Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[spidergoat]

I did answer that. The 'if', is what scientists do, they accept the 'if' as it did happen. But can not prove that it did. There is no line to show how it mutated more and eventually became something else. All the evidence, in the real world and in the lab, shows that DNA keeps a fruit fly a fruit fly. Even though you can make it mutate, it will come back to what is normal . Now science is probably very close to be able to directly change the DNA, but that is intelligence doing that, and it doesn't show that it could happen or did happen without intelligent interference.
The evidence is against evolution, even in the lab experiments.

Scientists did show that fruit flies could change into a new species of fruit fly in the lab. The new population diverged to such a degree under artificial selection that they could no longer breed with the original population. That is the definition of speciation. This proves that evolution can happen quite quickly given proper selection pressures, and that it can create new species.

The reason this proves evolution is that it shows how fast evolution can happen in only a few years. Extending that to millions of years, and the changes would be profound. This is what is reflected in the fossil record, which is full of transitional species.

Hominid transitions aren't common, but anthropologists have found dozens of them. In the era these fossils were found, there were no humans yet, but they seem to approach a human configuration as they approach modern times. This is a reasonable indication that ancient hominids were ape-like, and became human over millions of years.

 

[GeoffP]

As already discussed with fruit flies that heredity plays an important part , mutations can be caused in the DNA , but they always remain fruit flies and even the mutated ones when mated with other mutated ones will after a few generations, come back as normal fruit flies.

Ah, but if you keep them apart for a few more generations, reproductive barriers can build up and hey presto! - new species. Take Boxers and Chihuahuas - ample breeding differences exist between these two dog morphs. (I wonder if a Chihuahua dam would survive parturition with Boxer pups.)

The DNA does try to keep their host from becoming something else, and even restoring damaged flies in their offspring to return to normal flies.

It certainly does not. "Damaged" (mutant) flies often retain their mutations, so long as the the mutation is being carried in the germinal line. If you suppressed a mutation with outbreeding, the genes could still be carried in the resulting admixed population, with odd atavisms occurring in later generations within the same breeding pool. Hell, lad, I've got a new mutant in the lab myself that breeds true. It's nothing magical.

It is not the science that is in question in most cases, scientists are really good at the science. It is just the interpretation of the science that is not correct.

For some people, this is certainly true. (Just teasing.)

 

[hay_you]

Scientists did show that fruit flies could change into a new species of fruit fly in the lab. The new population diverged to such a degree under artificial selection that they could no longer breed with the original population. That is the definition of speciation. This proves that evolution can happen quite quickly given proper selection pressures, and that it can create new species.

The reason this proves evolution is that it shows how fast evolution can happen in only a few years. Extending that to millions of years, and the changes would be profound. This is what is reflected in the fossil record, which is full of transitional species.

Hominid transitions aren't common, but anthropologists have found dozens of them. In the era these fossils were found, there were no humans yet, but they seem to approach a human configuration as they approach modern times. This is a reasonable indication that ancient hominids were ape-like, and became human over millions of years.

Scientist do not agree on what a species is ( where is the line drawn).
But that is not really the point the point is that they are still fruit flies. Even with the mutations, they are fruit flies. We as humans are quite varied, for many reasons. Some are tall some are short some fat some thing. We have dramatic differences in skin color, races of people have some different traits than others. Some parents are musically inclined, and pass that on. Others may have something else. But they are all still human.
I would like to see scientists , calling a race a different species! If they did let me know first, and I'll get out of Dodge!

So many of these finds just keep science going but they all seem to peter out at some point. If your looking for evidence with a specific answer in mind before you even find the objects, and scientists want to see how this fits in with evolution with no other possibility in your mind, how are you going to interpret the findings? That is why there are so many, 'this almost proves it', 'now if we could just find this then this will fit' . But the answers so far are there is no proof how life started and none for evolution either. Some scientists now say , we probably will never be able to prove it. Well that's because you are trying to prove something that is not real. You can't prove the unprovable.
Creationists can help scientists in this. But will they let them. Besides you need the right creationist that understand the creation accounts.
There have been scientists that have come out and said creation is the only answer. But they are treated very badly by science when they do this.
But they are correct, the rest of science is wrong in this.

 

[Dredd]

This is assuming that you think man can bring about this kind of change. The truth is man can not direct his own step. In other words he can't govern himself. This has been proved time and time again, throughout history. We were not given the ability to do that.

You probably bring up the argument about whether the mind is composed completely of brain, completely of physical quanta, or whether the mind is composed of both brain and of a non-physical component.

Certainly "man" (human species) can direct its own path to extinction or not, and can govern "himself". Sometimes better than at other times.

It is not really an ability, it is like breathing or eating, just something we must do.

The only question is how well will we do it.

 

[GeoffP]

Scientist do not agree on what a species is ( where is the line drawn).
But that is not really the point the point is that they are still fruit flies. Even with the mutations, they are fruit flies. We as humans are quite varied, for many reasons. Some are tall some are short some fat some thing. We have dramatic differences in skin color, races of people have some different traits than others. Some parents are musically inclined, and pass that on. Others may have something else. But they are all still human.

This is kind of a red herring: they are still human, but the morphological differences among human groups are minimal. This is particularly true compared to species complexes with massive differences, such as dogs, fish and fruit flies.

 

[spidergoat]

Scientist do not agree on what a species is ( where is the line drawn).
But that is not really the point the point is that they are still fruit flies. Even with the mutations, they are fruit flies. We as humans are quite varied, for many reasons. Some are tall some are short some fat some thing. We have dramatic differences in skin color, races of people have some different traits than others. Some parents are musically inclined, and pass that on. Others may have something else. But they are all still human.
I would like to see scientists , calling a race a different species! If they did let me know first, and I'll get out of Dodge!

Another self-contradictory post. You don't know where the line is drawn, and yet you have drawn one and declared the speciated fruit flies to still be fruit flies. What is a fruit fly?

The definition of what is a horse, for instance, might not be controversial. Follow these creatures back in time, and they will always be a horse, even though they will morph from what we think is a horse, to a creature gradually less like a horse until it's no longer possible to ride it, and they look more like a deer. At no point in time did they cease being a horse, the only difference is in morphology and in our definitions.

You example of races is an example of evolution. Give the races enough time and separation and eventually they would no longer be able to interbreed, and we would call them a new species.

The problem with creationists is they don't want to see the evidence. They demand that scientists show a process in a controlled setting that takes millions of years to occur in nature. Experiments tend to test a principle from which larger processes can be inferred. For evolution, this has been done. we can see the change that evolution produces in a short time, and infer the kind of change that must have happened in order to produce what we have found as fossils.

If creationism is correct, we would not see that kind of change in the fossil record- many sequences of living things morphing into other living things, in a continuous chain in which nothing is radically different than it's parents.

 

[hay_you]

Another self-contradictory post. You don't know where the line is drawn, and yet you have drawn one and declared the speciated fruit flies to still be fruit flies. What is a fruit fly?

It is the scientist that have come up with this term species. they don't even know what it means.

This is from wikipedia

There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. Other definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

The definition of what is a horse, for instance, might not be controversial. Follow these creatures back in time, and they will always be a horse, even though they will morph from what we think is a horse, to a creature gradually less like a horse until it's no longer possible to ride it, and they look more like a deer. At no point in time did they cease being a horse, the only difference is in morphology and in our definitions.

The creation account call animals division a 'kind' I don't how that relates to sciences species. This is not known for sure. So I don't think you can pin anything down exactly with these terms. But there are limits. So all the life we see did not come from a single cell, there are different 'kinds'.

The problem with creationists is they don't want to see the evidence. They demand that scientists show a process in a controlled setting that takes millions of years to occur in nature. Experiments tend to test a principle from which larger processes can be inferred. For evolution, this has been done. we can see the change that evolution produces in a short time, and infer the kind of change that must have happened in order to produce what we have found as fossils.

We do use the science, I use the same evidence you use. Scientists have come up with this idea, of no creation, it is their invention, it is their theory to prove. The evidence shows that life comes from life, and the design in life, shows creation. The fossil record show animals that had all their parts and could survive and reproduce, and that these appear suddenly with out transitional stages. Also scientists have found that bugs for example remain the almost exactly the same for millions of years.
If you can change these process in a lab that shows interference with intelligence. And when you say" must have happened", you are assuming that there is no creation. That is not scientific to say that. Because scientist have not proved their ideas yet.

 

[hay_you]

This is kind of a red herring: they are still human, but the morphological differences among human groups are minimal. This is particularly true compared to species complexes with massive differences, such as dogs, fish and fruit flies.

Actually there are some big difference in humans , like dwarfism for example.
But I was just making a little joke about human species, I think you would have careful on that one.
It is not so easy to put everything into a certain term or category. Because there are different ways you could look at it.

 

[spidergoat]

Should there be a definition of species? Do you have a definition of "kind"?

Please allow me to educate you. There is no such thing in nature as either of these things. Species is a human definition. It is our attempt to place borders around a phenomenon with no borders. It is useful to a degree, but not an absolute quality.

the design in life, shows creation

Except there is no design in life, only the appearance of design. The designs themselves show all the qualities of being adapted from previous forms, not designed from scratch. We know this because of obsolete structures like vestigal organs or bones. Did you know whales have tiny vestigal hip bones that serve no purpose?



Was this a human? (Hint: at the time this creature lived, there were no humans.)

 

[hay_you]

You probably bring up the argument about whether the mind is composed completely of brain, completely of physical quanta, or whether the mind is composed of both brain and of a non-physical component.

Certainly "man" (human species) can direct its own path to extinction or not, and can govern "himself". Sometimes better than at other times.

It is not really an ability, it is like breathing or eating, just something we must do.

The only question is how well will we do it.

That maybe true now, but from a religious point of view, man governing himself was not the way it was going to be. Man rejected the the opportunity to be governed by God. And took this task on himself. With the results you see today.

 

[hay_you]

Should there be a definition of species? Do you have a definition of "kind"?

Please allow me to educate you. There is no such thing in nature as either of these things. Species is a human definition. It is our attempt to place borders around a phenomenon with no borders. It is useful to a degree, but not an absolute quality.

“
the design in life, shows creation
”
Except there is no design in life, only the appearance of design. The designs themselves show all the qualities of being adapted from previous forms, not designed from scratch. We know this because of obsolete structures like vestigal organs or bones. Did you know whales have tiny vestigal hip bones that serve no purpose?

There is no actually definition of a 'kind' no one knows. It is the same with species.
I already went over the hip bone question before.
As for design , what you said does not make sense. For example is there design in a loaf of bread, or is it just the appearance of design. Is there design in a Harley or is it just the appearance of design?
It seems like scientists will say anything to hang on to their theory, no matter how unreasoning.

 

[spidergoat]

Nice example of projection there. Scientists are not worried about your lame attempts at debunking a theory that is perhaps the most well-supported in science.

Not everything that is complex was designed. That is the essence of evolution. It explains how complexity can emerge through physics and not intelligence. If complexity only comes from complexity, then you have the problem of explaining how the first complexity came about. Evolution side-steps that problem by suggesting that complexity can come from simple processes.

 

[hay_you]

Nice example of projection there. Scientists are not worried about your lame attempts at debunking a theory that is perhaps the most well-supported in science.

Not everything that is complex was designed. That is the essence of evolution. It explains how complexity can emerge through physics and not intelligence. If complexity only comes from complexity, then you have the problem of explaining how the first complexity came about. Evolution side-steps that problem by suggesting that complexity can come from simple processes.

The thing science assumes here is that they think the universe itself , just happened. That the material that is here was not created, or the laws of the universe were not created. What were the laws before any materials existed? All the sciences we have now would be useless.

 

[spidergoat]

Stop changing the subject. We were talking about biology.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Just like the beginning of life on earth, perfect conditions are still required to convert the dust.

"Perfect" conditions are a myth.

But the dust still holds potential life no matter how long it sits.
Evidence - well the best I can do is reccomend 2 books. The books provide more details then I know off hand:
'The Secret Life of Dust: From the cosmos to the kitchen counter, the big consequences of little things' and 'Dust: A history of the small and invisible'.
Both books show dust to have potential life.

Um okay. Do you mean that there's living things in the dust?

 

[hay_you]

Stop changing the subject. We were talking about biology.

OK explain what you mean then.

 

[spidergoat]

OK explain what you mean then.

It's called evolution. I've been explaining it for many pages now. A creature has variations (initially caused by errors and mutation), those variations are heritable. But, what happens in nature if that not all variations lead to reproductive success, so the genes in the gene pool change over time. This change is called evolution. It means that isolated gene pools (such as on islands) can produce new species. This branching can be followed backwards in time and reveals that all species are related, and came from common ancestors.

 

[hay_you]

It's called evolution. I've been explaining it for many pages now. A creature has variations (initially caused by errors and mutation), those variations are heritable. But, what happens in nature if that not all variations lead to reproductive success, so the genes in the gene pool change over time. This change is called evolution. It means that isolated gene pools (such as on islands) can produce new species. This branching can be followed backwards in time and reveals that all species are related, and came from common ancestors.

This was done with finches, where minor changes in the beaks were noticed, because of a change in conditions, but these finches return to were they started from when same conditions returned. Scientists may called them new species , but they were always finches. Science can not show that new animals or birds came about this way. That is why bugs that were found fossilized were almost the exactly the same as modern ones. And thee were some of the oldest found.

 

[spidergoat]

What if conditions did not return? Wouldn't these new kinds of finches be considered new species? What about the progression shown in the fossil record?

I agree with you to this extent- birds are still dinosaurs, they always have been. They just changed form (and sometimes diet, or behavior, or intelligence, or size, or reproductive habits). In fact, all life is still just the original life form- but changed.

The reason it's difficult to determine how the first life forms came about is that scientists rely on evidence. It's rare for any soft-bodied animals to fossilize, much less single cells, much less whatever occurred before single cells.

 

[James R]

hay you:

You are not the same as your parents. They are not the same as their parents. etc. etc. Work it back far enough and you'll find your direct ape ancestor.

But that is not correct, there is no direct line back. Scientists have been trying to get a missing link for years but the ones they have come up with have fallen by the way side.

But that's simply incorrect. There are many known examples of human ancestor species. Do you need me to provide you with a link to start your education on this topic? You can google it yourself. Look up "human evolution".

But natural selection culls out the changes that don't work. Every animal in an evolutionary chain had to "work" well enough to reproduce and pass on its genes to the next generation. Nature dispensed with the animals that didn't work and kept the ones that did - which is the whole point of evolution.

You have to think that a change that did work and then was passed on , but the next change didn't work. All the changes would be lost, that happened before hand.

No, because you're imagining this happens with single animals. Instead, what happens is that you have, say 100 animals. 1 of them has a random mutation that it passes along to its offspring, while the other 99 sets of offspring have no mutation. Now, if that mutation is harmful then those offspring that have it will die off before reproducing (let's say), and they are so small in number that none of them will be likely to be fossilised.

But suppose that the mutation makes the offspring better able to survive, and/or causes them to have more offspring. In the first generation, we have 99 unmutated sets of offspring and 1 mutated set. The mutated set all survive while some of the unmutated ones don't reproduce. In the next generation, the proportion of animals with the favourable mutation is larger than 1 in 100. Now it might be 1 in 50, say. The mutated ones are still more successful, leading in the next generation to a further increase in proportions, to 1 in 20 or 1 in 10. And so on and so on until the original "mutants" comprise virtually the entire population of animals. And as these mutant animals come to dominate, they become increasing likely to be fossilised, too.

Do you understand this explanation?

Also the whole point of evolution is a mistake happens, then another and then another, then something is used, this leaves a trail of mistakes . The only way any of this can be passed on is for these mistakes to reproduce.

No. The mistakes don't reproduce (or at least not as many of them do as the successes). So mistakes are quickly wiped out but successful mutations flourish.

Do you understand?

Why did your Creator design whales to have useless bones inside their bodies?

To scientists at this point may not have answer for this, but as science learns new things these often come to light. Scientist can not say they know everything about all of this. More with the next question on the eyes.

I just told you that evolutionary scientists do know why whales have leg bones inside their bodies. But you're telling me Creationists have no explanation for that.

So, do you admit that evolution is a superior theory in explaining this?

Eyes were design for their intended use. Low light conditions, just vague shapes, ealges eyes and eyes that are good at night like owls.

Many humans have vision problems, so that they need glasses. Did your God design human eyes badly, or did he not want us to read?

Something else about eyes ...

However, consideration of the very high energy demands of the photoreceptor cells in the vertebrate retina suggests that rather than being a challenge to teleology the curious inverted design of the vertebrate retina may in fact represent a unique solution to the problem of providing the highly active photoreceptor cells of higher vertebrates with copious quantities of oxygen and nutrients.

This is obfuscatory nonsense. If the blood supply had been behind the photoreceptors, in the position that any sensible designer would have put it, then it would supply nutrients etc. equally well, but the eyes would work much better.

Do you understand this point?

There were transitional steps. For example, ancestral species of whales had legs. We know because there are fossils of those animals. Do you think those legs were "errors"? There were not. They were perfectly useful and functional in the whale ancestor species.

If they were perfectly usefull how did evolution know how to do that?. Where are the trial and errors that evolution would take to get there? To be perfectly useful, shows creation. Planning went into it.

Evolution didn't know how to do it. Evolution has no aim. Legs developed gradually, just like everything else in evolution. Where are the trial and errors? In the fossil record, for one thing. For example, fish have no legs. Why? Answer: because having legs does not help a fish to survive better - in fact they can be detrimental. Natural selection selects against legs in fish, but it supports them in, say, a bird.

Do you understand this point?

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. But even if most were bad it wouldn't matter, because nature keeps the good and throws away the bad.

Then there should be a record of that. But the record show just the good.

The fossil record is much more likely to show the good than the bad, for reasons I have explained above.

Do you understand why, now that I have explained it to you?

Wrong. As I explained to you before, fossilisation is an exceedingly rare thing. You'd need thousands of humans with extra arms to have a tiny chance of seeing one extra-armed fossilised human.

But we have billions of people and a few with an extra arms. The fossil record should show the majority of examples.

Can you see that this is a nonsense statement? The chances of a person with an extra arm being fossilised are absolutely tiny compared to a person without an extra arm.

Do you agree with this statement?

They didn't go directly there. The position of fins on whales, and their size and so on evolved over many generations, gradually. By the way, do you know why whales' tails move up and down rather than side to side? Please give me your creationist explanation for that, because evolution has an explanation.

You say that but , did you notice that they go directly to where they are useful, how did evolution know that, why does they not travel all over the body then settle in a useful good spot. Now a creator would know that.

I just told you they didn't go directly there. Did you understand what I said?

Also, you didn't answer my question. Please answer it.

On the whole, yes, because most animals function well. If they did not function from birth they would quickly have died and probably not been fossilised.

Yes they would have died, there would be a large number of these.

No, there would have been a very small number compared to animals that functioned well, for reasons I gave above. Do you understand this point?

There's abundant evidence. Go out, buy yourself a copy of Richard Dawkin's latest book The Greatest Show on Earth and educate yourself.

I have read some of his books.

Which ones? Did you understand them?

I understand that , but scientists say that some simple life form started so if you go all the way back we come from that, also plants. WE are not related to chimps.

We are related to chimps. In fact, we share more than 98% of our DNA with chimps. We're also closely related to rats (which is why they are often used in medical experiments) and rabbits. We're more distantly related to fish, and even more distantly related to daffodils.

What makes you think we're not related to chimps? You only have to look at a chimp to see the similarities.

If all you hear in school, and from your teachers that evolution is a fact. And scientists are supposed to know. And then in university the same, and then to get a job . What are you going to believe. You have been groomed to think a certain way.

It's a good thing it's the right way, then, isn't it?

I'm glad to have had this opportunity to correct some of your misunderstandings. Have my posts helped you so far?