Evolution Again!

[_Ren]

Bret Ripley,
I'm proud to have inspired such a story out of you ;)
I agree - it was spot on...!

Really good stuff.


Ceeboo,
Hope things went well with the baseball trip...

It's not that I don't trust [scientists], my new British friend, I just have a real difficult time digesting the kinds of numbers being tossed (wildly and freely tossed in my estimation) about as solid factual evidence.

OK my new Yankee buddy.
Let's see where we can go here...

I am tempted to ask something like "Just assume, for the moment, that all the details in the whale evolution graphic are 'correct'...
Then what? Would you accept there has to be connections between the species then?"

But I don't think that will do much good. Because I can imagine what my reaction might be if a Christian said to me: "So let's just assume the Bible is Gods Word... Then what?".
I might be as polite as possible and answer the hypothetical as best as I can, but I couldn't honestly say I held any hope such a discussion would actually go anywhere...


So we need to get down and dirty with the fundementals of this first I feel. You with me? :)


So, I'll make some assumptions and you tell me when / if I get it wrong.

I'm going to assume you accept that the scientists involved in constructing the dates and various other details in that graphic believe they have good, independant reasons for thinking those details are accurate. (Regardless of how mistaken they may or may not be...)
More specifically, I'm assuming you don't believe that they all got in a room and said "Right - let's make up some good numbers here. Evolution is getting a real battering in the Bible Belt - so we need to get some new 'data' out there pronto!"
i.e. they didn't 'fudge numbers together' because they were the kind of numbers the evolutionary framework would predict...

You don't seem like the tin-foil hat, 'CIA are camped outside my house' kinda guy to me ;)


OK - so putting that possibility aside...

I am going to assume that you believe the scientists involved - no matter how confident they 'think' they are - cannot reasonably come up with anywhere near accurate dates for the fossils they are describing...
(Just concentrating on the dates for now - to focus the discussion...).

But would you not trust them because:

A. you know of specific problems in the various standard techniques of dating? (Carbon, radioactive, geological placing etc.)
...or...
B. You just generally distrust - essentially on principle - any human (or any group of humans) attempts to reasonably 'prove' such specific details of how creatures were 'long ago...'?


I'm going to guess B, but I'll wait for your answer of course.
(Although I do like guessing what your answers might be, so I hope you don't mind if I keep doing that... ;) )

Okay, the theory of evolution is silent on this front.
Does Ren have anything to say?

Well, here's what Ren has to say on abiogenesis... :)

There are lots of details available on what 'probably' happenned - and they are all perfectly plausible.
But none of them have been scientifically proven yet. So the jury (scientifically) is still out...

So where I would be comfortable saying I 'know' evolution is 'true', I wouldn't be comfortable saying I 'know' abiogenesis is 'true'
...although I do 'believe' it's almost certainly what happened.

(I also concede that a long discussion could be had on just what the word 'know' means in this context...
...and I'm happy to get into that as we go...)


But even if - hypothetically - a 'God' was responsible for the starting point (i.e. the first self-replicating molecules were sparked into life by some God-magic), then that single 'fact' - in and of itself - would have no bearing on the evidence for or against evolution.
i.e. God could have started the process, but then left it to 'run itself' from then on. I certainly don't believe that, but that 'reality' would be prefectly consistent with all evolutionary theory and evidence.

That's what people mean when they talk about abiogenesis 'having nothing to do with' evolution. Of course, the two are related in reality - anybody can see that. One is the 'natural' explanation for how the other got started.
But they are still independent propositions and frameworks, with independent sets of predictions and evidential backing...

That is exactly where things with Ceeboo and Mrs. Ceeboo all started (Jamaica - 1997)

Haha!
I can tell Mrs. Ceeboo is a lucky woman.
Just make sure you don't leave that Racoon / Whale thing in your attic. I'm just guessing, but I don't think that will be appreciated...

Yes, I accept it's possible!

Well - it's nice of you to humour me, but I shouldn't bother sending your 'Darwin Fish' bumper sticker just yet...
Cos let's face it - 'possible' doesn't mean much. AmiRight?

I mean, it's 'possible' that I could win the lottery tomorrow. (i.e. have a pretty good day).
Or it's 'possible' that I could have an airplane land on my head. (i.e. have a pretty bad day).
But what's 'probably' going to happen is that I'll have a pretty average day. (Which - heh - is still pretty awesome. Just not 'winning the lottery' awesome...!)


I think you meant 'possible' in the "win-the-lottery-planes-falling-on-head-tomorrow" sense...
...not - "there is any chance in H-E-double-hockey-sticks it actually happened" sense.

It's OK Ceeboo *sniff*
Give it to me straight *sob*
...I can take it...

[_Ceeboo]

Bret Ripley,
I'm proud to have inspired such a story out of you ;)
I agree - it was spot on...!

"Spot on?"
I thought the story sucked, for what it's worth!

Ceeboo,
Hope things went well with the baseball trip...

It did, thanks! (Just a short meeting for roster turn-in and such.)

OK my new Yankee buddy.
Let's see where we can go here...

Okay!

So we need to get down and dirty with the fundementals of this first I feel. You with me? :)

I am!

So, I'll make some assumptions and you tell me when / if I get it wrong.

I'm going to assume you accept that the scientists involved in constructing the dates and various other details in that graphic believe they have good, independant reasons for thinking those details are accurate.

You assume correctly!

More specifically, I'm assuming you don't believe that they all got in a room and said "Right - let's make up some good numbers here. Evolution is getting a real battering in the Bible Belt - so we need to get some new 'data' out there pronto!"

You are correct, again!

I am going to assume that you believe the scientists involved - no matter how confident they 'think' they are - cannot reasonably come up with anywhere near accurate dates for the fossils they are describing...
(Just concentrating on the dates for now - to focus the discussion...).

Okay, dates only!

But would you not trust them because:

I don't really like the word "trust", but if it's okay with you, I will put that on the shelf with your stuff for now.

A. you know of specific problems in the various standard techniques of dating? (Carbon, radioactive, geological placing etc.)
...or...
B. You just generally distrust - essentially on principle - any human (or any group of humans) attempts to reasonably 'prove' such specific details of how creatures were 'long ago...'?


I'm going to guess B, but I'll wait for your answer of course.
(Although I do like guessing what your answers might be, so I hope you don't mind if I keep doing that... ;) )

No, my answer would be A.
There seems to be a plethora of challenges and limits on and with C-14 dating and Radiometric dating.

Well, here's what Ren has to say on abiogenesis... :)

There are lots of details available on what 'probably' happenned - and they are all perfectly plausible.
But none of them have been scientifically proven yet. So the jury (scientifically) is still out...

So where I would be comfortable saying I 'know' evolution is 'true', I wouldn't be comfortable saying I 'know' abiogenesis is 'true'
...although I do 'believe' it's almost certainly what happened.

I appreciate your position and I thank you for engaging the question.

Ceeboo says that abiogenesis is as close to completely impossible as it gets.

I understand that you "believe it's almost certainly what happened" but can I ask you a question?
What other choice do you have? (To be clear, this is a very serious question)

But even if - hypothetically - a 'God' was responsible for the starting point (i.e. the first self-replicating molecules were sparked into life by some God-magic), then that single 'fact' - in and of itself - would have no bearing on the evidence for or against evolution.
i.e. God could have started the process, but then left it to 'run itself' from then on. I certainly don't believe that, but that 'reality' would be prefectly consistent with all evolutionary theory and evidence.

No question!
I have many beloved friends and Brethren who are Theistic Evolutionists (This group is no small number of believers, to be sure)

That's what people mean when they talk about abiogenesis 'having nothing to do with' evolution. Of course, the two are related in reality - anybody can see that. One is the 'natural' explanation for how the other got started.

Understood but there is exactly and entirely nothing "natural" about this "natural" explanation.
Do you agree with that?

I can tell Mrs. Ceeboo is a lucky woman.

My new Brit friend, If you believe nothing else from me, please believe that it is I who is the lucky one in the partnership (MY bride rocks, she is gorgeous inside and out and................she loves racoons!)

Well - it's nice of you to humour me, but I shouldn't bother sending your 'Darwin Fish' bumper sticker just yet...
Cos let's face it - 'possible' doesn't mean much. AmiRight?

Possible means possible!

I think you meant 'possible' in the win-the-lottery-planes-falling-on-head-tomorrow sense...
...not - "there is any chance in H-E-double-hockey-sticks chance it actually happened" sense.

My most sincere and honest reply, Ren, is that I personally believe it is possible.
Likely, not sure.
Absolute fact, no!

It's OK Ceeboo *sniff*
Give it to me straight *sob*
...I can take it...

You SURE you don't drive a cab and live in Australia?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bob Loblaw]

No, my answer would be A.
There seems to be a plethora of challenges and limits on and with C-14 dating and Radiometric dating.

It's a good thing that evolutionary theory doesn't rest on either of those methods.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello Bob

No, my answer would be A.
There seems to be a plethora of challenges and limits on and with C-14 dating and Radiometric dating.

It's a good thing that evolutionary theory doesn't rest on either of those methods.

It's also a good thing that I never said it did!

It's also a good thing to that I was answering a question asked of me about those exact methods!

Thanks for stopping by.

Is the racoon/whale thing causing some tension?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Quasimodo]

Is the racoon/whale thing causing some tension?

Peace,
Ceeboo

If it's any consolation, Ceeboo, I have often seen raccoons walking across my backyard wall at night. Never a whale, and I do live close to the beach.

[_Bazooka]

A new picture of space indicates that the universe is even older than first thought - around 60 million years to be precise.
Space scientists have released an image of "the oldest light" ever seen.

The ground-breaking picture from Europe's Planck satellite shows an image of light from when the universe was just 380,000 years old.

The experts say it shows the 'relic radiation' left over from the Big Bang - the widely accepted theory for the start of the universe.

Dr George Efstathiou of the University of Cambridge said: "It may look like a dirty rugby ball or a piece of modern art" but "to cosmologists this is a gold mine of information."

The scientists also revealed that they believe the universe is older than originally thought.

Data from the Planck satellite dates the universe at 13.82 billion years old - 60 million years earlier than previously thought.

Dr Chris Castelli of the UK Space Agency said: "With its ability to make such detailed and accurate observations, Planck is helping us to place the vital pieces of a jigsaw that could give us a full picture of the evolution of our Universe, rewriting the textbooks along the way." 

Launched in 2009, the Planck satellite is a joint European venture that is supported by various UK institutions. 

Scientists are still analysing the wealth of complex new information from this project and say the next set of cosmology data will be released in early 2014.

Joanna Dunkley from the University of Oxford said: "The size of these tiny ripples holds the key to what happened in that first trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

"Planck has given us striking new evidence that indicates they were created during this incredibly fast expansion, just after the Big Bang."

Sky News

[_Ceeboo]

Q-Man!

Is the racoon/whale thing causing some tension?

Peace,
Ceeboo

If it's any consolation, Ceeboo, I have often seen raccoons walking across my backyard wall at night. Never a whale,

And yes, it is a consolation!

and I do live close to the beach.

I am jealous (How close?)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In just 30 years:

http://www.rawstory.com/Relief Society/2013/03/18/s ... y-traffic/

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abs ... %2900194-2

- Doc

[Guest]

Hey Ceeb
Well, I think we've split into two different subjects here: evolution and abiogenesis.

I'll tackle abio first - the rest might have to wait till tomorrow.
(Its getting pretty late here...)

Ceeboo says that abiogenesis is as close to completely impossible as it gets.

Well... ok. Ceeboo certainly seem confident!

But before I jump on the 'abiogenesis is bull' bandwagon, let's be sure we are talking about the same thing. Because there was some confusion earlier...

This is what you said earlier today: (at 8am according to the board time...)

1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter

Is that what you understand (or did understand) abiogenesis to be?
If so, then of course you are right to describe it as 'as close to completely impossible as it gets'.
So do I.
I believe everybody on this forum would.
I believe every evolutionary scientist would.
You might be able to find somebody on the planet who believes it is possible, but you'd have to look pretty hard. (Maybe they are hiding up in your attic with the racoon / whale thayng... )

But if, instead, you mean your new understanding of 'simple self-replicating molecules', then - frankly - I'm pretty impressed you managed to demolish the possibility of them since only 8am this morning...!

Any details you can share on - for example - why the 'RNA world' hypothesis is 'as close to impossible as it gets'?!

What other choice do you have? (To be clear, this is a very serious question)

No problem mate. I take it as a serious question and It's a good one.
I could mention panspermia (which - to echo your wording - I consider 'possible' and nothing more...), but it only pushes the problem back so...
while it could be true here, it can't be the full answer...

To be honest, I can only think of one (eventual) naturalistic one.
But that doesn't mean other options aren't out there that we just don't comprehend or understand right now.
The history of science is full of false dicotomies that tripped people up. (Evolution itself being one of the prime examples...)

I'd rather learn from and avoid the mistakes made in the past (instead of repeating them...)

Well good night my man.
Later...


EDIT:
Sorry - missed this bit..

Understood but there is exactly and entirely nothing "natural" about this "natural" explanation.
Do you agree with that?

Isn't saying a natural explanation is 'natural' one of those tautology type thingys? :)
Self-defining and all that...

So - do I agree?
Ermm - no...

[_Harold Lee]

I'm not going to push abiogenesis just yet here. If someone wants to believe god was that spark but at least accepts evolution that's perfectly okay. It's still in accordance with 99% of what science states on evolutionary theory and it'd be a much harder thing to argue since such little is known about it that it essentially boils down to hypotheses and "could-have-happened-this-way"s. In fact if someone wants to hold off accepting abiogenesis until a little more is set in stone and we can have more certainties (so they're not constantly changing their understandings as pioneering science on the fringes makes us apt to do) that makes sense in its own way.

Right now we're still trying to get Ceeboo to let go of that god damned "racoon".