Whew! I think we can all agree. Orangs *ARE* escape artists! The San Diego Zoo has had numerous escapes. And, yes, Orangs *have* loosened bolts that a human had tightened with a wrench.

All we were quibbling about was, in the OP, the phrase "tighten a bolt as tightly as possible using a wrench..." and the Orang could still undo it.

In logic, there's a difference between...

1) Some bolts can be unfastened by Orangs using their bare hands...

and...

2) All bolts can be unfastened by Orangs using their bare hands.

To the first, I think there is no dispute.

(I have pulled nails, with my bare hands, that had been driven in with a hammer. But I can't do it every time!)

Silas

In addition to what Silas had to say, I didn't read anything in that 'fact #10' about any 'wrench tightened' bolt.

I'm also not trying to attack and this isn't astronomy, but when I see what might be a communication error, I think the underlying mistake is important to address. Miscommunication is one of the causes of 'bad everything'.

You might or might not use a wrench on a bolt. It might have come loose over time. I understood the 'animal fact' to be stating that the orangs figured out that unscrewing the bolt COULD open the cage. I didn't interpret it to imply anything about strength.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-05 04:34 ]</font>

Well, unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down the original reference (which came from my wife, the zoologist, anyhow), so I'm kind of at a loss to support my argument. And it's not astronomy,anyway, so I'm just going to leave it.

I agree that I could and should have phrased my claim better.

2002-06-06: (Based on responses, I guess I should also clarify that my wife found the mention of orangutans undoing bolts and read it to me, not that she actually produced it.)

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-06-06 21:42 ]</font>

Back to the original topic:

Yes, if the realtionships between planetary orbits could be described by one equation, it would be evidence for inteligent design.

But it would be no more so than the fact that the relationship between light and magnetism can be described by equations. Or, you could point out that the forces of nature seem to become more "elegent" and more unified the more we know about them.

The fact that the universe is describable according to logical laws is a persuasive(to me) argument for the existance of a builder.
But I don't think your "new discovery" really adds to this argument even were it to be true- it merely posits the discovery of yet another scientific law.

I'm just trying to help ToSeek find his wife, but you all ought to check out the write up about Asian small-clawed otters. Maybe they're orangutans in disguise. Clever.

Sorry to be so off-topic here, but I was just looking at that wacky post written by the originator of this thread (s8int).

I must ask: What on Earth is a seightint?

JB

__________________
Nowhere in all space or on a thousand worlds will there be men to share our loneliness. ...in the principles of evolution we have had our answer: of men elsewhere... there will be none, forever. - Loren Eisely, The Immense Journey, 1956.

So, can we just say that the interpretation of facts is subjective to the "world view" of the interpreter?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Gotta be careful here... The answer is: sometimes, yeah. And sometimes, no.

Some ideas are just plain wrong. (I used to hang with the Flat Earth Society, just for the joy of collecting logical and factual errors.)

But some ideas transcend "right and wrong" and are subjective. You might like chocolate, while I hate the stuff. That's a matter of preference. You could point out that chocolate is a good source of sugar for quick energy, and that I might benefit from it just before a foot-race. That's objective, and I would be forced to agree.

"Therefore," you might say, "chocolate is good in a moral sense." That's philosophy...

The philosophical issues are subject to a great deal of personal interpretation. But the objective facts -- the "raw data" which we all observe -- aren't.

An astronomy teacher once told me, "Scientists don't believe in their theories. But they do believe in the data."

Silas

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] Umm...I wasn't saying anything about "right [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] or wrong [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]" interpretations, I was talking about interpretations in general. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] I mean, even the "flat earthers" are interpreting the data their own way to fit their own views! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

[quote]
On 2002-06-06 01:04, Cloudy wrote:
... if the realtionships between planetary orbits could be described by one equation, it would be evidence for inteligent design.
[quote/]

There is no logical argument that the data we have about the Universe and the data we have about life on Earth provides any evidence for 'intelligent design'. You can 'feel' it is there, you can 'believe' it is there, you can refuse to believe it is not there; but there is NO EVIDENCE for your conclusion.

IF humans build machines, human's are intelligent, no machines have been observed that were not built by humans, THEN you have evidence machines were built by intelligent humans.

Just looking at what you have stated, because I could fill pages with other arguments, you say that because there is a mathematical equation that describes a relationship, and because that relationship might be consistent: ('if the realtionships (sic.) between planetary orbits could be described by one equation'), there is evidence there for 'intelligent design'? What evidence?

I know you qualified your assertion with, '(to me)', but there is no logic here.

There are laws of probability, where is there intelligent design? I can lift heavy objects with leverage, are you saying someone had to plan that? Different liquids have different boiling points, what intelligent reason is mandated for these chemical properties?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-06 21:23 ]</font>

I appear to have interpreted your post wrongly... (Grin!)

But, seriously, what do you want "interpretation" to mean? Right and wrong are the basic criteria.

If you say "Freunde," and I interpret that to mean "A 20th Century pioneer of Psychology," my interpretation is wrong.

Suppose we're both looking at the same data, perhaps a series of numbers. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36.

I might interpret it as the square of the position of the number in the sequence. You might interpret it as the sum of the odd integers up to the position in the sequence. We're both right; there is no "wrong" in an interpretation that fits the facts.

A third person might interpret the data as the sum of the cubes of the positions of the numbers, minus the squares of the positions. Oops. Wrong. Fails miserably.

Contrast this to subjective interpretations: I hear Beethoven's 5th as a parable of innocence lost; you might hear it as a tale of exploration and growth. Who is right? Who is wrong?

I guess I just don't completely get what you're trying to say...

Silas

Well, let's see, when I was taking Astronomy 101, my instructor taught us that the entire universe can be mapped out mathematically. Neptune was predicted before it was discovered based on mathematical calculations. That is, its location was calculated out mathematically, and it was discovered by looking by looking for it where it was calculated. Bingo! Correct! My astonomy lab instructor mentioned that there exists a mathematical formula that calculates the distances between the planets in the solar system exactly. According to this equation, there should be a planet located between Mars and Jupitor. But, instead, there is an asteroid belt. It is believed that Jupitor's gravitational pull disrupted the planet's formation, thus the pieces are scattered instead of having coellesced (sp?) like the other planets. Then, in my trigonometry book, it actually gives the formula with the means by which one can graph the orbits of the planets on a scientific calculator. I tried it - it looks pretty cool! The equation is

r = [a(1-e^2)] / [1 + e cos(theta)]

"a" and "e" are specific numbers. For Mercury, a = 0.39 and e = 0.206. For Venus, a = 0.78 and e = 0.007. For Earth, a = 1 and e = 0.017. for Mars, a = 1.52 and e = 0.093. And so on. The mode of the calcualtor needs to be in radians and polar. The window needs to be set to 0 for "min" and 2(pi) for "max" and 0.13089... for "step." The x settings are [-2, 2, 1] and the y settings are [-2, 2, 1]. The "zoom" needs to be set at "square." So, if you has a TI-83, maybe you can try this out. (Let me know if the instructions aren't working out.)

So, anyway, does the ability to use math to calculate the universe or the solar system or anything else prove or support anything? Someone who believes in at least "a supreme being" who created the universe can look at this and say, "Design equals designer!" Someone else not so inclined to believe in a "Creator" can look at this and say, "Wow! Look at this evolutionary process." (Or something else; I'm just throwing out a guess.) If the claculations are true, then it can be reasonably safe to say that those are the facts. What those facts mean, or if they mean anything at all, well that's open to the interpretation of the observer. (Whether or not those interpretations can be supported through experimentation or not, well that's an entirely different matter!) I hope that all makes sense (hmm...no icon for an "exhausted" face).

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I don't see where a process that conforms to a mathmatical formula equates to design. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of a false premise. Your first statement above says it. "does {...} prove or support anything?" The answer is NO. If there is a connection between 'design' and a mathmatical description of a relationship, what is it?

I am not interpreting the data to say it indicates an evolutionary process or any other process. I am saying there is NO EVIDENCE for design nor designer. To say there is evidence for a designer because a mathmatical formula is descriptive and consistent is wishful thinking. And, it is BAD SCIENCE.

Well... Your professor might have phrased it better...

Astronomers watched Uranus for several years, and mapped out its orbit. The trouble was, it didn't stick exactly to that orbit. It deviated, very slightly.

Other astronomers worked out, from those deviations, the general location of an hypothetical other body that *might* have been responsible for these perturbations.

And, as it turned out, bingo, correct.

But there was (and is) no "equation" that tells where Neptune should be. That was *not* how the planet was discovered.

And...if there were, then we could plug in further numbers, and "discover" the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, etc. planets. Why does the equation suddenly fail at nine?

Nature is wonderfully mathematical, and that is one of the deepest riddles for philosophy and theology. Why are there "prime numbers?" Why are there "square numbers?" What is the secret of phi, or e, or pi?

But to look at our solar system, pock-marked with collisions, with hot and cold running gas giants, with volcanoes and oceans, with rings and whorls, you have to understand it's far too chaotic to be explained by any simple equation. That would be as painful as trying to develop an equation that models all trees, or all fish, or all minerals.

Silas

I forgot to mention, was pi designed? Someone had a sense of humor there. "Lets see what these turkeys do with a number that never ends." [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

Oh, I wish I had Lenier's gift for the martial arts of the mind! (Babylon 5 in case you have no idea what I'm talking about.) The point I was trying to make was that one's "world view" tends to dictate how they interpret the world around them. (I believe some psychologist out there has some theroy that states that in more technological terms [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] ). People of religious persuasion get upset over any statements that deny the existence of God, Athiests tend to get upset over statements that acknowledge the existence of God, Agnostics tend to get upset over statements that try to define God, and on and on. This is what I have experienced, anyway.

I appologize for screwing up my solar system explanation for trying to cut things short. Physics in theory and physics in practice tend to show different results (i.e. an equation for calculating the velocity of a thrown ball doesn't account for air resistance or the influence of wind). Neptune was calculated before it was discovered (seen and i.d.'ed) because the orbit of Uranus appeared to be affected by an unaccounted for gravitational pull (and I hope I am explaining this correctly). I know the whole "equation workings" weren't completely a nice, neat package, but why should they be there at all? Graphing the orbits on the scientific calculator does work, but you would be correct in arguing that it does not account for the variations seen in reality (just like the air resistance and wind velocity on the ball). You might not see an order to it, but I see a form of order, even if there exists variables taht are still unexplained.

I know there's a lot of crack-pot Creationists' thinking out there that taints the true scientific arguments regarding such, and I've been trying to weed out what is "true" versus what is "fanciful."
(Of course, I've encountered a lot of fanciful "scientific arguments" that have nothing to do with Creationism, too, that I've been needing to weed out as well!) So, I guess I ought to thank you guys for keeping me on my toes and keeping me thinking.

Or maybe I should just string-up a noose for myself with a sign that says, "Deanna was here," and save you all the trouble!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

I agree with your point about a person's world view influencing their perceptions. But I take issue with the second half of your statement. You cannot elevate pseudoscience to the level of science by arguing it is just a difference in viewpoints. I ask again, what EVIDENCE is there for intelligent design? Being complex? Being describable by a mathmatical formula?
Being consistent?


I don't know of anyone in my circle that would claim all science is good science. If you really want to weed out fanciful arguments, try starting with a strong base of knowledge about the science you want to verify or refute.

Any supposedly 'true' scientific arguments that support the standard Creation theory only come from non-geologists and non-biologists. If you have a background in geology, you would know that the age of the Earth is established beyond doubt to be billions and not thousands of years old. If you still think life 'adapts' but does not evolve, then you do not have a complete understanding of biology.

Without a thorough understanding of the science behind the conclusions, it is foolish to assume you 'know' the conclusions are wrong.

For one to say there is EVIDENCE for 'intelligent design' you have to forego the scientific process, because complexity, mathmatical describability, consistency, and the like, are not exclusively explainable by 'intelligent design'. Since those characteristics can occur with and without intelligent design, they cannot be evidence for it.

Thanks, "beskeptical" for your insights. It's given me some thoughts to chew on.

For what it's worth, I don't accept the "standard Creationist theory" anymore, and I cringe every time I hear the "young Earth" model being argued now. I had taken a class several years ago on Comparative Study of Origins. We looked at how scientist come up with knowledge, how they interpret the knowledge, and then looked from the far reaches of the universe down to Earth one by one at the different knowledges (discovries, observetions, etc.) that have been obtained, and finally some of the interpretations that have been made for each point, besides the most commonly accepted one. It became clearer and clearer that neither extremes of the Creation vs. Evolution debate (the only ones we seem to hear about) could be correct. From this and other points brought out in other classes, I had begun to take a new look at Genesis 1 - not as a 20th century Western scientific account of the creation story but as an ancient culture's poetic account of the creation story (you can see that if you've had a lesson on ancient poetry). I can also see that the whole account makes more sense looking at it as an account of the "recreation" of the surface of the Earth after it had been through global disaster. For instance, notice how it says that "the Earth was formless and void, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" before the "first day," and that light was spoken into being before the sun and moon were spoken of - on the third - and that there is no mention of the formation of the land structures such as mountains and valleys. So, I'm OK with the the universe being billions of years old and the Earth being five million years old and even the idea that God played around with the creation process the way an artist or engineer might play around with designs and structures and such (lol). It makes universe-watching and investigating, and reading about how the scientific community is trying to make sense of the whole picture, much more interesting.

Now, just where did mathematics and the laws of physics come from anyway? (Just playing with ya there! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

Actually, this is one of the most important questions in cosmology. Sir Martin Rees (Royal Astronomer) has a book "Six Little Numbers" that explains just how fine-tuned the physical constants are to allow us to exist to observe the universe. One can say "God made it that way" or one can say that "if it wasn't that way we wouldn't be here to talk about it."

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

The Earth is more than 4.5 BILLION years old, maybe that is what you meant to say.

I have to assume your 'Comparative Study of Origins' class was through a religious organization. I am glad to hear the 'young Earth' rationalizations have not swayed you. The arguments I have heard either were outright fraud (wonderful for religious ethics) or complete ignorance of the facts.

Every educational curriculum from grade school on up should be including a course on how to evaluate data and research. Competing explanations for data should always be addressed.

As far as the course you site explaining why evolution is a matter of interpretation, I would suggest they might have left out a few facts as well. I realize +/- half of the posters to this BB have a cow when someone says evolution is no longer a theory, but it is no longer a theory.

The two most rationale arguments against evolution seem to be 'gaps in the fossil record' and 'adaptation but not evolution'.

DNA and gene research have filled in ALL the gaps, sorry folks but it is so.

And adaptation is evolution. I have not heard any response to those who doubt me [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] that can tell me where they think adaptation stops. If you can breed a poodle from a wolf, when are the two going to be considered different species? If one argues 'yah but they're still canines', that person is ignoring the fossil and DNA evidence.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-10 15:06 ]</font>

After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies!
There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred
beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact
but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to
the "evolution" of one species from another.

"serious deformities" like the Panda's Thumb, the Rhinoceros's horn, the Giraffe's neck?

If the barrier is "impassable," why do we see such overwhelming evidence that it has, in fact, been passed?

And why do you persist in comparing the mere 5,000 years of observed human activity to the hundreds of millions of years over which large-scale evolutionary change occurs?

By the way: do you think that today's fruit flies could successfully breed with their ancestors of 5,000 generations ago?

Are fruit flies and houseflies and blowflies and horseflies "breeds" or species? Do you have a working definition for the two terms? Why is a coyote a separate species than a wolf, but a cocker spaniel isn't a separate species than a doberman?

Darwin didn't "gloss over" anything...

(I'm not actually posting this rebuttal to cause you to change your mind: I'm just dutifully "showing the flag.")

Silas

If we are to have a "sirius" discussion (that just to keep this on an astronomical bent) about dogs and evolution, one needs to understand the difference between selective breeding (that created chihuahuas from wolves) and the physical barriers that now prevent chihuahuas from breeding with wolves. While it's true that the past few hundred years of selective breeding of dogs hasn't created any new species, the gene pools of some dog breeds and their wolf ancestors will continue to diverge until inevitably they have ceased to be able to interbreed at all for biological reasons.
In our somewhat arbitrary classification system, that will make them different species.
This is the old micro/macro evolution debate.
Maybe a toy poodle could never evolve into a bird or a reptile, but it seems pretty clear that it equally will never evolve into a wolf either. In the absence of human intervention in the breeding of dogs, one can speculate that many breeds would become extinct and those that survived and interbred would probably end up like the dingo or the African wild dog - a brown mutt with no distinguishing features.

Some of you may want to pick this discussion up on the Apollohoax board's evolution forum which has been a bit dormant lately. The BA ain't gonna put up with this OT stuff for much longer. Try here:
http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...?forum=17&1716

If one argues 'yah but they're still canines', that person is ignoring the fossil and DNA evidence.

It is a tree folks, not a single line. A turtle may not be on track to change into a dog, but they originated from an organism in the past that was the same.

You can put your heads in the sand and say it isn't true, or you can move on. The Earth is round, it orbits the Sun, religious people in the past got over it. Evolution is a fact. Get over it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

First, a comment:
The earliest indications for human understanding of a round, or spherical, Earth come from the ancient Greeks. They could observe a ship disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up as would be expected for it going around a sphere. They could recognize the Earth’s shadow on the moon for what it was and see that it had a round shape to it. They could tell that the stars differed in their locations as one travels a significant difference from North to South. The idea that Columbus was out to prove that the Earth was round is a misnomer. Educated people knew the Earth was round. The question was how far around it is. Columbus used Ptolomy’s calculation of the Earth’s circumference, incorrectly calculating it to be smaller than it actually is, to argue a westward shortcut to China and India.

I believe our understanding of history is getting a little mixed. The Church's big error was to regard Aristotle's word as God's word (geocentrism was his baby, not the Bible's). I am still trying to figure out how Aristotle's philosophy was considered on par with the Scriptures when Aristotle didn't even follow the God of the Bible! If they had left well enough alone, would we have to be regarding science and religion as opposing entities anyway. But now we're in this mess trying to sort out the pieces. So, here I go again. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

I would say, BeSkeptical, that you did a fair job at answering my last set of questions (a fair argument and presentation, given the circumstances). But I still have many questions. I apologize for the length:
I know the concept of microevolution, that is slight variations in a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions, has been observed, and I believe it is safe to say proven, but has macroevolution ever actually been observed anywhere or is it just being ***-u-me-d? For instance, it is popular now to believe that birds descended from dinosaurs. Similarities between the two are pointed out as evidence. But I wonder about the differences. How many random genetic changes does it take to go from a scale to a feather, and why would all those changes occur? Until the feather actually evolved, of what use would the pre-evolved scale-to-feather have? How about the evolution of the wing for that matter? What would a forelimb-evolving-into-a-wing look like on a creature, and why is that not seen in the fossil record? With the large time frame given for the transition, one would think at least one good example could be found. Also, would these evolutionary transitioning-staged limbs have a useful function for the creature? Would it be a useful limb at all? Again, why would these changes occur in the first place? For the evolution to occur because of a need, would not the time it takes for the complete transformation to occur negate the need or negate the creature? And what guided this transition anyway? (If it wasn’t being “guided,” what was keeping it on the right track? Could coincidences be that lucky?) Are you saying it is probable that a randomly mutated gene successfully passed down to connect with a later randomly mutated gene to successfully connect with another or later randomly mutated gene and so on to eventually go from a perfectly formed and useful forelimb to a likewise perfectly formed and useful wing? Did the forelimb-to-wing transition take place at the same time as the scale-to-feather transition take place? What is the probability that such separate but synchronous random processes would or could occur? Also add to the mix how different a bird’s legs look from a dinosaurs. Also, a bird’s internal anatomy and physiology are especially designed/evolved to make it an efficient “flying machine,” so changes there needed to have occurred. Can or would random mutations manage to pull off such perfect complexity? And again, would the dinosaur-to-bird transitionary creatures be able to function with the changes before becoming complete? One would think that at some point it would become inefficient as a land-dwelling animallong before it became efficient as a flying animal. Could these creatures likely survive to keep reproducing to eventually have another young with the just right mutation to pass on to more young to continue the process? I just cannot picture the feasibility of this transformitory process making it through. If you are going to argue the evolutionary process, these step-by-step transitions really do need to be distinctly answered by someone, someway, somehow.

I mean, the fossil record shows the "beginning products" and the "end products" but no in-between products. If these evolutionary changes are occuring, why is there an "end product?" Wouldn't it just keepon going? Or is there a "stop here" mutation gene coded into the sequence, on its own, somehow, to produce for this much longer stretch of time of what appears to be a "finished product organism"? If the fossil record were compared to successive generations of people, it would be compatible with the record somehow eliminating the childhood and adolescent years of everyone! Now, how would it do that for every single species, plant and animal, on the planet? If a mutation would not allow an organisms decendants to survive long enough in "fossil history" to be recorded, how could it have even survived long enough to carry on an organism that would eventually develop another mutation that continued the changing sequence and traqnsfer that mutation to enough descendents to carry on the process?

Would an organism evolve a circulatory system before there was a need? If so, why, or at least is this seen in the fossil record? If not, could an organism that needs a circulatory system but does not have one survive without it? And which evolved first: blood cells to carry the oxygen and/or nutrients and wastes, the vessels to carry the blood cells around the body, or the heart to pump the blood? Of course, this includes a structure, such as gills, to intake the oxygen into the body to the blood and other structures that deals with nutrient intake and/or waste removal. Would one evolve without the other? If not, then I wonder how could they have actually evolve together if evolution is about random mutations? Would a one gene mismatch mutation start a new organ without harming or disrupting the organism? What kind of random mutations turn into organ formation anyway? Would it start as a mass of useless cells, or what? If they were useful cells, would one mutation really produce that? Is there evidence for this? Why and how would random mutations in later generations perfectly continue to form this organ to a useful new structure anyway?


(This next set of questions are summarised or exact quotes I borrowed from another web page I mention here as reference solely to avoid plagiarism - http://www.creationscience.com. If you respond to my post, please respond to what I am presenting, not what the web site is presenting.)

Do we see anywhere a strictly natural process that creates information? Is there evidence that information, such as that in DNA, could assemble itself? If so, what is it?

“What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t [I might add, or can’t] the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also im this post! ply an intelligent source?” [I threw this in for to include something astronomy related into into this [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] .]

“Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?” (Please don’t write this question off as inconclusive evidence, because it is a fair question.)

On the philosophical side of things (back to my own questions):

How or why did the need to explain things come from or evolve? Why would the people who were intelligent enough to figure out how to make their own fire, survive extreme temperatures without heat or air conditioning, or take the seeds of a wheat plant and transform them and mix them with other ingredients in such a way as to make bread need to look to a God or many gods for their answers if there were no basis for such? (I added this because I have noticed opponents to throw in comments about humans inventing the concept of "God" and the like.)

So, how much of the presentations on this thread are really about defending evolution or creationism rather than about defending athiesm or theism? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] (Hey, we’re humans; gotta take things like that into consideration.)

Finally, do you think the BA is getting annoyed by these posts or is he sitting back in his chair laughing at us and is amused by our continually going around in these no-one-is-ever-going-to-successfully-manage-to-convince-the-other loops? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

I shut-up now. Back to homework.

_________________
o/ Nebulas & Rain
“I haven't been droppin' no eaves, sir, honest.”

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-06-10 23:25 ]</font>

This is a reasonable argument. But where it fails is in the notion of *partial* systems.

There are (currently living) invertebrates that have an amusingly partially-developed circulatory system, in which the blood rushes from one end of the critter to the other. (One scientist of my acquaintance described it as similar to the Marx Brothers.)

This is a living creature that demonstrates the intermediate step between mere diffusion of blood cells and a fully developed circulatory system.

It shows the way. It demonstrates that intermediate improvements are a viable means of evolution by "descent with modification."

A fully-developed circulatory system doesn't have to appear all at once. It can develop incrementally.

And that is, at least, the classical Darwinian rebuttal to your argument.

I will not say that it is conclusive; the debate will continue for decades to come. But I wanted you to know that there is a response -- "Knight to King's Rook Six" -- to your own move.

(Which is to say, the debate has become remarkably formalized...)

Silas

The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no
undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above,
however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden
appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists
Minute objects found in Precambrian
strata are claimed to be primordial
cells. Even if they are there is an
enormous gap between such
microscopic objects and the complex
invertebrates such as the trilobites
which suddenly appear perfectly
formed in the Cambrian strata above.
Despite searching the strata for
over 100 years, fossils which would
close the gaps between classes and
even species have NOT been found,
as many evolutionists are now
prepared to admit. In proposing their
new theory of "punctuated
equilibrium", Drs. Gould (RIP) and Eldredge
accept that these gaps still exist.

When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one
species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented
as evidence. However,over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by variousscientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from.
Those which contradict the series are ignored.
All the known species of
birds and mammals appear
and 'diversify' within the
last 150 Million years
according to the
evolutionists geological
time scale. At this rate, the
70 million years it has taken
simply to modify a horse's
hoof is far too large a
proportion of the time since
mammals first appeared.
There is therefore
something seriously wrong
with the time scale.
Some animals used in
the sequence have differing
numbers of ribs and lumbar
vertebrae, indicating that
various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this
contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America.
Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in
Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion!".

Huxley came to America with the theory that horses had originated in Europe. When he was here, he was shown the superior collection of data, and revised his opinion. He was convinced -- by the data -- that horses had originated in America, and migrated several times to Europe.

The point is that we judge by the data, and not by our preconceived notions.

You are presenting some wonderful half-truths, but your arguments are deceitful for being incomplete.

Cambrian fossils do not "spring into existence fully formed." There is a discontinuity at the Cambrian barrier, likely due to very large geological disturbances.

Animals evolve at different rates. Rabbits, for instance, appear pretty much the same as they did 10 million years ago. The eyeball hasn't changed much in 100 million years. There is no contradiction at all in the time scales you cite.

By the way: intermediate forms: they've found more "walking whales." (Why do whales have hip-bones anyway? That's something that evolution explains easily, but creation cannot even begin to address.)

Hey, let's drop it, okay? This game of chess doesn't belong here. We can keep on exchanging junior-high-school science forever, and neither of us is going to change his mind. The Bad Astronomer has been tolerant so far, but let's not push our luck.

Silas

On 2002-06-10 22:32, nebularain wrote:
"Educated people knew the Earth was round."

So what was it the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for? Education about geology and biology will convince most people evolution is no longer a theory.

"How many random genetic changes does it take to go from a scale to a feather"

I'm guessing trillions, maybe more depending on how many genes are involved. The vast majority of random mutations are unsuccessful and are not reproduced. The actual amino acid differences may or may not be huge. Genes are divided up. Where a scale goes (covering), how it forms (embryo), what it does (protects the inside), what structures are within (like oil glands), and what it looks like (camouflage or attract a mate or both) are just a few examples of things that would be controlled by separate genes.

"why would all those changes occur?"

selection forces: environment, disease, mates preferences, and random changes that don't impede reproduction

"Until the feather actually evolved, of what use would the pre-evolved scale-to-feather have? [etc., etc.} .. "

There are a complete array of scales to hydes to skin around today. I'm not sure if scales evolved into skin, or hair and feathers. I would direct you to take one feature and do some research into all the types of that feature you can find, (too much biology for an astronomy BB). Look for a category, like body coverings, not one thing in the category like feathers.

"why is that not seen in the fossil record"

It is. Parts of organisms that are preserved in fossilization show almost every transition. Soft parts are found less often.

"would the dinosaur-to-bird transitionary creatures be able to function with the changes before becoming complete"

Yes. The problem understanding the process here is threefold. Hopefully, it will address most of your issues.

One is conceptualizing the transitions. Take an eye for example. There are all varieties of eyes from single photon receptors to mammal eyes to compound insect eyes. You have to look at the function, not just the completed organ to find the transitions.

The second is understanding how the digital code in the genes is laid out. There are separate pieces of data. If you make a very small change, you can get a very big functional result. Six fingers is a good example. It is caused by a random change and can usually be traced back to the first person in a family where the mutation occurred. The only change that has to occur is in the number of digits. All the rest of the structure of a finger is encoded in separate genes.

The third issue is how (mechanism not cause)mutations occur. The more mutations, and, the more frequent & number of offspring, the more successful the organism is in adapting to changes in the organisms' biosphere. Thus, sexual reproduction with constant reshuffling of genes along with random mutations occurs in almost all lifeforms larger than single cells. Whole genes can be introduced by viruses. One amino acid substitution might turn a gene on or off. (Again, too much biology here for this BB but maybe it will give you some insights as to where to look to understand the process.)

"If a mutation would not allow an organisms decendants to survive long enough in "fossil history" to be recorded, how could it have even survived long enough to carry on"

Life evolves at different speeds. Major extinctions narrow the genetic line which starts again with a smaller number of individuals. Animals migrate and become isolated from other groups. Food sources come and go leading to lots of variation. The process is well understood. Four billion years is plenty of time. The data is consistent.

It really didn't take long to get from wild dogs, cats, birds, plants, horses, cattle, pigs to the current huge number of domestic variations you see today. Breeders and genetic engineers did not purposefully start the process. Humans selected better grain and fruit crops and increased those plants' reproduction success. Gentler canines and felines were more successful begging for food from humans than their more aggressive hunting counterparts. The hunter canines and felines are still there, but many are becoming extinct. Life is evolving constantly all around you if you look.

"which evolved first: blood cells to carry the oxygen and/or nutrients and wastes, the vessels to carry the blood cells around the body, or the heart to pump the blood... Would a one gene mismatch mutation start a new organ without harming or disrupting the organism?...Would it start as a mass of useless cells, or what?"

You have to know where to look. Your lungs did not evolve from gills in one fell swope. Look at process to find the transitions. Oxygen metabolism, neuro perception, protection from environment; you will find all the transitions exist today.

"Is there evidence that information, such as that in DNA, could assemble itself?"

Yes.

"If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then [doesn't] the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule ... imply an intelligent source?”

The 'intelligent signal' would have to have some characteristics that were inconsistent with natural observations. DNA is consistent with random natural processes. Again, the whole process can be at least grossly mapped out step by step including mechanisms for beginning, for change and the time frame for random change to account for the end results.

“Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?"

The elements needed to form the first RNA structures can be found in rocks older than the first fossil lifeforms. (Too much biology for astronomy BB, but the process has been thoroughly dealt with in microbiology sciences.) A DNA strand by itself divides down the middle, chemical attraction attaches the correct amino acids to each half to make copies of the chain. RNA seems to be a more likely candidate for the first copiers.

"How or why did the need to explain things come from or evolve?"

Successful traits are not necessarily single function traits. Intelligence is clearly a very successful trait. Intelligence requires learning. Learning requires inquirey. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Social evolution also occurs and accounts for religion but I cannot start that thread here or I will definitely be out of order.

"So, how much of the presentations on this thread are really about defending evolution or creationism rather than about defending athiesm or theism? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] (Hey, we’re humans; gotta take things like that into consideration.)"

I see religion as separate from science. A lot of people try to find scientific evidence to support their religious beliefs. In science, you have to look at the evidence, think of the possible explanations for the evidence, figure out how to test the explanations to see if they are correct or not and so on. If you start with a conclusion you get tunnel vision.

"do you think the BA is getting annoyed by these posts or is he sitting back in his chair laughing at us and is amused by our continually going around in these no-one-is-ever-going-to-successfully-manage-to-convince-the-other loops? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]"

I believe he stated creation vs evolution was ok if we tried to stick to the creation of the Universe, the possibilities for life on other planets, etc. I know I touched on a bit too much biology here, but it does apply to the potential for life on other planets. I know there are some locked posts on this topic in the record. I'll leave it up to the BA to lock up whatever threads need to be and I shall accept my fate as it happens. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-11 14:32 ]</font>

That is funny. I find that creature much more interesting than the ice worms. Do the little guys squeeze themselves up and down or do they try to find hills to go over? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]