The Origin of Man

[DeMann]

gee whiz, folks, we just got too many rabbits running right now. I am truly sorry I am on call like I am..... getting back to this is just too difficult to stay up with the many great ideas being tossed around here.

 

so with that, let me get out the .270 and shoot a few of these rabbits and get them out of the way.

 

1) this debate will not change the mind of the major actors. it will sway the minds of the casual readers. therin lies the true value of it all.

 

2) please don't spout off about needing scientific evidence and then try to ignore the second law of thermodynamics. that law comes into virtually every scientific fact we teach in school today. in a nutshell, it states that everything is 'winding down' or losing energy. yes the sun gives its energy to the earth, but then, the sun is losing energy as it does, and will some day die out. by definition, all things goe from higher order to lesser, and lose speed, force, power, or whatever you want to call it. thus, things are proven to be going from greater to smaller (take that as a metaphor). in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, it is impossible for evolution to occur, since it is a matter of lessor things becoming greater. trust me on this one, the college proffessors cannot argue this point in favor of evolution. that, sir, is a fact.

 

3) Firstpusk talks of needing another alternative of science. well.....Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false. he took all the elements of life, put them in a closed container, and (with them dead) showed that they could not come to life on their own. thus, today, we have 'pasteurized' food. if you think about it, millions of experiments are made each day in America. they wind up on your grocers shelves in the form of canned peaches, tomatoes, peas, and all those great Texas foods. Oh, yeh, and salmon too! yet, not once in the last 300 years have they ever produced one case of spontaneous generation- life coming from that which is dead.

 

4) science purports only theory- by definition just an idea- and it is not considered fact until an experiment can be performed to prove a hypothesis. and (best of all for us Bible Thumpers ((hey, why didn't I think of that for a name??)))it MUST be repeatable! evolution as you speak of it is just a theory. not once has an experiment been done that proves it. and, it certainly has never been repeated. by definition in the scientific community, evolution cannot be considered a fact, it MUST be considered theory only, and on that basis cannot outweigh any other theory.

 

5) for one to view the Bible as just the works of man, one must then agree that it is not the written word from God. there is no given, provable message from Him (so many people with so many ideas, right?). in which case, it is up to man to decide for himself. for any man to decide what is right about God (what he commands, asks, etc.) is to assume that 1)God does not care and any thing goes 2) that you can construct the truth for yourself. that then means that God is not all powerful (and all that stuff we Bible Thumpers think of here). In which case, He has no real power, or else will choose to exercise it without us, and to our detriment.

 

we need to remember that God is indeed God, and no matter what we think, he is the same and unchanging. we cannot make Him what we want Him to be, but must accept Him for Who and What He is.

 

How can you truly know the mind and will of God if you get to make the rules as you go along? What makes you think that you have the ability to figure Him out? He made everything (EVERYONE here agrees to that in one form or another) and we cannot control even that which is in our very hand. we cannot make ourselves grow one inch taller, or live one day longer. How can we really expect to figure Him out with our finite minds??

 

P.S. the interpretation of both the OT and NT come from linguist experts. they use the secular languages to give definitions to the words. You know, the same way they got those ideas from the ancient Greeks, Babylonians, and the like. there ain't no "makin' it up as we go" stuff when it comes to definitions in the original texts. and, if you really want to know what the Bible says, you need to read it in the original text and get away from paraphrases. Now, I know, most you folks ain't got time to go to school again, but then, you don't have to. Jesus told folks to try something a long time ago- take it all on faith.

 

 

[firstpusk]

YoungBlood,

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been used by creationists for quite a long time. It has been thoroughly refuted for at least two decades. The argument keeps popping up often in slightly varied form. It sounds like you have been exposed to a variation from the newest form of creationism to evolve, Intelligent Design. This form conflates evolution, thermodynamics and information theory. Don't feel bad, you are the first guy confused by this stuff. I know you won't be the last...

[firstpusk]

"3) Firstpusk talks of needing another alternative of science. well.....Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false."

 

Sorry DeMann,

 

This has nothing to do with evolution. This argument could be applied to the question of abiogenesis, the origin of life itself, but even this would be a stretch.

 

Evolution explains the diversity of life after its appearance. The formulation you present is the classic creationist technique of redefining the term, in this case evolution, into something it is not.

 

Even if I were to grant you that Pastuer's work means that life could not develop naturally, that would not refute evolution. Also, you aren't presenting an alternative theory for the development of diversity in life on earth, much less its initial appearance.

 

The problem for creationism is moving beyond intellectual rock throwing to actually building a positive framework that explains the world we see. Creationist arguments are based on a crude formula that insists the science can't be true so you have to accept a literal reading of Genesis. You aren't even throwing rocks at the right house.

[firstpusk]

Sorry DeMann,

 

I can't trust you on your reading of thermodynamics. For your argurment to be of any use, you need a closed system and no energy inputs. Get up from the computer and go outside. Look up at the sun. Think. Then come back in and type me a reply that says, "You were right, don't trust me on this one."

 

And I didn't even have to ask a college professor for help...

[ScoutParent]

"Evolution explains the diversity of life after its appearance. The formulation you present is the classic creationist technique of redefining the term, in this case evolution, into something it is not."

 

Okay, lets try this, please explain how a one cell creature became more complex. Let's see, why is that after applying radiation to fruit flies to stimulate the evolutionary process, the best scientists can come up with is a fruit fly with an extra set of useless wings that render the fly incapable of flying or supporting itself?

 

[firstpusk]

DeMann,

 

A theory in science has a different meaning than the word does in everyday speech. An idea that is considered a theory in science has been proposed and tested and explains the observations made in the world. Evolution has met all of the criteria and has been tested for nearly a century and a half. It is as solidly accepted as a theory can be. A theory is not fact. It is provisional explanation.

 

The claim you make about science requiring repeatability is a rhetorical trick. It is kind of along the lines of Ken Hamm's question, "Were you there?" It reflects a lack of understanding of how science is done in this field.

[firstpusk]

DeMann,

 

Finally, on your view of the Bible. Not every Christian reads Genesis the way you do. It is not a requirement for membership in all churches. I see very important truths in Genesis, but I don't believe it is an account of the origin of the earth and life that is historically accurate or scientifically valid. Your view would put every believer on the horns of a dilema. Accept my view or deny God. Sorry, that view does not speak to me or for me.

[firstpusk]

"Okay, lets try this, please explain how a one cell creature became more complex."

 

Evolution works by selecting the better adapted individual in a population. The cell reproduces by dividing. Over time a population of these individual cells survive better when they remain connected in a colony. A small step, but one that indicates greater complexity. And this is exactly the kind of thing we find when we go back to the most ancient forms.

 

"Let's see, why is that after applying radiation to fruit flies to stimulate the evolutionary process, the best scientists can come up with is a fruit fly with an extra set of useless wings that render the fly incapable of flying or supporting itself?"

 

What was the real purpose of the experiment? They probably weren't trying to create a new species. They probably got flies with different colored eyes and extra antennae, too. I really don't think the wings are the best scientists come up with. Look around the world. They have done a lot to provide for a better world.

 

Still waiting for your theory. And I really think you should read those links.

[ScoutParent]

"Evolution works by selecting the better adapted individual in a population. The cell reproduces by dividing. Over time a population of these individual cells survive better when they remain connected in a colony. A small step, but one that indicates greater complexity. And this is exactly the kind of thing we find when we go back to the most ancient forms."

 

Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us. Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? Of course they were trying to simulate evolution with the fruit fly. The fruit fly is the perfect candidate because of quickly they reproduce. The fact is harmful mutations occur in many species and of course those cause dysgenisis not evolution. Beneficial mutations are the pipe dream of a lessening number of die hard evolutionists. Evolution has never passed any tests and has not been even close to being substantiated. Pig teeth, aboriginal heads (used as missing link), arthritic human remains( used as human predecessors) do not a theory make. A false religion, yes, but not a theory.

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

"Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us."

 

That is true. But it is on small steps like this that evolutionary development is based.

 

"Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? Of course they were trying to simulate evolution with the fruit fly. The fruit fly is the perfect candidate because of quickly they reproduce."

 

You still won't read those links. They explain alot about speciation. The experiments they do are to UNDERSTAND evolution. The scientists see the evidence for the theory from numerous sources. They want to understand how it works, not produce a new species. That being said there is literature sited in at least one of the links mentioning speciation events observed in the laboratory.

 

"The fact is harmful mutations occur in many species and of course those cause dysgenisis not evolution. Beneficial mutations are the pipe dream of a lessening number of die hard evolutionists."

 

Actually, beneficial mutations are quite common. Drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects being a couple of examples observed in nature. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful or neutral. Actually, the pipe dream is yours. Evolution is accepted by nearly all scientists and their number grows every year. There are a few creationist scientists. But those that actually are working in scientific fields are extremely rare and they never try to publish in peer reviewed journals. Why the self-censorship?

 

"Evolution has never passed any tests and has not been even close to being substantiated. Pig teeth, aboriginal heads (used as missing link), arthritic human remains( used as human predecessors) do not a theory make. A false religion, yes, but not a theory."

 

Pig teeth refer to Nebraska man. Touted in the press but never published in the journals. An error soon corrected by science. The aboriginal head issue I dealt with and asked you for a source, because it looked like it was a misrepresentation on your part. The arthritic human is the original Neaderthal. Is he an ancestor? Most scientist would say no at this time. Is he anatomically modern human? Close, but no - a separate species. Neaderthal remains are not that uncommon, but you won't hear that listening to "Moore on Life".

 

Evolution is a scientific theory not a religion. I go to church on Sunday. I may go to the Science Museum after, but it is not religious service. You really should read something other than the creationist tracts that you keep pushing my way. Start with those links. I still want you to give me a scientifically viable alternative to the theory of evolution. I assume you still haven't found one...

 

[littlebillie]

Second Law of Thermodynamics...

 

well, an attempt to move this from the scientific to the logical...

 

A. There's enough energy NOW to support human overpopulation and all the agriculture necessary to feed him, as well as more insect biomass (in kilos or pounds as you prefer) than any other group of life. Etc., etc.

 

B. So even if planet Earth WERE a closed system, which we're not (sunlight adds enery, comets add liquids, meteors add minerals, and even magma can be seen as adding energy to the system, blah, blah, blah), AND even if energy as discussed in the Second Law had anything do with evolution, entropy or anything else, then...

 

C. The energy available now for the current load could certainly support a smaller load that was evolving. Once the energy that went into evolution plateaued, then certain populations might start eating up their co-creatures and take over for a while (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.) until the next event that sent the in-use energy and organic building blocks back to the warehouse for the next round of evolution.

 

(one of my favorite bumper stickers recently was "Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium).

 

 

BUT - this is just a first quick attempt to answer a question that I can't buy into in the first place.

 

NOT a closed system (tho' arguably part of one on a much grander scale) means there's plenty of energy (sun) for all kinds of experiments.

 

But even if the Second Law was integrally and essentially related to evolution, these are both parts of the Creation God has provided us, and if He DID need to tweak it, why couldn't He? Still, I think it all works well enough that it doesn't need such cosmic tweaking.

 

Which is why He's God, and we're not! :-)

[DeMann]

"Drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects being a couple of examples observed in nature."

 

A scientist, sir, you are not. When left alone (without the drug they are resistant to) the bacteria in question revert back to their weaker state. the insects do also. albiet they do have a better resistance to them, they do indeed weaken again. this is a fact.

 

punctuated equalibrium? sir, that one was thought up when the creationists called the hand of the evolutionists because it was noted that various species were found in different strata, showing that the species did not change over large amounts of time. that theory was cooked up when the original thought of constant but gradual change was shown to be false by the fossil record. Now, how about a theory why the equilibrium WAS punctuated? what caused the time lapses, and what caused them to begin again?

 

Here is one I like. show me ONE example of any specie changing the number of Chromosomes contained in it. you must again rely on theory. and, by the way, my definition of theory is indeed the one used in major universities today. where did you get your degree and what is it in?

 

ok. where does the power of life itself come from? what is death? if the human body is capable of repair, upward growth, and self improvement (look at an 18 year old male, for example), then why does it wear out for no appearant reason? what is aging anyway? by the way, here you can use the second law of thermodynamics to your advantage-oops, no, it will catch you here, too.

 

the second law covers all energy in all of the universe, not just what is outside in my yard. take hydrogen and oxygen. once they meet and give off energy, they are difficult to break apart. it takes more energy to break them apart than they gave up when they combined. thus, water is water in our universe, and it does not go back to the previous state. all elements are in this boat, and will-without outside intervention- one day come to a state of uselessness. that, sir is what the second law tells us. where is the infinite supply of energy? there is none.

 

and Louis Pasteur did indeed show us that if you have the building blocks of organisms, they will not come together on their own. and Man cannot make it happen, either. Darwin did not say that life came from mud, it was his followers some time later. Darwin just tried to explain the various complexities of created beings and the fossil record that amazed him. Sir, it is indeed the modern evolutionary theory that says that life came from the primordal ooze. and, contrary to your belief, the textbooks speak of only the THEORY since they cannot prove it in an experiment. Call the Dudes at A&M, Harvard, Rice, MIT, or any other place whom you choose. they will define a theory for you.

[DeMann]

by the way.....

 

who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?

[littlebillie]

"Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us. Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? "

 

Let's think, just for a few moments, about the differences between a Petri dish and nature.

 

Now, one "tool" of evolution is mutation - a sponateous genetic change. Most mutations, for example, are not-viable - they can't live or compete for too long.

 

Once in a squillion times, there will arise a mutation that does more good than harm - let's call this the antiZorn mutation :-) The reason it does more good is that it helps the critter - whatever it is - in its particular environment, whether it allows it to digest cellulose or glow in the dark or whatever.

 

Just think about that Petri dish - the culture medium is designed FOR the bacteria, the light and heat is what it likes NOW. Much less chance for differentiation, but let's suppose we do get a successful mutation, that successfully establishes itself and takes over the dish.

 

Now we have a matter of categorization, definition and nomenclature. When we refer to strains of a particular bacteria that display certain genetic differences, we COULD say that in fact we have different species. Since this is a gray area, however, let's move on to the fruitflies mentioned elsewhere.

 

"5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

 

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated

female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating

(Dobzhansky 1972). " [from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]

 

also take a look at [http://www.bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook/ControlGrowth/resistance.html] interesting!

 

regardless.

 

God - I believe - created a world we could understand. And He made it make sense. Evolution does not exist outside of God - it is as much a part of His toolkit (if you will) as wheel and kiln a ceramicist's. He created a Universe with gravity and Laws of Motion and Laws of Thermodynamics woven into its fabric - and I don't know who doubts these - so is it so hard to accept that there are divine Laws of Life? Who doubts photosynthesis, say?

 

If He is indeed eternal, then He's had plenty of time to plan, design and create. Why take that away from our understanding of Him?

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

DeMann says:

 

if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?

 

Excellent question. That's what I often wonder when I read these discussions. I don't think any of us actually knows what God has to say, or indeed whether he has anything to say at all. All I think we really know is that he (since most of us choose to call God a "he") created us and everything around us, though a lot of people (including me) think he actually created something that led to us and everything around us, through some unknown number of intermediate steps.

 

And there's not a shred of evidence in the world for anything more than that. There is belief. There are many different beliefs. But no evidence, and certainly no proof.