Harzburgite

I am perplexed. You asked for a theological discussion. I have demonstrated, using biblical sources, why your basic premise may be flawed. I was rather hoping for a more substantial response than "actually I don't believe in evolution'. If this was a reply to the immendiately prior post, then I am disappointed rather than perplexed.

It would be wrong of me to accuse you of putting words in my mouth, so I shall take the burden of responsibility and say that I failed to explain myself clearly. (And in passing I'll note that there is no meaningful comparison to be made between a legal process and science, unless you wish to consider science an ongoing, non-stop, court of appeal.) Science has several notions as to how the first cells developed, but as your argument itself acknowledges, indeed seems to based upon, the cell is itself very complex. It is only a couple of centuries since cells were recognised; the first cell likely took several hundred million years to develop. Do you really expect us to solve that problem so quickly? Scientists are confident, but the good ones are rarely arrogant. Every year that passes our understanding improves and our grasp of how the first life may have arisen becomes stronger. I see no reason to believe that this will change. Please do not take my statement in my prior post to mean I am admitting there is no evidence.There is a mass of evidence. It is the detail that is taking the time to work out. If I may make a crude analogy: I know I shall wear clothes to work tomorrow, its kust I don't know which ones, or whether I shall wear a tie. As Boersun said it rather ends the discussion right there.I do not wish to put words in your mouth. You seem to be stating that you reject micro-evolution. Can you confirm this please? You seem to have walked straight into my trap. The point is that in the early evolution of life the 'mice' to use your analogy, were damn weak. They didn't have the strength to wriggle free of this sub-standard (by today's standards) mousetrap. There is a clearly recognised relationship in evolutionary ecology between the prey and the predator. They evolve together. So do the components of a cell, from very simple forms, to the complexity we see today. There is nothing to stop that complexity being God-given Trout. She might just have done it by setting the rules, not by cookie cuttering the end product.

There is about as large a gulf between pre-biotic chemistry and a typical prokaryote cell, as there is between that cell and a typical human or spiny anteater. That gulf is bridged by a progressive growth in complexity from the autocatalytic systems hinted at by pgrmdave; their absorbtion into lipid bounded containers; and their integration with systems that acquired heritable characteristics. Just because we cannot yet clearly identify each step in this complex development is not evidence that the development did not occur. TroutMac your logic is flawed. You say take away one little component from the simplest cell and it dies, therefore it must have been designed. How well would you function without your liver? Yet you expect a cell that has evolved to its present balance of components to function if one of those components is removed. In reality you cannot remove an entire component. What would be the reverse of evolution would be to replace that component with one that did the job somewhat more poorly. That cell would still survive. Unlike your logic. :shrug:

I am not certain that your premises are valid. I'd like to explore those before addressing your central question. I do not see any justification for this view. Perhaps you can enlighten me: justify the claim of imperfection. To me the contrary seems true: most of the description of the land beyond Eden is neutral in tone. Where it is judgemental it is so in a positive way. Thus in Genesis 2:11 and 2:12 we read 2:11 The name of the first (river) is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 2:12 And the gold of that land is good: ..... Earlier in Genesis 2 we learn that the entire Earth was provided with a full range of vegetation, which is in no way distinguished from that within the Garden. 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. As far as I can see, from a reading of Genesis, the Garden of Eden is distinguished from the land outwith by two things only: 1) The presence of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil 2) The presence of the Tree of Life Consequently, the Fall is a fall of Adam and Eve. They are the ones who lose perfection. The perfection of Nature, whether within the Garden or outwith the Garden is not effected. On that basis I cannot see any Biblical justification for your proposal that the imperfect animals and plants then suffered further mutation, for it was Adam and Eve, and their progeny, who were now imperfect, not the rest of Nature. The rest of Nature still lacked a knowledge of Good and Evil, since Nature had not partaken of the Tree of Knowledge. Hence Nature was still perfect.

I had always viewed Tippler's suggestion as more of a mind exercise than a serious proposition - even for the far future. The sub-atomic concept you mention sounds much more practical - and small steps lead to larger ones. Today a single photon one second in the past, Tomorrow its yesterday all over again. Now, just to wildly speculate, if such devices could be scaled up so that photons could be sent a substantial time into the past (lets worry about causality later) you have the makings of an efficient interstellar communication device and an answer to Enrico Fermi's question "Where is everyone?" Answer: they are all texting each other by Photon Asynchronous Sending Technique or PAST.

Interesting that I should feel I am being attacked, by no less than a senior admin with many green squares. Well, excuse me for caring. Are you actually defending sloppy spelling and grammar? You actually wish to encourage it? And how dare you accuse me of being on 'a high horse'. She dares, I dares. Note how you can understand what I'm saying, despite the grammer. :circle:Sloppy spelling and grammar denote unclear thinking or a disinterest in what is being discussed. The adjective sloppy has a specific connotation, which as an educated native English speaker I would believe you are well aware of. It expresses a carelessness based not on lack of knowledge, but lack of attention. A person comparatively unskilled in the use of English cannot be guilty of sloppy spelling or grammar because they may know barely enough to be careless with. As their skill level grows the opportunities for sloppiness increase, but it is my pleasant experience that few fall victim to it. The guilty parties are typically native English speakers who seem indifferent to the difficulties their carelessness creates for those struggling in a foreign language. As nice as all those syllables look, an overuse of vocabulary can seem just as vulgar as rampant |_337 $|^E/|<. A degree of tolerance would be appreciated; just because you had the lovely chance to meet all those slanging teenagers. Proper dictation has it's place, but criticisum is generally best made in a constructive manner. And when I condemn this thoughtlessness I am taken to task for being on my high horse and being elitist. Well, get used to it Ms Irish, when I think it is worthy of mention I shall mention it. We expect you to, but please be a little less ignorant in the manner that you present it. You can hide more guns in roses than piles of maneure. I would like to applaud Skippy's amusing identification of my own mistyping of unraveliiing. This is actually an interesting example of what I mean by care and attention. I have a faulty key board which misses letters and sometimes double strikes them. In brackets is what I had to go through, letter by letter, correcting, to get to this paragraph here. To do less would be decidedly rude, in my opinion. I am simply asking for those with functioning keyboards and a good grasp of English to make a little effort in that regard. [Thhis iis actuallly and iinterestingg example ooff whhat I mean byy care and attention. II ave a flltty key booard whhiichh misses lettrs and sootiimss ddobl striikes thhem. In brackets iis whhat I hhad to go trooghh ltterr by lleteer coorrectiing to geet to thhiiss parragraphh hre. To doo lss wouould bee deciiedly rude, iin my oiinion. I amn simplly askiingg foor tose wiithth funconng keyboards and an a goodd grasp oof nglliishh make a iittle ffort in thhatt regard.] Nice to know, is it legible? good. I guarentee you I make mistakes in my french grammer, and my english grammer because they run together inside my mind. We all have quirks, why must a strict level of conformity be placed on it? I am, as you are well aware, new to these forums. I have engaged in debates in several threads and, what I consider far more interesting and important, attempted to provide information where I believe I am competent to do so. In short, it is my aim to be a productive member of this forum. I do not expect to be berated by an admin for trying to raise standards and make life easier for everone. If you genuinely feel my attitude is unacceptable you have a simple remedy. And we don't appreciate temper-tantrums. Grow up.

One slayer's pessimism is another man's realism. Nowhere do I assume this. Evolution has no goals. The original post asked about the possibilities of intelligent life, that is why I am addressing intelligence. Exactly. It took a very long time to develop and, arguably, the odds were well stacked against it.

Interesting thought that triggered two observations a) If oil is not of biogenic origin then this isn't a problem. (Nods in direction of Russia and of Tommy Gold.) :circle: We use oil because it is convenient. In its absence we may have discovered and developed methods for extracting fuels from biomass. We only need around a century of 'easy' fuel before we can move on to nuclear.

I am with you on this one EWright – and I do recognise that you are more posing a question than stating an opinion. We have a single planet and a single ecosystem on which to base our conclusions: a sample size of one is always a dangerous base for statistics. Infamous says: “What about dolphins and chimps?” As you rightly point out they haven’t shown any signs of attempting interstellar communication. C1ay says: “Considering the apparent age of the local universe as we know it, thousands or millions of years older than life on Earth could be very plausible.” Just for the benefit of those readers new to geologic and astronomic timescales, lets amend that to “tens of millions to hundreds of millions” of years older to make it more realistic. However, life does not equate to intelligent life. (For those of you with more than a passing interest in this topic may I recommend Rare Earth, by Ward and Brownlee, ISBN 0387987010. The subtitle “Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe”.) Buffy says: “Yes, everything depends on the probabilities, but the more we find out about life on earth and how many really hostile places it seems to thrive in, its hard to think the probabilities are that low at all, even for "intelligent" life” But Buffy there is a world of difference (literally many worlds of difference) between the character of extremophiles and that of metazoans, let alone that of intelligent entities. The acceptable environments for the latter appear much more restricted. Additionally, consider two factors: a) time :circle: events. a) It took almost two billion years to advance from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. It took a further billion and a half years too get to complex life forms, then well over half a billion years too get too intelligence. We don’t know if this was faster or slower than average, but if it was typical we have already eliminated a significant number of stars from consideration – planets will not remain in the Goldilocks zone long enough to get to our ‘status’ if their home star is more massive than the sun. :rant: It seems clear that evolution on the Earth has been facilitated by a series of unrelated events that were catastrophic at the time, yet were instrumental in promoting the next wave of evolutionary advancement. Yet these were all chance events. We simply do not know how critical they were in ensuring thee development of intelligence. (To take one case alone, it is possible, even probable that the Cambrian explosion was triggered by the cessation of snowball Earth conditions. No global ice age; no complex life forms.) Buffy continues: “. Thus its pretty obvious that its not too difficult to evolve, but it does require an opposable thumb and some environmental shocks to get it going....” Sorry, it is not at all obvious to me. After 300 million years of large land animals we finally get the right combination of some environmental shocks. That is not easy evolution. If you think it is there are some large bets I should like to place with you. Boersun says: “I think from a sample of a million planets harbouring life, chances are that you'll find 99% of them similar to Earth in Earth's first couple o' billion year's of life: Algae in shallow ponds and seas. No more.” I think you are being wildly optimistic and have not nearly enough nines in there. The arguments against commonplace complex life are presented with much more vigour and detail than I can muster here http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/rare_earth_1_020715.html where Ward and Brownlee debate with Drake. )

Evolution is a digital phenomenom detected, at a macro-level, in analog form. Reflect on that Skippy and you may see the answer.

I have nothing against God. I have nothing against Christianity. I have a great deal against that minority of Christians who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible, with all that entails. (I'm also moderately offended by sloppy spelling: it makes life difficult for those who have English as a second language.)

Unless you are practicing your debating skills the best policy is to avoid such people. There are plenty like that on forums such as this. (Remember to do as I say, not as I do :) )

Please. Evolution is a fact, its mechanism is the only thing in question.

I miss it.

I beg to differ. The equation yields between 1 and 1,000,000+, depending upon how you assess each aspect of it. Using the equation to provide even an estimate of the number of civilisations is something of a misapplication: the equation was established to focus attention on factors controlling the development of life and intelligence, not to compute numbers.

Weak Anthropic Principle.

I don't give a flying Aardvark's congealed excrement who has used strawman arguments elsewhere. It is irrelevant to the expletive deleted argument. Please desist. Ammonites are an interesting creature: a shellfish, akin to the present day Nautilus, and like them multi-chambered. When we look at relatively undisturbed sediments we find those in the lower levels have certain kinds of ammonites that are absent from the upper layers and vice versa. One of the differences between these different types of ammonites is the character of the junction between the chamber partition and the main shell. These patterns or sutures are peculiar to each type of ammonite, but in general they are much more intricate in the later types.This same distribution of ammonite types and associated suture lines is found everywhere in the world ammonites are found. This is a single example, out of thousands, of pattern in the fossil record. Independent of the cause of the pattern, do you accept the pattern itself exists?

A definitive yes. A definitive no. A definitive no. Which high status was that? Is this another debating tactic Skippy? We can trade irrelevant quotations all year: it wont alter the established fact of evolution. I'm at a loss as to what relevance you feel the above quote has. Frankly, I'd have given it more credence if it had come from your own lips - that would have at least accorded relevance as reflecting your thoughts. Here it is merely an appeal to authority. Which trick is next in your repertoire?

That the most honest and amusing answer I have had to any post on any forum. Thank you for making me smile. :)

Bobby, your post, while inherently interesting, appeared to have no connectivity with my own, which you quoted at the outset. What am I missing?

You criticised 'fossil charts', not "using fossils to piece together how animals evolved". Two wholly different things: the first is a simple (and simplifying) way of presenting facts, conclusions and speculations; the second is a complex, time consuming, rigorous suite of processes, subject to internal and external controls, whose results are repeatedly re-assessed in the light of new facts and amended accordingly. That you see these two radically different items as the same is confirmation, were it needed of your almost total ignorance in this area. You will not see me posting opinions or observations in a mathematical forum, at least until my grasp of maths has undergone a major improvement. A similar ploy in relation to evolution is one I might recommend for you. As I have commented elsewhere, ignorance is a wonderful thing, for it offers the prospect of enlightenment. When it is flaunted as the equivalent of wisdom it becomes decidedly unattractive. Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you know how intellectually dishonest it is? Do you care?

Dannel, it was definitely not my intention to 'show you up'. It's just from my perspective you are investing a huge amount of time and effort to fix something 'that ain't broke'. You still have not explained, that I can see, what you think is wrong with our current theories. (We all know they are incomplete, but you appear not only to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but tossing the neighbours in too.)You are clearly intelligent, eclectic in your reading, passionately interested in your subject. Might these attributes not be better employed in mastering current explanations for phenomena rather than in the, probably, forlorn task of creating a new theory.

;) I mean really ;) If this post gets me banned, so be it, but this needs to be said and said as clearly as I know how. Item 1:Skippy made the claim that "evolutionists have accepted too many unsubstantiated guesses to provide "proof" for their continued adherence to flawed science." That is not a claim with which I can agree, but it was made in a reasonable manner and can certainly form the basis of a discussion. Therefore, I asked Item 2 "Give one specific example please." Item 3 Skippy had not yet replied, but Hawkens offered this point "One example...how about the Fossil Charts? Nothing but a collection of artistic drawings based on fossils place in a time range that they "assume" is correct and then use it to base all new findings off of." Item 4 Hawkens I came here to discuss science in a mature, technically rigorous manner, not to debate the value or otherwise of over simplified kindergarten illustrations. I do not know of a single investigation into the evolution of any species, genera, family or phyla for which 'fossil charts' have played any role in establishing the facts. The fact that you cite this as an example reveals you as wholly ignorant of the scientific method, woefully unaware of the processes of palaeontological study, and, by implication largely devoid of even a smattering of intelligence.. Yes, that is a personal attack, because your ignorance, paraded as knowledge, is a direct assault on the objective, scientific method and an affront to those who will be guided by logic and facts, not superstitious dogma. Your bigoted, narrow-minded, self delusional vision of the world is capable of corrupting impressionable young minds, looking for certainty where there is, instead, the glory of steadily unravelliing uncertainty. Your viewpoint constitutes a danger to society and humanity. So, yes I am ;) , still, really :) .

Everywhere is the point from which the expansion started. Matter is not expanding in space. Space is itself expanding from a point. Everything was once at that point. [if you believe Big Bang cosmology).

Give one specific example please.