Darwin's Black Box

[Necrosis]

abiogensis is a precursor in my opinion to evolution and debate about origin is relevant. gravity was a theory, i assume to had a theory wouldnt you. you brought up quantum fluctuations man, not me. you said it explained origin, false. i didnt think humans evolved from monkeys, i was being facetious in that many think that at an attempt to discredit evolution. i wasnt saying i dont need to research just that me arguing with harvard profs doesnt seem like my intention, unless you are that harvard prof. thats why arguing with someone over the internet is dumb you cant win. face to face would be better ie jonny apollo's rant.

[NeoSeminole]

Did apes evolve from the same ones also?  Are monkeys the same as apes or are they very different?

(Thanks for answering my first question)

Primates is the biological order that contains lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Humans belong to the apes category. So you could say monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans all evolved from a primate ancestor.

[Necrosis]

speciation by your account.

[OzmO]

Primates is the biological order that contains lemurs, monkeys, and apes. Humans belong to the apes category. So you could say monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans all evolved from a primate ancestor.

I apologize for grouping you with Johnny and Co. earlier.   Thanks for the answers.   

[NeoSeminole]

I waited for you to post your other points, but I assume you want me to respond first since you haven't yet.

abiogensis is a precursor in my opinion to evolution and debate about origin is relevant.

You cannot use abiogenesis to critique evolution b/c they are not the same theory.

gravity was a theory, i assume to had a theory wouldnt you.

It is still a theory. In science, a theory can never be proven.

you brought up quantum fluctuations man, not me. you said it explained origin, false.

I mentioned quantum fluctuations in response to an earlier post where you claimed God must have created the universe. You keep confusing quantum fluctuation with evolution.

i didnt think humans evolved from monkeys, i was being facetious in that many think that at an attempt to discredit evolution.

It's hard for me to tell when you are being serious or not. You've made other comments in this thread which made me question your understanding of evolution.

i wasnt saying i dont need to research just that me arguing with harvard profs doesnt seem like my intention, unless you are that harvard prof. thats why arguing with someone over the internet is dumb you cant win. face to face would be better ie jonny apollo's rant.

That's not what you said earlier.

also, i am taking from knowledge of study and reading and have no need to do my homework on the internet as ive already done it.

[Necrosis]

i understand what quantum fluctuation is. i stated abiogensis as someone brought up creation and you said to read about quantum fluctuation. it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the slightest. i was arguing for creation against evolution, and continued my creation argument. i will stick to the topic of irreducibly complex however. i also, dont see how this argument can continue, you posit a mechanism with no proof other then your ideas. show me a study were eye evolution has been demonstrated or at least were simple forms of eye ( your receptive light patch) have evolved into rods, cones, lateral giniculate nucleus, etc. basically an eye system based on a complexity model.

[NeoSeminole]

i understand what quantum fluctuation is. i stated abiogensis as someone brought up creation and you said to read about quantum fluctuation. it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution in the slightest. i was arguing for creation against evolution, and continued my creation argument.

Wrong, you were talking about the origin of the universe. You arrived at the conclusion that God must have done it. I suggested you look up quantum fluctuation. You confused this with evolution and a series of misunderstandings followed. Here is the original discussion that took place.

also, you need to understand something about cosmology that from the theory of relativity and to the information gleaned from redshift ala the big bang it is apparent that the universe is expanding, this is a reasonable deduction no. ok, so using this logic there must be a temporal extremity which results in a singularity known as the big bang. usign the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would we have to assume that the universe started from nothing to become something. sorry, this isnt logical at all and this in were the intelligent designer comes into play. the idea of a god is the idea of a being that just is, which exists outside our time-space continuim.

So you think a universe that has always existed isn't logical, but you embrace the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient, multi-dimensional being created the cosmos with a wave of his hand? I suggest you look up quantum fluctuation if you are truly interested in learning about the origin of the universe.

i also, dont see how this argument can continue, you posit a mechanism with no proof other then your ideas. show me a study were eye evolution has been demonstrated or at least were simple forms of eye ( your receptive light patch) have evolved into rods, cones, lateral giniculate nucleus, etc. basically an eye system based on a complexity model.

Rods and cones evolved from light-senstive cells in the brain that migrated into the eye. This site explains the study that was done which is responsible for the discovery.

http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

[TopTraining]

It's not an anti-evolution book.  All it does is point out the significant problems and unanswered questions about evolution at the cellular level, including the problems with irreducibly complex systems.  Poses some very tough questions. 

I've been thinking about this whole evolution vs. intelligent design issue the past week or so.  In addition to the points Behe raises, I just have a hard time believing our world and solar system got here by accident.  There are so many things that just cannot be coincidental, like the 24 hour day, seven day week, 30 day month, and the year, which all relate to perfectly placed things in the environment (sun, moon, stars, etc.).  I just don't see happenstance producing such perfect things.   

You know that the calendar, ( with the 24h day, 7 day week , etc) are human created ADAPTED to these "perfectly placed things"
I get lost for words when I see things written here that are so full of ignorance.
And to the topic, what have creation science contributed with proof, other than  the "darwinism theory have some holes, therefore OUR theory must be correct".
Sorry it just doesn't work that way, this will most likely never even reach a respected scientific magazine. And will only just exist to please christians and others alike .

[Dos Equis]

You know that the calendar, ( with the 24h day, 7 day week , etc) are human created ADAPTED to these "perfectly placed things"
I get lost for words when I see things written here that are so full of ignorance.
And to the topic, what have creation science contributed with proof, other than  the "darwinism theory have some holes, therefore OUR theory must be correct".
Sorry it just doesn't work that way, this will most likely never even reach a respected scientific magazine. And will only just exist to please christians and others alike .

What is the scientific explanation for the 7 day week?

There is plenty of science in Behe's book.  You should read it. 

From a pure common sense standpoint, most of the evolution theory does not make sense to me.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the origin of life.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the absence of transitional fossils.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the apparent end of the evolution of species. 

Despite that, it is taught and accepted as a fact across the country.   

[NeoSeminole]

There is plenty of science in Behe's book.  You should read it.

There's no need to read Behe's book, it was debunked a while ago by the scientific community.

From a pure common sense standpoint, most of the evolution theory does not make sense to me.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the origin of life.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the absence of transitional fossils.  It does not provide a rational explanation for the apparent end of the evolution of species.

Evolution does not seek to explain the origin of life. No wonder the theory doesn't make sense to you. Plenty of trasitional fossils have been discovered.







There is no "apparent end of the evolution of species" like you say. The reason why we don't see many animals today evolving into new species is b/c the process usually takes thousands of years. Humans simply do not live long enough to witness this.

[Necrosis]

ok, so we are arguing creationism vs evolution but origin isn't relevant? i didn't say evolution had anything to do with origin, just that it is a argument for creation.

also, empirical science cannot be used to study the supernatural ala creationism so there is lies the problem.it has a faith component much  like evolution.

neo speciation has never been soundly documented and there is a lack of transitional fossils, why do you argue this.

[NeoSeminole]

b/c you are wrong.

[Camel Jockey]

ok, so we are arguing creationism vs evolution but origin isn't relevant? i didn't say evolution had anything to do with origin, just that it is a argument for creation.

also, empirical science cannot be used to study the supernatural ala creationism so there is lies the problem.it has a faith component much  like evolution.

neo speciation has never been soundly documented and there is a lack of transitional fossils, why do you argue this.

There's faith in believing in evolution?  People believe in evolution because it's fact. The religious are biased, so they'll never look at a way in which they can understand and will always look for holes.
For example, right now you're look for transitional fossils when they're clearly right in front of you and you're not taking into account that many fossils have yet to be discovered. Creationist tried the same thing when they argued over a lack of transitional fossils for whales, but those fossils were eventually discovered and creationists were sent back to the drawing board.

[Necrosis]

im not a creationist, and evolution is not fact, sorry. even if evolution were entirely true it wouldn't do anything to discredit creationism, merely just list the mechanism. evolution as a all encompassing theory is not correct, i do agree with some parts but things like speciation get me everytime.

[Necrosis]

here are a few questions i asked in the other thread about evolution vs creationism. it doesn't solely relate to the debate at hand but try to answer them neo.

1 Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang. 2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others? 3. Stellar and planetary Evolution - the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.) 4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.) 5. Macro Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.) 6. Micro Evolution - Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed

so evolution from single cell bacteria into plants, animals and the like, seems a bit supernatural to me, or just as much as a someone omnipotent creating animals, plants seperately. as well, this single cell bacteria is the common ancestor of all animals, plants etc.

[NeoSeminole]

here are a few questions i asked in the other thread about evolution vs creationism. it doesn't solely relate to the debate at hand but try to answer them neo.

I welcome any questions you have. I will try to respond to the best of my abilities, but I will not hold your hand. I can only guide you to the answers. I include links in my posts so that you may research on your own if you wish to learn more.

1 Cosmic Evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang.

We will probably never know the events that occured before the formation of our universe, but scientists have a clear understanding of what happened immediately following the Big Bang.

This site does a fantastic job of explaining cosmic evolution.
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html

2. Chemical Evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others?

Stars fuse hydrogen to helium, and helium to heavier atoms. Heavier elements are formed in denser areas of the star. Some stars undergo a supernova which blasts these elements into space.

3. Stellar and planetary Evolution - the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.)

The distribution of hydrogen and helium in the universe is not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density may collapse and coalesce due to gravitational forces. This cloud of collapsing interstellar hydrogen can be so massive that the gravitational forces at the center cause hydrogen atoms to undergo fusion. The birth of a star has been observed by scientists.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm

4. Organic Evolution - the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.)

Spontaneous generation was the belief that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms like worms and maggots. This is a stark contrast from the gradual evolution of amino acids and single cells advanced by other theories. For all we know, early life on Earth may have been carried here on an asteroid from another galaxy.

5. Macro Evolution - Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.)

6. Micro Evolution - Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed.

Yes

so evolution from single cell bacteria into plants, animals and the like, seems a bit supernatural to me, or just as much as a someone omnipotent creating animals, plants seperately. as well, this single cell bacteria is the common ancestor of all animals, plants etc.

I disagree. The origin of life can be explained by the laws of chemistry and physics. It was only a matter of time before stars formed elements, which combined to form molecules that combined to form amino acids, which evolved into very simple cells, and thus life began. I can understand how this whole process may seem impossible to someone who never learned science. However, belief in an omnipotent, omniscient multi-dimensional being who created everything is absurd to the highest degree.

[Necrosis]

see my other thread. your points are opinion and sci evidence refutes them, big banger.

[NeoSeminole]

ha ha, I sense frustration b/c you keep getting refuted by me. Some parts of my last post were opinion but not all. The following are not opinion.

Stars fuse hydrogen to helium, and helium to heavier atoms. Heavier elements are formed in denser areas of the star. Some stars undergo a supernova which blasts these elements into space.

The distribution of hydrogen and helium in the universe is not homogenous. Over time, regions of higher density may collapse and coalesce due to gravitational forces. This cloud of collapsing interstellar hydrogen can be so massive that the gravitational forces at the center cause hydrogen atoms to undergo fusion. The birth of a star has been observed by scientists.

Spontaneous generation was the belief that non-living matter can give rise to living organisms like worms and maggots. This is a stark contrast from the gradual evolution of amino acids and single cells advanced by other theories. For all we know, early life on Earth may have been carried here on an asteroid from another galaxy.

I would like to see the scientific evidence that disproves the aforementioned.

[Necrosis]

same goes for your posts. the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed yet you state it as fact. im not frustrated at all, RNA asembly from nothing has never been accomplished, formation of certain elements has never been established, as it would be in after the big bang. i will continue the debate, but you've refuted nothing with your theory. show me macro evolution of species, anywere, anywere.

i will continue the debate but i have school work to attend to so relax bro i'll continue the debate and dont take it so personal man it's a internet argument. if you win i dont care it's not my field in the slightest just an interest.

[NeoSeminole]

same goes for your posts.

What are you talking about? Unlike you, I provide references to support my posts. You've made several claims so far that I refuted by simply doing a little research.

the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed yet you state it as fact.

The formation of stars is well understood.

The Coordinated Molecular Probe Line Extinction Thermal Emission Survey of Star Forming Regions (long name, I know)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html

Also, the birth of a star has been observed by scientists.

ABC Science Online
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s249630.htm

RNA asembly from nothing has never been accomplished

You're correct. However, RNA assembly from molecules has been accomplished.

formation of certain elements has never been established, as it would be in after the big bang.

"observations in red giants of one kind of nucleus—99technetium—provides direct evidence that heavy-element formation really does occur in stars today."

Wright Center for Science Education
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_stel_6.html

i will continue the debate, but you've refuted nothing with your theory. show me macro evolution of species, anywere, anywere.

Evolution doesn't seek to disprove other theories like creationism does. So there's nothing for me to refute except ignorant comments from anti-evolutionists. In that sense, I've managed to successfully defend evolution against your arguments.

i will continue the debate but i have school work to attend to so relax bro i'll continue the debate and dont take it so personal man it's a internet argument. if you win i dont care it's not my field in the slightest just an interest.

I assure you that I'm not taking anything personal. On the contrary, I find this discussion rewarding for me. I have learned some new things and I also feel good about educating others.

[Necrosis]

 you haven't taught me anything, i had a big reply made but erased it by mistake so here is the short hand version. you have provided umpteen links for me to read and i will not read all those links, why dont you paraphrase it in your own words and use your own logic. i wont sit down and have a google fight with you as you seem to like providing links which can be refuted with a simple google. however, the point is to make your own point.

[Necrosis]

haha you've been refuted by google, guess im learning to. stars have never been observed in formation this is a fallacy on your part, they think they have observed stars but are not sure. simple wording shifts meaning.

http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html

it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form.

[NeoSeminole]

you haven't taught me anything.

Sure.

you have provided umpteen links for me to read and i will not read all those links, why dont you paraphrase it in your own words and use your own logic. i wont sit down and have a google fight with you as you seem to like providing links which can be refuted with a simple google. however, the point is to make your own point.

I have paraphrased what I read. My links only serve for reference so you don't think I'm making shit up. I do not expect you to read them. However, they are helpful tools if you truly wish to learn more.

[NeoSeminole]

haha you've been refuted by google, guess im learning to. stars have never been observed in formation this is a fallacy on your part, they think they have observed stars but are not sure. simple wording shifts meaning.

http://www.ldolphin.org/stars.html

it has been impossible to date to view the cloud as it collapses through this range of densities. Consequently stars cannot be observed as they form.

Do you even bother to check your sources? I stopped reading your link as soon as I read this.

"Stars cannot form naturally. They must be created directly by God."

[Necrosis]

haha, that is the point of the argument, that formation of stars cannot occur under normal means like you state. it does have some good information however, and star formation hasn't been observed like gravity has been as would be indicated by your link. again they think they have viewed star formation.

to be honest i have learned some stuff from your posts. you do seem to know alot about evolution. but that isn't my concern per se, more so cosmology if you will.