scigirl

Oh, but you are very wrong. The debate is keeping me from having to write my master's thesis--a very good reason indeed!

You've got a point. Even if I don't convince Douglas though, I will perhaps convince lurkers who are still unsure about what they believe. No scratch that, the evidence I present will convince them that evolution makes a lot more scientific sense than Genesis 1.

Scigirl

RufusAtticus

Nice post, scigirl.

But do a little more digging on Dingoes.

They are descended from domesticated dogs brought by the early human settlers. They are eutherians, not marsupials, which you imply. The major distinction between Dingoes and other dogs is their annual breeding cycle. (Other dogs breed twice a year.)

-RvFvS

Koyaanisqatsi

Just wanted to interject something here. Pardon.

No, but it is to be found in a pregnant woman's womb.

Douglas, you have ample evidence for evolution within a human's nine month gestation period.

Consider this:

As any OBGYN will tell you, human embryos (for example) begin as simple organisms (ovum) that become complex organisms through violent attack by a spermatozoa.

This disruption in the natural state of the ovum is registered and dealt with. It should be noted that such an event's likelihood is one in a trillion, on average, setting to rest any Anthropic Principal adherents, by the way.

The intrusion of the spermatozoa results in a dangerous hybrid; a simple organism becoming, suddenly, a complex organism, which then seeks to survive and adapt to the new parameters of it's altered state; a state not conducive to the hybrid's continued existence without adaptation.

After all, a spermatozoa that penetrates an ovum will not survive in its environment (the womb), unless it adapts to that environment, which it cannot without evolving.

Thus it creates its own environment, the placenta. Please note that the host does not provide the placenta.

Thus, this multi-celled hybrid adapts its hostile environment out of necessity (aka, survival), and gains a temporary stasis. But for how long? A multi-celled organism within its own environment is still vulnerable to the host body's immune system.

A communication takes place. If the hybrid does not evolve beyond its current stasis, the host body will destroy it.

Thus it begins a series of complex alterations of its own structure in order to survive the increasing dangers of remaining in its present stasis.

Thus, it takes the next logical step to adapt to its watery environment; it becomes a rudimentary tadpole that can, for the moment, survive its environment.

However, as a simple tadpole, it will not still survive for very long, since there is nothing in its environment that will support its perpetual existence as a tadpole.

It must become more complex in order to continue to survive in the environment it finds itself in, in order to exit the environment as soon as possible.

It becomes more resistant and more complex,; a water-breathing simian that evolves and adapts into water-breathing homo-sapiens; a version of the same host body that has continued its own survival while the hybrid adapts (a logical choice, considering the circumstances).

It can remain in that stasis for so long, however, before the host environment finally expels it.

Thus, a simple, single-celled organism normally discarded by the host, adapts and evolves through change to its structure and the effects that has on its environment, from a parasite into an autonomous, air breathing homo-sapiens, taking its final cue from the host.

At any point along that journey, the being must evolve and adapt or die.

Now, you may call such evolution "growth," but that's merely an equivocation based upon definition.

Likewise, you could state that DNA gave the hybrid instructions, but then you'd just be affirming selective adaptation based upon innate, inherited communication as a result of the necessary adaptation to its altered environment through the forceful intrusion of the spermatozoa.

Regardless, the simple ovum would have been destroyed (along with the spermatozoa) without such adaptation through mutual contact.

By the way, just as a side note, your wisdom teeth are transitional fossils. You're just not dead long enough for the scientists to officially make such a time dependent determination.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Spot on. This is what I was thinking of, and was unable to articulate. With evolution, there are expected to be organisms whose characteristics straddle previously determined physiological "boundaries." On the other hand, the YEC must firmly decide, for example, whether archaeopteryx should be classified as either an avian or reptilian "kind," and, once having decided, somehow explain the existence of the other features. The evolutionary model poses no such dilemma.

Then of course there is Patrick's famous series of hominid skulls. Very tricky for the YEC, as we have seen time and time again. The biblical "kind" simply doesn't contemplate these difficulties; in fact, it causes the difficulties in the first place!

Agreeing to certain elements of classification but at the same time reserving the right to invoke the use of the expression "kind" arbitrarily and whenever convenient is simply a deliberately obfuscatory semantic tactic. It's clever, and we all know that Douglas is no dummy, but I think it's going to get him involved in some unfortunate logical acrobatics.

Douglas J. Bender

hezekiahjones,


Sorry I probably won't be able to address your "6000 years versus 'Old Age'" issue, at least until I vanquish scigirl - I've got my hands full, as it is. (If I were to try to address your "issue", I would have no reason not to address anyone else's "issues", and the whole point of my limiting myself to a "formal debate" with one person [scigirl] - to save time - would be moot.)

In Christ,

Douglas

hezekiah jones

That's unfortunate. Eternity is a long time, so I've been told.

Douglas J. Bender

Oh boy - If I'm going to be fair, I've got to respond to at least four or five different people, and several additional point, here, than just in the "Formal Debate" thread. Yikes.

I'd just like to say that I appreciate the compliments about my civility and courteousness here. (I have a "courtesy-check" program that comes in pretty handy.)


scigirl,

No fair posting pictures and graphs - I don't even know how to post moving icons, let alone pictures and graphs. Maybe I can just muddy things by saying, "Using pictures and graphs is a sign of weakness".

Oh, and I'd hate to be responsible for making you miss or fail your master's thesis. (Unless it would prevent you from furthering the evolutionary world-view - in that case, I will increase the frequency and detail of my posts.)


In Christ,

Douglas

SingleDad

Use the IMG tags. {IMG}&lt;url of picture&gt;{/IMG}

Subsitute [] for {} and use the actual url of the picture. If you have a picture that's not on the web, feel free to email it to me and I will post it on my personal web site and send you the URL and the IMG tags.

Douglas J. Bender

faded_Glory,


You asked:
(That should be, if I "did not believe in a literal Genesis".) Honestly, I don't know enough about all the various pieces of "evidence" to say one way or another - from what it seems I do know, I would say that I would not agree that the evidence points to "macroevolution" necessarily, unless I also believed in "metaphysical naturalism".

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Richiyaado,


You said:
Actually, I'm saying that I disagree that limited resources will always (or even in "most cases", perhaps) "cause a struggle for survival among populations of organisms". I disagree with that view because it is based on the implicit assumption that God doesn't exist, or is not actively involved in His Creation.


You asked:
I'm simply saying that the "naturalistic assumption" which "allows" one to infer a "struggle for survival" from "limited resouces" is that God does not exist, or is not directly involved in His Creation. I'm trying to make it clear that the "naturalistic" inferences stand or fall on this assumption. I don't propose this as a "scientific" hypothesis (it might be, but it would, by its nature, be so difficult to "test" as to make in "unviable", I imagine); nor am I proposing this as a "religious belief" which needs to be assumed - I'm just pointing out the underlying assumption of "metaphysical naturalism", and how the resulting "inferences" depend on that assumption.


You asked:
I mean by this basically what the "Infidels" site says about "metaphysical naturalism" - that the "naturalistic" view is one where God is assumed to not be "needed" or "involved". "Nature" and its processes are sufficient to explain everything observed, and is all there is to "reality".

You asked:
I don't think I understand what you mean by "metaphysics or method". That makes us even.


You said:
The problem you are having is with the definition of "change", I think - I agree that "'random' mutation'", plus "'natural' selection" can "bring about change", but by this I mean minor variations within "kinds". On the other hand, "descent with modification", as it is generally used to imply "macroevolution", implies an order of "change" which I do not believe "RM&NS" can account for.


You said:
I'm not quite sure that's what I said. I think I said that I cannot offer any "direct or conclusive evidence" that there is a particular "barrier" to microevolution leading to macroevolution. I think there might be other ways, beyond finding a specific biological "barrier" (which is what I understood scigirl to be getting at), to provide perhaps "direct or conclusive evidence" that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution.


In Christ,

Douglas