If evolution is wrong then what's the alternative?

reply to post by chr0naut

The European Speckled Moth, the classic example in nearly every text book of Evolutionary Theory, in a period of only 200 years, went from a light grey colour that matched the bark on Silver Birch trees, to a darker colour that matched the carbon blackened trees during the industrial revolution, and then back again to to a lighter colour after pollution laws and better technology limited sooting. Knowing the size of its genome, the mutation rate to be expected and the rate that genetic drift predicts, it changed four times faster than it should.

Oh Really? How fast should it have changed then? And do you have sources for your assertions?

You do realize that the Speckled moth lives for only a year, and thus, 200 years equals 200 generations, right?

Are you pulling this stuff right off of creationist websites or something?

That's just one example.

No, unfortunately, it's not.

Or how about, speciation during the Cambrian Explosion, which would probably be several, perhaps hundreds of millions more examples but I'm not going to bother because it is likely that you won't want to look at the fossil record too closely if your own "articles of faith" contradict themselves.

No, by all means... let's go there.

I mean, if you want to dance.... then lets do this thing.

Lets look at the even bigger picture: In the approximately 4.5 billion (= 4,500 million) years that the Earth has existed, can you explain the phenomenal number (estimated to be 100 million living now) of species that currently exist by Evolutionary Theory?

We are not talking about species that exist by "Evolutionary Theory" we are talking about the number of species that *EXIST* period.

Adaptation to Environmental conditions, and Natural selection are perfectly valid examples of Evolution, and also perfectly explain this diversity.

I don't really see what problem you are having in grasping this relativley simple concept.

In addition to this, you haven't actually brought up any explanation to your statement of:

Why do things CONSISTENTLY evolve new survival strategies at faster rates than evolution and genetic drift mandate?

Which is what I was specifically asking about when I wanted you to site examples.

So far you have not done so.

My rough estimate is that we'd have been seeing the evolution of a new species on average at least every 45 years. That's not just a successful mutation, but a totally new species.

Would you like to share these "Back of the envelope Mathematical Estimates" you are basing your conjecture on?

Well, come on, Biological Taxonomy and Evolutionary Theory have been around for more than 45 years. Where are the new species?

Tell me their name and some details.

Put up, or shut up!

Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

1. Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

2. Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

3. Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

4. Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

5. Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

6. Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

7. Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.
Abstract:

Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.
Abstract:

The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland, indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers.

Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.
Abstract:

J.A. Coyne wrongly asserted that neodarwinism includes allopatric evolution but not sympatric evolution. Allopatric evolution occurs among geographically isolated populations, whereas sympatric evolution occurs within one species' entire population. Both are neodarwinian since each results from natural selection of genetic variation. Also, Coyne failed to recognize that the molecular models used to illustrate how genetic changes bring on speciation are most useful when researchers acknowledge that both inherited epigenetic and genetic changes affect speciation.

Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium. Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.

Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45. P764(6) May, 1991.

Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update). BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.

Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations, separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information) Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.

Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany. V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation?. Nature. V331. P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

Barton, N.H. Jones, J.S. Mallet, J. No barriers to speciation. (morphological evolution). Nature. V336. P13(2) Nov 3, 1988.

Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6) April, 1988.

www.talkorigins.org...

Your Move dude.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by sgreco

 

I'm open to the notion that science is utterly wrong. They just missed the mark. Bad methodology, bias, and unrealistic leaps of logic has conspired to create this erroneous view of creation.

I'm afraid not. You see, Evolution is actually one of the strongest theories IN science because of the sheer WEIGHT of all of the evidence that has been compiled over the decades that completely supports evolution.

To disagree with the Theory of evolution, is to be ignorant OF the Theory of Evolution.

Creationists have made their arguments in, surprisingly, scientific fashion. They provide counter-evidence to science's evidence. bravo!

No, they have not.

The *ONLY* evidence that creationists provide for their views *IS* scripture.

Period.

Is science and religion the only options available?

No, this is a false dichotomy.

Science derives from the root Latin word "Scientia" meaning "Knowledge"

en.wikipedia.org...

Religion is about Faith in the absence of knowledge.

And lacking knowledge means to be Ignorant about the subject.


First off, I think a brief Primer on Evolution is in order, as there seems to be a bit of ignorance in this thread as to what Evolution actually *IS*

When an organism reproduces, Especially when that organism reproduces sexually, the offspring are not identical to both the mother and father, and their Genetic makeup is not the exact same as any possible mixing of the two.

This is caused by mutations that occur in the Genetic material (a small portion of the overall genetic material) that *MAY* produce physiological changes within that organism.

Through the addition of successive "Mutations" over the course of many generations, the organism possesses physiological differences from their distant ancestors that become more and more noticeable, and greater and greater in appearance, or biological function.

This is basically something like the Rumour effect, where one person whispers something into another's ear, and they whisper that to a third, and the third to a fourth, and the fourth to a fifth, and the fifth to a sixth, so on and so forth.

What was whispered changes slightly each time it is communicated, until eventually, in the 300th incarnation, it is recalled as a completely different sentence that bears cursory similarity with the phonetic pronunciation of the original.

We have actually compared the genetic material found in the remains of long dead animals, and have compared them to currently living organisms, and have found that the currently living organisms are actually the EVOLVED descendants of the long dead animals.

Evolution makes perfect sense when you realize that children are not perfect clones of their parents.

Every Generation is different, in VERY subtle ways, that only become noticeable when successive generations worth of differences are compared to their distant ancestors.

So, to answer your question, "If evolution is wrong, then what's the alternative"

And the *ONLY* way to answer that, is:

If evolution is WRONG, then the only alternative would be a theory that is almost identical to evolution, that still explains the OBSERVATIONS OF REALITY that evolution explains.

Unless of course we are living in the matrix.... then any-thing's possible

Since we wouldn't really be OBSERVING reality, but a simulation of reality.

reply to post by chr0naut

 

Why do things CONSISTENTLY evolve new survival strategies at faster rates than evolution and genetic drift mandate?

Would you care to provide examples of what you mean?


reply to post by VictorVonDoom

 

Further, when you consider the rate at which species on Earth become extinct

Actually, that's a funny story.

If you had a species of bird on a tropical island, and over the course of one thousand years, that species evolved into a NEW species, then the ancestor species would be considered "Extinct" even if their descendants are still alive.

Extinction does not necessarily mean that an entire breeding population was wiped out, it just means that the *SPECIES* that existed at that time, no longer exists *AS* that species.

For example.... Birds *ARE* the descendants of some species of Dinosaurs.

The species they Descended from are extinct.... because their descendants have become a new species.

So, when they say that "Most species that have ever lived are extinct" now you know the proper context to place that statement in.

reply to post by chr0naut

 

They call it the Theory of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.

This is because "theory" does not mean what you think it means.

In most Evolutionary Theory, the ability to perform experiments to test hypotheses is not possible

And this is not true either.

We can actually take genetic samples of creatures that have been dead for a long time, actually.

And, Having their genetic material, we can preform experiments comparing their genetic material to the genetic material of currently living creatures to observe consistencies between the structure of both.

To hold that these theories are laws of science above other competitive theories, is itself an article of faith, not science.

There are no competing theories to Evolution.

Creationism is not a theory.

I am not denying the validity of Evolutionary Theory. It is equally valid as are Creationist or Intelligent Design sponsored alternate theories.

You see, this is the problem, by claiming that Creationism is a Theory, you are actually stating two things that implicitly demonstrate your ignorance on the matter of evolution.

1. You are stating that Creationism is a Theory, despite there being no observable evidence FOR creationism to HAVE a theory.

Remember, a Theory exists to explain a set of observations.

2. You are claiming that Speculation based on ancient texts is the same thing as actually studying the world.

And this is wrong.

We must all be careful of being hypocritical!

Indeed.

reply to post by chr0naut

 

Speciation through genetic drift (as opposed to non-germ-line mutation).

Yes, this has actually been observed.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, Non-Germ-line mutations would not contribute to evolution anyways, as only cells that contribute to reproduction would effect one's offspring.

The results assumed to be from Evolution are observed.

As the process of Evolution takes more than a human life span, it has not been observed.

And how do we know that dinosaurs existed? Since they existed before any of us were alive?

I guess you think they never existed eh?

Do you also presume that it is impossible to prove the existence of your great-great-grandparents? since they were alive before you were born?

Your logical faculties are somewhat lacking for the purposes of this thread.

edit on 17-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

you REALLY don't understand what Im asking. I've re-explained this a handful of times in this same thread but here it goes once more. I will try stating it in simple chunks.

Creationists are 99% Christian, they are not agnostic.

Creationists often provide evidence they claim counters the notion of evolution.

My question to Creationists is: If we accept your argument, based upon proof, that evolution is false -what proof do you offer to substantiate your claim that this ONE religion has the right answer? I mean, if the theory of "intelligent design" merely points to an un-named intelligence, how have you made the leap that that intelligence must be the christian god? Why not Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam or any of the myriad religions in human history?

Do you understand now?

reply to post by sgreco

Do you understand now?

Mea Culpa

reply to post by chr0naut

Thank you for the star. It’s always a pleasure to debate someone who actually engages with the material and doesn’t just hurl cathedrae at his opponent’s head.

The Christian view is that God is triune, a perfect society in Himself and as such he has nothing that he needs from us. Nor are we capable of giving Him anything.

Agreed in principle. In practice the difficulty of defining ‘triune’ has caused the Church enormous trouble. Schism and bloodshed have been the result. I submit that it is unnecessary to so anthropomorphize God as to think of Him as a society; my Anglican background suggests to me that the triune character of the Christian God can safely be left uninvestigated, a holy Mystery, the details of which are beyond human understanding; my atheism insists that it is a mere fiction anyway. Either way, it is not relevant to the point under discussion, so hypothesis non fingo.

To be in existence and surrounded by nothing, because you are the all-in-all of existence, is an empty and pointless existence. It is only logical that such a supreme and singular being would feel a desire to create and play (this implies choice and chance to my limited mind).

For a human being, perhaps. However, God in Christianity is held to be perfect. Any change from a state of perfection must, logically, create imperfection. Therefore, God, the perfect, cannot need or long for change, since it will render Him imperfect.

Your position also clashes with St. Anselm’s famous ontological proof of the existence of God. It is a spurious proof to be sure, but I believe Christians embrace it nontheless. If God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, any change in His condition must be a change for the worse, a step down from Godhood.

How would such a God define himself if not through action of creation?

Being perfect, God has no need of self-definition, nor, indeed, of anything else.

A God locked in an inevitable, invariable existence for eternity does not sound rational as a concept or particularly God-like to me.

Neither does it to me. Unfortunately, the properties traditionally attributed to God – omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and perfection – absolutely demand it. One way to deal with the problem is to believe that God exists outside time. This fits with the current standard model of physical cosmology, which holds that time is exclusively an attribute of the universe – of Creation, if you will. If the universe has been created or emanated outside time by God, then we may hold that it, too, has existed and will exist eternally, despite the fact that the clocks are running down inside it.

Sadly, this perspective makes it impossible for God to intervene in the universe at all. The moment He does so, He becomes involved in time and loses His divine perfection. Christ could never have come.

There is always more matter in the universe all the time (the Bussard Ramjet requires matter to come into being in the empty spaces of space, to operate) and also Stephen Hawking has proposed a method whereby black holes can create matter and energy (Hawking Radiation). It is inherent in the symmetry breaking nature of reality that more matter will come into being.

The Bussard ramjet works on the assumption that even interstellar space is not entirely empty, but does not demand that matter be continuously created in vacuo for it to function. As for Hawking radiation, no new creation is involved. One half of a virtual particle pair is trapped within the event horizon of a black hole and effectively vanishes before it can self-annihilate with its partner. However, its (negative) mass-energy is subtracted from that of the black hole, which thus loses exactly as much as the rest of the universe gains. Over time, the black hole simply disappears – evaporates, so to speak – as its mass and energy are transferred back into the universe as Hawking radiation.

There is also the fact that matter itself appears to be illusory and founded on a substrate of information, which by its own nature, increases.

Oh, I certainly don’t believe that. Information is not that which the information is about. ‘X is about Y’ does not mean the same as ‘X is Y’. I suspect the popularity of this idea is a neurotic outcome of the late twentieth century’s obsession with computers.

More generally, I believe the idea of an ultimate reality that contradicts the world of our perceptions is false, a mere side-effect of the way we as biological organisms have evolved to confront the world. We perceive the world as it really is, but so does a bat, which perceives it differently from us. These varied perceptions are built up out of slightly different sets of information about the same reality. The difference is inherent in the design of the sensors.

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by requireduser
reply to post by sgreco

 

the alternative is something that you don't want to hear and accept.

now, let me share this truth to you,

if you believe God (you name it whatever whom) can create something out of nothing by just "saying", then why so hard for you to believe human was created by just "saying"?

it is neither hard nor easy for me to accept any explanation.

my question remains unanswered. If we accept that evolution is wrong, why must we accept that the alternative is the christian story of creation rather than any other religion's? Am i not being clear enough?

you don't have to believe christian, Matrix is an alternative, Alien created us is an alternative, Inception is an alternative, or you can accept we are just some sort of biological robot, when you dead, everything gone, and lots more alternative.

the conclusion is, nobody know and nobody suppose to know for sure for things that happened several billions or hundred billions years ago.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Thanks for your extensive reply.

It contained data that I have not seen before and will take me some time to analyse.

I do not frequent Creationist or Intelligent Design websites.

I believe my opinions are based upon questions raised by conventional biology textbooks and discussion with geneticists, whom I will not name here.

I can claim no specific expertise in the Biological Sciences but am an interested amateur in that regard. My background is more in Astrophysics.

I will, at some stage, put together a clearer and properly referenced summation of my theory that Evolution appears to occur at higher rates that natural selection and genetic drift can explain.

It is not a negation of Evolutionary theory, but perhaps a hint that we do not yet have a full and complete understanding of the mechanism in a significant number of cases.

This will be in a new thread as it is actually off-topic from the OP and will take me some time to compile.

Originally posted by requireduser

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by requireduser
reply to post by sgreco

 

the alternative is something that you don't want to hear and accept.

now, let me share this truth to you,

if you believe God (you name it whatever whom) can create something out of nothing by just "saying", then why so hard for you to believe human was created by just "saying"?

it is neither hard nor easy for me to accept any explanation.

my question remains unanswered. If we accept that evolution is wrong, why must we accept that the alternative is the christian story of creation rather than any other religion's? Am i not being clear enough?

you don't have to believe christian, Matrix is an alternative, Alien created us is an alternative, Inception is an alternative, or you can accept we are just some sort of biological robot, when you dead, everything gone, and lots more alternative.

the conclusion is, nobody know and nobody suppose to know for sure for things that happened several billions or hundred billions years ago.

quite true although the creationist movement, pushing for an end to evolution studies in schools or at least a side by side teaching with creationism do not believe in aliens or the matrix -they are christian and I still would like to see the link between "evolution is wrong" and "therefore it must be this single religion's creation story" --I've still not seen a satisfactory answer at all.

reply to post by Astyanax


Surely the "perfection" of God is subjective and its definition is also subject to interpretation.

If perfection is seen as a definition of a "set of things" rather than something singular, then perfection allows for difference.

Try and imagine someone getting a "perfect" 10/10 score in a sport. If they repeat it and get another perfect score, it does not negate the previous score by being more, or less, perfect. Both scores stand. This is, I believe the meaning of perfection in regard to God.

For instance "The law of the Lord is perfect" (from Psalm 19) means that God's law requires no amendment or explanation, is complete and satisfactory for its purpose. This does not preclude other laws from also being perfect also.

reply to post by Astyanax


I too believe that God, essentially, exists outside of time. This does not mean that He is barred from access to time or that He cannot operate within as well.

As I (an essentially four dimensional person) can write into the essentially two dimensional world of a piece of paper, so can God affect a four dimensional existence from a higher dimensional existence without violating what we know of reality.

The ability to "see the unseeable", "know the end from the beginning" and "look on the heart" are all functions of a higher dimensional frame of reference interacting with a lower dimensional one.

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by requireduser

Originally posted by sgreco

Originally posted by requireduser
reply to post by sgreco

 

the alternative is something that you don't want to hear and accept.

now, let me share this truth to you,

if you believe God (you name it whatever whom) can create something out of nothing by just "saying", then why so hard for you to believe human was created by just "saying"?

it is neither hard nor easy for me to accept any explanation.

my question remains unanswered. If we accept that evolution is wrong, why must we accept that the alternative is the christian story of creation rather than any other religion's? Am i not being clear enough?

you don't have to believe christian, Matrix is an alternative, Alien created us is an alternative, Inception is an alternative, or you can accept we are just some sort of biological robot, when you dead, everything gone, and lots more alternative.

the conclusion is, nobody know and nobody suppose to know for sure for things that happened several billions or hundred billions years ago.

quite true although the creationist movement, pushing for an end to evolution studies in schools or at least a side by side teaching with creationism do not believe in aliens or the matrix -they are christian and I still would like to see the link between "evolution is wrong" and "therefore it must be this single religion's creation story" --I've still not seen a satisfactory answer at all.

hi there, like i mentioned above,
nobody know for sure whats is happening several billion years ago, you wouldn't get answer, even you got it somehow, you will doubt it, how true is it.

human are not even so sure about whether 911 is gov DIY or natural disaster, the tower is DIY down 0r because the steel getting 2 hot and melt.

you c, history iS written by "winner", this event is so big, everybody watch it, but yet, no 100% human agree to 1 truth.

the last thing you need, maybe is what those christian? muslim? jewish? called, "faith" to believe something that you are not so sure, but was told by your g0d.

some human choose to believe faaith because their mind someh0w screwed, they thought they must believe in g0D in order to have peaceful life or whatever those g0D promised.

you won't get the truth, because nobody know what exactly happened.

reply to post by Astyanax


In regard to the Bussard RamJet, I was really clutching at straws to provide an example there (sorry). Of course it only (theoretically) works by utilising the matter in the spaces between the termination shock of stars, but the assumption behind that was that matter is being swept from these empty spaces by gravity and therefore to be functional the RamJet would have to acquire new matter generated from the vacuum, which was the way Bussard originally theorised it.

Perhaps a better example would be indicated by the Casimir Effect where the virtual particle pressure of empty space exceeds the pressure of empty space where particles cannot come into existence. This implies that there are situations where virtual particles may not perfectly annihilate and therefore may contribute to new matter. One of these situations is explained by Hawking Radiation which, as you say, will eventually evaporate a black hole.

As you will recall, Hawkings theory fell out of the question of whether information contained in matter was lost to the universe as it fell into a gravitational singularity. Hawking proved that at least some of the information was retained and liberated as Hawking Radiation.

You are also correct in that the net gain or loss in the case of a black hole (over a period of eternity) would be zero, but this is likely to be just one of the mechanisms where matter could be created.

reply to post by sgreco


I apologise that in many of my posts, I have strayed from the topic of the OP.

Perhaps what I am getting at (in a terribly round-about way) is that there are, and have been many interpretations of why there is such a diversity of life, all through history.

Many of these are held by very few adherents and so cannot compete with the louder voices of the two most popular world-views.

A few examples of alternates to the mainstream would be the concept that we are genetically engineered slaves of some "otherworldly" alien species.

or ...

The creations of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


or ...

All manner of other stuff, see Wikipedia's list of Creation Myths.

reply to post by chr0naut

Surely the "perfection" of God is subjective and its definition is also subject to interpretation.

No, it cannot be subjective or open to interpretation. You forget that God is, for believers, the ultimate ground of reality. There is no comparison or relativism: God is an Absolute, and absolutely perfect. I have already referred you to St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinus; here is Gottfried Liebniz, the great mathematician and philosopher, a Protestant:

The most widely accepted and meaningful notion we have of God is expressed well enough (by saying) that God is an absolutely perfect being; yet the consequences of these words are not sufficiently considered. And to penetrate more deeply into this matter, it is appropriate to remark that there are several entirely different perfections in nature, that God possesses all of them together, and that each of them belongs to Him in the highest degree.

– Liebniz, Discourse on Metaphysics, Ch. 1

I think that’s clear and straighforward, don’t you?

For instance "The law of the Lord is perfect" (from Psalm 19) means that God's law requires no amendment or explanation, is complete and satisfactory for its purpose. This does not preclude other laws from also being perfect also.

I’m afraid not. The Christian position is that all man-made things are imperfect. Even the world God made is imperfect, although that is said to be due to Man, not God.

Perfection as an attribute of God is attested to both by theists and by atheists.

*

I too believe that God, essentially, exists outside of time. This does not mean that He is barred from access to time or that He cannot operate within as well. As I (an essentially four dimensional person) can write into the essentially two dimensional world of a piece of paper, so can God affect a four dimensional existence from a higher dimensional existence without violating what we know of reality.

You are looking at it from the wrong viewpoint. From within the universe, your position seems to make sense. However, from God’s point of view, such dipping in and out of time compromises His absolute, unchanging perfection. It means God moves, and as anyone who has ever read the Scholastics knows, God is, what Aristotle called him, the Unmoved Mover. He can’t keep changing his mind and fiddling with His Creation whenever He feels like it – not if he wants to stay God.

Allow me a suggestion. It is impossible to debate God rationally from a theistic viewpoint and win. There are too many contradictions inherent in the basic definitions. Yet this does not preclude a belief that God Himself can resolve these contradictions out of His omnipotence and benevolence. That is where faith comes in. This is probably the most fruitful position for a believer; embracing it, however, means ceasing to debate matters of faith with unbelievers.

One is bound to choose between faith and reason. The only other way out of the trap is pure empiricism, which, unfortunately, offers no evidence for the existence of God but rather suggests He does not exist.

*

Perhaps a better example [of continuous creation] would be indicated by the Casimir Effect where the virtual particle pressure of empty space exceeds the pressure of empty space where particles cannot come into existence. This implies that there are situations where virtual particles may not perfectly annihilate and therefore may contribute to new matter.

The Casimir Effect is a puzzle nobody really understands [2], but I have never heard it asserted that the effect violates conservation laws. Do you have a reference for this?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Evolution cannot be ‘wrong’. We see it in action all around us.

However, the theory of evolution by natural selection could be wrong. Unlikely, but it’s possible.

In that case, then the alternative would be another scientific explanation, such as Lamarckism, which appears to fit the observed facts of evolution. The explanation would be falsifiable and unfalsified.

Or else one would have to believe in a divine Meddler who is constantly fiddling about with Creation, either because He didn’t get it right first time or because He has a severe case of OCD.

Star for you, friend. More people need to realize that "evolution" is not the concept in debate, but rather the mechanisms that drive it.

And it's important to note that it's already known that "...by Natural Selection" isn't the only game in town. Sexual selection has almost as heavy an impact. Genetic drift seems to be crucial in speciation. And i think it's safe to say that humans have enough of an impact at this point that artificial selection can be considered a factor in modern evolution.

reply to post by chr0naut

Thanks for your extensive reply.

You are welcome

I do not frequent Creationist or Intelligent Design websites.

That was an assumption on my part, and my apologies if I was mistaken.

I believe my opinions are based upon questions raised by conventional biology textbooks and discussion with geneticists, whom I will not name here.

It is not a negation of Evolutionary theory, but perhaps a hint that we do not yet have a full and complete understanding of the mechanism in a significant number of cases.

And that is fair to say.

This is one of the reasons that Evolution is a "Theory" instead of a "Law", because that would imply that there was nothing more to learn on the subject, and that can never be the case due to the mechanisms of conciousness and perception.

Everything in Science is a Theory, and can never become anything more THAN a theory, because a theory is at its core a field of study, a branch of observations, and a proposed mechanism to explain observed phenomenon.

What we SEE happening, that falls under the classification of the theory of evolution, is that over successive generations, breeding populations will adapt and change, through:

1. Individual mutations arising in single organisms.

2. Natural Selection by environmental pressures and reproductive selection acts upon these Individual changes, either limiting them, removing them from the breeding population, or spreading them through the breeding population (This is known as genetic drift)

3. When enough Incremental mutations are spread throughout a breeding population (by genetic drift), compared to it's original stock, or a geologically separated population that it diverged from, Cross fertilization is no longer possible between the two groups (This is known as Speciation)

All of these effects have been observed to have happened; The study OF these effects, how they work, what predictions we can make from them, Etcetera, is known as "The Theory of Evolution."

You are right to state that we do not know ALL of what Evolution entails (Evolution being a general theory of population morphology, or how breeding populations change over time) But we do know a Great Deal about how these things work, and furthermore we can actually prove that What is currently contained within the framework of the Theory of Evolution is demonstrably true, and does happen.

This by no means should be taken as an indication that we know EVERYTHING about the subject, we are still learning more and more mechanisms that we didn't previously know about, new cellular/Genetic interactions that produce Evolutionary changes that have not been incorporated into the Theory as a whole due to their not being discovered, etcetera, etcetera...

But this is the nature of science, it is a continuous process of discovery about the natural world, and how it works.

The basic unit of Any scientific theory is Observation.

First we must observe the natural world, or whatever subject we wish to know about.

We find something that happens, that we do not understand, and so, we attempt to understand it.

A hypothesis about HOW it happens is made.... this hypothesis is tested, extrapolated upon, retested, and conclusions are drawn if it seems to have merit.

We never stop testing these hypothesis, which is also the nature of science.

One of the Hypothesis of Evolution in it's early days, was that physical traits were passed on from parent to child by some unknown mechanism...

We did a lot of observing of breeding populations, and the hypothesis seemed to be correct.

We made some advances in microscopes, and eventually we discovered the MECHANISM through which these traits were passed on... DNA. the Genetic Code.

So, The hypothesis that traits are passed on from parent to child was demonstrated as being true, with the mechanism discovered, and all manner of observational evidence corroborating this hypothesis.

So, the hypothesis that is able to vindicate itself, and bear the brunt of peer review, is promoted to the Vaunted position of THEORY.

So now, we STUDY *HOW* traits are passed on from parent to child, the specifics of Genetic recombination and mutation, the probabilities of certain traits being dominant or recessive, the probability of a certain advantageous trait within a breeding population becoming dominant in that population, etcetera.

It's still just a theory, and it always will be... We will never know all that there is to know, but we will always know more than we did before.

I will, at some stage, put together a clearer and properly referenced summation of my theory that Evolution appears to occur at higher rates that natural selection and genetic drift can explain....

...This will be in a new thread as it is actually off-topic from the OP and will take me some time to compile.

I will be looking forward to it.

there is no alternative...

Caterpillar evolves into Butterfly. standard stuff.

i've never doubted for a second that this world is natural, and that things naturally evolve. life cycle.

reply to post by chr0naut


The problem with the idea of a creator you present is the paradox of variety.

If we are to assume that there is, in shorthand terms, a God who created all life and put it where he wanted it to be, then we have to ask, why is there so much variety in life? For instance, moles; Why are there moles, marsupial "moles," mole rats, and not one but two "moles" among the afrotheres (the golden mole of southern Africa and the tenrec "moles" of Madagascar)? Why not just one mole to do the "job" that a mole needs to do?

"Aha," you counter, "What if this god just loves the variety?"

Well then why are there so few moles? Why are there no sorts of birds that have filled the mole niche? Why aren't there any "moles" among caviomorph rodents in South America? Why restrict mole rats and tenrecs to Africa, and marsupial moles to Australia? Why not have a global mole free-for-all?

“I do not "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun. To say that there's "no proof" for evolution is very like saying that there's "no proof" that the earth revolves around the sun. Evolution has not been "proved," and it isn't taught in the schools as something that has been proved. It is invariably referred to as a theory, but in science a theory is not a conjecture that is "unproved," it is an organizing concept for evidence, and by this time, it has proved to be such an effective and persuasive organizing concept for the evidence gathered by so many earth and life sciences, that very, very, very few scientists doubt that evolution took place. Evolution makes sense of what we know about the world and about the community of life--and the theory that the world came into being all at once in its present form does not. It is untrue that the theory of evolution "completely denies the idea of God." It does nothing of the sort. Even the current pope recently acknowledged that. All it "completely denies" is that the world was created all at once, in its present form. If God is omnipotent, he could as easily have created a universe that evolved over billions of years as one that came into being instantaneously in the form we know.”

- Daniel Quinn

Well, 3 pages later and no one has managed to answer the question at all.

Unless a Creationist can step forward and answer it, I'm forced to assume they cannot. I guess this is the question that topples their house of cards. Sad really, so many of them assert all of this so passionately, it's a shame to think its all just a sham they dare not try to substantiate. I really thought even a few of them might have thought this all through.

Originally posted by sgreco
Well, 3 pages later and no one has managed to answer the question at all.

I count six specific questions in the OP and an additional seventh in its title.

Unless a Creationist can step forward and answer it, I'm forced to assume they cannot. I guess this is the question that topples their house of cards. Sad really, so many of them assert all of this so passionately, it's a shame to think its all just a sham they dare not try to substantiate. I really thought even a few of them might have thought this all through.

I am not quite sure which of the seven has been unanswered by subsequent posts.

Please specify exactly which question you feel is unanswered.