@SYRUP
pls i would like u to review my posts on this topic and see if they really are as stupid and confusing as KAG and co would like me to believe. KAG especially seems to have a one -liner for every challenge. one-liners in the vanim of "no it isnt" and "why why why" and such incomprehensible , i dont know
nferyn at least tries to give the semblance of a rebuttal

they still will not face the issue of evolution going against every thing we know in more established fields such as mathematics (simple probabilistic theory) , thermodynamics (with respect to entropy and the kinetic theory), the theory of uncertainty, molecular biology (wrt to the kinetics of protein formation and gene replecation), computer programming, everything!!.

Evolution marches on in the face of all common sense ( and even some uncommon)

Sorry folks, been in class and just got back to base. Besides, I was only searching for materials for an assignment which I just turned in. Reason why I decided to drop a few lines was an observation that people are more ready to deviate from the main issues of any discussion so as to defend a position, which often happens in so many weblogs.

@xkape,
Thanks for calling my attention. I actually went through over 178 entries before I turned to the previous page and saw yours. Indeed, you made some good sense (at least, to me), which you've summarised just above again.

@KAG,
My interest is more in issues than in positions. You're free to defend anything other than issues, and I'm not obliged to be scholarly about that.

@4get_me,
Hey dude, haven't seen you lately on the Forum - would like to see a follow up from you on this if you're in the slightest interested to do so. (I noticed you're not the type that stretches an argument when people make little sense to you; but my interest is informed by your mentioning the very core question that happens to be the main concern of modern evolution thinking). Might send you an email - maybe I could learn more from you about the questions you raised.

@everyone,
You're all great folks and we can agree to have different perspectives on any issue at all. Take it easy and less redeyes and hotheads.

xkape:

@SYRUP
please i would like u to review my posts on this topic and see if they really are as stupid and confusing as KAG and co would like me to believe. KAG especially seems to have a one -liner for every challenge. one-liners in the vanim of "no it isnt" and "why why why" and such incomprehensible , i don't know
nferyn at least tries to give the semblance of a rebuttal

What challenges have I responded to with no it isn't, etc? I only tend to give a reply of "no it isn't", to assertations on science with no backing evidence, silly claims and things of that nature, which deserve nothing more. It also amply shows shows how easy it is to make an "argument" with no evidence or reason given.

Examples of when "no it isn't", or a variant, sufficed : "The whole Idea of "THE BIG BANG THEORY" or Evolution theory is just rediculous.";

"Evolutionists tend to cover up their inplausible arguments with time. Millions and millions of years give organisms enough time to evolve into whatever they want they say!!!!Thats pure balderdash!";

"Evolutionist claim God first created apes or apes appeared on earth and started changing into humans and everything just popped up from nowhere."

"and I know where you are coming from and exactly where you are going."

So now u admit the origin of life must have been brought to earth by something

"99% percent of scientists in Galileos time belived the earth was flat."

"Why, why, amd why?", was me asking for a reason for your line of reasoning, you still haven't answered.

Oh, and i don't recall an "I don't know", but it's important to remember that there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I don't know".

they still will not face the issue of evolution going against every thing we know in more established fields such as mathematics (simple probabilistic theory) , thermodynamics (with respect to entropy and the kinetic theory), the theory of uncertainty, molecular biology (wrt to the kinetics of protein formation and gene replecation), computer programming, everything!!.

Not only would that be startling news to all the major Universities (especailly as many of their departments correspond with each other frequently), it would also be news to all knowledgable scientists. Maybe you can tell us how evolution goes against mathematics, thermodynamics (I'll be most interested in seeing your argument for this), and all the other stuff.

Evolution marches on in the face of all common sense ( and even some uncommon)

Evolution marches on, because it hasn't been falsified.

And BTW,
@nferyn, I'm not personally against you - issues are my primary concern. I hope I've been objective enough to present myself thus, but my apologies if you don't read me so. It's rather a bit surprising that you can't keep calm and would hurriedly use words like "disingenuous" and "misinformed social scientists" in debates. Whatever. Pal, be cool - the world's a big place.  

syrup:


@KAG,
My interest is more in issues than in positions. You're free to defend anything other than issues, and I'm not obliged to be scholarly about that.

I thought I was discussing both, with more emphasis on issues, I guess not. In any case, I'm still curious as to the ultimate question you felt/feel can't be answered by the ToE.

syrup:

So, what's your point - that we're debating between theism and atheism? nferyn was of the view that science is ultimately superior to other fields of enquiry (which is not the case),

That's not what I said. Science is superior to other fields of enquiry when it comes to the study of the natural world. I stand by that opinion.

syrup:

@nferyn,
I saw and read all those underlines, and indeed offered you to make an objective search yourself. Two things I would like you to pay attention to from the Wikipedia quote:

1)

In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are rarely used in scientific circles

First, the word has been modified so that it has a connotation in modern times different from earlier times.
Second, it does not mean that Evolutionism did not exist as you earlier stated.

I grant you that it did exist outside the Creationist circles in earlier times, but in current times, the label evolutionist [/i]is only used by Creationists. If you look at the ethymology of words, you can always find words that mean something very different depending on the time they were used. I could call you a gay person, but you might take offense, as it's meaning changed over time.

syrup:

Third, that it is [i]rarely used does not mean that it has never been so used in scientific circles.
So, what's your question?

And that justifies deceit? The term evolutionist has connotations that are muddying the waters. Using the ethymology of the word to justify it's use shows hidden bias while giving the impression to take a neutral position. At least I've been quite clear about my position.

syrup:

2)

However, all three of these terms are commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists, and other scholars outside the physical and life sciences

That they are now commonly used by anthropologists, sociologists and other scholars does not mean that the physical and life sciences are superior to the former. If you're persuaded that the former are inferior to the latter, you're not doing science.

1. They are used to denote an entirely different field of enquiry, so your point is mute. It was very obvious I was referening to Biology and not the study about the development of cultures and civilisations.
2. I wouldn't dare to call the physical and life sciences superior to the social sciences. Even though their methodologies are less mature, it's is ridiculous to claim such a thing.

syrup:

3)

Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific study.

That scientists (as if there are only the physical and life sciences) object to the term is understood for the reasons undergirding their object; but that does not mean that any other researcher using the term evolutionism and evolutionists is necessarily a creationist; otherwise, you perhaps would be telling me that all anthropologists and sociologists are creationists.

In the context of the evolution-creation debate, only creationists use that term and that's precisely the context we're debating in. Again you are trying to muddy the waters.

syrup:

My observations are based on the half-truth assertions you made earlier, and my first post was to the effect that you were wrong on both counts - evolutionism as a term exists, and it is not a label used by Creationists as if to say that it is only Creationists that use that term.

Within the context of the debate my assertions were very correct. As if, when using the term theory in this debate I would need to explicitely state that I'm not talking about it's colloquial meaning but about it's scientific meaning. When debating a scientific theory, the meaning of the word theory is very obvious, except for those that are trying to mislead people without the required background knowledge.

syrup:

You can solve this problem for yourself this way: do an objective search and find out if Evolutionism is never used even by the physical and life scientists. You may discredit all others and take only what helps your arguments (we all are guilty of doing that, really) but I offered the non-religious simple online definition that is commonly used in many fields of life sciences in this link, and it reads simply:

Noun: evolutionism
1. (biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
- theory of evolution, theory of organic evolution.

We may all see things differently. Debating issues is a different matter from debating positions. You may disagree with what you read, but what's all the red eyes about?

So you found a non-specialist resource refering to something the scientists in the field consider incorrect. What are you trying to prove here? That there are people succeeding in influencing public discourse to such an extent that scientist are no longer in control over their own terminology?

syrup:

And BTW,
@nferyn, I'm not personally against you

I would hope not I've already go a nemesis on this board and one is more than enough

syrup:

- issues are my primary concern. I hope I've been objective enough to present myself thus, but my apologies if you don't read me so.

So what issues do you want to debate, because thus far, I've seen you nitpicking on rather irrelevant side discussions (like the philosophical discussion I had with 4get_me)? What exactly is your position in this debate between evolution and creation?

syrup:

Faith in creation should not be rubbished on the premise that science is superior to any other field of enquiry, because scientific enquiry is far too constrained in providing answers to so many questions in the natural world.

If this is your ultimate position, then I take it that you are a Creationist.
Science is thus far the best way to determine truth in the natural world. Nothing comes even closer. Faith does not even beg the question. It closes of inquiry, as it directly contradicts the questioning in what one should have faith in.

syrup:

It's rather a bit surprising that you can't keep calm and would hurriedly use words like "disingenuous" and "misinformed social scientists" in debates. Whatever. Pal, be cool - the world's a big place.

I am perfectly calm, only I like to call a cat a cat. You implying that I'm not calm is disingenious.
1. disingenious is spot on, as it seemed you were trying to divert the attention from the real debate, the one on the issues
2. misinformed social scientists is a correct labeling in this context. Using the term evolutionist when talking about the Theory of Evolution is an inappropriote choice of words. I would be surprised if those social scientist are fully aware of the connotations when using that word. that's why I would call them misinformed.

simmy:

@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.

It is in the very least partialy based on faith, which makes it unscientific. It is also unscientific because if is unfalsifiable and does not allow us to make predictions.

simmy:

Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years,

Sort of. Time alone can never account for these changes.

simmy:

but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).

If you refer to the Theory of Evolution as proposed by Darwin an Wallace, I agree. There were others that had proposed other mechinism to explain the fact of evolution.

simmy:

First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought).

A scientific theory is not a school of thought.

simmy:

Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong.

That's in very broad strokes how science works, yes.

simmy:

Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect.

There is not theory of Intelligent Design, precisely because it cannot be proven wrong. Even the people behind Intelligent Design admit that much.

simmy:

I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together!

That's your miss. Maybe this site can help you.

simmy:

All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!!

That's news to me. Maybe you should read this site to get a clue what evolution theory really is.

simmy:

I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.

Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. You can take any organism as an example. KAG had a nice picture of an elephant

simmy:

They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it

You probably won't be able to [u]see [/u]it

simmy:

To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another.

Organisms don't evolve into each other. Maybe this site will illuminate the mechnisms of biological evolution
Do you have any idea how fossilisation works?

simmy:

(To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

Show me one creationist opnion based on facts.

simmy:

When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie!

An over time that leads to speciation when there is reproductive isolation of the gene pools. Have you ever heard of ring species? Quite fascinating.

simmy:

I wonder why evoluitonists can't get that.

Get what?

simmy:

Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate

So nature has intentions now, amazing. Any idea how many miscarriages and failed conceptions there are within the same species? It's all a matter of gradation. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, this site might help to illuminate things

simmy:

I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!

Flawed analogy as evidence, we're improving.

simmy:

Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog!

1. There are species that have a non-sexual mode of reproduction, so according to you there is no variation within these species?
2. Selected mutations do have that effect
3. You mean that the majority of geneticists are not well versed in genetics because they accept the Theory of Evolution?

simmy:

Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that

That's actually true. The chance of evolving in exactly the same direction are near impossible. They would have evolved in another direction. Can you bring some substance to your attempt at argumentation?

simmy:

, (duh!) Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)

One step at a time. Maybe you can read the literature explaining how complex behaviour can and has evolved: The Evolution of Behavior Smith, Scientific American, Sept 1978 Xenopsychology R. A. Freitas, Analog Apr 81

simmy:

Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer.

Why is it implausible? A Super-complex God creating complexity out of nothing is more plausible?

simmy:

The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!

Why?

simmy:

The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise

There is no theory of intelligent design.

simmy:

The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance. I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).

And the probability of you winning the lottery is so remote that nobody wins the lottery. What kind of reasoning is that? And once more, how do you explain that intelligence, the probabiblity of something so complex is even more remote.

simmy:

Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (

Because you say so?

simmy:

no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose).

So hurricanes and snowflakes have a purpose?

simmy:

Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!

So the sun has a purpose and so does the moon? Ah yes, to make life on earth possible. Now I understand. Can you even try not to use misplaced analogy? You force me to do the same

simmy:

An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

Why don't you present your scientific theory of intelligent design or creationism? You'll get a nobel prize for sure.

ONE
@KAG
You picked my post apart yet, you refused to answer my question. here again:

tell me, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your mother IS your mother, or if you never knew her, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your father IS your father tell me, ok, and If you can give me a concrete answer, ill tell you why i know that the Bible is from God.

I give you a clue:
My Bible says:
Ps 10:4 - The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

TWO another thing:

2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire."
- Sherman Milliken

Oh really, now, you know what, God has been looking for you, but you're the one playing hide and seek.

THREE remember that i said, in our chat:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.64.html

A life based on assumptions is dangerous. God exists, thats the truth. Now, lets talk. I am not a Christian because of somebody else. My defense of the Christian faith is based on personal proof,

On the other hand, remember you havent told me what you have benefitted from your Aethist belief, neither have you answered my question about what would say to encourage people to come over to the Aethist side of the fence.

FOUR
Do you believe in the existence of good and evil, even in evolution or creation? Yes or No.

kimba:


ONE
@KAG
You picked my post apart yet, you refused to answer my question. here again:
"tell me, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your mother IS your mother, or if you never knew her, what theory/practical experiment have you proved, since the day you were born to convince you that your father IS your father tell me, ok, and If you can give me a concrete answer, ill tell you why i know that the Bible is from God.

I give you a clue:
My Bible says:
Ps 10:4 - The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts."

One, the post I responded to, did not have that question. Two, the question was adderessed to somebody else, and it didn't seem germane to what was being discussed. Finally, though the question in itself is a red herring, I'll bite.

Before I answer your question, I'll point out again, that science does not doe proofs, so no matter what experiment I do, I technically can't "prove" my mother gave birth to me.

Answer: I know where I was born, know the doctor that gave birth to me, know details of my birth, and have seen records of my birth. Also, I have several features that I inherited from my mother, and more importantly, I also inherited several genetic traits (right word?) from her, which includes an unusual haemoglobin variant.

If those things I've listed, and many others (which belong no where on a message board full of anonymous starngers) weren't good enough, I could always do a DNA test, to show beyond 98/99%, that she gave bith to me.

Your turn.

TWO another thing:
A callous, heartless religion is that which defines it's God as a cold and unmerciful deity, quick to anger and even quicker to condemn it's people to an eternity in fire."
- Sherman Milliken


Oh really, now, you know what, God has been looking for you, but you're the one playing hide and seek.

Ignoring the illogical concept of hiding from an Omni-God, I'm not hiding from any deity, if God suddenly pops into existence, she knows where to find me.

THREE remember that i said, in our chat:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-11284.64.htmlOn the other hand, remember you havent told me what you have benefitted from your Aethist belief, neither have you answered my question about what would say to encourage people to come over to the Aethist side of the fence.

Now you're just being obtuse, read the thread in question again.

FOUR
Do you believe in the existence of good and evil, even in evolution or creation? Yes or No.

Define Good and Evil, and explain how you think they tie into an evolution/creation debate.

@KAG

I technically can't "prove" my mother gave birth to me.

Answer: I know where I was born, know the doctor that gave birth to me, know details of my birth, and have seen records of my birth. Also, I have several features that I inherited from my mother, and more importantly, I also inherited several genetic traits (right word?) from her, which includes an unusual haemoglobin variant.

You know where you were born? where? who told you? in what capacity of influence and knowledge were you at the time you were born to prove to yourself that whatever details you see on your birth-certificate were true?

You also know the doctor? you didnt recognize who the doctor was when you were born, did you?

have you tried verifying the records of your birth, what degree of truthfulness do the documents have, there are a hundred other people who have features similar to your mother, so youre not the only one.

genetic traits? you sure? 

I asked if you believe in good/evil and you say i should define it. I was asking for a Yes/No answer

kimba:

@KAGYou know where you were born?

Yes

where?

None of your business.

who told you?

My parents, relatives, family doctor, my birth certificate, and family friends.

in what capacity of influence and knowledge were you at the time you were born to prove to yourself that whatever details you see on your birth-certificate were true?

Except you have evidence of elaborate birth certificate forgeries, for rubbish and giggles,, I don't see the purpose of that question.

You also know the doctor? you didnt recognize who the doctor was when you were born, did you?

Didn't need to. By the way, I also knew one of the nurses that claimed to have been there too, and I really can't think of any reason why both off them would lie. Can you?

have you tried verifying the records of your birth, what degree of truthfulness do the documents have, there are a hundred other people who have features similar to your mother, so youre not the only one.

Erm, there are people forging birth documents, that are important to my health? Okay.

genetic traits? you sure?

Yes. I also mentioned a specific one.

To conclude, and put everything together. I know where was born, and have been told by differnet people, and that includes the doctor that gave birth to me, I've seen documents pertaining to my birth, have genetic traits that I share with my mother, and there are other things wich is no ones business.

So, sure there's a chance that I wasn't conceived by a woman, and suddenly dropped from the sky, complete with traits and genes similar to my mother's. Everybody I've come into contact with, has been a brilliant actor/actress involved in this big conspiracy to make me believe the woman I call mother, didn't actually give birth to me; but I think you'll agree, the facts of my birth as I know them, and have shown, should indeed show beyond reasonable doubt, that my mother is who she. That is by far the most parsimonious explanation. Also, like I pointed out, if Wasn't sure, and needed to be sure, I could always go for the DNA test option.

Now stop tap dancing, and answer what was asked of you.

I asked if you believe in good/evil and you say i should define it. I was asking for a Yes/No answer

A working definition would help me give an adequate reply, because my concept and definition of Good and/or evil, may defer significantly from yours. Also, the fact you seem to be trying to tie the question to the evolution and creation debate, makes a definition even more essential.

So, "define Good and Evil, and explain how you think they tie into an evolution/creation debate."

@ Kimba

You really are a very narrow minded person. Your method is too constantly attack instead of entering into dialog.

I do not despise you. I genuinely feel very sorry for you and hope that the Doctors will find a cure for your illness!

show me "God". just cause some men put a book together(the bible) and said thats how we were created doesnt mean it is true. i need to see God to believe. sorry y' all but evolution is my believe.

In my early days at the university, I used to believe in evolution-not that I was so convinced that it was the solution to my questions about existence but is was an answer anyway.All of science and the progress we have made in life hold on to the submissions of Darwin.I had lecturers who who were evolutionist and they still believed in their traditional African gods.

I askled questions.Is there a spiritual realm? I knew from experience that there is and science cannot explain that and so many questions in my mind.A scottish friend( evolutionist to the core) working with an NGO in NIgeria then who I asked gave exactly the same response I have seen on this page: in the absence of anything else to believe, let us hold on to the theory of evolution and defend it!I found that answer in the Bible.

Why cant you repeat the processes of evolution then? Another school has emerged that conceeds thatn God should be given some credit-thetrefore,He caused evolution.Confusion!

Recent researches  have proven that there must be an intelligent designer behind the intricate designs that comprises the universe.This things are not just happenng of their own.

All this 'evolution is it' is only a fear that there might just be God and if there is a God and we -the evolutionists-are wrong, the consequences are greatb indeed.It is thatr fear that informs the not so verifiable plunge into evolutionism.A person who is not living the life that God expects is in fear of thejustice of that God-the being who design even the smallest organism so intricately and with  theoir define purposes.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of this kind of Wisdom!

The inexistence of a creator, is a "theory" put forward by scientists(most,anyway) that is always open to be disproven.
I do not believe that the scientists who claim that a creator does not exist mean it as an absolute truth.It is merely a theory based on their own present knowledge.
The search for the truth is still ongoing.

gidig:

In my early days at the university, I used to believe in evolution-not that I was so convinced that it was the solution to my questions about existence but is was an answer anyway.All of science and the progress we have made in life hold on to the submissions of Darwin.I had lecturers who who were evolutionist and they still believed in their traditional African gods.

No, all of science and the progress we've made in life, DO NOT hold on to the submissions of Darwin. Your lecturers believed in their Gods because evolution does not preclude a religious belief.

Why can't you repeat the processes of evolution then?

We can.

Another school has emerged that conceeds thatn God should be given some credit-thetrefore,He caused evolution.Confusion!

That school of thought has been in existence for probably longer than the ToE. Theistic evolusioniists know that evolution =\= atheism.

Recent researches have proven that there must be an intelligent designer behind the intricate designs that comprises the universe.This things are not just happenng of their own.

If you are referring to Intelligent Design, I'ld be most interested in seeing the researches. Actually, it would help if you could give us an idea of the researches.

All this 'evolution is it' is only a fear that there might just be God and if there is a God and we -the evolutionists-are wrong, the consequences are greatb indeed.It is thatr fear that informs the not so verifiable plunge into evolutionism.A person who is not living the life that God expects is in fear of thejustice of that God-the being who design even the smallest organism so intricately and with theoir define purposes.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of this kind of Wisdom!

. Once again, for the upteenth time, evolution =\= atheism. Wait, this might help:


If you want to discuss atheism and the unbelief in your God, then start a new thread, I'll participate.

lol

KAG there is no need to shout.

dakmanzero:

lol

KAG there is no need to shout.

Lol, I know. Although sometimes if it's large enough, people will notice.

All hail theh bunny!!!

he rules.

hold on

@KAG
sorry for my silence, i was away
u asked how evolution flies inthe face of other scientific fields?
lets keep it simple
thermodynamics- the tendency of systems is for entropy to increase with time. i believe u will not argue that a genome can be considered as a thermodynamic system? more importantly it is not a closed system. genetic material is constantly under "attack" by elements in the environment eg radiation, free radicals in the body and all sorts of factors that lead to degradation or an increase in entropy. this process is essential for mutation which u say is the basis for evolutionary change

like in said b4 the natural tendency of systems is toward an increase in chaos and so for a species to maintain its integrity (becos the very essense of an organism lies in an exact ordered arangement of nucleic acid base pairs) over time, mechanisms have to be in place that will go against this trend. these error checking mechanisms are well documented. if in doubt pick up any book on molecular biology

the mutations we percieve in life forms are an interaction between entropy and  the degree of freedom allowed within the genetic framework. ( i believe we do not have to go into a discussion about the relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible). this relationship is fixed. so mathematically we can predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene. any mutation outside this must mean than the total entropy of the system has increased due to external pressure to such an extent that internal cohesive forces cannot cope with. this will always lead to increased disorder

Evolution is based on the premise that random genetic variation modified by environmental forces leads to speciation. this is plausible only within an entropy basement (a minimum level of entropy). random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy. yet what we see across species is progressively decreasing levels of entropy (or  increase in orderliness) in the genetic structure.

let me elucidate. the simplest forms of viruses have a few strands of RNA or DNA in thier nucleus. As life appears on earth with time, we have increase in the order structure and complexity of nuclear material in living things. this cannot be accounted for by random variation. in fact the very energy of the sun infusing into the earth everyday should ensure the breakdown of nuclear material cos infusion of energy into a closed system increases entropy.

Thus the difference  in number of elements,  and entropy between a bacterial DNA and a human one cannot be explained away by randomness and environment. in fact randomness and environmrnt should lead to a de-evolution of life forms

another paradox is science has shown that there is more variation within lower level life forms than higher level ones. there are  probably a million more species of bacteria than mammals. also there are lots more species of fish than reptiles. if the supposition of evolution was true, the organisms with more genes to play with should speciate more than those with less. in thermodynamic terms, more genetic material = more degrees of freedom.

let us use the analogy of a  tree. a stem may have 5 boughs, a bough should have at least five branches, a branch should have many more leaves. but this is not what we observe. as time goes by, across-species variation reduces. Is evolution winding down?

xkape:

@KAG
sorry for my silence, i was away

Not a problem.

u asked how evolution flies inthe face of other scientific fields?
lets keep it simple
thermodynamics- the tendency of systems is for entropy to increase with time.

That is a simple and succinct description of the second law of thermodynamics, however, a few additions, the total entropy of any[b] isolated thermodynamic system[/b] if unhindered, tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value (partly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics). Also, although the law mostly applies to macroscopic systems, it can to some extent be applied to microscopic systems (which is what the genome is).

i believe u will not argue that a genome can be considered as a thermodynamic system?

Yes

more importantly it is not a closed system.

Yes.

genetic material is constantly under "attack" by elements in the environment eg radiation, free radicals in the body and all sorts of factors that lead to degradation or an increase in entropy. this process is essential for mutation which u say is the basis for evolutionary change

Not necessarily. Mutations also can, and do occur, from mistakes during cell copying of its DNA for cell division. Also, mutations due to environmental factors, do not necessarily lead to degradation, in fact if that were the case, the mutation of the many troublesome bacteria in medicine, would not be a problem. That in itself shows that entropy does not necessarily increase.

ike in said before the natural tendency of systems is toward an increase in chaos and so for a species to maintain its integrity (because the very essense of an organism lies in an exact ordered arangement of nucleic acid base pairs) over time, mechanisms have to be in place that will go against this trend. these error checking mechanisms are well documented. if in doubt pick up any book on molecular biology

Although the DNA repair system manages to repair most of the copying errors, and damages, it is important to note that it doesn’t and can't always repair all of the mutations, in practically every species in existence (it is important to know, that a species with perfect DNA repair systems is far more likely to become extinct, if their environmental niche starts to change.

the mutations we percieve in life forms are an interaction between entropy and the degree of freedom allowed within the genetic framework. ( i believe we do not have to go into a discussion about the relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible). this relationship is fixed. so mathematically we can predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene. any mutation outside this must mean than the total entropy of the system has increased due to external pressure to such an extent that internal cohesive forces cannot cope with. this will always lead to increased disorder

We may actually need to go into discussion about the “relationship between number of elements in a system and the degrees of freedom or permutations possible”, because I’d like to see something on the mathematical ability to predict the maximum amount of deviation a mutant can have from its parent gene”.

Evolution is based on the premise that random genetic variation modified by environmental forces leads to speciation.

Evolution is based on the premise that beneficial and/or neutral random genetic variation in a population, and selected for by environmental factors, can lead to speciation.

this is plausible only within an entropy basement (a minimum level of entropy). random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy. yet what we see across species is progressively decreasing levels of entropy (or increase in orderliness) in the genetic structure.

That’s demonstrably untrue, if one has ever heard of a snow flake. Furthermore, I should add, that an increase in “complexity” doesn’t necessarily mean or need a decrease in entropy; mindlessness doesn’t necessarily mean undirected, and the filter of selection helps to reduce bad mutations.

let me elucidate. the simplest forms of viruses have a few strands of RNA or DNA in their nucleus. As life appears on earth with time, we have increase in the order structure and complexity of nuclear material in living things. this cannot be accounted for by random variation. in fact the very energy of the sun infusing into the earth everyday should ensure the breakdown of nuclear material because infusion of energy into a closed system increases entropy.

Well, not if you take only random mutations into account, but coupled with the process(es) of natural selection, and other selections. . .

By the way, which closed system?

Thus the difference in number of elements, and entropy between a bacterial DNA and a human one cannot be explained away by randomness and environment. in fact randomness and environmrnt should lead to a de-evolution of life forms

I really don’t see why. Humans didn’t evolve from bacteria; bacteria have been evolving for as long as humans, in that they are as evolved as humans. Also, I’d have thought the entropy in bacteria would same as in humans. Could you explain why that wouldn’t be the case?

another paradox is science has shown that there is more variation within lower level life forms than higher level ones. there are probably a million more species of bacteria than mammals. also there are lots more species of fish than reptiles. if the supposition of evolution was true, the organisms with more genes to play with should speciate more than those with less. in thermodynamic terms, more genetic material = more degrees of freedom.

let us use the analogy of a tree. a stem may have 5 boughs, a bough should have at least five branches, a branch should have many more leaves. but this is not what we observe. as time goes by, across-species variation reduces. Is evolution winding down?

What a load of cobblers. There are more species of bacteria because of their mode and rates of reproduction (to put it simply). Also, fishes are lower level life forms in comparism to reptiles? Speciation does not necessarily happen because of the amount of genes a species have, if that were the case. Finally, plants have more genes than humans and have more speciation than humans, bacteria have fewer genes than humans, yet have more speciation too.

Reason for edit: Correct grammar

There is notin like evolution. God created Man in his own image so i dont beleive in Evolution[i][/i]

@Syrup,

I have really enjoyed your contributions and Thanks for coming along to share some of your thoughts.

I'm still in this discussion, i've been a lil busy, i'll post my thits later

Are the two necessarily imcompatible?Is it not possible that God set things in motion by creating life and then the various life forms evolved into their present  state.There is certainly incontrovertible evidence of the occurance of evolution even contemporarily .While common sence dictates that nothing can come out of nothing hence there must have been a higher being,i.e God,that is the source of life.It will be farfetched to ignore all the indisputable evidence of evolution in favour of a literal interpretation of the Bible, which to all intents and purposes is metaphorical

4 Play:

While common sence dictates that nothing can come out of nothing hence there must have been a higher being,i.e God,that is the source of life.

Actually, that's an assumption on your part. The existences of the Earth's organisms, the Earth, and the Universe, are not necessarily dependent on a higher being. I do agree with the rest of your post though.

@KAG
Why do evolutionists use arguments like the snowflake to cover unexplainable gaps in thier theory?
First of all, a snowflake dovetails exactly with entropy. the very formation of an ice crystal involes a loss of energy which leads to a reduction in temperature which leads to a decrease in entropy. Thermo 101!
This cannot be used to explain entropy in genetic material cos temperature and pressure do not play a significant role in mutation and genetic transformation
Other examples of molecular complexing occur in nature: the various forms of carbon (graphite, diamond etc), sulphur, metamorphic rocks and so on. U will agree that all these are brought about by extreme physical conditions of temperature and pressure. So they cannot be compared to what goes on inside a cell

xkape:

@KAG
Why do evolutionists use arguments like the snowflake to cover unexplainable gaps in their theory?

Damn you, what gaps*? It was an adequate response to this rubbish that you spouted as fact: "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy"

First of all, a snowflake dovetails exactly with entropy. the very formation of an ice crystal involes a loss of energy which leads to a reduction in temperature which leads to a decrease in entropy. Thermo 101!

Exactly! Formation of snowflakes causes a decrease in entropy in the snowflake, which is a refutation to what you stated, "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy".

This cannot be used to explain entropy in genetic material because temperature and pressure do not play a significant role in mutation and genetic transformation
Other examples of molecular complexing occur in nature: the various forms of carbon (graphite, diamond etc), sulphur, metamorphic rocks and so on. U will agree that all these are brought about by extreme physical conditions of temperature and pressure. So they cannot be compared to what goes on inside a cell

I wasn't using snowflakes to explain entropy in the genome, I was using snowflakes as an example outside of evolution, as a rebuttal to "random translations of elements in a system modified by an even more mindless environmental pressure cannot lead to a decrease in entropy".

Was that all?

Hi,

Would any of the 3 people who voted "something else" in the Creation or evolution vote, kindly like to share what that is?

Just interested.

Regards

xkape,

I really wonder why you keep coming up with the second law of thermodynamics. That law does not apply to the earth's ecosystem, as it is not a closed system and even less to our genetic material, as it is a subsystem of subsystems of subsystems of , on our planet all of which are anything but closed.