Intellegent Design

At the core Intelligent Design is a theory on the origin of the world. It was sparked when several major accredited scientist from a majority of scientific fields got together and started discussing the topic. One scientist brought up that their was irrefutable discrepencees in his field that prove against evolution but evolution still has to be true because of the proof in all the other scientific fields. Another scientist spoke up and said he found the same in his field. A majority of the other fields all agreed. They got together and did research and the Intelligent Design theory is the result. Here is a good website that discusses some of points. Discuss. Intel. Design

(paints great big Flaming target on his chest)

yup. I agree. a huge explosion, defined as a random release of energy, cannot create a perfectly ordered system. or even an imperfectly ordered system. or creating any kind of system. a huge explosion is great for busting up systems, though.

evolution is a bad word to use. What Darwin observed and recorded was really nothing more than adaptation within a species. just becase the shape and structure of a bird's beak changes, or beatles change color and shape doesn't mean that that beatle will become a spider, or something resembling one. or that that bird will become an ostrich or something resembling one.

supposing we take into account random chance when the first neucleotides formed in the primordial soup. the odds of that happening by chance are astronomical.

wanna know what the odds are of it happening again? in a word, astronomical * astronomical. with each reoccurance, the thing increases exponentially. and for the first single celled organism to form, I think someplace along the lines of a million nuecleotides would need to form and link up.

therefore, random chance is a HELLLA bad kind of Origin Story. I mean, the Seneca legend of somebody cutting a hole in the sky, through which a lady fell and landed on a sea turtle and became mother earth is more likely.

This is my reasoning. I do not suggest anybody need agree with or accept this reasoning as valid. think about it for yourself.

now if you'll excuse me, I'll just hide so all the flames will not get me.

I don't know crap about biology. I do know that evolution is considered all but fact in the scientific community. This is only according to my biology professors at college, my friends in med school (basically biology majors), and most of the informed opinions I've read on the internet and elsewhere.

I do know plenty about religion, and to the second a scientists puts a supernatural unknown perhaps-unknowable omnipotent creator-being into a scientific theory, he loses 99% of his credibility in my eyes.

"God did it" can explain any number of theories. "I don't understand how life could've formed at random" does not imply "God did it". It implies either that life formed at random and that you don't understand how, or that life did not form at random and that therefore some other of the infinite possiblities is correct instead.

This subject doesn't interest me very much, but I'll offer a link with some arguments against intelligent design. You can read if you like and decide for yourself. I haven't read most of it myself, personally.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...sm/design.html

I agree with Unne. Evolution is just a theory, and could very well be wrong. Maybe God did create us all, I am an agnostic and a skeptic, so I wouldn't deny anything on the supernatural. However, I believe that a scientist, at least in modern science, should not rely on the supernatural. Science is meant to be empirical, and if you have no empirical (not even rational) evidence of a God existing, trying to explain things through God won't make a scientific theory, maybe a philosophical one.

Whats my point? Well, I don't like the method of modern science at all, but I believe that in the case of modern science, when you simply don't understand something, you must simply say it is beyond the reach of science for now. Can you mention God? Yes, but as your personal belief, not as a part of your scientific theory. I said, in modern science.

Argument against evolution: Chances of occurrance are scientifically proven to be approximately impossible to the 300th power. (I'd look up the number, but I don't feel like it right now.)

That's the really strong argument. So strong that most people who don't believe in evolution simply consider it a scientist religion.

(Universities, especially science professors, strongly stress it's existence. It's because college is all about finding answers. I'd say that 3/4 of my professors are evolutionist or atheist, and they've all had something to say about it. That massive influence is probably what causes so many "?educated" or "intellectuals" to feel that God doesn't exist. You wouldn't believe how many people disregard religion because they want to pretend that they are really smarter than other people instead of merely educated.)

Evolution's only saving grace is that funny statement: "In an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time..."

On the flip side, Intelligent Design is always there, whether it's true or false. No sense in studying that at all. So scientists should keep searching for answers.

I wonder if evolution should be considered a failed theory by now. I think it's time for something else.

How exactly has evolution been proven to be impossible? How would you go about even trying to prove something like that?

well, it's not so much that evolution is dead wrong, so much as there are several rather large inconsistencies and several things that fly in the face of the theory.

for example, opossums and sharks. the fossil record indicates both these creatures having existed for hundreds of thousands of years, millions in the case of sharks. the environments in which these creatures live, according to the fossil record and geological data, has changed drastically over that course of time. yet these creatures remain much as they are instead of changing alongside all the other animals that changed.

so the question raised is, why did these animals stay the same, while others changed drastically? these animals are just as suited as any other animal of their type to exist within their environment now, and according to the fossil record, they were just as suited as most other species of their type back then, so why did those animals change, when these did not?

that's just one example. I'll go back to hiding now.

maybe they really are more suited, or maybe they just got lucky, or maybe some sharks did evolve but got eaten and cut off the evolution. who knows?

*you hear the voice of DeBlayde coming from somewhere where he's still hiding*

sure maybe. but maybe a talking donkey came along and yakked constantly then kicked them in the bejeebies and they couldn't reproduce after that.

there've been plenty of ideas, but nobody's been able to back anything up with data. unless they're making too broad of generalizations given the data they found. (happens a lot in scientific research)

*still hiding*

One time Babe Ruth came up to bat six times in one game but didn't hit a single home run. That proves he couldn't hit home runs.

yes, that is an example of an over generalization, Est.

another common mistake in scientific research is interpreting your results to explain a theory to which they don't really apply, or more commonly interpreting somebody else's results to explain your case.

many people don't like the idea of a supreme being, because it means they'd be held accountable for what they do. not saying anybody here holds that opinion, I'm just stating a fairly commonly held belief evidenced by survey and sociological study. they will go far outta their way to back up this belief too. and when somebody does not want to believe something, there's usually nothing anybody can say to convince them otherwise.

another interesting note: The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.

anything's possible, but it just seems to me like you made up your mind what result you want to get and are just grabbing at anything that might possibly support that conclusion. If you believe God created everything and controls all aspects of life, why do you need to use science to try and prove it?

Erm, they recently found midget bones out in Asia (somewhere?). That would probably prove why alotta Asians are short.

Quote:

---

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...0545816C962329

---

Do me a favor. Pick a number between 0-9, please. Write it down.

Got it? Pick another one.

And another. Get... let's see, 15 of them, right in a row. Nice number you've got there, huh?

NO. LIES. HERESY! You do NOT have that number! The odds of you having that number are astronomical! There's a one in a QUADRILLION* chance of you getting the number in front of you. Clearly GOD created that number.




*(if you use the american system, I believe it is 1000 Billion to you brits)

The main problem with intelligent design is that this universe is NOT perfect. Sure its nigh impossible that life evolved the way it did, but there are also infinite outcomes. And when there are infinite outcomes even an improbable outcome becomes certain.

The universe does not work like a clock. There are many underlying factors. In the physical plane, objects work according to their laws. Apply non-euclidean theories. Relativity theories. Then we have another plane to work with. We exist in four dimensions. Intelligent design and the clockwork universe theory rely on the belief that time is infalliable, and that we are only affected in three dimensions. Einstein's theory states that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down. As time can be experimented on, we must assume that it can be altered in the same way as matter , and is subject to its own laws. Probability applies to it too, as with the rest of the universe. Due to the fact that there are infinite chances of it happening, an unlikely event becomes certain. Right now a pocket of space time is tearing it self open between two points in the universe. As I said before, if there are infinite possibilities, and infinite chances for each possibility, then an outcome becomes certain.

If this universe follows mathematical law, then all laws of probability apply. When the laws of probability are applied, everything becomes uncertain. The fact that uncertainties exist disprove an orderly universe. Of course, when probability is applied all laws become false, as there exists a possibility of something different happening. All things are uncertain.

I am going to read "a Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, which apparently ends up giving almost irrefutable evidence for Intelligent design (a mathematical proof, with the only assumption being the laws of general relativity (which have a lot of evidence)) and shows that time had a beginning which would discredit the "with enough time and enough matter" argument. I will have to read it before I can seriously comment, though.

Quote:

---

The main problem with intelligent design is that this universe is NOT perfect.

---

Many Christians argue that this is only the case because of the fall of mankind. (sin)

Quote:

---

If this universe follows mathematical law, then all laws of probability apply. When the laws of probability are applied, everything becomes uncertain. The fact that uncertainties exist disprove an orderly universe. Of course, when probability is applied all laws become false, as there exists a possibility of something different happening. All things are uncertain.

---

I don't think rigorous mathematical proofs have any uncertainties except in those assumptions placed on them. If what I've heard is correct about the book, then all you can argue is that general relativity is not true, which is a very weak argument.

Quote:

---

NO. LIES. HERESY! You do NOT have that number! The odds of you having that number are astronomical! There's a one in a QUADRILLION* chance of you getting the number in front of you. Clearly GOD created that number.

---

The probability of the evolution occuring so far has been narrowed to less than 1/10^2XX. (not a large number and this was even using favorable (to evolution happening) constraints and it is getting smaller and smaller as we learn more) The "we are here aren't we" argument is a very weak argument for evolution happening.
Since you typed the above statement, you obviously don't understand the concepts of intelligent design. If God (or Gods) exist and decided to make a world like the one we live in, there is no probability whatsoever involved. Furthermore, each time the probabilty of evolution or equivalent is shown to be less then previously thought, the probability of intelligent design goes up. Even if evolution had 1% chance of happening, it still would be easily outweighed by the other 99%. Believe in the <.000000001% if you wish, but I personally do not like that probability.

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

I was going to post the EXACT arguments Doomgaze posted, but I'm not sure how true they are. Though they seem true.

http://www.creationtheory.org/index.php is a good site which gives rather convincing (and sometimes harsh) arguments countering most of the pseudo-science that a lot of creationists use. It deals a lot with probability and the "evolution is just too unlikely" sorts of arguments which people have mentioned in this thread. Probability is something that is very counter-intuitive.

[qq=DeBlayde]The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.[/qq]

I grew 6 inches during my teenage years. Looking at those six years, I apparently grow at a rate of approximately one inch per year. Therefore, IF this is a trend, by the time I'm 80 years old, I will be almost 11 feet tall.

Solution: Not everything is not a trend. To quote my 10th grade physics teacher: Extrapolation is dangerous.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

---

Exactly my point, if I ask you how we got here, you say "we're here aren't we" that in itself is absolutely no help to the theory of evolution. That only comes if you believe evolution already, it is a circular argument.

As to Dr Unne's website, this guy is horribly biased and does things that he says we do. First of all, evolution is a theory which is unproven and even has little evidence for it's truth. (you can post a link on this if you want) This is not an argument of science against
creation (whatever you want to think), this is an argument of creation against evolution.

Quote:

---

"I can list examples of incompetent scientists, therefore all scientists are incompetent, and all of science is worthless".

---

He says creationist say this and then uses this fallacy the other way around by attacking creationists who quite possibly have not formed their arguments/models perfectly. One thing I've noticed (and I'm not a biologist) is that almost all his arguments are based on the existence of this theoretical molecule that can reproduce itself chemically and make a cell. (if I misunderstood that part please correct me) I just want to say something about argument, an Ad Hominem argument is an argument that uses people to prove your beliefs. This is what he attempts to use. He basically says.
1. The creationists models are wrong.
Therefore
Creation is wrong.
This is fallacious even if he could prove #1. (which is impossible of course)

Now on to new earth/old earth. I think it is quite possible that time dilation could make the earth seem (to us) to be billions of years old, but this is not the main argument I care about anyways.

Quote:

---

Extrapolation is dangerous

---

Also commonly used in evolutionary theory, but I won't count that against evolution so as not to make an Ad Hominem argument.

Quote:

---

We wouldn't be here to wonder about it if it didn't happen. You can't go back and say OH, that was nearly impossible! Roll a 10 sided die 300 times if you must, the die isn't going to disappear in a puff of logic because the sequence you rolled was almost impossible. It was possible and it did happen.

---

If the mathematical proof and it's premises are true, then intelligent design has a 100% (the integer) chance of happening. Therefore the dice argument is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

It was possible and it did happen.

---

Sorry, but I couldn't help but cringe at this statement. You just said evolution was not a theory.

This is the only thing the site managed to prove. That the amino acid arguments do not show that evolution is impossible, but we already knew that. It didn't even sucessfully stop those arguments from discrediting evolution, because all it could prove is that those models are not necessarily good representations.

So is gravity, but it seems to be working fairly well for me.

Quote:

---

So is gravity, but it seems to be working fairly well for me.

---

Evolution is a poorly supported one and cannot be tested for truth, (unlike gravity) but I will allow you guys to argue this point. General relativity on the other hand, has about as much proof as gravity. (the principles of gravity are called the law of universal gravitation and Evolution is called the theory of evolution)

Most of Newton's theories have beem disproven, actually :)

Anyway. Basically, the arguement against evolution is that Yes, microevolution exists, but I am incapable of comprehending the vastness of time, so macroevolution does not exist. Besides, even if you were somehow able to disprove evolution, it wouldn't make the fairy tale about an invisible man creating mankind any more true.

Quote:

---

Anyway. Basically, the arguement against evolution is that Yes, microevolution exists, but I am incapable of comprehending the vastness of time, so macroevolution does not exist. Besides, even if you were somehow able to disprove evolution, it wouldn't make the fairy tale about an invisible man creating mankind any more true.

---

I hate to break this to you Doomgaze, if Hawking's argument is what I've heard, it would prove creation. (as I've said with the assumption of general relativity which has been tested extensively and will continue to be) Saying, microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution just on a smaller scale is what we creationists disagree with. Small changes are one thing, changing into an entire different species is another. As one evolutionist so perfectly put it, "if colds can evolve, so can we", I am not going to assume that even most of the people in support of evolution are like that, but it still is an argument similar to the micro-evolution implies macro-evolution argument. Personally, I think the enough time and macro-evolution will happen by a series of micro-evolutions argument is very weak because has not been observed (we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow) as a result, evolution is simply based on faith not science. Last thing, the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better), would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain.

Quote:

---

Most of Newton's theories have beem disproven, actually

---

Not Gravity though, that is why it remains a law. (it has been tested, so it is a law until proven otherwise.) Most likely if gravity is found to not be true in all cases, the law will just be modified, because it has made it through all the tests so far.

I can't say I'm familiar with the details of Hawking's work, but I have read some of it. He's a physicist, you know - I'm not sure why you're trying to twist his work to fit an issue of biology... Are you saying it somehow proves creationism because it says time has a beginning? I don't quite understand. The origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution.

"Small changes are one thing, changing into an entire different species is another. "
No. No it is not. If you personally can't comprehend the sum effects of change over long periods of time, that's your own problem.

""if colds can evolve, so can we""
Indeed.

"Personally, I think the enough time and macro-evolution will happen by a series of micro-evolutions argument is very weak because has not been observed"
It's quite possible, and this is just a conjecture, that you are not several million years old.

"(we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow) "
What do you mean, "partly evolved"? There's not some ideal state that all creatures aspire to. If you mean "in the process of evolving" that would be pretty much every creature on Earth. Vestigial organs, for example - these are loose ends very slowly being tied up.

"evolution is simply based on faith not science."
No, there's plenty of evidence. I might suggest you read a middle school textbook. Make sure it's not from a southern state, just in case. Once you actually understand the theory of evolution (that is, the theory about how the fact of evolution proceeds) perhaps you can read some more advanced materials.

"the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better) would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain."
No, not really. See, "better" is not an absolute. Is the intelligence to build weapons to kill people who disagree with your God "better"? Maybe. Sickle cell anemia makes you more resistant to malaria. Is that better? Depends if you live in the rainforest or not, doesn't it?


EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

Quote:

---

I can't say I'm familiar with the details of Hawking's work, but I have read some of it. He's a physicist, you know - I'm not sure why you're trying to twist his work to fit an issue of biology... Are you saying it somehow proves creationism because it says time has a beginning? I don't quite understand. The origins of the universe have nothing to do with evolution.

---

Well, actually, the origins of the universe in what the topic is about. What I have heard is that the book proves 1. Time had a beginning. 2. Matter had a beginning 3. A causal being outside of time created (I think this is meant to be Time and Matter, but I really have to read the book before I can use it properly in this argument.) The only reason this thread is relevant to evolution is because evolutionists are the main group which attempts to come up with a theory different than creation.

Quote:

---

Sickle cell anemia makes you more resistant to malaria. Is that better?

---

Not really, because it causes many more problems then it resolves. (I knew you would mention it though) I don't think anyone would really want to have sickle cell anemia just to be resistant to malaria.

Quote:

---

EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

---

I know that, though, like you, I am not sure about gravity and Quantum mechanics. If it does not hold at the quantum level, they probably changed the law to not include it.(but I am pretty sure it still works at the quantum level because it would probably stop being called the law of universal gravitation otherwise)

Quote:

---

What do you mean, "partly evolved"? There's not some ideal state that all creatures aspire to. If you mean "in the process of evolving" that would be pretty much every creature on Earth. Vestigial organs, for example - these are loose ends very slowly being tied up.

---

I mean like a being which is half human-half ape or equivalent.

Quote:

---

No. No it is not. If you personally can't comprehend the sum effects of change over long periods of time, that's your own problem.

---

even if it took a billion years for one species to evolve to the next species, there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures.

Before I begin, I'd like to start by saying I'm agnostic. I don't know whether or not there is a god or gods, I have seen no evidence pointing either way, and I have no business making an argument as to whether there is or isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeBlayde

another interesting note: The speed of rotation of this planet around the axis seems to be slowing. a few years ago, an atomic clock (accurate to 1/10000th of a second) had to be set one second back because of this effect (this isn't somebody's idea, this was a researched and published thing). now IF this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, then 65 million years ago, the world would have been spinning so fast as to be unable to support life.

---

That's drag caused by the moon. When the planet was new, yeah, days were indeed shorter. They were about 14 hours long 3 billion years ago, if I recall correctly.

The slowdown would continue until the same side of the earth always faced the moon, except the sun isn't going to last that long - it's only got another 5.7 billion years left or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

I don't think rigorous mathematical proofs have any uncertainties except in those assumptions placed on them. If what I've heard is correct about the book, then all you can argue is that general relativity is not true, which is a very weak argument.

---

Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doomgaze

EDIT: Many of his theories do not hold up at a quantum level. Quantum physics isn't really my forte, so I don't know if gravity is included in that.

---

You're right there. Gravity breaks at the quantum level. One of the biggest problems in physics is how to marry quantum mechanics and relativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

What I have heard is that the book proves 1. Time had a beginning. 2. Matter had a beginning 3. A causal being outside of time created (I think this is meant to be Time and Matter, but I really have to read the book before I can use it properly in this argument.) The only reason this thread is relevant to evolution is because evolutionists are the main group which attempts to come up with a theory different than creation.

---

That theory's been around in scientific circles for a long time - the big bang theory specifically states that there was a beginning to time, matter, and space itself. It's not a perfect theory either - otherwise it would explain why it seems that the universe's expansion is accellerating rather then decelerating, among other things, but it's a good start with plenty of evidence, both mathmatical and observational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronheart

even if it took a billion years for one species to evolve to the next species, there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures.

---

And most of that evidence lies in DNA. For instance, the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA is 95-99% identical. (I can't remember the exact figure.)

Anyway, evolution probably isn't exactly how things happened. But it's the best guess we've got, and is therefore worth investigating. By investigating the best guesses we have, we get closer to the truth.

My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

How exactly has evolution been proven to be impossible? How would you go about even trying to prove something like that?

---

Anything with odds greater than 10 to the 50th power is considered effectively impossile.

Apparently, in a billion year time period, considering the absolute best chances possible, the chance that the ocean would turn out in favor of creating life is about 10 to the power of 130.

It's 10 to the 160th power to 1 that, after the ocean (Which has an indefined origin, which I may as well point out right now) will create 1 of thousands of necessary amino acids required for a bacteria over the course of a 5 billion year time period.

Ultimately, considering our physics and considering the alloted amount of time evolution had to take place, the odds are 10 to the 340 millionth power to 1.

When 10 to the 50th is considered impossible, generally.

--------------------

Of course, this is all Creationist theory and creationist science. I don't really understand why Unne called it a pseudo-science. But my sources are fairly sound, as far as I can tell.

But anyway, that's why I said that the odds of evolution are proven to be far more unlikely that "impossible." And, to be honest, I don't hear evolutionists giving themselves greater odds, ever.
It seems that they just keep trying to study and increase their odds. Which is why I suggest that we drop the idea of evolution and try to think of some other way that the world and it's many creatures could be created (Scientifically).

Otherwise, if I may add, this argument seems to be going nowhere. Everything's been said. Evolution is unlikely and God is a bizarre, from a scientific standpoint, goofy idea to consider.

Er, that is, besides the the useless math.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor.

---

It's a lot more likely that humans evolved gradually from chimpanzees, to the point where there were two separate strands of beings, one which were chimpanzees, one which were what are now called humans. Humans didn't just suddenly turn up one day, there was a very slow progression until one day they were significantly different enough from chimpanzees to be considered their own species. As with every other species that has been formed.

Besides, as has already been pointed out, probability is irrelevant where evolution is concerned.

Not to mention that he or some creationist pulled that number out of thin air.

"Of course, this is all Creationist theory and creationist science. I don't really understand why Unne called it a pseudo-science. But my sources are fairly sound, as far as I can tell."

No, there would need to be science for it to be a scientific theory, or science at all. Inserting miracles negates any possibility of it being taken seriously.

"Evolution is unlikely"
The theory of how evolution occurs may be questionable, as it is an imperfect and possibly even incorrect model. Abiogenesis certainly is questionable, as any evidence of how life started on this planet is most likely long since gone (note that this has nothing to do with evolution). The FACT of evolution, that life has progressed from simpler forms to more complex ones, is not seriously doubted by anyone but religous zealots and people ignorant of science.


EDIT: This addresses your probability, not that it has much to do with evolution

Wow. That's strong stuff.

Luckily and unfortunately, I'm far too ignorant and far too much of a religious zealot to change my views.

But it is a good point.

Anyway, I've never heard of creationists talking about miracles in their theories. That wouldn't make any sense. It'd make the entire occupation a dreadful waste of time. I'm sure that there's science involved.

Quote:

---

Besides, as has already been pointed out, probability is irrelevant where evolution is concerned.

---

If we were formed by intelligent design and then evolved yes. (some creationists believe this, I don't think it has any serious evidence) Otherwise probability is still up in the open.

Quote:

---

No, there would need to be science for it to be a scientific theory, or science at all. Inserting miracles negates any possibility of it being taken seriously.

---

If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science. We do not consider this part to be science unless it is proven that it happened. (which is what I'm trying to get at)

Quote:

---

That theory's been around in scientific circles for a long time - the big bang theory specifically states that there was a beginning to time, matter, and space itself. It's not a perfect theory either - otherwise it would explain why it seems that the universe's expansion is accellerating rather then decelerating, among other things, but it's a good start with plenty of evidence, both mathmatical and observational.

---

I've heard ideas about why it is accelerating, but I've forgotten them. (maybe I'll look it up)

Quote:

---

And most of that evidence lies in DNA. For instance, the fact that human and chimpanzee DNA is 95-99% identical. (I can't remember the exact figure.)

---

Similar DNA is not very good evidence for evolution. That is like me writing two different computer programs and having them look similar. (creationist standpoint)

Quote:

---

Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely.

---

In mathematical proofs the only uncertainty is in it's premises. Otherwise it is like deductive logic. So if you were talking about general relativity you could try to argue that, but the proof itself has no uncertainty.

It would be an interesting theory if it had some scientific backing. How a man can form out of dust would be a good start.

"If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science."
Again, that has nothing to do with evolution. You are referring to the Big Bang, right?

Well, um...

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow." Agent K, MIB

Always liked that quote.

Quote:

---

It would be an interesting theory if it had some scientific backing. How a man can form out of dust would be a good start.

---

In my mind this is equal to the question of how matter was created in the first place, but that part of it has only to do with belief. As I said before, the topic was intelligent design, which would be a 100% if relativity was correct. The matter of how we got where we are now can only be looked at in terms of probability. Lets put it this way, evolution (except the matter coming out of nowhere) does not contradict intelligent design in itself. (some people think that the 6 days of creation were not literally 6 days) However, I've yet to see evolutionists give evidence which would make it even close to as likely as simple creation.

There's too much pseudoscience in here. Please, please, please read that site that Unne linked. You can easily read it and still believe in creationism, you can just argue it MUCH better, and without giving me a migraine.

Evolution is the change of allele frequency in populations over time. If you don't know what that means, it means that the genes, ie, the looks/size/colour/whatever of populations change over time. Well, do they? Do inter-racial children exist now? That's evolution. Do new breeds of dogs and cats exist now? That's evolution! That is why that site calls evolution fact, because it is! If you have brown hair, and your daughter has blond hair, that's evolution. It's change. Species do not stay the same. Whether we see fish turning into lizards is very very very very irrelevant.

Evolution also says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how life came about. Can I say that again? Evolution says nothing about how live came about. That is a SEPERATE theory, called abiogenesis. And for the record, they've made amino acids and cell membranes using random circumstances already.

"I mean, the Seneca legend of somebody cutting a hole in the sky, through which a lady fell and landed on a sea turtle and became mother earth is more likely."

A process that is unlikely is still more likely than something completely unfounded and unscientific.

"so the question raised is, why did these animals stay the same, while others changed drastically?"

Evolution happens when other genes are being seleted for. For instance, if for some reason the human race decides for the next 100 years that brown hair is desirable, and we breed only with brown haired people, guess what trait will be there for the next 100 years? Brown hair.

Change only happens if there's pressure on the population, ie, if food's only available high up, only the tallest will survive. If there is no pressure like this, then there will be no change. That's why some animals have remained mostly the same.

This is highschool biology. Do you know how frustrating it is to tell this to people so ignorant about the subject, yet have already made up their minds? You don't even try to know about the subject. you just paste links from anti-evolution websites without even knowing the reasons WHY they're right or wrong. If you'd just read up a bit behind the theory, you'd see that there's nothing wrong with evolution. People are just ignorant and feel that it threatens their faith. The Pope has even agreed that evolution doesn't conflict with Christianity.

It's just very distressing to see a ridiculous amount of people disregard the theory out of sheer ignorance. It's like saying Christianity is false because Jesus doesn't call me up on the phone.

Do you guys really think that you have the answers about this science? And what, are the scientists who've spent their entire lives studying it just ignorant to the facts you know? Is this a conspiracy? Do they collectively ignore the facts?

I beg pardon for your migraine, emerald. obviously I was unclear with my point I was making about oppossums and sharks. But I hate to repeat myself, so I will not.

I would just like to toss in a couple facts to help along both sides of the arguement and not further express my opinion since that would be repeating myself.

at last calculation, chimpanzee (particularly Bonobo Chimpanzees) DNA matched that of a human with 98.2% accuracy.

bearing in mind, however, that a common housecat's DNA matches that of a human with 89.7% accuracy (mammalian, but not closely related to simian life-forms) An Aligator's DNA matches a humans at somewhere in the neighborhood of 72% (not closely related to mammalian life forms at all).

Emerald:
Everybody knows what evolution is.

The creationist argument is against the theory of evolution pertaining to, uh, the metamorphisis aspect.
The concept that chimps became people. Not that chimps could separate themselves by which ones have certain hair colors (If they have darker and lighter shades. I don't know)

Don't insult us by exiting the topic of discussion and spouting unrelated factual information. Don't make me tell you that you're not paying attention because Ford produces Jaguars.

Secondly, Emerald, if that is your real name, - After you insulted everybody (Except Dr. Unne. How suck-up you are! Coochie coo!), you decided to contribute nothing to the conversation. (Like I am doing right now. Except for that brief bit about my opinion on the existence of 2 definitions of evolution.)

Is it a flame to tell somebody to Shut Up?

yes martyr, in this case, I think it is. let's not get personal here.

getting personal and/or upset will not help debate. emotion has no place whatsoever in intellectual debate, as I'm sure you're aware I'm just reiterating it for those who may or may not be aware.

I dunno Martyr, let's make a 'martyr' out of you and check! :)

You're being far more insulting than anything I've seen coming from Emerald Aeris.


I know many scientists who believe in God based on how low the chances of evolution are. There's no reason why two societies shouldn't merge into one happy family.

DeBlayde: I don't see what your point is. A tiny change in DNA can cause huge changes. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not understood, and doesn't automatically make it god.

"Everybody knows what evolution is."

Not from how you're arguing you don't.

"The concept that chimps became people."

Yeah, see. Exactly. Evolution doesn't say that. You don't understand it. Saying "chimps became people" is wrong. It's not an insult. You're just mistaken.

"Not that chimps could separate themselves by which ones have certain hair colors (If they have darker and lighter shades. I don't know)"

It was just an example about how allele frequencies change. It has no actual application. In reality our being bipedal most likely development how I said, higher food. There are all sorts of morphisms within each species all the time. Mutations exist within populations all the time. Right now. Which one becomes prevailent in the next generation is a change in allele frequency, and varies between generations.

"Don't make me tell you that you're not paying attention because Ford produces Jaguars."

Uh, ok.

"you decided to contribute nothing to the conversation."

Aside from debate points and correct you on what evolution actually is. Alright then.

Yes, Inteligent design is a better and more believeable theory than "the big bang" But if someone was powerfull enough to control everything like the theory of Intel design, what would stop them from breaking the rules? Why would they obey the rules of time and space and create everything logicly? With so much power why not say "Let all this stuff be made"?

It's all right here:

Quote:

---

Observed adaptation: It is hopefully common knowledge that bacteria have been constantly adapting to survive the antibiotic assaults of mankind. It is hopefully also common knowledge that successive generations of cockroach can become resistant to chemical pesticides, as can numerous other forms of insect. A more specific example is the British peppered moth. Before the nineteenth century it had only been seen in a gray variant, but in 1850 a black mutant variant was seen. The black variant was not successful because it was so easily spotted by predators, compared to its gray brethren which could blend into the tree bark. However, the black variant remained in the species as a recurrent strain due to a recessive gene, and it began to dominate after the Industrial Revolution. There is some debate as to why and how the Industrial Revolution caused this change, but no one can dispute that they were predominantly gray before the Industrial Revolution and predominantly black afterwards, thus acting as an example of environmentally driven change, ie- evolution.

---

That's what Unne's site says.
That's the difference between evolution and evolution.
Creatures can adapt and change, but they can't transform. The moths may change color, people may change color, and intellignet breeding can make a species change to adapt in it's environment.
But the moths and cochroaches will always be moths and cochroaches. There is a theory of evolution, aside from the dfinition of evolution, which claims that "evolution" will cause more than adaptation. It will cause mutation and transformation with drastic results.

And ya know what? Maybe all humans could eventually be force bred/evolved into 2 ft tall midgets or 10 ft. giants. In the end, we'll be hmans.

Scientists have proved this.

But the debate isn't about evolution. Everybody knows that evolution happens. It's about the evolutionary theory that combats such theories as intellignet design.

And if there are not 2 evolutions, if nobody claims that this is true, then evolution has no place in this discussion. I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world.

Let's just end the snarkiness here, shall we? Starting over.

So you agree that populations do change, and that these changes accumulate (like you said, giant humans or whatever other change). And we know that things were different in the past (fossils). So species change over time, a lot of time has passed, and there are different species now than there were before (referring to fossils). This is all definitely true, right? Now where we disagree is what's happened there. I think that the changes have accumulated to create different species. I'm not completely sure what you believe. Do you believe that the species just died out, and god created new species to replace them? A point for that view: there's been several unexplained massive extinction events with population blooms shortly thereafter. Buuut of course I attribute those to completely natural events (overpopulation, catastrophic geological events). Just though I should mention that.

We really can only guess how -exactly- evolution happens. There's just a lot of evidence that it did happen. Am I explaining myself better now?

I'll address intelligent design. I see it as kind of a cop out. The idea behind it is basically "I can't understand how these complex things came to be, therefore god must have done it". This is apparent in statements like this:

"If we find a pocket watch in a field, Paley wrote in 1802, we immediately infer that it was produced not by natural processes acting blindly but by a designing human intellect."

But see, complex things DO form by natural processes. Plants grow, embryos grow into humans. These things aren't poof! created, they grow. In the same way, I believe species have grown.

I'll argue that site more later, I've got a physics exam to study for now though.

So TastyPies says that the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Auronhart says it's proof of Intelligent Design. Hm.

"Yes, Inteligent design is a better and more believeable theory than "the big bang" But if someone was powerfull enough to control everything like the theory of Intel design, what would stop them from breaking the rules? Why would they obey the rules of time and space and create everything logicly? With so much power why not say "Let all this stuff be made"?"

Because such power does not exist :)

You seem to be attacking your own theory though, which is somewhat confusing. Intelligent Design is stupid, therefore Intelligent Design is valid? What?

"I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world."
I doubt any creationist will admit God doesn't exist. Why is this relevant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TasteyPies

But if someone was powerfull enough to control everything like the theory of Intel design, what would stop them from breaking the rules? Why would they obey the rules of time and space and create everything logicly? With so much power why not say "Let all this stuff be made"?

---

Because if the laws of physics could be broken at all, they wouldn't be laws of physics, because laws of physics can't be broken. Or to put it more clearly, laws of physics do not have exceptions. If an exception is found, then the law was incorrect in the first place. Of course, evolution is biology, and biology is full of exceptions.

Evolution is the only theory I have ever heard of which has evidence supporting it, and there's a pretty good amount of it. Creatures in the fossil record get simpler the further back we look. Similar creatures share many of the same genetic markers. And we've seen microevolution occur throughout a number of species; for example, dogs. We have a very large variety of domesticated breeds around. And yet, when we started there were just wolves.

Is evolution full of holes? Yeah. There are probably parts about it that are even wrong. But it is the best educated guess we have. Our civilization's practically built on educated guesses. Newtonian physics, for example. A very good educated guess. But eventually, a lot of it was proven wrong, since it stopped working when you dealt with the extremely small and the extremely large. But by studying Newtonian physics, we found out what was wrong and were lead to a better theory. Copernicus' model of the solar system was wrong. But thanks to astronomers studing it for a century or so, Kepler was able to make a much more accurate model. By following the leads our best guesses provide, we come closer to the truth, even if our best guess was incorrect.

Let's not tell anyone to shut up. Poke holes in each other's arguments, but don't poke holes in each other, if that makes sense. If you think someone is being insulting, use the warn button. Replying to it will just get you in trouble. Remember that there is a very strict policy on flaming in this forum.

Ok, continue!

Quote:

---

So TastyPies says that the Big Bang is ridiculous, and Auronhart says it's proof of Intelligent Design. Hm.

---

No, I didn't mean to put across that I agree with the Big Bang, but it is a possibility. The point is, that according to that proof, there was a beginning to matter and time + a relevant being(s) which created them. If I don't get my hands on that book soon, though, I won't be able to be completely sure of these points. Matter having a beginning does not necessarily mean the big bang, though if you want to know, the big bang does not contradict creation either.

Quote:

---

"I doubt any evolutionist will admit that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the many species of the world."
I doubt any creationist will admit God doesn't exist. Why is this relevant?

---

He's trying to bring it into context, creation vs evolution even though the theory of evolution doesn't directly contradict creation.

Quote:

---

And we know that things were different in the past (fossils). So species change over time, a lot of time has passed, and there are different species now than there were before (referring to fossils).

---

This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll ask a clarifying question. Do these scientists have any serious evidence to prove that certain new species were created/evolved? (because species dying out gives us no information)

Quote:

---

Newtonian physics, for example.

---

Newtonian physics apply under most circumstances, (they can be tested with many different tests) and (I think) only fail at the quantum level. Evolution is more of a guess, (because it is obscure enough that no tests can be made for macro-evolution) therefore I don't think comparing those two is a very good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Unne

Extrapolation is dangerous.

---

Exactly, the macro-evolution=micro-evolution argument is exactly the above, extreme extrapolation. (Plus we don't have any evidence that species change on the small scale)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

Newtonian physics apply under most circumstances, (they can be tested with many different tests) and (I think) only fail at the quantum level. Evolution is more of a guess, (because it is obscure enough that no tests can be made for macro-evolution) therefore I don't think comparing those two is a very good idea.

---

They break down both on the quantum level and the relativistic level. Relativity, however, doesn't break when you try to apply it to everyday situations; it just doesn't produce significantly different results. But anyway, that misses the point altogether. The point was, by studying the best guess that we had, we got closer to the truth. By studying evolution, the best guess we have as to how life got to be how it is now, we will get closer to the truth.

Quote:

---

The point was, by studying the best guess that we had, we got closer to the truth. By studying evolution, the best guess we have as to how life got to be how it is now, we will get closer to the truth.

---

You can hope, but if it ends up evolution is way off the mark the theory will have to be entirely discarded. I suppose nothing bad will happen from studying evolution, though, as long as people look at it as a theory (that hasn't been tested) not fact. I personally think that it is ridiculuous that they teach evolution in schools and as a result people accept it as fact.

"The point is, that according to that proof, there was a beginning to matter and time + a relevant being(s) which created them."

Other than religious reasons, in science there is never a reason to bring god into the equation. You say you don't know how it started. Unless you detect god rays, or you see it happen, or some observation to base it on, there is no reason to bring in an intelligent being at all. It's unscientific, and unnecessary. So I don't consider it proof. "Well, we don't know" or "I can't see how it could happen if god doesn't exist" is not proof.

"Do these scientists have any serious evidence to prove that certain new species were created/evolved?"

There's species around now that there are no fossils of in earlier geological records. There is tons of proof that the record goes back millions of years (please say you agree the earth is old, because if you disagree, I can't say anymore). Aside from these fossils just laying around, it's logical. Species like humans and dinosaurs simply couldn't live at the same time. Dinosaurs would win the competition hands down, same with many of the mammals today. Aside from that still, the sheer amount of fossils (completely disregarding evolution altogether) indicates that the species must have existed at different times also, because the ecosystems simply couldn't possibly support that many different species at once.

I'll also address some of the other things I missed before now that exams are over. woo.

"(we haven't seen any partly evolved beings, which we would see if it was that slow)"

You say this as if it's a matter of half evolved, and fully evolved. Evolution is a gradient. There is no partly evolved. If you mean creatures leading up to the species we are today, there are plenty of examples in the fossil record. There are many vestigal, or developing features in the animal kingdom, even in us.

"Last thing, the principles of evolution are based on things evolving (getting better)"

No where is that said. Evolution means change, not necessarily for the better. Generally, the mechanisms of evolution better suit the species for the environment, but obviously due to circumstances, and changes in environment, it can actually spell the death for the species.

"would you come up with some examples of good mutations or are we supposedly at the top of the evolutionary chain."

Changes in colour or size that better suit the organism? Polydactlyism? Polyploidy in certain species causes them to grow to double the size (salamanders, specifically, is the example I'm thinking of), and in tree frogs it caused a pigmentation (darker) that caused them to blend in better. That's just off the top of my head.

"Not really, because it causes many more problems then it resolves."

Untrue. If you're homozygous for the trait, yes, you'll almost certainly die. If you're heterozygous though, you show very few symptoms, and are resistant to malaria. This is coming straight from my genetics professor.

"I don't think anyone would really want to have sickle cell anemia just to be resistant to malaria."

That's not relevant.

"I mean like a being which is half human-half ape or equivalent."

Do you mean right now, or in the past? There are plenty of examples in the past. If you want to know why there's not a human mostly ape in the past (Lucy, although she's debatable), the climate conditions have to be VERY specific in order to have fossil formation. Because of that, it's entirely probably that where the creatures were living, no fossils were made. Or that we haven't found them yet.

Right now I pretty much addressed above.

"there should be some evidence that can be viewed in creatures."

I don't see how you can disregard everything that's been said here so easily to say there's NO proof of evolution.

"Until you factor quantum physics. Under quantum physics, as I am led to understand it, everything involves probability and uncertainty; under quantum physics, literally anything is possible, though most of it is extraordinarily unlikely."

I dunno, I don't think quantum physics are why we're here. There's more likely reasons, via the Miller-Urey experiment.

"And most of that evidence lies in DNA."

I disagree with this. The evidence is in observing current species, genetic trends, and in the fossil record.

"My biggest problem with evolution is that if it's true then not only did it somehow manage to form a human being, it manage do to it TWICE. Two things evolved from random processes that were so similar and they happened to be able to get together and have offspring. That more than doubles the probability factor."

That's not how it would be. Evolution happens specially, genes and traits are passed on. It would an entire species slowly becoming human, not two beings springing from no where.

"It's a lot more likely that humans evolved gradually from chimpanzees, to the point where there were two separate strands of beings, one which were chimpanzees, one which were what are now called humans."

Common ancestor. We are not evolved from chimps.

"If by miracles you mean the creation of matter, lets put it this way. Evolutionists do not have an answer for this, it cannot be understood by science."

Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.

"As I said before, the topic was intelligent design, which would be a 100% if relativity was correct."

Not following you here.

"However, I've yet to see evolutionists give evidence which would make it even close to as likely as simple creation."

No. Just because we don't know doesn't automatically make creation any more likely.

"But the moths and cochroaches will always be moths and cochroaches."

I don't know for sure they change, but you can't say for certain they don't either.

"I personally think that it is ridiculuous that they teach evolution in schools and as a result people accept it as fact."

Can you read all I've said and still say it's ridiculous? I don't understand. Fossils. Genetics. Biology. Saying "this is definitely how it is, no questions asked" about evolution is bad. No teacher I've had has said this. They give us the evidence. They give us Darwin's observations and inferences (http://www.emunix.emich.edu/~ghannan...darwinobs.html)

What is wrong with that? Please show me where Darwin's inferences go so very wrong to make his theory ridiculous. What should they teach instead? The belief of a religion that doesn't include everyone? Nothing? How is evolution ridiculous? I really, really don't understand how you can believe that. It has holes, sure, many mechanisms aren't understood, sure, but ridiculous?

Quote:

---

Other than religious reasons, in science there is never a reason to bring god into the equation. You say you don't know how it started. Unless you detect god rays, or you see it happen, or some observation to base it on, there is no reason to bring in an intelligent being at all. It's unscientific, and unnecessary. So I don't consider it proof. "Well, we don't know" or "I can't see how it could happen if god doesn't exist" is not proof.

---

You obviously haven't read all my posts, I am talking about a mathematical proof done by Stephen Hawking, which proves that time and matter had a beginning and that they were created by a causal agent(s) (I suppose this could be plural) outside of time. This implies there is at least one "God". The only premise in this proof you can pick at are the laws of relativity.

Quote:

---

I don't see how you can disregard everything that's been said here so easily to say there's NO proof of evolution.

---

Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution period. When I say evolution I am referring to macro-evolution.

Quote:

---

Changes in colour or size that better suit the organism? Polydactlyism? Polyploidy in certain species causes them to grow to double the size (salamanders, specifically, is the example I'm thinking of), and in tree frogs it caused a pigmentation (darker) that caused them to blend in better. That's just off the top of my head.

---

Those are examples of micro-evolution. Apes changing into humans is a much larger change.

Quote:

---

Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.

---

Hmm, are you going to argue whether the laws of relativity hold now? That is the only leg you have to stand on. (unless I'm getting mixed up about the proof which I still have to read through)

Quote:

---

Not following you here.

---

Read what I said about the proof. The only uncertainty of Mathematical proofs is in their premises.

Quote:

---

Can you read all I've said and still say it's ridiculous? I don't understand. Fossils. Genetics. Biology. Saying "this is definitely how it is, no questions asked" about evolution is bad. No teacher I've had has said this. They give us the evidence. They give us Darwin's observations and inferences

---

I was pretty sure they taught macro-evolution, (maybe they only teach it in some places) those inferences don't look so bad.

Quote:

---

Is not does NOT equal cannot. You're attributing it to god with no reason. I could attribute the creation of matter to this can of V8 here, and I have as much reason to believe that, as you do to believe god did it.

---

See back to my comments about the proof. (Man I'm really overusing it, I better make sure I have it correct)

Quote:

---

No where is that said. Evolution means change, not necessarily for the better. Generally, the mechanisms of evolution better suit the species for the environment, but obviously due to circumstances, and changes in environment, it can actually spell the death for the species.

---

Apes become humans etc. Macro-evolution is almost entirely based on the getting better principle, (and yes I do understand that it is meant to be that they only "get better" because of the "survival of the fittest") but I still haven't heard of any mututations (these are the only actual changes that in species which are beneficial.

Quote:

---

That's not relevant.

---

Yes, it is, mutations are the only method of possible species change that we know of. (adapting to your environment does not equal species change)

"You obviously haven't read all my posts, I am talking about a mathematical proof done by Stephen Hawking, which proves that time and matter had a beginning and that they were created by a causal agent(s) (I suppose this could be plural) outside of time."

No, I did. I just disagree. First of all, it proves nothing to me until I see it, so you might as well not talk about it at all until you explain it in detail, or give me a link. Secondly, if it does prove that time and matter were created... How do you prove a casual agent? I don't see how you prove god through math. I will keep an open mind, because I don't see how you can prove other dimensions exist through math, but they've done that. Really though, I do need something aside from you saying that you think his theory proves things.

My take on it would be that it's proof that time and space were created, yes, but by what, I don't think can be inferred from formulae. Maybe it was god, or maybe it's natural processes we don't yet understand.

"Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution period."

Well I don't see how you can say there's no evidence of that either. The fact that we can't observe it directly is irrelevant, it doesn't mean there's no evidence.

Like I said before: species change over time. A lot of time has passed. Species exist now that didn't before, and you can see gradients of special development in the past. Genetic evidence of changing genomes exist today. New species have poped up from old ones. Why is it so very ridiculous to think evolution could be right?

"Those are examples of micro-evolution. Apes changing into humans is a much larger change."

Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolutions. The sum of changes like what I listed over millions of years. I don't know what you mean by larger change. Do you mean one giant spontaneous genome change? That's not the mechanism evolution describes.

"Hmm, are you going to argue whether the laws of relativity hold now? That is the only leg you have to stand on. (unless I'm getting mixed up about the proof which I still have to read through)"

I was refering to where you said "it cannot be understood by science". Just because it isn't now doesn't mean it can't be.

"I was pretty sure they taught macro-evolution, (maybe they only teach it in some places) those inferences don't look so bad."

They tell us what I said and then say that the theory is that these changed accumulate over time to produce speciation. That's biology. Creation is not biology, and until it is, I don't think creation should be taught. I will say that my teacher did mention creation when she taught us evolution.

"Man I'm really overusing it, I better make sure I have it correct"

You should've done that before using it so zealously in this debate, but no matter. I'm itching to see what this thing says. Hell, if it's really that solid I'll become a theist. Proof is proof.

"but I still haven't heard of any mututations (these are the only actual changes that in species which are beneficial."

I just listed a bunch in my previous post. What are you looking for, and why aren't mine valid? Apes don't turn into humans. Big changes like that don't happen. That's not how it works. It's slow, and small. Little changes, like the ones we observe add up to big changes in the long run. Malaria and polydactylism. All the things I listed above were mutations that are beneficial in one way or another.

"Yes, it is, mutations are the only method of possible species change that we know of. (adapting to your environment does not equal species change)"

I meant the fact that you said people wouldn't want to trade malaria for sickle-cell anemia.

I need a few days to read Hawking's book and understand his exact assumptions/argument correctly. I will respond once I have done so. I want to make sure I don't have any holes in the argument.

Does his theory/formula/whatever have a name? Something I could look it up by?

Maybe someone else already said this, but evolution doesn't state that chimps turned into humans. Evolution states that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. I didn't evolve into my sister. We both evolved from our common ancestors. (I actually don't have a sister, but we will pretend I do for the sake of argument.)

Here's a good analogy for you:

Some Catholics became Anglicans. Others became Lutherans. Yet we still have Catholics. Clearly some members of a population can change over time (I won't call the Protestant Reformation an evolution) while other members of the same population, influenced by the same stimuli, can stay the same.

Read this. http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html.

Quote:

---

However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe

---

Quote:

---

The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct.

---

The idea is that if time (you could also add in space and matter etc., but time is the only important one) had a beginning, then there exists at least one supernatural being who did not have a beginning, who either created time (and space etc.) or created another supernatural being(s) (of course it can keep going i.e. #1 creates #2 creates #3 creates #4 creates #5 which created time (and space etc.)). This of course does not imply that any one religion is correct, it only implies that we were created by a supernatural being or supernatural beings. (yes I know this doesn't contradict evolution, but it does contradict the "we were not created" argument) There is actually extra evidence on the site for a beginning even if General Relativity is false.

That's a very weak proof for the existance of god. Again, "we don't know" is not a reason to say god did it. Where's the 100% proof "if relativity is correct"? All he's talking about here is the big bang. The big bang ALREADY acknowledges that time had a beginning. This is nothing new, and nothing that proves intelligent design.

I find it funny that him saying "seemed to imply" became 100% proof. He isn't saying it shows that god existed, only that time had a beginning. Obviously theists would say it seems to imply god, but I wouldn't. I already believed that time had a beginning, but only in a technical sense. As a singularity, time doesn't exist. That doesn't mean there was nothing before that. Although as Hawking says in the paper, everything that happened previous to the singularity is irrelevant.

Hawking claims to be a deist, I believe, however there are people formerly close to him who claim he only mentions God to ramp up his book sales. Regardless, even if he is a deist, that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design, he would believe in a God who waved his hand, created the Big Bang, and left forever.

Quote:

---

That's a very weak proof for the existance of god. Again, "we don't know" is not a reason to say god did it. Where's the 100% proof "if relativity is correct"? All he's talking about here is the big bang. The big bang ALREADY acknowledges that time had a beginning. This is nothing new, and nothing that proves intelligent design.

---

He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)

Quote:

---

Hawking claims to be a deist, I believe, however there are people formerly close to him who claim he only mentions God to ramp up his book sales. Regardless, even if he is a deist, that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design, he would believe in a God who waved his hand, created the Big Bang, and left forever.

---

That still is a belief in intelligent design, which I am sure came from his work. Anyways, what he believes is none of my concern, it is the results he came up with.

Quote:

---

that means he certainly does not believe in intelligent design

---

God waved his hand and created the big bang? That sounds like intelligent design to me. Even if God just started the universe, that is still intelligent design, even if I don't believe that is what happened. (like a clockmaker starting a clock and then leaving it)

How is that intelligent design? If I throw an seed into a field, and it sprouts into a tree, did I design the tree?

"He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)"

That is the implication, yes. I don't think there are many modern scientists who don't think that time (at least the "bubble" of space-time that we call the universe) had a beginning.

Quote:

---

How is that intelligent design? If I throw an seed into a field, and it sprouts into a tree, did I design the tree?

---

You didn't somehow make the tree grow did you? The tree growing is a natural process that you didn't have a hand in, matter coming out of nowhere is not a natural process. I suppose it might seem possible that God made matter and time by accident or just "tossed the seed" as you put it, but that seems kind of unlikely given that space-time gives basically all the properties of the universe. (he would have had to create the concept of space-time by accident. It is much more likely that he at least thought about it first. (i.e. intelligent design)) That is even without all the factors in the universe which make it suitable for life. This site has some examples of these. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...m_design.shtml

Quote:

---

That is the implication, yes. I don't think there are many modern scientists who don't think that time (at least the "bubble" of space-time that we call the universe) had a beginning.

---

Yes, but do they acknowledge the implication that we were created. (at least indirectly (mass was just created is what I mean by indirectly))

Hawking isn't claiming God took care of the tree either, that seems to be your interpretation. I realize it's not the best example, as a tree is not a closed system, but it fits what Hawking is saying fairly well.

Life adapted to the universe, not vice versa. Yes, our location is fairly conducive to life (far from perfect, of course) but that is to be expected in the vastness of the universe. It only has to work once for us to be here to talk about it :)

Also, a beginning doesn't imply creation at all - it could be some sort of odd quantum leap type event, or the effect of another universe, or the reemergence of a universe which had collapsed back into a singularity, or countless other things. I don't immediately attribute anything I don't understand to the work of God.

Anyway. To keep the metaphor going, if you are suggesting that intelligent design means God threw the seed with the intention of it growing into a tree, and aimed at a patch of soil that would be good for the tree, than no, I can't argue with you. There's no proof either way, but it is an interesting philosophy.

Quote:

---

Also, a beginning doesn't imply creation at all - it could be some sort of odd quantum leap type event

---

Quantum physics cannot create time, if I have it correct, it also cannot disobey the law of conservation of energy. (creating matter/energy out of nothing would) Plus, I don't think quantum mechanics can act independently of time.

Quote:

---

or the effect of another universe

---

There is only one possible state that could exclude God, that would be that this other universe did not follow the rules of our universe (or if that universe was formed by another universe etc. which did not have a beginning), (if General Relativity is indeed a rule) and therefore would seem to us to be "supernatural". However, as you were saying, this would not imply intelligent design, but it would still provide the existence of a universe "greater" than our own. Even this idea would still require a causal agent, whether or not it was purposely done. Plus the causal agent would still require godlike powers to create time.

Quote:

---

or the reemergence of a universe which had collapsed back into a singularity

---

The universe before would still require a supernatural being to create it. (unless you are suggesting that the laws of Physics would mysteriously change)

Quote:

---

I don't immediately attribute anything I don't understand to the work of God.

---

Whatever, different universes with different physical rules which allows the universe to be infinite sounds pretty farfetched to me. As I pointed out before, this will always come to something out of the realm of science. (supernatural, unless general relativity is wrong of course) However, this argument still holds a strong point for intelligent design, the reason is that it 1. confirms the existence of a supernatural causal agent(s), which is outside our time and either is inside a universe in which time (different then ours of course) did not have a beginning, or does not have a beginning themselves and 2. also has the ability to create time. That is some strong stuff. I will admit, though, that it doesn't prove that "God" didn't just chuck the seed randomly though, so I will try to return to the topic.

Quote:

---

Anyway. To keep the metaphor going, if you are suggesting that intelligent design means God threw the seed with the intention of it growing into a tree, and aimed at a patch of soil that would be good for the tree, than no, I can't argue with you. There's no proof either way, but it is an interesting philosophy.

---

I was saying that this is another possibility, I just try to have all the possible situations down when I argue. (I realize I don't always succeed)

Oh, of course most of the things I mentioned were absurd. They were only examples. I didn't mean an actual quantum leap, by the way, merely something similar (and completely, fundamentally impossible, I'm sure)

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence, I wouldn't say it had to be carefully designed. Merely part of the nature of the curvature of space-time. Or, uh, something.

Also, I think anything causing the creation of the universe would be by definition supernatural, wouldn't it? Assuming it didn't somehow originate from this universe, of course. Supernatural to us, I mean... The effects of the third dimensional universe would seem supernatural to a theoretical two-dimensional being. Who knows what (or who) is out there in a direction we can't quite point to?


EDIT: I should mention that most of what this discussion is getting into is merely thought experiments for me (and for science, I suppose). I don't believe much of what I'm saying now, merely throwing out possibilities.

EDIT2: It is possible that the Universe(s) are stuck in some sort of infinite loop, as well. I don't know what the implications of the Universe creating itself would be.

Quote:

---

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence, I wouldn't say it had to be carefully designed. Merely part of the nature of the curvature of space-time. Or, uh, something.

---

No, it doesn't have to be carefully designed, (finally back to the topic :) ) but that is the theory that we are continuing to find support for, a universe designed for life. Most things in the universe seem to be carefully balanced between being too large and too small. (either of which would be catastrophic for life)

Quote:

---

Time seems to be an effect of the universe bursting into existence

---

The only way this could work were if matter/energy were created and then caused time. If matter/energy/space (the universe not including time) could work independently of time, we would have some strange stuff going on. Plus, it still doesn't eliminate the need for those things to be able to cause time. (which makes it even more unlikely)

Quote:

---

Also, I think anything causing the creation of the universe would be by definition supernatural, wouldn't it? Assuming it didn't somehow originate from this universe, of course. Supernatural to us, I mean... The effects of the third dimensional universe would seem supernatural to a theoretical two-dimensional being. Who knows what (or who) is out there in a direction we can't quite point to?

---

It seems we understand each other. I think it is quite a reasonable belief to believe
that the causal agent exists in a different dimension than our own so we cannot understand how he created. Obviously we will still argue on whether the causal agent is sentient or not, but I guess that is part of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

Quantum physics cannot create time, if I have it correct, it also cannot disobey the law of conservation of energy. (creating matter/energy out of nothing would) Plus, I don't think quantum mechanics can act independently of time.

---

A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

There is the idea going around, actually, that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations. As long as it eventually returns to nothing, energy is conserved and the laws of thermodynamics remain unbroken. Not that that has a whole lot of relevance to the conversation, but it's an interesting sidenote to that comment.

Quote:

---

A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

---

When matter and anti-matter annhilate each other, they let off energy, therefore there must be energy beforehand for this to occur or it would disobey the law of conservation of energy.

Quote:

---

There is the idea going around, actually, that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations. As long as it eventually returns to nothing, energy is conserved and the laws of thermodynamics remain unbroken. Not that that has a whole lot of relevance to the conversation, but it's an interesting sidenote to that comment.

---

Energy as well as time must exist beforehand for this to occur.

"He says on the website in the quote I found that the equations of General Relativity implied (means that if relativity is true, time had a beginning) that time must have a beginning, I will finish reading his book to see what he says about this, but implied means if R then B. (where R is relativity and B is the beginning of time)"

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

Doomgaze: If he is a deist (ie, if he believes that god is responsible, which I'll point out he does NOT say in that article), then yes, he would believe in intelligent design. The name having design in it would imply what you're saying, but it actually just means that god had something to do with the creation of the universe or life. It can be applied to either. (I was going to agree with you, but I checked the dictionary definition)

However, I don't see what this has to do with proving intelligent design. All he's saying is that other people don't like the theory because it seems to imply intelligent design. This doesn't mean it's proof of it. Not at all. That's like finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow and calling it proof of leprechauns.

"Yes, but do they acknowledge the implication that we were created. (at least indirectly (mass was just created is what I mean by indirectly))"

Created does not equal created by god. You could say I believe we were created by evolution.

"Most things in the universe seem to be carefully balanced between being too large and too small. (either of which would be catastrophic for life)"

Try looking at it from another viewpoint. Instead of looking at things as too complex, or balanced to be created by anything other than god, thinking about things as chain reactions. Because of the properties of matter, energy, space, and time, there is no other way thing could possible exist. God didn't make the Earth round, the spinning motion of gravity when the solar system formed did. The Earth may seem in too perfect a position for life for it just to be coincidence, but it's merely the properties of the solar system that caused the conditions for life. I suppose you could argue that got designed the universe that way. I'm not explaining myself very well here either, so I hope you see what I mean. :(

"A vacuum isn't truly a vacuum at all - it is filled with "virtual particles" - that is, particles continuously popping into existence and then disappearing back out of existence. They always appear in pairs - a particle and an anti-particle, and they almost always immediately annhilate each other. Sometimes enough energy is imparted to these particles that they get pushed apart, and do not annihilate, thus becoming real particles (Hawking raditation from black holes is probably the most notable example of this). There is no net energy gain or loss, and so this still obeys the laws of thermodynamics."

Auronhart is right, things did have to exist for this to work. However, that's actually how I believe the sigularity mentioned in the Big Bang theory ceased to be a singularity. With all matter confined in infinite density, it's unavoidable that such a particle-antiparticle meeting would occur. Such a large amount of energy being released, in my theory at least, would cause the singularity to begin it's exansion. As the dimensions stretched, time and space fell back into place again. As a singularity, because of infinite mass, these were suspended. I'm forgetting a lot of quantum physics whatnot, so I'll get a better explaination once I get my book.

Virtual particles.

As long as the net gain or loss is zero, energy is conserved. Anyway, calling the idea that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations a theory was perhaps a bit generous; it'd be more accurate to call it speculation, since there's no evidence for it. But it doesn't break any laws of physics.

alright, I'll try again. Virtual particles don't exist on their own, they are a result of a quantum reaction. It's not particles coming from nothing, they're coming from energy (photons). It's energy turning into matter, not nothing turning into matter. It's called 'pair production'.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/virtual.html

Quote:

---

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

---

Quote:

---

As long as the net gain or loss is zero, energy is conserved. Anyway, calling the idea that the universe itself is one of these quantum fluctuations a theory was perhaps a bit generous; it'd be more accurate to call it speculation, since there's no evidence for it. But it doesn't break any laws of physics.

---

It does if you have no energy.

Quote:

---

alright, I'll try again. Virtual particles don't exist on their own, they are a result of a quantum reaction. It's not particles coming from nothing, they're coming from energy (photons). It's energy turning into matter, not nothing turning into matter. It's called 'pair production'.

---

Exactly, energy allows them to form.

Quote:

---

Yes, I didn't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that beginning of time means god exists.

---

1. Matter, time, energy and space had a beginning. (this is the one Hawking showed)
2. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premises
3. Matter, time, energy and space was caused by something.
Conclusion
Something (can be plural) existed before time began and caused the beginning of matter, time, space and energy, we call this being God. (or these beings Gods)

1. Conclusion from above
Now we have two possibilities.
2a. The "God" or "Gods" from above was caused by something else.
or
2b. The "God" or "Gods" from above was not caused by something else.
if 2b, then that will be our premise.
otherwise replace "God" or "Gods" with the being(s) that caused it.
eventually we will have a premise similar to 2b. (Rename the thing(s) that was not created God(s))
3. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premise
4. "God" or "Gods" did not have a beginning.
Conclusion
"God" or "Gods" exists and did not have a beginning.
This may need some fine tuning, but it is pretty close.

As Doomgaze said, this could just imply a far superior race to ours, that exists in a universe that does not obey our rules, but all the evidence points to being(s) which have godlike powers.

"1. Matter, time, energy and space had a beginning. (this is the one Hawking showed)
2. Everything that has a beginning must be caused by something else (possibly plural).
Derived Premises
3. Matter, time, energy and space was caused by something.
Conclusion
Something (can be plural) existed before time began and caused the beginning of matter, time, space and energy, we call this being God. (or these beings Gods)"

There are many other possibilities other than god created energy. You're just choosing it because it fits your beliefs, not because it's what the evidence indicates. The evidence indicates that time had a beginning, it indicates nothing about why it had a beginning (ie, occilating universe, a belief which recquires no god, the why being that the universe was contained in a singularity), or what caused it.

The evidence does not point to beings with godlike powers at all. It points to that time has a beginning. Concluding further is pure speculation.

Quote:

---

There are many other possibilities other than god created energy. You're just choosing it because it fits your beliefs, not because it's what the evidence indicates. The evidence indicates that time had a beginning, it indicates nothing about why it had a beginning (ie, occilating universe, a belief which recquires no god, the why being that the universe was contained in a singularity), or what caused it.

---

Read this: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/oscillate.htm. (which talks about the idea of a oscillating universe)

Quote:

---

The evidence does not point to beings with godlike powers at all. It points to that time has a beginning. Concluding further is pure speculation.

---

No it isn't, if time has an actual beginning, (includes oscillating universe is incorrect) then it does come up with the result that there must be at least one supernatural causal being.

Why? A causal event, perhaps, but that by no means implies an intelligent being behind it.

Quote:

---

Why? A causal event, perhaps, but that by no means implies an intelligent being behind it.

---

It requires an event(s), (which is inside of a another dimension in which time is either eternal or non-existent) but these event(s) must create time and space. It basically comes down to how imaginable it is to have a non-sentient object(s) (even in another dimension) causing time/energy. (funny, I just watched a show about string theory and speculation on higher dimensional membranes. Apparently, string theory would be able to find the existence of a higher dimension if it was successfully tested) I guess now we are back to the argument of whether we are here by random chance and some random higher dimensional event (not science) or by intelligent design. (not science either) At the very least, we have established that there is something (probably a higher dimension) that we do not understand out there.

Even if our univese is the result of an intelligent being's actions, that does not necessarily imply design. Could have been an accident, or something it does several times a day without thinking. You can't know.

Random higher dimensional events can be science, even if they are not understood by our current science.

Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?

Quote:

---

Random higher dimensional events can be science, even if they are not understood by our current science.

---

Maybe, I'm doubting it, though. That is one "powerful" dimension if you get my meaning. I don't know if we will ever be able to even use math based on these higher dimensions, let alone use the sciences.

Quote:

---

Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?

---

I have heard that it does, (I will have to look it up online for confirmation) I have also heard that it is the only religion that does.(excluding Judiasm if there is anything in the old testament) (I don't want to get flamed about this, so if I'm wrong, you can tell me)

There are certain biological structures that by their somewhat 'haphazard' design would not indicate that they had been designed by an intelligent being. Two I can think of are the mammalian epididymis and the vertebrate cornea. The epididymis takes a massive detour around the ureter. This rather inefficient feature can only be explained by the gradual repositionin of the male reproductive organs over the course of evolution.

And vertebrate photoreceptors face backwards, which is why we have a blind spot.

Which seems a bit silly if they had been designed that way, but makes sense if you take into account gradual changes in morphology.

Quote:

---

Two I can think of are the mammalian epididymis and the vertebrate cornea. The epididymis takes a massive detour around the ureter.

---

Apparently sperm have to spend some time in the epididymis to mature. This could explain it's length.

Quote:

---

And vertebrate photoreceptors face backwards, which is why we have a blind spot.

---

Read this. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199611/0189.html

Just a couple of questions that I'm too tired to wrestle with for now.

If a god created time, wouldn't time already have to exist for him to be at the beginning? If he is constantly creating time from some other place on a different dimensional scale, why does the universe having a beginning point to a god?

If we accept that the laws of physics as we understand them allow for a god to exist eternally, why don't they allow for prior universes to exist eternally?

I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel? I remember reading a theory where a very small loop at the beginning of time with a small chance of becoming the big bang, eventually became the big bang. I read that a long time ago, and briefly though.

Does evolution account for the eye to any real extent? I remember that being thrown around in a Darwinism thread on here.

Are we assuming that the relationship of cause and effect exists outside our own minds, or did that get proven at some point?

Quote:

---

If a god created time, wouldn't time already have to exist for him to be at the beginning?

---

Possibly a higher dimension version of time, but not our time.

Quote:

---

Are we assuming that the relationship of cause and effect exists outside our own minds, or did that get proven at some point?

---

I assumed that if something has a beginning than it has a cause. Cause and effect has never been proven, but it is a stronger theory than any scientific theories we have. (note: my assumption is stronger than cause and effect (because cause and effect implies my assumption, but not the other way around))

Quote:

---

If he is constantly creating time from some other place on a different dimensional scale,

---

We don't know whether he is constantly creating time or not, this only shows that at least one version of time was created.

Quote:

---

why does the universe having a beginning point to a god?

---

Quote:

---

If we accept that the laws of physics as we understand them allow for a god to exist eternally, why don't they allow for prior universes to exist eternally?

---

If they follow the rules of our universe, they cannot exist eternally. Therefore, if they do exist eternally, they can be seen as "supernatural" to us. Furthermore, if that universe was the cause of our universe, they must have enough power to create time, energy and space.

Quote:

---

I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel? I remember reading a theory where a very small loop at the beginning of time with a small chance of becoming the big bang, eventually became the big bang. I read that a long time ago, and briefly though.

---

Hopefully someone else can answer this, (I haven't taken any Quantum courses yet, but I hope to do some as electives) but keep in mind, this idea would still not be an explaination for the beginning as it still requires time and energy.

"Possibly a higher dimension version of time, but not our time."

If we are taking this 'higher' time to mean that it doesn't have to have a beginning, and we're assuming that ours does have to, aren't we putting a lot of faith in a proof none of us have actually read? Does the proof even say that our time couldn't act like this in any situation, rather than just as far as the current motions and positionings in our universe go?

"I assumed that if something has a beginning than it has a cause. Cause and effect has never been proven, but it is a stronger theory than any scientific theories we have. (note: my assumption is stronger than cause and effect (because cause and effect implies my assumption, but not the other way around))"

Cause and effect implies there can't be a beginning doesn't it? If we assume it broke down somewhere we don't have to assume anything had a cause.

"We don't know whether he is constantly creating time or not, this only shows that at least one version of time was created."

I may have worded that badly. My point was that if god wasn't acting in our time when he created the universe then why couldn't he have started it from the middle? If he could start it from anywhere why does it starting at a beginning point to a god?

"If they follow the rules of our universe, they cannot exist eternally. Therefore, if they do exist eternally, they can be seen as "supernatural" to us. Furthermore, if that universe was the cause of our universe, they must have enough power to create time, energy and space."

Not exactly create neccessarily. They may have already possessed these dimensions and simply passed them on. Maybe we're actually a mommy and daddy universes baby universe, and we'll grow up to have some eternal dimensions when we hit puberty :D.

"Hopefully someone else can answer this, (I haven't taken any Quantum courses yet, but I hope to do some as electives) but keep in mind, this idea would still not be an explaination for the beginning as it still requires time and energy."

Yeah, I may look up the theory later on. But the idea of a loop in time always seemed a fairly simple solution to me, this just gave a scientific account. I don't think it was a major theory, just a suggestion.

"No it isn't, if time has an actual beginning, (includes oscillating universe is incorrect) then it does come up with the result that there must be at least one supernatural causal being."

No, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. It means we don't understand it yet, and you are attributing it to god out of ignorance. Why god? There's nothing that points to god other than your religious beliefs.

And again, no, time having a beginning doesn't prove the oscillating universe theory is incorrect (although there are other things that potentially do). As Hawking said in the article you referenced earlier

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang."

After that is where time began, and since everything had broken down, and was independant of what occured previously (essentially a universal "blank slate") time can have a beginning, and the occilating universe theory can still be correct.

You're misunderstanding Hawking's words. He is saying it implies God, because something outside the universe had to impose time. This could still be a natural process. Only a theist mind, not the mind of a scientist, would conclude an unknown to be god. If Hawking does this, he is not automatically right, he'd be acting unscientifically too.

"Read this. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199611/0189.html"

So you're suggesting that an omnipotent god would be unable to design an eye that doesn't have a blind spot? Of course simply flipping the cornea around would cause problems. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you shift things around a bit, the problem would probably be fixed. You'd think a god would realize that.

"I haven't done much quantum mechanics, does it allow for time travel?"

No. Quantum mechanics is comparable to relationships between atoms, but with some fruity rules thrown in. Many things become possible at a quantum level, but time is unaffected.

"Does evolution account for the eye to any real extent?"

Yes. There are many creatures that exist with primitive eyes. The theory suggests that eyes started out as a couple photosensitive cells (planarians), then a light-sensitive pit, then a pit with a lens, etc etc.

Quote:

---

It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you shift things around a bit, the problem would probably be fixed. You'd think a god would realize that.

---

God did not have to design our bodies to be perfect. Plus, if God decided to design all things based on our rules, the cornea thing has some trouble.

Quote:

---

And again, no, time having a beginning doesn't prove the oscillating universe theory is incorrect (although there are other things that potentially do). As Hawking said in the article you referenced earlier

---

Exactly, there are other things that do.

Quote:

---

No, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's supernatural. It means we don't understand it yet, and you are attributing it to god out of ignorance. Why god? There's nothing that points to god other than your religious beliefs.

---

Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God.

Quote:

---

After that is where time began, and since everything had broken down, and was independant of what occured previously (essentially a universal "blank slate") time can have a beginning, and the occilating universe theory can still be correct.

---

So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)

Quote:

---

Cause and effect implies there can't be a beginning doesn't it? If we assume it broke down somewhere we don't have to assume anything had a cause.

---

Yes, cause and effect does break down at the beginning, that is why I made my premise fix that error. We cannot imagine in our universe a beginning without a cause, so either way, it implies the supernatural.

Quote:

---

I may have worded that badly. My point was that if god wasn't acting in our time when he created the universe then why couldn't he have started it from the middle? If he could start it from anywhere why does it starting at a beginning point to a god?

---

When he started it counts as the beginning. He could have started it whenever he wished, but the start is always going to be the beginning.

Quote:

---

Not exactly create neccessarily. They may have already possessed these dimensions and simply passed them on. Maybe we're actually a mommy and daddy universes baby universe, and we'll grow up to have some eternal dimensions when we hit puberty

---

......Possible, but I deem it unlikely.

Quote:

---

If we are taking this 'higher' time to mean that it doesn't have to have a beginning

---

Yes, it is not certain that there has to be a higher dimension of time, but it makes this much easier to think about.

Quote:

---

and we're assuming that ours does have to, aren't we putting a lot of faith in a proof none of us have actually read?

---

It's more that we are putting our faith in the scientists who believe in evolution to show that his proof is incorrect because of it's implications. Hawking would have a hard time becoming famous (a lot of people put him in the same boat as Einstein) if one of his strongest proofs could be proven wrong.

Quote:

---

Does the proof even say that our time couldn't act like this in any situation, rather than just as far as the current motions and positionings in our universe go?

---

It could not work like this in any situation in which general relativity works. (not to mention all the other problems infinite time has) Even if this is just for our universe, that is all we are concerned with.

Just quickly want to say I'm agnostic, although most of my questioning is directed at you Auronhart sorry.

"Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God."

I think the question then is 'why'?

"So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)"

The laws of physics weren't decided by man and then the universe had to follow them. The universe can do what it likes. I'm not strictly sure that the laws of physics (correct me on this) would even break down as such, it'd just be like applying Newtonian physics at the small scale, it's a different situation.

"Yes, cause and effect does break down at the beginning, that is why I made my premise fix that error. We cannot imagine in our universe a beginning without a cause, so either way, it implies the supernatural."

Only if the beginning is actually the beginning, and is an effect without a cause. Also just because we can't imagine this, it doesn't make it impossible.

"When he started it counts as the beginning. He could have started it whenever he wished, but the start is always going to be the beginning."

Well yes. But why start at a normal beginning. If I throw a ball,it's path starts by leaving my hand, whether you understand how I managed to move or not, you can see the ball's path having a logical beginning. It would imply a supernatural influence far more if a ball suddenly appeared mid flight somewhere in the air.

"It could not work like this in any situation in which general relativity works. (not to mention all the other problems infinite time has) Even if this is just for our universe, that is all we are concerned with."

Not really. If a universe prior to ours could exist without a beginning, then it could be responsible for starting ours.

Just for reference, I'm not trying to forward a theory about time spanning infinitely into the past.

Emerald Aeris:
"Yes. There are many creatures that exist with primitive eyes. The theory suggests that eyes started out as a couple photosensitive cells (planarians), then a light-sensitive pit, then a pit with a lens, etc etc."

Isn't a lens a fairly complex thing to just develop at random? I really don't know much about micro-evolution so I don't know what's possible.

Quote:

---

I think the question then is 'why'?

---

There is amazing amount of design work built right into the fabric of the universe. Miniscule differences in the universe/matter would result in the universe collapsing or something other catastrophe occuring.

Quote:

---

The laws of physics weren't decided by man and then the universe had to follow them. The universe can do what it likes. I'm not strictly sure that the laws of physics (correct me on this) would even break down as such, it'd just be like applying Newtonian physics at the small scale, it's a different situation.

---

As I said, an entropy decrease + energy increase would be required for this oscillating universe to be correct. Those break both the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. Those are almost as close as you can get to the founding principles of Physics.

Quote:

---

Only if the beginning is actually the beginning, and is an effect without a cause. Also just because we can't imagine this, it doesn't make it impossible.

---

We can't possibly imagine this happening, so this doesn't make it impossible, but as I said, in the realm of the supernatural (not natural)

Quote:

---

Well yes. But why start at a normal beginning. If I throw a ball,it's path starts by leaving my hand, whether you understand how I managed to move or not, you can see the ball's path having a logical beginning. It would imply a supernatural influence far more if a ball suddenly appeared mid flight somewhere in the air.

---

Since people are just using extrapolation to find out where the ball is, yes it could be in mid flight, I haven't heard any arguments that show time must start in the form of the Big Bang, it just seems that way if time had existed as long as scientists think it has. Personally, though, I don't think that God has to prove his existence to us, so either method would suffice.

Quote:

---

Not really. If a universe prior to ours could exist without a beginning, then it could be responsible for starting ours.

---

A supernatural (does not follow our laws of physics) universe with the power to create space, time and energy in our universe. That is exactly my point, it requires the supernatural.

"God did not have to design our bodies to be perfect. Plus, if God decided to design all things based on our rules, the cornea thing has some trouble."

Does it not say in the Bible that god is perfect? How can a perfect being create something imperfect? Also, we're created in his image, how can we be imperfect? Although I guess you can interpret perfection differently. This is a minor point anyway.

"Saying "we don't understand it" as an explaination for everything, is unscientific. I am not attributing it to God out of ignorance, because I am keeping my ideas complete. I am saying that the Supernatural must exist and I choose to believe this is in the form of God."

Which is good, but we're debating here. Saying "it's just what I believe" is not a point to your side, it's conceeding. I'm not saying "we don't understand" is an explaination. I'm saying there is no explaination. At this point it's unknowable as far as I'm concerned. Theorizing is fine. Theorizing, or believing that this proves god to you is fine. Stating it as a fact like you've been doing is what I say is unscientific.

"So you are saying the laws of physics can turn on and off whenever they feel like it? This idea would have to break the conservation of energy (we need more matter for the universe to recollapse) and the second law of thermodynamics. (entropy never decreases)"

Er, no, not when they feel like it, only when confined in a singularity of infinate mass... Your article that hawking bases his beginning of time-ness on is based on this idea. He even says this in the article. It's because of the infinite density, I believe, that the laws break down. To be honest I don't completely understand why, although I've heard many scientists speak of it. Complex stuff. Gets very mathematical. The occilating universe thing only comes in before and after the singularity part, which is what you're disagreeing with.

"Isn't a lens a fairly complex thing to just develop at random? I really don't know much about micro-evolution so I don't know what's possible."

Think of it in evolutionary steps. Pit. Pit with edge. Pit with bigger edge. Pit with film over. Pit with thicker film. Pit with shaped film... becoming more and more lens-like. It seems like a lot... but think of dog breeds. In mere hundreds of years, dogs have gone from wolves to great danes and chihuahuas. Pressure to change on population can do a lot to genetics. Don't underestimate mutations.

"As I said, an entropy decrease + energy increase would be required for this oscillating universe to be correct."

Entropy doesn't factor in with the oscillating universe theory. It's the mass of the universe, which (and this is where the theory goes wrong) doesn't seem to be enough to slow, stop, and revese the expansion of the universe as the theory states. Although, we really don't have the technology to be sure the universe doesn't have enough mass, in my opinion, so I continue to believe it despite that. None of the other theories are as believable.

Quote:

---

Does it not say in the Bible that god is perfect? How can a perfect being create something imperfect? Also, we're created in his image, how can we be imperfect? Although I guess you can interpret perfection differently. This is a minor point anyway.

---

It says in the Bible that God looked at the world he had created and said "it was Good", not "it was perfect". The image of God is only I guess what he chooses to look like, it does not imply that God does not know what is behind him.

Quote:

---

Which is good, but we're debating here. Saying "it's just what I believe" is not a point to your side, it's conceeding.

---

Whatever, I will certainly debate the issue. I refuse to conceed this point, I am just pointing out that this part of the debate cannot be proven, I can only give evidence for it.

Quote:

---

Stating it as a fact like you've been doing is what I say is unscientific.

---

I state as fact what is supported by the principles of science, (you could say that the science we know is wrong, but I would rather not lower myself to that belief. I have stated my assumptions, and I come to my conclusions from those assumptions.) you have yet to come up with a hole in this argument (proving the existence of the supernatural) that does not say that some scientific principle is wrong.

Quote:

---

Entropy doesn't factor in with the oscillating universe theory.

---

Yes it does, infinite time + an increase in entropy for each Big Bang, would give us a current universe that exists in a near complete state of disorder. (which it is nowhere near)

Quote:

---

None of the other theories are as believable.

---

You mean that you do not want to believe any other theory.

Quote:

---

Does the Bible specifically mention God as being outside of time, or "before" time?

---

An example is this verse "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began" (Titus 1:2). I should have looked this up sooner probably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Evolution is just a theory,

---

Quote:

---

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. :D

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

---

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

"I state as fact what is supported by the principles of science,"

"There is a god if Hawking's theory is true" is what you were saying, and it's not supported by science. that's what I was referring too.

"you have yet to come up with a hole in this argument (proving the existence of the supernatural) that does not say that some scientific principle is wrong."

It's not really a hole, I just think you're jumping to conclusions. Beginning of time does not equal God anymore than it equals a dinosaur threw up and time began. We can't even speculate what happened to create time. It could be a natural process of universal evolution (which is what I would lean to), but I won't even come to that conclusion, since there's simply not enough information at this point. My point can be summed up to we don't have enough evidence to say that a supernatural being created time. Only as Hawking said, that it could be interpretted to mean a supernatrual being. To conclude this, however, is a jump.

"Yes it does, infinite time + an increase in entropy for each Big Bang, would give us a current universe that exists in a near complete state of disorder. (which it is nowhere near)"

No, each big bang basically restarts the universe. As it says in the Hawking article you referenced (that you said you agreed with) the big bang, aka, beginning of time and of this universe, would not rely on anything that happened prior to the singularity state. This means that the state of complete disorder, or however the universe was before the big crunch leading to the singularity doesn't matter. When it becomes a singularity... think of having a universe of playdoh. A singularity is like mashing everything together into a tiny ball, which lets you create new things again, when before, since all the doh was used up, you couldn't. Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully you get the idea. I suggest you reread the article, because it says exactly what I'm saying in it. Well, not that it indicates an osccilating universe, but about being a singularity and such.

The osccilating universe theory depends on the mass of the universe, and does not rely on energy or entropy contained therein.

"You mean that you do not want to believe any other theory."

No, I mean I don't think any of the other theories fully explain observed phenomena, or are supported as well. yes, god explains everything in a neat little package, but unfortunately there's no proof (by which I mean no acceptable proof to me, personally, I'm not saying this is universal).

Quote:

---

No, each big bang basically restarts the universe. As it says in the Hawking article you referenced (that you said you agreed with) the big bang, aka, beginning of time and of this universe, would not rely on anything that happened prior to the singularity state. This means that the state of complete disorder, or however the universe was before the big crunch leading to the singularity doesn't matter. When it becomes a singularity... think of having a universe of playdoh. A singularity is like mashing everything together into a tiny ball, which lets you create new things again, when before, since all the doh was used up, you couldn't. Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully you get the idea. I suggest you reread the article, because it says exactly what I'm saying in it. Well, not that it indicates an osccilating universe, but about being a singularity and such.

---

So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Hawking

Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.

---

In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html.

Quote:

---

"There is a god if Hawking's theory is true" is what you were saying, and it's not supported by science. that's what I was referring too.

---

And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done.

Quote:

---

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

---

Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact.

Quote:

---

No, I mean I don't think any of the other theories fully explain observed phenomena, or are supported as well. yes, god explains everything in a neat little package, but unfortunately there's no proof (by which I mean no acceptable proof to me, personally, I'm not saying this is universal).

---

You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?

Quote:

---

Only as Hawking said, that it could be interpretted to mean a supernatrual being. To conclude this, however, is a jump.

---

I'm willing to hear other possibilities.

"So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)"

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much. If you agree the big bang happened, you agree that the laws of physics break down. It's how the theory goes. There's quite a lot of proof this is how it is. What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable), and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no. Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

"In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html."

I might be naming the wrong theory, but going back into a state of singularity, as I'm suggesting, would cause the state of entropy of the previous universe to be irrelevant.


"And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done."

Yes, relativity and Hawking's theory are fine. It's YOUR conclusions which are wrong. I'm not saying Hawking is wrong.

"Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact."

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

"You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?"

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

"I'm willing to hear other possibilities."

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?

Quote:

---

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

---

If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)

Quote:

---

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much.

---

That is basically what it would require.

Quote:

---

If you agree the big bang happened,

---

This isn't a fact, but we will assume it for now.

Quote:

---

you agree that the laws of physics break down.

---

I don't think I have to agree that all of the laws of physics break down. Certain laws may break down, but then we know those laws do not apply to everything in the universe.
Read this, http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae251.cfm, which says:

Quote:

---

It isn't true to say that all laws of physics break down at a singularity.

---

Exactly, I will look it up to see whether both conservation of energy/second law of thermodynamics must break down, but I somehow doubt it.

Quote:

---

The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).

---

Yes, hopefully we will get one of these theories supported soon.

Quote:

---

What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable),

---

Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)

Quote:

---

and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no.

---

Yes, and the oscillating universe theory requires the universe to recollapse, this time and every time.

Quote:

---

Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

---

Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand.

Quote:

---

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

---

I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it.

Quote:

---

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?

---

Science supports a finite beginning to time. The only way you can possibly argue against that is to say that fundemental principles of science can be turned off at will. Yes, I will admit that many of the laws of science have trouble with the singularity, (mainly only because the number 0 causes infinite results in some cases) but at the very least I tend to believe the laws we have tested are correct until proven otherwise. As I mentioned above, string theory/quantum gravity may be able to explain the above, (string theory apparently would be able to find the existence of other dimensions if sucessfully tested) but until that happens, I will just go on what the conservation of energy says. You can always say, "you can't actually prove anything", (this is basically the argument of whether inductive (seen by experience = the laws of science) is a valid argument or if the only valid arguments are deductive (the result is hidden in the premises, so will always be true if the premises are satisfied) but that would literally lead us to the state of believing we know nothing.

"If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)"

Umm... I may have missed something, but if not, micro-evolution IS a small segment of macro-evolution...

"Yes, and the oscillating universe theory requires the universe to recollapse, this time and every time."

I don't know exactly how that theory works, but I don't see why there can't be a random element that allows it to suddenly stop oscillating... Though I really don't know the physics of that.

"Science supports a finite beginning to time. The only way you can possibly argue against that is to say that fundemental principles of science can be turned off at will. Yes, I will admit that many of the laws of science have trouble with the singularity, (mainly only because the number 0 causes infinite results in some cases) but at the very least I tend to believe the laws we have tested are correct until proven otherwise. As I mentioned above, string theory/quantum gravity may be able to explain the above, (string theory apparently would be able to find the existence of other dimensions if sucessfully tested) but until that happens, I will just go on what the conservation of energy says. You can always say, "you can't actually prove anything", (this is basically the argument of whether inductive (seen by experience = the laws of science) is a valid argument or if the only valid arguments are deductive (the result is hidden in the premises, so will always be true if the premises are satisfied) but that would literally lead us to the state of believing we know nothing."

Inductive reasoning to the extent you're suggesting would seem to me to be along the lines of:

'In every instance of observing the beginning of the universe it was created by God, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by a God."

Our actual reasoning would instead require this logic:

'In no instances have we ever seen the beginning of the universe, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by God.'

Quote:

---

Umm... I may have missed something, but if not, micro-evolution IS a small segment of macro-evolution...

---

That is what we are disagreeing on. We have not observed any evolution which would result in species changes. (I mean like an ape changing into a man) Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did.

Quote:

---

I don't know exactly how that theory works, but I don't see why there can't be a random element that allows it to suddenly stop oscillating... Though I really don't know the physics of that.

---

Here is the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0025900.html

oscillating universe
In astronomy, theory stating that the gravitational attraction of the mass within the universe will eventually slow down and stop the expansion of the universe. The outward motions of the galaxies will then be reversed, eventually resulting in a ‘Big Crunch’ where all the matter in the universe will be contracted into a small volume of high density. This could undergo a further Big Bang, thereby creating another expansion phase. The theory suggests that the universe would alternately expand and collapse through alternate Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

---

Definition of oscillating universe. The problem with your idea is that if there was any probability of this event happening, (which caused the universe to not re-collapse) it would have already happened.

Quote:

---

Inductive reasoning to the extent you're suggesting would seem to me to be along the lines of:
'In every instance of observing the beginning of the universe it was created by God, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by a God."
Our actual reasoning would instead require this logic:
'In no instances have we ever seen the beginning of the universe, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by God.'

---

You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that scientific principles are built upon induction (what we can see), and these scientific principles disagree with the oscillating universe theory/infinite time. The point was that if infinite time does not exist, then the universe requires the supernatural. As I said before, only some of the laws of Physics must break down at the singularity.

"That is what we are disagreeing on. We have not observed any evolution which would result in species changes. (I mean like an ape changing into a man) Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did."

Okay, well consider a fictional animal. It is red, small, and has a tail. It is described as being a member of species A. Over a long time species A gradually becomes green to camouflage itself. It then gets gradually bigger to... do big things. Climate changes then cause it to form a layer of blubber. It is no longer species A, it is now called species B.
This is very loose, but notice that at no point in the chain does it include the step 'changes from species A to species B'.

"Definition of oscillating universe. The problem with your idea is that if there was any probability of this event happening, (which caused the universe to not re-collapse) it would have already happened."

Only assuming there have been an infinite number of oscillations already... I think...

"You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that scientific principles are built upon induction (what we can see), and these scientific principles disagree with the oscillating universe theory/infinite time. The point was that if infinite time does not exist, then the universe requires the supernatural. As I said before, only some of the laws of Physics must break down at the singularity."

I kinda knew you weren't getting at that, but that is an arguement you seem to be making generally so I used it. You also seem to assume that supernatural means 'not understood by science', which is fine. But you also also seem to assume 'not understood by science' means 'CAN'T be understood by science'.

Quote:

---

Okay, well consider a fictional animal. It is red, small, and has a tail. It is described as being a member of species A. Over a long time species A gradually becomes green to camouflage itself.

---

Fine, it changes color.

Quote:

---

It then gets gradually bigger to... do big things.

---

Do you have an example of this?

Quote:

---

Climate changes then cause it to form a layer of blubber.

---

What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)

Quote:

---

It is no longer species A, it is now called species B.

---

Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific.

Quote:

---

This is very loose, but notice that at no point in the chain does it include the step 'changes from species A to species B'.

---

Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)

Quote:

---

Only assuming there have been an infinite number of oscillations already... I think...

---

Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken. This idea is physically impossible as well, because if you think about it, the only way this would work would be if at least one oscillation took infinite time. The only case that this would happen in would be if matter was completely balanced so that the universe would stop moving at all. If this was the case, however, the universe would have stayed in that state forever.

Quote:

---

kinda knew you weren't getting at that, but that is an arguement you seem to be making generally so I used it.

---

No the argument I propose is.
1. The universe/time had a definite beginning which implies the supernatural.
2. The universe is balanced so perfectly that intelligent design seems to be the only reasonable option.
#1 gives me the base of the argument, #2 is only designed to argue against the supernatural being/object creating universes "accidentally".

Quote:

---

But you also also seem to assume 'not understood by science' means 'CAN'T be understood by science'.

---

I am saying, that unless you discard a great deal of our current scientific laws, it is very hard to conclude that we were not caused by the supernatural. (I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science') Yes, you can say our current rules are wrong, and that we will discover new rules which still work in all cases, but allow time to not have a beginning, but until we do, (if we do, which I doubt) the most reasonable approach is to accept what they imply.

Auronhart. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

Quote:

---

Do you have an example of this?

---

Dogs.

Quote:

---

What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)

---

Perhaps its migration routes got blocked or cut off. It doesn't require extreme leaps of the imagination.

A layer of blubber could develop by positive selection for individuals that tend to deposit a greater amount of adipose tissue.

Many creationists say that there is not enough time, for example because for example the chance of a certain sequence being selected at random is nearly impossible. 'THEORY OF EVOLUTION' arising by random selection of letters is minimal. However, evolution is not a one step process. You've got to look at degrees of 'correctness'. Say, if you selected letters at random, although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2. And since one in the right place is better than none in the right place that one correct character will persist and thus the number of incorrect characters is fewer. Thus, the number of iterations (or in biological terms, generations) to obtain the target will exponentially decrease. Naturally, the way evolution works is somewhat different, but basic combinatorics shows that evolution doesn't require timescales beyond what is suggested by geological evidence.

Quote:

---

Auronhart. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

---

I will leave it up to you guys to correct me when I make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Dogs.

---

Could you expand on this, saying "Dogs" doesn't tell me anything, because I have never heard of this idea.

Quote:

---

Many creationists say that there is not enough time, for example because for example the chance of a certain sequence being selected at random is nearly impossible. 'THEORY OF EVOLUTION' arising by random selection of letters is minimal. However, evolution is not a one step process. You've got to look at degrees of 'correctness'. Say, if you selected letters at random, although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2. And since one in the right place is better than none in the right place that one correct character will persist and thus the number of incorrect characters is fewer. Thus, the number of iterations (or in biological terms, generations) to obtain the target will exponentially decrease. Naturally, the way evolution works is somewhat different, but basic combinatorics shows that evolution doesn't require timescales beyond what is suggested by geological evidence.

---

It depend on what your assumptions are, and whether apes really had the potential to change into humans. My point is, that evolution of current species should be noticeable over 1000 years or so. (>5,000,000,000 years for the solar system/earth) Unless you are saying nothing is evolving anymore.

Quote:

---

although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2.

---

You can't just keep those numbers every time, you must have a way of having to restart as well. (as many species die out) Those numbers are also far to few to describe evolution.

Quote:

---

You can't just keep those numbers every time, you must have a way of having to restart as well. (as many species die out) Those numbers are also far to few to describe evolution.

---

Yes. Some species evolve to create specialists. Some don't and become generalists. Specialists are highly apadted to one environment, but have low evolutionary plasticity and are prone to going extinct. Generalists are more hardy, but tend to be less complex organisms.

And you can 'keep those numbers'. It's called heredity.

I'm not using the numbers to describe evolution. I'm using them to illustrate a principle.

[quote]Could you expand on this, saying "Dogs" doesn't tell me anything, because I have never heard of this idea.[/dogs]

All breeds of dogs are all descended from a common ancestor species withing the last few tens of thousands of years.

Quote:

---

It depend on what your assumptions are, and whether apes really had the potential to change into humans. My point is, that evolution of current species should be noticeable over 1000 years or so. (>5,000,000,000 years for the solar system/earth) Unless you are saying nothing is evolving anymore.

---

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago. Large animals are selected against because humans tend to kill them. But regardless, 1000 years is too short a time period to see any significant effects. 30,000 years, maybe. The average species lifetime is something a lot longer than that.

Quote:

---

And you can 'keep those numbers'. It's called heredity.

---

Only if you assume that the chains moving towards humanity cannot go extinct. (you are assuming that any of the first paths that were going in the general direction of humanity did not go die out.)

Quote:

---

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago. Large animals are selected against because humans tend to kill them. But regardless, 1000 years is too short a time period to see any significant effects. 30,000 years, maybe. The average species lifetime is something a lot longer than that.

---

1000 years should be enough to view a noticeable change, because evolution is gradual, we should be able to see a difference between these times. (We only have had less than 5 billion years to evolve from a single cell, (the single cell would most likely take an extremely long time to evolve (if it can)) there are enough species in between that unless evolution has come to basically a standstill, we should be able to view something)
The thing that bothers me most about evolution is that so many scientists accept it as proven (as we were arguing, you can always just say it takes longer then we can see because there is no way for you to show that macro-evolution has ever occured unless we see some evidence. Pretty shaky theory if you ask me.) just because it is an alternative (supposedly) to intelligent design. Also as Unne said in his quote before (he was arguing for the other side, but I can still use his quote) "extrapolation is dangerous". That is all the theory of evolution is, one great extrapolation, with a great deal of assumptions surrounding it as well. See this article about the evolutionary tree. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-150b.htm

Quote:

---

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago.

---

So far, I have only heard of color changes and appetite changes in those finches, but you can add other differences if you like.

"If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)"

We have observed one species turning into another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
5.0 is where it lists new species.

Now you'll probably say this doesn't count because it's not a dog turning into a fish or something, but it counts. If you can't understand that these changes accumulate over millions/billions of years to produce a very, very different organism, I really don't know what else to say to you. I give evidence, and you continue to say "no evidence".

We will never view a large evolutionary change (ape turning into man, as you've said) because it doesn't happen. Small changes accumulating is how it works. Micro evolution adding up to macro. Normal dogs were bred to Chihuahua's by breeding small to small over many generations. Never will a great dane give birth to a chihuahua by a fluke mutation. That seems to be what you expect as "proof". It's just not how it works. There is no great extrapolation here. It doesn't seem you understand.

"Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)"

What I meant was that it's unknowable because the big crunch would've destroyed anything we could've known about the previous universe. There's no data to go on.

"Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand."

Nice. Instead of debating my point, you disregard it with a "Whatever". The acceleration of the universe is expected, in theory, to speed up until the mass starts to slow it down, eventually causing it to crunch back. What I meant was that the mass is like gravity on the rocket. It slows it down, but the rocket still speeds up first.

"I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it."

It is a very flawed theory at present. So is yours. I remember reading somewhere that a singularity WOULD restart the state of entropy, and since I know that's wrong now, I've gotta reconsider. Either way though, proving oscillation wrong doesn't prove you right, which is what you should focus on.

"Science supports a finite beginning to time."

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

"Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did."

That's because we didn't come from apes. There is proof we have a common ancestor. No, we don't have an exact fossil record of every single change and generation, but we have a very good indication of what happened. There's many different kinds of early apes and humans, and when you trace back the fossils they both go back to one species.

"Do you have an example of this?"

White tailed deer. Up here (Canada) they're massive, weighing up to a ton. Florida deer, often called key deer, are tiny, about 100 kg. they're genetically the same species, aside from the size difference. This is classic geographical seperation. Some migrated, some didn't, and because of the difference in climate, their phenotypes differ. This has been observed and recorded in other species too.

"What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)"

Looking for food or mates is a pretty standard reason to migrate. Happens frequently, especially when areas are invaded by other species (biggest one nowadays is us, or species brought by us).

"Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific."

Look on the site I linked above, it gives observed and recorded examples of this so-called "gigantic extrapolation". Why is it unscientific?

"Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)"

Why would anyone say "infinite time". It's very obvious that the Earth doesn't have infinite time to devolop life.

"Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken."

Yes, and I'll take Hawking's word that it can't be broken, so that puts the oscillating idea rather unlikely. But that doesn't make intelligent design, or god any more likely.

"I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science"

Then I agree with that, but not that it means supernatural. the word supernatural generally implies something like a ghost or god, which I disagree with. "time was created by something outside the universe" doesn't imply god, or even that a being/alien created time.

"1000 years should be enough to view a noticeable change, because evolution is gradual, we should be able to see a difference between these times."

And there are differences. Check the site I liked. New breeds and races of animals have come up. Humans are different (inter-racial people).

"The thing that bothers me most about evolution is that so many scientists accept it as proven (as we were arguing, you can always just say it takes longer then we can see because there is no way for you to show that macro-evolution has ever occured unless we see some evidence."

I've said this before. We see gradients in fossils. We see genes change over time. It is not ridiculous extrapolation to theorize that these changes accumulate to equal the changes we see in the fossil record. What would be ridiculous extrapolation would be to say that a magical floating god in the sky went poof and created the species, despite genetics and biology. how can you say people believe it "just because it is an alternative". Where's the evidence for intelligent design? Proving evolution wrong is NOT evidence.

"See this article about the evolutionary tree. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-150b.htm"

Gah. That site is very biased. Maybe they don't deliberately ignore the whole picture in order to prove their point, but it sure looks like it.

The cambrian explosion for one thing, is not the beginning of life. It is a population explosion, large attributed to the fact that around that time (we're talking 12-40 MILLION years for this "abrupt" event) creatures began developing hard parts. Soft things are EXTREMELY unlikely to be fossilized, that's why when we see fossils they're almost always shellfish, or bones. We do have a couple of fossil impressions of early unicellular life, but they're very, very rare. It does not by any means imply what that site is saying.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion <- good source for googling up a better understanding of the issue. Again, I recommend against creationist sites. Well, take ideas from them, sure, but their evidence very often leaves vital bits out.

From your site: "Extensive Cambrian layers are underlain by equally extensive and undisturbed pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock, just right for fossil preservation, but which contain only occasionally single-celled organisms, but no ancestors for any of the abundant array of complex marine creatures in the Cambrian! Some are extinct, but essentially nothing has developed ever since the start. Thus, the evolutionary tree is turned upside down."

There is most certainly a gradient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline <- based on fossil evidence coordinated with their geological appearance. I can't give you an example of each, it would take forever.

We have fossil evidence of some single-celled life. We have evidence of symbiosis (organisms joining to become one; mitochondria and cholroplasts are some of them). We have evidence that a lot of multi-celled life developed over millions of years. The cambrian explosion is largely attributed to the fact that it seems that sexual reproduction was developed, and oxygen appeared in the atmosphere. That article makes it sound like a million species appeared overnight, and evil evolution scientists choose to ignore it.

Aside from that, that site doesn't even give examples of WHY the fossil record isn't a gradient, it just says that it's not, and the cambrian explosion happened. That really doesn't say much at all.

Quote:

---

We will never view a large evolutionary change (ape turning into man, as you've said) because it doesn't happen. Small changes accumulating is how it works. Micro evolution adding up to macro. Normal dogs were bred to Chihuahua's by breeding small to small over many generations. Never will a great dane give birth to a chihuahua by a fluke mutation. That seems to be what you expect as "proof". It's just not how it works. There is no great extrapolation here. It doesn't seem you understand.

---

I do understand, but there is a great deal of extrapolation. (macro-evolution is all about extrapolating back and deciding that these small changes could add up to evolving into humans and all the species we have today and calling it a theory/fact. (depending on who you are talking to))

Quote:

---

What I meant was that it's unknowable because the big crunch would've destroyed anything we could've known about the previous universe. There's no data to go on.

---

Using the scientific laws, however, we can come to the result that it could not have been oscillating beforehand.

Quote:

---

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

---

As I said before, all you have to agree with is that something that has a beginning has a cause and you have that time has a cause. (supernatural by my definition)

Quote:

---

White tailed deer. Up here (Canada) they're massive, weighing up to a ton. Florida deer, often called key deer, are tiny, about 100 kg. they're genetically the same species, aside from the size difference. This is classic geographical seperation. Some migrated, some didn't, and because of the difference in climate, their phenotypes differ. This has been observed and recorded in other species too.

---

1. Do you know for certain that the above was a result of climate differences (as in, did we actually observe these deer grow bigger/smaller. Because, their genetic structures being almost the same doesn't prove that they evolved from each other)
2. Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure.

Quote:

---

Why would anyone say "infinite time". It's very obvious that the Earth doesn't have infinite time to devolop life.

---

Evolutionists used to use this trick or the infinite matter trick to eliminate probability.

Quote:

---

Yes, and I'll take Hawking's word that it can't be broken, so that puts the oscillating idea rather unlikely. But that doesn't make intelligent design, or god any more likely.

---

I'll gladly argue on those terms, I'm just trying to get finish my argument on #1 so I can get to #2. (a few posts up I stated what I was arguing)

Quote:

---

Then I agree with that, but not that it means supernatural. the word supernatural generally implies something like a ghost or god, which I disagree with. "time was created by something outside the universe" doesn't imply god, or even that a being/alien created time.

---

No, but as I was talking about with Doomgaze before, it seems to imply at least an extra dimension. (you could argue that a collision of two membranes in this higher dimension could be enough to cause our universe) The only way to argue whether it was intelligent or not is based on what we can see around us, but there is no way to argue in certain terms. All I can argue for is how likely it is that intelligent design occured.

Quote:

---

And there are differences. Check the site I liked. New breeds and races of animals have come up. Humans are different (inter-racial people).

---

The site that you linked talked about hybridization, which seems to fail almost every time. (the resulting "species" is almost always sterile) Hybridization does not tell us anything about evolution because:
1. As I said, most tests fail to produce beings which can reproduce.
2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races. :D )

Quote:

---

Proving evolution wrong is NOT evidence.

---

It gives a much greater probability of intelligent design if you have to imagine everything forming without evolution, that is the only way it is related to the topic.

Quote:

---

side from that, that site doesn't even give examples of WHY the fossil record isn't a gradient, it just says that it's not, and the cambrian explosion happened. That really doesn't say much at all.

---

It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before.

Quote:

---

explosion began at 530 Ma (million years ago) and ended before 520 Ma

---

From your link on the Cambrian explosion.

Quote:

---

We have evidence that a lot of multi-celled life developed over millions of years.

---

1. Would you link something about this.
2. The problem with this, (even if proven) is that it is as much in support of intelligent design as it is of evolution. (Well, the biblical one anyways, the 7 "days" of creation. (there is quite a bit of support (using the Bible itself) for why these could not be literal days (relative to our days anyways)) God didn't create everything at once) What evolutionists have to show to get support for their theory is that the multi-celled life was derived from single-celled organisms. (or to be able to show any other form of macro-evolution occured. By even one occurence of macro-evolution would not be close proving that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.)

Quote:

---

Maybe they don't deliberately ignore the whole picture in order to prove their point, but it sure looks like it.

---

Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons. (or ones which do not easily fall apart)

Quote:

---

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

---

Quote:

---

Either way though, proving oscillation wrong doesn't prove you right, which is what you should focus on.

---

I'm trying to prove my #1 from above first, (you can take supernatural to mean the definition I gave it before) the result gives me a better basis for #2, which is hopefully the only one you are disagreeing with now.

Quote:

---

Again, I recommend against creationist sites. Well, take ideas from them, sure, but their evidence very often leaves vital bits out.

---

So do evolutionist sites (I hope neither of them do it intentionally, but it comes from what scientific circles they are in.) and it is basically impossible to find a neutral site. I think the only thing we can do is take information from both, (though of course I will tend to look for arguments that support creation and you will look for arguments that support evolution) and hopefully if we put the information together, we will get a good representation of the entire picture.

"macro-evolution is all about extrapolating back and deciding that these small changes could add up to evolving into humans and all the species we have today and calling it a theory/fact."

Why shouldn't we assume that the genetic changes that we see changing the appearance of species now accounts for the difference in how species appeared long ago? Yes, it is extrapolation, but it has a good foundation.

For the record, I don't think we know the exact mechanism of evolution. I don't think simple fluke mutations are responsible for the vast variation of species we see in the past and now. But it's just the mechanism that we aren't sure of. I think the basics of the theory are true, and there are some holes that need to be filled in. By no means should it be thrown away.

"As I said before, all you have to agree with is that something that has a beginning has a cause and you have that time has a cause. (supernatural by my definition)"

So? Cause does not equal God. Cause does not equal sentient being of some kind. Supernatural by your definition could mean something as natural as grass growing in another dimension. This point is moot. It doesn't affirm intelligent design.

"1. Do you know for certain that the above was a result of climate differences (as in, did we actually observe these deer grow bigger/smaller. Because, their genetic structures being almost the same doesn't prove that they evolved from each other)
2. Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure."

1. They're just different races. Some animal species have races(aka, subspecies) just like humans do. It's similar to cat and dog breeds. Something small differs (skin/fur colour, or size in this example) between them, but they're so similar otherwise that they're classified as the same species. We didn't view this happening though, no.

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/sh...?recnum=MA0487

This is not meant to be evidence, but it explains well how it could've happened: http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fiel....TheEven-.html

Since there was less resources, only smaller deer would be able to be properly nourished. The larger ones would continue to die until only the smaller gene remained.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Clarify?

"Evolutionists used to use this trick or the infinite matter trick to eliminate probability."

Ah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time or matter. That's a silly arguement for evolution if you ask me.

"No, but as I was talking about with Doomgaze before, it seems to imply at least an extra dimension."

"Dimension", thanks for sci-fi, implies it exists in another universe, but remember that up, down, time, etc are all dimensions and very much a part of this universe.

For extra reading, since you seem interested: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/9/1

"(you could argue that a collision of two membranes in this higher dimension could be enough to cause our universe)"

That's another theory called the big fire or flash or something like that. I'm still kicking myself for leaving my books at home. I'll update this stuff in about a week.

"The only way to argue whether it was intelligent or not is based on what we can see around us, but there is no way to argue in certain terms. All I can argue for is how likely it is that intelligent design occured."

Yeah, it's kinda futile, since proving other theories unlikely doesn't make yours any more likely. If you prove that evolution can't happen, and I prove that intelligent design can't happen, does that make my theory of a giant chicken laying an egg from which life began from more likely? No. It means we don't know.

"The site that you linked talked about hybridization, which seems to fail almost every time. (the resulting "species" is almost always sterile)"

From site:
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

I'm disappointed, you know. Did you even read the site? That's only SOME of the stuff on there. There's more if you click the "other link" one too. Yeah, there's a lot there, but you could've at least scrolled through the titles.

And besides, those hybrids are most certainly species. They can't call it that unless it IS fertile, and in this case, also that it doesn't breed with the original species, they even state this in the article many times. What more can you ask for? A species is defined as a group of organisms that interbreed and share a gene pool. They MUST be able to interbreed. That's why mules aren't actually a species, as they're a sterile hybrid of donkeys and horses.

"2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races.)"

There's some evidence that humans were produced by two hominid tribes meeting and breeding. The two races met and went extinct in about the same area where early humans are found.

This is an interesting read, even if you don't believe in evolution: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/Hum...tionTheory.htm

"It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before."

he'd have to define what "lowest layer" means. Either way, it'd be impossible to say for sure if unicellular organisms definitely came first and when, because so much of the sedimentary rock will have been long destroyed by natural processes by now. The sea floor, and Earth's surface is under constant change.

Stromalites (http://www.wmnh.com/wmel0000.htm) are the earliest unicellular fossils, and predate the earliest multicellular fossils by over a billion years. This could be because of lack of fossilization, because as I said, soft things don't fossilize well, but I doubt this accounts for a billion year's difference. no such gap appears elsewhere in the record. also, why would some unis fossilize, and no multis? It doesn't make sense. i saw nothing to support what that man suggests (and I've done a hell of a lot of research today).

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolu...-97Miller.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

They didn't evolve skeletons, they developed hard parts. I would say it was a simple fluke mutation. curly hair is a fluke mutation, and a dominant one at that. It's very well documented in pets, there's now curly cats, dogs, even rabits and guinea pigs. In such primitive species, dominant traits that are successful (teeth, lets say, hardened flagella, or a shell, a hard cell wall) spread like wildfire. They reproduce rapidly, and very successfully. Change happens much quicker. That's why a lot of genetic research involves unicellular/simple multicellular creatures.

"From your link on the Cambrian explosion."

That doesn't mean all of the species listed evolved, just a large amount. 10 million is not a short time for simple life forms like that.

"1. Would you link something about this.
2. The problem with this, (even if proven) is that it is as much in support of intelligent design as it is of evolution. (Well, the biblical one anyways, the 7 "days" of creation. (there is quite a bit of support (using the Bible itself) for why these could not be literal days (relative to our days anyways)) God didn't create everything at once) What evolutionists have to show to get support for their theory is that the multi-celled life was derived from single-celled organisms. (or to be able to show any other form of macro-evolution occured. By even one occurence of macro-evolution would not be close proving that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.)"

Of course I can't show an example of a single-celled organism turning into a multi-cellular one. But it's likely the transition from unicellular to multicellular started from colonial organisms that began functioning as a whole. You can see things kind of like that today. Many fungi, and some algae (the green slime you see in ponds/fish tanks) form colonies like this. I watched a video in biology where a type of algae/fungi actually grew as a whole, shaped organism, forming a flower-like part, but was actually just a colony of unicellular organisms. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was called, and I can't find info on the net, so yeah.

Multicellular organisms are in a way only a colony of unicellular organisms. Unicellular organisms multiply all the time. in such a multiplication, perhaps the two cells became bound in their own membrane, and in doing so, became twice as strong and thus successful.

The algae Acetabularia acetabulum (aka, mermaid's wine glass) is unicellular, but has a distinct flower shape, and can grow up to 20 cm. I think it's interesting that it can resemble multicellular organisms so much, but still be only one cell.

"Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons. (or ones which do not easily fall apart)"

Fall apart? you say that as if you were throwing together a box of lego, and hoping for a house to be built. It's a gradual process. Think of cytoskeleton (thin bits of hardened membrane) becomming larger, slowly changing shape over generations. Such bent-in membrane structures acting a skeleton of sorts is very common, all of our organs have structures called trabeculae, which are inward protrusions of the protective capsule that surrounds them.

I really don't think evolutionist sites are nearly as grossly inaccurate as some creationist sites, but obviously I'm biased. I try to use information from people who aren't proving either side, like scientists who just did a study on populations, or genetics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

I don't think simple fluke mutations are responsible for the vast variation of species we see in the past and now.

---

Good, because it's not. :D

The main mechanism of evolution is basic natural selection - survival of the fittest. The next would be genetic drift(changes in the gene pool by random inheritence of genes over time). Natural selection, however, is the basis of everything - how a given species interacts with its enviroment. This can change if a species migrates for any reason, or becomes seperate into multiple enviroments. Mutations merely help natural selection along(by either helping or hindering one part of a species).

I honestly don't see how anyone can disagree with evolution. The people I know how do really don't have a friggin' clue what evolution is.

If you can accept these things:

1. That a species as a whole can change overtime due to a change in the enviroment - even if the change is only behavioral
2. That if a species was seperated into two different enviroments, then adapted seperately to those enviroments, they could eventually speciate(become unable to cross-breed).

Then you really can accept evolution.

The problem most people seem to have is with the whole Common Descendent thing. How could we come from a bunch of atoms? Well, it's possible. For years and years scientists have been able to trace the line from atoms to complex organic material, and then from single-celled organisms to us, but there was a gap in between there. However, it's been shown that in underwater sulfuric vents(with atmosphere that is believed to be similar to that of early Earth) that complex organic material can turn into genetic material(nucleic acid) and start replicating. There's other theories out there, but this one has the most merit. So basically, scientists have proven that evolution is completely possible. Going off that we can see changes in species today by the aforementioned evolutionary themes(natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc.) that it seems to me at least to be pretty reasonable an assumption that it's been happening since the beginning of life.

Quote:

---

Some animal species have races(aka, subspecies) just like humans do. It's similar to cat and dog breeds. Something small differs (skin/fur colour, or size in this example) between them, but they're so similar otherwise that they're classified as the same species.

---

Scientists have been having trouble with that recently, as apparently some parts of various species have become unable to mate with other members of the same species - which means they've speciated. The various Kingdoms will probably be going through a major overhaul pretty soon(if they aren't already).
Oh, speaking of Kingdoms, if anyone hasn't noticed the old five-Kingdom system is out, in favor of the three-Domain system(Bacteria, Archae, Eucharia). What we know as Kingdoms are now sub-categories(minus Bacteria) of the kingdom Eucharia - along with some other new Kingdoms(seven, I believe?).

Quote:

---

That's another theory called the big fire or flash or something like that.

---

You mean Big Bang? :p

Quote:

---

"2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races.)"

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Quote:

---

"It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before."

---

They didn't have the means to make skeletons before.

A couple of things that need to be said(somewhat related):

1. Visible evolution does not require a gazillion years. The accepted theory now is called punctuated equilibrium - meaning that the majority of time, there's not much going on(besides basic genetic drift), which is punctuated(hence the name) by momentary spurts of evolution. Since visible evolution requires a big change in the enviroment or a visible mutation(rare), this theory makes a lot of sense.

2. Organisms don't evolve things they're not capable of/don't need. I've heard people say that, if evolution is true, will we have wings or an extra head or something in the future. This is absurd, as our skeleton and basic structure is not remotely similar to a birds(for the wings) and why would we evolve another head? Therefor, the basic organisms before that aforementioned 10 million years(I don't know if this is an accurate timeframe or not) were not capable of evolving skeletons, whereas after various changes had taken place and the enviromental need arose, then it happened.

Quote:

---

Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons.

---

Not really. *points to punctuated equilibrium* In that span of time(less, actually) everything became oxygen-breathing organisms. That's a bigger genetic change than skeletons.

"The main mechanism of evolution is basic natural selection - survival of the fittest."

Wes, I know what I'm talking about here. :P Natural selection is not responsible for the variation, mutations are. Where else does variation come from?

99.9% of all life is extinct now. Right now there's approximately 2-10 million species... some say up to 20 million. Do the math. I don't think mutations account for that huge amount of variation. There's another factor we haven't seen yet. My bio professor agrees with me here. It doesn't make evolution wrong, it just means there's a genetic process of some sort we haven't discovered yet.

My point was not that I don't agree with evolution, it's that I don't think we know everything there is to know about it. It's rather arrogant to say we do.

"Scientists have been having trouble with that recently, as apparently some parts of various species have become unable to mate with other members of the same species - which means they've speciated."

I'm argueing FOR evolution, ya goof. You make it sound like I'm not. I was talking about whitetails. They're still the same species, but a little different. My point was that it's the very beginning of speciation.

Also, you can't just say "various species", you need a link to back it up.

"You mean Big Bang? :P"

Argh. No. Geez, Wes, you bust in here without even reading the whole thread. the big bang wasn't caused by two dimensions/universes colliding. that's what I was refering to.

Can you read more of the thread before "correcting" us like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Wes, I know what I'm talking about here. :P Natural selection is not responsible for the variation, mutations are. Where else does variation come from?

---

Mutation is merely one mechanism of natural selection. Others, off the top of my head, are migration, disasters, bottleneck effect, founder's effect, etc. I didn't mean to insinuate that mutation wasn't responsible for a large part of variation(which it is), merely that it is one mechanism of the one term which is responsible for variation(that being natural selection)

Quote:

---

Right now there's approximately 2-10 million species... some say up to 20 million.

---

Some say a billion. It's kind of pointless to debate since there's an estimated 5-400 million species of protists that are unidentified(no one has a friggin' clue).

Quote:

---

My point was not that I don't agree with evolution, it's that I don't think we know everything there is to know about it. It's rather arrogant to say we do.

---

Of course not, but we're getting damn close. Hell, we've come damn close to creating life in a lab from scratch. Last semester in genetics, we were shown an article where scientists had created genuine RNA with 14 base pairs that self-replicated up to 40 base pairs(or so) until it died. They created RNA out of nothing remotely living, mind you. That's pretty damn amazing. *goes to see if he can find article*

Quote:

---

I'm argueing FOR evolution, ya goof. You make it sound like I'm not. I was talking about whitetails. They're still the same species, but a little different. My point was that it's the very beginning of speciation.

---

I know. I was merely continuing on with your point, not disagreeing. :p

Quote:

---

Also, you can't just say "various species", you need a link to back it up.

---

My bio teacher talked about it two years ago in certain types of frogs. If I can find an article about it online, I'll post it.

Quote:

---

"You mean Big Bang? :P"

Argh. No. Geez, Wes, you bust in here without even reading the whole thread. the big bang wasn't caused by two dimensions/universes colliding. that's what I was refering to.

---

Haha, ok. xD You're right, I only read the last two posts. I was hoping you'd remember Big Bang.

Quote:

---

Can you read more of the thread before "correcting" us like that?

---

So I missed your universal colliding stuff. :p
I'm not very knowledgeable about that subject anyway. Evolution, however, is my forte(which is why my last post was almost exclusively about it).

"Mutation is merely one mechanism of natural selection. Others, off the top of my head, are migration, disasters, bottleneck effect, founder's effect, etc. I didn't mean to insinuate that mutation wasn't responsible for a large part of variation(which it is), merely that it is one mechanism of the one term which is responsible for variation(that being natural selection)"

You misunderstand. The differences in DNA, ie, morphisms within a species are ONLY caused by mutations. Migration, disasters, bottleneck and other effects only change the frequencies of already existing alleles; they do not change the alleles themselves. Those effects are what determine which mutations are successful, and which are detrimental, which in turn leads to the changing of the species' genotype. But those mechanisms don't actually change genes. Without changes in the genes, ie, without mutations, it would just be the same genotype changing frequency throughout generations, but no new characteristics coming up. Without mutations, there would be no evolution. Mutations are soley responsible for the genetic evolution of species. No other mechanisms changes the genetic structure to make new features and such. Those mechanisms, using my example of the size difference in whitetails, account for why and how the size difference between populations arose, but not why the size difference existed in the first place. The only way for the small size allele to appear in the first place is mutation. See what I mean?

"Of course not, but we're getting damn close. Hell, we've come damn close to creating life in a lab from scratch. Last semester in genetics, we were shown an article where scientists had created genuine RNA with 14 base pairs that self-replicated up to 40 base pairs(or so) until it died. They created RNA out of nothing remotely living, mind you. That's pretty damn amazing. *goes to see if he can find article*"

Check out the Miller-Urey experiment if you already haven't. Nifty stuff.

"My bio teacher talked about it two years ago in certain types of frogs. If I can find an article about it online, I'll post it."

Ah, that's Gray/Cope's tree frog. It's due to polyploidy.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/narcam/idguide/hylavers.htm

Something else interesting along that line, they've found salamanders double the normal size, and in the lab found out they were polyploid as well. They're 2x the size because their doubled genome tells their body to make twice as much growth hormone.

Quote:

---

Why shouldn't we assume that the genetic changes that we see changing the appearance of species now accounts for the difference in how species appeared long ago?
Yes, it is extrapolation, but it has a good foundation.

---

If we could show tendencies to actually change into another species, (gene changes in all of bone structure, color and size if we are talking about gradual evolution) in animals then I might agree that macro-evolution has some support, (though I would still hate to see people assuming that macro-evolution ever happened and extrapolating to give that result (extrapolation is bad, no matter how supported you think it is)) but that still doesn't give it the foundation to actually tell us where we came from. (evolutionists like to assume that it is a single cell) (possible != probable != happened) If the theory was punctuated evolution, we would have no evidence that it could happen = an unscientific theory. (we have to be able to view something for it to be based on science. Science by nature is inductive.)

Quote:

---

Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure.

---

I meant that if bones were to have evolved, the genes for bone structure would have to change. (as well as size, which as you pointed out, hasn't been observed)

Quote:

---

"Dimension", thanks for sci-fi, implies it exists in another universe, but remember that up, down, time, etc are all dimensions and very much a part of this universe.

---

Not necessarily, just like a wall has a 2-dimensional element, (which is contained in our 3-dimensional) world so could there be another dimension that exists which contains our universe.

Quote:

---

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

---

I meant ones that were not basically human. (I am saying that hybrids don't exactly help evolution (as I said, because they usually fail, and even if they don't it still requires those other beings to "evolve") Finding a few fossils (skulls say) that look a bit different doesn't tell us if it was indeed another race let alone if they were "related" (as in humans evolved from them or were hybrids of them) to human beings.

Quote:

---

1. Visible evolution does not require a gazillion years. The accepted theory now is called punctuated equilibrium - meaning that the majority of time, there's not much going on(besides basic genetic drift), which is punctuated(hence the name) by momentary spurts of evolution. Since visible evolution requires a big change in the enviroment or a visible mutation(rare), this theory makes a lot of sense.

---

I see...that is even harder for scientists to even find evidence for. This is exactly why people should be very careful to teach evolution as a theory.

Quote:

---

Yeah, it's kinda futile, since proving other theories unlikely doesn't make yours any more likely. If you prove that evolution can't happen, and I prove that intelligent design can't happen, does that make my theory of a giant chicken laying an egg from which life began from more likely? No. It means we don't know.

---

If you could prove intelligent design wrong (which you can't as far as I know) and I could prove evolution wrong, (which I can't quite, but it keeps being shown to be more and more unlikely over time) then that would point to something else, but the point is all we can do is look at the likelyhood of each idea when it comes to how our universe was formed. (mass is already around by some supernatural means) I still have yet to see why people think macro-evolution is scientific, though. It is a belief system, because it does not have any serious basis. As I believe I have said, even if we assume macro-evolution can happen, (and in that time frame) it still does not deduce that it did happen. (and that we did come from a single cell) On top of that, the existence of macro-evolution cannot be proven unless we can observe it until either we can see a noticeable diffence, or if punctuated equilibrium was correct, until it occured. Assuming what we cannot see or test is unscientific.

Quote:

---

Of course not, but we're getting damn close.

---

..................................................................

P.S I have to restrict myself to just going on EoFF on weekends for this term, so I won't be able to respond as often. :(

"If we could show tendencies to actually change into another species, (gene changes in all of bone structure, color and size if we are talking about gradual evolution) in animals then I might agree that macro-evolution has some support,"

What do you call all the examples given then if not that?

"but that still doesn't give it the foundation to actually tell us where we came from."

So? All anyone can do is theorize based on the evidence we have now.

"Finding a few fossils (skulls say) that look a bit different doesn't tell us if it was indeed another race let alone if they were "related" (as in humans evolved from them or were hybrids of them) to human beings."

You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.

"I still have yet to see why people think macro-evolution is scientific, though. It is a belief system, because it does not have any serious basis."

I still have yet to see you back that statement up, yet you keep saying it. The only thing you've said basically is "we haven't seen a fish turn into a dog".

Some evolution evidence:
- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)
- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)
- speciation happening now (I'm still confused as to what you're talking about in the first paragraph of your post. Speciation IS happening. It's proven.)
- Large changes can occur with a single mutation of the body morphology gene, proven due to experiments with drosophilia
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...ml&dynoptions=

Where is this "no serious evidence"?

"Not necessarily, just like a wall has a 2-dimensional element, (which is contained in our 3-dimensional) world so could there be another dimension that exists which contains our universe."

Yes, necessarily. You're using the term incorrectly.

"I see...that is even harder for scientists to even find evidence for. This is exactly why people should be very careful to teach evolution as a theory."

It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this. The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it... Species did appear in large bursts in the past.

"the existence of macro-evolution cannot be proven unless we can observe it until either we can see a noticeable diffence, or if punctuated equilibrium was correct, until it occured. Assuming what we cannot see or test is unscientific."

No, there are many theories people (and I'm sure you) readily accept without 100% observed proof just because they have a lot of proof. we don't know how gravity works, but I bet you're pretty sure it's there. Are you really going to call any calculations involving gravity unscientific?

I just really, really, really don't understand why you think evolution is so flawed that it' ridiculous. Flawed, yes, but "unscientific"? Your claims are completely baseless! It really seems to me that you don't understand the theory, since we've corrected you several times, and because of that you reject it due to your faith. Rejecting it based on faith I understand, but not due to science. It's a perfectly valid theory.

Quote:

---

I still have yet to see you back that statement up, yet you keep saying it. The only thing you've said basically is "we haven't seen a fish turn into a dog".

---

No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.

Quote:

---

Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)

---

Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.

Quote:

---

It's based on the fact that the fossil record reflects this.

---

The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there. By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species.

Quote:

---

The only debatable thing here is whether it was evolution that did it...

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Species did appear in large bursts in the past.

---

As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)

Quote:

---

No, there are many theories people (and I'm sure you) readily accept without 100% observed proof just because they have a lot of proof. we don't know how gravity works, but I bet you're pretty sure it's there. Are you really going to call any calculations involving gravity unscientific?

---

Specifically I am attacking theories without concrete tests to show their validity. Gravity has been extensively tested, so it is a strong theory. Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.

Some evolution evidence:

Quote:

---

- Genetics (changing of genes throughout generations)

---

Obviously talking about mutations. As I've said before, mutations are usually detrimental. (I have yet to hear of one that actually is beneficial in humans)

Quote:

---

- Fossil evidence (the gradient which I already pointed out exists)

---

I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble.

Quote:

---

- speciation happening now (I'm still confused as to what you're talking about in the first paragraph of your post. Speciation IS happening. It's proven.)

---

Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)

Quote:

---

You underestimate the amount of information some bones can tell us.

---

Old bones are often either not completely intact or could be the result of a small mutation of a human. (in the cases of those skulls)

Quote:

---

I just really, really, really don't understand why you think evolution is so flawed that it' ridiculous. Flawed, yes, but "unscientific"? Your claims are completely baseless! It really seems to me that you don't understand the theory, since we've corrected you several times, and because of that you reject it due to your faith. Rejecting it based on faith I understand, but not due to science. It's a perfectly valid theory.

---

As I've said, the part of evolution that is certainly unscientific is the part that says that we did evolve from lesser beings, as it cannot be shown or be given evidence through any means. micro-evolution is scientific, because it can be observed in action, macro-evolution is a huge extrapolation but it can just be thought of as a theory, because it is theoretically possible no matter the bad results we tend to get from mutations.

"The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there."

I never said that the record was proof by itself, but combined with the fact that species are changing now, it makes sense that those changes account for the differences seen in the past. What is unscientific?

"By the way, if evolution was so gradual, why don't we have fossils of every stage between each species."

Because fossils form under very specific situations. we have very good gradients of many species, horses, because of their habitats, are probably the best example.

"Obviously talking about mutations. As I've said before, mutations are usually detrimental. (I have yet to hear of one that actually is beneficial in humans)"

Except for the ones we already listed. I'm glad we're all on the same page here. Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change. Humanity is a bad example since natural selection, a key part of evolution, doesn't apply to us (we don't breed randomly, no traits are selected for). Also, apart from that, detailed medical records haven't been around long enough to record significant differences in the population. Humanity is a really bad example.

Better examples are found in animals, many of which I already listed.

"I doubt evolutionists have actually found the gradient of skeletons between each species, without that, the gradual evolution has some trouble."

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species. If we see the mechanism works in some animals, applying it to all is extrapolation, but it's also simple logic. All animals, now and then have DNA that works the same. that's what lets us extrapolate back.

"Give me an example of a situation in which at least all the important attributes that we have seen. (size and bone structure especially)"

What do you mean by "all important attributes"? It really doesn't matter. Speciation happens! just because it doesn't fit your version of evolution doesn't matter.

"Old bones are often either not completely intact or could be the result of a small mutation of a human. (in the cases of those skulls)"

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

"As I've said, the part of evolution that is certainly unscientific is the part that says that we did evolve from lesser beings, as it cannot be shown or be given evidence through any means."

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant), and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

"micro-evolution is scientific, because it can be observed in action, macro-evolution is a huge extrapolation but it can just be thought of as a theory"

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?

I could've sworn I already replied to Elyse's second-to-last post. O_o Ah well. *forgets about it*

Anyway:

Quote:

---

No, we need to see a species change though, it doesn't have to be a fish/dog transformation. Any type of noticeable change would give some evidence for the possibility of macro-evolution, but would not imply that we started from a single cell.

---

Give me a break. We have witnessed speciation. What have Elyse and I been talking about the past several posts?
It's also really really common sense, once you think about it. Take this hypothetical situation:

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

Quote:

---

Yes, I know mutations occur, but that is not real evidence to show macro-evolution occured in the past.

---

Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

Quote:

---

The fossil record only seems to indicate that different species appeared on the land, it doesn't tell us how they appeared there.

---

Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

Quote:

---

As I've said before, this gives the same amount of evidence for both sides. (or more for creation)

---

Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

Quote:

---

Macro-Evolution (starting from one cell in particular) has no possible tests to show it's validity unless we could either travel back in time or view the past.

---

Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.

Quote:

---

Also, you acknowledge microevolution happens, yet you quipe about how many bad mutations their are. If mutations are so faulty, how do you explain microevolution?

---

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

Quote:

---

Humanity is a really bad example.

---

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

Quote:

---

Even though you insisted it was, being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia really isn't detrimental. Besides that, being beneficial is irrelevant since evolution means change.

---

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

Quote:

---

That's because it's a little impossible to have a gradient for EVERY species.

---

The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/i3/horse.asp.

Quote:

---

Please, experts know the difference between a mutated human and another species.

---

Look below for my answer.

Quote:

---

Other than the fact that we've found many examples of lesser-evolved very human-like remains consistant with the theory (the fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is irrelevant)

---

The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely.

Quote:

---

and we've found remains back from those two, showing common ancestory. Did you read the link on human ancestory I listed?

---

There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)

Quote:

---

And what's your comment on micro adding up to macro? You agree things change in small ways... After 1000 years, do they what, stop being they get too different? I don't understand your logic. Why WOULDN'T they keep changing until they were a different species?

---

They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time. (of course many species would die out) The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree. We do not know even that with the information we have. (we do not even know if these mutations would be capable of changing this hypothetical single cell into humans (albeit gradually), therefore even that macro-evolution can occur is a theory.) Saying that it is a theory like gravity, is ridiculuous because we have never indeed seen it in action.

Quote:

---

Ok, you have population of deer in a certain enviroment. However, after a long drought there's a sudden shortage of food. Some of the deer migrate away to a different enviroment to find more food, so there's no two populations in two distinct enviroments. They adapt to those enviroments differently. One population may start being nocturnal to avoid pretadors, while in the other only the long-antlered deer survive because only they can knock food from trees. So you then have one population who turned nocturnal, and another that's solely long-antlered. The two cannot interbreed because they are awake at different times. Speciation(a very common form).

---

Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits.

Quote:

---

Genetic mutations have always been possible by the properties of DNA and RNA themselves. They have numerous safety-checks, and they're about 99% foolproof. But less than 1% of the time, something screws up. Denying the fact that there were mutations in the past with the argument that there's not pictures of it is naive.

---

Oh yes, there were mutations, but does that give the theory of evolution any evidence, no. It gives it a possible method of working, but no actual evidence.

Quote:

---

Yes, but using the fossil record you can see the similarities of certain species and how they changed over time.

---

Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think.

Quote:

---

Hardly. The massive pre-Cambrian explosion of speciation occured just after the atmosphere became oxygenated(is that a word? xD). This "coincidence" gives far more evidence for evolution.

---

I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Have you ever heard of Mendel? He basically proved genetic drift. I don't understand how you can support micro-evolution, yet argue against macro-evolution. One leads naturally to the other.

---

Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't. Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven. To show that, yes you would need to travel back in time.

Quote:

---

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

---

Bad mutations are, I would imagine, just as common as good ones. However, the organisms with bad mutations generally die out as a result.

Quote:

---

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

---

How does "humanity is a really bad example" translate into "humanity doesn't follow evolutionary rules?" I'll let her explain for herself, but I believe she meant that homo sapiens are a difficult example of evolution to explain.

Quote:

---

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

---

"Improved" is a subjective analysis insignificant to evolution. We grew and thrived - that's all that matters. "Lesser beings" is also subjective. And no, that doesn't mean beneficial mutations are more common - that's just one possibility. The only objective thing that can be said about humans "improving" so much is our unprecedented ability to adapt. It could've been as a result of ONE freak beneficial mutation after a hundred bad ones.

Quote:

---

The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them.

---

Each species has alleles in genes coding for traits. By basic Mendelian genetics, the allele frequencies change over time. Evolution. Yes, it does happen it all species.

Quote:

---

There is no way to show common ancestory.

---

There's a lot of ways. The fossil record suggests very strong relationships within homologous organisms, and you can really see how a species changed over time.

Quote:

---

Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits.

---

But it's speciation. If you admit that speciation happens now, why wouldn't it have happened all along? You make very little sense.

Quote:

---

Oh yes, there were mutations, but does that give the theory of evolution any evidence, no. It gives it a possible method of working, but no actual evidence.

---

You seem to require pictures of evolution happening a billion years ago to happen, which is naive and just downright silly.

Quote:

---

I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

Hardly. The planet remained inhabitied by simple prokaryotes until the atmosphere became oxygenated. Then suddenly eukaryotes appeared and began speciating like mad. Sounds like pretty good evidence of evolution to me.


You are blindly disregarding any evidence we give in the fact that there weren't pictures taken in the past to prove they actually happened. However, Elyse and I have both shown that evolution happens now, and by the basic principles of alleles, DNA, natural selection, mutations, etc, they have always happened. It's really common sense.

"My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely."

How do you explain how we've bred dogs/cats into so many forms? That's basically artificial evolution.

"Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting."

We follow the "rules", we're a species in a state of evolutionary stasis because of our circumstances/choices... Evolutionary change will only change if there's pressure on the population. Think of it like this: if there's only food available up high, tall animals will survive, if being small allows one to hide, small animals survive. If those pressures don't exist, all traits will eventually be expressed equally. Because there's no pressures on humans, and because we mate with everyone (no traits selected for), any mutations don't have a chance to be advantageous, because everyone already "wins".

"The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations."

Nope. Beings with disadventageous mutations either die out, or are bred into nonexistence in favour of those with advantageous mutations.

"The problem is, that unless we can see this in the majority of species, you cannot assume that it would occur in all of them. Look at this article on horse "evolution" http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...21/i3/horse.asp."

Again, that article is grossly inaccurate, and again, I'll reccommend against using creationist sources.

A large part of the article deals with people just saying that the 'family tree' is bad, not why.

"Informed evolutionists now realize that the picture, even in their own framework, is not a straight line at all. While they still believe in horse evolution, the modern view of the horse fossil record is much more jumpy and ‘bushy.’"

Yes, science changes as more evidence is found. The evolution of the horse is definitely not a straight line.

"Their age is generally assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial."

So very very wrong. Radiometric dating?

"Based on the biblical framework, we should expect many, but not all, fossils to have been buried during the Flood, so the oldest would really be only about 4,500 years old."

Argh.

"the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus were found in the same layer. This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other."

1. "Same layer" can just mean that the fossils were disturbed, and re-buried. But of course, since this site believes the earth is 6k years old, they won't mention that radiometric dating is ridiculously more accurate, and would've been used.

2. The article already established that the horse family is a "bush" rather than a linear tree. This means that there were a couple types of horses in existance over the years. more specifically one with one toe, and one with three. That means that there were indeed two species of horses alive with one toe and three toes, but it doesn't discredit evolution at all. This chart says it well:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/graph.gif

"Note that this sorting process involves a loss of information, so is irrelevant to particles-to-people evolution, which requires non-intelligent processes to add new information."

Mutations add information. This article is poorly written. It doesn't get to the point very well, or explain their points very well. Probably because then they'd be wrong.

"Sometimes a horse is born today where the genes are switched on, and certainly many fossil horses also had the genes switched on. This would explain why there are no transitional forms showing gradually smaller toe size."

Well... yes. That proves my point.

"These mechanisms would explain the alleged horse evolutionary series as variation within the equine (horse) kind."

How did they come to that conclusion from just listing features of horses now? For one thing, the horses existed at different times, so it can hardly all be attributed to variation within the kind. There certainly was variation, as I said, there were one toed, and three toed variety. This doesn't discredit evolution either. You could interpret the fossils being different over time because god created new horses, but that's ignoring the genetic aspect that points to that the change is more likely due to changes in the genome.

"Previous evolutionary theories would have asserted that because they all had high-crowned teeth, they must have been grazers. But the amounts of stable carbon isotopes 12C and 13C impregnated into the teeth indicated that the horses were browsers, not grazers."

Uh, what? What does amounts of carbon have to do with how they ate? and sure, sometimes judging what things eat by their teeth is wrong, but most of the time it's correct.

"Again, this information loss is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, much like the long-furred bears in the diagram of Ref. 15."
Ref. 15 = http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0/i4/bears.asp

this is SO wrong I nearly chipped a tooth gritting. I can't believe a doctor wrote this! If there's a loss of information with such changes, how in the world could there be toe genes to turn on again, like it said previously in the article?? It's the same thing here! Geez, it's not even interally consistant, let alone being consistant with science and evidence.

"The fact that we don't have a perfect gradient is not irrelevant, a perfect gradient would give evolution a strong basis, an imperfect one (especially like the one we have) simply makes the theory seem less likely."

We have A gradient, is what I meant. That's the best we could hope for. A pecfect gradient will never be found for anything, because fossilization is too unlikely is what I meant.

"There is no way to show common ancestory. The problem is that first of all, if you look at those skulls/remains they look similar enough to human skulls to be remains of human beings or slightly mutated human beings. (if you haven't noticed many of the skulls are partly decomposed)"

To you I'm sure they look the same, since you know little about skull anatomy. You're not an expert. I've studied skulls a little bit, and they're much more intricate than they seem. They can tell. Besides that, with some skulls they can do DNA tests.

"They would change in small ways, but after a very long period of time they could still be approximately the same as they were at the beginning of that time."

Small changes over millions years = big change! Would you call chihuahuas and great danes "approximately the same"? I wouldn't.

"The theory of evolution sees these changes and decides they would certainly be capable of causing the evolutionary tree."

The way I see it, evolution puts two and two together. Changes that cause variation + time = small differences is a fact (microevolution). We look at fossils and see big variation + big time = big differences. We assume the mechanisms that cause them are the same (genetically). That's evolution. See why I'm confused as to why you believe one but not the other?

Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it can't be how it is. And since you've acknowledged microevolution, that seems to be the only reason you're denying it.

"Fine, but that is what we call micro-evolution, in this case a small change in habits."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)

---

In your own words, speciation is macroevolution.

"Those fossil records aren't as full as you seem to think."

I think you're quite mistaken. I studied a small bit of it last year, and it was overwhelming.

"I don't see why. In creation God would have created the atmosphere, then created those beings, it is irrelevant to the discussion."

You could just say that for all the evidence, yet you still debate.

"Not without the capability to evolve in all ways it doesn't."

What do you mean by "all ways"?

"Even then, that everything evolved from a cell is still far far away from being proven."

Why would life evolve some, and then stop? I suppose you could say that god spurred evolution or something, but that's really not consistant.

I won't bother responding to all of Auronhart's last post. Just the most painfully wrong bits.

Quote:

---

Only if you assume that the chains moving towards humanity cannot go extinct. (you are assuming that any of the first paths that were going in the general direction of humanity did not go die out.)

---

They could have gone extinct, but they didn't. If they did, we wouldn't be here. Just like if your grandmother had died at birth, you wouldn't be here. Yes, the chances we evolved EXACTLY THE WAY WE DID are infintessimaily small. But it must have happened, because: hey, we're here, aren't we?

Quote:

---

My point is that we view a large number of bad mutations which are unhealthy for the species, which simply makes the probability of the good greatly overriding the bad become unlikely.

---

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

Quote:

---

The concept is that we improved from lesser beings, therefore beneficial should be more common then detrimental mutations.

---

Not lesser beings. Just lesser adapted beings. For the answer to your second sentence, see above. Or I'll reapeat. EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF 'GOOD' MUTATIONS IS VASTLY OUTNUMBERED BY THE 'NEUTRAL' AND 'BAD' MUTATIONS, THEY ARE SELECTED FOR AND THUS PERSIST. BAD MUTATIONS DON'T ACCUMULATE.

*cough*

I could show you a mathematical model if you like.

Quote:

---

Hmm, so we don't follow those evolutionary rules...interesting.

---

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.


Jus one further note - evolution is not a gradient. It is discrete, but may well approximate to a gradient. This is because the units of DNA and thus inheretance are discrete.

Quote:

---

Each species has alleles in genes coding for traits. By basic Mendelian genetics, the allele frequencies change over time. Evolution. Yes, it does happen it all species.

---

Micro-evolution does, I am saying that even if you can prove that horses eventually evolved from another species, (let's say initially from a reptile, because that is an obvious case of macro-evolution, with no ambiguity (I am basically saying, say macro-evolution occured once in the past)) then you still cannot prove or assume that humans evolved from apes. (i.e cannot show it happened 100 times because it simply does not follow) The rules of logic do not allow this leap especially when the time given is limited.

Quote:

---

There's a lot of ways. The fossil record suggests very strong relationships within homologous organisms, and you can really see how a species changed over time.

---

The fossil record isn't as complete as you seem to like to think, if for even one species you could show the gradient from a distinct species (these must be noticeably different species, as the way I have been talking about species is in terms of noticeably different species (i.e apes and humans)) then you would have some good support for macro-evolution, but the point is that even with this evidence (which I don't think you have), first of all, macro-evolution would still be a theory, (though it would be likely it happened with the gradient) but that would in no way suggest that macro-evolution occured more than once.

Quote:

---

"Improved" is a subjective analysis insignificant to evolution. We grew and thrived - that's all that matters. "Lesser beings" is also subjective. And no, that doesn't mean beneficial mutations are more common - that's just one possibility. The only objective thing that can be said about humans "improving" so much is our unprecedented ability to adapt. It could've been as a result of ONE freak beneficial mutation after a hundred bad ones.

---

I think you will probably agree that a single cell is a lesser being, and that is what we are being told we came from.

Quote:

---

But it's speciation. If you admit that speciation happens now, why wouldn't it have happened all along? You make very little sense.

---

Simple small speciation (micro-evolution=small changes in a species, which can change the being into another similar species (in your example, the change is only habit change which is only a result of micro-evolution, it in no way implies that the deer will continue to change species until we see it in a completely different class then the other deer) does not prove that big speciation (macro-evolution=the gradual change over time into a drastically different species) can happen or that it has happened.

Quote:

---

You seem to require pictures of evolution happening a billion years ago to happen, which is naive and just downright silly.

---

No, I just require some proper evidence to show that macro-evolution can happen and that it was likely to have happened in the time frame we were given. Basically every link of the evolutionary tree is incredibly weak (no actual evidence of the link between them) and the rest are still very far from complete. If all of those links were to be filled in (which we know won't happen) or we were able to view the process of each different macro-evolution in the past then I would accept evolution, but without those links, the evolutionary tree is as weak a theory as human beings have come up with so far.

Quote:

---

You are blindly disregarding any evidence we give in the fact that there weren't pictures taken in the past to prove they actually happened. However, Elyse and I have both shown that evolution happens now, and by the basic principles of alleles, DNA, natural selection, mutations, etc, they have always happened. It's really common sense.

---

Man, you seem to be blindly ignoring what I have been saying. I said, that evolution happens, but micro-evolution, which is a small change in a species. (and yes speciation does happen, but the species stay similar in appearance and DNA etc.) What I disagree with is that you can decide then, that these great changes did happen in the past first of all and that one of such changes (were it to be proven) would result in the evolutionary tree. You just don't get it, micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution can happen, (as I've said, the changes may keep the species around the same general area for all we know.) let alone whether it did happen and macro-evolution simply does not imply the evolutionary tree. It is a series of logical fallacies.

Quote:

---

Hardly. The planet remained inhabitied by simple prokaryotes until the atmosphere became oxygenated. Then suddenly eukaryotes appeared and began speciating like mad. Sounds like pretty good evidence of evolution to me.

---

I thought you said you couldn't show anything existed before beings had skeletons/exoskeletons, stop assuming information unless you can prove it.

Quote:

---

We follow the "rules", we're a species in a state of evolutionary stasis because of our circumstances/choices... Evolutionary change will only change if there's pressure on the population. Think of it like this: if there's only food available up high, tall animals will survive, if being small allows one to hide, small animals survive. If those pressures don't exist, all traits will eventually be expressed equally. Because there's no pressures on humans, and because we mate with everyone (no traits selected for), any mutations don't have a chance to be advantageous, because everyone already "wins".

---

The problem about this, is that it is very likely that species would have reached this evolutionary stasis beforehand, which is similar to what I was talking about when I said that macro-evolution is not a direct descendant of micro-evolution. We can see micro-evolution, but if these beings just evolve a little and then reach the stasis (which would make sense from the adapting to your environment idea) then macro-evolution would not have occured. (by adapting anyways)

Quote:

---

You could interpret the fossils being different over time because god created new horses, but that's ignoring the genetic aspect that points to that the change is more likely due to changes in the genome.

---

That is kind of hard to put a "more likely" statement to. If God can do what he wants, and since he did create species at different times, it is quite reasonable to believe that he could have created different species of horse. The thing that would make it more likely would be indeed if the gradient to the modern horse was complete. (from a noticeably different being)

Quote:

---

So very very wrong. Radiometric dating?

---

All dating systems expect a certain reference point. (tell me if I'm wrong on this) I personally don't like the use of these reference points, but we'll work with what we have.

Quote:

---

We have A gradient, is what I meant. That's the best we could hope for. A pecfect gradient will never be found for anything, because fossilization is too unlikely is what I meant.

---

Unfortunately for this theory, science doesn't allow you to just fill in the gaps with your imagination.

Quote:

---

Small changes over millions years = big change! Would you call chihuahuas and great danes "approximately the same"? I wouldn't.

---

Can you prove they came from the same place?

Quote:

---

The way I see it, evolution puts two and two together. Changes that cause variation + time = small differences is a fact (microevolution). We look at fossils and see big variation + big time = big differences. We assume the mechanisms that cause them are the same (genetically). That's evolution. See why I'm confused as to why you believe one but not the other?

---

The less complete the fossil record is, the less support it has. See what I have to say below.

Quote:

---

Just because it seems unlikely to you doesn't mean it can't be how it is. And since you've acknowledged microevolution, that seems to be the only reason you're denying it.

---

I disagree with it as a scientific theory because it does not follow from induction. I think I need to clarify what I think on this issue. I think that it is possible, but doesn't have even enough support to show that macro-evolution can occur, yet it assumes that it did occur (many times) and that macro-evolution being able to occur proves the evolutionary tree. As you said, I don't agree it is impossible, but from what I've seen and heard, I see no logical reason to say that it happened or even that it is likely.

Quote:

---

In your own words, speciation is macroevolution.

---

I meant greatly different species changes, such as apes and humans. Biology doesn't especially interest me, so I define species differently.

Quote:

---

I think you're quite mistaken. I studied a small bit of it last year, and it was overwhelming.

---

Well, if you want you can post a link about this.

Quote:

---

You could just say that for all the evidence, yet you still debate.

---

No, I won't say that for all the evidence because right now I am just interested in seeing what you use as evidence to show evolution is likely. The comment I made there was just something that followed logically from the point-view of intelligent design, which had a good a reason for that occurence as evolution.

Quote:

---

Why would life evolve some, and then stop? I suppose you could say that god spurred evolution or something, but that's really not consistant.

---

As you said before, we are in an evolutionary "stasis", that would imply that beings can reach this evolutionary stasis and then stop evolving. Some people do say that God spurred evolution, (and it doesn't conflict with the Bible, though I guess humans would have to not be part of the evolutionary tree) but I prefer to wait for some real evidence for evolution before I believe it.

Quote:

---

They could have gone extinct, but they didn't. If they did, we wouldn't be here. Just like if your grandmother had died at birth, you wouldn't be here. Yes, the chances we evolved EXACTLY THE WAY WE DID are infintessimaily small. But it must have happened, because: hey, we're here, aren't we?

---

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.
If you assume that we only could appear by evolution, then, yes, this is true. You cannot use the oh, "we are just one case in infinite possibilities argument" because, if you take the set of all the cases of similar situations, (within a certain bound) then a finite probability can be found. We can therefore use this probability (which will still be dreadfully low) to show that evolution is unlikely to occur.

Quote:

---

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

---

Link something on this?

Quote:

---

I could show you a mathematical model if you like.

---

Go ahead. It better be a good one though.

Quote:

---

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.

---

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself. If evolution's main idea is adaptation, then what happens when all the beings are adapted to their environments. If all beings would adapt to their certain environments after some time and if that has occured anywhere in the past then evolution itself would stop. The other issue is whether these adaptation changes can indeed add up to a large species change. They might for all intents and purposes, stay within a certain difference of the original species.

Quote:

---

We do follow evolutionary rules, we just don't evolve. Evolution requires selective pressure. We have no selective pressure on us. Just look at crocodiles - they've not changed much in 250 million years, because there's virtually no pressure on them to change... They've found their ecological niche and they've parked their scaly butts there for the last 250 million years.

---

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point (if this is their method of change) and therefore evolution would have stopped.

Quote:

---

Jus one further note - evolution is not a gradient. It is discrete, but may well approximate to a gradient. This is because the units of DNA and thus inheretance are discrete.

---

Obviously, but if evolution did occur, as you said it would almost certainly be able to be approximated by a gradient. To assume otherwise is unsupported anyways.

Quote:

---

Micro-evolution does, I am saying that even if you can prove that horses eventually evolved from another species, (let's say initially from a reptile, because that is an obvious case of macro-evolution, with no ambiguity (I am basically saying, say macro-evolution occured once in the past)) then you still cannot prove or assume that humans evolved from apes.

---

Well, humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a shared ancestor millions of years ago.

Quote:

---

The fossil record isn't as complete as you seem to like to think, if for even one species you could show the gradient from a distinct species (these must be noticeably different species, as the way I have been talking about species is in terms of noticeably different species (i.e apes and humans)) then you would have some good support for macro-evolution, but the point is that even with this evidence (which I don't think you have), first of all, macro-evolution would still be a theory, (though it would be likely it happened with the gradient) but that would in no way suggest that macro-evolution occured more than once.

---

The fossil record is much more complete than you seem to like to think.
Anyway, your following argument is the height of narrow-mindedness. You're saying that even though you submit that macro-evolution could've worked once, that still doesn't prove it worked for all species? Wow.

Quote:

---

Simple small speciation (micro-evolution=small changes in a species, which can change the being into another similar species (in your example, the change is only habit change which is only a result of micro-evolution, it in no way implies that the deer will continue to change species until we see it in a completely different class then the other deer) does not prove that big speciation (macro-evolution=the gradual change over time into a drastically different species) can happen or that it has happened.

---

Simple math. 1+1=2. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. Small changes add up to big changes.

Quote:

---

No, I just require some proper evidence to show that macro-evolution can happen and that it was likely to have happened in the time frame we were given.

---

There's not much more we can do. Scientists have proven that evolution happens right now. Scientists have proven that speciation is happening now. Scientists have a time-frame of what evolved when up to 3.5 billions of years ago with the earliest prokaryotes, and have proved that it's possible to go from single atoms to us. There's not much more to prove.

Quote:

---

Man, you seem to be blindly ignoring what I have been saying.

---

That made me giggle.

Quote:

---

I said, that evolution happens, but micro-evolution, which is a small change in a species. (and yes speciation does happen, but the species stay similar in appearance and DNA etc.)

---

No duh. However, now that you have two different species, what if those two also speciate? Now you have four. Then eight. And who says those new species down the road are going to stay similar?
It's like with blood relations. By a blood test, scientists can show parentage. However, can they show grandparentage? Great-grandparentage? No. Because even though the kids came from them, they start the differ too much after the first "split."

Quote:

---

I thought you said you couldn't show anything existed before beings had skeletons/exoskeletons, stop assuming information unless you can prove it.

---

I'll get a college Biology text book and get you the proof you want. For now, I'll just google.

bioweb.usc.edu/courses/2003-fall/ documents/bisc121-fuhrman_101703.pdf - here's some excerpts from the fossil record and scientists' conclusions thereof.

http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/Hist...nt/Content.htm - here's even more detailed.

http://tecn.rutgers.edu/genbio102/ge...2Evotable.html - and another!

Note the college websites?

Quote:

---

The problem about this, is that it is very likely that species would have reached this evolutionary stasis beforehand, which is similar to what I was talking about when I said that macro-evolution is not a direct descendant of micro-evolution.

---

MANY things have. There's a whole domain called Archaea, which is basically primitive bacteria which we think is stuff from early earth.
Crocodiles? They haven't changed much since the dinosaurs.
There's millions of species of protists and prokaryotes that we haven't identified - many of them might have stopped evolving too. We don't know.

Quote:

---

All dating systems expect a certain reference point. (tell me if I'm wrong on this) I personally don't like the use of these reference points, but we'll work with what we have.

---

Nope. There's "absolute dating" which involves using the half-lifes of radioactive atoms to date something. No reference point.

Quote:

---

Can you prove they came from the same place?

---

Unless we go back in time, probably not up to your standards. However, we've proven that they could have.

Quote:

---

I meant greatly different species changes, such as apes and humans. Biology doesn't especially interest me, so I define species differently.

---

You're naive to think that evolution is one population suddenly turning into two very distinctive species. It's a combination of small changes over time and numerous speciations to turn into distinctive species.

Quote:

---

As you said before, we are in an evolutionary "stasis", that would imply that beings can reach this evolutionary stasis and then stop evolving. Some people do say that God spurred evolution, (and it doesn't conflict with the Bible, though I guess humans would have to not be part of the evolutionary tree) but I prefer to wait for some real evidence for evolution before I believe it.

---

You need several things for evolution to occur. One of them is enviromental pressure to change. That still happens with us all the time on small levels, such as becoming immune to diseases. However, there is no great enviromental factor pressuring us to change to any distinct level. That's why there's no evolution among humans.

Quote:

---

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.

---

Wow, you missed the point entirely. The point was that because we are here, are ancestors were here. Even you should be able to agree with that.
The other argument in that statement was when you said it's not likely at all for the small changes to have made us. My rebuttal: take six dice and roll them. You get a number. But the chances of you getting that six-digit number instead of all the other possibilities are infinitely small. But hey, you had to get some number didn't you?

Quote:

---

Link something on this?

---

That is you asking for a link to show that good mutations persist, bad ones don't. To this I just have to say: wow.

Quote:

---

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself.

---

Not at all. Evolution is based on the common-sense concept of natural selection. Natural selection is based on enviromental pressure. Therefore, no enviromental pressure, no evolution.

Quote:

---

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point

---

Not really. The enviroment is constantly changing.


If you want to continue arguing, you really need to take a biology course, or at least read a biology text. It's hard to hold a debate when we have to explain basic Bio 101(absolute dating, selective pressure, natural selection) as we go. The vast majority of your arguments stem from ignorance in even the simplest evolutionary concepts.

Quote:

---

Bad argument. This argument goes something like this.
1. We are here.
Therefore
2. We were caused by evolution.
If you assume that we only could appear by evolution, then, yes, this is true. You cannot use the oh, "we are just one case in infinite possibilities argument" because, if you take the set of all the cases of similar situations, (within a certain bound) then a finite probability can be found. We can therefore use this probability (which will still be dreadfully low) to show that evolution is unlikely to occur.

---

No, I'm using it to say that you can't use the 'dreadfully low possibilty' to disprove evolution. It's like saying that, since in the last 10 generations of your family 2046 (mostly, assuming no inbreeding) people had to meet and procreate at exactly the right time, it is pretty much impossible that you exist. You have a plausible mechanism, and a plausible end result. Probability doesn't come into it.

Quote:

---

Good mutations accumulate and persist. Bad ones don't. That's how the 'good ones override the bad ones'. It's pretty simple, really.

---

Its common sense.

Quote:

---

Go ahead. It better be a good one though.

---

Crap. It's been two years since I did any population mathmatics.

Ok - here's your basic population model for two species in competition:

Pt+1 = r1 * pt*(K1-c1*q1-pt)/K1
Qt+1 = r2 * qt*(K2-c2*p1-qt)/K2

Where:

Pt+1 and Qt+1 = population at next time period.
Pt and Qt = population at current time period.
r1 and r2 = rates of growth for the populations.
K1 and K2 are the carrying capacity for the environment.
c1 and c2 are the degree to which the species compete.

If two species are the same, then c1=c2=1, k1=k2, r1=r2 and model doesn't apply.

Right. Now, say a mutation occurs in a poputaions (Q) so that affected individuals (P) have a slightly reduced fitness (ability to compete), say if...

1.2 = c1, c2 = .8

Because they are still pretty much the same species, and are thus subject to the same, static carrying capacity: K1 = K2 and r1=r2=r (for simplicity's sake)

Now, we substitute all this into our competition model.

Pt+1 = r * pt*(K-1.2q1-pt)/K
Qt+1 = r * qt*(K-0.8p1-qt)/K

If you plug this into a graph with suitable numbers (i.e., low Po and high Qo), you'll see that the graph for P against T will drop to near-zero fairly quickly, while Q will rise to K fairly quickly, too. Thus, the group with the mutation die out.

If you did the reverse with the same numbers, i.e. the mutation gives a competitive advantage,

Pt+1 = r * pt*(K-0.8q1-pt)/K
Qt+1 = r * qt*(K-1.2p1-qt)/K

P would initially be very low, but as it begins to establish itself its growth rate would accelerate at the expense of the Q. Thus, an advantageous mutation becomes established.

It's a pretty complex (well, for those who don't have maths degrees) model for a rather simple idea, but hey - you asked for it.

Quote:

---

As I've said, this gives the idea that species could reach a state of equilibrium in evolution, which would greatly mess up the theory itself. If evolution's main idea is adaptation, then what happens when all the beings are adapted to their environments. If all beings would adapt to their certain environments after some time and if that has occured anywhere in the past then evolution itself would stop. The other issue is whether these adaptation changes can indeed add up to a large species change. They might for all intents and purposes, stay within a certain difference of the original species.

---

Chaos. Yes, if all creatures reached a perfect (and I mean down to the submolecular level) equilibrium, then evolution would stop. But that won't happen. Things change.

And you can't just say that large scale adaptations can't occur, just because we haven't seen them happen.

Quote:

---

Exactly, but one would expect that it is quite likely that all beings would have reached this equilibrium at some point (if this is their method of change) and therefore evolution would have stopped.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Obviously, but if evolution did occur, as you said it would almost certainly be able to be approximated by a gradient. To assume otherwise is unsupported anyways.

---

Not neccessarily. Small genetic changes (say in a transcription factor gene) can cause widespread developmental and therefore morphological differences. That would result in a single generation large shift, which could not be viewed as a small shift.

Quote:

---

Well, humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes both evolved from a shared ancestor millions of years ago.

---

A being similar to apes, hopefully you understand what I was trying to get across anyways. Yes, I do know that is what evolutionists think.

Quote:

---

The fossil record is much more complete than you seem to like to think.

---

Well, you can go ahead and post a link on this.

Quote:

---

Anyway, your following argument is the height of narrow-mindedness.

---

Don't insult, read what I say.

Quote:

---

You're saying that even though you submit that macro-evolution could've worked once, that still doesn't prove it worked for all species? Wow.

---

I'm saying macro-evolution occuring once does not imply it occured twice, yes. (this is simple logic) In particular, if it occured once the evolutionary tree would still have no proof, it would be up to the advocates of the tree to show that macro-evolution happened every time.

Quote:

---

Simple math. 1+1=2. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. Small changes add up to big changes.

---

No, all we know is the first term is a 1 like this a+b+c+d+e+f+g+1..., and we do not know if certain values are zero or otherwise. As far as I can tell, the most likely thing that would result from species adapting would be some type of equilibrium which is more like 1-1.1+0.9-0.8+1-1. (which would move towards an equilibrium point and then would oscillate or some similar idea (such as stopping (humans)) and only (other) mutations (which as we can see in humans, good ones are very uncommon) could move the reference point)

Quote:

---

There's not much more we can do. Scientists have proven that evolution happens right now.

---

Micro-evolution. You have to learn the problems of extrapolation (sin(x) near zero is approximately equal to x does that mean f(x)=x looks like f(x)=sin(x) on the big scale...No)

Quote:

---

Scientists have proven that speciation is happening now.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Scientists have a time-frame of what evolved when up to 3.5 billions of years ago with the earliest prokaryotes,

---

Which they like to believe is right. Let them prove that they are right instead of just saying they are right.

Quote:

---

and have proved that it's possible to go from single atoms to us.

---

Let's see them create a living, breathing human then.

Quote:

---

There's not much more to prove.

---

You could start by actually proving something, just believing it doesn't give you any proof. Proofs are meant to "convince the skeptic", they have done a pretty bad job of that so far.

Quote:

---

No, I'm using it to say that you can't use the 'dreadfully low possibilty' to disprove evolution. It's like saying that, since in the last 10 generations of your family 2046 (mostly, assuming no inbreeding) people had to meet and procreate at exactly the right time, it is pretty much impossible that you exist. You have a plausible mechanism, and a plausible end result. Probability doesn't come into it.

---

If you can find a range which has a finite probability then it does. If your argument is that circumstantial events actually do not have probability, you are right, but our only way of modeling them is with probability. To give a reasonable estimation of probabilities in these situations, you have to give a range of choices (say of your hair color) which would have a finite probability of being chosen which includes the possibility that did happen. The problem about the example you gave is that it includes ideas such as infinitesimally small time periods (which you cannot use of course), the idea with this problem is to make the question what is the probability that a person similar to you (you define similar with some small ratio of error) came from that exact line. (also defined with a small ratio of error (the people would have to be very similar to the way they actually occured as well) The result will be a much more reasonable result. (i.e. not zero probability) The main idea with using probability against evolution, is that if something similar had happened, we would still be considering this in the same way, which allows us to find a finite probability. (an infinite range of values can be a non-zero percent of the total. (such as 1-2 out of 1-100 in the real numbers, there are an infinite number of numbers in both, but when compared to each other there is a non-zero probability of randomly choosing in the 1-2 range when choosing out of 1-100.)

Quote:

---

Its common sense.

---

Quote:

---

Chaos. Yes, if all creatures reached a perfect (and I mean down to the submolecular level) equilibrium, then evolution would stop. But that won't happen. Things change.

---

If the main drive of evolution is creatures adapting to their environment, this equilibrium (oscillation or otherwise) would be likely to occur, because each being would stop adapting (except maybe to get something that changes depending on the weather (but that would change back afterwards)) once they had reached a certain state which fit in with the other creatures in that environment. (this would be especially likely to happen when there were only a few species. In any case, change would be dreadfully slow. (Because all species would keep going back towards the equilibrium state) (we do have a timeline to fill))

Quote:

---

And you can't just say that large scale adaptations can't occur, just because we haven't seen them happen.

---

Hey, I'm not saying they can't occur, I am saying we haven't seen them happen, so we can't assume they can occur. Especially saying it is proven...

Quote:

---

Its common sense.

---

Quote:

---

P would initially be very low, but as it begins to establish itself its growth rate would accelerate at the expense of the Q. Thus, an advantageous mutation becomes established.
It's a pretty complex (well, for those who don't have maths degrees) model for a rather simple idea, but hey - you asked for it.

---

For some random reason I thought you were making a mathematical model that actually showed that all life would not have been eliminated by bad mutations. Yes I know this argument, but if every being were to have many more bad mutations than good ones there could be serious trouble for us to be around today. (this is entirely a conditional probability question (given that we and our universe exists then we give a range of similar universes))

Quote:

---

Not neccessarily. Small genetic changes (say in a transcription factor gene) can cause widespread developmental and therefore morphological differences. That would result in a single generation large shift, which could not be viewed as a small shift.

---

Can you give an example of how large this difference has been?

Quote:

---

I'm saying macro-evolution occuring once does not imply it occured twice, yes. (this is simple logic)

---

No it's not. It's against basic logic.

Quote:

---

No, all we know is the first term is a 1 like this a+b+c+d+e+f+g+1..., and we do not know if certain values are zero or otherwise. As far as I can tell, the most likely thing that would result from species adapting would be some type of equilibrium which is more like 1-1.1+0.9-0.8+1-1.

---

How exactly do you get negative changes? O_o

Quote:

---

Let's see them create a living, breathing human then.

---

They've come close to creating living, self-replicating genetic material in a lab. Once they do that, the doors are wide open.

Quote:

---

You could start by actually proving something, just believing it doesn't give you any proof. Proofs are meant to "convince the skeptic", they have done a pretty bad job of that so far.

---

Since you don't understand basic biology and no one here has the time or the patience to teach you, it's kind of tough.

Quote:

---

If the main drive of evolution is creatures adapting to their environment, this equilibrium (oscillation or otherwise) would be likely to occur, because each being would stop adapting (except maybe to get something that changes depending on the weather (but that would change back afterwards)) once they had reached a certain state which fit in with the other creatures in that environment.

---

Yes, but the enviroments change. There could be droughts or earthquakes or other natural disasters, or food shortages which force populations to move to a different enviroment.
We are continually adapting. Becoming immune to chicken pox after having it is a form of adaptation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Since you don't understand basic biology and no one here has the time or the patience to teach you, it's kind of tough.

---

Let alone three years of university level biology. :D

Quote:

---

For some random reason I thought you were making a mathematical model that actually showed that all life would not have been eliminated by bad mutations. Yes I know this argument, but if every being were to have many more bad mutations than good ones there could be serious trouble for us to be around today. (this is entirely a conditional probability question (given that we and our universe exists then we give a range of similar universes))

---

No, that's completely wrong. The model shows that mutations are very quickly wiped out. And because they are random, isolated mutations, they don't impact significantly on the population, unless they are selected for and persist. And because they're bad, they don't. They usually don't get beyond one or two individuals.

"The fossil record isn't as complete as you seem to like to think, if for even one species you could show the gradient from a distinct species (these must be noticeably different species, as the way I have been talking about species is in terms of noticeably different species (i.e apes and humans)) then you would have some good support for macro-evolution, but the point is that even with this evidence (which I don't think you have), first of all, macro-evolution would still be a theory, (though it would be likely it happened with the gradient) but that would in no way suggest that macro-evolution occured more than once."

You're being ridiculously picky. If they were this way for all theories NOTHING would be proved. Extrapolation is necessary and fine in a case with such large genetic evidence. It's like watching a building being built and wondering how the building accross the road was built, despite construction plans and proofs available, and the fact that you can see one being built today. Basically you're saying here that we can't assume the building accross the road was built the same way just because we can't ever physically view it being built. That isn't logical.

"Simple small speciation (micro-evolution=small changes in a species, which can change the being into another similar species (in your example, the change is only habit change which is only a result of micro-evolution, it in no way implies that the deer will continue to change species until we see it in a completely different class then the other deer) does not prove that big speciation (macro-evolution=the gradual change over time into a drastically different species) can happen or that it has happened."

"Man, you seem to be blindly ignoring what I have been saying. I said, that evolution happens, but micro-evolution, which is a small change in a species. (and yes speciation does happen, but the species stay similar in appearance and DNA etc.) What I disagree with is that you can decide then, that these great changes did happen in the past first of all and that one of such changes (were it to be proven) would result in the evolutionary tree. You just don't get it, micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution can happen, (as I've said, the changes may keep the species around the same general area for all we know.) let alone whether it did happen and macro-evolution simply does not imply the evolutionary tree. It is a series of logical fallacies."

So you're saying that small changes don't add up to big ones, basically? That's your arguement? You know small changes happen. These add up. Fact. Why is it "ridiculously weak" to say that they account for the changes in the past? And don't say because it's extrapolation. That's not a reason. I am specifically told to extrapolate in labs all the time. Biology is not the same as math. You can't completely apply the "no extrapolation" thing. It doesn't work.

Is it 100% sure? No! But I don't think you've given near good enough reasons to think that evolution is as weak as you think.

"The problem about this, is that it is very likely that species would have reached this evolutionary stasis beforehand, which is similar to what I was talking about when I said that macro-evolution is not a direct descendant of micro-evolution. We can see micro-evolution, but if these beings just evolve a little and then reach the stasis (which would make sense from the adapting to your environment idea) then macro-evolution would not have occured. (by adapting anyways)"

Why would they stop evolving? Why is it "very likely"? The Earth is constantly changing, and so are species' genomes. That is undeniable. That is what fuels evolution. Since we change our environment to suit us, there is no pressure on humans to be obese for the sake of warm blubber, or to grow thick fur again. Individuals that are prone to obesity breed just as readily as thin individuals. No selective pressure. Why would another species be like us? No species has ever changed and taken control of the Earth as we have. It's no surprise we are how we are (refering to our evolutionary status). Even when they say that sharks and whatnot are the same as they were millions of years ago... They're not. They're summarizing. They mean they haven't changed as much as other things.

Your "all species would probably reach stasis" sounds better if you don't consider how many creatures existed before us, and the genetic changes and speciation going on right now. There is no evidence that such a stasis has occured in other species to the point where it makes evolution impossible.

"That is kind of hard to put a "more likely" statement to. If God can do what he wants, and since he did create species at different times, it is quite reasonable to believe that he could have created different species of horse. The thing that would make it more likely would be indeed if the gradient to the modern horse was complete. (from a noticeably different being)"

You can't bring in reason when it comes to what god can/can't do, because being supernatural, he can do anything, be anything... Anything goes. Nothing is supported. I already addressed and linked pages to why the horse evolution IS a gradient. You didn't even address that.

"All dating systems expect a certain reference point. (tell me if I'm wrong on this) I personally don't like the use of these reference points, but we'll work with what we have."

You're wrong. Atoms decay at a very VERY reliable rate and beging decaying the second the organism dies. Many creationists try to discredit radiometric dating, but it's completely unfounded, and comes from a lack of understanding how it works. Sure, it can be off by a million years sometimes... but think about it, if you date something between 200 and 201 million years ago... Close enough. Radiometric dating samples are always checked, checked, and checked again on a variety of samples in the area before making a conclusion about how old something is. Various radio-isotopes are used with varying decay rates to ensure accuracy. That's it in a nut shell.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

"Unfortunately for this theory, science doesn't allow you to just fill in the gaps with your imagination."

Interesting that you have a problem with filling in gaps with educated guesses, but you have NO problem talking about god and using your imagination there (refering to why he created species/horses).

"Can you prove they came from the same place?"
Uhm, they're all the same species. New dog breeds are very well documented. New ones pop up pretty often. Not just dogs either, many pets.
http://animal.discovery.com/guides/d...r/selector.jsp
Huge archive ^.

"No, all we know is the first term is a 1 like this a+b+c+d+e+f+g+1..., and we do not know if certain values are zero or otherwise."

We're talking about changes, the terms are arbitrary, so I'm not sure what your point is.

"As far as I can tell, the most likely thing that would result from species adapting would be some type of equilibrium which is more like 1-1.1+0.9-0.8+1-1."

Why would that happen? What you're suggesting sounds like you're saying that a specific gene would mutate... and then unmutate in the same way to create equilibrium? I hope you can see why that's not logical. It's not the way genetics work. Bad mutations would cause the animal to be deformed, sterile, etc... in some way weaker. Due to natural selection these mutations would not be given to the next generation. Good mutations, ones that would make it faster, taller, sharper teeth, better camoflage, would give it more Darwinian fitness (more likely to have a mate choose it, and thus have it's genes passed on). This is how good ones accumulate over millions of years, and bad ones generally don't. Animals wouldn't breed with another who has a genetic disorder, or has mental retardation, or another such disorder because in one way or another it would make the person weak. I have anemia. I wouldn't be selected for because of it if we followed normal animal laws, but obviously because of our intelligence, actual fitness genetically has basically nothing to do with who we choose as a mate. This is why we don't evolve.

"You have to learn the problems of extrapolation (sin(x) near zero is approximately equal to x does that mean f(x)=x looks like f(x)=sin(x) on the big scale...No)"

That's so far removed from the situation I wouldn't even consider it relevant. Yes, extrapolation CAN be dangerous, but it doesn't mean we should never do it. Like I said, I'm told to extrapolate in labs. Theories in math don't always hold up in biology like that.

"If the main drive of evolution is creatures adapting to their environment, this equilibrium (oscillation or otherwise) would be likely to occur, because each being would stop adapting (except maybe to get something that changes depending on the weather (but that would change back afterwards)) once they had reached a certain state which fit in with the other creatures in that environment. (this would be especially likely to happen when there were only a few species. In any case, change would be dreadfully slow. (Because all species would keep going back towards the equilibrium state) (we do have a timeline to fill))"

For a certain period, yes, but not forever. Their environment, prey, predators do not all stay the same. If they did, you would be right. that's not the case, and never has been.

"Can you give an example of how large this difference has been?"

Mutations involving the gene for limb location and fetal development are well documented and cause huge differences, specifically experiments with drosophilia (fruit flies). The speciation thing I listed before already talked about that.

An interesting albeit long article, particularly he Ape-Human bit:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/