Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Science versus Atheism



Atheism is a religion which became popular following the publication of its bible "Origin of Species" in 1859. Atheism teaches that the Biblical God, an intelligent, eternal, creator, does not exist and that life developed through the unguided, natural process of evolution.

Many recent advancements in science have seriously undermined the atheist faith. How long can they turn a blind eye to reason and evidence and continue to cling to their old, Victorian era myths?

Atheists rejected an eternal God and therefore were forced to assume that the universe has existed eternally. This has recently been proven to be false - the universe in fact was created about 13 billion years ago. If there is no God, where did it come from?

Recent research has demonstrated that the universe is fine tuned to make life possible. If there is no God, who fine tuned it?

If there is no God, how did life appear on earth and appear so suddenly?

If life evolved through small, gradual, trial and error changes, not divine creation, then why do the fossils indicate sudden dramatic changes?

If life developed through genetic mutations and natural selection, how could flatworms develop into humans in only 500 million years, while only one organism in countless trillions is born with a beneficial de novo genetic mutation?

Atheists may try to devise various tortured and complicated arguments to justify their beliefs. 

Some have desperately suggested that space aliens have created the universe and created life.

But surely atheists, especially the younger generation who are more open minded and less dogmatic than their traditional parents, will eventually have to throw their hands up in despair and admit "God did it!"

178 comments:

Michael said...

This is such an incredibly ironic post that I feel some strange mixture of humor and disgust at your ignorance. First you claim that atheists subscribe to "old, Victorian era myths." This is completely untrue. An atheist simply doesn't need to believe in any god. This is also ironic because you promote old, Bronze Age myths from a group of prejudiced, hateful, racist, sexist men.
"If there is no God, where did it come from?" Well, we don't know at our current state of scientific development. We may never know. But that is no reason to believe in some ridiculous fairytales like Judaism, Christianity, or any organized religion. Atheists are not "forced" to assume that the universe is eternal, we can simply answer that "we don't know the exact mechanics of the universe and it's true age." There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to a question, and atheists are working to find the answers, unlike religion, which inherently teaches people to be complacent. In fact, it is mainly atheist scientists who research things and come up with estimates like the 13 billion year age that you quote. Secondly, the universe could exist eternally, just not this specific reincarnation, if you will. Some theories, like string theory, promote the hypothesis that there are multiple universes and possibly an infinite amount thereof that are created through interactions of dimensional "membranes." Also, if there is a god, where did it come from? There is no evidence to suggest that the universe is "fine tuned," which I can discuss later. Your statement implies that the universe needs a creator, presumably because of its relative complexity. This merely creates a bigger question of who created the creator, because since a creator would need to be more complex that what it is creating, it would be even more likely for the creator to need to be created. This creates an infinite regression and requires an infinite cycle of creators, each more complex than its predecessor.

You claim that "Origin of Species" is the defying work and indeed the "bible" of atheism. This is flat out ignorant. This work is simply the first of many forays into the field of evolution. Evolution is a theory, meaning that it has considerable information to support its hypothesis and no information that contradicts it. It is not a work that teaches atheism, although it provides a perfectly good explanation nor for the origin of life, but for its continued survival and progress.
In regards to your question of the origins of life on earth, I am not an expert. I don't know. But that is fine, because I am trying to research that and understand it instead of reverting to hypothesis from a two thousand year old book from people who thought that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Life, when created, would seem to appear suddenly because obviously the conditions were in place for life to arise, which brings me to my next point. The universe is not "finely tuned" for life. That is a laughable statement. The universe for the most part is full of environments that are absolutely not sustainable for life. Even life on earth is not very stable. A single large asteroid impact, the radiation and heat from a solar storm if it ever was directed at earth, running out of our limited resources, even our sun eventually dying would all eliminate all life. Even our own bodies are not "finely tuned." We are fragile creatures, with little strength for hunting or fending off predators, we have numerous allergies, we have brittle bones that break easily, many exposed vital organs in our abdomens that have no protection, and all sorts of genetic diseases, chromosome mutations, etc. To then say that we are made in "god's image" is incredibly vain, as is saying that the entire universe, of which we are an inconceivably small and unimportant part is built for us.

Hugo said...

Hey JP, let's try to make YOU defend your ideas...

Atheism is a religion...

By definition, Atheism is a lack of religion. You claim to be honest in another comment thread, yet you lie right here.

I will grant you one thing though. Everybody, including Atheists, have some sort of worldview that includes their belief. My point is only that Atheism is a rejection of the claims of religions. Some Atheists like me like to discuss such topics and come online to expose ideas, but some Atheists simply rejected their childhood beliefs because they did not make sense to them (and they would not make sense to you!), so to lump everybody together is dishonest at best, flat out lying at worst...

Want to retract that statement?

which became popular following the publication of its bible "Origin of Species" in 1859.

That is not just being dishonest, that is a lie. Darwin's book reported his observations and thoughts about certain topics related to biology. We can accept it, or not, but it certainly does not attempt to prove/disprove any gods.

Want to retract that statement?

Atheism teaches that the Biblical God, an intelligent, eternal, creator, does not exist

Atheism does not change anything.

Want to retract that statement?

As an Atheist, it is true that I believe that the Biblical God does not exist, but I am not teaching it to anyone... I simply don't believe it exists. Your definition of God actualy makes God impossible to exist but that's another subject. You already have a post about that that I tried to discuss with you but because you are not a real philosopher you don't care about supporting your assertions.

...and that life developed through the unguided, natural process of evolution.

Biology teaches a lot about life; not Atheism.

Want to retract that statement?

Atheists rejected an eternal God and therefore were forced to assume that the universe has existed eternally.

False dichotomy. We can reject both an eternal God and an eternal Universe.

Want to retract that statement?

This has recently been proven to be false - the universe in fact was created about 13 billion years ago. If there is no God, where did it come from?

Created is the wrong word. We don't know enough about the Big Bang to claim that the universe was 'created' at some time in the past. The observation leads us to conclude that all of the universe was compressed to a point where out mathematical model cannot even discuss it anymore. You claim to know more than that?

Want to retract that statement?

Recent research has demonstrated that the universe is fine tuned to make life possible. If there is no God, who fine tuned it?

Asking 'who' is begging the question. You assert your own answer.

The universe appears fine tune for our kind of life because our kind of life lives in it. It could not be otherwise.

Want to retract that statement?

An example... Take a pencil, throw it into the air, look at where it lands and at what it is pointing to... Oh my !! Look! It's a miracle, the pencil was designed to fit exactly that spot on the floor! It points to exactly that direction and no other direction. Clearly, that pencil was fined tuned to point exactly that way! If there is no God, who put the pencil in that position? How could the lead at the end of the pencil be exactly opposite to the eraser? Well, if there is an eraser of course...

Hugo said...

(2/3)


If there is no God, how did life appear on earth and appear so suddenly?

Nobody knows exactly how life started, but it is surely not spontaneous in the sense that there was nothing and then BOOM, we have a worm. That's silly.... You are making an argument from ignorance. You don't know something, therefore God. It does not explain anything

Want to retract that statement?

If life evolved through small, gradual, trial and error changes, not divine creation, then why do the fossils indicate sudden dramatic changes?

We don't; that's another lie. The fossil records is exactly the way we would expect it to be, knowing that fossilization is a rare event. The Cambrian explostion for example is often depicted as a sudden appearance, because with respect to Earth's age it was fast, but it still happened over several million years... and all the animal philia that appeared are nowhere close to what we see today. Nothing contradicts the simple principles of evolutionary theory.

Want to retract that statement?

If life developed through genetic mutations and natural selection, how could flatworms develop into humans in only 500 million years, while only one organism in countless trillions is born with a beneficial de novo genetic mutation?

What is a beneficial mutation for you? Are your kids exactly like you? No! That's a "mutation". If we were to separate your kids from each other, and never let their descendant interbreed, at one point, they would become very different. Of course, before we have a new species it would take a very long time, but it's exactly what we expect over 500 million years to use your example. The E.Choli example you link to has been going on only for less than 30 years...

Want to retract that statement?

Hugo said...

(3/3 - MOST important, if you reply to just that...)

Atheists may try to devise various tortured and complicated arguments to justify their beliefs.

Actually no, my beliefs as an Atheists are very simple and based on very simple principles. They can yield very complex Theories and systems but at face value nothing is complicated. I could start from 0 and explain to you what I believe and why without ever invoking anything complex.

YOU, on the other hand, start with the MOST COMPLICATED THING EVER, an Eternant Perfect God! That is the most ironic thing you have ever written. You believe your God is complex enough to have a mind that created the entire freaking universe, yet you claim that Atheists believe in complex things? Give me a break...

Want to retract that statement?

jewish philosopher said...

"An atheist simply doesn't need to believe in any god."

How do you define the word "god"? Any superhuman being? What about a space alien? Are you sure there are none? 

"you promote old, Bronze Age myths from a group of prejudiced, hateful, racist, sexist men"

Actually, I am promoting the obvious truth, as demonstrated by the Watchmaker and Kuzari principles. It's a revolutionary way of thinking and living which can bring peace and happiness to mankind.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/10/god-save-king-why-we-need-both.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/04/real-happiness.html

"But that is no reason to believe in some ridiculous fairytales like Judaism, Christianity, or any organized religion."

A transcendent creator is the only logical conclusion.

"Atheists are not "forced" to assume that the universe is eternal"

That is what atheists tried to tell people, until science proved them wrong.

"Some theories, like string theory, promote the hypothesis that there are multiple universes and possibly an infinite amount thereof that are created through interactions of dimensional "membranes." "

No evidence indicates that, and an eternal universe would have to a be perpetual motion machine, which would defy the laws of physics.

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

"There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to a question,"

There is something wrong with denying the obvious answer.

"Also, if there is a god, where did it come from?"

A transcendent being existing outside nature could be eternal. That's the reason why God is the only answer.

jewish philosopher said...

"This work is simply the first of many forays into the field of evolution."

This work is a ridiculous atheist tract, thinly disguised as popular science, written by a man angry and embittered by the death of his small daughter.

"In regards to your question of the origins of life on earth, I am not an expert. I don't know."

Nor will any atheist ever know because he denies the obvious explanation.

"The universe is not "finely tuned" for life."

It is.

What we normally think of as 'life' is based on chains of carbon atoms, with a few other atoms, such as nitrogen or phosphorous. One can speculate that one might have life with some other chemical basis, such as silicon, but carbon seems the most favourable case, because it has the richest chemistry. That carbon atoms should exist at all, with the properties that they have, requires a fine adjustment of physical constants, such as the QCD scale, the electric charge, and even the dimension of space-time. If these constants had significantly different values, either the nucleus of the carbon atom would not be stable, or the electrons would collapse in on the nucleus.

http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65

"My point is only that Atheism is a rejection of the claims of religions."

Except its own. Like every religion.

"We can accept it, or not, but it certainly does not attempt to prove/disprove any gods."

It is a ridiculous atheist tract, thinly disguised as popular science, written by a man angry and embittered by the death of his small daughter.

"We can reject both an eternal God and an eternal Universe."

How?

jewish philosopher said...

"We don't know enough about the Big Bang to claim that the universe was 'created' at some time in the past."

Something came from nothing - that's what we currently know and it's called "creation".

"The universe appears fine tune for our kind of life because our kind of life lives in it."

It's fine tuned for any kind of life. See above.

"Nobody knows exactly how life started"

People who deny the obvious answer will "never know", like some people will "never know" who was responsible for 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

"The fossil records is exactly the way we would expect it to be,"

It's the opposite of what Darwin predicted. That's why punctuated equilibrium was invented.

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

Which is just more nonsense.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/05/amish-refutation-of-evolution.html

"That's a "mutation". "

Evolution requires original genetic mutations which assist the mutants reproduction. They are astronomically rare. 

For bacteria, 22 years equals 50,000 generations. Twelve populations were used in this experiment. I don't know how large these twelve populations are, however let's guess that each one is in a liter of water. One milliliter of water will contain about 100 million e. coli

http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/b038.htm

Twelve liter would therefore be about 1.2 trillion. 50,000 generations would be 6 x 10^16 bacteria total. Out of that astronomical number, one had a good mutation.

It's estimated that about 106 billion humans have ever lived.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Number_of_humans_who_have_ever_lived

How many millions or billions of years would it take for one single good mutation to appear somewhere in all of mankind? And from there, how long would it take to develop a single, new useful limb or organ? Would our solar system exist that long?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Solar_Life_Cycle.svg

Anyhow, the point is that back in the relative darkness and ignorance of the 1860's, atheism may have seemed reasonable. Today, a century and a half of scientific progress later, it has been torn to shreds. Change is difficult. I'm sure many old timers will cling to the old dogma no matter what. However, clearly the tide of modern enlightenment is against them. 

natschuster said...

Guys:

The origin of the Universe is not just unknown. It violates the laws of science as we know them. Y'know first theromdynamics, causality, etc. So to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc. we need to go outside of the laws of the Universe.

And multiverse is a supernatural explaination. It just says that the upernatural stuff is happening somewhere else. So atheist don't have any problems with supoernatural stuff. They just don't want it to impact on their lives.

Ironmistress said...

We have absolutely NO evidence of any deities. Even less evidence do we have of a benevolent, loving and nice God who is Love, thanks to the problem of evil which has never been resolved sufficiently. Buddhism rejects the idea of God because of the problem of evil.

Actually everything in the nature speaks against a loving, kind and nice God. In this world every living organism is a murderer, every mouth is a slaughterhouse and every stomach is a graveyard. Life can exist only by destroying and devouring other life. Psychopaths prevail in the society, human relationships and politics. Evil simply gives you a greater degree of freedom than good.

There may be transcendent deities, but they are VERY likely to be either malevolent or outright evil. I personally tend to incline on misotheism like my Pagan Viking ancestors, who often saw the gods as intolerable oppressors at best.

Ironmistress said...

Something came from nothing - that's what we currently know and it's called "creation".

We do not know if it came from nothing. It may well have been preceeded by a collapsed ante-universe. Or our universe may be actually a black hole in a far bigger meta-universe. It came from singularity - and a singularity exists in the core of a black hole. There is nothing mystical in black hole collapse.

It's fine tuned for any kind of life. See above.

Nobody knows why, and nobody will ever know. It is probable there has been innumerable Big Bangs, which simply have been fizzled because of lack of that fine tuning of natural constants.

People who deny the obvious answer will "never know", like some people will "never know" who was responsible for 9/11.

No. The answer you suggest is an ad hoc combined with circular reasoning. It is likely the biological evolution was preceded with chemical evolution and Miller-syntheses.

Evolution requires original genetic mutations which assist the mutants reproduction. They are astronomically rare.

There happens 200,000 mutations each year in every human being. Of course only those mutations which occur a) in the sex cells or b) in utero really count.

How many millions or billions of years would it take for one single good mutation to appear somewhere in all of mankind?

Apparently one happened some 3,500 years ago in Scandinavia. The Scandinavians are notoriously resistant to HIV. It is likely a similar epidemy occurred in Scandinavia not too long ago and wiped out a grand part of the population. Only those who had that mutation survived.

The survival of a mutation requires a) bottleneck (= very few individuals) b) evolutionary pressure (there is some asset for having the mutation) and c) selection, either by mating or mortality.

And from there, how long would it take to develop a single, new useful limb or organ? Would our solar system exist that long?

Depends on how complex the organism is. It is not likely that humans will develop such, but there is one such mutation happened during the past 500 years and it is on cats. It is a mutation of polydactylia, which produces six-toed cats. They have one extra toe on their paws, which actually works like a thumb. Six-toed cats have been especially popular as ships' cats. There that extra toe may well have meant the difference between survival and death - being able to grab on something can save the cat. Six-toeness certainly is an asset.

jewish philosopher said...

"We do not know if it came from nothing."

There is no evidence of anything else. And if it came from something else, that something must have started somehow. According to the laws of physics perpetual motion is impossible.

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

"It is probable there has been innumerable Big Bangs, which simply have been fizzled because of lack of that fine tuning of natural constants."

I would assume that things are what they appear to be until proven otherwise. If I am in front of a firing squad and every bullet misses leaving me unscratched, I would assume that was deliberate rather than speculating that there are millions of firing squads in the world and by chance one is going to completely miss and I just happen to be that one.

" It is likely the biological evolution was preceded with chemical evolution and Miller-syntheses."

People who study this don't seem to think it's that simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/science/22origins.html

"Apparently one happened some 3,500 years ago in Scandinavia."

Fine. So one person in billions is born with a de novo beneficial mutation. How many of those will be required to pile up one on top of the other to produce a new useful limb or organ? Thousands? Millions? And how many new, useful limbs or organs separate a flatworm from a human? Try doing the math or order a copy of "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner.

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Chance-Shattering-Modern-Evolution/dp/1880582244

"Six-toeness certainly is an asset."

Many people and other mammals have extra digits.

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

I haven't heard that nature is selecting those people however - that they have more offspring than average. Maybe the opposite. 

Ironmistress said...

"We do not know if it came from nothing."

There is no evidence of anything else.


Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

And if it came from something else, that something must have started somehow. According to the laws of physics perpetual motion is impossible.

No. We may just as well think of endless sets of numbers, such as set of natural numbers. They begin from negative infinity, pass zero, and end in infinity. They have neither start nor finish.

I would assume that things are what they appear to be until proven otherwise. If I am in front of a firing squad and every bullet misses leaving me unscratched, I would assume that was deliberate rather than speculating that there are millions of firing squads in the world and by chance one is going to completely miss and I just happen to be that one.

That is the reason why UK rejected firing squad as the means of execution in 1956. Getting hanged produces death with 100% certainty; getting shot doesn't. The chances are closer to 1:50 of surviving firing squad than 1:10^6. Of course, missing unscatched rather than wounded is more rare.

Fine. So one person in billions is born with a de novo beneficial mutation. How many of those will be required to pile up one on top of the other to produce a new useful limb or organ? Thousands?

The simpler an organism, the less genes and the less mutations required. Evolution is based on accumulation of mutations and 3500 years is just a blink of an eye in the world history. It is very unlikely the evolution will produce new organs anymore - it has already produced all useful.

"Six-toeness certainly is an asset."

Many people and other mammals have extra digits.

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

I haven't heard that nature is selecting those people however - that they have more offspring than average. Maybe the opposite.


If it enhances the chances of survival, it certainly will be beneficial.

Friday, December 02, 2011 8:00:00 AM

Ironmistress said...

Snippet on Wikipedia on Polydactyl Cats:

This type of polydactyly is not life-threatening and usually not even debilitating to a cat. Some polydactyl kittens initially have more difficulty in learning to walk than normal animals; however in some cases polydactyly appears to improve the dexterity of the animal. For example, a common variation with six toes on the front paws, with two opposing digits on each (comparable in use to human thumbs), enables the cat to learn and perform feats of manual dexterity generally not observed in non-polydactyl cats, such as opening latches or catching objects with a single paw.

If the mutation enhances the chances of survival, the mutation is beneficial.

ksil said...

you should call this post "the strawman post"

nat, you are hilarious.

JP, i feel bad for your kids that you are injecting them with this BS. hopefully they see the light, one day,.

jewish philosopher said...

"Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence."

In absence of evidence to the contrary, I would assume that things are what they appear to be and apparently the universe was created from nothing.

"We may just as well think of endless sets of numbers,"

Numbers aren't real so they don't obey the laws of physics.

"The chances are closer to 1:50 of surviving firing squad"

Shooters often did deliberately miss.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9741919888/m/32519344701

"It is very unlikely the evolution will produce new organs anymore - it has already produced all useful."

Probably trilobites thought so too. Who could want more than 16 legs?

"If it enhances the chances of survival, it certainly will be beneficial."

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

"hopefully they see the light, one day,."

The only light you're seeing is from your computer monitor while you're watching www.teensforcash.com. lol 

jewish philosopher said...

"We have absolutely NO evidence of any deities."

The evidence is overwhelming; read this post.

"the problem of evil which has never been resolved sufficiently"

I resolved it.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html

Ironmistress said...

In absence of evidence to the contrary, I would assume that things are what they appear to be and apparently the universe was created from nothing.

Ex nihilo nihil. You may lift a brick to the height of your navel and drop it. If you don't feel pain on your toes after a split second, you may safely assume it was created from nothing as the essence of the brick and your toes are nothingness. (Which is Buddhist POV, by the way)

Numbers aren't real so they don't obey the laws of physics.

Numbers are just as real as anything. The laws and forces of physics are expressed by numbers.

Probably trilobites thought so too.

Trilobites lived during the Cambrian Explosion. Almost all organs and limbs and parts of living creatures were born back then.

Who could want more than 16 legs?

Snakes can do without.

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.

Dead organisms do not reproduce. If the mutation enhances the creature to survive to reproductive age (or multiple such periods), it will produce more offspring than those who don't. That is an evolutionary asset.

"We have absolutely NO evidence of any deities."

The evidence is overwhelming; read this post.


No. Stephen Jay Gould explains the questions you set quite well in his Dinosaur in a Haystack.. Note that Gould was not an Atheist, but rather an Agnostic, and he did not exclude a transcendent force like God having its effect on birth of life.

The book is good reading; I have it on my bookshelf.

the problem of evil which has never been resolved sufficiently"

I resolved it.


No. You represented one possible solution. Yet it has some holes and flaws on it, and while your model was good, it was not flawless. For example, your model requested for law of karma and reincarnation, of which we do not have evidence.

While there may be few atheists in foxholes, there is no God at concentration camps. Who suffered more at Auschwitz; those Christians who were force-laboured and humiliated to slow death by hunger and overwork at Auschwitz I Stammlager, or those Jews who were gassed outright at Auschwitz II Birkenau? In the end they both were exactly as dead.

jewish philosopher said...

"Dead organisms do not reproduce."

Neither do some living ones (including many atheist). In any case a "beneficial mutation" is defined as a mutation which which increases the number of offspring.

"Stephen Jay Gould explains the questions you set quite well in his Dinosaur in a Haystack."

It looks like it's basically about evolution.

"For example, your model requested for law of karma and reincarnation, of which we do not have evidence."

I don't need evidence. You need evidence of God's injustice, however you have none.

"there is no God at concentration camps"

Actually, the Holocaust provides a remarkable proof of Judaism, as I explain here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/06/holocaust-clear-evidence-of-gods-hand.html

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

If numbers are real ,like physical objects then how can imaginary numbers exist. The square root of negative numbers can't exist, but it does. So obviously, numbers don't obey the laws of physics.

Ksil:

I'm glad yuo find me amusing. But something along the lines of logic, facts, etc from you would be refreshing.

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

What do you consider evidence? the evidence for evolution is for the most part spotty and indirect at best. Archaeologists infer the existance of intelligent agents like proto-humnas from artifacts. Why is all the evidence for G-d any worse?

Ironmistress said...

If numbers are real ,like physical objects then how can imaginary numbers exist.

It is because of our perception. The imaginary numbers are by no means imaginary for any engineer - they are especially important in electric engineering, civil engineering and mechanical engineering. Numbers denote quantities and physical properties. While we do not perceive anything "real" for imaginary numbers, they most certainly exist for example in calculating stability matrices and making durability calculations.

The square root of negative numbers can't exist, but it does.

Who says it "cannot exist"? Once upon a time negative numbers were thought not to exist - until it was found out that they existed as deficit or lack of something. If your account is on the negative side, it means you owe money.

So obviously, numbers don't obey the laws of physics.

Yes, they most certainly do. Ask your nearest engineer.

What do you consider evidence? the evidence for evolution is for the most part spotty and indirect at best.

Here is the definition on what constitutes as evidence.

Archaeologists infer the existance of intelligent agents like proto-humnas from artifacts. Why is all the evidence for G-d any worse?

Is there really any evidence of existence of any deities? If there is, where is it?

The Medieval Scholastics came up with the proofs of existence of God. They have been refuted one after another. Yet the refutations themselves are flawed. If you can prove - bindingly - that deities (no matter what kind of a deity) does exist, you'll gain me a believer.

[And if you can prove Finns actually are descendants of one of the Ten Lost Tribes (as the story goes in this country), I promise to become a baalat t'shuv.]

Ironmistress said...

Neither do some living ones (including many atheist). In any case a "beneficial mutation" is defined as a mutation which which increases the number of offspring.

This is known as Straw Man, and it is not considered a good technique of debate. You can do better than that.

"For example, your model requested for law of karma and reincarnation, of which we do not have evidence."

I don't need evidence.


Yes, you do need. If you want to propose a solid model (instead of just hypothesis), you need to verify it as well to present it as a solution.

You need evidence of God's injustice, however you have none.

No other book has turned people, especially Christians, away from God than Book of Job.

The world itself is blatantly and self-evidently injust, unfair, cruel and brutal. If it manifests the deeds of God, then all implications is that God is not a guy you'd like to have as your neighbour.

"there is no God at concentration camps"

Actually, the Holocaust provides a remarkable proof of Judaism, as I explain here.


No other event in the world history has turned Jews so much off the religion as the Holocaust. If God could not save His own people from genocide, then what is the point on worshipping that kind of a god? Some 70% of Jews today are completely Atheist.

My own Scandinavian ancestors came to the same conclusion on Viking gods: they were not worth of worshipping. The Viking sagas tell of heroes who were godlauss, i.e. "godless" and who hated the gods and bucked the odds with them. The Pagan Scandinavians were not known of their piousness nor frum-ness, but of their audacity, tenacity and bravery.

jewish philosopher said...

I have demonstrated that beneficial genetic mutations are astronomically rare, that there is are no clearly unjust occurrences in this world and that the Holocaust actually is a remarkable proof of Judaism. I don't see how you've refuted that.

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

Negative numbers don't have square roots. So the square root of negative one can't exist, but it does.

Could you give me an example of numbers obeying the laws of physics. Do numbers obey the law of gravity, for example? How about first thermodynamics? Certain functions approahc infinity. How does that work in the physical world?

natschuster said...

And according to the link you posted, it seems to me that the evidence fro G-d's existance is just about as strong as that for evolution. There's the Universe, life, the mind, morality, the testimony of the Bible, etc. All this qualifies as evidence that should be as good as finding a piece of flint with a sharp edge and extrapolating a proto-human.

natschuster said...

If you are using the fact that bad things happen as evidence against the existance of G-d, what are you going to do about the fact that good things happen? What about all the gratuitous goodness? For example, wy do humans enjoy sunsets? What's the evolutionary explanation?

Jeff said...

"I have demonstrated that beneficial genetic mutations are astronomically rare, that there is are no clearly unjust occurrences in this world and that the Holocaust actually is a remarkable proof of Judaism. "

You have of course demonstrated no such thing. Polymorphisms are all over nature and are part of evolution. The holocaust is no more a proof of Judaism than is the 6 Day War a proof of Islam.

All your "proofs" ignore inductive reasoning and rely only on pseudoscientific arguments like the Kuzari "proof". You have only demonstrated why you think the way you do. There is no need for a refutation because you have proven nothing.

Because you reject scientific inference, you reject the scientific method overall. This is why your arguments go in circles and you repeat the same invalid claims in different posts.

jewish philosopher said...

"Polymorphisms are all over nature and are part of evolution."

You don't know anything about evolution.

"The holocaust is no more a proof of Judaism than is the 6 Day War a proof of Islam. "

I would beg to differ. I would say that if the Koran would predict that when Muslims reject the Koran they will experience terrible suffering, Muslims did, for the first time in history reject the Koran in large numbers and immediately afterwards a terrible, unprecedented plague struck Islamic countries killing out most of the population, that would be interesting.

"All your "proofs" ignore inductive reasoning and rely only on pseudoscientific arguments like the Kuzari "proof"."

It's a proof from history not science, just as the proofs of the Peloponnesian War for example.

"Because you reject scientific inference, you reject the scientific method overall."

Just the opposite. I enthusiastically embrace science and 20th century science has completely destroyed the 19th fairytales of atheism.   

Ironmistress said...

If you are using the fact that bad things happen as evidence against the existance of G-d,

This question: if God is good, why the world is evil? is the basis of theodichy, or Problem of Evil. The best brains of Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and many other religions have pondered this question without any decent answer for millennia.

[I do have an answer, however, which will explain it sufficiently well. It, however, requires the assumption of pre-existence of soul, hence it is not a proof but a hypothesis.]

what are you going to do about the fact that good things happen? What about all the gratuitous goodness? For example, wy do humans enjoy sunsets? What's the evolutionary explanation?

It is just that good things do not happen evenly. Both good and evil follow the Pareto's law, or 80-20 rule. Of all evil in the world, 80% of all setbacks and evil things befall on 20% of people - when it rains, it pours. Almost half of the misfortunes, disasters and suffering happen to 1% of people. Those who are unlucky, are truly unlucky. Likewise, 80% of all happiness in the world befalls on 20% of people, and 1% of people gets 50% of all good things in the world. The rich are also healthy, beautiful and popular.

Yes, there are good things in the world too. But they do not overwrite all the evil in the world.

Ironmistress said...

And according to the link you posted, it seems to me that the evidence fro G-d's existance is just about as strong as that for evolution.

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive :)

If evolution is a paradigm and we assume God exists, then it is plausible to think that God uses evolution as the tool of creation, and the process of creation has not ended but continues all the way.

Actually the evolutionary algorithms are the strongest and quickest engineering tools there are. They produce the best results in the quickest time.

If I were God, I certainly would use the most efficient way of design there is - evolution - to create life.

Remember I am an Agnostic, not Atheist. I do not reject the possibility of existence of deities like the Atheists do. I just don't know if they exist or not as I do not have so far any evidence of their existence.

Ironmistress said...

Nat, imaginary numbers are no more imaginary than real numbers - they are just different. See here.

Taking a square root is a forbidden operation only in the set of real numbers. It is not a forbidden operation in the set of complex numbers. Complex numbers have true and concrete meaning in engineering; they denote phasors. In the vector representation, the rectangular coordinates are typically referred to simply as x and y. But in the complex number representation, the same components are referred to as real and imaginary. When the complex number is purely imaginary, such as a real part of 0 and an imaginary part of 120, it means the voltage has a potential of 120 volts and a phase of 90° (π/2), which is, physically speaking, very much a real voltage.

Similarly, imaginary numbers have essential concrete applications in a variety of scientific and related areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics, cartography, and vibration analysis.

Ironmistress said...

Negative numbers don't have square roots.

Yes they do, and they are essential on analyzing trigonometric and exponential functions. They are bread and water for engineers.

So the square root of negative one can't exist, but it does.

Only if we restrict our scope in the set of real numbers. If we broaden the scope to complex numbers, they most certainly can and do exist.

Could you give me an example of numbers obeying the laws of physics.

It is the other way; the laws of physics are expressed in the laws of numbers - mathematics. The laws of physics are nice formulations of mathematics and its beauty.

Do numbers obey the law of gravity, for example?

The law of gravity obeys mathematics. The gravitation constant most certainly has a numeric value.

How about first thermodynamics?

As does R, the universal gas constant, 8.314 J/molK. The first law of thermodynamics can be expressed in numbers - in terms of statistical mechanics.

Certain functions approahc infinity. How does that work in the physical world?

That is where you need the concepts of negative and imaginary numbers - and especially important those concepts are in stability theory. Trigonometric functions, exponential functions and second order differential equations are especially interesting in this concept.

If a system has positive feedback - the characteristic polynome has positive roots and the zeroes of the control function are real - the system will accelerate and amplify itself, and without control it will become unstable and eventually break - in chemical engineering this is called explosion. If a system has negative feedback - the characteristic polynome has negative roots and the zeroes of the control function are imaginary - the system is inherently stable and will shut itself down unless controlled. In chemical engineering endothermic reactions are like that - they need to be heated all the time lest they die down.

Someone said "black holes are points where God divided by zero". That is a nice analogy.

Jeff said...

"You don't know anything about evolution."

OK, maybe I don't, but these guys do:

"Polymorphism is common in nature; it is related to biodiversity, genetic variation and adaptation; it usually functions to retain variety of form in a population living in a varied environment.[3]:126 The most common example is sexual dimorphism, which occurs in many organisms. Other examples are mimetic forms of butterflies (see mimicry), and human haemoglobin and blood types.

Polymorphism results from evolutionary processes, as does any aspect of a species. It is heritable and is modified by natural selection. In polyphenism, an individual's genetic make-up allows for different morphs, and the switch mechanism that determines which morph is shown is environmental. In genetic polymorphism, the genetic make-up determines the morph. Ants exhibit both types in a single population.[4][5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

3. Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia U. Pr.
4. Clark, W. C. (1976). "The Environment and the Genotype in Polymorphism". Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 58 (3): 255–262.
5. Ford, E. B. 1975. Ecological Genetics (4th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall


What this shows is that morphs (which are essentially adaptive mutations) occur throughout nature, and are subject to natural selection.

This is old stuff and has been well known for a long time. Nothing novel here.

jewish philosopher said...

This is just nonsensical atheistic propaganda.

Let's say the American government would decide to kill anyone who is not tall, blonde and blue eyed. In a couple of hundred years you would probably find a lot of Nordic looking people in the US, however a process like this would never create a new, useful limb or organ. 

This is Darwin's original scam - that new species could originate through natural selection just like new breeds originate through artificial selection.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/proving_evolution_doggybreedin004585.html

jewish philosopher said...

Let's go the other way: what is the evidence in favor of atheism?

The fossils? I got that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

Why do little children suffer? Got that too.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html

Why do males have nipples? That's a tough one, however I think it's so females won't think we look weird.

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

In the function y=x^2 as yuo increase x by one, yuo increase y exponentially. So yuo a getting more out than you put in. this violates the first law of thermodynamics. So how is it that numbers obey the laws of physics? The laws of physics use numbers, but how does it work the other way around? And if you drop a number, does it fall? So how exactly do numbers obey the laws of physics?

Ironmistress said...

Ironmistress:

In the function y=x^2 as yuo increase x by one, yuo increase y exponentially. So yuo a getting more out than you put in. this violates the first law of thermodynamics. So how is it that numbers obey the laws of physics?


What you suggest is called insane troll logic. You can do better than that.

One simple example of the exponential (square) growth is kinetic energy: E = ½mv^2. If the mass stays constant and you put one unit of energy in, the velocity grows double.

Please do not attempt to play stupid. I call your bluff.

Ironmistress said...

Let's say the American government would decide to kill anyone who is not tall, blonde and blue eyed. In a couple of hundred years you would probably find a lot of Nordic looking people in the US, however a process like this would never create a new, useful limb or organ.

This is known as Straw Man, and it is not a good debate technique.

And the reason why it won't create a new useful limb or organ is that because there is no free ecological niche for one. Simple as that.

This is Darwin's original scam - that new species could originate through natural selection just like new breeds originate through artificial selection.

You again forget the concept of ecological niche. Darwin himself was very aware of the concept.

jewish philosopher said...

So you're saying that today there is no way a de novo genetic mutation would increase an organism's fitness (no "free niche") therefore evolution cannot happen now, but in the past that was never true.

Again, you're just parroting some atheistic literature which you only half understand.

Ironmistress said...

Let's go the other way: what is the evidence in favor of atheism?

The proof of burden is on the side which assumes deities do exist. Not on the denialist side.

Why do little children suffer? Got that too.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html


You are violating the Occam's Razor by making two ungrounded assumptions: first that the world was somehow just and second by assuming reincarnation does exist. Of which neither we have no solid evidence.

Why do males have nipples? That's a tough one, however I think it's so females won't think we look weird.

Because a male is a malformed female.

The default sex of all mammals is female. Unless one gene - SRY - is functional, the embryo will develop into a female phenotype individual.

Males have nipples because they are rudiments of their early developmental stages in utero. What else is penis but an overgrown clitoris?

jewish philosopher said...

"You are violating the Occam's Razor"

The burden of proof is on the atheist. To prove there is no God you must prove that something unjust happened and you can't.

"Because a male is a malformed female."

This is how an atheist would explain it, however a theist could find other reasons why God would do it. Again, the burden of proof is on the atheist to find bad design, but you can't. We have know way of knowing what God's unfathomable intentions may be.

Ironmistress said...

So you're saying that today there is no way a de novo genetic mutation would increase an organism's fitness (no "free niche")

Only within that niche, such as resistance for sicknesses. But not we do not produce new organs - only improve the existing, albeit very slowly.

therefore evolution cannot happen now, but in the past that was never true.

Read the Gould book. He explains this phenomenon very well.

The evolutionary process obeys the logistic curve. At first the speed and process of evolution is very slow. Once a turning point (a free ecological niche and isolated population) is passed, the evolution is extremely rapid, and new species can be born in a matter of decades. Once another turning point is passed - the ecological niche has been occupied and speciesization is complete - the evolution again turns into stasis - a very slow and almost non-existent process where only the existing properties are improved but nothing new is created.

Should a sudden catastrophe - such as asteroid impact - which would cause mass extinctions occur, it would free a lot of ecological niches. The evolutionary process would start and emerge very quickly, and we would see myriads of new emerging species competing for those niches.

jewish philosopher said...

So evolutionists should logically applaud global warming, which will cause huge advancements in evolution following a mass extinction.

Ironmistress said...

"You are violating the Occam's Razor"

The burden of proof is on the atheist. To prove there is no God you must prove that something unjust happened and you can't.


No it isn't. The burden of proof is on that side who attempts to propose that something (like God) exists; not on that side who denies the existence.

And injustices happen every second. Truisms do not need to be proven.

"Because a male is a malformed female."

This is how an atheist would explain it,


Yup, and it can be proven in laboratory to be a valid explanation. A female embryo can be turned into fully functional male with only slight hormonal interference; similarly a male embryo can be developed into female by deactivating the SRY gene. Works on all mammals - unfortunately by humans as well.

however a theist could find other reasons why God would do it. Again, the burden of proof is on the atheist to find bad design, but you can't. We have know way of knowing what God's unfathomable intentions may be.

This is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam and already the Scholastics of the 12th century recognized that as a fallacy. "Lord works in mysterious ways" is no argument.

Ironmistress said...

So evolutionists should logically applaud global warming, which will cause huge advancements in evolution following a mass extinction.

Only if they are really screwed.

But now you are violating the Hume's Guillotine: ought cannot be derived from is. You cannot claim that a catastrophe would be a desirable thing because it will accelerate evolution. Value arguments cannot be derived from facts.

ksil said...

watching JP and nat trying to argue, comment and persuade in this topic is like watching a high school trumpet player and math whiz trying to play for the green bay packers on any given sunday.

running around the field, not knowing what to do - and men mutch bigger and stronger than you just laying you out, flat on your back.

hilarious - keep it up guys! its quite entertaining (even though i feel bad for you)


jp, do us a favor, tie a rope around your neck and hang yourself, after which you can suffer forever in the blazing fire of hell (of course, i dont really mean that, i was just plagarising from someone ;)

jewish philosopher said...

My question still remains unanswered.

According to Darwinism, change comes about not through intelligent design but rather through the natural occurrence of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility. I think we can conservatively estimate that millions of such mutations would have had to pile up one on top of the other to convert a flatworm into a human.

However such mutations are in fact found in only perhaps one in 10^17 individuals. Therefore the probability of this being the origin of species is perhaps similar to the probability of monkeys typing Shakespeare or someone winning the national lottery a thousand times in a row without cheating.

To suggest that global extinction events somehow turbocharged evolution is ludicrous. To imagine that firing an asteroid into the earth would dramatically increase the complexity of life is like suggesting that firing a bullet into someone will dramatically improve his functioning. Not likely. (This is why even evolutionists don't support global warming.)

Therefore, how can anyone rationally support this nonsense? 

ksil, plagiarism is a crime. Shame on you.

ksil said...

crime?!?! whats that? i dont belive in that. no morals. we are all just souless bags of chemicals with no free choice!! LOL

since we dont have all the answers....i believe that an invisible man in the sky created us with the wave of his magic wand and then subsequently killed almost everybody then revealed himslef to a small group of uneducated nomadic bedouin like people in the desert 2,000 years ago and gave us all kinds of important rules how to live, and rape our wives, and take hostages in war and kill other people (including children) and wave a lemon and tree branch and not eat pork or crabs....VERY VERY important stuff! he did create the entire universe, you know!

santa and the elves are more bleievable

jewish philosopher said...

Actually, God is not a man in the sky.

He is infinite - in regards to time, space and strength.
He is eternal, He is everywhere and He does everything.
He has no physical form and His nature is entirely beyond our comprehension.

While the Torah is a book containing exceptional wisdom.

Monotheism greatly simplifies our understanding of the universe and originated in the Torah.

Altruism, the idea of caring for other people without getting anything in return, is something which brings great happiness to the world and originated in the Torah.

The concept of the weekend brings a welcome periodic respite from work and originated in the Torah.

Pleasure is psychologically necessary, however it's easy to slip into dangerous addictions. The Torah teaches us how to live a balanced life.

To help us to observe all the above, Judaism includes a total educational system.

The Torah is also the oldest book written using an alphabet.

Instead of being a meaningless story of violence, like for example the Iliad, the Torah is a book which more than any other has changed the world.

Ironmistress said...

According to Darwinism, change comes about not through intelligent design but rather through the natural occurrence of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility.

No. The actual phrase is de novo genetic mutations which enhance capability to produce surviving offspring. If fertility was the issue, cods and clams ruled the world.

The capability can be achieved in several ways:

1) Spawn a lot. Like clams and cods do. They produce 500 million eggs a time - of which perhaps one or two will survive.

2) Live long so you may produce offspring multiple times. Like tortoises, which may live a couple of hundred of years and which mate annually.

3) Produce offspring which can take care of themselves and are likely to survive. Like most mammals.

4) Take care of your offspring so they will survive. Like most birds.

There are multiple strategies to achieve this goal.

I think we can conservatively estimate that millions of such mutations would have had to pile up one on top of the other to convert a flatworm into a human.

There happens some 200 000 mutations each day in every human being. When there is time, the mutations will occur.

However such mutations are in fact found in only perhaps one in 10^17 individuals.

Given the time available, it will happen sooner or later.

Therefore the probability of this being the origin of species is perhaps similar to the probability of monkeys typing Shakespeare or someone winning the national lottery a thousand times in a row without cheating.

Remember the concept of accumulative selection. The mutations do not vanish into thin air, but they accumulate over time. Those monkeys are likely to type Shakespeare in 100 years when the concept of accumulative selection is taken to account. A long time, yes, but by no means impossible.

To suggest that global extinction events somehow turbocharged evolution is ludicrous.

It actually has happened several times during the history. First, the Cambrian explosion. Then, the Ordovician extinction and emergence of vertebrates. Then the Permian extinction and emergence of reptilians. Then the Cretacean extinction and emergence of birds and mammals. It is not that lurdicious when we take the time scale into account.

To imagine that firing an asteroid into the earth would dramatically increase the complexity of life is like suggesting that firing a bullet into someone will dramatically improve his functioning.

No. Actually it is more like the effect of a forest fire. At first there is destruction. Then life will win, eventually - in new forms and in succcession. Or like a technological revolutionary innovation. The invention of steam engine destroyed slavery, horses and sailing ships. But it created all new industries and technologies.

Not likely. (This is why even evolutionists don't support global warming.)

Ought cannot still derived from is.

Anonymous said...

santa and the elves are more bleievable

Actually Santa exists - or there is concrete evidence he has existed. Bishop St. Nicholas of Myra is a historical character, and his tomb along his corpse is in Bari, Italy.

jewish philosopher said...

fertility: Biology . the ability to produce offspring; power of reproduction

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fertility

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

So evolution does depend on the natural occurrence of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility.

"There happens some 200 000 mutations each day in every human being."

All are irrelevant to evolution because none increase fertility.

"Those monkeys are likely to type Shakespeare in 100 years when the concept of accumulative selection is taken to account."

No they won't.

This is basically comparable to someone illiterate attempting to publish books through random trial and error and customer selection. He would buy a printing press, open a bookstore, start printing and make more copies of whatever sold. At first he just arranged his printing type at random, printed and put the results on the shelves. No one bought anything since it was all gibberish. He threw all these failures into the trash bin and continued printing. Eventually, purely by chance, one small booklet actually made sense and in fact became a best seller. So he kept printing more copies of it. Occasionally, there would be some typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books developed through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection. Eventually, the inventory in the book shop had expanded to include tens of millions of titles including novels, plays, poetry, scientific textbooks, history, biography, huge dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on. In fact, these books were actually far more beautiful and profound than books ever written by any human author. All of these were produced by a totally illiterate author through a process of random printing, typos and customer selection over a very long period of time.

"It actually has happened several times during the history."

Indeed it has. But through special creation by an intelligent designer.

"At first there is destruction. Then life will win, eventually - in new forms and in succcession."

The same forms, no new species. 

"But it created all new industries and technologies."

Through intelligent design.

"Ought cannot still derived from is."

Why oughtn't we want life to become more complex and intelligent?

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

The numbers aren't obeyiong the laws of physics in your example of the law of kinetic energy. The object moving is. According to classical mechanics a moving opject get infinite mass or energy because you need infinite velocity. But numbers can approach infinity.

natschuster said...

IF the Universe is only 10^19 seconds old, and the mutations under discussion only happen once in 10^17 individuals, then, for the sack of arguement there is one mutation per second that means that during the entire lifetime of the universe there was time for only 100 mutations. Thats not a lot of time.

natschuster said...

Oh, and by the way, the Cambrain explosion was not an extintion even. Reptiles emerged during the Devonian. Mammals appeared during the Triassic. The first birds showed up during the Jurassic.

natschuster said...

According to this analysis


http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.full

It would take 100,000,000 for an adaptation that involves just two mutations two work its way through a population of organisms that reproduce at the rate humans do. So time constraints on evolution are real.

jewish philosopher said...

"200,000 mutations each year in every human being"

Just by the way, what does that mean and where did you get it from?

natschuster said...

My post above shoudl say 100,000,000 years. My bad.

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

Maybe I'm slow, but I just don't get your explanation of how the existance of imaginary numbers doesn't violate the laws of physics. Maybe you could break it down into steps. Of course the simplest explanation is that numbers don't have to obey the laws of physics. Physics of course has to obney the laws of numbers.

And why is "we hope to have an answer for you someday" considered an acceptable answer for questions like the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life, all the big problems with evolution, the origin of the mind, the orignin of morality, etc," when an atheist give it, but when a theist gives it about much smaller problems it is called an argumentum ad ignorancium or some such.

jewish philosopher said...

I draw a destination between "we don't know the answer", for example we don't know who Jack the Ripper was and "we don't want to know the answer" for example we "don't know" who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Ironmistress said...

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.

Reproducing of surviving offspring. Not merely reproducing; if it was so, the future would belong to cods and clams.

So evolution does depend on the natural occurrence of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility.

Not fertility but ability to produce surviving offspring. There are the four strategies which I represented above.

All are irrelevant to evolution because none increase fertility.

Homo sapiens is neither cod nor clam. It is not about fertility nor fecundity but surviving offspring.

No they won't.

This is basically comparable to someone illiterate attempting to publish books through random trial and error and customer selection.


Yes they will.

He would buy a printing press, open a bookstore, start printing and make more copies of whatever sold. At first he just arranged his printing type at random, printed and put the results on the shelves. No one bought anything since it was all gibberish. He threw all these failures into the trash bin and continued printing. Eventually, purely by chance, one small booklet actually made sense and in fact became a best seller. So he kept printing more copies of it. Occasionally, there would be some typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books developed through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection. Eventually, the inventory in the book shop had expanded to include tens of millions of titles including novels, plays, poetry, scientific textbooks, history, biography, huge dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on. In fact, these books were actually far more beautiful and profound than books ever written by any human author.

This is a crude straw man but basically that is exactly the way evolution works. Given enough time.

All of these were produced by a totally illiterate author through a process of random printing, typos and customer selection over a very long period of time.

You are building a straw man but basically that is how it works, as incredible as it may sound.

Indeed it has. But through special creation by an intelligent designer.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We do not know. I do not exclude away an intelligent designer, but I am not willing to believe in a magical strike of creating the whole universe in one week.

The same forms, no new species.

Sometimes yes, but sometimes new species do emerge.

"But it created all new industries and technologies."

Through intelligent design.


The principle is still the same, although the question was about cultural evolution and memetics instead of genetics. Biological evolution does not necessarily need intelligent design behind, while it is possible there is some.

"Ought cannot still derived from is."

Why oughtn't we want life to become more complex and intelligent?

Because we have VERY bitter experiences of last time it was tried and when humans were treated as cattle or laboratory animals.

Ironmistress said...

The numbers aren't obeyiong the laws of physics in your example of the law of kinetic energy.

Just tell that to any engineer and he'll laugh at you.

IF the Universe is only 10^19 seconds old, and the mutations under discussion only happen once in 10^17 individuals, then, for the sack of arguement there is one mutation per second that means that during the entire lifetime of the universe there was time for only 100 mutations. Thats not a lot of time.

There are more than one individuals simultaneously in existence. See here for refutation.

Oh, and by the way, the Cambrain explosion was not an extintion even.

Yes, you are correct; the Cambrian explosion was about filling vacant ecological niches and emergence of all important organs and limbs.

Reptiles emerged during the Devonian.

But they superceded the amphibians only after the Permian mass extinction. The amphibians occupied all the ecological niches.

Mammals appeared during the Triassic.

And they superceded the reptilians only after the Cretacean mass extinction, which vacated the ecological niches previously occupied by reptilians.

The first birds showed up during the Jurassic.

And they really evolved only after the pterosaurs occupying the ecological niches dying out at the Cretacean mass extinction.

Ironmistress said...

Maybe I'm slow, but I just don't get your explanation of how the existance of imaginary numbers doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Let's say they are bread and water to every electric and mechanical engineer. There is a very good explanationin Wikipedia.

Physics of course has to obney the laws of numbers.

That doesn't make numbers any more non-real than the physical phenomena themselves.

And why is "we hope to have an answer for you someday" considered an acceptable answer for questions like the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the origin of life, all the big problems with evolution, the origin of the mind, the orignin of morality, etc," when an atheist give it, but when a theist gives it about much smaller problems it is called an argumentum ad ignorancium or some such.

Because the theist answer is very likely to be either wrong or grossly simplified.

Remember I'm not an Atheist. I'm an Agnostic. I simply do not know and I doubt I ever will.

Ironmistress said...

It would take 100,000,000 for an adaptation that involves just two mutations two work its way through a population of organisms that reproduce at the rate humans do. So time constraints on evolution are real.

Here's a snippet of the article you cited:

"Fortunately, in biological reality, the match of a regulatory protein to the target sequence does not have to be exact for binding to occur. Biological reality is complicated, with the acceptable sequences for binding described by position weight matrices that indicate the flexibility at different points in the sequence. To simplify, we assume that binding will occur to any eight-letter word that has seven letters in common with the target word. If we do this, then the mean waiting time reduces to ∼60,000 years. "

Which is much more manageable a time than 10^8 years.

jewish philosopher said...

"Reproducing of surviving offspring"

Obviously, I'm not referring to dead offspring.

"This is a crude straw man but basically that is exactly the way evolution works. Given enough time."

Try it. Tell me how it goes. Using a computer to generate gibberish, it should be much quicker than an old printing press. Set up a computer to print at random and try selling the books let's say in Hungary, a place whose language you don't understand. The sun will die before you get your first Hungarian best seller.

"but I am not willing to believe in a magical strike of creating the whole universe in one week."

I am willing to believe that things are what they appear to be.

"Sometimes yes, but sometimes new species do emerge."

You're changing the subject. The example you link to refers to hybridization, not Darwinian variation and natural selection, which is being debated here.

"Because we have VERY bitter experiences of last time"

We never tried global mass extinction before. According to evolutionists like you it should work wonders. Perhaps a super frog with an intelligence a million times greater than ours will emerge which will set out and colonize the galaxy.

johnny shoe said...

Ironmistress:

I still don't get how numbers obey the laws of physics.

And the article I linked does say that if we make an assumption then the numbers become more managable, true. But assumptions are always questionable because they are assumptions. And Michael Behe corrected a math error in that calculation. It would actually take 30 time longer. And all this is assuming that the mutation are neutral. If a mutation is delitorious then it would longer.

natschuster said...

Ironmistress:

"Because the theist answer is very likely to be either wrong or grossly simplified."

We aren't talking about an answer. We are talking about not giving an answer. The non-answer of "we hope to have an answer for you someday" is perfectly acceptable when coming from an atheist, but not from a theist.

natschuster said...

And while even if there are lots of individuals in existance at once, the signifant factor is the rate of mutations. It is something like each nucletide changes once in 10,000,000 birth events. for an adaptation that requires two mutations you need ~10^18 births. That's a lot of organisms.

Jeff said...

This whole argument about the probabilities of evolution happening is mute, because it is after the fact. If a thousand years ago, one would ask, what are the chances that a person named natschuster would comment on a blog called JP, about mutations, exactly at 7:19 pm on Dec 5 2011, the chances would have been infinitesimally small, approaching zero. But asking the question now is meaningless in absolute terms. Its called apriori likelihood in Baysian logic, and can only be used to COMPARE likelihoods. Since the likelihood of god is unknowable, no comparison is possible.

The fact is that adaptive mutations have happened, and the evidence for it is all over the place, so it misses the point in asking "what are the chances" (even though the mathematicians have in fact worked the numbers out).

This is very important in scientific reasoning. It is the reason that in any experiment involving probabilities of different outcomes, the research hypothesis must be clearly defined and stated BEFORE the experiment, so that the outcome can be compared with it.

In some flawed low quality research this is not done, when the researcher "fishes" for correlations and differences, after the experiment, which he is certain to find, purely by chance. This, BTW, is the fallacy involved in the "Torah Codes" claims.

Jeff said...

I mean "moot", not "mute"...

jewish philosopher said...

"because it is after the fact"

That's the issue - what are the facts?

In gambling, any very unlikely winning streak is presumed to be cheating, or "intelligent design" if you will:

"What I saw did not make any sense," he remembers. "This account was simply winning too much money for the type of game that he was playing.

"We knew for sure there was cheating going on. We just didn't know who was responsible yet," Witteles says.

http://news.cnet.com/60-minutes-report-how-online-gamblers-unmasked-cheaters

I don't see why the odds against an intelligent creator are bad. We know that intelligent designers exist (people); why not a transcendent intelligent designer?

jewish philosopher said...

The ultimate problem I have with atheism is that atheism consistently fails the duck test:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Even the simplest living things are complex beyond human comprehension. A complex and purposeful machine, such as a pump, is obviously the work of an intelligent designer. Therefore surely the human heart, for example, is clearly the work of a supremely intelligent being.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/02/lame-duck-why-atheism-fails.html

To say it's all a result of millions of tiny, astronomically unlikely de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility piling up on each other is absurd. Besides the fact that no fossil sequence shows anything like that. 

Ironmistress said...

Obviously, I'm not referring to dead offspring.

Exactly. And there are those four strategies of producing surviving offspring which I mentioned before. Mere numbers do not matter; otherwise the future would belong to cods and clams.

Try it. Tell me how it goes. Using a computer to generate gibberish, it should be much quicker than an old printing press.

It actually has been attempted, and the results were encouraging. Here more of it.

The question is about accumulative selection - not completely random selection. Attempting to replicate one sentence methinks tis like a wasel is usually replicated after 800 iterations with accumulative selection, not gazillions. Try yourself!

The rate of the turnover from complete gibberish into organized information follows the logistic curve. It begins as very slow, but once the crucial information has found its place, it becomes very fast, and settles to stasis once the perfect - or near-perfect form is found.

The whole production of Shakespeare's plays would take a couple of decades on the accumulative selection algorithm, not billions.

That is why evolutionary algorithms are widely used in engineering. They simply produce better results quicker than attempting to design everything from scratch.

I am willing to believe that things are what they appear to be.

Your choice.

The example you link to refers to hybridization, not Darwinian variation and natural selection,

Hybridization is an example of Darwininan variation and natural selection. It is part and parcel of the evolution.

We never tried global mass extinction before. According to evolutionists like you it should work wonders.

Be careful on what you wish. You may get it.

Again, you are attempting to squeeze "ought" from "is". Desire to work wonders is "ought", while the way things are is "is". You are implying that artificial arrangement of catastrophes would somehow be a beneficial idea.

So thought the eugenicists - that weeding out the weak would improve the human race.

Perhaps a super frog with an intelligence a million times greater than ours will emerge which will set out and colonize the galaxy.

Perhaps. Or perhaps a super rat extinguishing all other terrestial life forms on Earth and having no need for intelligence.

Remember that once the ecological niches are vacated, we have no way of control on what will occupy them and how.

jewish philosopher said...

"It actually has been attempted, and the results were encouraging."

No they aren't. The "methinks tis like a wasel" program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program#Criticism

This is another atheist scam, as explained here.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/me_thinks_hes_like_a_dawkins053651.html

"Hybridization is an example of Darwininan variation and natural selection."

It's not. No de novo genetic mutation which increases fertility is involved. Hybridized worms would never become people even according to evolutionists.

"Remember that once the ecological niches are vacated, we have no way of control on what will occupy them and how."

According to evolutionists, past mass extinction events have always caused greater complexity and intelligence. Presumably global warming would do the same. If you really believe in evolution, which no one does.  

jewish philosopher said...

Thus far, the atheist comments seem to be going about as follows:

How was the universe created?

We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.

Why is the universe fine tuned to support life?

We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.

How did life on earth appear, and especially so soon after the oceans first appeared?

We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.

Once simple bacterial life appeared, how did more advanced life appear?

This one we know! What happened is that de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility kept occurring, adding up one on top of the other, until eventually one simple bacterium had morphed into all the innumerable plant and animal species we see today.

Considering the fact that such mutations are astronomically rare and that an astronomical number would have to take place to created all the millions of new species, isn't this impossibly unlikely?

It is unlikely, however it is possible since we see it happened. And there is no reason to suspect God did it. 

Why doesn't the fossil record anywhere record this process in detail?

Because it happened very quickly following mass extinction events.

In that case, shouldn't we be happy that global warming will cause a mass extinction event which will accelerate evolution?

No, because maybe this time it won't work.

In other words, atheists just decide in advance that whatever evidence of God we may find, it's unconvincing because maybe there is some other explanation and any explanation is better than God. It's like a defense attorney claiming that any evidence his client is guilty is unconvincing because he's innocent and any explanation however outlandish is better than saying his client is guilty. Would that logic convince a jury?

Ironmistress said...

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction.

Even the simplest living things are complex beyond human comprehension. A complex and purposeful machine, such as a pump, is obviously the work of an intelligent designer. Therefore surely the human heart, for example, is clearly the work of a supremely intelligent being.

Not necessarily. See evolutionary algorithm design in engineering.

"It actually has been attempted, and the results were encouraging."

No they aren't. The "methinks tis like a wasel" program was never intended to model biological evolution accurately.


It was modelled as a counter-example for the claim that nothing orderly may emerge from gibberish. The keyword here is the accumulative selection. The same applies to genetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program#Criticism

This is another atheist scam, as explained here.


The criticisms have been taken into account, and refined algorithms have been run. They actually do confirm the original claim on accumulative selection.


"Hybridization is an example of Darwininan variation and natural selection."

It's not. No de novo genetic mutation which increases fertility is involved. Hybridized worms would never become people even according to evolutionists.


They are not mutually exclusive. They both belong in the evolution.

According to evolutionists, past mass extinction events have always caused greater complexity and intelligence.

That is because they have vacated the previously occupied ecological niches. Complexity follows the fact that more complex organisms are better able to compete. Yet overspecialization and becoming overtly complex means dead end too.

Presumably global warming would do the same.

No. The world was far warmer in the Mesozoic era; warm climate favours poikilothermic animals, such as reptilians.

Ironmistress said...

Thus far, the atheist comments seem to be going about as follows:

How was the universe created?

We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.


We actually do know fairly well how everything began - until the very first moment. There is no reason to suspect God did it, but neither reason to exclude it.

One thing is certain: the universe is far older than 5772 years. [That age, however, is a pretty good of the age of the organized human civilization and culture.]

"Why is the universe fine tuned to support life?"

We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.


It may be or may not be. It may either be intelligent design - or incredibly lucky chance. This universe, however, resembles like a self-expanding ZIP package which is designed to evolve intelligent life on itself.

How did life on earth appear, and especially so soon after the oceans first appeared?

That we do know pretty well. The details of the history of life since the first Miller syntheses are pretty well known. The biological evolution was preceded by aeons of chemical evolution.

Once simple bacterial life appeared, how did more advanced life appear?

This one we know! What happened is that de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility kept occurring, adding up one on top of the other, until eventually one simple bacterium had morphed into all the innumerable plant and animal species we see today.


Exactly.

Considering the fact that such mutations are astronomically rare and that an astronomical number would have to take place to created all the millions of new species, isn't this impossibly unlikely?

No. They are very slow to take place, but once initiated, they go on quite quick pace.

It is unlikely, however it is possible since we see it happened. And there is no reason to suspect God did it.

Nor there is reason to exclude that possibility. We just do not know.

Why doesn't the fossil record anywhere record this process in detail?

Because it happened very quickly following mass extinction events.


There is actually series of this evolution available as fossil records.

In that case, shouldn't we be happy that global warming will cause a mass extinction event which will accelerate evolution?

No, because maybe this time it won't work.


No, because ought cannot be derived from is and we have no way of controlling on what will happen.

Ksil said...

"In gambling, any very unlikely winning streak is presumed to be cheating, or "intelligent design" if you will:"

Riiiiiigggggghhhhhhhttttt. So anytime someone picks a correct lottery number, where the odds were 1 in 390 million....he must have cheated!! LOL. You are so strange


"We don't know, however there is no reason to suspect God did it.".

Riiiiiigggghhhhhttttt.

It makes more sense to say "we don't know, therefore some invisible man in the sky must have done it!! Poooff!! And planted all this evolutionary and common descent evidence to fool us!! Yes!! That must be it!....and then he wrote a book!! LOL

Good stuff

jewish philosopher said...

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it needs batteries, you probably have the wrong abstraction."

The duck test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics.

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

I think it's generally valid.

"Not necessarily. See evolutionary algorithm design in engineering."

That's a type of computer program. In the physical world, every watch has a watchmaker.

"It was modelled as a counter-example for the claim that nothing orderly may emerge from gibberish."

Who claimed that? A watchmaker can make a watch from junk. A computer can be programmed to convert random letters into a target, pre-programmed sentence.

"The criticisms have been taken into account, and refined algorithms have been run. They actually do confirm the original claim on accumulative selection."

Someone has a program which writes best selling books using random printing errors and customer selection? Who?

"They both belong in the evolution."

If you just change the definition of evolution, you can prove evolution. I have a long face, my son has a round face. Evolution!

jewish philosopher said...

"The world was far warmer in the Mesozoic era; warm climate favours poikilothermic animals, such as reptilians."

The earth's climate has been having all kinds of ups and downs since life first appeared, yet mass extinctions always seem to precede jumps ahead in complexity and intelligence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

"We actually do know fairly well how everything began - until the very first moment. "

That's the problem. Atheists don't know how it began.

" It may either be intelligent design - or incredibly lucky chance."

See the duck test, above.

"The details of the history of life since the first Miller syntheses are pretty well known."

Miller only demonstrated how amino acids may have formed. Amino acids are no more a microbe than a screw is a car. And his experiment is of questionable validity in any case, depending on what the earth's early atmosphere was.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#synthesis

"The biological evolution was preceded by aeons of chemical evolution."

Not really. The Late Heavy Bombardment ended 3.8 billion years ago.

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

There is evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life#Earliest_evidence_for_life_on_Earth

jewish philosopher said...

"No. They are very slow to take place, but once initiated, they go on quite quick pace."

Where is a new, useful limb or organ evolving today? Extra digits are not new organs and don't increase fertility.

"There is actually series of this evolution available as fossil records."

We never see in the fossil record a new useful limb or organ develop through a gradual, trial and error process of variation and natural selection. We always see distinct, complete organisms suddenly appearing. Then evolutionists can speculate about what is descended from which.

"we have no way of controlling on what will happen."

Based on past experience and evolutionist's beliefs, we know it will be an improvement.

"So anytime someone picks a correct lottery number"

One win is not a winning streak. Win the lottery twice and you'll be investigated.

"It makes more sense to say "we don't know, therefore some invisible man in the sky must"

It makes sense to say a transcendent, intelligent creator did it and then told us why he created us. lol.

In essence, atheists sound like a defense attorney who, in his concluding argument, states that his client didn't do it and all evidence that his client did it is irrelevant and any explanation for the evidence, however improbable, is better than saying his client did it, even saying a space alien did it is better than saying his client did it and even if there is no other explanation for the evidence his client still didn't do it. Likewise atheists argue that God didn't do it and all evidence that God did it is irrelevant and any explanation for the evidence, however improbable, is better than saying God did it, even saying a space alien did it is better than saying God did it and even if there is no other explanation for the evidence God still didn't do it. A defense attorney may make this type of ridiculous argument because his client is paying him $200,000 to say it. An atheist makes this kind of ridiculous argument because he wants to deny any guilt for the selfish, cruel things he does.

ksil said...

Religious Jews argue that common descent is false, as is evolution, and all evidence that lead us to that conclusion is irrelevant. They try to "explain" the evidence, however improbable, they believe its better to say that God did it, (even saying "nishtaneh hatevah" is better than following the scientific evidence) and even if there is no other explanation for hard, factual scientific evidence... God still did it! A defense attorney may make this type of ridiculous argument because his client is paying him $200,000 to say it. An orthodox Jew makes this kind of ridiculous argument because he has been brainwashed (usually from birth) and yearns to have meaning in his/her life even though facts lead him/her to a different conclusion.

jewish philosopher said...

There's no evidence.

Atheism is an antiquated 19th ideology which has been refuted completely by 20th century science, as I explain in this post.

natschuster said...

Ironmistess:

The Miller synthesis is only usefukl if we assume the protein first scenario. However, most authrorities lean towards an RNA world. Moreover, the protein first scenario assume that the early atmosphere was reducing. The evidennce seesm to indicate that this wasn't the case. And moreover, the Miller synthesis only produced amino acids. Goinf from amino acids to proteins in a pre-biotic Earth is a problem that hasn't been solved.

Anonymous said...

If evolution is false, how do you account for the variety of human beings? i.e-- if God created Adam and Eve whom I assume were created white, how did the black race originate, or the chinese, or or indian, or austrlalian aboriginies?
How do you account for Koreans, japanese, eskimo ??

Ironmistress said...

The Miller synthesis is only usefukl if we assume the protein first scenario. However, most authrorities lean towards an RNA world. Moreover, the protein first scenario assume that the early atmosphere was reducing. The evidennce seesm to indicate that this wasn't the case. And moreover, the Miller synthesis only produced amino acids. Goinf from amino acids to proteins in a pre-biotic Earth is a problem that hasn't been solved.

Similar synthesis experiments have been carried out, and they have produced the necessary sugars and bases to form RNA.

Jeff said...

"Religious Jews argue that common descent is false, as is evolution, and all evidence that lead us to that conclusion is irrelevant."

Hey Ksil, don't generalize. I, and many other religious Jews that I know, don't deny evolution. My Heredi rabbi son in law accepts it. JP is a particular breed of fundamentalist and represents a fringe.

jewish philosopher said...

"how do you account for the variety of human beings"

Some species are capable of a lot of diversity, for example dogs. It is built into their genetics.

http://www.livescience.com/6132-dog-dna-diversity-helps-show-genes-work.html

"Similar synthesis experiments have been carried out, and they have produced the necessary sugars and bases to form RNA."

Even the simplest living thing is so complex that it boggles the mind and even 
producing a complete computer model of it is beyond science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/health/17iht-sncoli.html

Spontaneous abiogenesis is therefore absurd.

"JP is a particular breed of fundamentalist and represents a fringe."

We seem to be a big enough fringe to stop orthodox publishers from printing books about evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natan_Slifkin#Rabbinic_ban

In reality, only modern orthodox accept evolution

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100635 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Moshe_Feinstein

and they are a dying fringe

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/03/modern-orthodoxy-is-it-ok.html 

Jeff said...

JP, you seem to be presenting a moving target. At times you completely negate the possibility of any adaptive genetic change, and when shown that this claim is blatantly false, (such as in bacterial resistance or fruit flies speciation) you go on to say OK, but new limbs or other major changes cannot form on their own. When that is shown to be false (like the Island lizard) you say that its not genetic or god built it in and doesnt prove anything. And when we show that artificial selection (breeding) is just an accelerated form of evolution you say it can't happen by itself, and give examples of mass murderers selectively killing people.

Sounds fishy to me, like you're not really after the truth.

Jeff said...

"We seem to be a big enough fringe to stop orthodox publishers from printing books about evolution."

Yes, publishers for the Heredi community. He obviously was ablt to publish in other ways, and any heredi person who wants to read about it can.

"Even the simplest living thing is so complex that it boggles the mind and even
producing a complete computer model of it is beyond science."

It seemed that way as well for other things in the past, like space flight, brain surgery, and microprocessors. Had our predecessors come to the conclusion, "its too complex, god is doing it", we wouldn't have discovered anything.

I don't understand this claim. It is possible that we may never unlock some secrets. Perhaps it will require a supercomputer the size of a universe, which we can't afford. But what makes you determine, a priori, that something is so complex, that therefore no natural mechanism understandable to human, can explain it? What makes you so sure that THIS is different, then, say, supercondution??

jewish philosopher said...

"JP, you seem to be presenting a moving target."

Modern evolutionary theory claims that all life developed from one original bacterium through a gradual, three billion year process of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility gradually accumulating one on top of the other. 

I refute this by saying that first of all such mutations are astronomically rare. To the best of my knowledge scientists have so far observed only one from among all the microbes, plants, animals and humans born in the past 150 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Secondly, it would take an enormous number of them to create all species we see around us. The odds of this are practically zero.

Additionally, the fossils never demonstrate this process in detail. New species just pop up suddenly.

"He obviously was ablt to publish in other ways, and any heredi person who wants to read about it can."

I don't have exact information, however I believe his book revenues have dropped considerably since the 2005 ban. Mainstream orthodox won't publish or read him; modern orthodox read non-Jewish authors.

"I don't understand this claim."

The claim is that even a simple machine requires a watchmaker. Surely a super complex machine requires a super intelligent creator.

Jeff said...

"scientists have so far observed only one from among all the microbes, plants, animals and humans born in the past 150 years."

I don't mean to be a troll, but that is blatantly false. I mentioned a few of them in my previous post-- things like bacterial resistance, etc.

"Additionally, the fossils never demonstrate this process in detail"

That is also false.

There exist lots of fossils which appear to be transitional or intermediate forms, just read. But, no, you will not find a fossil for EVERY individual creature that EVER lived, and I wouldn't expect that.

You don't even need to go to fossils. Heck, what is a whale, if not an intermediate form between sea and land mammals?

"All cetaceans, including whales, dolphins and porpoises, are descendants of land-living mammals of the Artiodactyl order (even-toed ungulates). Both are related to the Indohyus (an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate) from which they split around 54 million years ago."


Just look at the drawing of the creature reproduced from fossils.

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

How can you not say that THAT is a transitional form???????

God is hitting you over the head with the evidence and you're enying it!

jewish philosopher said...

"I mentioned a few of them in my previous post-- things like bacterial resistance, etc."

It is true that antibiotic resistant bacteria do have a de novo genetic mutation which increases fertility - however that increase is only in a very specific environment, namely places where a certain antibiotic is present. In other situations, that mutations is harmful.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria

However, ok, we can count that one too. Any others? If evolutionists would claim that in three billion years bacteria had evolved a few new organelles, I might buy that, however that bacteria morphed into all the millions of species of plants and animals which now lived or have ever lived is absurd.

"There exist lots of fossils which appear to be transitional or intermediate forms, just read."

There is never found even in the marine fossil record, which is vast, an example of thousands of small mutations by trial and error accumulating and creating a new limb.

"How can you not say that THAT is a transitional form???????"

For over a century, the Archaeopteryx was the ultimate validation of evolution, the missing link between reptile and bird. Now, not so much. 

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/news.2011.443.html

ksil said...

the money quote:

"Sounds fishy to me, like you're not really after the truth"

jewish philosopher said...

What's your belief based on except "lol"?

ksil said...

the golden rule

jewish philosopher said...

It's actually the sons-in-law of Lot rule:

And Lot went out, and spoke unto his sons-in-law, who married his daughters, and said: 'Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy the city.' But he seemed unto his sons-in-law as one that jested. (Genesis 19:14)

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0119.htm#14

It's all a big joke, a big lol.

How did they end up?

Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; (Genesis 19:24)

LOL!

ksil said...

I LOL at fairy tales all the time

jewish philosopher said...

Me too, starting with evolution.

ksil said...

you probably LOL at gravity too.

that would be par for the course

jewish philosopher said...

As far as gravity goes, if you believe your grandfather was a worm, as per Darwin, you may as well believe pigs can fly.

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

Anonymous said...

"The claim is that even a simple machine requires a watchmaker. Surely a super complex machine requires a super intelligent creator."

My goodness. This claim has been so dead since Hume smashed it.

jewish philosopher said...

And Hume has been dead since I smashed him.

Jeff said...

"However, ok, we can count that one too. Any others? If evolutionists would claim that in three billion years bacteria had evolved a few new organelles, I might buy that, however..."

So you're OK with "a little" evolution in 3 billion years, right? So in, say 20 billion years you'd be OK with a bit more evolution? You're only problem is with the rate?

Jeff said...

In principle, a new protein (conferring resistance and thus a reproductive advantage) or a new organ (conferring a reproductive advantage) is no different, as far as evolution is concerned. Its just a matter of degree.
If you accept one there's no logical reason you can't accept the other.

"There is never found even in the marine fossil record, which is vast, an example of thousands of small mutations by trial and error accumulating and creating a new limb."

Vast is relative:
"Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered. The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the total number of species of all kinds known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, which suggests that the number of species known through fossils must be less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils#Limitations_of_the_fossil_record

So it is not surprising that we haven't found everything. Think of the skeletons of all humans that ever lived. What % of them have we "found"?

But, nonetheless, in case you're interested in learning, rather than refuting me:

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

jewish philosopher said...

"If you accept one there's no logical reason you can't accept the other."

I could accept a monkey typing a few intelligence sentences by chance, however creating thousands of books by chance would take far longer than the universe has existed making the probability practically zero.

"Organisms are only rarely preserved as fossils in the best of circumstances and only a fraction of such fossils have ever been discovered."

The entire pattern of the fossils is wrong; that's why punctuated equilibrium had to be invented as an ad hoc excuse.

Actually, rather than supporting atheism, the fossils argue even more strongly against it. The fossils seem to indicate several special creations, not just one.  

natschuster said...

Jeff:

A lot of the examples on the list are transitional only in the sense that they are the first in a morphological line. They don't represent the actual transition between groups. And the status of many of them, such as tiktaalik has been demonstrated to be wrong. Recently a fully aquatic fossil whales that is older than the semi aquatic whale ancestors has been found. So that means that the fossil whales on the list are not really ancestors. And the status of archaeopoteryx as an ancestor of birds is highly questionble, due to significant differences between it and bird anatomy. And what is still missing are examples of species-to-species change, which is what evolution is.

Hugo said...

...a fully aquatic fossil whales that is older than the semi aquatic whale ancestors has been found. So that means that the fossil whales on the list are not really ancestors...

No, the only thing this means is that you have no freaking clue what you are talking about, what evidence biologist work with, and, more importantly, what the Theory of Evolution can predict.

This thread of comment is both very enjoyable and very frustrating to read. I am in awe in front of the patience of the people who try to explain what biology teaches us regarding evolution, but I am also face palming at all the non-sense and lack of comprehension shown by people such as JP and natschuster...

Honestly, the only thing I would like to ask you guys is this: what part of evolution don't you understand? Not what you don't believe, what you don't UNDERSTAND. Because that is the problem really. The problem is not lack of evidence because you say it yourself, there is plenty, you just pretend that it contradict evolution. So tell me, ONE thing that you don't understand? I don't pretend the one that will be able to explain, but perhaps I could guide you to some documentation, or perhaps others will have an explanation.

Wanna try?

jewish philosopher said...

"what part of evolution don't you understand?"

I understand evolution perfectly well. When mortality rates were high and death was near (especially in the middle ages) Europeans believed in some nonsense called Christianity, which preaches that all you need to do is believed in Jesus and you'll go to heaven after death.

Times changed, life expectancy started rising, the industrial revolution came, people were no longer terrified that the next crop failure meant death. So they decided that there is no god and no afterlife. Let's just focus on having a good time. Hedonism. However the question remains - where did we come from? So the answer was invented that the universe always existed (now proven false) and simple life could easily form in some stagnate pond (now proven false) and new species developed in the same way that new breeds of pigeons developed - through variation and selection, except in this case "nature", the laws of nature which have simply always existed, did the selecting rather than a human breeder - again, now proven false.

So all in all atheism is an antiquated, pre-modern science ideology which has now been debunked by 20th century science.

Hugo said...

JP,

Nothing of what you have just written has anything to do with biological evolution and/or the fact that the diversity of species we see today can be explained using evolutionary theories.

You either confirmed that you don't understand evolution at all, or prefer to mock what you claim you understand without pointing out to ONE single thing, which is what I asked...

So... can I simply repeat my question then?

jewish philosopher said...

I understand evolution very clearly, and it's a big load of nonsense no better than other religions which preceded it. I explain this in detail here.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

Hugo said...

JP,

Again, that does not answer my question and only reinforce my idea that you don't understand evolution and refuse to give ONE point that confuses you.

This very first sentence in your post is wrong:

Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.

Evolution does not necessarily point to a single universal common ancestor. You jumped to a conclusion nobody is even able to reach right now.

The next one is pretty close but still wrong...

Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.

Close enough, but there is nothing limiting the random process. The random part of evolution was and remain unaltered. Moreover, you seem to imply, as you say later on in your post, that complexity is always going up, as if evolution must make things more and more complex. That is NOT a prediction made by the model.

So, for the 3rd time...

I am asking you the same question! Name me ONE thing you don't understand. Perhaps one of the two above?

Do you understand what I am asking you at least?

jewish philosopher said...

"Evolution does not necessarily point to a single universal common ancestor."

Universal common ancestry is generally accepted, beginning with Darwin.

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

"Close enough, but there is nothing limiting the random process."

If a genetic form increases fitness more than the other forms of that gene, then with each generation this form will become more common within the population. These traits are said to be "selected for". Examples of traits that can increase fitness are enhanced survival and increased fecundity. Conversely, the lower fitness caused by having a less beneficial or deleterious genetic form results in this form becoming rarer — they are "selected against".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Natural_selection

So perhaps saying "guided" instead of "limited" would be more precise. The population of a particular genetic mutation will be increased or decreased by the natural environment.

My analogy is still the same. A random typographical error would become more or less populous in the bookstore according to the guidance of customer selection. 

natschuster said...

Hugo:

I know that it means that the actual ancestor of whales in unaccounted for. If it existed why can't we find it? It happens every time. They find an ancestor, then it tunrs out to be not so. So they come up with apologetics like the incompleteness of the fossil record. Fro a theory that has so much evidence, evolution seems to require a lot of assumoptions, speculation, and apologetics.

jewish philosopher said...

Just by the way, since atheists believe that the laws of nature, and therefore our natural environment, is a result of blind chance and genetic mutations as well are a result of blind chance, therefore we, with all or organs and limbs, are just a product of blind chance. It's like saying the space shuttle resulted from a chance explosion in a airplane factory.

Hugo said...

(1/3)

Universal common ancestry is generally accepted, beginning with Darwin.

You don't get the point. Yes, the evidence leads to one, or perhaps very few, common ancestors. The point is that this is a CONCLUSION that came much later after observing the facts of evolution. In other words, evolution could still explain the diversity of life without pointing to one singe common ancestor.

Look at the link you posted for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor. You see on the graph that there are 3 large families of living things, right? Well imagine a complete different world where life started independently 3 times (even with the help of a god if you want…). In this world, big animals like we see here on Earth could have evolved from each of the family. You could thus have something like an "Archaea Cat" and an "Eucaryota Cat". These two could have similar physical aspects, just like bats look like bird, but the two cats would be very different genetically, just like bats and birds again. However, in this hypothetical scenario, the two cats would NOT have a common ancestor.

Do you understand what it means?

According to evolutionary theory, it does not have to be the case that everything share a common ancestor. Observations start with what we have here, right now, to observer, and then try to go back in time in order to figure what happened. The fact that there are one family, two families, or multiple families of living things, all with their own common ancestor, does not change anything regarding evolution. Evolution does not predict a common ancestor. It explains how we get new species.

Hugo said...

(2/3)

I said:
"Close enough, but there is nothing limiting the random process."

JP replied:
If a genetic form increases fitness more than the other forms of that gene, then…

I don't see anything wrong with what you said, but you did not understand my point. I was talking about this part, that I put in quotes…

…vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process….

You got it right after this, but I want to make sure it's clear…

The point I was trying to make is that there is no limitation on the PROCESS. Evolution is always happening, with every single birth of every single living thing. When an organism is selected by being able to reproduce and pass on its genes, nothing was 'limited', nothing was stopped, nothing was altered. Some genes were passed, perhaps identical, perhaps not, and then the next organism will reproduce, or not, and that's it. There is not more or less randomness, not more or less limitation, just reproduction with variation… what we see at EVERY single birth of a new life form as I said.

So perhaps saying "guided" instead of "limited" would be more precise. The population of a particular genetic mutation will be increased or decreased by the natural environment.

Yep, exactly! That fits with reality because by guided you don't imply that the randomness is less, or more, important. It's always the same, always the same chances of having a mutation or not. What changes is the environment and that's why the process is guided naturally.

Hugo said...

(3/3)

My analogy is still the same. A random typographical error would become more or less populous in the bookstore according to the guidance of customer selection.

That PART of the analogy is correct yes. Most of the analogy fails though because it assumes that there is some sort of canvas on which all life should be built, and then some sort of magic recipe that needs to be found. That's why you perceive the odds to be so low and so improbable that you label them as impossible. You seem to not understand what part is random and what part is not.

Just by the way, since atheists believe that the laws of nature, and therefore our natural environment, is a result of blind chance and genetic mutations as well are a result of blind chance, therefore we, with all or organs and limbs, are just a product of blind chance. It's like saying the space shuttle resulted from a chance explosion in a airplane factory.

Yep chance is involved but, nope, the airplane factory analogy fails completely. Try again.

Hint: saying people 'X' think 'this' or 'that' is a bad idea when you don't understand their position, which is your case.

Hugo said...

Natschuster:

I know that it means that the actual ancestor of whales in unaccounted for. If it existed why can't we find it? It happens every time. They find an ancestor, then it tunrs out to be not so. So they come up with apologetics like the incompleteness of the fossil record. Fro a theory that has so much evidence, evolution seems to require a lot of assumoptions, speculation, and apologetics.

Get off the internet, go to a natural history museum, and evolution won't require any speculation or apologetics. Sorry but your claims are ridiculous. The fossil record is exactly the way we would expect it to be if evolution were true. What exactly would YOU expect? Or perhaps I should ask: what part gives you trouble understanding why it is true that all life evolve and diverge into multiple species? Saying that we don't have an actual ancestor for animal 'X' is as ridiculous as to claim that we don't know what the ancestor language of English or French is…

jewish philosopher said...

"Evolution is always happening, with every single birth of every single living thing."

Reproduction is happening, like photocopies coming out of a photocopier. If you put a page of Shakespeare in a photocopying machine, turn it on for millions of years, Hemingway won't come out. Likewise species are fixed and static.

"Hint: saying people 'X' think 'this' or 'that' is a bad idea when you don't understand their position, which is your case."

I understand atheism perfectly and I understand why atheists don't want to admit the embarrassing and nonsensical truth.

"What changes is the environment and that's why the process is guided naturally."

Like rain is guided by a valley to make a river, however the rain and the valley are the result of random chance.

natschuster said...

Hugo:

If one species can evolve into another, then I would expect to see that in the fossil record. But we don't see that. In Darwin's day, the apologetic was the incompletenes of the fossii reocrd. Now, some people say that it is punctuated equilibrium, which means that it happens too fast for it to be caught in the fossil record. But it happens too slow for it to be seen by humans. And, if transitions between major groups actually existed, I wouidl expect to find a lot of them, since transitioning between groups would involve a lot of transtional species. But every time they find a transition between group, it tunrs out to be a side branch that died out, e.g. tiktaalik, Ida, the whales, etc. etc. The fossil record, ever since Cuvier has been recognized as more closely recording a series of creations and destructions.

Hugo said...

JP,

Reproduction is happening, like photocopies coming out of a photocopier. If you put a page of Shakespeare in a photocopying machine, turn it on for millions of years, Hemingway won't come out. Likewise species are fixed and static.

As I said, you clearly don't understand. A photocopy would be more like a clone; you think this is what natural reproduction is? Give me a break...

Use your photocopy example but instead of a perfect copy, get a slightly different copy each time. Next, take half of your books, put them aside, and make them reproduce among themselves, then take the other half and do the same. When books "reproduce" they switch words or entire paragraph randomly. At some point, the two halves will be different enough for you to see that they are now two completely different sets of books. One might be closer to a Romeo and Juliette while the other became something written by Voltaire.

That is what speciation would look like.

I understand atheism perfectly and I understand why atheists don't want to admit the embarrassing and nonsensical truth.

No you don't understand Atheism as you have often demonstrated, but who is talking about atheism anyway? I decided to engage you on evolution these days. Period.

You cannot face embarrassing truth...

Like rain is guided by a valley to make a river, however the rain and the valley are the result of random chance.

Yes actually that would be more accurate. Do you pretend that rain falls exactly where it's "supposed" to fall each time? There is no randomness, at all, when rain falls? Why are valleys so random if they were designed? I really don't see how you can reject chance being involved with these things!? Yet, you give a good example, the rain cannot just stay suspended in the air or on the side of a slippery slope, it HAS to fall down to the river. Is it guided by an intelligent process when it does so?

Hugo said...

@natschuster

Again, I am not sure what you are looking for. A side branch that died out is EXACTLY what we EXPECT to find because fossilization is a rare event.

Moreover, as I said, ALL animals, ALL living things ARE transitional between their ancestors and their descendent. You cannot not put any animal in a tree and link them to other animals. ALL observations lead us to the same conclusions.

The examples you give are no exception. They are cousins of other animals. Some cousins went on and reproduced better than others. It's that simple...

If species are fixed the way you guys want them to be. What was fixed? What is a 'dog'? What is a 'cat'? Is a linx a cat? Is a tiger, a lion, a puma a cat? What about dogs and bears? There are so many animals that look like them, or close enough that you can literally see the transition, right here, right now, between all these animals.

Really, the problem should not be the fossil record for you, that's just a bonus, the problem should be the animals alive now!! Where do you draw the lines between your species? There are millions of them, yet some are so close you could not tell them apart!

Hugo said...

JP and Natschuster:

Can you take the time to look at these 2 videos (sorry for the random insults he makes) and focus on the numerous animals he presents.

Then, after watching both the videos on "dogs" and on "cats", can you answer the question he asks at the end of the 2nd video?

Dogs:
http://youtu.be/bJ-DawQKPr8

Cats:
http://youtu.be/pNrt90MJL08

jewish philosopher said...

"Use your photocopy example but instead of a perfect copy, get a slightly different copy each time. "

Children have copies of their parents genes and new limbs or organs are never added.

"Yes actually that would be more accurate."

And a river is not a machine; animals are. Devises which have many working parts all efficiently working together to perform a certain purpose don't form by chance, the way that a river, which is just a ditch with water, might.

"Moreover, as I said, ALL animals, ALL living things ARE transitional between their ancestors and their descendent"

Why not go to a library. Notice that some books are very, very similar to each other, like a 2010 edition of an encyclopedia and a 2011 edition. Notice that some are very different, such as a romance novel and a math textbook. Notice that some books are very short and simple while some are very long and complex. Now try to work out how the short little books developed into the big, complex books. Try to arrange it all into a family tree and where connections are missing speculate about what the intermediate book or common ancestor must have looked like. Speculate about how all the books must have originated from one long lost little pamphlet through a gradual process of typographical errors and customer selection. Then tell the librarians about this. When the librarians try to tell you that people actually wrote each book separately, patiently explain to them how your years of research in literary cladistics indisputably proves evolution not intelligent design of books. Just look at how dumb the passages in some books are! Sure doesn't look like intelligent design. Let me know how many librarians you convince. 

"Can you take the time to look at these 2 videos"

I couldn't get them started on my iPad.

jewish philosopher said...

I got the videos. I don't see any problem. You know library books also can be arranged into a hierarchy.

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

natschuster said...

Hugo:

Two very important things are missing from the fossil record that should be there if they really exist. Examples of species to species transitions, and the actual ancestors of the major groups. If they really existed, where are they. I don't understand what the difficulty people have defining species has to do with it.

natschuster said...

And while we are on the topic of fixity of species, there are good scientific reasons, not theological reasons to believe in it. People have been breeding all kinds of animals for centuries. Yet they have succeeded not in creating a new species. "Evolution" only gets you so far. And theology does nto insist on the fixity of species. Even before evolution theologians believed in typology. They believeed that species could change after creation. It was evolutionists who created the concept of fixity of species to create a straw man they could attack.

Hugo said...

(1/2)

Children have copies of their parents genes and new limbs or organs are never added.

There are always some modifications, and the random combination of the genes IS a form of re-organization that can yield new species just by itself anyway... Evolution works precisely because of this constant re-mixing... What part don't you understand?

...and new limbs or organs are never added.

Really? So the teach I had in university who had 6 fingers was not human? Random mutations happen all the time... again, what part don't you understand?

And a river is not a machine; animals are. Devises which have many working parts all efficiently working together to perform a certain purpose don't form by chance, the way that a river, which is just a ditch with water, might.

First of all, rivers can be seen as machine in so many different ways, but that does not matter, what you just wrote can be re-written like that:

Machines don't form by chance.
Living things are machines
Living things cannot form by chance.

This is a fallacy. You equivocate literal machines, that are man-made, with the analogy we often make to describe living things 'as machines'. The problem is that living things are NATURAL, while machines are ARTIFICIAL. Your argument could thus be re-written again like that:

And you call yourself a "philosopher"?

...[book analogy]...

You show that you don't understand evolution yet again...

For example, you say "try to work out how the short little books developed into the big, complex books" but it does not have to be the case. It's not necessarly from simpler to more complex. One can argue that dinosaurs for example were way more complex than most animals alive today simply because of their size! So for the past 65 Million years, complexity seems to have been increased pretty much only in the intelligence of some primates.

However, you are not completely wrong...

Hugo said...

(2/2)

Try to arrange it all into a family tree and where connections are missing speculate about what the intermediate book or common ancestor must have looked like.

THAT is a good analogy. If you have a way to date the books, compare their "DNA" and then make a prediction, what would you say when you find the book that was predicted to exist?

For you, the answer seems to be, well, we have book A and C, predicted B, found B, now we need to find what was between A and B, and B and C, because I still see these 3 books as completely different.

More importantly, such predictions has been done! You discussed at least one of them here already... Tiktaalik!
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/an-evolution-pr.html

For natschuster, because Tiktaalik is a branch that died out, it is not a good example... yet this is exactly the kind of finding that we expect , and we did find them. Only a misunderstanding of what the prediction was can lead to the rejection of Tiktaalik as yet another transitional species.

I got the videos. I don't see any problem. You know library books also can be arranged into a hierarchy.

Yes you can arrange them, but that's not the only thing mentioned in there. The point is that the tree fits in time as well as with most obvious visual observation. In other words, the closer an animal appears to be with another, the closer the DNA is, AND, the further back you look in time, the closer you get to a common ancestor, AND, the further back you look, the lesser cousins you find...

Anyway, you did not answer the question he asks at the end... perhaps you did not get there or did not understand what he meant?

Hugo said...

@natschuster

I don't understand what you mean by 'species to species transitions'. Actually, I am pretty sure YOU don't understand what evolution predicts and what we are constantly looking for, and finding, as examples of transitional species.

Concerning the side note, I agree with you completely. This is not a theological debate. I respect your rights to believe what you want to believe and I hope you do the same. The problem I have is only with evolution because this is based on objective scientific research and I am terribly disturbed by the fact that so many people reject scientific advancement and thus hinder the future of human progress. By bashing evolution, you (not specifically you of course) discourage people from trusting the solid mechanisms of science. It creates an unnecessary gap between people who could all work together to learn more from our world.

jewish philosopher said...

"Evolution works precisely because of this constant re-mixing"

People still always produce people, dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, etc.

"Random mutations happen all the time... again, what part don't you understand?"

There has never in medical history been a person born with a de novo genetic mutation which increased his fertility, yet supposedly precisely such events, many thousands of them accumulating one on top of the other, during the course of less than a million generations, converted monkeys into people. A monkey is not bigger or smarter than a dog. And the fossils attesting to this miracle of course are all absent.

"The problem is that living things are NATURAL, while machines are ARTIFICIAL"

That's the whole question, are living things forming spontaneously (natural) or are they intelligently designed (artificial). Of course the second choice is obviously the correct one.

"complexity seems to have been increased pretty much only in the intelligence of some primates."

The popularity of evolution makes we wonder if this trend has reversed.

Hugo said...

People still always produce people, dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, etc.

YES! Evolution is based on this idea. It fits perfectly. Clearly, you don't understand evolution if you think that an animal could yield something else as an offspring...

You know what's ironic? It would actually disprove evolution! If you were to find a cat that gives birth to a dog, evolution would be proven wrong! It would be evidence that species can suddenly appear out of thin air!

There has never in medical history been a person born with a de novo genetic mutation which increased his fertility, yet supposedly precisely such events, many thousands of them accumulating one on top of the other, during the course of less than a million generations, converted monkeys into people. A monkey is not bigger or smarter than a dog. And the fossils attesting to this miracle of course are all absent.

Again JP, you don't understand... you take it as if it were some sort of straight line, a path from A to B that could only happen one way and not any other way. That's not what evolution is all about. It could well be, for example, that an animal with better fertility actually does worse than its companions in term of evolutionary advancement. Why? Because perhaps the specimen with greater fertility is also of a different color, and if it happens that the specimen lives in an area with predators that see one color better than the other, then guess what happens...

Want to make it more clear? Let's say that Animal X can be blue or red. Let's also say that the blue specimen always have 3 babies while the red ones always have 12 babies. According to what you just wrote, it should be the red ones that pass on their genes better. But what if they live in long blue grass? Then, approaching predators would have no problem spotting the multitude of red animals lying around and would quickly eat them. After some time, would it be a surprise if the red specimen go extinct?

At the same time, what if a family of red animal was able to actually escape this environment, never to meet the blue ones again. After some time, they would become so different from each other that they could not interbreed anymore. So the next time they encounter, the gene exchanges cannot pursue. You just got a speciation event.

Is that more clear?

What about two families of monkey that get separated from each others? They are cousins that share common grandparents but somehow stop interbreeding. Why is it so hard for you to see that with small changes to their DNA here and there, randomly, they could yield something different in the end? What is the family on one side is more intelligent and uses that intelligence to survive better?

Hugo said...

@JP

By the way... do you just ignore the other things I say? You claim you understand; then tell me why the prediction of Tiktaalik was not a valid one? What about the videos about cats and dog, you dodge the question, why? What part don't you understand?

It's not as if I am trying to insult you or trying to convert you or anything like that... I am simply telling you about one field of science that works just like the other field of science but that YOU reject solely based on metaphysical contradictions because you don't seem to want humans to have evolved... No worries, the implications are not bad... I am not out there trying to kill people that I find inferior because of it ;-)

jewish philosopher said...

My questions still remain unanswered.

According to Darwinism, change comes about not through intelligent design but rather through the natural occurrence of de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility. 

[Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness]

I think we can conservatively estimate that millions of such mutations would have had to pile up one on top of the other to convert a flatworm into a human.

However such mutations are in fact found in only perhaps one in 10^17 individuals. 

[For bacteria, 22 years equals 50,000 generations. Twelve populations were used in an experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
I don't know how large these twelve populations are, however let's guess that each one is in a liter of water. One milliliter of water will contain about 100 million e. coli
http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/b038.htm
Twelve liter would therefore be about 1.2 trillion. 50,000 generations would be 6 x 10^16 bacteria total. Out of that astronomical number, one had a good mutation.]

Therefore the probability of this being the origin of species is perhaps similar to the probability of monkeys typing Shakespeare or someone winning the national lottery a thousand times in a row without cheating.

And then there is the problem of the fossils, indicating sudden changes rather than gradual change, for example here

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/science/28mari.html

You can arrange plants and animals into all sorts of hierarchies just like you can (and librarians do) arrange books into all kinds of hierarchies. This proves nothing.

jewish philosopher said...

Just by the way, another question I've always had about evolution is how did the food chains develop.

Seemingly, first grass had to evolve. Then cattle evolved which fed on the grass. Then predators evolved which fed on the cattle. I don't believe that any fossil evidence indicates this. New ecological systems just pop up full blown.

natschuster said...

Hugo:

Evolution means that one species changes into another. If that happened I would expect to see it in the fossil record. Most of the transitions are just different species living at different times. No indication that one actually changed into another. That's an assumption. And the it turns out that most of the transitions between major groups aren't the real ancestors, just side branches. Where are the real ancestors? Why can't we find the fossils if they really existed?
I don't like the answer, "fossil are rare" because fossils aren't rare. Only transitions are so rare that they are almost non-existant.

Hugo said...

1/4

My questions still remain unanswered.

If I were to say something like, if God existed he would speak to me on a daily basis, why don't I hear God speak to me all the time? Would you consider that to be a valid question? What would you answer? Obviously, it's an invalid question that mocks the idea of God that you believe in.

You keep doing the same with evolution... Here's why...

You say that natural selection happens because some individuals reproduce better than others. That is correct. BUT, make sure that you don't confuse "reproduce better" with "have more offspring" or "is more fertile". It's not exactly the same and you made that mistake before.

So, on to your question...

I think we can conservatively estimate that millions of such mutations would have had to pile up one on top of the other to convert a flatworm into a human.

However such mutations are in fact found in only perhaps one in 10^17 individuals. [...]


From your point of view, it is impossible for humans to have evolved because it requires too many mutations. You make the same mistake again. You clearly don't understand the FACT that EVERYBODY is slightly different from everybody else. Don't you believe in DNA testing to identify individuals by the way?

Anyway, the idea is that because every specimen of a species will be slightly different, there is no need for a particular mutation for it to evolve into something else. I keep repeating because you dodge the point... Everything evolves, right here, right now. We are all transitional species between our ancestors and the next generations. We won't see it of course because the time required is too long, but it's the same reasoning that allow us to conclude that the Sun will have burned all its fuel in some 3-5 billion years. For us, the Sun is static, but we now know it is changing. For us, humans, mammals, all animals seem static, or only slightly changing, yet evolution does not require more than that to produce new species.

Do you understand that? And I don't mean the entire theory, I just mean: do you understand that small changes in an original population can lead to two sub-populations that cannot interbreed, thus yielding two new species? No need to go further than that... no need to prove a single common ancestor for everything. It's basically just an illustration of how two closely related animals came from a single ancestor. Do you understand that?

Hugo said...

2/4

And then there is the problem of the fossils, indicating sudden changes rather than gradual change

Yes we expect sudden changes! I explained already, I don't understand why you deny the explanations... The sudden changes are expected because speciation is a RARE event.

Again, take a very simple analogy. If someone were to find pictures of yourself at age 5 and 15. Would it be true that you must be someone else since clearly there are too many jumps between these pictures? We see similarities but that cannot be the same man, look, at 5 he is just 4 feet tall, at 15 he has a lot of hair, and now he is almost bald and needs to wear glasses. Clearly, thes 3 people appear suddenly and could not be the same person.

THAT is exaclty the way you describe evolution. Rigging the game like this makes evolution impossible because you would like to see the pictures at 5-6-7-... up to the present.

Again, you clearly don't understand what the theory teaches...

You can arrange plants and animals into all sorts of hierarchies just like you can (and librarians do) arrange books into all kinds of hierarchies. This proves nothing.

You are correct, the arrangement by itself does not prove anything. Just like the arrangement of books in the Torah does not prove that it's authentic. You would not try to convince anybody that the Torah was written in a specific order just because you can fit it in order. No, you need supporting evidence (which I believe you have by the way, I don't argue with that) to prove that the pages must have come in that order.

Just by the way, another question I've always had about evolution is how did the food chains develop. [...] New ecological systems just pop up full blown.

Once you understand that we DO expect sudden changes; you will not be surprised. Nothing is weird or incoherent. Living things evolve along each other and different species arise and disappear. We have the impression that it was sudden for the same reason; fossilization is a rare event.

By the way; you ignore my example of a human with 6 fingers. Do you accept or reject this as an example that limbs CAN evolve?

Hugo said...

3/4

@natschuster

AGAIN, I don't know what you are looking for honestly. You keep saying the same thing again and again.
What does it mean for you for a species to change into another?
You seem to want some sort of example where a cat gave birth to a dog? Perhaps a fossil of a pregnant cat with a dog in its belly? Or the famous Crocoduck of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron...? Don't you understand that these would actually DISPROVE evolution?

You say, 'Most of the transitions are just different species living at different times. No indication that one actually changed into another.' But that is EXACLTY what we expect! Species don't literally transform into another, they simply slowly change, over time, just like a growing child that will become an adult one day. Do you actually SEE the child changing? Can you tell me exactly the date when any person you know went from child to adult? We use fixed date such as the 21st birthday solely based on social conventions; the person does not show any difference physiologically speaking yet one is an adult and the other a "child" (just an old child at 20 of course...).

I don't like the answer, "fossil are rare" because fossils aren't rare. Only transitions are so rare that they are almost non-existant.

Clearly, you don't understand at all what we know about the biological world. You don't have an accurate grasp of the magnitude of the numbers involved to describe biological evolution...

I don't know numbers by hearth but I know the range of values that make sense. I know that the estimated number of species of animals, alive TODAY, is not in the hundreds, not in the thousands, it is in the MILLIONS. And yes, I did say SPECIES, not individuals. Humans alone are counted in BILLIONS of individuals and that is just ONE species. Now, take these numbers and extrapolate backward... can you honestly say that we have a "lot" of fossils with respect to the TOTAL number of animals that ever lived on this planet? Can you honestly say that fossils are common and that most species must thus be well represented in the fossil record?

Moreover, you clearly avoided the videos I posted, or did not understand the implications. The transition stages are well explained in it along with this principle of branches that die out. It fits with evolution yet you claim that it disproves it... fascinating to say the least.

Hugo said...

4/4

@JP
AND
@ natschuster

This discussion is running in circles...

I have the strong feeling that you guys only glimpse over what people like me write here. Take this as a compliment because I am simply incapable of believing that you guys are stupid enough to repeat the same things over and over after carefully examining what I write. You guys are NOT that stupid!

So, please, take the time to consider just these questions if you want to discuss a bit more:

If fossilization is a rare event and species constantly evolve; what would the fossil record look like? What would so-called transitional species look like? Should we expect to see direct ancestors or cousin ancestors of present animals?

jewish philosopher said...

"Anyway, the idea is that because every specimen of a species will be slightly different, there is no need for a particular mutation for it to evolve into something else."

OK. This is where you are wrong. This was Darwin's original scam and it's been long ago discredited and discarded.
 
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/proving_evolution_doggybreedin004585.html

According to current theories, mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

"THAT is exaclty the way you describe evolution."

If a photo of someone in 2004, 2005 and 2006 showed a 5'3" lightweight and a photo from 2007 showed a 6'3" street-fighting god, I would say this is not biologically natural. This is the type of thing we see in fossils. Actually, rather than supporting atheism, the fossils make it worse. Now you have several special creations to explain, not only one.

Hugo said...

@JP

I said: "Anyway, the idea is that because every specimen of a species will be slightly different, there is no need for a particular mutation for it to evolve into something else."

You said: OK. This is where you are wrong. This was Darwin's original scam and it's been long ago discredited and discarded.

[link 1]

According to current theories, mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.

[link 2]


Main point: I am glad you have something specific to point to. However, I am afraid you misunderstood what I said because I agree with you completely: without mutation, evolution could not occur. What I am trying to get across to you is that mutations happen all the time... Most of them are just too small to really matter.

Don't you know that cancer for example is a form of mutation?
Some mutations are big and yield something like a 6th finger, no?
Some mutations are small and yield a weird eye color, never seen that?

... and so on. I am sure you know just as many examples as me. What's weird is that you seem to think that a mutation is something extraordinary that can be beneficial only once in a while if the "mutant" is very lucky. You could not be more wrong!

Again, you dismissed everything else I wrote, so I think we are close to conclude that you really don't care about this. Let me know if it's the case...?

Side note 1: I don't understand why you say it was 'Darwin's original scam'; no idea what you are talking about...

Side note 2: Your first link is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I am not arguing against an intelligent designer. Just to be clear though, I am not a hypocrite, I don't think one is needed, I am just saying that it's irrelevant to the current discussion. There is already enough to talk about...

Hugo said...

p.s. I am reading more at the UC Berkeley link you sent and it's actually very informative. I don't understand how you can paste a link like this and clearly reject most of what it teaches... Look at 'The effects of mutations'; it's actually exactly what I just told you!


A single germ line mutation can have a range of effects:

A single mutation caused this cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.

1. No change occurs in phenotype.
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.

2. Small change occurs in phenotype.
A single mutation caused this cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.

3. Big change occurs in phenotype.
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.

johnny shoe said...

Hugo:

The fact that there are so many species alive today just strengthens my point. If every species evolved via a process of evolution from another species, then a lot of evolution has taken place. Then why don't we see one species changing into another in the fossil record? We just see different species living at different times. I would expect the fossil record to show jus that. And fossils are not all that rare.

And I would expect transitions between major groups to look just like that. But sometimes, like with archaeopteryx, there are morphological difficulties. In some cases, like tiktaalik, or the whales the timing is off. SO we don't have the real ancestors. Why not, if they existed?

jewish philosopher said...

Hugo, so how often do de novo genetic mutations which increase fertility occur? And how many of them would have to accumulate one on top of the next to convert a monkey into a man? And what are the odds of that happening in a million generations given the earth's relatively small primate population? (it's been estimated for example that only 10^11 humans have ever lived)

Hugo said...

Hi johny shoe,

You just repeat the same words as the two other commenters here.
Read my comments just above yours...

Concerning Tiktaalik in particular though, it is very strange that you mention timing because it was found precsilely because of timing...
(http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/an-evolution-pr.html)

Hugo said...

@JP
Increase fertility again? You still don't undertstand that it has nothing to do with that? Or perhaps you always got it all figured out now but that's the only small bit of the puzzle missing?

The numbers you present are irrelevant to the discussion. There is no need to point out exaclty what mutation caused the transition when and on what specimen. Every monkey gives birth to a monkey. Every human gives birth to a human.

Actually, we ARE monkeys... I just thought of an analogy we can make with language usage. Let's say you have 2 kids. They both speak English. These kids both have kids that also speak English. Now, the two families, for some reason, get into a terrible fight and never speak to each other again. Actually, one family moves to another country where they speak French. Now, their kids have kids as well. On one side, they learn English only, while on the other they learn both English and French because they speak with their parents but go to school in French. What happens to the next generations you think? In the French country, the next generation might still learn English a little but then perhaps the next one just learns French. After as little as 4-5 generations, the two sides of the family cannot talk to each other anymore. They are still distant cousins. They are still from the same ancestors, yet they just started a drift from each other.

The analogy is not perfect obviously since it's easy to go back to learning another language, but it fits perfectly with the principle that our ancestors, and monkeys' ancestors, were simply cousins that split apart; only to keep reproducing, with slight modifications each time, into their own linage. No need for sudden jumps. No need for incredible mutations. Just small variations, random, and selected for if it helps the individual and/or the population to survive and reproduce better (NOT JUST FERTILITY). Actually, the mere fact that mutations occur is enough to cause speciation after a long time. No need for a definite selective pressure.

I will be off for a few days. I think we are running in circles anyway since you almost copy/paste your previous answers... So I guess we are done here. It was interesting and I learned a few things about how you actually perceive evolution and what parts you don't understand. Go ahead and keep mocking it! I cannot stop you ;-)

Cheers and happy holidays to you all!

jewish philosopher said...

"Increase fertility again?"

Fertility is the natural capability of producing offsprings.

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

Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Fitness

According to current theories, mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation. Without mutation, evolution could not occur.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

Universal common ancestry is generally accepted, beginning with Darwin.

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

Evolution means the belief that over the past three billion years, a single bacteria has spawned all of the millions of different types of plants and animals which have ever lived through a gradual process of small, de novo genetic mutations which improve fertility accumulating one on top of the next. This is first of all impossibly improbable and second of all it contradicts the overall pattern of the fossil record. It's a fairy tale stubbornly, dishonestly promoted to undermine the Watchmaker Analogy and promote atheism, thereby discrediting the clergy and advancing science to be man's most important endeavor.

natschuster said...

Hugo:

The tracks of a fully terrestrial tetrapod millions of years older than tiktaalik where found. that means that tiktaalik can't be the real ancestor of tetrapods. That's what Johnny Shoe (which is really me, my son forgot to sign out) meant.

Hugo said...

Thanks for the quick summary guys. I am glad that you want to make sure that I am correct when I say you don't understand evolution.

Very nice of you,
Cheers!

jewish philosopher said...

I suppose that for atheists, evolution is what the Trinity is to Catholics. It is a holy mystery which cannot be comprehended by man.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

natschuster said...

Hugo:

I hear a lot from people that I don't understand evolution. But that usually comes after I raise a question they don't answer.

Hugo said...

Well well, as I said I will be away after today but since JP approves messages quickly, might as well chat a bit more with you guys. I really like it to be honest. Sorry to keep insisting that you don't understand by the way... It's not meant to insult. If we were discussing your beliefs in God for example, I would not mind you saying that I don't understand what you believe. But that's another subject all by itself and I don't have time for that right now...

JP said:
I suppose that for atheists, evolution is what the Trinity is to Catholics. It is a holy mystery which cannot be comprehended by man.

So you concede that you don't comprehend it?

I mean, I would certainly not make this comparison because evolution for me is crystal clear (as much as it can be for a non-biologist obviously).

natschuster said:
I hear a lot from people that I don't understand evolution. But that usually comes after I raise a question they don't answer.

That makes perfect sense. Here, you keep asking the same question about transitional fossil, and I keep telling you that your question is invalid. So obviously the conclusion is that you dont' understand evolution; otherwise you would not ask an invalid question about it.

Take it the other way around. Since I don't know what you believe exactly I will use the example of God again...

What if I were to ask you: Why isn't God talking to me every morning? Why isn't God answering my prayers asking to win the lottery? Surely God does not exist then!!

Obviously, your answer would be something like: You don't understand God, or that's not how God works... etc. Correct?

If you tell me my question is invalid, does it mean you literally don't answer it? Don't you see the parallel with evolution?

When you ask 'why don't we find transitional fossil', there is no answer for two reasons.
First, there are transitional fossils; plenty of them.
Second, if you say there isn't', then clearly you are talking about something else, and I thus cannot answer your question because I don't know what you are talking about!

jewish philosopher said...

"So you concede that you don't comprehend it?"

It's incompressible nonsense.

Hugo said...

It's incompressible nonsense.

It makes perfect sense for you to not believe it then. You are fully justified.

What's incorrect is to you accuse people who actually understand it to be irrational and led by some atheistic agenda.

What's incorrect is to pretend that you know what they think, to pretend you know what they believe and why, when you just said you don't understand it yourself.

Can I ask ask you why you do that anyway? Perhaps you never saw it like that?

jewish philosopher said...

"What's incorrect is to you accuse people who actually understand it to be irrational and led by some atheistic agenda.

What's incorrect is to pretend that you know what they think, to pretend you know what they believe and why, when you just said you don't understand it yourself."

Can I accuse Catholics or Muslims of being motivated by emotional, irrational agendas and claim to understand why they believe in nonsense?

Hugo said...

Yes absolutely, if you have good reasons to believe that, and I would agree with you, but, I would not generalize... I think it's a minority that thinks like that.

That's why we, in general, live peacefully among each other and are able to discuss our differences and sometime change our minds. Only dogmatic people don't change. Only mentally ill people don't change I would say actually.

Didn't you change your beliefs by converting to Judaism? You are actually a great example I think...

jewish philosopher said...

However atheism is not harmless, but causes mass killing, as I explain.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/05/ethics-from-empathy.html

Hugo said...

Yes I know this is what you believe and I cannot even come close to change your mind, so let me ask you this instead:

I am an atheist, I don't believe gods exist; do you think I personally cause mass killing? Do you think I am in favor of any sort of mass killing? Do you think I want to impose my philosophy on others? Do you know what my values are? Do you think I am harmful to others?

jewish philosopher said...

You are a scourge upon humanity. You might do anything.

Hugo said...

You are a scourge upon humanity.

Why?

You might do anything.

I could but, do I?

jewish philosopher said...

why - because a gorilla with weapons and a high iq is a scourge upon humanity and that's basically what atheists are

natschuster said...

Hugo:

I guess I wasn't clear. All the fossils that are listed as transitional are transitions between major groups, phyla, orders, etc. What they don't show is one species evolving into another. Fro example, we don't see archaeopteryx evolving into confuciornis. Why not, if that's waht happened. And the fossil that are sited as examples of transitions aren't the real ancestors, because the anatomy is too different, e,g, the therapods can't be bird ancestors because birds have air sacs, therapods didn't, or the timing is off. Why can't we find the real ancestors?

natschuster said...

Hugo:

Maybe I should put it this way. Evolution says that one species can change it says that species do change, one into another. But we don't actually see that, not in real life and not inthe fossil record. It is just assumed. And evolution says that the major groups evolved from ancestoral spcies. So where are they? All we have are side branches. Where are the real ancestors? Again, it is assumed that they really existed.
I guess the confusion is over the word "transitional." Your definition includes something that might look like a transitional species, but isn't really, it just has the a transitional condition. I mean the real ancestors. And I keep on repeating myself because you keep on not answering me, just telling me I don't understand.

natschuster said...

Hugo:

When I tell atheists that, if they succeed in their quest of making the world atheistic then, if history is any indication, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder, the response I get is that it is okay because the motivating factor wouldn't be atheism. So they are telling me that mass murder is okay as long as atheism isn't the motivating factor. I find that a little scary.

Varagi said...

Here's a nice article on science, atheism, and religion, by the chief rabbi of England: http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4264/full

Pngwn said...

Yes, you can make anything sound ridiculous.

http://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2010/100702-toast.png

By this, you can clearly make toast sound ridiculous. Toast can not be true. Right?

jewish philosopher said...

Indeed, food is an incredible miracle.

Myrd said...

You are a sad, hateful, misguided man.

I do not know why you feel the need to spread such heinous, blantant lies about those who do not agree with your view of the world, but hopefully you find some solace in your beliefs.

jewish philosopher said...

"I do not know why you feel the need to spread such heinous, blantant lies about those who do not agree with your view of the world."

I know why Falick does. He's a pervert.

Anonymous said...

How is it you can discuss something you know little about? Do yourself a favor and get your information from no religious sources. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a disbelief or a belief in nothing.

jewish philosopher said...

Atheism is a religion which teaches that the Biblical God, an intelligent, eternal, creator, does not exist and that life developed through the unguided, natural process of evolution.

Anonymous said...

JP,

You keep stating that Atheism is a religion because that is the only context in which you can perceive the world. You believe so fervently in the "Religion" paradigm that you can't recognize when data-points refuse to fit within your belief structure.

Atheism is, by definition, NOT a religion. There is no specific and organized structure to Atheism.

You of course will interpret this, my post probably, but the concept of Atheism definitely, in terms of the Abrahamic belief structures. But that is your crutch. You contextualize Atheism in terms of what you already believe rather than dealing with what is actually being asserted by Atheists. Honestly, I wonder if you even can or ever will be able to conceive of a world without your notion of "God". The believer already has a conclusion in mind. It doesn't matter weather or not the data supports the facts because there is a surety of belief on the part of the "believer" that no matter the data, their BELIEF is correct.

An Atheist doesn't "believe" in ANY superhuman agency and there are no devotional or ritual observances that constitute the practices of Atheism.

There is no specific and or universally agreed upon moral code governing our conduct other than common sense and the enduring human tendency to empathize with our fellow humans...

There is no specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by Atheists as there are with religious sects like Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and etc...

Someone can be an Atheist without ever having read Atheist "propaganda"/information, or any words whatsoever promoting Atheism. As an example: I was an Atheist before I knew there was such a thing. I just knew that the religion I was indoctrinated into didn't make sense. I investigated other religions as I was able and all of them were filled with logical contradictions within their doctrine and incorporated "magical" thinking into every level of their core belief structures. (At least these did: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism) I just couldn't believe in the "magic" because I didn't see it anywhere in the real world; but hey, that's me. As the 18th' century French Realist painter "Corbet" would have said: "Show me an Angel and I'll paint you one". To date, I have yet to paint or draw an angel or a ghost or someone walking on water, being raised from the dead, magically turning water to wine, or anything else along those lines...

There is no single world council dictating what Atheists must "believe". Atheists question their environment and reality; they don't presume the answers to their questions are already known. Of course, the questions may lead us to similar conclusions (no God) but no one dictates those conclusions to anyone else.

Again, there's no such thing as an Atheist Religion. "Atheist Religion" is an Oxymoron. There are people that believe in religion / God and there are those that don't.

You obviously do believe in God. Okay, fine. But if you want to understand those of the human community that do not believe in a God you should stop trying to "see" US within the constraints of your paradigm.

jewish philosopher said...

Of course atheism is a religion, as I explain here.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Jason Andrade said...

JP, I really feel bad for you. You are living such a lie.

I don't think providing any facts will ever change your beliefs nor I expect you to question your own religion (Cause I know you are brainwashed, so you won’t) with my arguments.

I believe in a creator. Like someone said above, A creator must have its creator and the loop is infinite.

But how do you know that the creator is good? Because some thousand year old books say it?

Animals live without religion. They don't follow any rituals. They don't have laws or anything.
You might find this irrelevant and might counter argue saying - "God chose humans" etc.

If God chose us, the environment around us should've been fine tuned on our favor, which you claim that it does. But, clearly it DOESN'T. The Earth consists of 70% of water out of which 1% is fit for drinking. There are creatures (Small/Big) in earth which can kill a human easily. We need air, water and other things to survive. Why didn't God make us fit to adapt in any situations? Why can't we live underwater? Why can't we survive by consuming non-potable water?

And your answer for this would be-"God has his plans to keep everything in balance".

And if that is what you are gonna say,
Seriously? 1% of non saline water? Is that the way to keep balance in nature? NO.Because this world is not meant only for humans. Since that is evident, It rules out the idea of "God chose us". If he did, he'd atleast mention that other animals in this earth are just as important as us because he has designed to keep things in balance. If he did mention that, He surely wouldn't have asked Abraham to sacrifice a lamb or whatever instead of his son. Why would God even expect a sacrifice? If he let go of his son, Why sacrifice the lamb? It doesn't make any sense.

And since God did according to your books, It shows God himself doesn't respect other animals.
You'll refute saying "We are no one to judge God."
That is exactly how you are brainwashed my friend.

Keeping that aside, Consider 2 people A and B. A is atheist and B is a theist. A and B both do good things in their life and absolutely nothing wrong or rather a "sinless life". Now B is sure of going to heaven. What about A? If God sends him to hell though A has done good deeds in life and just because he denied existence of God whom he never met in life, Then God himself defies the ideology of forgiveness and is being a hypocrite for not forgiving person A. So you are proud to say you believe in some God who is a hypocrite?

Now if you say, God will let him into heaven because ultimately he was a person who did nothing wrong, Then what is the point of religion? Why do you need it?

How do you even know the creator expects you to worship him? Why didn't he create us so that we are just meant to worship? Why give us free will, a brain with reasoning skills?
Why does evil exist when God can do anything? Why doesn't he wipe all the evil out of this world and make this world a peaceful and a better place? Why God doesn't send a messenger now?
If Adam and Eve were the first people in mankind and they had two sons, How did the future generation come up? And your book doesn't mention if they had sex with their mother or if their parents gave birth to 2 girls.

Why do African kids have to suffer just when they are born? What wrong did they do? Why should they suffer? Why doesn't good help em to end their suffering? Why are their prayers unheard?

I can go on and on about these questions that religious people like you will give a stupid answer like "Because God ______________" and empty space filled with ignorant bullshit.

But I will give a simple answer. It's because the creator doesn't give a ratass about human beings or the world. We don't have any purpose in our life. There is no hell and heaven.

Stop being deceived by stupid book that was written ages back.

Jason Andrade said...

People back then lacked reasoning. If some chemist or a normal street magician of now went back to those times and performed a silly trick and called himself God. People would believe it. Do you really want to be the people like them?

And please don't take the trouble of giving me any links that will justify your claims. I know they are basically illogical which will end up saying "God is the answer for everything".

Religions suppress women rights, gays are looked down upon for how they were by birth, and create war in the name of religion.

If you say atheists are immoral, We never brought up any war in the history. We are in support of women rights and gays. The number of atheists in prison are about 3% compared to the whole.

And if you don't get my points and think I am wrong, Please pray to your God that he forgives me. That would be sweet :) Peace.

jewish philosopher said...

"Cause I know you are brainwashed, so you won’t"

The concept of "brainwashing" is pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_taskforce_on_Deceptive_and_Indirect_Techniques_of_Persuasion_and_Control#The_APA_memorandum:_dismissal_of_the_DIMPAC_report

"Because some thousand year old books say it?"

Yes.

"Why didn't God make us fit to adapt in any situations?"

Man did live in Paradise until he sinned. See Genesis 3.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm

"God himself doesn't respect other animals"

Indeed the Talmud prohibits cruelty to animals

http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm

however animals were created to be used by man.

"Then God himself defies the ideology of forgiveness"

Which idealogy is that? On the contrary

The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, the LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; the LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Nahum 1:2

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1901.htm

"How do you even know the creator expects you to worship him?"

The Torah says so.

"Why God doesn't send a messenger now?"

When people stopped listening, God stopped talking and the Scriptures were closed.

"if their parents gave birth to 2 girls"

The Talmud mentions daughters.

"Why do African kids have to suffer just when they are born?"

I discuss the issue of suffering here.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/08/kindness-of-suffering.html

"Stop being deceived by stupid book that was written ages back."

Actually the Torah is full of remarkable wisdom

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/06/gods-wisdom.html

and if it was written in modern times, like the Book of Mormon, why would it be more plausable?

"People back then lacked reasoning."

I haven't noticed modern people being incredibly rational.

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

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

I don't think anything has really changed.

"Religions suppress women rights"

So?

"gays are looked down upon for how they were by birth"

So? Don't you look down on pedophiles for how they are from birth?

"create war in the name of religion"

Since 136 CE, we have renounced violence.

http://www.torahphilosophy.com/2009/02/massacre-of-midianites.html

"The number of atheists in prison are about 3% compared to the whole."

What would be interesting to know is: what percentage of convicted felons were actively participating monotheists (weekly church or synagogue goers) at the time of their crime? I would bet it's a disproportionately small number, however I am not aware of any research unfortunately.

"Please pray to your God that he forgives me."

If you repent, He'll forgive you.