Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dmp is talking about MACRO-evolution. Micro evolution is observable in the physical world. But macro-evo is harder to prove because nobody has yet determined how life originally sprang from pure elements.Harmageddon said:Direct evidence is I'm afraid nigh impossible, but indirect evidence for the occurence of evolution is numerous, if you are willing to make the leap of faith that is.
The ciclids of the Victoria Lake are one, Darwin's finches another, thought to speciate from a single ancestor, be it ciclid or finch, without competition and plenty of available "niches" = resource that is not yet taken by anything else or if taken, by an inferiour species, in other words: free for exploitation.
Islands in general give us a very intimite view of this speciation: a single species arrives, finds no or easy competition, and over time speciates/evolves into numerous subspecies that take advantage of all the available resources. Instead of an Island full of one particular species of finch, competing for the same resource, the mechanism of selection pressured them into finding alternatives rather than compete each other to the death.
Actually it has been tried a number of times, but has been refuted an equal number of times by scientists. Thus as of yet, deemed impossible.Originally posted by dmp:
...but it's NOT impossible to show evidence of device/intelligent design.
(shrug).
Harmageddon said:Actually it has been tried a number of times, but has been refuted an equal number of times by scientists. Thus as of yet, deemed impossible.
dmp said:...but it's NOT impossible to show evidence of device/intelligent design.
(shrug).
The ClayTaurus said:I'm going to make a prediction. One day, the origin of life will be proved through science, and it will either lead to two conclusions.
1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God, and he created the entire process that science uncovered.
Preach on brother! Preach on! Yes! I'd like to hope that it is the latter or number two.
Originally posted by Hagbard Celine:
dmp is talking about MACRO-evolution. Micro evolution is observable in the physical world. But macro-evo is harder to prove because nobody has yet determined how life originally sprang from pure elements.
The ClayTaurus said:I'm going to make a prediction. One day, the origin of life will be proved through science, and it will either lead to two conclusions.
1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God, and he created the entire process that science uncovered.
Originally posted by The ClayTaurus:
I'm going to make a prediction. One day, the origin of life will be proved through science, and it will either lead to two conclusions.
1.) There is no God.
2.) There is a God, and he created the entire process that science uncovered.
I would disagree with you. I think the ability of new species to emerge because of Micro-evolutionary stimulus is provable. Maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary here with the micro and macro stuff, but the only thing faith-based in the evolutionary theory is how life sprang from the elements. Subspecies can easily evolve into totally different species given time and the inability to mate with the common ancestral organism.Harmageddon said:Hi Hagbard, yes I realize that.
Micro evolution is the existence of subspecies, such as the different species of dogs we have. Macro evolution is the existence of species, such as cats, dogs, apes and humans. Agreed?
I've already stated my view that it is indeed a leap of faith as far as the first step in the whole process. It is already far less a leap, more like a step, to get your head around the idea from fossil records and observable species alive today, that there is a certain order in this.
Fish, amphibians, reptilians, birds, mammals; there are many things that show these species evolved through various mutations. The feathers of the birds are the reptilian's scales for example, made up of the same proteins and very likely involving many of the same genes.
We share some 98% of our DNA with chimpansees, a well known fact.
First, evolution does not exclude previous species to exist: we did not evolve from the chimpansee, rather both chimp and human evolved from a common ancestor. Thus both still exist, and have probably outcompeted their shared ancestor by flanking his/her possible "niche".
I know it's hard for some people to come to grips with the idea that we are thus related species, but there is besides the genetic similarities much in the behaviour and phenotype of both chimp and human that is the same.
For example: we have the EXACT SAME number of hair follicles as chimpansees. Nearly all of their hair follicles grow thick black hairs, most of ours thin and small grey ones. Not to mention the similarities in overall shape.
Harmageddon said:It is already far less a leap, more like a step, to get your head around the idea from fossil records and observable species alive today, that there is a certain order in this.
Darwin was convinced that, given enough time, small changes accumulating over time could account for the transformation of one species into another. Darwin proclaimed it was all a matter of probability. After all, the laws of probability do not preclude any possibility from occurring. Statistically speaking, there is always the chance of something happening. For example, if one were to drive a truck full of coins into an auditorium and dump them of the floor, the coins could all come up heads. However, it is not probable that such would ever happen.
The real question then is not whether or not evolution is possible but whether or not it is probable. The Darwinists claim that time is on their side. They note that the earth is nearly five billion years old and argue that such was enough time for chance mutation to account for the evolution of the entire complex of life in all its myriad forms. However, even considering the age of the universe, Fred Hoyle (1960) wrote that this was not sufficient time for the chance of evolution of the nucleic codes for each of the 2,000 genes that regulate the life processes of the more advanced mammals. In June of 2000, researchers announced that they had sequenced the human genome of the 3.1 billion base pairs, the rungs that make up the ladder-like double helix of DNA. Traditionally it had been assumed that humans had approximately 70,000 genes, and that all mammals had a similar number though not necessarily the same genes. In February of 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium announced that there are about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome, only about twice as many as there are in a worm or fly. Interestingly, there are only a few hundred genes in the human genome that are not in the mouse genome.
Each gene is a sequence of DNA about one thousand nucleotides long, and each nucleotide consists of a sugar, a nitrogen containing base, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides in a DNA chain are linked together through their phosphate groups. According to Hoyle (1960), the probability that the chance occurrence of random mutations could, through the long process of time, accidentally create the complex ordered relationships expressed through the genetic codes could be likened to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 (Woodward, 1988).
In his book, Algeny, Jeremy Rifkin (1984) noted that in the world of mathematics, events whose probability occur within the range of 1/10^30 to 1/10^50 are considered impossible. In terms of information alone, it is estimated that a one-cell bacterium of E. coli contains the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. There are an estimated four million instructions in the DNA of E. coli. Even in the 'simplest' organisms, the information standard is enormously high (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1981). A tiny one-cell organism is definitely something to contend with. George Gaylord Simpson (1967) wrote that the evolutionary journey leading up to the simplest one-cell organism was as impressive as the rest of the evolutionary trip put together.
Apparently, the mathematical odds more than agree with Simpson's analysis. In fact, according to the odds, a one-cell organism is so complex that the likelihood of its coming together by sheer accident and chance is computed to be around 1/10^78,000 . Remember, nonpossibility, according to statisticians, is found in the range of 1/10^30 to 1/10^50 . The odds of a single-cell organism ever occurring by chance mutation are so far out of the ball park as to be unworthy of even being considered on a statistical basis. Such an occurrence, we might add, would be indistinguishable from a miracle. When one moves from the single-cell organism to higher, even more complex forms of life, the statistical probability shifts from to ridiculous to preposterous. Huxley, for example, computed the probability of the emergence of the horse as 1/10^3,000,000 (ibid., p.154).
According to Denton (1986), the possibility of life arising suddenly on earth by chance is infinitely small. Proteins are strings and coils of between 200 and 1000 amino acids. To get a cell by chance would require at least one hundred functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. That is one hundred simultaneous events each of an independent probability which could hardly be more than 10^-20 giving a maximum combined probability of 10^-2000. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe (1981) provided a similar estimate of the chance of life originating, assuming functional proteins to have a probability of 10^-20 . By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000 an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
Wysong (1976) wrote that the most basic living organism would require 124 proteins of properly sequenced amino acids. The odds of even the simplest living organism forming by chance was 10^-78,436. Furthermore, the total probability of the chance formation of the proteins and DNA required by the smallest self-replicating entity is 10^-167,626 (Hadd, 1979).
The Darwinian claim that all the adaptive design of nature has resulted from a random search, a mechanism unable to find the best solution in a game of checkers, is one of the most daring claims in the history of science. But it is also one of the least substantiated. No evolutionary biologist has ever produced any quantitative proof that the designs of nature are in fact within the reach of chance (Denton, 1986). Would we believe, for example, that random shuffling of bricks would build a castle or a Greek temple? In the face of mounting evidence, more scientists are abandoning evolution.
http://www.quodlibet.net/johnson-evolution.shtml
Don't you know already Manny? God IS a woman. Haven't you seen Dogma?manu1959 said:i agree except God will be a woman
Yes.Harmageddon said:Areth though a prophet?
If Alanis Morisette is God then I quit.Hagbard Celine said:Don't you know already Manny? God IS a woman. Haven't you seen Dogma?
Hahahaha! Okay, well maybe you subscribe to the Southpark take on things--God is a hippo, giraffe, lion, angel creature and only Mormons get into heaven.The ClayTaurus said:If Alanis Morisette is God then I quit.
The ClayTaurus said:If Alanis Morisette is God then I quit.
manu1959 said:i agree except God will be a woman
manu1959 said:haven't seen dogma....hoping god looks more like selma hayek
manu1959 said:haven't seen dogma....hoping god looks more like selma hayek
no1tovote4 said:That is a good movie. I added it to my supernatural collection...
You gotta watch it. The thirteenth apostle...
In the movie God chooses to be man or woman depending on whim. At the beginning of the movie God is corporal in a homeless man's body, at the end She takes on the form of Alannis Morrisette....
