Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"Evolvable" robots invented by a team of computer scientists from Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, headlined the popular media last summer.

According to the press, these machines were capable of developing, on their own, new and better machines, thus mimicking, in the laboratory, the evolutionary process biologists ascribe to nature. Reporters heralded the work as a key achievement in the area of artificial life, also citing it as powerful supporting evidence for natural-process evolution.

Details of the original report reveal, however, that though this research represents an important advance in the field of artificial life, most media overstated the researchers’ accomplishment. On closer examination, the work on "evolvable" robots constrains, rather than supports, biological evolution. The constraints it reveals raise serious problems for the evolutionary paradigm, calling into question the likelihood that biological evolution could proceed as a creative process unattended in nature.

The Brandeis researchers developed a virtually (rather than physically) "self-evolving" robot. Specifically, they used a computer simulation to "evolve" (or create progressions of) virtual robotic designs. They pre-selected two types of building blocks, rods and linear actuators, with the aim of generating (via the computer simulator) a robot that could move itself horizontally. By randomly altering structures again and again––each time selecting the best design elements, while discarding those it determined inferior—the computer simulator produced a robot design with a capacity for horizontal movement. The computer then produced a plastic prototype of the robot, and the researchers manually attached a motor to the robot to power its movement. The experimental protocol offered no opportunity for feedback from the physical world into the computer-directed "evolutionary" process.

The Brandeis scientists thus developed, for the first time, a successful interface between virtual search-and-optimization "algorithms" (step-by-step computerized problem-solving procedures) and a technology capable of producing a physical prototype.

Genetic algorithms (used for some time by engineers and scientists to search for optimal designs, including robotic designs) mimic the process evolutionary biologists think is responsible for driving evolutionary change. A genetic algorithm begins by evaluating a number of initial designs according to a predetermined set of criteria. The most "fit" of these designs are modified by simple changes (called mutations, or asexual reproduction) or by combining parts of two or more designs (called sexual reproduction), and the new designs are then evaluated. The genetic algorithm repeats this process over and over again until a superior design (one that optimally fits the selection criteria) emerges.

Using genetic algorithms, the Brandeis scientists sought a robotic design capable of horizontal movement. The genetic algorithm started with two hundred random designs, with rods and linear actuators as the predetermined building blocks. A design that yielded a certain amount of movement in a certain amount of time would be "selected." The most successful designs were used to produce a new set of designs by randomly modifying, removing, adding, or relocating rods and linear actuators. Typically, tens of generations passed before machine designs capable of any movement "evolved." The "evolution" of working designs required 300 to 600 generations and about 100,000 designs.

The "evolutionary" process used by the Brandeis researchers produced a variety of fairly sophisticated machines. The robots moved by dragging, ratcheting, crawling, scooting (crab-like sideways motion), and side-to-side oscillations, to name a few. Robots typically employed about 20 building blocks (rods and actuators) in various configurations. These robust robotic designs retained the capability for movement even after researchers removed or altered the size of various building blocks.

Though the work of the Brandeis scientists might seem to lend empirical support to biological evolution, careful evaluation of this work uncovers several significant constraints that make biological evolution unworkable in nature.

Selecting Building Blocks

The choice of building blocks is critical to the evolutionary process. In this case, the Brandeis scientists thoughtfully selected rods and linear actuators. The simplicity of these building blocks allowed for maximal architectural and manufacturing flexibility. Thus, the intelligent designers provided the genetic algorithm with optimal features, giving ample opportunity to find a workable design. Selection of the wrong building blocks would have limited the design options to the point that few, if any, workable designs would be possible.

Nature offers a variety of building blocks, not all necessarily optimal. And, according to the evolutionary paradigm, nature offers no "intelligence" or process to select the appropriate building blocks to ensure the availability of the largest number of workable design options.

Modifying Failed Designs

The computer simulator was able to find workable robot designs only after many generations had passed. Tens of generations were required before any of the robotic designs acquired the capability for movement. The genetic algorithm kept the "evolutionary" process going, but in nature, if the selection criteria are not met, the evolutionary process comes to an abrupt halt. Inability to meet selection criteria means death of the organism and, more importantly, the failure to propagate the next generation. Biological evolution cannot modify failed or dead organisms to find one that will survive and yield the next generation.

Evaluating Transitional Forms

The relatively simple selection criterion (horizontal movement) required the computer simulator to evaluate about 100,000 designs. Selection criteria for a biological organism are far more complex and multifarious; many more designs would have to be explored randomly before a workable design for a living organism could emerge.

If the evolutionary process were at work in nature, multitudinous transitional designs would connect various organisms. Therefore, a large number of transitional creatures should appear in the fossil record. The near absence of transitional forms, one of the hallmark features of the fossil record, stands in sharp contrast to the expectations of evolution.

Rearranging Designs

Efficient search among the robotic design possibilities appears to be dependent upon the dramatic rearrangement of designs with each generation. The algorithm employed by the Brandeis researchers modified, deleted, added, and relocated the components of successful designs after each round of evaluations. In biological systems, no mechanism exists to produce these dramatic changes. Rather, the mechanism that produces biological change (mutations) can only yield small variations on existing biological features.

Final Comment

The Brandeis scientists set out to "evolve" movable robots apart from any human intervention. However, human influence, and hence, intelligent design, permeated the entire experimental setup:

1) the development and application of the genetic algorithm,

2) the choice of building blocks and selection criteria,

3) the manual addition of motors, and

4) the provision of materials for production of physical prototypes.

As one engineer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) commented, "The resulting machines cannot match the complexity of the rapid-prototyping machine designed by human engineers that is required to do the actual fabrication."

The research program in artificial life will help researchers discover boundary conditions for natural biological processes. The results of this Brandeis study lead some scientists to anticipate that additional work will further challenge evolutionary theory and support the case for intelligent design.

www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots

Holy smokes. That is a long enough post that I might think you are serious about the title...

The Golem Project Harms Evolutionary Ideas?

a lot of the above is restating of wrong assumptions about the experiment. its interpeting weakly. sum things r true, like the absence of transitional fossils but it is overly simplified. the only creative thing there i think is the setting up of boundary conditions.

one thing i find wierd is that when it isnt TRADIOTIONAL evolution, why is it assumed that the only available alternative is intelligent design???? that is just ridiculous, if taken literally than its true that currently, sum kind of guiding variable wud make sense. but the phrase "intelligent design" implied multiple things which are far more unlikely than traditional evolution if not at all impossible to begin with.

so no, those interpretations, even if considered correct are not SUPPORT for intelligent design if intelligent design is considered as it normally is.

So scientists find a robotic way to show how evolution works, and ID advocates try to spin it sideways? Nice.

nature offers no "intelligence" or process to select the appropriate building blocks to ensure the availability of the largest number of workable design options.
...that would be natural selection providing the "intelligence." The rest are the same ID arguments that have been recycled for a couple decades now. Any self-respecting biologist can not only answer the question, but does so with very little trouble.

But we don't need robots for this either. We've observed "real" evolution in fruit flies in a controlled setting, whose life spans are so short that we can monitor progress through generations.

Evolution's a fact. The God of the Gaps theory is a convenient hiding place for ID'ists that cling tenuously to whatever they can, but they have never offered one iota of evidence for their theory...they just attempt to bring down the opposing, as so far correct, theory. This is no different. Even if evolving bots didn't support evolution (maybe they're neutral on the issue) it also doesn't support ID.

Well, either the Robots will destroy us like in Terminator.

Or they will please and serve us like in Dune.

Or they will take over our jobs...thus creating a world in which a proletariat will no longer have any means of survival.

Pick one and have fun with it.



Never understood why I remember the sequel more than the original.

Originally posted by ushomefree
www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots Fail. doped

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Fail. doped

Agreed... from the website:

"What we believe"

"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses."

They lack the ability to look at something objectively; it's not very "scientific", if you ask me.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed... from the website:

"What we believe"

"We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses."

They lack the ability to look at something objectively; it's not very "scientific", if you ask me.

Yes, science does not respect belief, it respects nature as it is observed.

Originally posted by ushomefree
www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots
There is a difference between "challenging evolution" and "having no real impact on evolution," whob.

my fav thing is when people use simulations to prove things in real life right or wrong. calculations are not always 100 % accurate. besides there are so many other factors. it doesnt take in weather envirnment predators prey etc. evolution is a fact like digimark stated.

if there is a god, maybe lets think about this people, he made creatures able to (*GASP*) evolve

Originally posted by chickenlover98
my fav thing is when people use simulations to prove things in real life right or wrong. calculations are not always 100 % accurate. besides there are so many other factors. it doesnt take in weather envirnment predators prey etc. evolution is a fact like digimark stated.

if there is a god, maybe lets think about this people, he made creatures able to (*GASP*) evolve

Edit

As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

You are wrong. Cats and dog have a common ancestor. Sure dogs can't become cats and cats can't become dogs, but long ago there was an animal that became both cats and dogs. You are looking at the tree of life in a backward way.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Ever heard of mutation?

Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html
About the author:

Originally posted by ushomefree
Mutations: www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

Not all mutations are harmful (having part of the sickle cell mutation leads to immunity to certain diseases, having a large penis is benifical in finding a mate, different skin colors are preferable in different environments)

Really anyone who's made it through junior-high in a western nation can see the massive holes in those claims. Not to mention out and out lies.

Everything you stated are perfect examples of "microevolution," not macroevolution.

Originally posted by ushomefree


Everything you stated are perfect examples of "microevolution," not macroevolution.

There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction is man made, just like the idea of species is also man made. There is no real barrier between one species and another. This barrier is only in the minds of humans. Nature will do what it does. If there is a way, nature will find it, given enough time.

So ushomefree, how old is the Earth?

The cosmos are about 14 billion years old; the age of planet Earth is unknown to me, and I'm not willing to venture a guess. Why?

Originally posted by ushomefree
The cosmos are about 14 billion years old; the age of planet Earth is unknown to me, and I'm not willing to venture a guess. Why?

The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. That is a long time. Evolution requires a long time to work in the way that it has in the past.

Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?" Shakyamunison, you have had interesting things to state on KMC forums, but in this case, you are being ridiculous; you are smarter than this. For someone to state that micro and macroevolution are indifferent, makes such a claim out of ignorance. What is your problem? I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth. You know damn well that my last few posts were an honest revelation of current scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?"

I though that was Lamarkians or ID people.

Even if it was Darwinists how would it matter in terms of this discussion?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth.

I suppose it's never occurred to you that you are plenty closed to truth

Originally posted by ushomefree
Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?" Shakyamunison, you have had interesting things to state on KMC forums, but in this case, you are being ridiculous; you are smarter than this. For someone to state that micro and macro-evolution are indifferent, makes such a claim out of ignorance. What is your problem? I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth. You know damn well that my last few posts were an honest revelation of current scientific knowledge.


Scientific knowledge? I'm not a scientist; I'm a mechanical designer. I'm not up on the latest and the greatest. When I learned evolution in school and collage, it was a simple, straightforward theory.

Let me explain it to you:

1. The animals of the past were different then the animals today.
2. The animals of the future will be different from today.
3. All animals are related in a family tree of life.
4. Animals live in an echo system, and that echo system changes over time.
5. Animals in response to their environment change over time.
6. The Earth in very old, therefore this process of change is very old.

I see evolution as a river that is constantly changing in response to the environment. Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans evolved from an animal that doesn't exist today. monkeys evolved from the same animal as humans. And that makes us a distant cousin to monkeys; they are not our ancestors.

Punctuated Equilibrium, micro-evolution and macro-evolution, just seem to muddy the water. I don’t know what the truth is or is not, but I always go with the simpler and more elegant theory, and I don’t trust the extremist on the Christian side of the arguments.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Is that why Darwinists have proposed "Punctuated Equilibrium?" Shakyamunison, you have had interesting things to state on KMC forums, but in this case, you are being ridiculous; you are smarter than this. For someone to state that micro and macroevolution are indifferent, makes such a claim out of ignorance. What is your problem? I thought these threads were about truth, and being "open" to the truth. You know damn well that my last few posts were an honest revelation of current scientific knowledge.

Holy shit, man. Relax.

Almost from the beginning, you can tell that the article you posted was not objective. Of course you are going to get criticised for posting something like this.

I see a couple of flaws with this premise in the first place.

1. If you believe evolution is real and can logically support it, you can create software the mimics evolution. Creating that software does not prove evolution is real, it only proves that you can create software that fits into your idea of evolution.

2.(The following is my opinion.) Why can't the ID BE evolution? Why do we assign our God immature and short sighted powers such as spontaneous creation? Why can't our God actually be intelligent and have created all Earth life, including humans, over the course of 4.5 billion years? It would take immense intelligence to calculate all of those variables required to create humanity inside this 14 billion year old universe via evolution...and who knows, God may have created other intelligent species over the course of 14 billions years as that only seems probable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction is man made, just like the idea of species is also man made. There is no real barrier between one species and another. This barrier is only in the minds of humans. Nature will do what it does. If there is a way, nature will find it, given enough time.

So ushomefree, how old is the Earth?

i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now microevolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...2.(The following is my opinion.) Why can't the ID BE evolution? Why do we assign our God immature and short sighted powers such as spontaneous creation? Why can't our God actually be intelligent and have created all Earth life, including humans, over the course of 4.5 billion years? It would take immense intelligence to calculate all of those variables required to create humanity inside this 14 billion year old universe via evolution...and who knows, God may have created other intelligent species over the course of 14 billions years as that only seems probable.

Because it is not written in the bible.

Great post.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now microevolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

I don't believe in speciation. It's a cataloging system we invented. It is a snapshot of nature, but we don't understand how it functions over time. We are beginning to learn. Just because we can't reproduce something that takes millions of years to happen, only means we can't do it. Nature can, over time.

Using a larger font does nothing to validate religiously driven drivel. All it does is present an eyesore.

Yet another thread under the assumption that if one were to disprove evolution, then it would make ID or creationism any more valid.

Oh and whole genome duplication, ancestral species of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, anaerobic metabolism of glucose, etc. Waste of time.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wud disagree shaky. speciation has largely, not been observed in controlled settings. the differences and mutationh of ALLEALES{which does not lead to speciation} is rather easy and happens a lot. it can lead to better adapted members of the species but not to SPECIATION. for the type of mutations which lead to speciation to occur, you wud literally have next to zero chances of the organism surviving or adapting the mutated cells.

let me try and explain. think of the games little chidlren play. where you have to insert the corresponding chapes into the corresponding holes. these shapes are alleales, and the holes are the genes. now micro-evolution{changes in alleales} wud be like trying to insert a slightly different shape into a hole{say a square into a rectangle}, if the shape fits, it gives rise to a new alleale {i.e. it changes the coding for the production of ONE or two or three at most, type of protiens through mrna translation} , which may or may not be benfitial to the organism. if it is benefitial/neutral , it is taken up and the cell survives and reproduces and you have a different organism with slightly different traits due to the few protienc changes. or if it is harmful, usually the organism or the cell dies.

now SPECIATION type mutations wud be like throwing of the entire FRAME OF REFERENCE of the dna. i.e. taking out all the shapes and inserting them in 1 or 2 or 3 holes away from its original position. obviously, most of them wont fit, and the organism wud either destroy the cell or the organism wud die. these type of mutations to occur in such a way as to survive, let alone benefit the organism has a ridiculously low probability at random. also, the other type of speciating mutation wud be chromosomal mutation, but even that has a very limited template and mostly leads to disease.

also the gaps in the fossil record which discount intermediaries and punctuated equilibrium theories arising from that does make it seem like traditional macro evolution may not be responsible for the way organism evolved with common ancestors and all.

I have finally come to a conclusion about you. On the surface, someone looking over your posts may think you are stupid. I have read your posts for a while now and I have tried to assess you. You constantly misspell things and make many typos and sometimes things are out of whack in your posts. At first, I thought that you were a "straining intellectual". (In other words, you love this stuff but lack the intelligence to really "be there".) Then, I realized more and more that you have excellent incite, even if I don't agree with it. Now, I realize that you are very educated and intelligent. The problems I saw in your posts disappeared as I truly read your posts for what you intended. In other words, I have learned the lesson that I thought I already knew: just because a person misspells things and has disorder in their posts, does not mean they are unintelligent because their message is diluted with mistakes. Even though I never posted it, I apologize for misjudging you.

Back on topic...

I loved your post and it helped me better understand your perspective and I, of course, agree with it. Macro and micro evolution exist. Macro evolution, if successful, can make a huge evolutionary leap for a species and its progeny, but it is very unlikely to be successful. Over time, micro-evolution can have the same benefits, but it takes more time and it can lead to abrupt extinction. Really thinking about it, macro-evolution usually doesn't lead to the extinction of a species because the organism or organisms in that species that exhibit a fatal macro-evolutionary trait will die out usually at birth, thereby, damming the replication of those negative genes.

They can, however, be beneficial for a time but then lend itself to an extinction of a species as the environment changes thereby being, in the long run, a negative adaptation. (I am, of course, referring to micro and macro evolution...which are almost one in the same..they just differ in time frame and the number of genes involved, really.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because it is not written in the bible.

Great post.

Thanks...and yes, it is unfortunate that people like to interpret things literally instead of figuratively.

heeeheeeheeee{sneeky look} im glad you understand {whispers " have fallen under the spell of my hypnotic psuedointellectualism as you didnt realise that the spelling mistakes werent spelling mistakes at all but subtle messages being sent to your subconcious}.

really, im not that learnes, but i ended up thining about sum stuff a lot at times and can atleats make sense of sum things on a whole{terrible at actual studies though}. and i cant really help spelling mistakes, my fingers do not often do what my hands tell them to do, plus anxiety makes my hands shake a bit so it ends up with lotsa spelling mistakes.

anyway, as a theory, i think we need to come up with explanations where admittedly, classic evolution fails to provide convincing answer. not saying that ID does either, but we need to be scientific about it. ofcourse, nuthing wrong with pursuing evolution, as it may just be our lack of knowledge right now, and not the theory which is wrong.

oh yea, n as i said, mutation of alleales is very different from mutations of genes which lead to new species. you can have a million different beneficial mutations in alleales but you still end up with the same GENE and hence the same species. speciation is a hard nut to crack that way, really.

Originally posted by ushomefree
As confirmed by science, organisms do evolve, but only on a micro level, not a macro level. Why? Because the genome (the total sum of biochemical information) of any organism does not allow the possibility; in order for macroevolution to be possible, "new" biochemical information would have to be introduced, and such does not occur in nature. All science confirms are variations of "pre-existing" biochemical information, better known as microevolution. For example: there are over hundreds of dog species, but they are all dogs. And always will be. Dogs will not develop wings, gills, or a third eye regardless of their environment and time. The genome of a dog lacks the information needed to produce such characteristics. Understand?

Please read Richard Dawkins' "The Information Challenge". I believe a google search will turn it up. It'll take you all of 15 minutes to read. ID theorists love using the "information of the genome" conundrum, without realizing that it is not quite the thorn in the side to Darwinists as they might think it is.

And if you think dogs and cats (or dogs and any other animal) don't have a common ancestor sometime in the past, you're just plain wrong.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And if you think dogs and cats (or dogs and any other animal) don't have a common ancestor sometime in the past, you're just plain wrong.


Ahhh, but you see, he is just plain wrong based on the theory of evolution...something we believe to be true based on facts.

It got to the point where I needed to say something, if only for the benefit of those who know evolution's a fact but don't have the technical knowledge to refute ushome (who I gave up a while ago on trying to convince of anything). I could paraphrase Dawkins point about the genome that ushome was trying to exploit, but it's a multi-tiered answer that is ideal for ID advocates because it's hard to answer in a short sound-bite or a few brief paragraphs.

Some duplicitous creationists actually tried to trick Dawkins himself into faltering over the question, which is what sparked the article he wrote on it.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

...the first 2 paragraphs I find particular funny, despite the fact that the reality of it is a bit sobering.

^ k , but all that i found relevant there was the presence of common, non functional genes in most animals which maye suggets a common ancestor. i dont see anything there which can be desribed as a practical example of changes in GENES{not just alleales} leading to mutation which can lead to the development of a new species.

ill due fairness though, u were probably referring to ushom's points.

Yes, evolution is a simple, straightforward theory; but it is characterised into micro and macro processes.



Yes, but only in variation (microevolution). This applies to all organisms of course.



Yes, but only in variation.



Only in a biological sense. All organisms share similar characteristics, but all are fundamentally different.



Absolutely!



Yes, but only in variation.



Yes, but the variations are "limited in scope." Molecular Biology proves this.



Exactly, because macroevolution is false.



Science confirms that life arose quickly--hence the theory punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian Period alone affirms that life arose quickly.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes, evolution is a simple, straightforward theory; but it is characterised into micro and macro processes.



Yes, but only in variation (microevolution). This applies to all organisms of course.



Yes, but only in variation.



Only in a biological sense. All organisms share similar characteristics, but all are fundamentally different.



Absolutely!



Yes, but only in variation.



Yes, but the variations are "limited in scope." Molecular Biology proves this.



Exactly, because macroevolution is false.



Science confirms that life arose quickly--hence the theory punctuated equilibrium. The Cambrian Period alone affirms that life arose quickly.

All life is simply variations. From the amoeba to the tree and to the human, we are all variations. The limits you talk about are the limits that we human have in our minds. Nature is not limited in the way you think it is.

Macroevolution is microevolution over a long long time (millions of year). Therefore, the distinction is not important to the big picture.

or the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes


just like that, no proof to back your claim

Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

Symmetric Chaos-

Macroevolution was first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko) in his work entitled, "Variabilitat und Variation." Filipchenko was an evolutionist.

he also "coined" microevolution, so that bring us too......................

Originally posted by ushomefree
Variations within organisms being "limited in scope," do not originate from the human mind, and are not dependent of such; we know organisms lack the capacity to evolve into new organisms (regardless of time and environmental fluctuations) because of molecular biology advancements over the past 30 years. Variations in any given organism are "limited in scope" due to its corresponding genome, and enlight of this, organisms will never evolve into an entirely new organism. Variations that have been documented, are simply variations of "pre-existing" information in the genome, never "newly" introduced information.

A dolphin develops into a dolphin because of the genome information. If a dolphin is to develop into a completely new organism (at some point) new information must be added to its corresponding genome, and it must be beneficial! This is exactly why naturalists have presented the case for random mutation; but mutations--as I have stated before--do not introduce new information into the genome. Mutations are simply errors of pre-existing information. Microevolution (and supposedly macroevolution) have been in full force for millions of years; we have hundreds and thousands of examples of microevolution in nature, but it is completely silent in respects to macroevolution.



This is simply not true. Macroevolution expounds on evolutionary theory in attempts to account for the origins of life, but macroevolution can only been seen on paper and internet articles, not in nature.

You sure do have a lot of faith in science. There were a great number of scientists who believe the Steady State theory, but it was wrong aslo.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Macroevolution was invented by creationists. There really is no difference except the ones you choose it invent.

Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

a lot of people believe in the teaching and ways of this buddah too, is that trhoug faith or just because nothing else really sounded cool

Originally posted by anaconda
a lot of people believe in the teaching and ways of this buddah too, is that trhoug faith or just because nothing else really sounded cool

I assume it's because something about Buddhism resonated with them. So it would be because nothing else sounded quite as "cool".

How does that apply here?

It seems others are doing a pretty good job of debunking whatever ridiculous ID claims surface. I won't touch on most of them, but will add one more.

The "Cambrian Explosion" happened simply due to the fact that prior to that period in history, animals did not have skeletal structures with enough density to survive into fossilization. So it seems like we suddenly have all sorts of new lifeforms during that period, but it is a misleading claim.

The Cambrian Explosion has been used for all sorts of purposes by people who wish to further their own agenda. Wonderful as it is to our fossil records, it has done just as much harm by those who misuse it.

because its a way of reasoning

DNA Wrapping and Replication

Pj9cdVeIntY

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

Originally posted by ushomefree
DNA Wrapping and Replication

Pj9cdVeIntY

"We have always underestimated the cell.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." --Biochemist Franklin M. Harold

bravo you find a high school science video. would you like a cookie?

I have a feeling ushome isn't talking about robots anymore, and is just using the thread as a thinly veiled excuse to post whatever material he wants....most of it, seemingly, erroneous interpretations of evolutionary science.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Even if you did come up with reasonable evidence against evolution we would still have to accept it in terms of science because there is no evidence that supports that alternatives.

I'd like to post this again, because it's really a synopsis of the death knell for anything having to do with ID. I guess ushome didn't read the article I posted, which answers the question of genome information that he's been harping about for a couple pages. Or if he did, he's remained silent on it.

But SC's point, and the best one, is that ID has no evidence for itself. It's great at telling evolutionary theorists what they can't yet explain (which they usually can). But not so great at coming up with a new theory that is testable or even scientific. You can call it selective interpretation, you can call it the God of the Gaps theory, you can call it what you want. It's the same tripe that has slowly morphed from its creationist beginnings, and has been soundly defeated at every turn.

The Supreme Court ruling against the teaching of ID in schools as a scientific theory was voted on by a majority of conservative judges, who, if anything, would be supportive of ID. But the bid to give it equal footing with evolution failed miserably, due to an utter lack of evidence for their theory. Only in local school systems that are overrun and/or governed by religious extremists has the ruling been overturned.

...

...and at this point, like I stated before, this thread become nothing more than a soapbox for ushome's material. It should be merged with the evolution/creationism thread, or (better yet) just closed. It's not a new topic, just an old one dressed up (much like ID itself).

And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

Originally posted by ushomefree
And your incapable of addressing the issues yourself. What was wrong with the statements I made throughout this thread?

this is about robots evolving not genetics. stop trying to disprove evolution using the human genome. first of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic

Originally posted by anaconda
or the fact that English isnt the first language of the person with spelling mistakes


just like that, no proof to back your claim

i have two first languages, english and urdu. even though urdu is my native tongue, i am better at english because it is an easier language.

chickenlover98-

I don't even want to know how you came up with your membership name, but I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98-

I started this thread; it was originally about evolving robots, but speaking about evolution and intelligent design was imminent. The debate naturally took that course. And you speak of "class?" I'm the one being bombarded with insults and sarcasm. I think I've been a good sport about all this. People have much conviction about this issue while having nothing factual to present. A member of this forum actually stated that macroevolution was created by Creationists; another stated that micro and macroevolution are indifferent. And another stated that macroevolution was a fabrication of the human mind. And I'm being labled unscientific and bias?! I can deal with diverse opinion all day, but being ridiculed is tiresome. Reasons escape my mind as to why I deserve fancy attitudes in this forum; I have stepped beyond my boundaries on occasion, but some members do so the majority of the time, if not all the time, using words like: extremist, fanatic, Christian propaganda, and liar. And you asked me if I wanted a cookie. What was the point in that? You also stated, "First of all digi CLEARLY has you outclassed and second get back to the topic." And I'm thinking, "Damn dude, I'm just trying to debate." I enjoy debating, especially over religion. And I get intense, but very seldom--in fact, almost never--do I debate by insulting. Ladies and gentlemen, can't you just give me a break (ha ha ha)! I assume we are all young adults here; I just ask that we act like it please.

In all honesty, outside of your short discussion with Shaky, you yourself have yet to make a single argument in the entirety of this thread.

Posting the opinions of others is not debate, it is, as Digi puts it, soapboxing.

If you want to convince someone of something you must provide support for an alternative. You have done no such thing so you cannot rationally expect to alter anyone's opinion which means you are interesting purely in causing conflict.

What do you mean? Provide an example?

sigh, a lot of people here are under the impression that micro evolution and macro evolution are the same. they are NOT, micro evolution deals with variations or mutation of ALLEALES not "GENES" {i.e. EYE COLOUR is a gene, however BLUE EYECOLOUR/BLACK EYE COLOUR/HAZEL EYE COLOUR, is an ALLEALE} . when mutation in alleales occur, a vairiation in the EXISTING characteristic is introduced{i.e. purple eye colour}, it still leads to the same species with the same genes. but when a GEANE mutates, a whole characteristic changes{i.e. eye changes to bio doppler radar}. the first happens enough to be observed, because changes in the bases{a c g t, if i remember corretcly} which basically make up all our dna, an happen at one place due to ionisation etc . and MAY create a new sequaence which creates a new protien for the given function{eye colou etc}. the PROBLEM with GENE mutation is that not only a number of bases have to change into sumthing compatible at the same time{very very very unlikely at random if not impossible} but also that unless the change happens in such a way that the start and stop codons {the genetic pointers which tell define and seperate sequences of bases into specific GENES for the mRNA which translates and forms the corresponding tRNA which forms the corrsponding protiens} remain wheere they are{very very unlikely} and ALSO are suitable for the newly introduced base sequences for the new gene{very very evry very evry unlikely as to the probability being almost null} , then the WHOLE frame of reference of the dna is thrown off for the mrna and hence it forms all sorts of random protiens

to elaborate it in a way that can be understoof, take the below sentence

i.am.a.boy.

now imagine that a reader can only understand the words which are seperated by the dots.

now THIS is what a mutation in an ALLEALE {lets define the GENE as the space where the sex of the character is written} looks like {microevolution}

i.am.a.girl.

however, this is what an IDEAL mutation in a GENE looks like

i.am.a.tree.

not only do the numbers of words have to be the same, but they have to form a coeherent meaning with the previous words

usually what happens in this

ia.ma.b.roker. {the frame of reference is thrown of my addition of a base or word and the start and stop codon remain the same i.e. the dots/fullstop }

or this

i.am.atree.. {the stop and start codon are mutated/changed}

now assume that the sentence is millions of alphabets long with even more dots in between them. once the WHOLE frame of reference is thrown uff, EVERYTHING in the cell gets screwed up. and it starts producing random protiens which usually end up killing the cell.

to top it off, it normally takes a combination of different kinds of genes to create changes in the phenotype{physical characteristics that you observe} so the new code has to work in ocnjunction with many other things {or EVERYTHING has to precisely change} to produce a compatible chnage which makes it even more unlikely.

it does not mean that ID is viable at all, but traditional evolution, taken at the basic level only works well for micro evolutution, not macro evolution.

leonheartmm-

Excellent post; I enjoyed the read! And thank you. I'd enjoy expressing our views regarding intelligent design in the future, but not tonight. I have been on this forum (off and on) for the past 5 to 6 hours (ha ha ha)!

By the way, can you recommend any good books and/or DVD movies covering evolution or intelligent design? Perhaps the Anthropic Principle? I can surely spend a moment surfing the web to find some, but I just thought I would ask. I have DVD movies that you may find interesting. Examples are, but not limited to:

(1) Journey towards Creation www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=736&cat=0&bestseller],

(2) Unlocking the Mystery of Life www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=386&cat=25&page=3],

(3) The John Ankerberg Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old Earth www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=520&cat=25&page=3], and

(4) The Elegant Universe www.reasons.org/shop/product.php?productid=529&cat=25&page=3].

Take care.

^ erm, u DO know that im a very anti organised relegion{i.e. christianity n stuff} right?

anyway ur welcome

Yes, I do. The only DVD having anything to do with Christianity is the "John Ankerberg Show Debate: Young-Earth vs. Old Earth," but even in that, the debate covers scientific issues--the big bang theory for example. In my opinion, even an atheist would enjoy watching it. There is talk about theology and so forth, but the debate keeps in line with science for the most part. "Journey towards Creation" is about the big bang theory. The others cover physics and molecular biology, not Christianity (or any religion for the matter).

As a matter of fact leonheartmm, send me an e-mail message containing your mailing address--could also be your work address--and I will mail you a copy of anyone of the DVD videos you'd like. But I will not have the time to do this until after Christmas and New Years; you could bet on mid-January. And did you have any DVD material to recommend?

canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

dude u still have dialup? jesus christ man. maybe its time for an upgrade. cable isnt really expensive ne more ne ways. like 20 $ a month. i recommend time warner or comcast

actually i wanted a broadband which didnt have a download limit, otherwise, its useless{everything or nuthig kinda thing} cause im an anime addict. but that one is 1mbp/s and costs like 5000 rupeas{around 70 dollars } per month. and that is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy TOOO expensive for me and my parents wud never agree. so im stuck with dialup for now.{n all the other here are like 256-500 kbps with a 4 gb download limit which kinda sucks for me}

Fair enough. If you are open to further discussion, please provide an example. I'm not doubting that people carelessly misrepresent biblical scripture to support an ideal, specifically in science; but you must refrain from sterotyping, not that you do. Other people within the Christian community are not bent on deception and fashion objective views--just fair and balanced inquiry. Hugh Ross, an Astronomer, who created the "Reasons to Believe" institute, is one of many examples. His website contains over a hundred articles categorized in organized fashion. And all articles contained therein have corresponding bibliographies; for an idea of what I preach, read the article, "The Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First." URL: www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first.

DigiMark007-

I read the article, "The Information Challenge" authored by Richard Dawkins; I enjoyed the article, but it lacked persuasive power in my view. And, I do not mean that in a condescending way. In retrospect, I thought the article was shortsighted, not to mention over-simplified. Richard Dawkins is a genius, and I am incapable of refuting his article word-for-word; but I did find a response to his article authored by Casey Luskin entitled, "A Response to Dr. Dawkins' 'The Information Challenge.'" Please, extend the same courtesy and read his response. URL: http://www.discovery.org/a/4278.

^ no i do not stereotype. there are many good people who follow organised relegion, but generally organised relegion is a negetive force.

what i was talking about though, was not necessarily people who follow it, but the ideology itself, in most of the probable and viable interpretations of christianity/judaism/islam/hinduism etc u find much which has no logical bases and which is very negetive for the individual and the society.

Elaborate please.

sigh, i do not wanna start another huge debate which starts from square one. look at sum of the other threads here.

No problem; but did you have DVD recommendations regarding topics that I mentioned?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
canty say really. i dont get much of my info from those kinda dvds. and i have screwed up 32 kbps{which only delivers 4 kbps in reality} dialup connection so such videos will take absolute ages to open or download.

although i have seen a lot of such debates on tv on different channels. and most of the time either the relegious side turns to logical fallacies or wild and unwarranted interpretations of selective scriptures to reconcile the position of relegion with that of science.

where do you live. no offense i thought rupees was a the currency of zelda games. here in the states high speed internet like cable is around like 20 $ a month and it usually downloads a file at around 650 kb/s. no download limit usually.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
where do you live. no offense i thought rupees was a the currency of zelda games. here in the states high speed internet like cable is around like 20 $ a month and it usually downloads a file at around 650 kb/s. no download limit usually.

LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

well how would i know. im sorry dude, but im 15. how would i have ne clue of what the currency of a middle eastern country is?

and i meant KB/s i think

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!!! Dude...you live a sheltered video game life.

is that Kb/s or KB/s? One is kilobits and one is kilobytes...a difference of a factor of 8.

Also, the US is hardly on par with the rest of the modern world as far as average download rates go....http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701230.html

Rupees...he speaks urdu..hmm...that's easy, he is in Pakistan or India...you should know something like that off the top of your head and if you don't know that, you should look it up because I am sure I am right....just saying, bro.

pakistan. n i was talking about bIts.

Hehe. Like I said in the other thread (where you, mercifully, haven't attempted to pull me into a debate yet) I haven't the time currently to offer a full rebuttal. I will though, when time allows.

Though it is important to note that Professor Dawkins refuses to "debate" creationists/ID'ists for the reason that it seems to put them on a level playing field with evolution. There isn't a debate among anyone versed in the field (and unswayed by religious tendencies), but debating creationists makes it seem like they are on equal footing with one another, as if there's actually something to debate.

So I'm thrilled that I'll get to respond to that man's article regarding the Information Challenge (which was only written because Dawkins was tricked and wanted to clear his name...not because he had any actual desire to debate with them). Because for me to respond will be far less dignified that if Dawkins were to respond to it (which I assure you he never will) because it would lend credibility to the argument based solely on the opponent, not its content.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well how would i know. im sorry dude, but im 15. how would i have ne clue of what the currency of a middle eastern country is?

and i meant KB/s i think

Being 15 is not really an excuse.

I learned that stuff in middle school in like the 5th or 6th grade. You should pay attention in school and learn how to use an internet search engine so that you don't come off so ignorant to a foreigner.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster, that's all.

and it isnt a middle easter country, its a central/southern asian one.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and it isnt a middle easter country, its a central/southern asian one.

LOL!!! I missed that commenting on that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Being 15 is not really an excuse.

I learned that stuff in middle school in like the 5th or 6th grade. You should pay attention in school and learn how to use an internet search engine so that you don't come off so ignorant to a foreigner.

I'm just trying to help you be a better poster, that's all.

sorry, but public schools here do not focus on foreign countries much man. and it really is an excuse to be 15, at least in LA it is. and even when we learn about other countries we usually dont learn their currency. try coming here and watch the teachers. every teacher here pretty much fails. dont be suprised when you find out most people have F's or D's. all im saying is honestly, how the **** would i know what kind of currency they use in pakistan. we havent studied that country for a millisecond

Originally posted by chickenlover98
sorry, but public schools here do not focus on foreign countries much man. and it really is an excuse to be 15, at least in LA it is. and even when we learn about other countries we usually dont learn their currency. try coming here and watch the teachers. every teacher here pretty much fails. dont be suprised when you find out most people have F's or D's. all im saying is honestly, how the **** would i know what kind of currency they use in pakistan. we havent studied that country for a millisecond

I guess you were that "child left behind"?

google it you whiner! You know how to use the interwebz...get over it mr. links rupees!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you were that "child left behind"?

google it you whiner! You know how to use the interwebz...get over it mr. links rupees!

dont get me started on george W. bush. the no child left behind system is flawed and teachs children more poorly than before. in fact all the teachers are fighting it. im not saying im stupid, im saying the system is flawed. we are not taught about other countries usually. and besides no offense to anyone, but pakistan hasnt made a gigantic mark in history. i9t isnt the first country we would learn about ne way

actually it has. the birthplace of sum of the most ancient{if not the most ancient} indus valley civilisation. the development of the most ancient advaced civilisation. the leading architecture and technology of the most olden times. the oldest relegion in the world{hinduism}-{this is along with india btw} . hmm, the mughal empire, prolly one of the greatest in the world ever. hmmmm,wars, culture, architecture, contributions to art and science in the dark ages of europe, atomic power of the world. well ltosa stuff. besides, the food here is AWESOME! the thing is, about as much has happened in pakistan as in india, historically, but india projects itself in an unreal and superfitial way so every1 outside it{specially in the western world} seems to think its sum place of wonderous mysticism and spirituality when actually its nuthing more than a shithole of corruption, unbeleiveable poverty and waste disposal problems + rigid caste syste, where most peopel only care about becoming like the materialistic west - kinda sad and ironic. its kinda like pakistan, only worse, in all those areas other than corruption.

infact{and this is without bias} pakistan has more cultural significance of the two, more old architectural and cultural triumphs which can be seen, better food, and MUCH better geography {infact, it is in many ways, one of the , if not THE most beutiful country in thw world in the northern areas, atleast geographically}. relegious extremis is the only problem but it is nowhere as overwhelming as the media makes it sound.

oh no wait, what was this thread about ?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
dont get me started on george W. bush. the no child left behind system is flawed and teachs children more poorly than before. in fact all the teachers are fighting it. im not saying im stupid, im saying the system is flawed. we are not taught about other countries usually. and besides no offense to anyone, but pakistan hasnt made a gigantic mark in history. i9t isnt the first country we would learn about ne way

The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The fact that No Child Left Behind is insane is no excuse for not being able to Google the word "ruppes".

lol, true. i guess i didnt think about it.

Dongs, dong, dongs, fifty-two dongs.

^saint jingle dongs is among us.

Post # 1 of 3: Intro

To catch everyone up with what I'm about to post:

Ushome has been using this thread as an excuse to spread creationist propoganda, which is in no way against forum rules, but imo slightly underhanded because there's other places better suited for this. One of the main features behind his rebuttal of evolutionary theory is the idea that mutations cannot add information to the genome of an organism, only change existing information. The addition of information, apparently, is entered by God, though I don't think he has explicitly said this (since it's blatently untestable and unscientific).

I posted an article written by Richard Dawkins on this same problem when he was tricked into an interview with creationists. Dawkins provides the answer within his article, since he needed to clear his name after being falsely represented in a movie the creationist interviewers made. Ushome posted an article in rebuttal to Dawkins' own.

Now, since Dawkins doesn't respond to creationists as a general rule (he doesn't like lending credibility to their argument by even associating his well-known name with them, even in defiance of their beliefs), I shall be responding to the article, since a challenge was issued by ushome.

A couple things. One, this isn't for ushome's sake. His religion blinds him from rational debate too often for me to expect results. I am just put off by perversions of science and want to set it straight for those who are either uncertain about the issue or who know evolution is a fact but do not have the technical knowledge to refute such involved matters (this is one of the favorite ID arguments because it’s one of the most complex). Second, I’d like you to keep in mind that it doesn’t take a scientist to refute such religiously tainted junk science. I’m just a guy who has read about evolution, and hopefully I’ll show that just knowing the basics is enough to refute such unfounded claims. All it takes is a clear head that is free from religious bias.

Quotes from the article will be italicized. My responses will be in plain script.

Dawkins article: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
Rebuttal article from Casey Luskin: http://www.discovery.org/a/4278

Post #2 of 3: Analysis

Please read the above post first.

Excerpts from the Casey Luskin article:

In September, 2007, I posted a link to a YouTube video where Richard Dawkins was asked to explain the origin of genetic information, according to Darwinism. I also posted a link to Dawkins’ rebuttal to the video, where he purports to explain the origin of genetic information according to Darwinian evolution.
- Which is false. Dawkins explicitly says he didn’t respond to the question because the answer could not fit into a sound bite but required an extended period of time. Thus his article. Luskin claiming that he posted Dawkins answer is nothing more than an attempt to undermine him, since he did no such thing on video.

Dawkins writes, “In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.” Dawkins’ highly emotional response calls into question whether he is capable of addressing this issue objectively.
- Dawkins has been lied to and is being demanded to answer questions. Yet, to his credit, he finished the interview because he did agree to it. So he did not back down from his word, despite being lied to. Dawkins is on record as saying he will not debate ID advocates, so his quandary in the duplicitous interview is evident. I’m actually surprised he had the composure to continue. So this is yet another sad attempt by Luskin to knock his opponent’s credibility, not his intellectual position.

Before continuing, it should be noted that Luskin is on the payroll of The Discovery Institute, a group whose job it is to uphold ID. His very credentials make the argument suspect, since scientists have no stake in taking sides…objectivity is their profession, not a particular agenda. So it is in their best interests to report the facts as they see them. Their findings may promote one viewpoint over another, but they are not being paid to say one or the other, simply to report the facts. The same cannot be said for Luskin.

Still, if this is so, his argument should be porous. It is.

…anyway, on to the science (or lack thereof).

- I shall skip the first section of the article to get to what I believe to be the heart of the matter. In the first section, of both articles actually, they define ‘information’ to suit their particular needs. Semantics, really, even for Dawkins, since one can find a definition for it that suits opposite opinions quite easily. Neither seems more right than the other unless it can be backed by science.

- I shall attempt to paraphrase the main argument of Dawkins before posting Luskin’s rebuttal: Gene duplication accounts for increase in genome information. Genes can and do duplicate themselves. The majority of genetic information is vast amounts of duplicated material, commonly referred to as “junk” DNA (more on this later). Even Luskin doesn’t argue that they duplicate. But that leaves us with nothing but copies of the same gene. This is where random mutation comes in, because copying fidelity among genes isn’t 100%. Mutation, combined with natural selection and unfathomably long amounts of time, account for gene variation among the duplicated genes. Thus, the total information increases because you have a wide array of genes that, through natural selection, have been chosen because they promote survival. Luskin, of course, sees fault with this.

I now have 2 questions to ask of Darwinists who claim that the mechanism of gene duplication explains how Darwinian evolutionary processes can increase the information content in the genome:
(1) Does gene duplication increase the information content?
(2) Does gene duplication increase the information content?
Asking the question twice obviously does not double the meaningful information conveyed by the question. How many times would the question have to be duplicated before the meaningful information conveyed by the list of duplicated questions is twice that of the original question? The answer is that the mere duplication of a sentence does NOT increase the complex and specified information content in any meaningful way.
- This was answered in my synopsis of Dawkins point: That mutation and natural selection combine to foster new genes into successive generations. But the truly perplexing part about Luskin’s article is that he provides the same answer later on in his article. So what, if anything, was the point of the quotation I posted (he devotes even more time to this point)?? There isn’t one, except to try to pick battles he knows he can win. It amounts to a moot point, because it means nothing in the article, but to an untrained eye it looks like a victory in the ID column.

Darwinists laud the mechanism of gene duplication because they claim it shows how one copy of a gene can perform the original function, freeing up the other copy to mutate, evolve, and acquire a new function. But the new genetic information must somehow be generated during that subsequent evolution of the gene. To explain how Darwinian processes can generate new and meaningful genetic information, Darwinists must provide a detailed account of how a duplicate copy of a gene can evolve into an entirely new gene. But ask Darwinists for details as to how the duplicate copy then starts to perform some new function, and you probably won’t get any.
- Here’s the answer I was talking about. Except he has an ultimatum for Darwinists: they must show precisely how one gene becomes another very different gene, step by step, before they can be believed. Before responding to this I feel it is important to include his full argument.

Yet the crucial question that must be answered by the gene duplication mechanism is, exactly how does the duplicate copy acquire an entirely new function? Stephen Meyer explains in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington that it is difficult to imagine how duplicated genes acquire new functions since they must successfully undergo “neutral evolution” and traverse a random walk in order to acquire a new function:
- The crux of this point is that the likelihood of a gene incurring numerous random mutations, surviving each, and eventually having a new function is extremely small. And in this much, he is right. But he is too narrow-sighted to realize the flaw of his logic: he is working with too short a timeframe. Imagine a gene duplicating itself numerous times, then a certain percentage of those genes mutate every generation and make more duplicates. Pretty soon you have a LOT of variation, without many generations. Granted, early in the evolutionary process, most of the host organisms will die without reproducing. But a certain percentage will survive because the mutations will be advantageous or at least neutral in survival terms. Then add the hundreds of millions of years upon which evolution is founded, and it becomes more preposterous to think that complexity wouldn’t arise via natural selection.

Rather than giving a step-by-step mutational account of how a duplicated gene acquires a new function, Dawkins’ article substitutes bland evidence of sequence identity between different genes as evidence for Darwinian evolution by gene duplication. Dawkins gives the example of the evolution of various globin genes that he claims arose via gene duplication. His evidence is that “areful letter-by-letter analysis shows that these different kinds of globin genes are literally cousins of each other, literally members of a family.” Of course the “areful letter-by-letter analysis” simply means finding amino acid sequences that are similar or identical between two different proteins. David Swift explains that such claims of relationship “are inferred solely on the basis of assuming a common ancestry and then deriving a route of polypeptide evolution, typically the most parsimonious one, to fit the known present day amino acid sequences and consistent with the observed pattern of conserved amino acids.”
- Here is Dawkins backing his point by showing similarity among variant genes. We know, for example, that all animals, and thus gene pools, are technically “cousins” because we can trace back to a common ancestor. For many of these ancestors, we have fossil records. So we don’t assume ancestry, as Luskin says. We prove it with empirical evidence, then work from that basis. Once again, many ID’ists like demanding complete fossil records before they believe this, which (of course) we do not have and will never have due to the rarity of fossils. But partial records, radio-carbon dating techniques, and DNA analysis of these animals are usually enough for rational individuals.

Part #2 Cont.

Returning to the topic of junk DNA (part of the justification for gene duplication accounting for complexity, because we have large amounts of duplicated genes).
Luskin: Dawkins' article has other problems. He writes that “most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information.” This is another good example demonstrating how Neo-Darwinism led may scientists to wrongly believe that non-coding DNA was largely junk. Dawkins’ statement is directly refuted by the findings of recent studies, which the Washington Post reported that scientists have now found that “the vast majority of the 3 billion ‘letters’ of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” That strikes a fatal blow to Dawkins’ argument:
- While it may strike a “fatal blow” to Dawkins position on junk DNA (written prior to the findings Luskin cites), it does nothing to shatter his central argument. In fact, this is simply off-topic, yet Luskin enjoys acting like it lends his argument more force. All it (possibly) shows is that “junk” DNA may have purpose in an organism, rather than simply existing within the genome with no specific purpose. First, he doesn’t show that all “junk” DNA has function. Some that was previously thought to have no function, does. Great, but that doesn’t equal correlation for all junk DNA, which, again, makes up the majority of our genome. There’s a lot to account for. Second, while this may make it even slightly more difficult for organisms to exist, it once again comes nowhere near proving that organisms could never exist via evolutionary processes, given sufficient time.

...

- It is also good to point out that Luskin wants to see purpose at each level of mutation. The presence of junk DNA, not all accounted for in terms of function, suggests that perhaps they don't always need a function. But even assuming they do, intermediate levels of mutation can and do have function. For example, a common ID argument is "An eye is not useful unless it is complete. It could not have evolved because it would have had to evolve simultaneously to become an eye. Step by step mutation could not have happened because it is not functional until there is sight." This is a great example of the "always needs function" argument they make. yet, in this instance there IS always function. Eyes began as light-sensitive patches of skin that helped organisms detect light/dark, move around, and eventually identify threats. Partially mutated eyes are indeed functional, and it is easy to see how they were built up to their current complexity, because increased eyesight is advantageous in a survival sense.

Of course, not all examples are as cohesive as the eye. But they don't need to be, because it shows that it is possible. Some will fail because of the difficulty of retaining function and adapting in advantageous ways over successive generations. But some will succeed, and even if its a vast minority, it proves the point.

Post #3 of 3: The Final Point

I am done with the scientific rebuttal of the argument. Hopefully it is obvious that, if not 100% proven, the case for gene duplication accounting for genome complexity is well defended and a very reasonable position.

I turn now to simple logic, and the biggest foe facing ID advocates.

Luskin: Thus, in order for Darwinists to convince me that Darwinian evolution can produce new information, at minimum I need to see a step-by-step mutational account of how they can take the sentence:
“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”
and evolve it into:
“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”
by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution.
- Notice a trend with his chief questions regarding evolution? He’s demanding things. Luskin, apparently, wouldn’t be appeased until we tracked tens of thousands of generations of an animal and showed how a specific strand of DNA became another. We have observed mutation and variation over successive generations in animals whose lifespans are very short. But for new “useful” genetic code to arise via natural selection would take even longer.

So no, we can’t observe it currently. That admission is a death blow to the theory, right? Wrong.

You know what the one thing was that I could not find in Luskin’s article? An argument for ID, rather than against evolution. An alternative theory. Evidence for a belief in the creator that presumably affects evolution. Means by which we could begin to test for such non-evolutionary affects. ANYTHING!!

But wait, he offers us this:
Additionally, Richard Dawkins’ article admits that “DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome's capacity in bits too, if we wish.” That’s an interesting analogy, reminiscent of the design overtones of Dawkins concession elsewhere that “he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).) Of course, Dawkins believes that the processes of random mutation and unguided selection ultimately built “he machine code of the genes” and made it “uncannily computer-like.” But I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence.
- Let me word the argument in a way that is exactly the same, but less flattering to ID’ists. “Dawkins says DNA is very computer-like. Humans build computers, so some intelligence must have built us, right?” He takes an analogy and makes it literal to suit his purpose. Of course, to the religious slant, this sounds fine, except that there’s the pesky thing called evolution to deal with. And for some reason, ID’ists think that if they tear down evolution, their “theory” (I use the term loosely) wins by default. When, in fact, even if evolution is wrong, there’s still no reason to believe ID because it lacks any evidence at all. None. Ziltch. Kaput. A new reasonable theory could replace it, but certainly not one that has nothing backing it except “

- So, sticking with that train of thought, let’s assume Luskin is right, and current evolutionary theory can’t account for “macroevolution” as ushome called it. Btw, he delighted in pointing out a Darwinist coined the term macroevolution. Pointless, really, especially given the era (the 20’s, well before modern technology revolutionized our understanding of the world). Anyway, even if we assume Luskin is correct about this (he’s not, as I showed), it doesn’t invalidate evolution as a whole, which is currently the best explanation for life as we know it. It may need refinement, and will continue to be refined and improved (probably to appease irrational religious fanatics, if nothing else), but saying “it’s not 100% right at this moment” does not mean “it’s actually 0% right.” To use an analogy, it would be like flat-earth believers saying “science says that the earth isn’t perfectly round, so we’re right.” In fact, the earth is slightly oblong, not round, so the first part of their argument is correct, but certainly not the latter.

- And if evolution does indeed need tweaking, for God’s sake let’s have it refined through legitimate scientific inquiry, not religious ranting that amounts to nothing except paranoia at the prospect that evolution could question their strongly-held beliefs.

- As before, this isn’t for ushome’s sake, who I’m a bit annoyed has even made me go to such lengths to refute his persistent tactics. This is for anyone interested in evolution, or who needed to see justification for evolutionary theory on these matters (or arguments against ID).

^agree 100%. i find it rather funny though that creationists who are PAYED to do this stuff are not even versed enough in the subject to call out any REAL arguments hampering traditional macroevolution{i.e, the one i TRIED to convey a page or two back concerning alleales/stop codons/multiple tranlations required before a phenotype is produced}.
no, theyd rather stick to sumthing silly like "information" in the genome{the definition to which they themselves wont be able to give u as they constantly mix up INFORMATION with observable and non harmful change in the entire GENE/phenotype}. its a FACT that new information is added every time a minor or major mutations takes place. otherwise, the world wud be RID OF CANCER!

just silly. anyhow, ur right, just because traditional evolution MIGHT not account for all phenomenon{and the above example isnt even an ARGUMENT against the thing} doesnt mean a very specific form of I.D that the other purson proposes, is.

I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

We figured that one out.

Too long for me to read.

Originally posted by JackieCD
Too long for me to read.

I tried to be a brief as possible.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Post #3 of 3: The Final Point

I am done with the scientific rebuttal of the argument. Hopefully it is obvious that, if not 100% proven, the case for gene duplication accounting for genome complexity is well defended and a very reasonable position.

I turn now to simple logic, and the biggest foe facing ID advocates.

Luskin: Thus, in order for Darwinists to convince me that Darwinian evolution can produce new information, at minimum I need to see a step-by-step mutational account of how they can take the sentence:
“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”
and evolve it into:
“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”
by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution.
- Notice a trend with his chief questions regarding evolution? He’s demanding things. Luskin, apparently, wouldn’t be appeased until we tracked tens of thousands of generations of an animal and showed how a specific strand of DNA became another. We have observed mutation and variation over successive generations in animals whose lifespans are very short. But for new “useful” genetic code to arise via natural selection would take even longer.

So no, we can’t observe it currently. That admission is a death blow to the theory, right? Wrong.

You know what the one thing was that I could not find in Luskin’s article? An argument for ID, rather than against evolution. An alternative theory. Evidence for a belief in the creator that presumably affects evolution. Means by which we could begin to test for such non-evolutionary affects. ANYTHING!!

But wait, he offers us this:
Additionally, Richard Dawkins’ article admits that “DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome's capacity in bits too, if we wish.” That’s an interesting analogy, reminiscent of the design overtones of Dawkins concession elsewhere that “he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).) Of course, Dawkins believes that the processes of random mutation and unguided selection ultimately built “he machine code of the genes” and made it “uncannily computer-like.” But I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence.
- Let me word the argument in a way that is exactly the same, but less flattering to ID’ists. “Dawkins says DNA is very computer-like. Humans build computers, so some intelligence must have built us, right?” He takes an analogy and makes it literal to suit his purpose. Of course, to the religious slant, this sounds fine, except that there’s the pesky thing called evolution to deal with. And for some reason, ID’ists think that if they tear down evolution, their “theory” (I use the term loosely) wins by default. When, in fact, even if evolution is wrong, there’s still no reason to believe ID because it lacks any evidence at all. None. Ziltch. Kaput. A new reasonable theory could replace it, but certainly not one that has nothing backing it except “

- So, sticking with that train of thought, let’s assume Luskin is right, and current evolutionary theory can’t account for “macroevolution” as ushome called it. Btw, he delighted in pointing out a Darwinist coined the term macroevolution. Pointless, really, especially given the era (the 20’s, well before modern technology revolutionized our understanding of the world). Anyway, even if we assume Luskin is correct about this (he’s not, as I showed), it doesn’t invalidate evolution as a whole, which is currently the best explanation for life as we know it. It may need refinement, and will continue to be refined and improved (probably to appease irrational religious fanatics, if nothing else), but saying “it’s not 100% right at this moment” does not mean “it’s actually 0% right.” To use an analogy, it would be like flat-earth believers saying “science says that the earth isn’t perfectly round, so we’re right.” In fact, the earth is slightly oblong, not round, so the first part of their argument is correct, but certainly not the latter.

- And if evolution does indeed need tweaking, for God’s sake let’s have it refined through legitimate scientific inquiry, not religious ranting that amounts to nothing except paranoia at the prospect that evolution could question their strongly-held beliefs.

- As before, this isn’t for ushome’s sake, who I’m a bit annoyed has even made me go to such lengths to refute his persistent tactics. This is for anyone interested in evolution, or who needed to see justification for evolutionary theory on these matters (or arguments against ID).

if im ever in court, can you be my lawyer?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm pretty sure that ushomefree is just trolling.

True, which is why I specified that my response was not intended for him, because I don't expect any changes in his attitude and tactics. But if enough people see the rebuttal, either as a justification for evolution, or just a crippling knock against ID, it will do some good.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if im ever in court, can you be my lawyer?

Sure.



...though I don't know the first thing about law. Somehow I doubt internet debating skills translate directly to the courtroom...but I guess one can hope.

tinkabear

Originally posted by DigiMark007
True, which is why I specified that my response was not intended for him, because I don't expect any changes in his attitude and tactics. But if enough people see the rebuttal, either as a justification for evolution, or just a crippling knock against ID, it will do some good.



Sure.



...though I don't know the first thing about law. Somehow I doubt internet debating skills translate directly to the courtroom...but I guess one can hope.

tinkabear

you should become a lawyer then. your a VERY good debater, and you'd do very well. you provide very good arguments, word them well and substantiate them much better than pretty much anyone else in the forum, although leonheartmm and shaky come close. and when you do become a lawyer, ima call you and higher u.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
tinkabear Aww... cute.

Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.

Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Aww... cute.

Anyway, I don't get why Dawkins didn't just point out whole genome duplication as a rebuttal against the "impossibility of new 'information'" non-argument or observed Drosophila speciation among others as a rebuttal against the "microevolution vs macroevolution" non-argument.

I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument?

Once again, it's gene duplication, not genome. But read my response to ushome's article to get a better understanding of how it adds to total genome information. It's back on the last page.

Shakya's newspaper analogy works fairly well too.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you should become a lawyer then. your a VERY good debater, and you'd do very well. you provide very good arguments, word them well and substantiate them much better than pretty much anyone else in the forum, although leonheartmm and shaky come close. and when you do become a lawyer, ima call you and higher u.

Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.

Fine. I should have said two newspaper articles.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks. I'm a good writer, and am not afraid to admit that. But writing and debating, while related, are separate endeavors. I can speak eloquently enough, but oral debate is a definite skill that is quite a bit removed from debating in the written word. It doesn't necessarily translate quite as well, and I'm usually at more of a disadvantage when I have to speak my ideas rather than write them out.

somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Fine. I should have said two newspaper articles.
even with 2 articles you could write 1 new 1. however a duplicated phrase or sentence may have been a better example for your case

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Whole genome duplication does not increase the amount of new information (unless getting two copies of the same newspaper will make me more informed). How does drosophila speciation rebutt the "micro vs. macro" argument? For the former:Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, two news papers cannot make YOU smarter, but I can cut two news papers apart word by word and write a new article that wasn't in ether paper. For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm unfamiliar with the term Drosophila speciation, though I'm probably just not familiar with the term rather than the evolutionary event it refers to. Anyway, Dawkins did mention gene duplicate (not genome duplication) as part of his argument. But he doesn't devote an extended period of time to it like I did because he takes it for granted as fact what I had to spell out to appease the ID people. My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the former: For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

The problem is, we humans have put up a wall (species) that really isn't a wall, but a line in nature.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My bad. Drosophila is a genus of fruit flies - a commonly used lab model for a variety of reasons including their short life cycle.

Many thanks. I've actually referred to fruit fly research in posts, but didn't know the technical term for it.

And yes, it would throw a wrench into the ID argument (even besides my comprehensive rebuttal on the last page...have to plug it as much as possible. It took me a while.). They'd likely still trumpet the lack of increased "information" (which would be sufficiently defined to erroneously support themselves) but observed evolution on such a large level is pretty much the final step in solidifying any remaining (legit) complaints.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
somehow i doubt you have a hard time articulating yourself. a good writer tends to be a good speaker. i am not a good writer and it shows when i speak. im sure you would do well with debate. i can tell you do your research. if ur not gonna be a lawyer(which i think you should ) what are you right now or what profession are you going to be in?

You'd be surprised. I tend to forget points when I'm talking, or bring something up and fail to support it sufficiently, because the justification is already in my mind but I don't articulate it. I'm more thorough when writing because I can look over everything and fix it...generally not everything comes out right the first time, which it would need to in a debate. I suppose that would be remedied with some prep for a courtroom setting. But being a lawyer would still be rather dull (imo, at least).

But thanks. And I'm an English teacher. Or will be once I find a job ( ).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For the latter, I thought the whole crux of the micro macro non-argument was that genetic differences couldn't accumulate sufficiently to produce speciation; that while changes occur within a species, no species can become another species. Drosophila species have been observed to diverge into other reproductively isolated species.
I think the idea is that flies will always make flies.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I think the idea is that flies will always make flies.

Then how would you explain this:?

100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then how would you explain this:?

100 million years ago, 90% of all species on Earth were different from today. 200 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today and from 100 million years ago. 300 million years ago 90% of all species on Earth were different from today, from 200 million years ago and from 100 million years ago.
That would depend on the