Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[js1138]

This has been interesting for me, also. I assure you that I don't keep score on these discussions, and often find myself hoping that someone else will come to my rescue when I exceed my level of expertise. ;^)

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, many dogs will nip at children who are almost, but not quite the same size as the dog. Its a natural competitive thing, not intended to hurt, merely to test for status within the pack. But people with large dogs and visiting children need to think about this.

I have two Dobermans. When little kids visit, they are warned not to take a bone or anything the dogs are playing with, and fortunately they never do. (Not a bad lesson for kids to learn, even when playing with other kids.) The dogs and kids just chase each other around, yipping and squealing, as if they were all puppies. Never had any problems. We always watch them, of course, because some kids are a bit unrestrained. It's pretty much as if man and dogs evolved to get along together, which I suspect is what happened. I've read that fossil digs indicate we've been living with dogs for tens of thousands of years.

[Right Wing Professor]

What I had in mind were endogenous retroviruses. Were they inserted before or after the fall?

During. That was one nasty fruit.

[dark_lord]

In most cases the errors found in the human genome are notlinked to nor are required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts.

And in most cases errors found in software are not required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts. Usually they're just bugs.

This sounds more reasonable to me, and would be consistent with a common ancestor and shared errors observed. But it is no more falsifiable than the theory that angels guide the planets around the sun in addition to the natural gravitational forces.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I have said I'm not pushing a theory. The main difference between me and the pro evolution (non intelligent design) folks is that I recognize and assert that NEITHER is falsifiable, while they ignore that standard evolutionary theory is no stronger than intelligent design, but assert the one over the other as "proved".

[f.Christian]

Here ... I * marked * a few --- for you !

ABIOGENESIS

That slow process by which living organisms were spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This scientific fact should not be confused with the old discredited myth of spontaneous generation by which it was once foolishly believed that living organisms arose from non-living matter. (see Law of Biogenesis).

A.C.L.U.

An organization that zealously protects our American civil liberties by preventing students in public schools from considering scientific evidence that is either consistent with creation or critical of evolution.

BIG BANG

The mechanism, or at least the noise, by which all matter and energy came into existence billions of years ago.

BIOLOGY

The branch of the exact sciences which is exclusively concerned with the evolution of living organisms by means of random mutations and natural selection.

DROSOPHILA

The "guinea pig" of the evolutionist to which we all owe a debt of gratitude for our understanding of the role of mutations in evolution. Trillions of generations of these rapidly breeding little flies have had their wings crumpled and their eyes damaged by strong mutagenic agents to provide us with a genetic insight into how man evolved from the prehominid brutes in a few thousand generations.

EVOLUTION

A truly perfect scientific theory which explaims in detail how everything in the universe came into being -- slowly. The theory of evolutions is so perfect and flexible in its ability to explain virtually all observable phemomena or opinions that it would be impossible to even conceive of an experiment capable of disproving it. (see Law).

GEOLOGIC COLUMN

A precise hierarchy of fossilized animals and plants of known age found in successive layers of stratified rock with the simplest and oldest at the bottom and the most highly evolved, i.e., most recent, at the top. Uninterrupted columns of this type may be found in any book of geology, paleontology or evolution. Bits and pieces of the column may even be found in the stratified rocks of the earth, but since these layers are often out of correct order and very incomplete, one should study the geologic column in books, not nature.

* HOPEFUL MONSTER THEORY *

A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium)

INDEX FOSSILS

Fossils of animals whose ages are precisely known from the age of the rocks in which they are found, thus, serving as a means for accurately dating the rocks in which they are found as well as the age of any other fossils that may be contained therein.

LAW

In science, a statement of fact about a sequence or phenomenon that has been invariably observed to occur under known conditions such as, for example, the theory of evolution. (see Evolution).

LAW OF BIOGENESIS

Simply states the obvious...that all life comes from pre-existing life. This law, which was confirmed by Redi and Pasteur, permanently laid to rest the ludicrous idea of the ignorant ancients that living organisms could spring from inanimate matter. It should be emphasized that this law in no way precludes the slow origin of living organisms from inanimate matter through the process of evolution - after all, we are here, aren't we? (see Abiogenesis).

LIFE

The only term in this dictionary that defies definition since it has been said that "the division of matter into living and nonliving is perhaps an arbitrary one. It is a convenient method for distinguishing, for instance, a man from a rock." (quoted verbatim from The Origins of Life, by Cyril Ponnamperuma, 1962, H. P. Dutton, New York, p. 36).

MICROSPHERES

Primitive cells which have been artificially synthesized from simple laboratory reagents. As the name implies, the principal similarity between microspheres and living cells is that both are small and sort of round.

* MISSING LINKS *

An inconceivably vast assemblage of plants and animals which are intermediate in their evolutionary development between all of the discrete kinds of plants and animals one sees either alive or in the fossil record. Unfortunately as the name implies they are missing.

MUTATIONS

A change in the genetic material (DNA) of the cell induced by hazardous chemicals or radiation which in addition to killing or maiming organisms will, given enough time and enough mutations, inexorably lead some organisms on to an ever more successful and adaptive life.

NATURAL SELECTION

That miraculous process by which incredibly complex and useful structures, such as the eye or brain, are culled out from a vast array of random and purposeless mutations. In the distant past this marvelous natural artificer has produced the whole scope of existence from molecules to man but today it appears to be limiting its activities to such mundane matters as controlling the relative numbers of white and black moths in England.

NEO-DARWINIAN EVOLUTION

An embellishment of the old Darwinian theory of evolution, it states that random changes (mutations) in the genome of an organism will be selected for, and thus contribute to the evolution of the new species, only if they ultimately lead to a greater number of offspring. Thus, an ever-increasing rate of reproduction entirely accounts for the evolution from bacteria to man.

ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES PHYLOGENY

A law first discovered by Ernst Haeckel which if pronounced correctly and with conviction, impresses laymen and students of science in the elementary grades. Simply stated, and thus less convincingly, it means that the embryos of all animals bother to provide a historical review of many stages of their evolution during their embryological development. Although this type of reminiscing is touching and is taught in almost every general science and biology text book, it is no longer accepted by scientists or even evolutionists.

* PHYLOGENETIC TREE *

A tree that grows mainly in textbooks of biology and which has a variety of both contemporary and fossil animals perched on the tips of its branches. This tree clearly shows how all of these animals branched off from common ancestors a long time ago.

* For some reason the common ancestors are never shown sitting in the crotches of the tree. *

Plants presumably grow on different trees which are rather rare.

PILTDOWN MAN

Once known by all true scholars of human evolution to be an ancient ancestor of man. This true "ape man" had the jaw of a modern ape and the skull of a modern man. Today this ape-man is not so well known among true scholars of evolution.

PRIMITIVE

Old, inferior, poorly adapted, less evolved, shoddy, bungling.

* PROOF *

The assimilation of data in such a way that the desired conclusion seems to be the most plausible hypothesis.

PROTOZOA

As the name implies, these are known to be the first true animals on earth. If these primitive organisms had continued to adapt to their changing environment they might still be with us today.

* PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM *

An ad hoc hypothesis or alibi that claims the reason there are no known transitional forms in the fossil record is because evolutionary changes occur so quickly and the reason we can't see evolutionary changes in the laboratory is because they occur so slowly. (see Hopeful Monster Theory).

RADIOCARBON DATING

A remarkably precise method of actually measuring the age of any carbon-containing sample. Except for certain spurious (young) dates, radiocarbon, like other methods involving the decay of radionuclides will, given several absolutely safe assumptions, invariably indicate a ripe old age for any specimen consistent with a slow process of evolution.

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

One of the most fundamental laws of science which essentially states that nothing can increase in order, complexity, or information but rather everything form the universe to the one-horse shay will in time fall apart (not assemble). We may be sure, however, that the mind-boggling increase in order, complexity and information accomplished by the evolution of chemicals to man in no way violates this law or it wouldn't have happened.

SELECTIVE PRESSURE

That natural and highly selective pressure that actually forces particularly useful structures such as brains, eyes, legs, wings and long necks on giraffes to evolve by random mutations. Unnecessary structures such as eyelids on your navel fail to evolve by chance because there is no selective pressure for this.

* SPECULATION *

The single most powerful tool in the hands of the evolutionists.

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

The most important contribution of Darwin to biological thought which states that only those organisms which are fit survive, or in other words, survival is the result of being fit. By this kind of logic it can also be proven that loss of vision is a principal cause of blindness.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION

The belief that the evolutionary account of origins (where everything ascends from a very imperfect state to a more nearly perfect state) and the Biblical account of origins (where everything descends from a perfect state to a very imperfect state) are both true.

* TIME *

That miracle ingredient which in sufficient quantity can give scientific credibility to any hypothesis no matter how improbable. It is a well- known axiom of science for example, that given enough time virtually anything is possible - indeed you might even say it has to happen.

* TREE *

That which only evolution can make. (see Phylogenetic Tree).

VESTIGIAL ORGANS

Organs or other body parts, left over from evolutionary ancestors, which are no longer used or needed by an organism that has become more highly evolved by abandoning organs and getting simpler. Seventy years ago man had nearly one hundred vestigial organs such as the parathyroid, tonsils, coccyx, etc., but today he has very few vestigial organs because a good use has been discovered for most of these organs.

XERDEMA PIGMENTOSA

A disease of man in which certain enzymes which normally repair mutations of DNA fail to do so resulting in malignant tumors of the skin which are often fatal. Since it is well known that mutations were essential for the evolution of man from primitive cells, we must assume that too much of even a good thing like mutations is bad for us.


390 posted on 06/11/2003 12:49 AM PDT by razorbak

[RightWingNilla]

And in most cases errors found in software are not required in any way for the functionality of the "working" parts. Usually they're just bugs.

Why would a designer purposefully carry over obvious bugs to other designs if they are in no way tied to anything useful?

The main difference between me and the pro evolution (non intelligent design) folks is that I recognize and assert that NEITHER is falsifiable,

No, maybe I missed it. but how is TOE NOT falsifiable? We already covered common descent. The DNA evidence would not backup the tree of life. Fossils found in the completely wrong order would also do it. Or if the earth was found to be significantly less than 4 bil years.

You are tacking on superficial supernatural explanations..well those I am afraid cannot be falsified. You are entitled to believe what you wish.

[dark_lord]

Why would a designer purposefully carry over obvious bugs to other designs if they are in no way tied to anything useful?

If you had done large software projects you would know the answer. Reason is that coders copy software because of its functionality. What makes you think they know about the bugs? Most bugs are not obvious. As in a previously cited gene for susceptibility to scurvy in chimps and apes. As long as the chimps and apes live in an environment with plenty of fruit or vegetation that contains vitamin C -- the defect is not obvious at all.

[RightWingNilla]

As long as the chimps and apes live in an environment with plenty of fruit or vegetation that contains vitamin C -- the defect is not obvious at all.

That gene used to be functional in lower mammals. The designer must have known it was there and worked at some point since he/she must have made it. Did it just naturally deteriorate in the new environment since there was no selective pressure? Or did the designer just throw in a broken gene for the hell of it?

[dark_lord]

The DNA evidence would not backup the tree of life.

Sigh. What makes you think the DNA evidence does back up "the tree of life"? Their ain't no extant tree of life. There's just stuff alive today. Try to make a tree out of todays living organisms. You can't. You have to go to the fossil record. But. Ain't no DNA extractible from those fossils. So, it is not correct to assume that the DNA evidence does back up a "tree of life". All it shows is that yep, everything on earth today is related. (Even extremophiles.)

[dark_lord]

That gene used to be functional in lower mammals. The designer must have known it was there and worked at some point since he/she must have made it. Did it just naturally deteriorate in the new environment since there was no selective pressure? Or did the designer just throw in a broken gene for the hell of it?

You keep saying "the designer" as if you are assuming it is a single entity. Are you making the assumption that "the designer" is God? And then making assumptions about the attributes and qualities of "the designer" that would preclude errors?

In the software realm, applying a fix or an enhancement here can break something that was previously working there. And unless you have a very complete regression test environment (and most places don't even have a regression test environment at all), the software just gets released into the environment with the new feature and something broken. And of course, no one knows until the software users start complaining. Which, depending on the environmental conditions, will either be somewhere between right away to never (never in the case where what is broken is not used in its current environment.)

[RightWingNilla]

So, it is not correct to assume that the DNA evidence does back up a "tree of life".

It isn't? So it is a coincidence that many individual DNA sequences confirm that humans are much more closely related to chimps than to mice? That catfish are much closer to sharks than earthworms?

Any serious and consistent discrepancy here would falsify the theory, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

Please bring the goalposts back into the endzone.

[RightWingNilla]

Are you making the assumption that "the designer" is God? And then making assumptions about the attributes and qualities of "the designer" that would preclude errors?

lol. I don't this will be very popular from the ID crowd:

"Either life evolved according to natural laws, or it was designed by an entity with questionable abilities and intelligence."

I know of no one who wants to think of God as a third rate software engineer.

[RightWingNilla]

popular from with the ID crowd

[dark_lord]

It isn't? So it is a coincidence that many individual DNA sequences confirm that humans are much more closely related to chimps than to mice? That catfish are much closer to sharks than earthworms? Any serious and consistent discrepancy here would falsify the theory, which is why I brought it up in the first place.

It is not a coincidence. However, the whole discussion is on how the relationships occur, not that they occur. Neither the TOE, nor ID, nor "the aliens dumped a zoo into the ocean" are stated in any way that I can see that would permit one to verify one over the other. Any serious and consistent discrepancy here could be construed to falsify all of those 3 hypotheses. But since that is not the evidence, none of them have been falsified.

[dark_lord]

I know of no one who wants to think of God as a third rate software engineer.

Heh. But of course, ID is not dependent on assuming that the "designer/code" is God, after all -- although clearly that is the perspective of the "Creation Science" folks. But heck -- assume God is 1st rate A+, but the actual work gets done by entities (sub-sub-contractors) that are just "pretty good". Fact is, even 1st rate software engineers produce code with bugs. And if you look at the complexity of the systems (life) you would have to concede that the actual level of bugs within the systems is actually very, very, very, very low -- way better than people could do if they were design/coding it.

[VadeRetro]

It's not the 9th yet. You're a poop-head! Always have been. Always will be. Hee hee hee!

Your granddaddy was pond scum!

[RightWingNilla]

Neither the TOE, nor ID, nor "the aliens dumped a zoo into the ocean" are stated in any way that I can see that would permit one to verify one over the other.

TOE says random mutations are the cause of diversity - and guess what you see when you look closely at the genomic structure of organisms? A jumbled, jury rigged mess that seems to work despite its woefully inefficient "design". IOW it looks like the culmination of a whole bunch of random events at the DNA level- unequal crossovers, duplications, substitutions, retrotranspositions, pseudogenes etc.

Now thats good enough for TOE. The observations fit the theory perfectly here. Can I completely rule out the possibility of an incompetent designer? I guess not. I would just rather not believe in such a thing.

[RightWingNilla]

assume God is 1st rate A+, but the actual work gets done by entities (sub-sub-contractors) that are just "pretty good".

Replace "sub-sub contractors" with "natural law" and I am with you for the most part.

[dark_lord]

TOE says random mutations are the cause of diversity - and guess what you see when you look closely at the genomic structure of organisms? A jumbled, jury rigged mess that seems to work despite its woefully inefficient "design". IOW it looks like the culmination of a whole bunch of random events at the DNA level- unequal crossovers, duplications, substitutions, retrotranspositions, pseudogenes etc. Now thats good enough for TOE. The observations fit the theory perfectly here.

Heh. Have you ever seen a software system that has been fixed, patched, enhanced, updated, upgraded, and modified over a period of thirty years? It has a name in the industry. Its called "spaghetti code". Hmmm. Sounds exactly like what you just described.

Can I completely rule out the possibility of an incompetent designer? I guess not. I would just rather not believe in such a thing.

But of course the system after 30 years hasn't really been "designed", now has it? It has instead been hacked, kludged, and munged. (Nicely descriptive words, aren't they?) Its amazing how much old software systems resemble nature.

[RightWingNilla]

Your granddaddy was pond scum!

Oh yeah? Well my greatgrandpappy was no pond scum. He was a monkey dammmit!!! And damn proud of it!