He also made bet with Richard Hoagland (See “God Man and E.T.” that the new Mars photos would not show girders on mars (they shook hands in the video). Since then, the photos have shown that there are no girders on Mars, but I doubt Ross ever collected on his bet.

Why? You assume modern DNA and modern RNA are in the same form they’ve always been, that there have been no modifications to structure or function, that earlier forms weren’t more similar.

You assume DNA would of had to evolve before cells did. Scientists are rather of the opposite opinion – DNA didn’t come along until after there were primitive cells. What did cells use before DNA? Perhaps an earlier form of RNA that no longer exists because DNA replaced it.

> But, DNA, if formed, will need to be right, as once its formed, it will replicate itself in whatever correctness it has. Also, the first proteins must be correct. DNA cannot make proteins without other proteins. So the complex proteins must be there. Combine that with a need for the rest of the cell structure to form inside a membrane by random chance. It will not form chemically into a cell, no matter how simple, because it would form mostly bits of junk chemically.

There’s that random chance thing again. You seem to think that the earliest cells had to look exactly like modern cells, with all the same internal structures and chemistry. You seem unable to conceptualize piecemeal development of a cell with simpler structures, that have been replaced by more successful, changed forms. Scientists don’t propose that the first complete modern cell sprang into existence directly from simple molecules. The manner isn’t fully understood yet, but concepts focus on first simple organic molecules forming from available energy – chemical structures follow simple rules and organic molecules are abundant in space. There’s a class of meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, that are organic molecules. These simple molecules forming more complex amino acids by more energy (lightning, impacting meteors, volcanic heat in undersea vents, etc – these have been demonstrated in a lab to occur). Amino acids would then combine into simple proteins through similar processes, or perhaps some other unknown process. The formation of proteins leads to the development of the cell walls, and then the various components in the cell begin to develop. Mitochondria, for instance, are actually a separate organism that found a more comfortable home inside other cells, acting as the energy factory in return for food. Or perhaps it was the larger cells absorbing the mitochondria to leech off their excess energy. The symbiosis drove more efficient and productive mitochondria, and cells that could become more complex.

Some improvements supplemented the previous methods by which those tasks were accomplished. The less functional method then adapted to do something else, which removed the redundancy and left the more complex path we now see that looks “irreducibly complex”.

>A different amount of DNA is important to making new species. If the evolutionary theory were true, we would either: a) all (every species included) have the same amount of DNA or b) we would see varying amounts of DNA per organism.

What is your justification for that statement? You’re making a false dichotomy. Why doesn’t evolution allow what we see – different types of organisms have different amounts of DNA, different numbers of chromosomes, but within a species the chromosome counts are pretty consistent?

>If DNA were simpler at first, it would still need order. Also, how would it change? Can you change all the hardware of a computer as the machine is runing and you are using it?

DNA changes during cell splitting. During the mitosis (and meiosis as well), the chromosome pairs split into two halves. Sometimes during this process the genes in the cells get scrambled. Sometimes they get reordered a bit. Bits move from one place on the chromosome to another. And then there’s an encoding error where the whole DNA sequence is duplicated and merged together.

>Also, remember that there are many different species and organisms on this planet. If it were slow, it would be seen in at least one generation of a species, if not several. But their DNA count all stay the same.

DNA count all stay the same? We’ve just barely begun sequencing the DNA of species on this planet. If you’re talking about chromosome counts, we’ve actually doubled chromosome counts in the lab. There are biological processes that make it happen. There are also biological processes within the cells that combat it.

Are you speaking of Comparative Religion, or multicultural awareness? The two are not identical. I would think the second is more important for what you are concerned over. Though certainly some of the second would likely happen through the first, Comparative Religion is more about analyzing the structure and form of the different beliefs, similarities, differences, origins, etc. Multicultural awareness would be more about the people, how they live, what they think and why. Religion would be a (large) part of that, but not the whole, and not the focus.

sick of bs Said:
> this is crap think of this how is evolution true the great explosion sure ya but what caused the great explosion when you find that out then you can talk about evolution beacuse its like having a broken watch putting it in a box shaking it up with dinamite letting it explode then it has a new perfect watch so answer that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post is nearly incoherent, and certainly difficult to understand, but the one element that seems to come out is a very badly mangled distortion of a faulty analogy used against evolution.

1. Evolution has random elements, so the randomness of shaking the box is somewhat appropriate. However, where does the dynamite fit into the explanation? Dynamite would destroy pieces in the box, not just shake them about. There’s no parallel in the processes of evolution.

2. Besides randomness, evolution requires a process of gradual selection. Selection in the form of testing the results of the random arrangements in some manner to determine which is “better”. For evolution, “better” means reproduces more offspring that survive to reproduce. For the watch in the box, “better” would seem to be “able to tell time”, though the analogy gets stretched very thin for that. But I also said *gradual*. Gradual selection means the selection process is not all or nothing, throw everything away and mix it all up again. Rather, it means improvements in a step-wise manner, bit by bit. Shake the watch bits up, then evaluate what’s there. Keep what works, mix the rest up and try again. The analogy again struggles because there does not seem to be a way to keep the components together that are starting to work but have them available for the rest of the components to mix with.

A better analogy is trying to roll five heads with five coins. Take five coins, toss them simultaneously, try to get all five heads. Probability comes up with some huge number if you keep tossing all five every time. But evolution doesn’t work that way. Instead, it looks at the first toss, and sets aside any heads you find. Found 2? Great, next roll you only toss the remaining 3 coins. Keep the heads, retry the tails. By that method, you’re almost guaranteed to have all five heads in five tosses. That’s gradual selection. The selection is for heads, the gradual means peicemeal, cumulative results, not each throw independently.

this is stupid! Said:
> You do not make valid arguments, quoting from one source only. I find it hard to believe that “true science� can have only one website to back it up.

Faulty logic. The number of references cited for an informal essay hardly has any meaning to the merit of the science position explained in that essay. The references on evolution are too numerous to count (literally). Many are in actual books, but there are dozens if not hundreds on the web. The BA picked a couple.

> You don’t seem to care about the fact that creationism might have some valid points, …

What valid points can creationism have in a scientific discussion? Creationism is the belief “god did it”. That is an untestable premise (how do you disprove God?” It also has no explanatory power. Saying “God did it” doesn’t even explain how he did it, much less any part of the process. At least “Bewitched” lets us see Samantha wiggle her nose.

If you mean points that creationists have about evolution, they may or may not. Those points, however, have to be more than “god did it”. They have to be explanations. And the explanations provided by creationists do not measure up. They are flawed reasoning, or they contradict the evidence used to justify them, or they contradict other evidence. If you’re speaking of critiques of some specific arguments or data points or evidenciary claims, then those need to be addressed in the specifics by the scientific merits.

>… you want to find a way to justify your mud-slinging hate of Christians and Christianity. So you attack creationism.

No. You are incorrect. The BA has not expressed hatred of christians or christianity. He has expressed anger toward those who use their religion to distort science for political and social reasons. If you are equating that with hating christiantity, then I think the problem is your definition of christianity.

>I noticed as I read that you are just spouting off against creationist indoctrination of students. Did it ever occur to you that many Christian parents feel that way about evolution?

That’s part of the problem – Christian parents shouldn’t feel that way about evolution, and the fact that they do is based upon ignorance about what evolution really says and means, and by distortions by people pushing political and social agendas beyond science.

>I’m not here to promote Christianity, I’m here to make that point that creationism and evolution CAN be taught side by side.

Once again, I think words are not being used the same way. Creationism for most of us using it is not just belief in God, it is not just saying that God works through evolution, it is statements about how god does things and is exclusionary to evolution. Creationists such as the ICR and young-Earth creationists describe life origins as a (specific) literal interpretation of Genesis. Some versions allow the “Day-age” interpretation of the 6 days of creation, but they still take the story as essentially literal. This is incompatible with the findings of science – not just evolution, but geology and astronomy and cosmology and anatomy and physics. If you’re using “creationism” to mean “belief in God” or “belief that God is the cause”, then I have no quibble with you about the two being compatible, merely a disagreement over your word choice as a source of confusion. If you mean “creationism” in the sense I have described, then the two are not compatible.

>And as a parting thought. Do three things. Get five evolutionists from different areas of the world, who do not work together, and ask them how old the world is.

They’ll all state the world is about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, maybe as old as 5 billion years. And note that Evolution is not really about the age of the Earth, that’s more of a geological question than biological one.

>Secondly, true science is what can be observed. How can ANY theory of the world’s origion be proved as true science, none of us were around to witness it.

You have a serious misconception of science. There are two types of science. One is the type that can be carried out by experiments – physics and chemistry, for example. The evidence here is garnered through data collection by experimentation. The other type of science relies on historical data, looking at evidence that can be garnered from existing sources. Astronomy largely falls into this category, as well as anthropology, archeology, paleontology, etc. We cannot create a star to watch the processes and collect data on how it works, nor can we find one and watch it – the life spans are just too long. But we can survey the skys and take statistical data on all the different types of stars and piece together an explanation and theories that tie them together. This is science, and the same kind of science applied to studying fossils.

>And thirdly, Shut. The. Heck. UP!

What a well-reasoned argument. No one made you come here.

I think, perhaps, that some discussion is in order on this point. What is the defining essence of religion? Is it *belief*? I submit it is not mere belief. After all, many christians believe in Satan, that does not make them Satanists. I submit that the defining essence of religion goes beyond mere belief, it is *worship*. Christianity is not mere belief in God (and Jesus), it is the worship of that God (typically in prescribed manners). Islam is not just belief, it is worshipping Allah, following the teachings of the Koran, etc. In the same way that the Romans were required to placate their gods with sacrifices – worship, not just believing in their existence.

Faith is a critical component of religion only because there is not clear-cut evidence. Religion relies upon “divine inspiration” and emotional experience because that is inherent to how it is experienced, but the point of religion is not just belief, it is following the practices and worshipping in the manner described.

I submit that if evidence were ever available to prove the existence of a deity, that would not be the end of worship for that deity, but the beginning.

>Scientists didn’t have to study mitochondrial DNA to gain the insight that all humans share a common female-line ancestor; that’s just common sense. Mitochondrial DNA is peculiar in being passed along the female line only, and Eve is just a name that has been given to the common ancestor from whom all humans living today inherited their mitochondrial DNA. There’s certainly no suggestion that mitochondrial Eve is the same person as biblical Eve. They share a name and that’s all.

1. “Mitochondrial Eve” was named that as an allusion to the Biblical Eve. It is metaphorical.

And this comment is a good example of why I hate it when scientists wax poetical with religious allusions in their naming of things. It is misleading, tends to confuse the uninitiated, and frankly is hubristic. The “God Particle”, reducing god to a mere subatomic particle? Religious people should find that insulting, not confirming of their beliefs. “Know the mind of God”? You presume there’s a god with a mind to know.

2. Mitochondrial Eve is a concept that isn’t quite so solid a footing as presumed. True, all samples collected from diverse populations showed the same mitochondrial DNA, suggesting a common ancestor. However, other genetic factors indicate that the earliest human population had to have several hundred people minimum. If a small group of closely interbreeding members could all acheive the same mitochondrial source.

Another question comes to my mind – mitochondria are a very early cellular feature for such a late development as humans. I’m wondering about that common ancestor for humanity occurring some time much earlier in the human development, such as not long after the split from chimpanzees. I wonder how much that’s been studied.

DNA making a few mistakes here and there is not enough to change a species in a brief period of time–it takes a long time. Just because we haven’t yet observed speciation is hardly conclusive–we’ve only been looking for that time for a tiny, tiny fraction of time. Similarly, it’s no surprise we haven’t found any evidence of extraterrestrial life. If it exists, it’s going to take a long time to find and we’ve been searching for less than a century.

I don’t think anyone (on the evolution side) is suggesting that DNA appeared out of nowhere. It developed from simpler substances.

Good points about discrete versus continuous memory recording.

M Duke, about DNA and randomness, remember that evolution isn’t based on the idea thata series of totally random occurrences (dice rolls, if you will) produced a series of increasingly complex organisms. That is, and should be, laughable.

What evolution suggests is that DNA is remarkably accurate in copying itself, but not surprisingly for a 4-billion-character sequence, it’s not *perfect* at copying itself. The occasional mistake/change (ie, mutation) does occur, and those are random. But, then the results of that mistake/change are tested against nature: are they helpful, harmful, or neutral to that organism’s survival in that environment? The results of that aren’t random.

As I mentioned above about “artificial selection” (another term might be hybridization), you have a random factor which is selected for/against by something nonrandom (person or nature). It’s just that artificial selection works much more quickly and effectively because it’s more selective than is natural selection.

As far as camel turning into a dog? First of all evolution does not work “horizontally” as to transform one contemporary species to another. Rather all species are descended from a common ancestor, which by now is most likely extinct. Cammels might take very long time to evolve into something else, but with bacteria the process is much shorter, in a matter of months maybe even days through natural selection one can get strains of bacteria with very different shapes, sizes and so on if one subjects them to the apporpriate conditions.

So your arguments thus far are very flawed, and just to mention the “irreducible complexity”, well that’s another story but it is worth mentioning that half-educated folk like creationists forget that evolution does not always allow for making organisms more complex, but sometimes it makes them more simple if that helps their survival and reproduction.

It happens. Mistakes are made. But in science, mistakes are also eventually corrected. That’s what puts science so much apart from false sciences like astrology.

One of the common objections to evolution is the rhetorical question “How can a more complex and better system be created just by a series of random events?” After all, everyday experience tells us that random happenings create *less* well-organized systems; they create chaos. So, it’s a valid question.

…except that it’s based on a major misunderstanding (not to use the “i” word) of how evolution occurs. Evolution isn’t just random events. To simplify, it’s composed of two parts. Mutations provide the random element–but then, natural selection provides the nonrandom part–it guides the changes. Individual animals provide changes that may or may not be helpful, and Mother Nature selects for those that are helpful.

This really isn’t so far out of line with our everyday experience. Remember, we do the same sort of thing ourselves–it’s called “artificial selection”. When a plant or animal shows characteristics we want, we select that specimen and others like it to breed for the next generation. That’s how we’ve created seedless grapes and watermelons, large juicy fruits, big beefy cattle, etc. It works much faster than natural selection because we’re much more systematic about it–but the basic idea is the same.

http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html

Your example of how evolution takes place, like “blowing a broken watch” repeatedly to get a good one is correct for one part, and that is, introducing some degree of randomness in the system by those explosions. However, there’s other important things you need for evolution to take place. First of all, you have to have many watches for evolution to operate on. Evolution does not take place on just a single organism, it is rather in a sense, a statistical process involving large number of individuals (watches). Second, you cannot “blow up” the entire watch, rather only small parts of it at a time, so that the performance of your watch is relatively stable from one generation (“explosion”) to another. And third, there has to be a system of selecting which watches will undergo further explosions and reproduce (I dont know how that works with watches though) and which will be discarded based upon their performance or in your terms: how “new and perfect” they are.

Evolution does not apply to biological processes only. Believe it or not, it can be used (rather sucessfully) to train robots to do neat things that would probably need programmers quite some time to figure out. See this page:

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/051904/Evolution_trains_robot_teams_051904.html

and this one:

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

this is stupid!,

“True science” can be found in many places, not only in wonderfully large number of websites, but also in books in libraries and so on. The problem is that many creationists dont bother to look at them before finding out what’s wrong with science, and you sure are one of them. Creationism sure has one key advantage – ITS SIMPLE! Simple things have to be true right? I mean come one people, why should the world be complicated, when we can just pretend it is simple and ignore the complexity of nature by pushing it under the rug of divine intervention. To your address and to all other creationists and concerned christian parents I can say, you are lazy, and your lazyness perpetuates your ignorance on matters of direct concern to you. In other words, simple explanations tend to fare better with simple minded people.