Talk:Rejection of evolution by religious groups

Summary of most recent archive

Gallup survey

a gallup poll claiming that only 55% of scientists believe that life could have come to its current state without divine intervention was removed because mr. cheesedreams pointed out that it was local to america (one of the only countries in the world where creationism is regarded as more than a fringe view), and it does not differentiate between the remaining 45% as to creationism or to those who made no opinion (thus giving the misleading impression that the remaining 45% supported the idea of there being divine intervention).

Mendel as creationist

his status as a christian monk, creationist, and discoverer of the laws of inheritence was claimed to be relevent by Ungtss and Rednblu to show that science and creationism are not mutually exclusive (and indeed mendelian genetics and theistic "orthogenetics" remained dominant in the scientific community until the mid twentieth century. CheeseDreams claimed it to be irrelevant because "what NPOV insight on "whence we all came" could I get from knowing about Mendel's faith?", and more importantly because Mendel lived before evolution gained much acceptance.

evolutionism as pov

Miss. Cheesedreams believes that evolutionism is a POV term used by Creationists and is not a term used by non-creationists. However, Mr. Rednblue notes that evolutionism is used by many evolutionary anthropologists in a non-derogatory way. Miss. Cheese points out that the meaning by anthropologists is not the sense it has in this article. Mr. Cheese dreams also believes creation myth is POV, story would be better, creation science is insufficient as it is only a subset of the views of creationists. Ungtss believes that myth is a non-derogatory description of the flood story (according, again, to the sociological definition of the term), and believes it to be appropriate.

Section structure

The article could be broken down by creationist topic, or it could be split into sections on hypotheses and those on evidence criticism.

Totally Disputed

Miss. Cheesedreams believes that to be a creationist against evolution demands you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about what is good science and what is not, based pretty much on your faith. "both sides are equally biased" is a creationist POV in this debate. Ungtss believes that the majority is just as capable of bias as the minority, and the fury of the debate shows that something more than mere science underlies the two beliefs. Cheese points out that, on their part, it is simply the anger of some scientists at the creationists unwillingness to listen, and their dogged insistence on creationism being taught in schools as equal in status to evolution.

Aldus

Miss. Cheesedreams said, "Please stop trying to put essays by one writer into articles. This isn't Wikiquote or Wikisource. Although Huxley articulates one thing, it is not necessarily his actual POV. The whole section maybe ought to be cut out as it doesnt add information." Ungtss and Rednblue think the quote section is appropriate and npov.

aside

Some think True Religion is "Just, Merciful, and Faithful." others think that one should not confuse religion with truth as they are not the same and never have been. Due to the fact that Jesus knowing his destiny still chose death, and consequently some religions have glorification of the murder of a man on a crucifix by asphyxiation, Miss. Cheesedreams believes they should be described as Sadists. Ungtss believes that those who glorify his death are sadists because they side with Christ's murders, but that those who admire his courage through suffering are his followers. Cheese argues that Jesus knew his destiny, knowing he would be resurrected, and since he was god, what suffering was it really?

Virus

Evangelical Christianity, particularly student groups, fits the definition of a virus, so does it care if it doesn't benefit the host?. a religion is completely dead as soon as the CRITERIA FOR SALVATION is that you believe what they say and go to their church. However, Ungtss said true religion is not a virus, but "living justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with god." Cheese states that such an opinion is a POV opinion as to what constitutes true religion, and also that it makes no mention of truth, only justice.

paraphrasing huxley

Mr. Cheesedreams and Fleacircus believed Huxley's quote was taken out of context, quoting Huxley selectively to demonstrate a POV. There was negotiation, and the quote was put into context and remained in the article.

Hull & Butler

A quote that says "the evidence for evolution disproves God" serves a creationist POV by claiming that evolution has religious implication, and serves the evolutionist pov by showing that creationism is self-contradictory. Cheese does not see why it shows creationism is self-contradictory. It be nice to stick to the merits of evolution itself instead of the merits of evolutionists. But evolutionists are just as human as creationists. The majority consider "evolutionism" to be an extremely POV term. Mr. Cheesedreams believes Rednblu is a Creationist who misrepresents himself to push POV by making the other side feel they are extreme. You ought to see - User talk:Rednblu#Good Faith_policy (adjourned)-which is now in an archive (amongst other locations discussing Rednblu, such as User:Felonius Monk).

Inconsistency

Adam was the counter example to a creationist argument, so it was re-written. However, the re-write assumed that God was sentient, and that one would be god if one constructed an ant via molecular physics. Nethertheless the argument is actually a falsifiability for ID. Ockham's razor chooses Naturalism because it does not require intervention. Ockham himself was a monk. Cheesedreams argues that this may have just been a way to get a good education, or he may have been gay. Ockham was also a christian, but Cheesedreams pointed out that this was not significant in an age where not being a christian meant being ostricised by the world, and consequent inability to carry out anything approaching normality, and on continental europe led to massacres.

Cheesedreams said that "An intelligent being is not a naturalist thing, therefore cannot feature in a "natural" law." Ungtss agrees that some naturalists are in fact not intelligent beings, but believes that intelligent beings can indeed occur naturally. Cheese argues that if an intelligent being is naturalist, then there is nothing non-naturalist.

Hydrostatic Equilibrium

According to theoretical physics, "Starting" the big bang has NO meaning, nor does the idea of subatomic particles having an origin. Path integral formulation is the REASON "natural laws" of physics arise. Aboigenesis could work via accumulations and encounters from a 1000000year Miller Experiment. Macroevolution is potentially a Creationist fallacy, science advocates a smooth change of scale, yet still has speciation. Star birth is due to the failure of an extremely cold gas cloud to resist gravity via hydrostatic equilibrium (some creationists edited the Stellar Evolution article to subvert this explanation also violating "no personal research")

Macro and microevolution

It is inaccurate to state that creationists "coined" the term macro and microevolution -- they were coined by evolutionists, and brought to the english language by the author of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Birch and Ehrlich Quote

Mr. Rednblue believed it was taken out of context (as commonly done by creationists). What B&E are talking about is whether to guess first from evolution or to do more studies. Ungtss believed it accurately reflected the status of evolution as "beyond the realm of empirical science." Rednblue argued that ID has failed miserably to make falsifiable claims. Ungtss disagreed, arguing that evolution has failed just as badly, if not worse.

falsifiability

We must distinguish between verifiability and falsifiability. Falsifiability is the means of pushing outward the envelope of your knowledge in an efficient manner. Falsifiability is used by men in fighting turf battles. A theory has essential flaws if it does cannot state its hypotheses in falsifiable form. The "Duck Billed Platypus" is one phenomenon that is consistent with evolution but not consistent with a designer having intelligence.

The point

Naturalistic explanations do not require an infinite cascade of assumptions, the only require the Zermilo-Frenkel axioms and the Path integral formulation of M-theory, and the axioms of Logic. Everything requires some assumptions (as Godel's incompleteness theorem shows). The problem of evil implies god is not nice, although "evil" and "nice" are human concepts. If God is a concept of Man then Ockham's razor demand we reject it, although this is irrelevant. We ought keep ourselves in a healthy state of agnosticism.

Theory claiming to KNOW more than it can FALSIFY

Creationists say that you can't falsify macroevolution because the only falsifiable argument is find life that can't be explained through stepwise development. Features are not normally explained by evolution as "well, we don't understand that..." since it is normally understood. The eye developed from pockets of light sensitive skin cells which slowly took on a more important role once predators had them too. The lens is simply a bit of thin skin, that got pulled by muscles, it later developed as animals where this happened had advantage. The iris is simply a result of that same process - the muscles in the skin which pull horizontally. All skin has a connection to the brain - the area was NEVER unconnected, just becoming more specialised and important. The eye of insects developed independantly but the principle is still the same - its a light sensitive patch of their exoskeleton.

Ezekiel;

Cheesedreams argued that GENES changed from eyeless to eyed, as basically the new genes are just appended to the old (which is also why humans show stages of development in the embryo in a similar manner to evolutionary paths). There is nothing radically different in sexual reproduction, it is exactly the same as it was in fish, just that the eggs are now internal, and the reproduction method has gradually become more intimate. Asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction via a copying error. Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis whatsoever for any of his claims. Cheesedreams argued that he had, and that Ungtss was merely persuing the common creationist line of asking for ever more explanation and evidence because they do not want to accept what is given, simply to try to exhaust the opposition's willingness to bother continuing.

Cheesedreams argued that Male and female is an artificial definition, it should instead be A and B, as "Sexual reproduction" merely means the fusing of 2 cells into a new creature. In primative animals there is little difference between the genders, later animals having difference merely due to the gradual evolution of one cell becoming more the delivery method and one being more the source of nourishment. Mating of sexually reproducing bacteria and the like is via phagocytosis, just being a matter of trial and error until one works, not an "occurs amazingly close and simultaneously" Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis whatsoever for any of his claims. Cheesedreams re-iterated the prior argument about creationist methods of arguing.

Cheesedreams argued that the dimple improved visual acuity due to the fact that a concave lense produces a virtual image, wheras a convex one is unfocused. When there is an advantage to seeing ANYTHING, there is a massive advantage in focusing light whether or not you can distinguish shape. Science has already produced computer programs via neural nets which can recognise faces, the development of visual recognition is no different. Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis whatsoever for any of his claims. Cheesedreams re-iterated the prior argument about creationist methods of arguing.

Cheesedreams argued that since there is 0% change of observing god, and there is significantly higher chance of observing the development of the eye, occam's razor demands you reject clinging on to god. Ungtss argued that since there is a chance of observing the development of the eye, but it has not been observed or explained, it is equally subject to ockham's razor.

Fleacircus argued that Creationists have demanded complete proof at every step. Creationists demand intermediate forms and then when scientists show some, they seem not to notice, or they switch to other things and demand those be shown. Scientists think it counterproductive and even "perverse" to keep demanding tedious, complete demonstrations, and are more interested in finding the limits of the theory. Since when did they provide a similar amount of proof? Such as for how god created the eye, or how god exists, or how god functions, or that god exists, or a mechanism for god to exist or function. Scientists have noticed a pattern of endless specific demands from creationists and have concluded that no level of realistic proof will satisfy them. Ungtss argued that Fleacircus and Cheesedreams failed to cite a single instance of a common ancestor to support their claims. Cheesedreams cited the man-monkey fossil recently discovered in the tropics.

The heart

Cheesedreams argued that the heart developed as a bend in the aorta which gradually came to pump harder than the remainder of the arterial system - this is demonstrable by more primative animals - e.g. frogs who have a heart that has a passage between oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, and by the way it develops in an embryo. Veins have loads of chambers with one way valves, - ask a doctor. Frogs are part of the ancestral chain. The common ancestor had 3 chambers (like most amphibians). Earlier ancestors had just 2, which were really just bulgy tubes. The fourth arose from the 3rd splitting in two by the gradual growth of an intermediate wall, and associated alterations in shape - (providing the evolutionary advantage of less mixed blood and more purely oxygenated blood passing back into the body) Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis for his claims. Cheesedreams re-iterated the prior argument about creationist methods of arguing.

Blue Tits

Cheesedreams argued that Mammary glands derive from skin cells which release secretions (e.g. sweat glands, scent glands (particularly scent glands)) that the young started to take an interest in as they were otherwise malnourished, becoming more specialised, and more isolated to fulful this purpose. Its just a mass of cells producing milk, in a fat like body, which has a particularly sensitive and hardened area of skin at the tip, which has more cross glands than elsewhere on the skin - allowing it to seep the milk. There is no intricacy. Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis for his claims.. Cheesedreams re-iterated the prior argument about creationist methods of arguing.

Spqrs

Cheesedreams argued that sexual reproduction evolved by an error in mitosis -- that is, that during cell splitting (for asexual reproduction), the chromosomes line up and pair off, sometimes swapping bits of DNA between the pairs. Then the chromosome pairs duplicate and then the cell splits taking one set into each new bit. The error simply occurs if they fail to duplicate and then the cell splits - thus taking one of each pair rather than one of each pair of pairs (producing the cells which form gametes). Phagocytosis by one cell of another similar enough not to be rejected will produce a new cell with the original number of chromosomes - thus sexually reproducing. Ungtss argued that Cheesedreams provided no factual basis for his claims, or any link between Phagocytosis (that is, the consumption of one cell by another) and the intricate process of sexual reproduction. Cheesedreams re-iterated the prior argument about creationist methods of arguing. Further Cheese stated that there was nothing intricate about sexual reproduction, and that phagocytosis only destroys the consumed cell if it does not meet certain criteria - phagocytosis is responsible for the single cytoplasm nature of arterial and other such bodily walls.

POV of a creationist (who won't admit he is one)

The alleged creationist apologises for all the ways that the anti-creationists have thrown falsifiable at creationists. The creationist thinks that it is intellectually dishonest to assert that it is FACT that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor without any way to falsify that statement. However, it is deadly when man turns to God instead of solving his own problems.

Designer ID

Intelligent design can be represented as all of evolution except with the addition of a designer. The god of evolution. Which is a violation of ockham's razor since it clearly adds something unnecessary. Naturalistic evolution does not require any additional mechanism. The perception that it is lacking in some mechanism is only held by creationists, who refuse to accept that it is a complete theory. Most scientists and indeed non-scientists, the world over, consider that the microevolution on a larger scale can and DOES explain "macroevolution".

Pseudoscientific

The pseudoscience accusation against ID, is the unnecessary element of the Intelligent Designer. If you looked out of a train and saw a black cow, what would you say of the observation? Cows around here are black, some cows around here are black, a cow around here is black, one half of one cow around here is black, or my brain is claiming that one half of one cow around here looks black

Falsify macroevolution

To falsify "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees.", it is proposed that one needs simply to find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzee. But this will only falsifies the more NARROW theory that "Humans and chimpanzees have very similar gene pools" - it fails to falsify the theory that "humans and chimps have a common ancestor". When the question "How did life begin" is asked, the answer "I don't know, but I'm trying to figure it out" is far simpler (and more honest) than "An undetectable, ultra-powerful being with an unknowable plan, did it".

F equals MA

is NEVER true, as it is only an average. F=ma is a nice little lie. Like the laws of thermodynamics. However, the ID version of physics can, in a nutshell be expressed as "I think God is moving the objects around". Common sense is often wrong. There is no such thing as an intellectual coma, unless the originator of the accusation is in one.

Tibet

The voice of reason will return whenever china lets him back into Tibet without the threat of arrest. The Dalai Lama, like most buddhists, is an atheist. Buddhism itself being strictly NON-theistic, although most buddhists are in fact Atheists. "it flies" doesn't explain the quality of flight, however, picture a brick not hanging in the air, and imagining the opposite its a much better description which is far more vivid.

The "cleanup" tag should be removed

But a reader should be prepared for messiness, and the tag is needed because the text added is not wikified, and the structure of the article is a mess. It is not clear what is going on in each section.

Deism and Naturalism as falsifiable

Some think that Occam's razor dictates that the theory that makes the smallest number of assumptions to explain the evidence is the most reasonable. However, evidence is NOT proof, it only affects opinions as to the truth of the thing in question.

Doctor Who

There are four broad possibilities for the origin of the universe - Naturalism, Deism, the universe only existing for the last second, Ancestor simulation and similar. The last is the simplest of all, as it is MINUS the assumption that it is real, it is just the least satisfactory. Ockham's razor is UNvAlUable in the issue, leading to an unhelpful starting point as predictability gets thrown away, therefore it is better to ignore its conclusions and start from an assumption that on this issue it is wrong. It is possible to consider it wrong on the issue of God or on the last possibility, but that is cowardice (see Why I am not a Christian and Escapism).

Now, for the falsifiable propositions

If all things originated from purely natural causes, one would expect further research into the causation of natural things to lead to FEWER assumptions and unknowns, although this is a fallacy, as shown by the existance of the Mandelbrot Set in the simple equation Z->ZZ+1. Likewise if all things originated from AGENCY, one would expect further exploration into the causation of natural things to lead to MORE assumptions and unknowns, because that "original cause" we are assuming under occam's razor would be MORE complex than the universe -- possibly even infinitely complex, however this is not true if the exploration is by those who have a philosophical axe to grind in the first place. Statistical analysis of human behaviour produces nice normal distributions, not a series of evenly distributed spikes, showing that people are not as individual as many think.

ID and falsification -- fresh start!

About how the "intelligent designer" constructed the first humans and first chimpanzees, the creationists respond that at least, 97% of the dna in the human genome has no known function. falsifiability depends on the definition of "conventional wisdom". "life will never be observed arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent designer" would kill all the forms for creationism, and make theism logically untenable under occam's razor. However, ID requires the PARADIGM shift that there IS a creator. There is agreement to remove the Birch & Ehrlich (1967) quote because it does not criticize evolutionary theory and has no relevance. A suggestion to also remove the theodosius quote, for even handed-ness, was rebuffed as the remaining quotations wouldn't then be distorting or accusing the other side of distortion.

Dobzhansky

The Dobzhansky quote is a perspective on the debate about the tactic of "quote mining", whic is certainly one the creationist side continues to use. However it is really connected to the unfair tactics that either side uses when they have lost ground and have not the intelligence to string together good English to say anything in the debate. It perhaps ought to go in a separate section with a title like "Dirty tactics used by both sides in the debate".

Tidy up Lucretius's English

Lucretius was converted into english as the original translation was poor.

Macroevolution Refactoring

The section should be consise and to the point.

Issues in "Perspectives on the debate"

The quotes are like part of Wikiquote not an encyclopedia article. The psalms quote is not about the debate. Some of pauls letters were first alleged not to have been written by paul by Origen in the 2nd/3rd century, therefore "alleged". The bible is not commenting on the debate and it should not be quoted. "it is an unscientific dogmatic belief" and "it is a justifiable belief" are mutually exclusive according to the rules of english language.

ending the insanity.

fine. you're right, and everything i've ever believed is wrong. there is no god, but he's evil. occam's razor demands we believe we're living in the matrix, and also that there is no god. jesus died so we could all cheer his murderers on. religion is stupid, but still worth spending all our time attacking relentlessly. you're right, mr. cheesedreams. truth is falsehood and light is dark. i only wish i'd heard your wisdom earlier. i've learned my lesson now, tho, so i'm gonna stop discussing things with you, return to the real world, and convince everybody else of all the wisdom you've taught me, so they can shoot themselves (or even better) each other. thank you. thank you so much. Ungtss 01:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the bible, Jesus was told by an angel of his purpose. He chose to accept it and die for it. Some people think that is worth celebrating. Some canonise Judas as a saint for carrying out god's purpose. However, fundamentalists just don't seem to get it.

Giving up on a arguments thusly is simply an indication that one has a closed mind and is unwilling to contemplate the validity of counter-argument.

I don't approve of guns.

Though darkness is light, and in falsehood there is truth, this is not my wisdom.CheeseDreams 02:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair warning announcement

I am posting this alert so that everyone has fair warning. I am in the process of organizing a Wikipedia-wide discussion of what, in my opinion, is the repeated dysfunctional behavior of several Wikipedia editors on the Creation vs. evolution debate page and Creation according to Genesis page. This is a systems problem, in my opinion--specifically a systems control problem, and does not reflect on whether or not any editor in the History file has acted in good faith, bad faith, or in no faith at all. 8)) I am only using this particular History file as a case-in-point to illustrate the problem and discuss changes to Wikipedia policy to deal with this systems control problem. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Basically, in the Wikipedia-wide proposal, I am characterizing the actions of several Wikipedia editors in the History file as generally making destructive edits of no value, such as 1) removing or defacing good NPOV citations, quotations, and paraphrases, 2) making unreasonable demands, 3) inserting nonsense into the page, 4) repeatedly misusing Wikipedia policy and standards to disrupt progress, and 5) scrambling page contents destructively. And I am proposing that Wikipedia establish some standard method of dealing with this situation and similar situations that occur on many pages throughout Wikipedia with many different configurations of editors. Any ideas? ---Rednblu | Talk 10:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The discussion of the Wikipedia-wide proposal is at this link ---Rednblu | Talk 13:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

totally disputed tag

i would like to alter this page in such a way as to make the maximum number of people happy ... Mr. DuncHarris ... i noticed that you put a "Totally Disputed" tag on -- i was wondering what facts in the text you disputed, or what comments you found to be pov, so that i can make the appropriate changes? Ungtss 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

beliefs and scientific theories

i see there's been a bit of an edit war going as to whether evolution should be considered a "scientific theory" or a "belief." may i suggest that "scientific theory" is the most accurate and npov description of evolution -- because "scientific theory" does not imply truth or falsehood -- only that it is an interpretation of the evidence -- while "belief" is less accurate, because "evolutionISM" may be a belief, but "evolution" is a theory? any thoughts? Ungtss 00:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to say its a belief but to keep a NPOV it would be better to say "scientific theory" though I think "evolution" assumes its truth all we have to do is say that when ever somone says the word "evolution" it is assumed as a scientific theory and not as a belief but is also not implying its truth. So all you have to do is set up a legend up the top saying that when ever the word "evolution" is used it is considered NPOV and should be. Also Creationism or what ever you want to call it should be considered a NPOV and a scientific theory in the intrest of a NPOV for this topic. If you think "the creation" is not a scientific theory then there is no use in even talking to you. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 01:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Scientific theory" does not imply truth or falsehood, but it does imply that it is scientific. That it is testable and falsifiable. But unique past events, which most of goo-to-you evolution is, are are not testable because we cannot test the past. That is the POV of creationists, so by calling evolution "scientific" is expressing a POV.

"Belief", on the other hand, means agreeing that something is true. It does not imply truth or falsehood either, and neither does it indicate that there are no grounds for agreeing that something is true.

Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

<<:"Scientific theory" does not imply truth or falsehood, but it does imply that it is scientific. That it is testable and falsifiable.>>

Might I follow this train of thought for a second. I am looking for a rule for this idea of "testable and falsifiable." Suppose I had a repeatable recipe for speciating bacteria B into 1) new bacteria C and 2) yeast within a closed container. The theory that the recipe would speciate bacteria B into yeast would be "testable and falsifiable," would it not? I do not have a particular "recipe" in mind. :) I think I would have the Nobel Prize if I had such a recipe. :)) I am checking with you to see if "repeatable" would satisfy your view of "testable and falsifiable." ---Rednblu | Talk 02:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My definition of "scientific" was not meant as a rigorous definition, and I'm not certain exactly what you are getting at, but something (such as your recipe) that exists in the present is (normally) repeatedly testable and therefore falsifiable. My point is that something that occurred once in the past is not testable. To go one step further, using your recipe to show that bacteria could "evolve" into yeast would (a) disprove any argument that says that this is not possible and (b) make the claim that it happened in the past much more feasible (likely to be true). But it would still not prove that it actually did happen in the past. (Also, it would demonstrate that such can happen by the agency of an intelligent being; it would not necessarily demonstrate that such could happen without such agency.)

Does that answer your question? Philip J. Rayment 03:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure. We are just looking for a clear articulation of what the "debate" is. I guess I was looking for what demonstration that I as an evolutionist would have to make that would be convincing to a creationist. :)) And, now that I think about it, it might be worthwhile for me to think what demonstration that you would have to make that would convince me. :)) Fair is fair. If you ask, I would be glad to think about it for a while and come up with an answer. ;) I guess, for me, the question of proving what happened in the past is like proving that someone committed a crime. Having to have the jury witness the crime happen would probably be expecting too much proof. :) So there has to be some reasonable standard for proof. If we can sketch this out a little, probably I can find some scholar who explored the kinds of questions that we are discussing. ---Rednblu | Talk 05:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can't have the jury witness the crime, but you can (in many if not most cases) have the jury hear testimony from someone who did witness the crime. Observation doesn't have to be first-hand; we trust scientists (and others) on what they say that they have observed, and we trust (as a general rule) written testimony of people who lived in the past (e.g. Josephus) on what they observed (or that they passed on from other observers). None of this is infallible, of course, and none of the past stuff can be considered "scientific". What makes it scientific is that if we don't think we can trust the scientists' observations, we can run the tests again ourselves and make our own observations. You can't do that with the past.

Creationists claim to have just such a written testimony from the past. So one aspect of the argument is, evolutionists are making up stories about the past to explain the evidence that exists in the present (e.g. fossils), whereas creationists have written eye-witness testimony about the past which (to some extent at least) explains the evidence that exists in the present.

In one sense (the scientific sense), neither side can prove to the other side that they are right, and it is therefore futile to try. However, both sides can present their evidence and their arguments to see which is more reasonable. Demonstrating an increase in genetic information from a random mutation will provide evidence (but not proof) that evolution is possible. Documenting that all observations to date of mutations fail to increase the genetic information is evidence against evolution, but again doesn't actually disprove it.

Philip J. Rayment 13:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

look, cheese.

what do you want out of that last section? you contributed to it, discussed it, developed it, and now you are unilaterally insisting that it be removed. present a solution other than insisting on vandalizing the page. Ungtss 05:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I am insisting it be moved to Wikiquote. It has no structure, no connecting prose, no narrative. It is solely a (excessively large) collection of quotes. Which is the purpose of wikiquote not wikipedia. I have no problem contributing to wikiquote, which is why I discussed it and contributed to it. I remember always pointing out that it does not belong in wikipedia though. CheeseDreams 08:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i am willing to add structure, connecting prose, and narrative, but given the course of events thusfar, i fear you will simply revert it. are you willing to work together on solving the problem in a mutually agreeable fashion? Ungtss 14:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as the tag states - if you can edit it so that it becomes an encyclopedia article, then do so, and THEN remove the tag, not before, (a) the purpose of the tag is to point out the lack of such a state, (b) and to list it in the corresponding category so that editors who like converting quotes into articles might attempt to do so, and (c) to state the consequence of the changes not happening. CheeseDreams 19:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Much better darling. CheeseDreams 20:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Betrayal of Knowledge

I'm sure most here have heard of Haeckel's Embryonic Recapitulation (Comparitive Embryology). Well what you didn't hear (though you probably did) is that ALL the drawings were made up and ALL the EVOLUTIONIST Scientists REJECTED his theory and yet still today his drawings and theory is presented as "truth" in our science books.

I have absolutely never heard of Comparative Embryology and have never seen a single textbook or drawing on this subject presented either as "truth" or as fiction.CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never? How is that so? Have you ever read a text book with evolution evidences in them? I live in Australia and its in the Sydney Museum it's in the text books I was taught with! Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it exists under another name in the UK, how is it defined?

P.s. Are you openly admitting to sock puppetry? you seem to have two accounts. CheeseDreams 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not sure what your seeing with my user name thing but I didn't log in I just wrote the Gelsamel thing and then the 4 squiggles does the 4 squiggles put my IP as well? is that what your seeing as the 2nd user? 'Cause I didn't bother logging in so maybe thats why

Not to metion Darwin refuting everything he wrote about evolution while on his death bed. (everyone doubts but to the point where they refute their life's work??)

There is no evidence that Darwin recanted on his deathbed, and I say that as a creationist. Philip J. Rayment 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 4 squiggles will put whoever it thinks you are logged in as. If you log in, it will save you typing Gelsamel out (you can get this without a date by just 3 squiggles). If you are logged out it will show your IP, the presence of both was confusing. The english term for the squiggles is "tilde". CheeseDreams 01:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some things are bigger than their creator. Darwin couldn't cope. CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't cope with what? Couldn't cope with lying to the whole world? Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The idea that Darwin was "lying" is quite an extremist POV. Darwin couldn't cope with the consequences his theory had for the justification of the existance of God. CheeseDreams 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

His theory Justified God??? News to me. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 00:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, his theory removed the keystone of the justification for God - profound complexity in nature. His theory reduced it to zero. (as it were) CheeseDreams 01:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is why his theory was so controversial when it was publishedCheeseDreams 01:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also (I'm new to wikipedia discussion so I didn't know how to post in this old topic.) on the whole "evolutionism" is a POV term only used by creationists, that may be true but using the word "evolution" assumes its truth (because its not saying its a belief, it says evolution plain and clear as if its definatly true) while "creationism" assumes its a belief which may or may not be true. So I think we should use "evolutionism" to stop the subliminal bias. Of course evolutionists dont say they belive in evolutionism because they think its true they'll say evolution and creationists DO NOT refer to the belief as "CREATIONISM" they refer to it as "THE CREATION" which is somthing entirely different to "creation"

"evolution" is no more a POV term than is "creation". To think that it is is rather an extremist view. CheeseDreams 08:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But isn't that what was suggested in like 5 of the above topics?? I was just commenting on the topic at hand Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 03:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gelsamel (how do you do this user link thing and the time without having to copy it from someone elses post?

~~~~ (CheeseDreams 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC))

welcome to wikipedia! you've presented some very interesting ideas, which would be very valuable in the discussion here. but one of the cardinal rules around here is that if you want to present ideas like that, which will be controversial to many, they have to be backed with a ququote and cite from a credible, published source -- it is a bit extra work, but it helps us sort through all the controversial ideas into a single article -- because there are a lot of people around here who disagree with everything you said -- but if you find somebody who said it, you can put the QUOTE in there, and nobody will be able to dispute that THAT PERSON SAID IT -- it also helps us improve the level of discussion around here ... because as you're researching for cites, you're bound to come across lots more interesting stuff along the way. so please -- go out and find folks that wrote books saying what you're saying, and give us quotes and cites!

Quotes? I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this but this "quote" is a bit to big to post, so I'll post a link to a website (if I'm not allowed to do this please remove it for me)http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2049&cat=5 Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should go in an "external links" section at the base of the article (according to the Wikipedia manual of style). CheeseDreams 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

oh -- and to do the timestamp, you just put four tildas (the little squigglies) in a row. enjoy! Ungtss 04:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am NOT a creationist, I am a christian though, but I belive that "creationist" is a coined term for a Creationist Fanboy who wont listen to the other side of the arguement, even though I belive in the creation I am not bias and I will hear out both sides Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as a "Meringue Fanboy" being "one who 'likes' Meringue", then a "Creationist Fanboy" is "one who 'likes' creationism". Therefore Creationist is not a coined term, since creationism exists independently of Creationist Fanboys. Likewise Establishmentarianism is not the same as anti-dis-establishmentarianism. CheeseDreams 22:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am a creationist, which means one who believes in creation, and I am always willing to listen to the other side. And by the way, I'm an Aussie too. Philip J. Rayment 02:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

towards POV and factual accuracy.

Right, it is quite clear that this mess has been written by a creationist. "The origin of life remains elusive to science", etc. This is factually wrong, and describing Creationism as a "hypothesis" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Overview of my objections:

The title omplies that there is some kind of debate going on about creationism and evolution. There isn't, atleast not within scientific circles.
- if the title said, "creation vs. evolution debate within scientific circles," i would agree with you that it was patent nonsense. however, it does not -- and there IS an ongoing debate between creationists and evolutionists ... as indicated by the talkpage, where a creationist and evolutionist debated for a bit:). just because one perceives one side of a debate to be irrational and stupid does not mean that no debate exists -- where there is vocal disagreement, there is debate. would you agree? Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Use of prejoratives e.g. "evolutionist".
- i've never thought of that as perjorative -- could you recommend a more npov alternative besides the more perjorative contrast between "scientists" and "people-that-think-they-are-creation-scientists-but-are-actually-morons-and-fools?" Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Simple; use "evolutionary biologist" that is unambiguos, also use scientific community. The leaders are the creationist movement are very clever, liars though perhaps they are so deluded as to not realise that themselves. Most creationist followers are ignorant, but stupid is innappropaite and a micharacterisation of the scientific pov. That is a strawman argument. Dunc|☺ 19:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Content that is factually incorrect; I am not an expert on abiogenesis, but I do know that the content here is wrong, and seems to be written by someone who hasn't got a clue what they're talking about at all.
- the content was copied verbatim from The origin of life and is consonant with everything i've ever read on the topic. your input would be very welcome in bringing it up to date. Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - That does not appear to be the case. If parts are taken they have been seriously spun. Dunc|☺ 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - In which case it should be deleted as an article already exists covering it. The article is The origin of life. It should be replaced with a short summary with a main article link pointing there. CheeseDreams 00:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - if the origin of life page covered the creationist opinion of abiogenesis, such action would be appropriate. it does not, however. would you suggest inserting the creationist pov onto that page? Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      - If the origin of life page fails to include the creationist opinion, then it is not NPOV. CheeseDreams 18:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        Yes, indeed there is an issue here, origin of life needs a section on creation myths including Abrahamic ones, rather than the disambiguation page that is there at the moment. Such a section should come after the science. Dunc|☺ 19:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The result of that is a favourable comparison between a Creationist "hypothesis" against a strawman of science.
The rest of it is half-apology that has little to do with evolution.
- I support the above argument CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - if you would like to improve the "straw-man," feel free to flesh him out. i do not think it appropriate, however, to label the majority of human beings as fools and prevent their point of view from being heard because you disagree with them. Ungtss 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to vfd it as patent nonsense.

However, I do not support this. The article was seperated from the Creationism page to reduce its size, and make it a summary article like Evolution. As such, it is inevitable that this page in some form will be created. Because it was originally on the Creationism page, it developed a rather unchecked pro-Creationist POV (since pro-Evolution editors, unfortunately, generally ignore the Creationism series of articles). CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if you check the history, you will find it was checked every step of the way by mr. cheesedreams. Ungtss 00:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I only checked the edits, not the full article.CheeseDreams 00:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you were here before the article was an article, and worked with me to piece it together, step by step. Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think I was. I was only here watching your edits for POV. It was the OTHER article (Creation according to Genesis) that was step by step. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, there is a possibility of an article, perhaps creationism and abiogenesis, creationism and evolution, and maybe even creationism and geology. These should principally list the biggest problems creationists perceive with science. Dunc|☺ 23:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That seems a sensible suggestion. However, the abiogenesis part should actually be moved to a subsection of Creation according to genesis (which also originated on the Creationism page). And, having reviewed it, I still think the "perspectives" section is patent nonsense that should be in wikiquote. CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, abiogenesis should be separate as it includes intelligent design arguments about which are still Creationist but are distant from the book of Genesis. Dunc|☺ 23:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, ill add the tags.

those may be appropriate articles too. however, i think it's only appropriate that there also be a "creation vs. evolution debate" page, as there is, indeed, a "Creation vs. evolution debate." Ungtss 00:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ungtss, darling, the perspectives section is still, on review, a series of quotes, now loosely held together by a thin framing, but it still looks like an art gallery. Ive put the tag back, don't remove it until it actually resembles an article. CheeseDreams 23:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact I've just added a VfD tag to the two sections CheeseDreams 00:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i find it difficult to understand why it is essential to have the "creation vs. evolution" debate" written entirely from the evolutionist perspective. but i truly cannot fathom why you did not object to that section for the whole time you worked with me on it, contributed quotes of your own, and then suddenly decided that it no longer suited your purpose, and needed to be destroyed. darling. Ungtss 00:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember continuously complaining about that particular section being needed to turn into a proper article. In addition, it was Fleacircus who contributed quotes to it, not me. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it is COMPLETELY beyond me why you would continue to add quotes to a section you wish to be removed, as you just did. Ungtss 00:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because since the section exists, it continues to be read, and I will not stand for such an offensive POV quote as that by Morris to end the article without an equally powerful counter argument by Betrand Russel. CheeseDreams 02:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what relevence does that quote have to the creation vs. evolution debate whatsoever, sir? it is nothing more than a polemic against religion. Ungtss 03:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It acts as counter to Morris, who is clearly fascist, and highly offensive. CheeseDreams 11:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the morris quote is related to evolution, and part of an NAS quote related to evolution which portrays him as fascist. your quote, by contrast, relates to evolution or creation not one bit. Ungtss 14:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"my" quote relates to morris 100%. It stays for as long as the morris quote does. CheeseDreams 16:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you should know, sir, that one of the reasons people find evolutionism to be so frightening is the degree to which is is associated with petty, small, arrogant people who censor, condemn, insult, speak irrationally and hatefully of all that is good, ignore the obvious, and, quite simply, act like fools. if you would like to persuade me that rationalism is the best basis for rational behavior, i suggest that you begin acting rationally. Ungtss 16:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bertrand Russel said Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. ... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. CheeseDreams 18:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religious 'Doctrine undoubtedly does this, but any enquring and scientific mind is not closed to the philosophy of spirituality or what may be called divine forces existing in an unexplored realm. We can only understand the universe largely according to our five senses and the four dimensions we exist in. A dog sees no colur so has no comprehension of it; a seal can see the tracks of a fish in water that are invisible to us; if you inserted your finger into a world with only two geometric dimensions the inhabitants would just see a disk and would not recognise the finger. Total atheism becomes a flawed dogma as much as fundementalist religion and dogma. Dainamo 13:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually its 21 dimensions, or rather 10 dimensions clockwise, and 21 anti-clockwise. CheeseDreams 13:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no such debate. Just like there is no debate between someone who makes the observation that humans and monkeys both have arms and someone who says that this is just a coincidence. Bensaccount 19:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats a good quote. "Creationists think that humans and monkeys both having arms is mere co-incidence". CheeseDreams 20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats a good quote, sarcasticly? or you really think that is a good quote? If you are saying this sarcastically please ignore this, but... even if you were the most bias stupid idiotic evolutionist you would instantly know that creationists do not belive in co-incidence but evolution does, "by co-incidence the big-bang happened, evolution just HAPPENED TO HAPPEN, everything in the world was created through evolution and all of it was co-incidence" is all I hear evolutionist debaters say, if this is just another place that says this over and over then there is no use or point to this debate, Isn't it obvious that Creationists would assume that Monkeys and Humans both have arms because God intended them to??? Use some logic. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 04:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But that is the point - why did God intend Monkeys AND Humans to have arms? well, its probably just a coincidence. CheeseDreams 23:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And Man was meant to be able to understand God's thoughts?? Gelsamel

Read before you comment: That is not a quote, it is my attempt to provide an example of how there is no debate between someone who makes an observation and someone who speculates about the observation. Bensaccount 00:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC

Is that directed at me or Cheese, 'Cause I was commented on Cheese's Comment and not yours. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 00:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANYWAYS... there is nothing to debate, unless you are ignorant. 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. Bensaccount 05:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They may be scientific observations, but they have been turned into unquestionable truth by people who fear that they are not "the ultimate life form" and there is someone, a great divine force, above them.Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 00:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolution is not just a bunch of observations, but a story invented to explain observations without invoking God. Has anyone ever observed a fish become an amphibian, an amphibian become a reptile, a dinosaur become a bird? No. Yet those non-observations--and many more--are part of the evolution story. Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are twisting the word "observe". I suppose dinosours didn't exist either because no one has ever "observed" them?

How am I twisting the word "observe"? I never said that something that isn't observed doesn't exist; I said that lack of observation means that you don't have scientific evidence, as science requires observation. We do observe dinosaur fossils, so unless there is another reasonable explanation for dinosaur fossils, it is reasonable to conclude that dinosaurs did exist. But we have not observed dinosaurs changing into birds. Philip J. Rayment 13:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not nessesarily a fish turning into an amphibian but rather a fish with a bone or gils or an organ which sorta looks the same as what is inside the amphibian, that is their observation which they then assume means that that fish is a so called 'common ancestor' of the animals we see before us. Which in my mind is even more senseless, they find a leg bone in an animal and see that one of the bones is in the same shape as our fibia or tibia bone and then go "Because this bone sorta looks like what ours is it is undeniable that we must have evolved from such a creature" Gelsamel 03:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are refuting evidence that you personally made up. Darwin didn't base his theory on "a fish bone that sorta looks like a amphibian bone". Haven't you done any research on this? Take for example, the island on which he found a unique species of finch. Natural selection he theorized would make the birds that could eat the nuts on the island become the dominant species of finch. His proof was the beak size, which was best suited for eating these nuts.

This kind of evidence was found by Darwin himself. Since then, there has been a VAST AMOUNT of new evidence gathered. So don't make up some stupid story about "a fish bone that sorta looks like a amphibian bone". Bensaccount 06:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gelsamel's explanation may have been a bit "loose", but it's not far from the mark. To use one example, fossil ceolacanths had bones that were similar to leg bones, leading evolutionists to proclaim it the ancestor of land creatures--until living ones were found and examined and it could be seen that the "leg bones" were not that at all. Philip J. Rayment 13:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is your point? I said there has been a VAST AMOUNT of evidence gathered. Are you saying there hasn't? Bensaccount 17:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

what they are saying, i believe, is that there are two issues here: microevolution and macroevolution. your example of the finch beaks is microevolution, and is consistent with both evolution and creation. creationists believe that the "vast amount" of research you're referring to ONLY proves microevolution -- which is NOT a point of debate. what creationists believe is MISSING is any evidence of MACROEVOLUTION -- that is -- that creatures of different genera and phyla have COMMON ANCESTORS, and pointed to the example of the ceolacanths as another failed attempt to show ancestry. are you aware of a vast amount of evidence showing common ancestry between genera and phyla? Ungtss 18:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's part of it, but to put it another way, there is lots of evidence out there, but it is how one interprets--or explains--the evidence that is in dispute. For example, is similarity due to a common ancestor or a common designer? The evidence is the similarity. The common ancestor/designer is the explanation. Philip J. Rayment 00:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Microevolution is the same thing as macroevolution. The principles are the same just the time scale changes. Evolution is evolution. So that point makes no sense. Mind finding a source for who said that?

Well let's start with mendel in the 1860's, who discovered the laws of genetics and believed macro was genetically impossible; let's continue through the "orthogenetic revolution" during which nearly all scientists believe macroevolution was believed to be controlled by God, then on to Schmalhausen and Waddington, the "Non-darwinian evolutionists" who believed that macro and micro were different, and wind up with Gould, who argued that micro was the norm and macro occured sporadically by a different mechanism, in 1980 ... a position you'll find in any reputable text on the subject, today. your belief that macro and micro are equal is far from universal. Ungtss 21:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Am I aware of a vast amount of evidence showing common ancestry between genera and phyla? Of course. 1. Biogeography.

how is that relevent?

2. The fossil record.

show me common ancestry between genera and phyla in the fossil record and i'll shut up for good.

3. Comparative anatomy.

similarity does not = ancestry. the fact that my uncle's face looks like a pug's does not mean he decended from a pug.

4. Comparative embryology.

discredited among the scientific community as baseless.

5. DNA

similarity does not = ancestry

6. Biochemistry

similarity does not = ancestry

As I said before there is no shortage of evidence. Are you saying there is? Bensaccount 19:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i am saying that i believe there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution. unequivocally zero. Ungtss 21:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Ungtss but anyone who thinks an incomplete sentence like "similarity does not = ancestry" defeats three entire fields of scientific research is either hopelessly stupid or is delibrately blinding himself. Bensaccount 22:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

proof by assertion, authority, ad hominem attack, and evasion:). it's okay:). we're used to it:). Ungtss 22:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And anyone that thinks listing fields of study qualifies as evidence is not answering the question. Philip J. Rayment 00:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, im going to stress the point that these are entire FIELDS OF RESEARCH and you are arguing them with a single sentence, and the sentence is not even a complete thought. Moron. Bensaccount 22:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I use the word moron here because if you refuse to demonstrate any logic, insight, or knowledge in your "argument" then I have to lower myself to your level which is in essense just namecalling. Bensaccount 22:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your answer was elephant-hurling; it deserved the response it got, which was valid and to the point, albeit brief. Philip J. Rayment 00:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having never heard that expression before, I googled it and what do you know, it is jargon that has been made up to throw at people who present arguments that are too hard to logically disagree with. Heres the propaganda page:[1]. Bensaccount 01:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have misrepresented what elephant-hurling is. It is throwing a whole web-site, field of research, etc. at someone in order to answer a specific point, rather than than actually answer the specific point. Philip J. Rayment 02:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alright, my fine intelligent friend, let's do this step by step; after all, i am an idiot with a doctorate, so i'm obviously not capable of coherent thought, especially when it differs from yours.

1) the only piece of data you've laid before me are a set of inquiries. your objection is that i've dismissed the opinion of a lot of people who have studied the topic. consider an atheist dismissing theology: people have studied the topic for 3000 years, sincerely believing it to be true. that doesn't mean jack to an atheist, who dismisses it because "they don't have evidence to support their claims." i am making the same argument. whole groups of people have been fooled before, and they'll be fooled again, despite lifetimes of study. only the prideful think they're right because they have degrees (because degrees only prove you learned what they taught you), and only the foolish accept their claims without questioning them. your proof from authority is vacuous unless it is backed by facts, which you have yet to present. my fine intelligent friend.

2) comparative embryology was abandonned by all reputable scientists years ago.

3) biochemistry, genetic study, and comparative anatomy are the studies of characteristics of life today, and they have discovered many similarities. what i am UNAWARE of, however, is any evidence that those similarities are due to common ancestry. biochemistry, DNA evaluation, and comparative anatomy show that all life has similarities. but that does NOT provide any evidence that they are related. consider the article mr cheesedreams so thoughtfully provided below. the scientists said, "this is like trying to figure out what the first car looked like by taking an average of all the cars today." but does that mean the car was related? No. it means the DESIGNERS of those cars found systems that WORKED WELL, and they STUCK WITH THEM. THAT is the model of creationism. none of those fields of inquiry even ADDRESS the issue of common ancestry. only similarity. which is what i said briefly above.

4) i submit that the fossil record shows absolutely no evidence of common ancestry across genera and phyla. you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

My fine intelligent friend. Ungtss 00:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you think you can dispute every scientific observation made in every field I mentioned above? Sounds like your the one throwing elephants now. (oops sorry I misused some creationist jargon). Let us begin:

You obviously dislike comparative embryology so lets begin there. It has been observed that closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development.

All vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which they have gill pouches on the sides of their throats.

Your turn moron. (This could take a while, there are VAST AMOUNTS of scientific observations like this one). Bensaccount 01:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

your observation is true, and irrelevant. if ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny (the Recapitulation theory), then your observation would be relevent, because it would be evidence that we passed through that stage in our evolution. however, no reputable scientist today asserts that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. therefore, our embryology is irrelevent as to our alleged evolutionary development. your turn, my fine intelligent friend. Ungtss 01:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, the "observation" is not true. It is simply not true that all vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which they have gill pouches. See Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac? Philip J. Rayment 02:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thats like saying "ontogeny can only be related to phylogeny if it is related to phylogeny".

All vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which they have gill pouches on the sides of their throats. This logically leads to the conclusion that humans and fish have common ancestors.

Your turn moron. Bensaccount 01:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that is not at all what i'm saying. you have attempted to prove evolution by citing ontogeny, when there is no link between them. your evidence is irrelevent. Ungtss 01:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No I am proving evolution BY relating it to ontogeny.

when you relate evolution to ontogeny, you are assuming that evolution occured in the first place. you can't assume what you are trying to prove. when there is no necessary relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny, you cannot prove phylogeny with reference to ontogeny. it's non-sequiter. this is basic freshman undergrad logic stuff, man. Ungtss 02:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened to "my intelligent friend"? And yes it is possible to come to a conclusion without having the conclusion from the start. If it smells like cake, and it tastes like cake, you can presume it is cake without already knowing it is cake.

let me try to break this down for you more simple-like, since i'm such a country bumpkin. what you are saying goes like this: "the fact that we have gill slits as fetuses means that our ancestors had gill slits." however, it is universally acknowledged that the development of the fetus does NOT show the development of the species. therefore there is no connection between the development of the fetus and the development of the species. therefore you cannot prove the development of the species with reference to the development of the fetus. can i make this any clearer for you, my fine, intelligent friend? Ungtss 02:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never said "the fact that we have gill slits as fetuses means that our ancestors had gill slits." I said: the fact that we have gill slits as fetuses and fish have gill slits as fetuses means that our common ancestor had gill slits as a fetus.

When are you planning to disprove this, there are more observation I would like to get to. Bensaccount 02:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you are presuming that we have a common ancestor with the fish, and then telling me what you think it looked like. that is not an issue worth discussing, because it is based on your presumption of a common ancestor. the issue is, "do we HAVE a common ancestor with the fish?" and you have provided no evidence of the existence of that common ancestor thusfar. your turn, my fine, intelligent friend. Ungtss 03:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which they have gill pouches on the sides of their throats. This logically leads to the conclusion that humans and fish have common ancestors.

although ben began by saying this, he ended by simply saying that "the fact that we have gill slits as fetuses and fish have gill slits as fetuses means that our common ancestor had gill slits as a fetus." his evidence was therefore irrelevent as to the existence of the common ancestor. Ungtss 03:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The king is dead long live the king.Bensaccount 05:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your turn moron. Bensaccount 01:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bring the next one, my fine, intelligent friend. Ungtss 03:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that we have both agreed that gill slits point to a common ancestor between humans and fish, we can move on to the next observation in comparative embryology.

we have not agreed to that, and i will not continue to waste my time with you unless you acknowledge that embryology provides no evidence for or against evolution, because ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.

by analogy, phylogeny is the country you're in, and ontogeny is the map you're using. you are looking at the map and saying, "boston is 500 miles behind us, because the map says boston is 500 miles behind us (we have a common ancestor with the fish because we appear similar as fetuses)." but EVERYBODY KNOWS you are using the wrong map -- the map you're looking at does NOT represent the area you're in (ontogeny does NOT recapitulate phylogeny) -- so your statement that boston is 500 miles behind us because the map says so is meaningless. it may be true, and it may be false, but the MAP is not evidence.

do you not understand the fatal flaw in the connection you are making? how you are assuming what you want to prove? how that violates common sense and the basic rules of logic? Ungtss 14:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. All vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which they have a postanal tail. This logically leads to the conclusion that all vertebrate have a common ancestor. Bensaccount 05:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the same rule applies, sir. ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, so your argument is irrelevant. Ungtss 14:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a proverb that goes: "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument". Bensaccount 06:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yep:). Ungtss 14:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But I will keep trying to clarify my points and you will keep trying to obfuscate and spread propaganda and we will see who is the fool.

Saying ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny may be an overstatement (its not like every mammal goes through a fish stage) but ontogeny still provides clues to phylogeny. So it is possible to deduce a common ancestor given enough similarities in the embryonic development of two different species. Bensaccount 16:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<...ontogeny still provides clues to phylogeny.>>

How do you know that it does? Philip J. Rayment 01:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you are PRESUMING that macroevolution OCCURS, and asserting what you think the common ancestor looked like based on embryology. but you are not providing any evidence that macroevolution DID, in fact, occur. i am asking for evidence that macroevolution occured and occurs. you are not providing any. you are making an enormous and obvious error in your logic, and wasting my time. put up or shut up, my fine, intelligent friend. Ungtss 17:01, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you check one paragraph above I explained the reasoning for deducing that fish and humans must have had a common anscestor. By "deduce a common ancestor" I meant "deduce that there was a common ancestor". Bensaccount 17:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i don't know why we're going around in circles here. when i look out into my parking lot, i see a bunch of cars. they were all constructed in very similar ways ... starting with a chassis ... then the bondy ... then some electronics ... and on and on and on. you are DEDUCING that the similarity in the construction process for those cars implies a COMMON ANCESTOR. i am telling you that just because different things are constructed the same way does NOT mean they are related. I can't keep repeating this for you. will you please explain to me why similarity is EVIDENCE of relation? Ungtss 17:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similarity is a synonym for relationship. The real question is what is the relationship. There are only two things that can explain this relationship. 1. coincidence 2. evolution. There are too many observations for this to just be coincidence. Bensaccount 17:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that is patently false. similarity is not a synonym for relationship. look in your dictionary. almost all cars have four tires. they are designed and constructed separately, but are similar because the four-tire model works well, so we stick with it. but the cars are not related. similarity does not = relation. you have to get your evidence for relation elsewhere. Ungtss 17:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

let me be clearer. there are not just two possible explanations. there are three: coincidence, evolution, or a designer. you have not provided any evidence of the link between similarity and evolution that could not be applied to the designer. your argument is empty. Ungtss 17:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

This is just coincidence. <--Very unlikely given the number of such coincidences.
Intelligent design (*POOF*). <--Possible.
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)

Summaries

I was reading through the summaries and noticed the "F=ma is false" one and since it was sumerised there was no proof of why it is false, could anyone tell me the evidence and how it relates to creation vs evolutionism? Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 00:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well ... it's not exactly false ... mr. cheesedreams did not accurately summarize that discussion, or the other ones for that matter. essentially, f=ma is true in most cases, but not in all -- especially when you get close to the speed of light, the rules change -- also, according to path integral formulation, f=ma is the result of averages ... and nothing fundamental itself. it related to creation vs. evolution on the topic of fasifiability -- which is one of the fronts the creation v. evolution battle is fought on, because both sides say the other is not scientific because it is not falsifiable -- the f=ma discussion was an attempt to understand exactly what falsifibility is, by using f=ma as an analogy. falsifiability is a means of improving and refining a theory -- by saying, "well, does f=ma under THESE conditions? what about THESE conditions?" -- the goal is to find places where the current theory does not hold true ... to improve the theory by taking those cases into account. does that help? Ungtss 05:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well it was obvious it isn't correct when nearing the speed of light, once hitting about 90% it starts to go way out of wack, but yes, thank you for the disambiguation Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From what I understand from that it seems like Falsifibility is an evolutionistic attack on creationism, evolutionists can just make up a reason for why it doesn't work in a situation because evolution is so flexible in its random-ness. If someone ads onto evolution to help it in one of those situations then it will be saved, with creation, you can't just /add on/ stuff in fact (this just be my stupidness) but I can't even think of a situation where it has to falsify, please tell me if there is one... >.< Gelsamel 03:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems more like "falsifiability" is just a fancy word for how easily something can be disproved. Bensaccount 06:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Account is right. falsifiability is a funny concept -- in a lot of ways it's just a weapon people use to attack other people's ideas. but the idea is this: you know how good a theory is by the number of ways it can be falsified, or proven wrong. if you can't prove a theory wrong, then it's just pseudoscience -- not empirical, but just proof by assertion. evolutionists say that creationism is not falsifiable, because no matter what evidence comes around, creationists can just say, "well God did THAT" -- and there's no way to prove it wrong, and therefore no way to develop or refine the theory in any way. Creationists say the same thing about evolution -- that evolution has been defined in such a way that it cannot be disproven -- especially the idea of punctuated equilibrium allows evolutionists to purport macroevolution without any firsthand evidence of it, or any transitional fossils that show it happened. both sides say that because the other theory cannot be DISPROVEN by any experiment or observation, it is not empirical science. does that help? Ungtss 13:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

creationist claim CC2000 "There are no transitional fossils"; there are. Claim CA211 "Evolution can't be falsified". Punctuated equilibrium could be falsified by observations of newly collected fossils not fitting in with the theory. In such case we'd move onto a new model and there would be a paradigm shift. The emergence of punctuated equilibrium during the 1980s was one such example of a paradigm shift, i.e. the old gradualist ideas were falsified. Creationism can't be falsified because of the invisible gardener problem [2] Dunc|☺ 15:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

creationists disagree with the above, and that's why the debate goes unresolved:). the transitional fossils pointed to by evolutionists are consistent with both creation and evolution, because creation acknowledges microevolution. however, the presence of common ancestors between genera and phyla in the fossil record is consistent with evolution but not consistent with creation -- thereby making creation falsifiable in that respect (showing the common ancestor of dogs and cats would falsify the creationist belief that they were created separately) ... and yet ... according to the cited page, "common ancestors are not required -- lineage could not be verified even if they were found" -- and in fact, they haven't been:). that's the falsification problem:). and the reason it doesn't go anywhere is because the tool of falsification is so versatile it can be used (or misused) to serve whatever purpose we like:). Ungtss 16:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

as a sidenote, mr harris, what sort of a fossil could be found to falsify punctuated equilibrium? Ungtss 17:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx. CheeseDreams 18:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

not true. punctuated equilibrium could lead to the archaeopteryx and then lead on to the next species. creationism is also consistent with the archaeoptery, because the Creator could have made it independently of both birds and reptiles. sorry bud:). Ungtss 21:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But archaeopteryx is evidence supporting gradualism against stop-start. Also, what about coelocanth? CheeseDreams 23:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How do archaeopteryx and the coelocanth support gradualism against stop-start? Philip J. Rayment 00:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because archaeopteryx and the coelocanth are in-betweens for "birds vs. reptiles" and "amphibians vs. fish".CheeseDreams 19:33, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

you just don't get it. punctuated equilibrium doesn't say there are NO GO-BETWEENS. it says that there are FEWER go betweens than gradualism predicts -- for instance, where are the go betweens between the reptile and the archaeopterix, or between the archaeopterix and the bird. think, man, think. Ungtss 20:37, 2 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)

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)

[[3]] 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)

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)

Should Creationism Be taught in schools?

I think it should why put forward one side of the arguement and disregard the other. You dont teach the negative sides to euthenasia but not the positive you dont enter a debate and have both teams argue the positive, creationism shouldn't be separate and it should be taught as a biology subject and both evolution and creationism shouldn't be portrayed as truth but rather as opposing concepts. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 01:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE NATURE OF THIS ARTICLE

see Creation and evolution in public education

CheeseDreams 01:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see, I didn't realise there was a page on this subject already, my apologies. Gelsamel 203.41.14.140 02:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's ok. CheeseDreams 18:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

creation, evolution, and falsifiability

i'd like to propose a new page that goes into the issue of falsifiability in relation to the creation / evolution debate -- i think it would preempt a lot of the redundant discussion about what exactly falsifiability is and how it is relevent to the debate ... and may lead to some useful results. any takers? Ungtss 03:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How would the new page--at least the bit about "what exactly falsifiability is"--differ to the Falsifiability article? Philip J. Rayment 04:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i envision it providing a basic description of falsifiability generally, and then focusing on the falsifiability related to creation and evolution -- how each side perceives their side as falsifiable and the other as unfalsifiable ... within the context of what falsifiability actually MEANS. Ungtss 05:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Falsifiability is described on the Falsifiability article.

However, a SECTION or SUB-SECTION (such as in an "Is it science" section) on "argument over falsifiability" would seem to be appropriate in this article. CheeseDreams 18:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

False, falsified and falsifiable

A number of subtle misconceptions about falsifiability seems to be present in this discussion. The older comments on this page apparently define “falsifiable” as “falsified,” while the more recent ones seem to define “unfalsifiable” as “false” and “falsifiable” as “true.”

Falsifiable doesn’t mean falsified, nor does it mean false—or true, for that matter. In short, a hypothesis is falsifiable when it makes predictions that can be tested by experiments.

A falsifiable hypothesis can be falsified if the results of those experiments are inconsistent with said predictions. An unfalsifiable assertion cannot be falsified but it doesn’t mean it is false—it only means that it is irrelevant from the scientific point of view since it doesn’t make any testable predictions and thus the answer to the question whether it is true or false has no measurable consequences, but that very irrelevance is independent from the fact whether it really is true or false, whatever that means.

I am not sure if writing another article about creationism, this time explaining the debate solely in the context of falsificationism, would help decrease the confusion, especially when that falsifiability can be determined by simply enumerating the predictions and outlining the experiments which could potentially falsify the assertion.

In any case, unfalsifiable or falsifiable, a priori or a posteriori, these attributes are all orthogonal to the question of the assertion being true, or even sound, as a perfectly falsifiable and unfalsified hypothesis can still be an inelegant ad hoc hypothesis violating the principles of Occam's razor.

Furthermore, a falsifiable hypothesis after numerous experiments can only be demonstrated to be very likely to be true but only to the extend of inductive reasoning. It cannot be proved—only disproved or not-disproved-yet—which means that proving the falsifiability of an assertion, or indeed even successful results of experiments, does not prove the assertion itself, thought of course it is an essential condition for the assertion to be considered a hypothesis and later possibly a theory.

I don’t think that falsifiability of creation is a subject for an autonomous encyclopedic article—even if it is an interesting subject for an essay—but if anyone writes such an article, feel free to use any of my comments on this subject, if you think anything I have written might be useful in such an article—they are released under the GFDL, after all. See also the comments in Talk:Pseudoscience#Misconceptions. Rafał Pocztarski 16:45, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thank you very much for articulating falsifiability. that is exactly what i'm after. predictions brought by both theories, and experiments that could prove them wrong. i think the issue of falsifiability is that unfalsifiabile assertions are considered "unscientific" (like freudian psychology) -- but not necessarily false: basically, within the realm of subjective human interpretation and religion. in the context of creation and evolution, both sides of this debate continue to call the other unfalsifiable, and unscientific. perhaps you're right about not needing a new page ... but i think we definitely need a new section in this page to address the subject, since the discussion seems to revolve around a number of misconceptions about falsifiability. thanks again for the very clear and concise description of falsifiability -- i'd appreciate your oversight in getting the new section to work. Ungtss 17:07, 2 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)

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)

>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)

>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)

File:FootprintsFossilized.jpg

Footprints made 3.6 million years ago in moist volcanic ash that was then covered by dry volcanic ash which protected the footprints. Erosion eventually wore away the protective cover and exposed them so that Mary Leakey and coworkers could find them in 1978 partially exposed just outside what is now Laetoli, Tanzania just south of Olduvai Gorge.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archives

Summary of most recent archive

ending the insanity.

Fair warning announcement

totally disputed tag

beliefs and scientific theories

look, cheese.

Betrayal of Knowledge

towards POV and factual accuracy.

Summaries

For Ungtss - Falsify Creationionism

Should Creationism Be taught in schools?

creation, evolution, and falsifiability

False, falsified and falsifiable

A sensible counter argument

Proposed new section: Creation, evolution, and falsifiability

Suggestion