User:EChronicle/Archives/1

'''This is Archive 1 of my talk page. Please don't post questions or comments here. All messages for me can be posted on my talk page, and I'll get back with you as soon as possible. Thanks!

I archive all discussions on my talk page that have ended and are at least a week old - because it makes my talk page easier to read that way... which helps both you and me! They are numbered in the order they left my talk page.

How do you verify evolution?
Are you serious? I find the question bizarre, but I am willing to accept that you meant it in good faith. Evolution has been repeatedly verified by many workers. I don't understand how you could ask that question. Guettarda 20:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for evidence for evolution - have a look at some of Rich Lenski's work - he has shown that the ability to metabolise fructose (iirc) evolved in a clonal line of bacteria which lacked the gene originally. Since he has kept the ancestors frozen, they have been able to show changes in gene sequences over 40,000 (I think) generations (probably a lot more by now).  They were also able to demonstrate the evolution of distinctive body forms which (iirc) were genetically controlled - again, by genes not present in the ancestral population.  That's clear, unequivocal evidence of evolution generating functional novelty.  Guettarda 22:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way, Guettarda, was Lenski ever to change fructose into something else? --EChronicle 23:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi EChronicle, I think fructose is changed into something else every time someone eats an apple. Fructose is just a sugar molecule, it breaks down into simpler forms with digestion.

I think we're getting off the point, thu, I think that you are looking for evidence of common decent. Yes?Guettarda gave an example of evolution happening in the lab, we can get into a lot of evedence of it happening in nature, as well as evidence that all living things that we know of are ancestoraly related. Is that what you are after? Steve kap 15:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Question...
Regarding, this edit of yours. Do you mind if I make a suggestion? Mi kk er ... 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, just please keep it polite etc. --EChronicle 01:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, hopefully I will be polite :). Long ago had several reservations about evolution, much like you seem to have problems with the theory now. I found, however, that when I read the primary texts of the field, a great deal of my worries were sorted out. So if you haven't done so already, I suggest you read Darwin's The Origins of Species (it is available free online, but Penguin has nice print editions well worth buying). I also found Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" extremely useful. Anyway, just a thought - ignore this if it wasn't useful :). Mi kk er ... 02:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (ps. "Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago" - Dionysus Cato)

Thanks for the answer... In short, these are some of my "several reservations about evolution":

1. If I said that I could flip a coin and make it land on heads 50 times in a row, you'd think I was crazy. Why would you think that? Because we know that it is impossible to flip a coin 50 times in a row. The mathematical probabity of evolution is far worse than the probability of you or me being able to flip a coin and make it land on heads 50 times in a row. So how could life have evolved? Look at a Dell computer. It's a great invention. But it still cannot think/believe/introspect like we can. And the Dell computer is designed. How then could we have come about as an accident? Take a clock, for instance. If the peices of a clock were on the ground, how long would it take for it to come together into a working piece of machinery? It would never happen. And life (our bodies) are far more complex and amazing then any clock. How could it have evolved?

2. How does Evolution deal with the cosmological evidence? To put it simple, (a.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause (b.) The universe began to exist (c.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first premise of that argument is absolutely true and has never been disproved. That first premise (Everything that begins to exist has a cause) is constantly being verified by science.

Most scientists now agree that the universe did have a beginning. This was proved in part by Einstein and other researchers.

Therefore, you reach the third premise- The universe has a cause! You can't get around it. That cause is a designer- not natural selection by random mutation.

3. To go along with the #1, just look at the precise callibration (fine-tuning) of the different "settings" in the universe. Imagine a big bag of scrabble letters... You couldn't just reach your hand in there and happen to pull out all the exact letters that formulate the Gettysburg Address. You know that, and I know that.

4. Look at the fossil record. There are no transitional fossils, not one. How come?

5. Based on the points I've mentioned above, and much other evidence, I cannot scientifically support/believe/espouse Evolution.

Thanks, --EChronicle 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * EChronicle, I'm going to be frank: you don't understand evolution. Now, I could go into a long respose to each of your problems and point out how you've misunderstood what evolutionary theory actually says, but life is short and there are better ways for you to find out. Such as reading Darwin or Zimmer or Dawkins ("Blind Watchmaker) or Dennett ("Darwin's Dangerous Idea"). Mi kk er ... 20:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey EChronicle.
 * I just wanted to point out that your 50 coin flips idea is flawed. Lets say that 50 coin flips in a row landing heads represents our path of evolution. If we had had 49 heads in a row, and then 1 tails, then that represents a different evolutionary path. Well, it's true, the chance that we took the evolutionary path that we did (if I did the math correctly) is 1/1125899906842624 (assuming that our path is represented by 50 coin flips.) However, that chance is the same chance of getting 5 heads, then 23 tails, then 13 heads, then 10 tails. Or any combination of heads and tails ever. We happened to take one of 1125899906842624 paths. Assuming that evolution is inevitable, we could have taken another path, and it would have been just as unlikely for us to take that path as a third path, or fourth path, but we took it none the less. So yes, I agree that you're not going to flip a coin 50 times in a row and get heads every time, but you're also not going to get 5 heads, 23 tails, 13 heads, and 10 tails in that order. Or any other combination, except the one lucky number. That one out of 1125899906842624 that we happen to have taken. Do you see?
 * Your second argument isn't flawed to my knowledge.
 * Evolution isn't a gradual change in the biology of a race until you get the final outcome, or gradual in any way. Evolution happens when there is a mutation in the structure of the DNA that allows the mutated to reproduce more than those around him, thus spreading the mutation. It's not gradual at all, it's very sudden. Or at least sudden.
 * Please note that this is a very basic idea of evolution, I know very little about it. If you see a flaw in my argument, please feel free to point it out, but please, please don't be so hostile when you debate. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 02:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

don't be so hostile when you debate --> What do you mean "hostile"? If you could explain how I was acting that way, I'd appreciate it. --EChronicle 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, GofG, I appreciate all the help you've been in guiding me through Wikipedia policy, guidelines, how-to's, etc. I apologize to anyone and everyone if I've come across as hostile - I in no way meant to act that way... Thanks to all --EChronicle 19:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

''Evolution isn't a gradual change in the biology of a race until you get the final outcome, or gradual in any way. Evolution happens when there is a mutation in the structure of the DNA that allows the mutated to reproduce more than those around him, thus spreading the mutation. It's not gradual at all, it's very sudden. Or at least sudden.'' --> Was that addressing my 3rd or 4th point, or both? --EChronicle 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * EChron, the second argument is related to what I was saying earlier about your general lack of understanding of evolution and related issues. The first cause argument is functionally irrelevant to evolution because evolution only talks about the history of life, not the history of the universe. For all evolution cares, there could be a deity, there could be 10 deities, there could be B(20) deities, where B is the Busy Beaver Function, there could be infinitely many deities, or there could be none and none of these possiblities effect evolution in the slightest. JoshuaZ 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Without debating what you said (although I don't necessarily agree with it), from my understanding, for us to have evolved, there must of been something to evolve in the first place. Where did that "something" come from?  And again, why are there no transitional fossils? Thanks, --EChronicle 19:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's get a few things straight. (before you answer my questions...) Do you agree that the following represents the evolution model?:

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism. V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

(That came off this website) --EChronicle 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, completely disagree. As I have said before, it would be useful if you took some bio courses, rather than simply read creationist websites. Where to start... None of that really has much to do with evolution except points 3,4,5 and 7. To put it briefly evolution says nothing about where life came from(that's abiogenesis) where the universe and the solar system came from (that's cosmology and astronomy). Furthermore, please note that "kind" is a term that biologist generally do not use and has no precise biological defintion, it is used almost exclusively by creationists as a translation of the hebrew word min. A rough summary of evolution would be "all life on earth currently known arose from a common ancestor and has reached its present diversity principally through mutation, recombination and natural selection." That is much closer to what you will find in a bio textbook. JoshuaZ 22:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, evolution isn't a linear... line. It's a tree. single-celled organisms, some of the offspring evolved to a different kind of single-celled organism, hence leaving 2 species. Maybe then both of those have a portion of their offspring change. So, no, life didn't evolve from single-celled lifeforms to invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, etc. While you're a cool person to help out in the bootcamp, I would advise you to research topics that you start the debate on before... well... starting a debate. For instance, I (sorry for the arrogance) obviously am better knowledged of evolution, and I am only 12. Please don't take offense, though. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the hostile thing, it was fairly obvious on the Creation-evolution controversy article that you had come to the article with the intent of starting a debate, not on the article, but on the content on the article. If that was not your intent, I apologize, but understand that since I thought so, everyone else probably did too. Hostility might have been the wrong word; passive aggressiveness might have been better. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Whew!
Hi to all that's been involved in the Creation-evolution controversy discussion on the talk page. I guess I've been a little to fast to start debates before researching them completely... and I apologize for doing that. I really appreciate all the help that's been given me on the Bootcamp etc... Wikipedia's fun and (surprising for the internet) polite, respectful, etc.

I think I'm going to head out from the Creation-evolution controversy for now (lol) and see about some other articles. Thanks to all.

Oh by the way, GofG, what made you reach the position on Evolution that you have now?

--EChronicle 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had my opinion on Evolution ever since I started reading "Origin of Species", the original book that Darwin published back whenever. Of course, at the time, I only understood large chunks of content, and very little details, but since then I have been amazed at all the debate. Mainly that the majority of the world believes that either you have religion, or you believe evolution. Darwin himself was confused by this, and he believed that evolution can coexist with creationism, even if it conflicted with a lot of the Bible. Unfortunetly, the Bible is prone to human error, and it is filled with contradictions. GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 02:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GofG, could you give me a couple examples of how "the Bible is prone to human error, and it is filled with contradictions?'" Thanks, EChronicle 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, Existence of errors or not in the Bible is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is correct, but I'm not GofG. JoshuaZ 19:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... That's basically true, but since GofG made the comment on my talk page, I just wanted to see if he could give an example or two.
 * --EChronicle 19:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hum... Well, snakes don't eat dirt. I don't care what Genesis says.
 * Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


 * Let me deal with them one at a time:
 * Classified by critics in the Bible's "bad science" department:


 * Gen. 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:


 * Critics say that this verse offers a herpetological inaccuracy, saying that snakes do not eat dirt. In my view, it is enough to point out that snakes do take particles into their mouths on their tongues to "taste" the air. That's their sense of smell, and if this isn't "eating dirt" literally, it certainly is figuratively!


 * In fact, though, the sense probably is figurative: The idea of eating dust is associated with abject humiliation elsewhere - cf. Ps. 72:9 ("They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust."), Is. 49:23 ("And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet") and especially Mic. 7:17 ("They shall lick the dust like a serpent".) I should add that the word here, "lick," was not unknown (it is used in Numbers), but the word "eat" was chosen as a poetic counterpoint to the profession of Adam and Eve that they did "eat" of the tree.


 * That was off the following website: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/snakedirt.html
 * --EChronicle 16:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What were Jesus' last words before departing from Earth? Were they...
 * Matthew 27:46,50: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
 * Or were they...
 * Luke 23:46: And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
 * What about...
 * John 19:30: When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
 * I have many others, some I found out, some I got from websites. This site has a lot of them.
 * GofG undefinedundefinedundefined Contribs 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ham
No, I am not a ham...sorry! KHM03 (γραφ) 20:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither am I - no problem!!! :) --EChronicle 18:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Horse Evolution References
Hello. I saw that you were addressing the subject of horse evolution. I ran across these two web pages which appear to show two views on the subject. For: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_horseevolution.html Against: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp

(If you are no longer actively doing any research on this subject, I apologize for the intrusion.) Dan Watts 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)