Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Now we are getting somewhere

Now we are getting somewhere. You want to add a new theory to the list.

1. This is just coincidence. <--Very unlikely given the number of such coincidences.
2. Intelligent design (*POOF*). <--Possible.
3. There is a common ancestor. <--Also possible.

I am fine with this. I never said that evolution disagrees with creationism, in fact I said the opposite: "Evolution can not conflict with any other point of view because it is merely a bunch of scientific observations. You can't argue with observations. "

Well now its settled there is no dispute between evolution and creationism.

PS. I thought you said you could refute every scientific observation made in every field...Bensaccount 21:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

we must have been having two different conversations all this time:).

1 -- there are two areas of dispute between creationists generally and evolutionists generally: macroevolution and abiogenesis. if you have evidence for macroevolution and abiogenesis, then creationism becomes unreasonable under occam's razor. without macroevolution and abiogenesis, creationism is the most parsimonious explanation available for the scientific observations we have.

2 -- you said there was an enormous amount of evidence for macroevolution. you said that embryology was evidence for macroevolution. it is not, because similarity does not equal ancestry, as i said briefly at the beginning, and which (apparently) made me a moron. i have still heard no evidence for macroevolution come my way. i am waiting for you to provide some.

3 -- i never said i could refute every scientific observation made in every field. i AGREE with every observation made in every field that i've been made aware of. science is one of the best friends i've ever had. what i dispute is that any of those observations lead to the conclusion that macroevolution takes place. i think that belief in naturalistic macroevolution and abiogenesis is just as a priori and religious as creationism. in my opinion ... it is even moreso.

4 -- so bring on your macroevolution, my fine, intelligent friend. Ungtss 21:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macroevolution theorizes that there is a common ancestor to all vertebrates. The test is that if this were true all vertebrates would share similarities. Since it upholds to this test, all vertebrate are similar it gains support as a theory. You claim to be friends with science. That is how science works. If a theory upholds to tests and gives consistent results, it gains support. Bensaccount 23:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

we're back where we started. similarity does not support common ancestry. the sun and an orange are both round. your computer and mine both have a screen. my ass and my face both have two cheeks. just because two things are similar does NOT mean they are related, because similarity is in the eye of the beholder. if you want to show that two things are related, you have to do it some other way ... like digging up their common ancestor. so find me the cat-dog, or mr. cheesedreams's hairy-sort-of-lizard , and i'll start believing there is evidence for macroevolution. Ungtss 23:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No we aren't quite back where we started. I have realized that you don't understand how scientific evidence works. So here it is: Evolution is a theory. A theory gains support when it can give consistent results and stand up to testing. The principles of evolution are natural selection and adaptation. They are what is being tested and they are what predicts the common ancestor for cats and dogs. If the principles hold up to enough tests then they can be used to make theoretical predictions. When these predictions become true, the theory gains support. That is how science works. No one cares if you don't find the exact link between two species and have it proven that the ancestor is legitimate. Evolution is a theory that can explain phenomena. Not the phenomena. Bensaccount 23:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you seem to know a lot about what i know and don't know, my fine, intelligent friend. first of all, evolution is both a theory and a phenomenon, as it is not only an idea in our head, but also (supposedly) a historical reality. secondly, to my knowledge, everything that evolution predicts is predicted by creationism, except two things: evolution across genera and phyla, and naturalistic abiogenesis. similarity works for both theories. genetics works for both theories. biochemistry works for both theories. mutation and natural selection works for both theories. biogeography works for both theories. the only thing that makes it more reasonable to believe that evolution ACTUALLY HAPPENED and creation DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN is physical evidence of macroevolution. Ungtss 00:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You just made 3 statements and they are all incorrect. Here are the corrections: 1) Evolution is only a theory. It is not a phenomenon. It never "happened".

then how did life in its diversity come about in this rock, historically speaking? Ungtss 01:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) Creationism is not a scientific theory. It doesn't make any predictions.

creationism predicts:

1) no transitional fossils across phyla + genera;

2) no explicable mechanism for the naturalistic origin of life;

3) unnumerable complexities upon complexities within the structure of life exceedingly unlikely to have come about by chance;

4) a > 99:1 ratio of negative to positive mutations in nature;

5) genetic stability within species;

6) deterioration, not improvement, by inbreeding advantageous traits;

7) polystrate fossils;

3) Evolution has no connection to abiogenesis. Bensaccount 01:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

abiogenesis is the evolution of non-life into life. evolution just means development by chance and natural selection. that's what abiogenesis is. eventually, chemicals arranged themselves by chance in such a way as to become self-replicating ... so they self-replicated ... and here were are. Ungtss 01:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Evolution is a theory. It explains how diversity came about. It is not the phenomenon of diversification.

• whatever you want to call it. there is no solid evidence for diversification beyond the level of genera and phyla. period. Ungtss 04:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think that you belief that creationism is a scientific theory is very widely held. But if you hold that it is, I wont argue with you.

• if i hear one more person tell me creationism is wrong because it's a minority view, i think i'll spit. is truth determined by vote? was evolution wrong when Darwin was the only one who'd thought of it? Or relativity? beyond that, worldwide, evolution is the minority view, and always has been. The majority of human beings are unadulterated creationists. Ungtss 04:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it is not as useful for making predictions as you seem to think.

• prove it. Ungtss 04:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• In fact I think you just listed all the predictions that it makes right there. (And I wont even get into the validity of them).

• i could go on for YEARS with falsifiable creationist predictions. feel free to go into their validity any time you like. Ungtss 04:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• No evolution doesn't "just mean develepment by chance and natural selection". That is a laymans definition of evolution. Furthermore, the priciples of evolution do not apply to non- self replicating organisms. Bensaccount 03:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• well feel free to tell me what evolution is anytime you like ... or how you think life came into existence without God. i'll be here:). Ungtss 04:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I came here to make one point. That there is no debate between creationism and evolution. You are trying to prove to me that creationism is as good a theory as evolution. You are not even debating against me. I do still however disagree with what you are saying; creationism can't predict anything that hasn't already been observed so it is not a theory. But that is not why I am here. If you want to prove that there is a conflict between evolution and creationism, go ahead. If not, I am through. Bensaccount 18:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

creationism asserts that God made us and the universe by his own intelligence, power, and love. evolution asserts that he didn't, and we arose by a combination of chance and natural law. That's the conflict. Ungtss 22:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't assert that God didn't make us. It is just a theory that can explain a lot of things. It is still possible that we were created (*poof*). There is no conflict. Bensaccount 23:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you go right ahead and think that. Ungtss 23:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You go right ahead and think about the fact that it doesn't assert that God did make us either.

Further, go right ahead and think about the standard of evidence supporting evolution (though contested by Creationists) and how it compares with the evidence for God (none). CheeseDreams 16:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and you go right ahead and think there's no evidence for God. i think the existence of God is the only thing that's truly obvious in this world. Ungtss 18:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Ungtss - Falsify Creationionism

a link for ungtss

Scientists have

(a) described the chain of evolution from a shrew to mankind, at a genetic level.

if you read the article in any degree of detail, you will realize that you have completely misrepresented it. the experiment did not describe any chain of evolution -- the process of the hypothetical animal's development. it did not even describe the hypothetical animal, or show any evidence that the animal actually existed. it did not even model ALL of what the hypothetical animal's genetic code. it just took part of the "common denominator" of a bunch of contemporary mammals genomes in a computer model. no evidence it actually existed. no evidence of any relationship between it and us. no evidence that it was our ancester. only evidence of similarity. and SIMILARITY is consistent with both creation and evolution. Ungtss 21:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ive said before what the description of the animal was - the Msomething. Though I believe I referred to it as a sort-of-rat, when in fact I should have referred to it as a sort-of-shrew. CheeseDreams 23:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

could just as easily be a "pink-elephant-something," unless you can back your endless conjecture with some facts. that article provided absolutely no support for your claim. Ungtss 01:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

let's start with the basics. what came BEFORE the sort-of-shrew, and what came after it? Ungtss 01:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Before-a hairy sort-of-lizard. After - sort-of-equus, mouse, sort-of-boar. CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that's cute:). a hairy sort-of-lizard:). do you have any evidence for that one, or just more conjecture? Ungtss 19:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is evidence for it. I can't remember the name for it though, so sort-of-lizard will have to do for the time being. CheeseDreams 19:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i guess it will:). Ungtss 19:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its Eucynodont.

For further info on the evolution of mammals see Mammal which has such a section. CheeseDreams 19:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the only link between them and us is the shape of their teeth -- which apparently look like the teeth of dogs. eucynodonts did not have hair, and (according to you) evolved into a sort-of-shrew, not a dog. where's your hairy sort-of-lizard, and how did he get shrew teeth before he got his dog teeth back? Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

now thats just superficial. Note also, that sort-of-shrew contains "sort-of". Modern shrews etc. lost the dog teeth in the same way that modern whales lost the fur and legs. CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

let me put this a little bit clearer for you. now you've set things up so you have to have a "sort-of-shrew" with dog-teeth in order to make the link. your whale analogy is just as absurd and conjecture-based as this one (they base the connection between pigs and whales on a similarity in one bone structure in the fins). finally, these people are so desperate to prove their point they're modeling a large cynodont on TWO MOLARS found in arizona -- NOTHING ELSE BUT TWO MOLARS, WHEN the CYNODONT TEETH WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOG-LIKE ANYWAY. Is it even POSSIBLE they belonged to a DOG!? and they modeled a WHOLE ANIMAL off those two molars:). that's rich:). my favorite, tho, is saying that the reptilian Thrinaxodon was warmblooded because it had tiny holes on its snout which MIGHT have been for whiskers. show me the shrew with the dog teeth, the pig with the blowhole, and the reptile with hair, and i'll shut up. until then, will you ever stop trying to forcefeed people your BS conjecture? Ungtss 19:20, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparisons of the genetic code of animals show similarities in non coding regions. They also show similarity in non-coding third bases within genes (which are non-coding because of redundancy in the genetic code). These observations are not explained by creationism. Barnaby dawson 14:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

non-coding regions can be evaluated two ways: evolution views non-coding regions as accumulated error. creationism views them as partly design ("place keepers" and "backup dna in case of error" if you will) and partly accumulated error over time. same phenomenon, twin explanations. the non-coding dna similarity is consistent with either model. what i'm unaware of is any evidence that the non-coding DNA MUST have come about by chance and not by design. on the contrary, i can't help but wonder why non-coding dna was retained under an evolutionary regime. Ungtss 14:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They don't work as back up DNA - activating the code in the regions by adding in random stop-codon's and start-codons causes highly toxic proteins. Under evolution - advantage of non coding regions is that it enables folded DNA (i.e. really tightly coiled compressed and crumpled) to either (a) still keep the coding regions accessible as they don't have to also be on the inside of the coil, or (b) protect the coding regions by keeping them inside the coil and presenting a protective non-coding layer to the outside, to which damage is not important. Either way, there is advantage. CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• and that advantage is consistent with design. Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not really, design would be more along the lines of a protective shell, or a spiked nature (depending on which of (a) or (b) you are going for). CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Let's not let Mr. Dreams mislead us. No published scholar has proposed such an outlandish idea. The non-coding sections within our genes resulted from a major breakthrough and beneficial mutation that occurred about a billion years ago in our primitive ancestors that were only single-celled creatures. The major breakthrough and mutation was the ability to put together new gene mutations from modular sections (exons = EXpressed regiONS) of already tested and proven DNA sections instead of having to read the gene straight through from beginning to end. The non-coding regions within genes (introns = INTeRvening regiONS) resulted from the random mutations between the splices of the functioning modular sections of the gene. In humans, very few genes do not have non-coding regions. Human genes have up to 60 different stretches of non-coding regions that are spliced out of the messenger RNA (mRNA) from which proteins are made. Our single-celled ancestors' mutation that assembled mRNA in sections rather than straight-through meant that many of the random insertions of genetic material from other places in the human genome would already be working, so many more of the random mutations would be beneficial. (See, e.g., Marjon A.M. van Dijk, Marcel A.M. Sweers, Wilfried W. de Jong. 2001. "The Evolution of an Alternatively Spliced Exon in the aA-Crystallin Gene." Journal of Molecular Evolution 52, pp. 510-515.) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• that's good stuff:). so if i can try to paraphrase what you're saying (and let me know if i'm offtrack), the non-coding regions allow mutations to take place like functions and subroutines in a computer program, so that you can substitute a whole gene, like a replacement for the an entire subroutine, without changing the main routine? is that a fair analogy? Ungtss 00:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• just to clarify a little bit (this from the fine information Barnaby so kindly placed on my talkpage) ... they're like the framework in which the coding segments fit? and since they don't CODE anything, they are able to vary randomly without any natural selection pressure on them? so by measuring degrees of similarity and variation in the non-coding sections, we see that it forms a "tree" rather than a more arbitrary result that would be expected by creation? i'm not gonna lie. Barnaby just presented the first coherent argument for common ancestry i've ever heard in my life:). Ungtss 01:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The counter argument is that just because no purpose has been discovered for the so-called non-coding regions doesn't mean that they have no purpose. The argument is in effect the vestigial organ argument applied at a genetic level. Evolutionists once proposed over 100 vestigial organs in humans (i.e. organs with no purpose so they must be evolutionary leftovers), yet today we know of purposes for every one of those organs. Also, there has been some evidence that at least some of the non-coding regions have a purpose. Philip J. Rayment 01:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that was my first reaction, too ... before i fully understood what they are saying. it sounds to me like they're saying that the purpose or non-purpose of the non-coding regions is irrelevent -- they (especially the third base pairs, according to barnaby) vary totally randomly, so the degree to which they vary can be used to show how "related" two specimins are. i guess the question i'm left with is this: "what's the NORM for this variation? what are we comparing it TO?" because after we differentiated from the single-celled organisms, they would have gone through MANY MILLIONS of more generations than we would have (because our lifespans got longer while theirs stayed the same) ... so their non-coding segments would have had much more opportunity to vary than ours -- how can we COMPARE the degrees of randomness, to show relationship? what's our null? any thoughts from anyone who knows about this stuff? Ungtss 03:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Shift left): Actually the randomness of the variation of the third base pairs is not necessary to the argument. This is because any selective pressure could only act to make the relationships less like that of a tree. Hence observing a tree shape is still evidence for evolution even if there is selection pressure on the 3rd bases. The randomness of the 3rd base pairs makes the tree shape easier to distinguish and geneticists use 3rd base pair mutations because they make for more accurate phylogenetic trees.

Also I should clarify that not all 3rd bases are equally random. If you take a look at this you'll see that if the second base is C then the third base doesn't matter at all. In addition with other first and second bases the 3rd base just matters less. When I said that the distribution is as expected if it were random I should have said that this is when two triplets code for the same amino acid. So as an example there are high mutation rates between AUU, AUC and AUA but low mutation between AUG and any of those three (in eukaryotes). The questions about the norm and such are answered on my talk page. The vital part of the argument is not the relationships but their tree structure. Barnaby dawson 11:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm obviously brand new to this ... but i just looked up everything i could on the subject, and you have no idea how much i appreciate your expertise and availability on the topic:). lemme try and paraphrase what's been said, just to see if i'm on track.

phylogenetic trees are created by studying the degree of variance in non-coding regions, particularly third base pairs because they appear to vary with very little selection pressure. the "time of splitting" is inferred from the degree of drift. however, according to the wikipedia article on the topic anywhere, "trees that lack extinct species should be read with care."

and that's where i'm confused. i can't understand where we get the NODES from. none of the trees i've been able to find yet have SPECIES at those nodes -- so how are the nodes inferred from the statistical data, when all we have available today are the TIPS of each branch of the tree ... which have been varying too, at different mutation rates and lifespans? could the data not just be interpretted as a STAR, instead of a tree, with all genomes varying from a standard non-coding region "design," according to their own mutation rates, lifespans, and environment? without physical evidence of the NODES to give a BASIS for the variation after the branching, couldn't the varying rates of similarity between species close on a tree just be due to similar mutation rates, genetic structures, and lifespans (i.e. "clumps" of species that drifted at a similar rate)?

forgive me for being obstinate if i'm just not understanding you ... Ungtss 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A star pattern would be very different from a general tree pattern mathematically. And yes that possibility has been ruled out by the data. Different mutation rates could not possibly make a star pattern look like a tree pattern. We can infer the existence of the nodes (speciation events) from the data but we cannot tell if there may have been other species around at one time that died out. Some people have made phylogenetic trees with coding DNA too. I don't know much about that though I'm afraid. In a few years time we will have much more data to go on so it should be an interesting time to do science. Barnaby dawson 15:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks for everything -- i still don't know how we can differentiate a star pattern from a tree pattern when all we have are the tips of the tree / star without physical specimines of the nodes to demonstrate the branching ... but i won't take anymore of your valuable time here -- i'll go look it up like a big boy:). thanks again for all your help:). Ungtss 17:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

just one last note. this article left me unconvinced. if you are determining the tree based on applying parsimonious or likelihood algorithms to an enormous number of POSSIBLE trees ... neither of which is inherently superior to any other ... then you don't have evidence of any tree at all. you've just assumed what you're looking for (the most parsimonious tree that supports common ancestry) ... and you always find it. but if you don't assume the most parsimonious common-ancestry tree, then you have NOTHING but a tangled web of statistical data. you can only determine a TREE if you have evidence of the NODES ... and we have nothing like that. i'm sorry. i'm not convinced at all. please help me if i'm way off course. Ungtss 19:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just one last reply I'm afraid. The article is clearly written from an evolutionary point of view. The argument is regarded as settled by most biologists (practically all in the UK) and so people no longer feel it necessary to point out every single additional piece of evidence for the theory. If the creationist viewpoint is correct then the tree diagrams you would get from the above method would be something like the minimal spanning tree of something that is essentially a graph. However, we would expect to get different such trees for different genes. This is because in this case the trees would reflect similarities in how the genes function and different genes have different design constraints. However we find that the trees we get are very similar. It is possible to do statistical tests to determine whether or not a given set of data is well explained as a tree. This has probably been done. But the above point about the similarities of the trees obtained from different genes is very strong evidence indeed against creationism. Maybe I'll write some material for phylogenetic tree but good bye for now. Barnaby dawson 00:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

if you run material for different genes through the same algorithm, looking for the same type of tree, is it any suprise you find the same tree? thanks anyway for your expertise on the topic:). Ungtss 00:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Good comments from Mr. Rayment and from Mr. Ungtss, in my opinion. You both intrigued me here in the middle of the night. And here is what I found. 1) Yeast is one of the simplest creatures like us in having cells with a nucleus containing the genetic material. Of the yeast's genes, less than 5% contain introns--non-coding regions within the gene. Only 7 of the 6000 yeast genes contain 2 introns. 2) Bacteria have zero introns. So bactera have very, very little chance of getting a breakthrough mutation. They would have to mutate to handle introns first. 3) More than 95% of human genes contain introns, up to 60 introns in fact. So humans have much more possibility of getting beneficial mutations from shuffling the exons--the coding regions--by copying and inserting working and tested "sub-functions and routines" into other genes. 4) In the October Scientific American, Mr. Mattick (2004:60) has an article that presents the speculative hypothesis that, following Mr. Rayment's suggestion, at least some of the non-coding introns within genes function to specify snippets of RNA that serve as regulators of gene processes. In making a protein from a gene, first a complete RNA "copy" of the DNA coding for the gene is made. And then your spliceosomes take over to read the RNA "copy" and splice out the RNA snippets that are marked as non-coding "introns." And each spliced out intron is after all, a strand of RNA which might possibly serve as a regulator much like known RNA regulators like your "RNA polymerase" that controls the process of reading your DNA as the first step to make protein. Mr. Mattick poses in that Scientific American article a hypothesis that is not very "falsifiable." How on earth could I do an experiment to prove it wrong! --so that I could improve it. :)) I would say that not every intron creates an RNA regulator--and there I have stated another hypothesis that is not very falsifiable.  :((( ---Rednblu | Talk 09:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

man -- this is all great stuff -- thank you SO much for providing it:). i don't doubt for a second your description of introns -- i'll buy everything you said up there, with one caveat. i find myself questioning the underlying assumption -- why do we believe that we EVOLVED introns, instead of being given them? do we have a mechanism for how they could have evolved naturally? that is where i find myself on all of these issues. the science sounds great -- i just can't EVER figure out any basis for believing that these amazing and wonderous ingredients came about by CHANCE, rather than design. everytime i learn something knew about this stuff, it seems even MORE designed than it did before. help? Ungtss 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I started to give you the falsifiable hypothesis I had worked up about a year ago. But I took the time to look at the most recent publications to update my answer. Do you know about the 1) retrovirus mechanism and the 2) transduction mechanism? ---Rednblu | Talk 16:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• not an expert by any means, but i remember the basics from undergrad. the retrovirus is composed of RNA that puts dna into the host (basically reprogramming the host), and transduction is the mechanism whereby bacteriophages transfer dna between bacteria. that a start? Ungtss 23:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

• Let's not let Mr. Blu mislead us. No published scholar has proposed creationism. CheeseDreams 23:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Give away again, Mr. Dreams? How about William Paley? I take your Queen for free and thank you. Your move. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • William Paley(1743-1805) is not a modern scholar by any means so he's not the greatest example to choose from the perspective of modern thinking (although a good choice otherwise). There are examples of modern scientists taking this view. However, in the UK at least creationism has very few adherents among scientists. Barnaby dawson 00:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is possible that some of the non-coding DNA has some use to it however it is unlikely that it all does. In addition this alternative explanation does nothing to explain the third base similarities. There is a new theory going around that there are many RNA producing segments of DNA where the RNA does not get transcribed which would mean there is less non-coding DNA then previously thought (The RNA produced are probably control sequences or RNA enzymes). The non-coding third bases are there because there are about 20 amino acids and 64 coding sequences. There is no obvious way of making this more efficient.

Also apparent inefficiency in biology is more of an argument for evolution than for intelligent design. By the way is this dealt with properly in the article? Barnaby dawson 16:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hmm further the point with the similarities is that they are best explained by a tree like relationship between organisms. Any creationist would need to give a reasonable design reason for the third bases have such similarities. 131.111.231.40 17:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Barnaby dawson)

1) you said "it is possible the non-coding dna has some use to it but it is unlikely it all does." i'm curious. what happens when we remove it?

There have been some experiments along those lines. Removing large segments of repeated bases can be done without adversly effecting organisms.

what about non-repeating but non-coding sequences? Ungtss 19:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be unethical. CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) you said, "There is no obvious way of making this more efficient." How, then, could it have been designed any better?

That point is to show that your argument regarding non-coding regions does not apply to non-coding third bases.

i don't mean to sound arrogant here -- you obviously know more about this than i do. i just don't understand why third-base-similarities supports a chance interpretation over a design interpretation, when they could actually be functional ... even indispensible. Ungtss 19:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it could be designed, then it could have made pretty pictures like the mona-lisa, inside cells, and have cells work by a form of art criticism. The fact that it doesn't work like this implies that either the designer

• does not exist
• has absolutely no style
• is ufficious and beaurocratic
• was working to rules set by someone else

CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Cheesedreams, who lacks the ability to create or design life, or even understand how it happens naturally, apparently believes that he could have done a better job than the mysterious and hypothetical person who created the life we see all around us ... wonderful but imperfect as it is. that's good, mr. cheesedreams. tell me what other incomprehensible wonders are not up to your standards. i suppose the fact that the sphinx should have been given a better nose means that the designers either didn't exist or were incompetent. Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make me omnipotent, and omniscient, and Ill do a much better job darling. CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

find me the word "omnipotent" in the bible, and i'll buy you some gouda. Ungtss 14:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(aside from revelation 19:6, a vision of God's future victory). Ungtss 15:07, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3) you said, "Also apparent inefficiency in biology is more of an argument for evolution than for intelligent design." you appear to be presuming that design requires perfection -- a false presumption: just because the Model T was a gas guzzler does not mean it wasn't designed. on the other hand, since over 95% of our dna is non-coding, why is it retained by natural selection? the answer is right above your comment: the new theory is that it couldn't have been designed any better. Ungtss 17:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are many possible explanations for the existence of expansive non-coding regions. I suggest you investigate that yourself. It's you who are dodging the question of why these third base correlations exist at all. There will always be aspects of science we do not yet understand but that does not mean it cannot be understond (although I do not think you have pointed to any we currently don't understand). It is up to you to demonstrate a theory which better explains the data. Creationism does not explain parse tree data on genetics and this is a massive failure unlikely to happen by chance in the extreme.

i don't see how creationism fails to do that ... but i'm obviously no geneticist. can you point me in the right direction of some research to understand what you mean, to educate an ignorant creationist? Ungtss 19:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i looked up stuff on phylogenetic trees ... very interesting! i can see it as evidence of correlation (similarity) ... but how is it evidence of causation (relationship)? Ungtss 19:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the design is imperfect then either

• God is incompetent
• God is malicious
• God is lazy
• God is not the designer

CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

see comments above. Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ditto. CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the Bible tells us that God created a perfect (without fault) world, but that because of sin, the world is no longer perfect. Thus creationism predicts a corrupted (i.e. imperfect) design. In any case, I note that by listing this attributes of God, you are making a theological argument. Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

God created sin. If god did not, then there is something which exists which god did not create. As such, god is malicious. CheeseDreams 21:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and, in the footnote of the article,

(b) synthesised a virus (specifically an artificial recreation of Polio)

[[1]] read the facts, big guy -- they artificially synthesized a genome and implanted it in a PREEXISTING CELL.

Virus' don't have cells. The cell was to demonstrate it was a working virus. CheeseDreams 23:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) there was an Intelligent Designer involved -- in fact, a bunch of them, with fantastic equipment. you, however, believe that viruses can arise spontaneously.

The chemistry involved can happen over a million year series of random events spontaneously - the experiment demonstrated the principle that the building blocks CAN be put together to create working life - therefore the assumption that it cannot is falsified (which is the important point).CheeseDreams 23:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Creationists never disputed that the building blocks can be put together to create working life, as that is what they believe God did. The dispute is whether it can happen naturally, and although you assert it can, the experiment didn't show that, and it remains merely an undemonstrated assertion. Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So god actually had to use building blocks?

Whether or not he had to, he did. So what? Almost every machine that we humans make is comprised of smaller components, and it is hard to see how it could be done any other way. Why shouldn't God? Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In which case, I don't see how you can assert that god is any more than some alien or time traveller (or both) from somewhere with a good chemistry set. CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i don't know who God is -- i never met Him. but he's a helluvalot more powerful than i am. the stars tell me that. Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The stars tell me that im going to meet a dark haired man who owes me money and discover some long forgotten memory that will influence my decisions on my working life. How do you know god isn't just an old human man from the future who had infinite lifespan, and just put the universe together piece by piece using normal science equiptment (very very slowly - he probably got bored a bit, explaining the duck billed platypus). CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) there was already a cell to implant the virus into. you, however, apparently believe that viruses came before cells. what did the first virus feed on and reproduce in? Ungtss 21:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Virus' don't feed. Virus' don't have to reproduce IN things, if RNA is converted into a single side of DNA (the enzyme Reverse-Transcriptase (the code for all retrovirus' contains this) will cause this), then loose amino-acide will automatically attach to it (which is what happens in DNA duplication), a similar enzyme can split it or re-RNA-it thus duplication - its a basic automatable process. The thing is, in nature, these days, amino acids don't go floating about in the air, so cells are necessary. A virus is JUST RNA, nothing more, except maybe a few enzymes coating it. CheeseDreams 23:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

once again you are evading my question. has a virus ever been observed replicating outside of a preexisting cell? Ungtss 01:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Multitudes of times. How do you think they get enough copies of a sample of DNA to do DNA testing with? CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you've dodged it again. viruses can EXIST outside of cells ... but can they AUTOREPLICATE outside of cells?

Yes, multitudes of times. How do you think they get enough copies of a sample of DNA to do DNA testing with? CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i.e. a single example of life, arising from non-life

i.e. falsified that thing you stated earlier.

i.e. disproved creationism.

all blatant misrepresentations of the facts. Ungtss 21:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams 19:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, how can you object to evolution when you have a tail, gills, and webbed hands? What is the point to that happening in developmental anatomy (and in the case of the tail you still have one - Coccyx) if it is intelligent design? CheeseDreams 23:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A coccyx is not a tail, and neither do I have gills or webbed hands, and I never have. Embryonic recapitulation has been rejected by the scientific community. Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is a coccyx not a tail?

How is it a tail? It is not claimed to be a tail, it is claimed to be the vestigial remains of a tail. Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All human embryo have webbed hands at one stage in development, the webbing retracts and tightens around the bones, and you still have webbing, just not very much - feel the area where the skin joins between two fingers - try seperating your fingers really wide apart and you will see the webbing more clearly, particularly if you are not fat. CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But again, you are assuming a relationship between what is normally understood to be webbing between fingers and what we actually have. There is no evidence that they are related. The embryonic "webbing" is structurally not the same as webbing. Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You DO have gills - they are your ears (not your ear lobes). That is why there is a passageway between your ears and the back of your throat (And why if you swallow on an aeroplane, it reduces the pressure in your ears ("makes them go pop")). CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So are they ears or gills? Ears are to hear with, for balance, etc. Gills are to breath underwater with. What do we do with those organs? Oh, we hear with them! They are ears, not gills. The relationship between gills and ears is an explanation by evolutionists, not evidence. Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense - it explains the presence of the canal leading to the back of the throat. CheeseDreams 21:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But that still doesn't make them vestigial gills; that fact can also be explained by a designer. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement "embryonic recapitulation has been rejected" is a creationist distortion of the facts. Scientists assert that developmental features which were shared by ancesters appear earlier in embryonic development than those which are not.

For example, fish embryo do not develop legs or feet.

Whale embryo do. They later recede.

They do? Or they develop something that is intrepreted by evolutionists as vestigial legs and feet? Philip J. Rayment 01:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All creatures that evolution states developed from fish have embryo who develope webbing on their hands, which in most cases later dies off. In some cases, it grows back.

CheeseDreams 19:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

once again, you are assuming what you're attempting to prove. what evidence do you have that we evolved from fish, other than the embrylogy? Ungtss 20:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact there is a series of smooth changes going through the animals from fish to man, internally not just externally. CheeseDreams 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uuuh, Didn't I post a link to this whole "Embryonic recapitulation is a load of crap" stuff? Smooth Changes my arse, try gills on fish embryo and then flabs of skin on the human one, nice smooth transition there(!) EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION HAS BEEN REFUTED. To prove otherwise, go get some REAL pictures of the embryos and show me how they are similar (apart from the fact that they are embryos, which I wouldn't put past evolutionists saying). Also if you could even be bothered find some pictures of this so called "smooth transition" dont claim a fact you can't back up. Gelsamel 203.208.67.46 02:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A sensible counter argument

The above is just an argument about whether evolution is right or wrong. Evidencing AGAINST evolution is NOT the same as providing evidence FOR creationism

What are the arguments for creationism?

• The bible

Not upto scientific standards of debate. "X wrote this, so it is true" is an argument which is ignored by the scientific community as being non-sequitur and nonsense. Sorry.

• Irreducible complexity

Scientific arguments are

• It isn't complex
• It isn't irreducible.

CheeseDreams 18:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that's why i want the section. so we can lay it all out, and i won't have to put up with your strawman bs on the talkpage anymore. Ungtss 18:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<Evidencing AGAINST evolution is NOT the same as providing evidence FOR creationism>>

I dont know who wrote this but it is a correct statement. Bensaccount 22:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not totally true. First, evidence against hypothesis A is evidence for hypothesis B if they are the only two hypotheses. In the creation/evolution debate, this is true when it it stated in terms of design vs. no design, as that encompasses all possibilities.

Second, even if there are more than two possibilities, if there are only two under consideration, then evidence against one is effectively support for the other, even if it does not qualify as logical proof. To put it another way, if evolution is proved to be wrong, don't you think that a lot of people are therefore going to decide to go with creation?
Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, for example, say you have x an unknown number. You are only considering two possibilities. One hypothesis says x = 4. The other says x = 3. IF you now know that x does not equal three, x can still be any number other than 3. There is no reason why you should suddenly assume that x is 4. Bensaccount 22:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

do you find another alternative to be reasonable? if so, present evidence for that one. if not, then there are two front-runners at the moment, and no substantive competition, so an argument against one is an argument for the other. Ungtss 22:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No an argument against x = 4 is not proof that x = 3. x can still be any other number just as likely as it can be 3. You need actual proof that x = 3. Bensaccount 23:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Did you properly read what I wrote? Judging by your reply, it appears that you haven't. Philip J. Rayment 13:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I read your lies but an argument against one theory is never proof of another theory. Bensaccount 18:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not lying. But to summarise and paraphrase to make it crystal clear:

With regard to disproving evolution, I said

• logically, it does not prove creation, but
• realistically, it does provide effective support of creation.

That is just nonsense. It does no more that than support the idea that the universe was carved out of cheese. CheeseDreams 16:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams, how about you respond to my point where I made it, instead of this summary of it that was directed at Bensaccount? Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your reply was:

• Logically, it does not prove creation.

I already said that! And you ignored the other point I made.

Philip J. Rayment 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He read your other lie and it is the same lie in different words. Bensaccount 22:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

aren't they clever, Mr. Rayment? we're liars and morons, but they can't EVER tell us why:). Ungtss 22:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because an argument against one theory is never proof of another theory. Bensaccount 22:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

have you ever heard of falsifiability, smart guy? the failures of theory A lead to the development of more sophisticated theory B, that can account for them. that's how science progresses. Newtonian physics failed to explain the stability of the speed of light, so it was gobbled up by relativity. the failures of theory A support theory B, if theory B can account for them. Ungtss 22:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Think you could obfuscate the point any more? Bensaccount 22:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

look above and see if mr. rayment or i ever used the word "proof." you'll find, "support" and evidence. you will find mr. rayment saying, "it does not qualify as logical proof." there is no such thing as proof in the real world, man. there's only evidence and reasonable belief. and some beliefs are more reasonable than others. are we still morons and liars? Ungtss 22:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop pushing the lie. An argument against one theory is never proof, evidence or support of another theory. Bensaccount 22:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

okay bud:). whatever:). i forgot that proof by assertion and personal insults are the most powerful persuasive method:).

An argument against one theory is never proof of another theory. Bensaccount 22:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself. But not answering the points that I made. Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

old theory: "gravity pulls us away from the center of the earth."

argument against theory: "hmm ... that ball actually FELL that time."

new theory: "i wonder if MAYBE ... gravity pulls TOWARD the earth!?"

anyways, i'm done trolling with you:). have a nice evening, smart guy:). Ungtss 22:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your "falling ball" is not just evidence against one theory. It is also evidence directly supporting another theory. I assumed we were discussing evidence against one theory that does not directly prove or disprove the other theory.

There is no question that evidence can sometimes simultaneously prove one theory and disprove another. The question is if the evidence exclusively disproves one theory, what is its effect on the other. And so let me rephrase:

Evidence that exclusively disproves only one theory has no secondary effect of proving another theory, since it provides no positive evidence for this theory. Bensaccount 05:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now you are simply defining the statement to suit your ends. In other words, "Evidence that disproves evolution without proving creation doesn't prove creation". Doh!

We were talking about whether evidence against evolution supports creation. If these are the only two options, it has to. If not, then, as I have said repeatedly, it does not prove it, but it may offer it some support. This last point you have yet to address.

Philip J. Rayment 05:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You want me to replace prove with support? FINE (jeez).

Evidence that exclusively supports only one theory has no secondary effect of proving another theory. Bensaccount 05:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that says it all. Bensaccount 06:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, you put "support" in the wrong place and you still defined it as a truism. I want you to say "Evidence that disproves one theory has no secondary effect of effectively supporting another theory", and back it up! Philip J. Rayment 10:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

listen, smart guy. all of the predictions in the list are inconsistent with evolution and consistent with creation, making them at the very LEAST a type of indirect support for creation. none of them are consistent with both, and none of them are inconsistent with both. the only question left is whether they're true or not. Ungtss 11:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, it is quite apparent here who is attempting to support their a priori expectations by trying to redefining scientific philosophy. Perhaps you would like to redefine another aspect of scientific philosophy, call it evidence; "evidence should be ignored if it does not support creationism and if you can't find any evidence for creationism make it up". It is quite obvious that you are doing original research. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing, try Usenet. Dunc|☺ 12:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What are you on about? Philip J. Rayment 13:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm never quite sure. i do know that our "redefinition" of scientific philosophy has stood for 3000 years and has been shared by geniuses such as copernicus, gallileo, newton, and einstein ... while his "true science = pure naturalism" definition has stood for the last 40, tho ... coinciding with the rejection of Faith by western civilization, and overseeing a period of REMARKABLE speculation regarding the origin of things (my favorite being the pseudoscience called cosmology) ... and due in large part, i've been told, to Europe's inability to understand why God allowed it to self-destruct during the first part of the 20th century, when in fact the philosophies underlying its self-destruction were grounded on the new philosophy of science. Mr Rayment, do you have any citable sources for those predictions, or should i dig in and find some, to satisfy mr. harris's "original research" objection? Ungtss 15:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In which case, you are at odds with the scientific community. What you refer to as science is in fact protoscience, and adoption of and the belief that it is otherwise is pseudoscience. So, please provide a scientific theory of creation, or rather please provide a protoscientific theory of anything and reductio ad adsurdum. You have been told wrong, by your Church leaders. I will allow you to plead ignorance rather than accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting the truth. The original research comes in because you keep coming up with these new ideas, and in the past once corrected you've gone away and thought again and come back. What you need to do is write Philip Johnson says "bla bla bla". The reference to the World Wars is ridiculous, and shows you lack knoweldge of history as well as biology. Perhaps we should put into the Great War under "cause"; "God started the Great War because of his anger with his people not praising him enough and worshiping the false idol of science" It makes it sound surprisingly like a Biblical myth... Dunc|☺ 16:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<In which case, you are at odds with the scientific community.>

proof by majority vote as usual. that's good. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<What you refer to as science is in fact protoscience, and adoption of and the belief that it is otherwise is pseudoscience.>

relativity was protoscience, but cosmology is not. that's good. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<You have been told wrong, by your Church leaders.>

i don't go to church. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will allow you to plead ignorance rather than accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

perhaps if you were a judge of any standing, that would mean something to me. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<The original research comes in because you keep coming up with these new ideas, and in the past once corrected you've gone away and thought again and come back.>

as opposed to others, who have steadfastly refused to think at all, and just prove the same things by assertion, authority and personal attack repeatedly. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<The reference to the World Wars is ridiculous, and shows you lack knoweldge of history as well as biology.>

oh really? Holocaust theology. Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<Perhaps we should put into the Great War under "cause"; "God started the Great War because of his anger with his people not praising him enough and worshiping the false idol of science" It makes it sound surprisingly like a Biblical myth... >

perhaps we could also define it as, "Europe rejects God, Truth, and Reason, and suddenly finds itself unable to resist destroying itself in the name of its newly found secular ideologies. God weeps." Ungtss 16:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cited source to preempt accusations of personal research: A Study of History, written by a Brit, arguing that the Great War could very well have been Europe's self-destructive Time of Troubles caused by loss of Faith, to be followed by the Universal State (your new EU), and a slow decay. Ungtss 16:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--> Well that's an interesting POV, but this is not a discussion board. We are going round in circles. This is an encylcopedia. This is Usenet try alt.talk.creationism or talk.origins. Dunc|☺ 17:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i am not here to discuss it. i am here to present the other pov on the article page without being censored or VfD'd as "patent nonsense," or enduring constant personal ridicule not backed with any facts. i could care less what you think. i'm presenting the other pov to you here in an effort to demonstrate to you that your pov is not the ONLY legitimate pov available, and that this page needs to FAIRLY present the alternative. all i want from you is acknowledgment that reasonable people can look at the issues differently, and that creationists are not by their very nature fools who do not deserve fair representation of their ideas on the page entitled "Creation vs. evolution debate." Ungtss 20:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

as a side-note, instead of obsessing over so-called "derogatory names" like "evolutionist," why don't you provide links or hard facts substantively refuting the creationist claims. if creationism really is patent nonsense, the facts should show it, right? Ungtss 20:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence can support or refute a theory. The actual supporting or refuting of one theory never supports or refutes another theory indirectly. Bensaccount 17:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm gonna add a new one to my list: "Proof by repetition." Ungtss 20:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unlike you, I am not proving anything new. I am just stating logic that clarifies that which you confound. Bensaccount 21:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well good work. i for one feel less confounded already. and maybe if you repeat the same thing 100 more times without addressing anything else that's been said, i'll start to believe you. call me a "moron" and a "liar" a few more times, too, if you would. "confounder of logic" just doesn't do it for me anymore. Ungtss 21:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you finally agree with the fact that the actual supporting or refuting of one theory never supports or refutes another theory? Bensaccount 21:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol:). my fine intelligent friend doesn't even understand the basics of logic. why would he understand sarcasm:)? Ungtss 21:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stop insulting me and making a victim of yourself and admit the fact. Bensaccount 21:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

why don't you get back to me after you've read the article, falsifiability, and are able to make some comments relevent within that context. Ungtss 21:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are changing the subject? Is there something about the following statement that summarizes what we have been discussing for this entire section that you don't like?

Increased or decreased support for one theory never directly supports or refutes another theory. Bensaccount 21:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what i don't like about it, Ben, is that it's a false statement, and you've ignored my every comment up to this point. when theory A makes predictions, and experiments X, Y, and Z go against the predictions of theory A, but experiments X,Y, and Z are CONSISTENT with theory B, then the arguments against A have supported B as against A. can you address my assertion, or are you simply going to repeat yourself again? Ungtss 21:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(and as long as we're admitting when we're wrong, you never told me whether you still believe "relationship" and "similarity" are synonyms). Ungtss 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In your words: The arguments against A have supported B, but not as against A.

Evidence that refutes theory A can also support theory B. The actual increase or decrease in support for one theory can not effect another theory. Bensaccount 21:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

read again what i wrote. i didn't write, "but not as against A." I wrote "AS against A." Ungtss 21:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know, and if you could just express that in actual words, you would see how wrong it is. What you are saying is that not the evidence but rather the decrease in support for A is what supports B. And this is wrong because the actual increase or decrease in support for one theory can not effect another theory. Bensaccount 21:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

another attempt at analogy. please read what i write this time, instead of reading what you wish i'd wrote. two weightlifters. one maxes out at 150, one maxes out at 200. At all weights up 'til 150, you can't tell which is stronger. it's only when you had them both bars at 175 that you can tell which is better -- the WEAK one can't lift it, but the STRONG one can. the weakness of one shows the relative strength of the other. when the ONE THEORY can't explain certain things, but ANOTHER CAN, then you know which is better. Ungtss 22:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the actual increase or decrease in support for one theory can not effect another theory. Bensaccount 22:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it affects the LEGITIMACY of the other theory, by showing the other theory to be inadequate to explain the facts. or more adequate, as the case may be. are we done yet?Ungtss 22:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"showing the other theory to be inqadequate to explain the facts" is the same as "decreasing support for". So no. That is what I just said was wrong. The actual increase or decrease in support for one theory can not effect another theory. Bensaccount 22:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alright then. put up or shut up time. cite me somebody relevent who said what you're saying. i'm citing popper's falsifiability. Ungtss 22:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the relevent quote:

In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories which can account for the phenomena which falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. Thus, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of objects in everyday situations, but was falsified by Galileo’s experiments, and was itself replaced by Newtonian which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. Or at least most of them; the motion of Mercury wasn't predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but was by Einstein's General Relativity. The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous ether) replaced Newton's (and many of the Classical Greeks') particles of light but in its turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment, whose results were eventually understood as incompatible with an ether and was superseded by Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's special relativity, which did account for the new phenomena. At each stage, experimental observation made a theory untenable (i.e., falsified it) and a new theory was found which had greater 'explanatory power' (i.e., could account for the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result provided greater opportunity for its own falsification. Ungtss 22:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am saying that increased or decreased support for one theory never directly supports or refutes another theory. Whereas you are saying that it does.

Falsifiability states that we can not absolutely prove that something is true, but we can falsify theories. This has no relation to the above point. Bensaccount 22:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

falsifiability says, "science evolves from theories with less explanatory power to theories with more explanatory power, by means of falsification. less falsifiable are inferior to more falsifiable ones." this is your last chance to provide some citation supporting your claim. i have things to do. Ungtss 22:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If x, an unknown number is proven not to be 4, it has no effect on whether or not x is 3. Math is proof. Bensaccount 22:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what falsifiability has to do with anything here? Bensaccount 22:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wait ive found the connection. Just like philip, you are changing a single word in the argument: Increased or decreased falsifiability for one theory never directly increases or decreases falsifiability of another theory. Bensaccount 23:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that's obvious, smart-guy. what we're telling you is that some theories are more falsifiable than others, and you can tell which theory is superior by looking to the failures of the inferior theory. Ungtss 00:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<If x, an unknown number is proven not to be 4, it has no effect on whether or not x is 3. Math is proof.>>
If 2<x<5, and x, an unknown whole number, is proven not to be 4, it does have an effect on whether or not x is 3. "Math is proof", as you say.
Alternatively, if x is an unknown number and there are four lines of evidence suggesting that it is 4, and three lines of evidence suggesting that it is 3, and no evidence suggesting that it is another value, and then it is proven not to be 4, that makes it more likely that it is 3.
Philip J. Rayment 01:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

x = 3 is one theory. x = 4 is the other theory. what is it that makes x between 2 and 5? Bensaccount 03:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In your version, what is it that makes x any possible number? Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have steamlined my argument into a single simple statement, and have stated mathematic proof of it in basic terms. Anything else I do would be redundant. So I am through. Bensaccount 03:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

smartguy, you're one of a kind:). Ungtss 04:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Creation, evolution, and falsifiability

Here's my proposed text, and my proposed rules for filling it in. In order to make the list, a prediction must be falsifiable (i.e. there is an experiment that can disprove it) AND be inconsistent with the other theory (i.e. one theory can't predict things that are consistent with BOTH theories). but what is NOT a rule is a dispute over the merits (i.e. do you think this prediction has been falsified in fact) -- only whether it COULD be falsified, and is inconsistent with the other theory. sound good?

Proposed text:

Much of the Creation vs. evolution debate revolves around the topic of Falsifiability. According to scientific philosophy, a theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered scientific, while unfalsifiable theories are considered pseudoscience. To be falsifiable, a theory must make predictions, and state experiments which could disprove those predictions, thus disproving the theory. Ultimately, the purpose of developing falsifiable predictions is to improve and develop a theory; but it also serves as a fair judge of what is science and what is merely human interpretation. Creationists and evolutionists accuse each other of being unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Falsifiable predictions of evolution include:

Falsifiable predictions of creation include:

1) No evidence for speciation across genera and phyla (falsifiable by showing a fair number of common ancestors within higher taxa, or clearly demonstrating the mechanism by which such speciation could have taken place);

2) no explicable mechanism for the naturalistic origin of life (falsifiable by showing a mechanism by which life could have arisen without the intervention of an intelligent being);

3) unnumerable complexities upon complexities within the structure of life exceedingly unlikely to have come about by chance (falsifiable by showing an end to the complexity in our systems -- a beginning -- the primal stuff of life, beyond which no more complexity is discovered;

4) a > 99:1 ratio of negative to positive mutations in nature (falsifiable by showing that species, when placed under mutation stimulus such as radiation, on balance develop positive traits);

5) genetic stability within species (falsifiable by showing the development of beneficial new traits within species, rather than merely the development, maturation, and reorganization of preexisting traits;

6) deterioration, not improvement, by inbreeding advantageous traits (falsifiable by showing that in a limited gene-pool and new environment as proposed by Gould , species develop new and advantageous traits naturally and quickly, rather than inbreeding and deteriorating;

7) a net decrease in species diversity over time (falsifiable by showing under what conditions the number of species increases due to microevolution more quickly than it decreases due to extinction, to break the natural equilibrium).

Since i'm biased, i've just fleshed out my side. would somebody be willing to add to the evolution side? and PLEASE remember the two rules: 1) your prediction must be INCONSISTENT WITH CREATION, and 2 -- it doesn't matter whether the prediction has ACTUALLY BEEN PROVEN WRONG OR NOT. Okay? Ungtss 16:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. you have demonstrated yet again that you haven't got a clue, though I admire your perseverance.

sir, i don't understand why you find it necessary to be so condescending and arrogant. your ad hominem attacks are not the least bit persuasive, and they merely make me suspicious of the validity of anything you might have to say, because it sounds like you are lashing out in fear -- something i have found far too common among fundamentalists of both the evolutionist and creationist persuasion. grow up. Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can't falsify a negative, so 1 and 2 are nonsense.

• one man's negative is another man's positive. your negative is, "there is no supernatural." is that falsifiable? it's a negative, so obviously not. it follows that your assumption of naturalism is unscientific. can you acknowledge that two rational minds can look at the same problem different ways, or do you really have a monopoly on truth? Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• An example of a falsifiable and falsified creationist statement is "science shows the Earth is 6,000 years old".

that one, sir, is not on my list, because it is not universal to creationists. you have shot down another of your straw men, equivalent to, "an example of a falsifiable and falsified evolutionist theory: Lamarckian evolution." open your mind. meanwhile, you haven't added any to the other list. Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Lamarckian evolution. There is Lamarckian inheritance. And it is still partly true - we inherit immune system antibodies in a lamarkian manner (across the placenta to be precise) for example.CheeseDreams 20:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lamarckism. read the first sentence. check. Ungtss 20:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>As it happens, science has provided models for several of your points. We see sppn in the fossil record.

i told you the truth of my falsifiable assertions was irrelevent at this point. if you'll read the section above, you'll remember that falsifiable and false are completely separate. i falsifiable statement may be true or false, and an unfalsifiable statement may be true or false. creationism may be false, but at the very least it is falsifiable, as shown by the above. that's what this is for -- NOT the issue of truth or falsehood, but the issue of FALSIFIABILITY or NONFALSIFIABILITY. Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>We have natural, scientific models for abiogenesis.

mr. rednblue has just provided me with some models to research. in the meantime, put up or shut up. Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>Most mutations are neutral, variation exists and is selected.

what is the ratio of advantageous to disadvantageous mutations, sir? Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the disadvantageous ones by their very nature do not propagate. CheeseDreams 20:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wrong again, my friend. disadvantageous ones propogate too, unless they affect reproduction. i've been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding. if a species takes 100 steps backward before it takes one step forward, how far has it gone? Ungtss 20:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>Inbreeding only occurs in small poplns;

which are predicted by punctuated equilibrium to lead to evolutionary development. Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>the number of spp over time has increased and decreased;

under what circumstances can we explain a net increase? Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

>there have been six (maybe seven) mass extinctions, one is occuring right now. Cite your sources, preferably to peer-reviewed journals. Don't do original research. Dunc|☺ 16:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm planning on citing my sources, and i'd like you to do the same. why don't you provide some cited falsifiable predictions of evolution that are inconsistent with creation, so we can get somewhere? Ungtss 17:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fossil "footprints"

I think Mr. Harris misread your items 1 and 2. .!ÔÔ!. An equivalent to your items 1) and 2) for the conservation of energy would be "Find a physical process in which energy is not conserved." Of course, people repeatedly look for "physical processes in which energy is not conserved"--for if they should find one, they would have a Nobel Prize, would they not? 8)) That is, the statement "No evidence for a Perpetual motion machine of the first kind exists" is in the right direction, though it would seem to point the researcher in the direction of library research rather than laboratory research. :) Nevertheless, I think your items 1) and 2) are already proven wrong. I would characterize the "evidence for speciation across genera" as circumstantial evidence. I acknowledge that the "evidence for speciation across genera" is not "eye-witness evidence," but it is what the lawyers call "Real evidence". It just takes an understanding of the ways that the "real evidence" comes about within reality to see what it means. For example, let us consider the ancient footprints of DNA fragments that you and I inherited from the ancestors of the yeast. Those ancient footprints are not "eye-witness evidence." Those ancient footprints in our DNA are like the footprints that Mary Leakey and her coworkers found near Laetoli, Tanzania. Those Laetoli footprints were made in volcanic ash and accidentally preserved by random forces. Nevertheless, those footprints give circumstantial evidence that an Australopithecus afarensis or some similar human-like adult and child walked here. Mary Leakey said it this way, "At one point, and you need not be an expert tracker to discern this, she stops, pauses, turns to the left to glance at some possible threat or irregularity, and then continues to the north. This motion, so intensely human, transcends time. Three million six hundred thousand years ago, a remote ancestor--just as you or I--experienced a moment of doubt." ---Rednblu | Talk 19:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• now that's rational:). so if i can rephrase what you're saying, you're saying that my first two statements are falsifiable predictions of creationism, but they've been proven false by "real evidence." that's a logical framework i can work with. what i'm lacking is persuasive evidence that they've been falsified. all i ever seem to get is assertions steeped in sketchy assumptions (embryology and phylogenetic trees), proof by authority ("i have a degree so you're wrong!"), and personal attacks (apparently, i'm a moron). can you point me in the right direction? what are three specific topics i can research that will lead me to believe that there is sufficient evidence for common ancestry -- not evidence of how it COULD have happened, but evidence that it actually DID happen? Ungtss 22:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let us keep in mind what we are doing here. We are working toward a design of the Creation vs. evolution debate page that will present the real issues in a NPOV manner. :)) We are not trying to convince each other or anybody else. It is my impression that you agree that we should be trying to present the real issues in a NPOV manner--not trying to convince. I gave you the "fossilized footprints" example to illustrate for you the extent to which, in my opinion, the evidence for common ancestry is circumstantial evidence. Generally, circumstantial evidence can be read several ways, can it not? :)) Someone who did not know very much about chimpanzees and humans could say that those footprints could have been made by a mama chimpanzee and her baby. But you see, mama chimpanzees and their babies make footprints in moist earth such that the deepest indentation is by the little toes or with the outside edge of the front of their feet. In contrast, human mamas and their babies make the deepest indentation in moist earth with the ball of their feet, with their big toes, and with the inside edge of the front of their feet. And I quickly acknowledge that all of that is just more circumstantial evidence. Somebody could state a very complicated hypothesis about space aliens making those tracks, or about some big chimpanzees that learned to walk with the stride of humans and then died out. But I would say that Occam's razor would cut the space aliens and the big chimpanzees right out of any respectable hypothesis. That is, in my opinion, it is a much simpler explanation that those tracks were made by a human-like creature that walked this earth and might have been my ancestors--or at least my cousins. Now of course those people who have been visited by space aliens or big chimpanzees in their cheese dreams would find the space aliens or big chimpanzees much simpler explanations--because they have more advanced data than I have. .ÔÔ. The most interesting circumstantial evidence for common descent, in my opinion, is the diploid to haploid to diploid to haploid to . . . repeated cycle that all the multi-cellular plants and animals go through. The simplest beastie that I know who goes through this diploid to haploid . . . cycle is yeast. Yeast does diploid until the food runs out. Then the yeast does haploid and creates spores that float through the air looking for more nutrient. If the haploid spores land somewhere that there is still little food, they must divide themselves as haploids. But if the haploid spores land somewhere that flows with milk and honey, the haploid spores put out pheromones that signal nearby haploid spores--of the opposite sex--to mate and become again diploid. And every fusion of two haploids to form a new diploid is an experiment with randomly mixed genes from the two parents; the kid-experiment being unique and with special talents--not just another chip off the old block; some of the kid-experiments are likely better at fending for themselves than either of their diploid parents. And the diploid kids then divide themselves as diploids until the food runs out again; duplicate chips off the old block are fine as long as there is plenty of food and there are no new challenges. Humans go through that same diploid to haploid to . . . repetitive cycle. That is what sex is about. And the human eggs and sperm use the old yeast mechanisms of meiosis as do all of the other multi-cellular plants and animals. And that is just circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. While I see in human meiosis the footprint of the ancestors of yeast, other people see the handiwork of God. While it is true that God could have pressed those Laetoli footprints into the moist volcanic ash, it seems to me that it is a much simpler hypothesis to say, "Those footprints were made by some creature who shared ancestry with today's humans." Accordingly, I would say that there is circumstantial evidence that those footprints were made by some creature who shared ancestry with today's humans, but I would agree that that circumstantial evidence does not disprove creationism. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fossil footprints clearly cannot have been made by a chimpanzee. BUT there is zero evidence that they cannot have been made by some evolutionary predecessor of humans rather than a human. As such they give no evidence against Evolution. In addition they give no evidence against creation either (except the 6000 yr old earth one). As such they are PREDOMINANTLY IRRELEVANT

• why thank you sir, i was beginning to think i'd lost my mind:). i would definitely agree that there's a good amount of circumstantial evidence for evolution ... and it seems to me that even the supreme court can rarely come to a consensus, even when the issues are laid out fully -- so there's room for dissent and further inquiry, especially when circumstantial evidence is involved:). i think the page would benefit from a clearer description of how, exactly, the two sides are interpretting the circumstantial evidence -- how to an evolutionist, the similarity in sexual reproduction is more reasonably interpretted as inheritted (because we don't have to unparsimoniously assume an unobservable source of the design), while to a creationist, the similarity in sexual reproduction is more reasonably interpretted as a design used in different forms of life because it worked well across the board (because we don't want to unparsimoniously assume an inordinate number of chance developments in the absence of hard evidence like hairy-sort-of-lizards to make it necessary). does that sound like a fair assessment of the situation? Ungtss 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An inordinate number of chance developments? I would say that sex is just a built-in mechanism for taking advantage of chance developments. Apparently, the genes that you have are a random mix of the genes from your father and your mother. That is a lot of randomness. But as we have seen from the data on exon switching between genes, even in the case of mutations, it is not chance starting from ground zero. Every human is not a chance development from scratch. There are already a lot of tested and proven modules in that pool of genes from which your mother and father selected at random which exact set of genes would be you. Likewise, in all those switching of exons from one gene to another, each of those exons is tested and proven "code" that worked already quite well in another place. So it is a lot of "chance development," but in most mutations, it is a random selection from tested and proven modules. Therefore, I would not call it an "inordinate number of chance developments." And I think that the Creation vs. evolution debate page should accurately represent just what kinds of chance have been observed taking place in evolution. As far as I know, no researcher has witnessed "an inordinate number of chance developments" taking place in DNA. 8)) In my opinion, what researchers have witnessed are mechanisms by which molecular structures--such as enzymes and ribozymes--can take advantage of "chance developments"--like Brownian motion, diffusion, transduction, DNA insertion, and gene duplication and divergence--to provide enough circumstantial evidence that some people could easily jump the gun and say that common ancestry is a fact. If you accept the idea that the jury is the "trier of fact," then I would say that if you would put all that circumstantial evidence before the "right jury," you would come out with "common descent is fact." Nevertheless, if you would put that same circumstantial evidence before the "wrong jury," you would come out with "common descent is NOT a fact."  :)) No hairy lizards have been noted, and no hairy lizards are required apparently. ---Rednblu | Talk 03:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree that the chance developments in higher organisms are at "subroutine level," and are enabled to operate at that level by a number of mechanisms ... but as i understand it, evolution states that both the subroutines and the means to USE the subroutines developed by chance + natural selection as well, no? sex is indeed a means for capturing more chance ... but sex itself developed by chance. same thing with the introns + exons. the way i read it, that's a lot of layers of chance:). personally, i'm the jury-member that won't vote to execute God on purely circumstantial evidence -- better weed me out in voir dire:). Ungtss 03:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sometimes i wonder if they hadn't let all those bad character witnesses onto the stand, if maybe He might have had a chance:). Ungtss 04:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• one other side question ... what of my other attempts at falsifiable evidence for creationism? do they work as you understand falsifiability to operate ... but have been proven false? or are they not even falsifiable predictions? Ungtss 23:07, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we can restate all of them to be falsifiable forms. :) I think it is just a matter of wording. In my opinion, the issue is not "falsifiable predictions" but rather Popper's distinction between "naïve falsification" and "sophisticated falsification." A good summary of Popper's distinction is given at this link. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • i would like that very much. the more i think about it, the more i realize that creationism is a picture in the mind of the creationist that makes perfect sense to him ... but he somehow fails to communicate how parsimonious and logical it appears in his mind ... and ends up spending all his time criticizing evolution and thumping bibles instead. Ungtss 02:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • and the naive / sophisticated distinction brings our earlier discussion into BEAUTIFUL focus:). i've been naive:). Ungtss 02:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It only gives circumstantial evidence of something which made that kind of footprint. It could equally have been a large chimpanzee. Or the evolutionary predecessor of both chimp and human. It could equally be evidence of time travel. CheeseDreams 20:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And for "physical processes in which energy is not conserved" see Off shell - it happens all the time in theoretical physics experiments. CheeseDreams

Firstly, Ungtss, the way you break apart peoples paragraphs and insert point form arguments into them is borderline vandalism and please cease to do this. Secondly, what mr. Harris said is that falisifying a negative is not proof. This is correct. Your comparison to the conservation is what is wrong. The creationist in this case would be saying: Since you cannot find a physical process in which the conservation of energy doesn't apply, then the conservation of energy must be true. The scientist on the other hand would be saying. I can find all these examples of where the conservation of energy applies therefore it must be true. Bensaccount 19:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That is all right, Mr. Account. I would not expect you to understand simple English and simple logical analogy. I was making that statement to Mr. Ungtss. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy to the conservation was wrong. Ungtss's analogy was even more clearly wrong. The creationist would be saying: Since you cannot find evidence that there is no supernatural phenomena, there must be supernatural phenomena. That is not proof. Bensaccount 21:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Untgss, are you trolling? Let's try an argument from authority then. I have a biology degree. I know about evolution, I know about population genetics, evolutionary genetics, evolutionary ecology, evolutionary game theory, behavioural ecology. What you state as to back up your facts is factually innacurate, and therefore nonsense. I could answer all of your points individually, but I don't think you're worth it. Go to a library and do some reading. Don't bring original research into here because all you do is waste one's time and it won't be tolerated. Dunc|☺ 21:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

nevermind, fellas, i've had enough:). go back to being right all the time, and i'll go back to being wrong:). Ungtss 22:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Havoc

I almost feel sorry for you. But then I remind myself that people who take the bible too literally can cause all kinds of havoc. Bensaccount 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

whatever you say. Ungtss 00:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

just one last thought, my fine intelligent friend. people that take evolution too literally have been known to wreak a little havoc, too.[2]. perhaps if he'd recognized the creationist belief that true racial strength comes in genetic DIVERSITY, not the selection of traits, he might have made some different decisions. it also seems odd how the Biblically literalist Abolitionists seemed to take the Founding fathers seriously when they wrote, "all men are CREATED equal." but never mind:). you're right, as were Stalin, Hitler, and Neitzche, who were also known to wreak a little evolutionist havoc. the bible really is a dangerous beast. how could any group that believes that all mankind was Created in the image of God do anything good? i've been told some people calling themselves religious supported slavery and terror. perhaps they just didn't take the bible literally enough. [3] Ungtss 16:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, see Albigensian crusade for some of the evil committed by biblical literalists. CheeseDreams 16:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'll see your crusade and raise you a holocaust, a Great Purge and (oh what the hell) a Cultural Revolution. let me add the psychological benefits of modern secular liberal socialism. nobody will deny that so-called christians have seriously fucked things up from time to time. the question is, is it because they were TOO christian, or not christian enough? jesus told us what a christian was.[4]. Perhaps if the crusaders had read a bit more literally, they may have made some slightly different choices. Perhaps Stalin could have used a little literalism, too. Ungtss 18:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Responding to Ungtss' proposals on falsifiability:

1) No evidence for speciation across genera and phyla (falsifiable by showing a fair number of common ancestors within higher taxa, or clearly demonstrating the mechanism by which such speciation could have taken place);

I would rather say:

Large, systematic gaps between different kinds of living things. (The Biblical "kinds" may not always correspond to man-made definitions lower than genera and phyla.)

done and done. Ungtss 02:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) no explicable mechanism for the naturalistic origin of life (falsifiable by showing a mechanism by which life could have arisen without the intervention of an intelligent being);

I'm not sure that I'm happy with this one. Creation doesn't require that others couldn't come up with some hypothetical mechanism for a naturalistic origin of life.

as i understand it, a falsifiable prediction doesn't necessarily "require" something -- as it stands, the prediction argues that "under current scientific knowledge, life MUST have arisen through the intervention of an intelligent being." were it falsified, we could only hold that "life COULD have arisen through the intervention of an intelligent being, but could also have arisen naturally" -- certainly a weaker prediction.

3) unnumerable complexities upon complexities within the structure of life exceedingly unlikely to have come about by chance (falsifiable by showing an end to the complexity in our systems -- a beginning -- the primal stuff of life, beyond which no more complexity is discovered;

This one seems okay, except that I'm not sure what you mean by "showing an end to the complexity" or how that would be measured.

to me, it just means a "baseline" -- where things started from -- being able to show "what was there before life was there." Ungtss 02:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4) a > 99:1 ratio of negative to positive mutations in nature (falsifiable by showing that species, when placed under mutation stimulus such as radiation, on balance develop positive traits);

Seems reasonable, except that creationists would argue that mutations don't add information; they don't argue that mutations don't produce benefits (e.g. the loss of wings on a beetle on a windy ocean island can be a benefit).

excellent point ... reworded to "no new information can ever be introduced into a genome" -- falsifiable by showing the emergence of a new trait that was not already latent in the genome. Ungtss 02:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

5) genetic stability within species (falsifiable by showing the development of beneficial new traits within species, rather than merely the development, maturation, and reorganization of preexisting traits;

Creation allows for speciation (as long as no new genetic information is involved). I don't think this point caters for that fact, plus my response to No. 4 applies here also.

6) deterioration, not improvement, by inbreeding advantageous traits (falsifiable by showing that in a limited gene-pool and new environment as proposed by Gould , species develop new and advantageous traits naturally and quickly, rather than inbreeding and deteriorating;

Again, my response to No. 4 applies.

7) a net decrease in species diversity over time (falsifiable by showing under what conditions the number of species increases due to microevolution more quickly than it decreases due to extinction, to break the natural equilibrium).

No, creation proposes an increase in species numbers following the flood, as the basic kinds produce many varieties from their genetic information.

excellent point ... how about "genetic diversity" instead -- the original "kinds" split into more species ... but that was through the LOSS of diversity and traits, not an increase. would that work better? Ungtss 02:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the best thing would be to find some predictions that creationary scientists actually make.

Philip J. Rayment 01:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

excellent points all ... i'm not in with the evangelical crowd so i don't have any citable sources onhand providing such falsifiable predictions -- any ideas? Ungtss 02:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would like to suggest that the article gain a new section with subsections as follows

• Debates on methodology

• Falsifiability
• More and more evidence
• Ockham's razor
• etc.....

Then we can all put the discussion above into the article rather than have it here, and actually contemplate the article here, instead of debate the merits of each side. CheeseDreams 18:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't recommend adding to this article. There really is no debate between evolution and creationism so adding to it just feeds the false idea that creationism disagrees with evoluition. Bensaccount 18:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a debate. If there was not, there wouldn't be the issue of Creation and evolution in public education.

Basically this page started off as a section in Creationism which was essentially "why creationism thinks its more correct than evolution, and counter-arguments thereof" because that section was becoming too large.

If you think creationism does not disagree with evolution, and this is a view shared by a group of some particular size (not necessarily large) then a section can go in the article with a title like "Views of non-exclusivity", with your/the-groups explanation of why this is the case.

The fact exists that many many people do not think they match, thus there is conflict between the two ideas. Further, this is an encyclopedia not a science textbook. It contains views from all sides, and maintains articles about superseeded and discredited scientific theories such as Lamarkian inheritance, the steady state theory of the universe, and the particle theory of fire, as they did exist and people thought them important at the time.

But if you really do not think this article has any content or belongs in an encyclopedia in any way, then add the {{vfd}} tag to the top of it, and vote for its deletion. CheeseDreams 20:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree with mr. cheesedreams wholeheartedly. we're wasting our time hashing it out here:). let's do something productive with it:). Ungtss 23:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with CheeseDreams over both the need for the new section and the fact that there is a genuine argument. CheeseDreams, I'd say that people with non-exclusive views tend to accept (at least the possibility of) Evolutionary creationism.

Can I also suggest that the second paragraph and list in the Biblically literal creationism section be deleted? It's going over the ground contained in other articles and doesn't add anything to this article which is meant to be on the debate itself. --G Rutter 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Newsweek poll

Would whoever added the newsweek poll care to justify its NPOV?

P.s. If you add up the percentages you get 100%, you should get less, as there are people who don't answer, haven't decided, or don't have an opinion. CheeseDreams 19:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean it's accuracy, it's relevence or its NPOV status? 194.222.190.174 19:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Barnaby Dawson)

You only get 100% for the scientists (who presumably didn't want to say "don't know" to such a question!). For "everyone" the total is 93%, so presumably the other 7% were "don't know". As far as I'm concerned religioustolerance.org is a well-respected site. They say the poll was published in Newsweek and was conducted by Gallup, with a sample size of 1,000 (which is perfectly standard). They also cite a published paper analysing the data from the poll by a Professor of Political Science at the University of Cincinnati. I didn't add the data, but that seems pretty NPOV to me. I think the introduction is much better with that data there- hopefully we can add more such data to this article. --G Rutter 12:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Working towards NPOV

I am quite concerned with this page in reference to the NPOV rules. My main problems with the page as it currently stands are:

1) It contains statements which assert creationist viewpoints as fact. 2) The phrase evolutionist should be replaced with "main stream scientists" as it is not just those working on evolutionary theory that hold "Evolutionist beliefs" but the great majority of scientists. 3) There are a couple of long sections containing many creationist assertions which are not matched by evolutionist's counter assertions. (Admitedly there is an issue of presentation on the page here)

I am concerned that we need more knowledgable scientists editing this and similar pages to provide the counter arguments. I shall try to get some of my scientist friends interested. This article should not be a soap box for pseudoscience. 194.222.190.174 19:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Barnaby Dawson)

hi again:). i welcome all the mainstream scientists you can bring on -- let's figure things out:)! and i'd welcome a more npov alternative to "evolutionist" if you can come up with a more npov alternative to "creationist." But please, as we're doing it, shall we let the facts speak for themselves, instead of appealing to majority and authority and accusations of "crackpot science?" those knives slice both ways, and just leave everybody bloody. Ungtss 23:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixing the intro

The old introduction gave no information, but spun the truth. This is not NPOV. The new intro actually defines the debate; who it is between who starts it and what the motives are of the debators. It would be POV to present any of the actual arguments here.

The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate provoked by biblically-literal creationists who debate against the theory of evolution. They believe the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible. They subsequently argue with supporters of the theory evolution about the validity of this scientific theory. A common misconception is that supporters of the theory of evolution debate against creation, or against creationists. This is incorrect; supporters of evolution merely defend the validity of the theory of evolution. Bensaccount 20:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you're amazing, smart-guy. look at this. [5]. That's a whole site dedicated to teaching evolutionists how to debate creationists. Ungtss 21:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting point (whatever it is you are saying). Heres my counterargument: [6]. Bensaccount 21:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

very persuasive, as always:). you said evolutionists do not debate creationists. i showed you they do. a lot. you're wrong. make fun of stupid christians all you want, the facts are still the facts. Ungtss 21:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you have got to be KIDDING me. justify your POSITION, smartguy. this is just vandalism unless you can provide some justification. Ungtss 21:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

basic logic, smartguy. you said evolutionists do not debate creationists. you are WRONG, smartguy, and the link i gave you showed it, if you had bothered to read it. instead, you sent me a stupid christian link that didn't address the issue, ignored my comment, and asked for backup. THINK, smartguy. there IS a debate, the stats are from an EVOLUTIONIST site and NEWSWEEK, and are ACCURATE. this is VANDALISM. Ungtss 21:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly I was pointing out that using an independant website as proof of anything is wrong. Secondly, you obviously didn't read my intro. Thirdly, I made a positive edit that provided information that should have been in the introduction. Bensaccount 21:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the stats are ACCURATE. if you have better ones, replace them. you just stuck your pov into it -- that creationists are arguing against reality with the bible -- that's your pov, but creationists have a different one. this article is about the DEBATE. if you wanna start a page called, "why creationists are stupid," i'm sure you'll find a lot of people willing to read it. but that's NOT this page, smartguy. Ungtss 21:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No that is not what my intro said at all. Also, you have made three reverts. I am changing it back to my version now because you just proved in the above paragraph that you didn't even read my intro before reverting. Bensaccount 21:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your intro is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, smartguy. the previous one was through CONSENSUS and was backed with CITES. i will not stop reverting, because you STILL have not addressed the factually inaccuracy of your intro, and it is therefore vandalism. you need to tell me why you think it's justified to cut out cited statistics and replace them with statements like "evolutionists do not debate against creationists." Ungtss 21:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You just violated the 3 revert rule. I think that entitles an admin to boot you. I added information that was omitted; who the debate is between who starts it and what the motives are of the debators. Also, it is misleading to have unnecessary statistics in an intro. Bensaccount 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also note that if you actually requested protection, which I would never do myself, then it should be my version which is protected, as the excessive reverting was done by you and I stopped at 3. Bensaccount 21:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i welcome any admin to come in and decide whether or not you vandalized the page repeatedly with your own pov. Ungtss 21:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to get an admin here: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).

So when are you going to state why you made your reverts? And just saying POV is not a reason since that was included in my explanation of why I changed the intro in the first place. Bensaccount

Ungtss may have violated rules, but on the appropriate content of the article, I believe he is entirely correct, so I, for one will not block him for this. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

i appreciate your time:). Ungtss 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would recommend User:Ungtss reads both Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Civility. Having said that, I believe the earlier lead section (as here) is preferable, but could do with work. — Matt Crypto 22:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

<<The creation vs. evolution debate is a debate provoked by biblically-literal creationists who debate against the theory of evolution. They believe the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible. They subsequently argue with supporters of the theory of evolution about the validity of this scientific theory. A common misconception is that supporters of the theory of evolution debate against creation, or against creationists. This is incorrect; supporters of evolution merely defend the validity of the theory of evolution.>>

This is incorrect!  :)) Where do you get the idea that the debate is provoked by biblically-literal creationists? All the scholarly analysis of empirical data I have seen indicates that the published scholarly opinion is that the debate is not provoked by biblically-literal creationists. Is this paragraph the result of your personal research? If you are referring to some obscure publication, could you provide a reference to that obscure publication?  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the debate is between biblically-literal creationists and the theory of evolution? Bensaccount 22:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

we ALL agree on that. your intro is factually inaccurate because it says that evolutionists do not debate creationists; only creationists debate evolutionists. Ungtss 22:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Biblically-literal? I don't think so. Theistic evolutionists surely are not biblically-literal. Literally, the Bible says "And on the seventh day. . . ." I dare say there is not one theistic evolutionist who thinks that it was done in literally "six days." :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any creationist who disagrees with evolution is doing so because they take the bible literally. How can you possibly deny this? Bensaccount 22:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Nope. Cite me please a published scholar who said such a ridulous thing!  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to cite the obvious. It is a waste of time. These people are saying that since God created the earth, the theory of evolution is wrong. Do we agree here?Bensaccount 22:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Not the theistic evolutionists. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are caricaturing the debate. Whilst most of the people saying evolution is wrong believe that God created the earth, one of their arguments for it being wrong is that the evidence is against it. And in many cases of creationists that are former evolutionists, it is the evidence that has convinced them that evolution is wrong. Philip J. Rayment 12:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am talking about the other side of the debate. The one that evolution is NOT on. Bensaccount 22:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• That my friend is why your paragraph is inaccurate. You have mischaracterized the debate! The debate is not must evolution vs. TheSideThatEvolutionIsNotOn. The debate has many, many sides. ---Rednblu | Talk 23:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what vs. stands for? Bensaccount 23:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• For example, part of the debate is evolution vs theistic evolution. The proponents of evolution so strongly debate vs. the proponents of theistic evolution that they went to all the trouble to get a federal court injunction to stop them from speaking certain words in public school biology classes. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)