One of many problems with Evolution

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:48 pm

It really is a treat to read your fumbling about, chiro.

Are you ever gonna take me off the foe list, buddy?

-TG

by **patrickaa317** on Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:49 pm

oVo wrote:
Every culture on the planet has a creation story,
why did Jesus wait so long to show up?

Within the Bible, "the creation story" and Jesus are completely segregated so I'm not sure what your question is there.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:46 am

universalchiro wrote:Goran, it so sad to read how little you know about genetics and evolution, then be so confident that you won. Poor thing, here is a tip for you, for any change in eye color of offspring, or change in any hair color in offspring or change in blood type of offspring, or change in any external feature, it is all based on information already existing in the DNA code. It's the DNA code that has the information already. So a recessive eye color such as blue from two parents that both have recessive brown eyes, is exclusively based from the information already existing in the DNA from both parents via their chromosomes. This is in no way evolution. And the same for blood type.

So do birds have the exact same DNA as the dinosaurs you believe they came from?

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:54 am

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:He changed the subject because you clearly aren't listening and he probably doesn't wish to waste his time. There are hundreds of pages in this forum where myself and others with a scientific background have covered why evolution is a fact, and yet you creationists and I.D.ers refuse to acknowledge it and pretend you know better. Denial, denial, denial is the name of your game.

The argument of design is just plain false, a construct of a superficial mind. The argument of irreducible complexity is similarly ridiculous, a "logic" of the religious. Nobody once said that fully modern cells sprang into being and began to function normally, as you so mistakenly assert.

Nature does not follow logic any more than it follows mathematical models. These things can approximate and help to understand nature, but don't for a second believe they are absolute.

All of your arguments you prattle on about have been debunked multiple times. Get over it.

-TG

I think you misunderstand my point of “Ridicule is not an argument.”

I realize that you disagree with me and others. And in turn I and many others disagree with you. However, there is a distinct difference between how we react back.

I have never called anyone a name or tried to paint someone with a view alternately to me as crazy, idiot, foolish, etc. A persons view or stance on a topic (factual or not) is not based on that person’s personal character (unless the topic is specifically about that person). So when I approach this, I am interested in seeing the other side’s facts, methods, examples, etc of the topic at hand.

However, I have frequently (here and other places) been called names for holding a view point. I present views and ideas to the topic at hand and I get called names and the submitted thoughts are rejected, not based on a rebuttal to them directly, but to the “fact” I am a close-minded idiot that is diluted by my religion I was raised with. That is not an argument against my presented statements. True, my viewpoint could be and may be wrong. So deal with that, don’t attack the person.

That Abusive ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy and does not, in any way, negate the claim made by the person.

So my original statement “Ridicule is not an argument.” is true. Making fun of, insulting or calling names to a person who presents a claim, does not invalidate the claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So……..You stated

TA1LGUNN3R wrote: “All of your arguments you prattle on about have been debunked multiple times.”

and

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:There are hundreds of pages in this forum where myself and others with a scientific background have covered why evolution is a fact, and yet you creationists and I.D.ers refuse to acknowledge it and pretend you know better. Denial, denial, denial is the name of your game.

Is it not interesting that both sides can make this claim (and do)? Each side feels the evidence is on their side. No one seems to want to budge either way. And the world goes round and round.

But what I also find interesting, specifically as it pertains to subjects of science, is that there are no threads about:

Do you know why there are no thread topics on these, because they can be validated and have been via scientific experiments. They are predictive, repeatable and consistent.

If creationists (young/old) were really anti-science as it is often asserted during these discussions, can you explain why we don’t dismiss there laws and facts as well? But why do people (atheists/theists) accept and agree on the topics I listed above (and many others). It is because both of us as an inclusive group are not anti-science.

So now back to the OP topic….If the mechanism, functions, predictive ability and origins or naturalistic evolution/information origin/specie differentiation/etc could be presented in a way with data similar to the above topics, there would be no debate.

It is for this specific reason that there is not consensus. The data is not there that proves it as FACT or a LAW.

Several Agreed to aspects of the discussion:

Several NOT-Agreed to aspects of the discussion:

The debate many times gets to this point. “Evolution is not about information origin, it is about how information is used and transferred from next generation to next, eventually developing new systems, etc, etc, etc. We don’t need to talk about where the information came from since that is not part of evolution.”

And I would say that is partially true. Evolution is about how information is used and passed on (whether it be macro or micro).
But it is still very important to answer the question “Where did the information come from?”

For if the information came from nothing and was randomly generated over millions of years and by a purely naturalistic process (i.e. no intelligence) the implications of how evolution might or could work (macro/micro) would be drastically different that if we found that the information used needed to come from an intelligent source.

Here we have two opposing views from this thread

universalchiro wrote:Evolutionists always skip a step and jump to natural selection, the step they skip is you can't have natural selection , nor artificial selection w/o the information already existing in the DNA. and there is no reproduction w/o that information to replicate already existing in the DNA code.

So don't bother arguing evolution until you figure out where the information came from in the first place for replication and for natural selection . Every evolutionist has the cart before the horse.

and

DoomYoshi wrote:2) . The p-value of life happening spontaneously is 1. It happened. Life exists. . Deal with it. What are the odds that I typed this sentence?
3) Proteins don't need to randomly come into existence for evolution to be truth. Evolution is the theory that life forms evolve into other ones. . The abiotic origins of life has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. .

So here we have two views. One says information theory is important before we discuss evolution and the other says it is not important. One assumes that information naturally happened in the past some way because we are here so deal with it and one assumes that it was an intelligence that created the information we see. Same evidence, different conclusions.

So now let’s look at a little example and see where we get.

There is a jar with 5 quarters, 5 dimes, 5 nickels and 5 pennies sitting on a ledge of a table. On the floor there is a 10x 10 grid with sections that coin can fit into.
For this example we will not discuss where the coins, table, floor, etc came from (even though that is an important question for another discussion). There are also other factors we are not including (how the jar tipped, which side, etc), but those just make the situation more complex and less likely anyway.

Scenario 1
A person enters a room and the jar is tipped over and all the coins are in the grid.
Some heads, some tails, some in grids by themselves, some not

The results are random and unorganized. Unlikely that this outcome would happen but it did happen none the less. Most people would not give it a second thought except to pick up the coins and put them back.

What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Chance or Purposed arrangement (agency/intelligence)? I think we could all say chance with very little issue.

Scenario 2
A person enters a room and the jar is tipped over and all the coins are in the grid.
All coins are heads, some in grids by themselves, some not

Random and unorganized but seemingly more organized than the first scenario. Unlikely that this outcome would happen but it did happen none the less.

What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Chance or Purposed arrangement? I mean they are all heads, that is crazy but, I think we could all say chance can explain this not purposed arrangement.

Scenario 3
A person enters a room and the jar is tipped over and all the coins are in the grid.
All coins are heads and by themselves in individual grids

Now this seems to be a bit more curious. There seems to be a pattern, no tails and no coins in the same grid. Unlikely that this outcome would happen but it did happen none the less.

What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Chance or Purposed arrangement? I mean they are all heads, all in their own grid that appears to be even more “ordered” but, I think we could all say chance can explain this not purposed arrangement.

Scenario 4
A person enters a room and the jar is tipped over and all the coins are in the grid.
All dimes are heads, pennies are tails, nickels are heads and quarters are tails. All coins are in their own grid space

Now this seems to be a bit more curious that number 3. There seems to be an even more distinct pattern. Is this result really due to a random fall or to an agent that arranged the coins? Unlikely that this outcome would happen but it did happen none the less.

What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Chance or Purposed arrangement? Well it really is not different (probability wise) than scenario 3. I mean all of one type of coin as heads ro tails is equal chance. So while it may look more ordered, it really is just as random as #3. So I think we could all say chance.

Scenario 5
A person enters a room and the jar is tipped over and all the coins are in the grid.
All dimes are heads, pennies are tails, nickels are heads and quarters are tails.All coins are in their own grid space.
All coins of the same type are arranged along the edge of the grid at each corner.

Now can this be random? Yes it could. But there seems to be an even more distinct pattern. Is this result really due to a random fall or to an agent that arranged the coins?
Every single scenario has 20 coins with 2 sides each and 100 spaces in a grid.

But....What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Would you honestly believe it happened by chance or that an agent arranged the coins?
Is there anyone here who for a moment, if confronted with this situation would think “huh random chance.“ I do not think so.
Now I fully agree, it is possible, but it is not probably and not what we would expect. This would be accepted by us as purposed arrangement of the coins.
Why is it that for the first 4 scenarios we can except random chance and ignore any intentional order (even if it may appear) but with #5 we see it immediately. Same odds for each outcome MUCH different explanation for the outcome.

So if this simple example shows that we would see order and agency in the arranging of #5, why can we ignore the order and arrangement required for protein building, DNA or a host of other ordered biological systems which is a vastly larger and more complex system than described above? We also need to remember about all the sub systems and other components required for these things to work properly inside the cell, also have specified arrangements that allow them to do their jobs, which requires many more compatible Scenario #5's to be completed over and over and over with interaction to each other.

For all of you who may still deny purposed arrangement in the natural world, do you deny you would see purposed arrangement in scenario #5 if it was found in your house?
Would you question who arranged the coins on your floor but still deny there is an arranger of the HUGE amount of information in reality?

Thanks

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:25 am

DoomYoshi wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
The original post was that there is no evidence or naturalistic way that evolution, no matter the time given, has the ability to create the life we see today.
There are too many things inside even the simplest life form to haev happened by chance due to natural selection and random mutations.
Too many interdependent machines inside cells that only serve a purpose when used together with other parts.
-Please explain how DNA came to be.
-Please explain how a cell with all its required parts, all happened at once.
-And if you claim it did not happen all at once, which functional parts were not needed and why?

Well, I'm pretty sure this is the fourth time I've answered in this thread, but here we go again:
Name one such machine.

Here you go.
Any complex machine system has components that are there because another component depends on them.
Look at a computer. Without a CPU, a mouse and keyboard and monitor would be not function.
Likewise a computer with no input devices would also not work well.
If there was all the componets needed except the power distribution system, it would not work.
And there are many other examples of things humans have made that can follow this.
If you teak out even a very simple part to a complex machine system, the entire system functions poorly if at all.

The same can vbe said about biological systems due to the fact they are the most complex systems we know about.
The most complex molecular machines are found within cells. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_ ... Biological

“Today biology is revealing the importance of ‘molecular machines’ and of other highly organized molecular structures that carry out the complex physico-chemical processes on which life is based.” - Marco Piccolino, “Biological machines: from mills to molecules,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, Vol. 1:149-153 (November, 2000).

“[m]ost cellular functions are executed by protein complexes, acting like molecular machines.”- Thomas Köcher & Giulio Superti-Furga, "Mass spectrometry-based functional proteomics: from molecular machines to protein networks," Nature Methods, Vol. 4(10):807-815 (October, 2007).

A molecular machine is “an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, or energy from one to another in a predetermined manner.” - Tinh-Alfredo V. Khuong, Jose E. Junez, Carlos E. Godinez, and Miguel A. Garcia-Garibay, "Crystalline Molecular Machines: A Quest Toward Solid-State Dynamics and Function," Accounts of Chemical Research, Vol. 39(6):413-422 (2006).

Shortly after 1950 science advanced to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. Slowly, painstakingly, the structures of more and more biological molecules were elucidated, and the way they work inferred from countless experiments. The cumulative results show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines--machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along "highways" made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape. Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus, the details of life are finely calibrated and the machinery of life enormously complex. - Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pp. 4-5 (Free Press, 1996).

The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts. - Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998).

2 Examples: These serve a purpose on the cellular level and other machines need them (and vice versa)
Spliceosome - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spliceosome
Ribosome - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:55 am

DoomYoshi wasn't questioning your description of parts of the cell as machines -- he knows that this is a well-used rhetorical device. He was asking which one of these "machines" ceases to have a function outside of a cell. You failed to provide a single example of that. I'm not sure that there are any. A protein doesn't need to be in a cell to catalyze a chemical reaction. A spliceosome would still splice a RNA strand if it were outside of a cell. A ribosome could still synthesize proteins outside a cell. It is widely thought that the mitochondrion was originally its own bacterium, doing things that eukaryotic cells could not do, and was essentially enveloped in the eukaryotic cells that formed the basis of organisms such as us. This is why your analogy to a computer is inappropriate: a computer mouse wouldn't do anything without the CPU. A protein can still catalyze a reaction even if it doesn't have a nucleus "telling it what to do."

WidowMakers wrote:If creationists (young/old) were really anti-science as it is often asserted during these discussions, can you explain why we don’t dismiss there laws and facts as well?

Yes: these other "laws" and "facts" aren't threatening to your worldview, to the answers you previously decided had to be true without examining anything about the world. If the Bible said that water is made of hydrogen and fluorine, you can bet there'd be creationists telling us physicists and chemists are wrong. Creationism is the stance that we are allowed to use logical inference and induction based on available data to study the world and determine how it works, except in those instances where the Bible tells us how the world works. Those areas are off limits to critical thinking. Any time you say "the answer has to be this way because someone said so," you are being fundamentally anti-science. You don't get to wear the cover of science if you don't even believe in the fundamental primacy of the scientific method. Science is a process, a way of knowing -- not a collection of facts and theories.

So now back to the OP topic….If the mechanism, functions, predictive ability and origins or naturalistic evolution/information origin/specie differentiation/etc could be presented in a way with data similar to the above topics, there would be no debate.

It is for this specific reason that there is not consensus. The data is not there that proves it as FACT or a LAW.

I'll Ignore the fact that there is wide, undeniable scientific consensus on the question of evolution because there's a more relevant point here. If you went to an archaeological dig and found some teacups deep under the soil, would you assert that we can only be sure an ancient civilization lived there by starting the Universe over and watching?

For all of you who may still deny purposed arrangement in the natural world, do you deny you would see purposed arrangement in scenario #5 if it was found in your house?
Would you question who arranged the coins on your floor but still deny there is an arranger of the HUGE amount of information in reality?

It seems pretty clear to me who is using ridicule as an argument.

by **WILLIAMS5232** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:20 am

if i left a room that had a jar of coins on it, and came back the next day to observe the coins laid out as in scenario 5, i would automatically assume someone came in and arranged them.

but, if i had left a room (infinitely large) that housed gazillions of jars of pennies and grids and tables that where tipped over, and found one, way over there somewhere in the middle, where the coins where arranged in the order like scenario 5, i would assume it happened by chance.

when i think about the odds that it would take for life to form, i also think about the odds that it would take for someone 6000 years ago to imagine and write a book full of unexplainable events.

for me, i can't wrap my head around a vacant space always existing, i can only imagine a beginning of something, but i'm probably wrong with that.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:24 am

WidowMakers wrote:Here you go.
Any complex machine system has components that are there because another component depends on them.
Look at a computer. Without a CPU, a mouse and keyboard and monitor would be not function.
Likewise a computer with no input devices would also not work well.

Incorrect. Headless servers are common as dirt. The CPU is the only required part of the computer. And even a CPU can be as simple as a simple microcontroller.

Mouse, keyboard, etc. are all optional... No input devices at all are needed. Commands can be relayed to and output received from the CPU by any number of means, as long as there is some kind of data interface.

If there was all the componets needed except the power distribution system, it would not work.

And there are many other examples of things humans have made that can follow this.
If you teak out even a very simple part to a complex machine system, the entire system functions poorly if at all.

Well in the first place it's fallacious to compare computers (a man-made, designed object) to living organisms. However, consider this:

You have a computer. A basic "pc" computer, with a generic motherboard, CPU, GPU, optical drive maybe, standard ATX case... Maybe you bought the computer as a package or assembled it yourself from various parts, doesn't matter.

Say, your computer is getting sluggish and doesn't run the latest FPS games smoothly anymore. You take out the 2GB DDR2 module and replace it with a larger RAM module, maybe with a lower latency too. Now you just replaced a very simple and small part of the computer with a completely different part - maybe one made by a completely different manufacturer. And as a result, your computer works better. That's basically evolution!

And RAM is just a simple small piece - although crucial. You can as well take out the GPU/video card, and replace it with a newer model. But wait, there's more: maybe your video card breaks, and you need to use the computer while you wait for the new one to be delivered in 4-6 weeks. But don't worry! Your computer has a vestigial integrated GPU which fills in and provides basic GPU functionality so your computer stays alive, until it can evolve itself a new organ to replace the old one. Wow!

WidowMakers wrote:Is it not interesting that both sides can make this claim (and do)? Each side feels the evidence is on their side. No one seems to want to budge either way. And the world goes round and round.

But what I also find interesting, specifically as it pertains to subjects of science, is that there are no threads about:

1) Why chemistry is wrong
2) Why there is no gravity
3) Why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not always true
4) Why photosynthesis (plants generating energy) is wrong

Because these are not threatening to the religious views of certain fundamentalists. Be honest: If the bible didn't have the creation story which conflicts with evolution, do you think anyone would go to the lengths they go to try to deny evolution? The bible and fundamentalist christian religious views are the only reasons why people try to "debunk" (in the most generous sense of the word) evolution...

It's not specific to christianity either... almost all religions have fundamentalist sects which see evolution as a contradiction to their dogma and thus consider it a threat. The problem is, when you set out to find evidence to support the conclusion which you have already decided must be correct, you're not going to get good science as a result. It just doesn't work that way. It just ends up as a convoluted way of deluding yourself.

WidowMakers wrote:Now can this be random? Yes it could. But there seems to be an even more distinct pattern. Is this result really due to a random fall or to an agent that arranged the coins?
Every single scenario has 20 coins with 2 sides each and 100 spaces in a grid.

All of these events happened which means the likely hood they did happen =1.
All of them have the same possibility of happening again 200^20.

But....What would you think if you walked into a room and saw this? Would you honestly believe it happened by chance or that an agent arranged the coins?
Is there anyone here who for a moment, if confronted with this situation would think “huh random chance.“ I do not think so.

Click image to enlarge.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:38 am

WidowMakers wrote:But what I also find interesting, specifically as it pertains to subjects of science, is that there are no threads about:

1) Why chemistry is wrong
2) Why there is no gravity
3) Why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not always true
4) Why photosynthesis (plants generating energy) is wrong

Do you know why there are no thread topics on these, because they can be validated and have been via scientific experiments. They are predictive, repeatable and consistent.

1) We know that Oxygen and Hydrogen make water. There have been studies and tests. We can use this info to predict and know what will and will not happen next time elements interact.
2) We know there is gravity. Studies have been shown and equations made to help us predict what happens when we drop things or how large objects interact with each other in the universe (planets/stars/etc)
3) We know that all systems run down. They lose energy (in a closed system) until they reach equilibrium. Again many tests have been done and that is why this is called a LAW. It is how things behave.
4) After analyzing plants and how they work, we can see that the intricate systems setup (however they arrived to be: natural evolution, creation, Theistic evolution, etc) they work in a particular way.

If creationists (young/old) were really anti-science as it is often asserted during these discussions, can you explain why we don’t dismiss there laws and facts as well?

Because creationists tend to be logically inconsistent. Issues like the law of gravity don't threaten a creationists' fringe religious worldview, thus the creationists' faith doesn't interrupt the analysis. Nevertheless, evolutionary biology and evolution in general do threaten their worldview, so their faith ruptures their ability to understand.

Or the Creationist is being a troll. It's the Stupid/Troll Dilemma at play.

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:08 am

natty dread wrote:
Well in the first place it's fallacious to compare computers (a man-made, designed object) to living organisms. However, consider this:

You have a computer. A basic "pc" computer, with a generic motherboard, CPU, GPU, optical drive maybe, standard ATX case... Maybe you bought the computer as a package or assembled it yourself from various parts, doesn't matter.

Say, your computer is getting sluggish and doesn't run the latest FPS games smoothly anymore. You take out the 2GB DDR2 module and replace it with a larger RAM module, maybe with a lower latency too. Now you just replaced a very simple and small part of the computer with a completely different part - maybe one made by a completely different manufacturer. And as a result, your computer works better. That's basically evolution!

And RAM is just a simple small piece - although crucial. You can as well take out the GPU/video card, and replace it with a newer model. But wait, there's more: maybe your video card breaks, and you need to use the computer while you wait for the new one to be delivered in 4-6 weeks. But don't worry! Your computer has a vestigial integrated GPU which fills in and provides basic GPU functionality so your computer stays alive, until it can evolve itself a new organ to replace the old one. Wow!

I find it interesting that your example supports my view point.

Then you say that is basically evolution?????
No it is not.
That is intelligent design!!

That was a guided, informed, intelligent procedural order of events that I chose to do to fix or enhance my computer.

180 degrees in the opposite direction that naturalistic unguided blind evolution.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:47 am

WidowMakers wrote:I find it interesting that your example supports my view point.

You have evolved to find it interesting.

My computer gets sluggish....
I take out the RAM....
I replace a very simple piece.....

Then you say that is basically evolution?????
No it is not.

Yes it is too, because you are evolution in this analogy! You're completely moving the goalposts by reinterpreting the analogy to suit your own rhetoric.

Which is why I gave the caveat in the very beginning that:

Well in the first place it's fallacious to compare computers (a man-made, designed object) to living organisms.

Which you ignored! Like you ignored all the other parts of my post that you found inconvenient. You are behaving in an intellectually dishonest way!!!

That is intelligent design!!

That was a guided, informed, intelligent procedural order of events that I chose to do to fix or enhance my computer.
I knew about what the computer was for.
I knew how it worked.
I recognized issues or needs.
I set forth to improve or correct knowing the desired outcome.

Again, the analogy loses all meaning if you start literally comparing a man-made object with a living organism.

We know computers are designed by humans. That's not news to anyone!!! So all you're really doing is stating the obvious in an attempt to somehow sneakily lend weight to your argument by hoping that the obviousness somehow transfers!!! That's not how it works!!!!!

The point being here, that you can't show the validity of "intelligent design" by comparing humans to computers. The point was to show you that it's just as easy to make analogies about computers, or cars, or whatever, in support of evolution. Analogies are tools for explaining and describing, not something that can be used as evidence.

180 degrees in the opposite direction that naturalistic unguided blind evolution.

Evolution is far from blind. It's a very simple set of rules that amounts to a very complex system of trial and error. It isn't blind - it just follows the rule of natural selection, which is a very logical set of rules that crops out bad changes and allows good changes to float atop.

Evolution is, basically, a genetic algorithm. The functionality of genetic algorithms has been undeniably 100% PROVEN in various fields, including computer science, design, etc. There are various examples of genetic algorithms at work, which result sometimes in better results than comparable manmade objects ever could. Some of these genetic algorithms model evolution of organisms very closely, which goes to show that the basic idea WORKS. All the appeals to ridicule about how "all this can't happen at random chance" melt away when you can ACTUALLY SEE THE SAME PRINCIPLE REALLY, ACTUALLY, FACTUALLY WORKING NOT ONLY IN THEORY BUT IN ACTUAL REAL LIFE!!!!!!!!

Evolution is an undeniable fact. It says nothing about the origin of the universe, or whether some entity "kickstarted" the whole process - if you want to believe such things, that's fine from the POV of evolution - evolution doesn't address those questions and is entirely compatible with them if you so wish. All it really is is a set of rules, an algorithm, for optimizing LIFE.

Also, it's kind of ironic. In their search for some greater being, some meaning in their life, these creationists actually shun the real "divine" experience: the experience of being a part of a larger whole, being a part of this amazing self-building machine that some call "life". You so desperately want your interpretation of some religious dogma to be the correct answer to everything that you fail to see the actual "god" in your life. You're too attached to your own ego to realize that you already have the things you seek within you...

Creationists: not seeing the forest from the trees.

by **WidowMakers** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:48 am

Metsfanmax wrote:DoomYoshi wasn't questioning your description of parts of the cell as machines -- he knows that this is a well-used rhetorical device. He was asking which one of these "machines" ceases to have a function outside of a cell. You failed to provide a single example of that. I'm not sure that there are any. A protein doesn't need to be in a cell to catalyze a chemical reaction. A spliceosome would still splice a RNA strand if it were outside of a cell. A ribosome could still synthesize proteins outside a cell. It is widely thought that the mitochondrion was originally its own bacterium, doing things that eukaryotic cells could not do, and was essentially enveloped in the eukaryotic cells that formed the basis of organisms such as us. This is why your analogy to a computer is inappropriate: a computer mouse wouldn't do anything without the CPU. A protein can still catalyze a reaction even if it doesn't have a nucleus "telling it what to do."

Sorry, I agree with what you said if I had said that the parts cease to function. That is not what I meant. They can still function. But the cell as a whole, depends on each of them to do a specific task.
The cell has interdependent pieces.
So what I originally said was

WidowMakers wrote:Too many interdependent machines inside cells that only serve a purpose when used together with other parts.

but it should have been written to express my thoughts as

WidowMakers wrote:Many interdependent machines inside cells must be used together in order for the cell to function (i.e. each machine has a purpose in the cell)

Plus I still don't understand how people can ignore the design argument. All of these machines and systems work to do a purpose.
They all function and have rules. In some cases they work together and in some cases by themselves.

Where did the information come from that setup the rules and processes?
We have all agreed that our computers are vastly inferior to the biological technology we see in nature.
Computers:

Do you see a pattern.

But now we get to the natural world:

So computers need intelligence to exist but vastly more complex, intricate, detailed systems in nature just can happen by chance.
And please don't go back to Natural selection did it. I know, natural selection works and does stuff.
I am still asking where the stuff that natural selection uses came from.

You can't mutate nothing into something.
You can't naturally select something from nothing.
Where did the information come from.

In every other aspect of our lives and even in the pursuit of alien life (SETI) we accept that information comes from and intelligence.
But not when we look at DNA?
Interesting.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:57 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Sorry, I agree with what you said if I had said that the parts cease to function. That is not what I meant. They can still function. But the cell as a whole, depends on each of them to do a specific task.
The cell has interdependent pieces.

The problem is that this exact argument has been presented many times and it has been answered many times. There's nothing in your argument that disproves or even discredits any of evolution.

Parts of the whole can have different functions. Plants and photosynthesis are a good example. Early plants didn't use photosynthesis. They had other means of gathering and consuming energy... there were algae, which did use photosynthesis - makes sense if you think about it: photosynthesis, a very direct means of gathering energy, was developed in a simple, small organism. These algae were at first living in symbiosis with a plant, and gradually, the plant absorbed these small organisms to gain the ability of photosynthesis for itself. Thus plants utilizing photosynthesis were born.

Similar things can be seen in animals and humans too. We have countless micro-organisms living inside us, but we also have legitimate parts of our body that used to be separate organisms but were absorbed into our bodies. We're like patchwork - all cobbled together from smaller organisms... frankensteinian monsters, the lot of us.

So, to come back to your original argument... while it may look like some part of a cel or an organism could be crucial to its function, that the larger organism couldn't function without it... that's not actually the case, because those small parts can (and did) have other functions at the time. We know the developmental (evolutionary) histories of cel engines, eyes, etc. We know how they evolved. It's similar in a way to the plant story: photosynthesis developed separately in another organism, the plant absorbed it, and millions of years later a creationist might claim "hey, this photosynthesis thing... it couldn't have evolved, because plants couldn't function without it, the whole doesn't work without this single part, etc"... but actually, plants did function without photosynthesis, they just had some alternate way of functioning before they gained a more effective engine.

WidowMakers wrote:Plus I still don't understand how people can ignore the design argument. All of these machines and systems work to do a purpose.
They all function and have rules. In some cases they work together and in some cases by themselves.

Where did the information come from that setup the rules and processes?

Where did it come from... who knows? That's getting into the ultimate origin of "life, universe and everything". We know the universe was (probably) born in the "big bang". We have no idea what, if anything, caused the big bang. Maybe someday we do, but we don't now.

That we don't know the "original cause" (or indeed if one even exists) doesn't mean that all our knowledge about what comes after it is invalid. If we knew the answer to "what caused the universe", would that somehow invalidate our observations about how the universe currently works? No, it wouldn't - only by observing how the universe works can we figure out how the universe works. What was before (if anything) is a separate question entirely.

We have all agreed that our computers are vastly inferior to the biological technology we see in nature.

Less advanced. Not necessarily inherently inferior.

Computers:

-intelligence is required develop code (language)

Actually no. See: genetic algorithms.

-Intelligence is required to design, build and distribute the hardware needed to use the software

Well, looking at Windows 8, I find it hard to imagine that any intelligence was used in making it...

But now we get to the natural world:

-chance happened to make the code (language) that biological machines use

Let's backup a bit here. We don't actually know what happened to make the "language" (ie. the rules and laws of physics) that governs the universe. That's getting again to the "original cause" question, which we can just ignore for now - because it really is a separate question.

-chance happened to make a process to compile and process the language
-chance happened to place the code in the correct place to be used
-chance happened to setup networks and information transmission between the machines
-chance happened to setup processes to correct issues withing the system
-chance happened to design, build and distribute the hardware (molecular machines) needed to use the code
-chance...

Describing this all as "chance" is overly simplistic. Firstly: If we subscribe to the idea of a deterministic universe (something that you should be totally on board with, what with "god's will" and all that jazz), then there is no such thing as chance. Initial variables were set (big bang, again: see "separate argument") and then the universe basically just plays out accordingly - like it's on rails, or a hugely complex program executing itself.

Maybe the universe is the computer, and the laws of physics are the software it runs - the entire lifetime of the universe is just an immensely complex algorithm that runs in realtime. In that case, there is no chance. Everything just happens according to the rules.

Where did the rules come from, again: separate question. Can we observe these rules and verify their existence regardless? For sure. Hence we know a lot already about how the universe works. That includes evolution. It's just another part of the big picture.

So computers need intelligence to exist but vastly more complex, intricate, detailed systems in nature just can happen by chance.
And please don't go back to Natural selection did it. I know, natural selection works and does stuff.
I am still asking where the stuff that natural selection uses came from.

The problem is that you're asking but you're not listening to the answer. If you honestly ask something, you shouldn't be like "well this answer doesn't match with my expectations so I'ma just gonna discard it and pretend I didn't hear it".

If we ignore for a moment that the universe might be deterministic, if we for the sake of argument accept the concept of "chance"... then yes, chance is part of how the machine works. But that can be said of many other machines! This CC site is a good example - it follows a plan, it executes a software, but chance (ie. dice) just happens to be part of the functionality of the software. Now, some people disagree and think there is no chance, that it's actually rigged in some way. That's beside the point though, what is perceived by us as chance, is still part of the normal functionality of the software. The software still obeys its own internal rules, and by necessity, also the external rules imposed by the environment it exists in. Chance is accounted for, it is utilized in a way that is clearly defined by the overall structure of the program flow.

Evolution is a bit of a same thing... there is "chance" involved, but only as a part of the whole, part of the system - just like chance is part of any genetic algorithm. We're all just passengers here, while this genetic algorithm known as "life" goes through iterations to produce ever more optimized lifeforms.

Hope this clarifies things up for you!

by **Metsfanmax** on Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:33 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Many interdependent machines inside cells must be used together in order for the cell to function

Sure. Evolution is very good at coming up with things that work. Cells that don't function would be discarded by natural selection.

WidowMakers wrote:Where did the information come from that setup the rules and processes?

You can't mutate nothing into something.
You can't naturally select something from nothing.
Where did the information come from.

What is this "information" you speak of? The whole point of evolution is that you don't need to have the entire specification for a human genome when you start off 4 billion years ago. That will develop as organisms get better and better at adapting to their surroundings. No one is saying that when evolution started, all the information was there so that a human could have popped out, if just the right set of random circumstances popped up. That's not how it works, because evolution is a bottom-up process, not a top-down process. The beauty of it is that you don't need to have any rules, or guidance. The only fact that matters is that organisms that are better at adapting to their surroundings are more likely to reproduce and produce more organisms like them. (Roughly.)

by **DoomYoshi** on Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:42 pm

natty dread wrote:Evolution is an undeniable fact. It says nothing about the origin of the universe, or whether some entity "kickstarted" the whole process - if you want to believe such things, that's fine from the POV of evolution - evolution doesn't address those questions and is entirely compatible with them if you so wish. All it really is is a set of rules, an algorithm, for optimizing LIFE.

This is the most important point here. The abiotic origin of life IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR EVOLUTION.

To add to the chaos, I will add another analogy. Let's look at Helium. You can cool it down, say to 0 deg C and it behaves a certain way. You can make a plot of the properties of He based on temperature at all the temperatures that I experience in Ontario. Now, if I cool down He to a thousandth of a K, it behaves in a totally different way, that is not readily apparent from my initial studies at ambient temperatures. This shows the problem of extrapolation.

Evolution is a current process, we can look at the data, and it works for 99% of things (everything in the fossil record makes sense with evolutionary processes). It doesn't follow to say anything about the extreme origins of life. That would be pretty impossible, since we are probably talking not even about cells anymore.

by **Metsfanmax** on Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:16 pm

DoomYoshi wrote:
natty dread wrote:Evolution is an undeniable fact. It says nothing about the origin of the universe, or whether some entity "kickstarted" the whole process - if you want to believe such things, that's fine from the POV of evolution - evolution doesn't address those questions and is entirely compatible with them if you so wish. All it really is is a set of rules, an algorithm, for optimizing LIFE.

This is the most important point here. The abiotic origin of life IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR EVOLUTION.

It is like arguing that all of modern cosmology is incorrect because we can't understand what caused the Big Bang.

by **oVo** on Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:19 pm

I'm thinking natty's T Rex had a 100% chance of being itself with 50,000,000 opportunities to achieve it with each coupling.

but... where did all the dinosaurs go?

by **universalchiro** on Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:14 am

WILLIAMS5232 wrote:if i left a room that had a jar of coins on it, and came back the next day to observe the coins laid out as in scenario 5, i would automatically assume someone came in and arranged them.

but, if i had left a room (infinitely large) that housed gazillions of jars of pennies and grids and tables that where tipped over, and found one, way over there somewhere in the middle, where the coins where arranged in the order like scenario 5, i would assume it happened by chance....for me, i can't wrap my head around a vacant space always existing, i can only imagine a beginning of something, but i'm probably wrong with that.

If you left a room that was infinitely large? Well if this is suppose to represent time, your doctrine doesn't allow for infinite time, you currently have 4.5 billion years on earth or 14 billion years of the universe. Maybe wait a few years and evolutionary cosmologist will readjust the time, again.

William, ya know, you didn't stop to pause on the information already existing on the coins? This didn't give you pause as to where the information on the coins came from? This is analogous to the evolutionist saying they believe, given a large enough time, that life can evolve from other organisms, and bypassing the discussion of where the information in the DNA code for the first organism came from in the first place.

One of the major problems with evolution, when there are random unguided mutations in the gene code, there is too great a gap from when the altered gene from UV rays or X-Rays or chemicals, degrade the code to non-function before ever getting close to a meaningful code that produce a new function.

For example: If we start with a phrase to represent a gene,
"All cows eat grass"
And with UV rays or chemicals, even though there are protein markers to repair altered code, let's say the new code is,
"all bows eat grass"
Then more mutations:
"all bows jat grass"
Then more mutations:
"all bows jat gwass"
quickly the original function is lost resulting in no function before getting to a purposeful new function that was not coded in the gene in the first place. So there is a loss of function, this is when adaptation is taken too far to the extreme and the creature is either sterile, still born, premature death from being too weak to ward off predators or climate. and the unwanted mutations certainly limits breeding, for all the other creatures have DNA code to only chose the healthiest, strongest, not the weak from mutated genes.

So not only does evolution need a miracle for one successful mutated gene to become a purposeful gene, but it needs trillions upon trillions upon trillions of these successful miracles to produce the diversity of life we see.

by **TA1LGUNN3R** on Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:37 am

WidowMaker wrote:Is it not interesting that both sides can make this claim (and do)? Each side feels the evidence is on their side. No one seems to want to budge either way. And the world goes round and round.

But what I also find interesting, specifically as it pertains to subjects of science, is that there are no threads about:
1) Why chemistry is wrong
2) Why there is no gravity
3) Why the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not always true
4) Why photosynthesis (plants generating energy) is wrong
Do you know why there are no thread topics on these, because they can be validated and have been via scientific experiments. They are predictive, repeatable and consistent.
1) We know that Oxygen and Hydrogen make water. There have been studies and tests. We can use this info to predict and know what will and will not happen next time elements interact.
2) We know there is gravity. Studies have been shown and equations made to help us predict what happens when we drop things or how large objects interact with each other in the universe (planets/stars/etc)
3) We know that all systems run down. They lose energy (in a closed system) until they reach equilibrium. Again many tests have been done and that is why this is called a LAW. It is how things behave.
4) After analyzing plants and how they work, we can see that the intricate systems setup (however they arrived to be: natural evolution, creation, Theistic evolution, etc) they work in a particular way.
If creationists (young/old) were really anti-science as it is often asserted during these discussions, can you explain why we don’t dismiss there laws and facts as well? But why do people (atheists/theists) accept and agree on the topics I listed above (and many others). It is because both of us as an inclusive group are not anti-science.

So what would you say to a flat-earther? Somebody who denies that gravity or the 2nd law of TD exists? That they are obviously mistaken and in denial. What would you say when they post hundreds of posts on the topic saying the same thing, and that everybody who studies such things are either untruthful or dumber than the person who has never studied those things?

You would say that those people are a joke. That they are in such strong denial they will refuse the obvious because it hurts their fragile little ego. Similarly, evolution is a fact. It is as much a fact that gravity exists.

If your assertion is that evolution is incorrect because we haven't proposed a viable mechanism of action (we have but you refuse to see that), than you likewise should deny that gravity exists. How does gravity work? Beats me and it is much beyond my ken.

You could apply this to the past as well and use it to color your view. When early geologists of the western world started hypothesizing the Earth's age, they were ridiculed. But the early geologists talked about sedimentation and tectonic movements, which today are pretty much common knowledge. Can you imagine someone from the modern era claiming that tectonic plates don't drift? They'd be laughed at, and rightfully so.

That is how the young earthers and creationists are seen. Relics of the past (who aren't even from the past!) who stick their heads in the sand with gusto.

Ultimately, one can say that they don't challenge your above examples because they're so well established. The study of evolution is less well established in the public mind because it 1) does not provide much for commercial products, and 2) challenges creation myths, which people are always hesitant to part with.

So now back to the OP topic….If the mechanism, functions, predictive ability and origins or naturalistic evolution/information origin/specie differentiation/etc could be presented in a way with data similar to the above topics, there would be no debate.

It is for this specific reason that there is not consensus. The data is not there that proves it as FACT or a LAW.

There really isn't any debate. There are only deniers who have a religious agenda. It IS a fact. A theory's abstractness or time table does invalidate the truth. Sorry.

Several Agreed to aspects of the discussion:
• Life requires genetic information to work. = 100% agree Life as we define it requires genetic information.
• Natural selection is the process in which that said information is passed onto the next generation = 100% agree Cellular division, whether mitotic or meiotic, is the process whereby genetic info is passes on. Natural selection is simply the tendencies of traits to prevail over others within a generation under selective pressures.
• Genetic Mutations, Duplications, etc are ways that new information can be made from the old information already there = 100% agree (but whether that is beneficial is another subject) Don't forget horizontal gene transfers!
• Variation within a species (dogs, finches, humans, etc) can be shown to happen over time = 100% agree
Several NOT-Agreed to aspects of the discussion:
• The origin of the genetic information – MUCH Disagreement
o Intelligence
o Natural process
• Development or NON-Development of new species – MUCH Disagreement
o Orchard style - Multiple trees with variation in those trees.
o Single tree – All life stems from an earlier form up the tree.

The debate many times gets to this point. “Evolution is not about information origin, it is about how information is used and transferred from next generation to next, eventually developing new systems, etc, etc, etc. We don’t need to talk about where the information came from since that is not part of evolution.”

And I would say that is partially true. Evolution is about how information is used and passed on (whether it be macro or micro).
But it is still very important to answer the question “Where did the information come from?”

For if the information came from nothing and was randomly generated over millions of years and by a purely naturalistic process (i.e. no intelligence) the implications of how evolution might or could work (macro/micro) would be drastically different that if we found that the information used needed to come from an intelligent source.

In the words of the beebs, "define information."

We only call DNA information because that's how we think. You say that DNA is a template, a precursor to protein synthesis. How does this differ from any other chemical reaction? As far as I know, ozone generation is only achieved by the bombardment of O2 with uv light in the upper atmosphere, and that ozone breaks down in lower atmosphere because of its relative instability. Are uv light rays then information?

When we look at sedimentation layers of rocks we see information, but if there is no conscious mind to observe those layers it ceases to be information. It's the whole "if a tree falls in the forest" exercise. Likewise, DNA is only information to a human mind, a construct of our innate logical minds.

@ your coin analogy. The "complexity" of life is a definition of mankind. Chemical reactions proceed unchanged without regard to complexity. It's all energy levels and what happens to be where.

-TG

by **GoranZ** on Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:06 pm

universalchiro wrote:Goran, it so sad to read how little you know about genetics and evolution, then be so confident that you won.

BUHAHA

Dude, I dont have to know more then you, you already lost when you remove the pool in which you were losing. You are a chicken in my eyes :lol:

, weak men, without honor or morality.

universalchiro wrote:Poor thing, here is a tip for you, for any change in eye color of offspring, or change in any hair color in offspring or change in blood type of offspring, or change in any external feature, it is all based on information already existing in the DNA code. It's the DNA code that has the information already. So a recessive eye color such as blue from two parents that both have recessive brown eyes, is exclusively based from the information already existing in the DNA from both parents via their chromosomes. This is in no way evolution. And the same for blood type.

Evolution requires new information not existent in both parents for a new function and new information for a new kind.

Adaptation already has the information embedded in the DNA code. So again, your alleged self proclaimed victory, is short lived. I would recommend doing more reading and more research before you try convincing others that your belief system is correct. Because each time you post, you reveal more and more of what you really don't know.

If there is no evolution and there is only adaptation why AB blood type can be deadly for person who has O blood type when they have the same genes?

Powerful question that undermines the theory Adaptation and the believe in Creationism

by **GoranZ** on Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:17 pm

WidowMakers wrote:We have all agreed that our computers are vastly inferior to the biological technology we see in nature.
Computers:
-intelligence is required develop code (language)
-intelligence is required to compile and process the language
-intelligence is required to input code
-intelligence is required to determine how to setup networks and information transmission
-Intelligence is required to fix or setup processes to correct issues withing the system
-Intelligence is required to design, build and distribute the hardware needed to use the software
-intelligence...

Do you see a pattern.

But now we get to the natural world:
-chance happened to make the code (language) that biological machines use
-chance happened to make a process to compile and process the language
-chance happened to place the code in the correct place to be used
-chance happened to setup networks and information transmission between the machines
-chance happened to setup processes to correct issues withing the system
-chance happened to design, build and distribute the hardware (molecular machines) needed to use the code
-chance...

You are not software developer... why are you wasting your time to explain how a software is made when you dont have no clue?
BTW Are you comparing software developers with GOD?

by **oVo** on Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:04 pm

universalchiro wrote: All cows eat grass

Interesting fact, IF you travel around the world, saving & dating hair samples and nail clippings regularly during your travels, years later your location on the planet by date can be identified by their carbon content and this information originates with grasses. It's not just a bovine equation.

natty wrote:...the opposite direction that naturalistic unguided blind evolution.

Does there have to be a knowledgeable guide to explain the existence of anything? If the chicken existed before the egg, where did the chicken come from? If someone "created" the initial chicken that laid the first egg, how can the source of the original chicken be rationally explained?

by **isaiah40** on Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:59 pm

GoranZ wrote:Interesting but you guys cant explain a single event from your Gods books and you want we to explain everything. Well we will some day but not today, and the reason for that is YOU, guys like you were blocking knowledge for so long. You dont have to look for loops in what I wrote, you simply have to explain with scientific evidence a single event from your Gods books. 1 will be enough

Okay here you go:
We know there was a large land mass we call Pangea correct? In Genesis 1:9 "Then God said 'Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into ONE PLACE, and let dry land appear, and it was so."

Genesis 7:11 " In the sixth hundred year of Noah's life, in the second month, on that day all the FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Now scientist have found a great underground ocean 400 miles under the NA continent.

So here are TWO events!

Talking about the floods, you say there could not have been a world wide flood, but only a localized one. Then please read on:

Since Noah's Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat (the mountains rose at the close of the Flood), it is not surprising that Noah's progeny migrated down the new Tigris River valley from the mountains to found the earliest post-Flood civilizations such as Sumer, Akkad, Uruk, and Nimrud (which later became Babylon), Haran, Jericho, and Sidon (Phoenicia), and more distantly, Egypt and the Indus Valley of N.W. India. (The Tigris and the Euphrates rivers were named after two of the four pre-Flood rivers mentioned in the Bible that flowed from the Garden of Eden.)

Ancient Babylonian legend speaks of a pre-Flood series of ten kings, the ancient Hindus (N.W India) spoke about a series of Ten Pitris who ruled before the global Flood, and the ancient Egyptians described Ten Shining Ones who ruled consecutively before the Deluge.

Like the Bible also says, these pre-Flood patriarchs lived much longer than we do, and this was confirmed by the ancient historians Berosus, Nicolaus of Damascus, Hesiod, Plato, Hecataeus, Mochus, Hieronymus, and Manetho.

The last of these kings in the aforementioned lists was the hero who led seven others aboard a vessel in which they survived the global Flood. In ancient Babylon, the hero's name was Zisudra who spear-headed the survival on the Ark of seven other humans, the Seven Apkallu. In ancient Egypt, the Flood hero was Toth who survived the Deluge along with the Seven Sages. In ancient N.W. India, the hero was Manu who survived the global-Flood "pralaya" with the Seven Rishis. The odds are astronomically long that these supposedly distinct civilizations would have the same legend of a global Flood with eight people surviving from the pre-Flood population that was led by a series of ten kings if it were not real history that happens to corroborate the Genesis account.

And the odds become even longer that Noah's Flood is not an historical fact when one considers the hundreds of tribes from around the world that have ancestral knowledge of the global Flood. And yet, we are expected to ignore this overwhelming evidence because it contradicts current mainstream science and archaeology. We are also expected to ignore the many ancient legends from various people-groups that corroborate the Biblical account of the confusion of language at the Tower of Babel where Nimrod (also known as Menrot, Marduk, Merodach, Ninus, Sargon, Shun, Bacchus, and Zarathustra) led an act of defiance against God about 150 years after the Flood which devastated the earth around 2400 B.C.

There are many other ancient historical factors, as well as a plethora of geophysical, biological and anthropological indications that support the Genesis rendering of ancient history which can be gleaned from a variety of resources, such as my book Old Earth? Why Not! The accuracy of Genesis is further attested to therein by an analysis of the ancient Biblical names that were thought to be mythological until modern archaeology confirmed their historicity, names such as Haran, Ur, Nahor, Serug, and the Hittites.

Thanks to modern archaeology, these Biblical Hittites were confirmed to be non-mythological, and were discovered to have also had a legend about the global Flood, the same Deluge recounted in a legend from the Tamils of southern India which was survived by, again, eight people, Satyavrata (Noah), Sharma (Shem), Charma (Ham), Japati (Japheth), and their wives.

The Tamils apparently migrated from the Indus River valley to the south around 1500 B.C. when the Ice Age ice-pack melted because of climatic changes at that time which caused the sea-level to rise about 300 feet, with both inducing migrations of people-groups (such as the Aryans from the north, who moved into the Indus Valley and displaced the Tamil people who already were losing ground to the encroaching ocean at that time).

Warmer ocean-water than today's ocean-water must have been the evaporation source for the dense cloud-cover that caused the Ice Age, and the source of that warmer ocean-water was the "fountains of the deep" for Noah's Flood. Many ancient Flood legends do speak of water and magma hissing and venting-up through fissures in the earth's crust to cause the Flood, like described in Genesis. This hot-water from below mixed with the pre-Flood ocean-water to inundate the continents (as indicated by the sedimentary strata on the continents), and thereafter settled in the deepened post-Flood basins.

Reasonable explanations for the cause of the Ice Age are not forthcoming from old-earth-believing scientists because they do not realize that significantly warmer ocean-water (which caused dense cloud-cover from higher ocean-evaporation rates) must have been the cause of the Ice Age, there is no other viable mechanism that could have resulted in the dense cloud-cover necessitated. When the post-Flood ocean cooled sufficiently, the Ice Age ended around 1500 B.C., which is confirmed by submerged megalithic structures off N.W. India, S. India, and S.W. Japan that were engulfed by the sea when the Ice Age ice-pack melted.

Hundreds of tribal legends and ancient accounts from Egypt, Babylon, and the Indus confirm the account of Noah's Flood from the book of Genesis. These tribes and ancient cultures obviously had no interest in copying a Hebrew account about a global Flood, therefore, all of these accounts must have been independently derived by the various people-groups' ancestors from the eight who were on the vessel that endured the global Flood. When the eight reproduced and spread out across the Middle East, and soon thereafter, much of the world (as some were demonstrably great mariners), the memory of the great Flood was retained, and to a not-surprisingly great degree.

by Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Kyle Butt, M.A.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/40 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, issue 23[11]:102-103

Anthropologists who study legends and folktales from different geographical locations and cultures consistently have reported one particular group of legends that is common to practically every civilization. Legends have surfaced in hundreds of cultures throughout the world that tell of a huge, catastrophic flood that destroyed most of mankind, and that was survived by only a few individuals and animals. Although most historians who have studied this matter estimate that these legends number into the 200s, according to evolutionary geologist Robert Schoch, “Noah is but one tale in a worldwide collection of at least 500 flood myths, which are the most widespread of all ancient myths and therefore can be considered among the oldest” (2003, p. 249, emp. added). Schoch went on to observe:

Narratives of a massive inundation are found all over the world.... Stories of a great deluge are found on every inhabited continent and among a great many different language and culture groups (pp. 103,249).

Over a century ago, the famous Canadian geologist, Sir William Dawson, wrote about how the record of the Flood

is preserved in some of the oldest historical documents of several distinct races of men, and is indirectly corroborated by the whole tenor of the early history of most of the civilized races (1895, pp. 4ff.).

Legends have been reported from nations such as China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, etc.—composing a list that could go on for many pages (see Perloff, 1999, p. 167). Although the vast number of such legends is surprising, the similarity between much of their content is equally amazing. James Perloff noted:

In 95 percent of the more than two hundred flood legends, the flood was worldwide; in 88 percent, a certain family was favored; in 70 percent, survival was by means of a boat; in 67 percent, animals were also saved; in 66 percent, the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66 percent, the survivors had been forewarned; in 57 percent, they ended up on a mountain; in 35 percent, birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9 percent, exactly eight people were spared (p. 168).

AMERICAN INDIAN LEGENDS
The Aztecs tell of a worldwide global flood in a story with striking parallels to the biblical deluge. “Only two people, the hero Coxcox and his wife, survived the flood by floating in a boat that came to rest on a mountain” (Schoch, p. 103). Then, soon after the flood, giants constructed a great pyramid in an endeavor to reach the clouds. Such ambition is said to have angered the gods, who scattered the giants with fire sent from the heavens (cf. Genesis 11:1-9).

In the ancient land we now refer to as Mexico, one tribe of Indians, known as the Toltecs, told of a great flood. In their legend, a deluge destroyed the “first world” 1,716 years after it was created. Only a few people escaped this worldwide flood, and did so in a “toptlipetlocali” (a word that means “closed chest”). After these few people exited the closed chest, they wandered about the Earth, and found a place where they built a “zacuali” (a high tower) in case another flood came upon the Earth. At the time of the “zacuali,” the Toltecs’ languages were confused and they separated to different parts of the Earth.

Another ancient tribe of Mexico told the story of a man named Tezpi who escaped the deluge in a boat that was filled with animals. Similar to Noah, who sent out a raven (a scavenger bird) that never returned, and a dove that came back with an olive leaf, “Tezpi released a vulture, which stayed away, gorging on cadavers. Then he let a hummingbird go, and it returned to him bearing a twig” (Schoch, p. 104).

ANCIENT GREEK MYTHOLOGY
According to the Greek legend of the deluge, humans became very wicked. Zeus, the leader of the many gods in Greek mythology, wanted to destroy humans by a flood, and then raise up another group. However, before he could do this, a man by the name of Deucalion, and his wife Pyrrha, were warned of the impending disaster. This fortunate couple was placed in a large wooden chest by one of the immortals named Prometheus. For nine days and nights, the floodwaters covered almost all of the Earth. Only a few mountain peaks remained. The wooden chest came to rest on the peak of Mount Parnassus. Later, after leaving the wooden chest, Deucalion sacrificed to Zeus.

CHINESE AND ASIAN LEGENDS
In the land of China, there are many legends about a great flood. One of those comes from a group of people known as the Nosu. According to their legend, God sent a personal messenger to Earth to warn three sons that a flood was coming. Only the youngest son, Dum, heeded the messenger. He constructed a wooden boat to prepare for the coming flood. When the waters arrived, Dum entered his boat, and was saved. After the waters began to recede, the boat landed on the mountains of Tibet, where Dum had three sons who repopulated the Earth. Interestingly, even the Chinese character for “boat” possibly reveals the story of Noah and the other seven people on the ark. The three elements used to symbolize a boat are:

The Iban people of Sarawak tell of a hero named Trow, who floated around in an ark with his wife and numerous domestic animals (Schoch, p. 252). Natives from India tell a story about a man named Manu who built an ark after being warned of a flood. Later, the waters receded, and he landed on a mountain (Schoch, p. 250).

ANCIENT BABYLONIAN MYTHOLOGY
Possibly the most famous flood account (aside from the biblical record of Noah and the Flood) comes from the ancient Babylonian empire. The Gilgamesh Epic, written on twelve clay tablets that date back to the seventh century B.C., tells of a hero named Gilgamesh. In his search for eternal life, Gilgamesh sought out Utnapishtim, a person who was granted eternal life because he saved a boatload of animals and humans during a great flood. On the eleventh tablet of this epic, a flood account is recorded that parallels the Genesis account in many areas. According to the story, the gods instructed Utnapishtim to build a boat because a terrible flood was coming. Utnapishtim built the boat, covered it with pitch, and put animals of all kinds on it, as well as certain provisions. After Utnapishtim entered the boat with his family, it rained for six days and nights. When the flood ended, the boat rested on Mount Niser. After seven days, Utnapishtim sent out a dove to see if the waters had receded. The dove came back, so he sent a swallow, which also returned. Finally, he sent out a raven—which never returned. Utnapishtim and his family finally exited the boat and sacrificed to their gods (see Roth, 1988, pp. 303-304).

What is the significance of the various flood legends? The answer seems obvious: (a) we have well over 200 flood legends that tell of a great flood (and possibly more than 500—Schoch, p. 249); (b) many of the legends come from different ages and civilizations that could not possibly have copied any of the similar legends; (c) the legends were recorded long before any missionaries arrived to relate to them the Genesis account of Noah; and (d) almost all civilizations have some sort of flood legend. The conclusion to be drawn from such facts is that in the distant past, there was a colossal flood that forever affected the history of all civilizations.

Those living soon after the Flood did not have the book of Genesis to read to their descendants. (Genesis was not written until several hundred years after the Flood.) The account of the Flood was passed from one generation to the next. Many parents and grandparents told their children and grandchildren about the huge ark, the wonderful animals, and the devastating Flood, long before the Genesis record ever existed. Over the years, the details of the story were altered, but many of the actual details remained the same. Alfred Rehwinkel wrote:

Traditions similar to this record are found among nearly all the nations and tribes of the human race. And this is as one would expect it to be. If that awful world catastrophe, as described in the Bible, actually happened, the existence of the Flood traditions among the widely separated and primitive people is just what is to be expected. It is only natural that the memory of such an event was rehearsed in the ears of the children of the survivors again and again, and possibly made the basis of some religious observances (1951, pp. 127-128).

Harold W. Clark, in his volume, Fossils, Flood and Fire, commented:

Preserved in the myths and legends of almost every people on the face of the globe is the memory of the great catastrophe. While myths may not have any scientific value, yet they are significant in indicating the fact that an impression was left in the minds of the races of mankind that could not be erased (1968, p. 45).

After the “trappings” are stripped away from the kernel of truth in the various stories, there is almost complete agreement among practically all flood accounts: (a) a universal destruction by water of the human race and all other living things occurred; (b) an ark, or boat, was provided as the means of escape for some; and (c) a seed of mankind was provided to perpetuate humanity. As Furman Kearley once observed: “These traditions agree in too many vital points not to have originated from the same factual event” (1979, p. 11). In volume three of his multi-volume set, The Native Races of the Pacific Slope—Mythology, H.H. Bancroft wrote: “There never was a myth without a meaning; ...there is not one of these stories, no matter how silly or absurd, which was not founded on fact” (1883).

Among the noted scholars of days gone by who have studied these matters in detail are such men as James G. Frazer (Folklore in the Old Testament) and William Wundt (Elements of Folk Psychology). Wundt, who did his utmost to find some kind of reasonable case for independent origins of the various flood sagas (and who had no great love for the biblical evidence), was forced to admit:

Of the combination of all these elements into a whole (the destruction of the earth by water, the rescue of a single man and seed of animals by means of a boat, etc.), however, we may say without hesitation, it could not have arisen twice independently (1916, p. 392, parenthetical comment in orig.).

Or, as Dawson concluded more than a century ago:

[W]e know now that the Deluge of Noah is not mere myth or fancy of primitive man or solely a doctrine of the Hebrew Scriptures. ...[N]o historical event, ancient or modern, can be more firmly established as matter of fact than this (1895, pp. 4ff.).

REFERENCES

Bancroft, H.H. (1883), Works: The Native Races of the Pacific Slope—Mythology (San Francisco, CA: A.L. Bancroft).

Clark, Harold W. (1968), Fossils, Flood and Fire (Escondido, CA: Outdoor Pictures).

Dawson, John William (1895), The Historical Deluge in Relation to Scientific Discovery (Chicago, IL: Revell).

Kearley, F. Furman (1979), “The Significance of the Genesis Flood,” Sound Doctrine, March/April.

Perloff, James (1999), Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Arlington, MA: Refuge Books).

Rehwinkel, Alfred M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Roth, Ariel (1988), Origins: Linking Science and Scripture (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing).

Schoch, Robert M. (2003), Voyages of the Pyramid Builders (New York: Jeremy P. Parcher/Putnam).

Wundt, William (1916), Elements of Folk Psychology, trans. Edward L. Schaub (New York: Macmillan).

There's some evidence for a world wide flood.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:27 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
DoomYoshi wrote:
natty dread wrote:Evolution is an undeniable fact. It says nothing about the origin of the universe, or whether some entity "kickstarted" the whole process - if you want to believe such things, that's fine from the POV of evolution - evolution doesn't address those questions and is entirely compatible with them if you so wish. All it really is is a set of rules, an algorithm, for optimizing LIFE.

This is the most important point here. The abiotic origin of life IS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR EVOLUTION.

It is like arguing that all of modern cosmology is incorrect because we can't understand what caused the Big Bang.

One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Re: One of many problems with Evolution

Who is online