful naked women worship me as their god...

Curse infinity I say! curse it!

Given that, life in 12-13 billion years is a cinch!

A billion years isn't nearly enugh.
And infinity is not as big...

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

what current observations are being disregarded exactly? science studies ALL the data it has access to (not just the fossil record but DNA and current biodiversity and a long list of known facts studied through a multiplicity of sciences) and the best conclusion it comes to currently with this data is that evolution is largely responsible for the varieties of life we see on this planet. It does you no good to argue against a science simply because you cant see it (or measure it) with your own eyes. If thats your measuring stick then youll need to throw out quite a few well established scientific principles. Forget about studying 99% of the universe. Its too big for us to reach out and touch and see do stuff. We make lots and lots of assumptions when it comes to studying the universe. But this in no way makes our conclusions automatically wrong.

And you do realize that computer modeling of evolution has been achieved using the same genetic factors and the constant of a changing environment. And you get something that basically looks a lot like what we see in the wild: an ever changing DNA that leads to an ever changing phenotypic signature winding and twisting from one thing to millions of years later something very much different. Simply because it takes a long time doesnt make it impossible.

Nah, it just means God is creative.
The most that is allowed is changeing is a blue pengwen.

P.S.
Even though I and all others onthis side of the argument are right,
I STILL CAN'T SPELL!!!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Me9996

Even though I and all others on this side of the argument are right,

i am sure you mean that you BELIEVE you are right, unless of course you have suddenly become a supreme being, and know everything
a note on theories and religion:
2000 years ago, we knew that Jupiter ruled the skies
1000 years ago, we knew the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe
500 years ago, we knew anyone different to us was a savage
200 years ago, we knew that the earth was only 4000 years old
at the end of the great war, we knew there would be no more
imagine what we will know tomorrow

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Umm.. actually, given infinity, and an infinite amount of time, I'm going to actually hazard a guess and say that EVERYTHING has ALREADY happened. The whole thing about infinity though is that the chance of you actually PERSONALLY running into any of those occurences is vanishingly small. So no, I can't agree.

Somewhere out there, there is an entire planet where nubile beautiful naked women worship me as their god...

Curse infinity I say! curse it!

Given that, life in 12-13 billion years is a cinch!

Out of curiosity . . . where on Earth do you get infinity? What happened to the Big Bang?

By the way, your argument "there could be billions of universes" is not a very good one, in my opinion. Allow me to quote you.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What they are not is super-natural. No guiding hand ripped open the fabric of space and dinked in a few code changes. And EVEN if that happened, it STILL isn't scientific because there's no way to test for such a thing.

This is precisely true about the "billions of universes." The argument is useless. This may be the only universe. There may be billions. Infinity may exist within the material because there are billions of universes. This stuff is all conjecture, and I'd deem it even to be worthless conjecture. Besides, look at the argument from a gambler's perspective . A gambler wins 99 times out of 100 and his companions look at him askance. "He's cheating," they murmer amongst themselves. "NO!" he argues, cheerfully. "There may be a billion other universes in which I lost these games!"

Don't you see the argument is useless? One can explain anything they like using that argument, say anything might be true using that argument. We deal with what we have.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i am sure you mean that you BELIEVE you are right, unless of course you have suddenly become a supreme being, and know everything
a note on theories and religion:
2000 years ago, we knew that Jupiter ruled the skies
1000 years ago, we knew the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe
500 years ago, we knew anyone different to us was a savage
200 years ago, we knew that the earth was only 4000 years old
at the end of the great war, we knew there would be no more
imagine what we will know tomorrow

And in modern times, we know evolution is correct.

I really expect that in a few hundred years (if humanity hasn't annihilated itself by then) people will look back at us and make the same remarks as you just did about peoples of history.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I have read of several computer models used to support evolution, and I have some objections to them

such as? Keep in mind its impossible to plug in EVER conceivable factor into a computer when it comes to something as complex as evolution but the very fact that we can (over and over) basically produce something that looks representative of our current thoughts on evolution should tell you something about its legitimacy as a method to explain what we see in nature.

See, the statement I just quoted is like saying this : "I am in Boston. I know that if I walk long enough, I can get across town. I know that if I walk even longer (more time), I can get into New York. I know if I walk even longer (MORE time), I can get into Pennsylvania. Therefore, if I walk long enough (billions and billions of years ) I can walk to the SUN!

I don’t really understand how this analogy is relevant. Is this your way of saying that eventually evolutionary tools hit a ceiling? Is that that “genetic burden� thing you used to talk about before we popped that bubble?

By the way, given your scenario where you walk for billions and billions of years you WOULD wind up in the sun because youd simply be walking around the earth over and over again and eventually the sun will engulf the earth. So one way or the other… bad analogy or not… we can make it work. But then this is neither here nor there…

Evolution is NOT merely a matter of given enough time, there can be changes from one-celled thingys to humans and horses and birds and whatever. There must be a vehicle/mechanism involved. In the case of the walker, the vehicle/mechanism is walking, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to WALK to the sun, even given millions of years. In the case of evolution, the (current) vehicle is beneficial mutations and natural selection and buku years, and IMO, given these vehicles, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get from one-celled thingys to humans, even given buku years!

so you don’t see evolution as a vehicle to change now? That’s a step back from your previously stated beliefs that changes in gene structure can effect change to the organism. And that animals adapt to their environment within species. Well I dare say it’s a rather widely accepted vehicle for change and this CAN be seen even in laboratories. And if you can change over one generation then logically you can change even more over 10 million generations. Make sense?

The "current observations" that are being disregarded are that finches remain finches, dogs remain dogs, horses remain horses, etc. etc. etc. One might say, "but a new species evolved!", but please remember that it is people that DEFINE the species, and the bird is still a bird, and the fish is still a fish

but finches DON’T “remain� finches when the two birds can no longer breed. Quite clearly you ARE observing a divergence and if you can admit to that then how come you have such a hard time admitting to the fact that the divergence eventually could push the two animals that were originally one to the point of being so different that at first blush (just by looking at it) you would never think they came from the same source. But don’t judge everything with your eyes only I say. Look at the DNA. Look at the physiology of the species involved. Especially the skeletal structure. Look at ALL the data possible and you see mounting evidence of degrees of relatedness. You can do it with whales and wolves. Its not hard. But to just say “Nope! Birdies look ONLY like birdies!� is refusing to face the whole truth about what we CAN measure from REAL data.

Yer kind of being like the person with their head right up against a dot drawing. From a millimeter away it doesn’t look like it has any pattern to it. just a few out of focus amorphous shapes. When you pull back a little you can see a series of dots but not necessarily a picture. When you pull back even more then you can begin to see that the dots although separated seem to give us a PICTURE of something singular when they are all taken together. Now, if you use certain tools like say a pencil to CONNECT the dots and suddenly you see a wonderfully detailed picture of oh maybe ten very different finches sharing their island habitat and not breeding with each other… Pretty picture eh? I say pull your head back a bit so you can see it.

However, things like evolution are NOT by ANY means on the same level as most other scientific fields. In evolution, we are either looking at the results of processes that occurred in the PAST (e.g., fossils) or we are looking at things in the present and EXTRAPOLATING backwards - so far backwards that any mathmetician would have nightmares about it!

I would disagree on several levels. First of all its not an either/or situation. We can look at fossils AND living animals when we study evolution. So you have your past connected with your present. Wheres the problem exactly? furthermore, if we can accept that light from a supernova that is just now reaching us is from an event that happened hundreds of MILLIONS of years ago then why is it we cant look at fossil data and have it give us any meaningful information? Simply because its old? I reject that. As for extrapolating backwards, we can look at the DNA of DIFFERENT species and we can see nice neat clean degrees of relatedness on the GENETIC level of organisms. That’s using current data (not old bones that for some reason you discount). That’s showing a LINE of relatedness not simply random genetic patterns which it should be if evolution wasn’t involved in the development of species. And this relatedness just so happens to correspond to what other ways of looking at life on earth tells us about the issue (for example studying the physiological/biological similarities between animals). Theres no extrapolation involved at all here. Since extrapolation is bad in your view. Which, by the way, is problematic if you ask me. Because if you cant extrapolate then you need to reject things like continental drift. Perhaps god positioned the earth’s continents right where they are. What! They move an inch a year! Poppy cock. I sure cant SEE it! So it must not be true! If god wanted the continents in a different arrangement he would have made it that way from the start!

[Insidious Rex]

It's so simple - all I ever fight for in this thread is an acknowledgement that evolution MAY NOT have happened - that we may NOT have been the product of chance and natural processes.

you do realize of course that the first statement is hugely different from the second right? “we� may not be the product of chance and natural processes is bad enough since it can be proven that of course who we are is at LEAST in part the result of “natural processes�. Unless you think god creates every single human from scratch and this whole sex and birth thing is just a grand illusion he keeps us fooled with. But certainly evolution DOESN’T bar the idea that there could have been some underlying guiding by an outside force. That’s the cool thing about evolution. It cant be undermined by the concept of god. While creationism cant exist in a universe in which evolution is the means by which life changes. Which explains why creationists are so rabid against the very notion of evolution.

And your second notion that evolution may not have happened is preposterous because it means that SO many things we have observed in nature are meaningless and, we are too assume, a part of some fantastically grand divine scheme to fool us into thinking something that isn’t there.

God: Hee hee I think ill put genetic code in every cell in their bodies so that they’ll THINK it has something to do with how they came to be. Hee hee I think Ill burry bones in the ground all over the earth with clues on them that will make it seem like they are somewhat related to each other and to current animals. Oh and Ill alter the carbon isotopes within different fossils to make certain ones SEEM older then others Ill EVEN do this so that it parallels quite nicely with half a dozen other ways that they’ll use to study life. Ho! Ho! This will keep them busy for centuries! Its almost as funny as the whole colon thing! Now that was a hoot!

Yeah ok thanks a lot god…

The theory of evolution starts (when people have the guts to acknowledge it) from a stacked deck (i.e., that the universe "somehow" came to be in such a way that life could start from non-life) - talk about faith!

two things: evolution is about how life on earth CHANGES over time due to environmental factors. It is NOT about the GENESIS of life. Im pretty sure Ive said this at least 4 or 5 times before. Creationists like to shell game it and say see! It cant explain the genesis of life so therefore its all wrong!! well news flash it never was intended to explain the genesis of life. So lets if you want to talk about the genesis of life lets do that on its own merits thanks.

Secondly, doesn’t take much faith to realize of course life comes from non-life. Seeing as how our bodies are composed of the very same ingredients we see in our earth and in the universe in general. At what point does the accumulation of these ingredients in a specific form become “life� to you and at what point are they just a specific configuration of ingredients alone? Is sperm life? Is an unfertilized egg life? Is DNA life? Yet when you get these things together suddenly you see that grand chemical reaction you like to call “life� begin to unfold. Yet the sperm itself was not “alive� in the classic sense you speak of. Nor the egg. So there you have your life from non-life. Happens trillions of times a day right here on our tiny little planet. Brushing it off as some kind of “faith based� belief system is completely ignoring simply a ton of real solid basic science.

Evolutionists cry that there just isn't enough time to see fish turn into birds. Well, I'm very sorry, but that doesn't somehow let them off the hook. Their theory continues to be unproven, and unproveable. It's a very nice theory - but it's unproven and unproveable.

ah the classic tactic of the creationist to ignore the fact that there is NO evidence for their own “theory� and instead try to bring evolution down to its level by saying that the ONLY useful form of data Ill accept for the possibility of the existence of evolution is if you can right now in front of my very eyes change a bird into a bear. Well?? Go ahead?? Ha see you cant do it therefore evolution is a RELIGION!

Nice try. But weve given reams and reams of evidence that evolution works in nature and explains a lot of things. Evidence from completely different sciences that ALL parallel each other. If the only evidence that you will accept is a miracle (and a complete perversion of HOW evolution works anyway… but nevermind the details right…) then its not surprising you find more comfort in a biological system that consists of a deity snapping things into existence out of nothing. I nice easy clean miracle approach that’s easier to get your mind around then all this horrible data we have been studying for hundreds of years now.

The fact of the matter is that the mechanisms involved in evolution HAVE been demonstrated and verified as REAL. We know this (among other reasons) because we can even MANIPULATE these very same mechanisms if we try. And youll note it takes no FAITH to do this. It simply takes a working knowledge of genetics and biochemistry. Now can you manipulate your creationist mechanisms? Lets see you try that in a lab. Oh wait that’s because there are no creationist mechanisms. Its ENTIRELY a form of religion UNLIKE evolution.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I have to point out that it is not people who decided that dogs can't interbreed with cats.

And what is the relevance of that?

And you can also go to the fossil record and point to a time when dogs and cats did not exist. So either:

a) Everything science has deducted about the fossil record is wrong
b) cats (and dogs) were in fact in some pre-cat/dog form and were still probably incapable of breeding with modern cats (in which case they ARE a different species)
c) dogs and cats evolved from earlier species.

You're forgetting option d), which is the one that the entire theory of punctuated equilibrium rests on - the imperfect fossil record.

I can't tell you how often I hear from evolutionists that the fossil record is imperfect, and how hard it is for fossilization to occur, etc. etc., and thus since gradualism isn't reflected in the fossil record, we're changing it to punctuated equilibrium and saying that the intermediate steps we don't see in the fossil record just couldn't fossilize, but they're really there, even tho we don't see them.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And besides, are you saying that NO type of dog or cat is in the fossil record, or just that a modern house cat is not in the fossil record? I imagine some type of cat and dog are in the fossil record, tho I don't know for sure. I'm not suggesting the modern house cat, complete with a little collar with a bell on it, should be in the fossil record, but I am saying that the modern house cat came from other CATS, as opposed to, say, a fish.

EDIT - I just re-read your options b and c, and you might be saying that the earlier species that modern dogs and cats came from were also dogs and cats. In that case, there's no problem. What's the big deal about not being able to breed? That's a human definition of species. It seems like a bait and switch to say, hey, these two types of DOGS are different species now, and DOG species 1 came from DOG species 2 and they can't breed now. So since giraffes and fish can't breed, it's obvious that giraffes came from fish!

As for the idea of whether or not it was chance and random process or not, what makes you think that evolution has absolutely, anything, ANYTHING, to do with that?

Beneficial mutations spring to mind. Are you suggesting beneficial mutations are directed?

No WONDER you keep getting confused about T.o.E. You keep insisting that there's a whole load of crap that isn't in there.

The ToE must have a starting point. I object to many elements in the ToE, and also I object to its proposed starting point - or at least I point out that it's entirely theoretical.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by me9996

Nah, it just means God is creative.
The most that is allowed is changeing is a blue pengwen.

a blue penguin? god would allow that? interesting. of course you realize nature wouldnt allow it. because theres no blue snow. But if there were you better believe according to evolution youd have tons of blue penguins...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The ToE must have a starting point. I object to many elements in the ToE, and also I object to its proposed starting point - or at least I point out that it's entirely theoretical.

Well, I have problems with various of the current theories too. However, we must remember that if there's a question mark in the origin ideas, that doesn't mean that no answer will ever be found. I'd like to select as my example the man who discovered that the continents are moving. He collected reams of data showing that the continents were indeed moving, showing similar species between continents, similarities of continental edges, of soil and rock between split continents, etc. However, he made an error in his views as to the cause of the continental split. Attacking his error and accusing his theory of being too Christian, scientists ostracized him and he received a lot of punishment. Since then, we have found that his origin idea was indeed incorrect, but the fact that the continents used to be formed in Pangea was shown to be accurate. Isn't it possible that evolution might be the same? The process of evolution correct, even if a "genesis of life" as Insidious puts it, is not yet found?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

a blue penguin? god would allow that? interesting. of course you realize nature wouldnt allow it. because theres no blue snow. But if there were you better believe according to evolution youd have tons of blue penguins...

Actually there is blue snow. I've seen it on television, in geography videos. It occurs mostly in glaciers, when high pressures condense the snow and deform the crystal structures. I doubt that this would highly affect the penguine populations. I don't know whether blue penguines exist or not.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i am sure you mean that you BELIEVE you are right, unless of course you have suddenly become a supreme being, and know everything
a note on theories and religion:
2000 years ago, we knew that Jupiter ruled the skies
1000 years ago, we knew the earth was flat, and the centre of the universe
500 years ago, we knew anyone different to us was a savage
200 years ago, we knew that the earth was only 4000 years old
at the end of the great war, we knew there would be no more
imagine what we will know tomorrow

No, but I know someone like that.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually there is blue snow. I've seen it on television, in geography videos. It occurs mostly in glaciers, when high pressures condense the snow and deform the crystal structures. I doubt that this would highly affect the penguine populations. I don't know whether blue penguines exist or not.

blue snow or blue ice? I know ice bergs and glaciers can appear blue because of how packed ice absorbs certain wave lengths of light or something. Although I guess this whole argument is moot because now that I think about it penguin coloration is designed to protect them when they are in water (where the real predators are) so that their belly appears light to blend in with the surface and their backs appear dark to blend in with the darkness of the water as you look down. So still no need for blue penguins.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by me9996

A billion years isn't nearly enugh.
And infinity is not as big...

ROFL...

So tell me young grasshopper.

How big is infinity?

For that matter, how big is a billion?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

ROFL...

So tell me young grasshopper.

How big is infinity?

For that matter, how big is a billion?

Suppose you answer my questions on the matter first? Here's my post:

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Umm.. actually, given infinity, and an infinite amount of time, I'm going to actually hazard a guess and say that EVERYTHING has ALREADY happened. The whole thing about infinity though is that the chance of you actually PERSONALLY running into any of those occurences is vanishingly small. So no, I can't agree.

Somewhere out there, there is an entire planet where nubile beautiful naked women worship me as their god...

Curse infinity I say! curse it!

Given that, life in 12-13 billion years is a cinch!

Out of curiosity . . . where on Earth do you get infinity? What happened to the Big Bang?

By the way, your argument "there could be billions of universes" is not a very good one, in my opinion. Allow me to quote you.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What they are not is super-natural. No guiding hand ripped open the fabric of space and dinked in a few code changes. And EVEN if that happened, it STILL isn't scientific because there's no way to test for such a thing.

This is precisely true about the "billions of universes." The argument is useless. This may be the only universe. There may be billions. Infinity may exist within the material because there are billions of universes. This stuff is all conjecture, and I'd deem it even to be worthless conjecture. Besides, look at the argument from a gambler's perspective . A gambler wins 99 times out of 100 and his companions look at him askance. "He's cheating," they murmer amongst themselves. "NO!" he argues, cheerfully. "There may be a billion other universes in which I lost these games!"

Don't you see the argument is useless? One can explain anything they like using that argument, say anything might be true using that argument. We deal with what we have.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Out of curiosity . . . where on Earth do you get infinity? What happened to the Big Bang?

What big bang? The classic big bang theory is falling out of favor again. The current favorite is one based on membrane collision in a 5 dimensional space holding (at least) 2 4 dimensional entities - i.e. our universe and at least one other. It explains the distribution of matter and certain questions about inflation in a more comprehensive manner.

By the way, your argument "there could be billions of universes" is not a very good one, in my opinion.

By current estimates there are at least two, and probably in the neighborhood of 16 in close "locality" to our own. It's not hard to grasp the concept that there are more.

This is precisely true about the "billions of universes." The argument is useless. This may be the only universe. There may be billions. Infinity may exist within the material because there are billions of universes. This stuff is all conjecture, and I'd deem it even to be worthless conjecture.

Got any empirical evidence of a supreme being? no? How about any mathematically based theories that purport to explain the possibility of the existence of one? no?!

Then I'd say the argument about multiple universes is at least as useful, if not more so, because there are at least supporting mathemtical theories for multiple universes, based on current understanding of this physical universe.

Don't you see the argument is useless? One can explain anything they like using that argument, say anything might be true using that argument. We deal with what we have.

So umm... you going to toss any more stones through glass houses? Or are you going to admit that an argument about a supreme being with no empirical proof who has omniscient powers and can be used explain anything you like or say anything might be true is also useless? Or are you going to deal with what you have?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

What big bang? The classic big bang theory is falling out of favor again. The current favorite is one based on membrane collision in a 5 dimensional space holding (at least) 2 4 dimensional entities - i.e. our universe and at least one other. It explains the distribution of matter and certain questions about inflation in a more comprehensive manner.



By current estimates there are at least two, and probably in the neighborhood of 16 in close "locality" to our own. It's not hard to grasp the concept that there are more.

Interesting. I've never heard of this theory before. Please explain it to me. I've only learned about the Big Bang in my schooling. How broadly accepted is it at this point? What kinds of evidences are there for it? How does it explain the Red Shift and the expanding universe evidence? I'm quite curious . Actually, the idea of multiple universes floating around sounds quite cool to me. It strikes my imagination very favorably. However, I don't know what the evidence supporting it is, or what the estimate is to how broadly it is accepted.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Got any empirical evidence of a supreme being? no?

Of course I do . You think I'd be dumb enough to believe something with nothing at all but belief to back me up? I believe in unicorns! :P

Originally Posted by Blackheart

How about any mathematically based theories that purport to explain the possibility of the existence of one? no?!

The possibility of the existence of one has for one been strongly backed up by a few scientific facts. One of them was the incredible odds against life having been formed in this universe. All it would require is the tiniest shift in the way the universe was formed, and stars could not have existed. Without stars, planets could not have existed and life could not have existed. The argument is much more expansive then this, however. The probabilities of life coming about by random chance look to modern scientists to have been essentially nil.

This is only one argument, of course. Though it is a strong one, it isn't my favorite . I like best going straight back to the scriptures, discussing the overwhelming evidence that they are true. The Old Testament in very clear prophesies predicts what happened in the times of the New Testaments. The probability that Jesus should have so precisely fulfilled the Messianic predictions he did is essentially nil. The evidence that the gospel writers were reliably taking down events is vast, the evidence that the gospels were unchanged by translation errors or infiltrating myths is irrefutable. Anyway, I love discussing those evidences. It takes time, but it is very fun.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Then I'd say the argument about multiple universes is at least as useful, if not more so, because there are at least supporting mathemtical theories for multiple universes, based on current understanding of this physical universe.

I'm still very curious to read your presentation on this theory.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

So umm... you going to toss any more stones through glass houses? Or are you going to admit that an argument about a supreme being with no empirical proof who has omniscient powers and can be used explain anything you like or say anything might be true is also useless? Or are you going to deal with what you have?

Let's deal with what we have . Which includes a lot of evidence I could get into. It would have to go in the "why you believe what you believe" thread though; much of it is not related to creationism.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And what is the relevance of that?

You stated that species is an arbitrary distinction made up by scientists. I'm merely providing an example of two distinct familae, so you don't have to worry that somehow we might have been confused about those sneaky dogs and cats being the same species and fooling us all this time...

You're forgetting option d), which is the one that the entire theory of punctuated equilibrium rests on - the imperfect fossil record.

Noo... that's option A. I already noted that, in fact I put it first.

I don't subscribe to punctuated equilibrium per se. I'm more a fan of genetic drift accumulating in the genotype and the phenotype changing only in a small locale until it gets a chance to expand it's ecological niche. There's nothing magical about speciation, it happens in VERY small populations, so it's not surprising that direct fossil evidence is scanty. Once you have an ecological niche open however, the species spreads VERY rapidly. Want a modern example? Look at the spread of fire ants in the southern US. It didn't take very long at all for them to take over once they got a chance to spread and wipe out less succesful species. Less than a couple of decades. In the fossil record, it would be very confusing, to say the least.

I can't tell you how often I hear from evolutionists that the fossil record is imperfect, and how hard it is for fossilization to occur, etc. etc., and thus since gradualism isn't reflected in the fossil record, we're changing it to punctuated equilibrium and saying that the intermediate steps we don't see in the fossil record just couldn't fossilize, but they're really there, even tho we don't see them.

So? What's the problem with that? It's a theory to explain the data, and, as I pointed out, there are also modern supporting examples, due to our own stupidity in transplanting species across natural barriers.

And besides, are you saying that NO type of dog or cat is in the fossil record, or just that a modern house cat is not in the fossil record? I imagine some type of cat and dog are in the fossil record, tho I don't know for sure. I'm not suggesting the modern house cat, complete with a little collar with a bell on it, should be in the fossil record, but I am saying that the modern house cat came from other CATS, as opposed to, say, a fish.

Oh they exist all right. But only from "recent" times. Where are all the pre-cambrian cat fossils then? Or the pre-cretacious for that matter? Where did these belled cat's ancestors come from? Not a single one has been found.

Now unless you want to postulate that someone's been monkeying around with the fossil records, if the population exists, then fossilization should occur at the same ratio when the species is extant. I'm not up on the most current estimates, but I recall that it was somewhere around 1 fossil to 100,000 examples.

Oh of course that's it! there must have been less than 100,000 cats for all those millions of years and then boom! suddenly the population exploded! A highly unlikely explination, and much more complicated than cats simply did not exist 60 million years ago, or earlier.

So if they didn't exist, then where did all these cats or dogs come from? Oh wait, it's just the dating methods that are all mixed up, they really existed all along...

Again that's not the simplist explination, trying to explain why everything we know about physics is wrong makes that option much more complicated....

EDIT - I just re-read your options b and c, and you might be saying that the earlier species that modern dogs and cats came from were also dogs and cats.

Were they? Well they were certainly cat like, and dog like, but are wolves really dogs? Are tigers really cats? no they aren't - though wolves are much closer to dogs than tigers are to cats. Because wolves and dogs can cross breed.

In that case, there's no problem. What's the big deal about not being able to breed? That's a human definition of species. It seems like a bait and switch to say, hey, these two types of DOGS are different species now, and DOG species 1 came from DOG species 2 and they can't breed now. So since giraffes and fish can't breed, it's obvious that giraffes came from fish!

Im just going to have to pause for a while to laugh at this bit of oversimplification.

First, it's not a human definition of species. It's a definition imposed by the mechanics of evolution. IF you can't BREED, you CAN'T pass on genetic heritage, which means that there are NO shared SURVIVAL traits. It's a definition of species MANDATED by the mechanism. Hell, human definitions are arbitrary, they class wolves as a seperate species, but they can certainly interbreed, and therefore the offspring are well within the scope of the evolutionary mechanism.

Secondly, Dog or Canis, is the wrong choice to use for this example, since there is only one species of canis, and they can ALL interbreed. That is why they are most commonly referred to as BREEDS of dog, not species. They are however a perfect example of a species undergoing rapid phenotype and genotype change (due to human intervention) and a if we ever do get to observe a genuine example of speciation, it will probably happen in Canis first.

Thirdly, Giraffes did not come from Fish. Giraffes came from a long list of pre-cursor species that likely came from an aquatic vertebrate that may or may not have been a fish. If it wasn't a fish, then it was something so like a fish that you'd be arguing that it made no difference, because it LOOKS like a fish...

Beneficial mutations spring to mind. Are you suggesting beneficial mutations are directed?

Why does it MATTER! Directed or non-directed has nothing to do with it! It only has any relevance whatsoever if you have a philosophical agenda, at which point you might as well say that magical fluffy bunnies from dimension X waved their magic wands and made nice things happen for the monkeys!

The ToE must have a starting point.

Wrong. It doesn't take into account any starting OR stopping point other than those demanded by the mechanism. In otherwords, if there's something passing heritable information along that is subject to entropic selection, it's covered by evolution. It doesn't even have to be ALIVE to qualify.

I object to many elements in the ToE, and also I object to its proposed starting point - or at least I point out that it's entirely theoretical.

Well of COURSE it's theoretical! What it is NOT, is philosophical or mystical!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

If it wasn't a fish, then it was something so like a fish that you'd be arguing that it made no difference, because it LOOKS like a fish...

Shall I call it a "fish thingy"?

Really, youse guys!

Too late for anything else tonite

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Interesting. I've never heard of this theory before. Please explain it to me. I've only learned about the Big Bang in my schooling. How broadly accepted is it at this point? What kinds of evidences are there for it? How does it explain the Red Shift and the expanding universe evidence? I'm quite curious .

ARGH. Someone would ask for an explination of string theory.

Ok. lets find a basic starting point, do you know what quanta are? Most people think of them as sub-atomic "particles" but thats a silly way to think of them, because atoms themselves aren't really "particles".

What they are in more precise terms is discrete energy packets. Think of photons, if you have an understanding of E.M. theory. Electrons are exactly the same as photons, but they have a different enrgy signature. Same for any other particle you can think of.

The sub-sub-atomic quanta are even stranger. Someof them have mass and no charge, charge bu no mass, and some of them have nothing but "spin" or "attraction".

Awfully odd behavior for "particles" don't you think? But they aren't "particles" at all, because they aren't matter. They are energy, quanta. (Thus quantum theory).

So how can you have these weird little "stable" energy pockets just "floating" around? The best explination (so far) is that they are anchored by 0 space dimensions. (0 space dimensions are envisioned to be like a long coiled space much like a string or spring- thus "string" theory) The makeup of these 0 space dimensions are what determine the quanta's properties. (and please, PLEASE don't ask me to explain how, because it makes my head hurt thinking about it- I am NOT a math person)

IN order for this theory to work however (and it does work, it explains things that quantum physicists have been pulling their hair out over for decades - "bald physcists" theory) you need a frame work of between 11 and 20 odd other dimensions, depending on what mathematical model you want to use, though the one that is getting the most support lately is the one that calls for 16, who knows at this point!

Also, something else weird happens, the math demands that these alternate dimensions be kept stable somehow. How do you keep dimensions stable? With a balancing equation. WHich means.... there's another universe out there- the "balancing equation" is another universe. At least one, and probably.. more. They are refered to as "membranes" and I never really do "get" that joke...

Anyway you probably have enough information to figure out the rest of the idea. If not, I can explain that part better. But my brain is tired, and it won't matter much if you haven't got that part.

Actually, the idea of multiple universes floating around sounds quite cool to me. It strikes my imagination very favorably. However, I don't know what the evidence supporting it is, or what the estimate is to how broadly it is accepted.

It's generating quite a stir, and while it's not completely accepted (it is a NEW theory after all) it has garnered some considerable support. It's safest to say that it's widely considered a viable theory, but the data hasn't been confirmed yet.

Of course I do . You think I'd be dumb enough to believe something with nothing at all but belief to back me up? I believe in unicorns! :P

Having been graced with the opportunity to actually see a real unicorn, I find it easier to belieive in them. However, seeing a unicorn is NOT the same as having empirical evidence. As I'm sure you well know.

So you'll excuse me if I ask you to provide the empirical evidence for a supreme being... after all, witholding such a thing from humanity would be tantamount to a criminal act.

The possibility of the existence of one has for one been strongly backed up by a few scientific facts. One of them was the incredible odds against life having been formed in this universe.

That is unfortunately not empirical evidence, since it is impossible to calculate the odds of something occuring from a single occurence ( i.e. not knowing the possible number of outcomes or the weighting of the outcomes). I could have stated this before bluntly, without having to bring in alternate universes, but then no one would have asked me to explain string theory...

con't