Interleaved responses lead to long posts. Oh, well - it's the nature
of the beast ;-D


"Eric Miller" wrote in message t...
"Corrie" wrote:
Your (deductive) argument on the Anthropomorphic Principle still begs
the questions of why and how this particular universe came to be.

Well, like I said before, there's no tautological difference between
starting with a creator and starting with one or more universes. How and why
does the universe(s) exist? How and why does the creator exist? It's the
exact same question.

The difference being, I don't think the universe cares one whit about us,
whereas a hypothetical creator cared/was compelled at least enough to create
in the first place.

Agreed. It seems that in your worldview, the question "why are we
here?" has no meaning. And if you ask it, the answer is, "there's no
reason - we just are." But if the question and its answer are both
meaningless, then why can we even ask it? Augustine dealth with the
same point - if it cannot possibly exist, how can it be imagined?


What is the probability of intelligent life existing in the universe?
Impossible to calculate

Actually, the Drake equation breaks this down quite nicely. Now, all the
coefficients might not be known, but that's just a detail


Ahh, and you know who's hiding in the details ;-


(The term species is pretty vague, btw. Last I counted
there were 17 separate, sometimes mutually exclusive, definitions.)

I've never heard any disagreement over the basic definition of species,
which is "a population which can interbreed".

That's just the biological defninition. But it doesn't always work.
For example, dogs and wolves are generally considered two separate
species, but they can interbreed. Same with horses and donkeys,
though the offspring are sterile. Also, you can't apply the
biological test to extinct creatures; you have to use other
definitions.


But I haven't seen any evidence that the same process results in
changes to phylum or order. That's an assumption based on a
faith-belief in macro-evolution.

It's a much smaller leap in logic to state that we can observe evolution on
a smaller scale and conclude that macro-evolution occurs in the same/similar
fashion than to state "Haven't seen any macro-evolution today," give up, and
conclude a creator made everything.


You would expect to see a LOT of evidence for macro-evolution, but you
don't.


You know, this is *exactly* what ancient, superstitious and unscientific man
did, because he was controlled by (instead of controlling) his environment.
Whenever he came across a phenomenon he didn't understand, he created a god
and credited the deity with causing it. Sun, moon and eclipses in the
heavens? Lightning kill your uncle? Storm sink the family fishing boat?
Drought wipe out the harvest? All gods and more gods.

And you know what? As we learned about how things work, gods started
disappearing one by one. Now there's just one mystery left "Where do we come
from?", which is why there's just one god left. (Where we go after we die
isn't a mystery... people just don't like the answer )

We have genetic evidence of a common ancestor for modern humans -
the so-called "genetic Eve.

No need to discuss, since a genetic Eve is consistent with both materialism
and intelligent design (to use your terms).

Similar evidence for a common ancestor for birds and reptiles has yet to
turn up AFAIK.

Now come on, are you deliberately ignoring the evidence of Archaeopteryx?
Not one, but at least eight different fossil specimens from around the world
of an organism which is neither dinosaur nor bird but has some of the
features of both. This is *exactly* what you'd expect from a transitional
fossil.

Is the platypus a transitional creature? Or just an example of a
wierd combination of features (a designer playing around?)
Archaeopteryx is an interesting creature, but it is a true
transitional form? Maybe it was the platypus of its time. You'd
expect to see a lot more transitional forms, say, right above the KT
boundary, when the small surviving dinos began to grow feathers. But
they're not there.


Another topic - I've asked this question in a number of forums, and
have yet to get an answer - why is it that according to the fossil
record, the pace of "evolutionary" change seems to increase the more
complex that life forms become? One would think that as complexity
increases, the likelihood of a random genetic mutation resulting in a
large-scale beneficial change would decrease, yet we see just the
opposite. How does materialist evolution explain that?

Can't speak with authority here, but there's nothing inconsistent with that;
in fact, I'd think you'd expect it.
Start with one "specie", apply change, get two. Apply change to two, get
four etc.

No, this isn't a matter of arithmetic progression. It's a question of
complexity. A single change to a complex system will be less visible
than the same change to a simpler system. Now, then, the mathematics
of complexity and chaos can come into play here - a small disruption
can have an unpredictably large effect - but the fundamental principle
remains. It's easier to change a simple system than a complex system.

Not all mutations are beneficial, but neither are all so detrimental that
they result in the end of line for the mutation.

True. My point exactly. A single mutation to a simple organism is
likely to have a much greater effect than a single mutation to a
complex organism. Yet the fossil record shows that simple organisms
remain stable for scores of millenia, while complex organisms mutate
rapidly.

Further, the worth of a mutation may not be demonstrated until long
after it occurs.

If *that's* the case, then natural selection doesn't work! Either
that or you're buying into Lamark's notion that animals will
themselves to change in order to achieve some future goal. Say it
ain't so, Joe!


Also, be very careful of trying to figure things out by common sense,
because not everything is intuitive. That's why we perform experiments.
In orbit, you have to slow down to descend and speed up to reach a higher
orbit, if you try to move up/down only the shape of your orbit will change.
Inflate two balloons, one 25% full, the other 75% full and connect them with
a closed valve. What happens when you open the valve?
Two balloons 50% full? No, one balloon 5% full, the other balloon 95% full.

If you know all the laws of physics involved, you'd figure those out.
Same with pitch-for-speed, power-for-altitude. (Gotta get an aviation
reference in!) And by looking at the evidence, you'd be able to
figure out the laws involved. So that's what I'm asking - how is it
that complex prganisms evolve more rapidly? I've yet to see an
explanation.


Microbes have developed drug resistance over a period of about 200,000
generations. (50 years @ 12 generations/day). Now, those are not new
species - penicillin-resistant E. Coli is still E. coli. It's like
the difference between a wolf and a German Shepherd. Less, actually,
since we're talking about the difference of a few molecules in the
cell wall. The oldest hominid fossil (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is
about 470,000 generations old (7 million/15). Only twice as many
generations, with a vastly more complex organism, but the physical
differences between us and "Toumai" are far, far greater than the
differences between normal E. coli and penicilin-resistant E. Coli.
It just doesn't add up.

First of all, bacteria develop drug resistance a *lot* quicker than 50
years; try a week if you're irresponsible and quit taking your antibiotics
as soon as you feel better instead of emptying the bottle as instructed by
your physician.

I'm talking about the general worldwide population of microbes. Fifty
years ago, the resistant mutation was very rare. If you stopped
taking your meds early, there might not be enough of them to reinfect
you - your body's defenses would take over and finish the job. Today,
the resistant mutation is a lot more common, so you have to really
hammer the bugs in order to kill them off.


And to the best of my knowledge, the oldest recognized hominid is
Ardipithicus ramidus, dated at 4.4 my.

I'm using Toumai in an attempt to be conservative, giving the "human
mutation" more generations to come out. Time is *your* ally, right?
If we use A. ramidus, then my argument actually gets stronger.

Remember what I said about common sense.. it doesn't have to seem to add up.
2 hr vs 15 yr long generations. Simple vs complex organisms. All things
aren't created equal.

Whoah now. If that is the case, then you've just made MY argument
stronger: that the process that gives us weiner-dogs from wolves DOES
NOT explain the difference between cats and dogs. Can't have your
cake and eat it, too. :-D


Short generations allow for rapid adaptation to the environment.
Simple organism - there's less there, less to change, less that *can* change
and still be viable.


Oooh, you're treading on very dangerous ground, now. :-) Ever hear of
"irreducible complexity?" A system that, if you try to "devolve it" -
come up with a simpler antecedent - simply stops working? Some folks
use the eye as an example - bad example. Very simple photo-sensitive
cells can convey a survival advantage. But look at something like
mitochondrial protein transport. That's a VERY complex little series
of chemical reactions inside your cells, and it's necessary for life.
Further, you can't make it any simpler and have it keep working.

Complex organism - we share 99% the genetic structure with chimpanzees, and
Ardipithicus ramidus is the point where we branched off, so we can't be more
than 1% different from him.

That's a statement of faith until there's a genetic study of A.
ramidus. AFAIK all we have is fossilized bone.

Perhaps the same 1% difference between bacteria 50 years ago and now... in
about the same number of generations?

Except that the difference in bacteria only resulted in drug
resistance. Resistant E. coli is still E. coli. It's still a
facultative anaerobe, still flourishes in the same environments. It's
simply more resistant to a certain threat. But the difference in
primates is HUGE! Enough to call us and ramidus not only separate
"races" or "breeds" or "strains" and not only different species, but a
different genus!


As far as us having 99% genetic commonality with chimps - is that
evidence of a common ancestor, or evidence of a conservative designer
reusing proven systems?

What I don't understand is... how can the previous statement be acceptable
but yet somehow the idea of an intelligent designer that created everything
*using* the mechanism of evolution is somehow so repugnant?

I don't have a problem with that, philosophically. The problem is
that it's a statement of faith that's been presented as fact. If you
gave me ironclad proof tomorrow of clear common ancestors, obvious and
numerous transitional forms, etc., it wouldn't shake my faith one
whit. And clearly the lack of proof doesn't seem to affect the faith
of secular fundamentalists. It's just so ironic that they mock people
who believe in God. Talk about missing the log in your own eye...

Enjoying the conversation!

Corrie