Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Forum Lobby The off-topic forum.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 08-25-2005, 07:51 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Evolution By Chance?

Here is an interesting article I ran across that I thought I'd share. It's a short one.

Evolution by Chance?
by Michael Langston



I must state at the outset that I am not an evolutionary biologist and that the argument I am about to present is not fully developed scientifically (although I believe that it could be if one were to spend sufficient time researching it). It is presented here only in common-sense, layman's terms. I am admittedly no expert on the subject I am about to discuss, but it doesn't require an expert to see that there is something seriously wrong with the evolutionists' theories on the origin of species.

I am frequently astounded by the arrogance of the scientific community and by their unfounded notion that they now are somehow immune to the error and dogmatism that plagued such established belief systems in the past. It is my belief that science today can be just as dogmatic, just as arrogant, and just as erroneous as it was when the earth was considered to be at the center of the universe and when it was thought that the sun revolved around the earth and not vice versa.

Nowhere is this dogmatism more apparent than in the area of evolutionary biology. How arrogant are the proponents of this theory of evolution, who confidently assert that they understand the mysteries of how species came into being, when they understand nothing of the sort! I don't believe there is a human being alive who has the answers to these profound questions: Exactly how did life originate? How did life forms as diverse from one another as the birds in the trees and the trees themselves come into being? Evolution as an explanation for the origin of the various plant and animal species is just as much a religion based on faith as any other religion. It is a form of secular religion that places its faith in the authority and presumed infallibility of the scientific establishment.

Let's look at a specific example of something they are not able to adequately explain: how flight in birds came into being. Let's ask ourselves the following question: Is random chance alone enough to account for this occurrence?

The first thing that we must understand is that one single "variation" or "mutation" is not sufficient to produce a bird that can fly. Anyone who has ever done any computer programming can attest to the fact that a viable program is the result of many, many lines of computer code all working together to form a harmonious whole.

Living systems are no different. Flight in birds is a complex aggregate of many hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions of discrete genetic elements all working together like the lines of code in a computer program or the tiny gears of an intricate watch mechanism. If one single line of that code or one tiny gear of that watch is missing, the program will crash, the watch will not keep time, and the bird will be hopping around aimlessly over the ground unable to fly.

And this is an extremely critical point to grasp: An intermediate form - for example, a bird with the correct morphology but without any feathers - would have no selective advantage in the natural selection process. The bird could not fly, and thus would probably be eaten by a predator as it hops helplessly on the ground. Thus, the intermediate form's genetic traits very likely would not be transmitted to succeeding generations and would simply die out before they had a chance to be "evolved" in a gradual evolutionary process.

In effect, these partially evolved traits would be entirely worthless. All the disparate genetic elements involved in producing an advantageous trait (such as the ability of a bird to fly) would have to come together simultaneously to produce a viable organism for natural selection to select: one that would survive in the struggle for existence and that would then pass on this advantageous trait to succeeding generations.

In mathematics, the probability of multiple independent events all occurring simultaneously is equal to the product of the respective probabilities of those individual events:

P = (P1)(P2)(P3)...(Pn)

For example, the probability of two coins both coming up "heads" is:

(1/4) = (1/2)(1/2)

As more coins are tossed and more factors are introduced into the equation, the probability of them all coming up "heads" becomes less and less and very quickly becomes exceedingly small, even with a small number of coins. It is not difficult to see that with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of factors - each one much smaller - that the product would be an inconceivably small number. This number represents the probability of the simultaneous occurrence of all these separate events, the simultaneous appearance of all the necessary genetic elements...the probability of flight in birds arising from the process of random chance alone.

I do not know what these numbers actually are in specific, quantitative terms, but it is not necessary to know this. It is quite obvious that the probability of a bird with the capability of flight arising from this random chance process is so small that it would likely take trillions of years, not millions, for such an event to occur. So it is absurd to believe that the evolutionary process, if it exists at all, is driven simply by random chance alone.

In conclusion, let me state that I am not a creationist, and I do not presume to know exactly how life originated or how various species came into being. The means of creation of all the diverse life forms on this planet is a subject too complex for my limited human intellect to fathom. Even something as comparatively simple as a computer program is so complex that the human mind cannot comprehend all its intricacies all at one time. I do not understand these mysteries of life, but neither do the evolutionists. Don't let them kid you. They haven't a clue.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:16 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
This is just the kind of article that drives evolutionists insane. This is the point where they jump in and start calling the writer "ill informed", "backward", and just not smart enough to "get it", but the writer is absolutely right.

Science is great for what it is, the observation, duplication, and manipulation of natural law. They can't create life, they can only bring together the elements which naturally create life. Even with cloning, they can only transfer characteristics to a being which were naturally created in another.

To my knowledge, evolution is the only non-proven theory scientists are willing to accept as "good enough for fact".

I am a creationist, and I love science as a discovery of God's creation. When science becomes your religion, it becomes important to disprove others to validate your view. In the absense of solid proof in a discipline which relies completely on proof, theories have to do.

Interesting article. Thanks.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-25-2005, 08:55 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Yeah, you're welcome. I ran across this article at http://www.wingtv.net

Michael Langston is an activist in the truth movement and an author who's articles are occasionally posted on Wing TV.

I agree with his thoughts here. Evolution by chance has always been a theory that, to me, made sense that it didn't make sense.

Last edited by Atom; 08-25-2005 at 09:03 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-25-2005, 09:20 PM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
And what about Terence McKenna's "Stoned Ape" Theory of Human Evolution?
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2005, 10:09 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre
I've read the first section so far and find this quite interesting. I haven't read or heard of McKenna before that I recall, the title does sound familiar for some reason, though.

I have engaged in what I believe to be substancial dabbling in psych's in my youth, substancial in that I believe that I have attained a good enough understanding of what they're about, but without over doing it, getting messed up, strung out, profoundly physiologically or psychologically changed ... whatever. What I've read so far along with a bit that I've scanned is interesting to me because I believe that I have the ability to consider what is written from the points of view of both an experienced (am familiar with the effects of psych's) and non-experienced (am not familiar with the effects of psych's) reader, if that makes sense.

Anyway ..

.. thanks for the link, Ferre. I am looking forward to reading more and have BM'd this one.

Last edited by Atom; 08-25-2005 at 10:32 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-26-2005, 04:31 AM
Thanol's Avatar
Thanol Thanol is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 829
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
They can't create life.
Not yet, but genetically modified animals, such as pigs with Human blood, are close to "creating" life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
To my knowledge, evolution is the only non-proven theory scientists are willing to accept as "good enough for fact".
It's a scientific theory, meaning it's a well thought out idea with evidence which apparently supports it. Scientists can choose if they want to accept it or not. They aren't some kind of Block Party where they have a convention to see which theories they accept. No theory is ever proven, just supported.

Also about the bird thing... they had feathers before they could fly. They were pretty much gliders for a while.

Also animals are different than computer programs. A lot of things are redundant so if one gene is crapped up your okay, just not perfect.
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-26-2005, 05:39 AM
jg_v7n's Avatar
jg_v7n jg_v7n is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 08-26-04
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Posts: 892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
This is just the kind of article that drives evolutionists insane. This is the point where they jump in and start calling the writer "ill informed", "backward", and just not smart enough to "get it", but the writer is absolutely right.
This is the point where evolutionists jump in becasue he is clearly wrong, and missunderstands evolution.

The assumption of the article is that hundreds of "random mutations" occured consecutively. Flightless creature -> Random mutations -> Bird.

This is incorrect.

Some early dionsaurs are believed to have been covered in feathers. A random genetic mutation may cause a small ground based dinosaur to have more feathers on it's forearms than it's parents. This dinosaur by "flapping" it's forearms (not flying, just running and "flapping") may achieve a higher running speed than it's peers and therefore have more chance of escaping a predator and passing on it's genes (including the genetic code for "more feathers" on the forearms).

Survival of the fittest for generations to come ensures that the "more feathers" gene is passed on and becomes more dominant. So just a single random mutation leads to creatures with rudamentory "wings". The mathematics are then reduced from the proposed "impossible", to more like "very likely".

Evolution must be looked at as a whole, you can't take "random mutation" on it's own, isolated, and base an argument on that one component of evolution. It must be looked at as a whole...

---

I would also like to say that this sort of debate or discussion doesn't anger evolutionists at all. Debate it healthy, what angers evolutionists is that "creationists" (having faith) refuse to follow any sort of procedure, submit to peer review, or even contemplate alternatives.

Comparing "Intelligent Design" to evolution (as Bush has taken to nonchalantly doing) is quite ridiculous. What sort of evidence is there for "Intellignet Design"? The answer is none - not a jot. It is a man made theory in an attempt to explain proof of Gods work.

Evolution is a well founded theory that has matured and (ironically) evolved over more than 150 years. As a theory evolution is not accepted has hard "fact" for one reason alone - and that is the lack of "direct observation" - something that is not immediately possible becasue of the huge timescales required to directly observe evolution as it happens. Other than that, there is little doubt that evolution has shaped life on our planet.

As usual, and as history has taught us - the religious community will catch up and come to accept what science informs us in a hundred years or so...

---

One other point - if life was the product of "intelligent" design - why did the designer make so many mistakes? He was obviously fallible and therefore hardly "Godly"!?

Last edited by jg_v7n; 08-26-2005 at 05:44 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:15 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Effectively this is just an argument if god made us or if we evolved from early lifeforms.
Who made God? You can't say that we were created by a god if you cant say how the god was created. That is were religion, which is just a primitive form of law to keep people in order, fails. Whatever man made up this concept of an invisible man in the sky did not think things through properly.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-26-2005, 07:54 AM
Ferre's Avatar
Ferre Ferre is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
You guys should do some research on "DOGS". When you start looking into the scientifical knowledge available on how dogs have 'popped up in this world' you'd be supprized.

I'll give you a start...

Quote:
Several 10-15,000 year old archaeological finds in Eastern Europe and the Middle East of domestic dog-looking canids indicate that the dog was the first domestic animal. Apart from this, however, archaeological studies have not produced any detailed facts about the origin of the domestic dog. The most basic questions; the number of founding events, and where and when these occurred, have remained unsolved. To address these questions, we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide. We found that although our data indicate several maternal origins from wolf, >95% of all sequences belonged to three phylogenetic groups universally represented at similar frequencies. This suggests a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations. A larger genetic variation (as measured by a number of parameters; mean pairwise distance, number of haplotypes and unique haplotypes, genetic distance of unique haplotypes to universal types, proportion of sequences with unique haplotypes) in East Asia than in other regions and the pattern of phylogeographic variation suggest that the domestic dog originated in East Asia. While a precise date for the first origin of the dog cannot be given based on the mtDNA data, a synthesis of the mtDNA data and evidence from the archaeological record suggests that a probable time for the first origin of domestic dogs is ~15,000 years ago.
http://www.biotech.kth.se/molbio/key...evolution.html

See, NO ONE KNOWS, all those scientists do is "suggest" and but that's the scientifical equivalent of "We do not have a clue". Appearently dogs just "popped up" some 15000 years ago.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-26-2005, 08:12 AM
Stitchy626's Avatar
Stitchy626 Stitchy626 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-08-04
Location: Ohio
Posts: 755
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I really wasn't reading all of the posts... partly because they were too long and I don't feel like reading... but if we evolved from early lifeforms, shouldn't we see some more evolving from what we look like now??? I dunno... maybe I am wrong, I am just asking... I have no idea
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-26-2005, 09:52 AM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Appearently dogs just "popped up" some 15000 years ago.
Quote:

Kinda like god! He just magically appeared out of nowhere before anything was made (so where the **** did he come from) and supposedly made everything, yet some people live by that theory and reject science, which is quite a ridiculous thing to do!

Wait, spell god backwards.
This is a sign......
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2005, 12:38 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
This is the point where evolutionists jump in becasue he is clearly wrong, and missunderstands evolution.
Or, as I said, just doesn't "get it"...right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
One other point - if life was the product of "intelligent" design - why did the designer make so many mistakes? He was obviously fallible and therefore hardly "Godly"!?
There were no "mistakes" in creation. You're wrong and misunderstand creation. You just don't "get it"
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-26-2005, 02:01 PM
SVB's Avatar
SVB SVB is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 3,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by southnow
There were no "mistakes" in creation. You're wrong and misunderstand creation. You just don't "get it"
Who created god?
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-26-2005, 02:01 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
Who created god?
I did. He works for me.

I did not want to say anything, but, I don't want this to get out of hand any more than it already has.
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2005, 05:35 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
This is the point where evolutionists jump in becasue he is clearly wrong,
Would you mind providing some proof that he is wrong? Or is this just a personal opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
The assumption of the article is that hundreds of "random mutations" occured consecutively.
This is an incorrect assumption on your part, in my view. In his own words .. "All the disparate genetic elements involved in producing an advantageous trait (such as the ability of a bird to fly) would have to come together simultaneously (not "consecutively", note: Atom's interjection in these parenthesis) to produce a viable organism for natural selection to select Flightless creature -> Random mutations -> Bird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
This is incorrect.
I agree, and the reason that I agree is that it is not what he has stated, as I've just pointed out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
Some early dionsaurs are believed to have been covered in feathers. A random genetic mutation may cause a small ground based dinosaur to have more feathers on it's forearms than it's parents. This dinosaur by "flapping" it's forearms (not flying, just running and "flapping") may achieve a higher running speed than it's peers and therefore have more chance of escaping a predator and passing on it's genes
I will grant you this, however ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
(including the genetic code for "more feathers" on the forearms).
.. I can find no reason to grant you this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
Survival of the fittest for generations to come ensures that the "more feathers" gene is passed on and becomes more dominant.
There has been thus far no reasoning even suggested by you for the "more feathers gene" to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
So just a single random mutation leads to creatures with rudamentory "wings". The mathematics are then reduced from the proposed "impossible", to more like "very likely".
Negated due to my prior reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
Evolution must be looked at as a whole, you can't take "random mutation" on it's own, isolated, and base an argument on that one component of evolution. It must be looked at as a whole...
I absolutely disagree. You most certainly can sucessfully challenge only one aspect, to righteously keep the theory where it belongs, as a theory.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
I would also like to say that this sort of debate or discussion doesn't anger evolutionists at all. Debate it healthy, what angers evolutionists is that "creationists" (having faith) refuse to follow any sort of procedure, submit to peer review, or even contemplate alternatives.
What do you expect? Their "rules", if you will, are totally different. Creationist's beliefs are just that, beliefs. I think that it is unwise to even attempt to compare them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
Comparing "Intelligent Design" to evolution (as Bush has taken to nonchalantly doing) is quite ridiculous. What sort of evidence is there for "Intellignet Design"? The answer is none - not a jot.
I think that you are steering off course, now ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
It is a man made theory in an attempt to explain proof of Gods work.
.. but I do not mind humoring you. In response to "It is a man made theory in an attempt to explain proof of Gods work." I say, not necessarily. Think about it. You are making a generalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
Evolution is a well founded theory that has matured and (ironically) evolved over more than 150 years. As a theory evolution is not accepted has hard "fact" for one reason alone - and that is the lack of "direct observation" -
I disagree most adamantly with the second sentence. It does not make sense to even begin to explain the origin of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
something that is not immediately possible becasue of the huge timescales required to directly observe evolution as it happens. Other than that, there is little doubt that evolution has shaped life on our planet.
This disscussion is not about "shaping life on our planet", it is about the origin of life, isn't it? I mean .. really, that is what it's about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
As usual, and as history has taught us - the religious community will catch up and come to accept what science informs us in a hundred years or so...
You are confusing religion and science here, of which I see no benefit. Do you even know the difference between religion and spirituality, or faith? I am not trying to be sarcastic, believe me. Many don't even understand the difference. "Religion" should be meaningless to this discussion.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg_v7n
One other point - if life was the product of "intelligent" design - why did the designer make so many mistakes? He was obviously fallible and therefore hardly "Godly"!?
"Obvious fallibility" and "mistakes" in our (human) understanding, is very likely no understanding at all to the "Godly", catch my drift?

Point negated.

Last edited by Atom; 08-26-2005 at 05:55 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2005, 05:45 PM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,492
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Bradley
Who created god?
Nobody. Who created the fisrt atom? Did it just "pop" into being or was it always there. There was always something, so if eternal existance can belong to atoms, particles, whatever, why not God?
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2005, 06:05 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanol
Not yet, but genetically modified animals, such as pigs with Human blood, are close to "creating" life.
How so?
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2005, 10:50 PM
tinkerbell tinkerbell is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 07-25-05
Location: I'm in ICQ: 269811329
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
hmm... fascinating read.... Thanks for sharing
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-26-2005, 10:57 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinkerbell
hmm... fascinating read.... Thanks for sharing
You're welcome.

Join in if you'd like ..
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-26-2005, 11:12 PM
Murtaza's Avatar
Murtaza Murtaza is offline
Member
 
Join Date: 07-08-05
Location: Mumbai - India
Posts: 57
iTrader: 0 / 0%
i guess this is just one debate that can go on and on.........
BTW i do belive in God
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Evolution (again) jg_v7n Controversial Social Issues 315 02-16-2007 09:11 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC