Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


Sadly... several of your points are wrong, and your argument founders.

A demonstratable phenominum exists in science, called a virtual particle; actually it occurs in pairs (an anti- particle and particle pair, which hence do not violate any law of conservation.) At the origin of the universe two of these incompatible vp's existed simultaneously at a singularity, hence releasing the contained energy. As for the complexity of the universe... how does this REQUIRE design? How does gravity, entropy, quantum theory and fractal form not explain structures in the universe?





Religious backtracking, as always.

Creationists say that the world was created with intelligent design, and that God designed man, not evolution... 6000 or 10000 years ago. There was this big flood that formed all of these fossles

If God didn't create man right then... then there wasn't intelligent design as per the bible.

Now... the flood/ark concept is just one HUGE scientific joke. How did Noah or anyone of that time period build it. How did they estimate how big it would need to be, how to structure it, provide all the diverse climates and ecologies required to sustain the animals, how did they get the animals to the ship (like penguins, when it is clear that they were unaware of where penguins came from,) how did they get all the pairs (or 7's its not clear which) to breed successfully in captivity... why isn't there any record in ice cores or tree rings.

The list just goes on and on.

Like I said my model I posted above is not prefect. But I am trying to do what many who support evolution have asked, come up with proof and hypothesis that can be tested. Right now I am trying to focus my efforst on orgin of life. With fossils, I think they have been forming on the earth for millions of years, and not one single event formed all the fossil we see in the fossil record today.
There are many problems with Bing Bang Theory and many other theories proposed to explain the orgin of the Universe. This is an interesting article I found in New Scientist about this subject. I am going to attach it as a word document. I had to copy the text and past into word because it would not let me email or anything like that.

With "kinds" I think that they are biological families of species. Although I need to research this more.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack_www

Like I said my model I posted above is not prefect. But I am trying to do what many who support evolution have asked, come up with proof and hypothesis that can be tested. Right now I am trying to focus my efforst on orgin of life. With fossils, I think they have been forming on the earth for millions of years, and not one single event formed all the fossil we see in the fossil record today.
There are many problems with Bing Bang Theory and many other theories proposed to explain the orgin of the Universe. This is an interesting article I found in New Scientist about this subject. I am going to attach it as a word document. I had to copy the text and past into word because it would not let me email or anything like that.

With "kinds" I think that they are biological families of species. Although I need to research this more.

There are issues with the many scientific theories, since there are limitations on the quality of the experiment. This leads to different theories being put forward to provide explanations for the inconsistencies. Of course, the inconsistencies are not necessarily large. Different methodologies come forward to add a missing link to the puzzle.

To give but one example... stellar cosmology gave some inconsistent results until it was realized that space time curved around matter. (Gravity affects light)
---
So life evolved, rather that was created then...

its just the Big Bang that you're not 100% on?

[Lincoln]

Etheired,

“OBJECTIVE interpretation of the fossils show it.”

There is very little objectivity involved. That is why a certain chain of events that “proved” the evolution of dinosaurs turned out to be simply the same family in different stages of development from child to adolescent to adult as well as the different bone structures of the male and female. This was exposed after about 40 years. The same can be said about the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man as well as hundreds of similar examples. People find bones and then everyone trues to decide what it all means. There is disputes constantly about the significance of fossils especially in light of past errors in interpretation.

“Speculation is when someone says 'we don't know everything therefor god exists'. Hypothesis is when someone makes an initial attempt at understanding. Evolution is long past that. It’s a solid theory that has stood the test of time.”

Speculation is also when someone says “we don’t know everything therefore evolution did it.” Micro evolution or the process of natural selection is a solid theory. Changes from one distinct kind of animal to another is speculation based upon subject interpretation of evidence.

“Speculation is not involved. Repeating it ad infinitum will not make it so. The present reality is that there are megatons of fossils that show clearly that species have changed over time. Present reality is a mere slice in the history of the Universe and your narrow view of history is blocking this from your sight.”

Nor will repeating “evolution is a fact” make it so. Present reality and present known laws are the basis of science. Theories and hypotheses and speculation precede from there.

“If I believed everything I read I would be a Creationist.”

Forgive me but that is kind of funny. Have you been to a public school lately?

“Ever heard of flying squirrel. It’s a transition between a flyer and ground animal. Thats changing kind even by your standards.

Ever heard of a pollywog? It turns into a frog eventually. Flying squirrels or flying fish or swimming ducks or jumping grasshoppers are all apart of nature. That does not prove any transition from kind to kind.

“It evolved. Over time. No coder was ever needed.”

Please prove that the laws I posted are not valid. They require a “coder”. If you can offer proof to the contrary then I will withdraw my assertion.

“Or a bush or vine or whatever else it happens to be. But it is usually something different from the parent. Similar but not the same. Can't be the same unless it’s a clone.”

That is obvious. But it just so happens to make another tree each time. You cannot escape that.

“To reproduce. However it can. That usually entails becoming a tree but a bush will do if the conditions are poor.”

Yes there is variation built into the instructions that enable the tree to adapt. But that does not negate the goal of becoming a pear tree as opposed to an apple tree or whatever. Some seeds do not grow at all and some die but the goal is the same. They reproduce after their kind.

“It evolved that way. It wasn't programmed. It will do what it evolved to do. Playing word games isn't going to get your anywhere with me. Try giving evidence. I am waiting to see evidence for creation. I have never seen any. Not once.

I have seen lots of evidence for evolution.”

I am giving you evidence for creation here. And you are using circular reasoning again. “It evolved that way” is not an answer it is a statement of belief on your part. I asked a simple question. Please show how using chemical laws the DNA code can evolve?

“It evolved. Like computer code it has no meaning of its own. Its simply a case of one chemical fitting another. It is unlikely that life started as DNA so you might as well give up on this route because it came AFTER life got started.”

A computer code does have meaning when it performs a function that was the goal of the programmer. And it does have meaning when it contains useful information that was put there by the intelligent source that created it (a human being). And saying “it evolved” is another statement of faith. You say that DNA came after life got started. Please show a life form that exists today that does not contain DNA or RNA (which also contains coded information). And even if “life” did start without DNA it certainly does contain it now. Please show how it evolved if you can without using the laws that I posted.

“I am assuming nothing. We can see the chemistry in action. Life self assembles. It is mere chemistry and there is no magic involved.”

Good, then show how chemistry makes the coded information contained in DNA. That should be easy.

“There are web sites telling Bible thumpers not to mention the Bible and not ever try to prove anything. I see you have got the message.”

I did not see their web sites. Sorry.

“More bogus claims of circularity. Show evidence for your position.”

You continue saying in effect that evolution did it. You use that assertion to “prove” that evolution did it. If you have proof that the DNA code and the information within it evolved then show it here. You cannot begin with a statement of belief and circle around to that same statement. You believe in evolution as the creator of life I believe in God as the creator. I am trying to show that the coded information that is in life must have originated from an intelligent mental source. You say in response, “evolution did it”. Please show how that happens.

“There never was a need for the code to be what it is. There is only a need for it to work. It may have worked differently in the past. Now that is speculation.”

Yes, a lot of things may have been different but reality today is that life is based upon the coded instructions contained in DNA. Like you said. The other alternative is speculation.

“They weren't laws. They were bald assertions.”

Please refute them then.

“The origin was from a random change that is tested against the environment. If it fails it doesn't reproduce. If it succeeds it takes over. The information comes from the natural selection by the environment. Or you could call it unnatural in the case of synthetic antibiotics.

By the way SOME of the resistance IS gained from other bacteria. Bacteria can exchange DNA across species. Most antibiotics were found or are variants of found antibiotics. The DNA that gives resistance in many cases evolved over long periods of time in bacteria that don't infect humans. Later when we started using antibiotics such as penicillin these traits crossed species. They probably had crossed before but had no survival value till penicillin was discovered.

The catch here for you is that we also modify penicillin and the traits that the bacteria gained from non-infecting bacteria didn't quite do the trick against the modified forms. Yet the bacteria have since adapted to the modified versions as well. THAT was evolution. Random changes and selection by the environment.”

I do not question the process of natural selection. But you are not answering the question of the origin of information. If truly new information is added then it would indicate the further intervention of an intelligent mental source. But in studying the potential of existing information such as is used in the immune system I would hesitate to assume that there is any need for that speculation.

Adaption is provided for in the initial instructions. Information which already exists in other bacteria and is combined with other information is like two software programs interacting. There is usually no need to speculate that there is another source.

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln... define a 'KIND' of animal exactly...

and prove why DNA, RNA or protein organization could not have been feasible due to a Quantum state.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I see that no one has attempted to overthrow the information laws that I posted yet. No, I did not use the theory of Claude Shannon here because he does not address the true nature of information contained in a biological organism. That is not a refutation of Shannon’s work. Werner Gitt on the other hand address information not only on a statistical level as did Shannon but also on the true higher levels which define specified coded information which is in reality contained in DNA. So I must prove this here, I suppose so here goes:

In a tiny seed there exists all of the information necessary to make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a fully functioning organism. This is simply fact. It is the information contained in coded form in DNA that supplies all of the information for this miracle of life to take place. So let’s look on all five levels of information and see if DNA fits the definition.

1. Statistics.

This is a given and is what Shannon explored and is agreed by all. Statistics answers the following questions: 1. How many letters does the supposed alphabet contain? Answer; 4 (ACTG). 2. How many “words” are there in the “language”? Answer; About 64 (codons or triplets made up of the 4 letters). 3. How frequently do certain letters and words occur? This question defines a language as opposed to simply patterns or repeats of the same letter or word. DNA obviously is more than repeats and patterns. The statistical level helps us to understand the brevity or verbosity of information and the efficiency of communication but it gives us no clue to the actual meaning. For example if I sent a telegram which said “By all means come as fast as you can without delay or unnecessary preoccupation with trivial matters” that would be more information than if I simply said “Come now!”. The more detailed explanation is not considered on a statistical level – only the amount of information, i.e., more in the first and less in the second. As you can see, the increased information in the first example is largely fluff. The essence is in the second example and it is also more efficient because it uses less energy.

2. Syntax.

This is information in coded form. The questions that must be answered here include: 1. What combinations of letters (or symbols) make up the code? Answer; Any combination of ACTG (quaternary code) in triplets. 2. What criteria are used for constructing the code? Answer; It is composed of triplets that represent (generally) one of 20 amino acids. 2. What is the mode of transmission? Answer; It is transmitted chemically. Is it a true code? Answer; Yes, because DNA is irregular and the coded information within it cannot be explained by the laws of physics or chemistry. That is, the lateral attractions of ACTG are the same regardless of order along the string of nucleotides. Also the code has been broken and the translation method has been discovered. The syntax level of information is basically the grammar of the code. Or what is the acceptable order of words? In DNA the “words” must combine in a specific order so that the specified protein can be manufactured. Repeated words are allowed.

3. Semantics.

This is the actual meaning of the words or “sentences”. Both of the above requirements may have been met but we still do not know what this all means so that a seed can grow into a tree or whatever. For example I could say, “there is a barn flavored dog rising along the moon that caught a racoon that was transmitted sarcastically about the ionosphere.” That sentence is grammatically correct (according to WP grammar check) but there is no clear meaning. A developing seed needs to have instructions that make sense. This is accomplished in DNA by ordering the amino acids in a logical order that foresees the translation and eventual folding of the protein or enzyme into a specific shape and quality. “Make a tRNA molecule according to the following instructions . . . “ for example. Therefore the meaning of those instructions is to assemble amino acid “A” with amino acid “G” and amino acid “H” and amino acid “R” etc. in a specific order that has meaning to the organism.

4. Pragmatics.

This is the practical level. What does this actually do? Answer; It makes specific proteins. The whole idea of the code is to actually do something practical which is the making of specific proteins with a specific function that perform specific tasks that are useful in the organism. DNA when translated by the ribosomes and the accompanying machinery actually produces the desired product. Information to be useful must actually do something. The information contained in DNA actually works and has a practical value.

5. Apobetics.

Purpose or goal. What is the purpose of all of this? Answer; To make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a specific animal or plant. In other words, all of the other levels of information are combined to produce the goal which is a dog or a tree or whatever. The coded information in DNA accomplishes the goal that was intended. The seed was intended to make a tree. The goal was accomplished and the purpose was achieved

Overthrow what information "laws"? You still haven't quantified "information", and your definition of it is philosophical, not scientific.

Please provide a means of calculating the amount of information an individual contains and a proof that evolutionary pressure combined with genetic juggling/random mutations cannot increase the mean amount of information in a population from generation to generation.

[mactbone]

Alright, I'm rolling two dice - they come up 2 and 6, God must have done it because otherwise I wouldn't be able to decipher that that exact combination is the number of my birthday.

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Evolution is the root of our social problems today.

But it's not true!... everyone must know the TRUE reason for our social problems - MASTURBATION!

[Provost Harrison]

[Provost Harrison]

Well I am afraid I am going to have to kill a kitten tonight

[Lincoln]

Two questions:

Lincoln... define a 'KIND' of animal exactly...

and prove why DNA, RNA or protein organization could not have been feasible due to a Quantum state.



My response (no I am not civnation):

A “kind” of animal is exactly what Drako said it is. A dog as opposed to a cat. A giraffe as opposed to an elephant. A bird as opposed to a mouse. This is not to say that there cannot be variation in the same kind or dramatic changes such as a caterpillar to a butterfly or a pollywog to a frog. Nature is full of fantastic animals that cross a lot of boundaries that we set. Some plants for example are like animals so the definition is entirely subjective. I use the obviously different creatures where there is no dispute about boundaries. The essence of the theory of evolution is the assertion of dramatic changes over time. I have yet to see proof of any such dramatic changes. Variation and adaptability does not prove that evolution “is a fact”.

The other question which is similar to the above.

“You still haven't quantified "information", and your definition of it is philosophical, not scientific.

Please provide a means of calculating the amount of information an individual contains and a proof that evolutionary pressure combined with genetic juggling/random mutations cannot increase the mean amount of information in a population from generation to generation.”

You can calculate the amount of information using Shannon’s information theory. That is however not a complete picture of the value of information but it can be a measure of complexity. For example, an organism with a deformation may be more complex and contain more “information” than a normal one but the value of the information is not considered. Less information for instance is probably better in that example. So using Shannon’s theorem alone is not adequate. So, genetic juggling etc. can increase information under Shannon’s definition.

The problem is that his definition is not adequate in solving the problem which is not random jumbles of confusion but specified information that has a real meaning and accomplishes a specific goal. Making more proteins is providing more information for Shannon but random piles of proteins floating around in an organism that requires specific proteins and enzymes does not need this type of information. So he is correct but his solution only solves part of the problem. Now, now do I calculate the value of true coded information such as is contained in DNA? I don’t have the slightest idea. I would guess that the efficiency of the particular organism would be a good place to start for finding a solution. Also I agree that information can be increased using mutations and selection etc. under Shannon’s definition.

DNA or RNA can self organize into random strings. It is simple chemistry. The problem is there is coded information contained in this simple chemistry. The information in DNA is analogous in one way to the information that is in a book. Everything is explained by simple chemical laws or even “evolution” if one chooses to see it that way. The book, the printing press, the ink – everything except the actual information that originated from an intelligent mental source, i.e., the author.

The triplets that are an integral part of the DNA code are non existent in any random process. We only have a string that may look like this: ATGCCGATATTATAGGCACAGAA.

Where are the triplets? And how does a random process or even an evolutionary one know where they are? What is the appropriate translation of the code (that does not yet even exist because the basic elements have not even been determined)? And what good is any of it if there is no foreknowledge of the eventual folding of the particular enzyme that are used to translate it?

The problem is not that proteins cannot somehow assemble themselves from a theoretical pool of amino acids and nucleotide bases, the problem is where did the code come from so that these supposed precursors of life can organize into an actual life form with all of the interdependent parts and machinery. The known laws of science can be used to form DNA or proteins but they cannot explain the information contained in the code or the code itself. Information laws however can explain the existence of both. Because we are dealing with information it is only appropriate to deal with the problem on that level. A programmer begins by thinking.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Etheired,

“OBJECTIVE interpretation of the fossils show it.”

There is very little objectivity involved. That is why a certain chain of events that “proved” the evolution of dinosaurs turned out to be simply the same family in different stages of development from child to adolescent to adult as well as the different bone structures of the male and female. This was exposed after about 40 years. The same can be said about the Piltdown man and the Neanderthal man as well as hundreds of similar examples.

The extinction of dinosaurs is prima facie evidence of evolution. Life today is different than it was in the past. More directly, the ability to predict is the hallmark of science. Evolution makes predictions. Creationism does not. For instance,

Evolution predicts that dinosaur fossils will only be found in certain undisturbed strata of rock and will never be mixed with hominid fossils. This is a testable prediction which has been verified countless times.

Darwin predicted that there was genetic material passed from parent to offspring, that this material was probably chemical in nature, and would vary according to certain rules. This has been verified countless times, and in countless ways, including by watching genetic drift in HIV, with radiation, with cloning, with mixing of genes between species, etc.

The Darwinists predicted that the Earth and Sun were billions of years old, even though physicists of the time believed their lifespans were measured in only millions of years -- a difference of a 1000 times.

In order to keep the Sun hot for the billions of years necessary for evolution to take place, there had to be a new form of energy yet discovered to provide the Sun's energy. This was proven to be atomic energy.

These predictions were made decades before their verification.

[Provost Harrison]

Well you're trying to quantify what information is...no one else is because there is no scientific basis nor rationale for it. There is no reason to add such abstract concepts to a situation where not needed. Remember Ocham's Razor? Besides, I wish you would look at the post I have made about how genetic data increases, and in earlier threads, how it originates.

[Lincoln]

"The extinction of dinosaurs is prima facie evidence of evolution. Life today is different than it was in the past. More directly, the ability to predict is the hallmark of science. Evolution makes predictions. Creationism does not."

Extinction of dinosaurs or various prediction may or may not disprove the Genesis account of creation but that is not the point of this thread. The point is that there was some type of creation. At least that is why I entered into this discussion at all. I don't generally engage in debates that involve the quagmire of "creation science" and literal Bible interpretation etc.

General creation by an intelligent source does make predictions. I predict for example that no one will be able to solve the problem of the origination of the coded information contained in DNA using only chemical laws or the laws of physics.

[mactbone]

Can you explain to me why I rolled a two and a six Lincoln?

If evolution is true that's how it would work. It's all about chance baby, except that the one's that don't work die. So, if life can only be created if I roll two ones, then whenever I roll something else I just throw the dice away. Eventually I'll hit two ones, and I'll keep them, and maybe I'll decide two ones suck, and for some reason after I throw two ones I end up with three dice. So, now I roll three dice and decide that I'll only keep the dice that give me one, one, two. Ad nauseum except I bring in a buddy to try and help me out, except that he hates my numbers and likes to make up different combos.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Lincoln
General creation by an intelligent source does make predictions. I predict for example that no one will be able to solve the problem of the origination of the coded information contained in DNA using only chemical laws or the laws of physics.

That's just not true Lincoln, the first selection pressure of the first self-replicating molecule (formation by chance, do I have to go into the apes on typewriters typing Shakespeare's works analogy again?). Then evolution kicks in, selection of superior self-replicating molecules. The obvious big jump in superiority is autocatalysis, ie, the structure of the nucleic acid means it has the enzymic activity to reproduce itself, this is why it is speculated that RNA was the first nucleic acid, as examples exist today of autocatalytic RNA. The second big leap was the association of protein. Proteins consisting of polypeptides make far superior enzymes (greater repertoire of properties of amino acids, greater structural possibilities), and the selection pressure for this protein-nucleic acid system rather than autocatalytic nucleic acid system makes the difference between survival and death. And the process rolls on once this desired relationship between protein and nucleic acid (for this to be successful, translation mechanisms have to exist to convert genetic data into protein). There is no data input required from an intelligent being, natural selection can account for it given a reasonable mutation rate. Most varieties will be deleterious and die away, but the odd one will be effective. Remember this is painfully slow, billions of years, the step from this success to humanity is very short in comparison (hundreds of millions of years).

Just consider the numbers involved before you close your mind and refuse to consider the most plausible theory.

[Lincoln]

test.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
General creation by an intelligent source does make predictions. I predict for example that no one will be able to solve the problem of the origination of the coded information contained in DNA using only chemical laws or the laws of physics.

First, you have not suggested an actual experiment.

Second, you don't suggest that fulfilment of such an event would falsify the Creator hypothesis.

Third, it is doubtful you would accept the results even from the cloned cyborg who hands you the results.

[Lincoln]

Thanks Provost,

I have seen that before but I will consider it again. I am sorry that you had to repeat yourself. I will get back to you. I think we are talking about two things though at first glance. See you tomorrow unless I can find time tonight.

[Lincoln]

and 4th Zachriel, You haven't solven't solved the problem yet so we can discuss the details of your reward after you do.

[Zachriel]

By the way, modern mathematics has demonstrated that certain networks will spontaneously form. In the specific case, certain molecues may spontaneously form self-replicating and self-sustaining groups. Once self-replication begins, then evolution takes over.

It does not take a millions monkeys pounding on a million typewriters.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
and 4th Zachriel, You haven't solven't solved the problem yet so we can discuss the details of your reward after you do.

Just to be clear, abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. For all we know, the first life fell from space, was spontaneously created in the primeval ocean, was planted by aliens, or put there by God.

Darwin presented no evidence on abiogenesis, and it is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
*snip*A “kind” of animal is exactly what Drako said it is. A dog as opposed to a cat. A giraffe as opposed to an elephant. A bird as opposed to a mouse. This is not to say that there cannot be variation in the same kind or dramatic changes such as a caterpillar to a butterfly or a pollywog to a frog. Nature is full of fantastic animals that cross a lot of boundaries that we set. Some plants for example are like animals so the definition is entirely subjective. I use the obviously different creatures where there is no dispute about boundaries. The essence of the theory of evolution is the assertion of dramatic changes over time. I have yet to see proof of any such dramatic changes. Variation and adaptability does not prove that evolution “is a fact”.

The other question which is similar to the above. *snip*

What you call a "Kind" is a generic human specification based on observation and to some degree real specific scientific definitions. A wolf kind of looks like a dog, but they are very different. Your definition doesn't work in this case, scientific definitions do.

I'll ask the question again. Give a specific definition of a 'Kind'.

The question regarding Quantum theory has nothing to do with the above. It has everything to do with the creation of DNA (or RNA or component proteins.)

It breaks your argument about DNA not being able to be formed.

A Quantum state is recursive forwards. What this means is that there are infinite states at any one given point in time, and then in each of those points, another infinite states.

What it means in terms of this reality is that even though initial combination of some form of DNA, RNA or other reproductive informational mechanism existed in our Quantum path. It doesn't matter if it was a rare occurance. Everything happened. You are merely perceiving one path of the result, in which DNA originated.

In some of the other paths, you also existed, but actually understand basic Quantum theory.

In still further Quantum paths... you and I were never born. In others... nothing was.

[Lincoln]

"Darwin presented no evidence on abiogenesis, and it is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution."

You got that right. If I am out of place then I will bow out and do this on another thread someday. I only entered the discussion because I wanted to clear up some accusations made against Drako. Then the information thing got going. It does seem to be relevant though to even the theory of evolution. If however the origin is God then that kind of upsets the apple cart because it would be impossible to deny his further intervention within evolution or creation.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

A "kind" of animal is exactly what Drako said it is. A dog as opposed to a cat. A giraffe as opposed to an elephant. A bird as opposed to a mouse. This is not to say that there cannot be variation in the same kind or dramatic changes such as a caterpillar to a butterfly or a pollywog to a frog. Nature is full of fantastic animals that cross a lot of boundaries that we set. Some plants for example are like animals so the definition is entirely subjective. I use the obviously different creatures where there is no dispute about boundaries. The essence of the theory of evolution is the assertion of dramatic changes over time. I have yet to see proof of any such dramatic changes. Variation and adaptability does not prove that evolution "is a fact".

But dogs and cats are clearly the same "kind" (Carnivora). Giraffes, elephants and mice also belong with dogs and cats in the larger "kind" of Mammalia. Cast the net a little wider, and you include reptiles and birds... and so on. ALL living organisms can be smoothly slotted into the pattern of the evolutionary "Tree of Life", the branching pattern of common descent from shared ancestors.

And the fossil record supports this. As you follow the dog/wolf lineage back, you find that it joins the bear lineage. Further back, it merges with the cat lineage. And so on...

Now check out the DNA. The DNA of dogs is very similar to wolves, slightly less similar to bears, pretty close to cats. And so on...

All lving things belong to the same "kind", Lincoln. ALL of the evidence we have agrees on this. The overall pattern of common descent is undeniable: to reject this because of some trivial gap in the fossil record is like insisting that a 1000 piece jigsaw with three pieces missing cannot possibly represent a picture.

Evolution is fact. Common descent is fact. The only possible room for speculation is whether or not the fact of evolution is sufficient to account for the fact of common descent: it appears to be sufficient, but this cannot be proven.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Lincoln:

But dogs and cats are clearly the same "kind" (Carnivora). Giraffes, elephants and mice also belong with dogs and cats in the larger "kind" of Mammalia. Cast the net a little wider, and you include reptiles and birds... and so on. ALL living organisms can be smoothly slotted into the pattern of the evolutionary "Tree of Life", the branching pattern of common descent from shared ancestors.
*snip*

You shouldn't use the word "Kind" in scientific discussions with Creationists... they rely on ambiguity to forge any "kind" of an argument.

[Lincoln]

"In some of the other paths, you also existed, but actually understand basic Quantum theory.

In still further Quantum paths... you and I were never born. In others... nothing was."

This is too deep for me. I am born therefore I am. (You might want to write that down).

That is the best devinition of "kind" I can come up with. I never claimed is was a scientific definition. The word is from the Bible and it is different from today's definition of "species" so you can do what you want with that quagmire. My point is that Drako clearly pointed out what he meant and he was not refuted using his definition of the word.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Just to head off a possible creationist counter:

Creationists sometimes try to claim that the pattern of DNA simlarities simply reflects a similarity in design: for instance, the DNA of cats and dogs is similar only because they're both hairy warm-blooded quadrupedal carnivores.

However, the pattern of DNA similarities is too detailed for that. For instance, humans carry a gene for making vitamin C which has been rendered inactive by a specific harmful mutation. ALL primates carry this same gene, with the same defect that stops it working. Primates eat fruit, so it isn't a problem for us (except the unfortunate sailors who died of scurvy because of this defect).

Similarly, the design of birds is radically different to that of crocodiles, yet DNA analysis shows that crocs are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles like turtles. This can be predicted from evolution: birds, dinosaurs and crocodiles evolved from a specific group of reptiles, the archosaurs, which does not include turtles, lizards or snakes (which branched off earlier).

[MrBaggins]

No problem Lincoln.

Creationists often shout 'statistically improbable' but those claims mean nothing if the event happened in the past, especially if that past event was required for later events to occur. If it were not so, it would be a paradox.

The issue with using the word kind, is its ambiguity. Top level creationists use this word (it lends credence to evolution), and top level scientists deny its use as useful in defining flora and fauna. There has never been a record of "kinds" of animals. They are catagoried by family, genus and species.

If you want to argue specifics, you need to be specific.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


That's just not true Lincoln, the first selection pressure of the first self-replicating molecule (formation by chance, do I have to go into the apes on typewriters typing Shakespeare's works analogy again?). Then evolution kicks in, selection of superior self-replicating molecules. The obvious big jump in superiority is autocatalysis, ie, the structure of the nucleic acid means it has the enzymic activity to reproduce itself, this is why it is speculated that RNA was the first nucleic acid, as examples exist today of autocatalytic RNA. The second big leap was the association of protein. Proteins consisting of polypeptides make far superior enzymes (greater repertoire of properties of amino acids, greater structural possibilities), and the selection pressure for this protein-nucleic acid system rather than autocatalytic nucleic acid system makes the difference between survival and death. And the process rolls on once this desired relationship between protein and nucleic acid (for this to be successful, translation mechanisms have to exist to convert genetic data into protein). There is no data input required from an intelligent being, natural selection can account for it given a reasonable mutation rate. Most varieties will be deleterious and die away, but the odd one will be effective. Remember this is painfully slow, billions of years, the step from this success to humanity is very short in comparison (hundreds of millions of years).

Just consider the numbers involved before you close your mind and refuse to consider the most plausible theory.

A few quick questions PH,

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

How are the triplets discerned initially?

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


1) It was another blow to religious power against science (after heliocentrism). I may be biased, but I don't think that relgion meddling in science does any good at all. The two are virtual opposites.

2) It may have stimulated the discovery of genetics (evolutionists needed a mechanism to make eveloution work, and genetics fit perfectly).

3) There are other developments that have sprung from evoution, e.g. the genetic algorithms that everyone is bringing up, and also the idea that the universe was not created soly for the benefit of humans.

Unfortunately, you are correct in stating that staunch religious establishments can hinder technological progress.

But that still isn't enough to dismiss the creationism accounts. Afterall, they are just as varied as the scientific theories.