I can only imagine the reason for the Myrtle Beach Newspaper of No Note Whatsoever's reasoning for including the article: lots of people would register to comment on the idiocy. And they did. So maybe that's what they were going for. Otherwise, I can't imagine people who could read subscribing to the newspaper.

*Ownage posted*

Hmm....

I need a smoke......

In some way this whole thing is very weird. Somehow our main point of focus while discussing theists has become our repudiation of their faith by means of a theory that really can't conclusively be picked up and proved at the moment. You may say that it is wastly more probable than their story, but that is just not going to do anything - their story is purpusfuly made not to make sense and we are not really trying to figure out why. We have assumptions, but we don't really dig into the options of why and how.

We do debate ethics and morality with them as well, which I think is a wastly more meaningful discussion, because you can actually intelectually understand effects and problems of this or that practice, but the discussion in main stream usually stops with: "so you, mr. naturalist, think that conditional morality and mutual agreement is all we have and that is enough?", the answer is always yes, and that's that. Just not enough to get anywhere in concert.

wow, an inbuilt spell-check.

I just went back to that website. I have been on it for almost 3 years now. But, maybe they are just having technical issues, but I just went back and even the "forums" section wasn't working.

I went back to see if there were new responses to the Evolution opinion and "Faith" opinion and the responses to those opinions are missing. I hope the paper didn't wimp out because I ruffled some feathers.

I'll wait and see. It might just be an update issue someone is working on.

I only noticed because you did it twice.

I attempted to address that in the last paragraph. The literal story of Adam is obviously bunkum in light of evolution (and basic common sense). The fact of evolution doesn't invalidate a Christian's belief that Christ was the literal son of god. You can be a Christian and accept evolution as true, even without the insistence that intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis.

I should've said, "Evolution doesn't repudiate faith in god," and been more explicit about the debunking of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm sorry I wasn't more direct about that.

As an addendum, it seems our current scientific ontology + rationalism should be sufficient to demolish faith in any theistic god. But I don't hold out hope that we can achieve universal rationalism.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

HAHAHAHA

HAHA

HA... 

Stuff like this just makes me want to cry. I would say I've never seen so much fail in one place, but I regularly frequent FSTDT.

Just everything. Completely wrong. From the failure to recognize how evolution IS science, to the misinterpretation of the Darwin quote at the end (which was not at all alluding to intelligent design), to the notion that there is still a "debate" after 150 years. Not to mention the fact that the author seems to have been absent on the day that writing coherent paragraphs was taught in 3rd grade.

I mean really, the author didn't get anything right.

I have recently signed up to your site. I am a born again Christian, by the grace of God. I can simply say, about the grace of God, if He didn't want me to see the light (as is often said by many environments) I would have never seen things the way I do.

Now about your evolution theory (that some of you claim as fact, and science), evolution is still a theory. But the biggest error that is made here is the specification of evolution you are describing.

6. Micro-evolution - variations with kinds.

Only Micro-evolution has been shown evidence and I also believe that only this one can be proven. The other 5 are all included and assumed however there is no evidence. My first question is what is your explanation for anything to have existed before matter itself existed. No one (but God, of christianity) existed at this point, therefore none of your assumed proof stands on 2 feet. I remember watching a video of Sapient and Kelly debating against Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. I was happy to see the debate, but was a bit disappointed in some of the arguements that came from both sides.

I am not open to change my beliefs, but I am open to know where your origination is, before matter, what existed. Then once matter did exist ( if it is possible for matter to come from non matter) how did life evolve from this. I do not believe that the computer on which I am typing this on, unless previously inhabited by microscopic living cells, will EVER produce a living organism.

Let's calculate a probability for the chance production of a single small protein molecule. A protein molecule consists of one or more chains made up of amino acid molecules linked together. There are 20 different amino acids molecules which the cells use to construct the protein molecules needed for the life of cells. We will think about a small protein molecule with only 100 amino acid molecules in its chain. Assume we have a reaction pot containing a mixture of the 20 different amino acid molecules, and they are reacting at random to form chains. What is the probability, when a chain with 100 amino acids is formed, that it will by chance have the sequence of amino acids needed to form a particular working protein molecule?

There are 100 positions along the chain. What is the probability that a particular one of the 20 different natural amino acid molecules will by chance be placed at position number 1 in the chain? It will be P1 = 1/20. When the complete chain has formed, what is the probability that the necessary particular amino acids will be placed at each of the 100 positions in the chain? It will be the product of the probabilities at the 100 positions. Thus the probability will be the fraction 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times. So P100 = (1/20)x(1/20)x(1/20)x...x(1/20) = (1/20)100 = (1/10)130 = 1/10130. This is an extremely small fraction. It is the fraction formed by the number 1 divided by the number formed by 1 followed by 130 zeros!

Now how can this have happened by chance??? And this is just one model of protein, and a small one. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros

From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10^340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros! Yet he still believed in abiogenesis. Back in the 1970s Prof. Morowitz admitted in a public debate at a teachers' convention in Honolulu that in order to explain abiogenesis, it would be necessary to discover some new law of physics. At that time he still believed in abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of the original living cells on the primeval earth. However, some ten years later he finally stated that in his opinion some intelligent creative power was necessary to explain the origin of life.

Here is Charles Darwin himself,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Now for some real math and chances, for just one human body to come into existence, based on these numbers, would be 10 at the 1 250 000 000 000 power.

which means 1 followed by a quadrillion 0's. Now, I don't ever know how many 0's that is. And that's just for 1 human, to be "evolved" functioning. Now if you let logic take toll, that would be like rolling a pair of dice, and getting a pair of sixes, 100 trillion times, consecutively.

Surely with these numbers, you can't possibly believe there was not an intelligent designer as you call it.

If you want to debate, I may not be on as often as I would like, but feel free to email me at [email protected]

Cheers

Ray

Sigh... we've heard it all before, rookie.  The simple fact of the matter is that any bump in the road for the theory of evolution is not an indication that Christianity is correct.  You can shout your probabilities all day, but they don't take into account the function of natural selection, which we've observed time and time and time again.  Listing "six kinds of evolution" is vintage 1970's Jack Chick and rank oversimplification of the issue.  I don't care if you quote Darwin about improbability.  Darwin was wrong about lots of things; that doesn't mean he was wrong about the single issue of natural selection.  I don't know how life on earth initially started and neither do you, and while I do have some guesses, you choose to take the ancient Hebrews at their word (and I mean the ancient Hebrews, not just Moses all by his lonesome), which would come down as hearsay in any honest court of law. 

Honestly I'd be more intrigued if you came in telling us that the bird poop on your car was arranged in a pattern that confirmed to you personally that Freemasons are trying to kidnap your pets.  At least you could give me some photographic evidence for that.  

We've seen two species come from one multiple times. You really need to read some of Deluded_God's posts.

I’ve always found it somewhat amusing how a person can say that evolution is impossible because of it’s complexity, then turn around and speak of an all knowing perfect god. They will say that matter had to come from somewhere since it’s impossible for something to have always been here, then when asked where god came from, they say “he’s always been here.” They say that the world was made perfect for us without ever considering that maybe, just maybe, we evolved to conform to the world. Seriously, that’s like saying that the tree grows leaves on the top branch because god wanted the giraffe to be able to eat. It’s the same tired old rehearsed arguments over and over which tells me that, like always, they are not thinking for themselves but simply repeating what was preached to them. I’ll be patiently waiting for someone to point out the banana analogy for proving the existence of this great designer.  

But in all honesty, I truly believe that the main reason some Christians refuse to accept evolution simply comes down to one of those seven deadly sins, “Pride!” To a person who has convinced them self that they have divine origins, the thought of having great great ancestors who swung in trees and slung excrement, would just be insulting. Unfortunately, science isn’t about sparing any ones feeling in search of truth, so you’re just going to have to deal with the fact that great grandma had a hairy back.

I agree, of course.

Now, rookie (appropriate), do not delude yourself into thinking that your arguments are original or have not been seen countless times or are even yours since they have been encountered verbatim ad nauseam. Since this is the area of my expertise, if you would be so kind as to read what I have written on the matter:

Before even beginning to go through your absurd arguments, your overwhelming ignorance must be corrected. So read this to gain some background knowledge. Read all of it.

The Third Revolution

In the link above, pay special attention to the way the crucial relationship between thermodynamics and biological processes is repeatedly emphasized. No understanding of biological thermodynamics can be had without a firm grasp of biochemistry, which you clearly do not have. Ignorance, fortunately, is entirely curable. Once you've read this, we can start to discuss details of the astounding wrongness of your assertion.

Can't get rid of these fuckers. Maybe some Black Flag or Raid?

Evolution is a stochastic process not a chance process. Darwin was the first to make the crucial link that artificial selection, the same process that humans have been practicing for thousands of years with domesticated crops and dogs, is a microcosm of a much larger and longer process that occurs in nature via the process of natural selection that is responsible for all biological life. Darwin’s other crucial realization was that the process was driven by in inherited characteristics. The idea of “frequency of particles of inheritance” came later, with the development of genetics. The formalization of evolution in terms of the science of genetics (developed by Mendel) was taken up by a highly prestigious group of scientists (such as Haldane) in the 1930s. They formulated the modern synthesis which is the current genetic theory of natural selection. This is compactly stated in five principles of evolutionary biology:

Evolution: Over time, the characteristics of a lineage change.

Common Descent: All organisms have diverged from a common ancestor

Gradualism: Every organism, however different and distant from each other, is related, some distantly. Radical changes in phenotype and genotype have occurred by incremental processes by which lineages diverge from a common ancestor

Gene Frequency: The method by which evolution (the change in lineages) occurs is by changes in gene frequencies of populations. It is the change in proportion of individuals which have certain characteristics that determines the characteristic divergence of a lineage.

Natural Selection: The process by which gene frequencies are altered is characterized by the variations of organisms in a population, and how those variations determine the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce. The selection of alleles over others in a population will accordingly alter the frequency of genetic particles and hence the phenotype of a lineage.

The monumental ignorance of this statement is astounding. I urge you to read what I have provided you on cellular biology so you can appreciate biological processes on a cellular and molecular level. This is absolutely necessary before even beginning to attempt to understand the evolution of multicellular organisms

Biological processes don't "know" what to do or "know" to evolve. Again, I urge you to read what I have provided in order to see that the existence of self-replicating chemical systems is purely a consequence of chemical properties of the molecules constituting them.

To a biologist, this question can be answered a priori. Biological life is defined by replication. The basis of all biological life are molecular structures which are templates to guide their own synthesis. From a chemical standpoint, this property is so fundamental it is often employed as a definitional guide for biology. This is not a matter of "intrinsic drive" to replicate. It is merely that the replication process is a consequence of the molecular structure of the fundamental molecules whose physiochemical properties are responsible for the existence of biological life. For modern organisms, this means DNA, which meets the above definition (it is a template to guide its own synthesis). Thus, if we are to consider this as a purely chemical property, the existence of such structures will guarantee that replication will occur. Furthermore it will also guarantee that a form (however primitive, if we are considering the dawn of life) will occur. The first processes that gave rise to the fundamentals of biological life were primitive evolutionary processes which were purely consequences of the chemical properties of the molecules that acted as replicator units (that is, RNA serving simultaneously as a ribozyme and polymer template).

It's not a matter of life having an intrinsic "drive" to replicate. This discredited idea of a vital essence has long since been refuted. The modern view is that because life is based on molecules that do replicate as a consequence of their physical properties, selection processes will occur even at primitive levels (i.e during the process of chemical evolution that constituted a 900 million year period after the formation of Earth) because, since the molecules do replicate then those that will proliferate more and thus become more frequent in a pool of replicators are those who traits imbue them with improved replicative success. Again, this is purely a discussion of physical properties and not some "intrinsic drive" of any sort. As time went on and the selection process created finer machinery by which replication processes could occur, the machinery sustaining the replicators had to be able to replicate as well. Since this machinery is all under the control of and is formed from, the actual replicators (in other words, those molecules with those physical properties), they are tools evolved by which the replicators can replicate more successfully. Again, this is a relatively modern view, and is largely based off the work of Richard Dawkins in the 1970s. Dawkins' key insight was that nucleotide sequences themselves constitute the units of selection. If we begin with replicators that replicate purely on the basis of their physical properties, and replicate in such a way that allows for the process of selection to occur, then we can see that as complex machinery to sustain and aid the propogation of replication units arises, this machinery will work in such a way as to maximize the replication potential of the DNA (or whatever molecular structure is being discussed). Again, this is not a matter of the DNA having an intrinsic desire to replicate. The replicators can program the machinery (like us) in such a way that if that machinery happened to be aware and have emotional capacity, that machinery could have the desire to do something like have sex (which would lead to the continuation of genetic material) but this only occurs because selection selects for DNA sequences which tend to program their machinery to do this, because it is stochastically favorable for replicators with this property to occur. That is the crucial point. Natural selection has nothing to do with intrinsic drive to replicate. It simply has to do with the fact that any replicator which replicates more successfully will proliferate with greater frequency (which is blindingly obvious). The reason that we have the desire to replicate is because we are programmed to. And the reason that our DNA sequences program us to do this is not because of some innate desire of them to replicate, but rather because, since they do replicate, those traits which replicate more successfully will be more frequent.

You are. It took me seconds to establish this. Remember, you are talking to someone who has spent more or less every moment of his study for the past 15 years studying physics, biochemistry and cellular biology. The problem is at your end. I can tell you exactly why you are overwhelmingly wrong regarding your astounding misunderstanding of thermodynamic processes, the trouble is that elucidating this precisely presumes the reader to have a very significant level of background knowledge which you don't have. You must be familiar with Maxwell distributions, ideal gas processes, the Clausius relation, the concept of a heat engine, the statistical formulation of the kinetic theory of molecular gases, and fundamental notions of chemistry such as collision theory, equilibria and the law of mass action, not to mention probability theory and functions of state, before you can understand exactly how thermodynamics and life relate. This isn't a problem for me since I already know this. It's a problem for you. This is not a thread of debate. This is a thread now regarding your ignorance. I have provided some degree of articulation of thermodynamics in a biological context in the link above. More precise detail is available on request but naturally requires understanding of what has been mentioned above.

You don't even know what "microevolution" means! The terms micro and macroevolution were first coined by the geneticist Theodius Dobzhansky. They are used to refer to, in a very broad context, "evolution above the species level" and "within the species level". There is some confusion about this among non-scientists. These do not refer to process difference. Macroevolution can largely be regarded as a branch, or arm of evolutionary biology, one which studies general, or large-scale trends and patterns in evolutionary history that are indicated at the level of taxa. Some topics within this arm include the question "Are there any major trends in the history of life"? or "is there are characteristic rate of evolution, and does it in turn peg a limit on variational distribution?" The central component of evolutionary theory is that natural selection and changes in lineage account for both macroevolution and microevolution. This has been widely accepted since approximately 1930. There is no "chasm" that bridges the two concepts. The development of a new organ system, for example, can be explained in terms of developmental genetics, and the processes of homologous duplication and divergence and the recombination of modular developmental and genetic circuits and the selective pressuress applied to mutations of these modules. Exactly the same understanding can be applied to smaller scale phenotypic changes, those which occur in a shorter time frame within a lineage. To state that there is any process difference between the two is a continuum fallacy.

Nor would such a thing be predicted by evolutionary theory.

Um...yeah. I really am unsure of how to respond to such sincere stupidity.I tell you what. I shall make a little deal with you.

I get to ask you one question. Only one. That question is what are the four central processes of evolution? The five central principles of the modern synthesis of evolution have already been provided. That should make it straightforward to answer. By your statement that evolution is a chance process, you have demonstrated that you don't actually know what it is therefore eviscerating entirely your credibility on this matter (well, actually, the moment you said "I'm a born again Christian" you sort of detonated your credibility anyway). It is for that reason that everyone is laughing at you. I'm laughing as I type, since you are a highly amusing spectacle. You prattle on about thermodynamics, and your knowledge of it is so lacking you probably couldn't even state the Clausius and Kelvin-Planck and Boltzmann formulations of the second law of thermodynamics (and then prove that they are all equivalent)! But I shall give you one saving grace. You answer the question above, and I shall continue to listen.

You can't...and you take your ignorance elsewhere.

Please don't try on daddy's shoes like that. If you're going to talk about science with people who have actually done some, you're going to have to learn a bit about it. 

Let me see if I get your argument: because you don't understand something, it didn't happen. Not what I'd call a "strong" argument.

On both counts, we'd be right, though. So it's not like we'd be lying.

Still correct on the "ignorant of science" charge. That second statement is false.

Yeah. So who said atoms or molecules need to change? Is this more ignorance? I think maybe it is.

Really? I guess I'm perishing, and you're saved, and you have all the power of God. That's great. What were we talking about again?

Oh, the next time you go to a hospital, tell them you don't want them to use anything scientific, just the power of God. You, my friend, can have the power of God. I'll take the science.

What, like a spider got gills and is now hunting the water-bugs instead? Can you like just link something pls.

There is definite evidence of humans mating with dogs, I can post a website with videos if you want?

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

A bacteria which eats nylon. An artificial product that didn't exist until 1935. Ultimate proof of evolution.

I knew it was considered a stochastic process, but I didn't know it was being modeled as a Markov process (not that it's not an easy step, I just didn't know anyone was working on it that way). Cool. You learn something new every day.

You wouldn't happen to have a link for that? The example I use is perfect, if one knows anything about evolution and chemicals. Unfortunately most of the people one debates evolution with don't have enough knowledge to see the reality within. This one would be a nice additional example.

Hmmm, I think it was from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html ... yup, section 5.3.5.

-Triften

Apparently it's been too long since I checked that site out. Thanks man!

Don't you just LOVE smart women?

Actually, I'm a datalogist, only thing I ever maddled with in biology is medical image reckognition. But I will still ask stuff.

What about the single cell origin? Why not multiple origins? I could look it up, but I'd much rather you told me ~

You're thinking of melamine.

-Triften

I'm about a year from my PhD in microbiology and I've never heard such.  Conventional wisdom from my mentors states that mitochondria are in fact the descendants of obligate intracellular pathogens/parasites from the alpha clade of the proteobacteria and therefore are not archaea in any sense.  Who's been telling you this?