Scientists Deem Creation to Be the Most Rational Explanation of Universe

[spidergoat]

No, I think you misunderstood.

In other words intelligence is useless as far as evolution is concerned, because evolution is not science.

The basic principles of evolution have been discovered by science.

If it were science then we could use intelligence to create a structure or system to do what evolution does

That's what the computer simulations I mentioned do. You don't have to know every detail about how to create a complex structure, you just set up a few basic initial conditions and let it go on it's own.

Intelligence as we know it is useless for creating life.

That's exactly right, not our intelligence, nor God's supernatural intelligence are required.

When we find human intelligence is really insignificant in the grand scheme of things we have common ground.

Intelligence itself is the issue, since for you, that is the source of complex order. Chaos theory shows that complexity can arise, not necessarily from other complexity, as has been assumed, but from a few simple rules.

 

[SnakeLord]

Woody: So how many years did it take in your opinion to go from fish to mammal? I'll give you an opportunity to correct your mistake " several hundred thousand years later."

Once again, I say to those deaf ears of yours: Don't worry about the finer details before grasping the very basics. Come back when you've managed that.

I'll know when you're ready to move on because you wont come out with bollocks like: "evolution is not science".

 

[Woody]

S/L said: Once again, I say to those deaf ears of yours: Don't worry about the finer details before grasping the very basics. Come back when you've managed that. I'll know when you're ready to move on because you wont come out with bollocks like: "evolution is not science".

Woody says: Ok, one way to save face is to douse the other guy when you don't have an answer. I already knew the evolutionary answer from my indoctrination -- I was just checking to see if you knew. Since you don't, let me educate you a little on the theory of evolution:

It took several hundreds of millions of years for fish to evolve to mammals. You're off by a factor of 1,000 on your "finer point."

 

[Throckmorton]

Woody:You can't watch evolution happen.

You can.

"5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There are many more examples of observed speciation on the website above.

 

[Woody]

S/G said: I disagree with several things: Most mutations are neutral, not harmful.

Woody says: When parents find out their child is going to be a mutation, somehow I don't picture them celebrating.

 

[Woody]

Throckmorton: One of the most fascinating experiments I've seen was performed on flies and their photo-tactile sense. Insects are drawn to lights in the night-time. This sense helps them find their way out of caves. etc.

In the experiment, the flies were sorted through a series of tubes to winnow out those with the weakest photo-tactile sense. They were selectively bred and the sorting system was applied again, and so on. Finally some flies emerged that were repelled by bright light.

I had my fun days in the biology lab, but I did not perform that experiment. I created my own little ecosystem. I raised praying matises from hatchlings. They all ended up eating each other, though I gave them plenty of food -- like fruit flies destined for the morgue. I ended up with one giant mantis that ate all the rest of them.

 

[Throckmorton]

Hi Woody,

Praying mantids are very cool. The female eats the head off the male during copulation which decreases inhibitory signals from the brain causing him to copulate more vigorously.

As I said, there are many examples of observed speciation on the talkorigins site. Evolution is frequently observed.

 

[SnakeLord]

Woody says: Ok, one way to save face is to douse the other guy when you don't have an answer.

One way to save time is to not get into petty details when the other guy doesn't understand the very basics. You seemingly want me to go through the whole thing with you for no good reason. Let's point out some apparent realities:

A) You think evolution is not science

B) You don't "believe" evolution to be real/to happen

C) You think the "original whale should have just stayed as a fish".

There's really no point in getting into any depth, and especially not unimportant issues like the exact timing of fish to mammal, when you don't even understand evolution or agree with it. Do you disagree Woody?

Of course you'll do pretty much anything to avoid responding to my actual post. Instead you'll just pick up on the irrelevancies and concentrate on them. It's meat and potatoes, While you should be focused on the meat, you're just a forum vegetarian.

 

[Silas]

C) You think the "original whale should have just stayed as a fish".

Ironically, that's what God would have done. A fish-like creature evolves into land-borne creatures, evolves into mammals - and then one line evolves into a sea-dwelling mammal. This is the hallmark of undirected, undesigned evolution and not something one would expect from an Intellgent Designer.

 

[spidergoat]

Woody says: When parents find out their child is going to be a mutation, somehow I don't picture them celebrating.

As S/L pointed out, you are again avoiding the meat of the conversation. I'm sure our DNA is full of mutations, in fact the whole sequence developed from mutations. It's not that the whole child is a mutation, or mutant like a comic book, just that many mutations happen in areas of the genome that don't seem to effect anything. Also, DNA is self-correcting through redundancy. Interestingly, certain parts of the genome seem to be more protected than others, it seems to have evolved to encourage mutations in some places, while preventing them in the core areas that might be severely detrimental to the organism.

Your response is like the knee-jerk reaction of some people to the idea we came from apes. Sure, it's comical to think of a Gorilla at your dining table, but we shouldn't take ourselves so seriously as to think we are nothing like the apes. In fact, it is our close resemblance to apes that makes the comparison funny.

You already accept that evolutionary changes occur, just not radical changes in body plan? I should mention the discovery of the hox genes. These seem to set up a modular system for defining a creature's basic structure. To evolve a worm from a more compact creature, the only mutation required is a repetition of the middle segment. It is suggested that the Cambrian explosion which describes the rapid arising of an amazing variety of body forms, was the result of this innovation in modularity. Then, a mutant creature would still be a functional one. You can observe an example of this in fruit fly mutants that have 4 wings instead of 2. It's just a repetition of a single segment, and it still lives.

 

[audible]

woody: could you please be forthcoming with your answer, why do we have a coccyx's, thank you.
oh I just thought of another the appendix, could you also tell me why we have this, thank you.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It is kind of tricky to allow God as the answer to explain the diversity of life on earth. If God is an acceptable answer to the cause of origin of diversity then also 'aliens' is.

Basically anybody who is slightly close to omnipotent or even omnipotent could be responsible for everything.

This also means that God cannot be your answer without proof. Maybe the aliens did it.

Basically you are worse off than natural scientists. They excluded the supernatural. They have a limited amount of causes. You have an unlimited one. Now pick one and proof it.

 

[SnakeLord]

Audible: Why stop there? Let's ask him about wisdom teeth and goose pimples while we're at it. No, he cannot give an answer as to why any sky being would do it, but you'll never ever get a response to the actual question from him either. As I said, he's a vegetarian.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

audible: woody: could you please be forthcoming with your answer, why do we have a coccyx's, thank you.
oh I just thought of another the appendix, could you also tell me why we have this, thank you.
*************
M*W: Don't hold your breath, audible. He hasn't answered any of my questions either.

I would also ask him why we have wisdom teeth, fifth digit phalanges, and diminished hirsutism.

 

[spidergoat]

Why a coccyx? God has a sense of humor. Why do we get cancer and sharks don't? Another knee-slapper by the Father.

 

[Woody]

S/L Et al,

Audible: Why stop there? Let's ask him about wisdom teeth and goose pimples while we're at it. No, he cannot give an answer as to why any sky being would do it, but you'll never ever get a response to the actual question from him either. As I said, he's a vegetarian.

I've been on vacation. Sorry I missed out on all the "fun."

By the way, I only had two wisdom teeth. Does that mean I'm more evolved than someone with four? What if I didn't have a cocyx or appendix? Would that mean I am more evolved?

On the subject of evolution: I agree that speciation occurs and can be demonstrated. However, I have difficulty accepting that a cold-blooded egg-laying reptile can give birth to a warm-blooded living mammal. Coincidentally the mutant offspring must be a matched set of male and female with all the identical mutated genes. What are the chances of all this happening? Why aren't reptiles evolving into mammals today?

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

A theory can not claim to be a science unless it passes the scientific method. Here is the process according to the Wikepedia:

Scientific Method:

1) Characterization: The scientific method depends upon a careful characterization of the subject of the investigation. Woody: Evolution theory passes this step.
2) Hypothesis: A hypothesis includes a suggested explanation of the subject. It will generally provide a causal explanation or propose some correlation. Woody: Evolution theory passes this step.
3) Prediction: A useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by deductive reasoning, that can be experimentally assessed. If results contradict the predictions, then the hypothesis under test is incorrect or incomplete and requires either revision or abandonment. If results confirm the predictions, then the hypothesis might be correct but is still subject to further testing. Woody: Speciation occurs, but that doesn't prove the entire theory of evolution is true. Step 3 is shakey at best
4) Experiment: Once a prediction is made, an experiment is designed to test it. The experiment may seek either confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis. Yet an experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences. Woody: So what experiment confirms that life evolved from inert ingredients? Woefully inadequate shortcoming here!

Well Snakelord, 2 out of 4 ain't bad, but sorry, evolution is not a science according to the scientific method. Can you show me a scientist that disagrees with the scientific method? You must prove that life can come from inert ingredients, otherwise there is no beginning, and the whole theory of evolution falls on its face. There are several other evolutionary "proofs" that science has failed to verify as well.

Thus after testing the theory of evolution with the rigors of the scientific method, evolution theory remains a hypothesis that must either be rewritten or abandoned altogether as the scientific method requires in step 3 because it is not a "useful" hypothesis in its current form. Yet you tenaciously hold to your "faith" in evolutionary theory as your secular religion, along with many scientists that have made an "allowance" for evolutionary theory, taught as science, but absent of the necessary proofs for a "real" science.

As for your knowledge of evolution - you haven't shown me much. Spidergoat and audible have shown me some fairly impressive things.

I have one simple question here for anyone that has the guts to answer it: How many speciations were required for the first living cell to evolve to man? A hundred speciations? A thousand? A million? A billion?

Time is a very important argument here. If it took a billion speciations, and life has been around for a billion years, then the family line to homo sapiens speciated about once every year. Is this an illogical conclusion based on the assumption?

 

[wesmorris]

God is the creator no?

Create as in, to apply one's will toward something.

How is it that some cannot recognize this as anthropomorphization?

Will is as uniquely human phenomenon. We invented to term to describe something about how we make decisions. Applying it on the universal scale, to something that humans obviously had little to do with, is silly.

The type of "will" is must have taken to "create" the universe is simply incomprehensible to humans, though many of us believe we "get it".

More later.

 

[Woody]

S/G said: most mutations are not harmful.

Woody says: When I was taking biology we were taught most mutations were harmful, but a few mutations are good. I asked a biology teacher to give an example of a "good" mutation. She couldn't produce a "good" mutation, can you? "Good" means it increases the chances of survival in a natural environement.

S/G said: Why a coccyx?

Woody's answer: It's a vestigial tail bone from the time PHDs were swinging from trees.

S/G said: Why do we get cancer and sharks don't?

Woody's answer: For one thing sharks aren't dumb enough to smoke. Their all-seafood diet probably helps a lot too.

MW said: I would also ask him why we have wisdom teeth?

Woody's answer: I only had two wisdom teeth. Negroes have eight wisdom teeth. Supposedly it was a good thing to have a few extra teeth around before dental science came along.

MW said: fifth digit phalanges?

Woody's answer: But only man has an opposing thumb. Was it really necessary for man's survival? Chimps can throw things about as well as humans can.

MW said: diminished hirsutism.

Woody says: Body hair is strongly related to testosterone production. You will notice that bald men typically have a lot more body hair. I remember a guy in high school that was more than half bald at age 16 and about as hairy as they come. Orientals typically have less hair than the other races.

Audible said: oh I just thought of another the appendix, could you also tell me why we have this, thank you.

Woody says: The evolutionary answer says it's a vestigial stomach. Woody's answer: The same reason a book has an appendix -- because the author put it there?

S/L said: explain goose pimples.

Woody: OK simple enough. Goose pimples occur when the sweat glands constrict to seal in body heat. Sweat glands regulate the body temperature. There is actually a different type of sweat gland under the arms and in the pubic areas. This type of gland releases a musky odor.

Negroes have these glands all over their body, and they have a stronger body odor as a result. They also have more wisdom teeth, extra muscles in the knees and legs, and heavier bones -- hence they are typically poor swimmers, but excellent jumpers and sprinters.

 

[Silas]

On the subject of evolution: I agree that speciation occurs and can be demonstrated. However, I have difficulty accepting that a cold-blooded egg-laying reptile can give birth to a warm blooded mammal.

The "Argument from Personal Incredulity" is one of well known weakness. The theory that warm blooded mammals developed from cold blooded reptiles is not based on some woolly "well, there's the theory of evolution, so it must have happened!" thinking. It's based on the fact that mammals and reptiles share so many other characteristics - we are all quadrupeds, we are all vertebrates, we breathe air using lungs to dissolve the oxygen into the blood - that the fact that we are related is beyond question. I don't even know the mechanisms involved in keeping mammalian blood warm, but I assume that the change occurred in an area where the climate was such that the temperature of a hot blooded creature was not that different from that of the cold blooded creature. (Hot blooded creatures are so called because the temperature of their blood is kept at a specific level which happens to be high. "Cold" blooded creatures are not actually that cold blooded, but the temperature of the blood is not regulated and rises and falls with the environment.)

Let's look at this from a theist point of view. As a theist, we have a description of the creation of the Earth and of each individual creature, a mere 6,000 years ago from an unsourced book. We examine the evidence and see that many different types of creature in fact share so many characteristics that they appear to actually be related. This implies that God did not create each individual creature as a whole species, but he only had to create a few species, knowing in His infinite wisdom that His Will would be ultimately be fulfilled by the development of Mankind. Surely this magnifies God's ineffable Wisdom?

Macro similarities apart, all life is based upon a cellular system based upon the interaction of cells with a nucleus containing replicative material surrounded by a protective shell. So God just had to create a single cellular system in order to see the fulfilment of His Will, and doesn't this magnify further God's Wisdom?

We examine more evidence that shows that all life in fact depends not on narrow family relationships (all the different cats, all the different dogs), nor on broad family relationships (all cats and dogs are ultimately related, all mammals are ultimately related), nor even on entire kingdom relationships (all plants are related, all animals are related), but in fact on a single self-replicating molecule. There are a number of different mechanisms which we can use to postulate the development of the first cells, so all God had to do was create a single self-replicating molecule.

We do experiments which involve re-creating the primordial conditions of Earth with nothing more than a mixture of some of the basic molecules which are ultimately involved in life - common molecules like hydrogen, oxygen and carbon. When the experiment is done we find we have spontaneously generated some of the amino acids involved in protein production. Strange and mystical as this may seem, it seems that those common molecules given a water background and a source of energy (which in the primordial earth was provided by the high-energy ultraviolet light from the sun, not yet blocked by the ozone layer which had to wait for plant life to develop and change the atmosphere composition), seem automatically to move in the direction of Life. So God only had to determine the properties of those common molecules in order to achieve the Life which would ultimately fulfill His Will, and how incredibly Glorified becomes the concept of God then?

We investigate the very basis of matter and energy, and someone makes an interesting discovery. If some of the basic constants which underlie the fundamental physical laws of our Universe are changed by just the smallest amount, it's impossible to develop the large scale Universe with stable atoms and electrons that we see all around us. So in order to get everything to work, God had to make the Laws just right in order to ultimately, over a period of 15 billion years (just a moment to God, of course) fulfill His Will and produce a creature that could worship Him. How enormously Glorified is the image of this God, compared to the one who ran around creating millions of different species in a period easily comprehensible by us mere humans?

 

[Woody]

Silas Said:As a theist, we have a description of the creation of the Earth and of each individual creature, a mere 6,000 years ago from an unsourced book.

Woody says: I used to struggle with the seven day creation point of view, because it is apparant that geological formations are many millions of years old. The seven days, however are not seven literal 24 hour periods of time. They are actually much longer. However, if you look at Genesis chapter 1, plants were created before the sun. This would imply that the sun was created the next day. However, as one pastor explained to me, God's shekinah glory provided the light necessary for photosenthesis. Hence the earth can be millions, billions, or trillions of years old. The scriptures are not limited to a 6,000 year old earth.