YouTube: Evolution for ID-iots

| 78 Comments | 1 TrackBack

From YouTube:

Latest product of basic evolution program.

A creatures probability of survival is dependent its compatibility to the environment relative to its fellows.

Anyone who survives can breed.

This shows that evolution is an intrinsic property of any system where offspring are different from their parent, and suffer environmental attrition. Life is such a system.

Note that with the population sizes shown, it is more likely that random genetic drift will be stronger than selection. And chimps were not the ancestors of humans et al.

1 TrackBack

I think I will show this in class in May when I teach the evolution lecture again. Update: Reed adds some caveats I am sure to point out in the classroom.... Read More

78 Comments

Species can adapt to changing environments over long periods of time, because of natural selection. No one really doubts that.

But we have no reason to believe that is the cause of increasing complexity.

You are always arguing for something no one disagrees with, except literal bible-believers.

(Disclaimer: I’m not a biologist, I’m in IT)

Realpc:

You’ve got the first line wrong: natural selection kills off unsuitable members of the species. How does the “adaption” occur if there’s no changing/mutating influence?

You’ve got the second line wrong: nobody believes that natural selection alone is the (sole, unaided) cause of “increasing complexity”. The mutation aspect is what you keep missing. By the way, even with the typical Creationist mixups of information and complexity, you’ve still got that wrong: if two members of a species develop differently from a common ancestor and each have a different makeup… isn’t there more information? Isn’t there an increase in “information” right there?

You’ve got the third line wrong: not always arguing. Just when creationist claims get it wrong. And literal bible-believers keep throwing crap into the argument, so that more people are hobbled with incorrect understanding and facts.

Disclaimer: I’m not a biologist… but even I can see the flaws in those arguments.

Somebody clear something up for me. Realpc refers to “increasing complexity.” I was under the impression that “increasing complexity” was not necessarily a sign of evolution and that evolution could lead in effect to -decreasing- complexity, as in a case where a feature is no longer useful and is therefore lost. I’m thinking of the examples of fish losing the capacity to see in caves that admit no light or whales losing weight-bearing limbs. Evolution isn’t about ‘progress’, is it, in terms of going from the simple to the complex? I’m an English professor, by the way, so please excuse the fact that this is a ‘simple’ rather than ‘complex’ question.

Elf Eye: You are quite correct in saying that evolution can lead to a decrease in complexity. Another point is how the heck is complexity measured? I think it is reasonable to say that we are more complex than sea slugs, but are humans more complex than chimps or dogs? Human society is more complex than chimp society, but individual humans? You could argue that our brains are more complex (I’m not sure how justified this is) but no doubt a dog could argue that our olfactory equipment is less complex.

BTW, you will notice that if Realpc is asked to justify his (her?) implication that individual humans are more complex than chimps with a citation to a peer-reviewed paper the question will be avoided. He rarely, if ever, gives any justification for what he writes.

Your apologizing for asking a simple question reminds me of my undergraduate professor (in the UK, where it is equivalent to a permanent department chair) who used to ask apparently simple questions that could be very difficult to answer - although sometimes it was simple and he should have known the answer. It was very effective in encouraging us to also ask questions.

no doubt a dog could argue that our olfactory equipment is less complex

Maybe–only a really complex dog could argue that. Right unrealpc?

Yes Elf Eye, you are absolutely correct! RealPC has shown repeatedly that he hasn’t a clue about evolution and is either a troll or a DI shill.

OK OK OK on to better things…Who’s going to be the first to post a comment about Dr. Jeffery Bada’s article in SciAm concerning his vindication of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Another soapbox has just been kicked out from under the creationists’ feet! Who needs an intellegent designer if forces of nature can kick-start the whole process unassisted?

Elf Wrote:

I was under the impression that “increasing complexity” was not necessarily a sign of evolution

Besides the problem of defining complexity, I think that is correct. Selection or drift can take a population anywhere as long as it is fit enough, and there are many examples as you discuss.

Realpc doesn’t seem to understand the theory discussed, which is why you see such oddities as here. Also, creationists are stuck in the past, still picturing the faulty ‘ladder of progress’ and making it a strawman for evolution.

But that is the simple part of the answer. I hope a biologist will help answer the remainder. As I see it, because life started out with simple cells, the initial condition would permit an increase in complexity, for example defined as more characters. (In other words, the initial condition was asymmetric, but the process can go either way, it is symmetric.)

So in the overall perspective, not the local one as above, one would not be surprised to see some developments towards complexity, IMHO.

That said, the overwhelming number of species and individuals are monocellular. The average complexity hasn’t changed all that much.

I have to admit I have a hard time seeing the argument for “complexity” as support for “design” in any way. Generally, the lack of a clear definition of “complexity” is a problem, but even if there were a clear definition, the argument just doesn’t hold water.

Is a brick more complex than a weirdly-shaped rock? By most definitions, it would seem that the brick is less complex - at least, you can describe its shape in mathematical terms much more simply than the shape of the rock. Yet the brick is designed, but the rock isn’t.

Or what if I take a bigger rock, and chisel away at it so that it looks exactly like the other rock? The two objects would be identical, yet one is designed and the other isn’t.

“Increasing complexity” is nothing more than the latest creationist buzzword.

It means precisely this: nothing.

And, realpc, please stop using the word “we.” You were voted out of the species last week. Thought you got the memo.

Evolution isn’t about ‘progress’, is it, in terms of going from the simple to the complex?

Evolution is blind. Roughly speaking evolution increases the useful, neglects the useless, and eliminates the deleterious.

More specifically, evolution drives a species towards short term optimal adaptations to the existing environment.

The idea of “progress” is a complicated one that has many different viewpoints. Are we any more complex than a dinosaur? After all they were there for hundreds of millions of years and kept the mammals in check. They didn’t die out or get outevolved. Bad luck when a large asteroid slammed into Yukatan.

On the other hand, for most of the earths history, life was single celled prokaryotes. To my eye, humans look more complex than bacteria. So on long term timescales, it does look like increasing complexity.

Really need a rigorous definition of “complexity” and/or “progress” and some measurement(s) to answer that right. Not aware of either.

RealPC Wrote:

But we have no reason to believe that is the cause of increasing complexity.

Even though science had shown that it is a sufficient cause for increase in information and complexity?

“Is a brick more complex than a weirdly-shaped rock?”

No, the brick is more regular, but not more complex. It shows evidence of having been designed by an intelligent being because the brick’s shape is unlikely to occur as a result of non-living physical forces.

You cannot determine which is more complex, the brick or the rock, based on their shapes. You can say that a wall built out of bricks is more complex than a single brick.

You cannot equate irregularity, or disorderliness, with complexity. The definition of complexity must include purpose and function. So, for example, a computer program that is badly organized might seem more complex than a well-organized one, but that is only a superficial impression of the program’s complexity. Knowing the real complexity of the program depends on knowing its purpose and function.

It shows evidence of having been designed by an intelligent being because the brick’s shape is unlikely to occur as a result of non-living physical forces.

Didn’t we make a similar mistake in regard to the Giants’ Causeway?

You cannot determine which is more complex, the brick or the rock, based on their shapes.

Yes, you can: there are simple shapes and complex shapes.

The definition of complexity must include purpose and function.

Wrong again: the artificiality and function of a screwdriver do not make it more “complex” than a geode – even if the maker stamps a really fancy logo on it.

I also notice that you refer to “THE definition of complexity,” as if there was only one. Funny, you don’t actually DEFINE the concept, you merely blither about what that definition “includes.”

If you don’t have anything in the way of an actual definition of “complexity,” then your General Unspecified ‘Theory’ of Complexity and Stuff is what the software folks call “vapor-ware.” Just like everything else you’ve posted here.

What is the purpose and function of a baby?

realpc: Did you just miss the entire point of my post, or are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

You cannot determine which is more complex, the brick or the rock, based on their shapes.

Wrong. By any of a number of definitions (including Dembski’s!), the rock is more complex than the brick. By at least one other definition, the brick is more complex than the rock. All of them require us to know nothing more about the rock and the brick than their physical properties.

You cannot equate irregularity, or disorderliness, with complexity.

Wrong again.

The definition of complexity must include purpose and function.

As far as I can tell, the only person who uses this “definition” is you. So what, pray tell, is this definition?

What is the purpose and function of a baby?

Its purpose is to BE complex!!! Whoah…

realpc: Did you just miss the entire point of my post, or are you deliberately misrepresenting it?

Yes.

The video is a lot better than nothing. It does illustrate the inevitability of evolution in a population that reproduces with variation (especially when natural selection is present, but technically, all you need is the variation). Overall, I strongly applaud the creativity and insight of those who created it.

Reed A. Cartwright identifies two major annoying errors. It ignores the role of random genetic drift (which is the logical equivalent, roughly, of thinking that a group of gamblers at a crap table will all lose their money at an exactly equal rate, even in the very short term, because they’re all at the exact same relative disadvantage to the environment - we might crudely say that ignoring genetic drift is like ignoring variance), and, even less forgiveably, it implies that humans evolved from chimpanzees.

I have a third complaint - the use of the hackneyed term “survival”. While not technically absolutely wrong, it is a deceptive term to use. The main reason for this is that “survival” is often taken as a synonym for “longevity” (and that’s roughly what this video uses it to mean).

One of the more annoying misconceptions about evolution - and possibly one that makes it needlessly emotionally upsetting to some people - is the implication that it acts mainly or exclusively through the mechanism of sudden, painful death for “unfit” creatures. (With apologies for the animal-centric language.)

Natural selection for an allele within a population simply means that the carriers of one allele have some reproductive advantage, however imperceptible, relative to the carriers of some other allele.

Most sudden or premature deaths among populations of highly adapted animals are probably either random, or related to age (young and old being easier to prey on). Obviously relatively faster antelope ancestors, at some point, had some reproductive advantage, probably related to fleeing predators, otherwise antelopes wouldn’t be fast. No doubt a severe genetic abnormality that made an antelope slow would be selected against even today, at least where the full phenotype was expressed. But it’s silly to think that the selective pressures on a population of highly adapted organisms relate exclusively to avoidance of sudden premature death, or that sudden premature death is always directly the “fault” of some genetic trait. Yet this is what many seem to think.

This is especially true when we consider that the relationship between individual longevity and reproductive output, while certainly a positive one (organisms have to survive to maturity to reproduce and the longer they live, to some degree, the more chances they get), is by no means a straight line. Even among long-lived humans, there are many examples of short but fecund lives, and many people who live long lives with little or no reproduction.

Evolution is just what happens when there is reproduction with variation, especially in an environment with limited resources. It isn’t “good” or “bad” or “gentle” or “harsh” or “driven by the goal of producing complexity” or “driven by the goal of producing simplicity” or anything else. It’s just how the physical world works.

Evolution is just what happens when there is reproduction with variation, especially in an environment with limited resources.

Hmm, think you can drop the “especially” here - if resources are unlimited, even the least efficient organisms will find resources.

Reed says,

Note that with the population sizes shown, it is more likely that random genetic drift will be stronger than selection. And chimps were not the ancestors of humans et al.

In other words, the program doesn’t tell us a heck of a lot about real biological evolution. It confuses evolution with natural selection. It exaggerates the effect of natural selection; over-emphasizes the role of environment; grossly magnifies the rate of mutation; and screws up primate evolution.

Is that why it’s called “Evolution for Idiots”?

Dizzy -

Well, technically…

If we had a bunch of near immortal organisms, in an environment with near infinite resources, and they reproduced with variation, including variation in the rate of reproduction, there would STILL be evolution. (And presumably, over a long period of time, traits associated with the fastest rate of reproduction would come to predominate.)

There certainly wouldn’t necessarily be the kind of tight adaptation to specific niches that we see in a (real-life) limited resource environment. But there would certainly be evolution.

The only way to prevent evolution is with invariant reproduction, which is physically impossible.

Caveat to my comments above - I don’t mean to address spiritual ideas about the human mind or soul at all here. However, biological evolution is just something that invariably happens to all life - plants, microbes, etc. It’s like gravity. It’s the way any rational observer who accepts the basic axioms and logic processes that underly science (and that almost all people implicitly accept) can see that the physical world works. I’m not addressing any extra-scientific questions. Some people who fully accept and understand science believe that some purpose or goal underlies that way the universe works, and unlike some posters here, I’m sympathetic to that idea. But it doesn’t make sense to say that “gravity”, “electricity”, “evolution”, or the like have “goals”.

This is the problem. Some people think that by grasping an idea as simple as natural selection, they have grasped the intellectual core of evolutionary biology. It’s just THAT simple for them. Utradarwinism: thinking that you’ve got the best all covered just by understanding natural selection, is the initial stage for the amateur know-nothings that have decided to go evolutionary (a stage I went through when I was about 14) Which, by the way, is the state that many “rationalists” are stuck in. Do they need to know anything else? those boring details of the history of life on earth? just one theory is enaough to discard creationism and that is all that they really care about (NOT the study of evolution)

Are there any limits to what random mutation and natural selection can accomplish? (I mean in the real world, not in Reed’s brilliant you-tube video)

just one theory is enaough to discard creationism and that is all that they really care about (NOT the study of evolution)

Are you trying to bring attention to the fact that there exist “evolution flag-wavers,” just as there are “creationist flag-wavers”? Well, of course there are.

But plenty (if not most) of the ones that “go evolutionary” understand the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory, and are familiar with the “boring details.” None of the creationists understand the explanatory and predictive power of creationism - because it has none.

Are there any limits to what random mutation and natural selection can accomplish?

“Accomplish” in what sense? Like, “is evolution by natural selection ever going to produce Spider-Man?”

Chunkdz, you’re question isn’t phrased well. It is too broad to be given a good answer. You’ll need to be more specific. For instance, are you asking what types of adaptations can natural selection produce?

Taken literally, one could answer that natural selection is not able to power the sun, but then again such an answer is not enlightening. (Haha).

IF we stoop to comparing ourselves with creationists, we will be able to feel happy quite easily , since their mistakes are pretty silly. But this is what I mean. A genuine interest in evolution has much higher standards than being better than those creationist clowns, right? But to the avergae cultural warrior, being better than creationists is what it’s all about. And, many alleged evolution lovers do NOT know basic stuff of natural shitory. How many really can explain what Willi Hennig did for phylogenetic systematics? all you’ll see is a big question mark floating over their heads…

realpc: The definition of complexity must include purpose and function. Dizzy: As far as I can tell, the only person who uses this “definition” is you. So what, pray tell, is this definition?

If you’re analyzing the complexity and efficiency of an algorithm you have to know its purpose. It should have the smallest number of operations that will accomplish its goal. Without knowing the goal of a system, you cannot determine this.

If an algorithm has more steps than it needs to accomplish its goal, that does not make it more complex than a shorter algorithm which accomplishes the same goal. That just makes it inefficient.

If the goal of life is, lets say, consciousness, then humans are more complex than chimps. If the goal is merely survival and reproduction (as Darwinism claims), then it’s hard to compare the complexity of organisms. Is a dolphin any better at surviving than a shark? Probably not. But the dolphin is, most of us would agree, more conscious.

When analyzing the complexity of non-living things, like crystals, we do not simply measure how irregular the shape is. We definitely look for orderly patterns. A snowflake seems more complex to us than an ice cube.

According to chaos theory, and information theory, information depends on a balance somewhere between absolute order and absolute chaos. In human communication, we consider a message meaningful when it tells us something new, but is somehow related to things we already knew. In other words, it’s somwhere between what is completely unfamiliar to us (chaos) and what is completely familiar (order).

So I could also define complexity as information. Something is relatively complex, from my perspective, if it seems to convey a meaningful message. This definition also depends on there being some kind of purpose involved, since every meaningful message must have a purpose.

These definitions are philosophical. Quantifying complexity would depend on a particular context, and would involve some kind of comparison. In other words, it is relative. You can’t just say this thing has more corners than that thing, and is therefore more complex.

Chunkdz, In darwinian lingo, “random” only refers to the fact that the occurrence of mutations is not causally linked to the advantages they may offer. It certainly does not mena that “anything” can be produced by a mutation. There certainly ARE very clear limits as to what natural selection and mutation can do to a REAL organism (for instance whales cant breathe water no matter how adavantageous…and never will)

If you’re analyzing the complexity and efficiency of an algorithm you have to know its purpose.

No, we don’t. Its complexity has nothing to do with its purpose. (If the algorithm has a bug that causes it to fail, does that make it less complex?)

If an algorithm has more steps than it needs to accomplish its goal, that does not make it more complex than a shorter algorithm which accomplishes the same goal.

Yes, it does. A Baroque painting is more complex than an abstract-expressionist one, regardless of what “purpose” we assign to either of them.

If the goal of life is, lets say, consciousness, then humans are more complex than chimps.

And if we suddenly decide that the “goal of live” is NOT “consciousness,” does that decision, ipso facto, make humans less complex?

“Purpose” is a subjective attirbute, not an intrinsic property of any object, natural or artificial. Once again, you’re blind, clueless, and talking out of your ass.

Yes, I know that the populations are too small to be realistic and yes, I know that we did not really descend from chimps, but I think the video does a good job in pointing out that many imperceptible changes can result in large differences between populations.

I hope that the flurry of critical posts means that we will soon have a plethora of clear, instructive and entertaining videos to illustrate the process of evolution to naive audiences.

P.S. for American readers - in English English ‘between’ is used when the relationships are more or less well defined, ‘among’ is used for vague relationships :-)

realpc,

Both drift and selection play a role in the evolution of complexity. Here are some references you can read on the subject. They show that known natural processes are sufficient to explain the origin of complexity in biological systems. If you disagree with the conclusions of these papers please give a detailed refutation of their claims. Your hand-waving argument from incredulity does not convince anyone, especially since it is clear that you are often unaware of relevant literature. By the way, until you have read and responded to the papers, please do not make any more claims about what you think could not happen or what you think cannot be explained.

Evolution of Biological Complexity PNAS 97:4463-4468 (2000)

The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features Nature 423:139-144 (2003).

Evolution of Complexity in Signaling Pathways PNAS 103:1633-16342 (2006).

I was taught that you can only be ‘between’ two things (see etymonline dot com): Scylla and Charybdis, rock and a hard place, etc.

If there are more than two, you are ‘among’ them: “Amongst our weaponry: fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency…”

Realpc gratuitously asserted:

Random drift, like natural selection, is something that must happen.

No it isn’t. They only happen because the replication process is imperfect. Were children perfect clones of their parents, neither drift nor selection would occur.

Yes, luck is involved as well as fitness. How does that explain increasing complexity?

If offspring are variably complex (and again I am using the dictionary definition, not the troll-invented one) relative to their parents, it is trivially true that some lines of descent will involve increased complexity.

Since creationists like analogies to language, let’s start with a this being: Cat. If it point mutates, it might produce “Cot”. If that experienced gene duplication, it might become “Colt”. “Colt” is more complex than “cat”. QED

I noticed that some of you here are complexity-deniers and others say complexity is easily explained. Apparently there is a lack of consensus among standard theory believers.

Most of that difference is due to the fact that you refuse to define “complexity”, thus forcing us to either guess what you mean, or in my case, insist on using the English definitions of English words. Obviously if people are using different definitions for the same word, they are going to have different opinions about it.

But more fundamentally, and I note the pun, differences of opinion is a virtue, not a vice, of scientific inquiry. To draw an analogy with evolution, heterogeneity of opinion is the genetic variation, and the peer review process (and more directly, the experimental data) is the selection. Contrast this to the unformity of opinion demanded on ID sites, which I suppose would be analogous to excessive inbreeding, complete with the appropriate intellectual stagnation.

If it point mutates, it might produce “Cot”. If that experienced gene duplication, it might become “Colt”. “Colt” is more complex than “cat”. QED

Should be:

If it point mutates, it might produce “cot”. If that experienced gene duplication, it might become “coot”. One more point mutation and we could have “colt”. “Colt” is more complex than “cat”. QED

“Contrast this to the unformity of opinion demanded on ID sites”

But ID doesn’t claim to have any simple explanation, so there can’t possibly be uniformity of opinion. The only thing they agree on is that the standard theory is too simple and fails to explain important aspects of evolution.

Ok, I should not expect all standard theory believers to agree on everything. But you seem to consider your theory definitive – Dawkins certainly does. Dawkins is a fanatic, in my opinion, but you seem to respect him here. Dawkins does not, as far as I know, think the theory of evolution is evolving. He does not, as far as I know, see any major defects in the theory.

Therefore, if you are a Dawkinite, you should be bothered by the lack of consensus regarding whether complexity increases or not.

And yes, we have the age-old problem of trying to define complexity.

From wikipedia: “In computational complexity theory, the time complexity of a problem is the number of steps that it takes to solve an instance of the problem as a function of the size of the input (usually measured in bits), using the most efficient algorithm.”

That was one of the definitions I had proposed, but a computer engineer here told me I don’t know anything, because I used slightly different words. This definition doesn’t use the word “purpose,” but it does say “an instance of the problem.” So if you learned rather than memorized, you would see it means the same thing.

Much more could be said on how to define complexity. As I said before, it is a philosophical problem. Different fields define it differently. I was trying to explain to some commenters here that they were over-simplifying the concept.

RealPC wrote.…

Ok, I should not expect all standard theory believers to agree on everything. But you seem to consider your theory definitive

Please feel free to suggest a viable alternate.

But- and this is the important thing - don’t just wave your hands in the air, and complain about “Darwinism”.

Be specific and tell us how we can actually test your alternate, just like we tested evolution when it was the new kid on the block.

Realpc said: ID doesn’t claim to have any simple explanation, so there can’t possibly be uniformity of opinion. The only thing they agree on is that the standard theory is too simple and fails to explain important aspects of evolution.

And you aren’t allowed to talk about the age of the earth… or that the designer demands a designer… or ask what the nature of the designer is… or question why any even semi-intelligent designer would design what we find…

…and on and on. There is nothing remotely similar on ID sites to the kind of intense discussion and difference of opinion we see here and on other real science sites. Any disinterested observer would conclude that it is IDers who are in lock step and demanding conformity, not the scientists.

A simple explanation? ID claims no explanation. Ignorant criticisms of evolution do not qualify as an explanation.

As far as comnplexity goes, IDers only play games with the term because all the standard definitions don’t give them the answers they want. Otherwise, it is totally obvious how evolution does what it does. Cat=>Cot=>Coot=>Colt. Four letters is more complex than three. Simple.

realpc,

No real scientist considers any theory “definitive”, it isn’t even a theoretical possibility. The reason why scientists usually converge on a concensus is that our opinions are typically constrained by evidence. We don’t all look at the same evidence and we don’t always reach the same conclusions, therefore there need not be a strict concensus. By the way, why do you think the major religions of the world cannot agree on anything?

Speaking of evidence, have you read any of the five references I recommended yet? Got any evidence for those “undomesticated dogs” you were talking about? Were they prarie dogs maybe?

I can sympathize with your difficulty in defining complexity. Many others have the same problem. Still, no one else was talking about “computational complexity” and wikipedia is probably not the most definitive reference you could give.

By the way, why do you think the major religions of the world cannot agree on anything?

They mostly agree on the important things. William James said, and I agree, that all religions have the same mystical essence. It’s the feeling of being connected to something greater. The things different religions fight about are mostly political and cultural details, having nothing to do with what religion is about.

Got any evidence for those “undomesticated dogs” you were talking about? Were they prarie dogs maybe?

Humans did not create domesticated dogs as a new species. They were bred from pre-existing dog or dog-like species. And there are still dog species that were never domesticated.

Sorry realpc, wrong again. Canis familiaris was derived from Canis lupus the Gray Wolf. The ancestral species was not a “dog”. There is no such thing as a “nondomesticated dog”. But then again, how could you possibly have known that? Only three people pointed it out to you and only one of them provided you with a reference from the scientific literature! Care to name the mythical “dog species that was not domesticated”? Or did you just MSU again?

By the way, I think it speaks volumes that you are comfortable with the fact that major religions “mostly agree on the important things” while apparently being uncomfortable with the fact that there is not always complete agreement among scientists.

A short, simple web trawling shows that wild dogs are not genus Canis, therefore not closely related to domesticated dogs.

Another short, simple web trawling shows that feral dogs are a growing problem in the United States.

Your daily quota of factoids…

Thanks David Benson. Wow, it looks like I owe realpc an apology. There are in fact some members of the family Canidae that have the term “dog” somewhere in ther common names. They are not in the genus Canis and there is no evidence that they were ever domesticated. Some species may even be older than the human lineage. How silly of me not to have realized that this is in fact what he meant when he used the term “dog”. Man, I wonder why he didn’t just say so when I asked him for examples? Do you suppose this means all his other arguments might have some basis as well? It would be really neat if he could explain that matrix theory.

.…. and cue realpc googling “Dingo” in 3, 2, 1…

The video was humorous, but silly, but… If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell. After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell. If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology. Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES. Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE! Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

realpc seem to be really hung up on what is known and what is unknown.

And he doesn’t know shit about either, which could be why he’s so hung up.

James: you know as well as we do that if the experiment you recommended were done, you and your creationist buddies would merely say “Yes, you created life in a lab, but that doesn’t mean it could have happened naturally;” and you would go on denying every fact or observation that contradicted the stories you were spoon-fed in your home-schools. Your assertion proves your dishonesty.

James Collins says

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.

No, it would not end the arguments. ID proponents would say ‘See, intelligence was required.’

Why, exactly, do you believe that all the world’s biologists (except for a handful, comparable with the number of people who think they are the reincarnation of Julius Caesar) are wrong to think that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life? What is your alternative? What evidence do you have to support it?

I expect that in the unlikely event you respond you will show almost complete ignorance of the theory of evolution and biology.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on April 5, 2007 3:50 AM.

The latest from the World of Egnor was the previous entry in this blog.

Hagfish embryos! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter