Would any creationist at this forum like to critique, and refute this article?

[Super Universe]

I don't have to. Your scientists have already done it.

 

[McBell]

I don't have to. Your scientists have already done it.

Your double standards are duly noted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was a science major in college.

You seem to have left out the answers. Hmm, I wonder why?

Because I don't think you're interested in them. I have a strong suspicion that you're not really interested in learning what evolution has to say as you are trying to find fodder for your sense of self-importance.

If you want answers, though, here you go: An Index to Creationist Claims

If I'm wrong and you're honestly inquiring, you'll look them over. Everything's categorized so it's easy to find the answers you claim to be looking for.

... except that cryptic "what activates DNA?" question, maybe. That's vague enough that I can't really tell what you're looking for with that one.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Once again, the question is simple, what activates DNA?

Dude, what are you talking about? DNA is a chemical compound and works on the same laws of physics as any other. You might as well ask 'what activates water?', the answer is it doesn't need activation it just works.

 

[Super Universe]

Because I don't think you're interested in them. I have a strong suspicion that you're not really interested in learning what evolution has to say as you are trying to find fodder for your sense of self-importance.

If you want answers, though, here you go: An Index to Creationist Claims

If I'm wrong and you're honestly inquiring, you'll look them over. Everything's categorized so it's easy to find the answers you claim to be looking for.

... except that cryptic "what activates DNA?" question, maybe. That's vague enough that I can't really tell what you're looking for with that one.

I am interested in the answers, the scientific ones. If you don't know, then fine.

My point is that science does not explain everything and once science gets a little further it's going to have no choice but to include God, or an infinite source of "energy", whatever they want to call it, in order to explain the universe.

The "What activates DNA" question is a stimulant. Humans are incapable of original thought on their own. 99.9% of all human thought is recycled words and ideas. No scientist ever thought that DNA had to be activated, they think "it just works". It doesn't. Putting this idea out there will cause some scientist, in the future, to think about it and devise an instrument and test that eventually discovers the soul.

 

[Super Universe]

Dude, what are you talking about? DNA is a chemical compound and works on the same laws of physics as any other. You might as well ask 'what activates water?', the answer is it doesn't need activation it just works.

What activates water? Gravity and inertia.

What activates DNA?

It does not "just work", dude.

 

[Alceste]

Nothing in there would stump a real science teacher? Then why did you leave out the science teachers answers?

Answer them then.

How did life begin?

I will fix your original post for you.

Normal evolution class:

Student asks "What activates DNA?"
Teacher "What do you mean by "activates"? Please explain. If you need to do some background research to clarify your meaning, try reading this:"
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Student "Well why does evolution seem to go in the direction of more complexity."
Teacher "This is a myth. Evolution does not tend to go in the direction of greater complexity. For more information, read this:"
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist
Student "Why does the fossil record show that species change suddenly and not slowly over time?"
Teacher "Stephen Jay Gould suggested in 1972 that evolution occurs in stages of punctuated equilibrium rather than steady progress. Evolutionary biologists agree that the rate of change is not constant, but sometimes disagree on the rate of change. The theory of punctuated equilibria, where evolution only happens in short bursts or not at all, is at one end of the spectrum of opinion. The idea that evolution is happening continually, still at variable rates, represents the other end. Recommended reading:"
Punctuated Equilibrium - Stephen Jay GOULD, Stephen Jay Gould - Google Books
The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe ... - Richard Dawkins - Google Books

Student "And somehow the whole species knows there is a niche available?"
Teacher "No, evolution does not posit or require any awareness or conscious action on the part of the organisms doing the adapting. The whole idea is that those characteristics that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce will endure in their environment, while disadvantageous traits will die off. Pretty simple and obvious if you think about it!"

Student "So how did life begin?"
Teacher: "You want to be looking at abiogenisis research for the answer to this question, not evolutionary biology. Try this:"
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Student "But amino acids are not alive."
Teacher "The question of what it means to be "alive" has stumped scientists and philosophers alike since the beginning of recorded history. It's not a simple question - different people draw the line between "life" and "not-life" at different places."

Student "Couldn't natural selection just be a factor in controlling population levels of species?"
Teacher "Please elaborate on this hypothesis and design a repeatable experiment that could potentially provide data to support or disprove it. Submit your work to me by Friday for bonus marks!"

Student "It sounds to me like you don't have an explanation for it now."
Teacher "Have you actually been listening to any single thing I've been telling you? Have you read the articles I assigned? Here, have an F."

 

[Alceste]

No scientist ever thought that DNA had to be activated, they think "it just works". It doesn't.

Please show your evidence that "inactive" DNA exists.

 

[Super Universe]

I will fix your original post for you.

Normal evolution class:

Student asks "What activates DNA?"
Teacher "What do you mean by "activates"? Please explain. If you need to do some background research to clarify your meaning, try reading this:"
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Student "Well why does evolution seem to go in the direction of more complexity."
Teacher "This is a myth. Evolution does not tend to go in the direction of greater complexity. For more information, read this:"
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist
Student "Why does the fossil record show that species change suddenly and not slowly over time?"
Teacher "Stephen Jay Gould suggested in 1972 that evolution occurs in stages of punctuated equilibrium rather than steady progress. Evolutionary biologists agree that the rate of change is not constant, but sometimes disagree on the rate of change. The theory of punctuated equilibria, where evolution only happens in short bursts or not at all, is at one end of the spectrum of opinion. The idea that evolution is happening continually, still at variable rates, represents the other end. Recommended reading:"
Punctuated Equilibrium - Stephen Jay GOULD, Stephen Jay Gould - Google Books
The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe ... - Richard Dawkins - Google Books

Student "And somehow the whole species knows there is a niche available?"
Teacher "No, evolution does not posit or require any awareness or conscious action on the part of the organisms doing the adapting. The whole idea is that those characteristics that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce will endure in their environment, while disadvantageous traits will die off. Pretty simple and obvious if you think about it!"

Student "So how did life begin?"
Teacher: "You want to be looking at abiogenisis research for the answer to this question, not evolutionary biology. Try this:"
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Student "But amino acids are not alive."
Teacher "The question of what it means to be "alive" has stumped scientists and philosophers alike since the beginning of recorded history. It's not a simple question - different people draw the line between "life" and "not-life" at different places."

Student "Couldn't natural selection just be a factor in controlling population levels of species?"
Teacher "Please elaborate on this hypothesis and design a repeatable experiment that could potentially provide data to support or disprove it. Submit your work to me by Friday for bonus marks!"

Student "It sounds to me like you don't have an explanation for it now."
Teacher "Have you actually been listening to any single thing I've been telling you? Have you read the articles I assigned? Here, have an F."

Activates meaning cause, what causes DNA to function? A virus is a fragment of DNA. Virus can be killed. What kills the virus, what causes the DNA to stop functioning?

So a single celled amoeba is just as complex as a human? So, billions of cells working together to form consciousness is equal to an amoeba?

Punctuated equilibrium is a control. Random change is minimal, you don't get humanity from random genetic changes, what you would get is extinction. Sudden change is the main factor in species advancement and it's caused by God.

So one individual of a species evolves and then mates with what? If it's genes have changed and it is a new species then what can it successfully mate with? You have to have two who genetically change the same way. How do two beings change the exact same at the same time?

Student: "So how did life begin?"
Teacher: "The Abiogenesis people don't know".

The question of what it means to be alive is undecided? But no one thinks amino acids are alive.

Natural selection only controls population levels. I don't have to elaborate or provide data to support it or disprove it. The data is readily available, your scientists just misinterpreted it to extend farther than it does because they needed a cause for increasing genetic capabilities over time.

 

[Super Universe]

Please show your evidence that "inactive" DNA exists.

A dead virus.

And there are loose nucleotides floating around in the cell which connect with the exposed ends of the DNA ladder when it separates for cell division.

 

[mycorrhiza]

So one individual of a species evolves and then mates with what? If it's genes have changed and it is a new species then what can it successfully mate with? You have to have two who genetically change the same way. How do two beings change the exact same at the same time?

That's really not how it works. Populations evolve together, so it isn't like in pokemon. I don't mean to offend you, but this is basic knowledge on the subject. I suggest that you read a book on evolution. I'm sure there's a good one at your local library.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're avoiding the answers that you "supposedly" know. I know DNA is involved in biological processes. Once again, the question is simple, what activates DNA?

I'm not avoiding answering anything, I'm asking you what you mean by "activate" and you continue to assume that the meaning is blatantly obvious. But your hypothetical teacher/student interaction is (I believe) a back and forth about evolution, not molecular biology in general. In which case it would seem to me that you are referring to particular processes of DNA rather than the entirety of those DNA is a part of. But I don't know if this is in fact what you mean, and for some reason you refuse to specify.

So, you agree that humans are more complex than a single celled amoeba BUT you're previous post claimed that the idea of increasing complexity was incorrect when applied to evolution. Basically this is what's happening, scientists can't say there is increasing complexity because that means that there is a direction to evolution which violates current evolution theories.

Here's what I said:

[older, "classical" view]: "Evolution by natural selection tends to produce increasingly complex adaptive features of organisms, hence progress is a general trend in evolution."

[modern, updated view]: "False. Genomic complexity probably evolved as a “genomic syndrome” caused by weak purifying selection in small population, not as an adaptation. There is no consistent trend toward increasing complexity in evolution, and the notion of evolutionary progress is unwarranted." (emphasis in original; p. 399).

Now, notice that no where in this does it say evolution doesn't involve comlexity, or that it cannot produce greater complexity, or that humans aren't more complex that bacteria, or anything like what you claim I said.

In your hypothetical interaction, you didn't simply say evolution involved complexity, but rather:

Student "Well why does evolution seem to go in the direction of more complexity."
Teacher "Uh, yeah, we don't really know why".

Evolution can involve greater complexity, but it need not and frequently does not. Modern approaches to biological evolution have eschewed "direction" (in terms of complexity) from classical Darwinism. All this means is that it is not the case that "evolution seems to go in the direction of more complexity", but instead that it can both increase and decrease, as well as do neither.

Anthropic Bias does not explain evolution.

You might try to take a little more time to read what I write before responding. Having to answer responses to assertions I never made doesn't exactly get us anywhere.

I never said anthropic bias explains evolution. The idea that evolution entails a direction towards greater complexity is no longer supported by the evidence, and this view of evolution is therefore one of bias (and, from Darwin onward, the same bias has been at play all to often).

You don't have an answer to the question of how life began? Right, so my sentence where the student asks the teacher "How did life begin?" is correct. In an Intelligent Design class the student would get an answer.

This doesn't follow. I could give you an answer, sure. I'd have more evidence to back it up than something like "god did it". But you are quite correct that scientists do not know how life began at this point in time. The probem is that while there is only one way in which life did begin (whatever that way was) there are an infinite number of possible explanations, from ID to "we don't exist at all". The fact that an ID class involves an answer here doesn't mean that such a class offers anything better. Answeres to this question have been offered for thousands of years. Pick a culture and a creation myth and you can provide one as easily as one could in an ID "class".

 

[Super Universe]

That's really not how it works. Populations evolve together, so it isn't like in pokemon. I don't mean to offend you, but this is basic knowledge on the subject. I suggest that you read a book on evolution. I'm sure there's a good one at your local library.

Populations evolve together? So how does the entire population get the exact same genetic change at the exact same time?

Oh, and I suggest you read the bible, it explains everything.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Populations evolve together? So how does the entire population get the exact same genetic change at the exact same time?

Oh, and I suggest you read the bible, it explains everything.

They don't. It doesn't go "poof" and then suddenly we have a new species. The population goes through a series of changes (mostly) by natural selection. They don't change all at once, but over many generations. Once again, it's basic evolution, and I do recommend that you read up on the subject.

The Bible doesn't really explain anything about the diversity of life. Sure, it says "God did it" but so do countless of other religions, attributing it to different Gods with different methods.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm not avoiding answering anything, I'm asking you what you mean by "activate" and you continue to assume that the meaning is blatantly obvious. But your hypothetical teacher/student interaction is (I believe) a back and forth about evolution, not molecular biology in general. In which case it would seem to me that you are referring to particular processes of DNA rather than the entirety of those DNA is a part of. But I don't know if this is in fact what you mean, and for some reason you refuse to specify.



Here's what I said:



Now, notice that no where in this does it say evolution doesn't involve comlexity, or that it cannot produce greater complexity, or that humans aren't more complex that bacteria, or anything like what you claim I said.

In your hypothetical interaction, you didn't simply say evolution involved complexity, but rather:



Evolution can involve greater complexity, but it need not and frequently does not. Modern approaches to biological evolution have eschewed "direction" (in terms of complexity) from classical Darwinism. All this means is that it is not the case that "evolution seems to go in the direction of more complexity", but instead that it can both increase and decrease, as well as do neither.



You might try to take a little more time to read what I write before responding. Having to answer responses to assertions I never made doesn't exactly get us anywhere.

I never said anthropic bias explains evolution. The idea that evolution entails a direction towards greater complexity is no longer supported by the evidence, and this view of evolution is therefore one of bias (and, from Darwin onward, the same bias has been at play all to often).



This doesn't follow. I could give you an answer, sure. I'd have more evidence to back it up than something like "god did it". But you are quite correct that scientists do not know how life began at this point in time. The probem is that while there is only one way in which life did begin (whatever that way was) there are an infinite number of possible explanations, from ID to "we don't exist at all". The fact that an ID class involves an answer here doesn't mean that such a class offers anything better. Answeres to this question have been offered for thousands of years. Pick a culture and a creation myth and you can provide one as easily as one could in an ID "class".

You don't understand that some DNA works and some doesn't. A virus is a fragment of DNA (I know it's really RNA but I'm trying to keep this simple). Virus can be killed, so, essentially, it's DNA is de-activated. What changes cause the DNA to not work.

There is no consistent trend toward increasing complexity in evolution? So a single amoeba evolves into billions of self aware human beings but there is no trend there? And you accept that? Why can't they just say "We don't know why random change has led to incredible complexity? Oh, maybe because that suggests an Intelligence at work behind the scenes?

Don't quote some scientist, I'm asking you. I know what the scientists think.
You never said Anthropic Bias explained evolution? No, what you did was find some big science words and post them thinking it would scare me off, maybe because that tactic often works against the other uneducated believers who only study the bible but I was a science major in college.

You can give me an answer to how life began? I'd love to hear it, you don't have to provide any support.

As for the creation myths, I love all of them. I love the imagination they entail and the childlike way the primitive people accept them. None of it is factual but neither is Moby Dick.

 

[Super Universe]

They don't. It doesn't go "poof" and then suddenly we have a new species. The population goes through a series of changes (mostly) by natural selection. They don't change all at once, but over many generations. Once again, it's basic evolution, and I do recommend that you read up on the subject.

The Bible doesn't really explain anything about the diversity of life. Sure, it says "God did it" but so do countless of other religions, attributing it to different Gods with different methods.

What fossil evidence is there for these in between species? I'm sure you have some, right, I mean, if it's so basic there has to be some proof.

The bible does not explain the diversity of life? Genesis says light, condensation of matter, formation of planets, plants, fish, animals, then humans, that's evolution, hello... It's pretty basic stuff.

 

[mycorrhiza]

What fossil evidence is there for these in between species? I'm sure you have some, right, I mean, if it's so basic there has to be some proof.

All species are intermediate species. I'm sure you're familiar with the evolution of humans and the fossil evidence for that. Now, from experience with ID proponents, my guess is that you will claim that these are all separate species, not intermediate forms, but that's not really how scientists define the terms. Of course, we don't expect a linear event either, as human evolution branched out in all kinds of directions. Fossilization is quite rare, and we do have holes in our fossil record, but luckily for us, fossils isn't the only evidence for the evolutionary relationship between different species. A fundamental thing we must acknowledge when we talk about species is that it's a definition made by humans, and that the boundaries of a species are not always very clear at all.

The bible does not explain the diversity of life? Genesis says light, condensation of matter, formation of planets, plants, fish, animals, then humans, that's evolution, hello... It's pretty basic stuff.

It basically says "God created x", and that hardly constitutes an explanation. At least not a good one. But judging by your post above (#75) you don't seem to believe that it is a literal explanation. As a metaphor for some form of creation it works, I guess.

My recommendation is that you read a book on evolution, as that will answer many of your questions about it. You don't need to believe it at all, but it's always good to educate yourself.

 

[Alceste]

Activates meaning cause, what causes DNA to function? A virus is a fragment of DNA. Virus can be killed. What kills the virus, what causes the DNA to stop functioning?

So a single celled amoeba is just as complex as a human? So, billions of cells working together to form consciousness is equal to an amoeba?

Punctuated equilibrium is a control. Random change is minimal, you don't get humanity from random genetic changes, what you would get is extinction. Sudden change is the main factor in species advancement and it's caused by God.

So one individual of a species evolves and then mates with what? If it's genes have changed and it is a new species then what can it successfully mate with? You have to have two who genetically change the same way. How do two beings change the exact same at the same time?

Student: "So how did life begin?"
Teacher: "The Abiogenesis people don't know".

The question of what it means to be alive is undecided? But no one thinks amino acids are alive.

Natural selection only controls population levels. I don't have to elaborate or provide data to support it or disprove it. The data is readily available, your scientists just misinterpreted it to extend farther than it does because they needed a cause for increasing genetic capabilities over time.

Super Universe's report card:

The student is argumentative and uncooperative. He refuses to do his homework assignments. Unfortunately for the student, he believes himself to be so well-informed on the subject matter already that the likelihood of his gaining enough of an understanding of evolutionary theory to pass his exams is minimal. Unless he has a change of attitude, and becomes more receptive to the standardized biology curriculum, he will be unable to move on the next level.

Grade: F

 

[McBell]

Natural selection only controls population levels. I don't have to elaborate or provide data to support it or disprove it. The data is readily available, your scientists just misinterpreted it to extend farther than it does because they needed a cause for increasing genetic capabilities over time.

Bold claim.
Care to support it with something other than your beliefs?

 

[Super Universe]

All species are intermediate species. I'm sure you're familiar with the evolution of humans and the fossil evidence for that. Now, from experience with ID proponents, my guess is that you will claim that these are all separate species, not intermediate forms, but that's not really how scientists define the terms. Of course, we don't expect a linear event either, as human evolution branched out in all kinds of directions. Fossilization is quite rare, and we do have holes in our fossil record, but luckily for us, fossils isn't the only evidence for the evolutionary relationship between different species. A fundamental thing we must acknowledge when we talk about species is that it's a definition made by humans, and that the boundaries of a species are not always very clear at all.

It basically says "God created x", and that hardly constitutes an explanation. At least not a good one. But judging by your post above (#75) you don't seem to believe that it is a literal explanation. As a metaphor for some form of creation it works, I guess.

My recommendation is that you read a book on evolution, as that will answer many of your questions about it. You don't need to believe it at all, but it's always good to educate yourself.

All species are intermediate species? Sort of, I know this is not in your science books but certain species are end of the line species. Once they evolve to a certain point, that's it. Homo Sapiens Sapiens are not finished yet.

What do you think is most likely in our future, a more complex humanoid or a complete regression back to an amoeba?

The bible basically says "God created x"? You have to remember that humans knew nothing about science then. They did not know the cause of earthquakes, disease, weather, the seasons, rain, the wind, and more. What revelation they did receive was often misunderstood or put into the incorrect context, usually so it supported one specific human group that received the revelation. The bible is a written history of the human attempt to explain the universe, something that was way beyond their ability to comprehend.

I don't have questions about your scientists beliefs, I know what they are and some of it is simply wrong. You don't get humans from random mutations. You don't even get something close to humans. It is directed, and yes there is also a random aspect to evolution but it is an extremely minor effect.