Arrggg … I had just about finished with a long post when I had a computer glitch and lost it all. From now on I am going to type it up on my word processor before transferring it to ProgressiveU’s text editor.
OK, calm down … and let’s do PART 2 again and answer another one of hannodb’s claims.
Claim 2: While microevolution has been observed, there is no evidence that macroevolution occurs.
The first question to ask is, “What do you mean exactly by micro- and macroevolution?”
If we go back to Biology 101 and look up our Linnaean classification scheme we see that we can classify organisms into hierarchical taxons. The major taxons are (from highest to lowest) Domains, Kingdoms, Phyla, Classes, Orders, Families, Genuses, and Species.
Whenever the terms are used in modern evolutionary theory “microevolution” refers to changes within a species while “macroevolution” refers to changes lead to crossing taxon borders. In other words, evolving from one species into another is macroevolution.
Creationist (including ID proponents), though, have been very sloppy with the term making it hard to understand exactly what they consider to be the boundary between micro- and macroevolution. In this regard, hannodb is no different. For instance, hannodb says:
I have no problem if you say white Rhino’s [sic] and black rhino’s [sic] has [sic] a common ancestor.
Evidently hannodb sees this as a case of microevolution. However, White Rhinos and Black Rhinos are different species. In fact, White Rhinos (Ceratotherium simum) and Black Rhinos (Diceros bicornis) are in two different genuses. If hannodb will accept this level of evolution, then I would ask what prevents evolution from crossing other taxons as well?
If two populations of organisms are of different species then there is no significant transfer of genes between them. It would be very difficult for a mutation that formed in one population to be transferred to the other. Obviously the two populations then would diverge further and further apart across geologic time. Again I am forced to ask, “What is it that prevents evolution from crossing higher taxons as well?”
Evolutiongeek has presented evidence that macroevolution has occurred across high level taxons (for instance, between fish and amphibians), but hannodb doesn’t seem to accept it. I will try my hand at presenting evidence across a lower order taxon, but one that I believe is generally accepted as macroevolution … the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.
The following URL is a link to a picture of anthropoid fossils from the Smithsonian: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg
The picture is arranged as so: The skull labeled A is a modern chimpanzee skull. The skull labeled N is a modern human skull. The ones labeled B through M are fossils arranged in chronological order from oldest to youngest. To me this is an excellent example of transitional fossils. Each skull grades into the next. It is also HIGHLY suggestive that evolution occurred. If you do not accept that, ask yourself a couple of questions: (1) “Where do ape skulls end and human skulls begin?” and (2) “Exactly what criteria did you use to determine that?” If you find your answers to those questions unsatisfactory, then ask yourself a third question (3) “Why should this NOT be considered excellent evidence that chimps and humans share a common ancestry.
But wait! There’s more. Most people know by now that chimpanzees and humans share between 95 and 99% sequence homology in their DNA. This too is highly suggestive of common ancestry. Creationists, however, claim that this is better explained by common functionality. I’m going to show you they are wrong.
Look at the following picture: http://learner2.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/images/archive/detail/1544_d.jpg
What you see are pairs of chromosomes. In each pair the chromosome on the right is human and the chromosome on the left is chimpanzee. These chromosomes have been stained with Giemsa dye. Giemsa is soluble in an environment with a basic pH. The outside of DNA is acidic and Giemsa will not stain it. However, the inside is basic and Giemsa will penetrate it. Thus, Giemsa will stain DNA only where the chromatin puffs out enough for it to gain access to the inside of the DNA molecule. So when Giemsa is applied to a chromosome, it will only stain it in certain places. The staining produces a stereotypic pattern of banding (G-banding) that allows us to uniquely identify each of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. Note that each human chromosome has unique chimpanzee chromosomes that correspond to it.
Modern evolutionary theory says the reason for this is because chimpanzees and humans have shared a common ancestor in the not so distant past. ID would call this another example of common functionality. But there is no reason for it. It does not matter what chromosome a gene complex may be on. Nor does it matter what gene complexes may be its neighbor. By all rights human and chimp chromosomes could have had no G-banding similarity and still have been as functionally similar as they are. So from an ID perspective the G-banding similarity is solely because the designer decided to do it that way because he was either too lazy or saw no reason to vary it from one species to another. From an evolutionary perspective, IF chimps and humans shared a recent common ancestor, it HAD to be that way.
To show you that chromosome structure between humans and chimps do not have to be identical, let me show you the evidence that they are already beginning to diverge in interesting and evolutionarily significant ways. Here is a link to a picture that shows you just the G-banding pattern of human chromosome 2 (again on the let) and its chimpanzee homologues: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/chromosome2_big.gif
Look! Human chromosome 2 is homologous to TWO chimpanzee chromosomes. The top part of human chromosome 2 shares a G-banding pattern with one chimp chromosome while the bottom part shares a G-banding pattern with a different chimp chromosome! (If you were to go back to the original picture and look closely you would see the same thing there).
Indeed! While humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24. How could this have happened? From an evolutionary perspective there are two ways, sometime between the split of lineages that led to modern humans on the one hand and modern chimps on the other, either two chromosomes fused together to form human chromosome 2 or chromosome 2 split to form two chimpanzee chromosomes. Can we tell which one it was? YES!
This picture shows human chromosome 2 (again on the left) and its homologues not only with chimpanzees, but also homologous chromosomes of gorillas and oranguatans : http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif
What we see here is that not only chimps, but also gorillas and orangutans have two chromosomes homologous with human chromosome 2. And consistent with that is the fact that both gorillas and orangutans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. That says that IF there was a common ancestor then almost certainly that common ancestor had 24 pairs of chromosomes. That means, IF evolutionary theory is correct then human chromosome 2 was formed by a fusion of two chromosomes. Is there any evidence for that? You BET!
First, chromosomal fusions are common. It has been seen that during both mitosis and meiosis occasionally one chromosome will become translocated onto another. This type of chromosomal mutation even has a name. It is called a ROBERTSONIAN TRANSLOCATION.
Second, chromosomes are made of long linear strands of DNA. At each end of the strand is a TELOMER. Telomers have a stereotypic sequence to them. In other words, just by doing DNA sequencing we can tell when we are sequencing near the end of the chromosome. But, if human chromosome 2 were actually a product of a Robertsonian translocation, then the two chromosomes that must have fused together would have fused telomere to telomere, leaving a telomeric-like sequence in the middle of the chromosome. Do we find such a telomeric-like sequence in the middle of the chromosome? OH YEAH!
Third, if you go back and you look at those pictures of chromosomes you will notice that each chromosome has constriction in it. It is almost as though it had a little waist. This is called the CENTROMERE. It is the place where spindle fibers attach to the chromosome so that in cell division it can be pulled to the appropriate pole of the cell. Centromeric regions of the chromosome ALSO have a stereotypic sequence. So again we can tell by DNA sequence when we in that region.
If as evolutionary theory says, human chromosome 2 is the product of a Robertsonian translocation of two chromosomes, each with its own centromere, then we should find not just one centromeric region in the chromosome (like most chromosome have) but instead we should find two. Do we? ABSOLUTELY.
So what does that mean? It means that we almost certainly had an ancestor that had 24 pairs of chromosomes like chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans still have. Each of those chromosomes must have been VERY similar in structure to those of chimps, gorillas and orangutans. This all fits together perfectly IF humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans shared a common ancestor. One has to do a lot of hand-waving to make it fit with an ID perspective not involving common ancestry.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE! (I’m beginning to feel like Ron Popiel selling knives in an infomercial). All mammals with the exception of Primates (monkeys, apes, and humans) and guinea pigs make their own vitamin C. They have to get vitamin C from their diets. The reason Primates and guinea pigs don’t make vitamin C is that they are missing an enzyme, gulono-lactone-oxidase (GLO), that is necessary for its synthesis.
It turns out that within their genomes both Primates and guinea pigs have the gene to make GLO, it has just been inactivated by a mutation. This inactivation of a gene by mutation is common. Such a gene is called a pseudogene since it no longer produces a functional gene product. Pseudogenes are easily incorporated into modern evolutionary theory. If an organism finds itself in an environment such that the product of that gene is no longer necessary, then there is no selection pressure preventing such an inactivation. Pseudogenes are a bit harder to incorporate into an ID prospective. Why on earth would a designer put an non-functional gene in an organism’s genome.
In any case, one thing that makes this particular example more convincing is that in all primates so fare examined the mutation that inactivates the gene is the same point mutation that causes a frameshift error. Frameshift errors generally lead to non-functional gene products.
However, guinea pigs are not particularly closely related to primates. There is no way that a single mutation could account for the fact that Primates and guinea pigs, but no other mammal, have non-functional GLO genes. Consistent with this is fact that the mutation that inactivates the guinea pig’s GLO gene is different. In guinea pigs the gene is inactivated by a large section of it being deleted.
There is even more actually. HIV is a retrovirus. What is meant by that is that it incorporates it viral genome into the genome of the host cell. When it does so it includes genes that are common to all retroviruses. This allows us tell the exact site that a retrovirus has been inserted. Everything we know says the viruses are inserted at random places within the genome. Furthermore, retroviruses have been around a long time. Some of them have inserted themselves into sex cells and get passed onto succeeding generations. It turns out that humans and chimps share several identical retrovirus insertions at identical places in their genome. How did this happen if they do not share a common ancestor?
This post has gotten long enough and I think I have made a convincing enough case for macroevolution if you give the evidence a fair analysis. So I’ll stop here.
Regards,
Darwin’s Beagle
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Father of Evolution, Darwin, whom you so appropriately tagged yourself with, made a very interesting statement towards the end of his life. In fact, it was on his deathbed that he renounced his life's "findings" and stated that only a "supernatural being", aka God, could have created the life that we see today.
Scientists have never actually been able to prove that evolution is even a plausible theory. The more fanatical evolutionists try to push the date of the first cell back further and further, but they have never actually found where the energy to create the cell came from. Furthermore, they have not been able to replicate the creation of anything with any amount of energy.
To dispute any further arguments, the supposed "big-bang" theory can be disproven as well. There is no way possible for a huge amount of energy to suddenly be, without an outside power acting on it. Also, scientists have been studying cells for years, and have found no way for a monkey cell to evolve into a human cell.
This is not to say that there is absolutely no form of evolution. Humans have to evolve to stay alive, and those that do not will die, ie the dodo bird. However, there is no evidence to prove that one species can evolve from another.
As my closing argument, I shall reference the skulls. It has been shown that these skulls were replicated using fragments, and that no whole skull has been found. Many scientists have been involved in such scandals. They say they can create a whole skeleton that looks half-man/ half-ape, when all they have are a fragment of skull, a tooth, and a random particle of a skeleton.
mary
Random uncaused events occur on the quantum scale all the time, such a vacuum fluctuation, or similar event, could have caused the big bang with no need of a creator. Also such a creator need not fulfil your ideas of God.
Sorry, I am kinda rushed.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
There are so many things wrong here I don't know where to start.
#1) Darwin never recanted on his deathbed. This is known as the "Lady Hope Story" and it is rejected even by most creationists as false. Check out this link for the entire story -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
It's an urban legend, and nothing more.
#2) You make many spurious claims about the origin of life, energy, and universe without backing any of it up. You don't seem to have even a cursory understanding of modern thought on the subject, and I would reccomend DB's post "So tell me, my friend, how did the universe begin?" as a starting point. Also, although the study of origins is important, what is being discussed here is how life has been changing ever since it first appeared; please do not conflate the argument with cosmology and other issues when it is biology that is being discussed.
#3) Your idea that no species can change from one into another is absolutely absurd. Speciation is a known phenomenon and speciation patterns have indeed been studied (an excellent book on this topic is Spection by Coyne and Orr). For a good summary of one type of speciation pattern, check out this link -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
I can perhaps understand if you don't agree with evolution from one higher level of taxa to another, but to ignore speciation is absolutely absurd.
#4) You argue that we have no early hominid skulls, yet you name no specimens and seem to allude to Piltdown Man. In truth, we do have complete skulls from hominids prior to use, notably the newly revealed Australopithecene child, neanderthal skulls, cro magnon skulls, etc. Yes, it's true that oftentimes we find fragmentary skulls that need to be pieced together, but this does not somehow invalidate evolution or the fact that we arose from a lineage at least 2 million years old. The book "The Fossil Trail" by Ian Tattersall would be a good place to start to get a better idea of what we know about this, as well as the book "From Lucy to Language" (I forget the name of the author at the moment).
#5) You make no reply whatsoever to the wonderful discussion DB has come up with in this post. If it's wrong, why is it wrong? What is your hypothesis? Address the issues specifically and stop relying solely on ancient creationist dogma. If you can't read and understand modern evolutionary books and papers, then how you can you criticize them? YOu need to fully understand your opponents position before you can come up with anythign constructive, and from what you wrote it seems blatantly obvious that you've gotten all your information from the likes of Answers in Genesis and "Dr. Dino." DB and I have gone to great pains to think about and reply to off-the-cuff creationist claims so often blurted out on this website, but yet we are often not shown the same courtesy; we get short little diatribes chock full of more misinformation to correct.
In any case, you may have written a few paragraphs but you haven't said anything of substance or backed up your position with anything at all. If you've got evidence to contradict what DB is talking about here, then I would encourage you to bring it to light (with references if possible) but otherwise your statement only reflected the spirit of the current state of creationism; it's easier to go along with a wrong idea or assertion because it's comfortable to do so.
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
... you have not presented the other side of the coin, you have presented a completely different coin ... and a counterfeit one at that.
(1) Darwin's supposed death-bed conversion is a fraud perpetrated by a "Lady Hope". It is well documented in Ronald Clarke's biography of Darwin. Lady Hope claimed to be at Darwin's death-bed and recanted his previous views to her. However, Darwin's daughter, Henrietta, who most definitely WAS at his death-bed said that Lady Hope was never there and there was no death-bed conversion. Darwin maintained his agnosticism until his death.
Even the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis agrees the story is false. See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp?vPrint=1
(2) The plausibility of modern evolutionary theory is established by evidence like that I have posted. Evolutionary theory is one of the most robust theories in all of science. More scientific papers are published in peer-reviewed journals testing different aspects of evolutionary theory than any other theory in existence. These experiments continue to extend and confirm modern evolutionary theory. Here is a link to the most commonly used search engine in the biological sciences, Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed
When I did a search using the term "evolution" I got over 186,000 hits. That should give you an idea of how robust the theory is.
(3) Modern evolutionary theory is a biological theory about the diversification of life. As such it has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory which is a cosmological theory about the expansion of the universe. And contrary to popular belief the Big Bang theory is not about the origin of the universe. I have written a post discussing some of the ideas about the origin of the universe and comparing the scientifically based ideas with that of supernaturally based ideas. Here is a link to that discussion: http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-universe-begin
As to the problem of the energy of the Big Bang, there are two possible solutions that I, a biologist (not a cosmologist) know about. I think it safe to say cosmologists probably are aware of others. One such solution lies in our lack of knowledge about how much energy there actually is in the universe. For all we know the universe might have zero total energy. In fact, some cosmologists do assert this. What is their reasoning and evidence? These cosmologists are very impressed by the "flatness" of the universe. When we look at the expansion rate of the universe it seems to fit almost exactly with what is needed to for the universe to keep expanding forever. When calculations are done it shows that the expansion rate at the initial instant of the Big Bang must have been exquisitly fine-tuned. Just a little faster and by now the universe would have evaporated away to nothing ... just a little slower and by now the universe would have collapsed back on itself. One way to have this happen is to have the energy of the matter in the universe perfectly offset by the gravitational pull of the universe. It turns out that such a universe can be modeled by assuming gravity to be negative energy. Thus, the positive energy from Einstein's E=mc^2 is exactly offset by gravity and the total energy of the universe then would be zero. That would mean that on the energy balance sheet of the universe that no overall energy was used to make it.
A second possible answer to the problem lies in quantum mechanics. In very confined regions of space at very small scales quantum mechanics says that there will always be some uncertainty concerning how much energy is there. Thus, there is energy associated with a vacuum. This is now called "vacuum energy". So under this scenario, during the initial inflationary period of the Big Bang where the boundary of space rapidly increased, new vacuum energy was made. This could explain where the energy of the Big Bang came from.
So in any case, the problem of initial energy of the Big Bang does not disprove the Big Bang theory. It certainly is a problem whose resolution (to my knowledge) has not been solved. But there are ideas as to where it could have come from and there is evidence supporting those ideas. As more flesh is put onto these ideas they may become testable and rise to the level of a theory.
(4) There is a HUGE amount of evidence that one species can evolve into another. In fact we have observed it many, many times. See this essay: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. But what is most disappointing is that my whole post presents what I think is a pretty convincing case showing evidence that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor.
However, you do not address the bulk of the evidence and call well documented fossil evidence a fraud. It wil be impossible to provide evidence to someone who dismisses it as intentional fraud. Having been a scientist, I can tell you that fraud DOES exist in science. Some of it is never discovered. However, the PROCESS of science ensures that if someone reports fraudulent findings of significance it WILL be uncovered and exposed. The reason for this is that if someone reports something in the literature that is exciting it will motivate others to build on that research. If the results are fraudulent, their efforts will come to nil. They will investigate why that is, and the real results will soon be shown. The only fraud that will not be uncovered in science is that which doesn't spark much interest, and there is certainly a lot of that.
Let's look at what it would take for fossil skulls of hominids to be fake. These skulls have been found by at least a couple of dozen independent groups. These groups would have to be working in concert to come up with consistent recreations. The skulls themselves have been examined by thousands of scientists, not a single one of which has reported any reason to consider them fraud. This would require thousands of scientists to be working in concert with each other. That is simply impossible. Scientists do not get along that well with each other. In fact, two of the big names in homonid paleontology ... Richard Leakey and Donald Johanssen ... pretty much hate each other and would love to show the other as a fake.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Haven't got much time lovers but, "Observed Instances of Speciation" by Joseph Boxhorn published in 2002 describes more than a dozen instances of macroevolution. Mice, a marine worm and 8 species of fruit flies in the laboratory. I am not going to do your reading for you Homunculus, so get to it! Or was it Hanno who hadn't seen evidence of macro?
I apologize deeply if this has been covered, but I stumbled on it and thought it might be of value.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
So where did all the energy come from?
The universe tends to disorder, yet in evolution things tend toward order.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
Ransom==
So where did all the energy come from?
DB=
For what? The universe or for life?
For speculations as to the universe see what I wrote in my reply to mary1001 above.
For the energy required for life, it could either came from the sun if life originated on the surface of the earth, or it came from sulfur compounds released from volcanic activity if life originated originated around deep sea vents.
Ransom==
The universe tends to disorder, yet in evolution things tend toward order.
DB=
Are you seriously trying to invoke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument against evolution? Evolution takes place in an open system. There is outside energy coming into the system all the time. If one includes the energy from the outside system then there is more than enough energy to allow for any and all evolution ever postulated and still accommodate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Think about it. You are essentially saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that we cannot go from a single-celled organism to a multicellular organism. But we all have done that ... and within our lifetime. We all started out as a single cell, a fertilized egg and grew into what we are now. If you are going to say that evolution over billions of years (which is what it took for life to go from single-celled organisms to multicellular ones) is a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then tell me why it is that going from a fertilized egg to a multicellular organism in a matter of minutes is not a violation of it.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I was pointing out the paradoxical nature of the universe. Honestly, I am not a big fan of biology and evolutionary science. I am a math and classic civ. major, and I have a tendency to enjoy the physical sciences more the life sciences. Whether or not evolution happened does not change my belief in God.
God could have designed evolution. What we call science is simply God's tools. Evolution could be complete bunk, or it could be true. In the end I really do not care. But I am not foolish enough to believe that everything the Darwinists say is based on good science.
I looked up what you said about the zero energy; it is interesting. In the article I read it was suggested that perhaps the 2nd law was violated when the universe was first formed. I am a simple undergrad, and I am not going to argue theoretical physics with people who have made it their life's work.
The paradoxical nature and the sheer complexity of the universe, I would argue, necessitates a creator. On one hand things go to disorder, yet biolgicaly we go to order.
Gravity is the weakest of the four forces (electromagenitive, weak, and strong), yet it has the farthest reach.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
I fail to see a paradox. Actually when one looks at the entire living system the tendency is toward disorder as well. The balance sheet for every chemical reaction that drives life is one in which heat is lost to the environment.
Furthermore, the universe may not really be all that complex. There are, as you say, only 4 forces of nature, and three of them have already been united into one. If as many physicists think, superstrings turn out to be the fundamental matter of the universe then it might be possible to model the universe from its origin to now with just three lines of computer code; one for the superstrings, one for gravity, and a third for the combined forces of electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force.
Many theistic evolutionists would argue that evolution is God's way of doing things as well. I personally do think that evolution is nearly as big a problem for the theologically minded to deal with as is the overall incoherence of the whole God concept. When one really thinks deeply and hard about God, nothing about it makes sense.
For instance, you say, "The paradoxical nature and the sheer complexity of the universe, I would argue, necessitates a creator". But you are using an already complex phenomenon (God) to explain the origin of complexity. Where did God's complexity come from?
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I see that one of us happens to have an intelligent thought. There is no possible way for any life to have occured without a supernatural, outside force. In regards to prior comments, my two sides of the coin argument held true because it was the other side of your argument. You say there is nothing, then life evolved. Then, if I understand you correctly, you mean to tell me that accepting that a higher being, (God) created the universe? I fail to see where your argument stands up. Also, I again fail to see where the first cell comes from. Fire cannot first exist without a cell, be it one of a piece of wood. In regards to my fossil argument, I was not able to recall the name of the "find" at the time, but I now know it as 'Java Man.' In regards to the search of evolution, just to check it out, I searched for creationism, and found over 4 million references. When looked at its basest form, evolution fails.
There can be nothing created without something to start with. The idea that the universe just "appeared" is completely absurd. I tend to agree with Ransom on this issue. And answer me this. If evolution is what you believe in, and say that it is logical, what will we humans evolve into? Where does the chain end? Does it end? And if it does, what then?
I cannot say I understand the complexity of God. Did he make evolution? With all of his power to set things in motion, I don't see why. After all, if the human body is so complex, then there are a million ways things could go wrong. Evolution is an impractical explanation to the way things are now. After all, where did trees and other plants come from? Even scientists note these as two different kingdoms. I fail to see how an intelligent being can say that such an ubsurd idea can exist.
No amount of energy can produce something from nothing. Scientists have been trying this for years. Without a supernatural force, (God) the idea of life cannot exist. There is nothing without an outside force.
mary
mary1001==
I see that one of us happens to have an intelligent thought.
DB=
Thanks, yours will come someday too.
mary1001==
There is no possible way for any life to have occured without a supernatural, outside force.
DB=
(1) Modern Evolutionary Theory does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with the diversification of life. If for the sake of argument I were to grant that God magicked up the first bacterial cell then absolutely NOTHING in evolutionary theory would have to be changed.
(2) The evidence for a naturalistic origin of life is pretty good. The scientific field that covers that area is called Origin of Life research or Abiogenesis.
mary1001==
In regards to prior comments, my two sides of the coin argument held true because it was the other side of your argument.
DB=
No, it was non-sequitur and misinformation. The only aspect of my argument that you addressed was that the fossilized skulls, all 12 of them must be faked. If you can't believe your eyes when shown the evidence then is there really anything we have to talk about?
mary1001==
You say there is nothing, then life evolved.
DB=
Actually modern evolutionary theory says that ONCE life began it evolved and diversified into the organisms we see today.
mary1001==
Then, if I understand you correctly, you mean to tell me that accepting that a higher being, (God) created the universe?
DB=
I don't know if you understand me correctly or not. I don't understand this. You seem to missing a verb.
mary1001==
I fail to see where your argument stands up.
DB=
I'm not surprised.
mary1001==
Also, I again fail to see where the first cell comes from.
DB=
I want do a rather long post on origin of life research sometime.
mary1001==
Fire cannot first exist without a cell, be it one of a piece of wood.
DB=
I guess you rule out light from the sun as being "fire". What about a butane lighter? But MOST IMPORTANTLY what does this have to do with ANYTHING?
mary1001==
In regards to my fossil argument, I was not able to recall the name of the "find" at the time, but I now know it as 'Java Man.'
DB=
Java man is the name given to a fossil found by Eugene DuBois in 1895. He found some homonid bones, one of which included a skull cap. He gave the fossil species the name of PITHECANTHROPUS ERECTUS. With the advent of MANY other fossils we have come to the conclusion that it is VERY CLOSELY related to us and should be in the same genus. It's name now is HOMO ERECTUS. It is not now, nor has it ever been considered a fake.
mary1001==
In regards to the search of evolution, just to check it out, I searched for creationism, and found over 4 million references.
DB=
But you did a google search of the entire internet. I did a PubMed search of the SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE. When I do a PubMed search of the scientific literature using the search term "evolution" I got 186,000 plus hits. I have just gone there and done a search using your term "creationism". I got 53 hits. None of them detail any scientific information that supports creationism.
mary1001==
When looked at its basest form, evolution fails.
DB=
No, it doesn't ... see how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertions.
mary1001==
There can be nothing created without something to start with.
DB=
Not true, you could see my description of the Casimir Effect in this post: http://www.progressiveu.org/165114-so-tell-me-my-friend-how-did-the-universe-begin
I doubt if you actually will though since you evidently didn't when I gave you the same link before.
mary1001==
The idea that the universe just "appeared" is completely absurd.
DB=
No its not ... see how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
mary1001==
I tend to agree with Ransom on this issue.
DB=
I'm not surprised.
mary1001==
And answer me this. If evolution is what you believe in, and say that it is logical, what will we humans evolve into?
DB=
I'll may give that a shot as soon as you can tell me exactly how our environment is going to change in the future and what mutations will appear in our population.
mary1001==
Where does the chain end? Does it end? And if it does, what then?
DB=
Evolution will continue so long as there are organisms that have:
(1) Genetic material that codes for traits
(2) At least some of the traits contribute to the organism's reproductive success.
mary1001==
I cannot say I understand the complexity of God. Did he make evolution?
DB=
Some think so. I do not happen to be one of them.
mary1001==
With all of his power to set things in motion, I don't see why.
DB=
Strangely enough I agree that IF God existed evolution is not a good way to make the world. However, people like Howard Van Til argue that a God who makes a world capable of making itself is greater than a God who has to continually tinker in things to keep it on track.
mary1001==
After all, if the human body is so complex, then there are a million ways things could go wrong.
DB=
And if what goes wrong is under genetic control then evolution will keep that to a minimum. It will also naturally pick the things that go right.
mary1001==
Evolution is an impractical explanation to the way things are now.
DB=
No, it's not ... see how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertions.
mary1001==
After all, where did trees and other plants come from?
DB=
Other trees and other other plants. But if you were to go back far enough you would come to bacteria-like organisms.
mary1001==
Even scientists note these as two different kingdoms.
DB=
And they also note that there are a large number of similarities across kingdoms to suggest that they all evolved from common ancestors.
mary1001==
I fail to see how an intelligent being can say that such an ubsurd idea can exist.
DB=
I'm not surprised. I fail to see why anyone could actually read my post and still call evolutionary theory "ubsurd".
mary1001==
No amount of energy can produce something from nothing.
DB=
Go back and read the description of the Casimir Effect. The link is just right up there.
mary1001==
Scientists have been trying this for years.
DB=
It turns out they need not have tried ... space produces stuff from nothing all the time all by itself.
mary1001==
Without a supernatural force, (God) the idea of life cannot exist.
DB=
Sure it can ... see how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
mary1001=
There is nothing without an outside force.
DB=
So what "outside force" produced God?
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
In our experiences something never comes from nothing. When we ask whence came all of the matter that the universe is composed of we either say that God made it, or we say that it always was.
The second statement violates our premise that something never comes from nothing. So in order to make it work we must change our premise, which empiracle evidence would say is true.
If we view God as all-powerful we are not violating our premise. An all-powerful eternal being transcends the laws of the universe, and is outside of them. It makes more sense to believe that a being of infinite power exists eternaly, than to believe that matter exists eternaly.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
Ransom==
In our experiences something never comes from nothing.
DB=
Not true. Read my description of the Casimir Effect. There is a link to that post in my comment to mary1001 above.
Ransom==
When we ask whence came all of the matter that the universe is composed of we either say that God made it, or we say that it always was.
DB=
No we don't ... see how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
Ransom==
The second statement violates our premise that something never comes from nothing.
DB=
Fine, that premise is wrong anyway.
Ransom==
So in order to make it work we must change our premise, which empiracle evidence would say is true.
DB=
We need to change that premise. Empiracal evidence says it is wrong.
Ransom==
If we view God as all-powerful we are not violating our premise.
DB=
OK, so you are not violating a premise that is demonstrably wrong. But you are violating logic.
Ransom==
An all-powerful eternal being transcends the laws of the universe, and is outside of them.
DB=
What does this REALLY mean? If the universe is all that there is, then if God IS then by definition he is part of the universe. If you want to restrict the definition of the universe to all that we can possibly physically sense then there are a number of possibilities of how the universe started that are imminently more probable than your God hypothesis. I have outlined some of them in the same post that I discuss the Casimir Effect.
In any case what you are saying is that God's creative powers are beyond our possibility of understanding.
Ransom==
It makes more sense to believe that a being of infinite power exists eternaly, than to believe that matter exists eternaly.
DB=
It NEVER makes sense to invoke the inexplicable to explain the unexplained. Even if we give your argument EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE benefit of the doubt, that is the VERY BEST you are doing.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
DB has said anything in the physics region much better than I have. However, there is another problem I see with the God hypothesis. Esp. as you almost certainly mean the Christian God you grew up with. Since this is probably the only God you have any good knowledge of, it is reasonable that you assume he is the so called "first cause," which we have already seen is not particularly necessary.
For the sake of us actually having something to talk about, let us assume that some kind of infinite being did cause the universe. In this case Azathoth:
"that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes." - HP Lovecraft
Azathoth is just as likely a creator for the universe as your Christian God. He is written about in many books, across a large swath of time and mentioned by many authors. He has no interest in the affairs of men, so therfore has no need to show himself and be worshipped, unlike the Christian god. In fact, a couple hundred years from now a simple misfiling of Cthulhu Mythos stories in non-fiction sections would give almost as much literary evidence for that cosmology as the Christian one.
What evidence is there that this, unnecessary, first cause is the god you believe it to be except a book of extremely questionable validity?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
"Unsubstantiated Information?!?" What kind of individual are we truly dealing with? By the way, I read your essay. Nice paper, with "astonishing" words, but nonetheless, you have failed completely to uphold your argument. It is a lot easier to accept the idea of God, than it is to say that there was nothing, then the universe was.
In regards to your debasement of my arguments, I was typing them after being awake for 19 hours straight. I can assure you that no one is perfect.
Ransom seems to be grasping the truth of the matter, and for that I thank you. However, db, you have failed to knock down a single one of our arguments. You give theories and "ideas." If anyone read the link that he posted, it is filled with these words.
The basic truth is as follows: Nothing can be created without something acting on it, and you can't honestly say otherwise. The idea of a supernatural being, unbounded by the puny limitations of our universe, is much easier to understand than everything coming into place on its own. The universe cannot hold itself together, for it is constantly coming apart
I do not claim to fully understand genetic sciences. However, you made a comment in your first entry that I will now reference to. Look back at the part about 23 and 24 pair chromosomes. Humans have 23, and Chimps have 24. How is it then, that a person born with 24 pairs seems to have a genetic defect, or die, than become a chimp? After all, the chromosomes would be close to the same as you put it.
Evolution fails. I don't see how you can still hold on to this theory. Anyone with a slight iota of common sense (and yes I realize this is redundant) would see that your argument fails. If you want to make an argument, here are two bits of advice to follow. 1. Don't try to irritate your readers by going on about other things. 2. Don't act like the opinions of others have no foot hold. This will get more people to listen to you.
mary
mary1001==
"Unsubstantiated Information?!?" What kind of individual are we truly dealing with?
DB=
One that responds to argu8ment but not to unsubstantiated ASSERTION. You actually give out very little information.
mary1001==
By the way, I read your essay. Nice paper, with "astonishing" words, but nonetheless, you have failed completely to uphold your argument. It is a lot easier to accept the idea of God, than it is to say that there was nothing, then the universe was.
DB=
No it's not. See how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
... In case you don't understand what I am saying here (which it seems you don't), I wrote a lengthy essay stating REASONS that make it easier to believe that there was a naturalistic origin of the universe. You do not address ANY of those reason. You simply state that I have completely failed (an unsubstantiated assertion) and that it is easier to believe God did it (another unsubstantiated assertion).
mary1001==
In regards to your debasement of my arguments, I was typing them after being awake for 19 hours straight. I can assure you that no one is perfect.
DB=
While being tired is absolutly understandable, let's get one thing clear. YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE ANY ARGUMENT. The only response you have given to ANYTHING I have said in a post you have replied to has been to claim that all 12 fossil skulls must be faked. The rest has been UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION -- a statement of belief without ANY evidence to back it up/
mary1001==
Ransom seems to be grasping the truth of the matter, and for that I thank you. However, db, you have failed to knock down a single one of our arguments. You give theories and "ideas." If anyone read the link that he posted, it is filled with these words.
DB=
I have knocked down many arguments. If I haven't knocked down yours it is because you have yet to make one.
mary1001==
The basic truth is as follows: Nothing can be created without something acting on it, and you can't honestly say otherwise.
DB=
Not only can I say otherwise, I HAVE said otherwise. I have even given you the evidence that it IS otherwise. You have not responded to that at all. Furthermore, since I have said this and you claim to have read it, you must be accusing me of dishonesty.
mary1001==
The idea of a supernatural being, unbounded by the puny limitations of our universe, is much easier to understand than everything coming into place on its own.
DB=
Then how do you account for God's existence? I'll bet you are going to give a "cop out" response that God has always been so he doesn't need an explanation. Yeah ... now we are talking intellectual honesty, aren't we (note: if you cannot tell, that was sarcasm). If anything doesn't need an explanation then why not the universe?
mary1001==
The universe cannot hold itself together, for it is constantly coming apart
DB=
And when was the last time the universe came apart?
mary1001==
I do not claim to fully understand genetic sciences. However, you made a comment in your first entry that I will now reference to.
DB=
I made many comments about genetics, almost all of which clearly indicate that humans and chimps share a common ancestry. I spent quite a bit of time explaining exactly how that is so. I wrote it at a level that my son, a freshman in high school, was able to understand. Why is it that you do not address that?
mary1001==
Look back at the part about 23 and 24 pair chromosomes. Humans have 23, and Chimps have 24. How is it then, that a person born with 24 pairs seems to have a genetic defect, or die, than become a chimp? After all, the chromosomes would be close to the same as you put it.
Evolution fails.
DB=
You REALLY think this argument is better than the rest of what I wrote that you DO NOT ADDRESS? Well, let's see.
(1) The WHOLE POINT OF THE 23 PAIRS OF CHROMOSOMES IN HUMANS AND THE 24 PAIRS IN CHIMPS IS TO SHOW THAT UNDER AN EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM A FUSION OF CHROMOSOMES MUST HAVE OCCURRED. That means there is NO difference in the amount of genetic material between humans and chimps. Humans born with 24 pairs of chromosomes would have a huge amount of extra genetic material that is certain to screw up development. There are many humans that are born with FUSED chromosomes and they have no problems ... until they try to reproduce and some of their sex cells contain an extra chromosome or a missing chromosome. But some are perfectly fine.
(2) Why would ANYONE think that just having 24 pairs of chromosomes would automatically make an organism into a chimpanzee? I have already stated that gorillas and orangutans ALSO have 24 pairs of chromosomes.
(3) I'll bet that there are chimps, gorillas, and orangutans that are born with fused chromosomes. That isn't going to turn them into a human. No one in their right mind would expect it too.
mary1001==
I don't see how you can still hold on to this theory.
DB=
It is easy when you actually LOOK at the evidence instead of irrationally insisting that it isn't there.
mary1001==
Anyone with a slight iota of common sense (and yes I realize this is redundant) would see that your argument fails.
DB=
(1) People who actually take time to look at and evaluate the evidence will see that it CLEARLY supports evolution at the expense of Special Creation. You have not done that and show no signs of even trying.
(2) My argument does not fail. See how easy it is to refute unsubstantiated assertion.
mary1001==
If you want to make an argument, here are two bits of advice to follow. 1. Don't try to irritate your readers by going on about other things. 2. Don't act like the opinions of others have no foot hold. This will get more people to listen to you.
DB=
BOOM!! There goes another irony meter.
(1) I think I would MUCH prefer to take advice on making an argument from someone who actually makes one.
(2) YOU ARE THE ONE THAT GOES ON ABOUT OTHER THINGS. This post doesn't DEAL with whether or not God exists. It deals with evolution. You are trying to present this as either evolution or God. But you ignore that there are MANY people who believe BOTH.
(3) Opinion without evidence is useless in an argument. I have given evidence YOU HAVEN'T.
You think I am rude, don't you? I will engage anyone in polite conversation so long as they reply honestly and forthrightly.
I think the height of rudeness is responding to an argument by (a) ignoring what is actually said, (b) saying that evidence must be faked without providing ANY evidence whatsoever that it was, (c) dismissing what is said by saying that anyone with common sense can see it isn't so, without providing ANY reasoning why it isn't so, and (d) questioning the honesty of the presentation without providing ANY evidence that it is even wrong much less dishonest.
So in the end, I think I would prefer to take lessons on ediquette from someone who actually has some, thank you.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
Everyone is trying to have a civil debate but you.You say you have a doctorate in neuroscience. You also say that you are a published scientist. I say that you are a mendacious scumbag, whose only claim to fame is that of being absurdy asinine at all times, in all situations, and without any regard for man's inherent intelligence that seperates him from the chimps that you say are your loving ancestors.
Go write a paper for a science journal, and keep your stupidty off this website.
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."-C.S. Lewis
(1) there is no evidence that you or mary1001 are the least bit interested in having a debate, civil or otherwise. A debate would mean that you would respond to the evidence presented. Neither of you have. You both have ONLY responded with unsubstantiated assertion. You have both failed to address the evidence I presented, and considering the time I took to make it understandable your failure to attempt it has been quite rude.
(2) A civil debate does not involve calling someone a "medacious scumbag, whose only claim to fame is that of being absurdy [sic] asinine at all times, in all situations, without any regard for man's inherent intellignece that seperates [sic] him from chimps that yu say are you loving ancestors."
That is ad hominem argumentation, and given your "holier than thou" attitude is pretty hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
I have no problem with you saying that of me, if you can support it with evidence. Perhaps I am those things and evidence of it would be useful to know. But so far you have not even attempted to do so.
(3) I never claimed that chimpanzees are my ancestors. I claimed that I share a common ancestor with them. But then so do you. We share common ancestors with jack-asses as well, but that doesn't mean you have to act like one.
(4) Er ... I believe this is MY thread. If you don't like what it says then no one is forcing you to reply or even read it. However, I would encourage you to reply once you actually have something of substance to say. Until then if you are going to respond with thoughtless, dismissive and irrelevant crap, don't be surprised if you too are dismissed with a less than friendly response.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
I read this post over and over again, and I got to hand it to you. Ransom and mary1001, you have both done a superb job on your part of the debate. DB, you say you have a degree in neuroscience? Have you ever taken a course over argumentative relations? Even if you have not, you should have had some idea of it to start a thread like this. You use fancy words, but you cannot argue well against a point well made against your arguments. Also, I see that most of the people supporting your thread have left you. By evaluating the psychological standpoint behind your argument, I notice that you are undergoing what is simply known as the young-child argument. Your argument seems as though a young child "whining," complaining that others have decided to take a standpoint against your uneducated argument. I would not have used the exact words, but your mentality matches that of a young child, searching for only what you want without the consequences of your actions. Your argument has no relative basis.
Now for my stand on the actual issue. Evolution has no standpoint, scientifically or otherwise. Scientists come up with biased information, and their evidence cannot stand close scrutiny. You say you are a matured neuroscientist, yet you argue like a two year old. Ransom, mary1001, I applaud both of your efforts immensely. I think that your arguments are amazingly well substantiative, and that you are very well knowledged in the evidence backing your arguments.
Speaking of intelligence levels, did you ever take a course in English? In your last post alone, I immediately spotted five errors. The one before that had even more. I realize that everyone makes mistakes, but when you make an argument such as yours, and I see up here where you have countlessly bashed mary1001 for a few simple errors, then there is no excuse for you.
True, God may go by a different name. However, the defining of logic when talking about the creation of the universe is broken. There is no way that things could randomly come together, and make this balance that we have and enjoy today. Yes, the universe is coming apart, and nowhere did anyone say it already has. Why is the earth degenerating as it is, why do humans die, and why is the solar system slowly coming apart? It is because the universe is slowly digressing.
I too do not see where the logic behind your argument lies. I hope that before you reply to this that you will actually study up on what you are talking about, and be prepared with a better argument.
Oops, there is nothing to respond to if I do that. So I'll respond to barely relevant points.
JJM==
Evolution has no standpoint, scientifcally or otherwise.
DB=
Yes it does. I have presented just some of the evidence for it which YOU have not responded to at all.
JJM==
Scientists come up with biased information, and their evidence cannot stand close scrutiny.
DB=
I have presented some of the evidence, YOU don't even TRY to show where it fails.
JJM==
There is no way that things could come randomly together, ...
DB=
No one said it did. The physical part of the universe came together by the laws of nature which are NOT random processes. A key mechanism in the divergence of life is natural selection. Note that last word, "selection". That is a non-random process as well.
JJM==
... and make the balance that we enjoy today.
DB=
And what balance would that be?
JJM==
Yes, the universe is coming apart, and nowhere did anyone say it already has.
DB=
What are you talking about?
JJM==
Why is the earth degenerating as it is, ...
DB=
I might say because it is highly organized and there are a lot more ways to become more unorganized than there are to become more so. You probably say it is due to a loving God.
JJM==
... why do humans die, ...
DB=
I would say due to the aging process. You probably say it is due to a loving God.
JJM==
... and why is the solar system slowly coming apart?
DB=
I didn't know it was. What has it lost? Your answer would be ... it is due to a loving God.
JJM==
Is it because the universe is slowly digressing.
DB=
No ... but you have rapidly digressed. You have failed to address any of the evidence I have presented.
JJM==
I too do not see where the logic behind your argument lies.
DB=
I am not surprised.
JJM==
I hope that before you reply to this that you will actually study up on what you are talking about, and be prepared with a better argument.
DB=
BOOM!! My irony meter just blew up.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
and reading your argument has caused me to do likewise. I burst out in insane hysterical laughter after reading your ridiculously worded and otherwise unintelligent argument. JoJo and ransom have made excellent points, and you, a fifty something Ph.D in neuroscience? If you had any intelligence at all, or anyone else who "believed" in evolution, the theory would not even exist. It was invented by a bunch of pig-headed scientists who could not gain the small intellectual level needed to grasp the ideaology of God. You are merely following in their footsteps, and that only leads to ultimate demise. Your baseless theories and false accusations only lead to hatred. Try God at least once. You will find that you understand things a bit more.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep
Not that hard to understand, unless you are completely ingorant fool who will not even try to understand. Evolution does not stand up, and your fellow evolutionists need to see this.
mary
OK ... We can call each other names all you want. However, I think it is useful at this point to recap the substantial issues of the argument and each others substantive replies.
The original claim was that while microevolution occurs macroevolution is not supported.
My argument against this claim had the following substantive points:
(1) Creationists/ID proponents do not tell us exactly what constitute macro vs microevolution
Response by mary1001 .... None
Response by ransom ..... None
Response by JoJoMac .... None
(2) If as most creationists/ID proponents agree, microevolution allows for speciation then what prevents evolution from crossing other taxon boundaries?
Response by mary1001 .... None
Response by ransom .... None
Response by JoJoMac .... None
(3) Is our putative divergence from a common ancestor with chimpanzees enough to be considered macroevolution?
Response by mary1001 .... None
Response by ransom .... None
Response by JoJoMac .... None
(4) The skulls in the following picture (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg) are arranged such that "A" is a modern chimpanzee skull and "N" is a modern human skull, the rest are arrange in chronological order of their dating from oldest to newest. Where do humans begin and apes leave off? And What criteria did you use to determine that? If you cannot answer those questions then why is this not excellent evidence for a series of transitions showing the divergence of chimps and humans?
Response from mary1001 .... The fossils are faked!
My response back .... Such a conspiracy would have to involve a huge number of unrelated people and people who are in competition with each other. No one has ever suggested the fossils to be faked and it is patently ridiculous to think them to be. If you will not believe the evidence presented before your eyes, do we REALLY have anything to talk about?
Response from ransom ... None
Response from JoJoMac ..... None
(4) The G-banding pattern in the genome of humans and chimps show clear and extensive homologies that are difficult to explain unless we shared a common ancestor.
Response from mary1001 .... None
Response from ransom .... None
Response from JoJoMac .... None
(5) Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes chimps have 24. If we came from common ancestors then either humans must have fused a pair of chromosomes together or chimps must have split a pair. The fact that both Gorillas and Orangutans (our next closest relatives according to evolutionary theory) have 24 pairs says that humans must have fused a pair.
Response from mary1001 ..... None
Response from ransom .... None
Response from JoJoMac .... None
(6) Human Chromosome 2 shows G-banding complementarity to two of the chromosomes in the chimp, gorilla and orangutan genomes. This says that Human Chromosome 2 WAS formed as evolutionary theory predicts by chromosomal fusion
Response from mary1001 .... None
Response from ransom .... None
Response from JoJoMac .... None
(7) The fact that Human Chromosome 2 contains an interior telomeric region and a second centromeric region pretty much nail down that it was formed by fusion, just as evolutionary theory predicts.
Response from mary1001 .... None
Response from ransom .... None
Response from JoJoMac .... None
(8) Neither primates nor guinea pigs make their own vitamin C because they do not make the enzyme Gulono-Lactone Oxidase (GLO). Guinea Pigs and all Primates so far tested have a non-functional gene (pseudogene) to do so. The pseudogene in all primates tested so far have been turned off due to the same type of mutation as one would expect based on the evolutionary relationships. The pseudogene in Guinea Pigs is turned off by a different mutation as one would expect since guinea pigs are not closely related to primates.
Response from mary1001 .... None
Response from ransom .... None
Response from JoJoMac ..... None
Points made by mary1001, ransom, and JoJoMac
(1) Nothing comes from nowhere
My response --- (a) This is irrelevant to any argument I have made. (b) It isn't even true. Virtual particles come from nowhere and they have been observed experimentally (see the Casimir Effect)
(2) Darwin converted on his death-bed
My response .... No, he didn't. The story is a falsehood created by a Lady Hope long after Darwin had died. There is no evidence that Lady Hope was at his death-bed, but his family surely was and they denied it ever happened.
Response to my response
.... None
(3) You can't truthfully say that something can come from nothing
My response: Yes I can. I HAVE said it and I have given you evidence that it is true.
Response to my response:
.... None
(4) Nothing comes from nothing.
My response: Yes it can. See above
(5) You're stupid, rude, and an all-around bad guy
My response: Guilty on the rude part, especially to people who seem to want to argue but do not even attempt to address the argument and keep repeating unsubstantiated assertions that I have provided evidence of being wrong. As for stupid and all-around bad guy ... perhaps. I'll let others judge that.
(6) mary1001, ransom, and JoJoMac have made good points.
My response: Really?? Like what?
Now ... if you want to discuss REAL issues then let's do it. If you want to get into a pissing contest I would prefer for you to go elsewhere ... but I can accommodate that too if you insist.
Regards,
Darwin's Beagle
capnjohn
Give it up Mr. Beagle. Your argument is something along the line of 2+2=4 and the responses have been, "No its not". You then ask, "why not?" and the following response is "because you are an idiot and don't understand how I was raised to be religious." No objective reasoning, no reasoning at all actually, and of course, no facts. (Show me one fact in those other posts)
If I was raised by my parents and others to believe that peter rabbit created the universe, I would be hurt, confused, and defensive if someone said, well, no, petter rabbit did NOT create the universe. I would probably hold my hands over my ears and say, nanny nanny boo boo, I can't hear you...ya just can't win against mindless superstition.