News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

This is simply not true and demonstrates how evolution confuses people who don't discern how "chance" accumulates.

Let me demonstrate as concisely as I can.

In order for a beneficial mutation to occur, a certain number has to be rolled on an enormous roulette wheel with millions of numbers—not just once—but time after time.

Remember, you can't have one hand and then simply expect to have all of the necessary mutations form a second hand in perfect symmetry. This is clearly absurd.

Remember, a hand is not just a hand. It is muscles, ligaments, bone, cartridge, nerves, arteries/veins, and much more in intricate design.

This intricate concert of symmetry requires mutation after mutation after mutation, not just in perfect form and proportion, but in the right order.

Now, pile on that the problem of irreducible complexity. There is no way all the steps—even if they could occur—would be beneficial. No chance.

Furthermore, the probability of the sequence of events happening in the right order depletes chance to beyond absurdity.

Then, you have to hope that no destructive mutations take place during the development of some useful part that would destroy it's form, and we all agree that harmful mutations are far, far more abundant than beneficial ones.

Evolution is a mathematical absurdity. You really need to open your eyes and see the big, pink elephant in the room.


"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179

Still at it Russ?

Do you know what all the slots on the roulette wheel have?

Without knowing all the possibilities you can't calculate the probabilities.

If I have two dice and I roll them several times, what is the probability that I will roll a 7?

You claim the math is self-evident, but what is evident is that this is just a cover and that you do not know how to calculate the probabilities involved.

Perhaps you could show us?

Enjoy.

If we know the wheel has a minimum of 10 ^ 220 slots... do we really need to count every last individual one of them by hand?

Improbable and Impossible are not the same thing.

No matter what way you spin it, they are distinct and one will never equal the other, no matter how improbable something may seem.

Russel2 also posted a response to this in the symmetry thread which I thought was appropriate. Natural Selection makes a very big difference in the odds of beneficial mutations.

And you know this....how?

You may not get it, but improbable is the opposite of probable. Assuming improbable events took place merely because you wish it to be so is a pretty weak position, if I may make an understatement.

I don't suppose he explained how anything can be selected if it doesn't exist, did he?

But even if the myth of the beneficial mutation were true, Dr. John Sanford has demonstrated that no form of selection - not even truncation selection (which is more severe than any artificial selection) is sufficient. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome is a splendid book, and the evolutionist attempts to address it have been a sad/funny mix of the usual bogus personal attacks and obvious straw man misrepresentations of the arguments. It's like watching a pee-wee squad try to stop a Hall-of-Fame running back. (Maybe worse.)

My favourite common criticism is that he doesn't hide what he says behind $100 words. The man was a college professor. It was his job to know how to communicate! And of course they'd like him to use terminology that lends itself to obfuscation. Who doesn't understand why? WHO?

Easy enough to find out. Just look at the research you and RAZD want everyone to dismiss out-of-hand.

Or look at what the evolutionists themselves say, for that matter. Look at it in full context, and see exactly what it says, plain as day.

CTD, there is no point in even trying to argue if you go back to this defense. That is a whole separate issue than the chances of life forming on a lifeless planet.

Just to be sure, if what doesn't exist? The traits for natural selection to select from? Could you be more specific?

We really must try to be intellectually honest here.

Anyone who knows anything about the world is able to see the size of the roulette wheel we're speaking about.

Let's not confuse the issue. Evolution is a mathematical impossibility; More accurately, a mathematical absurdity.

I didn't think he was talking about life forming on a lifeless planet, but I suppose I could take another look.

Better yet, why don't you decide which issue you want to discuss? We have an abiogenesis thread, and it'd probably be best to discuss that mathematical absurdity therein.

Well thats the issue here CTD. The supposed absurdity of complex life forming through evolution.

Natural Selection would alter the probability of that supposed absurdity. I wanted to know what you were referring to by this



what is 'it' when you say it doesn't exist?

Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution (according to the myth).

Something that occurs after a mutation (that is, natural selection) does not affect the probability of the mutation itself (just a clarification).

Evolution requires a series of mutations in exactly the right way at exactly the right time WITHOUT numerous errors in between (which would destroy the symmetry) in order to reach our current, observable state.

Mathematically absurd.


"... Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179

I was talking about the beneficial mutation, but as you have observed, this applies equally well to the imaginary nonlife which some say evolved into life.

Actually, my choice of terms could be better. Under the paradigm, 'Selection' is actually a process of pure subtraction. Nothing is ever 'selected for'.

Old School Darwinism was pretty strict about this, but 'Selection' has been abstracted into a god, and nobody wants to say anything unpalatable about the god any more.

Consider the analogy of a classroom. The only students who are 'selected' are those who fail the grade. Even those who squeak by with a D- pass. Selection only cares about pass or fail. Darwin was deeply concerned about this sort of thing. He insisted that all populations of lifeforms must undergo frequent famines (or similar disasters). In the classroom analogy, this would be like raising the standard, and failing anyone with a C or even a B.

In more recent times, not much attention at all is paid to the problem of C & D students lowering the overall G.P.A. At least not openly. Eugenics is the 'science' founded to resolve this evolutionary problem (for mankind, at least), and the eugenicists tend to keep fairly quiet these days.

Does your statement even make sense?
If I am rolling 100 six sided dice of the normal gaming variety and perform the selection that you suggest by removing all the dice that don't land with six facing up, then by default the dice with the six facing up are selected for. They are the dice still on the table. The other dice are eliminated.


Please quote where Darwin claims that it is an all or nothing scenario. Selection works in percentages. Beneficial mutations allow those members of the population to be more likely to have more offspring than those without that beneficial mutation. Over a number of generations this beneficial mutation will permeate the population because those that have it have more offspring than those that don't.
You are well aware of this point in Darwin's theory yet choose to misrepresent it.


Eugenics is a part of the theory of evolution in the same way that the Spanish inquisition is part of Jesus's teachings....ie, not part of it at all. What someone does with the truth does not change it from being the truth.

Well, it looks like I missed some nonsense. Fortunately I have a fully functional and operational scroll bar.
Of course. Why do you ask? Damage control?
Selection is death. It isn't creative. If no 6's come up, as the selector, your role is to kill them all, every last one. You don't get to flip a 1 over and make a 6.

Yet in the propaganda, we keep being told 'selection' is creative. 'Selection' is just death.
Please explain how death under a Godless paradigm can be anything other than all-or-nothing, if you don't accept this as self-evident.

I'm guessing you meant 'probabilities' rather than 'percentages'. And I'm not surprised that you've forgotten past discussions. (I'm hoping, but far from certain, you don't mean to say something can be 22% dead.)

Now it's not hard to understand that dead lifeforms do less begetting than live ones. I don't think we need to find a Darwin quote in order to understand the matter, either.

The actual issue with probabilities involves whether or not 'selection' can successfully 'find' the less fit and 'select' them; and whether or not it will 'screw up' and 'select' the carrier of the imagined beneficial mutation. But based on experience, I'm confident nobody wants to go there. The evogod's actually not omniscient. There's nothing in nature that would require a beneficial mutation to survive if one ever should occur.

Oh? Just up and accuse me, eh? Well, why not? Everyone else does. ...And you had the nerve to ask me if my statement made sense?

You are well aware that Darwin insisted intense pressure was required to kill off all but the most fit. We've discussed it before. Neither you nor LindaLou could twist your own junk to match Darwin, nor could you make your own junky ideas or Darwin's match observations made in the real world.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33734#Post33734
is a good spot for any who missed this stuff, or need to refresh their memory. It's not a particularly brief exchange, as I recall.
Just another false analogy. The practices of the Spanish Inquisition were quite obviously contrary to Jesus' teachings.

Eugenics is merely the practical application of evolutionism. One could that this 'science' of yours shouldn't be applied in the real world.

But one can easily demonstrate that eugenics derives directly from Darwinism. In fact, his formula of preferentially killing female babies has been implemented to the letter in Communist China.

You can produce a couple of isolated quotes from Darwin where he said things like this shouldn't be done. He didn't convince his friends and relations, and if he felt strongly about it, why is there no record of heated discussions on the matter? His letters show he discussed all other aspects of evolutionism, even very small details. We know founders of eugenics by their names and writings. He knew them much more closely.

Hey, CTD. How's it going? Haven't had the chance to exchange any posts with you in recent weeks.

I'm having trouble locating Darwin's forumla for infanticide. Could you please direct me to a source? I don't know why for the life of my I can't locate it. I know I must be simply overlooking something.

Thanks, dude!

Then the dice become extinct and another population of dice would have to be used. If there are no more dice then dice go the way of the passenger pigeon or the T-rex.


Please provide a quote from any biology or evolutionists paper or book that says selection is just death. Death is used in selection to eliminate those not selected for.

First, I don't proclaim a Godless paradigm, and your use of death as all or nothing isn't a representation of selection. Death occurs to individuals and selection occurs in populations. Some individuals die and some live to pass on their genes. Those individuals that pass on their genes more effectively have those genes become a higher percentage of the population at large. Death taking the less effectively breeding individuals and their progeny causes the more effectively breeding individuals to be selected for.

I realize that you know this but I repeated it for the layperson that might be confused by your statement about death.

It surprises me that you can't mount a better assault against the theory of evolution...what with your in depth understanding of it and all.

No I meant percentages. Should I recommend a book on population dynamics so you can follow this simple explanation?

Well your statements about the theory were incorrect and you claim to have in depth knowledge of Darwin's theory. I just came to the conclusion that you chose to misrepresent it. My apologies . I thought you actually understood the basics of natural selection.

Yet when you check out the writings of the inquisitors, they feel like they are getting more people to heaven by forcing them to convert. The movement started with justifications based on Jesus's Great Commandment. They believed they were doing God's work.

Then do so. Lots of talk but no substance.

First, provide a quote that Darwin advocated this. Second, provide some evidence that the Communist government in China requires that female babies get killed/aborted. Third, provide something indicating that the theory of evolution provides link between a higher male population and the fitness of that population.

If you can't do that then your statement is simply what we usually get from you....emotional appeal by using a nonsensical statement.


So you agree that Darwin said those things shouldn't be done and can provide no quotes that he agreed with those practices.
Even if he became a eugenics promoter, that has nothing to do with the truth/falseness of evolution.

Hi Russ

Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution.

No Russ you have, yet again, misunderstood or misrepresented ToE. Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution. In each individual generation there will be variations produced by mutation in all its forms and mixing of the previous generations traits. Most of these changes are minuscule, virtually undetectable in fact, but they are there. Natural selection works on these variations to select the winners who go into the next round. Evolution is the result as the mix of genes in the next generation will be different to that of the previous but not just randomly different and that’s where ToE comes in they will be different in very specific and statistically predictable ways.

You have been going on and on about statistical improbability and presenting this straw man of evolution time and again to try to make it look improbable and in fact it would be improbable to the point of absurdity if evolution worked as you describe but, of course, it does not.

Mutation produces mostly very small changes in organisms. Mutation does not have to, nor is it capable of producing a fully formed arm or wing (as two examples) in one generation. That is indeed, as you keep saying, mathematically impossible.

Most mutations are probably silent. They produce no change in the progeny, no change in the proteins for which the DNA codes.

A small percentage of mutations are harmful, they produce creatures which are less fit due to a ‘deformity’ or some other change that reduces their ability to survive and reproduce.

An even smaller percentage of mutations are beneficial. Yes we’ve observed these so we know that they occur.

Now you spin this as if that’s all there was too it and selection comes in much later, say after a wing has been produced by mutation. This is indeed effectively impossible and mathematically absurd.

The reason you are wrong is really very simple, evolution 101 in fact. At each and every step, each and every generation in other words, Natural selection will remove the failures. Rather than all of the steps having to appear in a very specific order without any wrong steps in between each step can occur at any point so long as it is not harmful to the organism and if any harmful or detrimental steps, any wrong steps in your terms, do occur anywhere along the way Natural selection will weed them out then and there. Mutation produces the raw material for Natural Selection to work on and Natural selection works, much as a ratchet does, to collect and build on each successful mutation while at the same time rejecting or filtering out any unsuccessful mutations (which is most of them).

It is indeed mathematically absurd to suggest that mutation could produce a new trait then natural selection will work on it but it is even more absurd to suggest that this is how ToE says that life works.

We’re back to the question I asked you in another thread Russ T. Are you ignorant of what ToE says in building your straw man or are you a liar doing so purposefully with the full knowledge of the falsehoods you are spreading? If you are merely ignorant then please tell me, there are a few here who could help you to overcome that, I for one would be willing to take you through the basics of ToE in more detail than I have just done so you can overcome this ignorance. We were all born ignorant of this stuff so it’s no crime to be so. If you are indeed a liar then I don’t know what to say Russ. You should think long and hard about why you spread such falsehoods to a lay audience who may well include some who can’t see through your lies.

One further point you keep raising despite the error of it having been pointed out to you is the “Symmetry is impossible to evolution” argument. Firstly this is wrong because we know that HOX gene’s and their like take a single ‘description’ of a body part and produce a right and a left one or many more in some cases (just look at millipedes they don’t have an individual description in their DNA for each leg you know) from one plan so evolution does not have to produce two identical hands (for example) merely a single hand and a mirror image routine. Secondly this is wrong as convergent evolution shows that evolution is in fact perfectly capable of independently building two features that are virtually identical if there is just an evolutionary driver to do so.

And we have, again, the false Darwin quotes Russ. Yes at least this time Darwin did indeed say this but there is more to quoting that just accurately transcribing someone’s words, quoting is about conveying the intent of the original author. Darwin, time and again, opens a chapter in Origin’s with a challenging question that he believes others will struggle with when looking at his theories. Here are two examples from different chapters of Origins. Yes you got the citation wrong again, you’ve stitched two passages from different chapters of Origins together with just one page number but that’s not the worst of this. Russ, do you realize that Darwin did not think at all the way you have portrayed him too here? Do you realize that it is dishonest to quote him thus? Darwin goes on in those two chapters to answer these self challenging questions in great detail. Is that why you don’t cite him fully and correctly ever, so your readers can’t easily look up what he really said in context. I know it’s a standard YEC tactic but, as it is a very dishonest one, would it be asking too much that you try to rise above it and deal honestly, fully and openly with what these people say Russ?

Here are the links to the chapters that contained these two quotes for those who want to know what Darwin actually thought.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

Please think very hard about what it is that drives you to continually repeat these really obvious falsehoods Russ.

In reason

Russell

Actually, the practice of using quotes is common and used in many reputable books, newspapers/magazines. I realise that it's a hated practice, when one cannot control, edit and delete the past of some embarrassing/revealing statements, so the only alternative is to discredit the practice and those who ever decide to use them.

I have given quotes on this forum also and after a time, realised the drawbacks and tried to give the source, the names involved, the date and page number eachtime. I am well aware of the accusations against "quote mining", but also aware of the unfairness of "out of context" posting too. So at least when sources are given and identified, one can check up themselves.

So what you've stated here doesn't really apply in every instance. You obviously failed to make that clear...but then again, those who are interested can use the scroll bar and read the history on here themselves.

If done correctly, it is not a dishonest practice, and at times necessary one. Past statements unable to be edited are often the pet hate of the people in question. Their own statements used against them, as they continue to contradict themselves.....we do that on here to eachother, do we not?

Thankfully, as difficult as it sometimes is, the editing factor is limited and prevents us from changing out past posts after a certain time period. It maybe regrettable at times and embarrassing, but it is necessary.

Ya think?

You're a hoot!

...and you just got done saying how the dice go extinct...

Anything more you'd like to add? I'm not sold on the creative power of the selection god. Killing isn't a creative activity. According to evolutionism, when the selection god isn't killing, it isn't doing its job. Just looking at that picture of all those skulls RAZD is so fond of posting one sees an appropriate symbol for this evogod.
Yes you do. You claim God doesn't get involved.

And you've tried time and again to convince us to accept the proposal that some god just sparked the big bang and went dormant. You have not said whether this is what you actually believe, but it would be a mighty unusual man who tries to persuade folks to accept beliefs he does not himself hold.

And this isn't about what you say. It's about what evolutionism says. Evolutionism says anyone who even suggests God may have been involved must fail their class / lose their job / be locked up / etc. Some evolutionists say it in words, and some are too cowardly, but reveal it in deed. (A little info on such)
Says who? And why would anyone try to hide the death involved here?

There is one obvious motive: sanitizing eugenics. "We're not killing anyone - we're just selecting populations". Now perhaps you have another, more subtle motive you'd care to share? Justify the spin, if you can.
Progeny? Dead beings aren't observed to produce much in the way of progeny. If they did, the selection god would be out of business, wouldn't it?

Actually, I think you say these things in hopes that the layperson may become confused. I don't expect you'll be very successful.

Thanks for pitching in & demonstrating the symptoms of evosickness. Hearing about them is one thing, but seeing them manifested should have a much greater impact. I hope and pray folks will take the issue seriously.

If you have a book that claims a percentage of 'selected' lifeforms will have progeny... For curiosity's sake, I might take a peek.

Nonsense! They do it all the time. Where have you been? It is claimed that dinosaurs with feathers would have a better chance of survival, but it hasn't been observed. All the stories of this or that evolving involve the unobserved.

And you contradict yourself big as day. You just got done saying the selection god doesn't care about individuals.
Nice of you to concede this. Ah, if only you were an authority, that the rest would listen...

If you thought I understood them, why would you undertake to confuse me?

Oops! That's a pretty stupid question, isn't it.
No. And I never said he did. His concern was that lax 'selection' would allow too many of the 'unfit' to survive. That's the opposite of the commonplace neoDarwinist idea of instant elimination.

Were it not for your demonstrated symptoms, I would conclude you are deliberately misstating what I said Darwin said.

"Less represented"? What kind of pathetic euphemism is that for 'dead'?

Jesus never commanded anyone to force anyone to convert. It's not a big surprise (to most of us) that those doing so (as if one could!) would misstate things in their writings. It would be very surprising if anyone failed to recognize such as misstatements.

How you conclude "they believed they were doing God's work" is... that is just an astonishingly irrational conclusion.
Right... Facts are substance. (Well, relevant facts are. Don't take this as an invitation to spam irrelevancies.)

Ah yes! The "words speak louder than actions" paradigm, so essential to evolutionism.

I care not what they say. I care what they do. What manner of pinhead do you take me for?

Again, what kind of pinhead do you take me for? You do not dictate how I proceed.

The things I said are true, and can be verified fairly easily. You already know this because it's been discussed before.

All you offered then is the same excuse you offer now:
How does this salvage your false analogy? In order for the analogy to be accurate, both sides must either be true, or both must be false. If one is true, and the other is false, your analogy fails. This is the case.

I humbly submit http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33487#Post33487
for any who may be unfamiliar with the history of the evolutionist movement(s). It's not comprehensive; but it's a start.

In Descent of Man[/i], chapter two one readsOne gets a fuller picture by reading the whole chapter, which I consider to be [i]Darwinism in a nutshell. In this single chapter, Darwin explains the alleged benefits of infanticide/abortion eugenics/racism, and at least some forms of Social Darwinism.

Typical evobabble. Change is the result of the process of change.

RT ain't the one with the understanding issues.

...And that was from the same entity which cautioned me here You people...

I read your entire post and was tempted to reply to every scintilla of worthless baloney that you spilled onto the paper. However, when I reached this particular piece of tripe, I knew that everything else paled in comparison.

I left the link in place so that those who wish to check what I am saying will be able to look at it for themselves.

First I will put your quote in context by providing the surrounding text.



The quote that you used is describing practices of previous civilizations and some civilizations of his time. He was definitely NOT putting it forth as admirable. In fact he later writes that this practice is "perverted". Now, why would he call it perverted if he was advocating the practice.

Not only did you malign Darwin with your quotemine but you did it is such a transparent manner as to assure it would be uncovered by anyone with the ability to read. At this point I can't determine if you are so deluded that you were blind to the context of your quote, you are so ignorant of the English language that you didn't understand the context, or you are so sure you have fooled the laypeople here that you took your foolishness to a new low.

You have no problem producing obvious falsehoods to support your lame attacks at the theory of evolution and to insult and demean anyone who believes the theory is correct. You purposely misrepresent the posts of others. You delight in putting people down. You present youself as an authority in subject areas that you, quite obviously, know little about.

I see no validity in your judgment of the state of my Christianity seeing as yours is in such tatters.

Hi Bex

I agree, quotes are normal, acceptable and useful in debates, discussions even books. I have no problems with quotes but there are a few rules that must be adhered to when quoting and Russ T has failed to do so even once it has been pointed out to him. When quoting someone you must:-

Ensure that the quoted person’s intent is conveyed in the passage you quote.
Correctly cite the original source wherever possible.

Now Russ T has cited a passage as Darwin without citing the original source and, when tracked down, it turned out that Darwin did not actually say the words cited rather a YEC author did.

Russ T has incorrectly cited several sentences from separate parts of a book as if they came from one chapter.

Russ T has deceptively implied by his quotes that an author believed something that he clearly and explicitly did not. Russ did this by selecting a quote that was, typical of the author, self challenging a quote which he then spent a full chapter refuting.

Quoting is often a good way to convey what an author thinks on a topic, it is a very useful tool if used correctly.

It is also a very common YEC tactic to reference one of the many YEC quote mine sites or books to find quotes that seem to support the YEC position with words from important or well credentialed authors. In most cases, and I have only pointed out a few of Russ’s, these quotes misrepresent the authors feelings and intentions. This tactic is common in YEC circles and it is dishonest. I believe that Russ T should stop deceptively using out of context, quote mined quotes in his posts and should stick to honest, correctly cited quotes presented in their correct context.

Isn’t honesty the best policy?

So what you've stated here doesn't really apply in every instance. You obviously failed to make that clear...

I thought I made it perfectly clear when I said “And we have, again, the false Darwin quotes Russ.”

To me that seems to make it clear that I was referring to Russ T and his latest false quote in particular with reference to his earlier transgressions in this area.

In reason

Russell

Hi CTD

“Change is the result of the process of change.”

So what you are saying is that you believe is that ToE = Change?

That could explain so many of your problems with getting it CTD. ToE explains change but it is not change itself. ToE also explains the lack of change in some species (Sharks or Crocodiles for example) so ToE = Change is wrong.

Or maybe I didn’t spell out what I meant clearly enough so let me try explain for those who have problems with my wording.

The observed fact of Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process described in the theory of evolution.

Does that make that one sentence more clear? Can you see now why suggesting that ToE = Change is foolish CTD? Or do you still hold this particular missconception as Russ appears still to do?

In reason

Russell

You have my definition of evolutionism already. I have no need to equivocate. I still stand by what I said before. Of course my definition leads inevitably to the truth, so you dispute it. Thus far, your circular mumbo jumbo is no more impressive than the rest. Perhaps you'll join RAZD in his quest. I don't much care.

I never said it wasn't foolish, did I? Neither will I say it's not foolish to pretend you didn't say what you said.

I hope they do. The portion you've chosen, in order to best facilitate your misinterpretation, begins with the word "Notwithstanding". So there must be something else Darwin's talking about.

His discussion of the population issue is continued there, obviously. And only two paragraphs prior, he said Kinda ruins your attempt to say his discussion is only concerned with "primitive people" overpopulating. The careful reader would have seen through it anyway.

Darwin says the practice originated among "primitive people". He's a Darwinist talking about population checks. He's accounting for an origin. He eliminates the possibility of pre-human origin of these practices on the grounds that instinct could not be so perverted. You know, the instinct to raise the young?

This is not the same thing as calling the practice itself "perverted", as you would have folks believe. Perverting an instinct has nothing to do with moral perversion at all.
Context? Do you not know how to determine which word in a sentence is being modified by an adjective? I strain to believe this is merely an attention span issue.

...Nope. Couldn't pull it off. I don't believe it's an attention span issue. You don't get to take any term in a sentence and move it around willy-nilly to suit your fancy. Try making your arguments from what's actually written, be the text from an evoprophet or a member of this forum.
Ha! Who claimed to have taken college chemistry classes, but does not know the difference between an atom and a molecule?

(Anyone who cares, "find" for relevant terms in this thread. )

The opinion such an one has of my knowledge and capacity to apply it matters almost as little as the stated opinion of such an one.

This is actually funny in more than one way.

One of RAZD's sources
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Science_vs._Religion ,
(an atheist propaganda site) says
It is also funny that R2 demonstrates bait & switch so openly, for hope of such trivial gain.

Watch how he tries to switch terms.When called on this, he respondsDoes evolution = ToE? Are these synonyms? Or is this bait & switch? (and playing as if I said it, if you didn't notice.)

The reader can find out by simply reading more of the postClassic stuff, huh? All for the "gain" of pretending to have outsmarted me on this point. I can surely be outsmarted, but it usually takes a better than this!

That's funny too. What process is "described by the theory of evolution"? We can all guess, or we can hold our breath for resolution.

Even when he sees the jig is up, he does no better. This trick is no better than the first.
Putting his own junk off on Russ T. R2 is the one who switched terms, not RT.

But I think we all can form a clear conclusion about what's going on...

For any who were taken in by this, even briefly, you might want to brush up on your evolutionology. This is one of the most common practices one encounters these days. It is an attempt to profit while retreating from realistic definitions of 'evolution' and the "theory(ies)" they preach as fact. "Oh you're stupid/ignorant/out-of-date because you don't buy the new definitions". But evolution = change is part of the new definition group.

Another falsehood, CTD.



You are not providing the context that shows what you quoted was a 'general' definition of evolution and not the one for biological evolution.

All you have is a quote mine.

Enjoy.

Nothing in the added text helps you guys. "When applied to biology, evolution generally refers to changes in life forms over time," is the only sentence that refers to 'evolution' in all that you added. That's a pretty "Duh!"/self-evident clarification.

Evolution = change
Biological evolution = biological change

I think folks could figure that out without redundancy, don't you?

The rest of the paragraph talks about "The Theory of Biological Evolution". You want to confuse the two and turn around and accuse me of confusing them. Bad strategy. Bad tactic. It's all bad. Please go there again.

Really, CTD, I'm surprised you missed it.

It adds the context of what kind of change they are talking about. Here it is again:



What changes in what they are they talking about? Inheritable traits, only inheritable traits are passed from parent to offspring and then to their offspring.

How do these changes arise? They occur naturally in offspring. In other words, mutations happen.

What kind of time are they talking about? The time from parent to offspring: generations. Several generations.

What they are saying (although it could be worded better, I agree) is that the theory of evolution is that changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation (ie evolution) occur, and that this (evolution) has "resulted in the variety of life that we see on earth today".

I'm surprised you didn't see the similarity between this and what I have said many times is a simple way to state the theory of evolution: that evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation) is sufficient to explain the diversity of life (as we know in the world today, from history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record).

I'm not confused about the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, as stated here, because I can read within the context of the article. Can you?

Does this affect the reality of evolution in any way? Nope.

Does this affect the validity of the theory of evolution in any way? Still nope.

Enjoy.

ps - I thought you would like the article, as it went into the history of thoughts about evolution and the christian opposition to it way before Darwin. You like history eh?

...or what kind of evolution. It makes my case stronger when they continue to apply the same meaning, and use the terms interchangeably. Did you catch what R2 said, by chance? Did you catch the context of the discussion in which I quoted them?

Or, what evolution are they talking about?
Or, how does evolution arise?

Time is redundant. Without time, there is no change in the first place.

It isn't hard to see what they're saying. Would you make it so? If you could pull it off, it might weaken my case.
Antihistory is like slapstick: Some is funny; Some is too dumb. This ain't the good stuff. There were a couple of fairly funny parts, but they were too few and far between.

Of course, when one understands the "evolution = change" philosophies behind the religion, one readily understands how come is claimed that stars, galaxies, rocks, etc. evolve. Everything changes, even if the change is just deterioration.

Used to be 'evolution' was reserved for positive change, but that's "old fashioned", or "unscientific" according to the new evohype. And it's much easier to claim things "evolve" when falling apart counts. Rather more difficult to claim things assemble themselves, and get away with it.

Hi CTD

Let’s start from the top here. Russ T claimed that

Which is obviously false whichever way you look at it. Maybe I was wrong when I took evolution here to mean biological evolution as described in the theory of evolution. Natural selection does indeed occur after change (read here just mutation not evolution) but not after evolutionary change as described in ToE. Where you trying to confuse people here by referring to evolution in the non biological sense while trying to make it look like you were talking about biological evolution in which ToE describes in great detail how that change is lawful so evolution = change is actually false.

I’m guessing that Russ T won’t answer this so for the moment I’ll leave it to others here to try to fathom his motives or ignorance on this point.

Ok the thread continued from there
Russell2:- No Russ you have, yet again, misunderstood or misrepresented ToE. Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.
CTD:-Typical evobabble. Change is the result of the process of change.
Note that I said ‘evolution’ and CTD translated that to ‘Change’. Now change is certainly what evolution is about but it’s not what biological evolution is. There’s lots of details he’s ignoring or ignorant off in making that substitution.

Now read through CTD’s last post and see if he has accurately represented what was said?

I particularly like this line “It is also funny that R2 demonstrates bait & switch so openly, for hope of such trivial gain.” Given that it was Russ T initially who accidentally or otherwise misused the term evolution to mean mutation then it was CTD who explicitly substituted the term evolution for the term change when ‘quoting’ my words.

Putting his own junk off on Russ T. R2 is the one who switched terms, not RT.
You’ll have to show me where I switched terms, it was Russ T who said “Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution”. Now how is he using the term evolution here? He’s not consistently using it in the correct sense. He’s not even using in the same sense both times within his own statement. Evolution in non biological systems simply means change and that can fit with his second use of the term though mutation would be a more correct term for biological systems but what did he mean the first time he used the term? Is he referring to change only in which case suggesting that change is mathematically absurd because change happens before natural selection is logically self contradictory or did he mean The Theory of Evolution the first time and something else, probably mutation, the second time. Russ T switched his own use of the term evolution within one statement. I’m beginning to suspect that he is not doing this purposefully, that he really is ignorant of the illogic of what he’s saying, I’d prefer that to the notion that he’s a purposeful liar anyway so until I have more information I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But I think we all can form a clear conclusion about what's going on...
I agree, Russ T can’t make a logical argument against ToE, he can’t even express his concerns about it in a logically consistent way and his bulldog, CTD, is going to chew on anyone’s leg who dares to point that out.

It is an attempt to profit while retreating from realistic definitions of 'evolution' and the "theory(ies)" they preach as fact.
The problem with this statement is that CTD does not get to make up the definition of the theory of evolution. He may not like it, he may think it’s wrong and he may, time and again define it differently to those who invented it and use it every day but until he actually shows that he understands it better than they I would have to suggest that he has no place doing so. If he wants to complain about straw men and call the Evolution, which seems to be his standard operating procedure, then that’s fine but it would be far less confusing if he’d be open about it and preferably give us a way to tell when he’s doing so. Maybe he should prefix evolution with CTD so we know it’s his straw man and not the scientific theory of evolution as defined by the scientists who actually created it. So how about you start talking about “CTDevolution” when you are doing this CTD and save the word Evolution for when you are talking about the real thing. I think that should help avoid so many of the problems here. So what do you all think, is CTD stupid, ignorant or out of date for failing to accept or even understand ‘ToE’ as it stands today? Or is he actually doing this on purpose?

In reason

Russell

Well now...

Let me start by scrolling up to what RT posted in Post #42179

Well, I'm guessing there isn't much need to clarify things a second time. All your gobble-dee-gouk is for naught. With the de-snipped quote in place, we see you have nothing left about which to complain.

This is just a typical game, and you're not winning.

You published a circular definition and got caught. Is that such a bummer? If it is, then you should learn, and discontinue such practices.

Just for fun, let's play with evolving your definition.

From this we could get
Change is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of change.

Change is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.

Change is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of change.

Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of change.

Evolution is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.

Evolution is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of change.

Now you get to play selection god. Which ones die? Which ones survive and mutate? Will the breed go extinct, or evolve into something even more meaningless?

Given that RT clarified what he said, and even included a happy smiley, I guess you took this as adding a taunting insult (the smiley) to the grievous injury (clarification) done against your cause.

He's pretty clear. And trying such an old, tired stunt? Not impressive. N - A - W - T.

Benefit? You give nobody any benefit when you misquote them for such purposes. Well, maybe the benefit of entertainment?

But the pre-butchered words of RT make perfect sense. Like most everyone around here, RT seems to be aware of the countless, ongoing attempts to redefine what evolutionism is about. Many do indeed omit 'natural selection'. You yourself have never given us much to go on regarding your own preferences. I've seen you advocate the "Modern Synthesis", but when presented with it, you disputed.

Like all trendy evopeddlers, you offer 'evolution = change' one minute, and the next you put down anyone foolish enough to accept this. A fair reward, IMO.

Not helping your cause. Thanks.

You bring up logic. I noticed that one of your comrades holds a somewhat unorthodox view (for an evopusher) regarding its merits.(found in and old thread)
http://www.herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=29101#Post29101

Oh? How can my procedure fail? It does not rely on being an authority, being an expert, or any such. It relies on that most scientific of procedures: observation.

We have seen that you don't consistently mean any single given thing when you use the term 'evolution'. The same is true of others. But it's not difficult to discover what is meant. Not difficult in the least. And nothing you do will make it so.

"Evolution is a mathematical absurdity."

Definition of Evolution:

(1) Abiogenesis
(2) Progressive Beneficial Mutation


Whichever definition you select, evolution is absurdly impossible.

(1) Abiogenesis is just plain crazy.
(2) PBM confuses people because on it's face, it seems feasible, but when you consider two things

- (a) the ratio of harmful mutation to beneficial mutation, and
- (b) symmetry

PBM immediately becomes mathematically absurd.


Evolution (all definitions) is nothing more than a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.


"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."

—H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

Hi Russ T

"Evolution is a mathematical absurdity."
Definition of Evolution:
(1) Abiogenesis
(2) Progressive Beneficial Mutation
Whichever definition you select, evolution is absurdly impossible.

I have to agree, both of these definitions of evolution are indeed absurd and impossible but neither is the scientific definition of evolution. I said this to CTD once and it apparently applies to you too Russ T, if you are going to talk about your own straw men and call them evolution it’s going to get many people confused. How about, in the future, you call these straw men RussTloution just to keep it straight and reserve the term Evolution to apply to either the observed facts of evolution or to the scientific theory of evolution. Could you do that for us please Russ? It would make these discussions far more productive.

The scientific theory of evolution has, since Darwin’s day so this is not a new idea, included the idea that some mutations are beneficial but most are not, they are, on their own, in no way progressive it is Natural selection and inheritance when combined with random mutation that produces the ‘progress’ we see though the term progress is misused even here.

Your first definition, abiogenesis, is outside Darwin’s definition of Evolution and it is outside the modern definition, only creationists insist that it is part of evolution so again this must fall under RussTloution not evolution if you wish to use the terms correctly. The evolution we observe could just as logically have stated from a god created organism as from a naturally occurring one. Abiogenesis may have occurred or god may have done it, in either case evolution is still the only theory that accurately describes the evidence we see in the fossil record and in lab and wild studies of extant organisms.

Your second definition, “Progressive Beneficial Mutations” again has very little to do with evolution though it’s closer than the first. Some mutations are indeed beneficial, though most are not, that’s an observation by the way not just a theory. ToE specifically rules out the possibility of progress. Progress entails foresight or goals neither of which exist in ToE or in our observations of evolution in action. The driver for evolution is survival and reproduction not as a goal but as a consequence of the fact that the alternative leads to death and extinction. Those species who happen to reproduce, and only those members of their group who do so, are going to be the only one’s whose genes are represented in the next generation. There have been many creatures who did not reproduce througout history, more than have succeeded in all probability, but they left no descendants so we don’t see their like today. Reproduction is the rule for the simple reason that those who do no are not here, the earth is populated by those capable of populating it, those who reproduce. The word used in evolutionary terms is ‘fittness’ though not in it’s common form, it is used in the sense that a creature is fit if it’s gene’s make it capable of surviving and reproducing successfully. It may be an unhappy, unhealthy, unfit slug of a creature but it it’s reproduces it is ‘fit’ by the evolutionary definition. Mind you those traits are likely to kill it before it can reproduce but that’s a separate question. Fitness in evolutionary terms is judged most easily by the number of successful offspring an individual produces.

(1) Abiogenesis is just plain crazy.

Is that crazy in the scientific sense Russ or crazy in the “The world is going to hell in a hand basket lead by men in a mega conspiracy that they have keep from us all for a thousand years using amalgam fillings and chemtrails to control us” paranoid delusional type of crazy Russ? In the scientific sense Abiogenesis is a plausible hypothesis supported by insufficient evidence to be claimed a theory but it’s early days yet. I’ll leave the paranoid delusional sense for you to comment on Russ if that is how you mean it.

(2) PBM confuses people because on it's face, it seems feasible, but when you consider two things

It seems feasible to you Russ T? You said yourself earlier, and I have to agree, that it is anything but feasible but it is not ToE. ToE is plausible, RussTolution, of which PBM apparently forms part, is not IMHO.

- (a) the ratio of harmful mutation to beneficial mutation, and

RussTloution again Russ T? Do you even know what natural selection is and how inheritance works? Do you understand that harmful mutations will die out in each generation and beneficial one’s will be differentially favoured. There’s no big mystery here, this is something that even most creationists accept, this is micro evolution in action, it has been observed to occur in lab experiments (the sequential bacterial culture work I described earlier) and in the wild (the finches of the Galapagos as just one example).

Benificial mutations have been observed.
Obviously creatures with beneficial mutations will be more likely to survive and pass on those genes, that’s what beneficial means.
The next generation will be adding mutations to the already accumulated beneficial one’s from previous ones and those which are harmful will again die out and any beneficial ones will accumulate with the earlier beneficial ones because the creatures who carry them pass on their gene’s to their offspring and because they are selected based on their overall fitness. Which bit of that picture do you not understand Russ T? I know you don’t want to believe it, you show that clearly by your mocking of it, but do you understand any of it? Do you want help to learn to understand it or are you happy as you are?

- (b) symmetry

I’ve already explained in brief the HOX gene complexes which so easily explain symmetry as to make this an observed fact of biological systems. Are you aware of the function of the many HOX gene complexes that we already know of? Do you want a few links to explain how HOX gene’s lay out symmetrical body plans without the convoluted co-evolution you are suggesting, falsely by the way, is impossible.

The HOX genes are well worth understanding RussT. I have pointed out before that we share the most DNA with our closest relatives as determined by morphological studies and the opposite is true, we share less but in very telling patterns with our less closely related ancestors as determined by those same studies. The HOX gene’s or Homeobox to give them their full name are a set of body plan gene’s that lay out where in our early embryo’s our heads, arms, torso, lets etc will be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox
Hox gene’s are laid out in our DNA and in all animals, in the physical order of the features they code for. The HOX gene for our torso falls between the gene for our heads and the gene for our feet with our leg HOX gene being between the torso and the feet etc. HOX gene’s form a scaffold which tells the forming body where to place features that are coded in other genes, they are the blueprint in a way. HOX genes tell the body to put an arm on the left of our bodies and an arm on the right. In both cases it is the same set of gene’s that the HOX gene’s enable to build each limb, there is no duplicate set of left and right gene’s just one set of gene’s for an arm and a HOX gene to tell it where each should be and which way to build it. The system mirrors the one plan on both sides of the body to build symmetrical structures from one blue print and one set of master plans.

This is not new information Russ T, science has know how symmetry is formed within our bodies for some time and I’ve pointed it out to you before. You really need to keep up Russ T if you are going to go on claiming to be an authority on this stuff.

PBM immediately becomes mathematically absurd.

It does indeed if you leave out most of the modern theory of evolution but then the theory of the motor car becomes pretty absurd if all you consider are the breaks. You have to look at all of what evolutionary theory explains not just one isolated though crucial part of it if you wish to understand what it says and how it works. Evolution 101 will clear up this profound misunderstanding for you or I’m sure there are a few here who could help if you are willing to do a bit of work and study. Do you want to understand what ToE says and how it works Russ or are you happy to go on spruking RussTolution?

—H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

LOL that’s a rather out of date quote Russ T! Can we at least try to keep up?

40 years is a very short period of time to expect speciation to occur. It has been observed in far less time but only in very fast reproducing species, bacteria (as explained earlier) and a range of insects and plants. Species with slower reproduction rates will take longer because, obviously, they go through generations more slowly and the number of generations is critical to speciation.

Here’s a small selection of scientific papers that document and discuss observed instances of speciation in lab experiments and in the wild.

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Given that beneficial mutations, natural selection and speciation are all observed phenomenon any theory which discounts the possibility of these things as RussTolution does, is clearly wrong. ToE does not contradict these facts however, leaving it as our current best explanation for these phenomenon. Do you have a better one RussT? Is there a new and improved version of RussTolution which can explain the observations rather than contradicting them?

In reason

Russell

This isn't really a response to anything, but I talked to a very intelligent young lady today who is going to become a Physicist. (Wants to work at the new huge machine the collider (sp?) and is trying to go to Yale... I asked her what her views were on evolution as she is Christian. She believes God actually USED the big bang TO create and that the earth was not literally created in 7 days and that that explanation was symbolic and given as a simplistic explanation people at that time, perhaps, could grasp. As far as apes to humans.... she only believes in micro-evolution vs. macro (and said Darwin didn't even believe in or teach macro). Her biggest complaint was those Christians who actually try to refute evolution, though, by writing books when they don't truly understand the science behind it : ) Just thought it was interesting... She is an admitted "science nerd" and just wants to do research and not really deal much with people, though.... These kids coming up nowdays are sharp.

Hi CTD

LOL interesting, I still have the original post Russ T wrote on my computer, I cut and pasted what he said into Word to write my reply on Friday our time before he added the ‘clarifications’ and posted back my response after the changes he made yet three days later. Why is it that we mortals can’t change posts so far after the fact?

Still I can’t see that the changes rescue the point Russ was trying to make. It’s still false to suggest, as he has, that beneficial mutations must all occur in the correct order without detrimental mutations in between. One mutation at a time is enough as natural selection does not wait, as Russ T has suggested, in the wings for the 11th hour but functions at each and every step in between. The beneficial mutations will be kept in each generation and the detrimental one’s will be removed in each generation. That was my original point against what Russ T said and nothing he has changed, not even the smiley, changes that fatal flaw in his claim.

You published a circular definition and got caught.

Show me the circularity CTD. Evolution does not equal change, evolution is about mutation, natural selection and differential reproductive success which shapes creatures from generation to generation. Those are all changes but they are changes that are bounded by rules that ToE explains in great detail. As I said to Russ T earlier you can’t consider yourself to have examined a car if all you have done is looked at the breaks. No more can you consider yourself to have examined evolution if all you do is look at change. There’s so much more to it, so much in fact that it is clearly a fallacy to claim that evolution = change as much as it is a fallacy to say that car = breaks.

Given that RT clarified what he said, and even included a happy smiley, I guess you took this as adding a taunting insult (the smiley) to the grievous injury (clarification) done against your cause.

LOL yes that was an interesting point, four days after writing the post and three days after I read it, pasted it into my word processor and composed most of my reply to it Russ T changed his post. The smiley was a cute touch though I agree! ?

Like all trendy evopeddlers, you offer 'evolution = change' one minute, and the next you put down anyone foolish enough to accept this. A fair reward, IMO.

LOL me trendy ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Evolution = change is in fact the correct definition of evolution for non biological systems. In biological systems the closest you get to this simplistic view is that “evolution is the observed change from generation to generation of heritable traits within a species”. Now that’s talking about the observed fact of evolution for indeed that has been observed so to suggest, as Russ’s words could be interpreted to, that it’s absurd simply contradicts the evidence so I gave him the benefit of the doubt for the first time in that post and assumed he was not contradicting the evidence so blatantly and that he was referring to the theory of evolution not the observed fact of it. If he was talking about the theory of evolution then we’re back to the car problem, it is simply but profoundly wrong to say that the theory of evolution = change in the same sense that it is wrong to say that car = breaks. So which is it CTD, is Russ T wrong because he meant changes from generation to generation in a species was impossible even though this has been observed or is he wrong because he meant the theory of evolution = change.

Oh? How can my procedure fail? It does not rely on being an authority, being an expert, or any such. It relies on that most scientific of procedures: observation.

Observation is good, but it’s only the first step in science. Theories attempt to explain observations, as we work to understand what is actually going on, that’s their value. Now ToE conforms to the observed facts of the world around though CTDvolution does not and you make a very good case against it but what really is the point of that? Is that your aim, to build straw men and cut them down? Sorry I always thought you actually wanted to address the scientific theory of evolution and were just having trouble grasping what it was and what it said. Maybe I was mistaken.

In Reason

Russell

Hi Jeanie

The critter you’re talking about is the Large Hadron Collider or LHC. I’m really looking forward to seeing what they learn from it. Pity that it broke down and will take some months to fix. It can recreate the conditions of the universe just a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang to study how the universe formed. They’re, among other things, trying to push back our understanding of the big bang closer to the initiating event of this universe.

It’s a fairly common view that god used the big bang to create the universe, there’s no evidence for it but equally no evidence against it as, even in theory, we can’t glean information before the time of the big bang so we can’t ever know what happened then at least not without new theories that go beyond those we have today.

The seven day creation idea does indeed contradict all the physical evidence from a huge range of scientific fields so I have to agree with her on that.

She’s wrong about Darwin however, Origins is about how species formed and split of from older species and how all of those species share one or a few common ancestors that began life on this planet. By any reasonable definition that is macro evolution.


The final paragraph of “The Origin of Species” - Chapter 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion - by Charles Darwin

Darwin clearly believed in Macro Evolution though that was not the term he used to describe it.

Her biggest complaint was those Christians who actually try to refute evolution, though, by writing books when they don't truly understand the science behind it : )

LOL yes that is very common, just read any of the creationist websites. Not that I wish to tar them all with the same brush but all of those I’ve seen suffer from this problem. It is very hard to find anyone who actually understands evolution in any depth and does not accept it so the creationists have a problem in that regard.

I like science nerds, they're great people generally if you can get through their shells and find out what really interests them.

All the best

Russell

Interesting how hard it is for thousands of intelligent scientists to get something complex to work right.

Since it was a cooling pump that failed and these intelligent scientists are physicists, this statemtnt is kinda like deriding your doctor's skills because he can't fix your car's anti-lock brakes.

Oh yeah, you don't think doctors have skills.

Let me rephrase:

Since it was a cooling pump that failed and these intelligent scientists are physicists, this statement is kinda like deriding your homeopathic practitioner's skills because he can't fix your car's anti-lock brakes.

Better?

I doubt Russ meant it like it sounded. I found it an odd comment, too. That collider sounds amazing. I hope there is a lot to be gained from it other than just knowing how the big bang happened, though. Must have been extremely expensive. (I'm sure there are a lot of scientific applications??) I don't know that much about it.

Hi Russ T

Interesting how hard it is for thousands of intelligent scientists to get something complex to work right.

LOL what a truly bizarre statement! It is indeed a very very complex machine. From what I’ve read of you Russ T you are a programmer, correct me if I’m wrong, how many programs of more than a few hundred lines of code have you ever written that didn’t require debugging? If they have just one significant bug they are doing pretty well wouldn’t you say?

In Reason

Russell

Hi Jeanie

The LHC is designed to run a whole range of experiments, the insights it may give into the big bang are just one small part of what it’s about. It’s designed to give us more detailed insights into how the matter of this universe works, insights that have in the past lead to electronic computers for instance. Who knows what they’ll learn from this latest one and where that knowledge will lead.

All the best

Russell

Not bizarre at all.

I was making the point complexity requires intelligence.

Sorry if you missed that.

What is complexity?

Would you consider a tangle of wire coat hangers to be complex. You know, the tangled mess that is sometimes found on the floor of a child's closet. What intelligence was required to put that together?

How about those strings of Christmas lights that were in the box in the attic all year? That mess looks very complicated and sometimes takes hours to sort out. I had to set up the tree at my aunt's house last year and that box of lights was so complexly interwoven, I thought I would never figure it out. What intelligence put that strange thing together?

Maybe I'm still missing your point unless it is simply your personal incredulity.

He certainly did mean it like it sounded. You think someone of RussT's immense intellectual capacity and erudite communication skills would make a misstep of that magnitude? He thinks all scientists are in a big conspiracy and at night they do the same thing they do every night, "Try to find a way to rule the world".

The coat-hanger and Christmas lights analogy? The decay/disarray that occurs because of time or being dishevelled is the observation that things tend to "wind down" "decay" or become disordered through wear and tear or not being looked after. This still doesn't remove the order/creation of them in the first place. So yes, what intelligence put them together? Check the label if it's still there! All required creators/designers. Time, mess, decay didn't create a thing, except a mess or deterioration of already created materials that were put to good use. I know your frustration, we've had the same problem with lights.

I really can't even compare this fully to the intricate designs of life itself, which far outweigh any "man-made" structure (which even then works with already existing materials). Let me know when they come out with something that evolves into a product we can actually use. We buy it in simplistic form, leave it alone in the attic for years on end to let the magic of time and storage have its way. Then open up that box and find a complete/formed and useful product.

The coat-hangers and Christmas lights certainly didn't evolve. And no evolution was involved in the mess you found when you got into the attic to bring out the lights. It's called storing lots of wires/lights mixed together in a box. They tend to get tangled when you do that No real mystery. That's an observation that a child can make. My teddy bears as a kid didn't last too long either when I slept with them. Wear/tear/friction/chewing/gumming/dribbling.

If you sit around long enough without moving, you may find your joints seizing up too! Another reason why we need to take care of ourselves, as well as our things.

My coat hangers are fine though. I don't leave them anywhere where they can be stood on or damaged. I dare say they'll out-live me! I'm in worse shape than they are. Mind you, they don't do a heck of a lot except hang around all day wearing my clothes

Your example is not demonstrating complexity. It is demonstrating entropy, and in fact, is a solid argument for creationism.

You are interpreting your observations with your emotions instead of your intellect—A very common mistake that enables a faulty type of reasoning (emotionalism) that is necessary to accept evolution. Not surprisingly, it is exactly the same type of emotionalized-reasoning that leads to religious fanaticism, such as evolutionism.

Nevertheless...

What I was saying is this:

The LHC is complex.

The LHC broke.

There are a lot of smart ("intelligent") people working to fix it.

Conclusion:

Building and maintaining complex machines takes intelligence.

Can you tell the difference between a tangled up rope and one that has been purposely put in a "tangled up" state by an expert at tying knots?

That is my point...tangled ropes, coat hangers and Christmas lights are complex and they are not a sign of intelligence. Russ stated that complexity alone is a sign of intelligence...I have shown several cases where it is not. Therefore you cannot conclude that complexity alone means that life is the result of intelligence.

Perhaps...ordered complexity? Then we have crystalline structures that are quite ordered and quite complex. Designed by intelligence. You might say "no" but I would say "yes" because I believe that the universe was designed to work in certain ways and that crystal matrix is a result of the initial design....just as life is.

In what way does it demonstrate entropy? Could you show me the thermodynamic properties of hangers on a clothing rod and how this has less entropy than the thermodynamic properties of the hangers entangled with each other on the floor?

You believe that I interpret observations with my emotions because you consider those who don't agree with you as lesser beings. Not surprisingly it is exactly the same type of arrogance that lead to Satan's fall from Heaven.

What part of the fact that organisms are complex machines prevents God from using evolution as the means to create them?

You are missing the point here because in the latter case, you are using intelligence to emulate natural processes. It's like using a Pentium to do work that could easily be done on a 68HC11.

The next section expounds on this.



Tangled ropes created by natural processes end up in their condition (assuming you just throw a bunch of ropes on the floor) because of the underlying rules of physics.

These underlying rules ARE complicated, so this discussion opens up yet another can-of-worms for evolution, namely:

Where did all these complex physical rules come from?

Where did all this complexity in the universe get it order?

http://urlbam.com/ha/u

Hmmmmm... This gets even more interesting, but back to our example.

So, the rules of physics are complicated, which is why people go to school for a long time to understand them.

This is why the two very long posts that I made on this forum rebutting evolution are based in these two things:

(1) Math
(2) Rulesets

Now, pile of rope IS actually (in an absolute sense) a sign of intelligence, because it has "A TYPE OF" order that results through "natural" processes. These processes are defined by the underlying rulesets (laws of physics) which are indeed intelligent.

However, humans often try to understand complexity through abstraction: They try to forget some aspects about the underlying complexity of a system and isolate their focus to only a single "layer" at a time.

So when we do this, we may ASSUME that a pile of rope does not show intelligence in order that we may search for an isolated sign of intelligence only within a higher level of abstraction.

So, with this in mind, we can agree to lie to ourselves for a minute to make the assumption that a pile of rope does not show intelligence so we can better focus on the layer of abstraction before us.

So, in this lay or abstraction, a very valid question to ask is: How did DNA form under the control of the current ruleset?

Another relates to symmetry. We know of NO rulesets that facilitate symmetry. In fact, we know of NO rulesets that can jump all of the barriers between cells and highly-complex symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Yes, rulesets that define the basic physical movements that leads to a complex pile of ropes on the floor is well known and can be expressed mathematically. In fact, modern video games utilize these rules expressed in math to create realistic environments.

Yet, these these rules make no provision for the vast number of intelligent steps necessary for the creation of highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

Now, I have spoken on this in detail in a post I made about a year ago, but I'm not going to put the time in to locating it now. I've already wasted too much time doing other things today.

Nevertheless, I may try to dig it up in the future so you can see it.

Hopefully, this information at least lays the foundation for that type of discussion.


I wrote the following a little earlier, so I'll guess I'll leave them here.


The arguments that I have made in the past against evolution that were based either in math or in arguments of ruleset progression have been all but ignored by the evolutionist on this forum.

We know that the universe, (physics) works according to sets of rules. These rules permit certain things to occur, like crystals to grow, and we understand the processes involved.

Now ignoring the mathematical absurdity of evolution entirely, we can still find brick walls opposing the evolution myth when you ask yourself how the existing rulesets could create symmetry.

You're an engineer (so says your profile). I used to design embedded system which involves both hardware and software. All of our designs are based on underlying rules.

Now, we have to ask ourselves, where are the underlying rules that enable the creation of symmetry?

Now I've heard evolutionists try to explain it by saying it has to do with signaling molecules or HOX, but as is so often the case, they get the cart before the horse.

If you want to make the argument that HOX was responsible, then you have created a problem that is bigger than the original problem, and that is: How do you create the HOX mechanism to begin with.

HOX requires more complexity than without. So, how do you get from simple mutations to a HOX mechanism. We have to deal with the mathematical absurdity of THAT (even before we get to the other absurdities).

Symmetry is a deal breaker, one among many, for evolution.

Wow. That's quite a jump.

It's clear to me that you are emotionally interpretative. But that's OK. I'm not condemning you. I'm just pointing out why you come to some erroneous conclusions.

Emotionalism typically glumps concepts together, and I see this here as well.



Because God did not create the necessary rulesets to facilitate evolution.

I believe God did it this way purposefully to leave a clear demonstration of His power and wisdom.

How on earth do you get to spend so much time on this forum. Do you work for the government or something?