Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

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.

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.

Anyway, your following argument is the height of narrow-mindedness.

Don't insult, read what I say.

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.

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)

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)

Scientists have proven that speciation is happening now.

See above.

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.

and have proved that it's possible to go from single atoms to us.

Let's see them create a living, breathing human then.

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.

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.)

Its common sense.

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))

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...

Its common sense.

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))

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?

[Raistlin]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[Skogs]

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.

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.

[Emerald Aeris]

"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/