From the 'Evolution - True or False (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1346959#post1346959)' thread:

I said:
Everything is faith-based to some extent. But we should really only have faith in our own senses. And science is the ideal that comes closest to this.

I mean that there is no concrete ideal in that we all have different opinions on what the facts mean. Scientists are interested in different aspects of the idea of evolution, which causes them to come to different, yet basically similar, conclusions. They all agree that DNA inevitably changes from generation to generation when faced with new environments. As of yet, there has been no discovery of anything inherent in the environment or in DNA to cause it to stop changing at any point. This means that organisms will inevitably change drastically, causing the variation of organisms we see today.

To which Saquist replied:
@ Roy Lenningan
An honest answer.
Certainly you have a balanced view of your world.

I belive that it's evident that animals can adapt into new breeds and that can exclude other breeds. It happens to dogs but to the point of a entirely new creature...no...that defies what I've come to know about the nature of DNA and life in general not to mention a biblical perspective.

So I put forth the following questions for discussion in a fresh thread:
What is it about the nature of DNA that causes us to seperate the idea into the mutually exclusive macro and micro evolutions? And is micro evolution all we have been able to observe?

To Saquist exclusively (though anyone may answer, obviously):
What is it you have discovered about the nature of DNA and life to cause you to come to the conclusion so certainly that it contradicts basic ideologies of evolution?

Also, I am interested in what a biblical perspective has to say on the matter.

I would greatly appreciate it if you took some time to get your thoughts and evidence ready in a clear and concise manner and post your opinion in more of an essay-like form. This is to get your full thoughts out for uninhibited digestion, making it easier to understand. I would rather read a book than staccato remarks.

The terms Macro and Micro evolution were first coined in the 1930s by a guy named Theodosius Dobzhansky when he was helping to devise the idea of modern evolutionary synthesis.

Having studied under a man who openly supported the idea that change in a population was driven by an unseen force toward a perfect goal, it is not surprising that he sought to form a division between changes in a local population and those of overall species - to suggest that a species, on its way toward perfection, had any need to branch out into different versions of itself, would be absurd.

Over the following decades, the terms largely disappeared from evolutionary discussion, as the only apparent difference between the variation within a population and the act of speciation was that of degree. No artificial delineation was needed, as the ramp from "micro" to "macro" was nearly even.

After Gould’s suggestion of punctuated equilibrium (rapid changes in species when faced with drastic environmental shifts), and progress in the field of mathematical chaos theory, the terms have gain a minor amount of traction again. The changes within a population appear to accumulate over time until a tipping point – of accumulated changes, such as with African Cichlid fish, or of geographic separation, as in Darwin’s finches – can lead to a sudden shift toward a divergent population and subsequent speciation.

(Anyone interested in this idea should try the Button Experiment suggested by Stuart Kauffman (http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/tippingpoint.html) – lay out 50 buttons on the table, and then start tying them together one at a time at random; counting the number of multiple connections made.
As groups of buttons start accumulating, there is a point at which groups of buttons start connecting to each other, and the average group sizes suddenly jump with the addition of a single connection or two – the change has been prepared for, and a small modification can yield significant results.)


However, Micro and Macro evolution are still terms largely left alone by modern evolutionists, simply because there is very little evidence (that I’m aware of) that suggests that the driving forces behind changes within a population (random mutation, heredity, natural selection) are any different than those at work at a species level. The terms appear to be completely artificial, but unlike the artificial divisions used during the classification process, they do not appear to aid us in understanding the natural world.


The major use of the terms today is found in attempts to debunk evolution by religious factions – they have attached to the idea of a difference between genetic shift and speciation as a scientific loophole; they can take all of the evidence in support of evolution, and simply dump it into the microevolution heading. Ignoring that macroevolution is thought to be driven by the same forces, and as such evidence for one is evidence for the other, they demand proof of macroevolution, and then take all such evidence and call it evidence in support of micro-evolution.


At this point, the difference and the terms should be wiped from the collective minds of evolutionists and creationists alike – it does not appear to be a useful dichotomy in light of the current empirical evidence that we have. The driving forces behind evolution do not change as a group moves farther away from its parent species genetically, and there does not appear to be a perfect goal to which all species slowly move.

I think I shall take issue with you on this River Wind. I believe the jury is still out on whether macro-evolution is just micro-evolution writ large, or contains, at least in part, some different mechanisms.

If speciation events occur, as posited by Darwin, through the slow gradual accumulation of mutations, then micro and macro are identical.

If speciation events always occur by, for example, the accumulation and dissemination of recessive mutations within a population until they reach sufficient density (probably within a small, isolated sub-community) that they may in an instant express themselves, thus creating the new species, then micro and macro are much the same, but not exactly the same.

If mutations to certain regulatory genes induce a sudden large scale change, perhaps even sufficient to create, in an instant, a new genera, or even higher taxanomic grouping, [and this is certainly plausible as Kauffman's work would support] then we must retain the two terms.

Of course all of this is only half the topic, I think, and I apologise to Roy if I have deviated from the purpose of his thread. In that regard I cannot see any conflict at all between the Bible and evolution.
Only a literal interpretation of the Bible presents difficulties. Given the liking of the Hebrews for metaphor, it seems almost sacriligeous to doubt that their writings, whether or not inspired by God, were not deeply imbued with poetic interpretations of their origins. When read in that light evolution sits very comfortably within any, and I suspect all, parts of the Bible.

However, Micro and Macro evolution are still terms largely left alone by modern evolutionists, simply because there is very little evidence (that I’m aware of) that suggests that the driving forces behind changes within a population (random mutation, heredity, natural selection) are any different than those at work at a species level. The terms appear to be completely artificial, but unlike the artificial divisions used during the classification process, they do not appear to aid us in understanding the natural world.

This is what I was thinking. I am more apt to see a conceptual dichotomy such as this and interpret it as just another arbitrary line drawn by the human mind. It seems to me that there is no reason for the forces causing small changes to prevent an accumulation of those small changes, therefore causing large change eventually. Whether these larger changes occur gradually, or like the straw that broke the camel's back, I am not so sure. But I would lean more towards punctuated equilibrium.


Of course all of this is only half the topic, I think, and I apologise to Roy if I have deviated from the purpose of his thread. In that regard I cannot see any conflict at all between the Bible and evolution.
Only a literal interpretation of the Bible presents difficulties. Given the liking of the Hebrews for metaphor, it seems almost sacriligeous to doubt that their writings, whether or not inspired by God, were not deeply imbued with poetic interpretations of their origins. When read in that light evolution sits very comfortably within any, and I suspect all, parts of the Bible.
Its perfectly fine if your expertise only addresses half the question in detail.

Also, it is my understanding that all language is metaphor, even the one we are using now. So it is impossible to interpret something written 'literally'. But I believe the languages of science, especially math, are leaps and bounds more accurate metaphors than common tongue.

The only thing is, that abstract metaphors touch our deeper human quality, such that we can feel its meaning, even if that meaning is different for everyone. It is a much more motivating force than more detailed experessions, such as numbers.

Roy,

Saquist has already answered the question... you just have to remove the extraneous words and understand what he is saying:

"I believe ... a biblical perspective."

Or specifically:

"The bible validates what is true... not reality, observable phenomenoa, empirical data, or other myths."

I would like him to explain, in this thread, what he means by that.

I believe the jury is still out on whether macro-evolution is just micro-evolution writ large, or contains, at least in part, some different mechanisms. The two mechanisms you posit seem to me equally good candidates for the "macro" label, and equally dependent on small genetic changes - micro steps - followed by selection, being responsible for the large effects we observe.

I don't think too many people who attempt to distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution would be willing to accept either of those mechanisms as the kind of distinction they sought.

If speciation events always occur by, for example, the accumulation and dissemination of recessive mutations within a population until they reach sufficient density (probably within a small, isolated sub-community) that they may in an instant express themselves, thus creating the new species, then micro and macro are much the same, but not exactly the same.

Fixation on 'mutations' will blind you from the 'truth'. What is speciation really?

Speciation occurs when a species can no longer be classified as the species it used to be. Because it has changed in form and/or behaviour.

I'm not talking about how speciation might occur (for instance geographical isolation), but the result of speciation.

Speciation produces something substantially new that distinguishes a population from the population it was derived from.

Form and behaviour. Ultimately both are hardwired (to a certain degree) in the genetic material.

Accumulation of mutations doesn't lead to speciation. Mutations that change form and behaviour leads to speciation. I think it is an important distinction to make.

From a developmental perspective the genetic material is a tool. It's a black box to a certain extent, and it is extremely robust and at the same time malleable. The development leads to the same general type every single time. That is mighty robust. Signalling networks are so intertwined, backed up, 'redundant' that it is a miracle anything can actually change. It does. Small genetic changes can lead to big changes in form. Large genetic changes can fail to change the form.

The entire fact that there is a system of complex developmental biology that leads to form and ultimately also a large set of behavioural patterns and/or restrictions is often overlooked. This system fucks up the entire notion of DNA being a blueprint. Mutation equals change. It is just not true. This entire concept of developmental biology also demolishes the concept of micro and macro evolution.

An organism can accumulate a huge amount of genetic information that at first will not change form. The new neutral information can be used though to make major changes and do it quickly or slowly.

Similarly small genetic changes can have major effects.

How many generations does it take to turn one species into another?

It is all entirely dependent on the developmental machinery, the genetic flexibility present that can support changes in this machinery and the environment (and a myriad of other things I do not mention). In the end it is all the same though. No difference between micro and macro.

Accumulation of mutations doesn't lead to speciation. Mutations that change form and behaviour leads to speciation. I think it is an important distinction to make.I should rather say that behaviour that is facilitated by mutation leads to speciation.

As a general remark, recall that I (and most biologists who use the term) would have macro evolution relate to higher taxonomic levels than species or genus.

in reply to both of Ophiolite's comments: why would the amount of change (speciation vs a new genus or a new family) or the speed of that change nessesitate a new mechanism?

That accumulation of mutations that are not expressed versus a single mutation which triggers the expression of other features are still implimented one single mutation at a time. The results may be different, but aren't the mechanisms identical?

in reply to both of Ophiolite's comments: why would the amount of change (speciation vs a new genus or a new family) or the speed of that change nessesitate a new mechanism?
It may not necessitate a new mechanism, it may just be the way it is. It may be that without a further mechanism phylumisation (if I may coin a word) may not occur. I suggest we don't know. There is enough evidence out there to support either viewpoint.
I know that on forums the defenders of evolution ignore many of the open questions about evolution in order to stave off the lunacy of the creationists. I suspect this might also influence many (most?) researchers, who will investigate the conventional line in more and more detail, rather than challenge what they understand to be the staus quo. It takes adventurers like Gould and Kaufmann to admit the difficulties and then to explore explanations for them.
That accumulation of mutations that are not expressed versus a single mutation which triggers the expression of other features are still implimented one single mutation at a time. The results may be different, but aren't the mechanisms identical?No. In the first case we have Darwin's slow gradual emergence of new species, and not a hope in hell by this means of evolving one of the higher taxa, certainly not a phylum. Look at the population from year to year and century to century you see no major differences.
In the second case the new species, or higher taxa, emerges overnight - or at least in a single generation. That is a massive difference in my book.

Roy,

Saquist has already answered the question... you just have to remove the extraneous words and understand what he is saying:

"I believe ... a biblical perspective."

Or specifically:

"The bible validates what is true... not reality, observable phenomenoa, empirical data, or other myths."

Aside from the Biblical perspective there is the emperical perspective. That perspective is a different image from scientific theoretical perspective.

The theoretical perspective is extrapolative, propposing a larger and larger picture over time. This perspective is also limmited by imagination and yet exagerates the emperical perspective. You refer to the exageration as "macro evolution" and the emperical perspective as "mirco evolution". The confluence of the two, what you dub "evolution."

Revelations concerning the forward progression of DNA in cells has revealed with artifical alterations that mutation does not yield the necessary diversity to account for the complete restructuring of animal and plant kingdoms. While studies revealed plants were more suspectable to immediate change only 1% of those mutation induced in laboratories were benefical and animals produced results less than one percent favorable, outline by Wolf Lonnig.

While that may have been the most latest revelation we've known about mutations harmful effects for sometime. There is consensus with Lonnig's findings.

"Most of them are harmful or lethal" -Carl Sagan...

"The greatest proportion of mutation are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutatated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every sucessful or useful mutation, there are many thousandss which are harmful."-Peo Koller

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutatants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process"-Encycopedia Americana

Placed in competition with normal insects purposefully mutated insects had a disadvantage.To that effect Stebbins says:

"After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."-G. Ledyard Stebbins

Again in agreement with Lonnig's findings and mirroring observable realty.

Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." But then contradicted himself. "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."

Would any process that resulting in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered benefical? If a contractor had this sort or sucess ratio how long would he be employed. Would you feel safe with a driver that made this many bad decision vs good decisions.

Essentialy this devision of marco and micro evolution is non-existent. Even if all mutations were benefical, they couldn't produce anything new.

"A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water"-The World Book Encyclodpedia

Nothing new. The may change color or textuture of hair and skin, or even add a sixth finger to hand of five but nothing new comes into existence.

It does come down to odds and probabilty.

"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better." -Geneticist Dobzhansky

It doesn't seem reasonable that the precision processes in a cell are built up by a procedure that tears down. The extrapolative perspective is directly contradicting the emperical perspective.

The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining 1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.

Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a 1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.

No fewer than 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. The chances of obtaining all of these at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power...."An outrageously small probability" -Fred Hoyle

In his book with Chandra who I've quoted before Hoyle adds this: "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." then adds. "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."

The chance of forming histones, thought to govern gene activity, at the simplest to be one in 20 to the 100th power, another huge number. That is "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes."

"Preoteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." Hitiching

- "Which came first,"- [/B[B]]"The answer must be they developed in parallel."
-Richard E Dickerson

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished in one blow by espousing a step by step process by which natural selection could do it's work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. This is our emperical perspective. The theoretical perspective is massively misproportioned and contradictory to reality and it's emperical foundation.

Crap.

Very good Ophiolite...that's exactly what I would do in such an impotent position....crap.

How far did you get before you had that emotional reaction, Ophiolite.?(purely in the intrest of behavorial observation)

How far did you get before you had that emotional reaction, Ophiolite.?(purely in the intrest of behavorial observation)I saw your name and didn't need to read any further.

By the way, it wasn't an emotional reaction, it was a carefully judged, objective, scientific assessment.

I implore you to continue to do so. Listening is not one of your cardinal attributes.

Saquist: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1354522#post1354522
You present a better case here than you have previously. However, you are off-topic. Please discuss the division between micro and macro evolution in this thread, not the validity of abiogenesis.


No. In the first case we have Darwin's slow gradual emergence of new species, and not a hope in hell by this means of evolving one of the higher taxa, certainly not a phylum. Look at the population from year to year and century to century you see no major differences.
In the second case the new species, or higher taxa, emerges overnight - or at least in a single generation. That is a massive difference in my book.

But why? I don't see a difference, other than the time in which it occurs. Why is it that 'slow' acts as a prophylactic to divergence?

god dam it you fuckers. The first decent thread in years and now it is fucked up.

Saquist: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1354522#post1354522
You present a better case here than you have previously. However, you are off-topic. Please discuss the division between micro and macro evolution in this thread, not the validity of abiogenesis.



But why? I don't see a difference, other than the time in which it occurs. Why is it that 'slow' acts as a prophylactic to divergence?

True but no matter where along the progress of what is called evolution we must face facts and we must face the odds. Micro evolution is adaptation, observed and completely emperical. Marco evolution is imaginary, theoretical, improbable, and mathematically impossible. These individuals had already come to this conclusion and no significant research to explore the limmits of evolution or micro evolution existed untill Lonnig established the Law of recurrent variation. A dilberate attempt to isolate adaptive features in living organism...moving biology out of the realm of theory. Michael Behe also sough to define a limmit, Proposing that cells could not maintain function or develop in reduced states.

This is not the first time voices have been heard on this subject. People like Ophiolite use deaf ears as measure of credibility but a deaf man never heard anything worthwhile.

But why? I don't see a difference, other than the time in which it occurs. Why is it that 'slow' acts as a prophylactic to divergence?
Explain to me how the higher taxa emerge by the slow gradual accumulation of mutations without leaving any evidence of internediate forms? That is the conundrum. That is what suggests there may be another mechanism at work which is responsible for these larger evolutionary steps. That is what justifies the possible distinction between micro and macro evolution.

SpuriousMonkey what makes you say we have messed the thread up? Go ahead and bring it back to the topic you think we have deviated it from.

Where would you hope to find that evidence? In the structure of currently living things? Such as vestigiasl organs or Panda-bear thumbs?

Or are you thinking more about the fossil record?

Aside from the Biblical perspective there is the emperical perspective. That perspective is a different image from scientific theoretical perspective.

The theoretical perspective is extrapolative, propposing a larger and larger picture over time. This perspective is also limmited by imagination and yet exagerates the emperical perspective. You refer to the exageration as "macro evolution" and the emperical perspective as "mirco evolution". The confluence of the two, what you dub "evolution."

Revelations concerning the forward progression of DNA in cells has revealed with artifical alterations that mutation does not yield the necessary diversity to account for the complete restructuring of animal and plant kingdoms. While studies revealed plants were more suspectable to immediate change only 1% of those mutation induced in laboratories were benefical and animals produced results less than one percent favorable, outline by Wolf Lonnig.

While that may have been the most latest revelation we've known about mutations harmful effects for sometime. There is consensus with Lonnig's findings.

"Most of them are harmful or lethal" -Carl Sagan...

"The greatest proportion of mutation are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutatated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every sucessful or useful mutation, there are many thousandss which are harmful."-Peo Koller

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutatants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process"-Encycopedia Americana

Placed in competition with normal insects purposefully mutated insects had a disadvantage.To that effect Stebbins says:

"After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."-G. Ledyard Stebbins

Again in agreement with Lonnig's findings and mirroring observable realty.

Isaac Asimov admitted: "Most mutations are for the worse." But then contradicted himself. "In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."

Would any process that resulting in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered benefical? If a contractor had this sort or sucess ratio how long would he be employed. Would you feel safe with a driver that made this many bad decision vs good decisions.

Essentialy this devision of marco and micro evolution is non-existent. Even if all mutations were benefical, they couldn't produce anything new.

"A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water"-The World Book Encyclodpedia

Nothing new. The may change color or textuture of hair and skin, or even add a sixth finger to hand of five but nothing new comes into existence.

It does come down to odds and probabilty.

"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better." -Geneticist Dobzhansky

It doesn't seem reasonable that the precision processes in a cell are built up by a procedure that tears down. The extrapolative perspective is directly contradicting the emperical perspective.

The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining 1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.

Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a 1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.

No fewer than 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. The chances of obtaining all of these at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power...."An outrageously small probability" -Fred Hoyle

In his book with Chandra who I've quoted before Hoyle adds this: "that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." then adds. "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court."

The chance of forming histones, thought to govern gene activity, at the simplest to be one in 20 to the 100th power, another huge number. That is "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes."

"Preoteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." Hitiching

- "Which came first,"- [/B[B]]"The answer must be they developed in parallel."
-Richard E Dickerson

Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished in one blow by espousing a step by step process by which natural selection could do it's work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. This is our emperical perspective. The theoretical perspective is massively misproportioned and contradictory to reality and it's emperical foundation.

Saquist, you bring up a great number of things that most 'evolutionists' try not to look at. But I, for one, think this is because of a misunderstanding of the process, and not because evolution is inherently incorrect. Though I may be wrong as well.

It is my understanding that mutations are not the main source of evolutionary change, as outlined by Mendel's work. His work on inheritence of genes showed that change could occur just because of genes, and without need for any mutations. One study showed that two plants with genes for tall stems reproduced to make a new plant that grew taller than either of its parents.

Also, you ask "Would any process that resulting in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered benefical?"
Now, think of it this way, if you will. Perhaps the large amount of harmful mutations kill off gene lines that are weaker and ensure that the more beneficial ones will survive and repopulate in larger numbers. It seems that in evolution, death is a very important factor in that it makes way for more life, life that is perhaps better equipped with adapting or dealing with the present environment.

You say that "Even if all mutations were benefical, they couldn't produce anything new". I disagree. Any change at all in the order and pattern of the DNA structure constitutes new material. The whole organism is new if the DNA is different in any way. A simple switch of a letter or a gene is turned on when before it was off, will be "new information". In a pattern, 'new' is merely a reassembly of what is already present.

Also, what is to stop this plant with larger and stronger roots to develop thicker roots until it form juicy deposits where it stores nutrients? What if it continues to 'select' for these certain traits, over and over again? The plant will most certainly be a lot different in a few million, or maybe even just a few thousand years. But you don't even want to give it that amount of time. You seem to want to see this change in only a few hundred years. Nature is many times more patient than we are.

Also, I care little for odds and probabilities. In our universe, very much is possible. All probabilities are 1 in retrospect.

"Preoteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein." Hitiching

- "Which came first,"- [/B[B]]"The answer must be they developed in parallel."
-Richard E Dickerson


It is my understanding that this relationship between proto-DNA and protein is circular, such that one develops the other and vice versa, as Dickerson says (though I must say I have no clue who the guy is). It is simply a natural relationship that caused both to develop simultaneously and symbiotically. They appear so inseperable now because they have developed together for so long they they cannot work alone anymore. I mean, we're talking of billions of years of change here.

I understand.

Micro evolution is adaptation, observed and completely emperical. Marco evolution is imaginary, theoretical, improbable, and mathematically impossible. .

How can it be improbable, and impossible?

Never mind. Please show your evidence that evolution (macro evolution if you wish) is impossible and then I'll prove that it's impossible for someone to come back from the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, etc. LOL!

WSIOYNW... an event may be improbable it's not necessarily impossible.

For instance it may be against the odds (probability) to roll a pair of dice to land on 12 five times in a series of rolls...but it's not impossible.

Just as indefinite can include forever or an unspecified amount of time.
(just an analogy) thus the need to specify.

Saquist, you bring up a great number of things that most 'evolutionists' try not to look at. But I, for one, think this is because of a misunderstanding of the process, and not because evolution is inherently incorrect. Though I may be wrong as well.

It is my understanding that mutations are not the main source of evolutionary change, as outlined by Mendel's work. His work on inheritence of genes showed that change could occur just because of genes, and without need for any mutations. One study showed that two plants with genes for tall stems reproduced to make a new plant that grew taller than either of its parents.

Also, you ask "Would any process that resulting in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered benefical?"
Now, think of it this way, if you will. Perhaps the large amount of harmful mutations kill off gene lines that are weaker and ensure that the more beneficial ones will survive and repopulate in larger numbers. It seems that in evolution, death is a very important factor in that it makes way for more life, life that is perhaps better equipped with adapting or dealing with the present environment.

You say that "Even if all mutations were benefical, they couldn't produce anything new". I disagree. Any change at all in the order and pattern of the DNA structure constitutes new material. The whole organism is new if the DNA is different in any way. A simple switch of a letter or a gene is turned on when before it was off, will be "new information". In a pattern, 'new' is merely a reassembly of what is already present.

Also, what is to stop this plant with larger and stronger roots to develop thicker roots until it form juicy deposits where it stores nutrients? What if it continues to 'select' for these certain traits, over and over again? The plant will most certainly be a lot different in a few million, or maybe even just a few thousand years. But you don't even want to give it that amount of time. You seem to want to see this change in only a few hundred years. Nature is many times more patient than we are.

Also, I care little for odds and probabilities. In our universe, very much is possible. All probabilities are 1 in retrospect.

For fucks sake. Mendel was trying to proof the existence of God. Hence he was mighty displeased with his pea work. Which he gladly abandoned to work on a plant that is so genetically fucked up that it was more suitable for proving that god exists. Mendel wanted to proof that you can make totally new species by just making crosses. The peas were so shit for this because they inherited their shit so nicely.

Everybody thinks it is stupid that Darwin didn't notice mendel's work, but they are looking at mendel's work with modern glasses. Back in the day Mendel's work was nothing special. Just another monk trying to prove God's work.

Where would you hope to find that evidence? In the structure of currently living things? Such as vestigiasl organs or Panda-bear thumbs? Or are you thinking more about the fossil record?I expect the answer to emerge from detailed understanding of how genes are expressed, the role of junk DNA, a fuller awareness of developmental biology, and the like. I would not expect the fossil record to offer much that is novel in this direction.

However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select. This is our emperical perspective That is false. Your "empirical perspective" is based on false assumptions. For one, reproduction did not "begin" with the current - or any - genetic code.

Likewise your 'probability" assertions - based on false assumptions, again.
You do not understand the Darwinian theory of evolution. You don't know how it works, and so you take mistakes and irrelevancies as contradicting a theory they actually, interpreted with understanding, support if anything.

The odds against spontaneous formation of a chromosome, for example, fully support the Darwinian contention that such structures form as accumulated consequences of many steps beginning with some much different and simpler structure(s). True but no matter where along the progress of what is called evolution we must face facts and we must face the odds. You make ignorant assumptions, draw illogical conclusions from even them, and call that "facing the facts". Nothing you have posted here has anything to do with facts. That is why you insist on arguing from authority rather than arguing from facts of your own. Authority, selected by you, is all the argument (as opposed to assertion) you have presented here so far.

Quit quoting flakes like Fred Hoyle, and argue from facts. Then we can face your facts. So far there are none to be faced.

Here's a fact: neutral and beneficial mutations and restructurings are common. They often add new information to the genome. Over time, unless prevented, they will accumulate to whatever degree is required to certify the genome as having "macro" evolved. Any amount of evolutionary change in the genome - up to and including complete replacement - is not only possible but inevitable unless prevented.

When can we discuss evolution without religious nutters derailing the thread?

WSIOYNW... an event may be improbable it's not necessarily impossible.

For instance it may be against the odds (probability) to roll a pair of dice to land on 12 five times in a series of rolls...but it's not impossible.

Just as indefinite can include forever or an unspecified amount of time.
(just an analogy) thus the need to specify.

I agree, which is why I asked the question since in your previous post you stated that macro evolution was improbable and impossible. It was purely semantics.
You didn't offer up your evidence though...do you care to?

I understand.

Then do you still disagree that macro-evolution is possible?

Likewise your 'probability" assertions - based on false assumptions, again.
You do not understand the Darwinian theory of evolution. You don't know how it works, and so you take mistakes and irrelevancies as contradicting a theory they actually, interpreted with understanding, support if anything.

Speaking with you is much like addressing a wall, iceaura, words are said spoken to the wall but nothing relevant ever comes back. Those quotes were for your benefit. I am not the orignator of these ideas nor am I on the trailing edge of their theories.

I care not for who you classify as flake. Your belief system is has nothing relatating the objective study I do relate too. Attacking Hoyle means nothing to me. The contradictions I seek will never be in one of your post as an ambigous entity on a forum with a made up identity.

Therefore you may feel free to dictate your opinion as "fact" or accepted but it will always be placed away from what I'm looking for. Be as absolutely obtuse as you wish to be. The information I post reflects my research and nothing else.

If you need an authority figure so badly I suggest your parents, boss, a prime minister or the like that can assist you in wading through the vague non published information that is posted as "fact" on these forums.

I agree, which is why I asked the question since in your previous post you stated that macro evolution was improbable and impossible. It was purely semantics.
You didn't offer up your evidence though...do you care to?

Semantics suggest there was no discernable difference...but possible and impossible are quite dicernable as different. If you agree...it's with yourself.

Improbable doesn't mean impossible.

True but no matter where along the progress of what is called evolution we must face facts and we must face the odds. Micro evolution is adaptation, observed and completely emperical. Marco evolution is imaginary, theoretical, improbable, and mathematically impossible.What is this barrier between micro and macro evolution?

Then do you still disagree that macro-evolution is possible?

I"m concerned with only what the facts show. As an outside observer of the inner workings of the scientific circle I'm observing contradiction and contention in the evolutionary theory and acceptance. This information I've posted...which there is more of...relates how scientist from the begining looked upon this theory with the utmost incredulousness.

After reading several of Pattens books I've noticed this thread toward evolution has had alterior motives. Without going into every thing he said it appears he was right about the organization that emerged and embraced Darwin's theories. As the decades progress the initial objections appeared to have been stifled down.

These probability factors remain to this day as pubished proof of non comformity in scientific circles and that which has expanded into classroom settings to influence the next generation. These odds , probabilities, haven't been faced by the scientific community. The facts illistrated by these and many more gentlemen, fly in the face of reason. Downward trends do not become upward trends, progress is not made by walking backwards. If these probabilities were offered in the class room...probabilities that scientist evo and anti-evo aggreed upon from the begining would society have embraced this theory at all?

What I see when researching the past of evolution shows a strong thread of disbelief and lack of creditable probability and creditable process. Over time these gentleman fell out of favor, or die or became outnumbered. Classrooms were being taught to think outside the biblical box. Nothing wrong with that, however the direction taken was wrong. A clear intent to prove the bible a sort of fairytale. And intresting and yet unscientific scientific objective A new generation appeared to take over. Anti-biblical, anti-historical and anti-reason became prevailing in biolgical science studies. They claimed this was to do away with accepting bible facts as scientific facts. (again) nothing wrong with this. Yet gentleman like Newton and Kepler, catastrophist, didn't seemed hindered by their biblical views even if they were. They didn't go into the how. They accpeted certain things as foregone conclusions but...they were...they need emperical data. The move to emperical research solely was supposed to be revolutionary in science...instead it became a religous battering ram. A blunt object fashioned to get rid of God with the most insane odds attached to it, with a theory of spontaneous generation that had already been disporved by Pastuer.

In the end untill these gentleman's statements are addressed and countered soundly and the odds soundly revised it is stock I can never by into. The world around us is based on probability. We make decisions on it everyday...we take risk on the odds. I have a problem seperating evolution from those other tangible odds and numbers that envolve life away as a seperate consideration.

No, untill the forces of evolution are defined and the theory it's self emerges from an obsucre indefinite confluence of chance, it remains quite impossible and as I've shown, not on my word but on the word of scientist.

The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining 1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.

Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a 1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.

No fewer than 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cells activity. The chances of obtaining all of these at random is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power...."An outrageously small probability" -Fred Hoyle


WSIOYNW... an event may be improbable it's not necessarily impossible.

For instance it may be against the odds (probability) to roll a pair of dice to land on 12 five times in a series of rolls...but it's not impossible.

Just as indefinite can include forever or an unspecified amount of time.
(just an analogy) thus the need to specify.
Your own justification can be used against you. You are right in the second quote shown above. Not in the first.

I"m concerned with only what the facts show. As an outside observer of the inner workings of the scientific circle I'm observing contradiction and contention in the evolutionary theory and acceptance. This information I've posted...which there is more of...relates how scientist from the begining looked upon this theory with the utmost incredulousness.
Scientists and people in general look upon any radical change in reasoning with "incredulousness." You're siding with the same people who argued against those who said the world was round. In science, visible contradiction and diverse views are welcome, in order to bring a more rounded perspective to the whole idea. But, as with any human collective, a oligarchy usually forms by those with the most influence. But most of the time they are unaware of their strict bias. Sometimes its for good reason, for if they looked at every tiny possibility, nothing would ever get done to the point that it could be used for practicality.

After reading several of Pattens books I've noticed this thread toward evolution has had alterior motives. Without going into every thing he said it appears he was right about the organization that emerged and embraced Darwin's theories. As the decades progress the initial objections appeared to have been stifled down.

These probability factors remain to this day as pubished proof of non comformity in scientific circles and that which has expanded into classroom settings to influence the next generation. These odds , probabilities, haven't been faced by the scientific community. The facts illistrated by these and many more gentlemen, fly in the face of reason. Downward trends do not become upward trends, progress is not made by walking backwards. If these probabilities were offered in the class room...probabilities that scientist evo and anti-evo aggreed upon from the begining would society have embraced this theory at all?
What "probability factors". We are still discovering what exactly constitutes a downward or upward trend. They are based on things that we don't know, so who are you to determine the exact nature of it? The only reason evolution is taught in a science class is because it has a relatively long history of being researched scientifically. That is, as scientifically as any other science practiced by man. The only difference is the complexity of this particular subject. For one, almost all of the possible physical evidence (fossils) has been destroyed or is unretrievable (through geological process). So the only other trail we can follow is a jumbled maze of clues embedded in our very genes.

What I see when researching the past of evolution shows a strong thread of disbelief and lack of creditable probability and creditable process. Over time these gentleman fell out of favor, or die or became outnumbered. Classrooms were being taught to think outside the biblical box. Nothing wrong with that, however the direction taken was wrong. A clear intent to prove the bible a sort of fairytale. And intresting and yet unscientific scientific objective A new generation appeared to take over. Anti-biblical, anti-historical and anti-reason became prevailing in biolgical science studies. They claimed this was to do away with accepting bible facts as scientific facts. (again) nothing wrong with this. Yet gentleman like Newton and Kepler, catastrophist, didn't seemed hindered by their biblical views even if they were. They didn't go into the how. They accpeted certain things as foregone conclusions but...they were...they need emperical data. The move to emperical research solely was supposed to be revolutionary in science...instead it became a religous battering ram. A blunt object fashioned to get rid of God with the most insane odds attached to it, with a theory of spontaneous generation that had already been disporved by Pastuer.
I agree that there was a strong movement in science fueled by anti-theism. But its largely worn off, and anti-theism today is, for the most part, an immature retaliation. Or at least I'd like to think so.
Thing is, we can't go from one extreme to another, as most revelatory periods do. We can't go from using science mainly to disprove god straight to tearing down science so it can co-exist with theology. There has to be a middle ground. At this point, all I see from creationism and ID is the opposite of the spectrum from atheistic/materialistic/scientific thinking. But the nature of science makes it the most objective way of thinking, and if we were to take the scientific method more literally, then we wouldn't have to seperate science from atheism and materialism. Science should have nothing to do with any ideology. If this were so, then perhaps we could actually find out the true nature of evolution. But not until that is so.

In the end untill these gentleman's statements are addressed and countered soundly and the odds soundly revised it is stock I can never by into. The world around us is based on probability. We make decisions on it everyday...we take risk on the odds. I have a problem seperating evolution from those other tangible odds and numbers that envolve life away as a seperate consideration.

No, untill the forces of evolution are defined and the theory it's self emerges from an obsucre indefinite confluence of chance, it remains quite impossible and as I've shown, not on my word but on the word of scientist.
Personally, I am able to seperate most scientists and science writers bias one way or another such that I can gleam some facts from what they are saying. That, coupled with what I have observed first hand forces me (I do not believe, I am forced to believe) that evolution is true. As for the details, I cannot say.

Anything can be "justified or rationalized" it dozn't make for reason, so while my justifications can be used against me...they can't be used reasonably.

I don't agree that anti-theist setiments have worn off. I believe the reaction on this Forum and on File Front show that scientific followers have a genocidal attitude to the bible, religion and history. Something to be removed. That's a gross miss use of science.

Anything can be "justified or rationalized" it dozn't make for reason, so while my justifications can be used against me...they can't be used reasonably.

So basically you're saying that just because you can deny the validity of statistics that debase your own ideas, I can't? I don't get you, man.

I don't agree that anti-theist setiments have worn off. I believe the reaction on this Forum and on File Front show that scientific followers have a genocidal attitude to the bible, religion and history. Something to be removed. That's a gross miss use of science.

Yes, but so is the opposite end of the spectrum, which is that of tearing down the basic method of science just so new modes of thinking can enter it. You don't have to do that. Besides, the best way to show someone up is to beat them at their own game. So if you really want to show them they're wrong, then do it by the very rules they try to adhere to.

I"m concerned with only what the facts show. - --

- -

No, untill the forces of evolution are defined and the theory it's self emerges from an obsucre indefinite confluence of chance, it remains quite impossible and as I've shown, not on my word but on the word of scientist. Again, assertions of the existence of facts, no facts supplied, no argument from anything excepot authority. You haven't "shown" anything except a selection of quotes from selected authorities. Go back and look at your posts - not a single argument from fact in any of them. You assert, and back your assertions with quoted authority. Selectively quoted, I might add.

You actually believe that the disagreements among scientists from the early days of Darwinian theory are relevant to its status as a theory today. You believe that the competition among scientific theories is essentially political, a struggle for authority and control, that can be reversed or won by arguing from superior authority.

Why do you believe such nonsense? Because you yourself never argue except from authority, and so the invalidity of such argument in this matter invalidates your own. You never argue from facts. And because you pay no attention to anything except authority you have never understood even the most basic features of science as a human activity, let alone Darwinian theory.

iceaura...I really don't care what you see as a fact.
I really don't care what you think is an assertion
I don't care if you have a problem with authority or selective quotes.

You actually believe that I care what you think and have chosen to argue or what I assume you call "debating" on your own understanding of things you don't have a well rounded knowledge of.

You offer me this substandard rebuttal in hopes you've shut down my reasoning....intresting. You want to be superior...then be superior....enjoy your superiority over your contemporaries.

In your own paltry way you've no idea how pathetic that really is. This is your squandermania, you created it it's your rules so abided by them, live in it. I don't have to and I will not subject myself to your infantile critically whiny analysis of information you couldn't contest.

If you can't deal with refrences I suggest you get that stick removed and brush up on your scientific history...

The rules of logic were not created on a whim to impress the Greecian women, you know. They are effective tools; I don't think you should so carelessly cast them aside without considering why they exist.

History is also an effective tool for teaching and should we decided to sweep it under the rug we are doomed to repeat it in ignorance.

I most certainly agree. Which area of history are you referring to here?

All history. Thus my refrences.
When I look back on behavior of people in what ever organization if you look back into the past you find connections and better explanations. I've been assisted by individuals and teachers with clear insite on the marcro and mirco evolutionary discussion.

You guys make a lot of excusses to continue to believe in that which has already a considerable amount counter context. I've provided mere sliver of the contention against marcro evolution.

The result is always a redirecting of logic. To fignd a point that does coincide with the theory, never a direct addressing of the information. It's the same everywhere I go.

I'm all ways the ones with the questions...they always go unanswered. And you guys always have a reason (usually) internal to stick with it.

So I except it...I understand...it's comfortable, It's easy to remain at rest. Change is hard and normally next to impossible.

So I don't try...but I know I'm independent and objective of enough to admit when I'm wrong, wrong. But uncontested I'm forced concede to logic.

The chances of even a simple protein molecule forming at random from the very begining 1 in 10 to the 113th power. Any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is regarded by mathematicians as never happening. That 10 to the 113th power is larger than the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe.

Hernandez Lemus of the Mexican International University in Mexico gives a 1 in 9 trillion odds of a chromosome evolving on it's own.

1 in 10 to the 113th power what? 1 in 9 trillion odds of what?

If we have three white balls and one black ball in a jar, and I close my eyes and reach in, I have a 1 in 4 chance of getting the black ball. The other 3 times I get the white ball.

What is the white ball in your numbers?

iceaura...I really don't care what you see as a fact.
I really don't care what you think is an assertion
I don't care if you have a problem with authority or selective quotes. More irrelevance. I have no problem with authority, or history. But you can't make an argument for current scientific validity, or invalidity, from either one. It's impossible. That is not where scientific validity lies. Your repeated attempts demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of scientific inquiry and relevant argument.

The history of the macro/micro debate, however fascinating, has no bearing on its current status as a valid distinction. What Darwin did or didn't think, what forty Nobel prize winners did or didn't say, is completely irrelevant to the current validity (dubious,btw) of the macro/micro distinction.

They were right, or wrong, depending on that validity - not the other way around. Mistakes are mistakes no matter who makes them, in science.
You actually believe that I care what you think No. I don't. You guessed wrong again.

Actually, in my opinion you seem almost completely without insight or curiosity regarding other ways of thinking than your own, and seldom seem to bother even attempting to understand anything unfamiliar to you. You not only don't care, you don't know what I think. Which is a strange attribute of someone who has appeared to be engaged in several discussions of thought on an online forum.

I have, and others have and will, deal with your few relevant assertions. The one about the odds of spontaneous protein formation during abiogenesis could be handled, for example, by pointing out that the assumptions behind the calculations don't apply and so the math is not only wrong but irrelevant. But that will not matter, because you don't recognize arguments from fact any more than you make them. Since we are not authorities, nothing we say counts.

All history. Thus my refrences.
When I look back on behavior of people in what ever organization if you look back into the past you find connections and better explanations. I've been assisted by individuals and teachers with clear insite on the marcro and mirco evolutionary discussion.

You guys make a lot of excusses to continue to believe in that which has already a considerable amount counter context. I've provided mere sliver of the contention against marcro evolution.
This statement does not seem to reflect history. Science had to go through alot to move away from the norm; and only succeeded *because* of the amount of counter context it had in its favor.

You are arguing on the side that held the power of thought until that evidence was made clear, at which point, your side beheaded people for a while, then finally gave in.

[QUOTE]More irrelevance. I have no problem with authority, or history. But you can't make an argument for current scientific validity, or invalidity, from either one. It's impossible. That is not where scientific validity lies. Your repeated attempts demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of scientific inquiry and relevant argument.

Oh you have a problem aright. demonstrate you own misunderstandings. Know your history and be current. Current doesn't make right. It makes current and currently uncontested.

The history of the macro/micro debate, however fascinating, has no bearing on its current status as a valid distinction. What Darwin did or didn't think, what forty Nobel prize winners did or didn't say, is completely irrelevant to the current validity (dubious,btw) of the macro/micro distinction.

I know you think so...I do not share your dismisiveness.

They were right, or wrong, depending on that validity - not the other way around. Mistakes are mistakes no matter who makes them, in science.
No. I don't. You guessed wrong again.

If you say so. But I won't appeal to your authority.

Actually, in my opinion you seem almost completely without insight or curiosity regarding other ways of thinking than your own, and seldom seem to bother even attempting to understand anything unfamiliar to you. You not only don't care, you don't know what I think. Which is a strange attribute of someone who has appeared to be engaged in several discussions of thought on an online forum.

I'm sure that's what you believe. You're welcome to your opinion.

I have, and others have and will, deal with your few relevant assertions. The one about the odds of spontaneous protein formation during abiogenesis could be handled, for example, by pointing out that the assumptions behind the calculations don't apply and so the math is not only wrong but irrelevant. But that will not matter, because you don't recognize arguments from fact any more than you make them. Since we are not authorities, nothing we say counts.

tell me what the assumptions were before you reveal that your're making an assumption about the origin of the calucations. Prove your superior knowledge. Since you have no identity at all, nothing you say can count.

Thus if you can't deal with me on a college level of points facts and refrences...feel free to terminate the discussion.

This statement does not seem to reflect history. Science had to go through alot to move away from the norm; and only succeeded *because* of the amount of counter context it had in its favor.

You are arguing on the side that held the power of thought until that evidence was made clear, at which point, your side beheaded people for a while, then finally gave in.


It does reflect history but you have to know scientific history to appreciate that. Can you really say that you knew all of these indivduals before I brought them up...do you know there contributions to science.

What is fact? what I can prove? What's established.
I've seen the arguements on these forums they never go anywhere because you're all using your own thinking....I bet none of you are who you say you are, It's not your reputation on the line so you can theorize with impunity. You can suggest and ridicule swat everything down even if there isn't a good reason to do so..

I do not see the Scientific Method being processed through this forum...It's a forum of popularity...it's a reflection of the real world. Popularity counts.

It really doesn't matter that we all believe the same thing...It comes down to how we individual count the variables...not all of know all the variables or know all the variables. I suggest we leave it at that.

So I don't try...but I know I'm independent and objective of enough to admit when I'm wrong, wrong. But uncontested I'm forced concede to logic.

Saquist, you're smart and you are open-minded. But you are too self-righteous. This is what I gather from discussions with you. You really need to trust other people more. At the moment, the only person you give any amount of credence is yourself. While that is good in that it makes you individualistic, it also blinds you to all the other observations that you can't make, simply because of your limitations as a unique human being. We are all different, we all have our own limitations. By trusting other people (based on their own awareness and lack of intent to decieve) then you could be even smarter than you are now. By accepting their subjective experiences, you allow yourself to gain information that was once locked behind the door of individuality.

I am not saying trust anyone blindly, but rather, trust that the reason they aren't giving in is as strong as your own. You are not absolutely right about everything. In fact, everyone is slightly wrong about everything. No one ever was right. But you can get closer to the truth.

You may try to label me as a scientist, or evolutionist, or as being swayed by the mainstream, but I am no more so than yourself. I do not avidly adopt the latest scientific standard. I do not search for reasons to justify what I believe. I do not choose the people I spend time with based on their beliefs. All my evidence is what comes to me, not what I go to. For the most part, I am motivated to have no preconceived notions, not because I want to, but because I can't help it. The only reason for which I believe anything is that at the moment of recognition or association (to that which it applies) there is a sudden 'click' like a piece of a puzzle falling into place. I cannot explain it other than the feeling of a structure, or shape in my mind which encompasses the entire idea. If it flows cohesively and smoothly, then it is correct.

Saquist, you're smart and you are open-minded. But you are too self-righteous.

I prefer and have often be called, "overconfident"

You really need to trust other people more

I can not. I've learned not to. There are ones that have deceived me in the past One must gain my trust. Those people that do hold my respect have proven to be balanced and repectful of all things. I aspire to this.

Very few people in life or At the moment, the only person you give any amount of credence is yourself.

I can only say that that is implicitly untrue. Mines is the opinion I'm least likely to hold. I'm always in search of greater understanding. My opinion is commonly wrong, which is what "Saquist means...too be in error." That's how I live in a constant state of recognizing that at any moment I may be wrong, proven wrong.

We are all different, we all have our own limitations. By trusting other people (based on their own awareness and lack of intent to decieve) then you could be even smarter than you are now. By accepting their subjective experiences, you allow yourself to gain information that was once locked behind the door of individuality.

If the sum of my experiences hadn't molded me to constantly question the status quo I'd likely be as most others here. But I've been molded to research search, correlate and subject the facts to probabilites with the strict black and white conclusions.

I am not saying trust anyone blindly, but rather, trust that the reason they aren't giving in is as strong as your own. You are not absolutely right about everything. In fact, everyone is slightly wrong about everything. No one ever was right. But you can get closer to the truth.

Roy trust is perhaps my biggest emotional issue. That's why I feel nothing about what anyone says about me thinks about me...However alarming it may be...but I'm alot like Cho Seng...damage to an extent, fustrated at the world's inqueities...It's a powerful emotion...It's overriding. I relate with him alot. Not with his actions but how he felt. I can't emphase enough how much I've empathized with him. But I've found a control...and a preasure valve.

You may try to label me as a scientist, or evolutionist, or as being swayed by the mainstream, but I am no more so than yourself.

For me most things "Are" until proven otherwise. It's a hard way to view the world. I end up being wrong alot. It's a perspective that requires a lot of revisions.

I do not avidly adopt the latest scientific standard. I do not search for reasons to justify what I believe.

I can't say the same. Some things I've accpeted other I don't. I have searched for reasons to justify my own beliefe and reasons not to. What you will never get to see is the latter process. I'll never compromise my status quo on an internet forum of debate on the moment I discover I'm wrong. It takes time to arrest and correct a false belief and I do so in private in order to come to grips with the new reality and prepare for a retraction and appology. Whether this is right or not... I don't know. but the process hasn't left me dishonest.

I do not choose the people I spend time with based on their beliefs. All my evidence is what comes to me, not what I go to. For the most part, I am motivated to have no preconceived notions, not because I want to, but because I can't help it.

commendable...not to be biased or hostile in someway. I can claim to be exactly that but very often I've already made a preconceived notion. My mind plays out like a court room...my preception is sometimes guilty...sometimes innocent. It dependents on who and what.

The only reason for which I believe anything is that at the moment of recognition or association (to that which it applies) there is a sudden 'click' like a piece of a puzzle falling into place. I cannot explain it other than the feeling of a structure, or shape in my mind which encompasses the entire idea. If it flows cohesively and smoothly, then it is correct.[/QUOTE]

Yes, patterns....I like patterns too. Logic flows in patterns

The history of the macro/micro debate, however fascinating, has no bearing on its current status as a valid distinction. What Darwin did or didn't think, what forty Nobel prize winners did or didn't say, is completely irrelevant to the current validity (dubious,btw) of the macro/micro distinction ”

.

I know you think so...I do not share your dismisiveness. It has nothing to do with my dismissiveness. It has to do with the logical structure of scientific inquiry, and its practice as a human activity. You have not bothered with such matters, assuming your own competence, and this leads you to such absurdities as quoting Fred Hoyle to back your assertions, rather than arguing from fact. You actually believe that quoting Fred Hoyle's favorable opinion increases the dependability or value of your assertions - what it reveals instead is that you don't know where reliability or value lies in scientific reasoning and investigation.

Another example: tell me what the assumptions were before you reveal that your're making an assumption about the origin of the calucations. Prove your superior knowledge. Again the focus on authority and superiority, and the dismissal of any actual argument from fact.

What's wrong with his assumptions ? The calculation is impossible without erring in them. In this case, just to mention two of several, he assumes independence of event in the spontaneous formation of sequences of amino acids, which is wrong, and an environment containing such building blocks but without sequencing structures, which is irrelevant. But that is beside the point. The point is you present the calculation as from "a mathematician" as if that were somehow important - you argue from authority, without appearing to comprehend even the simplest of basic facts in the situation.

Thus if you can't deal with me on a college level of points facts and refrences...feel free to terminate the discussion. I have, and others have, in the past, attempted to argue with you on a "college level", debating issues and arguments and implications and so forth, supplying you with facts and references, and been greeted with personal attack in defense of bullet-proof ignorance. There has been no real discussion, from you, to terminate.

You have not bothered with such matters, assuming your own competence, and this leads you to such absurdities as quoting Fred Hoyle to back your assertions, rather than arguing from fact. You actually believe that quoting Fred Hoyle's favorable opinion increases the dependability or value of your assertions - what it reveals instead is that you don't know where reliability or value lies in scientific reasoning and investigation.
What's wrong with his assumptions ? The calculation is impossible without erring in them. In this case, just to mention two of several, he assumes independence of event in the spontaneous formation of sequences of amino acids, which is wrong, and an environment containing such building blocks but without sequencing structures, which is irrelevant. But that is beside the point. The point is you present the calculation as from "a mathematician" as if that were somehow important - you argue from authority, without appearing to comprehend even the simplest of basic facts in the situation.Saquist, you really should take these comments on board. I am a great admirer of Hoyle (arguably the greatest physicist not to receive a Nobel prize). I share many of his concerns, which he held up till his death, about the likelihood of abiogenesis and lean, with him, towards panspermia as a way out. However, his probability calculations were pure nonsense refelcting either an ignorance (most likely), or a self delusion, as to the way biochemical systems work. If you genuinely seek an understanding of these aspects of abiogenesis, then parroting Hoyle is not the way to go.

It has nothing to do with my dismissiveness. It has to do with the logical structure of scientific inquiry, and its practice as a human activity. You have not bothered with such matters, assuming your own competence, and this leads you to such absurdities as quoting Fred Hoyle to back your assertions, rather than arguing from fact. You actually believe that quoting Fred Hoyle's favorable opinion increases the dependability or value of your assertions - what it reveals instead is that you don't know where reliability or value lies in scientific reasoning and investigation.

I standby my arguement. When and if you choose to face it head on is your choice. More importantly these refrences show a commonality of indviduals that have no perceptable motives or connection to each other. I can't say the same thing for the scientific community which is sourced in prestige and career worshiping.


What's wrong with his assumptions ? The calculation is impossible without erring in them.

Is this philosophy? You must know from hense forth that I'm not intrested in philosophy.

In this case, just to mention two of several, he assumes independence of event in the spontaneous formation of sequences of amino acids, which is wrong,

wrong? according to?

and an environment containing such building blocks but without sequencing structures, which is irrelevant. But that is beside the point.

Why is the only point I'm intrested in. The statement above really is irrelevant without answering the why.

The point is you present the calculation as from "a mathematician" as if that were somehow important - you argue from authority, without appearing to comprehend even the simplest of basic facts in the situation.

an accusation...can you perceive that this means little to me. You're presenting an opinion based not no refrences and facts or factual refrences you're giving your own opinion...you're stressing your own understanding...and "you" in this case is an unidentifiable source with no credentials, no traditionaly published work and no direct affront of the gentlemen and their observances to date...which all correlate with the established facts about mutation.

Mutation has been flagged as a downward trend...However the neo scientific generation reviews evolution it has been taught in college and intermediate educations as a process primarily of mutation. My research has brought me to the conclusion that this downward trend of mutation, this factual less than 1% does not cause radical change in animals. This downward trend hasn't shown a reversal from mostly destructive to mostly constructive. These observations stated by Hoyle, Hitching, and the others reflect as such. The extreme improbability is reflected in that "less than 1%"


I have, and others have, in the past, attempted to argue with you on a "college level", debating issues and arguments and implications and so forth, supplying you with facts and references, and been greeted with personal attack in defense of bullet-proof ignorance. There has been no real discussion, from you, to terminate.

I suggest, then, that you cease your pedantic technobabble and endless tantrums an procced to greener pastures.

Saquist, you really should take these comments on board. I am a great admirer of Hoyle (arguably the greatest physicist not to receive a Nobel prize). I share many of his concerns, which he held up till his death, about the likelihood of abiogenesis and lean, with him, towards panspermia as a way out. However, his probability calculations were pure nonsense refelcting either an ignorance (most likely), or a self delusion, as to the way biochemical systems work. If you genuinely seek an understanding of these aspects of abiogenesis, then parroting Hoyle is not the way to go.

But despite this sudden...calm and rationality, I suspect the calm before the storm. Your word least of all, I can take for face value. icearea presumes to speak as though there has been a mountation of evidnece to counter these simple refrence and correlating facts to the facts of emperical data.

What evidence do you have to show that Hoyle is ignorant? And then so why others substaniated the odds. If you really wish to open the floodgates of truth bring your emperical data that shows some...counterpoint...but you see icearea's bombastic suggestions to the contrary despite his abhorrence of reliance upon "authority" has ineptly substituted himself as the authority, "the voice of experinece" to be listened to. Such hypocrisy deserves only but a mild nodded of acknowledgement before turning away. Note that I've tried to turn away, repeatedly, from both of you. However you seek my attention.

I don't mind listening to you and your comrads in science. But the way I'm acustomed to taking in information is typically without being spit upon. I do not like the taste of your spit in my mouth. I turn away, I do not trust you, If you've spat once you'll do so again....So I brace myself...

Once burned...twice shy...

...your pedantic technobabble...

This is commonly called "scientific debate". A way of discussing things where instead of claiming "my daddy is bigger than your daddy", or "my scientist is more right than your scientist", we actually bring up points and counterpoints weighted with evidence to be analyzed and argued by both sides.

but often not scientific...
iceaura hasn't set down anything factual, in refrence of science that counters anything...he's given his opinon...Ophiolite has given his "opinion" that Hoyle is wrong...but I see no proof...I see no refrence that directly afronts his conclusion.

You see...I don't know by what means these gentlemen have calculated the stats...they all seem to be close to one another in improbability. So you can imagine that I am curious by what facts have you come to your conclusion that there wrong...

Any FActs?
Any Refrences?

You see...I don't know by what means these gentlemen have calculated the stats... Bingo.

And so you do not know when you have been presented with objections to the way they have calculated the stats. You are operating in world of asserted opinions - you read what you take to be mine, you read what you take to be Hoyle's, and the only criterion you have for choosing between them is authority. Hoyle's is greater.

Fair enough. But that is no excuse for the greater error, which is attempting to evaluate factual or scientific hypotheses by the political history of the field. The validity of the micro/macro distinction as you take it (which is not as Ophiolite or others take it, notice) cannot be determined in this manner. It is valid - or not - without regard to the history of its formulation.
I share many of his concerns, which he held up till his death, about the likelihood of abiogenesis and lean, with him, towards panspermia as a way out. Something that took me a very long time to notice, for some reason, is the degraded and simplified aspect of the inorganic world we are left after 3 billion years of exploitation. The inorganic structures available as environments and scaffoldings for the first organic structures (some self-replicable from scattered pieces, even non-crystalline clay formations) - and vice versa - must have outdone the most ornate modern cave scenery. The sheer variety of niches and opportunities for unusual chemsitry is difficult to imagine - my guess is we miss low, mostly.

What authority could saquist possibly have? I thought he was just a pathologically disturbed person trolling the forum.

Something that took me a very long time to notice, for some reason, is the degraded and simplified aspect of the inorganic world we are left after 3 billion years of exploitation. The inorganic structures available as environments and scaffoldings for the first organic structures (some self-replicable from scattered pieces, even non-crystalline clay formations) - and vice versa - must have outdone the most ornate modern cave scenery. The sheer variety of niches and opportunities for unusual chemsitry is difficult to imagine - my guess is we miss low, mostly.This is decidedly pertinent. While I lean to pan spermia I also recognise it may not be necessary. The inorganic world could certainly have offered catalytic substrates and templates for molecular construction.
In this regard I suspect you are familiar with the work of Cairns-Smith on the role of clay minerals in the origin of life. His hypothesis is well thought out and highly plausible - it just lacks any evidence!

Bingo.

And so you do not know when you have been presented with objections to the way they have calculated the stats. You are operating in world of asserted opinions - you read what you take to be mine, you read what you take to be Hoyle's, and the only criterion you have for choosing between them is authority. Hoyle's is greater.

Fair enough. But that is no excuse for the greater error, .


I find no error. I can only consider objective sources, contradictory sources and attempt a resolution...I'm no a biologist, therefore it is illogical to rely on merely my own understanding...therefore I seek out others...

And in relying upon Hoyle's misinterpretation of the probability of protein formation (which is laughed at by biologists) you selectively choose the words of a single scientist, working outside his field of expertise, over those of experts in the field.

It's not just his...consensus is inportant to me...if there is no consensus then we must rely on the logical arguement. Don't just single out Hoyle. More importantly I've found sufficent doubt to not take prestige into account when deliberating the evidence.

I believe that Ophiolite was not the one who singled out Hoyle.

What is the meaning of the word 'consensus' to you?

Might it be predictable that those you are for evolution have trouble being objective about other's discoveries and insight?

I find no error. I can only consider objective sources, contradictory sources and attempt a resolution...
- - - -
if there is no consensus then we must rely on the logical arguement Your entire "logical argument" is a personal choice - self-admittedly uninformed - of whom to believe among some authorities found in a biased selection from the historical record. That is bad enough. Worse:

The historical record involved is irrelevant to the original matter, which was the validity of the micro/macro distinction. That irrelevancy was the error referenced. I do not know why you can't find it - my first guess is that you are not acquainted with the basics of scientific investigation and theory, and so cannot recognize invalid arguments in that arena.
Might it be predictable that those you are for evolution have trouble being objective about other's discoveries and insight? That should be a hypothesis you had rejected by now, refuted by evidence. But instead it's an assumption, not open to refutation.

It's not just his...consensus is inportant to me...if there is no consensus then we must rely on the logical arguement. Don't just single out Hoyle. More importantly I've found sufficent doubt to not take prestige into account when deliberating the evidence.What the **** has prestige got to do with it. I am talking about competence. In the field of astrophsysics and cosmology Hoyle had this par excellence. In biology, and the application of probability to biochemical processes, he was a neophyte. His conclusions were wrong. Full stop. Period.
Yet creationists and intelligent design advocates have seized upon his invalid statistics and offered it as proof that complex bio-molecules could not arise by chance. This is a mistaken conclusion. Do you understand that?

Your entire "logical argument" is a personal choice - self-admittedly uninformed - of whom to believe among some authorities found in a biased selection from the historical record. That is bad enough. Worse:

I've admitted to being objective. My "arguement" focuses on the contradictions which none, namely you and your compatriots and the greater scientific community cannot answer. Namely the probability of thousands of necessary coincidence coalescing equating to impossible. If this is error then there must be updated calcuations that illistrate this. Curiously, I've found none.

My "argument" focuses on the Driving force of evolution. It is necessary to identify this for to establish it as real giving the theory substance. The known Laws of science have defined Gravity and isolated it's source, the laws of motions are reproducable and testable as a property of matter. They've been define and isolated over and over again. Yet while we can't identify the force that convey gravitational force we still have a source, it's still one of the most predictable action and reactions in the universe which lead to the discovery of many planets and phenomenon.

What we have with macro evolution is observation. Nothing has been obserered or isolated. We study effects and draw conclusions. The evidence and the facts do not support those findings.

Natural Selection is real. It has been observed. It is both a positive and negative force in animals, meaning what has occured in a family group of animals can be reversed.

Mutations are harmful and the introduction of them for a hundred years has been known to damage DNA to a degree approaching 99% of all mutations. That is a known and undisputed fact. EVolution proposes a reversal...that this downward trend eventually builds up and alters a speices instead of the logical conclusion...causing it's extinction.

Survival of the Fittest is a curious theory. It begins the path of ignoring probability and chance. From first glance the idea is that the strongest specimen survives. However many times in nature it is not a matter of strength. Sometimes its numbers, sometimes it's chance, in the case of mass extintions it's none of those factors. While existing to pass on stronger genes makes a lot of sense in the short term it makes little sense when applied to the greatest of life on the planet...human beings...who dominate this planet yet might vs might man is clearly not the fitest. Evolutionist say that our brains made the difference for the first time acknolwedging some other fact other than being fit. However it is a trend that is not marked in life. Animals are certainly intelligent to there own right but while they have the intelligence it doesn't progress the speices...Apes are capable of learning from humans, language and therefore mental expression but the advancement seems walled. Even to being passed down to the next generation. Without assistance these animals gain no further knowledge.


The historical record involved is irrelevant to the original matter, which was the validity of the micro/macro distinction. That irrelevancy was the error referenced. I do not know why you can't find it - my first guess is that you are not acquainted with the basics of scientific investigation and theory, and so cannot recognize invalid arguments in that arena.

I wouldn't try so hard If I were you. The answer is right before your eyes. The first guess to any question is very often wrong and this is no exception. The distinction between the two has been clear at the outset that one is observed the other is so distant and so unlikely it doesn't deserve attention, that is why I've focused on the probabilty. It is the very foundation for the theory of evolution and establishes should our attention should be occupied on an impossible occurence.

What the **** has prestige got to do with it. I am talking about competence. In the field of astrophsysics and cosmology Hoyle had this par excellence. In biology, and the application of probability to biochemical processes, he was a neophyte. His conclusions were wrong. Full stop. Period.

Refrence your accusation otherwise you wish me to establish the truth based on your word alone. Your word alone is a prestige, a self authority, that is attached to no known published work, nor is your identity identifiable. Stopping to address whether or no your accusation is valid must be followed by a source.

The focusing on Hoyle seems futile others have calulated similar probabilities and they match Hoyles figures leading us into the impossible. There are enough agreeing figures (such as those stated) that it does warrant pause on considering evolution (macro) as valid theory.

What about his arguement is convinsing?

who's argument...Hoyle or Opiliolite?

Hoyle's

Evolutions argument never really materializes. All the evidnece seems to lean heavily in the direction away from "chance" and "luck" and the improbable.

The mutation, the fossil record, natural selection, and adaptation. We know animals change. We also know animals can change back very easily. Evolution hasn't set any parameters for exactly "what" is evolution. A generic blanket is cast over biology and suddenly everything is under the all encompasing canopy of evolution.

If evolution were true they should be working on defining what exactly is evolution. Unfortuantly it seem most scientist feel that the work on figuring out evolution is done. Yes, they continue attempt to recreate evolution in the Lab but they're are not working evolution...they're working on creation. In every respect an act of will describes creation.

Getting past these series of inexplicable coincidences upon coincidences leading into the thousands seems far more important to the theory's survival than conjuring life in a lab. Of course one has a theoretical application the other biology has a real world application...thus a large amount of work goes into the biology.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth

“I believe that we are faced with a mystery—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” He sets out “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence. There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” Yet “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to, as he next acknowledges:

“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism"

And I must agree with him. This reliance on evolution despite the facts outlined numerous times by numerous people have gone on unanswered and uncontested. Ther reason has to been more that a basis a fact...If the facts show a downward trend how can a speices survive this sort of natural experimentation that has no reason to it?

Evolutions argument never really materializes. All the evidnece seems to lean heavily in the direction away from "chance" and "luck" and the improbable.
Good thing evolution doesn't rely on those things, then.

If evolution were true they should be working on defining what exactly is evolution. Unfortuantly it seem most scientist feel that the work on figuring out evolution is done. Yes, they continue attempt to recreate evolution in the Lab but they're are not working evolution...they're working on creation.

Except for all those scientists working on describing the mechanisms of heredity and mutation.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution:..."The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to...

His opinion is a fact now?


So, back to Hoyle; what about his statements seem convinsing to you?

Good thing evolution doesn't rely on those things, then.

doesn't seem to rely on anything does it?

Except for all those scientists working on describing the mechanisms of heredity and mutation.

Yes...they existed before your post and they'll exist after. None of them have explained the failures in the theory.

His opinion is a fact now?
Is it?


So, back to Hoyle; what about his statements seem convinsing to you?

The consenus to facts. The same flow...the downward trend the facts make known but the theory ignores. That is convincing.

doesn't seem to rely on anything does it?
No, it relies on alot. I won't repeat what, as it has been discussed in many threads you and I have both been a part of - it's been covered already.

Yes...they existed before your post and they'll exist after. None of them have explained the failures in the theory.
You claimed that they don't exist. now you say they do, and always have. Please pick one, and stick to it.

Is it? (his opinion as fact)

You seem to be claiming that it is, by quoting his personal assesment of the situation, and then saying that evolutionists have a hard time admiting this 'fact'. His opinion then = fact, apparently. Which is why I asked.

The consenus to facts. The same flow...the downward trend the facts make known but the theory ignores. That is convincing.
Anything specific? Something we could address in terms of numbers, measurable trends, or statistical analysis? Something that could be used to actually convinse us?

Namely the probability of thousands of necessary coincidence coalescing equating to impossible. If this is error then there must be updated calcuations that illistrate this. Curiously, I've found none. Those coincidences are not necessary, as you would know if you understood Darwinian evolutionary theory.

If anyone could show that complex proteins actually formed by chance, that would be a severe blow to Darwinian explanations of their formation. According to Darwinian theory, no such coincidences are possible and all such complexity was built in a series of probable steps.

Hoyle's calculations, and all calculations of that kind, are not updated because they are both wrong and irrelevant. They cannot be performed without erroneous assumptions, and they have no bearing on evolutionary theory. One of the assumptions, which you would recognize if you knew anything about the "probablity" you claim to take seriously, is independence of events that are not independent. One of the signs of their irrelevancy, which you would recognize if you understood Darwinian theory, is that they would not contradict Darwinian theory even if they were soundly based calculations. They are calculations of random assemblage, and Darwinian theory does not incorporate complex random assemblage.

Again: you are not arguing from fact, because you can't. You are simply choosing authorities and believing assertions from them. You could find other authorities, and see that they are in "consensus", and believe them instead, but you choose these for some reason. Why do you choose such poor authorities? Do you understand that criticism of scientific inquiry is not a matter of choosing authorities ?

I've admitted to being objective. You are confusing objective and objectionable.

re Hoyle's miscalculations, just google something on autocatalytic cycles to understand, in part, why he was wrong. I'm not about to waste time doing your basic literature research for you - since past evidence suggests you will ignore it.

Saquist, good post - #75.

Do you (anyone) find that the way the eye and the brain interact is a perfect example of design?

Evolving into an eye=possible (not probable)
Evolving into a brain=possible (not ptobable)
Evolving into an eye and a brain that work together=Design

Evolutions argument never really materializes. What do you mean by this. The arguments of evolution have been painstakingly laid out time and time again. If you will not attend to these it is hardly surprising that you thik the arguments have never materialised.

All the evidnece seems to lean heavily in the direction away from "chance" and "luck" and the improbable.Evolution is not dependent upon luck. Evolution is dependent upon the attributes of self organisation in open thermodynamic systems. It is dependent upon emergent properties of systems. You appear to have no knowledge of these issues, yet you feel entitled to criticise results that depend upon them. Is that sensible?

If evolution were true they should be working on defining what exactly is evolution. Evolution has been precisely defined. It is the change in the frequency of alleles within a population.
What biologists are working on is how such changes occur. What is your problem with that?
.Unfortuantly it seem most scientist feel that the work on figuring out evolution is done. ?What nonsense! Here is a list of a fraction of the journals that publish work on 'figuring out evolution'. Perhaps you should read some of them.
The Evolution Journal
International Journal of Organic Evolution
Journal of Human Evolution
International Journal of Evolution Equations
Evolution and Human Behaviour
Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of Palaeontology
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
Journal of Dinosaur Palaeontology
Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and Evolutionary Genetics of Infectious Diseases

Yes, they continue attempt to recreate evolution in the Lab but they're are not working evolution...they're working on creation. In every respect an act of will describes creation.You are playing with words again. And again I don't know if it is through ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. There is no third alternative. If it is ignorance you have the opportunity to be educated, yet you refuse to take that opportunity. If it is intellectual dishonesty then that would call into question the moral basis for your own self righteous posturing.

No, it relies on alot. I won't repeat what, as it has been discussed in many threads you and I have both been a part of - it's been covered already.

evasiveness has been covered...the issues have not.

You claimed that they don't exist. now you say they do, and always have. Please pick one, and stick to it.

perhaps both times you missunderstood.

You seem to be claiming that it is, by quoting his personal assesment of the situation, and then saying that evolutionists have a hard time admiting this 'fact'. His opinion then = fact, apparently. Which is why I asked.

context is everything. Concerning which I never said his opinions were facts...the trick is read for the facts. But his assertions are just as revealing. Unless you don't wish to address those assertions

Anything specific? Something we could address in terms of numbers, measurable trends, or statistical analysis? Something that could be used to actually convinse us?

A psychological error, it would be to attempt to convince those that do not wish to be convinced. To the mind of obstinaces everything is usually subjective. But...it's the mind that is asking why, criticaly challenging the issue that makes discoveries.

Those coincidences are not necessary, as you would know if you understood Darwinian evolutionary theory.

I understand they are not "necessary" for you.
Possibilty in probablity is entire relevant to me.


Hoyle's calculations, and all calculations of that kind, are not updated because they are both wrong and irrelevant.

I'm sure you thing that is so...but before I revise my perception there must be contradictory qualifications. You have provided only your authority above...as a nameless, unpublished, unverifiable entity.


Again: you are not arguing from fact, because you can't. You are simply choosing authorities and believing assertions from them.

And you are choosing to believe yourself...one is seeking the other is self vanity...ego.

You could find other authorities, and see that they are in "consensus", and believe them instead, but you choose these for some reason.

Fill free to list findings you aprove of and we shall see where the contradictions lie....But I don't believe you will because I don't think you know any. I believe you will search the internet for what you need...cherry picking from select portions that provide nothing in the form of clarity.

Why do you choose such poor authorities? Do you understand that criticism of scientific inquiry is not a matter of choosing authorities ?


Yes, yes...let us also ignore the facts which these gentle bring up and focus on the names....smite the names...you obviously hate names....


Saquist, good post - #75.

Do you (anyone) find that the way the eye and the brain interact is a perfect example of design?

Evolving into an eye=possible (not probable)
Evolving into a brain=possible (not ptobable)
Evolving into an eye and a brain that work together=Design

exactly John99, this illistrates the continual problem of evolution and failure of evolution to face. I've read numerous articles on the eye and brain...the function are incredible...and better designed that any camera and the brain better programed than any computer...both well adapted. The Brain actually has limited repair function...how many times did a brain meet with damage, evolved the ability, and managed to survive?

We are indeed believing in the impossible from my standpoint.

What do you mean by this. The arguments of evolution have been painstakingly laid out time and time again. If you will not attend to these it is hardly surprising that you thik the arguments have never materialised.

But if you know these things as relevant...then why all the cloak and dagger. Once again. Ophiolite you have information...but you dangle it. You're a tease. I recall asking you for detail from the begining and what you came up with before was a tantrum. What's changed?

Evolution is not dependent upon luck. Evolution is dependent upon the attributes of self organisation in open thermodynamic systems. It is dependent upon emergent properties of systems. You appear to have no knowledge of these issues, yet you feel entitled to criticise results that depend upon them. Is that sensible?

I don't know alot about thermodynamics...but that still equals to chance.

Evolution has been precisely defined. It is the change in the frequency of alleles within a population.

defined yet never seen...how is it defined...yet never observed...and mind you...we are talking macro evolution.

What biologists are working on is how such changes occur. What is your problem with that?

Extrapolating a process beyond a certain complexit