I won't agree with 'billions of years' here, but yes this can occur. as I said earlier, this process is natural and always involves loss of information. from the article
Muddy Waters I extracted this passage in particular: "
One of the worlds leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germanys Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this. His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work.".
Tell me, do you ever refer to anything other than the propaganda on that stupid religious website? At this point, it seems like you do not, and that is the reason why you are so very deluded and confused.
Sexual reproduction and mutation has been shown to INCREASE genetic diversity, this has been observed, it's the "point" of sexual reproduction, and the fossil record also suggests this over and over again in the temporal sequence one would expect.
Something I thought that was really amusing from the link you provided, from the summary section: "Natural selection, operating on the created information in the original gene pools, makes good sense in a fallen world. It can fine-tune the way in which organisms fit their environment, and help stave off extinction in a cursed, dying world. By splitting a large gene pool into smaller ones, it can add to the amount of observed variety within the descendants of an original kind, just as with the many varieties of horse from one type. Even new species can come about like that, but no new information. This helps to explain greater diversity today than on board the Ark."
"the Ark"
Oh boy, that's funny stuff! I think it's just beyond ridiculous that you would actually post a "supposedly" scientific article that makes reference to Noah's Ark, an ancient pre-biblical myth which is not supported by the evidence OR common sense. But I'm sure that this sort of absolute and completely unscientific nonsenese is all that is needed to mislead you. I hope that some day you'll attain the insight you need to move beyond these massive intellectual limitations.
It's also absolutely hilarious that this statement actually agrees with the theory of evolution: "Even new species can come about like that.." Oh boy, it just gets whackier and whackier, which is to be expected when dealing with such half-baked creationist presumption and ignorance of the observable evidence.
Satori asked: "Where are all the creationist theories to explain how all this occured?"
by 'all this' I'll understand 'life'. the answer is: they are all over the place. just as well as life didn't appear by chance, don't expect me to give you the links to every single article available on the internet on this subject, please.
What's wrong? Does your favourite creationist propaganda website not offer any viable theories to explain the fossil record and the *increasing* forward temporal complexiety of life on this planet? It's actually a good thing that you didn't post any articles on this nonsense (I've read all that bullshit before anyway), because any such theories are inherently speculative and highly selective with regard to natural phenomenon and would undoubtedly just serve to make your position look even more naive.
diverse, yes. but you should consider this example on horses: "Limits to variation also come about because each of the varieties of horse carries less information than the wild type from which it descended. Common sense confirms that you cannot start with little Shetland ponies and try to select for Clydesdale draft horsesthe information just isnt there anymore! The greater the specialization (or adaptation, in this case to the demands of the human breeder, who represents the environment), the more one can be sure that the gene pool has been extensively thinned out or depleted, and the less future variation is possible starting from such stock.".
hilarious! So I suppose that modern horses have shorter dna codes containing less information than their wild ancestors then, huh? Oh boy, no comment necessary on that one. You are extremely gullable, or perhaps you are just looking for anything which you can use to substatiante your feeble position, and that's very sad indeed.
but actually it didn't become more complex if by 'complex' you mean that species developed new organs (information gain).
The fossil record doesn't support your hypothesis I'm afraid. But then, you already know that, don't you? If only you could admit it to yourself you'd make some progress, but I feel you are so knee-deep and dedicated to your mythology that you'd rather remain transfixed on these ignorant presumptions. It's easier for you that way to "keep the faith", which I strongly suspect is your biggest and most weighted objective, NOT the truth of what really happened. That's the incentive to self-delude.
Satori said: "Why did some species die out?"
Which is the means of evolution, how organisms adapt and survive and change through time, that which you are actually arguing against (in case you forgot).
Satori asked: "Where did the species that replace them come from, and why are they so strikingly similar to the organisms which lived before them?"
specialization? actually you could benefit from reading more about this. as Dr. Carl Wieland states: "Perhaps if evolutions true believers really had convincing evidence of a creative process, they would not feel obliged to muddy the waters so often by presenting this downhill process (natural selection) as if it demonstrated their belief in the ultimate uphill climbmolecules-to-man evolution."
Spare me your AIG nonsense, it's too rudimentary to work on me because I know far more about this than the typical naive creationist who clings to baseless dogmas in the complete absense of any supporting evidence (such as yourself, unfortuantely).
Natural selection isn't "downhill", just ask a flu virus, it results in an increased capacity to survive and MORE diversity.
I wasn't talking about specialization, I was talking about NEW species, and in case you are unaware, there have been literally billions of them in the history of this planet. Are you presuming that each new species is merely a little specialization or pre-existing species? Too absurd to be taken seriously, much like this whole topic for that matter. If that were the case then the temporal sequence of the fossil record would be reversed, but it's not, and no amount of blind faith, selective evidence, or presumptuous ignorance will make it as such.
maybe you won't take your time to read all the articles about this, but since you have been asking on the creationist's views on these subjects over and over again, I hope you won't commit the fallacy of disregarding them because 'they are biased':
AIG - Q&A: Anthropology
Wow, another AIG link. Why am I not suprised? I doubt you even LOOK any further for information.
I read all of it, and it I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm sorry that you got sucked in by this theologically slanted nonsense, and I seriously doubt that you'll ever be able to move beyond it because these people are very skilled at misleading people such as yourself, people who are themselves misguided and obligated to uphold archiac religious bullplop, people who are probably already deluded (from childhood) with superstitious nonsense and who have a deep-rooted obligation to believe it, perhaps born out of a desire for immortality and self-preservation from a demanding "god", even though it's not supported by the hard evidence. Wake up, this isn't healthy dude.
Satori said: "Given the evidence, and applying it to the creationist theory, we would have to assume this: very often (pretty much daily), in the 4.5 billon years or so since the earth was formed, a god decided to kill off a species (for no particular reason) and then spontaneously generate a new species to take its place in the environment which is only slightly different than the one that it killed off. God did this with the human species as well, fashioning many human precursor species leading up to humans. God did this in such a manner as to make it *appear* to us humans that a given species evolved from a precursor species, even though that didn't happen. (?) This was done by a god which (according to nearly all theist theories) wants us to believe in its own existance and disbelieve that species orginated from the similar species that lived and died before it. Why would god want us to think we simply evolved? That goes against the theory that god wants us to believe that it created us."
actually you should study before you attack creationism with a statement such as the above. it made you look dead silly.
You are so naive and misguided as to defend creationism, an idea that is not supported by the hard evidence, and is actually contradicted by it, a position that is founded on an underlying desire to uphold archaic biblical bullshit instead of being dedicated to the truth regardless of what it may be, and you are suggesting that I look "dead silly"? Oh boy. You need a seriously reality check my friend.
Satori said: "The articles you gave are nothing more than the latest installment in the propaganda machine known as organized religion."
is it? who's really promoting 'bad science'?
Yes, obviously, as anyone with a partical clue and an objective mind can clearly see, and this has been going on for a very long time, it's not a new phenomenon. Religions have been misleading and deluding people since the dawn of human civilization, and it's still going on. Also, I think it's painfully obvious which of us is promoting "bad science" (which sounds like more creationist bullplop btw).
if you were really interested in the truth, you should be thanking us for pointing the mistakes in the current theory, not overlooking them.
Mistakes? Please. The facts are overwhelmingly in favour of evolution being the means that life adapts and propagates itself, and the fossil record is literally written in stone.
You are so misguided that you actually think that poking holes in evolution theory supports your own baseless creationist speculations, and it clearly does not. All you have done is shown that evolution is an incomplete theory (something everyone already knows) and that it will take humans at least a few more decades to work out all the fine details and fill in the gaps in exactly how it all happened right down to the molecular level. Nothing you have said in NO WAY supports your creationist theories, dispites you suggestions that it does, dispite the fact that your only source of information comes from an inherently biased "upholding the authority of the bible" website. I can't believe how ridiculous and absurd this is, it amazes me that you could be so naive and impressionable and dedicated to a theory without any real hard evidence to support it and tonnes which contradict it.
you show more faith than a lot of christians, my friend.
I have no faith, I have no pre-existing obligation to adhere to any one idea like you obviously do, much less adhere to barbaric mythology from a time when people were savages and thought that nailing each other to boards was a way great way to remedy their social problems, and that's what leads me to hold the more rational viewpoint that is support by the evidence and common sense, of course. My only obligation is to understand what *actually* happened, and in doing so I'm not so quick to ascribe a supernatural cause to things as you are, something which has lead humanity to make similar irrational presumptions in the past and lead to them behaving and thinking irrationally (as history indicates over and over again, and is STILL telling us). If thinking irrationally works for, then I wish you well in that regard, but please don't expect us to take your irrationalism or your speculative mythology seriously without solid reasons for doing so.
Satori said: "This has been going on for hundreds of years now, and it will probably keep going on until humans have figured out all the finer details behind things theist sorts claim are "evidence" of the supernatural."
I hope I live to see this day.
Don't hold your breath, cuz you probably won't live to see this day. Emperical science has only existed for a very short time relative to human history, and we've only begun to scratch the surface of what's out there. With our continued intellectual evolution the archaic theories which you are spouting will go the way of the dinosaurs, as they already have for the most part, except perhaps in the mid-southern US and places like Saudi Arabia which are tending to lag behind the rest of the world in this regard because they are knee-deep in their various delusions and religious obligations which blinds them to the reality in front of them. But that's to be expected of course, not all people intellectually evolve at the same rate, nor should they. This has been happening since the birth of science and will continue happening so long as we keep figuring out more and realizing that the natural world is in stark contrast with the dogmas laid down in the world's various mythologies, including your favourite creationist propaganda website.
Satori said: "Evolution is a theory that's still in the making, it's still be worked out, and will probably remain so for a long time to come. Like it or not, it's still the BEST fit to the data, it's the best explanation we have at explaining the path that life has taken on this planet."
do I spot a fallacy here?
No, you are inferring it from your despartion to cling to your baseless constructs.
first of all, we do NOT have a convincing model for spontaneous origin of life, contrary to popular belief. PERIOD.
Irrelavant. We DO have models which show how it could've occured. The fact that we don't know to a certainty how life began does not discount evolution as a theory which is the best fit to the data once life got started, nor does it lend any credibility whatsoever to the completely speculative "god did it" bandwagon mentality which you seem to adore so much.
you have yet to prove that mutation adds information as well, and I believe you'll have a hard time doing this since ALL DATA up to now suggests otherwise.
Man, you really need to read something NOT on the AIG website. You are so steeped in their speculative and selective bullshit that it's severely limiting your capacity to reason.
I can't "prove" anything, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and obviously neither are you, all I can do is show that the observed evidence is overwhelmingly NOT in your favour on this, and for the most part you are spewing nonsense which is completely and entirely ineffective in supporting your theist position.
I already dealt with this ridiculous fallacy above btw, as if the fossil record wasn't enough of an indication to show that life increases in complexiety and diversity in time. Ancient organisms have shorter genetic codes than much more complex modern ones. Again the theory presented by your biased creationist website doesn't fit with the data, no suprises there.
Here's something else to help you realize that your devotion to the AIG creationist propaganda is unwarranted:
"Mutations are random occurrences which change the genome of an organism. They greatly increase genetic diversity, where advantageous mutations are favoured by natural selection and disadvantageous ones are phased out."
Here's some reading for you, you'll notice that this text, though the most straightforward and simply that I could find, is a lot more indepth than the simple-minded AIG propaganda you are used to. This is because the AIG website is likely aimed at people who are more likely to become confused and deluded by their bullshit, and of course, people who are lacking in an understanding of the theory of evolution the complexieties, particularities, and subtleties of it. It's not as cut and dried as you have been lead to believe, and there are many many sub-theories contained within it. With our best research methods and sharpest minds humanity has to offer, the theory of evolution continues to gain ground and credibility, something I presume you are aware of (though you likely won't find that tidbit on AIG I'm afraid).
This text not only refutes the innane assumption that mutations invariably lead to loss of genetic diversity (it can and does, but that isn't always the case, not by a long shot), and it shows graphically how and why that is not the case. The important thing you need to realize is that the losses and disadvantageous mutations are NOT favoured by natural selection, only the advantageous ones are, which is why genetic diversity increases in time via mutations, as is supported by the fossil record which shows that life started out to be very rudimentary and got more complex over the millions of years.
http://www.biology-online.org/2/7_mutations.htm
and second, that is not the best model we have,
Evolution is the best fit to the data, and it's an incredibly consistent and accurate fit as well. Telling yourself otherwise doesn't make it so, just like ancient christians claiming the earth was flat and the center of the universe didn't make it so. You should learn from the inherent mistakes of presumption from your theological ancestors.
and I won't say that the 'God created all' is the best one cause that would infuriate you.
It wouldn't infuriate me, it would just make me feel sorry for you for being so misguided. Besides, you don't need to say it, your highly irrational nature and your tendency to suggest that half-baked creationist propaganda is a worthy source of information say it all.
Anyway, here's another reality check: "God created all" is clearly NOT the best fit to the data, the data actually strongly suggests otherwise, something you would realize if you ventured beyond the confines of the AIG nonsense and conjecture. Aside from this obvious fact, you have NO evidence supporting your theistic claims, the only thing you have done is shown that there are gaps in the evolutionary model that need to be filled (which is what researchers are doing and have been doing since the era of Darwin), and that is something we all already know. You are so misguided that you assume that poking holes in evolution (many of which you were wrong about btw) somehow validates your simplistic and archaic "god did it" bandwagon mentality. It does not. I'll say it again in case you overlooked it that time: it does not. If you think it does, then I suggest you provide some hard evidence in support of your supernatural theories. Oh wait, there is none, sorry, my mistake
heheh.
I'll just say that through a materialistic glass, evolution is the ONLY theory we have so far, and it will not be dropped. even though it's better not to have a model at all than to have a majorly flawed one.
Majorly flawed one? Gaps in the theory are not "flaws", they are opportunities for growth and learning, and you my friend have been misguided by theistic bullplop and it shows.
from an article previously posted by me:
"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:
hahah, funny stuff! You actually *believe* this crap? Oh boy.
"Metaphysical starting point"? Complete nonsense, there's nothing metaphysical about evolution, it's purely a matter of biology, not metaphysics. Professor Lewontin is obviously a nut.
"protected against any Divine intrusion"?? hehehe. That's not it at all, it's actually simply a matter of NOT assuming "god did it" when we encounter something which we can't explain, and there's a lot of wisdom and practicality in that which I doubt you'll ever be able to recognize. Do you think that's a "bad" thing? If so, think again. Jumping to supernatural conclusions about our world has lead to a great deal of human stupidity and blindness, which is why people nowadays favour *reasonable* explainations for things, and when they see something they can't explain they refrain from copping out and jumping on the "god did it" bandwagon, like you and Professor Lewontin are so quick to do. Reasonable people have the courage to admit to the limitations in their knowledge and to keep seeking answers instead of saying "it's magic". If you were alive a few hundred years ago your dejected sort of irrationality would've lead you to conclude that illnesses were the result of your neighbors practicing witchcraft, and you would've likely participated in the witch hunts. That's the kind of mind you have. You are quick to cop-out and jump to supernatural conclusions about things, whether your conclusions are supported by the evidence and common sense is not even a concern to you. Fortuantely for us all, humans are moving away from this sort of mentality, and we are becoming wiser and more ethical people as a result, people who (and this will come as a shock to you perhaps) favour reason over presumption.
To continue:
dog·ma: A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
"Evolutionary dogma"? That doesn't even make sense. Please tell me how a theory, one which is backed overwhelmingly by hard evidence and common sense, one that is not imposed on people with the expectations that they accept it on face value alone, is a "dogma".
Since you obviously lack the insight and are too wrapped up in this creationist bullshit to see what's really going on here, I'll explain it to you so as to leave no room for misunderstanding: Christianity, after having taken a severe beating in every regard in the last hundred years, is making attempts to prolong it's own extinction. For the longest time the church regarded science as "of the devil" and anyone who disagreed with their REAL *dogma* were somehow "evil" (the church even tortured and executed such science-minded people, as I'm sure you are aware, even Galileo, considered the father of science, had to run from the church to save his own life because he suggested the earth circled the sun). Since far less people are stupid enough nowadays to fall for that sort of nonsense, and since the church no longer has the authority to rule on brute force and unchallanged dogma, this new approach has been taken. Whereas science was considered "evil" before, now it's considered to be a means of waging war with those evolutionists who use empircal reasoning to conclude the church is and always has been full of shit. Since the church has no emperical evidence to support it's laughable theories, it has taken the route of misleading people through subtle tricks of reasoning instead of the blatant baseless dogma and cruel intimidation and force which it has used in its entire history, up until a very short time ago. This is the legacy which you are defending, and it's as mindless and inherently irrational as it is disturbingly repugnant.
This creationist nonsense is nothing but the latest installment in this ancient theistic game of make-believe dogma. The church, stripped of it's right to threaten and hurt people physically and financially, has found new ways of trying to convince people that their archaic bullshit is somehow worthy of being taken seriously. How are they doing this? There are 2 ways:
1) Selectively taking evidence from the natural world which supports their presumptions and ignoring everything else
2) Poking holes in the current best theories and telling the lay-masses that this somehow validates their own theories (which it does not), which are even more baseless and speculative than they were in the ancient past from which they were derived.
Unfortunately, you have become sucked in by this nonsense, and now you are on a mission to convince others that this sort of nonsense is actually worthy of being taken seriously. It's clearly not. Creationism is a theory and nothing more, it's a theory not supported by the evidence of our natural world or basic common sense. The same can be said of christianity as well. They go against reason, and unfortunately for theists, reason IS prevailing in this world, it's happening like it or not, forcible dogma, irrational speculations, and baseless superstition is now regarded as something to be avoided by many (and I think most) intelligent and insightful people who haven't been blindly brainwashed as children with some archiac and disgusting religious dogma that is so misguided that it actually derives "inspiration" and "joy" from the the disgusting torture and subsequent nailing to boards of a fellow human being. Any system that derives any sort of benefit or pleasure for the senseless torture and murder of an innocent human being is just sick beyond all words and comprehension, and I think anyone who can look favourably on such a barbaric act needs to have their sense of ethics and morality put in check. Sick.
it's funny how you claim we don't know everything there is to know, cause even though I obviously agree with you on that, I can't help but associate that statement to the fact that it seems you didn't actually take some time to read what I posted,
It "seems" like I didn't actually take the time to read what you posted? Please. I've been reading this sort of crap for many years now, it's old hat to me. I'm aware of all the means and intents of the propaganda contained on your favourite website, and I think that's evident.
let alone do your homework before jumping into a debate with a person you don't even know.
What I do know about you is that you are posting crap from a creationist website and trying to get people to take you seriously. I regard that as an insult to our collective intelligence, as well as an insult to the honesty and integrity that the scientific method stands for. The fact is, I just can't take you seriously and I feel deeply sorry for you and I only want to help, I feel you are extremely deluded and misguided, and while you certainly do you best to give an impression that you have a clue what you are talking about, your ideas and backing references clearly indicate that you do not.
continued..
