Explain the Trilobite

Is that the same poll which indicated that 53% of americans have never even heard of Charles Darwin. and when asked about The Beagle they responded "Oh, you mean Snoopy?"



Hotwater

 

There is a strong natural tendinecy in the universe for increasing complexity. The sun would shine anymore if it were not true, nuclear fussion combines simple atoms into more complex ones. On the earth, plants take water, minerals and light and produce complex organic chemicals from them. In general, the evolution of life has become more complex. Two cells working togather is more complex then one cell. The evolution of complexity is a central theme in biology.

There are a lot of contradictions in the bible, let alone how many different interpurtations of it there are. Look at how many different christian sects. there are and how none of them agree 100% with each other, e.g. chatholic, baptists, c of e, etc etc etc. Thats how clear it is written. I have heard all sorts of wierd groups saying and quoting thus proving things from the bible. I always have a problem with translations, because any book that is translated from one language to the next always is changed, perfect translations do not exist.

 

No. A nucleus with two atoms is not inherently more complex than a nucleus with one. Even an atom with a large number of sub-atomic particles is still nothing more than a group of protons, neutrons, and electrons. They all follow the same organizational structure, the only variation is the number of particles.

Now molecules are a different story, you touch on that below.

True. At the same time, this is not entirely what is meant by complexity. You see, here you have a complex organism going through a process that creates usable substances and then *breaks them down*. Molecules can become more complex, but those same reactions can many times be reversed. For example, the process that forms the amino acids in DNA yeilds water as a byproduct. Also, the process is reversible. We also know that chemical reactions move towards equilibrium. So, we know that the amino acids for DNA could not (and cannot) form in water

So, even if I grant that molecules naturally become more complex, it must also be acknowledged that the same process by with complexity is increased also allows for it to be decreased (usually). So we don't see an overall increase in the complexity of naturally occurring molecules. Complex carbohydrates are not more complex than they used to be.

The complexity of two cells working together depends on the cells. Blood gives nutrients to all kinds of cells throughout the body. But that transfer is based on diffusion. However, even that is less complex than an ameoba. Red blood cells are not self-mobile, nor are they capable of feeding themselves or doing any other number of things of which an amoeba is capable. At a cellular level, amoeba are far more complex than red blood cells.

Complexity depends on having a number of entities working together in one or more processes to achieve a result of some kind. The more essential entities and more critical steps involved in the process, the more complex the system is. So, a system that requires one entity to perform steps A and B is far less complex than system that requires 26 entities to perform steps A through Z in a specific order.

I do not know of an experiment that showed how biological systems naturally increase in complexity. You can't say that it evolved unless you have documented support for increasing complexity in biological systems in nature.

 

Dear Ikdenkhetniet,

There are a couple of problems with your thinking. Allow me to correct you.

1. You think natural selection is the opposite of evolution. This is stupid. Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. The most fit individuals are those that are most likely to survive and reproduce, given certain conditions. If you are a rodent, live in a grassland prairie, and are brown, you are much more likely to survive than the same rodent in luminescent blue. Simple as that. Freaks usually don't make the cut.

2. You think a genome cannot grow in size. That is stupid. There are mutations that cut pieces out, but that is only one kind of mutation. They can also replace information with new information, and add additional information. I explained this well to another person on here with no understanding of evolution. Here's that:

and

His arguments were pretty much identical to yours. Suspicious, no?

And last but certainly not least...

3. You don't understand evolution. Seriously. You can't just make up your own version to argue against. At least read the frickin' wikipedia article on it, but I suggest a look into genetics as well.


AND...For the general benefit...Evolution is not directional. Trying to say organisms don't get more complex isn't just a heinous lie, it also does nothing to disprove evolution. Evolution can favor simpler organisms, more complex organisms, bigger, smaller, whatever.

 

No.
It is definatey not the 'mechanism' by which evolution occurs and let me point out an 'actual problem with your thinking'.

See how you have a wacky logical circle of sorts?
With your thinking it goes "Evolution happened, therefore it occured through natural selection, therefore natural selection is evidence of/for evolution"
Did you spot the problem.

In fact, if you just stop with the 'actual facts' you then see where Natural Selection, in itself has absolutely nothing to do with 'Evolving'.
This part is simple because Natural Selection is.... exactly what it says it is.
Selecting FROM an already existing pool of genes.
Simple as that.

Ahh but why is evidence 'against' evolutionism and why can I say 'the opposite'.
Well for starters, if you just 'do the math' for Natural Selection you simply go back and back and back to (brace yourself);
Two animals containing ALL the genetic information to select from.
Oh shit.. that cant be eh.
Ok,
Now go forward because here is what we 'do know' about Natural Selection - it SELECTS FROM a pre-existing gene pool and we also know that on occassion, as we go along we have a bit of LOSS.

REMINDER: We are only talking about what we DO KNOW, observe, test, record and see in reality.
NOT what we 'imagine' could have been different somewhere, sometime and in some other place.
(Evolution).

So again, do not try making an argument that goes 'Reproduction/Defecating/Breathing/Natural Selection are the 'Mechanisms' through which Evolutionism occur in.
Of course that would be true if Evolutionism was real.
EVERYTHING would be 'part of Evolutionism' if it were real.
But its not.
At least you have no good reason to believe that based on just Natural Selection
(again, SELECTING FROM ALREADY EXISTING GENE POOLS).

I know exactly what you are talking about and you are still fooling around here.
What you are doing is 'pretending' what the term 'new information' is intended to mean.
Dont be so coy, I know what YOU NEED AND MUST have the term mean so lets just be open about it.
'Novel' information.
See, this is one of those talkorigins games and I already explained this a few posts ago.
The Evolutionist knows full well that what is need is 'novel' information.
A new 'Letter'.
'ABCDEFGH'
to
'ABCDEFGHI

Thats all good and well for you to pretend that I will think by 'new' you mean 'newly introduced from elsewhere' or 'new mix-ups' and etc... (please dont bother reworking the same thing in hopes it will work please already).
But,
The fact is that you know what you need and you know you do not have it.

Nice try.
Over and over again I see Evowarriors like yourself misrepresenting what is real and what is not.
I most definately characterising evolutionism right where it must be and if you dont know that you need to learn about your own theory first.
After all, I did.
I used to be like you but the difference being that I actually looked at what Evolutionism ACTUALLY NEEDS (not what it pretends it 'could know' if it was real etc).
And,
It doesnt work.
As far to say it CANNOT work.

LOL!
Ok 'Talkorigins term and switch' guy.
Hey,
I think you pretty much just conceded and it would be better if I dont explain why and just let you look at it some more.

Look, once again, you know exactly what 'evolutionism' that you need and want and that is the kind talked about.
I know very well that I can rotate tires or that my tires can wear down.
So,
Can I tell you that its nonsense for you to say tires dont 'evolve' from rubber trees?
Hey.. I just showed you that Tyres CAN 'evolve' laterally and wear down.. so you should believe they can develop themselves by mutation too eh?
Come on lol!

 

Sorry but i cant believe rational humans could ever believe
that GOD DECIEVES by creating a world that is riddled with fossils of things that do
not exist now.
You are all off in your 'specifics' arguing small factors.

When the BIG factor
'Why create a world that seems by biologic and planetary evolution to be billions of years old.

WHY.. would your god do that?
Maybe, because he did'nt.

For example.. why is the surface of the moon a huge mass of craters?
If the thousands of impacts had happened in the last 10k years it would have lit the night sky.. yet no mention is had in any history.
Creationists would say god made it that way..
Why?
Why not a smooth ball, not a thing with an apparent history of AGES.
And this is the easy stuff.

There are a billion other verifications all pointing to a universe of 'great' age. All visible to human perception.
And none pointing to creationist theory but a few ambiguous lines in a book.

Which do you believe..?
your own eyes.
Or the words of fundamentalists?

Occam

 

Oh gad.. the guy who gets his version of Christianity from SouthPark, Bill Hicks and Family guy is here with more 'wonderful' things like 'asking out loud' why the Earth appears to be flooded.
I dont know.. maybe you should tell me why it appears that massive amounts of lifeforms were quickly buried under sedimentary (mud) layers?

No please.. do not answer me.
Just move along or go use your 'Thor and Odin' thing somewhere.
Ugh.

 

Oh yes, your reply is always a personal attack..
And the questions are easy to understand
and quite valid... so whats the problem ?
Is it that occam believes what he sees?
and not wht he is told to believe?

Occam does not argue with children
The universe is very big.
The light from some gallaxies takes billions of years to get here

Did your god make the light of the galaxies to strike our eyes and convince us that the universe is 14 billion years old.?
when it is but 10 thousand? And that light was CREATED to fit
idea of a very old universe.

WHY? [ the definition of occams razor will answer this for you]

Occam

 

That's just wrong. I hope that's a typo, because a nucleus is inside an atom. I think you mean electron? If an atom has more electrons or protons,etc it is inherently more complex because the it has increased the number of sub-atomic interactions inside the atom. The structure of the atom is more intricate and complicated. Protons and electrons don't just sit there, they are moving and are comprised of smaller particles, all of which are moving and interacting. Any additional sub-particles, raises the total number of interactions both inside and outside the atom. This is very basic particle physics and the basis of chemistry. It is much more then just adding particles, larger atoms have multiple electron clouds, differing number of ratios of proton to neutron, then many variations on that. The oraginizatial structures are not the same at all.

There is DNA forming in the oceans as you read this. There is plenty of life in the ocean.

But you do see increasing complexity because complex carbohydrates didn't use to exist.

I was talking about lifeforms not their individual cells. An amoeba is a lifeform, a red blood cell is not.

There have been experiments that have shown that it does. Lots have been done with computer simulations.

 

If the moon is so old, why does it only have about a half inch of dust on it's surface. Do you recall how the lunar lander had those big pads on it, the scientist said that if the moon were billions of years old the dust would have to be hundreds of feet thick. Those pads were to keep lunar lander from sinking down to deep.

SO, WHY WAS THERE ONLY A HALF INCH OF DUST ON THE MOONS SURFACE?

 

Since there is no liquid water or atmospheric wind on the moon, there is basically no erosion. The dust that is there is mainly from metoriod impact. In the past the moon was much more geologically active, as the lava flows (marias) can easily be seen from Earth.

 

The question WAS
Where did the craters come from?

there are thousands. Yet once again the creationists try to wriggle out from under the
true question with minor questions of their own.

Dont you know it's rude and ignorant to answer a question with a question?

Maybe, it's the only path open to you as you CANNOT answer occams
inquiry
1. thousands of lunar impacts, but no mention of such in recorded history
2. A universe that logically according to the speed of light is billions
of years old. Did god make the light in transit fromm 400 billion gallaxies just so
we could deduce the world was NOT created in 4004 bc ??
3. Sand comes from weathering. 6 thousand years of weathering does not result in
a million beaches on earth with sand 5 meters deep.
4. The crust of earth is laced with trillions of fossils. many exposed by tectonic uplift
99% of the creatures so fossilised no longer exist and are not recorded as existing in
human histories as far back as 3000 BC
5. Geologic sites such as the grand canyon..how did that river cut a 500 kilometer
long 300 meter deep canyon in 6000 years.??
6. There are examples of several civilizations believed to have existed in 10,000
to 7,500 bc..
7. Why does a human feotus have a tail for a short period during gestation?
8. Black holes are only physically possible as a result of the collapse of a giant star.
And the star must exist first. that alone is 100 million years of history.
9. For the plethora of ecoli to become symbiotic in the human gut would take 50
thousand years or more.
10. for the rings of saturn to form to their present clarity would take a million
years or more
11. The few inches of powder on lunar surface is impact ejecta, there is no weather.
12. for 400 billion galaxies to form as thay are seen now.. would require 14 billion years.
13. The orbital track of io in jupiter system is lace with sulpher, ejecta from
that moon. for such sulphur density several million years is required.
14. If god created us, why also create 2 other self aware intelligent species
on the same planet ?
Could it not be that THEY are his true children? And we are but savages with
baseball caps and automatic weapons.
15. 'In the beginning. there was light' and hydrogen. It takes 14 billion years to
make uranium from hydrogen in the core of stars
16. Was adam and eve caucasian or negro. its a mystery have millions of whites and blacks, asians and polanesians. all over the planet yet was adam a scrwny white anglo or a huge tongan or a lanky negro
Was eve a slim asian or a beefy eskimo or a central americacind
To have such diversity f gene types in such profusion in such numbers
IS NOT DEMOGRAPHICALLY POSSIBLE in 6000 years.
17. It is not possible to cover more than 70% of the earths surface with water
There is simply not enough on this panet.
18. Fossilisation of fish skelletons on ocean floor debunk. 'rapid surface burrial'
during 'the flood' [itself debunked]
fossils cleaved from ocean floor support millions of years of sedementaty compaction.
19. How did the Oort cloud come to be in just 6000 years?
20. The final number in this small rambling
A quote from a man of god
A Einstien
"only two things are infinite ,the universe and human stupidity"
Einstien considered creationism part of the second infinite.

Occam

 

Razorofoccam,
I rarely would ask anyone to stop posting in topics but in your case I want to make an exception.

Could you please stay out of here for a while.
We actually have one of the better Evo-Cro discussions going on here and there is some hint this might 'go somewhere'.
So,
If you could go away for a while it would really help move this along.
I mean, of course read through it but just dont post in this thread would be helpful.
Thx

-----

I would have to say the 'Moon Dust' problem is over with now.
It DOES serve as an example though - here we had a situation where a scientist made some calculations which included assumptions about the age of the Universe.
Then,
For a time it was a 'Scientific Fact' that the Moon had this 10 or 20 feet of dust on its surface.
Of course that turned out to be untrue.
Ok.
So we just simply restart by assuming the Moon is still millions of years old but redo the formulas so they explain 2-3 inches.
I think it does serve as an 'example' after all even though there is no longer any moon dust controversy.
Obviously the first calculations were wrong.
Its admitted and done away.

What Id like to point to is a genesis account that has the Moon and the Sun described as being created for light.
Interestingly, the Moon is darn near exactly the same size as the Sun TO US.
And,
Interestingly it does indeed appear for us as just enough light after the Sun goes down.

Now lets look at the Evolutionary concept and ask a much more menacing question about the Moon.
WHY AND HOW IS IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

See, you get so wrapped up in arguing over details that too often Evos and Creos dont look at the big picture.
Where the hell did a Moon come from at all?

Before you get a boner googling for the 'explanation' let me just warn you that this is another example of 'some theory' has to exist.
It had to come from somewhere so you gotta make some story but let me warn you that just because you read a 'sciency sounding' explanation it doesnt make it reasonable.

Do you know what the best scientific theory for the Moon is (and this is from an evolutionist btw).
Its an Illusion.
That is actualy the best and most likely theory that can work if you refuse to consider a Creator.
An Illusion.

Looking forward to the Evos replying with 'assertions' that assume the theory they found is 'fact' though.
Anyone?
Why and how did the Moon possibly come to exist in the first place?

 

Well according to those who support an old universe there was every reason to believe that the dust from metoriod impacts would of been hundreds of feet thick after so many billions of years. Yet, it appears that their conclusion was wrong for obvious reasons. The one half inch of dust on the surface of the Moon suggest that the age of the Moon could not be in the billions of years, but much younger.

 

Wow, assume you know my thinking. In fact, natural selection is evolution, and any professor of biology will tell you that. Evolution happens because through natural selection. Selection is the driving force. Even breeding dogs is evolution, because they are "selected" for certain traits, just not naturally.

Natural selection doesn't select genes. It selects animals with genes. If a mutation in one male fruitfly increases his fecundity 500% without detrimental effects, that fruitfly will pass on his genome, and it will become dominant, along with whatever genes it contains.

Now why would you do that? That's stupid. Life started with genomes far simpler than ours. Do you really think the world started with two humans and devolved into everything else through DNA deletions? Christ.

In a way. I think you're using that statement incorrectly. There was no prime animal or whatever.

Or substitution. Or addition. These are just as common.

Bullshit. You obviously have no concept of what science has learned in the last 150 years. You have not cited any scientific data AT ALL. Just your own crackpot rants.

Reproduction is a part of natural selection, because if an animal doesn't reproduce, it is selected and it's genes are not passed on. Natural selection is the motor of evolution. I suppose defacating and breathing would help as well, but I wouldn't say they're particularly related to evolution.

Evolutionism's reality is not in question. Just evolution, and just for the people who don't know about it.

Well there's a baseless claim. Two, even. If by selecting from existing gene pools means that all genes now in existence existed at the dawn of life, you're an idiot, and that's stupid.

Obviously not.

No I'm not.

That is exactly what I meant.

No, you explained a different matter entirely.

The evolutionist knows full well that genomes and DNA do not work in alphabetical fashion. They work as I told you, and replicating errors and other mutations cause an increase in genetic information all the time. That includes new DNA, new genes, ABCDEFGHI, or whatever. But it is not as simple as tacking another letter on the end.

That's what I mean for you to think. That's what happens. New DNA comes from errors, mutations, outside the cell, and reproduction complications.

Please tell me what you think I need.

Ok bud. Whatever. You are out of your mind.

I'm a biology major, thanks. I know evolution better than you know science in general.

Tell me, how did you? 'Cause to anyone with a scientific understanding, you didn't.

1. You were never like me, thank you very much.
2. Evolution has all the evidence it needs.
3. You have yet to make an informed, substantial argument against it

Please, enlighten me.

You keep saying that. Are you really trying to convince me or are you just saying it for your own benefit?

WOW. That is so much like evolutionary theory it's uncanny. Where do you pick up this crap?

 

OMG you are a total moron.
That reply of yours is so fucked up and mistaken on so many different levels I cannot even begin to work through it with you.

Please do not try this again.
Thx
Wow.
I mean fucking WOW on that last one Freaker.
Seriously are you high?

 

Analogy:


Day 1: I have had a rock specimen for one year.

Day 2: I melt the rock specimen.

Day 3: The rock specimen cools and solidifies. Question: is the rock specimen over 365 days old (one year) or is it closer to one day old ?




.

 

Campbell,


You are my friend. I respect your asking questions but maybe you should look at the idea that there are many, many, many things that we all do not know and learn to not conclude or to say "I do not know"; this does not discount or eliminate the hidden significance of your intuitions; science has very strict and precise rules.

Love,

David





.

 

Wow. You're all still explaining Trilobites... I'm so jealous that I don't have any of what you have to smoke. hehe

Peace,
Ryvr

 

You didn't respond to the last part of my statement. The moon was once volcanically active on the surface. The moon still is geologically active as instruments left there have measure several "moonquakes", but in the past it was more so. If that much dust and debris came from meteor impacts then they would have been covered up by lava and eruption materials and from geological activity. Even with the unaided eye, a person can see the darker areas on the surface, those are solidified lava flows and cover large areas on the surface. The I'm not sure what you are talking about the pads being oversized on the lunar lander. They didn't look that big to me, they are only about 2 feet across. If they seriously thought that, considering the weight (15,264 kg) of the lander, they would have had to have been much larger to keep it from sinking.