[Turambar]

yes, "Don't Know" implies uncertainty
"God" implies unwillingness/inability to think

[karajorma]

That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing

Unless you're an advocate of Intelligent Design in which case "I don't know" means God did it regardless of whether or not someone else is saying "but I do know"

[aldo_14]

Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found.

That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing

Hmm.... fortunately, I was just reading about this last night.  Hoyle - being an astronomer - failed to grasp that abiogenesis theory does not require life just forming out of chemicals (that's not been a theory since 1803), but the formation of stuff like proteins and polymers in a sort of evolutionary process into life.  I.e. the odds of the individual steps happening, not the odds of them all in sequence.

Of course, it's a common thing for ID/creationism to cite critical comments (often out of context or with bits cut out, too, like I noted in that textbook thread) from Phd holders, etc, who actually work in completely different fields to those covering evolutionary theory but can be reliably called 'doctor'.  The problem is, of course, that the ordinary bloke in the street may not grasp that Einstein wouldn't know all that much more if anything about biology than than them.

And this was what I was reading

[Flipside]

Einstein himself made mistakes, and one of his self proclaimed mistakes may turn out to be the 'answer' that cosmologists have been looking for for several decades, science is an ironic place

[Janos]

Einstein himself made mistakes, and one of his self proclaimed mistakes may turn out to be the 'answer' that cosmologists have been looking for for several decades, science is an ironic place

Well not yet, because we're dealing with physics and those guys seem to argue, debate, discuss and circlejerk a lot. They're a fine and revolutionary lot but damn it's hard to know just what qualifies as good theoretical physics theory because they have so many of them.

[Flipside]

Indeed, the two biggest dangers to science are (1) Growing Egos to the point of sticking to obviously flawed theories (always a problem, but more so now I think) and (2) Commercialisation.

Though, admittedly, it's highly likely that (2) led to (1).

[Edward Bradshaw]

Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found

It doesnt matter who said it originally, clearly Hoyle didnt know what he was talking about either and being an Astronmer not a biologist probably has something to do with that.

[Colonol Dekker]

Penguins evolved from lettuce, Jesus said so !!

"And lo the lettuce did furl up its leaves,
And nay mine eyes deceiveth me,
Whence Lo the leaves did unfurl, and the noblest of Gruds creatures,
The might snow bird-Penguin did cometh forth"

11:27
Book of Nigel,
Ridiculous Testament

[Flipside]

Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found

It doesnt matter who said it originally, clearly Hoyle didnt know what he was talking about either and being an Astronmer not a biologist probably has something to do with that.

Yes, we'd already established that

[m]

This is m.

A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.

If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.

Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.

Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?

"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," God says, and then vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says ngtm1r, then goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing.

 

I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.


Anyway.

Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.

Yes, but I believe we have found fossilized insects millions of years older than ourselves, complete with compound eyes, antennae (fully formed), etc?
World Trade Federation?  (If you don't get it, stick the initials between a pair of colons and hopefully you will!)

Also...

ANOTHER quote from my good buddy hEDz:

The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.

Yes but unfortunately no headzline unless someone picks the exact same number (chances of which are a little more than with other combinations, because people would be more inclined to pick a nice 1234567 rather than an ugly 5362417).


HOWEVER:

Darwin's theory would be more like a monkey going to a typewriter (if you'll pardon the cliché) and pounding out EXACTLY 1234567, not any more or less (123456 or 12345678 would not be acceptable).

Chances are beyond slim; they're more like Lindsay Lohan was b4 rehab ( sorry ).

Looking forward to your response, which will probably be something like  or more like

'til then,
m

[Shade]

No, actually Evolution would be nothing like that. It would be the monkey becoming able to type out 1 due to a random mutation, then because it's an advantage all it's descendants can also do it. 2000 years later, a far descendant randomly becomes able to type out 2, which once again proves to be an advantage. In between then, several monkeys typed out other numbers, but those were not advantageous so their lineages slowly died out, and not until the number 2 did a change stick.

Now keep doing this until the sequence 1234567, and that's kinda sorta approximating how evolution works. In short, you left out an important part of the evolutionary theory: Selection. Only what works, stays, and it takes place over many many very small steps.

[aldo_14]

I'm afraid, m, you've made the classic mistake of regarding Darwinism as purely by chance.  That is entirely, and wholly wrong.

Let me explain.  Mutations occur by chance, but selection is deterministic.  So let's take your 123456789 etc sequence and evaluate it in the correct manner.

We have 9 random number generators (1-9 values).  Now, at each iteration, each generator gives up a random digit - that's a bit like mutation.  However, selection also applies; if the first digit is 1, for example, we preserve that value.  Likewise, each time we 'hit' a digit, it is preserved for future 'generations'.  If you model this in a simple program, you will find it takes remarkably few generations to gain the sequence.  Dawkins addressed exactly this question in The Blind Watchmaker, as well as providing a visual method for illustrating evolving shape.

(this is just re-iterating what Shade said)

Unfortunately, this indicates you (m) have a fundamental misunderstanding of both Darwins theory and the resulting evolutionary science.  I'd suggest reading up from a few good reputable and unbiased sites about the mechanics of mutation and selection.

also, RE: fossilized insect eyes, part of evolutionary theory expects convergent or parallel evolution of well suited organs; for example, it's expected & predicted in evolutionary science that the basic eye organ will have evolved multiple times in history.  In fact, I'm not sure what your point is.  Also, it's worth noting the variation of eye designs in animals; I believe, as an example, the octopus 'eye' has a totally different structure but simlar if not identical function to the basic mammal eye.  The human (etc) eye, incidentally, is a good arguement against intelligent design because we have a bundle of nerves inside that effectively obstruct vision, and create a blind spot due to where they pass into the optic nerve.

EDIT; 1st post?  Man, I admire your courage.

[m]

Ahhh, my first non- -created victims.


 

You have a problem.

The monkey typed "1" and then got bored and left the typewriter.
Unfortunately "1" was only part of the necessary "1234567" for the first living cell to survive.
"1" was discarded by nature, which didn't realize that it was necessary for "1234567"

You see, my friend, typing "1" would be like making an ML-16 laser with no ship to fire it.  The Terrans discard the ML-16,  then the Vasudans build a canopy for a cockpit (monkey types "2").  Since it is a Vasudan canopy it does not benefit the mindless Terrans.  The Terrans discard the Vasudan canopy.


Eventually, perhaps, the Terrans grow brains and figure out that the Vasudans and Terrans have both been building things that, put together, can become an Apollo spacecraft.  After much rejoicing the Terrans take the Apollo on a flight to test it out.

Unfortunately the Shivans (UV light) come along and wipe out the hapless Apollo with its useless cannon.
The Terrans build the Avenger and steal shield technology.

The Terrans meet the Lucifer.

Miraculously the Terrans survive and destroy the Lucifer.

You know how the story goes from there.

...

...

...

Oh frick!  No miracles allowed!  Earth is destroyed and the Terrans are no more!  All is lost! Monkeys must figure out how to type 3, 7, 31, 127, all the way to the 43^rd Mersenne prime with no numbers in between!  This results in the Colossus, which is destroyed by the Sathanas!  Monkeys must learn English and type up War and Peace before the Shivans destroy Capella!  All is lost!

THE END

May I try and predict a response?

 


Oh, and Aldo_14?

The octopus eye was destroyed by the Shivans before the Terrans came into existence.  It did, however, leave a message regarding the Shivan weakness and referring to them as "The Destroyers".

...

Oh, right!  The octopus eye can't write and tell future species about the weakness!  The Terrans don't  get the message!
AIIIE!

By the way, mutations have never added information.  Therefore monkeys are limited to forever hitting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0.  They can never type up War and Peace without learning English (just thought I'd explain a little).  Capella is destroyed.

[aldo_14]

what on earth are you on about?  Seriously.

If this is supposed to be some sort of response, it is painfully obvious you lack even a basic comprehension of evolutionary selection theory.

[Shade]

Ah, I see. I suspected you were a troll after reading your first post, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now the doubt is gone. No point answering any further posts from this person, he will just keep going on with the same gobbletygook and false information. Let him live his life in ignorance while we have our little laugh at his expense.

[Edward Bradshaw]

I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.

Well sure you can, he just made it amusing. Heres brilliant analogy of his about the logic of Creationists:

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"

http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Is there an Artificial God?
Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K.
September 1998

Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.

Yes, but I believe we have found fossilized insects millions of years older than ourselves, complete with compound eyes, antennae (fully formed), etc?

So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.

HOWEVER:

Darwin's theory would be more like a monkey going to a typewriter (if you'll pardon the cliché) and pounding out EXACTLY 1234567, not any more or less (123456 or 12345678 would not be acceptable).

No it isnt. Why would you think that?  Fully formed features or new species didnt just form overnight. Why cant you argue against the actual theory, instead of misrepresenting it?

By the way, mutations have never  added information.

Creationists have been saying that for decades and decades.  You can show them how mutations add information, they just say, no no thats not information. They have never once defined information in any meaningfull way, because if they did they would be proven wrong. Its really amusing when guys like Dembski talks about his "Law of Conservation of Information", and comes out with all of these complicated equations yet doesnt even define what his terms even mean!

Ed

[NGTM-1R]

"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," God says, and then vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says ngtm1r, then goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing.

I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.

It may surprise you, but that was independantly duplicated. I've never read that bit. More to the point, this makes for a pretty good case for ad hominem; the sources of one's ideas is totally irrevelant. The substance, however, is what is germane to the discussion.

So, can you argue the argument, or is that too difficult?

[m]

what on earth are you on about?  Seriously.

My 1^st post was just an answer to a few things in the thread, and my second was an attempt at comparing the odds of natural selection to the FS storyline.

If you want a response, here:

Response to Shade:

The monkey would not become able to type "1" because mutations never add information.  (Unless you can offer me an example of it occurring; I've never seen an example of this.)  However mutations do subtract information (Shivans destroying the Apollo), and therefore "1" would be destroyed.

In short, you might have assumed no negative occurances in the entire process, which is not the case in nature.  Mutations are almost always harmful, rarely neutral, and extremely rarely benificial.  For example, bugs becoming resistance to pesticide due to mutations is beneficial, but it comes as a result of their bodies losing the ability to turn the chemicals into poison.  If the process keeps going, they keep losing information, and they never gain the information to become resistant to the sledgehammer.



Response to hEDz:

So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.

Because we've never found a fossil with partially formed antennae (though we have caused malformed fruit fly antennae in labs!).


BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.


In response to aldo_14,

At least you seem to use scientific explanations.  (I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration.)  The eye's "blinding" optic nerve is a channel to the brain, without which we couldn't see.  (But you probably already knew that.)  That is why we have two eyes.  You could say that we evolved the other eye in order to compensate, but the problem woud be how the first eye got there.

Darwin's idea of an eye evolving from light-sensitive membranes would not work; you would need an optic nerve to translate the signals to be there at the same time.  Either the nerve or the membranes would be useless without the other, so they would both have to evolve simultaneously, which would hardly seem like an accident to me.

By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations.  Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?

The "purpose" could, I suppose, be the greater benefit to the organism, but then why have we lost our muscles?  I mean, it's a shame that a chimpanzee is proportionally several times stronger than us, as are all monkey-type creatures.

Anyway, I think that it's suspicious that the greatest all-time proofs of evolution (peppered moths, Haeckel's embryos, Lucy's knee, not to mention all the ape-men) were invalidated, yet continue to be used.

It seems they are trying to find more proofs of evolution, but in the meantime, they resort to using frauds and "unproofs" to prove evolution.  The very animal mentioned in the beginning of this thread is compared to the Archaeopteryx, which is heralded as proof because it has claws, as does the baby hoatzin in South America.  So?  If you found a bird with just the beginnings of claws, that might be something, but I am dubious regarding "proofs", just because of the fact that there have been so many fakes.

The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure.  That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them):  If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water?  Did it breath air?  If so, how did it evolve lungs?

Anyway, I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight?  Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land?  And how exactly did it evolve the extra bones on both fins?  Is evolution always symmetrical?

By the way, I am a mutant myself, and it isn't exactly beneficial; it makes me about 50% more likely to get an infection of the urinary tract.  And it didn't add information, it just duplicated what was already there.  My kids probably won't get the same mutation.  And no, it's not symmetrical; it only happened on one side.

So no, I'm not a troll (I just act like one sometimes; maybe I have MPD ).  I'm a mutant, but my descendants will not be X-men .  I am m.

[Bobboau]

"For example, bugs becoming resistance to pesticide due to mutations is beneficial, but it comes as a result of their bodies losing the ability to turn the chemicals into poison."

WHAT?!


ok, it is a well documented fact that gene replication can copy a segment of DNA, you have therefore doubleded that segment in the genome, then other transcription errors can then change the copy into anything it can, there you have mutation proccesses adding information.

the reason we have two eyes is not because we developed one then the other, but because at some extreemly early point in vertibraite evolution bylateral sysmitry was developed, mutations that effect body plan are likely to effect both halfs in the exact same way (not that it's imposable for there to be diferences, but there is a mecanism for the changes to be effected on both halves)

[m]

ok, it is a well documented fact that gene replication can copy a segment of DNA, you have therefore doubleded that segment in the genome, then other transcription errors can then change the copy into anything it can, there you have mutation proccesses adding information.

Except that the transcription errors are limited to the "Backspace" Key, meaning that you would get a hand (extra!!) with all thumbs .

the reason we have two eyes is not because we developed one then the other, but because at some extreemly early point in vertibraite evolution bylateral sysmitry was developed, mutations that effect body plan are likely to effect both halfs in the exact same way (not that it's imposable for there to be diferences, but there is a mecanism for the changes to be effected on both halves)

Is that why I have my mutation on only one side of my body?