The Probability of the Big Bang

[sun_king]

So according to rockv12 there must be HD video's of Adam and Eve "knowing" each other? Anyone we know have access to those files? (This is strictly for academic purposes, no I am not into watching porn)

[rockv12]

...  Yet, nobody wants to tackle how male/female sex evolved, OR the hummingbird.

It is a classic theist tactic to take a portion of a specific theory that is not fully understood yet and use it as the basis for a counter argument.  Just because we do not have a perfect working understanding of how sex came to be, that doesn't mean that evolution is falsified; nor does it mean that 'Goddidit' is an acceptable answer. 

But the very fact that you chose to point to an example of something that is poorly understood in evolutionary terms, seems to indicate that you are finally beginning to understand the cases that are well understood.  That's great. It would be a step in the right direction for you.  Good stuff. 

It's not that nobody WANTS to tackle sex, it's just that AFAIK nobody fully has yet.  That doesn't disprove evolution; it just means the clues left behind are more difficult to sort out.  Who knows, though?  Is it possible that when we finally understand how sex came to be, that the theory of evolution is falsified?  Sure.  But I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.   

As for the hummingbird, which one of the 356 species do you want to know about?  Each species likely evolved along a different path.  And what, about hummingbirds in particular, is so difficult to understand in evolutionary terms?

But no good answer for a hummingbird OR sex, is problematic, don't you think?  Sure, it's easy to come up with a sequence of events for a bird to fly to escape a predator, BUT when confronted with difficult questions, evolutionists simply state "we don't know exactly, but we will find out eventually".  Isn't that convenient? 

What is so difficult to understand about a hummingbird?  Serious?  Again, WHY?  Gliding wasn't beneficial enough?  It had to burn a trillion calories a second to survive?  Isn't that a step in the opposite direction of "convenient", for the bird?  How about the honeybee?  How about the bat?  There are so many extreme cases of extraordinary features that blow the minds of physics and engineering, are there not?  But evolution just works so simply, as you state.... 

[rockv12]

So according to rockv12 there must be HD video's of Adam and Eve "knowing" each other? Anyone we know have access to those files? (This is strictly for academic purposes, no I am not into watching porn)

I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 

[rockv12]

The fact that you dismiss the differences between large and small animals so easily demonstrates your disregard for the subject.  You are not interested in giving any of us a fair hearing; your demands for proof are a clever ploy to pretend that you are being reasonable, while your actual standards for acceptable proof are set to a bar so high that if you applied them to the Bible, it would flunk those standards as well.  Not that I expect you to acknowledge this contradiction, but it does demonstrate your lack of interest in anything but trying to establish your holy book as a valid piece of historical evidence.

Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight. 

[wright]

I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 

It was a pretty laughable point to make, agreed. Especially when you evidently don't demand that level of evidence for your religious beliefs, as jaime pointed out.

Again, please give an example of what you would consider definitive proof of evolution.

[rockv12]

I was making a point.  Obviously, blown out of proportion to immature lengths. 

It was a pretty laughable point to make, agreed. Especially when you evidently don't demand that level of evidence for your religious beliefs, as jaime pointed out.

Again, please give an example of what you would consider definitive proof of evolution.

Bad point, I agree.  But proof?  Because we think that an animal may have jumped into the water to avoid a predator?  That's the point I was trying to make.....nobody knows!!

Proof of evolution?  Well, we would have to see it happen for one.  Observable evidence.  We see "natural selection", but NEVER one species turning into another.  Time constraints of course.  Also, we should see more accurate and provable dating methods to prove where these fossils are found.  We should see clear transitional fossils....again, difficult to prove with the millions of species available to look at.  We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".  There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   We should see obvious steps from each little transitional form and mutation.   We should see many more planets capable of supporting life....we got darn lucky to be the perfect distance from the sun.  We should see more planets with water.  Without water, no life.  We got awful lucky if you ask me....  Any more?

[jaimehlers]

Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.

No, I gave an example of how the process might have started.  The problem with your demand that I give you a step-by-step explanation is that I am not an expert on evolutionary biology or paleontology.  I can give examples of how it might have worked due to my general knowledge, but I lack the specific knowledge to be able to explain the current theory.  Yet, if I find information from someone who does have that knowledge, you will likely disallow it because I am not posting it in my own words, coupled with the probable accusation that I "blindly believe" in it as a result.  If I take the time to absorb that knowledge so I can explain it in my own words without plagiarizing, you will likely just find something else to use to criticize instead, if you do not simply disallow it because it is not "proof" (meaning eyewitness evidence).

Do you see the problem with this strategy?  You are not willing to give us a fair hearing, and you are not willing to apply the standards you expect of us to your own beliefs, if indeed you are even willing to consider that your beliefs might not be correct.

[wright]

Thanks for replying, rocky12. As a layman interested in evolution and cosmology, I'll try to show how at least some of your questions can be answered.

Proof of evolution?  Well, we would have to see it happen for one.  Observable evidence.  We see "natural selection", but NEVER one species turning into another.  Time constraints of course.

Precisely. Evolution predicts incremental changes over long periods of time, particularly the major morphological ones creationists seem to regard as the only acceptable form of specieation. And that is in fact what we see in the fossil record.

Also, we should see more accurate and provable dating methods to prove where these fossils are found.

It's unclear what you mean here. What does dating a fossil have to do with establishing where it was dug up? The various means we have of dating fossils (and geological specimens in general) provide acceptable and verifiable levels of accuracy. If they didn't, much of modern geology (including mining, oil drilling, earthquake prediction and other practical applications) would be unworkable and replaced with something that did work.

We should see clear transitional fossils....again, difficult to prove with the millions of species available to look at.

Again, I gave you a link to a number of transitional fossils. Are you still demanding chimeras? How many times do you have to be told that is a creationist parody of evolution, not the gradualism that mutation+natural selection+time actually produces? Archaopteryx is about as clear an example as we are likely to find, along with Tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik).

We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".

Really? Why would this be proof of evolution and not creationism?

There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.

There have been mass extinctions in Earth's history where between 50-80% of all animal genera died off:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions Yet always some life persisted and through evolution diversified. So clearly at least some living things are just fine without a diverse ecology.

And "perfection"? Really? AIDS, appendicitis, the marine tongue-eating-louse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_parasite), all examples of perfection?

We should see obvious steps from each little transitional form and mutation.

Why? Given the dynamic nature of the Earth, it's remarkable that we have such an extensive fossil record. First, an animal has to die in an area where it won't decay too fast for at least its hard parts to be preserved. Then the preserving medium has to harden and be undisturbed by erosion. For extremely long periods, depending on the age of the fossil. Lastly, the strata containing it has to be accessible by us. And again, we have transitions showing fish to land-dwelling tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, etcetera.

We should see many more planets capable of supporting life....

The universe is an awfully big place; we've barely begun to look around. But in just the last decade we've found over 700 extrasolar planets. From what we know of cosmology and planetary science, our sun and Earth are fairly typical in terms of stability, type and chemical composition.

we got darn lucky to be the perfect distance from the sun.  We should see more planets with water.  Without water, no life.  We got awful lucky if you ask me....

Weak anthropic principle:(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html). The universe isn't designed for us; we're adapted to the universe.

And as for water-bearing worlds, there are Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, right in our own backyard. Enceladus in particular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus_%28moon%29) has been proven to have liquid water; something we have only indirect evidence of on Mars.

Any more?

I don't doubt you could come up with more. But I don't really expect any of my answers to convince you. I replied to educate myself.

[DumpsterFire]

Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.

Guess what, rock? Nobody (yet) knows the exact step by step process under which wings evolved, because it happened over a period of millions of years. You spoke earlier of things the human mind cannot comprehend, and I would add to that list the concept of change over thousands of millenia. You seem to think that species evolve specific features or traits, such as wings, over the course of a few generations, but it just isn't so.

We are now 5 pages deep into this thread and, despite ample evidence presented to the contrary, your position remains the same argument from incredulity/ignorance that it was on page 1; I do not understand this, therefore god.

It is truly laughable that you insist on absolute, indisputable proof of evolution while accepting the notion of biblegod with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever.

Open your eyes that you might see, and your mind that you might learn.

[Anfauglir]

.....We should see a far more simplistic life schematic.  Why so many different kinds of trees?  Why not..."here we have a tree...here we have grass...here we have a weed....here we have a four-legged animal...etc".  There is so much variation and complexity and perfection among the life forms.  So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

I thought this section was worth taking out because it is a good example of how Rocky likes to try to argue both sides at once.

He begins by saying that we should see very few types of life - something like "just dogs - no breeds within it, just dogs.  No wolves, dingos, hyenas, just a generic dog".  Similarly, just one type of horse- thing (no donkeys, mules, zebras, ponys, and so on).  Just a handful of simple things, if evolution is correct.....according to him, of course, ignoring the fact that evolutionary theory argues for multiplicity of lifeforms.

And he then goes on to say "everything is too complex for evolution", again giving the lie to his claims that he "understands" what evolutionary theory says.

Here's the thing, Rocky - if there was a big "god" who created everything, then a handful of simple forms is all we WOULD expect to see.  Horse.  Dog.  Cow.  Sheep.  Pig.  The child's farmyard of life, not the wide range of subtly different and specially adapted ranges we have today.

Maybe we should start with basics.  You seem to accept that "dog" can range from the chihuahua to the Great Dane, but affirm that both are in the same species.  (Quick Question #1: Define "species").  And presumably you are okay with the fact that because they are both from the same species, they both evolved¹ from the same common ancestor?

But perhaps you DON'T accept that?  Perhaps you do really insist that Great Danes and Chihuahuas were both individually created by the goddess?  I'd be grateful if you would let me know what you think, before I continue?

So.....
1) What is a "species", in your opinion?
2) Chihuahuas and Great Danes.....two independently created creatures?  Or two creatures that evolved¹ in increasingly different directions from one original ancestor?

-------------
¹ Yup...evolved.  Changed through random mutations coupled with response to external stimulus.  The theory is the same, there's no practical difference between "natural" evolution and "breeding".

[Tero]

So there we have it. Because we do not see an animal evolve into another in a human lifetime, therefore there is no proof. All animals were created and none went extinct.

Fossils were created by God to test our faith.

[Dante]

Rocky,

Where do you think oil comes from? Yes, the basic crude oil will extract from the ground and use for our energy.

Where did it come from, and why is it there?

[One Above All]

Rocky,

Where do you think oil comes from? Yes, the basic crude oil will extract from the ground and use for our energy.

Where did it come from, and why is it there?

Let me try to answer that:
Magical oil fairies in the sky! Where else? Also, it's here because my god loves me very much. He wants me to have oil.

[Dante]

So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

As Anfauglir alluded to, this also speaks much more to the probability of life evolving and adapting, than to a magic.

They wouldn't have so much dependency on one another, and they could, in fact, exist without the other, were they magical creations.

[DumpsterFire]

So there we have it. Because we do not see an animal evolve into another in a human lifetime, therefore there is no proof. All animals were created and none went extinct.

Fossils were created by God to test our faith.

That tricky bastard!

[Fiji]

So much dependency upon one another that they co-exist.  They can't exist without the other.   

As Anfauglir alluded to, this also speaks much more to the probability of life evolving and adapting, than to a magic.

They wouldn't have so much dependency on one another, and they could, in fact, exist without the other, were they magical creations.

And both Wallace and Darwin made predictions based on that. They came across orchids, the nectar of which could not be reached by any known animal. They, separate from eachtother, both predicted that there had to be an animal that could reach the nectar. Decades later, in both cases, moths were found who could reach the nectar of those particular orchids. There would have been no reason for this to be true if moth and orchid were created. Unless the creator is a deciever who actively wants to convince us that he/she/it doesn't exist.

[rockv12]

Acceptable proof?  You gave a guess for how wings evolved...  How did it happen again?  Seriously....give me the step by step of how wings evolved into birds of flight.

Guess what, rock? Nobody (yet) knows the exact step by step process under which wings evolved, because it happened over a period of millions of years. You spoke earlier of things the human mind cannot comprehend, and I would add to that list the concept of change over thousands of millenia. You seem to think that species evolve specific features or traits, such as wings, over the course of a few generations, but it just isn't so.

We are now 5 pages deep into this thread and, despite ample evidence presented to the contrary, your position remains the same argument from incredulity/ignorance that it was on page 1; I do not understand this, therefore god.

It is truly laughable that you insist on absolute, indisputable proof of evolution while accepting the notion of biblegod with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever.

Open your eyes that you might see, and your mind that you might learn.

What would your proof of a God be?  I mean, I think He's made it extremely clear that He exists.  What do you want?  Voices from the sky?  Then you'd probably say that there is some scientific explanation for the voice coming from the sky...

Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?

[One Above All]

Just because we don't know how every single structure in existence evolved is irrelevant to evolution, which has been proven ad nauseam.

As for "why", that question in itself shows your utter incomprehension of evolution. Beings don't choose to evolve.

[rockv12]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 

[Omen]

So I was reading

Here's the problem.  You read something asinine without bothering to do any research.

[One Above All]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".

And it does. Have you ever thought of how much it would suck if polar bears were black? They'd be killed in no time.

Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 

Your question assumes that wings are only used to fly. Have you ever heard of "gliding"?

[Omen]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flightless_bird

List of recent flightless birds

The following are flightless birds during or after the Holocene epoch.
[edit] Ratites
Ostrich

    Ostrich
    Emu
    Kangaroo Island Emu †
    King Island Emu †
    Cassowaries
    Moa †
    Elephant birds †
    Kiwis
    Rheas

[edit] Anseriformes (Waterfowl)
Campbell Teal

    Moa-nalos (extinct)
    Bermuda Island Flightless Duck †
    Fuegian Steamer Duck
    Falkland Steamer Duck
    Chubut Steamer Duck
    Auckland Teal
    Campbell Teal
    Dromornis †
    Genyornis †
    Chendytes lawi †
    Talpanas †
    Cnemiornis †

[edit] Galliformes (Wildfowl)

    New Caledonian Giant Megapode †

[edit] Podicipediformes (Grebes)

    Junin Grebe
    Titicaca Grebe
    Atitlán Grebe † (reportedly flightless)[5]

[edit] Pelicaniformes (Pelicans, Cormorants and allies)
Flightless Cormorant

    Flightless Cormorant

[edit] Sphenisciformes (Penguins)

    Penguins

[edit] Coraciiformes (Kingfishers, Hornbills and allies)

    Giant Hoopoe (extinct)

[edit] Ciconiiformes (Herons, Ibis)

    Apteribis †
    Jamaican Ibis †
    Réunion Sacred Ibis †

[edit] Gruiformes (Cranes, Rails)
Weka
Great Auk

    Cuban Flightless Crane †
    Red Rail †
    Rodrigues Rail †
    Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
    Bar-winged Rail † (probably flightless)
    Weka
    New Caledonian Rail
    Lord Howe Woodhen
    Calayan Rail
    New Britain Rail
    Guam Rail
    Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)[6]
    Tahiti Rail †
    Dieffenbach's Rail †
    Chatham Rail †
    Wake Island Rail †
    Snoring Rail
    Inaccessible Island Rail
    Laysan Rail †
    Hawaiian Rail †
    Kosrae Crake †
    Ascension Crake †
    Red-eyed Crake
    Invisible Rail
    New Guinea Flightless Rail
    Lord Howe Swamphen † (probably flightless)
    North Island Takahe †
    Takahe
    Samoan Wood Rail
    Makira Wood Rail
    Tristan Moorhen †
    Gough Island Moorhen
    Tasmanian Nativehen
    Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
    Adzebills †

[edit] Charadriiformes (Gulls, Terns, Auks)

    Great Auk †
    Diving Puffin †

[edit] Falconiformes (Birds of prey)
Dodo

    Terrestrial Caracara †

[edit] Psittaciformes (Parrots)

    Kakapo
    Broad-billed Parrot †

[edit] Columbiformes (Pigeons, Doves)

    Dodo †
    Rodrigues Solitaire †
    Viti Levu Giant Pigeon †

[edit] Caprimulgiformes (Nightjars)

    New Zealand Owlet-nightjar †

[edit] Strigformes (Owls)

    Cuban Giant Owl †
    Cretan Owl † (probably flightless)
    Andros Island Barn Owl †

[edit] Passeriformes (Perching Birds)

    Stephens Island Wren †
    Long-legged Bunting †

[Tero]

Rock, my antenna is broken, no reception. Tell me how you observe god.

I've been in curches and experienced guilt and feeling. But that was a mimister and a kind of group hug. Feelings! No god.

[Aaron123]

Again, people think I don't understand evolution.  I know you think the wing took millions of years.  So what?  Step by step slowly is still step by step.  The transitions still took place.  Even if they were small steps...ok.  Why would a microscopic, itty bitty, step assist in the animals survival or adaptation?  You keep saying that they were extremely small steps, but then it gets even more ridiculous.  Feather color doesn't help the bird fly!  It's the darned wing that helps them fly!.  See my point?   And again, you say ,"we don't know exactly".  But then attack others if they don't have an answer then they are believing in some fairy tale, spaghetti monster.  See the double-standard?

Rockv12, Have you ever heard of the expression "the god of the gaps"?  I'm wondering what that means to you.

[Dante]

What would your proof of a God be?  I mean, I think He's made it extremely clear that He exists. 

Our proof would be the same empirical, testable, observable, falsifiable evidence that we require for all of reality. Do you have any?

[monkeymind]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Sure color can make a huge difference. Ever heard of the flight of the Peppered Moth?
Do flying fish, flying squirrels, flying snakes count?
How about penguins, ostriches, dodo's...(oh wait they didn't make it). Are they birds?

[rockv12]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Sure color can make a huge difference. Ever heard of the flight of the Peppered Moth?
Do flying fish, flying squirrels, flying snakes count?
How about penguins, ostriches, dodo's...(oh wait they didn't make it). Are they birds?

Dodged the question with an example of a flying squirrel.  Good try, but again, we are talking about birds.  Ostriches do not count.  Put the steps in your head of the wing evolving.  Let's start with the first step.  What did the very first step look like?  Any ideas? 

[rockv12]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".

And it does. Have you ever thought of how much it would suck if polar bears were black? They'd be killed in no time.

Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you? 

Your question assumes that wings are only used to fly. Have you ever heard of "gliding"?

So I'm the one making huge jumps in evolution?  Now everyone seems to be.  Microscopic, little changes, I thought.  Going from scratching your head with an arm to flyinf with it.  Think about it once more.

[sun_king]

And I know you're gonna say, "But microscopic changes do help a creature!  Color makes a huge difference!".  Think about the wing.  Can you fly without a fully formed wing?  Can you or can't you?

Give enough thrust and even a brick can fly. The F-4 Phantom -2 is an example for that. Most missiles and rockets don't really have wings and yet they fly magnificently.

If you want a serious answer please give your definition to these terms: I would insist because of your predilection for changing the goalpost when the striker is about to get the pass.

1) Fly/flight - What do you mean by that?
2) Fully formed wings? Does a fledgeling's wing be called fully formed? Or is it not fully developed.

Color matters, why do you think the military spends millions in developing camouflages?

As it turns out, we can fly... Just fix the goal posts and we can talk about it.