Quantcast

«

»

Jan 14 2014

Creationism and Flat Earthers

I felt this was a comment worth sharing.

91 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    Exactly. The only person who’ll benefit from this “debate” is Ken Ham.

    1. 1.1
      theignored

      Apparently not, it now seems.

      1. mikespeir

        Yeah. A lot of us (and I do mean “us”) owe Bill Nye a huge apology.

        1. Nigel McNaughton

          Absolutely, he wasn’t perfect, but he did very very well.

          Now onto Matt vs Ray!

  2. 2
    Data Jack

    Aron: I am very sorry to hear you won’t be filming this event for us. I really want to watch it – but am reluctant to give money to these crooks at AiG, especially in light of the fact that they are having financial difficulties :) Maybe we will host a viewing party, so that as many people as possible can see it for only one payment ;) Will we be seeing you at AACon2014 this year? I hope so – the last two have been fun, and it seems like we will be having quite the YouTube presence there again.

  3. 3
    Ernie Dichiara

    As I live within a few miles of this ‘museum of atrocities’ and deal with the people who believe its claims as truth… {sry, I just threw up in my mouth} I had made a promise that I would do whatever in my power to prevent any of money {earned or taxed} to ever go to this debacle of common decency, even though I have failed on the latter, the state created a highway sign that tell drivers on 275 what exit to disembark. Even though all of this, I had planned to go for two reasons: first, I figured this would be a awesome chance to meet Bill Nye, a man I grew up watching that had a huge influence on my understanding and appreciation of science. Second, I felt that he deserved someone in the audience that could counter editing from Ken Hamm’s camp that would or might discredit him. I called the ticket line at 10:05 EST and was told that the event was sold out. I have a feeling, unable to confirm, that the museum presold the tickets to churches and member’s before the official sell time to pack the audience. Supposedly the site states that this event will be streamed live, I hope this is true…. I would of also like to meet you as well Aronra, as an older atheist I can appreciate the impact and contribution you give of yourself for the community.

  4. 4
    gil

    i study biology and i think i have very strong evidence for design in nature

    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

    b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot

    a+b= the ape need a designer

    or even a self replicat watch .the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

    scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U

    plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

    1. 4.1
      Data Jack

      Gil,
      You do not, in any meaningful way, study biology. Nor do you, in any way whatsoever, understand what the term “evidence” means. You make so many errors in every one of your assumptions and conclusions that they are virtually uncountable.

      Robots are not biological organisms. They do not reproduce. They are not “made from dna” (nor is anything else). There is no reason to assume an “ape” is more complex than a self-replicating robot. Complexity has nothing to do with requiring a designer.

      Self-replicating does not indicate reproduction. Robots replication would not have mutations, nor would there environment select for them.

      Living organisms do not “make themselves”, nor are they created. They are born, sprouted, hatched, seeded, divided, etc. No organism has ever been created.

      Bacterial flagellum are not motors. Bacteria do not evolve into humans. No organism evolves into another organisms; they have offspring that differ slightly from themselves.

      1. gil

        hi data.

        ok. so what if you will see a an organic robot with dna on mars?lets say that it even can change little. is that kind of robot need a designer or not?

        1. Nigel McNaughton

          gil, how about you treat us all to your ‘biology trained’ definition of Kind, I remember we all got a huge laugh out of that.

          1. gil

            i think “kind” is an organisem with unique systems (without any gene transfer like bacteria cases).

          2. Data Jack

            Gil,
            “Kind” doesn’t really have any meaning in biology; it is a biblical term that was created by people that didn’t really understand biology very well. People really didn’t understand how organisms were related, and weren’t able to understand phylogenetics (how to group organisms by morphology, genetics. etc.).
            The good news is, “species” really doesn’t have a long-term meaning, either. Because all organisms are always evolving, species really just refers to a group of similar organisms, and their close ancestors and predecessors. They may share many traits with very distant relatives, but they are very rarely considered the same species with those distant ancestors over long periods of time.

        2. Data Jack

          Hi Gil,
          If what we find on Mars is a robot, by definition it was created (by something intelligent, or by something created by something intelligent, etc.)
          If it is an organism, by definition it is alive, and was therefore born/hatched/sprouted/seeded/etc.

          If it is an “organic robot”, then by definition it is a thing that does not (yet) exist, but if it did, it would also have to have been created, because it is a “robot”.

          Further, if it is “with dna”, it is a living organism from Earth. If it has something like DNA (that governs the growth, replication, and function of its cells, etc.), it is functionally “alive”. And if it “lives” on Mars, it would only be logical to assume it evolved (as all life that we know of clearly and evidentially has evolved).

          If there were no evidence that evolution occurred (no fossils of ancient, different life forms, not related extant life forms that share the same DNA-like molecules, no competition for scarce resources, not mutation, etc.) then we COULD conclude that it was “created”. But that is a concession to magic, and really has no explanatory power at all. It is just a guess, that is unsubstantiated by any evidence. Just like Intelligent design is just a guess, unsupported by evidence.

          1. gil

            hi again data. i can answer all your points.but first…

            you said that a robot is by defination design. so let me ask you this question: if somone will create an ape. by your defination this ape will be a robot (from material prespecvie)because it was design. do you agree?

          2. gil

            by the way data.

            you said:

            “Have we ever observed one being created? Nope”-

            yes actually:

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

          3. Data Jack

            Gil,
            I am trying to be polite, but you are not really making it easy. A robot, by definition, is something we create to perform work (I have even built software robots). If some one were to “create an ape”, it wouldn’t change the fact that natural apes on earth were demonstrably born of other apes, and that their ancestors evolved from more primitive life forms.

            Even if a person “creates” a synthetic life form, they have not created a natural life form, they have created a synthetic replication of a natural life form. Besides, this is all completely off point. No ID proponent ever claimed their “designer” (god) created life like venter did, in a lab, with synthetic DNA and living cells. They claim he *magically* created all the creatures in a garden, with two terribly flawed people to rule over it.

            Hypothetical people creating hypothetical apes in hypothetical laboratories says nothing about real world evidence. The world abounds with evidence that clearly says not only does evolution happen in living things, but that it absolutely MUST happen.
            1) Offspring differ from parents
            2) Sometimes those differences allow the offspring to reproduce more or better than their siblings
            Those two rules guarantee that evolution has, will, and must happen.
            Even if we one day create robots or artificial organisms, it will not change the fact that the natural life on this planet – all of it – evolved from earlier organisms. Even if we are stupid enough to give our artificial organisms the same flaws that living organisms have (aging, reproducing until resources run out, diseases, etc.) it will not change the fact that environmental selection has always killed off less fit organisms before they could reproduce much, and allowed more fit organisms to reproduce more before they too, die.

          4. gil

            ok. lets continue.

            you said:

            “. The world abounds with evidence that clearly says not only does evolution happen in living things, but that it absolutely MUST happen.
            1) Offspring differ from parents
            2) Sometimes those differences allow the offspring to reproduce more or better than their siblings
            Those two rules guarantee that evolution has, will, and must happen.”-

            not realy. lets say that you’ as intellegent designer want to change a cell phone into mp3 player. but you need to do this step wise. one part each time. its impossible. and if you as intellegent designer cant to this, how can evolution change one complex system to another?

            “Even if we one day create robots or artificial organisms, it will not change the fact that the natural life on this planet – all of it – evolved from earlier organisms.”-

            so now a robot dont need a designer? this is what the evolution say. but its a great claim. and great claim need great evidence. what is your evidience that a self replicat robot dont need a designer?

          5. Data Jack

            Gil,
            I know English is not your first language, so I can forgive you for not understanding some things syntactically, I suppose. But I cannot forgive willful ignorance on your part. Evolution does not change one organism into another. If you knew anything at all about evolution, besides the lies that are told on creationist web sites, you would know that. The fact that you still think evolution suggests iphones “turn into” ipods displays you utter lack of understanding. It will take you 10 minutes on Wikipedia to disabuse you of this ignorance. Do it before your next reply, or this conversation is over.

            Short version:
            Fact: Evolution makes offspring slightly different than their parents.
            Fact: Those offspring better suited for survival (and therefore reproduction) reproduce more
            Fact: Organisms that reproduce less often then they die off stop contributing to the gene pool (go extinct)
            Fact: Organisms that reproduce more often then they die off continue contributing to the gene pool (stick around)
            Fact: The population of organisms begins to more resemble those better suited offspring.
            That’s it. And if those facts are true (and we know without a doubt that they are) then they serve as “evidence” to support our theory that populations of organisms change over time, and those changes can either contribute to the population’s survival success, or contribute to its failure (note: simplified)
            Because evolution is a well supported theory, it makes some solid predictions:
            - We will never find a rabbit and a T-Rex in the same strata – TRUE
            - All creatures that have a common ancestor MUST have the same ERV sigs – TRUE
            - The fossil remains of the common ancestor of all tetrapods will be found in strata from the Devonian (~400MYA) – TRUE

            There is no “Theory” of intelligent design.None of the facts listed above support the hypothesis:
            “My god did it with magic”
            Because magic cannot be supported or refuted by observations (facts).
            - Why do these two organisms have similar traits? My god made it that way.
            - Why do all genetically similar organisms have the same ERV markers? my god made it that way.
            - Why does the fossil record show increasingly advanced and diverse life as we move up through the strata? my god made it that way.
            - Why do we never, ever find a fossil of a modern animal with that of ancient animals? my god made it that way.
            - Why do most creatures who are born die horribly before they can reproduce? my god made it that way.
            - What is the explanation for “ring species”? my god made it that way.

            ID explains nothing. It proposes no tests (experiments) that could falsify it. It has no mechanism (how did your god do all these things? Magic.). It makes no predictions. Even if it were true (and there is no reason at all to believe it is), it would still be completely worthless as a theory, because it can never be supported or refuted by any evidence, and it cannot be used to advance our understanding of the world in any way (“why is that the way it is?” “my god made it that way.”).

          6. gil

            by the way. now i see that you meybe meant to say somthing else from what i think you said. so i need to be shure before i will give an answer. so i take my answer back in the end of my coment. .

            so you said:

            “A robot, by definition, is something we create to perform work “-

            so an ape that creat to perform a work is by your defination a robot?

          7. Monocle Smile

            Gil,

            Lying about your qualifications was bad enough, but now you’re ignoring everything relevant to the discussion and focusing on red herrings.

          8. gil

            hi data. you said:

            ” And if those facts are true (and we know without a doubt that they are) then they serve as “evidence” to support our theory that populations of organisms change over time,”-

            so if you make use of this defination. even if human will stay as human for bilions years- its still prove evolution?

            “Because evolution is a well supported theory, it makes some solid predictions:
            - We will never find a rabbit and a T-Rex in the same strata – TRUE”-

            actually its false:

            http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place

            fossils found in the wrong place all the time. the evolutionist just change ther geological date.

            “- All creatures that have a common ancestor MUST have the same ERV sigs – TRUE”-

            again not true:

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201002275

            2 false predictions of the theory.

            -” The fossil remains of the common ancestor of all tetrapods will be found in strata from the Devonian (~400MYA) – TRUE”-

            see above fossils in the wrong place.

            “- Why does the fossil record show increasingly advanced and diverse life as we move up through the strata? my god made it that way.”-

            not true. complex animals found just from near the begining (cambrian explosiion).and ervs hare found to be functional.

            “ID explains nothing. It proposes no tests (experiments) that could falsify it.”-

            actually there is. evolve me an eye in a organisem without eyes- and you will disprove id theory.

            ” Even if it were true (and there is no reason at all to believe it is), it would still be completely worthless as a theory, because it can never be supported or refuted by any evidence”-

            see above. all this false predictions that you give above, and evolutionist still believe in evolution after all. so the evolution itself its not a scientific theory. and if it is- its already disproven by its own predictions.

          9. gil

            hi data. my coment its awaiting moderation. sorry for the delay.

          10. Monocle Smile

            Gil, posting links from professional liars is not convincing, either.

            Common creationist bullshit isn’t convincing either. You’ve posted PRATTs and nothing else.

          11. Data Jack

            Hi Gil,
            Sorry, but I did give you fair warning – but I see you don’t care. I will address this last bit of dishonesty and obfuscation of yours, but then we are through.

            Humans (or other organisms) do not (and cannot) stay the same for billions of years. I asked you to read up on evolution, and you obviously chose not to.

            That creation.com article is lying. One article in one creationist website does not overturn decades of study by thousands of scientists. We have never found a rabbit fossil in Cambrian strata nor T-rex in modern strata – and we have sifted through millions and millions of fossils. Every time we find a new fossil in a new area, it is in precisely the strata we expect it to be in (or slightly before or after).

            That article about ERVs you linked to, did you read it? Not only is it one of the few times ever that such an anomaly has been detected, but they propose a mechanism to explain how it happened. it is old news, and an isolated exception, and doesn’t refute any of the other billions and billions of ERV markers that clearly indicate common descent.

            Animals from the Cambrian Explosion are nowhere near as complex as later animals – most didn’t have eyes (or other advanced elements of a nervous system). None had jaws, swim bladders or bones, either. They were undeniably primitive.

            I said “ID explains nothing. It proposes no tests (experiments) that could falsify it.”

            To which you replied “actually there is. evolve me an eye in a organisem (sic) without eyes- and you will disprove id theory.”

            This indicates you don’t understand what falsification is, nor how science works. This is like me saying “make hydrogen burn at 12 million K or the sun is not really nuclear powered and therefore my theory that it is a giant candle is correct.” Being unable to manually do something that supports one hypothesis does not, in any way, support another hypothesis. Each and every hypothesis must stand on its own through evidence. And there is no evidence for ID.

            ID, as a hypothesis, is this: A entity (and it is always secretly your favorite entity that you worship) did it using magic. That cannot ever be supported or rejected by evidence. Even if we get so scientifically advanced that we _can_ evolve eyes in organisms without them (like we evolve animals and plants through artificial selection all the time) that would not say anything at all about the truth of ID as a hypothesis.The fact that you cannot see that is further indication that it is fruitless to discuss this with you further. Because you are both willfully ignorant of all the science of biology, and so proud of your ignorance that you refuse to rectify it.

            Fin

          12. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Gil, let’s talk about your evidence.

            http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place
            Half of that is irrelevant. It is not talking about fossils. It is talking about living creatures. Sometimes we think a species has gone extinct when it has not. This is not a fault of evolution. This has nothing to do with evolution.

            The other half merely notes that sometimes biologists have some of the minor details wrong.

            Your link does not challenge the basic assertion that for each species, it is restricted to certain layers in the geologic column. For every species in the fossil record, it matches the story of evolution. Perhaps we find that some species didn’t go extinct when we thought it did. That does not contradict evolution. Perhaps some species evolved slightly earlier than we thought it did. That does not contradict evolution.

            If you want to contradict evolution, find an actual out of place fossil. For example, a fossilized rabbit in the precambrian. That would be an actual out of place fossil. Or humans in the Jurassic. Or many many other examples. Your cited examples are not inconsistencies.

          13. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Here a couple sentences, let me reference the undeniable evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary theory.

            A hundred years before Darwin, there was a man named Carl Linnaeus. He observed that all existing species could be grouped according to their morphological similarities. When they were grouped in this way, it was a tree. It was a pattern with a single root, branching out, and the lines branched out again and again. This was discovered a hundred years before Darwin by a Christian creationist. It would be perverse to deny this.

            Today, we can measure the DNA of living species. We can then measure the difference between DNA of different species. We can then plot the differences on a graph. Again, what comes out is a tree. It would be perverse to deny this.

            Finally, the morphological tree discovered by Linnaeus is almost exactly the same tree today measured by DNA differences. It would be perverse to deny it.

            This is the strongest evidence of common ancestry and evolution.

            The rest is icing on the cake. The rest includes fossils of intermediary forms and their position in the geologic column, the discovered mechanism of random mutation filtered by natural selection acting on DNA, geographical dispersal, molecular DNA analysis on junk DNA e.g. random drift, and more.

            This evidence is so strong to an unbiased mind that if your god existed and is responsible for this, then your god acted purposefully in order to fool we humans who are trying to learn about our world using our senses and reasoning capabilities which were given to us by your god. In other words, your god would be a liar. It would be perverse to deny this.

            Your only options are 1- to put your fingers in your eyes and cover your eyes, and make pretend, 2- accept that your god is a liar, or 3- accept that common ancestry, descent with modification, random mutation, natural selection, and evolution is true.

          14. gil

            hi again data.

            lets be clear- the creation.com gave references from scientific literature(in the end). so if someone dont agree with there articles he dont agree with the sciebtific literature. all the rest is just ad hominem

            you said:

            “Humans (or other organisms) do not (and cannot) stay the same for billions of years”-

            yes. they cannot stay the same human. but its still be a human. so your evidence for evolution can be- human evolve into human. if your definition to evolution is change over time its dont predict anything.

            “That creation.com article is lying. One article in one creationist website does not overturn decades of study by thousands of scientists.”-

            not true. see above.

            “That article about ERVs you linked to, did you read it? Not only is it one of the few times ever that such an anomaly has been detected,”-

            so you agree that this is anomaly that evolution dosnt predict . . and you just call it “anomaly”. its mean that any anomaly i will give you you just will call it anomaly . so the evolution cant be test- and because of this it isnt a scientific.

            “but they propose a mechanism to explain how it happened. it is old news, and an isolated exception, and doesn’t refute any of the other billions and billions of ERV markers that clearly indicate common descent.”-

            not true:

            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

            “We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates.”

            “Animals from the Cambrian Explosion are nowhere near as complex as later animals “-

            i dont think its true. sponge for example has near 20,000 genes. almost like humans.and spongne is some of the oldest animal on earth. so or so- its not prove any evolution. cars and airplans also appear in different time on earth.

            ” None had jaws, swim bladders or bones, either.”-

            again. we find a vertebrate date for 500my.

            To which you replied “actually there is. evolve me an eye in a organisem (sic) without eyes- and you will disprove id theory.”

            “This indicates you don’t understand what falsification is, nor how science works. “-

            no .id predict that there is no step wise from non-eye to eye. so if you will evolve an eye from non-eye, you just disprove the theory. very simple.

            ” And there is no evidence for ID.”-

            not true. the flagellum is a motor. and everyone know that a motor need a designer. even if it have a self replicat system and made of organic material.

          15. gil

            hi Enlightenment liberal. thanks you join the debate.

            you said:

            ” Sometimes we think a species has gone extinct when it has not. This is not a fault of evolution. This has nothing to do with evolution. “-

            so there is no prediction in the fossils area. we can even found a human fossil with t-rex fossil and the evolution will be just fine. the evolutionist will say in this case that the humans evolve much earlier then we expect.

            “Today, we can measure the DNA of living species. We can then measure the difference between DNA of different species. We can then plot the differences on a graph. Again, what comes out is a tree”-

            its not true anymore:

            http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_1020151.html

            “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change

            even in organisem without gene transfer:

            “Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories”

            and even in micro rna phylogeny:

            http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885

            “This is the strongest evidence of common ancestry and evolution. “-

            and yet it have been falsified

            “The rest includes fossils of intermediary forms and their position in the geologic column, the discovered mechanism of random mutation filtered by natural selection acting on DNA, geographical dispersal, molecular DNA analysis on junk DNA e.g. random drift, and more. “-

            and i can falsified all. just give me any evidence you want.

            so now you have 2 options: to agree that evolution theory is false according to your own predictions above, or deny it.

            yours sincerely

          16. aronra

            I first addressed this in the 10th foundational falsehood of creationism, and again at the end of my video on Darwin’s Perennial Weed of Life. (from about 35:30 on) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0b9oe7qnGg

            At the single-cellular level, it is impossible to construct a phylogenetic tree because horizontal gene transfer has rendered it more of an interconnected web. However even though some HGT is still occurring in multicellular organisms, it is far more limited, and evolution takes over more or less exclusively, so that there is a definite tree, and it is one that is easily demonstrated even to those who don’t want to believe it’s there. In fact, it is the single strongest evidence of evolution for that reason.

            Also you’re misrepresenting the real position of evolutionary scientists. Yes, if we found human fossils that were older than expected, we would say so, and we have before. But there are obviously limits to what evolution can support. So obviously if we were able to verify human fossils from the Carboniferous period, (as one creationist has alleged) that would completely undermine an evolutionary ancestry.

          17. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @gil
            Evolution makes clear predictions. Evolution theory never predicts that a single species is extinct. Even if we found living dinosaurs, this is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. (Well, I meant dinosaurs other than birds – I forget if birds are dinosaurs.)

            Instead, evolutionary theory predicts that some organisms have ancestors of other organisms. Certain groups of fossils are isolated to certain geologic strata. If you start finding fossils of descendents well before fossils of its ancestors, then that would be evidence against evolution. Example: If we found some human fossils in geologic strata which were earlier than all strata containing all ape fossils. This would be good evidence against evolution. Your examples are not that.

            As Aronra said – the morphological tree of life and the DNA tree of life is undeniable for large multicellular creatures, in other words all animals, all plants, and so on. Which is still enough for my purposes because it is still a complete destruction of your position.

            About molecular DNA analysis. You are 1- cherry-picking quotes out of context because you do not understand, or 2- you are taking already cherry-picked quotes which are already out of context because your source does not understand. The DNA of each living creatures can be separated into genes. Evolutionary theory predicts that for the total DNA of each multicellular species, when you plot the total differences, you will get the same tree of life as Linnaeus did. This is true. Your quote does not dispute that.

            What your quote is talking about is individual genes. On average, the difference between the DNA of the same genes across species will show the same tree of life. However, this is a random, statistical process, and thus it’s only true on average. Just as it’s possible to throw 5 six-sided dice and get 5 sixes, it is not a prediction of evolutionary theory that every single individual gene will match up to the family tree. Only when you average out over all of the genes should you get the family tree.

            In fact, because this is a random statistical process, evolutionary theory predicts that the differences between species on some genes will not match the tree of life. If we found that every gene showed exactly the same tree of life, this would be evidence against evolution, not for it. You need to learn some basic statistics and population mechanics. In other words, learn some evolution.

            To be fair, this is somewhat of an advanced topic which requires some knowledge of statistics, and statistics tends to be really hard for the layperson. There’s a really good video by PZ Myers on this topic which should help you understand. Let me see if I can find it.

            Ah, here it is.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WdqYEq-7sM0#t=1797
            The link includes the time when he starts talking about this particular effect. I suggest you start at the beginning of the video to help make sure you have enough background knowledge to understand what PZ is saying.

          18. Data Jack

            Well said.

          19. somnus

            Gil said: “yes. they cannot stay the same human. but its still be a human. so your evidence for evolution can be- human evolve into human.”

            The funny thing here is that you’re actually in agreement with evolutionary theory when you say this, and probably don’t even understand why.

            Let’s pursue your hypothetical billion years of human evolution. Let’s further assume that the human at the end of that chain has a roughly similar consciousness to our own. Every single person born in that lineage will be slightly different from its parents, but similar enough to them to say “I am human, just like my parents.” This includes the last person a billion years down the line. He will think “I am human, just like my parents.” But he will be so vastly different from us that if he were to find a fossil of my skeleton or yours, he would say “that is not human. I will call that a goblin.” And if he found a skeleton from someone else from 500 million years later than ours, it would be so different from us and from him that he’d say “That’s not a human or a goblin. I’ll call that a troglodyte.” Even though both the “goblin” and the “troglodyte” both thought of themselves as human.

            This is exactly what we are doing when we look back at the fossil record and say “that’s too different from us to be called human, so I’ll call it homo erectus.” And “that’s even more different, so I’ll call it Australopithecus.” And when we say “that’s even more different, so I’ll call it an ape.” To an extent, classifying different gradations along a single lineage as separate species is an exercise in drawing arbitrary lines, useful mostly for enabling discussion about similarities and differences.

            The fact is that we are just a “different ape,” and apes are just “different monkeys,” and monkeys are just “different primates.” And our distant descendants will be just “different humans” in exactly the same way.

          20. gil

            ok. i will answer you both.

            hi aron. you said:

            “However even though some HGT is still occurring in multicellular organisms, it is far more limited, and evolution takes over more or less exclusively, so that there is a definite tree, and it is one that is easily demonstrated even to those who don’t want to believe it’s there. In fact, it is the single strongest evidence of evolution for that reason”-

            not according to these expert sceintists (from the article above):

            “Even among higher organisms, “[t]he problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories,” leading Syvanen to say, regarding the relationships of these higher groups, “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life.” This directly contradicts Hillis’ claim that there is “overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence.”

            “a recent study published in Science tried to construct a phylogeny of animal relationships but concluded that “[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [animal] phyla remained unresolved.”

            “Likewise, Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, observed that these problems extend well beyond the base of the tree of life: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”

            and i gave you also study about the microrna study:

            “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. The technique “just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution”.

            “Also you’re misrepresenting the real position of evolutionary scientists. Yes, if we found human fossils that were older than expected, we would say so, and we have before. But there are obviously limits to what evolution can support. “-

            not realy. they even push back animals up to 100 my. its exactly like find t-rex and human side by side. they could also say that the fossil is fake or get into the wrong layer somehow or anything else.

            hi EnlightenmentLiberal. you said:

            ” Example: If we found some human fossils in geologic strata which were earlier than all strata containing all ape fossils. This would be good evidence against evolution. Your examples are not that. “-

            no. in this case they will say that the human evolve earlier then thay thought, or that the apes population was to small to left fossils. the evolution will not be falsefied.

            ” Evolutionary theory predicts that for the total DNA of each multicellular species, when you plot the total differences, you will get the same tree of life as Linnaeus did. This is true. Your quote does not dispute that. “-

            now they are. see above. and even if the tree of life is reality- it doesnt prove commondescent at all. we can make a tree from cars and airplans. but they dont have commondescent.

            “What your quote is talking about is individual genes. “-

            not realy. i gave above one study of 2000 genes. and the result was not a tree at all.

            hi somnus.

            you said:

            “This is exactly what we are doing when we look back at the fossil record and say “that’s too different from us to be called human, so I’ll call it homo erectus.”

            not realy. homo erectus was human. actually, most (but not all) of the homo species was fully humans. so again- human stay human. just like what i said.

            “so I’ll call it Australopithecus.” And when we say “that’s even more different, so I’ll call it an ape.”

            here you right. so we have humans and apes.

            “The fact is that we are just a “different ape,” -

            not realy. humans have 60 unique genes that apes dont have.

          21. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Again, the discovery of these fossils is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. It just changes the dates slightly. It’s a relatively minor difference to find human fossils 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years earlier than expected. It would be another thing to find human fossils 100,000,000 years earlier. That never happens.

            There is no scientist who says that the DNA evidence is anything but consistent with evolution. You are pulling quotes out of context because you do not understand population mechanics, or you are taking quotes from someone who is also similarly confused. Your 2000 genes? That’s a prediction of evolution. It’s evidence for evolution, not against. You should expect to see the same tree of life only when you look at the whole genome. Looking only at 2000 genes is not good enough.

            As for this: “we can make a tree from cars and airplans.” The morphological tree of life was discovered by a Christian creationist a hundred years before Darwin. It’s undeniable. Have you ever seen a tree of morphological differences for cars and planes? Has someone told you that this thing exists? Ask them to show you the tree of life for cars and planes. There is no such thing. You either pulled this out of your ass, or someone has lied to you.

          22. gil

            ok EnlightenmentLiberal. you said:

            “Again, the discovery of these fossils is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. It just changes the dates slightly. It’s a relatively minor difference to find human fossils 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years earlier than expected. It would be another thing to find human fossils 100,000,000 years earlier. That never happens. “-

            actually its happened:

            http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2013/bluetenpflanzen-sind-100-millionen-jahre-aelter-als-bisher-angenommen_en.html

            scientist push back flowering plants up to 100,000,000 years!. so there is no problem to push back humans even before t-rex extinction!

            so according to the prediction of the evolution theory- the evolution has been falsified.

            “There is no scientist who says that the DNA evidence is anything but consistent with evolution.”-

            actually there is a lot of them.

            “You are pulling quotes out of context because you do not understand population mechanics”-

            no at all. the quotes are directly from the scientist themselves. look it for yourself in the references from the articles i gave. you can disagree with them if you want, but they are experts in there field. and even they are evolutionists!

            “Your 2000 genes? That’s a prediction of evolution. It’s evidence for evolution, not against.”-

            not realy.here again:

            “Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories”

            its not evidence for evolution. and not a prediction either.

            “You should expect to see the same tree of life only when you look at the whole genome.”-

            if it was true. why all these scientist spend nilions of dolar and take only just 10-1000 genes? even these days they are atill use just dozens of genes. and not for free.

            Looking only at 2000 genes is not good enough”. Have you ever seen a tree of morphological differences for cars and planes? “-

            i see somthing very similar actually. look at this:

            http://www.toomanycars.info/CarRelationship/Car_Rel-Image2.html

            does it prove that cars evolve from other cars? according to the evolution logic-yes!(lets say that they are even have self replication system).

            by the way. it mey be my final coment on this post. i feel like we start to go in circle. until the next time.

          23. gil

            my coment doesnt publish yet’ so i copy it again:

            ok EnlightenmentLiberal. you said:

            “Again, the discovery of these fossils is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. It just changes the dates slightly. It’s a relatively minor difference to find human fossils 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 years earlier than expected. It would be another thing to find human fossils 100,000,000 years earlier. That never happens. “-

            actually its happened: google: “New fossils push the origin of flowering plants back by 100 million years to the early Triassic”

            scientist push back flowering plants up to 100,000,000 years!. so there is no problem to push back humans even before t-rex extinction!

            so according to the prediction of the evolution theory- the evolution has been falsified.

            “There is no scientist who says that the DNA evidence is anything but consistent with evolution.”-

            actually there is a lot of them.

            “You are pulling quotes out of context because you do not understand population mechanics”-

            no at all. the quotes are directly from the scientist themselves. look it for yourself in the references from the articles i gave. you can disagree with them if you want, but they are experts in there field. and even they are evolutionists!

            “Your 2000 genes? That’s a prediction of evolution. It’s evidence for evolution, not against.”-

            not realy.here again:

            “Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories”

            its not evidence for evolution. and not a prediction either.

            “You should expect to see the same tree of life only when you look at the whole genome.”-

            if it was true. why all these scientist spend nilions of dolar and take only just 10-1000 genes? even these days they are atill use just dozens of genes. and not for free.

            Looking only at 2000 genes is not good enough”. Have you ever seen a tree of morphological differences for cars and planes? “-

            i see somthing very similar actually. google: “tree of ferrari” and then look at the pictures.

            does it prove that cars evolve from other cars? according to the evolution logic-yes!(lets say that they are even have self replication system).

            by the way. it mey be my final coment on this post. i feel like we start to go in circle. until the next time.

          24. EnlightenmentLiberal

            so according to the prediction of the evolution theory- the evolution has been falsified.

            What prediction is that? How does changing the date of the emergence of flowering plants by 100 million years falsify evolution? I fail to see how it contradicts descent with modification, shared ancestry, natural selection as the major driving force of adaptive evolution, and the other tenants of evolution. I’m not seeing it. Explain please.

            There is no scientist who says that the DNA evidence is anything but consistent with evolution.actually there is a lot of them.Nope. There’s like less than 0.01% of professional published scientists who say such silly things. They’re just as fringe as Young Earthers.

            [2000 genes thing]
            its not evidence for evolution. and not a prediction either.

            Actually, it is a prediction of evolution. Evolutionary theory with the available evidence of speciation times predicts that roughly 30% of the human genome should be closer to gorillas than chimps. Evolutionary theory also predicts that many genes should paint a different family tree than the analysis of the whole genome. If we looked and we did not find any such genes, that would be evidence against evolution. Instead, when we looked we found those genes, which means it’s evidence for evolution. This is hard for a beginner to understand. Statistics and population mechanics is hard. Again, you should watch the PZ Myers video I linked above. It explains it all as clearly as one can.

            if it was true. why all these scientist spend nilions of dolar and take only just 10-1000 genes? even these days they are atill use just dozens of genes. and not for free.

            Which scientists? There are many, many scientists doing lots and lots of different, serious work. Give me specific examples with citations, and we can walk through them.

            As for your “tree of Ferrari” – You said there is a tree of life for all cars and planes. I asked for that tree of life which includes all cars and planes, and that it is as obviously true as the tree of biological life discovered by the Christian creationist Linnaeus. You gave me the tree of life for Ferraris only. Please try again.

          25. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Meh, blockquote fail. Should read:
            There is no scientist who says that the DNA evidence is anything but consistent with evolution.

            actually there is a lot of them.

            Nope. There’s like less than 0.01% of professional published scientists who say such silly things. They’re just as fringe as Young Earthers.

          26. gil

            ok EnlightenmentLiberal . lets go on.

            you said:

            “What prediction is that? How does changing the date of the emergence of flowering plants by 100 million years falsify evolution? “-

            yes. according to your own statement here :

            “If you want to contradict evolution, find an actual out of place fossil. For example, a fossilized rabbit in the precambrian. That would be an actual out of place fossil. Or humans in the Jurassic.”-

            so if we will find a human date for 70 my. it will by falsefied evolution. and this fossils are the same. so we have 2 options now:

            a)the evolution isnt scientific because we cant disproving it. if we will find a human fossil date for 70my you will say that the human evolve eariler than we thought.
            b)the evolution is a scientific and already been disproven.

            “.actually there is a lot of them.Nope. There’s like less than 0.01% of professional published scientists who say such silly things. “-

            2 things:

            1)according to survey from 2005 most of the scientist do believe in intellegent designer. and most of the biologists are open to id also. and this is in the case that this days the academia just learning about evolution without id or creationisem!.

            2)the science isnt a democracy. science its all about evidences. we need just 1 scientist with just 1 evidence to disprove any scientific theory.or do you think that there is no such a thing like quasicrystal because 1 scientist find this.

            “Actually, it is a prediction of evolution. Evolutionary theory with the available evidence of speciation times predicts that roughly 30% of the human genome should be closer to gorillas than chimps.”-

            give me just 1 scientific paper before this finding that claim this.second: according to this claim. does its mean that 15% from the human genome change every 6 my?

            “when we looked we found those genes, which means it’s evidence for evolution. “-

            not realy. even if will be true. its not evidence for commondescent at all. just for a molecular clock.

            “Which scientists? There are many, many scientists doing lots and lots of different, serious work. Give me specific examples with citations, and we can walk through them. “-

            ok. google: “A New Evolutionary History of Primates” by sciencedaily

            they take only 54 gene regions from 186 species. if your claim is true, why they check only 54 genes for correct phylogeny? and why all these scientist i guote above dont agree that there is a tree?

            “As for your “tree of Ferrari” – You said there is a tree of life for all cars and planes.”-

            not realy. here what i said before:

            “we can make a tree from cars and airplans. but they dont have commondescent”

            not any cars and airplans. but i think it would be possible too.

            ” You gave me the tree of life for Ferraris only. Please try again”-

            so its mean that the ferraris evolve from other ferarris?

          27. EnlightenmentLiberal

            “Out of place fossils”. There’s two kinds of “out of place”, and I apologize for the confusion. We might think that humans first appeared at X date because that’s the best educated guess we have. It can be mistaken, and maybe it’s X+1 or X-1. It’s not a big deal. It still fits within the framework of evolutionary theory. That’s the key. It might be out of place, but it’s not so far out of place that it cannot be made to fit the framework of evolutionary theory. The second kind of “out of place fossil” is the one I care about. This is the fossil which cannot be made to fit in the framework of evolutionary theory. I even gave several examples, which you quoted: “For example, a fossilized rabbit in the precambrian. That would be an actual out of place fossil. Or humans in the Jurassic.”

            Are you saying we found human fossils in the Jurassic? Citations please. If such a thing happened, I would have heard about it. I’m calling bullshit.

            If we found human fossils in the Jurassic, this is what would happen: Hell if I know. This is so fundamentally incompatible with the known evidence and the theory of evolution that I don’t know what would happen. All scientists agree that there are serious problems which need to be resolved, and “teach the controversy” would be very applicable.

            What wouldn’t happen: We throw out evolutionary theory. We still have so so much evidence for evolution that we wouldn’t throw it out. You don’t realize how much evidence we have, and that’s why this part doesn’t make sense to you. For example, suppose tomorrow I dropped a hammer, and it flew up to the ceiling. Suppose everyone everywhere on the planet started seeing hammers fall upwards when released, but every other object still fell to the ground like normal. This is like what it would be like to find humans in the Jurassic. However, would we throw out the theory of gravity? No. The theory of gravity would still make many great predictions because every other object falls to the ground when released – even if we have this odd-ball exception of the hammer. This is because we have such an overwhelming amount of evidence for the theory of gravity. Thus, to overturn the theory of gravity would require an equally amazing amount of evidence.

            If you want to show that evolution is false, one out of place fossil isn’t enough. You would need many, many out of place fossils, and we simply do not see that. More importantly, you would also need to show that the genomes of many animals do not match their position on the morphological tree of life. That is – if you want to break evolution, then you need to show its predictions are wrong in more one than just one obscure case.

            If hammers started flying upwards when released, I think scientists would sooner consider the idea that we’re in The Matrix, or aliens or the fae are toying with us, rather than throw out the theory of gravity. Similarly, if we started finding human fossils in the Jurassic – but only human fossils – scientists would sooner consider aliens or the fae, or time travel.

            Still, I would be very interested if there are human fossils in the Jurassic. This still would be Earth shattering, and it would be a direct contradiction of evolutionary theory, unlike all of the purported evidence which you’ve brought forth thus far.

            You are right that many scientists are also religious. This has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Plenty of people believe that a god exists and that evolution is true. I happen to think that there is a contradiction between Christianity and evolutionary theory, but the great majority of “evolutionists” seem to do just fine accepting both as true. Thus your citation on the number of religious believers is irrelevant.

            I am too lazy to give you a peer reviewed paper on basic evolution, and it wouldn’t do you any good anyway. Instead, I’d suggest to you a good textbook. Or that video by PZ Myers. It will do a far better job explaining this to someone of your level of competence.

            You don’t know what “molecular clock” means. Don’t use big words you don’t know.

            The fact that the human genome is about 30% closer to gorillas than chimps – even though we’re more closely related to chimps – is not evidence against evolution. It is evidence for evolution. This is a clear and explicit prediction of evolution by natural selection which is immediately obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of population mechanics and statistics.

            This paper?
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317172047.htm
            They’re only looking at X genes instead of the whole genome probably because of funding limitations. It’s expensive to sequence the whole genome. So, from prior experience and evidence, probably they know that these X genes are good indicators of common descent for species like these. Ideally, they would have done the whole genome, but cost.

            When you group species according to their body shape – morphology – as the Christian creationist Linnaeus did, it produces a certain shape. We find that the shape produced when you plot these groups is that some species will fit into group M, and other species will into group N, and O, and P, and that groups M and N are closer to each other than either are to groups O and P, and so on. When you do this plot, you find that species fits into buckets, and the buckets themselves fit into larger buckets, and so on. This buckets within buckets shape is formally called a “tree” in mathematics.

            We know that squirrels are related to other squirrels because we see squirrels giving birth to squirrels. We know that badgers are related to other badgers because we see badgers giving birth to badgers. We do not take different badgers and plot their morphological differences to make this conclusion.

            What does happens is that we plotted the morphological differences between squirrels and badgers, and many many other animal species, and we found that the plotted graph was a tree.

            Cars do not give birth to cars, unlike animal species. When you plot the morphological differences between all car models and makes, it does not produce a tree, unlike animal species. Your car analogy simply makes no sense.

          28. gil

            you said:

            “It might be out of place, but it’s not so far out of place that it cannot be made to fit the framework of evolutionary theory.”-

            again- we know of example of 100,000,000 years earlier (flowering plants) then thought. so its indeed like to find a human with dino.

            ” This is so fundamentally incompatible with the known evidence and the theory of evolution that I don’t know what would happen.”-

            not realy. its happaned all the time. see above.

            “What wouldn’t happen: We throw out evolutionary theory. “-

            this is not what you said here:

            “If you want to contradict evolution, find an actual out of place fossil.”

            thanks you prove what i said eariler- the evolution cant be falsified. so its not a scientific theory.

            “We still have so so much evidence for evolution that we wouldn’t throw it out. “-

            not realy. like i show earlier.

            ” if you want to break evolution, then you need to show its predictions are wrong in more one than just one obscure case. “-

            i gave you a list of out of place fossils. get series.

            “I am too lazy to give you a peer reviewed paper on basic evolution, and it wouldn’t do you any good anyway. Instead, I’d suggest to you a good textbook. Or that video by PZ Myers. “-

            lets face it- there is no such a thing. right?

            “You don’t know what “molecular clock” means. Don’t use big words you don’t know. ”

            dont be kidding.

            “They’re only looking at X genes instead of the whole genome probably because of funding limitations. “-

            again- not realy. here what they says:


            To date, available molecular genetic data applied to primate systematics has been informative, but limited in scope and constrained to just specific subsets of taxa. Now, a team of international researches from the US, Brazil, France and Germany, have provided a highly robust depiction of the divergence hierarchy, mode and tempo governing the extraordinarily divergent primate lineages. The findings illustrate events in primate evolution from ancient to recent and clarify numerous taxonomic controversies”

            so they indeed use only 50 genes to create a correct tree.

            “Cars do not give birth to cars, unlike animal species”-

            so according to this, if we indeed find a cars that make another cars(self replication with changes). you will say that these cars evolve from other cars.

            sorry but i got tired of reapet myself again and again. until next time.

          29. Data Jack

            Gil,
            I have been trying to stay out of this, but you are being completely dishonest in this reply. “Flowering plants” is not a species. It is an attribute of an entire kingdom (plantae). Humans are apes, apes are primates, and we know that primates were not around 100,000,000 years ago. So if we found a human and dino fossil together, it would falsify our understanding of primate evolution – entirely. It would cause big problems to our hierarchy of mammalian development. Moving an attribute of a kingdom (flowering) back 100,000,000 years simply adds a data point to our understanding of plant development. It does not say a modern flowering plant was found in ancient strata – it says that an ancient plant was found to have an attribute that we previously thought developed later.

          30. EnlightenmentLiberal

            thanks you prove what i said eariler- the evolution cant be falsified. so its not a scientific theory.

            Read for comprehension bro. I very clearly said the theory of evolution is falsifiable, in exactly the same way that the theory of gravity is falsifiable. However, it going to take more than a couple of obscure data points to completely throw out the theory of gravity, and similarly it’s going to take more than a couple of obscure data points to completely throw out the theory of evolution. What is likely to happen is what happened with Einstein’s relativity. A couple “obscure” data points made us tweak Newtonian mechanics to create relativity. We didn’t throw out Newtonian mechanics altogether. If you brought up some new evidence about evolution, that’s what’s likely to happen to the theory of evolution.

            Imagine the amount, quality, and kind of evidence it would take to falsify the theory of gravity. By falsify, I mean completely throw out. Now, translate that to evidence against evolution. That’s how much evidence you would need to falsify evidence – a metric shit-ton.

            You need to read some philosophy of science. You have a very bad and naive understanding of falsification. I’d suggest some Popper and Kuhn.

            “Cars do not give birth to cars, unlike animal species”-

            so according to this, if we indeed find a cars that make another cars(self replication with changes). you will say that these cars evolve from other cars.

            If we found:
            - cars which gave birth to other cars, and
            - there was variability in the population, and
            - child cars inherited the unique characteristics of the parent cars, and
            - plotting the morphological differences of cars produced a tree structure, and
            - there was a mechanism which created random mutation in individual cars, and
            - there was a selection pressure on car replication (such as limited resources), and
            - there was some genome equivalent which controlled the growth of the car and its unique characteristics, and
            - the genome equivalent captured the unique characteristics of the parent which was passed down to the child,

            then – sure, those cars probably evolved from a single common ancestor.

            lets face it- there is no such a thing. right?

            I don’t know, and I don’t care to find out. The thing is, with such remedial and basic stuff, you don’t find that in papers. Most journals only publish novel stuff. The basic remedial stuff doesn’t get published because it’s so well known. What you are looking for on population mechanics should be covered in any good higher level textbook on evolution. Some knowledge of statistics will be necessary.

            Again, your best resource for this is the PZ Myers video linked above.

            Data Jack handled the bits about flowering plants well. Finding flowering plants a hundred million years earlier than expected simply doesn’t create the same kind of problem that finding human fossils a hundred million years earlier would create. Sorry.

            Meh. Let me put it like this: We know what are the ancestors of humans. We know that these ancestors arose well after the Jurassic. Thus any human fossils found in the Jurassic would clearly be before their purported ancestors, which would be a problem. This alone wouldn’t cause us to throw out evolution altogether, but it would be a good start.

            With flowering plants, we didn’t know their evolutionary history and ancestry. Thus, when we found them a hundred million years earlier than expected, it didn’t create the contradiction of finding a species well before its purported ancestors in the geologic column. That’s the difference.

          31. EnlightenmentLiberal

            If we found:
            - cars which gave birth to other cars, and
            - there was variability in the population, and
            - child cars inherited the unique characteristics of the parent cars, and
            - plotting the morphological differences of cars produced a tree structure, and
            - there was a mechanism which created random mutation in individual cars, and
            - there was a selection pressure on car replication (such as limited resources), and
            - there was some genome equivalent which controlled the growth of the car and its unique characteristics, and
            - the genome equivalent captured the unique characteristics of the parent which was passed down to the child,

            then – sure, those cars probably evolved from a single common ancestor.

            Ack, missing the most important part:
            - and if the plot of differences of genomes produced a tree,
            - and if the tree of differences of genomes produced the same tree as the morphological differences tree.

          32. gil

            hi again data.

            you said:

            “Flowering plants” is not a species. It is an attribute of an entire kingdom (plantae). Humans are apes, apes are primates, and we know that primates were not around 100,000,000 years ago. So if we found a human and dino fossil together, it would falsify our understanding of primate evolution – entirely.”

            first- not realy. we can just change the order- humans first and then apes . no prblem for evolution.

            secondly- we found even the same genus(like humans genus): google:

            “A golden orb-weaver spider (Araneae: Nephilidae: Nephila) from the Middle Jurassic of China”

            from the paper:

            “The new species extends the fossil record of the family by approximately 35 Ma and of the genus Nephila by approximately 130 Ma, making it the longest ranging spider genus known”

            so the evolution is false now?

            ok EnlightenmentLiberal. i will do this simple.

            you said:

            “With flowering plants, we didn’t know their evolutionary history and ancestry.”-

            the same also with humans. if we will find a 70my old human fossil this is what you will say.

            “then – sure, those cars probably evolved from a single common ancestor. “-

            ok. lets say that in the future same car company will create a self replicat car. and we can even make a tree of them (like i show you with ferarri). so according to this you will say that these cars evolve without any desginer. but they are in this case.

            “- and if the tree of differences of genomes produced the same tree as the morphological differences tree.”-

            actually i dont think its true even for organisems. a lots of organisem that look alike are very different from phylogeny prespective.

          33. Data Jack

            Gil,
            No, we could not simply say “humans came first, then apes”. Humans are apes. and more primitive apes did, most assuredly, come first. We know how primates evolved, we know which evolved first.
            Humans are not a genus, we are a species. Homo is our genus. And many species have come and gone from the genus homo.
            Arthropods (like spiders) are an ancient linage compared to any and all chordates – including us mammals. A long ranging genus does not in any way falsify anything. Again, you display your (self-imposed) ignorance of falsification. Extending a genus – older or younger – does not falsify. Finding a species in strata that is older than its ancestors is what would do it. And we look for that – and don’t find it. Ever.

            Your comparison – and therefore your conclusion, is again wrong.

            I know this part about your silly self-replicating cars on Mars was not addressed to me, but I will reply to it anyway, because I already explained it to you, and you dishonestly chose to ignore it.

            The purpose of life it to continue living. So Descent with modification and selection makes sense for (and works OK for) living things, as it ensures the survival of their progeny. The process of evolution cares nothing at all for individuals – it only strives to preserve populations.

            The purpose of cars is to drive stuff around. Making a self-replicating car that made copies of itself with minor flaws such that most copies fail, many of the rest don’t work well, or just work OK, and a tiny fraction work a little better is a terrible and stupid way to make cars. It is expensive, and uses enormous amounts of resources, and you are left with piles of non-functioning cars, and a few that work. The process of making cars (or anything else) is to make each individual as good as it need to be to fulfill its purpose – to drive stuff around, in the case of cars.

          34. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @gil
            You’re not listening. Evolution predicts that ancestors appear before descendents in the geologic column. Sometimes we know all of the ancestors of a given species or group of species. Sometimes we don’t.

            When we discovered flowering plants earlier than expected, it was not clearly earlier than any known ancestor, and thus there is no problem.

            When we discovered that this spider species existed 100 mil years earlier, that doesn’t put it clearly earlier than any known ancestor, and thus there is no problem.

            When we discovered some human fossils or whatever a little earlie than expected, that doesn’t put it clearly earlier than any known ancestor, and thus there is no problem.

            If you were to find human fossils in the Jurassic, then this would be clearly earlier than many, many ancestors, and thus there would be a radical problem which would be almost unsolvable.

            Learn to read man.

            ok. lets say that in the future same car company will create a self replicat car. and we can even make a tree of them (like i show you with ferarri). so according to this you will say that these cars evolve without any desginer. but they are in this case.

            So, your hypothetical example is where we specifically go well out of our way to make cars look as if they evolved by natural selection. Are you saying that your god specifically created all animal life to look as though it evolved? Are you saying that your god both made it look exactly as if evolution was true, and then gave us reason and intellect to discover this? Are you saying that your god is a trickster god? Are you saying that your god is a liar? Because that’s the obvious conclusion of your analogy.

          35. gil

            ok guys. it will be interesting. you are both claim that fossil found in starta before is ancestor will disprove evolution. we indeed find such fossil. but first…

            data. you said:

            “No, we could not simply say “humans came first, then apes”. Humans are apes.”-

            not realy. humans have unique genes. so humans are not apes. like truck isnt a car.

            ” and more primitive apes did, most assuredly, come first. We know how primates evolved, we know which evolved first.”-

            not realy. you just find first an apes. but it doesnt mean that a humans doesnt exist in this geologic time. read about lazarus taxon.

            so if we will find a humans before ancient apes you will say that humans evolve before apes or simply say that the apes populations was to small to leave any fossils.

            in these 2 cases the evolution cant be disprove, so it isnt a sceintific theory.

            “Humans are not a genus, we are a species. Homo is our genus.”-

            actually most of the “homo” speciess are humans with variations . like today we have a lots of variations in humans. but even so- the first “homo” genus date about 2 my. so we can push back the genus up to 100 my without a problem. again- now we can say that the “homo” evolve first. and the apes evolve from the “homo” genus. no problem.

            “Finding a species in strata that is older than its ancestors is what would do it. And we look for that — and don’t find it. Ever.”-

            surprise. we actually indeed find this kind of fossils. google:

            “Fossil footprints give land vertebrates a much longer history”

            from the article:

            “In the new study a Polish-Swedish team describe a rich and securely dated footprint locality from Zachelmie Quarry in Poland that pushes back the origin of tetrapods a full 18 million years beyond the earliest skeletal evidence and forces a dramatic reassessment of the transition from water to land.”-

            indeed surprise. but there is more:

            “The elpistostegids, it seems, were not at all a short-lived transitional stage but must have existed alongside their descendants the tetrapods for at least 10 million years.”-

            exactly like i said. so once again- we see how the evolution fail in predictions.

            now about the self replicat car\robot. you said before that a robot is by defination design. so let me ask you this question: if somone will create an ape. by your defination this ape will be a robot (from material prespecvie)because it was design. do you agree?

            .
            EnlightenmentLiberal. you said:

            ” Are you saying that your god specifically created all animal life to look as though it evolved? “-

            no. the ferarri also have a tree. but thay are not evolve from each other. actually even living things dont have a tree shape at all. because a lot of reasons like convergent evolution. or like what i call it -convergent design.

          36. Data Jack

            Hi Gil,
            This is why I don’t like to discuss things with you – your dishonesty is exhausting.

            Humans ARE apes. Not because we choose to call them apes, but because they fit into the our definition of apes. To say they aren’t apes because they have “unique genes” is a total failure to understand the chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs also have “unique genes”, and are yet still apes.

            Your completely dishonest argument boils down to:
            1) People used to think something evolved at a certain time (flowering plants, tetrapods),
            2) Some new fossils tell us they evolved earlier
            3) Therefore, if we were to find a human fossil in ancient strata, we would “simply” revise our theory to say humans came before their ancestors
            4) Therefore evolution is not falsifiable.

            Vertebrates are not a species
            Tetrapods are not a species
            Homo is not a species

            What do you mean by “if someone will create an ape”?
            Do you mean like your god “create apes”? By wishing them into existence? Using magic? Or do you mean how people create robots? By designing them, and them building them with tools? Or do you mean how people create cars? By designing them, on computers, and then programing robots to build them?
            Designing something (the dishonest core of “ID”) , and then bringing it into existence by building it, are two completely different things, except for in your book of fairy stories – because the writers of those stories didn’t understand anything about how the world works.

          37. EnlightenmentLiberal

            not realy. humans have unique genes. so humans are not apes. like truck isnt a car.

            Chimps have unique genes which do not appear in the other great apes, so a chimp isn’t an ape either? The same is true for gorillas. The same is also true for humans. It’s their similarities, not the differences, which make us classify chimps, gorillas, and humans together.

            so if we will find a humans before ancient apes you will say that humans evolve before apes or simply say that the apes populations was to small to leave any fossils.

            in these 2 cases the evolution cant be disprove, so it isnt a sceintific theory.

            I don’t know why you think this. We never said this. That is stupid.

            “The elpistostegids, it seems, were not at all a short-lived transitional stage but must have existed alongside their descendants the tetrapods for at least 10 million years.”-

            This does not say what you think it says. Learn to read.

            In pictoral form:

            - – - – - – - – - (other) elpistostegids – - – -(extinction)
            . . . \
            . . . . \
            . . . . . – - – - tetrapods – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – (continues on)

            The paper says only that the split happened earlier than expected, and that the date of extinction of (other) elpistostegids was later than expected.

            It is not what I asked for. Tetrapods did not appear earlier than their ancestors. What I asked for, when applied to this case, is: fossils of tetrapods appears in the geologic column earlier than all fossils of (other) elpistostegids. That is, a species clearly appearing before its ancestor. This is not an example of that. You need to learn to read, and you need to learn basic evolutionary theory because you’re attacking something you do not understand.

            no. the ferarri also have a tree. but thay are not evolve from each other. actually even living things dont have a tree shape at all. because a lot of reasons like convergent evolution. or like what i call it -convergent design.

            This is willfully ignorant and dishonest. Go look again at my list of a dozen criteria that need to be satisfied, and how “ferraris” satisfy almost none of them.

            One by one:

            “cars which gave birth to other cars” – No.

            “there was variability in the population” – Not really, no. There are manufacturing defects from time to time, but they are minimal. There is effectively almost no variability within a specific make and model of Ferrari, and we work tirelessly to make it so. It’s called quality control.

            “child cars inherited the unique characteristics of the parent cars” – Absolutely not. There is no such thing as a “parent” car. Cars don’t reproduce.

            “plotting the morphological differences of cars produced a tree structure” – Again no. If you try to plot the differences between the shape and internals of all car make and models, you will not find a nice tree structure. You will find lots and lots of “horizontal gene transfer” because that’s how designed things are made. We take some elements from one car, other elements from another car, and from a third and fourth and so on, and mix it altogether to make a new car. This is what we see in car design. We do not see this in animal species. The multitude of “horizontal gene transfer” of car design – this mix and match approach – is indicative of design. The complete lack of horizontal gene tranfser in animal species is indicative of evolution.

            “there was a mechanism which created random mutation in individual cars” – Maybe. The manufacturing process does sometimes create defects.

            “there was a selection pressure on car replication (such as limited resources)” – Absolutely not.

            “there was some genome equivalent which controlled the growth of the car and its unique characteristics” – Maybe. There are car blueprints and plans.

            “the genome equivalent captured the unique characteristics of the parent which was passed down to the child” – Absolutely not. There is no child-parent relationship. The blueprints of one model are not passed down to create another car of the same make and model, nor of a different make and model. They start from scratch every time and incorporate ideas from many, many disparate car makes and models when they create a new car make and model.

            “the plot of differences of genomes produced a tree” – Absolutely not. You don’t get a tree looking at the shape and internals of different car makes and models, and because blueprints are a representation of the final product instead of an organic “growing” process, we also don’t see a tree structure looking at blueprints. The way organisms grow and the information of DNA is categorically different than the inforamtion of a blueprint and how we make cars.

            “the tree of differences of genomes produced the same tree as the morphological differences tree” – There are no trees to compare, so this is inapplicable.

          38. EnlightenmentLiberal

            Also, yes animal species do form a tree when you examine their morphology. This is undeniable to anyone who’s ever looked into it. It was discovered a hundreds years before Darwin by a Christian creationist. Well before Darwin, we know that whales were not fish and were much more similar to (other land) mammals. It’s not rocket science to put things into groups according to the elementary school test of “one of these things is not like the other”.

          39. gill

            hi data. you said:

            “Humans ARE apes. Not because we choose to call them apes, but because they fit into the our definition of apes.”-

            the problem is in the words: “our definition”. according to this i can call to truck a car. this is very subjective and not objective.

            you can call humans even fish according to evolution biologists.

            ” chimps, gorillas, and orangutangs also have “unique genes”, and are yet still apes.”-

            first- im not shure that all apes have unique genes. but even if its true- again: its very subjective. whale and bats are very different. but they are both mammals.

            “What do you mean by “if someone will create an ape”-

            like humans create robots or synthetic organisems.

            .
            EnlightenmentLiberal. you said:

            “Chimps have unique genes which do not appear in the other great apes, so a chimp isn’t an ape either?”-

            look my answer above.

            “It is not what I asked for.”-

            this is exactly what you are both asked for.

            “Tetrapods did not appear earlier than their ancestors.”-

            here again from the article:

            “”In the new study a Polish-Swedish team describe a rich and securely dated footprint locality from Zachelmie Quarry in Poland that pushes back the origin of tetrapods a full 18 million years beyond the earliest skeletal evidence and forces a dramatic reassessment of the transition from water to land.”-

            so we have a walking organisem in starta date 15 my before is ancestor(a “missing link”= semi fish) starta!. like to find human before ape.

            ” the ferarri also have a tree. but thay are not evolve from each other.”-

            excellent! this is exactly what i say. so a tree doesnt prove commondescent.

            ” You will find lots and lots of “horizontal gene transfer” This is what we see in car design. We do not see this in animal species.”-

            actually yes. read about list of this examples:google:

            ” List of examples of convergent evolution”

            and we even find horizontal gene transfer among “complex organisems” .

            “there was a selection pressure on car replication (such as limited resources)” — Absolutely not. “-

            why not? a car with better engine can drive better. or even if we talk about robot- a robot with dna that can add camera(eyes) is better then robot without camera.

            “Also, yes animal species do form a tree when you examine their morphology. This is undeniable to anyone who’s ever looked into it. It was discovered a hundreds years before Darwin by a Christian creationist.

            “Well before Darwin, we know that whales were not fish and were much more similar to (other land) mammals.”-

            chimp also more similar to a gorila. but is more close geneticly to humans. so It’s contradict the morphology= genetically claim.

            actualy even scientist dnt know who is closer to who:google:

            “Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps”

            from the paper:

            “Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.”

            “By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say. “-

            and by the way. acording to evolution even a normal car can evolve in a close room. because if we close a room for milions of year. a bacteria in the big room can evolve into a human and then will make a car.

            ok. like i said before,i think its my last coment. by. until next time.

          40. EnlightenmentLiberal

            @gill

            “but even if its true- again: its very subjective. whale and bats are very different. but they are both mammals.”

            Do you think that whales and bats are mammals? Do you think this is “subjective”?

            Humans are apes for the same reason that humans are mammals. Mammals is a group of animals defined by certain diagnostic traits. Apes is a group of animals defined by certain diagnostic traits. There is no set of honest diagnostic traits which includes gorillas, chimps, and orangutans, and which does not include humans. Humans are mammals by the same reasoning of why humans are apes.

            “first- im not shure that all apes have unique genes”

            Really? You don’t know this? You obviously don’t know the first things about evolution, and yet you’re so sure it’s false. How can you honestly refute something you don’t understand? Don’t you feel bad about being dishonest?

            Read a book. I’d suggest again “The Greatest Show On Earth” and “Why Evolution Is True”.

            “”In the new study a Polish-Swedish team describe a rich and securely dated footprint locality from Zachelmie Quarry in Poland that pushes back the origin of tetrapods a full 18 million years beyond the earliest skeletal evidence and forces a dramatic reassessment of the transition from water to land.”-

            so we have a walking organisem in starta date 15 my before is ancestor(a “missing link”= semi fish) starta!. like to find human before ape.

            No, it’s not. Does the paper talk about its ancestors? Does the paper say that the new fossils are found in earlier strata than all fossils of its ancestors? No. That’s what I asked for. Please try again.

            ” the ferarri also have a tree. but thay are not evolve from each other.”-

            excellent! this is exactly what i say. so a tree doesnt prove commondescent.

            You’re quoting yourself, dipshit. I didn’t say that. You did.

            ” You will find lots and lots of “horizontal gene transfer” This is what we see in car design. We do not see this in animal species.”-

            actually yes. read about list of this examples:google:

            No, you don’t. There are (almost?) no examples of horizontal gene transfer between animal species. I said animal species. You cited earlier examples of bacteria and single celled creatures. I said animals, which are by definition multicellular creatures (with some other diagnostic traits). You do not see horizontal gene transfer in animals.

            “there was a selection pressure on car replication (such as limited resources)” — Absolutely not. “-

            why not? a car with better engine can drive better. or even if we talk about robot- a robot with dna that can add camera(eyes) is better then robot without camera.

            Cars do not reproduce. Thus there cannot be selection pressure.

            chimp also more similar to a gorila. but is more close geneticly to humans. so It’s contradict the morphology= genetically claim.

            According to whom? You? Are you a trained anatomist? Obviously not, given your breathtaking lack of ignorance on the topic. You wouldn’t know a liver vs a spleen if both were thrown at you. In fact, if you look at the anatomy of chimps, they probably are closer to the anatomy of humans than the anatomy of gorrilas.

            “Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps”

            from the paper:

            “Orangutans, not chimpanzees, are the closest living relatives to humans, a controversial new study contends.”

            “By contrast, humans share at least 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans but only 2 with chimps and 7 with gorillas, the authors say. “-

            You’re just using google to search for paper abstracts with snippets that seem to support your point. I have already taken the time to read several papers and explain the problems with your claims, and yet you have not admitted fault yet on any of those points. Until such time that we work through the dozen earlier papers you cited, and you admit your errors, I see no reason to waste my time further and do it again when you will engage honestly and admit when you are wrong.

            and by the way. acording to evolution even a normal car can evolve in a close room. because if we close a room for milions of year. a bacteria in the big room can evolve into a human and then will make a car.

            Cars do not reproduce. Thus they cannot evolve. Scientists do not say that a car will turn into anything, because it does not reproduce. You’re speaking gibberish, and my willingness to continue with you is close to zero. I do not engage with dishonest people nor willfully ignorant people.

          41. EnlightenmentLiberal

            “Until such time that we work through the dozen earlier papers you cited, and you admit your errors, I see no reason to waste my time further and do it again when you will engage honestly and admit when you are wrong. ”

            Ack. That makes no sense. I meant something like:

            “Until such time that we work through the dozen earlier papers you cited, and you admit your errors, I see no reason to waste my time further. I’ll read the paper when you will engage honestly and admit when you are wrong.”

          42. EnlightenmentLiberal

            and by the way. acording to evolution even a normal car can evolve in a close room. because if we close a room for milions of year. a bacteria in the big room can evolve into a human and then will make a car.

            Ah, I see what he’s getting at now. I didn’t get it before.

            First off – it’s more like billions of years.

            Second, it wouldn’t happen because there wouldn’t be the the right selection pressure in a closed room. There wouldn’t be enough resources nor space for evolution of several large multicellular creatures AFAIK.

            Also, even if there is enough spaces and resources, there is no guarantee that a few billion years will do it. Abiogenesis may require specific conditions like volcanoes and cosmic rays or whatever. We don’t know.

            Also, even after the first single celled creature like our early ancestor, there is no reason to expect that humans or other intelligent creatures will evolve. As far as we know, there has only been one technologically advanced species in the history of the planet, and that’s us. We happened after billions of years, but there is no goal or set time that it would happen again if we ran the experiment again. Maybe it will take less time, or more. Or maybe it wouldn’t happen on the next run.

    2. 4.2
      Hojo.Jack

      This is just wrong.

      “a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer”

      We do not know that a self-replicating robot, made from DNA, would need a designer. That premise fails.

      “b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot”

      Again, since this type of robot does not exist, we cannot say that an ape is more complex. That premise fails.

      “a+b= the ape need a designer”

      Even if your two premises did not fail, your conclusion does not follow from your two premises. Your argument fails.

  5. 5
    gil

    a) we know that a self replicate robot that made from dna need a designer

    b) from a material prespective the ape is more complex then this kind of robot

    a+b= the ape need a designer

    or even a self replicat watch .the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch we need to say that is made by itself

    scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U

    plus: if a self replicate car cant evolve into an airplan, how can a bacteria can evolve into human ?

    the evolution say that small steps for milions years become a big steps. but according to this a lots of small steps in self replicat car (with dna) will evolve into a airplan.

    1. 5.1
      Monocle Smile

      Spam elsewhere, troll. No one believes you for a second.

    2. 5.2
      EnlightenmentLiberal

      Cars don’t replicate.
      Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

      1. gil

        so if someone will made a self replicat car (with dna)this car wili not be an evidence for designer?

        1. EnlightenmentLiberal

          I don’t understand what you’re saying. Is English not your first language?

          Cars do not experience mutations of the genome which are inherited to offspring. Cars do not reproduce. Cars do not even have genomes. Cars are simply not a relevant comparison.

          1. Nigel McNaughton

            No english is not his first language, and he still hasn’t worked out what spellcheck is even though it’s built into every browser.

          2. gil

            english is not my native. lets say that someone will find such a car with self replicat function. is this kind of car is evidence for designer or not? its very simple question. the answer according to the evolution is “not”/ because its self replicat. but its funny logic.

          3. Data Jack

            No. Evolution does not say a car that can replicate is not designed because it can replicate. Evolution says that populations of organisms change over time, because differences in individual organisms inherited from their parent organisms make them more or less fit to survive and reproduce in their current environment.

            If you keeping making up false definitions for evolution, of course they cannot be supported.

          4. gil

            i answer above. lets continue from there.

        2. Psychopomp Gecko

          If you’re trying to prove the existence of a deity using a Marvel Comics “What if…?” story, then you’re not proving anything. If we’re going to say “Well, what if this exists, would that prove it?” it only highlights that you have to go increasingly into the realm of imagination to try and prove your point. Hey, what if we find there is no supernatural influence at all in the origins of life or increase in species? Oh wait, we don’t have to ask that, because that’s what science has found.

          And the existence of a self-replicating car would at most only prove that some being in the universe has the ability to make a self-replicating car. It’s like if you tried to prove a deity to ancient humans by going, “If you found a people who could communicate across the world without sounds, then travel the world by flight, would that convince you of Zeus?” It would sound fantastical, until flight and the internet were invented.

          1. gil

            i will continue above.

            thanks.

        3. Data Jack

          Gil,
          This question of yours illustrates your misunderstanding of the work “evidence”. If I create an ice cream cone, is the ice cream cone evidence that it was designed? No. Evidence is a group of observations that support a hypothesis.
          So, if your hypothesis is that the replicating car was designed (I assume you actually mean “designed and then created”), then what observations would support that hypothesis?
          1) You could have seen the car being built
          2) You could have noticed that the car shares many similar traits with other cars, all of which we have ever encountered were designed and built
          3) You could have found an assembly line that is in the process of building similar cars
          What does NOT constitute evidence the car was built?
          1) The fact that the car exists
          2) A 3,000 year old story that claims all cars were designed and built by a benevolent spirit
          For living organisms, it is the same. What evidence is there that living things are designed (and built?)
          1) Have we ever observed one being created? Nope, only born, sprouted, hatched, seeded, etc.
          2) Have we noticed living things share many similar traits with things that are built? Nope. Built things do not reproduce, grow, age, or die. They do not get diseases, fight diseases, have birth defects, or pass on (imperfectly) the blueprints for their construction and maintenance to their offspring.
          3) Have we found a place were living organisms are created? Nope. Each and every organism that we have ever observed has been spawned by its parent organism using a well understood method.

          Now, what evidence is there that living things evolved?
          1) Do living things continue to reproduce as long as there are resources (food, mates, land, lack of predation, etc.) to support them? YES
          2) If they reproduce less often than they die off, will the population of organisms go extinct? YES
          3) If they reproduce more often than they die off, will the resources required to support the living things eventually become scarce? YES
          4) Do living things therefore have to eventually compete for those scarce resources? YES
          5) Do the offspring of livings things differ from their parent organisms genetically because of mutations? YES
          6) Do some of these differences allow a living thing to more effectively compete for resources (even competing eventually against their own parent organisms)? YES
          7) Do these living things that compete for resources more effectively have a better chance to reproduce? YES
          8) Can the offspring of these living things that compete for resources more effectively inherit the differences that allow their parents to more effectively compete for resources? YES
          Are all of these traits also true of a hypothetical replicating car? If even a few of them are true, that would be a very poorly designed car.

          1. gil

            a self replicat car need a designer even if we not see the designer. i noe see who design my watch. and i still think that somone design it.

            because my english is a little poor, lets continue step by step. start from my coment to you above.

            have a nice day.

          2. Data Jack

            A self replicating car needs a designer because cars need designers. All cars ever know have been designed and built.

          3. John Nugent

            Data -

            I’m not joining into this discussion, as it has pretty much become asinine. I am merely curious.

            Is it just me, or is his entire original argument based upon a fallacy of equivocation? Merely a first impression, but I am wondering if you get the same.

            John

          4. Data Jack

            Yes, but it appears to be mostly deliberate. Or at least based on a completely false understanding of evolution AND how theories work. And although he has been corrected on his definitions many times, he clings to his original misinformation

        4. Rob

          Lets say that the moon is made of blue cheese. This is evidence that there must be a really big mouse out there somewhere.

          Come on gil, the statement above contains exactly as much logic and evidence as the one you made. You can’t set up ludicrous and evidentially refuted constraints and then say ‘gotcha’ when someone agrees that under those conditions (that do not exist and never have existed) what you assert would apply. We are not going to play that game because your artificial constraint simply does not correspond to reality.

          1. gil

            hi rob. i do think that evolution dont have even one evidence that cant be as evidence for the designer theory. see my coment up.

          2. Data Jack

            Gil,
            People do not poof things into existence. We design and build them. With blueprints, tools, raw materials, and (most importantly) energy. A universe-creating being would need none of that. Creating things “whole cloth” without those ingredients, is called “magic”.
            As I have explained, there is not, and cannot, ever, be any evidence for a designer. If something is created with magic, it can be created with any attributes its creator desires – including attributes that hide the fact that it was created.

        5. curbyrdogma

          But cars are generally not designed by “one person”. They are engineered, developed and assembled by many people. …And even if one person designed/built a car all by himself, he’s still using ideas borrowed from previous individuals (starting with the wheels).

          Using that analogy, are you willing to accept the idea that a potential “designer” would actually be a team of entities?

          Hahaha, wouldn’t that be funny/ironic if we ever discovered that the “designer” in question wasn’t like any god of organized religion, but was actually a gaming group of nerdy scientist type entities?

          1. gil

            i dont talk about the designers itself but about its product. i know that if i will find a self replicat car with dna on mars. it will be evidence for intellegent. even if i will not find the designer itself.

          2. Data Jack

            Hi Gil,
            I am sorry to say this, but you don’t talk about a “designer” for a reason – and that reason is that ID proponents are both dishonest and cowardly. You know when you say “designer” you specifically mean your god (probably christian, but it doesn’t matter – you mean your magical being that you worship).
            If you find a car, on Mars or anywhere else, you can be quite certain it was designed, because all cars ever encountered were designed. Further, you know it was BUILT, because all cars ever encountered are built. Why do ID proponents always leave the “built” part out? Because that spoils their fantasy.
            Living organisms, every single one we have ever encountered, are not built. They are born, or hatched, or sprouted, or seeded, or divided, etc. Then they grow, becoming what their parent was – with slight modification due to mutation.
            That is NEVER the case when something is built. It is built by a person or a machine, to be a fully functional representative of its class (car, table, lamp, robot, etc.). It may have imperfections, but there is no mechanism, ever, to allow the cause of those imperfections (mutated “blueprints” – DNA) to be passed on to other things it in turn builds.
            A “self replicating car” is not an organism – it is a car building factory that can drive around. Saying “a self replicating car that has DNA” simply means you do not understand what “DNA” is. DNA is a really, really bad way to store “blueprints” for growing cells. That’s because it can be mutated. Most mutations are disastrously bad for the offspring. Of the remaining mutations, most are only somewhat bad or neutral. Every once in a great while, a mutation will be good, and the organism will flourish.
            How ridiculously terrible would that be for a car factory? if almost every car it built failed to work? And those that didn’t, most didn’t work that well. And every once is a great while, a car that is ever so slightly better would be built. Such a thing would never be designed, because it is an awful waster of resources.
            Cars are built for a reason. And that reason is to drive stuff around. It is not to ensure that cars adapt to their environments so that they continue to exist.

  6. 6
    Psychopomp Gecko

    Since Gil looks like he’s having fun, I figured I’d throw my own evidence for design out there.

    A. Transformers features robotic organisms that have more to them than meets the eye.

    B. The Twilight Books are more complex than the works of Mark Twain.

    A+B=Jesus died for your sins.

    Link to a song about someone building robots to prove my point somehow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDiDK_yBCw0

    Plus, if a rock can’t have sex, then why do we think humans could possibly pass on their genes sexually?

    According to some crap I just made up, cars should be humping like crazy and having lots of little car babies from their car wombs.

    1. 6.1
      John Nugent

      Psychopomp -

      I HOPE that your statement about Twilight being complex at all (and more than Twain) is merely part of the satire LOL.

      John

  7. 7
    anbheal

    PsyGec, love your out-gilling of Gil, but I must point out that literary evolution is non-teleological; Twain and his pre-Cambrian level of complexity actually dwarves the Twilights.

    1. 7.1
      L.Long

      Not only Twain but even a misspelled badly ritten sentence is more complex and a better story then twilight.

    2. 7.2
      Psychopomp Gecko

      As a follower of Pratchettian literary theory, I must insist you refrain from saying it dwarves Twilight. As we Pratchettians believe, it should read “dwarfs” instead of “dwarves”.

  8. 8
    Nigel McNaughton

    gil was briefly a regular over at Ray Comfort’s blog. And he just as quickly made it obvious that no he hasn’t really studied biology over there as well. Guess we scared him off and he thought he’d cut and paste his posts over here and see if he had any better luck.

    1. 8.1
      John Nugent

      Nigel -

      BETTER luck? I would have thought the people over at Comforts would have been cheering to hear such well thought-out arguments LOL.

      John

      1. John Nugent

        Sorry – that should read, Comfort’s. Sometimes, I hate my keyboard… argh…

  9. 9
    moarscienceplz

    “Globularists”. Heh!

  10. 10
    seo

    I pay a quick visit daily a few web sites and websites to read articles or reviews, however this website presents quality based articles.

    my site seo

  11. 11
    Organo gold Australia

    Hurrah, that’s what I was exploring for, what a
    stuff! present here at this website, thanks admin of this web
    page.

  12. 12
    curbyrdogma

    All this rhetoric aside… the ONLY WAY one can prove “divine creation” is to find evidence that complex, living organisms can emerge, — fully formed — without parents and from a matrix such as water or dirt.  You need to show a working example of a complex living thing coming into existence without parents.

    That is the ONLY way you can prove “divine creation”.

    (Or at least, formulate a detailed, working hypothesis for the process of such an event.)

    …Actually, I take that partially back. I’ve seen people identify themselves as “creationists” yet also accept evolutionary theory; usually with the idea that God or some other agent created the beginnings of life, which was designed to evolve.

    And on that point, the term “created” says absolutely nothing about the amount of time spent “creating” something. One can say a car was “created” even though it might have taken 3 weeks or 3 years from start to finish. Moreover, the style of automobiles has evolved over the years based on factors which parallel Darwinian evolution, such as cost of resources, environment and competition . So to observe that a car was “created” says absolutely nothing about the amount of time it took to design and build it, and it says absolutely nothing about the history of automobile design.

    But those “creationists” such as Ken Ham, who insist that all life was created in a literal six 24-hour days, have yet to explain or even suggest how such a process was accomplished. Presumably, we are to believe they were all just “poofed” into existence.

    …So perhaps we should be referring to Ham and his ilk as “Young Earth Poofists”?

  13. 13
    jws1

    Still waiting for the creationists to advocate malevolent design, of which evidence is plentiful, rather than the benevolent designer they assume.

Comments have been disabled.