Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[Scientist]

Dr.GH, what is Taoism, i know very little about it. Although i have always found it very interesting how it is talked about in conjunction with physics. Why is this?

I think the underlying order that your last post alludes to is an incredible concept. Its applications to further reaches of the human condition and the implications that ensue are overwhelming. The idea of complete conceptual, physical, logical continuity, a unity that precedes and purveys 'everything' is truly beautiful!

It always seems to me that whatever question one approaches, however deep down the rabbit hole you go there is always a choice at the end, a fork in the road. I see this as the edge of human comprehension, the point at which our existence and our conceptual interpretations have no grasp, no tools for description. "A conceptual bubble in an ethereal potential for concepts". This is why in light of my meagre comprehension of what was, what is and what will be i am agnostic with respect to as many aspects of my life as my will power allows (not very much at present). There is no reason to decide.

This conceptual (and physical) relativity leads to something along the lines of a deontological existence, a collective with regards to consciousness. As a biologist my crutch is survival and as such if an action or a thought does not benefit society (human kind, world idea) as a whole it will eventually "disappear", the information will degrade and entropy will have done what it does.

Evolution is partial to all this, it does not "disprove" a god/supreme being, what it does is challenge some concepts associated with a god/supreme being through religion, which is why there is so much controversy surrounding it. What gives evolution strength as an idea is that it captures a very common pattern which occurs everywhere. Classical, Darwinian evolution is only a part of a more complex process, the same methods of selection and reproduction/replication as promoters of survival of an idea (a meme), a gene, an individual organism or an individual consciousness reoccur everywhere "life" goes. Evolution is big, but the underlying pattern it alludes to is far far bigger. This pattern is at the heart of social growth and development, this pattern has not only brought order to a primordial soup but it brought order to society, from which spawned our art, our music, our science, our politics, our religions, our culture. This is why evolution is scary, its underlying 'ethos' is at odds with humanity as we know it, our already flexible moral framework is slowly being buckled. Accordingly, our moral sphere expands to deal with the new and unshakable ideas. You can’t go on opposing something, which is as fundamental to our existence as the carbon cycle or photosynthesis (granted they are much simpler processes).


Anything we perceive is 'real' but if your interpretation of that reality does not work for the majority, does not pass the proof reading then it will not last.


There is no supernatural, there is only the natural, a persons own limited perceptions do not accredit the conclusions drawn. In my humble opinion if you are on either side of the god argument then you have faith in something that you cannot prove and in the battle for the survival of an idea faith just doesn't stand up, you have to have proof.


Thank you for reading my impetuous ramblings.

 

[DrummerWench]

On the topic of "What is Evolution", here is an excellent on-line summary. Introduction to Evolution 1: Darwinism, an essay by Michael A. Dexter, is an elegant, easy-to-understand discussion of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. The following is an abstract of the essay.

Observations

1. All organisms have the capacity to reproduce exponentially.

2. Resources are necessarily limited in supply.

3. Organisms within a population are variable.

3a. Some of these variations will be advantageous*.

3b. Some will be disadvantageous*.

3c. Others will have no effect at all.

4. Organisms are more likely to resemble their parents than others in the population.

(* Advantageous and disadvantageous effects here are defined by how they affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.)

Conclusions

1. There must be competition within populations for the resources.

2. Those individuals who happen to have traits that make them better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce (and potentially pass on those traits) than those who have traits that are less well suited to the environment. This phenomenon is called natural selection.

3. Since those individuals in a population who are best suited to their environment will pass on more traits (on average) than those who are less suited to their environment, the population's heritable makeup will inevitably change over time. Advantageous traits will tend to become more common, while disadvantageous traits will tend to become less common. This phenomenon is called evolution.

DrummerWench

 

[Dr.GH]

Dr.GH, what is Taoism, i know very little about it. Although i have always found it very interesting how it is talked about in conjunction with physics. Why is this?

The reason people like to associate Taoist writing and physics is because few people understand either.

Not knowing is a good place to start. In fact, it is how we all start about knowing anything.

If you know that you don't know anything, and are sure that you know nothing, then you are better off that someone who isn't sure if they know something or not. (You will be very popular).

If you don't know anything and think that you do know something, then you are going to be a preacher. (You might also be an unpopular ass causing trouble).

If you don't know anything and you are also unsure that you don't know anything, you will be driven to become a scientist. (You might also be an unpopular ass causing trouble).

In a practical sense, that is all most people need to know about Taoism.

 

[hippie]

[font=&quot]One at a time;


1) The theory of evolution is independent of cosmology, and the origin of life. While there are seemingly chance events such as giant meteror strikes that have had a profound effect on life as we see it today, these events are not part of the theory of biology. Evolutionary theory says that life responds to changes in the environment by changing.

Someone (I forget who) asked what I thought the ToE is. I've explained it as best I can. I fail to see where in my explanation I mentioned cosmology. Here's what I said:
[/font][font=&quot] [font=&quot]

the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided naturalistic processes starting from a primeval mass of subatomic particles and radiation, over approximately 20 billion years.[/font]

[/font]
[font=&quot]Now I may be wrong about the time frame, maybe it was only 15 billion years but my understanding is that at some time in the far, far, far, far distant past, in the so-called primordeal soup, with all of the subatomic particles and minerals and everthing else in the sam pot (so to speak) there was some kind of chemical or electrical or other reaction that developed life and from this reaction everything evolved. If that is not correct then what, pray tell, is it all about? I'm hearing everything from soup to nuts including allele (sp) mutations/changes all of which lead back to abiogenesis, which others on this forum have also posted as referring to the beginnings of life from inanimate objects. It has been done so in refutation to the origins of life being part of the ToE. It is in my opinion an integral part of my understanding of that theory.

As to the time frame it has changed so many times in my lifetime alone that it's any wonder anyone has the slightest clue as to how old the univers really is, let alone an approximation!

[/font]
The basic error is that there is some "special" difference between "alive" matter and "not alive" (animate and inanimate). This was disproven by the synthesis of urea by Wöhler in 1828. Urea, an "animate" molecule was shown to also be produced by "inanimate" chemistry.

So the question of what is "alive" and what is not, becomes a question of the organization of matter, not the "sort" of matter being organized. A trivial example in illustration is the production of living (bacterial) matter from such "inorganic" chemicals as hydrogen sulfide when a bacteria uses hydrogen sulfide as a source of electrons. This is just the same as when plants turn carbondioxide into tissue.

If it's an error to think that there is a ""special" difference between alive matter and "not alive" matter (animate and inanimate) then count me in the group that has made that mistake because there is a huge difference between the two!

 

[Dr.GH]

Well, this illustrates the limitation of the internet chatrooms as a place to teach.

The study of the origin of the universe and its evolution or "change over time" is cosmology and is more closely associated with astronomy and physics than even chemistry. Cosmology has only the tinyest relation to biology.

I am sorry the "time frame" is changing too often for you to keep up with, but it has not really changed that much or that often. We know that the solar system is just about 4.55 billion years old. We have known that for decades. There was greater uncertainty about the age of the universe until just a few years ago. But scientists never "changed" the age of the universe, they merely improved the error estimates. So instead of saying that the universe was between 8 and 20 billion years, it would be narrowed down to between 10 and 17, or 12 and 15 etc...

Like I said earlier, we now know that the measurments are within +/- 0.01 of 13.7 billion years. For an explanation of how this is determined, go to Age of the Universe.

 

[corvus_corax]

Someone (I forget who) asked what I thought the ToE is. I've explained it as best I can. I fail to see where in my explanation I mentioned cosmology.

Actually, you did
Post #106

If, as you claim, muy understanding of the ToE has nothing to do with how life started perhaps you could explain it to me? One of the "thories" that I keep hearing about is the Big Bang Theory, which supposedly started the Universe and then abiogenesis (also part of ToE) took over and created life.

Seems to me that it's all part and parcel of the same theory.
[/font] [/font]

(All emphasis mine)
Essentially you said that BB theory, Abiogenesis and the ToE are "part and parcel" of the same theory, which is not true at all.
Allow me to demonstrate a purely hypothetical-
Step 1) God created the universe. Maybe not via the Big Bang, maybe God just "poofed" all the planets and stars and nebula and galaxies into existence. So, in this purely hypothetical situation, we can kiss the BB Theory goodbye.
Step 2) Somewhere in the universe, God "poofed" an alien race into existence.
Step 3) This alien race "seeded" the earth with some form of proto-life. Now we can kiss goodbye the theory of abiogenesis on earth. We can also say our fond farewells to "goddidit" regarding the origins of life (or protolife) on Earth
Step 4) This (these) initial lifeform(s) evolved over billions of years into the various lifeforms we see today.

Now, my patently ridiculous example serves a purpose (and, believe it or not, it's not mockery )......
The purpose it serves is to demonstrate that the three seperate theories you are speaking of are just that- three seperate theories. HOW life (or protolife) came about does not affect the theory of evolution.
The origin of the universe in no way affects the ToE or the Origins of Life theories.
Likewise, the Origins of Life theories in no way affects the ToE.
Similarly, the ToE in no way affects either the Origins of Life theories nor the Origins of the Universe theories.

If you require more explanation, perhaps with more detail, I'll be happy to explain*

EDIT- It seems to me that you received an education that confused Abiogenesis and the ToE. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurence. Likewise, you will see the two often confused in written sources, and you will often see the two confused online (especially in chat rooms and forums....argh!). Trust us....no really, trust us...the fact that you have heard the two (or three) theories thrown together as one theory does not make such a fact. BB theory, abiogenesis and the ToE are three seperate and distinct scientific models attempting to explain (and this is improtant) three seperate aspects of reality.


* and no, that isn't sarcasm or condescension. I really will take the time to explain it as simply and directly as I possibly can

 

[MartinM]

Like I said earlier, we now know that the measurments are within +/- 0.01 of 13.7 billion years.

The error quoted implies somewhat greater precision than actually exists, however.

 

[Dr.GH]

The error quoted implies somewhat greater precision than actually exists, however.

One percent, +/- 0.01
Really!
One percent of 13.7 billion is .137 billion or 137,000,000 years. Is that what you were thinking of?

 

[HairlessSimian]

2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?

What NinjaTurtles2 is saying is that if evolution were true, we would see apes, australopithecines, homo erectus and homo sapiens all at the same time. Or, if you will, dinosaurs and chickens together. Imagine this: KFD (Kentucky Fried Dinosaur).

What Ninjaturtles2 can't get is that evolution gives rise to nested hierarchies - a bush-like tree of life, not a ladder. Ancient apes were the ancestors to modern apes (not the same things) and humans. Apes and humans diverged but BOTH evolved. The ladder analogy is anthropocentric - some of us think we're at the top of some imaginary evolutionary ladder - and the Genesis story doesn't help (god gave man dominion over the earth and such). What those folks don't realize is that the lowliest insects, and the smallest microbes have evolved just as long as we have.

Ninjaturtles2 seems to think that he/she can just drop in, open up a thread and unload a slew of misconceptions and falsehoods driven NOT BY KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT but by ignorance and disbelief, then expect what? that people will suddenly be convinced that ID is the answer?

Ninjaturtles2: I have some advice:
(1) learn to write proper English and people will perhaps take you more seriously ("had to of happened" is not to be taken seriously)
(2) keep opening posts short (one issue, one question at a time, please!)
(3) don't state your views as if we actually need to know them
(4) don't preach from ignorance
(5) zillions of people before you have had the same thoughts (don't think you're original); your particular points have been answered/refuted a zillion minus one times, so before announcing to the world the extent of your ignorance, take the time to learn a bit - there's lots of stuff even in this forum
(6) read my signature for starters

 

[HairlessSimian]

If you accept that successful predictions of future events are rationale enough to accept something then you have to accept Christ as GOD and Messiah since the Biblical predictions of Him are numerous and predict His birth, His life, His death and His Resurrection

You are so sold. Science doesn't make that kind of prediction, silly! Otherwise, we'd all be rich predicting lottery numbers! It makes logical predictions. If A and B, then C. That type of stuff.

 

[MartinM]

One percent, +/- 0.01
Really!
One percent of 13.7 billion is .137 billion or 137,000,000 years. Is that what you were thinking of?

No; the parameters required to calculate the age of the Universe are derived from the data under the assumption that a certain model holds true. The error quoted is derived from the usual statistical uncertainty in the parameters, but doesn't account for possible deviation from the model used to compute them.

 

[HairlessSimian]

In order for you to make the statement that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus or for His crucifixion you need to commit intellectual suicide. The extra-biblical proofs for His existence are many. Here is just one of them:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

Intellectual suicide? In your case, I'd say intellectual amputation. Here's a little something about your Josephus that might make you think twice about the reality of extra-biblical proof:

This is an abbreviated and edited version of a much longer text written by Rook Hawkins on the subject of Jesus' authenticity.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?)

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day" (Antiquities 20:200)

• Many problems abound here. Firstly, this is the Arabic translation of the text. Many consider this a more accurate translation, it does not in anyway change the fact that it is an interpolation. I'm using it to show that even if we ignore that faulty greek translation which is not as accurately translated, this passage STILL does not appear until 300 years later when Eusebius, in the 4th century, cited all the "evidences" of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. Eusebius, who admitted to forging multiple works, as well as lying for the sake of his beliefs, as Gibbon recounts: "I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion"
  
  The text Gibbon speaks of is as follows:
  • "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young
    
    for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
    
    'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.' - d PLATO
    
    Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." (Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).
• Which is also verified by Robert Ingersoll, "The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory." Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 293"
• Apparently Eusebius was the first to use this passage because it didn't exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The passage is not found in the early copies of Josephus. Are we to assume it magically appeared there? Please. If it had been authentic you would have heard more about the passage during the centuries prior when the early chruch fathers were struggling to gather any pagan articles on such a person as Jesus. Instead their silence is deadly to this argument.
• The early Christian fathers such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen were acquainted with Josephus' works they would have quoted this passage had it existed. Chrysostom often referred to Josephus and it's highly unlikely he would have omitted the paragraph had it been extant. Photius did not quote the text though he had three articles concerning Josephus and even expressly stated that Josephus, being a Jew, had not taken the least notice of Christ.
• Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, nor Origen against Celsus, ever mentioned this passage. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian ever quoted Josephus as a witness in their controversies with Jews and pagans and Origen expressly stated that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not recognize Jesus as the messiah (Contra Celsum, I, 47). In Origen's own words, Contra Celsus, BOOK I., Chap XLVII :
  
  I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people[...]
• The passage also interrupts the narrative. Immediately before it, Josephus tells of a rising of the Jews due to bitter feeling at the conduct of Pilate, and its bloody suppression by the ruling power. The words immediately following the passage are: "Also about this time another misfortune befell the Jews" and we are told of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius on account of the conduct of some of their compatriots. What is the connection between the reference to Jesus and these two narratives? That there must be some connection if Josephus wrote the passage about Jesus goes without saying in view of the character of the writer. Josephus was always careful to have a logical connection between his statements and from a rational standpoint there is no occasion whatever to put the passage about Jesus in the connection in which we find it.
• It's so obvious, even the Catholic Encyclopedia states it as a forgery!

Since Eusebius, everybody quotes the Josephus passage as though it were actual, but before, not one church father or scribe or even a monk mentions this passage in ANY form, not even those who used Josephus' works frequently! It smells of something...rotten in Denmark.

And after 2,000 years, with all the research and field time, no evidence physical or otherwise can be brought up to effectively prove the existence of Jesus. Not even a slipper, or a cup...only a forged passage, a few references to Chrestians and Christians in later centuries, and the Bible which has enough holes to make a back door screen jealous.

I can supply more.

 

[Dr.GH]

No; the parameters required to calculate the age of the Universe are derived from the data under the assumption that a certain model holds true. The error quoted is derived from the usual statistical uncertainty in the parameters, but doesn't account for possible deviation from the model used to compute them.

I seems to me that this has been explicitly included.

Now, if by "model" you mean that there are some radical variable speeds of light, or that the universe has contracted or oscillated or what have you, then we have left the realm of standard models.

Maybe if you made some explicit statement of your alternates to standard models there would be less confussion about what you are trying to say about the age of the universe?

 

[hippie]

You are so sold. Science doesn't make that kind of prediction, silly! Otherwise, we'd all be rich predicting lottery numbers! It makes logical predictions. If A and B, then C. That type of stuff.

But I'm not the one that said science makes successful predictions. MartinM did in Post # 122 so I would imagine that he also must be "so sold" whatever that means.

 

[Dr.GH]

hippie said, "But I'm not the one that said science makes successful predictions. MartinM did in Post # 122 so I would imagine that he also must be "so sold" whatever that means."

Now, Martin said (context removed)

Nonsense. People who take medicine or fly in planes know that there are risks involved. They also know that the odds are in their favour. If the risks are greater than they're willing to take, they don't take them. If the risks are considered acceptable, people take them knowing that they may be unlucky. No faith necessary.

hippie, have you ever looked at the package insert from a bottle of medicine? There are pages of information, much of which is devoted to "side effects." These are detailed explanations of uncertainties in the prediction of specific[/i] outcomes and reactions.

Martin was totally correct in his observation, and honest in trying to clarify the reality of this to you.

More nonsense. The absence of falsifying data isn't all that supports evolution. The successful predictions of the theory are far greater reason to accept it.

Again, Martain is correct.

 

[hippie]

Intellectual suicide? In your case, I'd say intellectual amputation. Here's a little something about your Josephus that might make you think twice about the reality of extra-biblical proof:

This is an abbreviated and edited version of a much longer text written by Rook Hawkins on the subject of Jesus' authenticity.

So because you found a source that you think discredits Josephus that means what exactly? That Jesus wasn't a real person? I can only assume that is what you mean since the post concerning Josephus was in response to a post that disputes whether Jesus ever lived!

For over 2000 years there have been no serious scholars that have questioned the authenticity of Jesus. It is a relatively modern concept to challenge the idea that Jesus actually lived; an idea, btw, that no reputable scholar endorses. They may question His being GOD but they all admit His existence.

 

[Caphi]

But I'm not the one that said science makes successful predictions. MartinM did in Post # 122 so I would imagine that he also must be "so sold" whatever that means.

Science does make accurate predictions, to the extent that we provide accurate data. Suppose bag of popcorn increases by, say, five times its volume when you pop it. Which means that if I know I have 1000 liters of corn, I can guess I'll end with about 5000 liters of product. But I might end up with 5019 liters of popped corn. That doesn't mean my science was off. It just meant I measured 1000 liters of kernel, but there was an extra 3.8 liters which got rounded off or couldn't be measured.

Look up the words: accuracy, uncertainty, precision.

 

[HairlessSimian]

But I'm not the one that said science makes successful predictions. MartinM did in Post # 122 so I would imagine that he also must be "so sold" whatever that means.

I repeat: not that kind of prediction!

Example of a scientific prediction:

Hypothesis: Ammonites preceded trilobites.
Predictive test: If ammonites preceded trilobites, then their fossils should be found in older rock formations and layers.

Example of a non-scientific prediction:

The Astros will lose the 2006 World Series.

 

[hippie]

hippie said, "But I'm not the one that said science makes successful predictions. MartinM did in Post # 122 so I would imagine that he also must be "so sold" whatever that means."

Now, Martin said (context removed)

Nonsense. People who take medicine or fly in planes know that there are risks involved. They also know that the odds are in their favour. If the risks are greater than they're willing to take, they don't take them. If the risks are considered acceptable, people take them knowing that they may be unlucky. No faith necessary.

And yet I would contend that given the fact that there are plenty of warnings concerning medications and that people are well aware of the inherent risks with taking those medication that it requires an act of faith (I won’t have those side effects). If they don’t have enough faith then they don’t take them or they don’t fly in airplanes. It’s still a matter of faith and trust.

[font=&quot]More nonsense. The absence of falsifying data isn't all that supports evolution. The successful predictions of the theory are far greater reason to accept it./quote][/font]

Again, Martain is correct.

About what? Science being successful in making predictions? If those are reasons to accept the theory then why aren’t successful Biblical prophecies enough reason to accept the Bible? Oh yeah that’s right…one is a “religious” belief and the other is a “scientific” belief!!!!

 

[gluadys]

Actually I would contend that it is you that is confused about the ToE as are most of the other evolutionists out here. You want to concentrate of one aspect of the theory and ignore the rest of it. The emphasis seems to be on the abiogenesis aspect. There is more to the theory than the biological aspect even if you refuse to accept it.

I stand by my original definition of the ToE.

Fine. But that makes it a strawman definition since it is not the definition used in science. You are just using Humpty Dumpty semantics when you depart from standard scientific defintions for scientific topics.