Question 3

[Skavau]

I'm not sure who I detest more. Ravi Zacharias or Blaise Pascal.

 

[tonybeer]

Yes Danny I care to comment.

Short answer: It is most likely an internet hoax. Einstein Proves God Exists - Urban Legends is but one of several articles saying it is not real the moment type in "The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN. "

Long answer:

A young Einstein would not have used this logic as it is deeply flawed. There are so many logical fallacies in it, it is laughable.

If Einstein was that stupid as to present these arguments then he would not have had the brains to come up with special relativity or general relativity.

Sorry to shoot you down, but I find it dishonest to post something that has a decent possiblility of fraud and something I would not do. Maybe you didn't realise, but you should check the source of anything you put up.

 

[Danny777]

Yes Danny I care to comment.

Short answer: It is most likely an internet hoax. Einstein Proves God Exists - Urban Legends is but one of several articles saying it is not real the moment type in "The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN. "

Long answer:

A young Einstein would not have used this logic as it is deeply flawed. There are so many logical fallacies in it, it is laughable.

If Einstein was that stupid as to present these arguments then he would not have had the brains to come up with special relativity or general relativity.

Sorry to shoot you down, but I find it dishonest to post something that has a decent possiblility of fraud and something I would not do. Maybe you didn't realise, but you should check the source of anything you put up.

I did actually state that this may not have had anything to do with Einstein but this is irrelevant.

I am not a philosopher. What are the logical fallacies that are laughable? I obviously realise you will take great pleasure in highlighting my stupidity and I will expect the usual ridicule and sarcasm (based on your last post) but I am genuinely interested...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ian, there are several problems with the text you quote. I won't go into all of them but here's a couple to think about:

Firstly, we still do not have eyewitness accounts. We have Paul's version of conversations he had 20 years previously. Think back 20 years. Can you honestly say you remember details of important conversations you had then?

Secondly, it does not say that the apostles claimed to have seen anything. What it says is "Prior to that, the apostles must have believed these things to be true. Prior to their beliefs, were the experiences that led them to believe that Christ had risen." That is not the same as saying they witnessed specific events. Inference is a very powerful tool especially when followed by the author's next statement "Behind them lay the historic facts of Christ’s death and empty tomb." That's a very bold claim given that he has not presented anything which comes anywhere near being factual evidence, and no claim that the apostles witnessed anything.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm not sure who I detest more. Ravi Zacharias or Blaise Pascal.

Oh come on now.

Pascal was at least good at something besides bad apologetics, unlike Zacharias.

It's amazing what you can prove with made-up conversations

 

[tonybeer]

I'm not calling you stupid.

I think I'm normally quite fair and have spent a lot of time trying to explain things to you in other posts.

I suspect, and I'm not the only one, that the article was written by a Christian apologist as it bears all the hallmark logic and the misrepresentation of science. I just find it fundamentally dishonest to claim a famous scientist said something that he didn't.


If I went and claimed a fake conversation between the Pope and say a bishop saying something like this:

Pope: Can't believe all these idots believe this rubbish
Bishop: Well it pays for my new house extension. Hahahahaha

The you'd likely be annoyed too.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Slightly off-topic but came across this...the student may not have been Einstein but any comments?

This is a dangerous story to quote in favour of the bible. Look at this part:

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light . . but if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, you would be able
to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Now look at Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep
And verse 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

So which is correct?

 

[Danny777]

I'm not calling you stupid.

I think I'm normally quite fair and have spent a lot of time trying to explain things to you in other posts.

I suspect, and I'm not the only one, that the article was written by a Christian apologist as it bears all the hallmark logic and the misrepresentation of science. I just find it fundamentally dishonest to claim a famous scientist said something that he didn't.


If I went and claimed a fake conversation between the Pope and say a bishop saying something like this:

Pope: Can't believe all these idots believe this rubbish
Bishop: Well it pays for my new house extension. Hahahahaha

The you'd likely be annoyed too.

Tony, you are probably right about it being written by a Christian apologist. I did not quote this to discuss whether or not it had anything to do with Einstein - I am only interested in the content of the conversation.

Let both assume Einstein had nothing to do with it.

You said the the logical fallacies were laughable...you haven't explained why? This is not a trick question - I'm simply interested!

 

[Danny777]

This is a dangerous story to quote in favour of the bible. Look at this part:

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light . . but if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, you would be able
to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Now look at Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep
And verse 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

So which is correct?

I didn't say I was quoting this in favour of the Bible. What interested me was the content of the conversation from a philosophical point of view re. Gods existence.

I'll admit that a lot of this goes over my head a little, but not sure I understand the point you are making re. the darkness thing - I can't see the contradiction...

In any case, I do not think this conversation is a defense of the Genesis account of creation - it's more a discussion re. the existence (or non-existence) of God...

 

[Robban]

This is a dangerous story to quote in favour of the bible. Look at this part:

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light . . but if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, you would be able
to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Now look at Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep
And verse 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

So which is correct?

When you walk into a dark room and switch on the light. Where does the darkness go?

 

[tonybeer]

Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?


Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's
brain?

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it? . . .No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures,sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face
unfathomable)

Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . exactly ! The link between MAN & GOD is
FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

That student was Albert Einstein."

Just some of the mistakes from just this part otherwise I'll be here all day.

1. We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes.

2. We do observe evolution with our own eyes. Fossils and DNA evidence we can see.

Take the example of pluto. It has an orbital period of 248 years. Do I need faith that 248 years ago it was in its present position relative to the sun? No of course not. I can measure its properties from today and use the well understood laws of gravity to predict where it was 248 years ago.

However the evolutionary evidence is even better than this as we have actual snapshots of creatures from the past. The DNA evidence alone is enough to show us and other animals are evolved from common ancestors.

3. The only examples we have are of people who can talk having brains. The professor could be a robot from the future, but this is highly highly unlikely and it is highly highly likely he has a brain.

Every human we have observed has a brain. We have no observations of robots from the future that look like humans. It would be faith to say it was a robot.

We have no reliable observations of God. If had lots you wouldn't need faith, God's existence would become a fact.


Danny, if you don't mind, can you please explain the theory of evolution the way you understand it?

 

[Gadarene]

Slightly off-topic but came across this...the student may not have been Einstein but any comments?

"An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem
Science has with GOD , the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New
Students to stand and . . .

Professor: do you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal
him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't.
How is this GOD good then? Hmm?

(Student was silent )

Professor : You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything.
Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer)

Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who created them ?

(Student had no answer)

Let it be noted that for all the semantic trickery and misrepresentation of science the rest of this spiel engages in, these issues with God are still not dealt with even if the proof for god's existence holds.

Professor : Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe
the world around you.

It's a little more complicated than that - we don't just rely on direct sensory observation. Instrumentation based on established science also counts.

Tell me, son . . . Have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD , smelt your GOD ?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor : Yes, faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student asks and professor answers
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't,

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega
Heat, white Heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything
called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we
can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure
cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the
absence of it.

(There was pin-drop silence in the Lecture Theatre )

Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.
You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light . . but if
you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness,
isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it is, you would be able
to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Professor : So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical premise is
flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is
life and then there is death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the
concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science
can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has
never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the
opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a
substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of
it.

Which is absolute cobblers. The professor has not said anything about death being the opposite to life. I've no idea how one manages to strawman the other side of a conversation that you've just concocted, but leave it to a Christian apologist I suppose. And all this nonsense about it being an absence of life doesn't change the fact that it is still an undesirable state, and doesn't remove the question of whether it is right for a deity to hold that state over our heads.

This little sleight of hand occurs after the student has readily admitted that evil exists and that the God he believes in created everything, without quantifier. Not only is this backed up by the Bible (Isaiah 45:7 - and that also treats darkness as an extant thing ), but he hasn't done anything to address this.

Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes,
of course, I do.

Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the
argument was going)

Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work
and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

Well, any teacher with their head screwed on correctly would know that evolution - genetic and physical changes over time - HAS been observed. People may dispute the longer/historical evolutions of the past, but the process itself has been observed.

Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's
brain?

(The class broke out into laughter)

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it? . . .No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures,sir?

(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face
unfathomable)

Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . exactly ! The link between MAN & GOD is
FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

And now we have a science professor telling students to take his lectures on faith, as opposed to encouraging them to test them, or explore the maths for themselves, or whichever.

As for the existence of brains/thoughts - no, there isn't a perfect explanation for them yet, but it's rather silly to doubt they exist - again, the process of science has been strawmanned here. Instrumentation can detect both the brain and mental activity.

That student was Albert Einstein."

Worst. Denouement. EVAR.

Possibly even worse than "And it was a all a dream!" or "rocks fall, and everyone dies".

 

[Robban]

Let it be noted that for all the semantic trickery and misrepresentation of science the rest of this spiel engages in, these issues with God are still not dealt with even if the proof for god's existence holds.

It's a little more complicated than that - we don't just rely on direct sensory observation. Instrumentation based on established science also counts.

Which is absolute cobblers. The professor has not said anything about death being the opposite to life. I've no idea how one manages to strawman the other side of a conversation that you've just concocted, but leave it to a Christian apologist I suppose. And all this nonsense about it being an absence of life doesn't change the fact that it is still an undesirable state, and doesn't remove the question of whether it is right for a deity to hold that state over our heads.

This little sleight of hand occurs after the student has readily admitted that evil exists and that the God he believes in created everything, without quantifier. Not only is this backed up by the Bible (Isaiah 45:7 - and that also treats darkness as an extant thing ), but he hasn't done anything to address this.

Well, any teacher with their head screwed on correctly would know that evolution - genetic and physical changes over time - HAS been observed. People may dispute the longer/historical evolutions of the past, but the process itself has been observed.

And now we have a science professor telling students to take his lectures on faith, as opposed to encouraging them to test them, or explore the maths for themselves, or whichever.

As for the existence of brains/thoughts - no, there isn't a perfect explanation for them yet, but it's rather silly to doubt they exist - again, the process of science has been strawmanned here. Instrumentation can detect both the brain and mental activity.

Worst. Denouement. EVAR.

Possibly even worse than "And it was a all a dream!" or "rocks fall, and everyone dies".

Is there a difference between philosophy and science?

 

[Gadarene]

Is there a difference between philosophy and science?

Science is a branch of philosophy.

One of the most successful ones, mind.

 

[Danny777]

And all this nonsense about it being an absence of life doesn't change the fact that it is still an undesirable state, and doesn't remove the question of whether it is right for a deity to hold that state over our heads.

Thanks for your thoughts.

This is an interesting point and one I feel unable to articulate in a way that you would consider a compelling argument. Taking the Bible as a whole, I feel a picture is painted of God as both of God of love and a God of justice. I don't think these attributes are in conflict with each other.

I do agree that what we have in the world around us is what you accurately describe as an "undesirable state"...I don't see this is Gods fault though - rather a consequence of our free will (if we did not have free will, then we would God of being unloving...)

I think its impossible and almost ridiculous to declare moral judgments over God - we are the creatures, not the Creator...we have no right to question God judgment. I understand you will not accept this though...

One thing I would say.

IF God is immoral (as you accuse) in punishing those who don't believe in Jesus to hell and rewarding those who do believe with heaven. Would it not be better to still make sure we went to heaven (even grudgingly under an immoral God) to enjoy something that is very good, rather than accept hell (as you say, who would want to be set on fire?!) on a matter of principle?

Any questions we/I have about the morality of God I'm sure will be answered when in heaven. I would rather take my questions to heaven and then find out there were good explanations that I couldn't see clearly on earth (due to this undesirable state) than miss out altogether. Of course, there is an element of trust involved, but in my view the consequences of getting this wrong are unfathomable.

On a personal note, thanks for getting to the end of a post without some form of personal attack...

 

[Danny777]

Danny, if you don't mind, can you please explain the theory of evolution the way you understand it?

Like you, I haven't got all day and feel we've had this discussion elsewhere.

Will have to come back to you on this question...do you have a "link" that YOU consider to be a good explanation of the theory of evolution? Let me have a read so I can see how it matches up with my understanding...

 

[Gadarene]

Thanks for your thoughts.

This is an interesting point and one I feel unable to articulate in a way that you would consider a compelling argument. Taking the Bible as a whole, I feel a picture is painted of God as both of God of love and a God of justice. I don't think these attributes are in conflict with each other.

The attributes, not necessarily. It's how they manifest that causes the problems.

I do agree that what we have in the world around us is what you accurately describe as an "undesirable state"...I don't see this is Gods fault though - rather a consequence of our free will (if we did not have free will, then we would God of being unloving...)

I think free will is overrated according to Christianity. What is the value in 80 or so years - if you're lucky - of free will when you're going to be living in heaven without it? (And if there is free will in heaven but no mechanism for sin, then why did God not create earth without it?)

There are plenty of viable ways to have free will without producing the mess we are in now.

Firstly, was there any need for God to curse the earth and make life any harder for mankind than it already was, having become vulnerable to death? Apart from anything else, why curse the entire species when it is the actions of one person that offended God? Punish them, perhaps, but everyone? How is punishing someone for something they didn't commit and dooming them from even before their birth remotely fair?

Secondly, we find it much easier to refrain from committing certain sins than others. Very few people find it difficult to commit child abuse or genocide, for example. There is a natural revulsion to such things. Now, we do not consider having that tendency to being forced to not commit those sins - a violation of free will. So why not create all of mankind with such revulsion to all sins?

Thirdly - if God knows the actions we will freely choose in advance and still chooses to create us, then why not choose to create only those who will freely choose him? Again, that is not considered a violation of free will, so why not create everyone this way?

I think its impossible and almost ridiculous to declare moral judgments over God - we are the creatures, not the Creator...we have no right to question God judgment. I understand you will not accept this though...

If you won't question his judgement, then you are hardly in a position to say that it is right.

One thing I would say.

IF God is immoral (as you accuse) in punishing those who don't believe in Jesus to hell and rewarding those who do believe with heaven. Would it not be better to still make sure we went to heaven (even grudgingly under an immoral God) to enjoy something that is very good, rather than accept hell (as you say, who would want to be set on fire?!) on a matter of principle?

That's called integrity, Danny. I'm not about to accept some prize for selling out - even if it means going to hell for it.

Any questions we/I have about the morality of God I'm sure will be answered when in heaven. I would rather take my questions to heaven and then find out there were good explanations that I couldn't see clearly on earth (due to this undesirable state) than miss out altogether. Of course, there is an element of trust involved, but in my view the consequences of getting this wrong are unfathomable.

As are the consequences of God not getting off his behind and answering them now , so why should those consequences behoove me to action but not him?

 

[tonybeer]

I'll try my best to explain it here. I apologise to any actual biologists! I'll use giraffes as an example.

1. We know that traits are passed on from parent to child. I'm sure you'll agree with this. Two parent giraffes with long necks are more likely to produce a giraffe with a long neck, than two parent giraffes with shorter necks.


2. If I select certain offspring that have specific traits to breed, these traits will become more pronounced. Say I breed two giraffes with long necks. I could get (this is simplified):

a) Giraffe with shorter neck than parents due to mutation or just genetic factors
b) Giraffe with long neck (like parents)
c) Giraffe with longer neck than either parent due to slight mutation


Note that sometimes the offspring won't have a longer neck as it is all down to chance. But this doesn't matter as I don't select this shorter neck offspring to breed.

So I want to now select two b) types, or if I have one, a b) and a c), or even better 2 type c).

Every time I get a c) there is a decent chance I'll be able to breed an offspring from the c) that has a longer neck than those of the previous type b).

If I keep on going generation after generation, slowly the average length of neck will increase. Not in every giraffe, but the average of all the giraffes I have.

This is how all the different breeds of dog for example are created and is known as artificial selection. We have evidence for this and can do it in the lab.

Are you happy with this stage?


3. What if instead of selecting giraffes myself, I just put the food they eat at all sorts of height, say in a range 2 metres to 6 metres high (like a tree).

This means the giraffes with the taller necks have more food to access than those with shorter necks. The tallest giraffes are less likely to die off, and also are going to be stronger and more likely to mate.

This means the offspring are more likely to have longer necks. Some offspring won't have longer necks, again down to chance, however they are less likely to breed.


So rather than me having to do the selecting myself, the environment does it for me.


The key point is that it is the environment doing the selection. The positive traits are determined by the environment the giraffes are in.


Now lets say the food is high up, yet can also be knocked onto the floor by a heavy giraffe. Now there are two beneficial traits and it is possible the original giraffe type creature evolves into two separate creatures, one type with a long neck and one heavy type. (Yes I could get a heavy and long neck giraffe, but these are controlled in this example by different genes, so I am a lot less likely to get one)

There will be a point where the two cannot breed with each other, which is when they are defined as separate species.

There is evidence for this speciation in fruit flies in the link below (Dodd experiment).

However they will both (the heavy giraffe and the long neck giraffe) have large parts of their DNA the same, and from this we can tell they had a single common ancestor.

The heavy giraffe could end up looking a lot like a cow for example. However looking at the DNA we can see that the long neck and heavy giraffes have a lot more DNA in common with each other, than the heavy giraffe and the cow.

Here is the link: Evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Robban]

Science is a branch of philosophy.

One of the most successful ones, mind.

OK thanks.
I don,t know exactly where the line is drawn,
but am thinking that science consists of many branches, ie, medical science,
Would think anyone should overjoyed when, for example they needed a blood transfusion, that they recieve the right type/group, thanks to science, presuming it comes under the heading science, also there are many examples we can celebrate today.
Actually why I asked was because, the example Danny gave started with, "An atheist professor of philosophy"
Which set me wondering, what the difference was, if there was a difference.
Though I and we draw advantage from science everyday, I still think the word "Science" is blurry, if you get what I mean.

 

[Danny777]

I'll try my best to explain it here. I apologise to any actual biologists! I'll use giraffes as an example.

1. We know that traits are passed on from parent to child. I'm sure you'll agree with this. Two parent giraffes with long necks are more likely to produce a giraffe with a long neck, than two parent giraffes with shorter necks.


2. If I select certain offspring that have specific traits to breed, these traits will become more pronounced. Say I breed two giraffes with long necks. I could get (this is simplified):

a) Giraffe with shorter neck than parents due to mutation or just genetic factors
b) Giraffe with long neck (like parents)
c) Giraffe with longer neck than either parent due to slight mutation


Note that sometimes the offspring won't have a longer neck as it is all down to chance. But this doesn't matter as I don't select this shorter neck offspring to breed.

So I want to now select two b) types, or if I have one, a b) and a c), or even better 2 type c).

Every time I get a c) there is a decent chance I'll be able to breed an offspring from the c) that has a longer neck than those of the previous type b).

If I keep on going generation after generation, slowly the average length of neck will increase. Not in every giraffe, but the average of all the giraffes I have.

This is how all the different breeds of dog for example are created and is known as artificial selection. We have evidence for this and can do it in the lab.

Are you happy with this stage?

Yes, very happy - this is exactly how I understand evolution...it is very testable, observable, predictable etc etc

3. What if instead of selecting giraffes myself, I just put the food they eat at all sorts of height, say in a range 2 metres to 6 metres high (like a tree).

This means the giraffes with the taller necks have more food to access than those with shorter necks. The tallest giraffes are less likely to die off, and also are going to be stronger and more likely to mate.

This means the offspring are more likely to have longer necks. Some offspring won't have longer necks, again down to chance, however they are less likely to breed.


So rather than me having to do the selecting myself, the environment does it for me.


The key point is that it is the environment doing the selection. The positive traits are determined by the environment the giraffes are in.


Now lets say the food is high up, yet can also be knocked onto the floor by a heavy giraffe. Now there are two beneficial traits and it is possible the original giraffe type creature evolves into two separate creatures, one type with a long neck and one heavy type. (Yes I could get a heavy and long neck giraffe, but these are controlled in this example by different genes, so I am a lot less likely to get one)

There will be a point where the two cannot breed with each other, which is when they are defined as separate species.

There is evidence for this speciation in fruit flies in the link below (Dodd experiment).

However they will both (the heavy giraffe and the long neck giraffe) have large parts of their DNA the same, and from this we can tell they had a single common ancestor.

The heavy giraffe could end up looking a lot like a cow for example. However looking at the DNA we can see that the long neck and heavy giraffes have a lot more DNA in common with each other, than the heavy giraffe and the cow.

Here is the link: Evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would I not be right in saying that the fact that this needed to be done in a lab would imply design? In other words, the designer of the experiment "created" the perfect environment for this to take place... (just thinking aloud...). Anyway, read on...

What is described above is completely identical to my understanding of evolution. The thing that bothers me, is that it seems a big leap to go from what is described above to using this model as an explanation for how a simple organism gradually mutates to become MORE advanced than the one before. As I've always understood it, information does NOT increase through a mutation, it is only lost through a mutation. For example, if the long necked giraffes gradually mutate to have longer and longer necks, they slowly LOSE the genetic information to have small necks. Does not the phenomena of both the giraffe and the fruit fly being UNABLE to breed with each other after a number of generations prove that genetic information had been lost? At best, genetic information has remained the same and just changed in form, but most likely, genetic information has been lost. It certainly has NOT increased...

This would agree with all observable laws of physics. Things tend to begin orderly and that increase towards disorder (increase in entropy). Systems begin with a certain amount of energy and either energy is lost or changes form, but cannot INCREASE without outside energy coming in. Systems begin with a certain amount of information and then information either changes form or is lost - information cannot be gained without an outside source?

I was reading about microbes and bacteria. Even the very smallest types of organism known to man are stunningly complex in make-up. It seems virtually implausible to me that these organisms firstly just came into being without design and even if they did, they then constantly gave rise through mutations to MORE COMPLEX organisms as we climb the evolutionary tree. I do not think we observe this...

EITHER the most simple organisms began in a very simple form and then went through numerous mutations that INCREASED information (which is something we do NOT observe) OR the most simple organisms began in a very complex form in the first place, which would surely imply a designer?

So, "evolution" as described with the giraffe scenario IS a proven fact. I understood this to be called "natural selection" or "micro-evolution". However, isn't it necessary to demonstrate how information can INCREASE in complexity without any design to prove "molecules-to-man" evolution?

I probably haven't described the above very well, but did my best...