Should evolution be taught in schools? [Archive] - Page 6

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Again, I agree with JD and you. What I objected to was the incorrect statement that the moths proved evolution. But I still say NS only shows MICRO evolution; not MACRO evolution. Do you agree?
I've never heard it being used as PROOF of evolution - only as a piece of evolution. Can you show anywhere where it has been used in this fashion?

Creationists have no problem with change, either. Where we differ is the TYPE of change that we think takes place. Evolutionists say that in addition to micro-evolution changes, that MACRO evolution changes (fish to philosopher) can also take place. Creationists agree with micro, but disagree with macro. You need to define what you mean by "change", or I'll just say does the theory of evolution say that eventually I'll evolve into a Corvette? That's a change, too!

You pick out the most impossible things to make your points. :rolleyes:

All animals, fish and every living creature have a basic framework - unlike a human and a car. You can easily see how we could have evolved from a fish to a walking human if you actually look at it. You can also see how a one cell organism turns into a multi-ceill organism too. We all grow from two distinct cells - an egg and a sperm and grow into a human. During the embryonic stage we are indisinguishable from a fish, chicken, dog or any other animal. This is a result of the DNA that all animals share.

I really don't see why you have such a hard time accepting evolution other than the fact it would throw your beliefs into disarray.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Rian, I have no problem with the point that there are integrity problems with the peppered/birmingham moths - but where is the proof of your statement? I'm not 100% sure of this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that the moths subsisted partially on the lichen that grows on the bark. But yes - there are integrity problems with the example - science textbooks hardly ever, if at all, mention that there was a transitory/inter-mediate moth as well, that was between the black and the grey.

The problem I have with the moth experiment (besides its being improperly used to "prove" evolution, which we've cleared up) is that it is still being used in current textbooks, despite both serious flaws in the experiment and serious integrity issues with the photographs. To me, this is a HUGE indicator that evolutionists are so invested in their theory that they have stooped to deception. And that is certainly a major problem.

A brief description of flaws/problems with the experiment:
expected moth color ratios in places other than Birmingham and Dorset were NOT observed in heavily polluted Manchester (where one would expect to see mainly darks) and rural Wales and East Anglia (where one would expect to see mainly lights). So there must be other factors involved. Also, after anti-pollution laws passed, the number of darks decreased around London, as expected, but INCREASED in the south. Again, NOT what would be predicted, so the natural selection was not as major a factor as advertised.

Also, the role of lichens were exaggerated - when pollution went down, the reversal occurred in places, but WITHOUT the predicted return of lichens. Since the hiding places need to recover BEFORE the hider, the role of lichens was also overstated.

The above 2 problems with the experiment pointed to a deeper problem - Kettlewell's experiment, and most other experiments performed in the 60's and 70's, didn't even use the natural resting places of peppered moths! This is a HUGE problem with the experiment, and enough, IMO, to have it declared invalid. Kettlewell only released moths at night ONE TIME (June 18, 1955), then gave it up because of the associated problems. But peppered moths are night-flyers!! They normally find resting places on trees before dawn, and NOT on tree trunks. Kettlewell wrote "I admit that, under their own choice, many would have taken up position higher in the trees." But he assumed that he could ignore that point. MAJOR wrong methodology for a scientific experiment.

Before the 80's most investigators thought the same way as Kettlewell and even conducted their experiments with DEAD moths glued or pinned to tree trunks. Kettlewell thought this was a bad idea, to give him credit. Since the 80's, evidence shows that the natural resting place of the moth is beneath small, horizontal branches high up in the tree. Finnish zoologist Kauri Mikkola noted that "night-active moths, released in an illumination bright enough for the human eye, may well choose their resting sites as soon as possible and most probably atypically." (emphasis mine) And another person who had 25 years of field work found only ONE peppered moth naturally perched on a tree trunk - he concluded that they knew primarily "where the moths do not spend the day."

(to be continued - this post was getting pretty long)

RÃan

07-02-2003, 06:29 PM

Here's the refs:
J. A. Bishop, "An experimental study of the cline of industrial melanism in Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) between urban Liverpool and rual North Wales," Journal of Animal Ecology 41 (1972), pp. 209-243;

R. C. Steward, "Industrial and non-industrial melanism in the peppered moth, Biston betularia (L.)," Ecological Entomology 2 (1977), pp. 231-243

D. R. Lees, E. R. Creed, and L. G. Duckett, "Atmospheric pollution and industrial melanism," Heredity 30 (1073), pp. 227-232

Kettlewell's one attempt to release moths at dawn is described in : Bernard Kettlewell, The Evolution of Melanism, p. 129;

Kettlewell's quote is in : H. B. D. Kettlewell, "Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera,", Heridity 9 (1955), ppg. 323-342.

Research including dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks includes : C. A. Clark and P. M. Sheppard, "A local survey of the distribution of industrial melanic forms in the moth Biston betularia and estimates of the selective values of these in an industrial environment", Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 165 (1966), pp. 424-429

Kettlewell's misgivings about using dead moths is in the above-mentioned The Evolution of Melanism, p. 150

For evidence on the actual resting place of moths, see : K. Mikkola, "On the selective forces acting in the industrial melanism of Biston and Oligia moths (Lepidoptera: Geometridae and Noctuidae)," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 (1984), pp. 409-421

On the staged photographs - a 1975 photo using torpid live moths is in J. A. Bishop and Laurence M. Cook, "Moths, Melanism and Clean Air", Scientific American 232 (1975), pp. 90-99.

Ruinel

07-02-2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Creationists have no problem with change, either. Where we differ is the TYPE of change that we think takes place. Evolutionists say that in addition to micro-evolution changes, that MACRO evolution changes (fish to philosopher) can also take place. Creationists agree with micro, but disagree with macro.
But I have a problem with being told that a supernatural, omnipotent being 'poofed' the world and all it's creatures into being all at once. Where is the evidence of this sudden creation? There is none. :)

You need to define what you mean by "change", or I'll just say does the theory of evolution say that eventually I'll evolve into a Corvette? That's a change, too! :)
Don't be ridiculous. :rolleyes: You will not evolve into anything. Be real. The time involved is over generations and generations and generations. Some changes occur over a few generations, some take millions of years. And you will not 'evolve' into a corvette... though... if you evolved into a 1963 split window coupe, could you do so in my driveway? :D

MasterMothra

07-02-2003, 06:55 PM

i think the theory of evolution should be taught in schools, since its the best theory we have to offer at this time. i tend to favor this theory more than the others at this point in time, but i do admit there are a lot of holes to be filled.

remember that theories tend to evolve or die in time. take the big bang for instance. at first no one gave that theory a chance, but over time, with the help of hubbel, einstein and hawkings, it has grown into the most plausable explanation for the creation of the universe. even during its evolution, a lot of changes were made to the foundation of the theory. einstein admitted that he was wrong when he stated the universe must be static. hubbel pointed out that the universe was ever expanding and must therefore be dynamic and so on.

my vote is yes.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 07:07 PM

And here's a partial list of textbooks with varying degrees of inaccuracies (there are more) :
Miller and Levine, Biology, 2000 edition - includes faked photos of peppered moths on tree trunks, and calls Kettlewell's work "a classic demonstration of natual selection in action." (It should have been called UN-natural, for the above-mentioned reasons - moths are NOT naturally on tree-trunks during the day!)

Guttman, Biology, 1999 edition - has the photos, and calls the peppered moth "a classic contemporary case of natural selection."

Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, 1998 edition - repeats the inaccurate statement about lichens being the main factor.

Starr and Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 1998 - talks about lichens making a comeback after pollution controls, and THEN moths reverting back to lighter colors. This was NOT the case in many situations!

And the real kicker: A Canadian textbook writer who KNEW the pictures were staged used them anyway. His justification? "You have to look at the audience. How convoluted do you want to make it for a first time learner?" High school students "are still very concrete in the way they learn. The advantage of this example of natural selection is that it is extremely visual. ..... We want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically." (Bob Ritter) - this quotation is from Carla Yu, "Moth-eaten Darwinism: A disproven textbook case of natural selection refuses to die," Alberta Report Newsmagazine Vol. 26, No. 15 (April 5, 1999), pp. 38-39.

Well, visual, yes; but containing some major problems that should cause it to be discarded.

I don't have any problem with natural selection! But I do have problems with situations like this where scientific integrity has been sacrificed. At the VERY least, keep the experiment but discuss the major problems with it, like the fact that the moths are NIGHT-FLYERS! and DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS!, and caption the pictures something like "A picture of a moth placed on a tree trunk to show how it blends in/stands out. However, moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

I think that if any experiment by creationists was found to be this flawed, it would have made front-page news immediately and have been immediately thrown out. Wouldn't you guys agree? Why not the same standard? :(

RÃan

07-02-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've never heard it being used as PROOF of evolution - only as a piece of evolution. Can you show anywhere where it has been used in this fashion?
Really? because I have, in casual conversation. But on this thread, here's one - Lief (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=252734#post252734). Lief later specified micro evolution, and I think in his case it was just a bit of carelessness, but the problem is that people HEAR things like that and then assume "evolution" means the ENTIRE theory, INCLUDING macro-evolution.

You pick out the most impossible things to make your points. :rolleyes:
But JD, that's exactly WHY I picked that example. My point was that saying "evolution is change" is not enough! It's silly to think I would change into a car; I agree! So you need to define what type of change you're talking about. I also think it's silly to think a fish could change into a human, but you and I differ on this point :) But you MUST define terms if you're going to be able to talk about anything, wouldn't you agree?

During the embryonic stage we are indisinguishable from a fish, chicken, dog or any other animal.
I strongly disagree, and I have pictures showing major differences between embryos at 5 different stages, including fertilized egg; early cleavage; end of cleavage; gastrulation; and what Haeckel incorrectly called the "first" stage. But could we defer this until we finish with the moth? I'd like to hit the embryo thing next.

I really don't see why you have such a hard time accepting evolution other than the fact it would throw your beliefs into disarray.
oh JD, JD - why don't you believe that I'm speaking with integrity when I say that in my opinion, creationism fits the data better than evolution? :( :( Would you please do me that courtesy? I would MUCH rather be called "stupid" by you than be called "dishonest" or "deceitful" :( :( It has nothing to do with my beliefs! I truthfully believe the scientific data fits creationism better! You've probably come across some creationists before that are dishonest; but this is ME! I have almost 3000 posts here, and you've seen many of them! When have I been deceitful? PLEASE judge people on their individual merits!

I tell you again, JD, I honestly think creationism is the best fit for the data. Will you do me the courtesy of believing me? I don't mind if you disagree, but I DO mind the implications of dishonesty (IOW, that I only am supporting creationism because of my Christian beliefs).

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
At the VERY least, keep the experiment but discuss the major problems with it, like the fact that the moths are NIGHT-FLYERS! and DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS!, and caption the pictures something like "A picture of a moth placed on a tree trunk to show how it blends in/stands out. However, moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

Actually - I have seen MANY moths on tree trunks and I have seen many flying during the day. Just last Thursday at Great Adventure there were 5 of them flying around together while my cousins and I waited in line for a ride.

Some kinds of moths are nocturnal - but not ALL moths.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 07:24 PM

JD - did I say all moths were night-flyers? No, only the moth in the Kettlewell experiment!

Why are you doing this to me?

Did you see my post above yours?

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
JD - did I say all moths were night-flyers? No, only the moth in the Kettlewell experiment!

Why are you doing this to me?

What am i doing? All I'm doing is disagreeing with you.

Did you see my post above yours?
No - because we cross posted. But thanks for telling me you posted again.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
What am i doing? All I'm doing is disagreeing with you.

You honestly thought that I meant that ALL moths NEVER rest on tree trunks, and ALL moths all nocturnal? That's what I meant by "what are you doing".

I SHOULD have said, for my sample caption, "....However, THESE moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Really? because I have, in casual conversation. But on this thread, here's one - Lief (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=252734#post252734). Lief later specified micro evolution, and I think in his case it was just a bit of carelessness, but the problem is that people HEAR things like that and then assume "evolution" means the ENTIRE theory, INCLUDING macro-evolution.

Those are points on a thread - not in text books made by scientists.

But JD, that's exactly WHY I picked that example. My point was that saying "evolution is change" is not enough! It's silly to think I would change into a car; I agree! So you need to define what type of change you're talking about. I also think it's silly to think a fish could change into a human, but you and I differ on this point :) But you MUST define terms if you're going to be able to talk about anything, wouldn't you agree?

Not ridiculous terms. The thing is that animals all have things in common - all man is is an animal. We are nothing more.

I strongly disagree, and I have pictures showing major differences between embryos at 5 different stages, including fertilized egg; early cleavage; end of cleavage; gastrulation; and what Haeckel incorrectly called the "first" stage. But could we defer this until we finish with the moth? I'd like to hit the embryo thing next.

I disagree - because I've seen them too.

oh JD, JD - why don't you believe that I'm speaking with integrity when I say that in my opinion, creationism fits the data better than evolution? :( :( Would you please do me that courtesy? I would MUCH rather be called "stupid" by you than be called "dishonest" or "deceitful" :( :( It has nothing to do with my beliefs! I truthfully believe the scientific data fits creationism better! You've probably come across some creationists before that are dishonest; but this is ME! I have almost 3000 posts here, and you've seen many of them! When have I been deceitful? PLEASE judge people on their individual merits!

I'm not saying your decietful - I just don't see how you can say that the evidence points to creationism better than evolution. You just keep saying that you can't see how man could have evolved slowly through billions of years from one celled organisms - but are yet perfectly happy to accept that we just came out of no where. You haven't presented any evidence yet that supports creationism other then things that try to DISPROVE evolution. You said you were going to present the evidence when you came back - but you haven't. It's time you laid your hand on the table.

I tell you again, JD, I honestly think creationism is the best fit for the data. Will you do me the courtesy of believing me? I don't mind if you disagree, but I DO mind the implications of dishonesty (IOW, that I only am supporting creationism because of my Christian beliefs).
Again - you haven't submitted any real prove for creationism - only things that you say makes you question evolution. In a past post you said you believe in creationism because it fits more in with Gods design. If that isn't bringing religion and belief into your argument - please tell me what it is.

jerseydevil

07-02-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
You honestly thought that I meant that ALL moths NEVER rest on tree trunks, and ALL moths all nocturnal? That's what I meant by "what are you doing".

You kept saying that moths are nocturnal and don't rest on trees. What was I supposed to think you meant?

I SHOULD have said, for my sample caption, "....However, THESE moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."
Well if you're going to pick apart various text books for not laying out ALL the information and making numerous footnotes so everything is perfectly understood - I think it would have been best if you did the same thing you expect others to do.

MasterMothra

07-02-2003, 07:49 PM

i have a problem seeing how creationism offers any scientific evidence to support its position. i wouldnt even go as far as to call creationism a theory; its a religious belief at best. creationism isnt even in the same league as evolution when it come to the legitimacy of the two. one is determined by faith alone, whereas the other is based solely on scientific study.

RÃan

07-02-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You kept saying that moths are nocturnal and don't rest on trees. What was I supposed to think you meant?
The context was CLEARLY the peppered moth in the Kettlewell experiment. I thought that was extremely clear. I guess it wasn't clear for you. Did anyone else think that I was saying that ALL moths are nocturnal and NO moths rest on tree trunks?

Here's some samples from my posts -

by Rian
At the VERY least, keep the experiment but discuss the major problems with it, like the fact that the moths are NIGHT-FLYERS! and DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS!, and caption the pictures something like "A picture of a moth placed on a tree trunk to show how it blends in/stands out. However, moths do not naturally rest on tree trunks."

Now JD, when I say "the experiment", isn't it clear that I mean the Kettlewell experiment? And the Kettlewell experiment was with peppered moths! It's the only one I've been talking about in this topic!

by Rian
The above 2 problems with the experiment pointed to a deeper problem - Kettlewell's experiment, and most other experiments performed in the 60's and 70's, didn't even use the natural resting places of peppered moths! This is a HUGE problem with the experiment, and enough, IMO, to have it declared invalid. Kettlewell only released moths at night ONE TIME (June 18, 1955), then gave it up because of the associated problems. But peppered moths are night-flyers!! They normally find resting places on trees before dawn, and NOT on tree trunks.
How can "But peppered moths are night-flyers" be any clearer???

Over and over again, I refer to Kettlewell and peppered moths. How could you think I am saying all moths are nocturnal and none rest on tree trunks during the day? Does anyone else think I meant that?

by JD
Well if you're going to pick apart various text books for not laying out ALL the information and making numerous footnotes so everything is perfectly understood - I think it would have been best if you did the same thing you expect others to do.
No, JD, my objection was with: not disclosing major problems in a scientific experiment that is cited in many, many textbooks. It's an INTEGRITY issue, not a simple slip-up, that I'm objecting to.

Ruinel

07-02-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by MasterMothra
i have a problem seeing how creationism offers any scientific evidence to support its position. i wouldnt even go as far as to call creationism a theory; its a religious belief at best. creationism isnt even in the same league as evolution when it come to the legitimacy of the two. one is determined by faith alone, whereas the other is based solely on scientific study.
I agree... and since I vote... I say... no creationism in my local schools. :)

RÃan

07-02-2003, 08:10 PM

RÃan

07-02-2003, 08:12 PM

Ruinel, if you've followed the moth discussion, do YOU think that I was saying all moths are noctural and don't spend the day on tree trunks? I thought I was very clear, but maybe I'm not as clear as I think....

RÃan

07-02-2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Those are points on a thread - not in text books made by scientists. My point was that it's a common misconception that the Kettlewell experiment "proves" evolution. You asked for an example - I gave it - and now you're ignoring it? Unfair, JD. :(

Not ridiculous terms. The thing is that animals all have things in common - all man is is an animal. But why ridiculous (if you're gonna push me)? Evolution says life came from non-life, doesn't it? So why not the other way, too? My point is that you need to define terms like "change" - do you agree with this?

I disagree - because I've seen them too. OK, we'll discuss it later, then, if that's ok with you. I suggest we finish with the PEPPERED MOTH first.

I'm not saying your decietful - I just don't see how you can say that the evidence points to creationism better than evolution. You just keep saying that you can't see how man could have evolved slowly through billions of years from one celled organisms - but are yet perfectly happy to accept that we just came out of no where. You haven't presented any evidence yet that supports creationism other then things that try to DISPROVE evolution.
As I said before - BOTH evolutionism and creationism have a starting point of SOMETHING coming out of "no where"! Where did the primoral soup come from? I'll grant you a primoral soup coming out of nowhere, if you'll grant me a God coming out of nowhere. There is NO difference - we ARE here, so somewhere, at some time, something obviously came from somewhere.

You said you were going to present the evidence when you came back - but you haven't. It's time you laid your hand on the table. Maybe you missed it, or just misunderstood it - you and I certainly seem to have communication problems, unfortunately! I said after thinking about it, I thought it was better to start a new thread, after all, about evidence for creationism, but FIRST I was going to finish up with the topic of THIS THREAD, which was about teaching evolution in schools.

Don't tell me what to do, JD ("It's time you laid your hand on the table" indeed! :rolleyes: ) - you have no authority over me. Or go ahead and tell me what to do, but it's just a waste of your (virtual) breath, because I'll ignore it, unless I think it's the right thing to do. You are being extremely unfair, IMO - look at all the people asking me questions, and how I answer them carefully, thoughtfully and at great length - and if I don't answer them, I sometimes get complaints of "you're ignoring me" or "you don't have an answer". If I start the evidence thread, will you then accuse me of ignoring your posts on this thread? Where will it stop, JD? You are being really antagonistic towards me, IMO, and the others on this thread are not. They understand that discussions of this sort take time, and that also the person with a minority opinion will require more time, because he/she will get more questions from more people. Don't you see how many pending questions I have? How many do YOU have? I treat people with respect, but I won't take flak from people, either. And YOU are being very unfair to me, IMO.

Again - you haven't submitted any real prove for creationism - only things that you say makes you question evolution. In a past post you said you believe in creationism because it fits more in with Gods design. If that isn't bringing religion and belief into your argument - please tell me what it is.
OK, here it is for you again - by Rian
I tell you again, JD, I honestly think creationism is the best fit for the data. Will you do me the courtesy of believing me? I don't mind if you disagree, but I DO mind the implications of dishonesty (IOW, that I only am supporting creationism because of my Christian beliefs).
Is that clear? I believe creationism is the best fit - independently of my Christian beliefs! I also believe that creationism fits in with my Christian beliefs, but that's a COMPLETELY different topic.

JD - Will you believe me, or not? I don't care if you answer anything else in this post, but please answer me this: do you believe me or not (that I believe creationism is the best fit to the scientific data, independently of my Christian beliefs.) Yes or no? Will you believe me, or do you choose to call me a liar?

RÃan

07-02-2003, 08:43 PM

I have to go make dinner now, so I need to log off for awhile.

I saw several good points and questions, esp. from JD and Hobbit, a few pages back, but I don't know how I'll be able to get to them now. I'll try to touch on a few if we can finish up with the Peppered Moth (you know, the one that's nocturnal and doesn't rest on tree trunks during the day ;) ) I'm really trying my best, but I'm so outnumbered that it's impossible to answer all questions/comments directed towards me. Thanks to everyone that has worked to keep this thread polite and logical and scientific. And special thanks to Cass, for being encouraging and understanding and patient with me.

Ruinel

07-02-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Ruinel, if you've followed the moth discussion, do YOU think that I was saying all moths are noctural and don't spend the day on tree trunks? I thought I was very clear, but maybe I'm not as clear as I think....
Sorry... I was not following your moth discussion. I only said I agreed with the moths as examples of natural selection.

HOBBIT

07-03-2003, 01:08 AM

Ah I see what the moth thing is now.

if you arent trying to disprove evolution, what are you trying to do? Natural selection does happen and it is only part of evolution. It seems like you are trying to prove creation by trying to disprove evolution. If not, what then?

I'm not telling you, but I am strongly suggesting that you get to posting your proof of creation. you should start that new topic.
We have yet to see your proof. It has been like what 3 or 4 weeks since you said you would start posting it? ;) I know you have a life, but so do we.

Take your time but don't take too much time.

jerseydevil

07-03-2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
My point was that it's a common misconception that the Kettlewell experiment "proves" evolution. You asked for an example - I gave it - and now you're ignoring it? Unfair, JD. :(

I'm not ignoring them. But where has it ever been stated that the experiment PROVES evolution. NO where have have I ever seen them state that. The situation demonstrates natural selection - which DOES occur and is a PART of evolution.

But why ridiculous (if you're gonna push me)? Evolution says life came from non-life, doesn't it? So why not the other way, too? My point is that you need to define terms like "change" - do you agree with this?

Actually - evolution itself doesn't say anything about where life came from in the very beginning. Evolution only addresses how life evolved from single cell to multi-cell to animals and ultimately man. it is possible that some chemical reaction occurred that brought on single celled organisms. All we are is chemical compounds - everything in our body is found in rocks, air and water.

As I said before - BOTH evolutionism and creationism have a starting point of SOMETHING coming out of "no where"! Where did the primoral soup come from? I'll grant you a primoral soup coming out of nowhere, if you'll grant me a God coming out of nowhere. There is NO difference - we ARE here, so somewhere, at some time, something obviously came from somewhere.

Evolution itself doesn't say life started out of no where. God is supposed to be "always has been - always will" - so why not the universe in some form? Why does there have to be a god?

Maybe you missed it, or just misunderstood it - you and I certainly seem to have communication problems, unfortunately! I said after thinking about it, I thought it was better to start a new thread, after all, about evidence for creationism, but FIRST I was going to finish up with the topic of THIS THREAD, which was about teaching evolution in schools.

I saw that - but you seemed to not be addressing the issue of whether evolution should be taught in school or not. There is no question that it should BE taught

Don't tell me what to do, JD ("It's time you laid your hand on the table" indeed! :rolleyes: ) - you have no authority over me. Or go ahead and tell me what to do, but it's just a waste of your (virtual) breath, because I'll ignore it, unless I think it's the right thing to do. You are being extremely unfair, IMO - look at all the people asking me questions, and how I answer them carefully, thoughtfully and at great length - and if I don't answer them, I sometimes get complaints of "you're ignoring me" or "you don't have an answer". If I start the evidence thread, will you then accuse me of ignoring your posts on this thread? Where will it stop, JD? You are being really antagonistic towards me, IMO, and the others on this thread are not. They understand that discussions of this sort take time, and that also the person with a minority opinion will require more time, because he/she will get more questions from more people. Don't you see how many pending questions I have? How many do YOU have? I treat people with respect, but I won't take flak from people, either. And YOU are being very unfair to me, IMO.

I'm not being unfair - but you kept on saying you have proof. So far you have stated before in past posts that you don't feel evolution makes sense - because it isn't eligent and "godlike" -= not your exact words - but currently I don't have time to go back to get the post. (see post below where I quote your statement)

OK, here it is for you again -
Is that clear? I believe creationism is the best fit - independently of my Christian beliefs! I also believe that creationism fits in with my Christian beliefs, but that's a COMPLETELY different topic.

That is not what you said earlier in your support of creationism. You brought god into your argument.

JD - Will you believe me, or not? I don't care if you answer anything else in this post, but please answer me this: do you believe me or not (that I believe creationism is the best fit to the scientific data, independently of my Christian beliefs.) Yes or no? Will you believe me, or do you choose to call me a liar?
I beleive you may think that it is independent - but I don't think that is really the case. I think you need to believe in creationism because of your religious beliefs. Sorry - but from some of your past posts - it has made this clear.

jerseydevil

07-03-2003, 01:49 AM

Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....

Page 61 (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5876&perpage=20&pagenumber=61)

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence.....

You mention god a lot in there in support of creationism. You question why god would create through evolution also, which I find very unscientific.

MasterMothra

07-03-2003, 03:01 AM

ps - hi MM! Nice to see you again! Sorry I can't talk about your posts now, I have a zillion pending questions to answer first, and sadly, charges of ignoring posts if I don't get to them right away.

take your time rian, theres no hurry.

you dont have to answer all the posts. answer the ones you want and forget the others, thats what i do, especially with all this talk about moths, hehehe. i figured ole windgem and wayscarer would be around to help you.

i think there should be another topic dealing with creationism and the other theories about our origins

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't understand what you mean by the "Is every non-conformity in the fossil record...." sentence. And I don't understand how you put the Flood and creation at the same time. Could you explain?

Non-conformities are gaps in rock stratigraphy (eroded levels - hence gaps in the fossil record).

Creationism claims the mass extinctions are part of the flood event. The expression of the pefect designer destroying his creations, I suppose.

GrayMouser

07-03-2003, 11:18 AM

Rian - nice to see you back, hope you enjoyed your trip to the Grand Canyon witnessing the millions of years of slow gradual carving of the rocks ( or do you still believe that all that was done in a few weeks/months?)

Peppered moths...
OK, first of all there's a difference between 'faked' and 'staged' when it comes to wildlife photography. Almost all pictures you see of insects are staged, because it is very difficult to get pictures of such small fast-moving creatures in natural habitats.

A picture of a wasp laying eggs on a caterpillar might be obtained by a photographer hanging around the bush waiting for the right opportunity; more likely is they'll put a caterpillar on a bush that it normally inhabits, and turn a wasp loose near it.

The pictures are not 'faked' in that they show the actual natural behavior, but they are staged.

The illustrations of the peppered moth are the same (I remember them very clearly from my biology classes); they were staged to give a clear example.

The objection to the staging comes with regard to the natural resting places of the moths; however the leading authority on the subject (Majerus) shows that the favorite resting place is at a trunk/branch joint, followed by the trunk- the very place you suggest that they don't rest. Info available at

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

scroll down till you hit the peppered moth section

BTW Rian if you have actually looked up and read e.g.

J. A. Bishop, "An experimental study of the cline of industrial melanism in Biston betularia (L.) (Lepidoptera) between urban Liverpool and rual North Wales," Journal of Animal Ecology 41 (1972), pp. 209-243;

more power to you;

if however you are quoting from a secondary source, such as a Creationist author, you should indicate that that is where your references come from.

[

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 11:35 AM

Kettlewells' experiements are of historical interest. His marking and releasing of moth species and recapturing (using light traps) and counting them was positively brilliant. Some of these techniques are still used today (marking or tagging). In my college biology book his work is presented in the historical evolution section as opposed to the modern evolutional theory section. His work was significant but the theory of evolution in no way depends on it for proof. What then it the point of denigrating his work? It was 1845 after all and he did show natural selection quite scientifically.

GrayMouser

07-03-2003, 11:56 AM

GrayMouser - (drat! I keep spelling it "grey" - is that an American vs. British thing?)

Well, the AmE version is gray, Americans being somewhat more sensible about spelling our ridiculous language.

After fifteen years of teaching "American" I have adapted to using AmE spelling; though I note that, in my clashes on politics with JD I (quite unconsciously) reverted back to BrE :)

However, since my name comes from my favorite fantasy hero (small, fast, smart, slightly kinky) created by (American) Fritz Leiber, the Gray sp. is correct

IMO, saying macro is just "more" micro is like saying: "I can observe my hair changing from brown to gray (micro evolution), and look, I can even use hair coloring stuff to change it to magenta! (micro evolution with scientific intervention)- so therefore I think given lots of time, my hair will change into arms (macro evolution)." Iimproper extrapolation, because arms represent a gain in information, not just a change of already-present features or a mutation keeping things on the same level (ie, hair is still hair).

You're confusing change with evolution. Neither this example (sadly occurring in me too) nor the typing has anything to do with it , anymore than a tree shedding it's leaves does.

As has been pointed out, over and over, evolution is the accumulation of change over generations.

GrayMouser

07-03-2003, 12:01 PM

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And here's comments on the rest of Cirdan's post...

But in that example, Cirdan, there is an intelligent designer behind the process!! Acc'd to evolutionism, there ISN'T intelligence behind the process, just chance and time. So why is that example any good in this situation? The intermediates, by def., had to be more SUCCESSFUL to be selected.

Major changes, such as air breathing versus water, would be diferently successful, wereas better air breathing would be competatively successful and thus replace prototypical air-breathers rapidly through micro evolutionary steps instead of macro. The use of the ID designer is not the point. It is the scarcity of fossils or prototypical types that is the point. Have you ever been fossil hunting? I was the only person in a month of field camp to find a trilobite.

[quote][b]
But my MAIN objection (that I haven't even covered here yet in any detail) is the HUGE improbability of "beneficial mutations" that ADD genetic info (it's NEVER been observed), which the whole macro-evolution scheme depends on.

How long do you think the odds are? My biology book puts it at less that 10,000 to 1. A single cockroach lays a million eggs a year times number of female cockroaches times 100,000,000 years. That's a pretty large number. More complex species would have more complex DNA given rise to greater change of mutation.

I'm not sure how you would expect the observation and I don't know that it has not been indirectly observed. I think it would be hard to observe it as it happens if that's what you mean.

And even GIVEN some beneficial mutations, your def. of natural selection means that they were more successful, and they had to at least be around enough to breed and make more "new" critters, which then had to have MORE beneficial mutations, etc. It's accumulated beneficial changes. It looks like you're leaning to the punctuated equilibrium idea, which is basically that there is no record of the changes in the fossil record because the changes took place very rapidly. Well, that's an interesting assumption, but it certainly isn't SUPPORTED by the fossil record by existing fossils, except in the sense that yes, there are NOT lots of (if any) intermediates. And support by absense of evidence seems a little unscientific.

The idea of PE is derived from the fossil record which shows periods of greater and lesser stasis. It is a well decumented idea with a good deal of evidence.

GrayMouser

07-03-2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....
<snip>

You mention god a lot in there in support of creationism. You question why god would create through evolution also, which I find very unscientific.

Rian said in the quote snipped above...

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't - I honestly don't. And I haven't even brought up many of my objections yet! And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway? I think the creation story as described in Genesis is more elegant and consistent with the nature of God, and I think it is supported by scientific evidence.

There's two different points here.

1) She doesn't believe the evidence on its own merits.

2) She doesn't think that God would use Evolution, based on her understanding of the Creator's psychology.

Point 1 doesn't (logically) have anything to do with religious belief; it's entirely consistent for an atheist to adopt this attitude.

Point 2 doesn't (logically) have anything to do with science or evidence; who knows what the Creator was thinking?

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
(responses to Cirdan's post - con't)

If I thought that evolution was really strongly supported by the evidence, I would be more open to this God-driven evolution idea. But I just don't...() And why WOULD God choose to create thru evolution, anyway?
Why would god create a process mechanism and not use it? Do you propose that god supercedes his own physical laws? Then we are not even close to the realm of science. Resorting to magical explainations is pure metaphysics and has no place in science. What is a more intelligent design; one that adapts and grows in response to any possible environment, or one that requires making huge numbers of creations manually of which most fail?

Why in the world would God tell them about DNA? That idea doesn't make sense....WHy would he bother to explain creation at all if it is not comprehesible to the listener? The biblical creation stories make no sense. Why does god need to rest? If he can create everything is just seven days, why not all at once? How long is a day when the earth hasn't been created; 24 hours still?

IMO, relies on "missing information", and about the Paluxy(sp) footprints - one of the most incredibly telling bits of info I found on a internet search I did on the subject was an evolutionist saying something like "Since we KNOW that humans didn't co-exist with dinosaurs, THEREFORE these CANNOT be human footprints". If THAT isn't "retreating from new discoveries", I don't know what is. Would you agree? It is entirely irrelevant whether or not they were found to be valid! The point is that he was unwilling to consider their validity ONLY because the current theory said it wasn't possible!!

Have you seen these footprints? One oval depression in a rock here and there. They don't even look like footprints. Find some human remains in the same age rock wich dinosaur remains and we will all be convinced. I've seen fossil human footprints in volcanic ash but at least there were human remains at that level to correlate the prints. And they occured serially, not just one here or there.

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The problem I see with macro ev. vs. micro ev. is HUGE - it's beneficial mutations causing increase of information - the so-called "fish to philosophers" thing. IOW, grossly (in the scientific sense of the word) improper extrapolation. Change has boundaries - when I first started typing, it was about 10 wpm; now I type at about 90 wpm (fast little sucker, ain't I?). Does that mean in another 20 years I'll type at 200 wpm, and in another 20 years I'll type at 400 wpm? No. I think there are boundaries to change.
There are boudaries to your abilities in typing (muscular response, kinetic transfer, the qwerty keyboard). You analogy is not fact. Anaolgies are alternate ways of exprewssing ideas not ideas in and of themselves. This analogy fails as there is no identified limit to change in the original idea being demonstrated. A better analogy would be dictionaries. What limit is there to the number of words that can be added or deleted over time? None. What limit is there to the length of a word? none (think organic chemistry nomenclature).

This "'fish to philosophers' thing" is one one these so called "common sense" arguements that has no real basis in fact but is meant to sound appealling to the layman.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 12:57 PM

(hey Cirdan and GrayMouser, you messy fellows :) Could you please go back and edit your posts? My quotes and your responses are all jumbled together! And tho I imagine they're having a nice time ("pass the cream and sugar, would you, luv?" "Right, and here's a biscuit, too!"), it's hard to read the posts, so could you please segregate them?)

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:09 PM

(...and btw, for those who are complaining that I didn't start with the evidence (looks in the direction of .... oh, nevermind!), I DID start, so there :p Here's where I started: first evidence post (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=260747#post260747). So there! :p )

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
Ah I see what the moth thing is now.

if you arent trying to disprove evolution, what are you trying to do? Natural selection does happen and it is only part of evolution. It seems like you are trying to prove creation by trying to disprove evolution. If not, what then?
As I said several times :), my point with the moth thing is that it shows a problem with scientific integrity on the part of evolutionists (not all evolutionists, but I think with the field in general, since it is still in current textbooks). This is such a MAJOR textbook example (at least in my time, and since current textbooks were cited, I think it's still a big example), and there are some MAJOR flaws in the technique (the biggest being that the PEPPERED MOTHS are nocturnal!! and the vast majority of predation tests were performed during the DAY!!! and altho in Birmingham the coloration percentages tracked with pollution, in many areas, the colorations were EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE to what was predicted!! so much for the hypothesis being a good predictor!), that I think it's a lack of scientific integrity to continue to use the experiment as a textbook example. And I think it shows that evolutionist scientists are unscientificially vested in the theory, to the point of not being willing to throw out a flawed experiment because it's such a nice visual way to get across an idea they believe is true. And that's a serious scientific integrity problem, don't you think?

I'm not telling you, but I am strongly suggesting that you get to posting your proof of creation. you should start that new topic.
We have yet to see your proof. It has been like what 3 or 4 weeks since you said you would start posting it? ;) I know you have a life, but so do we.
See previous post - I DID start, and we discussed it, then I went on vacation.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I saw that - but you seemed to not be addressing the issue of whether evolution should be taught in school or not. There is no question that it should BE taught
I said it should be taught, but that some major errors in experiments and data being used as supporting evidence should be cleared up, in the name of scientific integrity.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Here it is where you state why you don't believe in evolution....[quote from Rian]
You mention god a lot in there in support of creationism. You question why god would create through evolution also, which I find very unscientific.
But why do you ignore where I said, in that very quote, that I didn't think the EVIDENCE supported evolution? Perhaps I should have been a little clearer and said SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (altho I have often said it, I didn't say it in that quote; I thought it was obvious I was talking about scientific evidence).

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by MasterMothra
take your time rian, theres no hurry.

you dont have to answer all the posts. answer the ones you want and forget the others, thats what i do, especially with all this talk about moths, hehehe. i figured ole windgem and wayscarer would be around to help you.

i think there should be another topic dealing with creationism and the other theories about our origins

Yeah, you're right, MM - there's no way I can answer them all, which is v. frustrating to me! But I suppose I need to be more realistic.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Kettlewells' experiements are of historical interest. His marking and releasing of moth species and recapturing (using light traps) and counting them was positively brilliant. Some of these techniques are still used today (marking or tagging). In my college biology book his work is presented in the historical evolution section as opposed to the modern evolutional theory section. His work was significant but the theory of evolution in no way depends on it for proof. What then it the point of denigrating his work? It was 1845 after all and he did show natural selection quite scientifically.

But it's not "natural" selection if the species being experimented on is nocturnal, and torpid during the day, and were released during the day when they are NOT normally flying, and choose unnatural resting places because of this, and are then eaten in unnatural circumstances. Would you agree?

Please don't think I'm trying to knock the guy down - I'm not. There is NOTHING personal about it, and I read about the marking, etc. and thought many of the things he did were careful and intelligent. However, as detailed in my post a few posts above this one, there were some big flaws in technique (NOT in the person! There is nothing personal here!) that IMO, should either cause the experiment to be removed from textbooks, or put into the historical section (like in your book) BUT WITH DESCRIPTIONS of the areas in which the experiment was flawed, because it is really misrepresenting the results otherwise, which is NOT scientific.

Would you agree?

RÃan

07-03-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Non-conformities are gaps in rock stratigraphy (eroded levels - hence gaps in the fossil record).
ok, thanks :)

Creationism claims the mass extinctions are part of the flood event. The expression of the pefect designer destroying his creations, I suppose. [/B] No, actually the expression of man's free-will choice to sin, and its terrible and tragic consequences :( , which in no way impugn the character of God. (see our long discussion on another thread of free will, which MM was in, BTW)

RÃan

07-03-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Rian - nice to see you back, hope you enjoyed your trip to the Grand Canyon witnessing the millions of years of slow gradual carving of the rocks ( or do you still believe that all that was done in a few weeks/months?)
Thanks, GM :) Nice to be back. Yes, the Grand Cyn was incredible! I haven't seen it for about 10 years. It's truly an awesome sight. The colors are spectacular, and change as the day goes along. Have you been able to visit there? I also saw some trilobite fossils and thought of you people! :) I think it probably took longer than a few weeks or months to form, but also I think it was at least partly there to begin with and was just enlarged via catastrophism (I doubt if God created the world entirely flat and featureless, IOW - too boring!). But this is just meant to share friendly thoughts and not to be scientific, so please don't quote me on that, people - please do me the courtesy of asking for a formal statement if you want to quote me on this subject :)

Peppered moths...
You know, GM, I read the entire section on Peppered Moths from the link you provided. I thought much of it was well-written, but I was really saddened by the unscientific tone of it - I was REALLY shocked when they used words like "frantic" and "muttering" of Wells, and when they actually used "freaked out", shock turned to disgust. Did you read the whole thing? What did you think of the use of those words in a supposedly scientific review? Why do people feel they need to use those words? I wish they wouldn't, and that they would confine themselves to scientific analysis in a scientific article.

It is clearly an evolutionist site; should I ignore it, like some do with creationist sites? No, I think I'll look at the data and ignore the use of insulting words. And I think the data is that their experts disagree with Well's experts. They basically cited only 3 authors - Majerus, Grant and Cook - and said their authors were better. I think that other authors disagree.

Also I found the sample size of n=47 to be pretty insignificant - do you?

I think that they did, however, properly point out that Wells' use of the subtitle "Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks" was incorrect, since some moths have been observed on tree trunks. I think it would be better to say something like "Peppered Moths don't typically rest on tree trunks", or prob. something even stronger, like "hardly ever", just to be exact. However, as a subtitle for a section, it might be fine, because he does, in the text, qualify that statement. And certainly as a generalization, the subtitle is true.

I don't recall their addressing the daytime torpid issue, tho, and they seemed to revert to the "well, natural selection happens, so there's no harm in using the example" rationalization. Well, IMO, if it happens (which I think it does), then go out there and do a proper experiment in honor of the many things Kettlewell did right, but don't continue using a flawed one.

BTW Rian if you have actually looked up and read .....
if however you are quoting from a secondary source, such as a Creationist author, you should indicate that that is where your references come from.
I'll consider your request, GM, if you remove the phrase "such as a Creationist author" :) because that implies to me that you think that Creationist authors either (1) make up their quotes, or (2) can't get the references right. :) I don't think you meant it that way (I certainly HOPE you didn't mean it that way) but to me, it's an important thing to clear up.

BTW, I wondered where you got your name from - I'm glad you explained. I don't remember GrayMouser, but I liked Mighty Mouse when I was growing up - do you remember him?

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But it's not "natural" selection if the species being experimented on is nocturnal, and torpid during the day, and were released during the day when they are NOT normally flying, and choose unnatural resting places because of this, and are then eaten in unnatural circumstances. Would you agree?

Only if moths in "natural circumstances" are never eaten during the day. The moths were collected at night using light traps. Both types of moths were marked, released and collected.

Please don't think I'm trying to knock the guy down - I'm not. There is NOTHING personal about it, and I read about the marking, etc. and thought many of the things he did were careful and intelligent. However, as detailed in my post a few posts above this one, there were some big flaws in technique (NOT in the person! There is nothing personal here!) that IMO, should either cause the experiment to be removed from textbooks, or put into the historical section (like in your book) BUT WITH DESCRIPTIONS of the areas in which the experiment was flawed, because it is really misrepresenting the results otherwise, which is NOT scientific.

Would you agree?

No. Even if the experiment only shows selective predation as a natural selection vector then it is a useful experiment. Simple examples like these are helpful as teaching tools, regardless of the long term scientific value. Again this passage has no bearing on the discussion. It is just a straw man arguement that proves nothing. There is certainly no evidence that any deception was practiced. The best you can muster is minor flaws of a 150 year old experiment. The level of deception in the creationist quote mining examples is much more blatant and is the root of the creationist case and not some ancillary criticism of research technique. Would that the creationists had some research to critique. I'm ready to move on to actual facts as opposed to mudslinging.

Ruinel

07-03-2003, 02:44 PM

I'm reading these posts... and I'm just so disappointed. Perhaps, even today, people need to believe that all this just popped out of thin air and was created by an omnipotent supernatural being. All the evidence points away from that, but hey... who am I to squash someones religious beliefs anyway. :) I've seen people post that there's no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution... how sad. You know, just because you say there's no evidence, doesn't make it so. :o But hey... who am I to argue with someone about their irrational beliefs (about the evidence or lack of). :rolleyes:

RÃan

07-03-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Only if moths in "natural circumstances" are never eaten during the day. The moths were collected at night using light traps. Both types of moths were marked, released and collected.
I guess you and I are at a standstill, then, Cirdan, at least on this point - to me it is so obvious that the moths were put in UN-natural circumstances. Why not hobble zebra out in the open and see how many get eaten by lions, instead of leaving them in their natural setting, where it's harder to count them? It seems like the same thing to me (altho not quite so extreme).

...There is certainly no evidence that any deception was practiced.
not by Kettlewell, I agree. My objection is the inclusion of the experient in current textbooks w/o pointing out the major flaws, like noctural-ness (if that's a word :) ), that could very conceiveably affect the results.

I'm ready to move on to actual facts as opposed to mudslinging. How is pointing out flaws in an experiment "mudslinging"? Do you agree with me that the link that GrayMouser posted, where they referred to Wells as "muttering", "frantic" and "freaked out", is an example of mud-slinging?

RÃan

07-03-2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Ruinel
I've seen people post that there's no scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution... how sad.
I certainly hope you don't think that I posted that, Ruinel, because I didn't.

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
My objection is the inclusion of the experient in current textbooks w/o pointing out the major flaws, like noctural-ness (if that's a word :) ), that could very conceiveably affect the results.
That only complicates the communication of a simple idea. All general courses use short cuts and simplified examples to communicate the basic principles. You know intro to Physics doesn't require the differential calculus that advanced physics does. Students are introduced to physics using basic equations. And unless you have experimental proof that the predation of the moths varies dependent on release method then the old "sure-fire I can tell " method just doesn't fly.

How is pointing out flaws in an experiment "mudslinging"? Do you agree with me that the link that GrayMouser posted, where they referred to Wells as "muttering", "frantic" and "freaked out", is an example of mud-slinging?

It seeks to discredit an individual as a way of impuning the science itself while producing no positive information of value. As to GM's link, I don't recall reading anything like that. What I saw was very reasonble and dispassionate. If you want to repost the one you are pointing out I would be glad to read it.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
[As to GM's link, I don't recall reading anything like that. What I saw was very reasonble and dispassionate. If you want to repost the one you are pointing out I would be glad to read it. [/B]

Thanks, Cirdan - here it is.
GM's link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/)
The "freaked out" is right after the letter by Majerus, the other two are closer to the beginning.

BTW, one more thought on "quote-mining" - we have to remember, IMO - and this is extremely important - that scientific data is neutral!. So please don't automatically assume deceitful quote-mining if an evolutionist quotes a creationist to support evolution, or vice-versa. Do you see what I mean? I saw someone on this thread object to a creationist using data gathered by an evolutionist to support creationism. There's nothing wrong with that! Data is NEUTRAL! Now if he did quotes out of context, that's a different thing. Neither side should do that. But if DATA is being used, one scientist is certainly free to draw logical conclusions, just as well as another scientist, no matter WHO gathered the data. Would you agree?

Cirdan

07-03-2003, 03:31 PM

You mean this:

The above was posted to the Calvin listserv in Donald Frack's detailed investigation of Wells' claims (e.g. http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199904/0103.html). In his response, Wells freaks out and calls Majerus (who had previously been Wells' main source for his "peppered myth" claims) a fraud:

BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980'S THAT PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that every time those staged photographs have been re-published since the 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous.

I know what I'm talking about. I spent much of last summer reading the primary literature (email me if you want the references). Frankly, I was shocked by what I found -- not only that the evidence for the moths' true resting-places has been known since the 1980's, but also that people like Majerus and Miller continue to deceive the public.

Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is. (caps original, http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0348.html)

Frack says of this,

Note the complete irony of the capitalized sentence. Majerus is the foremost proponent (in the literature I've seen) of the idea that the moths most commonly rest higher in the trees. His data are the only ones I have seen cited as evidence of [what] happens "in the wild." Majerus is attacked as "dishonest" and "text-book writers are lying to biology students", their behavior is "scandalous." [...] If Wells is right, he hasn't demonstrated it here. He attacks both Michael Majerus and Bruce Grant. If Grant's frequent co-authors, such as Cyril Clarke, are added to the ridicule list (and I don't know why they wouldn't be), then Wells is well on his way to rejecting all the well-known researchers on this subject. An awesome, and, at face value, an incredibly arrogant, claim.

You don't want to know who's side I would rather be on... Throwing around perjoratives like "fraud" and "lying" and printing all-caps :rolleyes: is unprofessional and quite hysterical. The characterization of Wells' response to Majerus is not without merit, IMHO.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 03:57 PM

No, Wells doesn't call Majerus a "fraud", as claimed, but says that whenever the staged photographs are re-published it's a fraud. He says Majerus is being "dishonest", which is different, IMO. And Wells is made the point of many other subjective evaluations, too, throughout the article.

Well, at this point, since the emotions are getting really ramped up on both sides in those articles, why don't we just head back to the data. I still stand by what I said earlier, that because of major flaws in technique, such as the PEPPERED moths being nocturnal, and they were released during the day, and the predation that happened was un-natural, etc., that the experiment should always have notes attached to it, or discussed as an interesting historical event, altho flawed. It looks like you disagree with this, and I'll give you the last word on it.

HOBBIT

07-03-2003, 07:07 PM

actual if you want to go there rian, you started your evidence back in october of last year. Then IP completely refuted everything you said - and you still didn't waver from it. It was about the second law of thermodynamics.

But then I don't believe you posted anything further on it.

It was so many pages back, but did you see the link I posted on those footprints? Or have we dropped that subject?

RÃan

07-03-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
[B]actual if you want to go there rian, you started your evidence back in october of last year. Then IP completely refuted everything you said - and you still didn't waver from it. It was about the second law of thermodynamics.
No, IP did NOT completely refute everything I said - why in the world do you think that? Just because you believe in evolution? IP and I had different opinions, both supported by qualified physicists. Please don't think disagreement means that the creationist is automatically wrong. Didn't you see my responses to him? Why should I waver from an opinion that I think is correct and is supported by qualified physicists? I think IP should change HIS opinion - why don't you think HE should change if there is a disagreement?

It was so many pages back, but did you see the link I posted on those footprints? Or have we dropped that subject?
I don't remember if I saw yours, specifically, but I think I read pretty much everything on the footprints. Could you remind me what your point was, please; I don't recall.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 07:56 PM

ps - I started the new thread : here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=267331#post267331) - could I please get the opinions of the veterans of this thread as to how we should run it? Thanks.

Oh, and Hobbit's post reminded me of something - when he said something like I was dug in deeper than Gwai thought I was - um, so what? Is there something wrong with holding an opinion that you believe to be true? Why are YOU guys so "dug in"? :) Since I disagree with you, shouldn't you change your opinion? Obviously not, of course, unless you think I present sufficient evidence. If I think the evidence supports creationism more than evolutionism, then why shouldn't I stay with my opinion? Of course, the implication was, IMO, that I was "dug in" in an unreasonable way. But I disagree with this, and actually, I think evolutionists are often "dug in" in an unreasonable way.

Like I said earlier, I'd rather be accused of stupidity (being WRONG about how I interpret the data) than deceit (either supporting creationism solely because I'm a Christian, or supporting creationism because I won't look at the evidence). I think I am neither stupid nor deceitful, but you guys might have a different opinion :)

RÃan

07-03-2003, 08:00 PM

(but the REALLY important question is : do you think I'm pretty? :D ) j/k!

How about - do you think I demonstrate personal integrity, from what you can tell of my posts and PMs? Do you think I show an ability to think logically?

HOBBIT

07-03-2003, 08:02 PM

well, you were going on about how those footprints proved something, so I posted this weeks ago:

As for the footprints thing, well by the end of the old topic everyone was in agreement that they were false - even the main person for creation (quickbeam, the guy who started the topic). It was also shown well that a great deal of creationists even view these as false. So rian, that gives you the red light to actually consider it j/k

I encourage everyone to look at this site on the matter if they care about this issue:

http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/paluxy.htm - this site is pretty interesting

And yes, he completely refuted your points on the send law of thermodynamics because you interpreted it wrong - or rather your references did (the same book on Creation?). This is nothing against them. I do trust IP more because he always knows what he is talking about and is a very smart fellow.

And I do believe that that Creation Science book that you listed earlier is not a very good source for real evidence, just my opinion. I have already made more detailed posts on this and many others as well. Is that where you are getting a majority of your info? :P

Well since I am not in your head, I have just observed that you genuinely believe in creation and think it is because of all the 'scientific evidence' supporting it more than evolution. It seems like you closed your mind to that stuff and picked what reflects your beliefs - AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

RÃan

07-03-2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by HOBBIT
well, you were going on about how those footprints proved something, so I posted this weeks ago:
Hobbit, my ONLY point about the footprints was the following: when I was reading thru various links on the subject, I came across a quote from an evolutionist that said something like "those CAN'T be human footprints, because humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time". I objected strenuously (sp?) to this, because of the terribly un-scientific mindset it showed. It was making a conclusion based on the prediction of the theory! instead of impartially analyzing new data. It doesn't even MATTER if they were footprints or not - what matters is that the evolutionist had, a priori (BEFORE analyzing the evidence), made a conclusion that they were not footprints, BECAUSE it fit their theory. That is absolutely opposite to what should be done! An important thing about theories is how accurately they can predict new finds. If a prediction says one thing, and then new data shows up, and it looks like it MIGHT go against the theory, then the worst thing to do is say "no, it can't be that, because my theory says it can't!" Do you see what I'm saying? Any scientific methodology book would agree with that, don't you think? That was my SOLE objection, and I think that attitude has cropped up more than once in evolutionism.

The current consensus appears to be that they are NOT human footprints, and those that thought they were have stated that they agree that there is enough doubt to make them invalid for use. And that is a proper procedure, just like when National Geographic admitted their mistake about the faked bird fossil.

Perhaps you confused me with someone else? But again, my point was that when analyzing the links on the subject, I came across the quote from an evolutionist demonstrating an improper analysis. Would you agree that his statement was improper? IOW, that it's invalid to eliminate possibilities before analysis?

And yes, he completely refuted your points on the send law of thermodynamics because you interpreted it wrong - or rather your references did (the same book on Creation?). I interpreted it wrong? That's IP's opinion. I think he did an unwarranted extrapolation of the formation of crystals (I don't think he ever named exactly the mechanism he was talking about, but I think it was the formation of crystals). But we should probably shelf this subject until it comes up in the new thread, because I will bring it up again.

And I do believe that that Creation Science book that you listed earlier is not a very good source for real evidence, just my opinion. I have already made more detailed posts on this and many others as well. Is that where you are getting a majority of your info? :P
I have about 5 or 6 books on the topic, and I read websites too :)

Well since I am not in your head, I have just observed that you genuinely believe in creation and think it is because of all the 'scientific evidence' supporting it more than evolution. It seems like you closed your mind to that stuff and picked what reflects your beliefs - AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Remember, we're talking about interpretations of data. The data is there; there are different interpretations. I still claim that there is no DATA, for example, to support macro evolution; it is a mere logical inference from micro evolution (and I'm being polite when I say "logical", because really I think it is very illogical :) )

RÃan

07-03-2003, 08:37 PM

Reminder - I started a new thread called "Evidence for Creationism" in GM - whoever is interested, please sign in :) and give us your opinion on how to run the thread (see my first post)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread :)

RÃan

07-03-2003, 09:25 PM

Just 2 more quick notes, then I need to get dinner going -

re the eye example -
I really hope some people read that link where it talks about the computer simulation that went from a simple eye to a complex eye. The way it's written, it sounds like a big proof for the evolutionary development of the eye.

However, as a person with a degree in computer science, specializing in math and SIMULATION, it really almost made me laugh to see it presented as a proof. There's a HUGE fault in it, IMO, as a person with a university degree in this field - the little statement about that the only constraint was that ALL mutations were to be beneficial.

First of all, there's that whole problem of MUTATIONS are typically (and I'm being generous by using "typically") NOT BENEFICIAL! It's a hugely improper assumption to make, IMO. As I said a long time ago at the very beginning of this thread, I'm willing to grant a few beneficial mutations that cause gain of information, even tho I don't think it's possible, but the billions required by evolution just stretch credibility, IMO. Anyway, that point will be discussed in the creationism thread in more detail. I would absolutely LOVE to see how many beneficial mutations it took; I imagine the number is quite large!

Secondly, the PROGRAMMERS defined "beneficial" themselves. They HAD to, that's how programming works! And what would their definition of beneficial be? I can't see how it would be anything other than: a change that makes the current simulated eye MORE LIKE a real eye! So naturally it will end up like a real eye.

Well, that's pretty much loading the deck in a big way, IMO. Any other opinions out there?

re : O of S
And the second note is that I'm more than halfway thru Darwin's Origin of Species. Has anyone else read it? Very good in many areas. I like the way he writes, and his careful observations. The only thing I object to so far is his hugely improper extrapolations, IMO, as far as variations going all the way up the ladder from species on up to genus, and so on. As I discussed before (and will cover again in the new thread), IMO, change has boundaries. And the change that Darwin observed was always bounded - dogs stayed dogs, cats stayed cats, and those pigeons that he studied stayed ..... PIGEONS! (such funny names some of them had, too!) But he does seem to be a careful scientist, as some creationist scientists noted. I"m not afraid to complement where I think it's due, but I'm also not afraid to note where I think things are illogical.

HOBBIT

07-03-2003, 10:24 PM

Maybe you don't realize what you are coming off as?

A lot of your posts sound as if you are trying to discredit evolution and it's scientists. Oh no, ONE evolutionist wasn't being objective. Like 'creation scientists' are the best scientists!

You ARE only drawing straws here, trying to nitpick. It's not working though.

Sheeana

07-04-2003, 12:19 AM

I haven't read the simulation, but I would like to add that most mutations (90%+) are NEUTRAL. They don't do jack squat.

Lizra

07-04-2003, 09:01 AM

I would think natural selection and *time* are the main ingredients of evolution. Mutations are the "spices" that make the recipe interesting. (In my rudimentary, unprofessional opinion ;) ) As far as intermediate species, gee, it seems like they are living all around us! The platypus, dolphins, coyotes, chimpanzies, frogs...anything that blurs the lines between living creatures...Everything leads to something else in this world. They don't call it "The Web of Life" for nothing! :rolleyes: I'm oversimplifying (or over stupifying perhaps :D) but surely you see my point. Of course there is minimal fossil record, how is something recorded that (usually) happens in tiny increments, gradually....generation by generation? I guess it just takes a "non-brainwashed" (by religious doctrine) mind to see this. I don't mean that in a smarmy way either! :)

GrayMouser

07-04-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just 2 more quick notes, then I need to get dinner going -

re the eye example -
I really hope some people read that link where it talks about the computer simulation that went from a simple eye to a complex eye. The way it's written, it sounds like a big proof for the evolutionary development of the eye.

However, as a person with a degree in computer science, specializing in math and SIMULATION, it really almost made me laugh to see it presented as a proof. There's a HUGE fault in it, IMO, as a person with a university degree in this field - the little statement about that the only constraint was that ALL mutations were to be beneficial.

First of all, there's that whole problem of MUTATIONS are typically (and I'm being generous by using "typically") NOT BENEFICIAL! It's a hugely improper assumption to make, IMO. As I said a long time ago at the very beginning of this thread, I'm willing to grant a few beneficial mutations that cause gain of information, even tho I don't think it's possible, but the billions required by evolution just stretch credibility, IMO. Anyway, that point will be discussed in the creationism thread in more detail. I would absolutely LOVE to see how many beneficial mutations it took; I imagine the number is quite large!

Secondly, the PROGRAMMERS defined "beneficial" themselves. They HAD to, that's how programming works! And what would their definition of beneficial be? I can't see how it would be anything other than: a change that makes the current simulated eye MORE LIKE a real eye! So naturally it will end up like a real eye.

Well, that's pretty much loading the deck in a big way, IMO. Any other opinions out there?

[

There're so many pages, I don't know where the eye link is.

but from what I've read on similar programs , the definition of beneficial is just that: something that benefits the organism.

If the designers of the eye program only allowed for beneficial mutations, then obviously their programs were wrong.

However, AFAIK, the evolution simulating design programs don't operate that way. They take the original structure or program and use RANDOM changes.

Obviously most will be either harmful or neutral, but the program is set up to eliminate the harmful mutations and preserve the beneficial ones. Is that cheating?

No, because that is precisely the way natural selection works.

If, for example, you are trying to design a wing, you take a rectangular structure and make random changes.

Then you eliminate the less aerodynamically sound variations and preserve the better flyers as the stock for the next generation.

This is not a case of the programmers putting the end results in and trying to direct the program to it- it is simply saying that which works is preserved; that which fails is discarded- the definition of natural selection.

In the case of the eye, the programmers would make random changes and preserve those ones that see better- not because they are aiming at a modern eye, but because the assumption is that seeing better is advantageous

GrayMouser

07-04-2003, 12:41 PM

And for a more temperate description of the peppered moth, see

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

cassiopeia

07-04-2003, 10:47 PM

I like the analogy of a monkey tapping away at a typewriter till he produces one of Shakespeare's plays. It seems almost impossible, right? But, imagine that if the monkey taps out the wrong letter, it's eliminated, so only correct letters remain. Then it's almost a certainty that the monkey will produce a play after a time. This is analogous to evolution.

MasterMothra

07-05-2003, 03:55 PM

did noah bring a peppered moth on the arc with him? if not then how did they come about?

RÃan

07-07-2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I like the analogy of a monkey tapping away at a typewriter till he produces one of Shakespeare's plays. It seems almost impossible, right? But, imagine that if the monkey taps out the wrong letter, it's eliminated, so only correct letters remain. Then it's almost a certainty that the monkey will produce a play after a time. This is analogous to evolution.
I don't understand this, cass - I must be missing something? Are you saying that once, for example, a 'z' is incorrect, it's thrown out? Then certainly after a very short time, there would be no letters left at all... :confused: Could you please re-word or something?

Plus that example does NOT take into account that there are differing frequencies of letters. By the mechanism of chance, all letters would be chosen approx. the same amount of time, so there would be NO WAY you could produce a language sample of any length at all. There's a good reason, after all, why we all choose roughly the same sequence of initial letters in the game of "Hangman".

RÃan

07-07-2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by MasterMothra
did noah bring a peppered moth on the arc with him? if not then how did they come about?
I would think, since moths exist today, that a moth or moths of some type were on the ark. How many types, I don't know. But variation WITHIN species can produce many changes, altho the changes ALWAYS stay w/in species (moths produce moths always, don't they? :) )

MasterMothra

07-07-2003, 09:00 AM

what universal law states that variations always stay within the species? what forces in nature prevent a variation or mutation from producing a different species all together, given a significant amount of time?

there are none that i am currently aware of.

Lizra

07-07-2003, 09:43 AM

Gradually, the lines begin to blur, it's all about time and numbers...not rigid limitations! Small increments of change, repeated exponentially. (sort of like a rumour) A moth produces a moth that's a "little" different. That one lucks out and finds an environmental niche to it's liking and is able to reproduce well. This situation easily repeats itself, a vast number of times, with each small change, the number of possibilities (from the original moth) widens on all fronts, branching out, ultimately creating a vast amount of variations from the original moth....to the point that the lines (between species) are indeed, becoming very blurred, the "X to the 2000th power" offspring seeming very *unmoth-like*. So, given enough time, the numbers are there to allow you to end up with something different. An actual "mutation" (which does happen from time to time) MIGHT cause a sharper turn in the process, leading to who knows what exciting variations. Given all the possiblities of environmental niches and situations (which seems infinite to me), the numbers tell me that most anything is possible. I follow this type of scenario easily, Magic invisible man in the sky....no.

Sheeana

07-07-2003, 05:15 PM

Couldn't have said it better, myself. :)

RÃan

07-07-2003, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by MasterMothra
what universal law states that variations always stay within the species? what forces in nature prevent a variation or mutation from producing a different species all together, given a significant amount of time?

there are none that i am currently aware of.
Just the law of universal observation. With all of the breeding we've done and seen, there's never been an observation of macro evolution. You can say "well, given enough time it might happen", but I can say with just as much justification, "well, there might be a God that is behind creation". Macro evolution is the unproven premise behind evolutionism, and an intelligent God creating a complex and intricate and interrelated creation is the unproven premise behind creationism. All we can do is look into the evidence that supports one or the other. Personally, I think the latter makes a lot more sense. Complexity comes from intelligence.

I could also say "well, given enough time, moths will change into Corvettes", and I think you guys would (justifiably) ridicule that idea. But after all, as JD (IIRC) said before, everything's just a collection of chemicals anyway. What stops me from saying that? You can SAY "given enough time", but there is no justification for it, IMO, since we've never seen any indication of any type of change happening, except variation within species, which makes perfect sense. Even with things like fruit flies where you can get many generations quickly, fruit flies produce fruit flies, ALWAYS. Do you agree?

IOW, creationism and evolution both place bounds on the type of change they expect to see. Creationism expects to see variation within species (and we see it!); evolutionism expects to see change up the ladder (species, genus, family, etc.), and we don't see it. But neither do we "see" a creator in a laboratory, of course. As I said above, neither main premise may be scientifically proven. But we can look at supporting evidence.

RÃan

07-07-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Lizra
Gradually, the lines begin to blur, it's all about time and numbers...not rigid limitations! .... Magic invisible man in the sky....no.

But it's never been observed, Lizra and Sheeana. To be generous, the best I can honestly call it is "logical inference". But I'm being generous there, because frankly given what we HAVE observed, it seem very ILLOGICAL. We observe BOUNDS on changes, and mutations are rare, and typically neutral or HARMFUL. The number of beneficial mutations that evolutionists require for their theory to happen in real life simply staggers the mind, especially considering that there's never even been a benefical mutation ever observed.

Magic changes from moth to Corvette, or fish to man .... no. :)

Cirdan

07-07-2003, 09:05 PM

Rian, have you ever observed an atom, an x-ray, the wind? These thinngs can only be observed indirectly by the effect they have. Observation is an unrealistic standard of proof.

Lizra

07-07-2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But it's never been observed, Lizra and Sheeana. To be generous, the best I can honestly call it is "logical inference". But I'm being generous there, because frankly given what we HAVE observed, it seem very ILLOGICAL. We observe BOUNDS on changes, and mutations are rare, and typically neutral or HARMFUL. The number of beneficial mutations that evolutionists require for their theory to happen in real life simply staggers the mind, especially considering that there's never even been a benefical mutation ever observed.

Magic changes from moth to Corvette, or fish to man .... no. :)

That is so true Cirdan!

Rian.....You can't observe what takes lots of time. Plain and simple. Are you so egocentric (as a human) that if it doesn't happen in your lifespan, (or a couple of human lifespans) you can't believe it's true? Besides, evolution IS happening....all the time, all around us. It just goes on so slowly we can't "see" it. The same way mountains are made!

I feel rather ridiculous stating the obvious here. :rolleyes: I honestly think you are just being stubborn, ;) selectively blind...by choice, because this logical, very widely accepted scientific theory does not match what you have chosen to believe for many, many years. (Of course, believe what you wish...it's your life.) Given what we (I) have observed the theory of evolution DOES seem logical! (unless of course, you have religious "blinders" on) We only "observe" a tiny squirt of time in this world we are living in. Our little 80 year jaunt here on earth is a meaningless *piff* in the history of life on this planet. :D You will never "observe" evolution taking place. As I stated before, the main ingredient in the theory of evolution is time. But it is logical, and documented in many instances (please reread this thread for examples) and also in our genetic code. I am not going to stick MY head in the sand just because *change* makes me uncomfortable! Seek the truth! :)

What I find hard to fathom is the choice to believe in an all powerful, magic, invisible man in the sky..... who comes from ?????, and whips the whole world up with his *magic powers* in six days! Really! :rolleyes:

Believe what you wish, but don't try to tell me I'm wrong! :D

Lizra

07-07-2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Sheeana
Couldn't have said it better, myself. :)

Thanks for the compliment! :D I felt sort of silly explaining the obvious!

cassiopeia

07-07-2003, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't understand this, cass - I must be missing something? Are you saying that once, for example, a 'z' is incorrect, it's thrown out? Then certainly after a very short time, there would be no letters left at all... :confused: Could you please re-word or something?

Plus that example does NOT take into account that there are differing frequencies of letters. By the mechanism of chance, all letters would be chosen approx. the same amount of time, so there would be NO WAY you could produce a language sample of any length at all. There's a good reason, after all, why we all choose roughly the same sequence of initial letters in the game of "Hangman".

Say the first word was "The". If the monkey typed 'h', it would be deleted (but it can be reused). If the monkey then typed 'i' it would be deleted but reused. If the monkey then typed in 't', then it would be kept. At most the monkey would have to type in 26 letters, which wouldn't take that long. So it's inevitable that in the long run the monkey will type out one of Shakespeare's plays, because (somehow) there's an error-correcting mechanism involved. Like evolution. Harmful mutations kill the animal. Good ones let the animal breed sucessfully.

afro-elf

07-07-2003, 11:50 PM

Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance?

That IS evolution. It can be observed. Evolution is a fact.

Or are you going to say that antibiotic resistance is a myth?

MasterMothra

07-08-2003, 01:00 PM

the hardest thing to do is to let go of you belief in the christian god. but once you do it, it will be like a load of bricks off your back. enabling you to concentrate on the things that matter in life, like your family and children. and for once in your life you can finally put the importance of your family, not "god", as your top priority in life.

Lizra

07-08-2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Complexity comes from intelligence.

I don't buy that at all. What intelligence? The IMM (invisible magic man) that nobody has ever "observed"? That's like saying complexity comes from nothing, :confused: for there is certainly no proof of a God! Now, it is very logical to see, and understand that complexity can come from.....many variables, all doing different things, within a vast amount of time. That is a natural thing! Stretch your imagination! :) Don't confine yourself to the warbily old words in one of the many *Black Books* of the ages past!

RÃan

07-08-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
Rian, have you ever observed an atom, an x-ray, the wind? These thinngs can only be observed indirectly by the effect they have. Observation is an unrealistic standard of proof.
They are in the present, Cirdan, and CAN be observed, either directly or indirectly (by effects on other things) :)

I would say that the wind and an x-ray are similar. One can measure the wavelength of an x-ray, or the speed of the wind. Our current description of the makeup of an atom is theoretical, however, and has been changed as we've improved observation techniques.

How do these 3 things compare to macro evolution? I don't see a correlation.

RÃan

07-08-2003, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by afro-elf
Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistance?

That IS evolution. It can be observed. Evolution is a fact.

Or are you going to say that antibiotic resistance is a myth?

I have indeed heard of antibiotic resistance, AE :) That's one reason why one of the worst places to be when you're sick is a hospital! I don't think it's a myth at all. But it's not macro evolution, either. It's natural selection operating on pre-existing genetic variation.

There is no gain of information, which is essential to macro evolution, and the virus is still .... a virus.

Do you agree?

RÃan

07-08-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by MasterMothra
the hardest thing to do is to let go of you belief in the christian god. but once you do it, it will be like a load of bricks off your back. enabling you to concentrate on the things that matter in life, like your family and children. and for once in your life you can finally put the importance of your family, not "god", as your top priority in life.
I disagree, MM, and say that if it WAS like a load of bricks off your back, then you probably had some wrong teaching of what Christianity is, because I find it the most incredibly freeing thing I've ever experienced. It gives me incredible joy and freedom, and enables me to love my family and friends much better than before I was a Christian. :) I'm sorry it wasn't that way for you - PM me if you want to discuss it, or we can discuss it on the Offshoot thread when we're done here, if you would like to.

Cirdan

07-08-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
How do these 3 things compare to macro evolution? I don't see a correlation.

They all must be understood by using indirect observation of related phenomena. When they happen is not important if the related phenomena show no anomalous behavior.

RÃan

07-08-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Say the first word was "The". If the monkey typed 'h', it would be deleted (but it can be reused). If the monkey then typed 'i' it would be deleted but reused. If the monkey then typed in 't', then it would be kept. At most the monkey would have to type in 26 letters, which wouldn't take that long. So it's inevitable that in the long run the monkey will type out one of Shakespeare's plays, because (somehow) there's an error-correcting mechanism involved. Like evolution. Harmful mutations kill the animal. Good ones let the animal breed sucessfully.

But that seems to rather kill the point of the original analogy, IMO, which was chance operating over time. In this new analogy, there must be an intelligent being involved to have the play available, compare the play with what was just input, and correct the huge amount of errors. And the monkey would, I imagine, not methodically cycle through the alphabet, and might type in many more than 26 letters before hitting the right one. Plus, there was an intelligent being involved in producing the play to begin with. One of the essences of evolution is that it is NON-DIRECTED; there is NO GOAL; wouldn't you agree?

Cirdan

07-08-2003, 04:54 PM

Resources for proofs of Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

RÃan

07-08-2003, 05:47 PM

Cirdan - I just took a quick look at the site, but saw several big problems - one of them on the pharyngeal pouches.

From your website -

"Example 2: vertebrate pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches

There are numerous other examples in which an organism's evolutionary history is represented temporarily in its development. ..."

I thought this idea was thrown out a long time ago...and what do ears have to do with gills? Vertebrate pharyngeal pouches turn into .... EAR parts, along with other things, NOTHING of which involves gill functions. The folds are .... folds!

RÃan

07-08-2003, 05:53 PM

(whoops, posted in wrong place :o )

MasterMothra

07-08-2003, 07:35 PM

what is the most important thing in your life; god, your husband, your family,etc?
would you sacrifice one of your children for god, as abraham was to sacrifice issac?

RÃan

07-08-2003, 07:44 PM

Whew, this is waaayyy OT, MM! I'll answer over in the Offshoot thread, out of respect for the other posters here :)

Offshoot link (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=269175#post269175)

afro-elf

07-08-2003, 08:20 PM

But it's not macro evolution, either. It's natural selection operating on pre-existing genetic variation.

The thread says evolution not macro or micro. :)

RÃan

07-08-2003, 08:51 PM

Yes, and we are discussing the various aspects of the entire theory of evolution. One aspect is micro evolution, one is macro evolution. I have no problem with micro evolution, but a HUGE problem with macro.

Micro evolution is also in creationism - can I say that since you have no problem with micro evolution, therefore you have no problem with the entire theory of creationism? Methinks you would object :)

cassiopeia

07-09-2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But that seems to rather kill the point of the original analogy, IMO, which was chance operating over time. In this new analogy, there must be an intelligent being involved to have the play available, compare the play with what was just input, and correct the huge amount of errors. And the monkey would, I imagine, not methodically cycle through the alphabet, and might type in many more than 26 letters before hitting the right one. Plus, there was an intelligent being involved in producing the play to begin with. One of the essences of evolution is that it is NON-DIRECTED; there is NO GOAL; wouldn't you agree?

The point is that if the monkey hits the wrong key, it's corrected. This is akin to a harmful mutation; the animal dies because it's harmful. But when a 'good' mutation occurs, it is kept, because the animal can breed. There is no need for an intelligent being. It was only an analogy. :)
You're right about the monkey hitting the same letter more than once, but considering there are only 26 letters, eventually it will hit the right one.

Cirdan

07-09-2003, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I thought this idea was thrown out a long time ago...and what do ears have to do with gills? Vertebrate pharyngeal pouches turn into .... EAR parts, along with other things, NOTHING of which involves gill functions. The folds are .... folds!

What do you have that invalidates the hypothesis? The gill function does not need to accompany the evolved structure.

MasterMothra

07-09-2003, 01:22 AM

i apologize for the OT post, i was in the wrong thread.

RÃan

07-09-2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
What do you have that invalidates the hypothesis? The gill function does not need to accompany the evolved structure.

Well, I think I'll have to pass on this part of the discussion, since I don't think it's important anyway, and I'm swamped with all the things I want to reply to that I think are more important. I was just surprised to see it come up, since I thought the recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") had been dropped.

Sheeana and others - do you think recaptulation happens (just out of curiosity....)

And Cirdan, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but was I right in thinking you had a uni degree or background in microbiology? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

Cirdan

07-09-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And Cirdan, I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but was I right in thinking you had a uni degree or background in microbiology? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

BS in Geology.

Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny and there's nothing you can do about it.:D

RÃan

07-09-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
BS in Geology.
Well, close! :D I got the "ology" part right :)

Ontology recapitulates Phylogeny and there's nothing you can do about it.:D
:D And pharyngeal pouches have nothing to do with gill slits, either! :D

But we shall have to agree to differ on this point, I imagine :)

(and I love your new avatar, BTW - I've always liked that pic of JRRT. There's a pic of his friend, C. S. Lewis, with his pipe, that reminds me of the Tolkien pic. I can just picture those two in the "Bird and Baby" (Eagle and Child) pub puffing away! Is that pub still around, do you know?)

Other evolutionists - do you believe that recapitulation happens, esp. Sheeana? I"m just curious what the consensus of the posters here is.

RÃan

07-09-2003, 05:10 PM

Oh, here it is.

Originally posted by Cirdan
There are boudaries to your abilities in typing (muscular response, kinetic transfer, the qwerty keyboard). You analogy is not fact. Anaolgies are alternate ways of exprewssing ideas not ideas in and of themselves. This analogy fails as there is no identified limit to change in the original idea being demonstrated. A better analogy would be dictionaries. What limit is there to the number of words that can be added or deleted over time? None. What limit is there to the length of a word? none (think organic chemistry nomenclature).
His objection is the following: "This analogy fails as there is no identified limit to change in the original idea being demonstrated."
Now, he is correct in that the THEORY of evolution does not identify any limits. However, just because something is stated in a THEORY does not automatically make it true, of course; (IOW, you have objections to the THEORY of creationism!) My point is that the TYPE of change that is postulated HAS NOT BEEN OBSERVED, and what we HAVE observed in breeding, time and time again, consistantly and without fail, is that changes have limits, and the animals that are bred remain the original animals (dogs are still dogs, cows are still cows, flies are still flies, etc.)

YOUR analogies of dictionaries and word lengths fail, IMO, because they are mere additions to existing things, without changing the type. It's the same thing as GM's pile of sand analogy. As far as that one, if you're going to use sand piles, I would say this would be a better picture of micro/macro evolution: "Here's a sand pile. Let's add grains of sand. Now we have a bigger sand pile. Let's keep adding grains of sand. Now look over there - there's a beach buggy zipping along the sand. Since we can observe both of them on the beach, we can deduce that if we keep adding grains of sand to the pile, then eventually we'll get a beach buggy."

(yes, JD, another one of my analogies that you don't like because you think them ridiculous - but that's my point - one certain TYPE of change (macroevolution) that evolutionists are asking us to swallow is, um, well, I'll just say it doesn't make sense, and it is not demonstrated by anything we've ever seen. It's just an improper extrapolation of variation within type, which we DO see. But in variation within type, we ALSO see that ... birds remain birds, cats remain cats, etc. There is a LIMIT to change.)

This "'fish to philosophers' thing" is one one these so called "common sense" arguements that has no real basis in fact but is meant to sound appealling to the layman.
It's a cute phrase, but it also sums up one of the things that evolutionists would have us believe, right? RIGHT? You can hedge about and say "not fish, but fish-type" - but it's still a very good summation, don't you think? Do you have any objections to the claim that fish and men share a common ancestor? I certainly do.

And remember, there is a valid place for common sense and logic in this debate. If I were to hold up a single fossil and say "this is a well-defined fossil of an existing species today; therefore, creationism is true!", then your common sense would object, wouldn't it? IOW, it is an illogical deduction. And if an evolutionist were to hold up a single fossil and say "here is a fossil of something that is extinct; therefore evolutionism is true!", then I think I can safely say that your common sense would object here, too, because it is an illogical deduction.

I"M NOT SAYING that evolutionists or creationists do this! Please note I said "single fossil"!! I'm just trying to show that there is a valid place for common sense and logic. Would you agree?

RÃan

07-09-2003, 05:20 PM

Cirdan - back to your link - I started reading it again, and clicked on the first link on "macroevolution" - here is an entire paragraph (so you guys won't charge quote-mining :( it saddens me to think that that charge might possibly be leveled against me...)

from Cirdan's macroevolution link, with bolding added by RÃ*an
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

Cirdan, do you agree with the bolded sentence? If so, can you explain why a claim based on EXTRAPOLATION should be accepted unless a mechanism is discovered which prevents it? That sentence really shocks me. Usually, a claim is supported by evidence. Here, not only a claim, but a claim, by the author's own admission, based on an EXTRAPOLATION, is claimed to be true, unless a mechanism preventing it can be discovered.

Doesn't this go against your logic and training?

Gulio, Strength of Many

07-09-2003, 08:41 PM

Ooooooooooo this looks like fun!:D

It's my belief that macroevolution is totally false. I believe, however, that microevelution is true. Microevelution has been proved with the different breeds of animals and plants. However, macroevelution has yet to be proven.

I firmly believe the theory on creationism. It seems more realistic to me.

Wow, this post is miniscule compared to RÃ¬an's!

Cirdan

07-09-2003, 09:39 PM

The dictionary analogy is actually a very good one for describing speciation. DNA is just a very simple molecular language, the genomes words, etc. Also species derive from one another or have a common root just like words. And it makes the point about a system without a limit to change. Extending beyond that point is not the intention.

Cirdan, do you agree with the bolded sentence?

Sure, since the process is really an accumulation of micro steps.

It reminds me of a parable from my youth. Someone claims to be able to jump to the top of the castle. Some wager is made (ok I forgot that part). The the person jumps up each step on the stairs up to the top of the castle. A single leap from one to another seems impossible, but step by step, it is.

Doesn't this go against your logic and training?
Not really. It's mathematical; more of the same is more. Many small changes can lead to a big change (or many smaller variations or both etc).