Evolution Debate

[One Eyed Jack]

Is there any such thing as a perfectly closed system, with the possible exception of a carefully controlled lab experiment?

You can't even get one then. In order to be observed, it has to be open to some degree. The universe as a whole would be a closed system, but I haven't seen many evolutionist debaters willing to admit that.

If not does this mean that the SLoT is never to be invoked?

Guess it must be a useless concept.

That's my problem with this particular argument. It's essentially denying a fundamental law of physics.

 

[noguru]

You can't even get one then. In order to be observed, it has to be open to some degree. The universe as a whole would be a closed system, but I haven't seen many evolutionist debaters willing to admit that.



That's my problem with this particular argument. It's essentially denying a fundamental law of physics.

I'm not sure what you are using to determine that the universe is a closed system. Just because you say something is so (that the universe is a closed system) does not make it so. If the logic were inescapable, I would have to admit it.

At any rate, if God is outside the universe and can influence (create, modify, and guide) the universe of which he is not a part, it would appear that the universe is an open system.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially

Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:

SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system?

And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.

aharvey continues:

So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

#2

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."

Ah, somehow I knew we'd get back to the old "evolution-at-the-phylum level" fallacy...

Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.

aharvey continues:

Yorzhik, evolution most emphatically does not happen at the phylum level! Who says it does? Are you thinking that the degree of evolutionary change can be correlated with time but only over short time intervals, because there is a relatively low upper limit to the maximum possible amount of evolutionary change within a lineage? This would allow species to evolve, even to evolve into other species, but would limit how different they could ultimately get. I'm willing to work with you to get a clear idea of what you're after, but you've got to understand the different between "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" and "evolution at higher taxonomic levels."

I'll try to explain evolution at the phylum level by example. Phylum refers to body type. Let's say we have a fish body type and a mammal body type as examples. The two body types in our example both existed at the same time. Something came before them according to evolution and branched into both lines that was:
1. a fish body type, which evolved into a mammal body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a fish body type in the other evolutionary line.

2. a mammal body type, which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

3. a mixture of a fish and a mammal body type which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

4. a body type that was neither fish type nor mammal type which evolved into, creating, a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

So this example is covered by which definition? "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" or "evolution at higher taxonomic levels"? or something else?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I'm not sure what you are using to determine that the universe is a closed system.

The universe is defined by all the matter and energy there is. What else do I need?

Just because you say something is so (that the universe is a closed system) does not make it so. If the logic were inescapable, I would have to admit it.

That doesn't mean you will. I've seen many people take a pass on inescapable logic.

At any rate, if God is outside the universe and can influence (create, modify, and guide) the universe of which he is not a part, it would appear that the universe is an open system.

It's only open to God. To everybody else, it's closed.

 

[noguru]

The universe is defined by all the matter and energy there is. What else do I need?



That doesn't mean you will. I've seen many people take a pass on inescapable logic.



It's only open to God. To everybody else, it's closed.

How's that? Its either closed or it is open. If it is open to God then it is open, and we should be open to seeing his input whatever form that may be.

 

[bob b]

I'm still scratching my head about this, so bear with me: evolution won't work because of SLoT in an open system? Wait, you answered "no", meaning I think that I somehow didn't get your position right initially. So which of these is the more accurate view?

1. Evolution won't work in an open system, but it has nothing to do with SLoT?

2. Evolution won't work because of SLoT, but the reasons are independent of whether the system is open or closed?

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."



Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:



And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.

aharvey continues:

#2


Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."


Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.

aharvey continues:

I'll try to explain evolution at the phylum level by example. Phylum refers to body type. Let's say we have a fish body type and a mammal body type as examples. The two body types in our example both existed at the same time. Something came before them according to evolution and branched into both lines that was:
1. a fish body type, which evolved into a mammal body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a fish body type in the other evolutionary line.

2. a mammal body type, which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and stayed as a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

3. a mixture of a fish and a mammal body type which evolved into a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

4. a body type that was neither fish type nor mammal type which evolved into, creating, a fish body type in one evolutionary line and a mammal body type in the other evolutionary line.

So this example is covered by which definition? "evolution of higher taxa (e.g., classes and phyla)" or "evolution at higher taxonomic levels"? or something else?

Your argument is without merit because you are ignorant of the fact that both fish and mammals belong to the same phylum (body type).


(I couldn'r resist the humor which I hear sometimes on the radio when a talk host "illustrates absurdity by being absurd)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How's that?

It's pretty simple, actually. Because He is God, and we're not. I realize this can be very difficult to accept, but that's just the way it is.

Its either closed or it is open.

As far as science is concerned, it's closed. We're dealing with matter and energy here. God is Spirit.

If it is open to God then it is open, and we should be open to seeing his input whatever form that may be.

What exactly would you look for? It seems to me that God pretty much just lets the universe run itself. I suppose you could look at the amazing order in the universe and all that, but you guys typically reject that sort of thing.

 

[noguru]

t's pretty simple, actually. Because He is God, and we're not. I realize this can be very difficult to accept, but that's just the way it is.

What is difficult to accept? That He is God and we are not. I do not have difficulty accepting that. Do you?

As far as science is concerned, it's closed. We're dealing with matter and energy here. God is Spirit.

Oh really. That's news to me. I thought from the view of natural philosohy or science this is still an unanswered question. But thank you Jack for giving us your opinion on this matter.

What exactly would you look for? It seems to me that God pretty much just lets the universe run itself. I suppose you could look at the amazing order in the universe and all that, but you guys typically reject that sort of thing.

I am looking for truth Jack. What are you looking for?

I do agree however, that God pretty much lets the universe run itself. And no I don't reject all that "amazing order of the universe as evidence for God" sort of stuff. I just realize that the question of whether ornot God exists cannot be answered from the limited view of natural philosohy or science. You seem to be trying to use the material sciences to answer that question for you. I know it in my heart.

 

[aharvey]

Here is what I said "no" to with an explanation just to keep things clear:

Quote:
SLoT presents a problem for "evo" if the universe as a whole is a closed system, even though the Earth itself is an open system?

And I was saying "no" because it is a problem even if the universe is closed.

Um, those sound like exactly the same claim to me!

aharvey continues:

And I guess I should confirm that we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here, you know "The total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
Yes and no. Your definition is correct, but a functional definition that is better to use: "... the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out."

Your definition has a couple of interesting components to it:

1. “differences”… in anything? Have we been able to expand the lawlike behavior of SloT to cover everything?
2. you dropped “thermodynamically isolated” from “systems;” is there a reason for that? I get the “thermodynamically” part, since the law now apparently covers everything, but do systems no longer need to be “isolated”?
3. you do keep the “tend to” part in the definition. That little qualifier seems extremely relevant.

With respect to evolution, what are you considering the relevant “systems” to be? Mutations occur within individuals or their gametes; are these the systems? Evolutionary change is something we observe at the population level; is this the system? Or is the earth itself the relevant system?

Dude... it isn't true or false, it is an arbitrary point in a system accepted by evolutionists so we can both be more clear about what we mean.

That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

 

[bob b]

The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly?

Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do cause rapid change, and those changes give reliable results, ones that give workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.

:dizzy:

 

[noguru]

Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly?

Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do[/] cause rapid change, and those changes give reliable results, ones that give workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.

:dizzy:

Bob apply the first sentence you posted to the claims in the rest of your thread.

 

[bob b]

Bob apply the first sentence you posted to the claims in the rest of your thread.

True, but why not address the hypothesis I presented instead of posting a "hit and run"?

Afraid to risk the ire of the atheistic evolutionists?

 

[aharvey]

Stating something to be true does not necessarily make it true.

Excuse me? You aren't, perchance, taking my statement out of context here, are you? I was explaining to Yorzhik why his fixation on "evolution at the phylum level" was a false dichotomy: according to evolutionary theory, the processes that lead to different phyla are the same as those that lead to different species. In that context, it was unnecessary to add the part that I just emphasized in boldface. So unless you are claiming that this statement is contradicted by evolutionary theory, I would suggest that you have nicely demonstrated the problem with taking quotes out of context.

You have put your finger on the crux of the dispute between evolutionists and creationists.

The creation hypothesis, the belief that Genesis is essentially a correct account of Origins and early history of Man, requires a certain degree of change and diversification to have occurred since the Flood, because all of the variety we see today could not have been saved on the Ark.

And such change is also verified by what can be observed today in County Fair exhibits as well as scientific observations of changes occurred over short time frames.

Do the short term changes to which you refer routinely lead to new species? We can change the way a dog looks over a short amount of time, but do we end up with a new species? If not, then what's the justification for saying that this kind and rate of change is sufficient to generate, for example, sixty species of kangaroos in 4,000 years? Is it really the same thing?

But why do lifeforms change so rapidly? Certainly it cannot be due to random mutations presenting new forms for natural selection to process. The genomes of even simple creatures like bacteria are simply too large for mutations to be the primary mechanism.

That's a bit of a non sequitur, bob, and a bit nonsensical, but I can guess what you're trying to say. (What we normally think of as) mutations would have a hard time increasing the length of an ancestral genome to even the size of that of a simple organism like a bacteria, right? I'll take it a step further for you and observe that the only kind of mutation you want to discuss, i.e., point mutations, is in fact incapable of increasing the size of a genome, since point mutations merely replace one base with another at an existing locus. So it's even worse than you portray. Or is it? Have biologists really overlooked such an obvious, er, point?

Sexual reproduction (and other known "natural" mechanisms in non-sexual life) however do cause rapid change, and those changes give reliable results, ones that give workable offspring almost every time, unlike the mutants that come about by random changes in the genome.

Interesting idea. How often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)? By "reliable," don't you mean "already present and tested"? And if it's not already present, how could such a genetically based trait show up in the absence of mutation?

If one assumed that first life was not a hypothetical primitive protocell, but instead was a bevy of creatures of many kinds, then the later change and diversification of life over thousands of years would make perfect sense.

But the Genesis scenario could not possibly be, you say, because either there is no God or else God would never have done such a thing, even though it says in His Word that he did.

As you are fully aware, when scientists suggest a history of life that differs from that in the Genesis scenario, they do so because available evidence from a diverse array of sources contradicts the specifics of the story, and they agree with each other in suggesting a rather different scenario. Despite your grudging admission that the Wald quote is a complete fabrication, you clearly have no qualms about attributing it to the minds of the scientists who disagree with you.

Besides, Science does not deal with the supernatural, so go away God and sell your stupid story to ignorant peasants who do not know how Science really works.
:dizzy:

Oops, must be time for your meds, bob. Hope it helps with the dizziness.

 

[bob b]

Excuse me? You aren't, perchance, taking my statement out of context here, are you?

Excuse me, you have previously stated your belief that small changes add up to big changes and I was merely reminding everyone that this has not been established scientifically. Are you going to tell us that this is not your belief?

I was explaining to Yorzhik why his fixation on "evolution at the phylum level" was a false dichotomy: according to evolutionary theory, the processes that lead to different phyla are the same as those that lead to different species. In that context, it was unnecessary to add the part that I just emphasized in boldface. So unless you are claiming that this statement is contradicted by evolutionary theory, I would suggest that you have nicely demonstrated the problem with taking quotes out of context.

But since you have previously stated that you believe this to be true I consider that your protest is no more than a useless quibble, as frequently occurs in courtroom sparring.

Do the short term changes to which you refer routinely lead to new species? We can change the way a dog looks over a short amount of time, but do we end up with a new species? If not, then what's the justification for saying that this kind and rate of change is sufficient to generate, for example, sixty species of kangaroos in 4,000 years? Is it really the same thing?

You confuse me. I hadn't noted that you had changed sides. Perhaps you would do well to define what you mean by a species. If we can't define something how can we discuss it?

That's a bit of a non sequitur, bob, and a bit nonsensical, but I can guess what you're trying to say. (What we normally think of as) mutations would have a hard time increasing the length of an ancestral genome to even the size of that of a simple organism like a bacteria, right? I'll take it a step further for you and observe that the only kind of mutation you want to discuss, i.e., point mutations, is in fact incapable of increasing the size of a genome, since point mutations merely replace one base with another at an existing locus. So it's even worse than you portray. Or is it? Have biologists really overlooked such an obvious, er, point?

No. They simply set aside certain things when inconvenient to their overall concepts. We have some experience with mutations in the lab. But in other cases it is merely assumed that certain differences between lifeforms are due to past mutations. And in the case of fossils we have zero experience with mutational causes and history.

Interesting idea. How often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)? By "reliable," don't you mean "already present and tested"? And if it's not already present, how could such a genetically based trait show up in the absence of mutation?

That of course is the question. The only mutational data we have is on present day lifeforms. Why they differ is an open question, but certainly we know that great differences can be generated by sexual reproduction in a short period of time. Of course some mutations, mostly detrimental, do occur. The question is whether this is a minor factor or a major one when studying different lines of descent. This is hard to determine because we can not look at the DNA of fossilized creatures.

As you are fully aware, when scientists suggest a history of life that differs from that in the Genesis scenario, they do so because available evidence from a diverse array of sources contradicts the specifics of the story, and they agree with each other in suggesting a rather different scenario.

It is not necessary to believe in the Genesis story in order to pursue an alternative to the hypothetical primitive protocell assumption. One could assume "multiple original lifeforms" without being tainted with the label "religious fanatic". Especially since it makes far more sense in the light of the increasing detailed knowledge of the complexities of interrelated biological systems and subsystems.

Despite your grudging admission that the Wald quote is a complete fabrication, you clearly have no qualms about attributing it to the minds of the scientists who disagree with you.

I only admitted that one sentence appeared to be out of character. The rest of his admissions regarding abiogenesis were quite consistent with other quotations of statements he made over the years and can be found and verified that he said them.

Oops, must be time for your meds, bob. Hope it helps with the dizziness.

I do admit to a sense of vertigo when I read certain evolutionary stories which contradict themselves with dizzying rapidity.

 

[aharvey]

Excuse me, you have previously stated your belief that small changes add up to big changes and I was merely reminding everyone that this has not been established scientifically. Are you going to tell us that this is not your belief?

I'm going to tell you, again, that you were taking quotes out of context; I am talking with Yorzhik about something other than you are wanting to prattle on about.

But since you have previously stated that you believe this to be true I fconsider that your protest is any more than a useless quibble, as frequently occurs in courtroom sparring.

How do you figure? To continue with your courtroom analogy, you're in the wrong courtroom, bud.

You confuse me. I hadn't noted that you had changed sides. Perhaps you would do well to define what you mean by a species. If we can't define something how can we discuss it?

Nice try. I've already noted, at length, that biologists understand species concepts just fine, and the fact that you can quote-mine internal discussions among professionals who want an even better standard to imply that there is no agreement at all has long since lost its novelty. You will have a great deal of trouble finding anyone who disagrees with the number of extent kangaroo species, no matter what their "species concept." And incidentally, you've long established that you're quite happy to make claims about terms that you are loathe to define, so don't pretend otherwise.

No. They simply set aside certain things when inconvenient to their overall concepts. We have some experience with mutations in the lab. But in other cases it is merely assumed that certain differences between lifeforms are due to past mutations. And in the case of fossils we have zero experience with mutational causes and history.

Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.

That of course is the question.

Well, that was one of them. I asked you more, but you skipped over them, and then in the post below, repeat the statement that caused me to ask them in the first place.

The only mutational data we have is on present day lifeforms. Why they differ is an open question, but certainly we know that great differences can be generated by sexual reproduction in a short period of time.

Again, how often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)?

Of course some mutations, mostly detrimental, do occur. The question is whether this is a minor factor or a major one when studying different lines of descent. This is hard to determine because we can not look at the DNA of fossilized creatures.

Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence. Good thing we also have some more quantitative estimates of the rate at which mutations occur, and we know that there are more mutations being generated than your wimpy "some, mostly detrimental" would imply.

It is not necessary to believe in the Genesis story in order to pursue an alternative to the hypothetical primitive protocell assumption. One could assume "multiple original lifeforms" without being tainted with the label "religious fanatic". Especially since it makes far more sense in the light of the increasing detailed knowledge of the complexities of interrelated biological systems and subsystems.

Sigh, I was responding to your making assertions about scientists and the Genesis story, or have you forgotten that already? Or is this another piece of evidence for you that evolutionists bring up the Bible when they feel threatened?

I only admitted that one sentence appeared to be out of character. The rest of his admissions regarding abiogenesis were quite consistent with other quotations of statements he made over the years and can be found and verified that he said them. echoed by

Ah, so you don't think they were fabrications? Good to know. And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God? You really wanna go there? Because I have just about had it with your twisting and inserting words and ideas into other people's mouths and minds, and your willingness to say just about anything to forward your holy cause.

I do admit to a sense of vertigo when I read certain evolutionary stories which contradict themselves with dizzying rapidity.

You must have cause and effect confused, bob. It's hard to make sense of complex ideas whilst in the midst of a vertigo attack.

 

[bob b]

I'm going to tell you, again, that you were taking quotes out of context; I am talking with Yorzhik about something other than you are wanting to prattle on about.

I thought I was doing you a favor by switching you to a field where you at least have some knowledge about (even if some critical interpretations are wrong).

How do you figure? To continue with your courtroom analogy, you're in the wrong courtroom, bud.

The court of public opinion is now in session.

Nice try. I've already noted, at length, that biologists understand species concepts just fine, and the fact that you can quote-mine internal discussions among professionals who want an even better standard to imply that there is no agreement at all has long since lost its novelty. You will have a great deal of trouble finding anyone who disagrees with the number of extent kangaroo species, no matter what their "species concept."

Great! Then why the reluctance to let the peasantry in on your definitions?

And incidentally, you've long established that you're quite happy to make claims about terms that you are loathe to define, so don't pretend otherwise.

Monkey do as monkey see.

Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.[.quote]

Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?

Well, that was one of them. I asked you more, but you skipped over them, and then in the post below, repeat the statement that caused me to ask them in the first place.

If anyone understands that clue me in.

Again, how often does sexual reproduction without mutation produce offspring that have traits that are lacking in either parent, or traits that are more developed than in either parent (controlling for non-heritable environmental effects, of course!)?

All the time. They are called genetic defects or genetic diseases.

Good thing we have so many links at different, but overlapping time scales, among so many diverse classes of evidence.

Seems to be an echo in here. I will return the favor with an echo of my own. "Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?"

Good thing we also have some more quantitative estimates of the rate at which mutations occur,

You mean like Mitochrondrial Eve? Why do you reject the "revised rate" that yielded 6000 years?

and we know that there are more mutations being generated than your wimpy "some, mostly detrimental" would imply.

Amazing how you were able to quantify "some". Sounds like another "just-so" story coming up.

Sigh, I was responding to your making assertions about scientists and the Genesis story, or have you forgotten that already? Or is this another piece of evidence for you that evolutionists bring up the Bible when they feel threatened?

Possibly.

Ah, so you don't think they were fabrications? Good to know.

You get a lot of mileage out of my "seems out of character".

And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God?

You were doing fine until you threw in the last phrase.

You really wanna go there? Because I have just about had it with your twisting and inserting words and ideas into other people's mouths and minds, and your willingness to say just about anything to forward your holy cause.

I thought you were in favor of the holy cause of Truth. Twisting and inserting words is a matter of opinion and we all struggle with what another meant by what they said or failed to say. I would say that your interpretation of my "seems out of character" is a case in point.

You must have cause and effect confused, bob. It's hard to make sense of complex ideas whilst in the midst of a vertigo attack.

No problem, I took my meds.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

What is difficult to accept? That He is God and we are not. I do not have difficulty accepting that.

Some people do.

Do you?

No. I fully realize I'm a created being. I'm just happy to be here.

Oh really. That's news to me.

Glad to be of service.

I thought from the view of natural philosohy or science this is still an unanswered question.

If the universe is all the matter and energy that exists (and according to dictionary.com, it is), then there's nothing else with which it can interact -- that's a closed system anyway you slice it.

I am looking for truth Jack.

Why do you reject it then?

What are you looking for?

Here? I'm just killing time before I go to bed.

I do agree however, that God pretty much lets the universe run itself. And no I don't reject all that "amazing order of the universe as evidence for God" sort of stuff.

But you reject intelligent design, is that correct?

I just realize that the question of whether ornot God exists cannot be answered from the limited view of natural philosohy or science.

I didn't ask you whether or not God exists -- I simply asked what sort of thing you would consider as evidence of His handiwork.

You seem to be trying to use the material sciences to answer that question for you.

No -- I'm not even asking that question. I already know God exists.

I know it in my heart.

Good.

 

[aharvey]

I thought I was doing you a favor by switching you to a field where you at least have some knowledge about (even if some critical interpretations are wrong).

The court of public opinion is now in session.

Spare us the attempts at humorly rationalizing why you feel compelled to change the subject.

Great! Then why the reluctance to let the peasantry in on your definitions?

An apparently failing attempt to keep you on issue. If you really want to have a discussion with me about species concepts, so be it.

Monkey do as monkey see.

In other words, you’re admitting that you’re a hypocrite. Well, that’s a step in the right direction, at least.

Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?

Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

If anyone understands that clue me in.

Let’s see: I asked a few questions, you ignored all but the last, claiming of that last one “that’s the question.” Then later you repeated the statement that caused me to ask the questions that you ignored. Got it now?

All the time. They are called genetic defects or genetic diseases.

Lovely. You constantly argue that mutations cannot be involved in significant evolutionary change mainly because they almost always lead to genetic defects or genetic diseases (all that "downhill evolution" crap; now there's an example of resolutely refusing to define a term that's not in common usage!), and explicitly trot out sexual reproduction as your favored alternative. But what evidence do you present that sexual reproduction can lead to significant changes? Genetic defects and genetic diseases!

Seems to be an echo in here. I will return the favor with an echo of my own. "Who couldn't when nothing is defined and imagination runs amok?"

Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

You mean like Mitochrondrial Eve? Why do you reject the "revised rate" that yielded 6000 years?

Why do you never tire of grossly misrepresenting what I say? I’ve never expressed the slightest opinion about any estimate of the age of “Mitochondrial Eve.” Do you understand, bob? Never, never, never, ever, ever, ever. Is that plain enough for you? What I did reject is your foolish effort to make the Mitochondrial Eve concept into something it most assuredly is not. This is so classic, bob. You make lame statement, I correct, you do not respond to my correction, then, later, you make original lame statement, with additional misrepresentation to boot.

So, one more time: “Mitochondrial Eve” does not represent the original human female. “Mitochondrial Eve” represents the most recent female ancestor common to all humans alive today. If a catastrophe reduced human populations to a low enough level, the title could pass on to a new Mitochondrial Eve, and the clock would be reset to zero.

Same time next month?

Amazing how you were able to quantify "some". Sounds like another "just-so" story coming up.

No clue what you're saying here. Were you perhaps unaware that folks do calculate mutation rates?

Possibly.

Curious time to equivocate, but it would not surprise me. Bob: Genesis. Alan: What about Genesis? Bob: See how evolutionists attack the Bible when they feel threatened?

You get a lot of mileage out of my "seems out of character".

Quote:
"And you are claiming they are consistent with other quotes he made over the years. And you are claiming that you are not taking these other quotes out of context, that they really do show that he thinks spontaneous generation is scientifically impossible, but that he has to believe it because he feels compelled to reject God?"

You were doing fine until you threw in the last phrase.

I’m sorry, then let me directly quote the fabricated quote you are equivocating about: “I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” So do you still think your mined quotes are consistent with this fabrication?

I thought you were in favor of the holy cause of Truth. Twisting and inserting words is a matter of opinion and we all struggle with what another meant by what they said or failed to say. I would say that your interpretation of my "seems out of character" is a case in point.

Well, we’ll see once you reread the “quote” about which you are equivocating.

 

[bob b]

Spare us the attempts at humorly rationalizing why you feel compelled to change the subject.

An apparently failing attempt to keep you on issue. If you really want to have a discussion with me about species concepts, so be it.

Your funeral (got lots of quotes here too).

In other words, you’re admitting that you’re a hypocrite. Well, that’s a step in the right direction, at least.

Another interpolation?

Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination. As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

We do tend to deal with real world evidences rather than wild imaginings like evolutionists, sorry to say.

Let’s see: I asked a few questions, you ignored all but the last, claiming of that last one “that’s the question.” Then later you repeated the statement that caused me to ask the questions that you ignored. Got it now?

Sounds as confusing as your last ramble, although it does sound vaguely like the "any question you don't answer (because it is inane) is a victory for me" tactic. Try avoiding filling the thread with off topic questions. Focus, man!!!

Lovely. You constantly argue that mutations cannot be involved in significant evolutionary change mainly because they almost always lead to genetic defects or genetic diseases (all that "downhill evolution" crap;

See. You can understand me if you try.

now there's an example of resolutely refusing to define a term that's not in common usage!),

You're better than me at inventing obscure terms. Care to try here?

and explicitly trot out sexual reproduction as your favored alternative. But what evidence do you present that sexual reproduction can lead to significant changes?
Genetic defects and genetic diseases!

The County Fair exhibits works for me.

Nice non sequitur. Incidentally, I’d say the last thing scientists need to do is rein in their imagination.

You're a blast!! :wave:

As a hypothesis-generator, imagination is a critical starting point for scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, it seems to be the ending point for creationist inquiry.

False charge. I love to read science fiction.

Why do you never tire of grossly misrepresenting what I say?

Because it's fun?

I’ve never expressed the slightest opinion about any estimate of the age of “Mitochondrial Eve.” Do you understand, bob? Never, never, never, ever, ever, ever.

Pity. What happened to that imagination?

Is that plain enough for you?

Nope, I'm wondering why not.

What I did reject is your foolish effort to make the Mitochondrial Eve concept into something it most assuredly is not. This is so classic, bob. You make lame statement, I correct, you do not respond to my correction, then, later, you make original lame statement, with additional misrepresentation to boot.

Lame is in the eye of the beholder.

So, one more time: “Mitochondrial Eve” does not represent the original human female.

You guys invented the title, not me.

“Mitochondrial Eve” represents the most recent female ancestor common to all humans alive today. If a catastrophe reduced human populations to a low enough level, the title could pass on to a new Mitochondrial Eve, and the clock would be reset to zero.

"Noah's family" doesn't have the same "ring" to it, does it?

Same time next month?

How about continually? I really enjoy this.

No clue what you're saying here. Were you perhaps unaware that folks do calculate mutation rates?

I was aware, but people also draft astrology charts (and may even believe in them).

Curious time to equivocate, but it would not surprise me. Bob: Genesis. Alan: What about Genesis? Bob: See how evolutionists attack the Bible when they feel threatened?

You take the bait don't you? :wave:

I’m sorry, then let me directly quote the fabricated quote you are equivocating about: “I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.” So do you still think your mined quotes are consistent with this fabrication?

Well, we’ll see once you reread the “quote” about which you are equivocating.

If you would like to revisit the Wald quotations on this thread in addition to the other one you started, then I will be happy to oblige. But first let me post all the quotations so that the casual reader can decipher the nature of the dispute.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
Lynn posting#48 on Fossil Record thread

“Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others.”
(Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.) From Lynn reference http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

-----
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, in Lindsay, Dennis, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.

George Wald (1906 - 1997) Professor of Biology at Harvard University Nobel Laureate Web Amazon GP
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46
8 George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Life: Origin and Evolution (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman Publishing, 1979), p. 48. (Ankerberg site)

--------

From all this I concluded that Wald said many times that "spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible" yet he also notes that "we" (scientists) believe it anyway.

I expressed my skepticism about Wald mentioning God because in that era (mine) attacking God or even expressing doubts about Him was rare. Perhaps he said it, perhaps he didn't. But nevertheless it does seem that he chided scientists (perhaps himself as well) for believing in it anyway because of the only other alternative.

----

Same time tomorrow?

(I can't wait)

 

[noguru]

True, but why not address the hypothesis I presented instead of posting a "hit and run"?

I was in a hurry. I Did not have time to respond to all of your muddied thinking in that post.

And yes, I would certainly like to address the hypothesis you presented. Could you please present it again in a concise manner, by leaving out all the negativity aimed at the naturalisric explanation.

Afraid to risk the ire of the atheistic evolutionists?

In my life I have noticed very little ire by atheistic evolutionists towards my beliefs. What I have noticed is much ire, aimed at people who are Christian but yet accept the naturalistic explanation, coming from your camp.