Another Nail In The Intelligent Design Coffin: Specization (i.e. Macroevolution) Observed In The Wild

I'm not any type of expert on this but here's what came to mind as I read the article:

A bird came to an environment that wasn’t his natural living place, it modified its song to try to fit in and attracted a mate, once the "family" became limited, and they interbred and now are considered a new species. Is that basically right?

If so, then if I had taken my sister to a foreign land, learned to speak a mixture of the local language and my natural tong, we had a bunch of children who had a bunch of children, and they all had a third arm, then it would be a new species? Are then ever race a different species? And every child from a mix race family?

I know there are some who believe that God put us on this earth exactly as we are and we cannot change, but I think most think he gave us the ability to adapt so we could survey as things change. I once heard some scientists discussing what would survive if a major catastrophe hit the earth. Most agreed that man would survive, we may change but we’d survive because we can adapt faster than most species.

The standard definition of what makes a "Different species" would be being different enough that you could not succesfully breed.

(Sadly, our chordata phylum does not support 5 or more limbs with a spinal cord so sadly no wings with your 2 arms and 2 legs - but you do have a neat idea.)

3 arm humans? Sure, lets talk about it.

Lets say your 3 arm humans keep to themselves long enough. Eventually they may change for the better. Perhaps the ribcage will mutate making that arm stronger. Maybe a big strong 3rd arm will be the new sexy. (suddenly this sounds very wrong) Maybe it lets them survive better. Years go by. Now all 3 arm humans have that different ribcage to support the larger arm.

Eventually a 3 arm human tries to mate with a 2 arm human. That ribcage mutation sadly makes the baby have a short life - maybe it interferes with the baby's heart getting in the way. The genes now just don't mix. More changes happen, with no successful offspring between the two groups. New species.

If you want a real world example, look at horses and donkeys. The are close enough they CAN mate... but only male donkey and female horse produces a mule, almost every other combo dies early - and almost every mule is sterile, except for a few incredibly rare mutations. Different species. Very close, almost close enough that mules could be a breed of horse... but too different to reproduce.

Here is a great site if you are interested in hybrid species (lots of animal pics!)

As far as human ethnic groups, no, we are all very much the same species. Add in the ease of travel in this age and yes, the human species will stay only one species. Isolation is the only thing that would change that.

Colony on another planet that takes decades to travel to and add in a few hundred years? Maybe we won't have only one human species.

Sorry there justTim,

Evolution is dead. Unless of course you can predict the direction finches are going. Is the articles vaunted event evidence of a branching of the bird phylum into a new type of animal? What is this finch transitioning into?

Maybe its just that finches are just damn tired to the same ole' song. New music, pleeeeze!

Stevem P.. Your concept of evolution is skewed.. First off it's not skipping to a new animal.. It's the same animal that changes or splits off in branches to where differences or changes had occurred.. Your concept is like from Dog to bird or something drastic or as if you expect it to be an instant thing... Adaptation for example should be considered evolution and behavioral adaptation for some are considered behavioral evolution... To evolve is to adapt to ones environment...

The process is typically slow and may be unpredictable... You would have to study the Finch for another 100 thousand to 1 million years to see if their adaption results in evolutionary branching or becoming something that you can consider a new species..

But I will say this Steven P.. You do not posses the knowledge to state that as a fact.. And your own religious BS is less likely and even more magical in concept to where it's creation in reverse...

And tell me Steven.. Have you ever seen a new species magically appear (materialize) in front of your eyes? How about in your own living room? according to magical appearance a new frog species could suddenly hop right out of your computer screen.. Oh yeah.. no recorded data of any of the 6 billion people on this planet ever witnessing an new animal species materialize...

Jackel,

Hiding behind deep time is a shrewd play, I'll give you that.

Yet, if all organisms are essentially transitional in nature, in the 10,000 or so years of recorded history, there must have been one animal species that in this particular time frame was smack in the middle of a transition, thereby giving us a pretty clear example of the intermediate form. IOW, a transitional neither a few generations removed or thousands of generations but just that generation in the middle where a clear transitional stage is readily apparent. It happened in the past and since according to your logic it must still be happening, there has to be at least a few (outta the thousands of animal species) in mid field.

Can you propose any living candidates?

Warning: Conflating adaptive mechanisms with historical biological development is hazardous to your worldview.

Evolution is six foot deep. But the maintenence junkie is workin' his ass off.

Sure I'll answer that if you don't mind... before the goalposts are moved again saying that isn't good enough. I mean after all, if somebody truly believes that they are going to hell for looking at evidence... they probably need to convert to Catholicism first and have the Pope tell em it's ok and be convinced it's ok slowly.

Anyway: living transitional species.

Here are a bunch, but I'm sure you are looking for something more dramatic.

Iguanas, monitor lizards, and skinks are all successful cratures that transitioned to legless snakes. They are not transitioning further in that direction because they are successful in thier niche.

Lets talk the family carnivora - dogs, cats, bears, foxes, pandas.

Well, look at that, Foxes have cat eyes, but dog features, how did that happen? They have evolved since the split, but they are right between dogs and cats on the evolutionary tree, a bit more on the dog side.

African palm Civet - Wait, this looks like a cat, but it look like a mongoose too! What is this thing? Well, it's the "living transition" between them, the creature most like the creature they both split from. If you need more information on the exact placement of this animal than the wikipedia entry that always needs the "not universally accepted" disclaimer then check here before you jump on that.

Racoon Dog - This poor thing has a hard time coping in a genus all by itself. It hasn't changed much since the original Canidae ancestor of foxes and wolves.

But I'm not a professional. I'm sure other people can provide more.

CT ID never was anything without an ID.. LOL.. I suggest you learn what an ID needs to be what it is lol.. It's like a car but a car is built and comprised of other substances lol

MarkD-555,

That isn't exactly true.. Transitional targets may not be available.. The planet destroys over 90% of the targets you are looking for.. You can only study evolution in real time and use the past as a base for the theory to be proven by the study of it in the here and now and far off future..

I have already debunked the likely hood of intelligent design because intelligence is formed or gained and it is thus it's self a target subject of the study..

And remember... Evolution can still be proven wrong because there may be other triggers or mechanisms that cause or create new species apart from evolution or intelligent design.. It could be a combination of processes where one process isn't the all be all answer...

We simply have not the study material or knowledge base to fully understand it... We really only know a minute fraction of the subject matter..

TheJackel,

MarkD did a fine job of stating truth relevant to the topic and tailored to the reader's chosen viewpoint.

That stated truth may not be true in all paradigms....It could for example be reasonably argued that:

No past transitional organism is extant.

Some extant organisms closely resemble extinct transitional organisms.

All extant and extinct organisms are transitional.

We may know where an extant organism came from, but only guess where it is going.

The demonstrably dynamic nature of life as a whole and organisms as classified results in a necessary lack of resolution. We study that which moves, and attempt a static view.

All relevant philosophy has utilitarian values. That is, we don't argue philosophy that does not agree with human understanding. Human understandings of the universe external to the self must always be given room for error or uncertainty. However we must also acknowledge cause/effect relationships as they are one basis for human perception and interaction with the universe. It is fair to acknowledge that human understandings of some cause/effect relationships MAY be false, or unknown....However, we explore our universe by positing that our knowledge is true. We take our assumption of true knowledge, extrapolate and predict, and compare prediction to outcome. This constrains the growth of knowledge, but also produces knowledge. Philosophy tells us that the things we know may not be, but philosophy also may not itself deny existing understandings of cause/effect per my utilitarian test of relevance to humanity. Philosophy must allow us to leave the door open to new knowledge, but still allow us to tentatively shut the door on found knowledge. Humans don't work from unstable knowledge. We artificially (philosophically) stabilize our views of things.

Because we seek static explanations of dynamic processes (an acknowledged paradox), and because we seek a singular view of a polydimensional universe (another paradox), we generate knowledge within known FALSE philosophical constructs.

This produces knowledge that may not be true (or more accurately, is never completely true), but may be utilitarian and thus relevant. That which is true may not be relevant, that which is relevant is never entirely true.

We assume our understanding of biology is correct and nearing its relevant completion until and unless it is demonstrated to be false and/or incomplete. We do not discard working knowledge simply because we suspect it of being incomplete. We also do not ever declare our knowledge absolutely true or complete. Either extreme prevents future understanding.

I wonder if you would agree that evolution does not cause itself external to the organism...

That is, if evolution was its own only cause an organism would acheive internal balance and entropy would take over...

That external causes are apparent, among them chemistry, physics, environment, and chaos.

Strictly speaking evolution cannot be considered the only cause for speciation, unless it is accepted as a term that implies causalities both internal and external to an organism...

I think I state the obvious, but it seems an important matter of semantics based on the arguements you have presented regarding existence and information.

Your statement:

And remember... Evolution can still be proven wrong because there may be other triggers or mechanisms that cause or create new species apart from evolution or intelligent design...

Would seem to be both true and false. It is obviously true in that evolution isn't its own cause, but false in that the term "evolution" will be expanded in definition to encompass any newly discovered causes resulting in speciation...

Example:

Eldredge and Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria would appear to defy a strict interpretation of Darwin's definition of evolution, but has become a widely accepted aspect of the modern synthesis.

Conclusion: The definition of the term "evolution" can be expanded as knowledge is acquired.

Yeah I know true "transitional" creatures or the "missing link" are completely skewed concepts and that they wouldn't be around, but there are many barely-changed "transitional" descendants that are completely striking to look at. I think both the African palm Civet and Racoon Dog are more blatant examples of evolution than Darwin's finches. Anyone with an open mind - even with no biology background - can figure out what is happening if they look at enough creatures from across the globe.

And remember... Evolution can still be proven wrong because there may be other triggers or mechanisms that cause or create new species apart from evolution or intelligent design.. It could be a combination of processes where one process isn't the all be all answer...

Evolution is not going to be proved "wrong". We may add parts to it, clarify systems, or discover more encoded processes in genes... but the basic idea is perfectly sound - even when we didn't know what a gene or DNA was.

Just as we know mass attracts mass from a distance... we don't even know *what* gravity is, but it's not going away anytime soon, and even if we discover anti-gravity or learn what it is, we will still use the same calculations to shoot artillery.

Just like we are getting good at predicting where the remains of creatures we don't know exist yet will be found from evolution.

I would agree that evolution may not be the only cause.. When we are talking about existence with infinite variables there is no way we can specifically narrow it down to just a singular cause for a new species... From slow adaptation to random mutations or even birth defects..

And I would agree to the premise that evolution is pretty blatant as a major cause to the development of a new species... Finches are a prime example and even I will not deny the articles findings...

"Some extant organisms closely resemble extinct transitional organisms."

This is true... Resemblance in definition means that some things share the same information.. Meaning that resemblance suggest that they are close relatives vs distant relatives.. As in Monkey's or apse vs Human's...

"We may know where an extant organism came from, but only guess where it is going."

I would agree... However, I wouldn't say guess vs predict due to that we have the ability to observe and record the processes that cause a species to split into new species.. Namely our own species... Provided of course that we as a species doesn't succeed in circumventing the process through Gene or DNA manipulation...

At some point in time verification is going to happen... Whether it be just evolution or other transitional methods...

Can we prove that a species can not give birth to a new species without transitions.. Can a species mutate? Grow adaptations without transitions.. Such as horns...

However, concerning evolution or other natural processes that may cause new species to come to be do not represent ID in the sense of a Higher Being for obvious reasons that I have already discussed.. It is possible that a living species still processes it's own information and can be considered it's own intelligent designer to where behavior adaptations lead to physical or biological adaptation... This is where DNA represents the ID... Does DNA respond to adaptations? or environmental changes? Does a change in body chemistry effect the evolutionary process?

"we don't even know *what* gravity is"

A simple model that I can think of is that information tends to follow information..Existence is at the very base, a place to where all thing reside which includes it's self. The base it's self is a structure or thing of existence it's self. When a structure forms other structures or more complex structures within it's self, mass becomes a more complex structure to where matter may form or come into existence.. Existence and Mass or matter must have a set basic or formulated set of rules to be a structure that freely moves or exists inside another structure.. and when rules become a structured set them selves other information follows... Is gravity more of being forest to follow the rules vs being pulled... The problem is, we may not be able to understand all the rules to gravity because some of that information is unobtainable or unpredictable because there may be other rules that defy gravity to where it states gravity can decay or break down or become to weak vs something else that either has a greater force or an overriding set of rules...

Is gravity a Push vs a Pull that appears to us as a pull?.... And this is what I mean by following the rules... Or is our Universe being pulled apart vs being pushed apart by this unknown force to where mass and matter is just a weak opposite polarity that barely holds it's self together but can also attract it's self...Or Does gravity have to opposite poles like a magnet to where it can push or pull to where information follows the stronger force...

As Steve Hawkins once discussed: A Google is the number of years to when our Universe or matter and mass will decay or break down into what we call the void.. This is to break down to the representation of 0 or the base we call the void or place/container of existence it's self.. This however, doesn't mean that another universe will not explode into existence or that other universes do not exist elsewhere in the void to distant from our own to ever be realized or observed..

Here is an interesting theory on the big Bang....

If Existence or the place of existence (the void) has a structure of two opposite polarities we can call gravity can we suggest the following possibility?:

Can polarity known as Pull (as in pull together) collect or become so massively dense at a single point or location that it explodes into what we call matter.The explosion being a result of the polarity of Push becoming to great for the polarity of pull to hold together as one.. This is where mass and matter are solely comprised of the pull side of gravity to where it holds its density or mass by the force of pulling it's self together and the Push side of Gravity slowly decays or breaks down the density of the other polarity.....

Yeah.. it's a wild idea.. But hell.. its for the fun in thought :P

After the Big bang and the slowing of expansion of the Explosion that created the bubble we call the Universe..Dark Matter may very well be the push polarity of Gravity.. Where it seeps into the weak fields of the pull (the bubble) and spreads the pull out.. Or when trapped push tries to escape and creates weakness in the pulls fields...

Look at our bubble of the Universe as a Bubble of various densities of pull surrounded by push and to where the bubble of pull is also container to some push that tries to leak out.. Once the leak is made it push seeps in and pushes the pull apart...Slowly decaying the bubble or universe along with it's denser matter that may take longer to decay..

This may be the reason why Dark matter can not be seen... It's the same thing as gravity except that it would represent an uneven opposite polarity or un-equal polarity in any given location in existence..

And is the bend in space time the evidence of the opposite polarity..? And when one becomes more dense than the other the other bends...

Thanks TheJackel...reading your thoughts on polarity in void reminded me of the Casimir effect. I expect you're familiar with it, but if not it's worth a read. I think it agrees with your ideas rather nicely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Thanks :).. I really think that the casmir effect is evidence for sure that supports more theory... I'm actually starting to think I have stumbled upon something amazing here just off a whim of an idea :O

Haha, yeah, expecting creationists to accept rational evidence is like expecting a scientist to explain something with magic or a wizard doing it.

Er, rational evidence of evolution would be to explain what evolutionary direction the finch species is taking.

What fundamental, irreversible morphological change has taken place, that confirms a new branch of animal is appearing?

A new song, you say? Sure, I like melodies too.

A finch, by any other name............. .

Ninbyo

Haha, yeah, expecting creationists to accept rational evidence is like expecting a scientist to explain something with magic or a wizard doing it.

I am so not a creationist! ::rolling eyes:: but I couldn't let this pass without giving you an Arthur C. Clarke quote, his 'third law':

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

::grin:: Sorry, I couldn't help myself! But yeah ID'ers will never accept rational explanation, perhaps because they start with an irrational premise.

What fundamental, irreversible morphological change has taken place, that confirms a new branch of animal is appearing?

Gotta love how ID apologists almost always backpedal to meaninglessly vague terms like "branch" or "kind" just to weasel their way out of admitting that speciation took place.

I missed this one Jack.

Would you prefer phylum? Hey, that works for me.

So what new phylum have we observed in recorded history? Or what new genus, order, family?

Would you prefer phylum? Hey, that works for me.

Perhaps we can stick to "species." Ya know, the word that "speciation" is derived from?

Just because you can't understand the secrets of the universe doesn't mean you can just make things up.

Actually, they can. And I have no problem with them doing so. However, they can't expect other people to take them seriously or base administrative policy upon their active fantasy.

And I have no problem with them doing so.

I have a problem with them doing so. Apparently, this is a "Christian Nation." You cannot be successful in any public undertaking whether business, social, or political if you are an atheist. Now the Catholic Church is trying to take over our legislative process regarding Health Care Reform.

...if we could find true macro-evolution...or simply a chain of fossil records that show maybe a fish turning into a bird, then my friends....there would be much to celebrate over.

We had that celebration in 1861 with Meyer's description of Archaeopteryx lithographica (Dinosauria, Theropoda, Aves). The final link in the fish -> bird fossil record.

Interestingly, this discovery came only two years after Darwin's famous publication.

Yes Mike, as I predicted up in 1.1 above...

To Archaeopteryx I'll add Tiktaalik, transitionary between fish and amphibians. There are thousands of transitional fossils known.

Ya know what? Evolution does not need to be defended.

If you have evidence disproving 150 years of evidence, research and results based science, go for it.

Till then, you have an idea that will not be taken seriously in non-religious circles.

justTim, Archaeopteryx lithographica is the “Final” link in the fish-bird fossil record? Really? How did I and most of the scientific community miss that one? The final link eh? I suppose you also believe that the Theory of Evolution i.e. Abiogenesis is a proven fact now as well? Interesting!

Dungbeetlemania, Transitional species? And pray tell what a transitional species is? Show me the chain of fossil ancestors that led to Taktallik i.e. how it went from fish to amphibian or acquired that traits you call transitional? You can’t. We have no other records of ancestors for Takallik. It just is. But it does have fish traits as well as similarities to a salamander so therefore it must be transitional right? That logic makes just as much sense as the following paradox logic statement: all burglars go to jail; therefore all inmates must be burglars??? I argue that without a chain of fossil ancestors to tell the story there is no story to tell save speculative assumptions. And to date, the fossil record is flimsy at best.

MarkD, and what idea am I touting? I believe I simply pointed out that “macro-evolution” has not been displayed here; the Finch is still a Finch. In fact, the Grants, as far as I can gather, have yet to attempt to interbreed this, “new” finch species with other island finches to prove that the offspring are, in fact, unviable. Simply observing that the finches do not interbreed by choice is far cry to grounds for the "new" species assumption.

justTim,Archaeopteryx lithographica is the "Final" link in the fish-bird fossil record? Really? How did I and most of the scientific community miss that one?

Simple Mike, you don't operate within the "scientific community," so you are unaware.

Your apparent failure at even a high-school level of understanding of the nuances of "theory" and "fact" gives you away...among other things.

justTim...what an ignorant fool you have shown yourself to be. In fact you couldn't be more wrong but I never expected you to be right based on previous interactions with you. I am a biologist. I work for a research and development company and research CF and the papilloma virus. My background is in human biology, genetics, botany/paleontology, and I have a special interest in climate. When fools think themselves wise we get statements like yours! Sorry justTim...try again! Oh and yes...I am online right now....but i certainly am not waiting for your reply...we just happen to be on at the same time. Don't be so vain to think I wait for you!

There are lot's of things you can pretend to be online, a biologist isn't one of them. Paleontology huh? What do you make of the ascending process of the astragalus in A. lithographica, theropod synapomorphy or coincidence? How about the buttressed basisphenoid sinus, the anterior position of the external nares, the fused cannon, reduction of digits, thecodont condition, presence of antorbital fenestra, furcula? Digitigrade stance, pelage, gastralia?

Why not address that which you dispute if you are qualified?

And how about we use real terminology instead of this "ToE" junk?

Sorry to burst you bubble justTim. Yes I am a biologist as I stated. I don't lie. I don't have to. And why would I?....to get at you? Don't be so vain! You're arguments don't interest me in the least. I am amused by your idiocy Yes! But that is the extent of it. So now you are the authority on who is a biologist and who is not....because??? Drum roll...the saga unfolds! Humor me please!

Oh and I had to laugh at this: "Paleontology huh?" What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting you don't know that word? Get real Mr. Authority!

and "ToE" bothers you too? Picky aren't we? Did it ever occur to you that I may have used it to cut down on the repetitious long form of the same? Of course you didn't. You just think I used it is to show disdain to your "holy grail" of evidence right? By the way, you spewed an impressive length of terms. Kudos. Did you regurgitate those "Paleontology" terms from Wiki?

Now I know this may be hard for you to grasp but I will try the best I can...just think of baking soda! The point I am making about your idiotic statement that A. lithographica is the "final" link is simple. We have no chain of fossils that proves this fact. All those terms and comparisons you so eloquently regurgitated, are "Speculated", yes speculated to be transitional. Show me the fossil ancestor of A. Lithographic, perhaps the ancestor that is right before or even better the "transitional" offspring that came right after it? You can't because it doesn't exist. i rest my case.

Just a side note: ever sense it's discovery in 1861, A. Lithoghraphica has puzzled biologists. The 5 theropod dinosaurs with similar "primitive" feathers, discovered in China in 1990 point to the same assumption of transitional. And yet there is no fossil record before or after any of these these to prove the connection. No my friend, A Lithographica is not "the Link" you claim. It is an anomaly at best and has remained such sense it's discovery in 1861.

Take a look at Takallik, the new and great "transitional" species. Kind of looks like a salamander to me! And we still have salamanders living today! So therefore the salamander must be transitional right? Oh and we can't forget about the oldest "living" dinosaur...the Alligator can we and all of it's "transitional" ancestors that are not transitional because it is still an alligator today. Maybe smaller but still the same. Pathetic logic. But because Takallik is a fossil, it must be transitional. We just have to find the before and after fossils to prove it. Till then, it is speculation.

Baking soda! It's all about baking soda. Hard to grasp when it is right there in front of your eyes.

LOL.

Thanks Mike. Skipped anatomy did we? Several of those terms won't be found in Wikipedia, some of them can't be found online. One of them is not a real Archaeopteryx trait.

All are terms covered in your introduction to paleontology class. Some of them are covered in human anatomy class.

Several of the listed traits are diagnostic of theropods....you know, birds and stuff.

I don't think we're going to be discussing comparitive anatomy, whatever the paleospecies.

There goes that goal post moving again. It doesn't matter how many transitional fossils are found, because you can always subdivide down. The fact of the matter is that transitions occur extremely rapidly, and the chances of these species being fossilized are very low. Also the term transitional species is a misnomer, EVERY species is a transitional species, there is no goal to evolution. WE are a transitional species.

If you want to see real unrefutable proof of human evolution read up about chimp-human endogenous retroviruses. How we have thirteen of these viruses in the exact same location of our genetic code, the chances of which occuring randomly are 1 in 10^25.

justTim, Proud of yourself? Well sorry to burst your bubble again. I didn't get past the astragalus (a plant term, mind you) before I realized you were blowing a bunch of crap around... hence my question...."Did you regurgitate those "Paleontology" terms from Wiki?" notice the "" marks around Paleontology. You missed that didn't you? That's right justTim, I was calling you a fool yet again! Curious....do you ever answer any questions with science or do you simply bait and regurgitate crap?

Bajee....now you are the first here to make my point exactly. Refreshing. Thank you!

Mike, you claimed a background in biology, and knowledge of paleontology.

You should be aware that the astragalus is the other term for the talus bone. Context Mike, did you seriously think I was discussing botany?

I don't answer your questions because you haven't demonstrated the qualifications necessary to understand what I write.

Take a look at Takallik, the new and great "transitional" species. Kind of looks like a salamander to me! And we still have salamanders living today!

Oh wow.

Ok, first it's Tiktaalik, not "Takallik" if you bother to take a look instead of just attempting to poke holes then you would know that.

And salamander? No. Not even close. It has spiracles, one of the first poorly formed necks, a very simple ribcage, and no toes. Sad. Try again.

And if you knew your biology, having a transitional creature filling a ecological niche is not evidence against evolution. If it is well adapted to an enviorment, then there is not any pressure to adapt further.

justTim, are you for real? Take your head out of that hole for second and breath. Wow...if you look at my post I stated botany/paleontology. Did you miss that too? Of course I would see astragalus in the "botany" light. Furthermore, do you think for one second, and I mean seriously think for one second that we don't cross examine both plants and animals to make our comparisons and speculations. Wow...what field of science do you operate in to come across so narrow minded? Oh and the fact that I don't know all the alternative names for all the bones in the human body is somehow proof of my lack of credentials? Good one...yah!!! You are truly amazing me with your deductive reasoning. Moron! You also have a huge problem with comprehension.

this said, you did answer my question about baiting and regurgitating crap though....not directly but I deducted it. Thanks. Oh and for your sake...Cheers!

Mike, I'm not baiting or regurgitating. I am honestly curious about your credentials but don't take your word for anything. Don't take it personally, I don't trust anyone who says they have this degree or that without demonstrating at least basic knowledge of the subject...

Osteology is basic to vertebrate paleontology. You were offering your opinion on vertebrate paleontology, thus I deduced that you considered yourself qualified to discuss it. I appreciate your retraction. Study of paleobotany doesn't in any way qualify you to criticize the vertebrate fossil record.

I did enjoy the part about alligators being dinosaurs though.

Cheers! (and yes, I have been waiting for your response, I do enjoy paleontological debate)

Yawn. A new species?

A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen.

This seems more like a new subspecies of finches--they can still interbreed. Hardly the stuff of macroevolution, and hardly a disproof of ID.

Face it: both TENS and ID are theories, but both are hard to falsify. Both are useful as ways of understanding the world. Either one can be used backwards--"gee, humans have evolved more pubic hair but less body hair than their ape ancestors."--and both have their dogmatic, religious adherents, who will defy all logic to defend the one true faith.

Wake me when a lizard provably evolves into a finch.

Mark, sorry for the error in spelling...my bad...but you knew exactly what I was talking to non-the-less. This is a discussion forum not a journal submission, correct? Second...if Taktalik is not adapting any further than how the heck is it considered transitional. That in and of itself is a walking contradiction! Explain that to me! Either it is or it isn't. And if it is, we should find fossil offspring that advance the transition should we not?

Okay...so it is not a salamander.....I never said it was...I said it looks like one! You certainly can't deny that both species have similarities...hence the "transitional" species claim.

Oh side note: You are wrong about the spiricals. Salamander larvae have them. In fact both species have wrists, fingers (although the Taktaalik has fingers enclosed in a lobe fin), no toes yet for Taktaalik but that is not stopping the "Transitional" claim is it?, a neck, and get this, they are speculated to have lungs and gills...sound familiar to a salamander? Taktaalik is the "link" between fish and amphibians after all? Right?

justTim, I also have a background in human biology, anatomy and physiology included. Simply because I don't know every alternative name for every bone in the body does not constitute a valid argument against my credentials. And yes I know how to look at both animal and plant fossils. We do compare for clarification of dating and time-line extrapolation. But you should know that already....you are the "Authority" are you not? Oh and Alligators or more precisely Alligatoroidea: two words: Deinosuchus hatcheri. Obviously you missed that one too! wow...you never cease to amaze me with your brilliance! Cheers

And if it is, we should find fossil offspring that advance the transition should we not?

Yes? Your point? Are you saying that we haven't? That would be incorrect.

List_of_transitional_fossils - Elginerpeton would be the transitional after Tiktaalik, and Acanthostega would be the first known to have toes, but without wrists and still having fish shoulder and forelimbs.

You are wrong about the spiricals. Salamander larvae have them.

Good point. The fact that they have useless vestigial organs from an earlier species would mean what to you exactly?

Also, take it easy with the personal insults. Just because someone questions your background is not cause to call someone else "moron" and "fool". It's rude and not helping your case.

Mike, you are aware that Deinosuchus is not a dinosaur, right? Please say yes.

Mark, thanks for the comment on insults...I did get carried away earlier but censored myself on the last post and toned it down. My apologies!

I know we have found fossils, "transitional" at that, that can be placed into some kind of order of transition and assumed date to have lived. This is not disputed here. The argument I am pointing to is the fact that we have found no "related" (I use this loosely but am looking for a direct line here) species with transitional features that continue the transition from a predecessor species. Keep in mind that I understand the some changes can happen quickly and will not be found in the fossil record. Nonetheless, this type of record should be attainable if the "transitional' theory is correct. To date we have various seemingly unrelated species with varying forms of lobe fins, ray fins, etc. Some refer to this as parallel evolution but still assume that these are transitional between the fish and amphibians. I want to see a "related" chain of fossils.

And the "useless" vestigial organs argument that are assumed to be from earlier species is still waiting to be settled. Science is always learning and progressing as new information is assimilated. For instance, Drs used to think the tonsils were useless. I have none because of this notion. Most people today have tonsils because what was once thought useless is now important.

justTim, wait...are you actually suggesting that the Campanian age is not dinosaur related? Hmmmm. Your kidding right?

The argument I am pointing to is the fact that we have found no "related" (I use this loosely but am looking for a direct line here) species with transitional features that continue the transition from a predecessor species.

Well that's not true at all.

If you want more exacting evidence of direct "macro" transition between species, human or otherwise, just look up mtDNA speciation.

mtDNA is a wonderful tool for showing direct maternal links between species. We have even have complete neanderthal mtDNA sequences.

No, I am actually suggesting that Deinosuchus is not a dinosaur.

I am further suggesting that alligators are not dinosaurs. I am now suspecting you didn't know that and are afraid to just admit error and move on.

I am also reading your comments and wondering how you expect to see a related chain of fossil animals without understanding osteology. (or expect NOT to see them, as the case may be.)

You see, if you studied osteology, you would immediately notice that we already have many related chains of fossil animals. It is extremely difficult to explain this fact to someone unfamiliar with osteological terminology though.

juatTim, I am tired of your constant baiting. You can stop now. Either start answering questions and join the discussion or refrain from posting altogether! Cheers

Your complete warped instance about Deinosuchus has caught my attention. Are you simply making crap up? I highly suggest you do a little research before you make statements...enough said!

Mike357, there are plenty of transitionary fossils. Yes, there are clear predecessors to Tiktaalik, but ID is not happy unless every single specimen fossilises and is subsequently found.

You are transitionary between your parents and your children. You are also transitionary between your grandparents and your children, but if we can't find your parents it does not mean that you are not related to your grandparents or children. The relationship can still be clearly and accurately inferred.

Mike357, dungbeetlemania,

ID needs to either prove self awareness, creation, intelligence, knowledge, a choice, or even a response is possible without information of the need of information or they need to sit down and shut up..

Give an example of how this idea of pre-existing the substance of which you are comprised of and in need of is possible...

I want an example and a detailed process in how this is possible.. It's getting pathetic that they keep ignoring the obvious GIANT HOLE in the intelligent design argument that proves that it's self would have to form and evolve...

You can't even argue it.. It's a case closed no crap you can't create in reverse!! So the argument is automatically false and irrelevant to this discussion...

TheJackel, I am not arguing with you. I agree with you. But while it's possibly the principal reason ID cannot be right, there are other claims it makes that are just not true and that's my point there.

I know you weren't.. I was addressing everyone that ID'ers need to prove their case by example... :P

They need to provide a process that makes sense based on reverse creation.. They can't use the bible because it's literally ass backwards... I already provided them a way out.. To admit a GOD had to be created if it should exist... But they won't do that... It means that it won't be eternal.. And it might not even be immortal.. It also means that they have to accept that it's possible that their GOD doesn't exist in literal terms beyond their imagination, written lore, art, or media... Meaning their GOD may not have any more relevance than a magical Unicorn painted on the cover of a D&D magazine..

They would also be forced to accept cause and effect can be a process of formation and creation without the need for intelligence....

This is why they will ignore the question.... It would literally turn their ideology inside out... And this is why they spend all their time attacking vs having to explain their own theory... Their reasoning is magic and supernatural and they don't think that needs to be explained... They actually don't care if something makes sense or it's true or not... You can't argue with people like this... Logic isn't something that computes with them...

Also, There is no telling if there is more than one mechanism to where a new species is created.... This can imply random mutation to simple change in diet where the things it eats effects the process of the development of an unborn living thing... (read my bear example) When something eats another thing the substance of what it eats goes into the process of cellular development in an embryo.. This suggests that some information is merged or exchanged in the process where it can or might have an effect on species over a long period of time....

It seems that animals adapt according to what they eat and what kind of climate they live in... Those that can't adapt to a change of menu due to climate change or whatever, go extinct.. Evolution is just a long process of adaptation in my view...

Webbed feet in humans is considered just extra skin. But is it adaptation to water.. An example of evolution in the process of adapting humans to water...

Mike357, thank you.

You have been the first to enjoy my latest argument regarding the gaps in the fossil record.

The problem I have experienced with the gap argument is that when we volunteer a transitional paleospecies, the creationists merely criticize it and point to the gaps before and after the species. We offer more transitional species and the game continues ad nauseum.

I have decided to turn the argument around and place it in the creationist's lap. Stop providing information for them to criticize and demonstrate a simple point:

The gaps in the fossil record are nothing compared to the gaps in creationists' knowledge.

This is not effective for educating the creationist, but let's face it, they're not going to suddenly accept evolution just because of some online debate. They only care about winning debate.... As if argument from ignorance can result in victory.

The result of my argument is to irritate the creationist and make them look foolish.

This is a fitting result, willful failure to comprehend shouldn't be respected.

And Mike, I enjoyed your insults. Each is a little victory.

ID people also need to provide by example of a new species materializing out of thin air... 6 billion people on this planet and not a single one can claim some animal magically appeared in front of their eyes...I guess a GOD only does this behind the bushes... ;)

Until I see a new life form materialize in front of me or jump out of my TV I am going to have to call BS.. And until they can prove creation,self awareness, knowledge, and intelligence prior to the existence of information I am going to have to call BS on the intelligent design theory...

Ummm...alligators are not dinosaurs....Did anyone say they were? Reptiles are a completely different animal from dinosaurs. Now, you thanksgiving turkey is another matter....

Born Again... I wouldn't disagree and the species classification.. However, I do believe they meant that Alligators and Crocodiles are from the time of the Dinosaurs... A species that is highly successful may not go under a whole lot of changes if the conditions for their success do not drastically alter... This species is said to have been much larger millions of years ago that it is today...

You must also look at the horse.. How many species of horses do you know of.. The horse has many prehistoric ancestors that are proven to exist... And yes the complete picture isn't there because of some missing links... But the pattern shows it going in 1 direction that suggest evolution... And it's funny that you can breed a horse with a mule ;) ..

How about a Ligar..(sp?).. the cross between a lion and a Tiger?

". I wouldn't disagree of the species classification"

Ah, finally getting to a singe point to discuss .i.e. "Gap Theory" in transitional fossil record.

A few of you have mentioned that we do in fact have a chain of succession in the fossil record, a so called ancestor transition map with progressive change. All are supposedly related. Correct so far? In other words, comparative anatomy is based on taxonomic similarities and possible progressions seen in the fossil record i.e. a more primitive species should display more primitive features down to the primordial soup that spawned life. Still on track? Now, for the sake of space, I will not hash out all the names and or taxonomic similarities of each. Besides, "most" should already know these. I believe Mark pointed to the Wiki link with a list previously.

Now to my argument:

The major flaw I see with the current comparative anatomy approach is simple. We are assuming that older living creatures are ancestors due to taxinomic similarities in fossil records. Cause is observible but effect is highly speculative and may not be one and the same. We can't recreate it so we must therfore assume it! Fair enough?

Now for a few examples of holes!

Lucy! How should I put it lightly? The Lucy link to human evolution just hit a snag. Scientist recently discovered 11 fossilized skeletons including the following specific bones structures: a complete tibia, shoulder blade, parts of a femur, ribs, vertebrae, collarbone, pelvis, and an ankle bone. The problem this find poses to the so called "chain" of transitional fossils for human evolution is that first it falls into the 3.8-4 million year time frame and more importantly is upright and bipedal. Both predecessor A. Ramidus and speculated transitional offspring A. Afarensis (Lucy) are more ape like and only partially upright i.e. use knuckles as balance and lack a pronounced bipedal pelvic girdle. Then there is the question of O. bambolii, dating back 34 million years. We have over 50 skeletal fossils of O. bambolii that display a very similar pevic structure to that of A. Afarensis (Lucy). Yet O. bamolii also display similar taxinomic structures to that of Australopithecus and Homo i.e. a pronounced diaphyseal angled femur combined with condyles of nearly equal size, pointing to bipedal activity. Yet O. bambolii does not fit the chain of evolution as displayed by the fossil record.

Now lets look at a couple other interesting "holes" Per Se in the so called "transitional species" theory!

Coelacanth: more specifically the still living species, L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis. They are surprisingly similar to Macropoma, also placed in the Laimeraiidae Family of Coelacanth. Falling in the 360 million year time frame. Coelacanth was once considered the final link between fish and tetrapods. You wont find it in the series now becaue it still lives and remains relativly unchanged from its 360 million year old fossils. Transitional species?

Nautiloids: more specifically nautiluses often considered a"living fossil". Why did it remain relativly unchanged for the past 500 million years? Furthermore we have over 2500 species of classified fossil nautiloids which include Bactritida and Ammonoidea to name a couple. All are Nautiloids however and members of the larger group cephalopods of which we have nurmous species alive a well. In fact , we have a beosaepia beak fossils dating back to roughly 47 million years. And yet the giant squid is alive and well today, relatively unchanged from seemingly well preserved and calcified beosaepia fossils.

I can go on but I believe "most" of you should get my point. Nothing in science is safe from investigation, speculation, hashing, and yes punching holes. Not even the "constant" gravity holds the place of complete immunity. The theory of Evolution is certailny is not immune, hemed up, stitched in, complete and factual. And it does not hold all the answers even though we have gatherd over 150 years of data. There are way too many holes, anomalies, and unexplainables.

Mike said:

Now, for the sake of space, I will not hash out all the names and or taxonomic similarities of each. Besides, "most" should already know these. I believe Mark pointed to the Wiki link with a list previously.

WRONG Mike! Lets have the names, we're talking thousands of paleogenera. Describe them briefly, include diagnostic traits. Just because you are too lazy to learn basic paleontology doesn't mean we must teach you. If you think a brief list of transitional fossils is the same as all or even most transitional fossils in a lineage you are 99% ignorant of the fossil record. So tell us!

Now to your arguments.

Regarding the new hominid find you mention...references are required. You have demonstrated your dishonesty and ignorance here repeatedly. So back up your statements with scientific literature, and make it something we can read online. You do know what constitutes scientific literature, right Mike? I know you don't work in science or even read science...

Regarding the Coelacanth...WHAT?!? You think that a transitional species must be extinct?! MIKE....this is why we know you are not a biologist! You miss basic tenets of biology and argue against your infantile straw men! Your misunderstanding of biology is NOT biology!

Nautiloids. See above ^.

Nothing in science is safe from investigation

TRUE! But science is quite safe from your pathetic criticisms...

more specifically nautiluses often considered a"living fossil". Why did it remain relativly unchanged for the past 500 million years?

Because it's successful. You can list all the unchanged creatures you want.

This is a goofy argument, no offense. If anything it's evidence against some sort of "divine plan for change" some people argue for the "rolling out of change"

Evolution does not have an "end goal". If a creature is not under pressure, has a nice ecological niche for itself, any mutation from that form most likely would not help.

Show me a crature that is not competed with in it's environment, can breed and accuire food easily, and that if it did change it would be less successful - I will show you a creature that hasn't changed much.

___

As far as your listing of primates, who said "walking upright" was the goal of evolution? Survival is the "goal". Current research shows chimpanzees are LESS upright than before. But you know what? I would get better at climbing trees too if somebody else had spears.

___

The theory of Evolution is certailny is not immune, hemed up, stitched in, complete and factual.

correct, correct, correct, correct and wrong on the last one.

Evolution is based on facts. That would be the definition of factual. What does creationism have again? The bible?

And good point bringing up gravity. That gravity theory has changed much more than evolution has. Darwin didn't know what was going on in the world of genes, but he got it damn close for his time. Since then it ha been refined, but the basics have stayed the same.

Since then we have only gathered more facts and refined evolution over the last 150 years, and now we have:

• incredibly effective antibiotics,
• medical care treating genetic diseases,
• we a predict a creature should exist, go look for it exactly in the strata it should be in and find it, many examples of this.
• and now even an upcoming cure for color blindness based on primates sharing the same color vision genes

Evolution has given us results.

What has creationism given us again?

I hope I misunderstood Mike's argument. It would appear that he is stating the myth that an entire population of animals must be replaced if a portion of a population evolves...

The old "if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?" Or...if lobe finned fishes evolved into tetrapods why are there extant lobe finned fishes?

This misunderstanding runs far deeper than just pointing to relatively unchanged species as evidence against speciation...

It voices a complete failure to understand speciation of all types, and on several levels. The result of such a constant replacement model of speciation would be only ONE type of organism alive on Earth. It is no wonder creationists don't believe their version of evolution, it's absurd.

MarkD,

"Evolution has given us results."

I am not arguing that it hasn't. Mute issue!

"What has creationism given us again?"

We are not speaking to creationism here so you make my point. We are saying the very same thing.

So lets get back to my argument as posted shall we! My argument against transitional species as "Fact" is based in part on the examples I provided. You know your material Mark so I am fairly certain you have heard of these and if not i hope you look at them further: they are interesting. The fact that we have extinct species shows that they were unsuccessful in some way; the survival of the fittest is what results. But to argue that a fossil is "transitional" based one 1: it is extinct and 2: it has taxonomic similarities to another extinct creature is pure assumption...not fact. We have flimsy evidence at best. To date we do not have a chain of fossils to show the actual transition. It is very spotty.

To make my point more clear that transitional species are "assumed" to have existed but are certainly not fact, I provided you with more recent information that has changed what we used to think was fact. That is my point and I hope you can agree with me at least this far.

Evolution is based on "Fact" that changes? Well it isn't a fact then is it? It is an assumption based on what we think is correct at the time.

Now, I couldn't agree more with you on your point that if an organism is successful it will not need to change. In fact that is a fact!

To argue that change is unlimited and that somehow a fish will eventually turn into an amphibian over millions of years is based on what facts? We have a flimsy fossil record that gives us reason to speculate but it is only speculation without validation. Don't you think we should be able to artificially speed up the process in a lab, based on what we know i.e 150 years of data and "facts"? We can't Mark...the organism dies every time once the threshold of allowable change is breached. Please understand that I don't for one instance believe that Evolution does not occur.... It does. In fact if you simply look at the human race we run the gambit for size, shape, color, etc etc etc. Change happens but all we can tell from observation is that it happens within a range i.e. humans are still humans, finches are still finches, etc etc etc.

...to argue that a fossil is "transitional" based one 1: it is extinct...

....

Change happens but all we can tell from observation is that it happens within a range i.e. humans are still humans, finches are still finches, etc etc etc.

No.

We can track mtDNA maternal lineage between clearly separate species. It matches with the fossil record.

Heck if bones instantly disintegrated upon death, we would still have the same evolution science. It would be alot harder, but DNA and mtDNA tell the same story as the bones.

MarkD, scientists did extract mtDNA from several fossil hominids. It is very interesting stuff, however I wouldn't call it a direct link. In fact researchers concluded, based of several large differences, that that hominids in question evolved separately and are not ancestors to humans. Below is summary of the data; I couldn't link you to the actual articles due to a login requirement. It is an interesting read and includes some of the original data spreads. enjoy

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

There are also new issues with mtDNA models set up in 1987. In 2002 scientists discovered that the previous notion of maternal inheritance was wrong. Paternal inheritance was observed and demonstrated, although not a prevalently as the maternal side. What this means is simply that mtDNA is not as pure as we had previously thought.

Additionally, the mutation clock models previously thought to be accurate were also proven false. mtDNA mutations are unpredictable at best, debunking the now myth of clonal inheritance.

Thanks for the link. But I don't think the talk origins website has been updated recently, maybe not since 2006? Shame.

Problems with mtDNA models in 1987? Yeah. I would think so. Genetic testing wasn't exactly a big thing in the 80's.

Mike357 - We already had this talk. Do you remember? Was our conversation that forgettable?

Here is us talking about this same thing, with tons of info and links on the Aug 8 2008 first complete neanderthal mtDNA sequence. From 38,000 year old bones!

And I was impressed when they only had to swab my cheek for bone marrow donation compatibility gene testing.

We already know Neanderthals are not human ancestors. They are an off-shoot branch, along with us, from homo heidelberensis. We lived along with them, but most likely killed them off when we found them. Some have been found with what looks like thrown spear scrapes on thier ribcages, most likely from "modern" humans.

There really isn't any problem with neanderthals not being an ancestor...

..or were you just attempting to cast doubt on the whole thing by not specifically referencing the hominid you were talking about saying "not ancestors" and using old data from the 80's???

MarkD, of course I remember our earlier conversation i.e. you using Wiki as your primary source, your circular and highly redundant arguments (I noticed them here as well....looked almost like a copy paste too), and your refusing to look up research I provided (claimed I gave you too much), did I miss anything? How could I forget my conversations with you! Here is an actual link to a journal from 2008. Sorry I can only provide the abstract link due to login requirements.

http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674%2808%2900773-3

You said: "We already know Neanderthals are not human ancestors."

No kidding! I could have told you that without the documentation. I believe I misunderstood your earlier argument about Neandrerthal mtDNA and it's significance. Mute issue then. I do believe an explanation is warranted however on what you are trying to say about mtDNA!

Cheek swab: It's easy to use live DNA to do a genetics test. However, DNA degrades very quickly after death. Small problem! If you notice, the researchers had to piece together the specimens and use sequencing to make a full strand....i.e. plugging in missing sections based on assumptions not actual DNA!

Now you point to 1980s data? Why? I was debunking it not using it! The molecular clock hypothesis has been a central tool for Evolutionist ever since its acceptance. Among many others, 1995 AIDS research debunked it. Intraspecific Phylogenetics: Support for Dental Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Look it up! And there are more recent findings that put this precious hypothesis into a steeper tailspin. Here is one you might enjoy.

Bapteste, Eric, Yan Boucher. 2008. Lateral gene transfer challenges principles of microbial systematics. Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 200-207.

What this means is simply that mtDNA used to show ancestry back in the 100,000 + timeframe, especially when making humans to non-human connections, is sketchy and pure speculation based on invalid assumptions. Yes this data also puts the mtDNA Eve hypothesis in a tailspin even though that was only looking at the human line. And yet the Eve hypothesis, seemingly debunked, is still more accurate than a divergence tree speculation.

So if you really believe that mtDNA is the key to proving the common ancestry of humans, primates, etc etc etc you are living the dream my friend!

Now you point to 1980s data? Why? I was debunking it not using it!

LOL

I've been working on a straw man fallacy symbol, something we can post every time a creationist bashes a straw man. I like this one:

o}-< 

A little stick guy sideways. Maybe someone else can come up with better...

Oh it's getting hostile again.

Yes I remember you giving over 50 references, alphabetized, without links, (copy/paste much?) "that provide information" on the subject, without actually saying anything yourself other than ID is true, this is evidence in one post. Yes, that's "too much", a bibliography, not a forum post. I then found several of them, read them, and used them in my next post as convincing evolution evidence thank you very much. Interesting read.

DNA degrades quickly after death, mtDNA does not. That's one of the major reasons why mtDNA is used. As in, the whole point in the first place. It also remains in the bones safely protected unlike normal DNA. The bones they sampled were 38,000 years old. They got the FULL mtDNA sequence. They can't even get that from DNA from a crime scene a few days old. Hence why mtDNA is used.

Yes, I happen to like wikipedia. How many times do you have to say:

I couldn't link you to the actual articles due to a login requirement.

Wikipedia in regard to science only hosts validated claims, with links to references, and clearly states any discrepancies. Sorry because of those reasons they don't allow themselves to publish creationist claims without disclaimers.

Look it up!

No. You provide the link, and sum it up if you are making the argument. That's how things work around here. I'm not here to bring your ammo to the table when it might not be ammo for you in the first place. It wasn't last time.

My arguments are circular? How? I point to many different sources of information, sum up the articles and provide links, you cast doubt on all of them with vague reasons, without any evidence of your own for your side.

Where is this study on why standard mtDNA techniques are all wrong and completely invalid? DO you realize how many research universities use it? Heck the post right befre your library list I listed the institutions that worked on the neanderthal sequencing. You know better? Just trust you on that one? Nope. Provide the research.

I've been working on a straw man fallacy symbol, something we can post every time a creationist bashes a straw man.

Not bad!

¬_¬

Shifty eyes full of kinda saying "yeah right" works too.

"Oh it's getting hostile again."

Mark...I believe it got hostile when you and your friend Tim started responding to my first post. It was never a discussion for you two was it?

This said, I believe this current discussion has gone much better than our last wouldn't you say? I am interested in discussing further, minus the hostilities. I am not completely against your point of view even though I do see holes in your logic just as you see holes in mine. This is a discussion of alternate ideas is it not?

First things first: You say: "DNA degrades quickly after death, mtDNA does not".

I disagree. That is a assumption based on what data? Here is a link to an journal article abstract from 2004 that suggests otherwise i.e. mtDNA is highly susceptible to oxidative stress and mutation, more so than regular DNA. I do not believe that notion has changed or been refuted. Oxidative stress sets in after death. There are instances, like bone samples, where mtDNA fragments are more preserved for whatever reason. And we both agree that DNA does not have this luxury.

http://aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2004/1/328-b

Keep in mind here that I do not discount that mtDNA has merit and is a tool to use for evolution and possible patterns of divergence. I do however believe that the new/newer evidence points to the need for new hypothesis that must be tested against what we are seeing and what we are assuming. The article I pointed to, sorry no abstract in Google that I can find, suggests lateral gene transfer primarily in the mtDNA sequencing that places serious questions on the molecular clock hypothesis. This is important when applied to earlier assumptions of mutations and variations we attribute to time and divergence placement. The HIV study, I also pointed you to, demonstrated this very issue as well.

"They got the FULL mtDNA sequence"

Where in your data does it say scientists extracted a complete unadulterated strand of mtDNA? I'd like the link please!

If I am not mistaken, PCR (plymerase Chain reaction) was used along with refernces to the (rCRS) revised Cambridge Sequence to fill in the gaps. They do that today at crime scenes too, for mtDNA sequencing. I believe this very technique with mtDNA was used after the 9/11 bombings in an attempt to identify bone fragments etc found at the site; the DNA had already degraded. They used mtDNA fragments.

Second: You want me to prove something about mtDNA? You are the one who keeps bringing in the mtDNA as fact for the ancestral tree assumptions. Where is your Data? Please provide a link, preferably abstracts not someones summary. Thanks

Circular arguments: I did not mean this as a point of fallacy to your arguments. I am talking to your trend to use the same arguments i.e. copy and pasting them (full of links etc) to answer in a circular way. In short, I would much rather discuss maybe several points in depth to see if we might come to some sort of understanding. We obviously are coming at this from different perspectives so a deeper discussion is warranted. Your "circular' arguments simply keep us running in circles as demonstrated in previous posts and discussions. We never really got anywhere after all.

Hostility from me, Mike?

Um, nope. Just truth. I'm sorry you see truth as hostile to your position and yourself. Perhaps if you had truth on your side you wouldn't feel that way.

Your attempts at deception are insulting, Mike. You assume your readers are too stupid to recognize the deception. You congratulate yourself on fooling people, all the while not realizing that you are transparent, and most are too polite to identify your lies.

You claim to be familiar with human anatomy and physiology but don't recognize terms describing both. Forget the astragalus, you should know offhand what organ rests in the basisphenoid sinus. Most of the terms I listed are common to human anatomy and physiology. You didn't recognize the significance of any of the features to our discussion. I doubt you'll recognize them now even though you've had plenty of time to google them. This is basic stuff Mike, and you missed it.

You claim work in "botany/paleontology." You don't even know that it's called paleobotany. You say that's why you are unfamiliar with anatomical terms, ignoring the fact that paleobotanists are paleontologists first, and must pass basic anatomy and paleontology classes. There are about 14 English speaking paleobotanists working in the world Mike, not one of them is a creationist or ID proponent. There are several hundred English speaking paleontologists in the world, only three are strict creationists. Of those three, one is a woman and presumably not you. Another was one of my professors, and definitely not you. I have considered the possibility that you are the third, but you sincerely don't seem to know anything about animal physiology so I doubt it strongly. Any of those three would recognize me immediately by my third comment in this thread.

Any degree in the life sciences requires courses in logic. You clearly haven't passed any.

Any degree in biology requires understanding, if not agreement with, the modern synthesis. Not only do you absolutely not understand it, you don't even seem to know the proper name for it. You mistakenly assume that all transitional species must be extinct. You overlook the obvious answer of convergent evolution for bipedality in Oreopithecus. You don't even consider the possibility that bipedality could have evolved, been lost, and then evolved again. You are seemingly unfamiliar with the many examples of either scenario in paleontology. You should at least learn what you intend to oppose. I have met several biologists who are creationists, I have never met one who simply doesn't understand evolution.

And, to beat a very dead horse, you actually stated that alligators are dinosaurs and offered Deinosuchus as an example. Alligators are crocodylians Mike, they are archosaurs. As such they are a sister taxon of dinosaurs. This mistake is no big deal, but your unwillingness to acknowledge your mistake speaks volumes about you. You clearly don't have access to simple scientific literature, and are only repeating what you can google between comments, at least on the subject of paleontology.

You don't cite scientific literature, claiming subscription or login problems. Of course you could still link to an abstract... Or just ask, several of your readers probably have JSTOR access at least.

My best guess is that you are a high-school student with a promising career ahead of him in either molecular biology or the clergy.

My second guess is that you are a retired carpet cleaning technician who watches Discovery Channel, reads Answers in Genesis, and thinks Behe is the paragon of intellectualism. A guy that brags to his church group about his clever debate and how he's so smart people don't even realize he's not a scientist.

My third guess is that you are Michael Behe, but that's probably just wishful thinking. He is far better informed than you seem to be.

I am not hostile Mike. I simply state verifiable truth. The fact of the matter is that I find your blunders far more enlightening than your arguments. Don't confuse me with MarkD. He is nicely ripping your arguments to shreds. I am simply highlighting your dishonesty....Dishonesty that is an integral part of your stated beliefs.

¬_¬

(^ Shifty eyes! I like that one!)

Mike357:

Yes, my posts are full of links because when I read something that I am not familiar with, I like to look it up and learn something. I hope that other people enjoy reading my posts and investigate subjects I happen to bring up. It's not just about you and me.

Also, it prevents people from dismissing what I am saying as BS.

Where in your data does it say scientists extracted a complete unadulterated strand of mtDNA? I'd like the link please!

Already gave it to you twice, it's here says: (in the first sentence no less):

Tomorrow's issue of the high impact & widly cited journal Cell hosts this paper, "A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing (DOI:10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.021)" First author, Richard Green, says that this genome is essentially without error. The genome comes from the Vindija 33.16 specimen, a 38,000 year old Neandertal from Croatia, of which around 0.3 grams of bone was extracted and mtDNA isolated.

If you want the actual paper, not the "summary" click the link inside the link I provided to the original paper. It's in the first sentence.

You are right, mtDNA does oxidize faster, but since it is encased in bone cells, oxygen has a hard time getting to it. Maybe I should have specified mtDNA in bones lasts longer than DNA, but that's kinda picky; correct; but picky.

Well, I'm still not sure how presenting peer reviewed studies & information and explaining it's relevance to what we are talking about is "Circular".

---

You want to get deeper into it? Cool.

This study (full links to report inside this summary) using mtDNA from many sources says:

• humans and neanderthals split from homo heidelbergensis 660,000 years ago
• human ancestors and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor 6-8 million years ago.

This study using pure living DNA, completely separate and unrelated to mtDNA as you know, says: (full boring text and references here because you will scoff for no reason if you don't have it)

• human ancestors and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor 5-7 million years ago.

Why are these separate but corroborating sources of evidence, showing the same result BOTH WRONG in your view?

Why exactly are you so eager to disprove something with so much evidence?

---

justTim:

Thanks! I'm glad someone is enjoying the discussion, you have had several good posts yourself. Sorry you had a creationist professor, You still turned out a-ok though!

Mark,

Thanks for going deeper on just a few points. I believe we can have a meaningful discussion here. You point out:

"This study (full links to report inside this summary) using mtDNA from many sources says:

• humans and neanderthals split from homo heidelbergensis 660,000 years ago
• human ancestors and chimpanzees split from a common ancestor 6-8 million years ago.

This study using pure living DNA, completely separate and unrelated to mtDNA as you know, says: (full boring text and references here because you will scoff for no reason if you don't have it)"

Thanks for the link. I appreciate actual articles as opposed to a Wiki reference.

Before I go on I think I need to make something very clear here so there is no misunderstanding. Living or dead DNA or mtDNA is not the issue. The issue is the model used to show divergence and the validity of the assumptions these models are based on. It has nothing to do with the DNA used. I have no issue with DNA in-and-of itself. Mute issue!

"Why are these separate but corroborating sources of evidence, showing the same result BOTH WRONG in your view?"

Yes, according to the use of the molecular clock models used, based on assumptions, you can come up with similar data sets and conclusions from different angles i.e. mtDNA and DNA sampling. Are the assumptions used to formulate the models correct or not? That is the true question. We can't recreate what we observe so we therefore make assumptions about cause and effect in an attempt to make sense of what we observe. In short the assumptions drive the conclusions. If the assumptions are wrong then the conclusions are likewise wrong. With me?

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/19/10752.full.pdf

Above is a link to a full article, published in 1999, 6 years before your publication, that points to a very troubling issue with the very molecular clock models used in your data sets. In short, the molecular clock model, as assumed to be constant, was shown in this study to be inaccurate. In this case, the molecular clock was shown to be unpredictable at best, making is impossible, with current models, to track the point of divergence accurately as it related to the HIV virus. From recent data and actual DNA mapping, we have discovered the source, unchanged, to the Green monkey. For this living source, new models have been implemented to help us fight HIV transmission and proliferation. The new models have advanced HIV research eons beyond the 1999 data sets. I believe this is very relevant to the molecular clock model in general pointing to the notion that the assumptions used in divergence modeling may be inaccurate. Plain and simple. This is my point of argument against the validity of the data on divergence. I am not arguing that divergence didn't occur.

I am intersted in you opinion on the matter.

You asked: "Why exactly are you so eager to disprove something with so much evidence?"

I am not eager to disprove anything Per Se. I am, however, eager to fully investigate and hash through ideas to find truth. And if this hashing disproves an idea, so be it.

Well, I was going to get into a detailed discussion of how the mutation and evolution rate of viruses differs greatly compared to higher organisms, as you would expect from a "creature" (not really) that has a 0 days till able to reproduce age span, produces offspring in the millions, where overpopulation is impossible, and has such a simple structure that most any mutation will still allow it to function.

Viruses just plain evolve at a breakneck speed because of these reasons. Hard to estimate that speed of evolution? I would think so.

And the study you presented was 6 years earlier. They updated the models in that study. Did they still use the old models 6 years later?

But your only problem with the human / chimp ancestor evidence is that the correct time frame of just the DNA evidence may be off a bit?

Oh. Ok. Maybe it is. *Shrug* Still proves evolution if that is your only concern.

And the mtDNA and DNA divergence models are *completely* different. You still didn't address both of them separately getting the same results. Just coincidence?

The DNA sampling used looked to be the largest number of sequences yet, using the most up to date techniques. I didn't see anything questionable. They went out of their way to double check using other models, other creatures, and the widest number of sequences possible. More than they needed for the results most likely.

I am not arguing that divergence didn't occur.

Wait, wait, wait... WHAT?

Are you the same person that posted this?: #7.4

Casting doubt on what creationists quaintly call "macro evolution" and doubting all transitional species and fossils presented to you? Now you have no problem with evolution? Just questioning minor parts of DNA models?

Quite frankly, I find it difficult to have a discussion with you, because you do not share your views openly - that I have seen at least.

What are your views? How did all this life happen? What view exactly... am I arguing against here? Or is this just a debate exercise with one person playing devil's advocate? (Heh what a choice of terms in this subject matter)

Mark, first things first:

You state:

"Wait, wait, wait... WHAT?

Are you the same person that posted this?: #7.4

Casting doubt on what creationists quaintly call "macro evolution" and doubting all transitional species and fossils presented to you? Now you have no problem with evolution? Just questioning minor parts of DNA models?"

??? In that post did I ever once suggest that these things don't happen???? Reread my post and you should see clearly that I stated I didn't believe Macro-evolution was present in this case. I still don;t believe that: the finch is still a finch. Stating that is didn't happen in this particular case is a Far cry from stating it doesn't happen.

Yes I am a skeptic. I will be the first to admit that, but most scientists are skeptics. Show a scientist conclusive facts that he/she can reproduce, observe, and validate and you have an Allie. Without that you have a skeptic. "Conclusive" data based on speculative modeling is a far cry from factual. You should know that.

Show me an organic chemistry recipe, say to make diphenyl disulfide (a compound used in medicines), that is not precise and fact based i.e. free from assumptions. They don't exist. You follow the recipe exactly and you get Diphenyl Disulfide. Evolution is certainly not precise. On the contrary, it is a hodgepodge of hypothesis, assumptions, and speculations that are in continual flux as new data comes in. It is hardly settled!

If you read the article I provided you should see that the researchers used standard molecular clock modeling which, when applied, gave invalid results. My argument was not to compare a virus to human DNA modeling but to suggest that the model may not be correct. This was not an apples to apples comparison but rather a concept exercise. The concept still remains valid for both virus and human DNA molecular Clock modeling i.e the models are based on assumptions that can't be validated nor are they provable as far as million year+ divergence modeling is concerned.

Now. Step back for a minute. Reread the article you provided, more particularly the Materials and Methods portions. What part of "assumptions based modeling" do you miss here? Everything in this paper is based on assumptions. Oh they used the MULTIDIVTIME software to get the most accurate results??? (Shrug) Hence my argument that assumptions drive conclusions and results.

I ask the question. How do you know that these assumptions are correct? Has a scientist actually gone back say 2 million years to test the relevance of these findings? No, of course not. But we have mtDNA that is 34,000 years old (so we think), and based on assumptions of divergence based on molecular clock modeling, we have predicted the divergence of said specimens. I hope you can see the fallacy of stating this data is "Fact". It is a model yes. But whether or not it is true has yet to be seen i.e. if we had a set or chain of fossil records, dated, that fit the pieces together to show divergence say of Apes and humans then we have something edging towards more accuracy. We keep finding snags in our current model i.e. anomalies and variations that are so far outlying they simply don't fit. But they exist. We can see them. Don't you think this warrants an update of the current models?

You point to the fact that DNA and mtDNA molecular clock modeling is different. I never said they were the same. Both, however, use similar assumptions based modeling to show divergence i.e. DNA and mtDNA mutation rates.

"What are your views?"

See above

"How did all this life happen?"

I believe the matter has yet to be settled. Evolution certainly doesn't not settle the matter as it stands currently.

"What view exactly... am I arguing against here?"

If I am not mistaken, you are arguing that the Origin of species matter i.e. Theory of Evolution is settled....we have 150 years of conclusive data after all.

I am arguing that the matter is far from settled, that Evolution does not answers the questions (far from it), and that your "Facts" are assumptions and speculation-based-conclusions to what we are observing and finding.

I find it curious that anyone who can (and this is the best-case scenario) slip up and say "the Theory of Evolution i.e. Abiogenesis" with a straight face (that is, claiming the two are equivalent) as in comment #7.4 is professing any great knowledge of biology, much less evolution.

Of further note is a creative extension of the phantom distinction between macroevolution and microevolution from the typical "anything less than speciation isn't macroevolution" to a vague "anything less than an unbroken line from something to something else that's so totally completely different for realz is not evidence for macroevolution."

Now Jack, what part of satire and low jab do you not understand in my response to justTim in #7.4? Obviously all of it! I was being faciecious, responding with my own barbed rebuttles to justTims banter towards me. Reread it and you should see I said he probably believes...suggesting he was ignorant. Read further posts and you will see a pattern of banter between us...not much else in the way of substance either. I quite responding to him for that reason.

Phantom distinction between macroevolution and microevolution? huh? Are you suggesting these are one and the same? Please enlighten me! Thanks

Substanceless banter...like my bringing up the ascending process of the astragalus...a spike of bone on one of the ankle bones that is found in Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs and no other animals. It is in fact one of the features used to identify dinosaurs, and clearly places birds in the Dinosauria.

Or the buttressed basisphenoid sinus...a hollow below the braincase that houses the pituitary gland and internal carotid artery. Heavily reinforced by the basicranial tuberosities (among other bony features) in theropod dinosaurs and....you guessed it...Archaeopteryx.

Or the anterior position of the external nares. Nostrils at the tip of the snout that indicate that the basal bird had no beak. (just like its dinosaur ancestors). Also coincidentaly indicating that birds eventually evolved beaks. They started off with none.

Or the fused cannon...the tarsus, a group of foot bones all grown together in theropod dinosaurs and hmmm....birds! Or reduced digits, birds and theropod dinosaurs happen to have the same number of fingers and toes, considerably fewer than average.

Or thecodont condition, those worrisome teeth that indicate birds evolved from toothy critters. They started off with dinosaur teeth and ended up with beaks. (what WAS that Oh-so-intelligent designer thinking? Did she make a mistake?)

The antorbital fenestra...a large hole between the nostrils and the eye, lightening the skull in dinosaurs and, well, birds. A necesary reduction of bone for flight, but found in archosaurs (such as dinosaurs) that don't fly also.

The furcula, the wishbone so useful to birds for anchoring flight muscles but also present in theropod dinosaurs that clearly didn't fly. (what do they need it for? How did something that has one use become useful for another purpose? This is the knife in the heart of ID)

The digitigrade stance, the tiptoe walk of birds and dinosaurs. An interesting thing in a biped, all mammalian bipeds are plantigrade (flat footed) if I remember correctly.

Pelage, the word for feathers among other things. Feathers exist in dinosaurs only. Including those odd dinosaurs that fly, birds.

Gastralia, a lower basket of ribs protecting the belly in theropod dinosaurs and, um, birds...

We didn't even get to the dinosaurian features of the upper leg and sacrum and vertebrae and hollow bones, Mike didn't comprehend the substance I offered.

Don't blame me for lack of substance Mike, accept your own failure to understand the substance of the arguments I offered. I brought specific morphological features to demonstrate that birds are dinosaurs, and since you didn't comprehend, you came back with this cheeze:

ever sense it's discovery in 1861, A. Lithoghraphica has puzzled biologists. The 5 theropod dinosaurs with similar "primitive" feathers, discovered in China in 1990 point to the same assumption of transitional. And yet there is no fossil record before or after any of these these to prove the connection. No my friend, A Lithographica is not "the Link" you claim. It is an anomaly at best and has remained such sense it's discovery in 1861.

Demonstrating your ignorance of the several finds of feathered dinosaurs since the 90's, including feathers and proto-feathers found associated with some existing theropod species simply because now we know to look for them. You failed to address any of the many traits that identify birds as dinosaurs aside from feathers, and don't account for even the relatively unspectacular fact that birds and theropod dinosaurs are the ONLY creatures to ever have feathers. You assert that feathered dinosaurs are not bird ancestors without understanding why we know they actually ARE! You ignore the feathered theropods before Archaeopteryx and the numerous primitive birds that came after.

I too am disapointed with the lack of substance in our discussion. It could have been avoided if you simply acknowledged your complete lack of education regarding the fossil record of vertebrate evolution, and withdrawn your weak criticisms of something you don't even begin to understand.

_____________

MarkD, thanks!

Phantom distinction between macroevolution and microevolution? huh? Are you suggesting these are one and the same? Please enlighten me! Thanks

Yeah, same thing, different time scale. You are welcome.

Wikipedia link because you love them so much: Criticisms_of_macroevolution

Sorry I have sort of dropped out of the debate, I've been busy.

Now Jack, what part of satire and low jab do you not understand in my response to justTim in #7.4?

Nice backpedaling, seeing as how JustTim never even remotely implied such. So apparently, your ex post facto defense for "I'm not a blithering idiot" is "I'm a strawman-happy douche." You must be proud of that distinction.

Phantom distinction between macroevolution and microevolution? huh? Are you suggesting these are one and the same? Please enlighten me! Thanks

Before we even attempt any intelligent discussion on that matter, care to explain why you personally moved the "micro vs macro" goalposts to "macro is only when there's a perfectly unbroken evidentiary beeline between Thing 1 and Thing 2, where Thing 2 is vaguely totally different from Thing 1."?

Great post. I learned something. Can you suggest a good book on bird/dinosaur linkage?

Jack, who is moving goal posts here? I am not asking for a completely unbroken fossil chain of your coveted "transitional species". How the heck do you come up with that from what I posted? I am asking for a more complete chain yes, but certainly not unbroken. I want to see the chain or fossils that validates the "hypothesis", yes I mean hypothesis, of transitional species. You can argue all you like about the "chain" of "transitional fossils" we have today and the "facts" that are right before our eyes. Simply put, your "facts" mean squat when they are only based on speculative assumptions and nothing more. When we have a more accurate record that shows, not speculates, actual transition from one organism to another (fish to a bird etc), then you can boast fact! But until then, it is pure unadulterated speculation. And Yes for your information a transition from fish to bird is defined as "macro-evolution". Or are you going to say that it is something completely different now? I recognize that there are some, you included, that will argue that Macro and micro evolution are one and the same. Even Wiki doesn't suggest this so where did you get it?

I am not asking for a completely unbroken fossil chain of your coveted "transitional species".

I don't particularly covet transitional species, as the term itself is a misnomer, implying that there are magical "pit stops" in evolution where "real" species reside, between which funkadelic "transitional" species zoom to and fro.

You can argue all you like about the "chain" of "transitional fossils" we have today and the "facts" that are right before our eyes. Simply put, your "facts" mean squat when they are only based on speculative assumptions and nothing more. When we have a more accurate record that shows, not speculates, actual transition from one organism to another (fish to a bird etc), then you can boast fact!

You're claiming that you sincerely want a well-evidenced record of a transition "from one organism to another"? Here ya go. (and if you really want to dig deeper, here ya go) If you have a legitimate reason (i.e. not stalling) for wanting more examples, I have a few more up my sleeve.

Or, is a four-legged-land-mammal-to-marine-whale transition not arbitrarily "different" enough for ya?

And Yes for your information a transition from fish to bird is defined as "macro-evolution". Or are you going to say that it is something completely different now?

"Fish to bird" is, at best, a linkage that is one example of so-called "macroevolution." It doesn't define "macroevolution," just as "monster truck" does not define "automobile."

Speciation is the typical dividing line between macro and micro, not some kind of arbitrarily vague "one kind to a completely different-looking kind" like "fish to bird."

I recognize that there are some, you included, that will argue that Macro and micro evolution are one and the same. Even Wiki doesn't suggest this so where did you get it?

You might want to actually read Wikipedia once in a while before simply assuming you preternaturally know what it says.

From Wikipedia:

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population. In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the difference is simply the time involved.

(Emphasis mine)

Is there anything else you'd like to share with the class?

Applause Jake. Nicesource. Ummm how can I put this....very convincing??? And your biased link is supposed to prove what? hmmmm...wow....you really have evidence here. Get real.

You think I didn't read the link Mark provided? Interesting. You seem to have projected your own flaw on me because you clearly missed this, and I quote: "The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species."

Boy that sounds like the same thing to me....in fact, after reading this definition, I'd have to say say that macro and micro evolution is one and the same.....only different! Is that about right?

you said: "Speciation is the typical dividing line between macro and micro, not some kind of arbitrarily vague "one kind to a completely different-looking kind" like "fish to bird.""

Yes true but A fish-to-bird, or the like, argument is what you are ultimately trying to prove with your "macro-evolution" terminology. It is not used independent of the end result i.e. you cannot use the term macro-evolution without implying that the fish will become the bird or whatever other macro transition you are eluding too. Plain and simple, it is a myth term that has not been demonstrated. Speculated yes, but you of all people should know that speculation is a far cry from Fact.

Oh...don't bother giving me more of your biased "evolutionist" links you may have up your sleeve. I try to stay away from "creationist" links for the same reason. I prefer actual experimental data that is not intended to prove or disprove either side. Mark can tell you all about it. "He enjoyed the references I provided". By doing this, I can draw my own conclusions without a bias overload. Mark gave me an actual article...finally....after much prodding. That is what I am looking for. Not Wiki references or Evolutionist, or atheist, or creationist for that matter, biased summaries. Thanks

Ummm how can I put this....very convincing??? And your biased link is supposed to prove what? hmmmm...wow....you really have evidence here. Get real.

So, no substantive rebuttal. Duly noted.

Boy that sounds like the same thing to me....in fact, after reading this definition, I'd have to say say that macro and micro evolution is one and the same.....only different! Is that about right?

Kinda like how sedans and school buses are both automobiles, though quite different in size. Wow, that must be a logical contradiction! They're different, yet the same in most respects? OMG no way!

Seriously, do you really insist on keeping this debate at a second-grade level of logical cogency?

Yes true but A fish-to-bird, or the like, argument is what you are ultimately trying to prove with your "macro-evolution" terminology

I'm not trying to prove, absolutely, that fish eventually evolved into birds. Nice try.

Further, as I indicated above, macroevolution is quite the opposite of "my terminology" -- you're the one insisting on there being a super-duper-special difference between micro and macro. I advise that, in the future, if you'd like to employ projection, that you do so less transparently.

It is not used independent of the end result i.e. you cannot use the term macro-evolution without implying that the fish will become the bird or whatever other macro transition you are eluding too. Plain and simple, it is a myth term that has not been demonstrated. Speculated yes, but you of all people should know that speculation is a far cry from Fact.

Yep, it's speculation in the same way that the Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics, or the idea that the Sun existed before written records is speculation. You know, the one with citations for scientific papers.

Have fun sneering at every generalized scientific theory in existence. I'm sure that's been a great help to you in your supposed career in biology. It's not like virology, paleontology, or molecular biology use those silly things called "theories", right?

That is what I am looking for. Not Wiki references

Right. You don't look for them. You simply make them.

or Evolutionist, or atheist, or creationist for that matter, biased summaries. Thanks

In all your pompous whinging about sources, you apparently missed my "dig deeper" link.

Mike,

There really is no such thing as a "transitional species" as all species are actively transitioning via evolution. However there have been many fossil discoveries of species which quite obviously share features from different taxonomic groups.

For example:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

and:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

and:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/432.shtml

The kicker is that Tiktaalik's forelimb morphology was quite accurately predicted, before it was discovered, using evolutionary theory. I attended a talk given by the head of the team that discovered Tiktaalik, and he recalled being pleasantly surprised at just how accurate the evolutionary prediction turned out to be.

I bet that was a very interesting experience, Jack. I hope that Mike will take the time to look at my links, as they are two .edu links and the other is a bbc link. They can hardly be quantified as "biased evolutionist" sites. I find it's very helpful to have a working understanding of the discoveries made when trying to discuss evolution, so I hope he'll check these out.

I bet that was a very interesting experience, Jack.

It was, indeed. The guy was the spitting image of the stereotypical intrepid naturalist (sans safari jacket): grizzled, sun-wrinkled, with a slow drawl that lent itself naturally to narrative.

He'd be drawling about the crappy icy conditions they had to dig in, then seamlessly launch into a detailed description of Tiktaalik dentition and its likely tide-pool environment, then back to dig anecdotes. It was quite entertaining.

so I hope he'll check these out.

Hope springs eternal. :-P

:~D LMAO!

Born Again Agnostic, thank you. My apologies for taking some time to respond. I am not aware of any book specifically on the subject, and I had to check around and see if I could find one.

Presumably there isn't a book yet because the topic is debated, new discoveries are ongoing, and most of what we know would fill less than 75 pages, including pictures and references. There is sporadic new study on the subject, but we don't have tons of information, and the information we have seems pretty conclusive...

However, for a general treatment of the topic I like these books:

http://www.amazon.com/Dinosauria-David-B-Weishampel/dp/0520242092#reader_0520242092

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Dinosaur-James-O-Farlow/dp/0253333490

Both are written by a large number of paleontologists and have been used as college texts. Neither is particularly current but they are still relevant.

For the alternative theory of bird origins and a complete look at bird evolution this book is definitive:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300064608/ref=cm_rdp_product

It is written by Alan Feduccia, the premier paleornithologist in the world...there are only a couple paleornithologists around though. He argues that birds evolved from an older animal than dinosaurs, his strongest argument being the difference in which three fingers are preserved in birds versus dinosaurs. Almost all dinosaur paleontologists will disagree with this theory, pointing to the difference in fingers as evidence that we don't understand the evolution of dinosaur hands, not that birds evolved from another critter.

Anyways, you can get a pretty complete overview of the subject, along with many references to read if they interest you at the following web pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Archaeopteryx

Both pages appear to be accurate, and not particularly technical. The references at the bottom provide a wealth of further reading, though many of the older publications will be extremely difficult to locate. Some can be found in museum and university libraries if you can get access...

Good hunting!

A bit more searching of Amazon proves me wrong :) I haven't read any of these books so I can't actually recomend one of the bunch. I am however familiar with the scientific publications of each author and can say that each is a solid paleontologist.

http://www.amazon.com/Feathered-Dinosaurs-Origin-John-Long/dp/0195372662/ref=pd_sim_b_1

http://www.amazon.com/Jehol-Fossils-Emergence-Feathered-Dinosaurs/dp/0123741734/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/Feathered-Dragons-Studies-Transition-Dinosaurs/dp/0253343739/ref=pd_sim_b_3

http://www.amazon.com/Glorified-Dinosaurs-Origin-Early-Evolution/dp/0471247235/ref=pd_sim_b_4

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801867630?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0801867630#noop

"Have fun sneering at every generalized scientific theory in existence. I'm sure that's been a great help to you in your supposed career in biology. It's not like virology, paleontology, or molecular biology use those silly things called "theories", right?"

Jack, hmmmmm....wow....now that is a general statement if I have ever heard one. Sounds similar to the argument statement,"The Theory of Evolution is Fact i.e. the facts are right before your eyes. We have 150 years of data that "Proves" it is fact" Sound familier? Oh here is another one: "Another Nail In The Intelligent Design Coffin: Speciation (i.e. Macroevolution) Observed In The Wild". Macroevolution taking place right before our eyes...it is a fact???? Get real!

These kinds of statements are want I sneer at. And yes, I think any scientist that can state pure speculation as fact is ignorant of science.

Alright, you've decided to jump up to middle-school logical cogency. Bravo.

Macroevolution taking place right before our eyes...it is a fact???? Get real!

Speciation (something that essentially defines the category of "macroevolution") has been observed. The generalized theory of evolution is still very much a theory, though.

Similarly, when you drop a ball, you've observed a specific instance of gravitational attraction -- that doesn't mean the generalized theory of gravitation is a fact. One cannot use "gravitation" without implying that it controls the motions of galaxies and galactic superclusters. That's just pure speculation, though, (since, like long-term evolution, evidence for such is based solely upon passive observation) so obviously we can never talk about "gravity" as having any sort of solid basis.

Feel free to play dumb and call gravity "pure speculation", though. While idiotic, it'd at least be self-consistent idiocy.

These kinds of statements are want I sneer at

I made none of those statements. Perhaps you'd like to take better aim with your sneering, instead of spraying everyone present with it like a rabid rhetorical Rambo.

And yes, I think any scientist that can state pure speculation as fact is ignorant of science.

And any scientist who can't tell the difference between "a confirmed observation supporting a theory has been made" and "the entire theory is absolutely true" is a blithering idiot.

Thankfully, none of the people you've quoted above have told us they're scientists. You, however, have not been remiss in tooting your own vague credentials horn.

Of course, if your real problem with "Speciation (i.e. Macroevolution) Observed In The Wild" is really the fact that no one has directly observed your personal choice of macroevelutionary exemplar ("fish to birds"), then I can similarly declare that gravitational theory is "pure speculation", because my gravitational exemplar is the long-term motion of a galactic cluster. After all, everyone knows that gravity only works on a very small scale, like our inner Solar System. Once you go beyond the asteroid belt, you can't say gravity works anymore, because that'd be pure speculation.

Any scientist that can state one of the most evidentiarily well-supported theories in human history as pure speculation is ignorant of science. :-)

Jack, Thanks you for stating that the "Theory of evolution" is theory...not fact. We agree 100% here. In fact that is my argument. Now lets see if your friends argue with you about that statement? They certainly have taken issue over my claim to the same!

"Any scientist that can state one of the most evidentiarily well-supported theories in human history as pure speculation is ignorant of science. :-)"

Ah...maybe you didn't really mean your earlier statement. You are contradicting yourself here. In one sentence you state that the Theory of evolution is theory....then you state that it is the most well-supported theory in human history and is therefore not speculation?

What part of the definition of assumption and speculation do you not get? A well-supported assumption or theory, for that matter, is still not fact. Fact is provable, reproducible, calculated, precise, observable, etc etc etc...it is constant and does not change. The calculation of Gravity i.e. Law of Gravity, is as close to fact that you can get and yet it is still not understood. We have theories up the wazoo to try to explain gravity and yet these theories are still based on assumptions and speculation.

It's funny to me that the statement: "The theory of evolution is not fact and is based on speculation and assumptions" can cause such a ripple and ruffle so many feathers.

How dare I say something such an "ignorant" thing? Psych: I just did, and it is far from ignorant!

It's funny to me that the statement: "The theory of evolution is not fact and is based on speculation and assumptions" can cause such a ripple and ruffle so many feathers

Enjoying ruffling feathers? That's because you are a science troll. You doubt everything, question everything ad nauseum and add nothing.

Things are based on assumptions and speculation? Yes, no kidding. You assume you exist and are posting on an internet forum also. Somehow you still carry on with daily life.

I can very well argue that you assume your senses are valid and from this you speculate you are experiencing things. What's the point?

If you accuse me of calling names or personal attacks, here is one more wiki entry.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response^[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Glad you are having fun. You already don't question that "macroevolution" happens. So called "microevolution" happens. Same thing, different scale. Evolution is a fact. anyone that deals with disease knows that. Evolution theory is basically the same one we have had for 150 years with details added in on a continuing basis the entire 150 years.

What's the point? Oh yeah to aruge and enjoying working people up. Forgot.

Mark,

I add nothing? Hmmmm...I see over 40 posts that state very precisly my arguments with validation and I even threw in a few journal articles to boot. I think what you are actually trying to say is, I don't agree with you so therefore I am adding nothing here. More accurate?

Is it now unconventional to question theories as they stand? I do question everything, that is in my nature to do so however I certainly don't doubt all. You keep pointing to the "Fact" yes fact, that the theory of Evolution has been around for over 150 years. Applause. You forget the Fact that spontaneous generation was the leading model for life for over 200 years. Your point about the 150 years? Woopee!

So you say I am a science Troll!

If I was this "Troll" you claim, then why did I not enter this forum and start hitting and attacking peoples responses just to "inflame? In fact, why have I only defended myself? I have not made any comments to any other threads...other than my own. So now by your interpretation, a Troll is a troll because he defends himself? Lets look at this a bit further. Take my original post for example. My initial comment was not inflammatory nor was it without substance. I merely posted my view as a response to the original seeders post killfile provided.

Now lets look at what happened after I posted. Let me see, if I am not mistaken, You, justTim, and others attacked me right off the bat. I naturally returned fire and attempted to defend my views. This is a discussion of viewpoints is it not? And those views do not have to agree. Correct? I admit, I was inflamed by some of your and, more particularly, justTim's substance-less and highly inflammatory remarks and comments and thus returned the favor. Who are the trolls?

Actually it's not... But it's on the right track... to prove evolution it can not be fully understood in a relative short time frame.. And evolution does not mean an entire species or even a segment of a species evolves vs singular mutation that is born and then breeds to slightly alter it's species.. And even then sometimes the mutation fails to breed or the mutation fails to be a dominant trait in the process... And evolution may not occur in every given species that becomes successful or well adapted to their environment..

It is aslos possible that not every species that does evolve could succeed or even last long enough to leave a trace to its existence...

Sharks have been around since the dinosaurs but tracing a sharks species lineage is impossible due to the fact that the only evidence that generally remains is the teeth.. And the many different kinds of shark teeth found actually show signs to evolution...

The only way to study evolution is to study it in real time as it happens... Freeze a human from every country every 100 years for the next 1 million years and you will have your answer...

The idea of animals just appearing on Earth like magic is just silly... or that intelligence could pre-exist information to create with is equally silly... Backwards creation is simply not possible..

I suggest you read what has already been written above..

It may not be an exact answer but it's surely a lot closer than intelligent design... Intelligence can not pre-exist information it's self.. So the argument is invalid..

"What you cannot show is the probability that random molecules would somehow come together to form a DNA molecule, for example."

Actually you can...If information is a form of energy and is infinite and the substance of existence without nothing, you can conclude that information can in fact come together and form a DNA structure all on it's own.. This states that information is the substance to anything and everything without nothing...

Read the above post... Everything including non-living, living matter, or energy must contain information...

Life can be described as the active processing of information by another structured set of information vs non-active processing to where cause and effect is the number 1 rule in formation.(computer software can best represent the very basics of this..AI).. In reality there is no such thing as something that isn't moving... The atoms in a rock are not still or not in constant motion... Activity is a constant.. The earth, moon and stars are always on the move.. Information is always flowing, combining, breaking down, and merging with other bits of information..

It states that something that can explain existence must be a set of all sets... It must be of it's self and everything else and contain it's self... Only The substance of Existence can represent anything and everything including it's self.

This is where 0=1 (existence represents the number 0 or the base to existence) and where -1 =non-existence or impossible... 0 must be of something in order to be a thing it's self.. It must be a place of existence... And since non-existence is impossible you can not subtract into a negative number or become a place of non-existence without being a place of existence which brings you back to the number Zero..

0=1 and 1 (existence)1+(the substance of existence)1 =2 to infinity... keep adding and eventually the substance will gain an increasing structure with a complexity that may result in mass, matter, and active matter where the structure can begin to process other pieces of information...

The problem with quantifying Existence is that it's impossible to make an accurate model... Since you are dealing with infinity it's self it can't actually have a working equation that is limited to a specific mathematical structure...

Random is key here in formation... Random can not be mathematically calculated since there is no such thing as a random number or random number to make an accurate model... It can't explain the concept to where nothing can go into a place of non-existence vs break down, merge, collect, combine, or formulate without actually going into non-existence...

At best things can only break down back to the number 0 or the base of existence...

In simple terms.. If you want to find the answer you need to identify patient zero.. Existence is patient Zero.. Existence being information makes it a 1 as well... ;)

GOD, intelligence, self awareness can not be patient zero... They rely on something else other than them selves in order to exist... So at best they represent 3 or or the product of existence form the substance of existence..

What you cannot show is the probability that random molecules would somehow come together to form a DNA molecule, for example.

Uh I can show that. Here: RNA synthesized from basic chemicals in lab

Basic chemicals forming organic molecules and then self-assembling is called organic chemistry.

Since this experiment has been recreated I'll go for 100% probability that the basics of organic chemistry work every time.

Now we just need evidence of god creating something, anything, out of thin air. We don't even need to ask him to recreate life, that's a bit much to ask.

I know, have a holy man lock himself in a room and pray for food. I'm sure if he is pious enough it wouldn't be a big deal for god to provide. Just videotape it. Good luck! If that's an unacceptable request of god, I'm sure you can think of something else surely.

True MarkD, we can make RNA from basic chemicals in the lab i.e and I quote "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA". Applause! But you seem to forget that it didn't happen on it's own did it! Random happenstance creation of RNA has never been observed and or reproduced. It therefore is an assumption that is unprovable.

In fact creating the optimal environment for RNA to form, is nothing short of intelligent design i.e. intelligence created the environment not nature and we have RNA or the simplest block of life. oops, I said it, the ID word, the unconventional idea in the scientific world. Oh and now "God" creates something from nothing, out of thin air??? Now that's a new one! Laughing!

Now before you go off on your circular tangents I have seen in other posts, take a minute to think about what you just pointed to in your RNA argument.

1: Are there mechanism and laws followed in Organic chemistry or is it simply random happenstance i.e. we stumble upon organic compounds in nature all the time that can only be explained by natural evolution?

2: Is there any scrap of intelligent interaction in organic chemistry i.e. humans and chemicals and environments etc?

3: When was the last time someone stumbled upon an RNA molecule just lying around in nature (not in a lab), freshly combined randomly, waiting to be assimilated into life?

Please stick with my three questions. Thanks

I said it, the ID word, the unconventional idea in the scientific world.

The reason it's unconventional is because it's not scientific. It's basic tenets such as irreducible complexity have been debunked time and again. The courts have, more than once, said that ID contains an inescapable religiosity. And it does not meet the basic requirements of the tenets of science.

If one advocates ID and is not religious you are still part of a larger movement that has packaged that ole time religion in weak and faulty science.

Mike357,

The problem with you analogy is that you are working with pre-existing sets of information or at the very least basic sets that already have must of the information in a structure... Intelligent design is possible with only pre-existing sets or substances because the requires these them selves in order to be intelligent beings capable of manipulating what already exists..

Intelligence is in fact the evidence of evolution it's self.. It can't be formed without the collecting of information that is already in existence..

Basically intelligent design does not rule the cosmos or the blocks of life... Backwards creation is not possible ...

Ben, you say ID is unconventional because it is not science? First off, what ID definition are you referring to and second how do explain its base or fundamental application on a daily basis? Forget about the irreducible complexity equation that you say is debunked. The matter of how the eyeball evolved or the brain with its complex nerve net, hair, hair color, etc etc etc is far from being settled. In fact we can't replicate it to date in any way shape or form, let alone fully understand it all. Furthermore, keep in mind that DNA does not think; it simply does i.e. follows the recipe per Se! Now I am not suggesting the ID has the answers but I certainly don't rule out the base idea of ID because we do apply it, it fits every definition of "Science", and there are far too many holes in all theories present today to call the matter of the evolution of species resolved.

"3: When was the last time someone stumbled upon an RNA molecule just lying around in nature (not in a lab), freshly combined randomly, waiting to be assimilated into life?"

RNA is in every living thing.. It's proven to exist.. You don't need to stumble anywhere.. it's right there... The problem is that RNA is suspected of doing what the DNA's job was at the beginning when life first began .. They are in the process of cultivating a sustained population of RNA.. And once they do that it will then fit into the narrow definition of life...

However, for a planet already evolved it's impossible to send it back in time to recreate life as it began.. You are working with already structured sets that do not represent what they were when life began... Complexity had already asserted it's self on the planet...

So you are not going to walk around and find some prehistoric RNA floating in some pool of water...

All they need to do to prove life can ignite from non-living or inactive matter is to make it work... You can't quantify the odds of a natural occurrence in the vastness of existence... Because mathematically the odds are pretty damn good for it to happen..

And Mike,, Religions have nothing to do with anything... They are ideological constructs that profess to know a GOD's supposed will.. It has nothing to do with anything scientifically or even the belief in a god it's self... It's a social control mechanism and is only used as such...

Just read Genesis and you will realize that you can't destroy every living substance on earth with water or flooding it with water... Nor can those who survived on the ark survive without an ecosystem after the deed had been done... Nor does it quantify that it would even need to use a flood to get the deed done... It's folly... It's a book that thinks a magical being exists and magic is the process to existence along with reverse creation..

"fundamental application on a daily basis.. "

If you are referring to the Ego or super-ego, it would be a structured set of information to process information... Thoughts, choices, intent, or regard are all processed.. The require other information to be what they are... A choice can not be made from two choices if the two choices can not be processed... Same with intent.. you must first need to know what you intend to do based on pre-existing choices or information...

ID does not explain anything..It's a victim of it's own needs... Complexity can build apon cause and effect alone... And an ID can only be the result of it..

True MarkD, we can make RNA from basic chemicals in the lab i.e and I quote "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA". Applause! But you seem to forget that it didn't happen on it's own did it!

Yeah having a few commonly occuring elements being heated by the sun, drying out and water being added to the mix is less likely than the invisible sky man doing it. I see.

But if you read the article you would see how it was done using simple processes that would occur naturally... even more simple than have been tried before.

I don't blame you though, you do have your religion to defend.

ID because we do apply it, it fits every definition of "Science"

No. It is not, and does not.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

They clearly ruled that ID is not science. If you have a problem with that, take it to the supreme court. Good luck.

(from the above link:)

Decision

On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

• For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

• A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

• Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. (footnote 7 on page 46)

• After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)

• [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

• ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

• Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

So now judicial arguments dictate what is and what is not science??? Sounds like we have reverted back to Copernicus and Galileo times!

but I certainly don't rule out the base idea of ID because we do apply it, it fits every definition of "Science

Mike: Sorry to butt in but I have to know. How do you apply ID? How do you test ID? Please explain that to me because I have yet to hear a solid experiment to test ID.

There is no scientifically accurate way to test "God/Allah/Thor/some intelligent designer did it".

ID isn't a scientific theory: there are no scientific facts that would provide evidence for or against it

ID isn't even a viable hypothesis because you can't test it and if you can't test it, it's not science!

And thus, has no business in a science classroom. This is hardly comparable to Copernicus and Galileo times to want to ensure children learn real science, not faith-based ideas.

Evolution is testable and has been tested countless times providing further evidence supporting this theory. It's science

So now judicial arguments dictate what is and what is not science???

Well, between that judge and people with a religious agenda, I'll go with the judge.

And nice one bringing up Galileo, his science was interfered with by the church too.

Sounds like we have reverted back to Copernicus and Galileo times!

Yeah. Sometimes, I think we have reverted back that far, where the church dictates what is and is not acceptable lines of research.

---

experiment to test ID.

There is no scientifically accurate way to test "God/Allah/Thor/some intelligent designer did it".

Don't forget aliens, pasta monsters or invisible pink unicorns. All are valid designers under ID, because as the IDers like to claim, "ID is not about religion". Except when they scream "Atheist!!" at scientists.

MarkD, It just so happens that the church was the law in Galileo and Copernicus's time....Judicial is judicial no matter who is in charge of it. Am I wrong? It is the same thing today as it was in old times. Judicial has no place in science save the fringe of moral issue contests and possible civil or criminal cases. But that is judicial responsibility and code not science.

lepidoptera, nice user name. I like it.

Fair enough! What I am pointing to in everyday ID application is simple. We create things every day. To name a few, we have new plant species that were made in labs, viruses and biological weapons i.e. man made, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for that matter, bread, beer, wine grapes bred for unique taste, etc etc etc. The premise I use is also simple logic: humans are intelligent and created life or non-life from building blocks, using laws and applications of know perimeters. What was created was therefore intelligently designed. In other words it didn't happen on its own naturally without human intervention. You don't need "God', aliens, pasta monsters, pink unicorns etc etc, to do it. You simply need humans.

True, ID can't test the beginning of life but neither can the Theory of Evolution. What we can do is apply the principals from a now perspective in the same manner as our current application of the Theory of Evolution. We do this to try to understand the beginning better and make speculations and theory to the same. God has nothing to do with it in this sense! And I do argue that ID is science. If ID, and I am talking about the base definition here, is not science then how do you categorize all the things we do? It does not fall under the theory of Evolution!

Mike357,

We don't actually create.. we formulate using information.. And we can't create which already exists... We can only manipulated the substance into something of representation of our processed ideas which can be described as random or semi-random pieces of information combining to form an idea or image of imagination...

To build a car can be creative but not in the same sense as creative in terms of existence... You can give that car any name you want and claim you created it but in fact you only manipulated it's substance through the processing of information..

Evolution would be the natural processing of information to where it either works at random or reacts to stimuli or to cause and effect... Evolution is more likely due to the fact that intelligence it's self would be an example of evolution it's self... And intelligence may need matter as a container... Otherwise it would disperse, break down, or merge with other pieces of information that may or may not have any relevance other than the representation of base existence or Zero...

Fair enough! What I am pointing to in everyday ID application is simple. We create things every day. To name a few, we have new plant species that were made in labs, viruses and biological weapons i.e. man made, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for that matter, bread, beer, wine grapes bred for unique taste, etc etc etc. The premise I use is also simple logic: humans are intelligent and created life or non-life from building blocks, using laws and applications of know perimeters.

Thanks for responding but I’m not sure I understand you. We as humans are the intelligent designers? Humans are responsible for the diversity of life forms seen on earth today? Humans are responsible for the characteristics and differences seen in (all) organisms? Or are you referring only to artificial selection and lab experiments? Artificial selection and lab experiments, while human-directed, act on genetic variation present in an organism. Artificial selection and lab experiments are mimicking evolution and its mechanics but either driving them to suit our needs (e.g. artificial selection) or conducted in a controlled environment to study evolution (e.g. lab experiments). While it goes without saying, inventions like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are irrelevant when discussing evolution: we created it but it’s not a living organism. The Jackal, I really like your answer to this statement BTW!

What was created was therefore intelligently designed. In other words it didn't happen on its own naturally without human intervention. You don't need "God', aliens, pasta monsters, pink unicorns etc etc, to do it. You simply need humans.

While humans can obviously be strong selection agents in some organisms, what about naturally (and documented) speciation events that humans did not ‘design’? I read that you study botany. How about speciation by polyploidy, hybridization (via homoploid or polyploid) or allopolyploidy? How about the example of speciation of Stephanomeria malheurensis (Malheur wirelettuce) and S. exigua (small wirelettuce) found in a naturally occurring patch (as documented by Gottlieb 1973)? There are many, many examples of documented naturally occurring speciation events from parasites on mosquitoes to allopatric speciation of oceanic species due to anoxic/hypoxic events, to the famed finches of Galopagos. How do you explain them?

True, ID can't test the beginning of life but neither can the Theory of Evolution.

That’s the study of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life as well as the differences/similarities between and characteristics of organisms.

However, you are implying that ID can test something other than the beginning of life and I still don’t see how you can say that.

What we can do is apply the principals from a now perspective in the same manner as our current application of the Theory of Evolution. We do this to try to understand the beginning better and make speculations and theory to the same. God has nothing to do with it in this sense! And I do argue that ID is science. If ID, and I am talking about the base definition here, is not science then how do you categorize all the things we do? It does not fall under the theory of Evolution!

All the things we do? Do you mean behaviorally? Physically? Psychologically? How we are able to conduct experiments and create things? That can be explained, at least a large part, by evolutionary biology. Chimpanzees create/use tools, have complex social systems and display emotions as well as other animals (e.g. corvids, dolphins, elephants to name a few) who aren’t as genetically close to us.

And again, how is ID a science? You told me how you think ID is applied (which I still don’t understand your reasoning: humans are the intelligent designers?) but you didn’t tell me how it can be tested. Science has to be testable or it’s not science. You state in a previous post that you have a science background so this should be easy: can you tell me how you would set up an experimental design testing your ID "hypothesis"?

lepidoptera, You asked how the "theory of ID" can be applied today. I gave you a simple premises to follow. Let me try this another way.

What is the theory or Evolution simply put? it is a framework that attempts to tie together all biology i.e. explaining the differences and similarities between organisms past and present. One way we apply principals attributed to this theory would be fish hatchery management for higher yields or maybe saving a species that is on the brink of extinction. You with me so far?

What theory of ID am I speaking too? It is the premise of intelligent intervention i.e. that intelligent life forms can drive or manipulate change that would not happen naturally. It follows set perimeters and established laws, and must have material to work from. Please note that the ID premise I am following has nothing to do with the beginning of life nor does it include God, Aliens, pink unicorns, etc etc etc. So for the sake of understanding my point of view please refrain from that alternative view. Still with me?

Now to explain where I was going in my earlier post of how the theory of ID is applied today. Keep in mind that just as the application of the theory of evolution has to do with today's here and now, so am I referring to the application of ID.

1. Humans are intelligent correct?
2. Humans make things i.e. eColi that produces human insulin, snake venom, etc etc etc.
3. This occurrence is unnatural
4. Thus the eColi with these traits was intelligently designed

Got the picture?

Please note that I believe we apply both Evolution and ID; they are in fact two opposing theories. Both are necessary and both are relevant science. Let's put it this way. We can call it directed evolution if you like but it is still intelligent intervention no matter how you look at it. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life, however it does allow for speculation just as does Evolution. I hope this clarifies my point and allows for further discussion. Cheers!

Again this is a failure because neither of you are looking into the evolution of intelligence.. Your are talking about one biological intelligently manipulating another.. This has nothing to do with the topic.... All it proves is that an intelligence can manipulate things that are already in existence in a limited way...

This does not even remotely prove intelligent design... Or to literally create something like existence it's self or information or even space that provides you a place to exist... Intelligent design assumes intelligence created everything... And that is a contradiction... It can't create what it's self needs to exist or function...

This argument the two of you are having is baseless.. intelligent design can not prove it's self over evolution or any other mechanism that can cause new species to arise... Intelligent design theory is assumption without example.. The evidence it tries to state as it's own is the same evidence that supports evolution.. But fails to explain it's own evolution of the need of something other than it's self...

Intelligence is learned... Self awareness is learned, knowledge is obtained to where intelligence ans self awareness is reliant on..

The very fact that intelligence must first be formed is all the evidence you need to prove intelligent design as being wrong... This doesn't me evolution is correct either.. We may not have a full enough understanding to pick apart the exact processes or mechanisms that lead to new species...

To put this in perspective.. if each fossil is only a partial image or snap shot into the past.. the image it's self is scrambled or barely readable... It would be like trying to understand a movie that is 600 million years long with just a few screen shot that don't even give you the faces of the characters in the movie ...It's simply impossible...

You can not prove intelligent design or evolution outside of real time observation. of a species that may or may not split or branch into another species... in reality kids... you are going to have to wait a few 100 thousand years... And the only species you can reliably record is the human species.. So we will just have to wait and see ;)

Jackel, What ID definition are you referring to here? Reread my post and you should quickly see that mine is completely different from your presumptions. And yes, mine is valid. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life, God, Aliens, pink unicorns, the Pasta monster, etc etc etc.

Lets put is this way, I have discovered numerous recent papers that now refer to this very real science of intelligent manipulation as "Directed Evolution" Why? because it does not fall under the theory of natural Evolution and ID has such a bad rap. I happen to like the term ID or Intelligent causation better becaue it is much more descriptive. As such I use the term ID. Semantics does not change the definition. In fact I am trying to change the presumption of ID altogether. Wait for my book. You may enjoy it. These posts have given me tons of a material to draw from.

"To put this in perspective.. if each fossil is only a partial image or snap shot into the past.. the image it's self is scrambled or barely readable... It would be like trying to understand a movie that is 600 million years long with just a few screen shot that don't even give you the faces of the characters in the movie ...It's simply impossible..."

"You can not prove intelligent design or evolution outside of real time observation. of a species that may or may not split or branch into another species... in reality kids... you are going to have to wait a few 100 thousand years... And the only species you can reliably record is the human species.. So we will just have to wait and see ;)"

I couldn't agree more with you on these grounds. Thanks

my bad:)

Btw I will be interested in reading your book :)... I am also writing my own book based on the philosophy above that deals with existence and how it pertains to our Universe.. I am even looking at a new theory on the fundamentals of Gravity to where Gravity actually has two opposite polarities... This is where pull can pull together and form mass and matter and push will break down mass and matter... This states that pull can become dense enough to form mass and attract it's self.. And a Big Bang would be the result of Pull becoming so massively dense and Push becoming to powerful of a force for Pull to sustain it's self as one dense object.... And the result being mass,matter and energy that we see as our Universe and the decay or break down of our Universe is the result of the opposite polarity..

Eventually our universe will decay back into the void which represents the base structure of existence to where gravity plays a big role in existence and what it is..

This defies the assumption that gravity as a force is only a pull..

Your idea on gravity is intriguing although I am not sure I understand where you are going with it. A bite to chew on I guess. I am sure your book will fully explain the concept. I will watch for it. Thanks!

Think of a bubble of water that has some air in it and it pops and then evaporates back into the atmosphere..

1)Some is a thin vapor (unseen pull Gravity of normal density)

2)some is a thick steam (A pull density great enough to hold a bubble shape while expanding from the pop),

3) and some is even more dense like fog (gasses or nebula) that pull together to form globuals dense enough and large enough to form of drops of water (Stars and planets or dense solid matter like a rock)

The steam aspect of this popped bubble retains it's bubble shape in zero G and is more dense than Pull vapor or the opposite polarity of PUSH *the opposite Polarity of gravity* But not dense enough to keep Push out or from seeping into or through the bubble to where it pushes the globuals apart...

This theory also suggests that all dense matter and the Bubble made from pull also contain trapped push... So matter too slowly breaks down back into vapor.. Eventually returning into a balanced dance between Push And Pull gravity that represents the Void...

This would suggest that it is rare that Pull gravity will collect to a density great enough to generate mass at a single point large enough to explode under the inner pressure of trapped push gravity trying to escape like a volcano erupting in an explosive manner.. This is where the pressure from within is much greater than the pressure from out side and to where pull gravity can no longer contain or remain intact and explodes sending varies densities of mass matter and energy out into the void...

Dark matter in my view could be Gravities opposite polarity... The bend that can be observed know as space time or the fabric of space...

It is the premise of intelligent intervention i.e. that intelligent life forms can drive or manipulate change that would not happen naturally.

Sorry, but Intelligent Design has the premise that intelligent intervention does drive/manipulate change that cannot happen naturally, to the point where our observed state of natural (i.e. not humanly directed) biodiversity required intelligent intervention.

Nice try at softpedaling ID's absolutism.

ID doesn't simply state "look, we selectively bred wolves into chihuahuas. Voila, ID!"

well, I would say that yes it's philosophical but scientific at the same time.. If you want to fully understand the biological you have to take in account of what exactly something is made of or how exactly it forms.. if the substance pre-exists intelligence then it can not be intelligent design.. it becomes intelligent manipulation.. And evolution would be example of a natural process that would be the same process that intelligence was born from... You have to define the differences between intelligent design and evolution.. The answer is obvious.. Intelligence can not pre-exist evolution.. ;) Biologically or supernaturally...

Building a house is intelligent design but when it comes to building a house you still need a hammer, some nails, and some wood, and the very intelligence to do the job..

You are correct that how the eyeball and brain evolved is not settled

Actually the evolution of the eye is pretty well understood. The steps of development of the eye can be seen by looking at the eyes of simple organisms, the development can also be seen in the fetal development of humans.

The eye started off as a simple light sensative patch, this "eye" was useful for telling the creature whether it was in a light or dark environment.

Next a cone of flesh developed around this patch, making a primative pin hole lens. This actually allowed the organism to tell the direction from which light was coming.

The next step was for this flesh to become translucent and close around the light sensative patch, filling the membrane with fluid. This allowed the eye to focus light, making it able to see in the way we do today.

All developments following this were just basic improvements of the fluid filled membrane, leading up to the eyes we enjoy today.

And again for ID's they need to prove you can be self aware, intelligent, knowledgeable, create, respond, or even make a choice without the need of information or the use of...

Ask any ID believer how something can pre-exist the substance from which it's comprised of or in need of in order to exist it's self...

I would like to see an example and proof of the example and how it works... It's either prove reverse creation or seriously sit down and shut up with the bible thumping.

Ben, you can't settle anything in existence when it comes to how it works and functions.. It's not quantifiable... But the beauty of science is that it does question it's self.. It's always closer to a truth or to establishing a fact... Nuclear power is possible because science has confirmed it and harnessed it... Not everything in science is un-confirmed or not settled.. Only things that remain unsettled are those things that are still not fully understood...

And I will put this in perspective for you.... How much information can you possibly gather on just our planet alone.. Right down to the exact position of every grain of sand to the journey of every single water molecule.. It's literally unquantifiable or every fully obtainable by science or man... You could study a single small 4 inch crack in the ground for years and still not record every possible piece of information on that 4 inch crack in exact detail... From each corners relations to every star in the sky to every atom on the planet...

A single grains of sand could generate an infinite amount of data concerning it's relation to everything else and it's self...

Wow that was educational (rolls eyes)

hmm.. A sky is needed for a flying object that hasn't been identified to exist as a UFO.. so it's proof that anything not identified and flying is a UFO... Or did you think flying had a different definition that didn't pertain to the sky?

And by the way... THe mars overs spirit and opportunity could considered alien space craft... So your theory just collapsed because it's already proven than an alien species can reach another planet via machine or otherwise...

If your post is your proof that evolution is false then wow I think we have an intellectual Nobel prize winner on our hands :P

"THe mars overs" = The Mars rovers

"opportunity could considered" Could be considered

"already proven than an alien species can reach" = already proven that an alien species can reach

Man it's getting late.. I can't even type anymore :/ LOL

Did you actually take any time to think about what you said before saying it? If a mosquito is flying around my ankles is it flying in the sky? How about if someone creates an unidentifiable remote control device that is capable of flying, then flies it past my waist, does that mean my head is above or in the sky? Your analysis makes about as much sense as your theories pertaining to evolution.

Furthermore, the Mars Rover can only be considered an alien space craft by an alien lifeform... It is a craft sent by humans and identified as a human creation. Therefore, it is only proven that the human species can reach another planet via machine or otherwise.

(AS FOR YOUR "BELOW" THEORY; I CAN"T BEGIN TO TELL YOU ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH IT) But for starters... Intelligent life, (or even semi-intelligent life) requires only a self awareness to become even more intelligent. No information prior to it's own existence is needed in order for it to become more intelligent.

(Hence, For a GOD to have an intelligence or even a self awareness he would be in the need of information prior to the existence of it's own intelligence and self awareness because intelligence and self awareness is the collection of information and not the creator of... So how can intelligence ans self awareness pre-exist the information that they are comprised of? Does it not need to know it's own existence, it's own wishes and desires? Does it not need it in order to even make a choice or even to make a decision.. And what substance other than himself is he using as a substance to create with?)

Joseph you can't change the premise of what you wrote lol.. You can't go from a UFO analogy to a mosquito ... It's changes the very context of what you wrote..

"Furthermore, the Mars Rover can only be considered an alien space craft by an alien lifeform... It is a craft sent by humans and identified as a human creation. Therefore, it is only proven that the human species can reach another planet via machine or otherwise."

False.. Humans are not a a life form that is from the planet mars... To be an alien you only need to be not from the place you originated from... Humans are aliens to mars.. And if any bacterial or otherwise is discovered it would be considered alien life... Learn something before you post your drivel...

"(AS FOR YOUR "BELOW" THEORY; I CAN"T BEGIN TO TELL YOU ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH IT) But for starters... Intelligent life, (or even semi-intelligent life) requires only a self awareness to become even more intelligent. No information prior to it's own existence is needed in order for it to become more intelligent."

LOL.. You need to visit reality kid... You have no idea what you even said lol :P which tells me that you have no concept of what intelligence is or the definition is... :P Here I will re-post it for you...

Intelligence: efficient definition is: the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment. Or the processing of knowledge to formulate a response to stimuli..

"Intelligence (abbreviated int. or intel.) refers to discrete information with currency and relevance, and the abstraction, evaluation, and understanding of such information for its accuracy and value"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

Simple efficient definition: The collection of information on a subject or experience processed and then stored which provides a base for mechanisms such as intelligence, reason, choice, or a response or even an awareness... to which a method of inquiry must be based on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding.To receive and respond to input..

Actually learn something before you post.. awareness need the knowledge of it's self in order to be aware.. Even simple awareness need a rudimentary base of knowledge of it and its environment...

You have absolutely no concept of what you are talking about to even realize what you have said contradicted it's self.. LOL

need= needs

Jackel,

Again, you continue to make the fundamental mistake of viewing the concept of intelligence in biological terms.

You have not considered that the fundamental forces that are responsible for the effect of intelligence we observe in organisms are themselves intelligent.

It's hard to wrap your brain around, isn't it?

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was' with' God. And the Word 'was' God.

LMAO.. Man now I really know why I stopped following religion LOL...

First off you have no base to prove anything you just stated.. At that point sir we could say Unicorn was the first word.... And here is your big mistake.. "In the beginning" In the beginning eh.. self admitting there is a beginning vs enternal.. You can't even make up your mind kid.. You are contradicting yourself all over the place..

Do you even know what solipsism is?

"You have not considered that the fundamental forces that are responsible for the effect of intelligence we observe in organisms are themselves intelligent."

So now your god is reliant on fundamental forces to give him intelligence? Another contradiction.. And again the need of something other than it's self in order to exist..

Tell you what.. If god didn't not know he existed would he be self aware?.. Just that simple concept of himself.. Is he reliant on the need to know of himself.. Yes or No? This question has nothing to do with biological vs consciousness... Consciousness still relies on more than one single piece of information to be self aware ...

If you want to talk about magic and unicorns and skewed illogical thinking please take your faith elsewhere.. or prove your ramblings and scripture with facts.. You are completely incapable of basic logic.. Nor do you understand that intelligence as in biological was only by provable example to back up my statements.. It's proof by example on intelligence in general...

Prove otherwise...

Sorry people that believe in magical beings without proof are insane.. You are prime example of someone pulling BS out of hat without even knowing what it is they are saying..

Christianity is not a form of solipsism! And solipsims would still require somehting other than it's self to contain it's self! It can not be a set of all Sets.. Do you even know what a set of all sets is?

For answer to existence to be correct it has to be a set of all sets.. Meaning your GOD can not be a separate entity apart from us and be existence.. Existence has to be everything including it's self and a container to it's self.. A self awareness can not represent a set of all sets.. because the awareness still needs a container!!!

You have no concept of what you are talking about.. You are trying to turn Christianity into solipsism just so you can attempt to make your self sound like you have an answer to protect your faith..

A GOD would be a Set of A Set to be his own identity and entity in existence... If you try to state otherwise you revert to solipsism in which it also does not represent a set of all sets.. It still relies on a container....

Existence is of it's self and anything and everything without nothing.. It contains it's self without contradiction... And anything in existence is of existence.. Meaning we are of the same substance.. It's container is it's self.. A set of all sets.. information is the representation that gives everything relevance and meaning and form.. It must come before anything else.. And since existence is a piece of information it is the substance of it's self..

Basically you can not win this argument Steven without claiming me and you as GOD.. And technically that would be true.. We are all GOD... Of existence.. Meaning GOD does not have to be a self aware deity but the representation of 0 or the base substance that we are all made of... everyone here is GOD.. and You are trying to argue with yourself.. I mean me! .. And when was the last time you talked to a rock ;)

If you don't understand this then you are not capable of understanding anything other than mythology or along the lines of Might and Magic..

Jackal: You asked if I thought flying had a different definition that didn't pertain to the sky? You also claimed: A sky is needed for a flying object that hasn't been identified to exist as a UFO..

I haven't changed the premise of anything. Whether it's a mosquito or an object the fact remains that your comment lacked any intelligent reasoning. Humans may not be from Mars, and Mars may be considered an alien world to humans. But for humans to be labeled an alien lifeform, there has to be another lifeform to do the labeling.

And I know exactly what I said. It is you who don't know what you are talking about. The definition of knowledge has nothing to do with your totally illogical claim..." For a GOD to have an intelligence or even a self awareness he would be in the need of information prior to the existence of it's own intelligence and self awareness because intelligence and self awareness is the collection of information and not the creator of..."

Your logic is totally twisted and makes absolutely no sense. If intelligence is the collection of information then all that is required is awareness. If your way of thinking were true we'd still be living in the stone age and no one would have ever invented anything. Furthermore, everything you claim about the subject totally goes against everything evolution claims to be. Intelligent or sem-intelligent life does not need any prior information to it's own existence (or the existence of it's own intelligence). It is through awareness that information is formed. And through that forming of information comes a greater awareness, not only of one's self, but the environments in which they inhabit.

Joseph Randall,

In the context to which you wrote flying had everything to do with the sky... It's important to note the context.. You can not change the context and then state the same meaning... The sky is a reference to anything above your head or any living things head.. It's a perceptual description to looking UP... Knowing the meaning of the words you use is key or the context to which you use them.. The sky can also be reference to as being the atmosphere..

So yes you did change the premise...

Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge.. It's an access mechanism to a data base that it must have...In all cases intelligence must have information prior to it's use... It can not come before information... Call it the processing of information if you will...The definitions did correct my own statement about intelligence being a collection of information.. That was to be knowledge.. So take that as you will, it doesn't change anything..

"all that is required is awareness."

This is where it becomes obvious that you are not capable of understanding anything... NO! awareness must have knowledge of it's self... It has to know it exist.. It's vital information to development of a self image.. To know what you are, where you are, why you are, what you are doing, what you can do, your purpose, your existence.. If you do not know any of these things you can not be aware.. Even a simple awareness know it own existence even if it doesn't or can't fully understand it on a very incomplete level.. At the very least consciousness needs to know something of it's self..

"It is through awareness that information is formed."

again you have no concept of the meaning... Intelligence is the processing of other information... from input to output.. Thoughts are not formed.. They are processed information where information is infinite and can be processed in infinite ways we call the imagination.. It's only piecing together what's already there to formulate an image..

Does a rock need intelligence in order to exist? No... it's a rock.. Intelligence has nothing to do with existence... Things only need to contain information to which they give off..

And if existence was aware everything would be aware and everything would be gods own imagining.. It would be solipsism.. And we can already state that is false..

So basically prove existence is self aware of serious learn to keep magical beings out of logical reality.. You can not be existence as a self aware being without being solipsism... Nore can existence be aware and the container to awareness at the same time..

Learn what a set of all sets is.. It instantly makes your argument invalid..

And information does not need awareness to appreciate it's pattern or its substance..

You have to love religious nuts trying to redefine everything with magic.. It's laughable at best.. Incapable of understanding basic logic...

You are talking in circles Joseph Randall, your living in your own world of solipsism at this point..

"I haven't changed the premise of anything. Whether it's a mosquito or an object the fact remains that your comment lacked any intelligent reasoning. Humans may not be from Mars, and Mars may be considered an alien world to humans. But for humans to be labeled an alien lifeform, there has to be another lifeform to do the labeling."

Fist off that is wrong.. Second.. You have no idea there if there is life or no life on Mars.. The concept is irrelevant.. To be alien or alien life you only are required to not be from the planet... Sorry.. get your facts straight...

So is GOD it's own entity? It's own awareness?

If you answer yes, Your argument becomes invalid... It can not be it's own entity from us and represent Existence as a whole or be container to existence..

GOD is not a set of all sets..It's self admitting that it would be in need of existence and be in need of separation from everything else to be it's own self awareness or own self entity.. Hence it has it's own container for it's self awareness as we all do our selves.. A god does not explain existence because it requires it it's self... Existence representing the container... He must be -->IN<-- existence in order to exist..

Hence, Existence is not self aware... And if it were everything would be self aware.. And at best for the GOD theory to be correct we would all just be he Solipsism or imagination to where we don't actually exist... Or we would be multiple personalities of the same entity...

This is where you epically fail.. Prove existence is aware or don't bother posting.. A rock will beg to differ with you...

I didn't change the context of anything... I made a statement and you replied with an illogical response. The definition of a word is simply the definition of a word. It is not an explanation of the laws of nature or physics. You are trying to use a word's definition to explain something in which you have no idea what you are talking about. Self awareness only requires the knowledge of one's self and a place in which you exist. It doesn't require that you know where you are, what you are or what you are doing. The first humans couldn't have known where they were, who they were, why they were, or what exactly they were capable of doing. They didn't even have words that they could put into thought. Everything you are referring to is after the fact. There was no prior information given to the first humans that caused all this to be. All this came to be because the first humans knew they existed and knew there was a place in which they exist. If they had any prior information, then it was information that could only have come from God. I don't know where you get your way of thinking, but I don't find it to be normal.

Self awareness only requires the knowledge of one's self and a place in which you exist..

Ding! and the bell goes off! that sir is information.. Knowledge is information.. All this states is that it's needed .. Knowledge is a base of information... You finally get what I was getting at.. it needs something prior to it's self..

Now information in various things are for the use of giving something currency.. But I am not reffering to a description.. The sky is the sky or description.. The information I am talking about is the information that is the substance of the sky.. This is stating that information is a form of energy or an actual substance it's self that makes the base substance of existence.. Hence, what substance makes a photon or proton... What is the base substance of existence...

This states the base substance has to be a set of all sets.. Existence it's self.. And i am calling information a form of energy... Not the information we write in books but the substance that is relevant to existence... The actual building blocks.. The blocks that allow you to know your existence and your place of existence..

In the end... Existence has to be a set of all sets.. it can not be GOD with an awareness... That would be impossible.. And an awareness it's self still needs a container and a source to inquiry.. hence knowledge... It's that primal knowledge that I am reffering to as the substance to which it needs.....

I am not stating that the word SKY is the substance of existence.. It's a product of information processing information to give something of substance a name or meaning..

But the word sky still has be formed... And it's that process that I am talking about.. two bits or more that get processed to give meaning or to produce a description to give currency to something observed...

However, intelligence or awareness are not neccessary for existence... A rock does not need to be aware.. The void we call space does not need to be aware... So it's false to say that only awareness is required.. Awareness obviously needs something other than it's self in order to exist.. which is the point...

And intelligence can not pre-exist knowledge... An unaware living thing still has a base knowledge.. It still responds to stimuli... It's extremely primitive...It not in the same sense as your example of the use of the word sky...

And I do believe that knowledge and intelligence to self awareness is prime examples of evolution.. From single celled organisms to Humans...

Aslo note:

The obvious observation that knowledge, intelligence, and self awareness all need a container or body to exist in.. Meaning that even A GOD mind would be required to have a container and would have to be contained apart from everything else in order to have it's own identity as a separate entity..

The evidence also suggest that a GOD may not be likely and that intelligence, knowledge or self awareness can only be contained in a biological container as there is no evidence that existence or space or anything except biological life is actually aware..

Here is something from another article:

"If the universe blew into existence, what did it blow from ? Nothing ? How can nothing turn into something ?"

The use of information is an example of representation of the set of all sets.. the representation of existence or the substance of existence..... Existence it's self can not be quantified by either a GOD or a Human that would require it...

As to what exactly existence is or the source of it's self is comprised of is not possible to answer.. But we can state in order for existence to exist it must be a set of all sets.. Everything without Nothing...It's not something that can be argued with...

Information just so happens to be a set of all sets to where it can give form, representation, currency to anything and everything.. It's higher in the order of importance than a God that must have it for it's own identity...

Information may not be the actual substance... But if Existence is energy or form of energy then the representation know as information must also be a form of energy or the same energy... The reason man can't understand this energy as a form of energy in the traditional sense is because you can't.. It's not possible to understand the substance of existence or it's energy without being outside it to observe it.. And since that is not possible we can not describe something in detail that is of everything.. neither Could a GOD.. And A GOD could also not have an infinite mind either.. it can not obtain existence or the sum of everything in order to understand it or to even have any more power than us to manipulate it.. Hence, Humans could progress to the same status..

It's simply everything and anything formed from it's energy without nothing... It's not something you can look out into space and discover.. It is space, time, mass, matter.. You can't actually understand it in any sense but call it an infinite source of energy it's self and to which you are also comprised of..

Under this.. A GOD would not be THE GOD... Existence can not be created... It simply exists... And anything in it is a product of it from it's self... two glasses made from the same pile of sand..

To Simplify:

A self awareness needs a container.. For GOD to be it's own entity apart from us it must have it's own body of containment... It can not be the same body we all share that we call existence.. Thus we can conclude that existence is not self aware nor was it ever...

This evidence may be proof that self-awareness only exists in biological life to where separate containers to self awareness are possible without becoming a contradiction...

If people think GOD is existence then we are all simply Gods own imagination arguing against it's self.. That would make Christianity a form of solipsism.. And even then it couldn't explain what the container is to this infinite mind that must it's self be made from the substance of it's container... Thus the GOD sill couldn't quantify it's own existence..

There is no proof out side of the biological container or proof that the container to the biological have or has a self awareness... The evidence suggests otherwise...

On second thought...If you are trying to say the ingredients that make up something need to exist prior to the existence of whatever it creates, then say that. Don't beat around the bush saying a bunch of things that don't apply to one another. If that is what you mean... then are you trying to say, "The ingredients that make up God must exist prior to God's creation?" That may be a reasonable assumption, but not an assumption that should reasonably true."

If that is what you're saying, I can debate that and will apologize for misunderstanding. But try saying exactly what you mean.

For answer to existence to be correct it has to be a set of all sets.. Meaning your GOD can not be a separate entity apart from us and be existence..

Who is arguing that God is separate from us? He has already stated that He is in all things and sustains all things. He has also said that "The kingdom of God is within you." and that He has known us before we were formed in the womb.

So yes, we actually are ideas in God's mind. This is not solipsism. We are minds embedded within a larger Mind. That is why we can ultimately communicate with Him and others through our own minds. We are separate software programs that can communicate with the operating system and can network with all other software programs in that system.

I'm with Killfile here - posting in all bold may not be against Newsvine rules, but is understood on the internet to be representative of emphasis (much like all caps is shouting). You can't emphasise everything, so it is considered pretty rude to do so. After all, why are you doing it? Also, on his column, Killfile has quite a lot of authority. If you think he's over-stepped it though, you are welcome to appeal to Newsvine, which will have the added benefit of deciding who is right :)

Who is arguing that God is separate from us? He has already stated that He is in all things and sustains all things.

Ah, so worshipping God is little more than self-worship, or Gaia-ism? You should inform the rest of Christendom about that one. They've apparently been sorely misguided.

If you think he's over-stepped it though, you are welcome to appeal to Newsvine, which will have the added benefit of deciding who is right :)

And don't forget the part where, if Newsvine sides with Killfile, Joe can presume he has free license to whine about Newsvine's grand liberal/Killfile-centric conspiracy.

Steven P.,

wrong that would be sollipsism... Gods own imagining.. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word lol..

And the Kingdom of god is in us? So now we are GOD's Existence? So now if humans die so does your god.. LOL..Wow that makes no sense at all does it... Creation inside out lol.. You reverse creationists make me giggle..

StevenP I suggest you realize the difference between 1 mind and separate minds are.. You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about... Only a brainwashed nut cases start making things up like that.. It's just pathetic...

And sorry you have no understanding of the religion... Who are you trying to fool here SteveP.. Christianity does not think GOD actually live inside you.. The premise of that quote is to describe your "Love" for him and devotion to him.. it has nothing to do with Heaven actually being contained inside people.. The premise of the bible is that he resides in a demension outside our own... And that he is a separate entity... You are either your own individual StevenP or you are a figment of your GOD's imagination.. And even then that GOD must have a "Place" within existence to be self aware.. It still needs a container that it's self can neither create or quantify..

Do your self a favor play your illogical mind manipulation games with someone that has no education...

So I think I am done arguing with you here.. People simply can't argue with irrational people that believe in might and magic... Or people that ignore the obvious questions they simply can't answer.. You ignored more than 08 percent of the arguments here.. Your intent to talk in mindless circles is apparent and not worth anybody's time..

08 percent of the arguments here = 98 percent ;)

And one last thing StevenP..

If you have ever read a book on the mechanics of brainwashing you would have a much better idea of how the Bible is written... I use to go to Africa on missions myself.. I know the methods of conversion son.. I know how these things work...

The concept to looking inside you and you will find the truth is what is referred to as "Seeding" or the planting of the seed of an Ideology.. It's mostly targeted at impressionable minds or those who are weak... Rarely does it work on someone well educated or someone who isn't vulnerable.. "The Kingdom of GOD is within you" is exactly what this is... It's to infuse the idea of "LOVE" which is a powerful motivation tool.. This is to engineer what they call devotion and later obedience without question.. Obedience is gained by the use of the fear of death or the House of Pain should you deviate from the ideology... It's also used as a seed to offer someone salvation.. To use as a carrot and stick trick to where someone vulnerable is given two choices.. Of these two choices it's the promise to be save and the other is Damnation.. THe victim of this process is then put in a manipulative situation to where they are made to feel that they must submit their lives to the ideology... It's called the "no way out" in brainwashing..

These are key things that people like Hitler used... It's the process of controlling a flock and converting others into the ideology by either fear mongering or by seeding... And this is how places like Afghanistan become a nightmarish reality.. Or how religious police states are made... Or how 300 years of burning become the persecution of others of different faiths...

There is a reason and ideology needs belief and faith alone.. It's to make it unquestionable.. It's called the protection mechanism... This key when most valid questions are ignored or referred to as blasphemy..

BTW StevenP,

If GOD is only within you.. He is thus of your own imagination.. A product of imagination or where he is only a solipsist existence... Hence, just an Idea or concept.. It fails on that premise entirely.. And that boils down to psychological issue and fits into the above statement ;)..

You can't argue this and win StevenP.. It's not something you can debate.. Learn what solipsism is.. and learn what a set of all sets mean... Even solipsism is not a set of all sets ;) For it needs a container and a place of existence.. ;P It's epic fail all around on the concept of a self aware GOD..

TheJackal: Solipsism is simply a philosophy... and someone's philosophical way of thinking doesn't mean it's the holy truth. God is with many and many are with God. Try presenting a viable argument before claiming someone can't win it.

islaysha,

wrong.. it's a definition that states that existence is ones own imagining.. It's where there is only one mind to existence and that of which is your own and anything in it is of what your own imagination..

Learn the meaning of it before you post.. It's an actual word with an actual definition... It's also rooted as a philosophy.. Religions are mere philosophies them selves...

But what ever you need to ignore it that is up to you.. But playing stupid isn't going to make this go away ;)

islaysha,

I also noted that even in that case.. The mind still needs a container... A place of existence or a place to where something resides... and if the mind is the substance of that place it would mean that anything in it is merely a part of that mind... Hence, it's own imagining... A solipsist existence..

Each mind has to have a separate container.. within a larger container that is not a mind... Hence, existence is not self aware... Nor is GOD the answer to existence... It's proven false by simple logic.. You can't argue this... Your god can not be the sum of all things and be self aware.. Only a moron would think that is likely possible..

For crying out loud, janiasrevenge, if poor eyesight was a reason for all bold then all websites would be all bold. People with poor eyesight generally know how to make the text on a page bigger, every browser can do it. The entire OS can do it for all text too.

Furthermore, creating multiple accounts is a clear contravention of the User Agreement:

The following non-exhaustive list describes the kinds of illegal or harmful conduct that are prohibited on our Site. You agree not to:

....

create and/or log in with multiple accounts;

If you don't like the way it is run you don't have to play here, but if you don't like it then you should not have signed up.

wrong that would be sollipsism... Gods own imagining.. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word lol..

Jackel, I said we are ideasin God's mind. You have interpreted that to mean imagine. Is the word idea equal to the word imagine?

And the Kingdom of god is in us? So now we are GOD's Existence?

Is the sentence "The kingdom of God is within you" equal to "we are God's existence' ? You seem to lack comprehension of the concepts being conveyed.

So now if humans die so does your god.. LOL..Wow that makes no sense at all does it... Creation inside out lol.. You reverse creationists make me giggle..

I can see how you would come to this conclusion if God and Man existed in physical form only. This is where you get stuck since you cannot wrap yourself around the idea of spirit at immaterial yet intelligent since you assume intelligence evolves from material causes.

Your take is that existence is something other than intelligence. So what is existence then? Pure force? Then describe force. And if so, how does force cause the material dimension without recourse to intelligence?

StevenP I suggest you realize the difference between 1 mind and separate minds are.. You obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

.

What is difficult for you to understand. Software within software. Embedded software can run withing the macro-software, but is contingent upon it. Only the macro-software can run independantly. Like Paul said we all have our being and movement in God, which pervades and sustains the physical universe. You seem unable to fathom force and information as living entities? Why is that?

It seems you have unfortunately been distracted all those 20+ years as a Christian by misperceptions of what Christ was teaching. That's probably why there are so many denominations in Christianity. But God is in no hurry. Since we have to learn to perceive Him as he is, not as we imagine Him to be, or demand Him to be, He'll patiently wait until we finally get it.

.. Only a brainwashed nut cases start making things up like that.. It's just pathetic...

Yes, I will admit many are brainwashed by their own enslavement to material temptations of power, greed, lust and have a remarkable ability to distort Christ's message in pursuit of these temptations. Christ said to Saint Faustina that there are many clergy and religously trained souls in hell. So donning a cloak or a habit (in the case of Catholics) or a smart suit and bible in hand (in the case of protestants) is not a ticket to paradise. Those that distort and misuse Christ's teaching are in for a rough ride. I wonder if they really understand the gravity of their actions.

Christianity does not think GOD actually live inside you..

On the contrary Jackel, it may be that some people who profess Christianity may believe God is not actually present inside them. But you cannot get this from the Bible.

For the rest of your rant, sure some missionaries may be trying to brainwash in order to make quantitative conversions. But these conversions don't last. Lasting conversions come from personal experience that convince one of the existence of God. Anthony Flew is a good example.

So I think I am done arguing with you here.. People simply can't argue with irrational people that believe in might and magic... Or people that ignore the obvious questions they simply can't answer.. You ignored more than 08 percent of the arguments here.. Your intent to talk in mindless circles is apparent and not worth anybody's time..

Quitting so soon, Jackel? There is absolutely nothing irrational about what I have said. It may not sit well with your perception of what existence and reality is based on the cognitive framework you employ, but that's the kicker, isn't It?

How can a supposed material organization of physical components such as Man ever know that he has a grasp on existence and reality using cognition filters of his own design? In this case, it is like saying nature, upon billions of years of layering an atomic cake, pops out of the middle in the guise of Man and says, "Hello!" to itself. But nature has no being, no self-awareness, and is not capable of talking to itself.

So what gives? How is it Man can conceive of such things as himself and existence and eternity? Surely, his survival doesn't depend on it?

Look in the mirror my friend before tagging others with the irrational label.

Jackel, I said we are ideasin God's mind. You have interpreted that to mean imagine. Is the word idea equal to the word imagine?

LOL.. Idea or imagine makes no difference silly... An idea, thought, or interpretation makes no difference.. In the mind is in the mind... What part of that do you not understand... In all cases you wouldn't actually exist... You are either a figment of an idea or of the imagination.. And sorry kiddo.. ideas come from the imagination or the thought process... It's still Solipsism kid..

"I can see how you would come to this conclusion if God and Man existed in physical form only. This is where you get stuck since you cannot wrap yourself around the idea of spirit at immaterial yet intelligent since you assume intelligence evolves from material causes."

Wrong!... This has nothing to do with physical alone.. It doesn't matter if it's a spiritual existence, a supernatural existence, a physical existence... You still have to be in existence in order to exist.. You still have to have a container to your existence.. it doesn't matter if your pure energy or someones cloud of passed gas.... You simply have no concept that existence is any place of reality, any place of existence... Existence is the container to all things...

"Your take is that existence is something other than intelligence. So what is existence then? Pure force? Then describe force. And if so, how does force cause the material dimension without recourse to intelligence?"

Existence is a place and the substance of existence whatever that may be... Energy or information as energy.. . Everything must be comprised of the substance of existence.. And it's a fact that intelligence can not pre-exist information.. Only a complete idiot would think this... Reverse creation is for morons.. Neither a GOD or a man could ever quantify existence... It can only best be described as anything and everything without nothing... All things must be in existence... And learn to read.. I already posted what existence represents ... A set of all sets... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set

Basically your GOD can only be himself.. He can not be everything or the creator to everything that includes existence or information... And if he isn't everything he is not existence.. Existence is the only thing that can be everything and anything without nothing including it's self... And information is the only thing that can represent everything and anything without nothing including it's self... A GOD can only represent it's self and nothing else...At best if a GOD did exist it can only be considered a creator with pre-existing existence and materials other than it's self...

A god can not be everything and anything without nothing and including it's self.. Nor could it be self aware if it were... Because self awareness needs a container other than it's self because a self identity is not a set of all sets and requires something other than it's self in order to exist.. It must be comprised of various pieces of information... And must have a place of existence to be aware at all...

Again you are talking in circles Joseph..

So basically anything in existence is a Subset of the Set... Existence = the set of all sets...

Your GOD would = a subset...

If your god was existence we would = subset within GOD.. Meaning we don't actually exist.. and we would all actually be GOD... Or Gods own imagining, idea, or split personality... Or internal reality...

However, that is false.. Because that would still need a container to be self aware and other pieces of knowledge *information* that reside in that other container to form a self awareness... The self awareness it's self can not be a set of all sets... Thus it fails to represent existence... or it's own need for a container to it's self...

StevenP it wouldn't surprise me if the two of you are the same person.. It's getting pretty funny with the multiple accounts here.. If not sad..

TheJackal... StevenP is his own person, as am I. If I have to use a different account, I'll be sure to let you know.

If anyone is avoiding questions they can't answer... that would be you. Your logic is completely dumbfounding, and further proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

So we are our own identities then ;) Thank you for proving my point ;P... We are thus not GOD and GOD is not Existence and we are of our own individuals in existence.. :) This means we are not subsets of GOD... But subsets of existence.. And this verifies that GOD would have to be a subset of existence should it or other GODs actually exist :P And this means that it's more than likely that they don't considering no evidence of self awareness out side of the biological... ;P

Good Job :)

Joseph Randall, This is way over your head.. So we will have to agree to disagree so you can preserve your religious construct..

And no.. i never avoided any question ;) You sir avoided.. I would like to see you answer the paradoxes I had written above... Let's see how smart you are ;)

Get over yourself, this is getting petty.

It's not getting petty... I want him to answer the paradox questions.. It's not that hard to do.. If he wants to prove ID is possible he has to answer the paradox and provide an example of reverse creation...

Heck provide an example of intelligence before information... Provide an example to where intelligence doesn't need knowledge or the base of inquiry that it needs for it to apply...

MarkD.. he is basically talking in circles.. He's ignoring and avoiding... He's only focusing on trying to prove his ideology isn't solipsism... And even then he's contradicting himself all over the place.. He has no concept of what a container is or what existence means or what it means to be in existence or the need of it..

His entire argument is invalid... He keeps pushing non-facts as facts.. He won't answer the paradox questions because he knows he can't do that without admitting he's wrong :P

Jackel,

Your getting bogged down in containers is a courageous attempt to evade infinite regress. But it can't be done. Each container needs a container but which is the beginning container? And what are the characteristics of this first container? Does it have dimension?

It like the Russian egg. A set within a set. All of the sets are suspended within another set. These eggs can be viewed as the different dimensions of the universe. Logically however, there must be an entity that is not a set for all sets to be contained in. That foundation must be eternal, dimensionless and componentless.

God by definition is that dimensionless, componentless, eternal foundation.

Wrong StevenP... A self awareness is not component-less , nor can it be dimensionless because it would need a place of existence to be aware and a place of containment...

even 0 is a dimension StevenP... There is no such thing as a lack of dimension.. That would be non-existence which again is impossible... So sorry you must have dimension... 0= the eternal base... and it can not be self aware...

basically your description tries to explain what non-existence would be lol... Which is an utter failure.. To have no mind would be component-less ;) To have no self awareness would be component-less.. To have no energy or force or anything.. To have no dimension = non existent.. ;) GJ Really tells me that you thought this through :O

if that isn't utter failure I don't know what is..

Existence is it's own container... Again you need to prove non-existence can be a person, place, or thing of existence.... Which you can't do SteveP...

But nice try on the play of words ;) You reverse creationists are not very bright when it comes to logic.... ;)

And lets simplify what you just stated...

dimension wise existence = 0 and 1.. we can't quantify the 0.. but we can perceive 1-4 dimensions..

no dimension would equal non-existence.. which we concluded as not possible.. You are basically stating that your GOD doesn't exist.. And since we know at least 4 dimensions plus 0 exist there is no such thing as no dimension..

And this is not like the Russian Egg lol... Existence has no beginning or end.. It's infinite.. and you can only be infinite if there is no such thing as a person, place, or thing of non-existence...

You do know that you can have infinity with infinite containment correct?

0 and 1 = existence as the infinite container...1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 2.1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 31xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 4.1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is where an infinite dimension contains and infinite number of dimensions or a possible infinite number of things in existence..

but this is not trying to quantify existence.. Which is only an example...

The point is... You still have to try and state your GOD is within existence SteveP ;) If it is not then it doesn't exist ;)

eternal foundation.

sounds a lot like existence SteveP.. and a foundation is hence a component smarty pants :P LOL... Nor would a foundation of any kind be considered dimensionless..

So your god has no place of existence.. no components such as a mind or intelligence or a base of information known as knowledge and no dimension and thus non-existent or in this case impossible :P ...

Actually... 0 would represent no dimension.... And according to the concept of dimensions a self aware god can not be 0 dimensional... it would have to have at least 5 dimensions to know the sum of all 4 dimensions we know of... So zero can not be self aware.. ;) It simply represents a dot in the center of an every expanding circle or dimensions.... And for a god to create anything in a dimension it would have to be in a higher dimension in order to have power over 4 dimensions.. Hence all dimensions are the substance of existence and even a GOD would need existence.... So no.. God did not create existence... But the possibility of a 5-D being is plausible that could manipulate our 4-D.. But it could not create our 4D or any Dimension beyond it's self..

So even then.. you have it backwards SteveP.. ;) Thus no dimension at best = existence without dimension... Or the absolute base of existence that represents 0 and 1... But it can not be self aware ;)

So hence.

0 and 1 = existence as the infinite absolute...1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 2.1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 31xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to 4.1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to infinite number of dimensions

And anything betwen zero and infinity is in existence... and -1 becomes impossible.. or non-existence is impossible.. You can look at zero as a loop back to 1.. where if you go through zero dimension and out the other side it ends up at 1...

So my theory changes a little bit... But remains a bit accurate to a point..

This means every dimensions base substance is 0D... at the lowest... But we are comprised of 4D... So our substance to our dimension is the first 4 to where we can have limited manipulation over at least 1D and 2D and 3D and interact with 4D...

A 5rh D being would be a higher being of power than we are... But it would be comprised of 0D-5D and be able to have limited manipulation over 2d and 3d and 4d while being able to interact with with the 6D...

However 0D can not manipulate any D above it.. it's just the source or base of existence where existence expands infinitely out wards...and anything in existence is between 0D and infinity...

And this is why you can't quantify existence lol... Because when you deal with infinity in every way possible it's not quantifiable.. Not even for a so called GOD... You can basically state there is no beginning or end... It's everything and anything without nothing... Endless points or locations in an endless container with endless locations and points...

So existence is simply existence without creation.. You can call this a god if you will... But to suggest it's self aware is folly because it would need a container in the endless existence... Hence we are all comprised of the substance of existence and are representations of existence.. So in fact we would be GOD or apart of it in a solipsist existence... But I highly doubt that existence is self aware :P... So anything in a higher dimension may or may not be able to manipulate ours.. ;)

If existence was self aware.. Every dimension would have a different level of awareness.. And it would be evident in the 4D, 3d, 2D, 1D, and 0D... And since we are higher beings than the 2D we would be aware of it...

Got you thinking there, right Jackel?

Are you still convinced I'm a sock puppet?

endless container? oxymoron. If its endless it has no container. A container by definition is finite with definite dimension. Hence, existence contains but is not contained.

More food for thought: What moved within existence to start the ball rolling? How did this movement originate?

StevenP that means it's a Set of all Sets lol... I don't think you get the premise behind it... It solves infinite regress as well... It's self is the container to it's self... And if existence is a form of energy we can not quantify as a source of energy because every place or thing we can conceive of is made of it, there isn't much room for your god theory...

And did you ever stop to think that existence is constantly moving? would you know if empty space or the void is moving? Here is a clue....

Nothing is absolutely still or not moving... you can put a cup on the table ans state it's not moving.. But that is false.. It's moving in existence... The earth revolves around the sun.. The atoms and particles in the glass are always moving... There really is no such thing as inactive matter or energy...And you could not quantify or know if empty space or if the base of existence is a constant flow of energy..

inifinite containment

1.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2.xxxxxxxxxxxxx 3.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Each number or dimension can have an infinite set of numbers between each number.. infinite container to a set of infinite containers....Each plane of existence or dimensions represents this... Except for 0D...Which brings you back to 1D where you are comprised of both 0D and 1D... -1D = impossible...

0D and 1D can represent for instance the binary code.. 0's and 1's that can form more complext code with other dimensional planes... 0's, 1's. 2's, 3's and 4's that represent our dimensional existence...

You simply don't know how dimensions interact with each other.. you can't state they are not moving or are not in flux... Or haven't always been in this constant state...

The expansion of the universe for example.. What's pushing our universe apart? what is that dark matter? Is space moving? is it a polar opposite to gravity? Are our dimensions in a constant flux?

ever ask your self does information ever stop flowing?

You are basically assuming something you can not prove... And that maybe your biggest mistake... You are trying to state you understand the universe and existence by trying to equate a magical being as some mysterious "Force"... Especially since you really don't know anything at all to even assert that as a fact...

But I guess some people love the idea of a solipsist existence.. I guess everyone wants to be god ;)

And StevenP.. A force alone does not make a GOD much less a "self Aware" god...

You better off asking yourself what force makes intelligence and self awareness possible ;) It's simply stupidity to suggest that existence as a whole is a subset of some magical being.. It's arse backwards creationism and it's down right laughable..

On the contrary Jackel,

you fail to provide evidence for the cause of movement in existence. Yes, energy is always in flux and we can say energy is always being transformed into matter and back again. So what causes it? Force? What causes force to act on energy? As well how is energy formed? Can your explain the origin of force and energy?

Again, logic demands the fundamental characteristics of existence as having being and purpose. Otherwise, reality is incomprehensible.

If existence is a form of energy then it's an energy you or your GOD could not quantify or understand... Existence it's self being the origin and force... I clearly described that to you... Even your GOD can not represent such a Force ;) It would still require existence son... A god can not create existence... period.. So what we don't understand about existence is irrelevant...

Can you prove that an intelligent force is needed vs a non intelligent force? had how was that intelligence formed it's self.. we all know intelligence relies on knowledge and knowledge as a whole it's self can not be created by a creator... So in the end A GOD still can not create the information it's self requires to be self aware or even intelligent...

So what force created your GOD steveP?

And simply put.. you can not have the sum of all knowledge and not be a form of solipsism., and this would be impossible.. Nor can it's self create the sum of all knowledge...

basically your "non-dimension" is a made up imaginary place of existence that you still can't quantify..

And here is an idea for you that is still more sound than some magical creator:

0Dimension may not even be a physical dimension... It may represent the dimension we interact with in our heads... An Idea can be said to be 0 Dimensional..at yet an idea must still formulate into an idea through the processing of other information....

This is where information can be anything you want it to be but may not have any actual relevance... It can be wrong, right, impossible, tangible, intangible, a dream, imagined, fictional, or factual...The relevance of your GOD maybe no more than the idea or physcial media and products that you make from it...

Can a god literally create the entire sum of information or knowledge? The answer is absolutely not.. Only an idiot would think this possible....

If existence is a form of energy then it's an energy you or your GOD could not quantify or understand..

Evasivion and strawman argument; drawing a caricature of what you think theists believe God to be. You have absolutely no evidence to back up any claim as to what existence actually is. Your set of all sets argument does nothing to debunk an inference of existence as possessing being and consciousness not confined to physical dimension.

The only way to debunk it, is to demonstrate all of existence in purely dimensional terms; ie that existence can be explains solely in terms of physics and chemistry. Until you can do that, God is very much on the table and abductive experience gives us much evidence that there are plenty of real phenomena that remain elusive to mechanical detection and thus cannot be explained purely from physics and chemistry.

But keep trying though. We've got time. Lots of time.

Can you prove that an intelligent force is needed vs a non intelligent force? had how was that intelligence formed it's self..

Like the evolution debate, until you can explain emergence in purely physical and chemical terms, the default explanation is that intelligence comes from intelligence, not intelligence can come from non-intelligence. How has this been demonstrated? From 20/20 hindsight? That we know we are here and we cannot see a god, therefore we as intelligent organisms must have come from non-intelligent causes? Hardly logical reasoning.

Demonstrate how inorganic molecules traversed the threshold of complexity to emerge into the biological realm from purely physical and chemical causes, then you may have something. So far, its nothing but co-opting teleological language to explain supposedly non-teleological processes, hardly a rational position.

........son.

0Dimension may not even be a physical dimension... It may represent the dimension we interact with in our heads... An Idea can be said to be 0 Dimensional..at yet an idea must still formulate into an idea through the processing of other information....

so you admit the possibility of a dimensionless aspect of our existence? But how can that be if we are just the sum of physics and chemistry? How does our brain conceive of concepts outside of physical dimension?

Can a god literally create the entire sum of information or knowledge? The answer is absolutely not.. Only an idiot would think this possible....

Simply more bare assertion.

We know logically from experiment and observation that there are plenty of unseen yet detectable physical phenomena like radio waves, gravity, etc. The logical conclusion is that there very well may be more phenomena acting on the physical world that we are not aware of because we are currently not able to detect them mechanically. But a lack of knowledge of these undetected phenomena is not a reason for denying their possibility or probability. Rather, the whole set of our knowledge begs inference to more unseen phenomena acting on our existence.

Therefore, your denial of the possibility and/or probability of God as the seat and existence and being is a premature and irrational position.

StevenP I suggest you actually look up the term seto of all sets or known on Wiki as the "Universal Set"... It's a set that contains all other sets including it's self to where it can contain it's self through an infinite loop... It is a set it's self... It only means that all other sets must be made from it and it's self must be made from it's self... This means Existence only needs Existence to be a set of all sets... Everything else made from existence is within existence... All other things are subsets of the set...

the simple defininition = Universal set...

"a universal set is a set which contains all objects, including itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set

Before you even post I suggest you actually understand wtf you are saying.. This tells me that you don't even understand what it is that you are talking about..

a mind can not be the container to the mind... It requires containment it's self can neither create or quantify....
Basically You and Joseph just can't seem to be able to wrap your minds around them selves to understand that you can't contain the notion of the need of containment to the mind..

And thus you GOD can not be a Universal set to existence.. Even if it were solipsism because it can not contain it's own mind and would still require other sets to be a set it's self... Knowledge, intelligence, awareness, self identity, existence, place of existence ectra...

Thus you are proven wrong!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evasivion and strawman argument; drawing a caricature of what you think theists believe God to be"

You sound like a hypocrite here ;) GOD it's self is a theory and religion is but a mere philosophical view that is wrong... And is proven wrong by "Universal set" Yes, stating existence as a form of energy we can not quantify is a theory.. But a theory more likely to be true... I have provided the solution to both infinite regress, ingress, and a set of all sets... I have satisfied all the necessary elements to prove existence is simply existence without a Creator... Your GOD theory can do none of the above...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0Dimension may not even be a physical dimension... It may represent the dimension we interact with in our heads... An Idea can be said to be 0 Dimensional..at yet an idea must still formulate into an idea through the processing of other information....

so you admit the possibility of a dimensionless aspect of our existence? But how can that be if we are just the sum of physics and chemistry? How does our brain conceive of concepts outside of physical dimension?

First off Physics and chemestry are subsets of existence... You are trying to ask for quantification of every intimate aspect of existence... Thus, your question is irrelevant knowing such answers can not be provided in detail... Physics however is our description or information representation to an event or an occurrence that has a constant value or at least up to a point to where it may be defied.. Physics neither needs an awareness to be appreciated or a creator to be written... It's a result of a cause and effect..

"brain conceive of concepts outside of physical dimension?"

Thoughts and Ideas can simply sum it up... theories and dreams..Fictional Reality and fantasy neither need physical dimension...

And a 0D is not an actual "non-dimension".. It's still a dimension or place of existence that represents a loop to where all things and places must be comprised of and can never go through or break down to get to -1D... it's the very base of what you can call a place or a thing without actual non-existence.. 0D & 1D Even represent thoughts, dreams ectra without contradiction to existence to where they are comprised of 0D and 1D.. For it to be a thought it must have a base place 0D.. and it must be a thing itself as a though (1D)... Or something to that effect..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can a god literally create the entire sum of information or knowledge? The answer is absolutely not.. Only an idiot would think this possible....

Simply more bare assertion.

This is no assertion.. this would be a fact... Read what a Universal Set is (set of all sets)

Information prior to a god doesn't either.. it just states that if a GOD should exist it's self would have to have been formed... It's impossible to create in reverse.. A GOD can not be the creator of all things and be its own entity or have it's own Identity... Information is higher in the order of importance than a being that must have it for it's own Identity or in need to use it.. It must have it in order to do anything.. it must be comprised of it and a structured set from it...

A god can neither create existence or information to which it's self needs.. The only way you can argue a GOD is to admit that it's self was created... And in admitting that you would have to admit that if that is possible so is the possibility that a GOD is not needed for creation or the formation of mas and matter or life that can again lead to intelligence or self awareness...

But as it sits.. Reverse creation is not possible.. And shows that our universe could have formed by mere cause and effect and complexity formed in the same manor.. The evidence is obvious that creation does not happen in reverse...

TheJackel - You have made some good points, and I have enjoyed your posts...

But now I have to take issue with you; lets take it easy when someone says they believe in god and evolution.

The topic is evolution, not atheism is correct and all others are wrong.

Religion should stay out of science, it has no place there. Religion can inspire, provide hope and moral philosophy. Several religions don't even HAVE a creation story, and view it as a waste of time pondering it.

Science should stay out of the business of attempting to disprove god. That isn't science, and is a complete misuse of it. But evolution does not disprove god. It's only offending the literalists.

But if science steps on religion's toes a bit in the persuit of truth, so be it. Science does not exist to make people comfortable or feel safe, that is religion's job. Christianity adapted to the earth orbiting the sun, and most christian sects have accepted evolution now.

This isn't a Blog or article where anyone cares about what someone believes in.. This is a logical debate of the issue and it's open to being picked apart... I really don't care if someone has faith in something or believes in something magical or otherwise.. This isn't the forum for it...

Science should stay out of the business of disproving GOD? Are you kidding me? Science never set such goals.. it does so by the results of trying to make sense of the world we live in.. it's intent had nothing to do with the sheer purpose of disproving a GOD...

You use this argument as a means to ignore valid questions about existence... And sorry kid answering questions is exactly what science is about... it has everything to do with science.. It only threatens you because it's asking questions that you can not handle... Or questions that seriously question the credibility of your ideology...

This is why religion is based on faith and devotion without questions.. it's about obeisance to the ideology regardless if its BS or not...

Your entire posts states that Science and questions should be ignored or censored to protect the faith and the religious ideology.. And that such questions are thus blasphemy regardless if they are valid questions or not...

The key thing to note here is that it is religion trying to convert science into it's ideology to where science become devoted to the faith and becomes obedient without questions... You now have the Vatican trying to write a book of Genesis on aliens... If that isn't laughable I don't know what is..

If you can't handle answering tough questions then don't bother participating in a logical debate whether it's philosophical or scientific or otherwise... We are not here to play a game of censorship...

Basically Sir, this is a forum to prove you ideology is a fact.. It's not a forum to come in and say I believe and leave.. I have to sympathy for those that wish to talk in methods of side stepping as a means to ignore and continue.. You become irrelevant to the discussion..

Basically Sir, this is a forum to prove you ideology is a fact.. It's not a forum to come in and say I believe and leave

Actually, this is a forum for open discussion as long as it's on-topic and not in violation of the CoH or User Agreement. If you'd like a forum which mandates attempts at proof of ideology as fact, feel free to create your own.

Jack this has everything to do with evolution... Intelligence can be argued as a result of evolution.. from single celled organisms to the point of human self awareness..

My post has merit to the discussion,

My post has merit to the discussion

#14.4 certainly didn't: "Basically Sir, this is a forum to prove you ideology is a fact.. It's not a forum to come in and say I believe and leave" is utter bulls---.

Your previous comment had absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution or intelligence.

point taken... I wrote that whole piece on 1 line without reading the rest.. My bad.. :)

Fair enough. We all slip up once in a while.

And again someone ignores the evolution of intelligence ;) That is the very problem with intelligent design.. It requires something other than it's self in order to create.. It must have something it's self can not be the creator of... INFORMATION!!... To state intelligence created information is ass backwards and laughable.. It's simply impossible...

It's like saying we walk on earth because gravity pushes out instead of pulling us in...

Here is a key thing.. Humans can not fully understand information formation or the idea of information following information because we think information has to be the result of processing by of something with intelligence... Since our brains are made to process information it can not quantify in many cases the idea of information developing it's own structures and meanings through the combining or merging of other pieces of information in a process called formation.. A cause and effect process vs calculated intelligent process..

We can conclude that intelligence and self awareness can not ignite without first going through formation.. Evolving from cause and effect into more complex structure that leads to the ability of a developed structure to process other pieces of information.. Cause and effect to calculated processing... This is proven in every living thing.. To what point does a human child become self aware... when does simple awareness ignite from unawareness.. When does full self awareness become complete?

This is key evidence that shows that self awareness must first be learned.. A new born baby is a prime example of simple awareness that slowly evolves a complete awareness or full self awareness... It must establish it's own existence to it's self and be fully aware of it...

It's proof in the pudding as they say..

Jackal: Your "below" comment is totally without reasoning. The mind is the brain of the soul and is contained within the human body-- which is the reason for our emotions. All souls once existed in Heaven and were free of confinement. When God decided to place life on earth, God created the body in which our souls would be placed. A free soul that is now confined in a single body is like a prisoner in solitary confinement. That is why the human emotion is far more emotional than all other creatures. That is the cause of loneliness, laughter, boredom, the need for othe human contact, tears etc. Animals don't have a soul that pre-existed their creation and therefore their emotions, "as well as intelligence" is no where near that of humans.

You know nothing about God or how He works. You know nothing about the inner workings of the universe in which God created. If you like talking about containers, then remember this...Your knowledge is contained to what exists in this world and this world only. What exists beyond this world, or plain of existence, is way beyond anything you are capable of understanding.

"also noted that even in that case.. The mind still needs a container... A place of existence or a place to where something resides... and if the mind is the substance of that place it would mean that anything in it is merely a part of that mind... Hence, it's own imagining... A solipsist existence..

Each mind has to have a separate container.. within a larger container that is not a mind... Hence, existence is not self aware... Nor is GOD the answer to existence... It's proven false by simple logic.. You can't argue this... Your god can not be the sum of all things and be self aware.. Only a moron would think that is likely possible.."

Joseph you do realize that you are contradicting yourself ;)

"All souls once existed in Heaven and were free of confinement."

Is heaven a place of existence? If it is a place then it is confinement... A container apart from earth... Is it not a separate place from earth? Can heaven exist without existence? Can it exist in a place of non-existence? Must it be in existence in order to exist? Or how about hell.. is that not contained seaparety from heaven.. Are they not two different places?

Can non-existence be a place of existence? a person of existence? or a thing of existence? Can they be created?

And Does your god need to exist in order to be in existence? Can he pre-exist existence in order to create existence so heaven or the kingdom of heaven can be a place of existence?

Is existence hence not a container to any given place, reality, thought, idea or mind?

In order for you to win this argument Josephy you have to argue that existence doesn't exist.. And that non-existence can be a place of existence. a person of existence, and a thing of existence..

For everything including your GOD would need existence... YOU FAIL!...

are they in existence or are they in a place or thing of non-existence? Oh.. how difficult this must be for you to compute ;) It must suck to need something other than yourself in order to exist lol...

If there was no place of existence would you exist? if there was no thing in existence would you exist? could you be self aware without existence? Can there be self awareness without it's container called existence?

If the bell doesn't ring by now you are simply too stupid to be posting and you should turn your computer off and go back to first grade... :/

You simply have no concept of what containment means or what a container is... Much less the need for it...

And since heaven is of it's own place by your own words it has confinement... It has containment... To even go there you must leave from here to there... Hence you would have to cross over... But they all exist under existence should they actually all be places of existence...

Example:

Every country is it's own place.. They have their borders and their own containment.. But they are also all places on earth and all places in existence... And existence is the place to it's self and everywhere within it's self... Neither heaven earth or hell can represent existence as a whole..

So give me an example of non-existence as a place of existence, a thing of existence, and a person of existence... An please describe how you can create nothing or non-existence ;)

Jackal: The opposite of reversed creation is creation. So you can't have reverse creation without having creation first. Creation makes reverse creation possible, which allows for reverse creation to become creation itself. Therefore, creation is it's creator and reverse creation is the creator of it's own creation. And all your theories just flew out the window.

"Jackal: The opposite of reversed creation is creation. So you can't have reverse creation without having creation first. Creation makes reverse creation possible, which allows for reverse creation to become creation itself. Therefore, creation is it's creator and reverse creation is the creator of it's own creation. And all your theories just flew out the window."

That made no sense Joseph...

In the end Joseph you are still trying to argue an eternal element that can not be created but just exists... This entire rant of yours simply backfires on you.. Either prove non-existence can be a place of existence, a thing of existence, or a person of existence or stop posting circular comments..... And when you try to do this.. You will realize the folly in trying to do that.. How that very contradiction just simply kills any attempt you make ;)

Answer the paradoxes Joseph..

Jackal: It makes plenty of sense. It is a pointless argument-- but it makes more sense than anything you have said, so far. Anyone can takes a bunch of words and twist them into something they believe is intelligence, but a bunch of words linked together to sound intelligent can still make for a foolish conversation. Your so-called paradoxes don't make intelligent conversation, they make foolish ones. There is no logic within your reasoning, and no reasoning within your logic. You have said nothing that proves or disproves anything other than the fact that you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Your so-called paradoxes don't make intelligent conversation, they make foolish ones

wrong...

The paradoxes makes sense Joseph.. You simply ignore them and don't answer them... Hardly foolish conversation Joseph.. But what ever you need to keep your boat from sinking Joseph is your choice... You have proven your lack of intelligence in any of these discussions.. In fact your sole purpose was to run around in circles to drown out the discussion without ever answering the paradoxes ;)...

In end point Joseph.. you can't answer the paradoxes.. And the paradoxes makes sense... But you are not someone of rational thought or logical thinking... You are a magic believer and a reverse creationist who thinks solipsism is existence...

You haven't proven GOD exists and I have proven that it needs existence to exist and could not create to which it needs to exist.. Thus is false...

So either prove you can not exist to create existence Joseph or go back to first grade and get an education in Logic and commonsense knowledge.. Your sheer game of playing stupid is actually making you look stupid..

It's really funny when someone asks you to prove your gods existence and all you can do is talk in circles.. This is why these conversations are for people who actually have an education Joseph...

And I will say Joseph.. You haven't even answered a single question anyone has asked of you... And you literally got owned in Biology in the other discussion by several people.. And I can see why your only source of education comes from the bible. Or at the very least that appears to be the limit of your education on the world..

I don't know why I don't keep you on ignore.. Perhaps you amuse me to no end :P lol..

Jackal: No. Your so-called paradoxes make no sense, whatsoever. You haven't proven anything, except, like I said, that you havo no idea what you're talking. You are talking in circles that go no where. There is no point or logic to anything you say. I don't have to speak in circles, as you so obviously do. My boat "or should I say, my ark" won't sink, because I speak of what I know to be true, and not what I believe to be true. I presented a reasonable and logical point that definitely proves God and creation. One, that no person on this planet can reasonably or logically argue against. So it is you who most definitely need to stop talking in circles.

Joseph explain what you don't understand about the paradoxes... LOL... I'll be happy to explain them to you...

Does GOD need existence to exist? Can GOD pre-exist (not exist) to create existence (the container to it's existence)

*This is pretty straight forward Joseph... Did god create existence? And how did he manage to do that Joseph? Does he not need to exist Joseph? Or are you going to try and state that something that doesn't exist can created existence?*

If existence could destroy it's self could existence and become non-existence.. And if non-existence becomes a reality, a place, or a thing does it automatically become a place, person or thing of existence its self?

*basically Joseph.. Can existence actually be destroyed and can non-existence actually exist as a person, place or thing of existence?*

If you think so please provide an example of non-existence as a person, place or thing of existence Joseph... A 3rd grader can understand the premise of the question

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If A God destroyed himself or didn't exist would existence cease to exist or not exist and become non-existence?

*If GOD didn't exists Joseph is non-existence possible? Would non-existence become a person, place or thing of existence?*Hence is your GOD existence it's self.. And if you say yes then your belief is that we are all a solipsist existence and don't actually exist because we are just GOD arguing against it's self*

If everything is GOD joseph then everything would be self aware and a form of solipsism.. And we are then not separate entities from GOD.. We are GOD!.. So if you even try to agree that existence is god joseph...You don't believe in the bible... For it states that GOD is it's own entity that resides in the spiritual world out side our plane of existence and in it's own plane of existence..'Kingdom of God" by your own words.. Another place of existence..

lets start with these Joseph.. explain what you do not understand about these? And how is this talking in circles..?? Sorry if you can't understand that paradox you really are a complete idiot...

Lets see who is avoiding... Hell Just give me 1 example of Non-existence as an actual place, person, or thing of existence.. Can non-existence actually be a noun in the literal sense?

Jackal: If you think you have everything figured out, why do you continue to ask questions? I'm not going to waste time with your pointless questions, I see no logic or purpose to them. If you think they prove something or have some type of reasoning to them, then discuss them with someone who entertains your belief.

Joseph said:

"Jackal: Genesis 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I write the following in the book of UNICORN: Genesis, would the following be true?

"Then the Magical Unicorns said We give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.. They will be yours for food"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here is the obvious clue Joseph that your fellow man wrote this.. The sheer stupidity of the quote it's self is an example of your brainwashed head...

By that statement I could eat any fruit correct? Anything that bears seed? So now in Genesis is this GOD trying to commit round two of Genocide? Because guess what Joseph... You can't eat everything that bears seed or fruit! Much of it is poisonous to Humans and animals!

Maybe your GOD should put a warning label on his statement that all things that bear seed is for you to eat.. or all fruits and vegetables are for your consumption... Many humans have died discovering that a potato is edible if you don't eat the green parts..

Here is but a very very very small list... there are thousands of fruits. or vegetables, or see bearing plants and trees that can not be consumed!

POKEWEED (Pokeberry), Phytolacca, roots and fruit are dangerous

RHODODENDRON, (Azalea), all parts are fatal

ACOKANTHERA, fruit and flowers

AGAPANTHUS, African lily, foliage and bulb

AMSINKIA (Tarweed), foliage and seeds

AMARYLLIS, A. belladonna digitalis, bulbs contain alkaloids; berries and other parts

ATROPA BELLADONNA, all parts, especially black berries

AZALEAS (RHODODENDRON), all parts are fatal!

BANEBERRY, (Doll's Eyes), red or white berries, roots and foliage

BEGONIA, tubers, foliage and blossoms

BLACK LOCUST, bark, sprouts and foliage.. Potentially fatal!

BUCKEYE HORSE CHESTNUT, sprouts and nuts

CASTOR BEAN, seeds are fatal!

CHERRIES, Prunus (wild and cultivated), twigs and foliage are fatal!

CHERRY LAUREL, all parts are very dangerous; contains hydrocyanic acid

CHINA BERRY TREE, Melia, berries are poisonous and sometimes fatal

CHRISTMAS BERRY, (Toyo), berries are poisonous and potentially fatal <--- How Ironic!

CHINA BERRY TREE, Melia, berries are poisonous

CREEPING CHARLIE, black or blue

CROCUS, all bulbs

DAPHNE, Laurus, the berries are fatal!

DAFFODIL, (Narcissus), bulbs may be fatal

DAPHNE, the berries are fatal!

DEATH-CAMAS, all parts are poisonous, roots are deadly!

FOXGLOVE, Digitalis purpurea, whole plant can be fatal

GOLDEN CHAIN, seeds and pods may be fatal

LANTANA CAMARA (Red Sage), green berries are fatal

LARKSPUR, (Delphinium), foliage and roots are dangerous, seeds may be fatal!

MISTLETOE, berries are fatal!

MOONSEED, berries may be fatal

MOUNTAIN LAUREL, young leaves and shoots are fatal!

POISON HEMLOCK, all parts are fatal!

POTATO, sprouts and foliage are fatal!

RHODODENDRON, (Azalea), all parts are fatal

ROSARY BEAN, (Jequirity Bean, Crab's Eye, Precatroy Bean), Abrus, seeds commonly called "beans" are fatal!

I love the Christmas Berry... I think that would make a great Christmas Gift to all kids around the world.. According to GOD it's OK!! It's like popcorn! Great for a new berry sauce for the Christmas Dinner!... Maybe we should leave some Christmas berry brownies out for Santa!

Jackal, you too are a joke, but you don't see no one rubbing that in your face.

When was the last national outbreak of poisoned fruit? Have you ever heard of medicinal plants? I guess people only eat fruits and vegetables because it's a natural pastime, huh? And let's not forget... So many people are dying of poisoned fruits and vegetables there's a special obituary section just for them. And the #1 cause of death in the world is the consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Many humans have died while discovering a whole bunch of things, you aren't proving anything there. And if you're so sure people don't need fruits and vegetables to live, quit eating them and prove it. Let us all witness your survival. Let you lead us into a new world. Just as I thought, "You're all talk and no action."

Learn the difference between fact and fiction. And stay away from the magic unicorns, they're damaging your brain cells.

Joseph tens of thousands of people die each year from poisonous fruits and plants... Tens of thousands more die from taking addictive drugs as well... 5-400 people die in the USA each year from eating or consuming poisonous fruits and plants.. And that is pretty amazing since we have agriculture down to a pure science and we buy most of our food from a safe place called a super market where you get edible food without the worry of eating something that will kill you...

1,000's of people died from eating the green parts of a potato plant... Millions have died prior to modern medicine and biology...

"Many humans have died while discovering a whole bunch of things, you aren't proving anything there."

Welcome to evolution! Responding to stimuli and learning what not to eat! GJ Joseph!

And are you now contradicting what the bible states? Now you are back peddling to where you have to admit that not every fruit or plant or seed bearing thing is edible? Feel free to eat any of the above listed and tell me how it goes Joseph...

"Jackal, you too are a joke, but you don't see no one rubbing that in your face."

That is quite possibly because I am not the joke? ;) And Nor have I called you a "Joke".. Your ideology is a joke.. Genesis is laughable at best... Intelligence before knowledge is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of... And the one mind to rule them all is just silly solipsism!... You can have your precious genocidal GOD that apparently kills because he's sorry for creating life.. Sounds like you GOD doesn't understand that you can't blame the beasts of your creations for any wrongs they may commit... For that responsibility rest on his shoulders!

It's poor leadership to kill and then say don't kill.. its hypocrisy and a complete contradiction... It's equal the the Island of Dr Moreau!

There is so much wrong with the ideology that you could write several books on it... It that bad..It a complete brainwash...

Now you will play the circle game to bury the damning evidence under a ton of circular BS.. ;)

I simply win Joseph because you avoid the paradoxes.. ;)

Wow, I need to stop posting at 5am...:/ I'm making too many typos or forgetting letters to words :/ Ah well, life is but a dream to which apparently is not of my own ;) Solipsism is bliss!

"people don't need fruits and vegetables to live, quit eating them and prove it."

LOL... Oh WOW! :P Joseph you never cease to amaze me ;) Little known fact for you.. You don't need fruits or vegetables to live ;) Grains, dairy, and meat products and water can sustain you without fruits or vegetables.. Although it wouldn't be the healthiest life style... Even Vegans have severe problems without taking protein supplements.. And many vegans take supplements from non animals sources.. However, they are not as healthy as those that eat both meat and vegetables.... Fruits simply have no bearing on the subject....

Humans are omnivores... Though we are perfectly capable of living a carnivorous life style. There are many animals that do not require fruits or vegetables to live... It's a fallacy to think you need something to live vs live healthier when dealing with fruits and vegetables.. There are groups of people that only eat meat.. And there are groups of people that eat rotten meat... Some people get their minerals and vitamins from eating dirt... There are many roots or other sources other than vegetables and fruits from which you can eat... But they aren't as high in antioxidants or in vitamins.. But they can get the job done....

There are various forms of edible plants apart from fruits and vegetables.Look up wilderness survival guides on roots and trees and various shrubs.... And again there are those that will kill you... So your point is moot..

And then there are these wonderful things called mushrooms that are Fungi... ;) So no.. you do not need fruits and vegetables to live!

meat, grains, dairy, shrubs, various roots and bark or sap, and fungi can easily sustain life ;) And all cases can be equally as deadly... I wouldn't go and test my luck trying to eat a puffer fish or various poisonous plants or fungi... ;)

Warning we now have a spin doctor :P

Does god not need information and knowledge to know he exists? who he is? where he is? and what he is doing or going to do? It's pretty funny that your GOD would be slave to the need of information to even have an intelligence to where he can apply knowledge...

People that think intelligence exists before knowledge are complete morons.. And since that knowledge has to pre-exist intelligence a GOD could not create that which it's self needs to be self aware or to be able to apply knowledge...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph, life feeding on other life or non matter is just active-matter consumer active matter and non-active matter as a source of energy..

Information is in both energy form and in physical form... active matter can respond, organize, react or manipulate it.. Sound for example is a form of information... Me typing this and sending it over the internet is a perfect example of information in the form of energy.. However it needs containment or a place of storage for it to exist... Plants and animals have the ability to react to and evolve to and through the use of information in both physical and energy form...

Plants react to light.. if you put a plant in the shade on a window it will bend or move to the light.. Ask yourself how does the plant know where the light is? Because it can tell the difference between light and shade without the need of a brain.. it's a life form that can react and respond to stimuli... It has intelligence without awareness.. The ability to apply knowledge without being aware... All life forms can respond to their environments without having to intelligently be aware... It knows just not in the same sense as how we know...

And your entire post here is back peddling from fruits and vegetables to nutrition... So now you are trying to change your argument ;)... And no josepg fruits and vegetables were not placed here as a base for food... They are living life forms that evolved just like any other life form... They so happen to be in the food chain just like anything else is.... Everything is apart of the food chain kid..

And many forms of life do not need other forms of life to live.. you fail... Again you need to read up on biology... Some life forms rely on non-living matter! Vegetables, chickens, dogs, cows, fruits, ectra are not necessary to sustain life...

"Fruits and vegetables have no purpose and no benefit to life in any way, other than to be eaten"

This is the dumbest of all your comments.. Wrong... They consume CO2 and produce oxygen.. When they decay they provide the soil with what it needs to be fertile and rich in ingredients for other life to grow.. They provide shelter to other living things... They do more than contribute to the food chain just like anything else... Everything is food or home to something else...

"To claim that life does not need fruits and vegetables to live, is to claim life needs no source of food, whatsoever."

Again you are wrong... grazing animals don't need them either... And we humans don't need them either.. Microbes, fungi, or all other plant life don't need them.. Whales don't need them.. in fact the entire ocean where 90 percent of all life exists doesn't need them.. How about seals? penguins? do ants need them? what about all the fresh water fish and marine life? Nope! Even Bats don't really need them.. Most insects don't need them... Do leeches need them? parasites? ticks? How about roaches? Giraffe? Hippo? rats. mice rodents? Snakes? Frogs?

So you really need to stop with the fruits and vegetables bs.. because you are a complete moron when it comes to biology...

Joseph Randall - You completely copped out on your orginal argument that god created plants to feed us. I don't blame you, it's a very poorly thought statement.

I think your statement was nicely refuted by the list of poison plants. Why would god want to poison us? I thought plants only existed to feed us, right?

I would think twice before calling other people's logic "totally ridiculous".

Jackel /MarkD,

Actually Joseph's argument has merit. Notice that plants evolved before animal life. Now why is that? Out of curiosity, what is the mammilian ratio of herbavores to carnivores? More food for thought. If all mammals were carnivores, would they eat each other up faster than they could replicate? The fact is carnivores depend on herbavores and herbavores depend upon plants. So by extention all animals do depend on fruits and vegetables. It is a logical deduction from observation that plant life is required to sustain animal life, just as microorganisms are required to sustain the atmosphere that all life depends upon.

Also note that the converse is not true. Plant life does not depend upon animal life for sustenance.

Now if you want to be argumentative and complain that Joseph was generalizing too much, fine. But your complaints take nothing away from the core idea that plant life was designed to support animal life. All the stages of creation are emergent layers that depend upon the previous design phase. First it was bacterial to kick-start the base atmosphere. That base atmosphere laid the groundwork for plants to exist, which in turn further transformed the atmosphere, which laid the groundwork for animal life to exist.

Now I know you will insist emergence does not need intelligence input, but that would be just be an assertion on your part. Emergence is only intelligible from a design standpoint.

I think your statement was nicely refuted by the list of poison plants. Why would god want to poison us? I thought plants only existed to feed us, right?

Poison plants probably hold a treasure trove of chemicals we can extract to make medicine. If I'm not mistaken, this is what they are doing with snake venom.

This whole argument of bad design is an argument from ignorance. The more we study, the more we see merit in what life has to offer. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, shall we?

StevenP..

Life does not need plants to live... In fact plants are not the first life forms kiddo ;).. Your argument fails.Animals need oxygen and Earth's early atmosphere was mostly C02..So DUH life would evolve to support a C02 based atmosphere.. And guess what..Plants need many animals in order to survive or reproduce.. C0-evolution son... It's where a relationship is formed... When we farm do we not mass reproduce a specific species of plant? Are you sure that these plants didn't co-evolve to provide us with food to ensure it's reproduction and survival... It's funny how that works vs "magical being"...

And again you are talking in circles and avoiding answering any questions... And you are wrong... Many plants depend on animals in order to survive.. And you are also wrong in that plants don't need animals for food.. There are many plants that eat anything from insects to rats.. And without ants or pollinators many plants would simply not exist....

Protists are another group that proves you wrong... Some are more plant like while others are more animal like.. They even feed on each other..

I suggest you look up co-evolution to where plants and animals need each other..

"Poison plants probably hold a treasure trove of chemicals we can extract to make medicine. If I'm not mistaken, this is what they are doing with snake venom."

Wrong... None of those I have listed are used for medical purposes.. In fact most poisonous plants have zero medical applications... It does not work in the same context as snake venum which is a toxin that attacks the nervous system... And many animals provide the same thing.. So that is entirely irrelevant.. It's mans ability to make use of it's environment with it' evolved set of tools and senses just like any other living thing....However, man is also the most destructive life form on Earth... Humans actually follow the behavioral pattern to that of a virus or a disease.. Eventually killing it's host and it's self off.. Humans spread and destroy just about everything... And we human beings will be lucky to live another 10,000 years without wiping our selves off the Planet.. Imagine what Earth would look like with 26 billion people.. And then 40 billion people.. Eventually a complete collapse will occur...

Nothing you have stated proves the existence of a GOD or of an intelligent being... It only proves a working ecosystem with an established food chain. And again life does not require plants to exist... Humans evolved with them so it's a duh that they would have a relationship with them.. How you use them matters little and proves nothing...

Once you answer the paradox questions StevenP you might actually gain some credibility... You need to show that existence can not exist without a GOD or that GOD is existence and that we some how are not in existence or in his mind of imagination...

"Notice that plants evolved before animal life. Now why is that?"

Sounds like you are conflicting and wavering in your argument.. Now they evolved? and then you go and say they were put there? which is it? lol... You just basically agreed to evolution lol. But hey a plant is smart enough to lean into the light when its in the shade... Funny how a plant knows light from dark... Kinda blows a hole into Josephs argument of how does something without awareness know of something beyond it's self... Seems like awareness comes in different levels in life... Seems like information is absorbed as it is detected.. much like energy.. We can absorb heat that tells us it's hot or warm.. Some energies pass right through us...

plant life was designed to support animal life

Wrong.. Plants and animals Co-evolved to support each other kiddo... You creationists obviously have no concept of how an ecosystem functions or works... It's a close bond to where life and information is ever changing and evolving with each other.. Both plants and animals.. Co-evolution is key to a functioning ecosystem..

Notice that plants evolved before animal life. Now why is that?

Because plants are simpler.

---

I'm sorry, but your entire line of thinking isn't going to prove creationism.

If you want to disbelieve evidence and results based science to follow perceived religious rules, that is your choice.

But if you want other people to believe in creationism, I would suggest converting them to your brand of religion; then telling them they have a choice:

Believe creationism is true, or they burn in hell.

It's much more effective than twisting facts.

Actually Joseph's argument has merit. Notice that plants evolved before animal life.

Joseph's argument was about "life" needing to feed on fruits/vegetables to survive, not "animal life."

Nice try, though.

The fact is carnivores depend on herbavores and herbavores depend upon plants. So by extention all animals do depend on fruits and vegetables.

Again, "animals" are a subset of "life."

Now if you want to be argumentative and complain that Joseph was generalizing too much, fine.

Right, because pointing out overgeneralization can only be argumentative. You're a hoot.

But your complaints take nothing away from the core idea that plant life was designed to support animal life

There's nothing to take away because there was nothing given to it in the first place.

It is a logical deduction from observation that plant life is required to sustain animal life, just as microorganisms are required to sustain the atmosphere that all life depends upon.

This is not Joseph's argument, though.

All the stages of creation are emergent layers that depend upon the previous design phase. First it was bacterial to kick-start the base atmosphere. That base atmosphere laid the groundwork for plants to exist, which in turn further transformed the atmosphere, which laid the groundwork for animal life to exist.

These statements do not support "the core idea that plant life was designed to support animal life."

Now I know you will insist emergence does not need intelligence input, but that would be just be an assertion on your part. Emergence is only intelligible from a design standpoint.

Empty assertion.

"Only GOD can know how to create Knowledge"

And let's see how long it takes Joseph and StevenP to wrap their minds around this simple contradiction ;)

Universal set (set of all sets) = A set that contains all other sets including it's self... And all other subsets are comprised of the substance of the universal set.. Existence is Existence because it's a Universal set...

A mind can not be the container to the mind... It requires containment it's self can neither create or quantify....

You and Joseph just can't seem to be able to wrap your minds around them selves to understand that you can't contain the notion of the need of containment to the mind..

And thus your GOD can not be a Universal set to existence.. Even if it were solipsism because it can not contain it's own mind and would still require other sets to be a set it's self... Knowledge, intelligence, awareness, self identity, existence, and a place of existence ectra...

Jackal: I can wrap my mind around anything I find to be of logical thinking and reasoning. But I find no logic in your thinking or reasoning. Have you met God/gods to no what any God is capable of doing? Do you know everything there is to know about the universe to know what can or can't occur in it? Do you even know what the mind is? What about the people in your dreams... the ones you never met in this life...Are they real? Do they exist in this world? Where does their personality come from, is it comprised of your own or is it truly there's? Are they in control of their actions, or is their actions controled by you, and why can't you foresee their choices? Does their world continue when you wake? Is their world created when you sleep? Are you a part of them, or they a part of you? What do you truly know about life???

Have you met God/gods to no what any God is capable of doing?

Have you? Date, time, pictures, witnesses to the event and verification please..

And so you are now stating that a GOD can create himself into existence? LOL Good argument there lol... You surely can wrap your mind around...I'll give you that ;)... But you still need your brain to do it :P Spinning inside your head doesn't count son :)

"Do you know everything there is to know about the universe to know what can or can't occur in it?"

Well at least we got you to finally say the IN word.. :P Can you fully know what can occur at any moment on Earth or know everything about Earth? Do you need to know to understand the premise of exactly what Earth is? A planet that orbits the sun within a galaxy that is within our Universe or in existence... Can we make the same observations about any given whole we don't fully quantify? Is all information prudent to the whole if an accurate representation of the whole is given... Do I need to know how many fingers you have in order to know that you are human?

What about the people in your dreams.. 0d/1D dimensional dreams or processing? So I can't think or recall from stored knowledge or information? My mind can't randomly shuffle information to create imagination? The brain is an amazing organ in existence... But even the dreams them selves have to be in existence if they are to exist at all... To what process we formulate those dreams is not yet fully understood.. Further studies are exploring this very aspect of life...

personality represents behavioral differences.. No two minds are the same but two minds and personalities can be similar... Hence you can even categorizes common personality traits... Personality is developed through an increasing knowledge of ones self and others around one self.. Mimicry plays a large role in personality development as well..

And are they in control of their actions? Not if GOD is existence. That would be solipsism..And still false under the Universal set rules.. Which could explain why personalities have similarities to one another... Common behaviors ectra.. Which is a sign of solipsist existence Or a sign that GOD isn't existence and that we are two different glasses made from the same pile of sand that share common traits and behaviors..

What do I know about life?

The answer to life is to exist.. And to exist is life. And existence is Life with us as its awareness to it's self.. All individual minds without 1 mind in control. In essences there is nothing that is in still... The earth is moving and the atoms within are always moving...Existence is ever flowing... What is still only appears to be still.. Life is that of a Universal Set with contradiction and no paradox... God without thought or mind forms us each life as a representation of it's self.. A product of existence... We are GOD and at 1 with GOD... 1+x=1.. the Formula for Love... To be unique is to form from cause and effect and not of intelligent design...

Existence is my GOD... And it's not a self aware mind.. I am the product of it's substance and I represent the awareness within it as the rest of you do as well..

Thus my definition of GOD differs from yours Joseph.. It's impossible for existence as a whole to a self aware mind without solipsism or containment of it's own mind apart from ours... Thus Existence is not a self aware GOD of 1 mind.. It's a container and substance to all minds as separate individuals..

And btw yes.. I met GOD.. It's called existence and I am fully aware of the possibilities :P Unlike your magical imagined GOD... Mine actually is verifiable to exist :)...

So we Define GOD as a Universal Set :) Existence without solipsism or without 1 mind to all things.. Or to all things with a mind that represent the awareness to existence with birth from the substance of existence... And all things without a mind...

Jackal: Answering questions with questions aren't answers. And quit claiming I said something when I didn't. I haven't claimed, or disclaimed God can create Himself into existence. It is not my place to divulge God's personal business... I speak what God has given me to speak, and I give information on a need to know basis.

And don't forget your statement... "To what process we formulate those dreams is not yet fully understood.. Further studies are exploring this very aspect of life..."

Because I know exactly how the dream process works. Just like I know that if I explain that process, you'll start to make all kinds of claims of what you and scientists think they know. And I'm not talking about our personality. I'm talking about the personality of the people you dream about. Are you in control of the choices they make in your dream, or do they control them? Where does their thought process come from, and if they are a part of you, why can't you foresee any choice they're going to make?

And the answer to life isn't simply to exist. Life exists in order to make a choice, because it is that choice which is the final outcome of this life. If existence is your god, then everything in existence is above you...Guess that makes you the lowest creature on earth.

Welcome to solipsism Joseph... You can make any personality to a person in your head any way your brain chooses to... It has stored imprints of other personality traits that you learn from your interactions with other people or even animals.. You aren't proving anything here Joseph.. you are only proving the processing of information...

Just curious Joseph.. if you don't remember a dream did you actually have a dream? Some people claim the don't dream at all or very rarely... Science has yet to determine the difference between rem sleep brain activity and brain activity when someone has a dream... In both cases the activity or processing is continuous...

"Because I know exactly how the dream process works"

lol...Now you are probably going to claim you are an expert in how the human brain works ;)... We all know how well that went over the last time ;) Amnesia isn't your friend son...

Jackal: Learn a new word, already. Last time you claimed the process that formulates dreams is not fully understood. Now I tell you I know the process and ABRACADABRA, you suddenly know everything. And you're still beating around the bush. I know my personality and I know what goes on in my dreams. The people I dream about don't carry traits of my personality, and I don't control the thoughts or actions of the people I dream about, nor do I control what they will look like.

And yes, people who don't remember their dreams still dream. Everyone dreams whether they remember or not.

Amnesia may not be my friend but God and Jesus are. Who could ask for more?!

Joseph unlike you I can read and do research apparently ;) I actually read other things other than the bible... You brain can make any image off a combination of any imprint it has stored in memory... Hence you can imagine a human faced dog eating a rat with rabies and then suddenly sprout wings like an eagle and fly off into space where it's self gets turned into a windshield decoration by a speeding spaceship... A brain can process and endless amount of manifestations just off a single image or picture... In fact any dream can have real life interpretation... It's like a box of lego's with an unknown number of pieces..

Some times dreams lead to a clear mind or idea to where some people have good memory of what they had dreamed... Not every brain is wired the same.. Some people swear they don't ever have dreams..

Jackal: For a person who claims to do a lot of research and reading, you sure don't have anything to show for it. I know what my brain can do. I also know, that if my brain was my master, it would be telling you what it can do and not I. The brain sleeps, it is not the dreamer. The dreamer is the mind, the brain of the soul.

Joseph the brain does not sleep.. And you are really a moron if you think the brain doesn't do the dreaming lol... So by your logic if someone doesn't have a dream that their soul must be asleep too lol... Wow... We have a religious guy here trying to sate he knows how dreams are formed lol... I wonder what the soul is thinking when it has amnesia lol... Pretty damn funny that a simple whack to the head can create a new personality and identity ;).. Or cause you to become completely unconscious... It seem that your soul is so frail that it can literally be knocked into unawareness...

Here is another interesting thing.. when people are put under for an operation they are never self aware, conscious or in a dream land unless they didn't properly put them fully under.... I know this because I've been put under to have tubes put in my ears after a bad ear infection... It can only be quantified as light out and lights slowly back on... The only time I had any sort of dream state was when i was starting to wake up to where I could once again hear the voices around me...

If your soul theory was correct nothing would effect your consciousness... You would not be able to be sedated... And I know this to be a fact ;)..

Jackal: I warn you, and I warn you...yet, you still continue to make yourself look foolish with all your scapegoating. If the brain does not sleep, then what part of the body does? And why does sleepiness take place in the head-- the same place in which dreams occur? The soul doesn't get amnesia, it is incapable of it. And I clearly stated that, "Eveyone dreams, even if they don't remember." I've also been under anesthesia, so I know the brain tries to connect that missing piece of time when I came out of it. It is the same thing that would happen if we slept without dreaming. My soul "FACT" is correct. Consciousness and sedation have to do with the brain, not the soul. It is why a brain-dead person can still be alive, because the soul is still active within the body.

I suggest you read on sedation because your an idiot on this matter... You are basically suggesting that the brain goes brain dead during sleep.. Sorry kid but that is the dumbest thing ever...

1) I've been knocked unconscious several times while snowboarding by going off the half pipe and rails... Not once did I dream while I was unconscious.. In fact I wasn't even self aware..

2) I've been sedated for surgery on my ears.. Under sedation most people do not dream.. When people do dream under sedation it's a very rare event when someone was either not fully sedated, has a higher tolerance to the drug, or is required to be semi-conscious during the operation or procedure.. In fact Joseph there is less brain activity while under sedation than when you are in REM sleep...

3) Amnesia or Global amnesia that results in new personality behavior and the formation of a new identity proves you wrong...

4) Body of evidence:

Other people that can verify my experience: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080131170833AArS34g

Technical information: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/20507/?a=f

Patient awareness information: http://www.asahq.org/patientEducation/Awarenessbrochure.pdf

http://www.permanente.net/homepage/kaiser/pages/f36875.html

"Dreaming during general anesthesia is uncommon, due to the fact that the anesthetic state differs from normal sleep. The stage of sleep where dreaming normally occurs, called REM (for rapid-eye-motion) sleep, is suppressed during general anesthesia. When dreams or dream-like memories do occur, they generally occur at the end of anesthesia when you are “waking up.”"

So much for your damn dream theory kid... This is why people don't listen to religious nuts Joseph.. You are full of BS.. Proven so by simple facts.. So let me guess your next argument will be that GOD created video games to keep the mind active while it's not in "rest" lol..

Sorry kid a brain dead person is no longer self aware or conscious.. And the living tissue dies at random durring the decaying process...

Please prove "soul" actually exists.. Data please... Basic assertion of a religious nut... The soul is your belief or theory and is not proven to exist... You only believe it's true because you fear the concept of it being false... Thus you refuse any actual evidence....

If the soul was a fact you would probably never lose consciousness... This reconnect thing is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time lol.. so under sedation the brain is dead? the soul needs to reconnect? Last time I checked kid the brain is still active and alive during sedation.... You are thus trying to cling to circular assertions or BS..

A brain dead person only remains alive because its being supported by machines to keep it alive to where the cells still get oxygen and sustenance.. There is no evidence of the existence of a soul...

Hell for fun if I cut your body up into pieces and keep those pieces alive by implanting them into someone else does your soul go to heaven missing pieces ? lol... Thus can I cut you up and prevent you from ever being a complete soul lol..

Funny how that backfires:O

If a human ear is grown on a mouse is the ear have a human soul or does it have a mouse soul? It's rather funny to watch you pretend to be in the "know" of how life works, the brain works, or how a soul works in relation to a brain lol.. You are quite the little religious scientist here.. The random off the wall ideas you have are rather funny Joseph...

Quite simply.. full sedation is likely what death is like... It's not very scary at all.. As they say ignorance is bliss and so is unawareness... ;).. I lost fear of death after my own experiences with unconsciousness...

Jackal: A person who has just one brain cell can see that your comment has nothing to do with anything I've said. May I suggest you stay off the snowboards, unless you're out to sue someone for the brain damage they're causing you.

Whatever floats your Ark Joseph ;)

Jackal: You seriously need a lesson in comprehension. Did I say a brain dead person is aware of anything? No, I didn't!! (However, in your case people may argue otherwise). The soul isn't my belief or theory... And the brain wouldn't debate the existence of a soul, nor would the brain speak in the second or third person. I control my brain. My brain doesn't control me. And for the record, "I fear nothing." The soul doesn't prevent us from losing consciousness anymore than it prevents us from dying. And a piece of cartilage shaped like a human ear doesn't mean it's human. And if you gave your kidney to someone else, does that mean you exist inside them? And I guess when a person is brain dead, doctors only hook them up to life support for the fun of it, huh? You're like a kindergarten who refuses to believe he isn't in college. Your questions and way of thinking is totally absurd. Dreams are so the brain doesn't suffer from a loss of time when we sleep, and you can't prove otherwise. Nor, in a million years, can you come up with a better explanation.

So you see... Dreams are undeniable proof of God.

I deny it, because that argument didn't even make a bit of sense. No offense.

Anyway, I'm not here to disprove god, TheJackal is doing that one.

I still feel that science should stay out of religion, and religion should stay out of science. They both suck when involved with the other.

Not to mention, neither of you are getting anything accomplished. Nobody will abandon a religous belief when attacked with brute force logic.

Present facts in a polite way, and if people want to learn more or think about it, maybe they will figure something out. Let them. You can't force them. If they don't want to accept information, they won't. Don't waste time.

What a bunch of nonsense. Only a brainwashed, bible/preacher believing rube would spout such drivel.

MarkD: None Taken. Btw, my statement makes so much sense, that was the best you could do. If science wasn't always trying to sneak it's way into religion, there'd be no problem. And you have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish, so you have no idea if I accomplished it.

BornAgainAgnostic: Yet, no person on earth can provide a more logical explanation. If you don't believe me...well, you got billions of them choose from. Pick as many as you want.

Jackal: Dumb?!! Do you know the difference between something reacting to something because it knows the difference, and something reacting to something because something else causes the reaction? There is a world of difference between the two, you know?

And if your fruit is alive, evolved, and all that crap...then it should grow some brains and legs and get the heck out of dodge instead of sitting there waiting to get eaten.

And yes, God can create a rock He Himself cannot lift or destroy. All He has to do is create a heavy rock and then make Himself to weak to lift it, or powerless to destroy it. The answer to the rest of your questions are yes, also.

As for delusional, that would be you. You actually believe you're impressing yourself.

And you have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish, so you have no idea if I accomplished it.

Ok, so what are you trying to accomplish?

"Jackal: Dumb?!! Do you know the difference between something reacting to something because it knows the difference, and something reacting to something because something else causes the reaction? There is a world of difference between the two, you know?"

Yeah... It proves something can react to something regardless of the cause of the reaction... LOL.. It's like saying a skunk sprays a human and the human has a reaction to which the skunk caused... It's completely irrelevant of what causes a reaction.. The fact a reaction takes place is all you need to know.. A reaction is by definition a response... And also an example of cause and effect that still produces a result...

Hence, you contradicted yourself... And many plants in fact respond to their environment.. Though I would agree with you that it's not always a positive like that article tried to suggest... But the science behind it is not false...

My suggestion to you is to go do some research on plant behaviors, botany, mutation, and what exactly they rely on.... Most plants today depend on animals... And that is simply how it is.. It wasn't like this before animals came along... These relationships have been forming for millions and millions of years... And I really don't think you comprehend how long 1 million years is vs 65 million years... Just imagine watching paint dry that long!...

"And yes, God can create a rock He Himself cannot lift or destroy. All He has to do is create a heavy rock and then make Himself to weak to lift it, or powerless to destroy it. The answer to the rest of your questions are yes, also."

So you admit limitations to his creativity.. Hence.. He could not actually make a rock he could not destroy... Literally.... Under any condition... same with the lifting.. nice try on trying to twist it though lol.. I don't think you understood the premise of the question... It means literally in any way possible...

Can he destroy himself? And if he was destroyed would existence become non-existence? Would non-existence become a place or thing of existence?. And if non-existence as a person, place or thing is impossible can your GOD create a Door to which he can open and leave existence into a place of non-existence?

It's kind of getting silly eh.. We could write paradoxes all day long on a GOD to show it's inabilities...

MarkD: Let's just say most of what I set out to accomplish has been accomplished, all that's left is some loose ends to tie up. But what that accomplishment is... must remain with me because that's "part" of how I go about accomplishing it.

Jackal: You claimed plants move because they can tell the difference between light and dark. I said plants move because molecules cause them to move. There is a big difference between something moving 'cause it is aware of something, and something moving because something causes it to move. That is not a contradiction. You can't admit your wrong even when it is so obviously clear. A piece of paper doesn't move because it feels like going wind surfing, it moves because the wind moves it. The piece of paper has no choice in the matter. My suggestion to you is to comeback to the real world. The human mind isn't capable of comprehending a timespan of a million years or more. There is no difference in my mind when imagining paint drying for 1million or 65million years, unless I actually done it.

And I didn't admit God has limitations, that would be as foolish as believing in evolution. I have however, admitted that there is no limitations to anything God is willing to do, if He so chooses.

Let's just say most of what I set out to accomplish has been accomplished, all that's left is some loose ends to tie up. But what that accomplishment is... must remain with me because that's "part" of how I go about accomplishing it.

An attempt to discredit creationists with bad arguments? Good show!

Joseph Randall,

Umm.. I already gave you another example of a plant moving in the plant article ;) And sorry we are all made of molecules.... Cause and effect and a reaction regardless is still a response to stimuli... The plant moves.. It doesn't matter what the cause and effect is.. It proves that something can happen with an end result that benefits the species... If you don't understand the premise of that then you are not smart enough to have this discussion kiddo... Like I said GO read a book before you post your uneducated garbage here...

Any plant that east animals moves and reacts to stimuli kid.. You wonder how the plant knows it has food in its mouth eh.. ;)

Movements in plants in response to stimuli are known as tropisms

and here is a link for you

http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/1727/

Plants can move in response to contact with something. Normally, plants will contact other plants or miscellaneous items in their garden environment, such as dead twigs, flat surfaces, and chain link fencing. When plants respond to these encounters by moving in a manner differently than the way they moved before they made contact, the response is called thigmotropism . This is how the tendrils of vines, or the stems of twining vines, are able to wrap around objects as they grow. You can see this in action if you have a fast-growing vine climbing a wire or mesh. Find a stem that has not wrapped around anything yet and arrange it so that it is touching a wire or stalk that it can wrap around. Then come back to view it in a few hours. The vine should have begun wrapping around the object and you will see that it curved towards the area touched by the object.

One very common movement in plants is their lean towards light or towards the sunlight. This is especially noticeable with indoor plants, but plants growing in shady locations show it when those locations are surrounded by sunny ones. Movement in response to light is known as phototropism, not to be confused with the movement of an actress in an effort to stay in front of the camera! Movement in response to sunlight in particular is known as heliotropism. This can be movement towards the light source, as in the green parts of plants, or movement away from it, as in roots. Widespread phototropic response in plants is the reason why we have to turn our indoor plants from time to time to keep them from becoming permanently lopsided.

Plant movement in response to warmth or heat is called thermotropism. Think of it as similar to the movement of folks in northern climates to Florida in the wintertime! Several other tropisms are movement in response to water (hydrotropism) and movement in response to chemicals such as fertilizers or acids (chemotropism). Plant movements mentioned here are mediated by plant growth regulators known as auxins. See my article, Plant Growth Hormones, for more information about auxins.

Next time you want to argue something Joseph go read a damn book on the subject.. This is just pathetic.. Seriously... When it comes to these things it's like watching a 1st grader try to explain nuclear fission he knows nothing about... It's silly...

"And I didn't admit God has limitations, that would be as foolish as believing in evolution. I have however, admitted that there is no limitations to anything God is willing to do, if He so chooses."

This says it all right here lol :) I don't even need to comment on this :P

Tell me Joseph can intelligence pre-exist intelligence in order to create intelligence? :) There are a million paradoxes you can place on a god.. But none can be placed on existence...

But I think we need to agree to disagree here ;) Because you are not going to answer those types of questions anyways so basically you are trying to prove a god by using the concept of plants lol.. Which no logical person would do that even understands biology, botany, Earths early history, Protists, and shared genes and ancestors...

You are basically trying to state that plants don't respond to stimuli.. You have no evidence to suggest they don't... Molecule reactions are simple interactions that produce a response or result... It does not need intelligence to do this... And many other things produce responses to plants other than sunlight... They don't sense things in the same manner you do.. It's far more primal or much more in depth.... You simply don't understand how information is exchanged vs how you think it is...

Jackel,

sorry, but I don't have a lot of time to post right now. I just want to make a quick comment on your #23 post. Plant life communication and self-recognition is a teleological, ID argument. It does nothing to provide supporting evidence for darwinian concepts of biological change. The only thing that could do that is a model based solely on physics and chemistry. I've yet to see one. All I see are appeals to teleological concepts of competition and cooperation with the obligatory 'it's like that but really not like that' caveat.

By the way, your points about plants needing animals, etc. is only at the end phase of the development of the biosphere. In the fossil record, we can see that archbacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes came first, then plant life, then animal life. Life adapted at each phase of atmospheric change, so early plant life did not depend upon animal life. Arguing that some plant life depends on animal life now really says nothing about plants in general not needing animal life. It is obvious that they don't need animals, regardless if they have symbiotic relations with some of the animal kingdom. Without animals, a certain portion of the plant kingdom would certainly die, but not all by far. And the remaining would adjust to the changes in the biosphere resulting from the loss of the symbiotic benefits animals provided.

Actually StevenP there is a lot of evidence... The problem with it is that the study is rather new to the field... There are lots of things plants to to respond to stimuli... All life responds to stimuli.... You don't need a brain to respond to stimuli... plants are more complex that people assume..

Joseph seems to be trying to argue that it doesn't... Granted much of the claims in that article are of some opinion in regards to never having a negative effect.... However, all plants do indeed respond to different types to stimuli... They can even be very evasive and choke off other plant life..

"so early plant life did not depend upon animal life."

I have already stated that.. This had nothing to do with the discussion on the relationships between animals and plants... They are of co-existence and co-evolved together ever since the first interactions between them began... As soon as the more animal like organisms arrived that process began... Given it a very weak start to a more complex relationship that it is today... The relationships are co-dependent regardless of which is at the bottom of the food chain... When animals evolved they merely evolved to use these so called plants as food.. And some plants developed to use animals as food...

In all cases bacteria does not need either.. Plants are not necessary for life to exist.. And we really don't know how things might evolve different if Earth Atmosphere had a different composition.. There are animals that eat fungi as well...

And there is the aspect of Protists were some are more plant like and some are more animal like...

In all regards to the topic it really doesn't matter what thing depends on the other to live... It's how it has functioned ever since bio diversity asserted it's self.... It's more likely that if any life forms first after bacteria it would be photogenic or organisms that use the most widely abundant sources of energy...

Both plant and animal are mere forms of life.. One can generate it's own food and the other can not... Animals evolved for the use of oxygen vs Co2... Which means they would be far more active than life that evolved using photosynthesis and CO2... Chemestry wise they are polar opposites to where one releases Co2 and the other Oxygen... Thus the relationship began between plants and animals... Animals evolved to plants as a source of energy and life as plants did to C02 and and Sunlight... I'm sure animals ate plants before they started eating other animals...

For cause and effect this makes sense... And increasing complexity of life and a food chain... This points to evolution and not some GOD...There is no evidence what so ever that this can not evolve from a cause and effect process.. Especially when plants and animals share the same ancestors... Life is very complex now that it has been millions and millions and millions of years... I really don't think you people grasp at how long that is... I would even argue that life could have become far more complex than it currently is if it wasn't for mass extinctions..

What Joseph has to do is prove a GOD actually exists first.. And then prove a GOD actually placed something somewhere.. And we all know animal materialization has never been seen, recorded, or documented much less studied... So he's going to have to show direct evidence of this...

In simple terms plants before animals or plants as a source of food for animals that evolved to consume them and then co-evolved to where both co-evolved to a co-dependency.... Plants and animals have a direct relationship and respond to each other in different ways.... And animal feces can carry important triggers to plant evolution for example... Or the exchange of information from animals feeding on plants.. A plant could respond in many ways to that over millions of years..

MarkD: Wrong again! And if my arguments were so bad, why does your desperation show more than all the hopefuls on Oscar night?

Jackal: Instead of worrying about me reading a book, why don't you try reading a dictionary? How do you know what a plant knows, were you one in a previous life or something? Your assumptions and speculations are ludicrous and further proves how desperate you are. As for your comment... "It proves that something can happen with an end result that benefits the species..." Anything can happen with an end result that benefits a species, "PETA" can be a benefit to species. No one ever makes it through life without getting a scratch on them... Does that mean it supposed to happen, or that it's evolution at work? No, it doesn't. It's simply things that go along with life. All your "phototropisms" doesn't mean squat. If you place a plastic lid in the sun it will warp. Does that mean the lid is aware of the sun, or the sun of the lid? No! Does it mean the lid is evolving to adapt to the sun? No, it doesn't! That is something you need to get into your head... things just happen.

Furthermore, you are the one trying to prove something with plants. I made a point concerning specific things derive from certain vegetation (fruits and vegetables). You're the one going to the ends of the earth in search of a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the original concept.

Joseph Randall

The plastic lid is not alive for one... You are moron if you think plants don't respond to stimuli...

I would like to see your data that proves that plants can't respond to their environment... They are not aware of it in the same manner as you or I are... And in the end your plastic lid proves cause and effect still ends in a result...

Jackal: When was the last time a plant told you it was responding to stimuli? Or are you just basing your assumptions on belief? And there is no difference between a plastic lid responding to sunlight and your plant analysis.

When was the last time a plant told you it was responding to stimuli? Or are you just basing your assumptions on belief?And there is no difference between a plastic lid responding to sunlight and your plant analysis.

You may want to take a ladder along with the shovel you keep using to dig yourself deeper in a hole.

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:

• Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
• Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
• Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
• Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
• Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
• Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
• Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
• Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
• Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
• Kinesis - Movement
• Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
• Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
• Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
• Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
• Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
• Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
• Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
• Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
• Plant physiology - The science of plant function
• Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
• Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
• Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
• Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
• Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
• Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
• Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
• Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
• Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

I mean really, seriously... Do attempt to look things up before making statements. I'm not trying to insult you by saying this; I have learned alot from making it a habit.

LOL Owned! :P Nice Post MarkD :)