You actually agree with Andrew - he's the one who wrote that. But I agree too.

Anyway, I'm one of the people - perhaps the only one - who says that evolution isn't just a theory. Of course there are some mysteries that we'll never be able to prove conclusively. But there are parts of evolution that you'd have to go way out there to dispute. The essence of is, again, that the gene pool evolves over time. That means species evolve. Even TLiX agrees with that.

Now, there's no video of apes splitting into four branches about seven million years ago, one of which became modern man. But if you look at the genetics and the bones that have been discovered, etc. etc. etc., it's pretty apparent that we were made by the same company.

That part of it isn't 100% conclusive, just very, very unlikely not to be true.

***

I forget who it was who questioned whether brain size really means an animal is more intelligent. Well, neanderthal man's brain was actually a little larger than ours.

I hear you. In fact, it sounds reasonable. But dang - that would be using my common sense and intuition to come to that conclusion.

But the origin of life? You buy spontaneous generation?

Believe me, I've got issues to deal with when it comes to origins and my faith; being a Christian doesn't make everything just work out peachy as one may think. I don't expect anyone to have everything figured out. What I would like, however, is a plausible explanation for the origin of life, and why evolution is the ticket. I'd rather someone tell me that they didn't know, than to just state it's a fact one more time.

What is it we're in agreement about, I can't tell from what you said above. In any case:

"...fulfilling it and finding purpose behind it - if it's there." What are you talking about here? I can't tell if you mean science, or the universe. If you mean science, it is fulfilled by performing scientific research. You mentioned above that evolution is sometimes called a science by some--perhaps you and I disagree on precisely what science is. Allow Wikipedia to elucidate:

"According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted."

Evolution is A) objective by definition, B) empirically testable (fossil and genetic records indicate speciation), C) predictive, as for example evolutionary theory predicts that 1. between two related species, transitional forms will be found (and have been, e.g. horses, humans) and 2. that isolation and thus variation of selective pressures will cause speciation (which was shown in experiments at UC Davis wherein fruit flies, separated and allowed to procreate in differing environments, would not interbreed upon reintroduction [which is one definition of species]).

My point is that the purpose of science is to make testable, verifiable, repeatable observations viz. the scientific method.

If you were talking about fulfilling the universe, and finding its purpose, well, that's very open to personal interpretation, and is not what I'm arguing. Having a purpose a priori implies design, which I do not concede exists.

Secondly, "is it your position that complexity proves anything"--not in and of itself, no. Complexity exists. Our debate is about the origin of complexity, and I believe you and I do differ there at the moment. What I don't think you accept is that complexity can arise from simplicity. For you, complexity indicates design. I refute this. Much work has been done in the field of dynamical systems theory, partly including the work of Stephen Wolfram as explained in his book "A New Kind of Science." He, and others, have shown that complexity can arise from simple conditions and simple rules. A discussion of the particulars is beyond the scope of this post, but I advise you to look into the subject. It really blew my mind when I first began studying it. I can talk more about this subject, if you wish--it's really fascinating, and I do believe it would help further your understanding of evolution.

Everybody dies...
~Hed PE

We're in agreement that it's easier to believe in a designer than not. Sometimes the simple solution is the right one.

My response was to your assertion that I would like to go through life relying on my traditions and intuition. For some reason, you want to believe that I don't believe (or want to believe) in the laws of the universe - and I know that they can be complex when you get down to the quantum and go up to the galactic level. You also implied that I haven't done any investigating.

But let's limit the discussion - the whole universe is a big topic. How about the origin of life (still big)? For some reason, that is what I think of when evolution is brought up, and that is what this post was (kind of) about.

I agree that a discussion of genetic algorithms is beyond posting to an audio forum. However, you don't have to convince me that complexity can arise from simplicity. Where we will disagree (I think) is how complex.

The only question is how life started. There are several plausible scientific theories that don't require God.

Which doesn't mean anything, other than that it supports my leaning toward the idea that the universe and life weren't created by a being outside it all. To me it makes more sense that it all just kind of is, and that everything including "god" (a vague word that means different things to different people) is all interconnected.

Consideren en primer lugar traducir esto. En segundo lugar: el hecho de que siendo una materia de carne y hueso (no transistores o chip) pensamos, caminamos sentimos y amamos...y odiamos tanta perfección no puede ser una casualidad. Seríamos millones de casualidades dentro de un solo cuerpo. Considerad también que el sol se oculta en la noche para que durmamos y nos apagamos como un electrodoméstico para dormir. SI ESTO ES UNA CASUALIDAD, ENTONCES QUÉ INTELIGENTE ES LA CASUALIDAD. Sólo considerando el infinito espacio (vaya paradoja¡) me doy cuenta de que DIOS EXISTE

Babel Fish Translation Help

En español:
Por otra parte, qué parecer la perfección pueden apenas ser el resultado de centenares de millones de años de la evolución muda.

Nick,

I am not picking on you because you are a smart guy and frankly you do use your brain (smaller than a Neandertal but what is a little brain capacity among species).

Evolution is simply a theory. What this means is that it is NOT a proven fact, then it would be a LAW. Before it can become a law, it must stand up to scientific scrutiny. If it can't, then it is just a theory, nothing more.

There is no reason to think that it is natural to evolve. In fact the opposite is true. Without intervention, everything moves toward entropy. For me, this is an indication that evolution is not a normal outcome of just nature.

For me, there is not enough evidence to make a decision. Considering the current level of knowledge of the laws of physics, I think anyone who is able to form a solid conclusion simply does not have a grip on reality.

Part B - Darwin observed that the reason for evolutionary changes were simply survival. He concluded that there is not a reason for spontanious evolution. So again, I am stymied by the "theory" that man evolved from the same ancestor as apes. Given that apes have survived nicely throughout the ages, what would be the reason for the change.

For example, if a butterfly has yellow wings and birds like to eat yellow wing butterflies, then the very few who would accidently have blue wings would survive (theoretically). You would find no yellow winged butterflies (in regions where predators live). So far, the theory of evolution has yet to make that explaination for man.

I have not checked on my facts but I seem to recall that the chimpanze has a couple more chomosomes than a man. In fact, I believe that a dog has 78 pairs while a human has 46 pairs. A gorilla has 48 pairs. How does the 'Theory of Evolution' account for this actual measurable scientific fact that flies in the face of logic.

I am not asking to be a smart ass, I am asking because I am curious.

String theory has evolved over the years because there is a problem with quantum physics theory. It just doesn't work out in some situations. Just a few short years ago, Bohr's theory of the atom was accepted scientific fact. A proton was the most basic of all elements, not doubt about it. It has not quite worked out like that. A look at a chart of elementary particles is dazzling and even today it has holes to fill in.

Open your mind to ask the questions and search for the answers even if they make you a little uncomfortable.

I would prefer to sit back and read your magazine - wait, that's right, I don't have a copy.

Zrocks, parts of it are theory, but there are parts of it that are groundless to disbelieve. That's not closed-minded, nor do I have an agenda (I'd get up and brush my teeth tomorrow even if it turned out that TLiX' ridiculous idea about the earth being 5000 years old turned out to be true), nor does any of this make me the least bit uncomfortable. It's just fact.

There are certainly details missing - such as your butterflies - and we're talking about hundreds of millions of years of history, so of course there are missing gaps. We've found 3-1/2 million-year-old Australopithicus bones (Lucy in 1972, and others), and on and on. They were not quite the same as modern man, but they were much more than apes. Facts, not me deciding to believe ****.

That to me is faulty logic. It may not be faulty, of course, but A doesn't necessarily lead to B. To me it's more likely that the will to survive overwhelms entropy. That's true of plants, snails, and all living things. So the second law of thermodynamics isn't violated by evolution, since it takes more energy to change than to stay the same, and that disordered energy is given off and it contributes to the entropy of the universe.

I just read up on this a few days ago. Stephen Hawkins.

Edit: the will to survive is one part of it. The gene pool changing over time is another part of evolution that has nothing to do with will, it just happens. Random mutations; animals that mutate to their advantage out-survive ones that have mutated otherwise.

And I know nothing about the number of chromosomes; I know far less about string theory, which definitely is theory.