Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[chatmaggot]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

What does that even mean? "Chemistry in general", "Evolution", and now you equate evolution with engineering? Are you saying that one cannot even build a bridge without understanding evolution?

 

[SUTG]

Now that you take my word here, see if you will take it further. We do not live on food alone, but the bread of life. Have faith in Jesus, it has no pain, it is not a darkness that makes life less free, it is the beauty of thought and makes the vision of a pastoral day profound. Have faith and do not fear, as faith in Jesus Christ will bring the gift of Grace. It is the Grace from God that makes possible a true work in the name of God. You do not have to work for it, as that is a vanity, all you need to do is have faith in Jesus, the rest follows.

No, sorry, I'll pass for now.

But you are free to believe that, and I appreciate your concern. :thumb:

 

[chatmaggot]

I notice you didn't answer the question. :wazzup:

Of course I am going to the doctor. Going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution. Unless of course I am going to an engineering doctor right?

 

[SUTG]

Cue the Discovery Institute document...

 

[SUTG]

Of course I am going to the doctor. Going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution. Unless of course I am going to an engineering doctor right?

As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

 

[chatmaggot]

As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

Are you implying that if not for evolution (whatever you define it to be...but to honest from this thread I woudn't trust your definition anyway) people cannot create vaccines or invent neosporin?

 

[SUTG]

What does that even mean? "Chemistry in general", "Evolution", and now you equate evolution with engineering? Are you saying that one cannot even build a bridge without understanding evolution?

Is English your first language?

 

[nicholsmom]

The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way YEC nutters misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process. It is possible to theorise a possible scenario of incremental development, to test against the data that is found, you know that word ?

How would this "test" you speak of progress? How shall we test the "theory" (of course I'd just call this sort of thing "guessing" or "pulling out of thin air") - you know, scientifically?

You see some insects like cockroaches (ancient insects by fossil standards) hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger.

Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through a life metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult.

What? No fossil record of an intermediate stage?

At some point in the record some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. This could evolutioniary be usefull... what do I mean could !! WAS you see ther oaches stayed on in their way, having no pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle, or they wouldn't be here.

This would be lovely except for the fact that the nymph stage or caterpillar stage is the most vulnerable one. How could adding a more vulnerable stage be useful - er, evolutionarily? The butterfly can fly from danger, can reproduce more widely (thanks to those lovely wings), can find new food sources. The caterpillar is stuck where it hatched, cannot reproduce at all, and is pretty much a sitting duck for any predator; they even get gobbled up by herbivores who share their food "choice."

So at some point over incremental steps, from simply wrapping a leaf around itself to actually creating the whole cocoon a nymph developed the behaviour to form these cocoons around themselves before maturation to the adult. This enabled it to survive say a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise.

Ah, more blue air, whole cloth, fantasy, flights - not of butterflies, but of imagination. Totally untestable; without foundation; and without a single supportive bit of evidence. Is that what you call "science?"

The problem of how the Metamorphosis cycle of a Butterfly is not solved. But is it impossible? don't think so. Its just a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim"GodDidIt", are probably working on solving.

That is a vast & purposefully deceptive oversimplification of creation science.

And this ridiculous argument will go down in history like the tale of the bombadier beetle as just another dumb idea those creationists had... that didn't quite pan out.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[nicholsmom]

As bob b would say, "I appreciate your candor." :chuckle:

Sure, going to the doctor has nothing to do with evolution, but what about the medical field that created all of those vaccinations, medications, and procedures?

Why do people get a different flu shot every year? :think:

The term "macro evolution" is misleading in that it implies a connection between evolution ("micro evolution") and simple adaptation to environment. This adaptation, in fact, can & does often happen with the help of what is now being termed "epigenetic" changes that result in improved survivability. Not at all like one species turning into a new species.

 

[Toast]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

Thanks for the reply SUTG, but I was hoping for something a bit more substantive... It would be even cooler if we actually found evolution building things from the raw elements of nature that are alive and can reproduce and perpuate itself. O wait, thats never been observed has it? :doh:

O btw, did you know that scientists now believe that snow flake formation is partly a result of bacteria in the atmosphere? I wonder what other kinds of effects bacteria might have on the weather. Guess we will find out eventually.

 

[SUTG]

Thanks for the reply SUTG, but I was hoping for something a bit more substantive...

Sorry. I only gave you exactly what you asked for. :idunno:

It would be even cooler if we actually found evolution building things from the raw elements of nature that are alive and can reproduce and perpuate itself.

Evolution wouldn't do that, since it is only a theory about populations of living organisms. Raw elements of nature are not living organisms.

O wait, thats never been observed has it? :doh:

No, it hasn't. Actually things that are alive and can reproduce themselves have only been observed coming from other things that are alive and can reproduce themselves. But why is this important?

 

[Clete]

The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.

So the rough description of how it evolved is basically to say, "It evolved."

Nice!

You know, if you have such a big problem with Creationists being intellectually dishonest, why are you so comfortable with being so yourself?

Why not just answer the question or admit that you have no answer?


Leaving the butterfly argument aside for the moment, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Finding of C-14 in fossil gases would disprove evolution as clearly as anything could because an extremely ancient Earth is a necessary condition for evolution to take place. If the Earth is not 100's of millions of years old, both Evolutionary Theory and Uniformitarianism are both falsified, are they not?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SUTG]

So the rough description of how it evolved is basically to say, "It evolved."

LOL, well you have to admit he asked for a rough description. But, at the roughest level, evolution just says that all life shares common ancestry.

You know, if you have such a big problem with Creationists being intellectually dishonest, why are you so comfortable with being so yourself?

Where have I been intellectually dishonest?

If the Earth is not 100's of millions of years old, both Evolutionary Theory and Uniformitarianism are both falsified, are they not?

Well, of course, life could have evolved elsewhere, yadda, yadda. But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory sine that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.

There are quite a few ways to falsify evolution. Showing a young Earth is but one of many.

 

[Clete]

While not quite a disproof of evolution---find me a mammal fossil in the Cambrian. Not only would that put a big crimp in evolutionary theory it would for the most part blow much of current scientific theory out of the water.

Human Artifacts in the Geological Column

 

[Clete]

LOL, well you have to admit he asked for a rough description. But, at the roughest level, evolution just says that all life shares common ancestry.

It says a hell of a lot more than that and you know it. And who cares anyway? How does this even begin to answer the question?

Where have I been intellectually dishonest?

See above!

Well, of course, life could have evolved elsewhere, yadda, yadda. But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory since that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.

There are quite a few ways to falsify evolution. Showing a young Earth is but one of many.

Yes I know that. But you know that this isn't exactly what most creationists are getting at when they make the claim that Evolution is unfalsifiable, which it is. The theory itself is falsifiable is about a million different ways, but the point is that you won't let it be falsified by any of them and thus it becomes unfalsifiable in a practical sense if not in the rational sense of the term. But responding to the argument in that context would require you to be the intellectually honest person you want so badly for the Evolutionist to be and I suppose we all know how likely that is to happen, don't we?

Take for example how you just conceded that a young Earth would falsify Evolution but then you just don't seem to want to bother with responding to the fact that fossil gases and a thousand other things that should be too old to have any radio carbon are not radio carbon dead.

But then again, how could you respond? Oh! I know...

"The fact that we don't know how C14 came to be present in fossil gases and other extremely old places doesn't prove evolution false, it simply proves that we don't know how C14 came to be present in those places where it shouldn't be."​

See what I mean? Unfalsifiable! Anything that seems to falsify your belief system is ignored or reinterpreted or in some other way pushed aside and not allowed to do that which you and your fellow true believers have repeatedly stated it would do, namely falsify Evolution.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SUTG]

It says a hell of a lot more than that and you know it. And who cares anyway? How does this even begin to answer the question?

Clete, do you know what th word "roughly" means? It means approximately, or generally. The question has been answered.

Take for example how you just conceded that a young Earth would falsify Evolution but then you just don't seem to want to bother with responding to the fact that fossil gases and a thousand other things that should be too old to have any radio carbon are not radio carbon dead.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and I don't think you do either.

See what I mean? Unfalsifiable! Anything that seems to falsify your belief system is ignored or reinterpreted or in some other way pushed aside and not allowed to do that which you and your fellow true believers have repeatedly stated it would do, namely falsify Evolution.

It would be an easy matter to falsify evolution if only it were false. I think that is what is giving you and your pre-scientific brethren so many problems.

 

[nicholsmom]

Let me guess; you've never taken a Biology class, right? :chuckle:

You are entirely mistaken to think that I am ignorant of science. The trouble is that you seem to be incapable of making scientific arguments, so you cast aspersions on others. I am not a biologist, nor are you or you would make biological arguments, so you can expect that I may oversimplify biological processes. I do however, make proper argument rather than merely saying "whul, yur jus' stuupid" :nono:

 

[nicholsmom]

Since you are asking for examples of complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements, here are a couple of examples:

-Snowflakes and other crystals
-Chemistry in general
-Sand on a beach being ordered by size due to the action of the waves.

Crystalline particles are not "raw unorganized elements" they have a molecular structure that requires that they stack up into crystals - check into a little chemistry, will ya? Chemistry relies on the predictability of elements based on their atomic structure, hence the periodic chart. The processes needed for chemical reactions are very organized & predictable if the variables are known.

As for sand on a beach, it is neither raw (sand particles have known characteristics & are therefore predictable - they will not get up, form into a marionette and do polka for us), nor is the "ordering" unorganized (the size and density of the particles is what sorts them like change in a change counter & wind is directed by pressure & temperature variations, obstructions to flow, and gravity, among other things - predictable & reproducible if all factors are known).

Any other examples? None of these examples end in a brand, spankin' new life form either do they?

Evolutionary algorithms are also used quite a bit in engineering today, so most engineers will be familiar with these concepts.

I guess old engineer that I am, I've not been exposed to these algorithms. Are you talking about artificial life forms - computer programs that "learn?" These would be examples of one species of programs "evolving" into a new species of program? Not really, just new ways of solving problems - kind of like brainstorming with a sleepless brain.

There are more examples to be had, but any of these are an example of complexity arising from simple processes.

You are going to have to come up with something better than these examples. Not one of them is viable.

 

[nicholsmom]

But I think it would be pretty fair to say that if someone could show that the Earth was, say less than a million years old, it would be a very serious problem for evolutionary theory sine that would not have been enough time for modern life to have evolved.

From what dark hole did you pull that number? A million years to evolve what? Have you done the statistical math yourself? Can I have a look at your paper, 'cause I really don't think that number can be anywhere near big enough.

 

[nicholsmom]

Here is a sneak peek at some statistical math from someone you will find reputable. Here, first is the source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
You may note that this paper is full of guesses that I would argue, but I'll grant them for this purpose.

Here is the "math" (all hypothetical):

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

So you can see that even to an avid evolutionary scientist, a million years is barely enough to have produced a protein, maybe even simultaneous generation of gobs of proteins, but as yet no plants or animals, much less intelligent life.