Just joined, haven't read any postings, but evolutionists can't answer this one!

[Fishteacher73]

A great example of macro-evolution in process is the speciation of many of the African Rift Lakes cichlids. The taxonomy is a nightmare dure to ther rappid expansion and diversification of a multitude of species:

The cichlids, a family of tropical freshwater fish, have evolved an astonishing array of forms in Africa. Their diversity is perhaps most impressive in the Great Lakes of East Africa, where a handful of colonizing fish species have multiplied over thousands of years into many hundreds of species found nowhere else in the world.

 

There are of literally hundereds of sub-species of geographically isolated cichlids on the verge of splitting off completely, from Pseudochomis to Tilapia to Aulonocara to Calvus genrera(to just name a few...) are all in the middle of a massive stint of diversification and speciation. This is going on now and is observable. Unless God's over in Africa doing his mojo to make new fish (because that is obviously the most pressing issue on that continent)

[Harzburgite]

Me resulting to personal insult? Remember this, "Well, I wasn't insulting his education joe, I was suggesting he didn't have one." (Post #24 - this thread)

I'm sorry you view that as an insult. Rest assured if I intended to insult you it would be self evident.

The tenor of those posts of yours I had read suggested you had only a vague grasp of fundamental science. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you may well follow it in the expectation of acquiring duck eggs. No biologists of my acquaintance would make the extraordinary claims re-evolution (or the lack of it) that you have...... Perhaps I should get out more.

 

Thank you for the correction on drivel - now that is the right application of a dictionary.

 

My point was, every purely scientific (taking out emotion) reference of evolution has words and phrases like: "may have," "supposing," "could have," "must have," "should have been," "if we had," and the like, many times used in combination.

Where to begin? Again, no insults are intended in any of this.

1. So you have achieved the incredible feat of reading every purely scientific reference of evolution . I bow to your speed reading skills. (Note: that is sarcasm, not an insult.)

2. Well it seems that your course at Rice did not include anything on scientific method. Science advances through uncertainties. Any cutting edge research, if it is of any quality at all, will contain appropriate caveats.

3. Your statement can be falsified: read any Richard Dawkins book. It has enough absolutes to sink an armada of creationists.

[Skippy]

A great example of macro-evolution in process is the speciation of many of the African Rift Lakes cichlids. The taxonomy is a nightmare dure to ther rappid expansion and diversification of a multitude of species:

 

 

There are of literally hundereds of sub-species of geographically isolated cichlids on the verge of splitting off completely, from Pseudochomis to Tilapia to Aulonocara to Calvus genrera(to just name a few...) are all in the middle of a massive stint of diversification and speciation. This is going on now and is observable. Unless God's over in Africa doing his mojo to make new fish (because that is obviously the most pressing issue on that continent)

Mitochondrial DNA evidence was referred to in the article about cichlids. Mitochondrial DNA has been used to trace humans back to a single woman - Eve.

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

THAT points to the Biblical creation more than random evolution, no?

[Fishteacher73]

Mitochondrial DNA evidence was referred to in the article about cichlids. Mitochondrial DNA has been used to trace humans back to a single woman - Eve.

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

THAT points to the Biblical creation more than random evolution, no?

 

Any sexually reproducting eukaryote can be traced to a single maternal mitochondrial ancestor. That is the way sexual reproduction works. The term Eve was used as a literary reference and has no theological implications other than those wishing to project them onto it.

[Skippy]

1. So you have achieved the incredible feat of reading every purely scientific reference of evolution . I bow to your speed reading skills. (Note: that is sarcasm, not an insult.).

I don't mind sarcasm at all, it takes brains. For the record I was not really insulted before, I took your previous note as sarcasm as well.

2. Well it seems that your course at Rice did not include anything on scientific method. Science advances through uncertainties. Any cutting edge research, if it is of any quality at all, will contain appropriate caveats.

As I recall, real science seeks to prove assumptions with verifiable and repeatable experimental evidence or other hard facts (fossils of T-Rex for example). It would not be called scientific to develop a hypothesis, find that you cannot prove the hypothesis and create another hypothetical scenario to provide the "facts" needed to prove the first hypothesis. In the same way, it is not scientific to use radiometric dating todate an event to 100,000,000 years ago then find something irrefutable that shows it could never have been that way, so you change the date (which was never supported by radiometric dating) so that the contrived thesis is now supported. You cannot deny this has happened.

3. Your statement can be falsified: read any Richard Dawkins book. It has enough absolutes to sink an armada of creationists.

Read Phillip Johnson's http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Phillip%20E.%20Johnson/103-4480574-6019841 books, he has facts as well. As does Lee Strobel http://www.caseforacreator.com/home.php.

--------- -------- ------- -------

"Primarily through his study of evolution, Johnson learned that the academic community's primary intellectual commitment is to the philosophy of naturalism. If the "facts" contradict materialistic conclusions, then the "facts" are either explained away, ignored, or just plain wrong.

 

Therefore, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can say things like "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and actually say it with a straight face. The appearance of design is an illusion, you see, because we "know" that organisms evolved and the primary reason we "know" this is because naturalistic philosophy demands it."

[Skippy]

Any sexually reproducting eukaryote can be traced to a single maternal mitochondrial ancestor. That is the way sexual reproduction works. The term Eve was used as a literary reference and has no theological implications other than those wishing to project them onto it.

It was the research scientists who made the discovery that called this single person "Eve," not me and not anyone on the theological side of the argument...although we did smile when once again true science proved out our beliefs.

 

Now, if science has shown a single individual "mother" common to all humans, isn't it far-fetched to believe that evolution was responsible for that individual? Isn't it far-fetched to believe that an "Adam" (or whatever you'd prefer to call the complimentary male) evolved in the same geographical part of the earth at the same point in time as the "Eve" did? "Eve" would have been a different species that her parents, siblings and cousins (her tribe), according to evolution. It has been correctly stated, by you I believe, that the offspring of different species are sterile (horse + *** = sterile mule/hinny). So another identical evolutionary step in another individual would have had to occur for "Eve" to reproduce and be the precursor for all of us.

[Fishteacher73]

Sub-species can interbreed, and that is the pre-cursor to speciation. (Some species can also produce viable hybrids. An example are the swordfish, and they breed like wildfire and produce viable young).

 

The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent

[zmweaver]

Sorry zmweaver, you make some interesting points, but it is my belief (based on observation, not faith) that 50% or more of conclusions based on common sense are drivel. I'm afraid you will have to offer more than 'common sense' to engage my interest.

You see common sense tells me my explanations c) or d) must be the correct ones, but I've backed up that by evidence produced, as you point out, by scientific research.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but your rebuttal begs for a response. I admit that "common sense" was too broad of a term to use. "Simple logic" more accurate fits my intended implication behind the term "common sense".

 

Your “belief” ("based on observation") in something that CANNOT be proven, IS FAITH!

 

If "50% or more of conclusions based on common sense are drivel"; humans would have died out long ago. I don't need Newton to tell me that if I walk off a cliff, I will fall to my death. If I had never seen video of someone getting attacked by a bear, I still wouldn't walk up to one and smack it. Common sense tells me that my remote control (which is across the room from me) will not grow legs and walk its *** over here so I can change the channel (I have reached this "conclusion"; though I have no scientific evidence to base it on).

 

Simple logic does not allow me to accurately guess the surface temperature of the sun, but the 103degreeF high today tells me it's damn hot. Simple logic tells me that the sun is the source of the heat and light, because when it goes down, it gets cooler and darker. Simple logic tells me NOT to form a conclusion as to the exact surface temperature of the sun because I have no freaking clue.

 

The reliability of simple logic most commonly breaks down when ignorant individuals attempt to explain modern technology and science they don't understand, in terms of it. Technology has an exponential growth curve which really took off in the 20th century. The fact that simple logic cannot explain how computers, flight, radios, television, or the internal-combustion engine work; does not make it unreliable. Simple logic accurately concludes that someone invented/discovered each of these technologies and they could not have evolved on their own.

 

The reliability of simple logic breaks down when an individual no longer considers alternate possibilities to a theory that cannot be proven or disproved (whether religious or secular in nature).

[Erasmus00]

The reliability of simple logic breaks down when an individual no longer considers alternate possibilities to a theory that cannot be proven or disproved (whether religious or secular in nature).

 

I want to point out that the theory you are debating, evolution, can be disproved. It makes predictions (and those predictions have thus far been reliable).

-Will

[Harzburgite]

I admit that "common sense" was too broad of a term to use. "Simple logic" more accurate fits my intended implication behind the term "common sense".

I am much more comfortable with this terminology and would agree with much of what you say about it, except I still maintain 50% of conclusions reached by it are drivel. The reason the planet does not rapidly lose its human population is that those who have created an environment using science and logic which is protecting the idiots from self immolation. e.g. You don't to have to understand the principles of kinetic energy and decelleration, we'll give you seat belts and side impact bars and air bags (If this sounds elitist all I can say is, if half the population derive real interest from watching Big Brother and the like please hang a large sign round my neck saying Elitist Rebel).

But I diverge.

 

Your “belief” ("based on observation") in something that CANNOT be proven, IS FAITH!

).

No, it isn't. a) it can be proven. ;) until it is proven it remains the best game in town, so I subscribe to it for that reason c) tell me where the faith is involved.

[Fishteacher73]

I want to point out that the theory you are debating, evolution, can be disproved. It makes predictions (and those predictions have thus far been reliable).

-Will

 

??? ;)

 

You are saying that an incorrect theory (in your view, evolution) can be disproven, yet it has reliable predicted results. IMO that does not sound like a theory that is incorrect.

[Erasmus00]

??? ;)

 

You are saying that an incorrect theory (in your view, evolution) can be disproven, yet it has reliable predicted results. IMO that does not sound like a theory that is incorrect.

 

You misread me. I'm not against evolution, rather quite for it. The post I was quoting suggested that evolution wasn't a scientific theory, because you can't disprove it. I was saying that if the predictions failed, evolution would be disproven. However, as the predctions have no failed, evolution is on quite solid ground.

-Will

[Skippy]

You misread me. I'm not against evolution, rather quite for it. The post I was quoting suggested that evolution wasn't a scientific theory, because you can't disprove it. I was saying that if the predictions failed, evolution would be disproven. However, as the predctions have no failed, evolution is on quite solid ground.

-Will

So are you saying that a hypothesis is proof enough. You seem to have just said, "as long as evolution has not been disproven, it is fact." That is not how the scientific method works. A hypothesis must be proved. The fact that somehhing has not been proved, disproves it by definition...that is where this debate has gotten screwed up. One camp says you can't prove evolution, one camp says you can't disprove it.

 

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

 

That is how the scientific method has always been. It is only since evolution and other theories like "membrane theory" which seem to explain the unobservable that a new caveat to the scientific method was added, namely - a theory is considered valid if it is not disproved. THAT is a faith statement as opposed to real science.

[zmweaver]

No, it isn't. a) it can be proven. :) until it is proven it remains the best game in town, so I subscribe to it for that reason c) tell me where the faith is involved.

 

c) = a) + ;)

 

The term "can" in part a) suggests that you believe and are 100% positive that your explanations are correct and factual. I am not exactly sure what your "explanations" are, but your postings suggest strong convictions in evolution and atheism.

 

In part ;) you use the term "until". By admitting that your explanations HAVE NOT "yet" been proven, you defined part c) for me. My understanding of "faith" is believing in something that has NOT been scientifically proven. Your belief in something that has NOT "yet" been proven, is "where the faith is involved".

 

Also, science and math is only LAW within the specific set of parameters determined by the humans that establish it. During the first few semesters of my undergrad education, I was taught the scientific LAWS that govern motion and energy. I was taught that these LAWS only hold true under ideal conditions that never occur in reality (due to entropy, friction, turbulence, no steady-state conditions, and so on). During the next couple semesters I was taught how these LAWS were modified and expanded upon to account for conditions presented by reality (for example, basic Bernoulli to Extended-Bernoulli). During the last few semesters, I was taught how to apply what I had learned to physical systems. To apply these laws to reality, requires the ability to recognize and accurately identify all system parameters. Part of these parameters are assumptions. My professors required us to make an "Assumptions" heading and list every one of them before attempting to analytically solve a problem. The more complex the system or problem, the more assumptions are required to arrive at an answer/conclusion. As the number of assumptions increases so does the possibility for error and oversight. Life is the most complex system science has ever attempted explain.

[Erasmus00]

So are you saying that a hypothesis is proof enough. You seem to have just said, "as long as evolution has not been disproven, it is fact." That is not how the scientific method works. A hypothesis must be proved. The fact that somehhing has not been proved, disproves it by definition...that is where this debate has gotten screwed up. One camp says you can't prove evolution, one camp says you can't disprove it.

...

It is only since evolution and other theories like "membrane theory" which seem to explain the unobservable that a new caveat to the scientific method was added, namely - a theory is considered valid if it is not disproved. THAT is a faith statement as opposed to real science.

 

 

You seem to have fundamental misunderstandings about the way science works. I was (and often do) treating science along the same lines as Popper. Hypothesis can NEVER be proven, only falsified. If a hypothesis passes every single test thrown at it, it still is not proven, as it may fail some test still over the horizon. Any good scientific hypothesis makes testable predictions, if it fails those, it fails as a theory. Evolution has made testable predictions, and it has passed all the tests thus far. That is how science works, and it has been working that way for a very long time. I suggest reading some philosophy of or history of science. It would actually clarify lots of the misconceptions you've posted.

 

Now, you keep stating that well established hypothesis change over to laws. This isn't exactly true. There is no hard and fast rule as to when a theory becomes a law, and it is often a matter of history rather than science. Consider that statistical mechanics and thermodynamics encompass the same things. Statistical mechanics is a theory, thermodynamics, law. Also, note that gravity is said to follow an inverse square law, which we now know not to be wholly true. There is no easy distinction between law and theory.

 

Finally, I've read posts where you attack evolutionary writings based on words like "might," "may," "if" etc. etc. I'd point out that all science papers are written in this style. If that is your only critique against evolutionary science, it is a critique against all science. Science is not about being completely certain, rather as certain as possible.

-Will

[Skippy]

Is that truly evolution, or is it a totally different organism? Breed? Is it adaptation? Survival of the fittest? Has a petrie dish with influenza ever been observed to change into the HIV, HBV, HCV or any other virus? Maybe into a bacterium?

 

I have agreed that a black moth will "be chosen" over white moths in a forest of black bark trees. While that is what Darwin suggested in his Galapogos study of birds, it is not what is preached by evolutionists today. Sure, they still refer to that but they also include macro-evolution which cannot be defended without the use of supposition. Find me a fossilized female reptile bearing an unlaid egg which contains a mammalian baby and you might win me to the "dark side."

No repsonse to either part of this post yet. Is there any evidence that the influenza virus has ever changed into HIV, HBV or some other virus - not a strain (breed) of influenza? Does the fossilized egg, in vitro as it were, exist which showed an unborn or unhatched egg within its mother which would have been a different species than the mother?

[Harzburgite]

Evolution is a digital phenomenom detected, at a macro-level, in analog form. Reflect on that Skippy and you may see the answer.