Evolution is a Theory and a Fact, with Laurence Moran part1

[heyawhaw]

WTF!??!

Is this the first time ever they do this?

Can't somebody edit out the first 4 minutes?

[jeff9499]

When precisely is "not far from now"?

Are we talking a few weeks? This summer? 2009? Etc...?

What type of eruption are we talking about? Hawaii type? Mt St Helens? Extinction level event for the middle of the country?

Without details, your "prediction" is quite vague and meaningless...

[chuyaventuras]

Unbelievable, save time and grief and money, I´ll give you the true definition of Evolution.

Evolution-I-S-M means that some chemicals gahtered 3850 million years ago and somehow they miraculously turned into a simple single cell (non-living chemicals into a living cell=science fiction), and this miraculously appeared simple single cell over the last 3850

million years has turned into the diversity of life on earth, living & extinct.- That´s what evolution is all about, remain on the bliss.

[iouakick]

do you have a different theory on how we got here?

[chuyaventuras]

iouakick

do you have a different theory on how we got here?

The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is "Divine Creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

Thank you Richard.

Well if you reject the only alternative explanation, remain in the bliss and continue doing science fiction, I mean good science...jajaja

[iouakick]

but by saying that arent you just replacing what you regard as speculation with what others regard as speculation?

[chuyaventuras]

iouakick

speculation repaced by speculation

Nooop, the whole scientific evidence leads us to conclude ID is behind the scene whether you admit or not .

But if, and oooh what a BIG if, the know-how expertise in biochemestry "can not" assemble a simple (which is not simple, otherwise would be to easy to assembled) single protein, how can you "Speculate" that randon chemical reactions can assemble not a protein but a whole living organism, that´s not only a speculatoin but an Hallucination.

[iouakick]

dont you think it is possible that scientists will work that out though, the amount of discoveries made over the years is amazing, and the technology just keeps improving, i find it much easier and better placed to put my trust in science than just to say "god did it because they havent worked it out yet"i see a lot that science has discovered and no hard evidence of a god.

[chuyaventuras]

iouakick

Nooop, truth sometimes leads us where we don´t want to go, I´ll recomend you to read "Evolution a theory in crisis", by Michael Denton, I don´t reject evolutionary theory based on religious beliefs but in OBSERVATIONAL DATA, and seems to me you accept evolutionary theory based on a clear rejection on any ID involved, maybe science is repeating the Ptolemaic theory error, remember that...The whole sky used to move around us, but a few celest bodies (planets) did not, and huge error.

[iouakick]

nope, i accept evolution because it is the best theory i have heard as to how we came about, ill have a look/read of the material you have reccomended, thnx for the chat ;)

[chuyaventuras]

iouakick

Thank you for accepting my invitation to read "Evolution a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton, you mus know both sides of the Coin.

[chuyaventuras]

iouakick

but by saying that arent you just replacing what you regard as speculation with what others regard as speculation?

Nooop...First of all, ID is not an speculation, is where the evidence leads us, whether you admit it or not...

Pure Natural Processes explanations are not only speculations but irrational, since the evidence & experiments confirms that life "can not arise by itself" by random chemical reactions, so evolutionary scientists are worst than ID advocates. Got it?

[revjimbob]

Unwatchable/unlistenable.

[sokklei]

A crash course in moviemaking would be nice!

[SpiritualAtheist]

I suspect "the" definition of evolution has itself evolved over the years.

[msh1044]

I would like to make a note though..

Micro versus Macro evolution is an illusion.

Imagine Scraping of a little bit of a cube every minute.

Eventually you might end up with a perfectly round object that shares absolutely no resemblance to the object you started with.

But the mechanism used in the process never changed.

There is no such thing as a micro or macro evolutionairy process.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

imagine Scraping of a little bit of a cube every minute...

So if and oooh what a BIG if my fairy tale, sorry my theory be true, NUMBERLESS intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together "must assuredly" have existed...

Nooop my friend you are hallucinating get back to reality, you get to be gullible enough to believe that the whole diversity of life came from a single cell organism whatever it was in 380 million years.

[msh1044]

As a general rule of argumentation, shouldn't you first tell me what your theory is contradicting my idea is? it's not like i know you. then you can continue to explain how it contradicts mine, and last but not least you get will get to enjoy the entirely optional part of calling me a foul, ass or whatever you like. point 3 already seems to be fairly covered, now its time for you to present the argument and evidence for 1 and 2.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

As a general rule of argumentation, let´s some one well educated answer one of your questions:

Remember he is a well educated Oxford professor, OK? The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is "Divine Creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

Remark:His statement is based on what he observes on the Fossil Record.-

[msh1044]

Divine creation and evolution are not the only two options by "definition". ( as in: proofing one wrong, does not confirm the other )

The quote is best read not to literal. Richards main point seems to be that while the problem of gaps in the fosil record influenced the way different groups think about how evolution works in detail this never implied for those groups a disagreement about the major theory itself

God and divine creation are denied for other reasons by richard (see god delusion)

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Nooop, the fossil record DEBUNKS gradualism and punctualism is the last silly defense to save the fairy tale...

Evolution is an observed, tested, proved and confirmed fact, no question about it.

But if nowadays we observe (also in the fossil record) animals/plants producing the same category of plant&animal, so in order to assert and believe the contrary, you have to imagine, fancy, assume suppose, conjeture, hallucinate that long time ago it was not so?, Am I right or not?

[msh1044]

It debunks neither, it merely shows the fosil record to be incomplete.

Other sources that supporting the theory you might want to check out:

- compare Retroviral DNA infections in the same locations across multiple species and build a tree using the ones that overlap ( there are many on the internet )

- The Fusion of Human Chromosome Number 2

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

It debunks neither, it merely shows the fosil record to be incomplete.

Nooop, you´re willingly ignorant of the OBSEVATIONAL DATA...

Here you have a Paleontologist with the highest credentials in the field.-

"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)

This assertion was made based on OBS-DAT.

[msh1044]

The origional quote goes like this:

Just as we have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off up on an imperfect fossil record, so too have we long recognized the rapid, if not sudden, turnover of faunas in episodes of mass extinction

The quote taken in context of the book has nothing of the meaning you place it in. This is one of those other "not to be read to literal quotes"

Look up the source, read the book and see for yourself :)

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

The original quote goes like this:

Regardles of your context, it´s a wonderfull true that trought out all space and time the fossil record present two features:

STASIS.-Horseshoe crabs have been producing horseshoe crabs the last 450 millions year, no argue this...

SUDDEN APPEARANCE:

The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is Divine Creation...no argue this, it´s a fact, an observed fact.-

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Listen to Charly...hopefully he was not out of context:

"The rapid development as far as we can judge of all the higher plants within recent geological times is an abominable mystery." (Darwin, Charles R., letter to J.D. Hooker, July 22nd 1879, in Darwin F. & Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p. 20-21)

I bet you were right Charly, at least you were honest

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

The original quote goes like this:

Nooop, out of context is yor common practice and the last defense to save your fairy tale from collapse, but it does not change the FACTS brought into the table at all...

The OBSERVATIONAL DATA is waiting for you to be acknowledged, remebmer the Ptolemaic theory, those days scientists didn´t want to acknowledge the other celest bodies (planets) that didn´t fit into the theory, and you know the story...

Nooop, out of context does not work.

[msh1044]

Show me the observational data that proves evolution wrong.

Then show me the observational data that proves ID right.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

First of all, Evolution is and observed, tested, proved and confirmed fact, nobody with half a brain will argue, OK?

Once again, but and oooh what a BIG but, to assert that a single ancestry organism whatever it was brought forth the whole diversity of life on earth, that´s something you have to imagine, fancy, suppose, assume, conjeture, hallucinate and to support such a claim there is a bunch of imaginations, fanciful ideas, assumptions, conjetures and hallucinations, nothing more.

[chuyaventuras]

MSH1044

Then show me the OBS-DAT that proves ID right.

Every single code that we know of came from a Mind, Do you agree?, if not, you are not in the real world.

A simple code, "orse Code "dots and dashes" does all the work, Did it come from a Mind?...Yeees,

no argue...

Binary Code, with all its application on computer technology etc, Did it come from a Mind?....Yeees, no argue...

Genetic Code with such an intricate mechanisms and rules came by chance, right? you´re hallucinating

[msh1044]

So because genetic code seems complex ( which we can argue about, it is basicly a repitition of "one base pair" millions of time over ) an intelligence, or designer must have done it? And this is evidence of ID how?

All minds known to us are a lot more complex then a genetic molecule. So what you are trying to state seems by definition less likely that the emergence of a genetic molecule out of chemicals.

That aside, disproving evolution is still not proof of ID, no mather how much you insist

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

So because genetic code seem complex...

Nooop, DNA is the most complex molecule in the known universe, but that aside.-

Every single code that we know came from a mind, to me is totally irrational, bias and certainly non-science to conclude that such a molecule & code came from spontaneous random chemical reactions, those yet not proved proposed natural processes to accomplish such a task are pure conjetures & hallucinations that overcome not the problem, they only "dodge" ID.

[msh1044]

DNA is surely a very long molecule, but its a repitition of a very short base (which can be extended over time)

The field you look for is called abiogenesis, a field seperate from evolutionairy biology that sets out to explain the posibilities of life arrising from chemicals.

Evolution theory starts with the first liveform, before that its not evolution theory.

Your ID'er could in theory actually have designed a first cell, and evolution as a theory wouldn't suffer from it in the slightest.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Save time and grief, I´m fully aware what the fairy tale, sorry evolutinary theory is all about and how it works, but if abiogeneis is an hallucination, remember evolutionary theory claims that the whole diversity of life came from a single ancestry organism whatever it was, and if an organism can not produce a different category organism, since it will falsify evolution, how is evolution used to support evolutionary theory?

Something is wrong with the evolutionary theory ideas.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Evolution as a descent with modification, yes, wouldn´t suffer from it in the slightest...

But, and oooh what a BIG but, the claim made by evolutionary theory that the whole diverstiy of life came from a single cell ancestry, yes it would suffer a lot.-

Once again, evolution is an observed, tested, proved and confirmed fact, a real observation, no argue about that.-

But evolutionary theory is pure imaginations, conjetures, assumptions, a scientific hallucination, nothing more.

[msh1044]

The idea you present looks like "kind" only produces "kind" (the Kent Hovind way perhaps?)

But this seriously begs the question what method is used for restricting animal change?

At cell level the difference between a slug and a horse and be summed up as: different amount of dna base pairs, different amount of chromosomes, different active genes)

All these things can change with generations and their does not appear to be any restriction as to where this can change too.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

All these thing can change with generations...

No question, you truly believe 4600 million years ago the earth was a ball of molten lava, 700 million years later after torrential rains a prebiotic soup was produced and out of this soup miraculously emerged the first living organism whatever it was, and then on an everchanging world this first organism diverged into the whole diversity of life living and extinct...you´re right: There´re no restrictions to hallucinate.

[msh1044]

Just wondering though..

Do you think or believe that the process i described "can" happen ( having ended up where we are now, indifferent of whether it was the correct explanation of the past ) using the principles i described? ( that would be: increase in dna though duplication, breaking of strands into chromosomes, and mutation over time )

if yes, what restricts you from extrapolating these findings,

if no, what findings appear to be missing to you?

[chuyaventuras]

MSH1044

First at all, chromosomes number range from 2 (ant) to 1260 (fern) there´s no correlation in any sense an ancestry organism whate ever it was diverging into the whole diversity of life...

First unsurmountable question is:

How many chromosomes did it have?

Is dna insertions/deletions and duplication enough to explain how the diversity of life came into being?

What is the outcome of an dna insertion deletion or duplication?

Is cancer the outcome of a mutation?

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

If yes, what restricts you fromextrapolating...

Yes, but the question would be:

What are the real outcome of such phenomenon observed at the molecular level?

When cells makes not exacly the right copy most of the time we have "cancer" not a better organism...

[msh1044]

I never expressed an oppinion about any of these things, neither is it really relevant to the discussion we are having. The relevent part of my post was the observation that their does not appear to be a restriction at the cell level as to what can change towards what.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

DNA is urely a very long molecule, but it´s a repetition...

Surely it´s, that´s why expertise know-how in biochemestry can make copies very easily, it takes a while but it´s very easy, no doubt...keep on dreaming

[msh1044]

well, i don't recall "know-how in biochemestry" in my previous post. but cells themselves copy the entire dna strand often in far less then an hour. In one human life time around 10,000 trillion cell divisions occur. so its not terribly hard for live forms to make a copy of a dna strand. and with these amounts of copies being it's not hard to come up with the idea that some will not be copied exactly right. (and this is exactly what we observe, dna insertions/deletions and duplications)

[msh1044]

The "Every single code that we know came from a mind", therefore dna must have been created by a mind argument is a bit problamitic.

Using the same faulty logic I might respond to you with a just as unhelpfull answer like: every mind that we know of seems to be build of using cells containing dna, therefore all minds must be build using cells containing dna.

A play on words first and foremost,

The odds of spontainious live arising are quite long, but i argue the odds of ID to be even longer.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Sorry my mistake, I pressed enter by mistake please read "Morse Code"

And here a bias statement by F. Crick, when he discovered DNA,

Scientists must keep in mind that what they are seeing was NOT DESIGNED, but evolved...

This is what he really said:

Nobody can claim that this molecule was designed, if not a Designer is required and that´s exactly what we´re trying harder to eliminate from the equation, that such a Designer does not exist.

[msh1044]

I read most of the books these people wrote and the watched shows of these people. I do not believe thousands of people are conspiring against us because they hate the intelligent designer so much. All these people in the end concluded evolution to be true. In practice it would be very hard to uphold a conspiricy of that size as well.

But even... even if all the scientists were evil conspiricy monkeys ( which i don't think they are ) that still doesn't help your case.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Other sources that supports the theory...

A little bit of history first:

Remember the Ptolemaic theory, EVERYTHING seemed to support the theory, but and oooh what a BIG but, some celest bodies (planets) did not...and you know the end of the Theory Same with Evolutionary Theory, Retroviral DNA, Hox Genes, The Fusion of Human Chromosome 2, nested hierarchies etc "seems" to support the theory, but Stasis & Sudden appearance "DOES NOT", let alone the whole Fossil Record.-

[msh1044]

The Ptolemaic system is gone now, pretty much because of how science works.

Why would a designer put retroviral dna in the same spots in certain animals in such ways that it would look like we could construct a descendents tree from it, why distribute all species over the land in accordance with their differences, and whats with all the "junk" dna stuff?

(You still have to argue for your designer though. even disproving evolution won't help you proving him)

[msh1044]

Stasis is a state mostly observed in creater populations. ( It takes longer for a genetic traid to spread across a large population and it is often cancelled out because of that )

Sudden appearance can be explained by luckily mutations in the junk dna section, or a small dna change causing organisms to function quite differently.

Its not really in denial with evolution as a theory in general.

More as to how it would work in detail.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

And currently nothing seems to be pointing to an intelligent designer as he is by its nature.. unprovable

Evolution, defined as the whole diversity of life came from a single common ancestry, by its nature is uproved & unprovable too, it´s something you have to believe, imagine, conjeture, hallucinate, assume, fancy, suppose it happened, everything take place in your imagination, since nothing you believe can readily be seen or proved...an enormous leap of faith is required.

[msh1044]

I usually take evolution as: the ability for organisms to get modified over time, (genetic mutation) to become devided in to groups that can no longer reproduce together, (speciation) and become very distinct and optimized based on their way of living over time. ( natural selection )

The rest can be argued by building trees out of the genome similairities. Tracing retro viri, fosil distribution, etc. Whether we all came from one or two cells at the start is not the most relevant thing to me.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Sudden appearance can be explainde by luckily mutations in the junk dna...

This argument is something you have to imagine, conjeture, fancy, suppose it happened, everything take place in your imagination, nothing that can readily be seen or proved, and then on the most bias fashion you horribly argue, "this is the best scientific explanation I can think of, and you feel self-satisfied,

Nooop, something is profoundly wrong with your fairy tale, sorry your theory, check it out.

[msh1044]

Well, we have the observed facts of mutation and selection. we know that children have modifications that both parents do not. we know there is a lot of junk dna. we know that it can activate if a mutation happens. we know that given the amount of time there is, this will happen ever now and then. we know that most will be harmfull, but some might be benifitial. we know that natural selection favors benefitial mutations.

Its about as certain as you can get.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

We know that most will be harmfull, but some might be beneficial...

Again & Again...conjetures, imaginations, assumptions, fancies, in few words hallucinations...

Yes, yes & yes, if you could look at your grand grand grand grand pa, you inmediately will ask, Who was he? he was too disimilar from you and you grand grand grand sons will be too disimilar from you.

Does it prove the diversity of life came from a common ancestry 3850 my? nooop, unless you have heavy hallucinations.

[msh1044]

Its "extrapolation of evidence".

But that's fine, science does this all the time. Calculate the position of a planet in the galaxy as it was long ago using the data points of its positions we have gathetered. Nobody was there, but its still fine to do

It will stand as a theory of this planets orbit.

Naturally, If in the future we find out that this planet has been hit by a large comet or something this can still show reality to be different.

Science does not do truth, science does probability.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

It´s extrapolation of evidence...

I know what extra & interpolation is all about, but remember the Ptolemaic Theory, they did not want to reassess their possition and you know the story...

If there´re not a few but many facts on your "extrapolated conclusions" that are doubtful, it´s time to excersise extremely coutiousness on any conclusion, that´s what science is all about, but nooop, you insist over & over that evolution is all there was, is and will be, that´s bias.

[msh1044]

I am expressing the points in its favor, thats true, and am debating the likelyness of it being the model for the world around us. (I do think the model to be likely in high degree, but am always open to discussion)

I think scientists persue the model of evolution because it works and gives a place to our observed data

what does ID explain? no model or method, unlikely, considering the findings. (viral/junk/chro2)

perhaps a very odd designer? though that seems even less likely by definition.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Perhaps a very odd designer?

Well maybe you don´t like the idea of a Designer, but the non-sense and irrational idea that the whole diversity of life came from a common cell ancestry whatever it was and whatever number of chromosomes it had (another huge problem) is more plausible and scientific, isn´t it?, Nooop, that is the hallucination of the scientific community, nothing observerd, tested, proved or confirmed by the scientific method, a belief system, nothing more.

[msh1044]

multiple chromosomes are not required for a first cell. one very short bit of dna would do it.

dna insertion: Where in the proces of coping dna parts get copied more then once. (observed and documentated many times over)

The breaking of a long chromosome in to two parts has little influense on its function. ( unless it breaks at on a spot where an active gene is )

The route would be:

1. have a liveform

2. have dna insertions occur.

3. have breaking occur in this long strand of dna.

[msh1044]

You really have a thing with interpreting text. the "odd designer argument" has nothing to do with my liking or disliking ID. it is an observation of appearent "unintelligent design"

Since you have taken the position for ID in this discussion i am wondering how junk dna fits in ID. because it is not something you expect a designer to do. ( imagine a piece of code where 95% of the instructions are never used at all )

[msh1044]

I suppose my point is that the "Ptolemaic theory" metafor you apply to me applies to you as well. wouldn't the appearance of unintelligent design, the presence of viral dna accros multiple species in the same spots, the human chromosome 2 fusion, would there not be a chance that these might constitute a planet in the wrong orbit in the ID "model"?

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Divine Creation and evolution are not the only two options by definition...

What other option does exist?

God and divine creation are denied for other reasons by Richard?

Which reason does he have to do so?

[msh1044]

In theory there might exist many others that we are simply not aware of.

a few hundred years ago a priest might have simly stated something like: if we aren't created, then how did we come here? and nobody would have been able to present an alternative

Nowadays are options have increased by at least 1. And other options might exist, and come to light in the future.

Posing the question as a dichotomy is therefore not possible.

[msh1044]

The existence of a third option might be proven as well by the disproving of both the first and second option as well. Both cases will have to be looked at seperately.

[msh1044]

Ricard denies gods likelyness to exist with arguments around the probability of his existence. He points out as well that nothing explains god, it is simply granted to be the natural terminator of the problem. With little reason indicating it to be so.

But you should read the book "the god delusion" if you want his take on the issue, since you already seem to have read his other work ( from which you quote ) you might like this one as well.

[chuyaventuras]

msh1044

Richard denies gods likelyness....

He denies gods based on philosophical arguments...but that aside...

Scientists are to gather the facts & OBS-DAT and come to logical, plausible, rational unbias explanations, no matter where the evidence leads, if it leads to an ID so be it, but when scientists admits design a Designer is discarded by default in the most bias fashion, and by doing so they look very stupid.-

Truth sometimes leads us where we don´t want to go, Got it?

[msh1044]

Sure science should lead where the evidence points...

Thats why evolution theory is so populair ;)

( And currently nothing seems to be pointing to an intelligent designer as he is by its nature.. unprovable )

[chuyaventuras]

MSH1044

Sure science should lead where the evidence points...Thats why evolution theory is so popular.-

Well, socialism used to be the most popular economic model in the former Soviet Union, there were no other option, and if and what a BIG if, if someone dare to propose Capitalism as an alternative option, what would happen to that person? well you know the story...if your theory is so strong why protect it from any other ideas, finally those ideas will callapse by itself, won´t they?

[msh1044]

Dude.. I was joking :p

Everyone knows science doesn't work by populairity

[msh1044]

good content, but the video is a bit hard to watch every now and then.