"Evolution is a chance process"

[Guest mscoville]

ACtually, you do just about everything on the basis of preference, we all do. When we choose white bread over brown it's because we prefer to do so - maybe because we prefer the taste, or maybe because we prefer to cater to our children's tastes, or maybe because we prefer the brand - but nonetheless, it's a preference.

Morals are just another type of preference - a very strong preference in some (primary even to a preference for staying alive, in some), a weak preference one in others.

That's still not an answer really. I don't think you'd die for a preference and I'm not arguing whether or not I should eat white bread.

No, according to me you shouldn't. Firstly, you might get caught, and you probably prefer not to go to prison.

Secondly, it's likely that you are I share a preference against victimisation of others. We probably also share a preference for making our own money, and owning our own stuff fair and square.

My preference however is established because I believe it's actually wrong to victimize people. You make that decision because? You want to be popular? Ha.

~ M

[artsylady]

QUOTE

[artsylady]

"Actually, recent fossil discoveries point to the idea that the first amphibians actually adapted their fins to scuttle around the sea bed, only later to walk on land. Here is some of the (fossil) evidence for this:"

I'd like your opinion on the fish with legs that are currently living and running around at the bottom of the oceans.

"http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/tetrapods.htm#Tetrapods"

Oooookay. I'm looking at the fossil and looking at the drawing and I'm trying to figure out why they put fingers on it, or limbs or the tail. Is this the only fossil like this? And you say it's recently found? Is the illustration representative of the fossil? Sorry. I don't understand.

"QUOTE 

Any evidence for this?

Good question. Land plants are well established in the fossil record by the Silurian (440 - 410Mya), that is, they are found regularly by this period (btw, a creationist explanation of why many land plants are found from the silurian upwards and not before would be nice).

However, fossils have been found from the Mid-Ordovician (~470 Mya) (http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/index/2NWB35JF2C34PJHG.pdf)

Tetrapods (the first land animals) appeared in the Devonian (410-360 Mya), right after the colonisation of land by plants."

Any evidence that they were lacking in food in the water? Or having to leave because of their predators? Can you imagine a fish today, seeing plant material outside and wanting to get at it? This should be a simple enough experiment, right? Put a fish somewhere where in water where there's no food and put some food outside of the water. What do you think would happen?

"QUOTE 

The fish with stumps and fins held it's breath, hobbled onto the land, grabbed some food, hobbled back to the water and swam. This is hysterical? Did you write this with a straight face? Oh yeah, and is there any evidence for this?

The reasons why early amphibians (tetrapods) crawled onto land in the first place can only ever be speculation - since we wern't around to see it happen, or witness their habitat. However, we can at least theorise advantages to such behaviour evolving, especially in coastline communities of animals."

Sure you can theorize. Theorize away. It would be good to have evidence to back up the theories though. How do you know the tetrapods are in-betweens anyway? The picture on your link sure looked like it was fully formed - no stumps. I want to see an actual fossil with stumps. No more illustrations.

"Also, given that tetrapods may well have had fairly well formed limbs by the time they crawled out of the sea,"

I thought you said they had stumps. Did you change your mind or did I miss something?

So now fish developed fully formed legs and then crawled out of the sea?

"they may well only have had to evolve breathing apparatus from gills.""

Is there evidence to support the gills to lungs transition?

"The fact of the matter is though, your question wasn't "how did it happen?" but rather "how could it possibly have happened, what could possibly be the advantage?"

So it's not so much about observation and evidence.

"QUOTE 

lol! I can just picture it! Is there proof for the faster running fish that ran on the land? Anything fossils with lungs and gills? Or how about lungs and gills and stumps and fins? Anything evidence to support this?

Firstly, only hard parts survive fossilisation"

Okay, so no. lol.

"However, we do (as you've probably seen from the links above) see fish with adapted fins turning into tetrapods in quite a well documented transition"

So the illustration was not supposed to be what the fossil looked like? I'm not sure I did the 'adapted fins" What do you mean?

"(I'm surprised you chose this transition in fact, since fossils do exist here, you'd have been better choosing amphibian to reptile, for which there are no transitional fossils of any note at all)."

Well, thank you for admitting that. They've got the story - now let's go find the evidence. Seems totally backward to me. Evolution seems to be much more about philosophy and using your imagination. You have to admit that.

"QUOTE 

So are there fish today that can do this? There are billions of fish that are prey. Surely there must be some can hop out of the water, hold their breath to get away from their predators.

Well, of course, there are fish that swim in very shallow waters, but of course, coming onto land isn't the solution it used to be. Why? Because now there's stuff on land that can eat you. In fact, there's even stuff in the air that can eat you if you're in too shallow an area. "

Again, this should be a pretty easy experiment to conduct. I doubt they'll even try it though.

"QUOTE 

You really beleive this don't you?

I really believe that spending time on land when there's noone or nothing to predate you there, and lots of food, could be very advantageous to a creature who is struggling for any food in the water, and to stay away from prey."

Well sure it's advantageous. lol. I mean you really beleived it happened like that, right?

Do you think you might have a certain amount of faith in the theory of evolution?

It would be advantageous for predators to be camoflagued. Why do you think most times they aren't - most times, or often, they stick out like a sore thumb?

"Since we've found transitional fossils of fish with adapted fins, who scuttled on the surface of the sea-bed,"

What? Still living? Shouldn't these fish have turned into humans by now? What happened? Did some change their mind?

"I don't see a problem with these fish then moving further and further onto land gradually, with adapted gills to breath oxygen pure."

I have a good imagination. I can see this happening too. Who thought up this idea anyway? And why can't experiments be performed to prove these kinds of things. Or maybe there are experiments that do, that certainly might be convincing evidence.

"Actually, some do. Polar bears for example are rather hard to spot against the ice of the arctic. Lions are hard to spot against the yellow grasses of the African plains. In fact, many ambush predators camouflage themselves also."

I don't think I said "ALL" predators now do, did I? No research needed. I'm well aware of predators that blend into their surroundings. That's not what I'm talking about. Anyway, what evolutionary advantage does a predator have when it sticks out like a store thumb?

"QUOTE 

and somehow willed the stumps to happen.

I think you may have severely misunderstood evolutionary theory, or perhaps you're being deliberately obtuse?"

Okay, the fish sees food with its eyes. It wants the food. It needs the food. It grows stumps to go and get the food. HOw does it happen then. I'd really like to know. It obviously has something to do with the fish seeing and wanting and needing the food.

'Variation is not directed by the will or wishes of the animal or plant - but by random mutations and recombinations. Variation is random - some variations will be advantageous, some dis-advantageous, some disastrous, and many neutral or even non-functional.'

So the fact that the food is on the land and the fish can see it has nothing to do with the evolutionary changes it makes to grow itself some stumps. It is all random??? I thought you said the fish holds its breath and goes on land to get away from its enemies, yet the changes required to do this better and better are all random?

'Evolution on a large scale takes thousands of generations, even tens and hundreds of thousands.'

Tell me how the above statement factors into the fish story - where it grows stumps or gets some lungs.

[truseek]

It doesn't mean that they were objectively morally wrong of course, because morality and objectivity are mutually exclusive concepts, there is no moral truth.

The statement "there is no moral truth" refutes itself. Just as "All statements are false" or "I always lie"

SA, where did life originate? I do not believe that you have answered this question. I believe Pasteur proved, years ago that life does not come from unlife.

The most common theory that I am familiar with is this. Favorable mutations could have developed some unformed, nonliving proteins into life. Keep in mind that mutation is additive, they must ALL be good. The odds against just 3 favorable mutations are 1 in 10^21.

The human body is made up of 206 bones, 600 muscles, 2,000,000 nerve fibers, 100,000,000,000 nerve cells, 400,000,000,000 feet of blood vessels, all working together. The odds are simply staggering.

How many different designs must have come together to form a woodpecker's beak, it's instinct to peck, the tree it is pecking, and the bugs for which it pecks. how many woodpeckers died before they developed shock mounting to keep them from beating their brains out?

Also, studying parts does not give an adequate picture of a species (i.e. humans related to apes). If we study Lysosome levels we are related to chickens. If we study blood in vertebrates we are related to worms. If we study our eyes we are related to squids. Amino Acids? Crocodiles and chickens are now brothers!

Also, we do not live merely because all the right parts are there. An airplane is composed of many non-flying parts, but when designed is the proper way, it can fly. (note designed)

Mammoths have been discovered, frozen while eating, with food on their mouths, how does one account for this?

What about the bombardier beetle? How did it survive long enough for the chemicals in it's body to become useful rather than harmful?

When has any species been known to adapt, mutate, or evolve outside of its species?

Also, for evolution to work properly, not just one, but two animals must overcome staggering odds at approximately the same time, and be of opposite sex if the species has any hope of propogation.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[truseek]

Osiris, you seem very keen on accusing the bible of being a fairly tale, and people who believe in it of being easily deluded fools. What about the science that has proven true in the Bible? what about civilazations that people used to discredit the bible, due to lack of evidence, which have since been discovered. Not to mention the insight the bible gave, totally accurately, into these civillizations.

Here are some examples:

Man is made up of the basic elements of the earth. - Genesis 2:7

Life is found in the blood. - Genesis 9:4, & Lev. 17:14

The earth is round. - Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22

The earth is suspended in space by nothing. - Job 26:7

The waters go up into the wind. - Job 28:25

The winds movements are circular. - Eccles. 1:6

Water returns to its place of origin (evaporation-condensation). - Eccles. 1:7

The order of creation events - Genesis 1

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Hittite civilization (Genesis 15:20) discovered in 1906

Quirinius Governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3) confirmed as a double duty by coin

Correct titles of government praetor, proconsul, first man, politarchs (Luke

[Bread_of_Life]

Truseek,

You've made some fair points that require answering, and I think I can answer the majority of your questions to your satisfaction:

The statement "there is no moral truth" refutes itself. Just as "All statements are false" or "I always lie"

This is not so. If the statement:

"There is no moral truth"

were a moral statement, then yes, it would refute itself. So, for example, the statement:

"It would be wrong if there were moral truth"

is self-refuting, because this is a moral statement, a statement of right and wrong, yet it claims there is no moral truth.

However, the statement:

"There is no moral truth" is a metaethical statement - not a moral statement. It is a statement about how we find out what is right and wrong (metaethics), not about what *is* right and wrong (morals/ethics).

Similarly, I would also claim that the statement:

"There is no aesthetic truth"

is not contradictory. Also, you probably agree with it, most people realise that beauty and taste is in the eye of the beholder - it is subjective. The statement is not self-contradicting, because it is not a statement of aesthetics, it's not saying that something or other is beautiful but by the way there is no aesthetic truth. Rather, it is a meta-aesthetic statement - talking about how we come to aesthetic judgements.

So no, there statement "THere is no moral truth" does not contradict itself, because the sentence is not a moral truth in of itself, but rather a metaethical statement.

SA, where did life originate? I do not believe that you have answered this question. I believe Pasteur proved, years ago that life does not come from unlife.

Pasteur proved nothing of the sort I'm afraid - indeed, it would be hard to even imagine an experiment that could prove that life cannot ever generate spontaneously.

The answer to where life originated is difficult, because I wasn't there 4 billion years ago when it did, and even if I was, it'd be difficult for me to pinpoint exactly where it happened. There are various theories about where self-replication came about (although you may not class a self-replicating molecule as a lifeform, actually come to think about it - what do you class as "life"?). Some hypotheses say that life could have come about in thermal vents, rich in amino acids, a chain may have formed that could replicate itself. Other hypothesise self-replication coming about closer to the surface of the earth, catalysed by lightning.

The answer is of course, I don''t know, noone knows, and the chances are, noone will ever be sure. Perhaps in the distant future we'll be able to set up an experiment that'll tell us - although I can't imagine what such an experiment would be or look like...

Favorable mutations could have developed some unformed, nonliving proteins into life. Keep in mind that mutation is additive, they must ALL be good. The odds against just 3 favorable mutations are 1 in 10^21.

FIrstly, what do you class as life? Secondly, I cannot respond to your figures, because they're stated without any proof or reasoning. Unfortunately, that isn't uncommon amongst creationists (and I take it that's where you got the figure from, some creationist website or other?).

The human body is made up of 206 bones, 600 muscles, 2,000,000 nerve fibers, 100,000,000,000 nerve cells, 400,000,000,000 feet of blood vessels, all working together. The odds are simply staggering.

If it were all random and non-cumulative, without any form of selection or intermediate, then yes, the odds would simply be staggering.

how many woodpeckers died before they developed shock mounting to keep them from beating their brains out?

Well, actually, probably only a few - because like many interdependent features, they probably co-evolved. I don't know much about the woodpecker's beak, or it's lifestyle, but I can give you the example of the stomach, if you do want me to explain coevolution.

Also, studying parts does not give an adequate picture of a species (i.e. humans related to apes).

No, it doesn't - although if we study groups of functionally unrelated similarities, then we can get a picture of who is related to who.

If we study Lysosome levels we are related to chickens. If we study blood in vertebrates we are related to worms. If we study our eyes we are related to squids. Amino Acids? Crocodiles and chickens are now brothers!

Firstly, to set the record straight, we are related to chickens, worms, squids, crocodiles and everything else, some more distantly than others.

Secondly, I cannot comment on any of these without seeing evidence for them in some sort of peer-reviewed paper. It's likely that's where the creationists got them from, so I'd be happy to have a look through.

Lastly, when deriving phylogeny (trees of evolutionary relation) from morphological features, we do not just take one feature in abstraction. Nor do we take just any feature. Rather, we take groups of functionally unrelated features and compare them. For example, if we took whales, humans and fish, and we compared how streamlined they were and their diets, we would find that fish and whales are more similar. However, this similarity is related to lifestyle - and indeed both their diets and their streamlining are functionally related to living underwater. This is called a non-homologous similarity. However, if we take another group that are functionally unrelated - say, spinal articulation, eye structure, milk production, hair production and breathing apparatus - we would find that humans and whales are much closer. This group is unrelated functionally (there is no necessity for milk production and spinal articulation to be connected), and also unrelated to living in a marine/non-marine environment (these similarities and differences are not a function of way of life/environment)

These findings, in the case of the whale, have been backed up by DNA analysis, fossil intermediates, atavism and vestigial features - all of which place whale firmly in the mammalian family.

Mammoths have been discovered, frozen while eating, with food on their mouths, how does one account for this?

Well, how does anyone account for it? This is not really a creationist/evolutionist problem - it's just a problem, although I would venture not necessarily that challenging a problem. For example, an avalanche could cause rapid burial and freezing of a wooly mammoth. A misadventure into a partially frozen pond or stretch of water could cause the same thing.

However, I still don't quite see your point here...

What about the bombardier beetle? How did it survive long enough for the chemicals in it's body to become useful rather than harmful?

Because the chemicals it uses are not harmful on their own, or even in a mixture. They are only harmful in combination with a catalyst.

As for a more detailed account of bombardier beetle evolution, I can't give you it, because I havn't studied it, and indeed, it may be that noone has (there are 2 million species named, with all sorts of odd features, see where I'm going with this).

When has any species been known to adapt, mutate, or evolve outside of its species?

Do you mean by this, when has a species evolved into a different species? Well, the only examples that we can observe today are ring species, which are species that are in the middle of speciation. Here is a link that explains ring species:

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm

Take a look at the map of the world, about a third or so of the way down this page. Along the top of the world there is a band of different colours from light green in north america to dark green in Eastern russia. This is the circum-polar Larus Gull species ring.

Each of the colours along the way represent a different sub-species of Larus Gull. Light green in America is different from Blue in Greenland and Britain, but not so different that it cannot interbreed. They are still technically the same species, but they are sub-species, different but interbreedable.

And in turn, the blue sub-species can breed with brown, the brown with cyan, the cyan with mauve, the mauve with purple and the purple with dark green. And this is where the ring closes, because dark green and light green are right next door. Only thing is, they can't interbreed, they are now different species, although connected by an unbroken line of interbreeding subspecies. In other words, the small differences in sub-species have accumulated to the extent that eventually, they have become a different species to the original.

Chances are actually, that the gulls originated in Europe, and spread both ways, becoming slightly different as they spread to each new territory. By the time the west-going gulls met their long lost east-going cousins, they were seperated by too much different evolution to breed with each other, and their genetic streams were forever seperated.

As you can see from the page, there are several famous case studies of this same effect occuring. Californian Salamanders are very interesting indeed, but I'll let you find out about them yourself

Also, for evolution to work properly, not just one, but two animals must overcome staggering odds at approximately the same time, and be of opposite sex if the species has any hope of propogation.

This is based on two assumptions, both of which are incorrect.

Your first assumption is that sexual reproduction requires two sexes. It does not, genetic exchange, even in the form of gametes, is pefectly possible with one sex. The two sexes differentiated later, one producing less larger gametes, and one producing smaller more numerous gametes.

The second assumption is that the first sexually reproducing creatures could not reproduce any other way. This assumption is also incorrect, there is no reason why a creature might not evolve the ability to exchange genetic material, whilst also being able to reproduce assexually. In fact, bacteria can and do involve themselves is a basic form of genetic exchange (although not fully sexual reproduction). This sort of genetic exchange may have been a precursor to full genetic exchange, and that a precursor to gamete orientated sexual reproduction (that is, the production of specialised sex cells).

[truseek]

SA, once again you have provided answers that I gotta do more research to really comment on, thank you. The stat regarding favorable mutation is cited by H.M Morris in one of his books, though I do not recall how he came up with it, it is explained.

[truseek]

My point regarding the mammoths, which I wasnt very clear on, was that I see no way for them to have fossilized other than some great catastrophe which would have quickly buried them.

Yours in Christ

Truseek

[Bread_of_Life]

was that I see no way for them to have fossilized other than some great catastrophe which would have quickly buried them.

I didn't know the Noachian deluge involved snow and ice though?

However, rapid fossilisation can take place - for example, tar pits tend to take animals by surprise! And in colder climbs, ice, snow and avalanches can be fairly fast acting, especially when the body heat has gone.

[truseek]

I do not follow your comment regarding ice. Is there some way to tell tha these mammoths were indeed buried by ice?

Also, you stated that the oldest trees are only 10,000 years old. Could you then explain to me how trees have been found grwoing through layers of earth supposedly millions of years old?

And what about the human remains found in the Sierra Nevadas during the gold rush? They were also found in rock that was "millions" of years old.

Yours in Christ

Truseek