Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:43pm PT
|
Attack of the Super-Intelligent Purple Space Squid Creators
...As I understand it, intelligent design proponents—such as our distinguished Discovery Institute panelists here—fully accept the fact that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that some form of life has existed on earth for about 3 billion or so years. If that is the case, it would seem the record shows that the intelligent designers—which I am hypothesizing are super-intelligent purple space squids—evidently spent more than 2 billion years tinkering with single-cell algae and bacteria before they got around to creating multi-cellular species. Do intelligent design proponents have a theory to explain that? Were the space squid creators just lazy?...
...And there is yet another puzzle. Conservative super-intelligent purple space squid creators apparently recycle genes over and over again in new species. Biologists have found that many genes are like Animal Kingdom cassettes or Lego blocks: They can be mixed and matched across vastly different species. For example, biologists have shown that a gene crucial to building a fruit fly's eye—the Pax-6 gene—will trigger eye development in a frog and a mouse.
In addition, now that both the human and mouse genomes have been sequenced, researchers know that 99 percent of mouse genes are similar to those found in humans. Even more amazingly, 96 percent of the genes in both mice and men are present in the same order on their different genomes. Why would this be?...
Also: Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:49pm PT
|
I entered this discussion very early (third comment), then quickly backed out after endorsing a poop hypothesis for the origin of life. For better or worse, I'm entering again--having read only a small fraction of what has been written here.
One issue both Bible-believing creationists and atheistic evolutionists tend to ignore is that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. Scientific concepts are vague (e.g., the age of Earth is never stated). Its purpose was to reveal the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:54pm PT
|
Virtually all well educated creationists who I know believe in microevolution, including the evolution of new species (which many evolutionists consider to be macroevolution, but a single gene or two can potentially code for a reproductive isolating mechanism). Evolution is often defined as simply a change in gene frequencies. If that's your definition, it is a verifiable fact. A designer wouldn't be intelligent if created organisms were unable to change and adapt on a dynamic planet.
To give an illustration of speciation, there are 13 species of "Darwin's" finches in the Galapagos Islands. They resemble each other more than any other bird and they are closely related, often hybridizing, yet there are well documented reproductive isolation mechanisms (check out the prolific research of Peter Grant) that are often incomplete (as in many species of birds). I seriously doubt all 13 species were created in the Galapagos Islands, which happen to be very young geologically, or that all 13 flew out of Noah's ark and flew to the Galapagos from Mt. Ararat without colonizing any other land mass. Clearly they all derived from a few colonists of a finch from South America. Of course they're still finches and are closely related to some grassquits (of the genera Tiara and Volatinia) in mainland South America. Perfect example, in my opinion, of microevolution. There are many species of plants and animals that are unique to a single island, clearly having evolved there. Darwin was right about new species forming.
Creationists are generally divided on the issue of macroevolution, the evolution of novel structures and higher taxa. Some, of course, believe God merely initiated or even guided the evolutionary process. Others believe the basic "kinds" were created with limits to genetic change. For example, we know every gene on many species of bacteria and have subjected them to jillions of mutagens for jillions of generations, but to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) not one has ever evolved a membrane-bound nucleus or other organelle, X-shaped chromosomes, introns, histones, 9+2 flagella, etc. We've produced all kinds of freaky fruit flies in the lab, but they're still fruit flies. It's difficult to explain how a four-chambered heart or a wing can evolve gradually (what good is a leaky 3.5-chambered heart or half a wing?). Can it happen? I don't know. There are seemingly intermediate fossils between major vertebrate taxa that are very, very difficult to explain if you don't believe in macroevolution. Archaeopteryx is one of several.
I happen to be a Christian which makes me a creationist, but I live with utter uncertainty regarding the origin of the universe and life on planet Earth. It's an intriguing issue. I have many friends who are creationists and many who are secular atheists. My acceptance of Christianity is not based on science, which is limited in studying the past and even if life is one day created in the lab from basic elements (without starting from complex molecules), it doesn't mean that's how it all began. I respect the views of all, because nobody knows with certainty what the truth is. Well, maybe some of you do, but I certainly don't.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:58pm PT
|
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
Of course. People believe what they want to believe.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:46pm PT
|
Being Christian DOES NOT make you a creationist, that IS Blasphemy.
It's just one of those optional add-ons.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
One of Jody's last statements really finally made it all clear for me. And the best part of Jody finally made me realize he's fighting a losing battle. He has problems with Evolution being taught in schools. It's there to stay and it's only augering itself in deeper each and every day. It's there to stay.
The truth of the matter is it is there for very good reasons. Reasons Jody won't accept. No worries though as it's not about to change. No matter how many times Jody repeats to himself and no matter how many people he tries to reach out to to "see the truth" Evolution is a part of our school systems.
It's there for simple reasons. It fosters logical and analytical thinking. It's not based in a belief system (your turn now Blight) out of some old book who's validity can be questioned at the very surface. It's based in observation. It's based in the scientific method. Good science can get you far in life. Good religion, from a career point of view, won't get you much father than on stage as an evangelical pounding the pulpit and asking for money in the name of God (and not that it's a bad paying job it's just a tough job to nail down).
So in the end Jody really does help those of us who see science in its true and pure form by keeping our wits sharp and our minds aware of how illogical argument may approach. So thank him for that - he keeps us on our toes.
But at the end of the day as science continues to march on, challenging its theories and doing its thing, we can take heart knowing that tomorrow brings only more pieces of the puzzle to put together. And in the end, bit by bit, the truths and falsehoods of the Theory of Evolution will play itself out. Darwin was a bright man. Early in this thread I stated that much of his observations are taken out of context (by being taken into the modern day and piling 150 years of additional science on top). Darwin's Theory has morphed itself.
I'm amazed that Ed went on as long as he did. OR perhaps I'm not. He's an excellent scientist and when you're buried deep you know all to well how there is always discussion and you know you must continue to engage.
I find one thing interesting though, not a single person pointed this out: for each "missing link" provided (discovered) in/to the fossil record TWO additional missing links are created. Find those two and now you have FOUR. It's an exponential curve and it's a logical fallacy road that Jody lures some down. He wants (apparently) a complete fossil record from the beginning of time (which i was only 7000 years ago so what's the problem, yes?) up until the present. It doesn't take much free thinking to realize that almost all of the fossil record has been destroyed (you do believe in plate tectonics and geological processes, right Jodster?). So that which he seeks simply does not exist. He might argue that since it's not there then it never was and thus you can't prove it to him. But yet, another logical fallacy. The smart scientist won't get trapped by that. Ed sure doesn't.
My two cents... ya'll's deserve change.
"The greatest certainty is only the most certain probability"
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:19pm PT
|
I think it was from Attenborough’s series “In the Underbrush” where I
learned our cranial design is as poor as it is due to the fact we evolved
from the fishes. Our neurological routing and cranial passageways are a
near disaster, because the fish evolved for a quite different
environment.
Up-thread we were asked which we preferred, a rendition of the meeting
of man and god as found in the Sistine Chapel, or a reconstruction of
Lucy who died some 3,000,000 years ago. I surely appreciate flights of
pure fancy, particularly when painted by such a talented person, one who
experimented so assiduously to discover his art. But, truth be known, I
am much more interested in learning. Being a low-grade intellect I do have
great trouble managing my aversion to anyone who wishes to limit my
ability to learn or feels they have a right to control me. The selfish
impulse to control is possibly the very basest facet found in our nature.
A facet we, hopefully, will soon lose as we evolve further.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:34pm PT
|
The fossil record is more complete than is widely believed. It can be tested by quantifying the preservation of modern taxa in the fossil record. Check out:
Foote, M., and J. Sepkoski, Jr. 1999. Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature 398:415-417.
Here is their abstract:
Measuring the completeness of the fossil record is essential to understanding evolution over long timescales, particularly when comparing evolutionary patterns among biological groups with different preservational properties. Completeness measures have been presented for various groups based on gaps in the stratigraphic ranges of fossil taxa1,2 and on hypothetical lineages implied by estimated evolutionary trees3, 4, 5. Here we present and compare quantitative, widely applicable absolute measures of completeness at two taxonomic levels for a broader sample of higher taxa of marine animals than has previously been available. We provide an estimate of the probability of genus preservation per stratigraphic interval6,7, and determine the proportion of living families with some fossil record8, 9, 10. The two completeness measures use very different data and calculations. The probability of genus preservation depends almost entirely on the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic records, whereas the proportion of living families with a fossil record is influenced largely by Cenozoic data. These measurements are nonetheless highly correlated, with outliers quite explicable, and we find that COMPLETENESS IS RATHER HIGH FOR MANY ANIMAL GROUPS [emphasis added].
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:43pm PT
|
Floyd, interesting read. I'm a little surprised by that. But then it's been over 10 years since my mind penetrated deep into the biological sciences.
Still... it's not complete enough for Jody. Though I doubt any level of completeness would change his beliefs. Works for me though...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:43pm PT
|
Foraminifera are rather well represented, study those or even just spend extended time perusing the catalogs and you will be convinced what nonsense anti-evolutionary thought is. It's more decadent than you think.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:51pm PT
|
Being Christian DOES NOT make you NOT an evolutionist. Many believe in evolution to some extent.
I was surprised to read in one of my anticreationist books at home (can't remember the title), written by an prominent evolutionist, that abiogenesis isn't evolution, because evolution is based on mutation and natural selection--which can't occur until AFTER a living cell is formed. Most Christians think of evolution as the evolution of life from non-life, but if evolution excludes abiogenesis, it is much more palatable to skeptics of abiogenesis. Incidentally, there is at least one prominent Nobel laureate--Francis Crick--who is (or at least was) a skeptic of abiogenesis.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:06pm PT
|
The fossil record is entirely incomplete and defective.
Many cultures cremated their bodies for millions of years so there is no record of those advanced civilizations in the fossils.
Trying to understand the truth with defect instrunments made by defective human beings only results in bewilderment.
Get the right tool for the job man.
Like they say "THINK" .........
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
|
Well now we have it from the unimpeachable source that cultures have existed for millions of years.
That settles that.
Screw all you evolution science types, what do you really have to say now?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:32pm PT
|
Werner gets a pass because, despite his unconventional exhortations, he will actually do all he can so that you don't meet your maker.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
|
hey there radical (riley) say, that is interesting to wonder what other folks sit down to have long drawn-out talks about... thanks for triggering out imagination that-a-way.... (oh, say, i had forgot... thanks for sharing about your dad.... i love to hear stories about our folks---yours, mine, etc---especially when we learn stuff we never thought we knew)....
say, floyd hayes, say, i like that "rock of ages" being revealed, note you posted... i have fun seeing that point of viewing when i read the ol' "good book" as the old folks used to call it.... the other issue-stuff is too complicated for me... i just drop in to see how you all are doing here...
i like to "hear" all the guys getting into a good shareing of the mind, hearts and souls...
god bless to all....
edit----ooops, didnt mean to forget you wanda, say, i liked the werner-rescue insight comment... :)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 08:52pm PT
|
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
There is more http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html
Edit: Here is a chart from the study.
This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.
A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 09:07pm PT
|
Evolution education state by state
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
I knew I lived in the wrong state.
What a bunch of propeganda...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:29pm PT
|
When did a monkey ever become a human being.
What a crock of sh'it.
The monkey was already there and so was the human.
The human acted like a stupid monkey therefore in his next life was given the body of a monkey.
That's evolution in action, although you can't see it happening with your eyes just like you can't see radio waves with your naked eyes.
Some climbers will be monkeys in their next lives, just wait and see.
What else you wanna know?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!