The Evolution Computer Simulator

[Balloon guy 158]

You should know, that you are fighting a losing battle out of the gate.When you say evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact," You are displaying a great ignorance of scientific termanology.Despite what you might think, the word "theory" as it is used in the scientific community has a much different meaning than the one you or I might give to it in colloquial terms....In scientific Terms, a theory is : "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another."So you see, your statement that a theory is not a fact is off base from the jump, a theory works with nothing but facts.Think of it this way... would you ever say that germ theory is not good enough because it is just a theory? How about atomic theory?

Sorry, we already have a person here who thinks that definitions of words allows your side to not be required to defend the topic, even when you know the point being made.

[Mills 0]

alright, I guess you aren't gonna respond to the point being made....and then you wonder why people consider creationism dishonest....

[Balloon guy 158]

alright, I guess you aren't gonna respond to the point being made....and then you wonder why people consider creationism dishonest....

You come late to the party, but this response tells me you're quick to pigeon hole and largely biased.You have a lot of company on your side of the debate

[timwakefield 68]

So what would the odds be to go from a functioning 100,000 bit data strand to a functioning 3 billion bit data strand? And could it happen by chance ( with natural selection ) in the time frame we have of 4 billion years ( actually less since we had a cooling off period after the formation of the planet thing, but I'll give you the full 4 billion years )

I think this is a fallacy which you are ignoring or not realizing. "By chance, with natural selection" does not really make sense. Natural selection is, in many ways, the opposite of random. Only the single, individual mutations are random (or God controls them, if you like). The process by which species evolve and, over generations, biologically adapt to their surroundings is something which occurs exactly because life and death and birth and genetic similarity* are decided, if you will, by natural selection. Natural selection is, by definition, a process of non-random selection. The strongest live, the weakest die, to oversimplify it. The best analogy I can think of for the random/non-random duality of evolution is this: Every individual ocean wave crashing on the beach has a fairly random effect and composition. We couldn't possibly predict the shape, speed, size, force, composition, etc etc of even one single ocean wave down to a precise microscopic measurement unless we had basically the ability of God. Each wave is random. But the way that rocks and sand are sorted by size, composition, etc etc by the crashing of those random waves is completely un-random. Things can't be 'sorted' randomly. It's an oxymoron. Natural selection is the never-ending 'sorting' of organisms.That's not necessarily a perfect analogy, but I think it makes the point.*Genetic similarity, meaning that offspring carry a combination of the specific genes that their parents carried.Long story short, if everything was "random," then no, we would not be here, and neither would any other life as we know it. If you want to postulate that God wrote the laws of nature that's fine with me, but suggesting that evolution is too 'complex' or 'unlikely' to be real is ridiculous. The anthropic principle addresses that very well, so I highly suggest you reading uncooper's link. I've probably read that article 3 or 4 times over the last few years and I'm still not sure I really grasp it. It's quite fascinating.Combining quotes explaining both the strong and the weak anthropic principles:"The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.""The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. "The most important point I'm trying to make though is the first thing I was talking about. A cell evolving into an intelligent human is in no way similar to rolling a trillion-sided die and hitting the jackpot, because evolution is not at all like taking a stab in the dark. And what the anthropic principle is (sort of) saying is, even if you would only exist by hitting the jackpot (for example, going from one cell specifically to a Brooklyn pedestrian), shit, here we are so clearly we hit that jackpot! If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here to question it. It's not possible that we ever miss the jackpot. We already hit that shit. And the strong anthropic principle says we hit that shit the instant the universe came into existence - that it necessarily would give rise to a form of life that would learn to question its own existence. As evidence: hi! All that is just in my own words and understanding, which as I already said is far from expert.Speaking of the universe,

is pretty sweet. I find the representation of the 'extent of humanity's radio signals' particularly humbling.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think this is a fallacy which you are ignoring or not realizing. "By chance, with natural selection" does not really make sense. Natural selection is, in many ways, the opposite of random. Only the single, individual mutations are random (or God controls them, if you like). The process by which species evolve and, over generations, biologically adapt to their surroundings is something which occurs exactly because life and death and birth and genetic similarity* are decided, if you will, by natural selection. Natural selection is, by definition, a process of non-random selection. The strongest live, the weakest die, to oversimplify it. The best analogy I can think of for the random/non-random duality of evolution is this: Every individual ocean wave crashing on the beach has a fairly random effect and composition. We couldn't possibly predict the shape, speed, size, force, composition, etc etc of even one single ocean wave down to a precise microscopic measurement unless we had basically the ability of God. Each wave is random. But the way that rocks and sand are sorted by size, composition, etc etc by the crashing of those random waves is completely un-random. Things can't be 'sorted' randomly. It's an oxymoron. Natural selection is the never-ending 'sorting' of organisms.That's not necessarily a perfect analogy, but I think it makes the point.*Genetic similarity, meaning that offspring carry a combination of the specific genes that their parents carried.Long story short, if everything was "random," then no, we would not be here, and neither would any other life as we know it. If you want to postulate that God wrote the laws of nature that's fine with me, but suggesting that evolution is too 'complex' or 'unlikely' to be real is ridiculous. The anthropic principle addresses that very well, so I highly suggest you reading uncooper's link. I've probably read that article 3 or 4 times over the last few years and I'm still not sure I really grasp it. It's quite fascinating.Combining quotes explaining both the strong and the weak anthropic principles:"The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.""The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time. "The most important point I'm trying to make though is the first thing I was talking about. A cell evolving into an intelligent human is in no way similar to rolling a trillion-sided die and hitting the jackpot, because evolution is not at all like taking a stab in the dark. And what the anthropic principle is (sort of) saying is, even if you would only exist by hitting the jackpot (for example, going from one cell specifically to a Brooklyn pedestrian), shit, here we are so clearly we hit that jackpot! If we hadn't, we wouldn't be here to question it. It's not possible that we ever miss the jackpot. We already hit that shit. And the strong anthropic principle says we hit that shit the instant the universe came into existence - that it necessarily would give rise to a form of life that would learn to question its own existence. As evidence: hi! All that is just in my own words and understanding, which as I already said is far from expert.Speaking of the universe,

is pretty sweet. I find the representation of the 'extent of humanity's radio signals' particularly humbling.

This is a good post, and I appreciate the point you are making. But I think you are glossing over the value/difficulty in allowing for random mutation in the DNA/life form to be the precursor to the rest of evolution. I totally believe in the natural selection and adaptation actions that occur in life. I get that Eskimo's have a more adaptive body to cold and the African's have one to dry sun. Also the Rock pigeon has been shown to have all the needed stuff to breed all other forms of pigeons that we know of today ( don't know how just read it was true )But having an adaptive change in a species to continue the species in a modified, but still basically the same form, is radically different than a fish growing lungs in slow stages, or the wings showing up on a mammal. It is the notion that slow changes created completely different animals and that it all started from a free radical gene being left in a species for thousands of stages that ended up with some completely useless appendage for a couple millennium, ignoring natural selection etc because of the future benefit this animal would achieve once it could fly/breath under water, etc.Saying that a random gene mutation would be subject to natural selection etc and that this would increase the complexity of the animals in slow steady stages sounds good until you think about what was natural selection thinking when the under water dwelling creature suddenly began to grow the beginning stages of a lung? Especially when it didn't put a stop to this useless organ like it does to the other 50% of mutations that are not beneficial.I recognize that I am simplifying a complex undertaking, mostly because I am currently in negative numbers on the evolution definitions Jeopardy, but also because the subject matter quickly becomes dry once we get into scientific mumbo-jumbo.

[BaseJester 1]

But having an adaptive change in a species to continue the species in a modified, but still basically the same form, is radically different than a fish growing lungs in slow stages, or the wings showing up on a mammal.

You are aware of animals called amphibians, right?

[Balloon guy 158]

You are aware of animals called amphibians, right?

Heard of them, never actually seen one so I doubt their existence.

[hblask 1]

But having an adaptive change in a species to continue the species in a modified, but still basically the same form, is radically different than a fish growing lungs in slow stages, or the wings showing up on a mammal. It is the notion that slow changes created completely different animals and that it all started from a free radical gene being left in a species for thousands of stages that ended up with some completely useless appendage for a couple millennium, ignoring natural selection etc because of the future benefit this animal would achieve once it could fly/breath under water, etc.

http://www.e-aquarium.com.au/siamese_fighting_fish.htm

Siamese fighting fish have the ability to breathe oxygen from the atmosphere. This is possible because of a specialised breathing organ known as the labyrinth. As an air breather Siamese fighting fish can be kept without the need for water oxygenation.

It is believed they developed this to be able to live where water has low oxygen concentrations. Rather than being a "useless appendage", in certain cases multiple breathing techniques could be a HUGE advantage. It's not difficult to imagine a large number of adaptive variations on this theme once we see several of them in action.

[Balloon guy 158]

http://www.e-aquarium.com.au/siamese_fighting_fish.htmIt is believed they developed this to be able to live where water has low oxygen concentrations. Rather than being a "useless appendage", in certain cases multiple breathing techniques could be a HUGE advantage. It's not difficult to imagine a large number of adaptive variations on this theme once we see several of them in action.

I don't think having existing examples of multi-adaptive creatures falls in the "This proves that it evolved" status. Show me an animal in between the ability to breath under water only that has under-formed lungs that one day will allow it to breath air and you would have me.Do you guys really think I am being difficult when I point out the difficulty in the explanation of an example of a transitional form of animal with half a formed wing? Yet evolution says that these changes happened slowly. Seems to me a pretty difficult explanation is in order. Showing me a picture of a penguin who's half wings are necessary for swimming won't cut it.Pick a unique trait in any animal, from the frog who has a tube that it uses to plant it's eggs on it's back in a specially formed sac, to the giraffe who's brain contains a series of limiters to reduce the pressure of the blood flow when it bends down to drink water, all massively important organs that kind of need to be completely developed in order to justify their existence. I can't grasp how you can argue slow multi-thousands of small changes needed to get these end results without a purposeful plan in place to begin the needed changes to even begin to develop these unique characteristics.

[timwakefield 68]

This is a good post, and I appreciate the point you are making. But I think you are glossing over the value/difficulty in allowing for random mutation in the DNA/life form to be the precursor to the rest of evolution. I totally believe in the natural selection and adaptation actions that occur in life. I get that Eskimo's have a more adaptive body to cold and the African's have one to dry sun. Also the Rock pigeon has been shown to have all the needed stuff to breed all other forms of pigeons that we know of today ( don't know how just read it was true )But having an adaptive change in a species to continue the species in a modified, but still basically the same form, is radically different than a fish growing lungs in slow stages, or the wings showing up on a mammal. It is the notion that slow changes created completely different animals and that it all started from a free radical gene being left in a species for thousands of stages that ended up with some completely useless appendage for a couple millennium, ignoring natural selection etc because of the future benefit this animal would achieve once it could fly/breath under water, etc.Saying that a random gene mutation would be subject to natural selection etc and that this would increase the complexity of the animals in slow steady stages sounds good until you think about what was natural selection thinking when the under water dwelling creature suddenly began to grow the beginning stages of a lung? Especially when it didn't put a stop to this useless organ like it does to the other 50% of mutations that are not beneficial.I recognize that I am simplifying a complex undertaking, mostly because I am currently in negative numbers on the evolution definitions Jeopardy, but also because the subject matter quickly becomes dry once we get into scientific mumbo-jumbo.

Frankly, I wish I could answer all these questions but I'm not smart enough. There are some fallacies in your examples though - organs don't just sit around growing for thousands of years and doing no good. Ancient animals didn't just start sprouting buds that eventually became wings - their arms evolved into wings! A wing is just an arm with a bunch of feathers. And even if a partial wing couldn't fly, it could for example help break a landing, or help jump higher, or (much more likely) help it better-perform a very specific task in its environment, such as hunting or evading another specific species. The same way a frog with 1/50th of a modern frog's eyesight would still have incredible advantages over a frog with absolutely no eyesight at all, a dinosaur with a couple of scraggly feathers (that's probably not really what it was like, just a funny image) must have had found some advantage in them. It's also perfectly possible that the beginnings of a wing were not used for any sort of flight - perhaps they were used for camouflage, and then went from there. Somebody else jump in here and prove my point using actual, scientific, examples. Go! And I want to make another point: I'm often sort of mystified by the existence of life (pass the bong, bro). So yes, I have asked myself 'Why the hell does the universe exist, and how the hell did I come to have a unique consciousness in that universe? Or do I even have a unique consciousness or is that just a mirage?' What I'm saying is, that's like the question of our species: why are we here? Evolution can't answer that in a philosophical way, and doesn't purport that it can. Basically, either we'll find out the Truth when we die, or else we won't. It just doesn't make any sense to me that Christ is the only True path, or that God exists as a distinct entity.

[Balloon guy 158]

And I want to make another point: I'm often sort of mystified by the existence of life (pass the bong, bro). So yes, I have asked myself 'Why the hell does the universe exist, and how the hell did I come to have a unique consciousness in that universe? Or do I even have a unique consciousness or is that just a mirage?' What I'm saying is, that's like the question of our species: why are we here? Evolution can't answer that in a philosophical way, and doesn't purport that it can. Basically, either we'll find out the Truth when we die, or else we won't. It just doesn't make any sense to me that Christ is the only True path, or that God exists as a distinct entity.

I agree that the whole evolution debate is kind of a "Whatever" It doesn't really get into many much more important questions to ponder, ones that leave us better people for the searching.I also believe that a person who is honest with themselves, and seeks with an open heart, will find the answers they are searching for. I feel I have found the answers, after my many nights of staring at the stars in a pot induced wonderment, hoping that there was more to life than what I could see around me.I really only do the creation/evolution debate because I like to argue.

[crowTrobot 2]

And I want to make another point: I'm often sort of mystified by the existence of life (pass the bong, bro). So yes, I have asked myself 'Why the hell does the universe exist, and how the hell did I come to have a unique consciousness in that universe? Or do I even have a unique consciousness or is that just a mirage?' What I'm saying is, that's like the question of our species: why are we here? Evolution can't answer that in a philosophical way, and doesn't purport that it can.

jeez sounds like wimpy emotion-based religious apologetics. you must be high for real when you get down to specifics those are ALL absolutely empirical questions, not philosophical, and our understanding of evolution is very likely to play a part in answering them. it already has when it comes to our current understanding of human consciousness.

[Mills 0]

hoping that there was more to life than what I could see around me.This is the point, your yearning for something more has led you to something that isn't there. You believe it because you want to, because it makes you feel better. And, if it gets you through the day, fine.

[timwakefield 68]

jeez sounds like wimpy emotion-based religious apologetics. you must be high for real

Heh, well I thought I made it less apologetic when I flatly rejected the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. And yes you are correct about the other thing you said which I didn't quote, but I was more aiming for the point that no scientific knowledge will ever answer the question of why existence...exists. I'll take that first point a little further and say that life on our planet, and the physical attributes of our observable universe are so much more insanely complex than the Christian view of good vs evil, Heaven vs Hell, accepting Christ vs not accepting Him. It would just be absolutely preposterous, with all of the almost majestic complexity and interwoven aspects of everything that we study, from the macro scale, to the visible scale, to the micro scale, if it all existed just for us. We just got here! I believe heartily in the scientific method of learning, and the scientific method has told us that the universe is re-tard-edly big and old, and contains what almost seems like an infinite amount of stars, because the number is so large it's impossible to grasp. I'm not sure if I've posted this in the religion forum before, but even if I have, it's worth a second watch. (No, this is not the same link I posted 2 posts ago!)

[Balloon guy 158]

Heh, well I thought I made it less apologetic when I flatly rejected the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. And yes you are correct about the other thing you said which I didn't quote, but I was more aiming for the point that no scientific knowledge will ever answer the question of why existence...exists. I'll take that first point a little further and say that life on our planet, and the physical attributes of our observable universe are so much more insanely complex than the Christian view of good vs evil, Heaven vs Hell, accepting Christ vs not accepting Him. It would just be absolutely preposterous, with all of the almost majestic complexity and interwoven aspects of everything that we study, from the macro scale, to the visible scale, to the micro scale, if it all existed just for us. We just got here! I believe heartily in the scientific method of learning, and the scientific method has told us that the universe is re-tard-edly big. I'm not sure if I've posted this in the religion forum before, but even if I have, it's worth a second watch. (No, this is not the same link I posted 2 posts ago!)

That's a lot of stars.Pretty cool to think that we are the center of it all

[crowTrobot 2]

And yes you are correct about the other thing you said which I didn't quote, but I was more aiming for the point that no scientific knowledge will ever answer the question of why existence...exists.

if you mean "why is there something instead of nothing" i'd even challenge that statement. it may be that due to our limited perspective we will never be able to answer that in a sensible way, but at this point i think it's presumptuous to say we never will, and it's still an empirical question - firmly on scientific ground.if you mean "what should our values be" or something similarly subjective, that's getting away from science and more towards philosophy. sounds like you're asking more about origins, though.

[crowTrobot 2]

Pretty cool to think that we are the center of it all

everywhere is the center of it all.

[timwakefield 68]

if you mean "why is there something instead of nothing" i'd even challenge that statement. it may be that due to our limited perspective we will never be able to answer that in a sensible way, but at this point i think it's presumptuous to say we never will, and it's still an empirical question - firmly on scientific ground.

I suppose I meant it more as 'humanity as a whole' will never come to understand why we are here because the question is faulty - there doesn't need to be a 'why.' But, being naturally egotistical (self-preservation is a good thing, after all), we will never stop asking the question.There ain't no answer.There ain't going to be an answer.There never has been an answer.That's the answer. - Gertrude Stein

[hblask 1]

I don't think having existing examples of multi-adaptive creatures falls in the "This proves that it evolved" status. Show me an animal in between the ability to breath under water only that has under-formed lungs that one day will allow it to breath air and you would have me.Do you guys really think I am being difficult when I point out the difficulty in the explanation of an example of a transitional form of animal with half a formed wing? Yet evolution says that these changes happened slowly. Seems to me a pretty difficult explanation is in order. Showing me a picture of a penguin who's half wings are necessary for swimming won't cut it.Pick a unique trait in any animal, from the frog who has a tube that it uses to plant it's eggs on it's back in a specially formed sac, to the giraffe who's brain contains a series of limiters to reduce the pressure of the blood flow when it bends down to drink water, all massively important organs that kind of need to be completely developed in order to justify their existence. I can't grasp how you can argue slow multi-thousands of small changes needed to get these end results without a purposeful plan in place to begin the needed changes to even begin to develop these unique characteristics.

Wait, you asked for an explanation of how a partial lung could be useful, and I gave you one. Now you've moved the bar. I could look up examples of all those things you asked for, but I have a feeling the bar would move again. Animals that can extract *some* oxygen from the air have an advantage over those that need to get all their from the water when the environment they live in has low oxygen levels in the water. Maybe it'll look like the siamese fighting fish, maybe it will look like some oxygen-absorbing tissues on their back, or maybe something else. Why is that hard to imagine supplementary oxygen absorption capabilities of varying degrees?Why is it difficult to imagine a half-formed wing that allows animals to glide from one branch to another to escape enemies? It could start with an added few percent leaping ability, turn to gliding, and eventually flapping. Each step of that would be extremely useful in certain environments.Each of the things you mention can be useful in small doses in certain environments. For each one I choose to explain, you could pick ten others, but why? If I explain how your favorite 20 or 30 examples can be useful as partially completed organs, would it change anything?

[Mills 0]

Wait, you asked for an explanation of how a partial lung could be useful, and I gave you one. Now you've moved the bar. I could look up examples of all those things you asked for, but I have a feeling the bar would move again. Animals that can extract *some* oxygen from the air have an advantage over those that need to get all their from the water when the environment they live in has low oxygen levels in the water. Maybe it'll look like the siamese fighting fish, maybe it will look like some oxygen-absorbing tissues on their back, or maybe something else. Why is that hard to imagine supplementary oxygen absorption capabilities of varying degrees?Why is it difficult to imagine a half-formed wing that allows animals to glide from one branch to another to escape enemies? It could start with an added few percent leaping ability, turn to gliding, and eventually flapping. Each step of that would be extremely useful in certain environments.Each of the things you mention can be useful in small doses in certain environments. For each one I choose to explain, you could pick ten others, but why? If I explain how your favorite 20 or 30 examples can be useful as partially completed organs, would it change anything?

HB, don't fall into his trap... What he's asking you here is akin to a holes like kirk Cameron asking for the Crock-a duck....with every post he displays his ignorance.... so why even bother trying to reason with himBG, you have already admitted in the case for Christ thread that you don't have a full (or from what I can see any) knowledge of the theory of evolution.Do you not see how dishonest it is to argue for something when you admit you don't have all the facts?

[hblask 1]

HB, don't fall into his trap... What he's asking you here is akin to a holes like kirk Cameron asking for the Crock-a duck....with every post he displays his ignorance.... so why even bother trying to reason with himBG, you have already admitted in the case for Christ thread that you don't have a full (or from what I can see any) knowledge of the theory of evolution.Do you not see how dishonest it is to argue for something when you admit you don't have all the facts?

It seems to me he's just asking for explanations. I generally know where he stands, but if he makes a post that shows genuine curiosity, I'm happy to try to provide answers. Maybe I'll learn something in the process.

[Mills 0]

I know it seems that way. He's good at deception.But this whole, "show me a transitional animal with half this" or "half" that is a 20 year old creationist argument, and he knows it. Like most, he'll keep trotting it out there as if no one ever told him how rediculous a notion this is.

[timwakefield 68]

As sort of a post-script to my other post, I realized it would make lots of sense for me to actually post the image that the video spends 6 minutes talking about, since on youtube it's pretty darn hard to see. http://howtonotbedepressed.files.wordpress..._deep_field.jpgThe image is pretty big so I figured I'd just link it. It should conform to fit your browser though, and then you can zoom in to full resolution. Note: our good ol' Milky Way contains about 300 Billion individual stars. And BG you're probably in a semi-unique situation of knowing what a million dollars is really worth, and what it really represents, which I imagine also gives you some insight into the enormous difference between millionaires and billionaires. In other words, 300 billion! That's sooooooo many suns! Double-secret-note, BG DO NOT READ: The way to win an argument against balloon guy is to mercilessly compliment him until he forgets what the argument was about and just agrees that you're right about most things.

[Balloon guy 158]

As sort of a post-script to my other post, I realized it would make lots of sense for me to actually post the image that the video spends 6 minutes talking about, since on youtube it's pretty darn hard to see. http://howtonotbedepressed.files.wordpress..._deep_field.jpgThe image is pretty big so I figured I'd just link it. It should conform to fit your browser though, and then you can zoom in to full resolution. Note: our good ol' Milky Way contains about 300 Billion individual stars. And BG you're probably in a semi-unique situation of knowing what a million dollars is really worth, and what it really represents, which I imagine also gives you some insight into the enormous difference between millionaires and billionaires. In other words, 300 billion! That's sooooooo many suns!

Well, I don't want to brag...but yea this seems to all make more sense to me. I may have to rethink my world view because there sure are a lot of stars...

Double-secret-note, BG DO NOT READ: The way to win an argument against balloon guy is to mercilessly compliment him until he forgets what the argument was about and just agrees that you're right about most things.

Oh man, am I glad I read this...I knew I was right, this picture was probably fake.I mean if you stare at this for 10 days what do you think you'll see?

[Balloon guy 158]

It seems to me he's just asking for explanations. I generally know where he stands, but if he makes a post that shows genuine curiosity, I'm happy to try to provide answers. Maybe I'll learn something in the process.

I think I do a really bad job of presenting my points, and as such get weighed down with points I don't really want to use as my foundational argument. My only point was to try to show the overall view I have that complexity of our bodies doesn't lend itself to the possibility of an evolutionary explanation.The problem I get into is using your terminologies to explain my points. Also I let you guys frame the argument and that leaves me behind.The original point I was trying to go with was that the idea that you guys accept completely that a single cell changed into our current system would require so many stages that we can't understand, so many gaps in the line that you guys are the ones with incomplete information to draw these conclusions. Of course I never get anything but "You don't understand evolution" as an excuse, usually from people who are comfortable telling me that Christianity is flawed even though they have shown a seriously flawed understanding of Christianity.Maybe the evolution debate isn't my cup of tea, but it's all that most want to talk about, so I'm here by default.