There is no problem of irreducible complexity of the eye.

Which of course has already been demonstrated here.

And um, Kansas? You might want to get current with the facts about where THAT went.

Frank

"Frank why don't you give everyone reading these the entire theory of evolution? "

Well, I don't think Xanga allows for the reposting of textbooks, so you're going to have to settle for some definitions (which I expect in kind, from you).

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

There you have it.

Now, where is yours?

Frank

No if you are going to ask me for the theory of creation, then I want the theory of evolution.

What you gave is not the theory.

And if anyone wants to read the actual research that started it all:

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

There you have it Tim, I have posted the theory of evolution.

I have also posted LOTS of evidence in support of this theory (and there are terabytes more). Evidence you have yet to falsify a single instance of, by the by.

So you have some catching up to do.

As a reminder:

1. Theory
2. Evidence

That's all I am asking.

Frank

"There is no problem of irreducible complexity of the eye. Which of course has already been demonstrated here."

Where was it demonstrated?

So, you are saying that the book by Charles Darwin is the theory?

"What you gave is not the theory."

The theory of evolution is the theory that those definitions are observable in the natural world and that there is evidence that supports them.

If that doesn't fit with your idea of a theory, well back to high school with you.

Now give me your theory!

Frank

"Where was it demonstrated?"

Many, many posts ago. If you want to play the "I don't recall that" game, I suggest you look it up yourself. A guick google on "evolution of the eye" will give you plenty of demonstrations of the process.

"So, you are saying that the book by Charles Darwin is the theory?"

It is where the theory was first articulated in detail. It is a good starting point for definitions, methods, etc... with regards to the theory. The theory has gone through lots of refinements through the years, but the basic theory of Natural Selection, as Darwin describes it, has yet to be falsified.

@fjblau - 

No Frank you gave a general explanation of the theory, but where was the science behind the theory.

Where is the full and complete theory behind evolution, If I or anyone is to falsify the theory, then present it in it entirety. I'm sure Gary would love the extra traffic:)

"No Frank you gave a general explanation of the theory, but where was the science behind the theory.

Where is the full and complete theory behind evolution, If I or anyone is to falsify the theory, then present it in it entirety. I'm sure Gary would love the extra traffic:)"

Tim, you are playing a silly game and I think you know it.

The veracity of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the amount of storage space on the Xanga servers, but I think you know that.

You are welcome to keep playing this game, but I don't think anyone who reads this confuses that with actually making a real point about Natural Selection, Evolution or even Creationism, for that matter.

I understand your frustration. The theory of evolution is one of the most solid, tested theories in the history of science. That all you can come up with to "compete" with it are childish responses that demonstrate zero capacity for understanding science is no surprise.

Frank

In all seriousness Tim, you would do well to understand the difference between a definition, a theory, and the evidence used to support it.

Your silly challenge to post the entire theory here only demonstrates this lack of understanding.

I have defined the word evolution.
I have defined the theory based on evolution.
I have presented evidence in support of that theory.

If you are unwilling to address the theory unless you can see ALL of the evidence that supports it (on Gary's Blog, no less) it is obvious you can't debate this rationally and you are looking for a semantic dispute to base your "taking your ball and going home" on.

You have not even reciprocated with the same 3 things about something you CLAIM is a theory that has scientific evidence to support it.

Disappointed,

Frank

@fjblau - 

No, Frank didn't you ask me for the theory of creation and the evidence on many occasions?

You call it a silly challenge, but didn't you do make the challenge first?

I have called you Frank, if you are going to present a challenge for me to present the theory of creation with evidence, then I expect you to first present the theory of evolution with all evidence.

"As a reminder:

1. Theory
2. Evidence

That's all I am asking."

Didn't you post this Frank?

"I have called you Frank, if you are going to present a challenge for me to present the theory of creation with evidence, then I expect you to first present the theory of evolution with all evidence."

It is obvious you have no theory, no evidence, and nothing to add to the debate any further Tim.

Thanks for playing.

Peace,

Frank

@fjblau - 

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

You say that I have no theory, no evidence, and nothing to add to the debate any further Tim? Yet you are the one who made the challenge in the first place. So, you are somehow excluded from the challenge. You ask me for the theory of creation with evidence, so I ask for the same thing.

The fact that people still cling to religion is rather amusing. It's not enough to enjoy the life you have, but people are greedy and they want even more. They want a special place to go to AFTER they're dead. The authors of the bible were the world's best salesman.

@richardj7 - 

Well, you have pretty much underscored your "faith", Richard. After having read in its entirety your explanation and defense of your allegedly open-minded approach, I didn't read anything new, or hear anything that would cause me to question or re-think what I believe, and have experienced. However, the one premise that you make is that men have fashioned God into what they want Him to be, and/or what their "realities" permit them to conceive. You have decided beforehand that God has not, and could not, communicate to men in such a way to reveal Himself as absolute, and objective, over and above what humans perception about Him might be. If there is a capital-T truth, and a capital-G God, who reigns Supreme, then He is not subject to our whims and fancies, and does NOT change according to the known science or knowledge of any given age. He exists. It is true that our perception of His ways, His truth and His intent will change, grow and adapt according to our ability to perceive and obey His word. But, if He did decide to utilize the words of a book to reveal Himself, then our acknowledgement and acquiescence to its veracity is immaterial.

You point out he oft-repeated idea that other "religions" believe theirs to be the only correct one. This is true, and can't be ignored. However, pointing that out does not equate to proving that neither is or could, in actuality, be the One True revealed mind and will of God. There are many, many objective and statistical facts that point to the supernatural and miraculous underpinning of the Bible, but to me the most convincing is the way it portrays human nature. This is what makes biblical Christianity stand out from counterfeits. All other religions and systems of philosophy give man a way of climbing the ladder to "realization" or self-fulfillment and heights of spiritual attainment. The ability of man and innate goodness and motive is assumed, so that in the end that person can claim credit for the advance of their spiritual journey and enlightenment. The Bible reveals us humans as in need of redemption and atonement, and provides only God's mercy and forgiveness as our reason for redemption. When all is said and done, God will receive His due glory, and man will be bowing at His feet. Christians claim that their way is the only way, because God says it is the only way. It is not some kind of spiritual one-upmanship or way of flaunting their great insight. They claim it is the only way, because it has been revealed to them that God spoke through His word, and in that word, He claimed to be the only way, and died because of it. You cannot stomach that, and can't understand that, because you have not experienced it.

Do you think it is enjoyable or somehow fulfilling to hold that there is only one way, when all evidence seemingly points to many, many ways of viewing reality? No, it is not fun, but those that know Jesus personally, and have had His truth revealed within their heart cannot deny that He is the One True God, or they would be lying.

dgrove21

@fjblau - 

Since you accept evolution as the theory for all life on earth, then let me ask you these very important questions:

1. Are the different races a result of evolution?

2. If so, then are any of the races more evolved then others?

@dgrove21 - 

I know that it is impossible for me or anyone else to change your mind about what you believe. What you believe is what YOU believe. Where does your belief come from? First from people who talked to you about it, then your own experience. Was you own experience influenced by what you started to believe? In most likelihood, yes. That's the way our mind works. It needs constant validation. The brain always acts to validate what it already believes, censoring anything else that may go against its thinking. This is well documented in psychology.

As well, based on brain scans, an imagined activity triggers the same area of the brain as a real physical activity. The thought of fear has the same intensity as fear generated by an outside physical experience. What is the conclusion? We can fabricate our own mental experiences (imagination, hallucination) so that they become real to us. For the brain, an imagined experience is the same as a real physical one: our pupils dilate, adrenalin flows, muscles tense, sweat pours. It could be a nightmare, also. Seemed so real! Yet, we were lying in bed.

The eye does not "see", per se, but rather the brain interprets the data entering the eye. Waves on the eardrums does not music make, but rather the brain's interpretation of it. How do we fashion our experiences? By other people teaching us what the names of flowers, and objects are, their color, their texture. Music is the same. Belief systems are the same depending where you were born, what kind of parents you had, friends, schools, what you read, heard, personal experiences, etc.

Raw data is transformed into interpretative data that is commonly accepted by other human beings: a rose is a rose, once you've been told that it was a rose. You smelled the rose, and then you knew what a rose smelled. Religions fall in that category. If you were born in Asia, you would more likely follow Buddhism, and you would be as defensive about your religion as you are for Christianity. Muslim countries, the same. They all find their reasons and arguments for their own religion, and some are ready to defend that with their teeth. Who is right, who is wrong? No one. Christians believe that others are wrong and are going to hell, if they do not accept Jesus in their heart. Muslims think the same. Buddhists, and some Hindus believe that since all human senses (partially) interpret physical reality, all is an illusion (maya) created by the mind.

As far as men crafting a God into what they want Him to be is nothing new. Recorded history shows that many Gods were crafted according to their realities at the time. The world's history did not start at 1 AD with early Christians. There is more history before Christ, than since then. Hinduism has the oldest recorded roots, which lie in Dravidianism. Dravidianism is estimated to have been practiced around 6,000 to 3,000 BCE and as such predates the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Babylonian cultures. Chriatianity is only 2008 years old.

The same as former religions evolved into modern religions, the same actual religions will evolve into others. The relationship with God, in old history was closer to the earth, its seasons, and the relationship of men with nature. Since then, it became more self-centered, political, more emotional or intellectual. We do not respect the Earth as it used to be. We are polluting it as if there were no tomorrow. Christians are thinking more about what will happen after death or "resurrection", than what to do now with the Earth that feeds us and our children now.

Yes, men have crafted their God according to the times. Men have always been certain of what they believed when they believed it. It takes a while to change, because there is a big resistance to change, especially when you've invested a lot of yourself in a particular belief system. It's hard to let go, because you've found a whole bunch of reasons why you should keep the faith you have. You've built your life around it. To accept that there may be some other explanation about our relationship with God would be devastating for the ego who wants to cling to what is.

YOU WRITE:
"You point out he oft-repeated idea that other "religions" believe theirs to be the only correct one. However, pointing that out does not equate to proving that neither is or could, in actuality, be the One True revealed mind and will of God."

I WRITE: Exactly! You got it. At least, I think that you do. But, your following statement seems not to indicate that.

YOU WRITE:
"There are many, many objective and statistical facts that point to the supernatural and miraculous underpinning of the Bible, but to me the most convincing is the way it portrays human nature."

I WRITE: Where, by whom? Give me the references where objective and statistical facts point to the supernatural and miraculous underpinning of the Bible. If nothing else, just answer this request. I'm legitimately interested.

Yes, yes, the Bible does portray human nature - i.e. its delusions, greed, conquering spirit, inconsistencies, moral fiber or the lack thereof, jealousy, doubts, revenge, blood thirst, incomprehensions, interpretations, etc, etc. That SHOULD be an indication that the Bible was not written by God, but by men.

YOU WRITE:
"This is what makes biblical Christianity stand out from counterfeits."

What counterfeits are you referring to?

YOU WRITE:
"All other religions and systems of philosophy give man a way of climbing the ladder to "realization" or self-fulfillment and heights of spiritual attainment."

Not all other religions do that, but some of them do. I do not see what is wrong with that.(?)

YOU WRITE:
The ability of man and innate goodness and motive is assumed, so that in the end that person can claim credit for the advance of their spiritual journey and enlightenment.

It's a known psychological fact that when an athlete assumes that they will win the competition, they have more chances of winning it than a person who is not sure about that. They will thank their coaches and supporters for having helped them achieve winning status, but in the end, it's really their effort that paid of. If you rely on somebody else to do your job, it ain't going to be done.

YOU WRITE:
"The Bible reveals us humans as in need of redemption and atonement, and provides only God's mercy and forgiveness as our reason for redemption."

If you believe that, then of course you will need redemption and atonement, God's mercy and forgiveness as a reason for redemption. See, even today, a definition of a guru or a management consultant is:

Convince an individual or a company that they have a problem. Once they are really convinced they have a problem, then, offer them a solution, and tell them that you are the only one who can help them solve it. This is used by consultants and gurus the world over. It's a known tactic, but people fall for it all the time. Some problems and solutions are legitimate, of course.

In spirituality: Convince people that they are sinners and that they will go to Hell if they do not repent, then offer them only one way to repent - and of course, you're the only one who has the solution or key to the redemption - then, they will follow you.

If innate goodness is assumed rather than the belief that redemption and atonement is necessary, then you don't need religion. If I think I'm a good person, I think that my attitude and actions will be reflected in my daily life. However, if I think that I'm a sinner, and feel guilty for not doing anything about it, then, my attitude and behavior will not be the same. If I think that my belief system is better than another, my attitude and behavior towards those people will be one of judgment and holier-than-thou, and thinking that they will go to Hell, and get God's wrath. Sometimes I get the impression that certain Christians would love to see that happening to prove their point...:)

YOU WRITE:
"Christians claim that their way is the only way, because God says it is the only way."
"They claim it is the only way, because it has been revealed to them that God spoke through His word, and in that word, He claimed to be the only way, and died because of it."

Muslims claim that their way is the only way, because God says it is the only way. Please tell me where lies the difference in the belief pattern, and why we should believe one more than the other? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Are they all stupid? BTW, radical muslims have yet to kill as many people as Christians did in the last centuries. God said, Thous shalt not kill. Humans have found numerous justifiable interpretations to not follow God's commandment. Instead of letting God settle the disputes, they took it upon themselves to solve it for God, in God's name. Convenient.

YOU WRITE:
"You cannot stomach that, and can't understand that, because you have not experienced it."

Stomach what, precisely? Have not experienced what? I've had a few deep spiritual experiences, the same as I know Christians have had, especially mystic Christians such as Bernadette Roberts, and many others. Their experiencea is not as good as yours?

YOU WRITE:
"...those that know Jesus personally, and have had His truth revealed within their heart cannot deny that He is the One True God, or they would be lying."

It is a known fact, that witnesses in court, can make mistakes in identifying culprits. Many people seeing the same accident or crime, can have different versions of it. The data can be tainted in the mind, by the type of questions being asked of them. As I mentioned above, the mind does not make a difference between an imagined activity and a real one. This is documented.

Many other people from other religions also are witness to personal experiences with their prophets, gurus or their God. They can swear that they've experienced them, and that it has affected their lives. They will not deny, either that their God is the True God. Why should their belief be different than yours or other Christians?

If that makes them live a well-balanced, and productive life, with fine social morals, why should it make a difference?

Your mind interprets the world, thus making its own reality. By joining forces with other people who share the same reality, does not make that THE reality is above everything or everybody else. The mere fact that your reality may be different from the reality of another person, should be proof enough that each of us make our own reality. Otherwise, it would be the same for everyone. Need you more proof about humans being able to craft their own reality?

The Number of Mutations NeoDarwinism
Requires to Evolve a Species

A total of 1.7 million species of animals have been identified from comparative studies of preserved specimens (Blackmore, 2002).  Researchers estimate that somewhere between 3 million and 30 million species now exist.  The most common estimate is around 13 million (Margulis and Schwartz, 1998, p. 3; Blackmore, 2002).

According to an Amersham bioscience report (2001, p. 1), it is estimated that there are thousands of different proteins used in the human body (see also “Preteome” AAAS Science Netlinks).  Nuclear pore complexes alone comprise 50 to 100 different proteins (Allen, 2000, p. 1651).  All of them are produced by the estimated 35 to 45 thousand human genes that, according to neoDarwinists, evolved from other, less-complex, and often shorter genes.  Shermer (2002, p. 229) estimates that “trillions of distinct modifications” were required to evolve humans alone.  Presumably, each modification would require many mutations.

A significant fraction of open reading frames has been judged not to match any another sequence in the database, indicating that a significant number of all proteins may be unique to each genus of animal (Bailey, 2001; Siew and Fischer, 2003, p. 7).  Thus, as many as 200 million different proteins may exist.  From 150,000 to 250,000 extinct animal species have also been identified and reported in the paleontological literature.  NeoDarwinists estimate that as many as 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 52; Raup, 1977, p. 50).  Although some claim the number is far lower, assuming this estimate to be valid would put the number of species that have ever lived at over 200 trillion!

Given the estimate that roughly an average of 1,000 transitional forms are required to evolve a species (a number that is a rough estimate and is dependant on various assumptions)—this would mean that 2x1017 transitional forms have existed.  If 1,000 mutations are required for each transitional form, this would translate into 2x1020 beneficial mutations that are required.  And not one clear beneficial mutation or transitional form has yet been convincingly demonstrated, although likely some do exist.  The paucity of clearly helpful mutations must be considered in context with the estimate that 2x1020 mutations that are required to produce the natural living world existing today and the number of animals that are speculated to have once existed.

Given a low estimate of 1,000 steps required to evolve the average protein (if this were possible) over 2x1014 beneficial mutations would have been needed to evolve just the proteins that are estimated to exist today.  So far only 60 species, including the nematode worm, humans, yeast, rice, mustard plant, and bacteria have had their DNA fully sequenced.  As more life forms are sequenced, the above estimates may go either up or down.  The same evolutionary problem exists in attempting to use mutations to explain the origin of the genes required to make fat, nucleic acid, carbohydrate families, and other compounds that are produced by living organisms and are necessary for life.

@richardj7 - 

As I said, one of us will be shown to be wrong. It is as simple as that, though you are very good at obfuscating that obvious fact. No amount of creating your own reality will change God's reality, if indeed there is one True God. He is not subject to our psychological vacillations.

@TimRayPhoto - 

You've been a good soldier, TimRay. Looks like god will be letting your right through the pearly gates, no questions asked. You took on evolution with it's own science! That's f'ing brilliant!

Too bad your logic's as delusional as you are.

@dgrove21 - 

@dgrove21 - 

Personally, I would not begin to pretend that one of us is right or wrong. We could both be wrong, AND we could both be right at some point of the spiritual evolution of human kind.

Right or wrong is only two points of views out of many. Not everything is black or white. If you study a little Quantum mechanics, you will know what that means. We can actually affect different realities by simply becoming aware of them, or attempting to measure, judge, compare, extrapolate them. This does not mean that our particular perception is THE TOTAL reality. The human interpretation of God, may not be GOD at all, but just part of who or what God is.

After all, to KNOW God may go beyond what the mind is capable of knowing about God. All the feelings that you have about Jesus - or any other types of feelings humans have - come from a very limited human brain that can only interpret reality through physical senses. Remove the senses, and the physical reality changes. The world reality is not the same for blind people, deaf people or even physically challenged people. What about if a human being had not senses at all? I'm sure his or her reality would be quite different.

Peoples' attempts to translate spiritual beliefs and/or experiences into words, images, sounds, and internal/external feelings about someone or something are very limited, and are different from one person to another, however subtle it may be.

Some of things being said on these numerous similar posts seem to be true, such as God not being subject to our psychological vacillations, as you wrote. For me that seems to be true. However, nothing prevents humans to psychologically vacillate on Who or What God really is. The mere fact that not all humans agree on the definition of God is the perfect proof. If the proof was evident for everyone, then they would all believe the same thing. If someone else interprets God differently than you, then how to know who is right and wrong in a definitive manner, other than subjective experience? Or referring to a book, prophet, guru as the definitive authority on the matter? Or waiting, as you suggest at some time in the future when God will come down for final judgment. Before that, if it ever happens, who can claim they hold the truth?

I do not believe that it is simple as that. Let's keep tuned and see how it evolves - most of my posts have been about that - keeping an open mind and being on the lookout for a paradigm shift on the whole concept of religion and spirituality. We may be in for quite a surprise.

@TimRayPhoto - 

Being anonymous doesn't mean I'm not right.