Steve's thoughts on evolution (Creator, Earth, Abiogenesis, beliefs, creation)

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Oh i entirely agree, i'm a zoologist, i accept the theory of evolution and believe in it 100%. My entire point, which has been blown out of proportion, is that i don't like people saying the "evolution is fact", because it's simply not.

Hmmm quite, but we don't have a forum catering specifically for people discussing whether the sun goes around the earth or not, despite 1/3rd of your population believing that it does! Why? Because that is accepted fact, it has been proven.

Evolution, specifically evolution of life up to this point in time, is supported by substantial evidence but, as i've said before it hasn't been observed and recorded by scientists so is not definite - after all its possible that the fossils were placed there by god, aliens or people from the future, not very likely at all, but possible.

I can see your points, but there's a certain amount of evidence that makes it proof to me. For instance, we have observed variation and genetic drift in species. Without some perceivable mechanism to keep this from adding up, I can't see how it wouldn't result in evolution, but no mechanism has been found. It's kind of like, if I leave a facet dripping into a fifty gallon barrel and have only an hour to observe, I won't see it fill up, but I know it will fill up. I don't need to see it to know what the mechanism produces.

We've observed a small part of evolution, and given time, small things add up .

At least we're arguing over semantics not over whether it's true or not .

[Halcyon]

At least we're arguing over semantics not over whether it's true or not .

It's kind of like, if I leave a facet dripping into a fifty gallon barrel and have only an hour to observe, I won't see it fill up, but I know it will fill up. I don't need to see it to know what the mechanism produces.

We've observed a small part of evolution, and given time, small things add up .

See that's why its still a theory, we haven't seen enough for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. You're talking about supposition, we can't just assume that because we see it now, that its always been that way - science can't accept it.
Its the same with the big bang, we can see the universe expanding now, so its fair to theorise that a big 'explosion' occured somewhere distantlky in the past, we can't prove it though, hence "Big Bang Theory" not "Big Bang Fact".

As far as this forum is concerned, we (as in evolutionists) are meant to be arguing the case for evolution, we need to be certain of exactly what we're arguing for.

On a personal note, how come you don't believe in creationism No*s?

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

See that's why its still a theory, we haven't seen enough for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. You're talking about supposition, we can't just assume that because we see it now, that its always been that way - science can't accept it.
Its the same with the big bang, we can see the universe expanding now, so its fair to theorise that a big 'explosion' occured somewhere distantlky in the past, we can't prove it though, hence "Big Bang Theory" not "Big Bang Fact".

As far as this forum is concerned, we (as in evolutionists) are meant to be arguing the case for evolution, we need to be certain of exactly what we're arguing for.

On a personal note, how come you don't believe in creationism No*s?

Oh, I believe in creation. I feel God guided the process. I'm just not a literalist here .

Because I can't see any way to avoid it. The evidence for evolution is well-nigh insurmountable. If I had this much evidence for a historical battle, for instance, I could never question how the battle went. The evidence is simply too strong.

It leaves me with the option of ignoring the evidence (interpreted data) and sticking to a model of the world that cannot be validated, or going with the evidence. The latter has a long Christian and Jewish history, so it's well-substantiated. I'm the type of person that I strive for a view that is 1). livable 2). moral 3). internally consistent and 4). consistent with facts we know that are relevant to it. In order to deny evolution, I would have to make myself irrational. I have no problem with arational beliefs or rational ones, but irrational beliefs I cannot have. If I feel it is irrational, I abandon it quickly. That, and I haven't always been a Christian .

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Ah... oh... um... ahhh... Gravity is a fact, however *smug look* it is still a theory as to what causes it. lol, i'm a nob sometimes !

Crap!! Gravity is a force expressed in a subatomic particle called a graviton. It is incorporated in matter.

[Lycan]

Show me some examples of mutations that result in a net increase in the amount of information in the DNA. From what i gather from much of the stuff ive read on this issue including much from Answer in Genesis is that while there is mutations in genes, they only result in the loss or damage of the information present and never results in "added" information

Mutation doesn't add new information, it changes exsisting information.

[Halcyon]

Crap!! Gravity is a force expressed in a subatomic particle called a graviton. It is incorporated in matter.

lol. The graviton is a highly theoretical particle, but yes that is the current theory to explain it.

[Pah]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

lol. The graviton is a highly theoretical particle, but yes that is the current theory to explain it.

While I don't think it has been seen (perhaps it has) it is incumbant in Einstein's E=MC^2. If gravity is a force, it has corresponding matter.

I also see that you fall into the 3rd definition of theory in my post #67, this thread. You could use that article to chase away your ignorance.

[Ceridwen018]

First of all, thank you for the correction about the bats, PW. I always thought they were blind--it's very interesting to find out that they're not!

Originally Posted by Steve

You provide absolutely no “scientific” evidence to show that information in DNA can be increased via random mutations. The fact remains that there is a lot more information in a Humans DNA then there would be in what ever the first living organisms where.

Heh, heh--wrong! You even mentioned yourself, I believe, that a simple amoeba outranks us in number of genes by an enormous extent. If anything, it seems that organisms lose genes as they "progress", which is not true either.

Also, I don't know if you know what "polyploidy" refers to, but it is certainly an example of scientific evidence. I can explain it to you if you'd like.

You tell me “Its like this” and then give me something that could just as easily be read as if it were a fairy tale. You provide no real science (something that is observable and testable). And to back up the theory that you put forward you bring in a flying squirrel! And this is why i should believe that birds “evolved” from land animals, and give random mutation the credit for giving birds the ability to grow feathers, wings, lung setup for flying, hollow bones etc. Im sure you would also insist that believing all of this happened by chance has nothing to do with faith. Although i am pleased you at least admitted that at the end of your statement. “This is all theoretical, of course.”

Dude, you stated point blank that you didn't want a big list of "science words" that you couldn't understand. I'm trying to help you out here. Really though, if you understand genes and natural selection, this stuff should be common sense.

You've misunderstood me on many accounts. First of all, I was only using the flying squirrel as an analogy to help you undertsand. Second of all, I never mentioned the word "mutation" once. Lastly, I do not believe that the evolution of birds, (or any other organism for that matter), came about by chance--it came about due to natural selection, which is not random.

Oh i see, now while bats could see well enough to survive and didn't need sonar random mutations started to give them sonar anyway and then they became blind or there sight diminished after the sonar was developed? To even suppose that random mutations could produce sonar capabilities is such a stretch of the imagination, or is my problem that i don't have enough “faith” in random mutations? Oh i forgot you don't need faith.

Who says they didn't need sonar? A possible scenario would suggest that those without sonar were unable to survive as well as those with it, etc. And again, I never said ANYTHING about mutations. You anti-evolutionists really like to hitch your wagons to the whole "mutation argument", when in reality, mutation can only account for a small percentage of change. If you want to put a dent in evolution, start attacking natural selection, because mutation will get you nowhere.

“what more could it want?” how about Offspring!

I have no idea what you're trying to imply with this statemtn. Could you please explain how you find my answer to be inadequate?

Because this and the rest of evolutions account of how we got here requires that it happens.

No, it doesn't. Go buy yourself an evolutionary textbook and read up.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Lycan

Mutation doesn't add new information, it changes existing information.

Can't a code change add information, Lycan? Couldn't a single addition or deletion alter whole processes, if it occurred in the right (wrong) place?

Would the acquisition of antibiotic resistance, or the ability even to incorporate antibiotics into vital metabolic processes be considered added information? Bacteria generally reproduce by fission. They clone themselves. Changes are mutational.

Ceridwen -- Re: the bats (I love bats!). Interesting bat trivia: Bats fall into two suborders, microchiroptera are the familiar little nocturnal bats. They have tiny (but perfectly functional) eyes but, at night, navigate by echolocation. The megachiroptera -- fruit bats &c, are much larger, diurnal, have large eyes. and navigate by sight. They don't echolocate and would probably smash into something if they tried flying in the dark. We're less familiar with them 'cause they're tropical species.

[linwood]

Can't a code change add information, Lycan? Couldn't a single addition or deletion alter whole processes, if it occurred in the right (wrong) place?

Yes it could can and does at times.

Would the acquisition of antibiotic resistance, or the ability even to incorporate antibiotics into vital metabolic processes be considered added information?

I don`t see it that way.
It is "different" information, the process and material to hold or code the data is already there.
It`s just being recoded or changed or turned on to begin with.<