I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you acknowledged that.I acknowledge the position from a scientific point of view. You did ask
me to leave my personal experiences out of it, did you not? Yes,
scientifically, it is possible. Extremely unlikely, but possible.
Personally(and this is my right), no way in hell. You may ask me to
remove personal experiences in a scientific discussion, but I cannot
remove them from my core beliefs as these things have been proven TO ME.
I appreciate your position.
I always accepted your right to believe anything for reasons differnt from rational.
If you say that you don't believe in naturalistic models *despite* they could be possible
on a rational stance, I'm ok with it.
I don't feel it is my right to ask more.
Thanks.
Let me just remark that you pointed out no reason/definition of what is possibleActually, I am with 3. Until somebody shows me a computer that programs
itself without any prior programming at all, I might move to 1.
Otherwise, NO.
and what is not.
You just said "no way in hell".
Fine to me *provided* you don't believe to have provided rational motivations.
Thanks for the reference. I'll read them soon. It sound quite interesting.The problem is, I am stating that there was a deviation from the
standard during the cambrian explosion. If you are using mutation rates
from today, you have quite a bit of explaining to do. There are observed
instances of unicellular organisms becoming multicellular.
Those of flu are viruses not bacteria. Anyway...We know for a fact that many types of bacteria multiply and mutate
faster than us(that is why we have flu vaccines every year).
I repeat your argument as I understood it so that you can check if I'm misrepresenting it
(in which case I'll be happy to provide another answer):
If it took less than a 2BY for bacteria to become multicellular how it happens that
even today there are bacteria becoming multicellular?
Well my anwer is simple: when bacteria becomes multicellular it doesn't mean that
ALL bacteria become multicellular.
Later on, even today, if conditions are suitable, there is no reason preventing
*other* bacteria to become AGAIN multicellular.
Fishes adapted to live underwater. Dolphins, much time after did the same AGAIN.
Humans evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are still there. There is nothing (except our competition)
preventing monkeys to evolve in an intelligent civilization AGAIN.
This is observed all the time in evolution.
So I see really nothing strange with it for an evolutionary point of view.
Let me stress that evolution is porposless; it is not evolution *towards* something,
it is evolution *from* something. There is nothing preventing the same step to happen more than once
or to happen and then being undone and then done once again. It just depends on selection which
in turn depends on the environment.
BTW: what do you think about creation. Is creation still working or it is finished with creation of humans?
If so how do YOU interpret the facts you referred to?
One should first check if the different behaviour has a genetic mutation cause,Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation.
He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two
stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator,
Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure
of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five
days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to
dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells.
Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in
culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a
number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus
Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
but it sounds interesting...
Of course it didn;t take 2BY to pass from unicellular to multicellular.As you can see, we have the transition right before our eyes. Why did it
take bacteria 2 billion years if we actually observed this?
It took 2BY to produce the the conditions which made multicellular life
more efficient than unicellular life.
This conditions are still there today (otherwise no doubt we would evolve
back to be unicellular). So no marvel it keeps happening.
[To be clear: I understand all these arguments sound horrbly evolutionistic to you.
Still I believe that if you want to discuss incoherence of evolutionism you have to do
it WITHIN evolution framework. I hope you understand that..]
Of course they don't know. The evolution answer is that some tries to stick together,In addition,
how did the bacteria know to stick together for protection? It is hardly
instinctive, otherwise we'd have dozens of cases? Is it perhaps because
God took mercy on them?
others try mitetism, others try nothing.
It is selection which leaves for you to see only effective strategies.
The others die in the mercy of god.
Because in the Cambrian life learned how to colonize a hube habitat.In addition, if your statement about the monkey is correct, why did the
process suddenly start with the Cambrian Explosion, lasted a few million
years, and then pretty much stopped?
There were no competition for resources since there were unlimited resources to be shared.
After sometimes there were too many lifeforms sharing the same resources and competition
among then started.
The same happened after all mass extintions.
Most busses in my town passes at rush hour. It is a miracle how people waiting for a busIf a huge part (% are in the 90s of species of animals) came within a 60
million year time period, I would call that one heck of a miracle.
create new busses!
Which point. If you are referring to your expectation of evolution to proceed smoothly...Perhaps not. However, you ARE missing the point.
well it is your mistake. No biologist today believes evolution to proceed that way.
Or better most believe that mutations are more or less smoothly accumulated but they expressed
abruptly. I hope you don't believe that it took 2BY for passing from unicellular
to multiucellular life. Of course it took a single generation since a life form is
either unicellular or multicellular.
If you don't quantify mutations needed for a change your argument is nonsensical.I am not attacking its
overall speed. I am attacking the position that animals, which mutate
the slowest, appeared in the shortest period of time, while bacteria and
plants, which multiply(well bacteria anyway) faster than animals took
their sweet time.
If I build houses I might go on 10000 years to build 1 floor houses.
When I need to save space it might took 100Y to learn how to build two floor
building. When maybe I can invent 10 floor buildings in 10 years if 10 floors
buildings just need bigger pillars while one floor houses need no pillar at all.
It doesn't sound strange to me.
NO. if mutation rate is the same your example just means that more mutations are accumulatedLet's assume a group of animals multiply once a month.
That means every month, the entire species has a chance at different
mutations.
in a single generation.
BTW this means that sometimes being slower is more efficient in evolution.
In fact, imagine you have a lifeform A which needs 2 mutations to become B
but cannot survive with either one of the two mutations....
A bacteriunm cannot evolve through that barrier, a mamman could.
You can survive almost regardless how many mutations accumulate in your spermatic stem cells.
So why does a species
that seems to be made to mutate take so long, while complex organisms,
who by all common sense should take longer took so little during the
explosion, yet today they are observed "evolving" at their usual snail
pace?
(Provided it does not lead to cancer of course)
1) I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You can believe what you please.Before sunlight? No, before the sun was visible. Light could still get
through the thick veil of gasses, it's just that the sun was not
visible(I believe this site explains it in a great more detail, so I
won't). I mean, cloudy days don't make day into night. As for fruit
trees, the wind does carry pollen you know... In addition, unless the
bible gives specific examples of trees, you can't really use that as an
example to "prove" me wrong. And by the way, I am not fighting evolution
itself. Just the naturalist part.
I'm just challenging your scientific argument.
2) How long is a day in your interpretation of Genesis.
3) Have you ever tried to grow a fruit tree under fog all days for 10 years?
Or under thick cloud strata? And for many generations (unless you are a YEC)
without any insect around?
4) Cloudy days are enough to stop fruit tree to grow. Provided that it is continuosly cloudy.
5) Very few fruit trees use wind to reproduce. They invented flowers and fruits just
because they need insects as simbiont!!
Well, there are data proving mutations on human scale to be random.So the only thing that we really
disagree on is whether mutations are random or divinely inspired.
So what we are discussing is if we need god to give a push once in a while
to allow evolution.
We can analyzed the mutations between chimps and humans. "random" has a specific
meaning (see Shannon information theory) and we can see that mutations are in fact random
in that sense. Since I believe you keep thinking there is god behind it, Am I far from truth if I say
that in your view god produces some mutations which lead to evolution, but (s)he produces them so that
they appear random in the Shannon sense?
Is this that you are saying?
I use the same words you used to mean that I buy your definition of intelligence.Depends what you consider intelligence? Systematic gathering and using
information? Yes. True self awareness? No.
I already recorder you opinion that self awarness cannot happen spontaneously.
I record now that in your view it cannot happen atrificially and that it is impossible
to do also for your god. Correct?
I also record that you provided no reason to back up your position.
You see I observe every day that I can climb a stair.
Despite I never saw a person climbing a 10Km stair, I believe that one is able
to climb a step in principle, unless a serious motivation is brought up, one is able to climb
a 10Km stair.
You are acknowledging mutations, probably microevolution, but you are claiming that no naturalistic
explanation can be given to macroevolution without providing any motivation.
You are free to do it. I'm free to think you have no reason to back up your view.
Have you ever seen someone climbing a 10km stair? Do you think it is possible for me to do it?Then you will forgive me if I use Flew's statement "The burden of proof
lies on you". It is up to you to prove to me that an unobserved
phenomenon is possible. You assume that the mind works a certain way,
all based on physical properties(which is just assumption, since we're
not even close to figuring out how the brain works), that we could
reproduce that. This assumption implies that it has somehow been
disproven that we are anything other than organic meatbags. I do not
like making assumptions in science. The only way to settle this is for
you to make a neural network in the image of Man's brain and have the
robot display reasonable signs of sentience. Until then, you are the
theist in the matter.
Yes by definition of probability (I'm a frequentist most of the timeOne question I would like to raise to you. According to the probability
theory of yours, if given enough time, anything remotely possible WILL
HAPPEN if given enough time.
if you are familiar with the philosophical debate about probability)
I don't know what you say. be specific on what you mean by "standard atheist multiverse".Since something must have been around
forever, let us assume it is the standard atheist multiverse.
Just I warn you that intelligenge need a structural support in my view.
We couldn;t be intelligence without something encoding our synaptic connections.
Nor we could have what you call soul. Again in my view.
I suppose that you believe that in physics nothing happens without a cause.Just wanted to answer this, even if it wasn't for me. Nobody made God.
He has always been here. He is the innitial cause. Even if you don't
believe in God, you have to admit SOMETHING must have always existed. We
believe it was Govvart
Unce your god acts physically it is a physical agent.
Saying "Nobody made God" is just a sentence as "I draw a square circle"
or "I pull myself up by the strings of my shoes".
A good sentence but I see no reason for me to accept it. My bad...
I'm a slow learner....
I imagined it.August wrote: Paleontologists, archaelogists and evolutionists are known to lie on
occassion, there's numerous accounts of this. So what they say doesn't
mean much to me.
Attacking? On the contrary. I always accepted that you can say thatI have nothing against learning chemistry, biology, what not, but don't
attack the phrase "God did it" as every christian believes that yes in
fact God did do it, we are just trying to figure out what or how he did
it.
your god made the world last week with all paleonthological data buried for us to be found.
That is what i called goddiditso model. It is not an attack. I accept I cannot
say anything against this position.
But I can argue against who says that geology is wrong and bible is true and you can
prove this scientifically.
As I said you are free to think what you please.
Quite right (and never claimed to be expert on the bible).Also in your mind you don't understand Genesis very well or rather you
don't make an effort to understand it.
However, let me say that I collected dozens of different interpretations of genesis
among xtians. So it seems to me that even xtians don't understand Genesis very well
in a sense.
Preconceived? For example?You have preconcieved notion that
Genesis is wrong and obviously you have revealed your lack of
understanding on that matter.
Is a preconceived idea to see that Genesis does not mention mass extintions before
human creations?
Anyway I'm not here to discuss the bible. I leave it for your discussions.
I don't feel I can add anything interesting to your arguments.
And I believe that K would consider it a good reason to ban me.
I beg your pardon if it seemed I jabbed anyone. I just noticed what I believe to be a mistake.I wouldn't jab at someone for maybe
overlooking something about evolution when you overlook much about
Genesis.
I might be wrong and wait for counter arguments. If no counterarguments I assume to have been right
and I hope the mistake has been corrected.
Not for me. Just because I think for you it would be better to use good scientific arguments
instead of mistakes. That is all, man.
Please forgive me. English is not my first language and sometime my words may seem more rude than
want I meant. I'm honestly sorry for that.
I imagined you would not have agreed.Hmm... Don't ask me why, I can't but thinking of the addage, "Give an
inch, and they take a mile."
If you feel or remember some occurence of my beliefs to be unjustifiedThing is, anything that leads to a Theistic conclusion appears to be
flawed to you.
I'm ready to scrutinize them again.
(By the way I have news about the shroud which might surprize you, just need some times to
write them down)
I understand you don't often share my arguments, but I think we can agree
that it is quite unlikely for me to refute something without a motivation it seems
solid to me...
I don't think I never argued about christianity. If you have a different ideaNow discussions are fine by me, but arguments in favour
of ones perspective vs. Christianity should be taken to a place such as
Secular Web, as the guidelines do not support this.
let me know where and we could agree on it.
Basically all my arguments (except abortions and legal thread on the old board
which I acknowledge were a mistake by me) are about science.
It is not my fault *if* you feel that arguments important for your faith
and consider mine an attack to christianity.
I know a number of people who are truly religious and who share most of my beliefs without
any problem.
All I can do is keeping my post confined to scientific topics of interestThese guidelines are
not to prevent so much what one says, but the type of people that should
be posting, which should be those who are Christian or haven't made up
their minds.
for other people on board.
I didn't participate while science was not mentioned on the topicsIn all honesty, I do not think you should be here since you
have been quite clear in the past that you do not accept, nor are
willing to accept, Christianity.
(despite funny enough it was mentioned in the title.)
Now science was back, and I think I have the right to post.
I know you disagreed.
If you don't want me ban me.
I don't understand what you are saying.
However the moment such a person begins to raise tensions
amongst Christians, and incite arguments where their position is stacked
against Christianity, is the moment they cross the discussion guidelines
in my opinion, and as a moderator I am required to uphold the discussion
guidelines.
I always started a thread saying that I accept anyone can believe what he pleases.
However, I think I have the right to disagree if someone tell me that geology
proves that the Earth is flat.
If knowing that the Earth is round shakes his faith, I don't think
is a problem of mine. I'm already enough kind to acnowledge his right to believe the Earth is flat
provided that he does not assume that I should share that opinion.
[Here I'm not making any comparison between your arguments and the Earth flatness.]
In other words, for the dozzillionth time, I'm not here to propagandating atheistic
ideas. Whenever I mention atheism I did it because I feel was right for my opponent
to know where I was coming from.
I'm here to discuss the scientific part of your arguments.
If I were xtian I would be here and doing the same things.
Let me know if I break your guidelines. If you want I'll avoid mentioningThese guidelines have come to be currently seen as the best
way of fulfilling the desired purpose of GodandScience.org on the
boards, seeing as it was thought the last board became overrun and
failed to meet such a purpose.
atheism, xstians and keep strictly to science.
I like science because let you free to go your own way....I think that I'll follow Flew's philosophy and continue following the
Scientific evidence to where it leads, and thus accept an origins model,
which I think best fulfills what we presently know through Science.
If you believe that geology is an evidence for a designer, feel free.
Just when you'll have any scientific result I'll be happy to accept it
if it is backed up sufficiently.