Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo: Split from thread: Can robots become self-aware?

I acknowledge the position from a scientific point of view. You did ask
me to leave my personal experiences out of it, did you not? Yes,
scientifically, it is possible. Extremely unlikely, but possible.
Personally(and this is my right), no way in hell. You may ask me to
remove personal experiences in a scientific discussion, but I cannot
remove them from my core beliefs as these things have been proven TO ME.

I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you acknowledged that.
I appreciate your position.
I always accepted your right to believe anything for reasons differnt from rational.
If you say that you don't believe in naturalistic models *despite* they could be possible
on a rational stance, I'm ok with it.
I don't feel it is my right to ask more.
Thanks.

Actually, I am with 3. Until somebody shows me a computer that programs
itself without any prior programming at all, I might move to 1.
Otherwise, NO.

Let me just remark that you pointed out no reason/definition of what is possible
and what is not.
You just said "no way in hell".
Fine to me *provided* you don't believe to have provided rational motivations.

The problem is, I am stating that there was a deviation from the
standard during the cambrian explosion. If you are using mutation rates
from today, you have quite a bit of explaining to do. There are observed
instances of unicellular organisms becoming multicellular.

Thanks for the reference. I'll read them soon. It sound quite interesting.

We know for a fact that many types of bacteria multiply and mutate
faster than us(that is why we have flu vaccines every year).

Those of flu are viruses not bacteria. Anyway...

I repeat your argument as I understood it so that you can check if I'm misrepresenting it
(in which case I'll be happy to provide another answer):
If it took less than a 2BY for bacteria to become multicellular how it happens that
even today there are bacteria becoming multicellular?

Well my anwer is simple: when bacteria becomes multicellular it doesn't mean that
ALL bacteria become multicellular.
Later on, even today, if conditions are suitable, there is no reason preventing
*other* bacteria to become AGAIN multicellular.

Fishes adapted to live underwater. Dolphins, much time after did the same AGAIN.
Humans evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are still there. There is nothing (except our competition)
preventing monkeys to evolve in an intelligent civilization AGAIN.
This is observed all the time in evolution.
So I see really nothing strange with it for an evolutionary point of view.
Let me stress that evolution is porposless; it is not evolution *towards* something,
it is evolution *from* something. There is nothing preventing the same step to happen more than once
or to happen and then being undone and then done once again. It just depends on selection which
in turn depends on the environment.

BTW: what do you think about creation. Is creation still working or it is finished with creation of humans?
If so how do YOU interpret the facts you referred to?

Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation.
He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two
stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator,
Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure
of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five
days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to
dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells.
Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in
culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a
number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus
Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

One should first check if the different behaviour has a genetic mutation cause,
but it sounds interesting...

As you can see, we have the transition right before our eyes. Why did it
take bacteria 2 billion years if we actually observed this?

Of course it didn;t take 2BY to pass from unicellular to multicellular.
It took 2BY to produce the the conditions which made multicellular life
more efficient than unicellular life.
This conditions are still there today (otherwise no doubt we would evolve
back to be unicellular). So no marvel it keeps happening.

[To be clear: I understand all these arguments sound horrbly evolutionistic to you.
Still I believe that if you want to discuss incoherence of evolutionism you have to do
it WITHIN evolution framework. I hope you understand that..]

In addition,
how did the bacteria know to stick together for protection? It is hardly
instinctive, otherwise we'd have dozens of cases? Is it perhaps because
God took mercy on them?

Of course they don't know. The evolution answer is that some tries to stick together,
others try mitetism, others try nothing.
It is selection which leaves for you to see only effective strategies.
The others die in the mercy of god.

In addition, if your statement about the monkey is correct, why did the
process suddenly start with the Cambrian Explosion, lasted a few million
years, and then pretty much stopped?

Because in the Cambrian life learned how to colonize a hube habitat.
There were no competition for resources since there were unlimited resources to be shared.

After sometimes there were too many lifeforms sharing the same resources and competition
among then started.
The same happened after all mass extintions.

If a huge part (% are in the 90s of species of animals) came within a 60
million year time period, I would call that one heck of a miracle.

Most busses in my town passes at rush hour. It is a miracle how people waiting for a bus
create new busses!

Perhaps not. However, you ARE missing the point.

Which point. If you are referring to your expectation of evolution to proceed smoothly...
well it is your mistake. No biologist today believes evolution to proceed that way.
Or better most believe that mutations are more or less smoothly accumulated but they expressed
abruptly. I hope you don't believe that it took 2BY for passing from unicellular
to multiucellular life. Of course it took a single generation since a life form is
either unicellular or multicellular.

I am not attacking its
overall speed. I am attacking the position that animals, which mutate
the slowest, appeared in the shortest period of time, while bacteria and
plants, which multiply(well bacteria anyway) faster than animals took
their sweet time.

If you don't quantify mutations needed for a change your argument is nonsensical.

If I build houses I might go on 10000 years to build 1 floor houses.
When I need to save space it might took 100Y to learn how to build two floor
building. When maybe I can invent 10 floor buildings in 10 years if 10 floors
buildings just need bigger pillars while one floor houses need no pillar at all.

It doesn't sound strange to me.

Let's assume a group of animals multiply once a month.
That means every month, the entire species has a chance at different
mutations.

NO. if mutation rate is the same your example just means that more mutations are accumulated
in a single generation.
BTW this means that sometimes being slower is more efficient in evolution.
In fact, imagine you have a lifeform A which needs 2 mutations to become B
but cannot survive with either one of the two mutations....
A bacteriunm cannot evolve through that barrier, a mamman could.

So why does a species
that seems to be made to mutate take so long, while complex organisms,
who by all common sense should take longer took so little during the
explosion, yet today they are observed "evolving" at their usual snail
pace?

You can survive almost regardless how many mutations accumulate in your spermatic stem cells.
(Provided it does not lead to cancer of course)

Before sunlight? No, before the sun was visible. Light could still get
through the thick veil of gasses, it's just that the sun was not
visible(I believe this site explains it in a great more detail, so I
won't). I mean, cloudy days don't make day into night. As for fruit
trees, the wind does carry pollen you know... In addition, unless the
bible gives specific examples of trees, you can't really use that as an
example to "prove" me wrong. And by the way, I am not fighting evolution
itself. Just the naturalist part.

1) I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You can believe what you please.
I'm just challenging your scientific argument.
2) How long is a day in your interpretation of Genesis.
3) Have you ever tried to grow a fruit tree under fog all days for 10 years?
Or under thick cloud strata? And for many generations (unless you are a YEC)
without any insect around?
4) Cloudy days are enough to stop fruit tree to grow. Provided that it is continuosly cloudy.
5) Very few fruit trees use wind to reproduce. They invented flowers and fruits just
because they need insects as simbiont!!

So the only thing that we really
disagree on is whether mutations are random or divinely inspired.

Well, there are data proving mutations on human scale to be random.
So what we are discussing is if we need god to give a push once in a while
to allow evolution.

We can analyzed the mutations between chimps and humans. "random" has a specific
meaning (see Shannon information theory) and we can see that mutations are in fact random
in that sense. Since I believe you keep thinking there is god behind it, Am I far from truth if I say
that in your view god produces some mutations which lead to evolution, but (s)he produces them so that
they appear random in the Shannon sense?
Is this that you are saying?

Depends what you consider intelligence? Systematic gathering and using
information? Yes. True self awareness? No.

I use the same words you used to mean that I buy your definition of intelligence.
I already recorder you opinion that self awarness cannot happen spontaneously.
I record now that in your view it cannot happen atrificially and that it is impossible
to do also for your god. Correct?
I also record that you provided no reason to back up your position.


You see I observe every day that I can climb a stair.
Despite I never saw a person climbing a 10Km stair, I believe that one is able
to climb a step in principle, unless a serious motivation is brought up, one is able to climb
a 10Km stair.
You are acknowledging mutations, probably microevolution, but you are claiming that no naturalistic
explanation can be given to macroevolution without providing any motivation.
You are free to do it. I'm free to think you have no reason to back up your view.

Then you will forgive me if I use Flew's statement "The burden of proof
lies on you". It is up to you to prove to me that an unobserved
phenomenon is possible. You assume that the mind works a certain way,
all based on physical properties(which is just assumption, since we're
not even close to figuring out how the brain works), that we could
reproduce that. This assumption implies that it has somehow been
disproven that we are anything other than organic meatbags. I do not
like making assumptions in science. The only way to settle this is for
you to make a neural network in the image of Man's brain and have the
robot display reasonable signs of sentience. Until then, you are the
theist in the matter.

Have you ever seen someone climbing a 10km stair? Do you think it is possible for me to do it?

One question I would like to raise to you. According to the probability
theory of yours, if given enough time, anything remotely possible WILL
HAPPEN if given enough time.

Yes by definition of probability (I'm a frequentist most of the time
if you are familiar with the philosophical debate about probability)

Since something must have been around
forever, let us assume it is the standard atheist multiverse.

I don't know what you say. be specific on what you mean by "standard atheist multiverse".

Just I warn you that intelligenge need a structural support in my view.
We couldn;t be intelligence without something encoding our synaptic connections.
Nor we could have what you call soul. Again in my view.

Just wanted to answer this, even if it wasn't for me. Nobody made God.
He has always been here. He is the innitial cause. Even if you don't
believe in God, you have to admit SOMETHING must have always existed. We
believe it was Govvart

I suppose that you believe that in physics nothing happens without a cause.
Unce your god acts physically it is a physical agent.
Saying "Nobody made God" is just a sentence as "I draw a square circle"
or "I pull myself up by the strings of my shoes".
A good sentence but I see no reason for me to accept it. My bad...
I'm a slow learner....

August wrote: Paleontologists, archaelogists and evolutionists are known to lie on
occassion, there's numerous accounts of this. So what they say doesn't
mean much to me.

I imagined it.

I have nothing against learning chemistry, biology, what not, but don't
attack the phrase "God did it" as every christian believes that yes in
fact God did do it, we are just trying to figure out what or how he did
it.

Attacking? On the contrary. I always accepted that you can say that
your god made the world last week with all paleonthological data buried for us to be found.
That is what i called goddiditso model. It is not an attack. I accept I cannot
say anything against this position.
But I can argue against who says that geology is wrong and bible is true and you can
prove this scientifically.
As I said you are free to think what you please.

Also in your mind you don't understand Genesis very well or rather you
don't make an effort to understand it.

Quite right (and never claimed to be expert on the bible).
However, let me say that I collected dozens of different interpretations of genesis
among xtians. So it seems to me that even xtians don't understand Genesis very well
in a sense.

You have preconcieved notion that
Genesis is wrong and obviously you have revealed your lack of
understanding on that matter.

Preconceived? For example?
Is a preconceived idea to see that Genesis does not mention mass extintions before
human creations?
Anyway I'm not here to discuss the bible. I leave it for your discussions.
I don't feel I can add anything interesting to your arguments.
And I believe that K would consider it a good reason to ban me.

I wouldn't jab at someone for maybe
overlooking something about evolution when you overlook much about
Genesis.

I beg your pardon if it seemed I jabbed anyone. I just noticed what I believe to be a mistake.
I might be wrong and wait for counter arguments. If no counterarguments I assume to have been right
and I hope the mistake has been corrected.
Not for me. Just because I think for you it would be better to use good scientific arguments
instead of mistakes. That is all, man.
Please forgive me. English is not my first language and sometime my words may seem more rude than
want I meant. I'm honestly sorry for that.

Hmm... Don't ask me why, I can't but thinking of the addage, "Give an
inch, and they take a mile."

I imagined you would not have agreed.

Thing is, anything that leads to a Theistic conclusion appears to be
flawed to you.

If you feel or remember some occurence of my beliefs to be unjustified
I'm ready to scrutinize them again.
(By the way I have news about the shroud which might surprize you, just need some times to
write them down)

I understand you don't often share my arguments, but I think we can agree
that it is quite unlikely for me to refute something without a motivation it seems
solid to me...

Now discussions are fine by me, but arguments in favour
of ones perspective vs. Christianity should be taken to a place such as
Secular Web, as the guidelines do not support this.

I don't think I never argued about christianity. If you have a different idea
let me know where and we could agree on it.
Basically all my arguments (except abortions and legal thread on the old board
which I acknowledge were a mistake by me) are about science.
It is not my fault *if* you feel that arguments important for your faith
and consider mine an attack to christianity.
I know a number of people who are truly religious and who share most of my beliefs without
any problem.

These guidelines are
not to prevent so much what one says, but the type of people that should
be posting, which should be those who are Christian or haven't made up
their minds.

All I can do is keeping my post confined to scientific topics of interest
for other people on board.

In all honesty, I do not think you should be here since you
have been quite clear in the past that you do not accept, nor are
willing to accept, Christianity.

I didn't participate while science was not mentioned on the topics
(despite funny enough it was mentioned in the title.)
Now science was back, and I think I have the right to post.
I know you disagreed.
If you don't want me ban me.

However the moment such a person begins to raise tensions
amongst Christians, and incite arguments where their position is stacked
against Christianity, is the moment they cross the discussion guidelines
in my opinion, and as a moderator I am required to uphold the discussion
guidelines.

I don't understand what you are saying.
I always started a thread saying that I accept anyone can believe what he pleases.
However, I think I have the right to disagree if someone tell me that geology
proves that the Earth is flat.
If knowing that the Earth is round shakes his faith, I don't think
is a problem of mine. I'm already enough kind to acnowledge his right to believe the Earth is flat
provided that he does not assume that I should share that opinion.
[Here I'm not making any comparison between your arguments and the Earth flatness.]

In other words, for the dozzillionth time, I'm not here to propagandating atheistic
ideas. Whenever I mention atheism I did it because I feel was right for my opponent
to know where I was coming from.
I'm here to discuss the scientific part of your arguments.
If I were xtian I would be here and doing the same things.

These guidelines have come to be currently seen as the best
way of fulfilling the desired purpose of GodandScience.org on the
boards, seeing as it was thought the last board became overrun and
failed to meet such a purpose.

Let me know if I break your guidelines. If you want I'll avoid mentioning
atheism, xstians and keep strictly to science.

I think that I'll follow Flew's philosophy and continue following the
Scientific evidence to where it leads, and thus accept an origins model,
which I think best fulfills what we presently know through Science.

I like science because let you free to go your own way....
If you believe that geology is an evidence for a designer, feel free.
Just when you'll have any scientific result I'll be happy to accept it
if it is backed up sufficiently.

I beg your pardon. I didn't understand you acknowledged that.
I appreciate your position.
I always accepted your right to believe anything for reasons differnt from rational.
If you say that you don't believe in naturalistic models *despite* they could be possible
on a rational stance, I'm ok with it.
I don't feel it is my right to ask more.
Thanks.

Err, who says it's not rational? Just because I can't prove it to you doesn't make it irrational. If you saw a gargoyle fly by you and you told people, would they believe you? Probably not, but that doesn't change that you DID SEE the gargoyle. That's the situation I'm in(the gargoyle was an example btw, I didn't actually see a gargoyle). Actuall, I realise you're hellbent against the supernatural, so let me give you a better example. Say you see a man shoot a woman. You know who the man is, but you have no proof he shot her, other than your own memory. You are laughed out of court because it's your word against his. Do you understand now? It would be irrational for you to disbelieve what you saw just because the judge said so, and that is the position I am in. I wouldn't change my own experiences to suit the judge's opinion, and I assume neither would you.

Let me just remark that you pointed out no reason/definition of what is possible
and what is not.
You just said "no way in hell".
Fine to me *provided* you don't believe to have provided rational motivations.

My reasons for disbelieving this are no different from your reasons for disbelieving God. When you understand why you disbelieve God, you'll understand why I disbelieve this.

Those of flu are viruses not bacteria. Anyway...

I repeat your argument as I understood it so that you can check if I'm misrepresenting it
(in which case I'll be happy to provide another answer):
If it took less than a 2BY for bacteria to become multicellular how it happens that
even today there are bacteria becoming multicellular?
Well my anwer is simple: when bacteria becomes multicellular it doesn't mean that
ALL bacteria become multicellular.
Later on, even today, if conditions are suitable, there is no reason preventing
*other* bacteria to become AGAIN multicellular.

The problem is, however, that multicellular organisms evolve slower, and the more complex they get, the slower they multiply and evolve. I never said it prevents anything. In fact, i said the exact opposite. If we saw it once in 200 years, why didn't it happen faster? If we had 2 billion years, life should have evolved much faster at the beginning. It should not have taken 2 billion years.

Fishes adapted to live underwater. Dolphins, much time after did the same AGAIN.
Humans evolved from monkeys, but monkeys are still there. There is nothing (except our competition)
preventing monkeys to evolve in an intelligent civilization AGAIN.
This is observed all the time in evolution.
So I see really nothing strange with it for an evolutionary point of view.
Let me stress that evolution is porposless; it is not evolution *towards* something,
it is evolution *from* something. There is nothing preventing the same step to happen more than once
or to happen and then being undone and then done once again. It just depends on selection which
in turn depends on the environment.

I agree. But this really doesn't have anything to do with my argument, as that is not what I stated.

BTW: what do you think about creation. Is creation still working or it is finished with creation of humans?
If so how do YOU interpret the facts you referred to?

I believe Creation will never completely stop. I don't believe something other than humans will evolve to take our place, but I do believe other, relatively useless creatures will appear. And at any rate, given that God exists, He obviously implemented a mechanism to make sure new things are created (mutations).

One should first check if the different behaviour has a genetic mutation cause,
but it sounds interesting...

the trigger was the introduction of a predator. seeing how talkorigins loves abiogenesis and naturalism, they would have quickly stated that to back up their point.

Of course it didn;t take 2BY to pass from unicellular to multicellular.
It took 2BY to produce the the conditions which made multicellular life
more efficient than unicellular life.
This conditions are still there today (otherwise no doubt we would evolve
back to be unicellular). So no marvel it keeps happening.

The conditions presented above was the introduction of a predator unicelular organism. I'm sure these demanding conditions existed a relatively short time after the appearance of a first bacteria.

[To be clear: I understand all these arguments sound horrbly evolutionistic to you.
Still I believe that if you want to discuss incoherence of evolutionism you have to do
it WITHIN evolution framework. I hope you understand that..]

Of course. Just keep this in mind: I'm not attacking evolution. I'm attacking its naturalistic part("mutations are random" is the shortest form of what i disagree with)

Of course they don't know. The evolution answer is that some tries to stick together,
others try mitetism, others try nothing.
It is selection which leaves for you to see only effective strategies.
The others die in the mercy of god.

I disagree. First, they have no genetic reason to stick together. Second, this isn't a particuarly abundant example. It was truly a biological miracle.

Because in the Cambrian life learned how to colonize a hube habitat.
There were no competition for resources since there were unlimited resources to be shared.

After sometimes there were too many lifeforms sharing the same resources and competition
among then started.
The same happened after all mass extintions.

Except this has nothing to do with the number of species, but rather with the number of individuals and their own needs. say you have two different herbivores. You have 30 of each, and each eats about the same. Now, if we had 60 of just one species, would they need any more than 2 species with 30 individuals each? no. Evolution is supposedly unstoppable. It happens with all of them. Since it happens in small steps, habitat needs do not change "overnight".

Most busses in my town passes at rush hour. It is a miracle how people waiting for a bus
create new busses!

I'm not quite sure I get that.

Which point. If you are referring to your expectation of evolution to proceed smoothly...
well it is your mistake. No biologist today believes evolution to proceed that way.
Or better most believe that mutations are more or less smoothly accumulated but they expressed
abruptly. I hope you don't believe that it took 2BY for passing from unicellular
to multiucellular life. Of course it took a single generation since a life form is either unicellular or multicellular.

Err, so you're saying multicellular lifeforms were around from the beginning? Because that's not what most evolution timelines state...

If you don't quantify mutations needed for a change your argument is nonsensical.

If I build houses I might go on 10000 years to build 1 floor houses.
When I need to save space it might took 100Y to learn how to build two floor
building. When maybe I can invent 10 floor buildings in 10 years if 10 floors
buildings just need bigger pillars while one floor houses need no pillar at all.

It doesn't sound strange to me.

It has nothing to do with quantity, but with quality. To use your example, it's like taking 10000 years to build 10 1 floor houses and take 100 years to build 10 Kremlins. This is what sound strange to me.

NO. if mutation rate is the same your example just means that more mutations are accumulated
in a single generation.
BTW this means that sometimes being slower is more efficient in evolution.
In fact, imagine you have a lifeform A which needs 2 mutations to become B
but cannot survive with either one of the two mutations....
A bacteriunm cannot evolve through that barrier, a mamman could.

Except there are a lot more than 2 possible mutations. And if more mutations accumulate in a single generation, then does it not evolve faster? to evolve you need to get as many beneficial mutations as necessary. If mutation rates are faster, then the process goes faster.

You can survive almost regardless how many mutations accumulate in your spermatic stem cells.
(Provided it does not lead to cancer of course)

That's where survival of the fittest comes in and you die for being weaker. This doesnt apply to humans anymore, but we are relatively new to the process.

1) I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You can believe what you please.
I'm just challenging your scientific argument.
2) How long is a day in your interpretation of Genesis.
3) Have you ever tried to grow a fruit tree under fog all days for 10 years?
Or under thick cloud strata? And for many generations (unless you are a YEC)
without any insect around?
4) Cloudy days are enough to stop fruit tree to grow. Provided that it is continuosly cloudy.
5) Very few fruit trees use wind to reproduce. They invented flowers and fruits just
because they need insects as simbiont!!

1) Which is why we're having this conversation.
2) Honestly, I don't know. Each day is different. It varies anywhere from 10 billion years(first day) to 50-100 thousand years. I certainly don't accept the young earth literal 7 day creation.
3)my grandmother had a peach tree growing in the shadow of her house, covered by bigger trees and it grew just fine. There are trees being artificially grown. I fail to see why it needs direct sunlight to grow properly.
4)Experience tells me otherwise.
5) very few =/= none. And wait a second, invented flowers so that insects could do it? how would the plant know there are insects to begin with? it would make more sense to say insects developed because they had nectar as a source of food. To go with your statement would mean that you admint Intelligent Design is true.

Well, there are data proving mutations on human scale to be random.
So what we are discussing is if we need god to give a push once in a while
to allow evolution.

We can analyzed the mutations between chimps and humans. "random" has a specific
meaning (see Shannon information theory) and we can see that mutations are in fact random
in that sense. Since I believe you keep thinking there is god behind it, Am I far from truth if I say
that in your view god produces some mutations which lead to evolution, but (s)he produces them so that
they appear random in the Shannon sense?
Is this that you are saying?

Let's settle my beliefs on this matter. Yes, I believe God gives mutations a push once in a while. While perhaps some of them are random, there is no proof. Scientists collect data, and if they don't see a pattern, they assume it's random. Does that mean it's random? No. In fact, it is quite likely that we will never figure out if it's random or not(short of God descending from the heavens and telling us, again). So, let me outline my beliefs:

1: God triggers most mutations that result in relevant species, like a horse.
2: There is a(big in my opinion) possibilty that most mutations that do not make new species are either random or part of a preset mechanism, but not results of God's direct intervention. This is not proven, nor will it be for quite a bit.
3: I do not believe we all evolved from one bacteria. I believe different bacteria evolved into different types of animals. For example, most fish would have a common bacteria ancestor, most insects would have a common bacteria ancestor, most mammals would, etc. Of course, i will need to do more research before I finally settle on the breakpoints between species, so this is not set in stone.

I use the same words you used to mean that I buy your definition of intelligence.
I already recorder you opinion that self awarness cannot happen spontaneously.
I record now that in your view it cannot happen atrificially and that it is impossible
to do also for your god. Correct?
I also record that you provided no reason to back up your position.

I don't think it is impossible for God, but unless we figure out how to make a mind(which i believe to be independent of the body), i don't believe we can do it. I cannot provide you with a reason acceptable to you, as this would turn into a philosophical discussion. I should note that you fail to provide a reason that it IS possible as well. Stating your opinion that we are purely physical is just that: opinion. We do not know how the brain works, so you can't just make a statement like "we can do it artificially" when we don't even know what we're making!

You see I observe every day that I can climb a stair.
Despite I never saw a person climbing a 10Km stair, I believe that one is able
to climb a step in principle, unless a serious motivation is brought up, one is able to climb
a 10Km stair.
You are acknowledging mutations, probably microevolution, but you are claiming that no naturalistic
explanation can be given to macroevolution without providing any motivation.
You are free to do it. I'm free to think you have no reason to back up your view.

I never said there is no naturalistic explanation. I said the theist explanation makes more sense. In addition, i'd love to see somebody climb a 10 km stair(assuming he/she doesn't stop) who doesn't drop dead from exhaustion.

Have you ever seen someone climbing a 10km stair? Do you think it is possible for me to do it?

No, and if you plan on doing it continuously, no again. Dying of a heart attack would deprive me of an opponent in a good debate.

I don't know what you say. be specific on what you mean by "standard atheist multiverse".

Just I warn you that intelligenge need a structural support in my view.
We couldn;t be intelligence without something encoding our synaptic connections.
Nor we could have what you call soul. Again in my view.

Atheist multiverse="megaverse" that spits out an infinity of universes with different laws and parameters

I suppose that you believe that in physics nothing happens without a cause.
Unce your god acts physically it is a physical agent.
Saying "Nobody made God" is just a sentence as "I draw a square circle"
or "I pull myself up by the strings of my shoes".
A good sentence but I see no reason for me to accept it. My bad...
I'm a slow learner....

You don't understand. I said(which you conveniently ignored) that SOMETHING must have always existed. If this isn't true, then it means to accept that something came out of nothing, which would be even more absurd.

Err, who says it's not rational? Just because I can't prove it to you
doesn't make it irrational. If you saw a gargoyle fly by you and you
told people, would they believe you? Probably not, but that doesn't
change that you DID SEE the gargoyle. That's the situation I'm in(the
gargoyle was an example btw, I didn't actually see a gargoyle). Actuall,
I realise you're hellbent against the supernatural, so let me give you a
better example. Say you see a man shoot a woman. You know who the man
is, but you have no proof he shot her, other than your own memory. You
are laughed out of court because it's your word against his. Do you
understand now? It would be irrational for you to disbelieve what you
saw just because the judge said so, and that is the position I am in. I
wouldn't change my own experiences to suit the judge's opinion, and I
assume neither would you.

1) It is not just the fact that you didn't *prove* it. Mainly it is that
you did not bring up any argument which can be vaugely called a rational
argument. You just said "I know it is impossible", just as I could say
"I know the Earth is flat". Would you call my position "rational"?
2) I'm not saying you are irrational. I'm saying that your argument is irrational.
I hope you see the difference. I don't know you. As far as I know you can be Mr. Spock.
3) If I go in front of the judge and I say "I saw him killing her"...
well I wouldn't call it rational. It is witness not a rational argument.
Did you saw the movie "Contact"? Jodie Foster's final witness is not
a rational argument (despite she is saying the truth). A rational argument
would have been to mention the blank tape of the recorder.
Without that it is just witness.
4) Accordingly, saying your argument is not rational, I'm not saying you are wrong.
I'm just saying that you cannot convince anyone (who is not already convinced)
by that argument.
5) I may be pedant, though I wish to keep "rational" and "truth" separate
if possible.

My reasons for disbelieving this are no different from your reasons for
disbelieving God. When you understand why you disbelieve God, you'll
understand why I disbelieve this.

In my opinion you would be right if my position were "I believe in a god but not your god."
But this is another story I don't want to enter now.
In any event we are not discussing whether or why I disbelieve god
(something for which I might have no rational argument that could sound convincent to you).

The problem is, however, that multicellular organisms evolve slower, and
the more complex they get, the slower they multiply and evolve. I never
said it prevents anything. In fact, i said the exact opposite. If we saw
it once in 200 years, why didn't it happen faster? If we had 2 billion
years, life should have evolved much faster at the beginning. It should
not have taken 2 billion years.

I already reply to this (and I'll check below if you reacted to it).
For now I repeat:
1) I don't see any reason to accept that bacteria evolved slower than mammals.
Evolution "speed" is meaningfully defined in terms of mutations and not in terms
of phenotypes (you know what phenotypes means, don't you?).
2) Evolution speed is sensitive to environmental conditions since it is determined by
selection pressure.
3) you provided not data on what speed to expect for bacteria or for mammal, we ignore
enviromental conditions and selective pressure. Without those data I'm sure you can forgive
me if I say that your argument is qualitative and not firmly founded.

I agree. But this really doesn't have anything to do with my argument,
as that is not what I stated.

Possibly I misinterpreted your argument. I believe I corrected it above.

I believe Creation will never completely stop. I don't believe something
other than humans will evolve to take our place, but I do believe other,
relatively useless creatures will appear. And at any rate, given that
God exists, He obviously implemented a mechanism to make sure new things
are created (mutations).

Thanks. Is the order in Genesis just metaphorical
or to be considered literally.

the trigger was the introduction of a predator. seeing how talkorigins
loves abiogenesis and naturalism, they would have quickly stated that to
back up their point.

Nothing to do with the number of mutations then.
There is nothing strange from evolution viewpoint in the fact that selective pressure
change the "speed" of evolution. Not as far I can see, at least.

The conditions presented above was the introduction of a predator
unicelular organism. I'm sure these demanding conditions existed a
relatively short time after the appearance of a first bacteria.

Still the ancient bacteria ar not modern bacteria. I'm sure
some modern bacteria would not respond in the same way.
Listen MM: either you provide evidence that bacteria are slower
in producing the same mutation than mammals (which might be slightly true
because different organisms often has different mutation rate, but not much
different in my opinion) or your argument is just ... qualitative and inconclusive.
You made a number of unsupported claims on the basis of qualitative observations.
I hope you can make them more precise or drop them.

Your argument is based on the confusion among mutation rate, phenotype change,
mutation frequency, ignoring selection pressure, ignoring environment, and assuming
that antient bacteria responded to environmental conditions as the modern one.
You know what? Dolphins adaped to sealife much faster than the time required by fishes
to appear. I hope you see this does not prove much.



[quite]
Of course. Just keep this in mind: I'm not attacking evolution. I'm
attacking its naturalistic part("mutations are random" is the shortest
form of what i disagree with)
[/quote]
When I say "evolution" I mean to include its naturalistic part.
Evolution without naturalistic part is theistic-evolution or something like that.
Just to be clear on terms we use.

I disagree. First, they have no genetic reason to stick together.
Second, this isn't a particuarly abundant example. It was truly a
biological miracle.

Oh come on. You don't know anything about the genome of those bacteria.
If it were a miracle I guess it was the first case of miracle that can be
reproduced in controlled conditions and reiterated over and over.

It is clear that those bacteria has the capability of turning to small colonies.
Just usually that behaviour is not encouraged by selection, while it is
enhanced by THAT predator.
In other words your are improperly mixing mutation frequency with mutation rates.

We already discussed the situation on the old board.
The situation is not different from the one in:
http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/451-457s.pdf

If you want/need we can discuss the situation in details with no reference to
religious issue. I believe the situation is quite clear and it basically solves
your case. If you want to search more on the issue I suggest
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=ada ... ns&spell=1

Except this has nothing to do with the number of species, but rather
with the number of individuals and their own needs.

Not at all. With more resources species are free to experiment more
potential variants which are selected into different species when
resources are no longer abundant and competitions is enforced.
Just what happens with the introduction of your predator.

say you have two
different herbivores. You have 30 of each, and each eats about the same.
Now, if we had 60 of just one species, would they need any more than 2
species with 30 individuals each? no. Evolution is supposedly
unstoppable. It happens with all of them. Since it happens in small
steps, habitat needs do not change "overnight".

In that case after many generations passes you have (to simplify)
herbivores with long neck and herbivores with short neck since when resources
are abundant the legth of the neck is irrelevant for survivor.
When suddenly there is no herb all short neck herbivores dies out and
a new species appears suddenly. In that conditions longer and longer necks are
preferibles and there is mixing with short necks anymore.

You cannot forget that evolution is not done by mutation (which is random)
but by selection (which is all but random).

Most busses in my town passes at rush hour. It is a miracle how people
waiting for a bus create new busses!

I'm not quite sure I get that.

Let me drop it. It was just a sarcastic comment.

Err, so you're saying multicellular lifeforms were around from the
beginning? Because that's not what most evolution timelines state...

No I meant it took 1 generation and that it happened about 2BY ago.
Still the unicellular lifeforms which were around before that accumulated
mutations which enabled them to turn to multicellular.
Possibly there were hybrod lifeforms able of both unicellular and multicellular
life (as the bacteria of your example).
Once again it depends if you look at genomes of phenotypes...
The first is smoother than the second, of course.

It has nothing to do with quantity, but with quality. To use your
example, it's like taking 10000 years to build 10 1 floor houses and
take 100 years to build 10 Kremlins. This is what sound strange to me.

I guess it is your problem. Maybe I learned a lot of techniques during 10KY
building 1 foor houses (how to build pillars, how to produce bricks efficiently,
how to build a solid roof on which one can walk,...).
I learned so much that once it becomes covenient to build the Kremlim I already know all I need.
Nothing strange to me.

Except there are a lot more than 2 possible mutations. And if more
mutations accumulate in a single generation, then does it not evolve
faster? to evolve you need to get as many beneficial mutations as
necessary. If mutation rates are faster, then the process goes faster.

???

That's where survival of the fittest comes in and you die for being
weaker. This doesnt apply to humans anymore, but we are relatively new
to the process.

I partially agree.

1) Which is why we're having this conversation.

So do I. After all we share something!

2) Honestly, I don't know. Each day is different. It varies anywhere from 10 billion
years(first day) to 50-100 thousand years. I certainly don't accept the
young earth literal 7 day creation.

Thanks. It is good to know.

3) my grandmother had a peach tree
growing in the shadow of her house, covered by bigger trees and it grew
just fine. There are trees being artificially grown. I fail to see why
it needs direct sunlight to grow properly.

I'm not talking of the shadow of a house. I'm talking of a deep cloud covering the whole world.
The sort of what happens for huge eruptions, just more intense and lasting for 10MY.
Must I look for references about tre survivouring? SOmething similar
(though shorter) could have happened 70MY ago.

4)Experience tells me otherwise.

Did you experienced a 10MY period of global cloud?

5) very few =/= none.

Specific examples please?

And wait a second, invented flowers so
that insects could do it? how would the plant know there are insects to
begin with? it would make more sense to say insects developed because
they had nectar as a source of food. To go with your statement would
mean that you admint Intelligent Design is true.

The answer is very simple. They don't know, they tried and they were lucky.
The process lasted much time during which both insects and trees developped together
to what we see today.
It was the same for all simbiotic circles, I guess.


Valleys and rivers do the same without a designer. Rivers produce the valleys,
valleyes produce the river. Umpossible!

Let's settle my beliefs on this matter. Yes, I believe God gives
mutations a push once in a while. While perhaps some of them are random,
there is no proof.

There are many cases im which they tested mutation spectra against the random hypothesis.
So I would say that maybe sometimes god acts in them, but most of the times they are random.
(see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ndom.shtml
and search in
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=mut ... erca&meta=
)

Scientists collect data, and if they don't see a
pattern, they assume it's random. Does that mean it's random? No.

You are joking aren't you?

In
fact, it is quite likely that we will never figure out if it's random or
not(short of God descending from the heavens and telling us, again). So,
let me outline my beliefs:

Random means basically uniformly distributed and has a precise statistical meaning.
Let me stress that "random" has nothing to do with "without a cause".
So I renew my questions. Are the mutations induced by god random (in this precise statistical
meaning)?

3: I do not believe we all
evolved from one bacteria. I believe different bacteria evolved into
different types of animals.

In the common interpretation all bacteria evolved from a common ancestor.
If so, your point is in some sense irrelevant.
[let me also mention that the only reason to mantain such position is to solve chirality
problem. Although we know little about it and I feel we are getting uncertain about it.]

That is addressable in prionciple by looking for viral insertions.
But I don't know what is firmly established about it.

I don't think it is impossible for God, but unless we figure out how to
make a mind(which i believe to be independent of the body), i don't
believe we can do it.

1) if god can create it, then a self-aware robot can exist. which close the thread.
2) I'm the one who extrapolate facts without prove? Can you mention a mind without
a body?

I should note that you fail to provide a reason that it IS possible as well.

I think the stair example below *is* a reason.
I agree not a strong motivation. In fact I hold that opinion much weakly that other opinions.

Stating your opinion that we are purely physical is just that: opinion.

I agree. In fact it was explicitely stated as an opinion.

I never said there is no naturalistic explanation. I said the theist
explanation makes more sense. In addition, i'd love to see somebody
climb a 10 km stair(assuming he/she doesn't stop) who doesn't drop dead
from exhaustion.

If you give me the stair I'm ready to try.
If as you say one must drop dead before completing the task,
I'm sure you can prove it by estimating time and so on.
I can easily climb 100meters in a day.
I'd done it in 100days (less than 4months). I never stated that I cannot collect food/water
at predermined stations along the way.

Do you seriously believe it is impossible?

No, and if you plan on doing it continuously, no again. Dying of a heart
attack would deprive me of an opponent in a good debate.

Thanks for the "good debate".
Ready to try (btw who mentioned continuosly? What is the analogous of continuosly in evolution?
In evolution I can ask my descendents to fulfill my duty!)

Atheist multiverse="megaverse" that spits out an infinity of universes
with different laws and parameters

That is something based on a quantum model called baby universes.
I see nothing atheistic with it (I hears that it recalls indu pt zen cosmology).
Then what? Everything has to happen? Well it depends on the probability density one uses
to spread over the possible constant. And it depends on what you mean by "everything" must happen.
But I see what you mean and I find nothing strange in this sooner or later if will happen somewhere.
[I have other objection to the model but that is another story.
I'm not a big fan of that kind of models...]

You don't understand. I said(which you conveniently ignored) that
SOMETHING must have always existed.

Hey guy, it is not my habit to ignore things when it is convenient. That isd why
my posts are so long, because I try to answer any piece in it.
Of course I may miss something, but I don't ignore anything on porpuse.
I suggest you don't walk that way if you want to keep this good discussion going.

I understood that your opinion is that something has always existed.
The claim seem too vauge to be certain to me.
For example I notice your attitude in pushing god in and out of physics depending on convenience.
I could for example argument that "SOMETHING physical must have always existed".
Which rules out your god.

If this isn't true, then it means to
accept that something came out of nothing, which would be even more
absurd.

Coming out of nothing as god?
Or, if your god can always have been exist, why in principle the universe cannot have been
always there?

I'm an Old Earth Creationist and if you want to find out about a very good genesis interpretation look in this website.

Geological data is interpreted to fit the evolution model, so geology doesn't go against the Bible at all rather we believe it fits with the Bible.

Science doesn't contradict the Bible we just don't believe in Darwinian evolution. In fact ID has a lot more evidence than evolution and people like FLEW realized this.

Big Bang tells us that our universe did in fact have a beginning and Mastermind has already addressed the multi-verse theory.

In fact ID has a lot more evidence than evolution and people like FLEW realized this.

Quite peculiar how everytime you present such evidences, it comes out that your arguments are, to be kind, vague, naive and inconclusive.
I believe that any issue can be presented precisely, shortly and accurately. If not it means that there is something to be better understood.
Not to mention the infinite list of counter arguments I presented most of which have not been addressed.

BTW I repeat once more that my bias has nothing to do with it. If Yoga meditation were proved to be effective in quantum field theory I'd be ready to convert to buddhism. You tend to see me as an atheist, but honestly I'm not so fond in that. I never even go deep on the details of it.
My first bias is that I want to understand how the world goes. I don't mind where the explanation comes from provided that it is a rational explanation.

Big Bang tells us that our universe did in fact have a beginning and Mastermind has already addressed the multi-verse theory.

We already discussed it on the old board and it was the reason of the new board (IMO).

BigBang model claims the universe has a begin. All physicists (as extensively proved by means of quotations and counter quotations) believe that GR and BigBang models are inaccurate in the conditions which appear near the initial singularity. Quantum correction are expected there and they are believed to REMOVE the initial singularity.

Both models which currently has something to say about these quantum corrections (string theories and loop quantum gravity) when applied to describe that situation predict that no initial singularity forms.

So I disagree with your claim that the universe has a beginning.
All physicists (Greene, Bojowald, Hawking, Smolin) share my opinion.
Of course, I imagine that won;t shake your beliefs about it.

As far as Mastermind having addressed something about multiuniverses my impression is that he doesn't go beyond what he saw on Discovery channel (to be optimistic) or surfing on creationst sites (which is turn contains material which I proved to be wildly inaccurate - see the old board-). Of course I may be wrong in which case I'm ready to apology for my unsupported opinions.

BTW just so that you know I earn my living by researching and teaching in maths and physics. Not that this makes me superior or my opinions facts, but .... at least I'm supposed to know what I say.

I see nothing strange with bacteria having a greater mutation rate than mammals.

What I find wrong in your words is that I felt you wanted to suggest that
for that bacteria should have evolved to multicellular life faster than they did, or faster than time needed for mammals to evolve.
Isn't this that you meant when you said "lifeforms mutating faster are the one evolving slower"?
I accept bacteria mutation rate is slightly bigger that mammals one.
What I fail to see is this to be a paradox.

If I'm missing something here I'm sure you can summarize your argument clearly and shortly, for me. Thanks.

For Hawking see:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... php?t=3281

and in particular

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... 7194#17194

and my two replies to that.
You can find references there.

See also
http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... 7084#17084
for Greene and string theory

Ipazia,

I'm a bit curious here. The Hartle-Hawking model relies on inserting imaginary numbers into the equations, which effectively turns time into a dimension of space. This is purely a computational exercise though, which seems to be designed to arrive at a prescribed outcome, which is also imaginary. I believe that these imaginary numbers are multiples of the square root of -1. As soon as the numbers are replaced with the real numbers that we know from the physical reality, we once again arrive at a singularity.

The insertion of imaginary time holds no relation to reality, or does it?

This is a joke right?
Hawking's very much believes in the singularity and he's practically a deist he just won't admit it.
Have you seen his movie's about Big Bang?
Also I believe one of Hawking's friends who I think worked on the Big Bang with him or nevertheless is a physicist is also a christian. So claiming respectable and well known physicist's don't accept the singularity is a huge mistake on your part.

By the way I chose not to present evidence for ID, but that still doesn't mean ID isn't vastly superior then evolution, I ask you why did Flew then change his mind after long years of believing in Evolution.

You seem to really take everything some "scientist" says with open arms, as long as it fits with your beliefs.
I find it a little strange that your skeptical about Creationists but welcome whoever this Greene fellow is because his beliefs are in the same ballpark as yours.

Just proves how some scientists merely look for what they desire, but not what is there.

[/b]

Vvart, the way I read it Hawking is not a deist. I have read or seen nothing from him that would indicate that he is anything but atheist. This is just my personal opinion from having read quite a bit of his work. If you have any references to the contrary please let me know.

Also, the point is not whether he believes in a singularity or not, but that the normal laws of physics break down at, and immediately after the big bang, at the quantum level. He therefore postulates that it is mathematically possible that there was no singularity, in order to explain how the laws of physics can still apply. His interest is not to disprove the singularity, rather to find a solution which is explainable by the laws of physics.

If anything Hawkings is agnostic as his book mentions numerous times the idea of God and Hawking's asks himself what would this God want with a tiny planet like earth amidst the vast cosmos (Deist perspective). However although Hawkings runs away from the idea of God, he definitely has not rejected the notion of a supreme being.
He is also married to a Christian and I highly doubt an atheist and a christian could ever be compatible (just my opinion).

ipazia wrote: 1) It is not just the fact that you didn't *prove* it. Mainly it is that
you did not bring up any argument which can be vaugely called a rational
argument. You just said "I know it is impossible", just as I could say
"I know the Earth is flat". Would you call my position "rational"?
2) I'm not saying you are irrational. I'm saying that your argument is irrational.
I hope you see the difference. I don't know you. As far as I know you can be Mr. Spock.
3) If I go in front of the judge and I say "I saw him killing her"...
well I wouldn't call it rational. It is witness not a rational argument.
Did you saw the movie "Contact"? Jodie Foster's final witness is not
a rational argument (despite she is saying the truth). A rational argument
would have been to mention the blank tape of the recorder.
Without that it is just witness.
4) Accordingly, saying your argument is not rational, I'm not saying you are wrong.
I'm just saying that you cannot convince anyone (who is not already convinced)
by that argument.
5) I may be pedant, though I wish to keep "rational" and "truth" separate
if possible.

I believe all I stated is that my BELIEF is rational from my point of view, as I have memories and experiences available to me that you may not have. Whether my argument is rational to you is irrelevant. Seeing how my beliefs aren't really the point of this conversation, I say we just drop this part.

In my opinion you would be right if my position were "I believe in a god but not your god."
But this is another story I don't want to enter now.
In any event we are not discussing whether or why I disbelieve god
(something for which I might have no rational argument that could sound convincent to you).

I assume you disbelieve because you only believe in what has been proven by the scientific method. Again, it is basically a difference of beliefs which neither of us can back up with sources from peer-reviewed works of renowned scientists(that aren't pure opinion), so I assume there is no point in discussing this either.

Thanks. Is the order in Genesis just metaphorical
or to be considered literally.

To be honest, I hate the creation part of Genesis. It's so infuriatingly frustrating due to lack of information that I don't usually even bother bringing it up. There are so many interpretations of it that I've lost count. I guess I'll find out the answers after I die. Unless it turns out you were right in which case it won't matter. :p

Nothing to do with the number of mutations then.
There is nothing strange from evolution viewpoint in the fact that selective pressure
change the "speed" of evolution. Not as far I can see, at least.

I agree. However, selective pressure needs a good mutation first so that it can "weed" it out from the bad ones. There is no mention of a mutation in the above citation. I admit that it doesn't necessarily mean there was no mutation. However, because my source does come from one of my favorite sources(and least insulting, if I might add) of atheists/naturalists point of view, I believe that if there would have been a mutation, they would have jumped at the chance to point it out and shut up all the people who ask "how did unicellular organisms evolve into multicellular organisms"?

The conditions presented above was the introduction of a predator
unicelular organism. I'm sure these demanding conditions existed a
relatively short time after the appearance of a first bacteria.

When I say "evolution" I mean to include its naturalistic part.
Evolution without naturalistic part is theistic-evolution or something like that.
Just to be clear on terms we use.

Yes. Just to point out though that this conversation IS a waste of time. The only difference between our opinions is on the nature of mutations(natural or divine). Since it is an universal negative(i believe that is the term for things that are impossible to prove), we will continue to bang heads on the subject without coming to an agreement.

Oh come on. You don't know anything about the genome of those bacteria.
If it were a miracle I guess it was the first case of miracle that can be
reproduced in controlled conditions and reiterated over and over.

It is clear that those bacteria has the capability of turning to small colonies.
Just usually that behaviour is not encouraged by selection, while it is
enhanced by THAT predator.
In other words your are improperly mixing mutation frequency with mutation rates.

We already discussed the situation on the old board.
The situation is not different from the one in:
http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/2_2000/451-457s.pdf

If you want/need we can discuss the situation in details with no reference to
religious issue. I believe the situation is quite clear and it basically solves
your case. If you want to search more on the issue I suggest
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=ada ... ns&spell=1

Again, I must disagree. I have read through that pdf, and although very interesting(and irritating at the same time, since I hate scientific jargon with a passion), it does not know WHY this happens(as in, an innitial cause). You see, you cannot prove that it is a naturalistic process. The fact that it occurs more than once proves to me that it was not a freak accident. I know it proves something else to you, so yet again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Not at all. With more resources species are free to experiment more
potential variants which are selected into different species when
resources are no longer abundant and competitions is enforced.
Just what happens with the introduction of your predator.

In that case after many generations passes you have (to simplify)
herbivores with long neck and herbivores with short neck since when resources
are abundant the legth of the neck is irrelevant for survivor.
When suddenly there is no herb all short neck herbivores dies out and
a new species appears suddenly. In that conditions longer and longer necks are
preferibles and there is mixing with short necks anymore.

You cannot forget that evolution is not done by mutation (which is random)
but by selection (which is all but random).

Evolution not done by mutation? Are you kidding me? If you remove selection, you still get evolution(full of useless creatures, but it still occurs). But remove mutation, and short of new species being assembled by the wind out of thin air, you'll be stuck with simple bacteria for all eternity. They both play a part in evolution, and to state something like that is simply absurd. Now, mutations are only "random" to a degree. Even from a naturalistic perspective, the only thing random about mutations is which mutation you actually get. There are still maximum/minimum mutation rates(for example, you can't mutate faster than a species can exchange genetic info, either through direct exchange of genetic material or through reproduction)
By the way, I'll get back to you on the cambrian explosion, I need to do more research before I know if your words are a pillar of truth or a load of crap. :p

No I meant it took 1 generation and that it happened about 2BY ago.
Still the unicellular lifeforms which were around before that accumulated
mutations which enabled them to turn to multicellular.
Possibly there were hybrod lifeforms able of both unicellular and multicellular
life (as the bacteria of your example).
Once again it depends if you look at genomes of phenotypes...
The first is smoother than the second, of course.

So what you're saying is that we don't know enough for me to make such an assumption. I accept that, however I still think the evidence is drawing more towards my side than yours. I suppose you will disagree with that

I guess it is your problem. Maybe I learned a lot of techniques during 10KY
building 1 foor houses (how to build pillars, how to produce bricks efficiently,
how to build a solid roof on which one can walk,...).
I learned so much that once it becomes covenient to build the Kremlim I already know all I need.
Nothing strange to me.

Are you claiming that evolution is capable of learning? As in, it is intelligent? o.O

I'm not talking of the shadow of a house. I'm talking of a deep cloud covering the whole world.
The sort of what happens for huge eruptions, just more intense and lasting for 10MY.
Must I look for references about tre survivouring? SOmething similar
(though shorter) could have happened 70MY ago.

What is to stop plant life from evolving into trees capable of surviving through all that? If you can claim that ancient bacteria were different, then I could claim that ancient trees were different as well. Unless you can prove to me that it is absolutely impossible, beyond the shadow of a doubt, for a tree to survive in such conditions, I am afraid you are grasping at straws.

Did you experienced a 10MY period of global cloud?

No, but my grandmother's tree never recieved any direct sunlight, and it made damn good peaches. :p

The answer is very simple. They don't know, they tried and they were lucky.
The process lasted much time during which both insects and trees developped together
to what we see today.
It was the same for all simbiotic circles, I guess.


Valleys and rivers do the same without a designer. Rivers produce the valleys,
valleyes produce the river. Umpossible!

You missed my point. Not that it matters, so forget about it.

There are many cases im which they tested mutation spectra against the random hypothesis.
So I would say that maybe sometimes god acts in them, but most of the times they are random.
(see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ndom.shtml
and search in
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=mut ... erca&meta=
)

Perhaps God and the random hypothesis were in agreement?

Random means basically uniformly distributed and has a precise statistical meaning.
Let me stress that "random" has nothing to do with "without a cause".
So I renew my questions. Are the mutations induced by god random (in this precise statistical
meaning)?

I am afraid we need to establish what exactly random means. I assume it means both unpredictable and without apparent cause for a specific outcome. For example, having an amateur throw a dice. He cannot instantly calculate the physics involved in guessing which face the die will land on, and as such can neither know the outcome nor put the causes(adding up the vectors that make up the dice's motion) together to see the exact cause.

In the common interpretation all bacteria evolved from a common ancestor.
If so, your point is in some sense irrelevant.
[let me also mention that the only reason to mantain such position is to solve chirality
problem. Although we know little about it and I feel we are getting uncertain about it.]

That is addressable in prionciple by looking for viral insertions.
But I don't know what is firmly established about it.

This is just an opinion I am comfortable with. To be honest, I have not done a single minute's worth of research on this. I just find the idea reasonable(for reasons I won't mention, because you won't like it)

1) if god can create it, then a self-aware robot can exist. which close the thread.
2) I'm the one who extrapolate facts without prove? Can you mention a mind without a body?

1 I was under the impression that we were discussing man-made robots. If I got that wrong, I apologise.
2 Not without bringing up the paranormal. I could point out a few unexplained and throughly investigated hauntings, but you'll probably just shrug them off anyway.

I think the stair example below *is* a reason.
I agree not a strong motivation. In fact I hold that opinion much weakly that other opinions.

A metaphor that doesn't even make much sense isn't much of a reason. But I don't really care so whatever.

If you give me the stair I'm ready to try.
If as you say one must drop dead before completing the task,
I'm sure you can prove it by estimating time and so on.
I can easily climb 100meters in a day.
I'd done it in 100days (less than 4months). I never stated that I cannot collect food/water
at predermined stations along the way.

Do you seriously believe it is impossible?

no, but in this case, you are using the wrong metaphor. We know a lot more about climbing stairs than we do about building artificial brains brains.

Thanks for the "good debate".
Ready to try (btw who mentioned continuosly? What is the analogous of continuosly in evolution?
In evolution I can ask my descendents to fulfill my duty!)

And in Theism I rise from the dead and beat up your descendants with celestial blades. :p

Hey guy, it is not my habit to ignore things when it is convenient. That isd why
my posts are so long, because I try to answer any piece in it.
Of course I may miss something, but I don't ignore anything on porpuse.
I suggest you don't walk that way if you want to keep this good discussion going.

I understood that your opinion is that something has always existed.
The claim seem too vauge to be certain to me.
For example I notice your attitude in pushing god in and out of physics depending on convenience.
I could for example argument that "SOMETHING physical must have always existed".
Which rules out your god.

You could. Which pushes me to what I have dubbed as the "Manifest Destiny" theory. It is a combination of what you just mentioned and abiogenesis. If the physical has always existed, and intelligence can develop out of nothing if given enough time, then all of existance is bound to develop sentience and intelligence, as its time is infinity. For short, higher sentience was bound to happen.

Coming out of nothing as god?
Or, if your god can always have been exist, why in principle the universe cannot have been
always there?

Either way leads to God(the main reason why I can never fall beyond Deism). Whether He is a spiritual abstract or Existance itself, HE IS. :p

ipazia wrote:I see nothing strange with bacteria having a greater mutation rate than mammals.

What I find wrong in your words is that I felt you wanted to suggest that
for that bacteria should have evolved to multicellular life faster than they did, or faster than time needed for mammals to evolve.
Isn't this that you meant when you said "lifeforms mutating faster are the one evolving slower"?
I accept bacteria mutation rate is slightly bigger that mammals one.
What I fail to see is this to be a paradox.

If I'm missing something here I'm sure you can summarize your argument clearly and shortly, for me. Thanks.

It is explicitly stated in my sources that bacteria do indeed evolve MUCH faster than animals. As for ancient bacteria, you did make the argument that they might have been different, but since today's bacteria is all we have, I have no choice but to use them to test out my beliefs. I could be wrong, but the only alternative to that would be an atheist's version of "God did it", and I don't like explanations like that any more than you do, no matter which side they come from.

For Hawking see:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... php?t=3281

and in particular

http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... 7194#17194

and my two replies to that.
You can find references there.

See also
http://discussions.godandscience.org/ol ... 7084#17084
for Greene and string theory

Well, at least this finally removes the irritating idea that a singularity is just a point(something I never could come to terms with). However, I fail to see how this proves that the universe was not created. All it shows me is a mechanism of rebirth. To be honest, it solves nothing. in addition, it is not proof that the universe did not have a beginning, nor is it a conclusive matter. I guess only time will tell.

The insertion of imaginary time holds no relation to reality, or does it?

No one knows it yet.
It may be related to the fundamental structure of reality or be just a mathematical trick.
The problem is that we shall have some certain when finally we shall get some answer about
quantum gravity. This is currently the frontier of physics and there isa very little
firmly established.
My personal opinion, as a physicist, is that it is a mathematical trick, but who knows?

Nevertheless, when you say that when you stick real numbers back the singularity is back again
you maybe misunderstand the issue.
When you put real numbers back in the formulae, there is nothing guaranting that
the formulae stay meaningful. Until the end of the story there is nothing ensuring
that the model make sense even a priori.
It is the typical situation of quantum gravity.
We leve on our limited knowledge...

As I mention other two models says the singularity is removed.

vvart

No comment on your stuff. I definitely not interested in discussing Hawking's religious beliefs.
It is not my duty (nor yours) to decide if he is a xtian or not.

About singularity I posted my counterquatations.
I believe they are clear enough.

About my taking scientists' words for granted... well
actually here I'm lowering to the quotations game since I already tried
to discuss the model itself but it seems that's the only game it is possible to play
on board.

As long as Greene is concerned: it is not my problem if you don't know who he is...
It witnesses your knowledge when you discuss support of ID vs evolution.
I'm not considering his words in view of my beliefs.
It is that my beliefs are built also on what he is able to teach me about the world.
I don't know if you'll see the difference.


BTW what do you think of string theory?

Just proves how some scientists merely look for what they desire, but
not what is there.

I suppose this comment understands that YOU on the contrary are in search for the truth
wherever it brings you regardless your desires...

He therefore postulates that it is
mathematically possible that there was no singularity, in order to
explain how the laws of physics can still apply. His interest is not to
disprove the singularity, rather to find a solution which is explainable
by the laws of physics

I agree. Hawking is not the only one to do it. There are different attampts.

There is NO DOUBT that when GR and quantum physics become both important
modern physics is self-contradictory. It is this problem that they are trying to address,
the singularity problem is a side effect.


Need some time for Mastermind.

I believe all I stated is that my BELIEF is rational from my point of view, as
I have memories and experiences available to me that you may not have.

I believed that rational means "based on reason", not on personal experience
which cannot be argomented.
Anyway we are just using the same word in two different meanings.
As long as we state the meanings explicitely the issue is addressed.

Whether
my argument is rational to you is irrelevant. Seeing how my beliefs aren't really
the point of this conversation, I say we just drop this part.

I agree on both points.

I assume you disbelieve because you only believe in what has been proven by the scientific method.

To be true I disbelieve because I see no reason to believe. I hold the same attitude
for Santa Claus, Harry Potter and so on.
I like to believe that the day some reasons will come up I'll be happy to change my mind.

Again, it is basically a difference of beliefs which neither of us can back up
with sources from peer-reviewed works of renowned scientists(that aren't pure opinion),
so I assume there is no point in discussing this either.

I agree..

To be honest, I hate the creation part of Genesis. It's so infuriatingly frustrating due
to lack of information that I don't usually even bother bringing it up. There are so many
interpretations of it that I've lost count. I guess I'll find out the answers after I die.
Unless it turns out you were right in which case it won't matter. :p

Thanks for honesty. I agree on the last point with due exchanges.

I agree. However, selective pressure needs a good mutation first so that it can "weed" it
out from the bad ones. There is no mention of a mutation in the above citation. I admit
that it doesn't necessarily mean there was no mutation. However, because my source does
come from one of my favorite sources(and least insulting, if I might add) of atheists/naturalists
point of view, I believe that if there would have been a mutation, they would have jumped at
the chance to point it out and shut up all the people who ask "how did unicellular organisms
evolve into multicellular organisms"?

I think they need DNA sequence to check mutations. They probably have no data about it.
I can check on scientific sources, but I need some time to do it.

PS: I hope I don't sound too insulting as well.

Yes. Just to point out though that this conversation IS a waste of time.

I'm not interested in convincing you. Said that I'm not interestedd in whether it is a waste of time.
I just have some fun...

The only difference between our opinions is on the nature of mutations(natural or divine).
Since it is an universal negative(i believe that is the term for things that are impossible
to prove), we will continue to bang heads on the subject without coming to an agreement.

Well not exactly... I'd like to know if you believe that god made mutations with a random spectrum
or not. If not his/her action can be detected, if yes there is no observable difference between
our positions.

Again, I must disagree. I have read through that pdf, and although very interesting(and
irritating at the same time, since I hate scientific jargon with a passion), it does not
know WHY this happens(as in, an innitial cause). You see, you cannot prove that it is a
naturalistic process. The fact that it occurs more than once proves to me that it was not
a freak accident. I know it proves something else to you, so yet again, we will have to agree
to disagree.

Whatch out MM, your position is running a dangerous direction.
In principle I can sequence the vacteria DNA and check that a normal population always expresses
the advantageous mutations (as human population expresses blond hairs) even when the mutation
is neutral (because the population is not starving).§
If that is observed how will you mantain your position for a god induced mutations.
I mean we agree that mutation cannot appear naturalistically in too few attempts.
My position is that the mutation was already there and spread enhanced by selection.
Is your position that that mutation is induced non randomly?

PS My reason to discuss with you is exactly to determine if ID position is falsifiable or not.

Evolution not done by mutation? Are you kidding me? If you remove selection, you still get
evolution(full of useless creatures, but it still occurs).

No I don't think so. without selection you go towards a unique homlogeneous species
with many different variants.
See what (artificial) selection does on wolfs and dogs.
Don't you agree that without selection we would have no dog races?

Moreover, mutation is random and selection is not. What do you think contribute most in
increasing the information content of DNA?

I'm not kiddind and I think I can back up it with reference after a bit of research.

They both play a part in evolution,

I agree of course. Still I believe selection plays a key role.
More important than mutations, though I have to confess I have no ultimate
knowledge about what I mean by "More important".
What do you think about it?

By the way, I'll get back to you on the cambrian explosion, I need to do more research
before I know if your words are a pillar of truth or a load of crap. :p

I'm not a biologist and I just exposed what seems to me the easiest naturalistic explanation.
I'm ready to acknowledge to be wrong if enough evidence are provided.
I'll do some search myself.

So what you're saying is that we don't know enough for me to make such an assumption.
I accept that, however I still think the evidence is drawing more towards my side than yours.
I suppose you will disagree with that

If you accept that since I cannot prove Santa claus does not exist and you cannot prove it exists
then santa claus can exists with a probability 1/2...

Seriously, let's try to collect some more data and we shall see...

Are you claiming that evolution is capable of learning? As in, it is intelligent? o.O

Of course it is. DNA is exactly the memory capable to learn something which can become important
later on in different conditions.

I would not be surprized if some bacteria had the capability of digest plastic.
Maybe it can be developed when plasit was not there. In a bacteria population with genes can be
expressed
in a fraction of population and we shall not realized until plastic is the only resource left
to bacteria to survive.
In that case the small fraction of population able to digest plastic is the only survivor and
-mainly due to selection- a new bacteria species is created.

If you can claim that ancient bacteria were different, then I could claim that
ancient trees were different as well. Unless you can prove to me that it is absolutely
impossible, beyond the shadow of a doubt, for a tree to survive in such conditions,
I am afraid you are grasping at straws.

I point for you. I agree and drop it.
(See K, I accept to be wrong when I am)
I accept that your position is acceptable though it implies ancient trees could live in the demi-dark.

You missed my point. Not that it matters, so forget about it.

Maybe I did.

Perhaps God and the random hypothesis were in agreement?

Which is precisely what I would like from you.
Do you think you need to assume it to keep your position?

I am afraid we need to establish what exactly random means.
I assume it means both unpredictable and without apparent cause for a specific outcome. For example, having an amateur throw a dice. He cannot instantly calculate the physics involved in guessing which face the die will land on, and as such can neither know the outcome nor put the causes(adding up the vectors that make up the dice's motion) together to see the exact cause.

I assume it means one of the following
http://www.mtm.ufsc.br/~taneja/book/node5.html
http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/ ... annon.html
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/pro ... tropy.html

Nothing to do with being without apparent cause.

1 I was under the impression that we were discussing man-made robots. If I got that wrong, I apologise.

I was discussing both men and whoever made robots.
No once I can see and dismantel a self-aware robot made by god, what prevents me from build a new
man-made robot? Just the divine technology?

2 Not without bringing up the paranormal. I could point out a few unexplained and throughly
investigated hauntings, but you'll probably just shrug them off anyway.

Maybe I will. STill I can hear what you have to present.

no, but in this case, you are using the wrong metaphor. We know a lot more about climbing
stairs than we do about building artificial brains brains.

The point is exactly this. I disagree that we don't know much about the brain.
My bet is that all one needs to know is count for neurons, measure excitation threasholds,
map synaptic connections and measure their efficiency.
I understand I may be wrong or that you can mantain a different idea.
Still I have to know what else contribute to our mind in your view.

You could. Which pushes me to what I have dubbed as the "Manifest Destiny" theory.
It is a combination of what you just mentioned and abiogenesis.
If the physical has always existed, and intelligence can develop out of
nothing if given enough time, then all of existance is bound to develop
sentience and intelligence, as its time is infinity. For short, higher
sentience was bound to happen.

Which sounds to me as an embryon of a naturalistic explanation.
Just call your "intelligence" by "nature laws" and you go wildy towards a deistic
position which most xtians fear more than atheism.

It is explicitly stated in my sources that bacteria do indeed evolve MUCH faster than animals. As for ancient bacteria, you did make the argument that they might have been different, but since today's bacteria is all we have, I have no choice but to use them to test out my beliefs. I could be wrong, but the only alternative to that would be an atheist's version of "God did it", and I don't like explanations like that any more than you do, no matter which side they come from.

I still miss your point. Let's try this way....

I accept antient bacteria evolved much facter than animals.
WHAT is your point?
Is it: why then they took 2BY to get to multicellular lifeform when animals take few MY to develop new species?
Is this that you are asking?

However, I fail to see how this proves that the universe was not created.

It doesn't. It just removed the argument according to which the universe logically NEED to be created.

On this website they present the BigBang as a scientific evidence for creation.
You may not share that view, but they use that argument (without understanding what BigBang model is,
without understanding what a singularity is, and so on)

I believed that rational means "based on reason", not on personal experience
which cannot be argomented.
Anyway we are just using the same word in two different meanings.
As long as we state the meanings explicitely the issue is addressed.

Yes it does. However, being my opinion, I decide what is proof and what isn't.

I think they need DNA sequence to check mutations. They probably have no data about it.
I can check on scientific sources, but I need some time to do it.

PS: I hope I don't sound too insulting as well.

DOn't worry, if you get insulting, there's always K to point it out. Although I have a feeling he stopped reading our mammoth posts a long time ago.

Well not exactly... I'd like to know if you believe that god made mutations with a random spectrum
or not. If not his/her action can be detected, if yes there is no observable difference between
our positions.

I am afraid I am neutral on the subject. I haven't studied mutations enough to make an educated guess, and frankly, I don't know. God could take special care of every single species in His own way, or He could have put a mechanism in place and apart from some massive interventions once in a blue moon, He lets it run its course. Either way, there is no observable difference between our positions, even though I know you will bring up that random theory of yours. :p

Whatch out MM, your position is running a dangerous direction.
In principle I can sequence the vacteria DNA and check that a normal population always expresses
the advantageous mutations (as human population expresses blond hairs) even when the mutation
is neutral (because the population is not starving).§
If that is observed how will you mantain your position for a god induced mutations.
I mean we agree that mutation cannot appear naturalistically in too few attempts.
My position is that the mutation was already there and spread enhanced by selection.
Is your position that that mutation is induced non randomly?

PS My reason to discuss with you is exactly to determine if ID position is falsifiable or not.

The General ID position I take is not falsifiable. The only difference between it and Naturalism is the source of all mutations. The more specific one IS, but I won't get into that, as i am quite willing to change it as I do more research on the subject. AS for your question, like I mentioned above, I don't know. Maybe God just put the mechanism in place and said "let's see what happens". Maybe he interferes when life gets close to extinction. Maybe He guides every single mutation there is. I would expect Him to take a more active role though, so i'm falling more towards the idea that a lot of mutation results aren't random.

No I don't think so. without selection you go towards a unique homlogeneous species
with many different variants.
See what (artificial) selection does on wolfs and dogs.
Don't you agree that without selection we would have no dog races?

Moreover, mutation is random and selection is not. What do you think contribute most in
increasing the information content of DNA?

I'm not kiddind and I think I can back up it with reference after a bit of research.

I don't agree. Without selection, we would have millions of dog races, because the weak ones no longer die out. And sorry, I think I specified that mutation RESULTS are random. I do believe there is a measurable rate of mutation which is only random to a certain degree.

I agree of course. Still I believe selection plays a key role.
More important than mutations, though I have to confess I have no ultimate
knowledge about what I mean by "More important".
What do you think about it?

You gave me an example of what happens with mutations without selection. Now think what happens with selection but no mutations. Nothing. Short of suggesting abiogenesis that starts off with a dog, nothing will happen. you might not even get a cell(from a naturalistic perspective that is). Now, which one sounds more important to you now?

I'm not a biologist and I just exposed what seems to me the easiest naturalistic explanation.
I'm ready to acknowledge to be wrong if enough evidence are provided.
I'll do some search myself.

I suspect however that your explanation was not satisfactory. Yes, it makes sense to me, but I will have to check the different populations at different times and see if it matches.

If you accept that since I cannot prove Santa claus does not exist and you cannot prove it exists
then santa claus can exists with a probability 1/2...

Seriously, let's try to collect some more data and we shall see...

It would be more like me looking up and seeing a vague shape of several creatures pulling something solid and a huge red dot on top, and say it's santa clause, but whatever. It all comes down to interpreting the available evidence.

Of course it is. DNA is exactly the memory capable to learn something which can become important
later on in different conditions.

I would not be surprized if some bacteria had the capability of digest plastic.
Maybe it can be developed when plasit was not there. In a bacteria population with genes can be
expressed
in a fraction of population and we shall not realized until plastic is the only resource left
to bacteria to survive.
In that case the small fraction of population able to digest plastic is the only survivor and
-mainly due to selection- a new bacteria species is created.

Selection only makes sure bad species die out. It has nothing to do with creating them. Mutations are what create new species. However, I find your explanation unsatisfactory. Yes, you could have "neutral" genes, but new traits usually appear because of new mutations, not because of ancient recessive genes that don't kick in until they are needed.

Which is precisely what I would like from you.
Do you think you need to assume it to keep your position?

I assume it means one of the following
http://www.mtm.ufsc.br/~taneja/book/node5.html
http://www.bearcave.com/misl/misl_tech/ ... annon.html
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~soss/cs644/pro ... tropy.html

Nothing to do with being without apparent cause.

As a half-assed believer in the Chaos Theory, I don't really believe in uncertainty. However, you take random as a mathematical princple that makes my head hurt. I take the dictionary definition. I see no reason to disagree with your position, and since I lack the qualifications to debunk it, I'm gonna drop the subject since it isn't really of much importance to me(I assume we are discussing the outcome of mutations).

I was discussing both men and whoever made robots.
No once I can see and dismantel a self-aware robot made by god, what prevents me from build a new
man-made robot? Just the divine technology?

A soul, for starters. Remember, you believe sentience to be a chemical reaction in the brain. I don't. Neither one of us can prove their part.

Maybe I will. STill I can hear what you have to present.

I'll look up some examples and post them later. If you can't wait, look up the Faces of Belmez for starters.

The point is exactly this. I disagree that we don't know much about the brain.
My bet is that all one needs to know is count for neurons, measure excitation threasholds,
map synaptic connections and measure their efficiency.
I understand I may be wrong or that you can mantain a different idea.
Still I have to know what else contribute to our mind in your view.

I believe the brain is what gives our mind the ability to control our body. My main problem with a chemical theory is that I do not believe it can make me sentient. My own nature screams against the idea that "i just think I'm sentient". I guess time will tell.

Which sounds to me as an embryon of a naturalistic explanation.
Just call your "intelligence" by "nature laws" and you go wildy towards a deistic
position which most xtians fear more than atheism.

Hardly. The God resulting from this would be all-powerful, omnipresent and possibli ominiscient, all traits of the Christian God. I fail to see how a theory pertaining to God's nature can change my position. I believe even the hardest Deist(and I agree, they ARE more dangerous than atheists) would have difficulty trying to convert me.

I still miss your point. Let's try this way....

I accept antient bacteria evolved much facter than animals.
WHAT is your point?
Is it: why then they took 2BY to get to multicellular lifeform when animals take few MY to develop new species?
Is this that you are asking?

Basically.

It doesn't. It just removed the argument according to which the universe logically NEED to be created.

On this website they present the BigBang as a scientific evidence for creation.
You may not share that view, but they use that argument (without understanding what BigBang model is,
without understanding what a singularity is, and so on)

While this web site has helped me a lot with my search, I have now come to disagree with a lot of things that are on it. Not that it really matters. And by the way, neither Hawkings or anybody else PROVED the universe did not start with the Big Bang. They simply state there is a possibility that it did not have to, and Hawkings himself admits we don't have enough information to know for sure. I see it more as reassurance for atheists than anything else. I don't particularly think it should be used as proof that this web site is wrong about the Big Bang, since nobody knows that. In addition, there are observable singularities within our universe, and none of them have exploded yet. And until they do, I will continue to assume that there is an outside(or at least extradimensional) force working on it.