Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[thesometimesaint]

No one is alive today that witnessed their own mothers birth. How do you know yours was born and not transported to this planet?

 

Here is the clock.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Edited March 4, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[name]

Thought I would add this to the table for discussion/thoughts/opinions.

The Darwinian evolution of symbiotic relationships.

Example: The shark and the cleaner fish.

Random mutations and natural selection? How on earth did that naturally evolve?

How many cleaner fish entered the shark's mouth and ended up being lunch before this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship evolved to where the shark allowed the cleaner fish to clean its teeth while the cleaner fish ate dinner?

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution of symbiotic relationships.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

[name]

Evolution of symbiotic relationships.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

Dear sometime,

It is impossible for me to have a discussion with a wiki link. (Or any of the other youtube videos and/or links you post)

I am sorry but if you would like to have a discussion with me, you will have to engage me directly.

If you don't, I understand.

I just wanted to let you know, in case you were wondering, why I haven't responded to any of your other pasted links in this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

Dear sometime,

It is impossible for me to have a discussion with a wiki link. (Or any of the other youtube videos and/or links you post)

I am sorry but if you would like to have a discussion with me, you will have to engage me directly.

If you don't, I understand.

I just wanted to let you know, in case you were wondering, why I haven't responded to any of your other pasted links in this thread.

 

You asked the question of how does evolution explain symbiotic relationships. I simply answered your question with how science answers that question with a link.

 

I don't know as our discussion can resolve a question of what science has demonstrated. I have many times said that I have no problem with God, and no problem with science. Ask me a question about what I believe. I will answer to the best of my limited ability. Ask me a question of what science says, and there too I will answer to the best of my limited ability.

 

I didn't presume to know why you didn't respond. It could be any number of possible reasons.

[name]

Hey again sometime,

You asked the question of how does evolution explain symbiotic relationships. I simply answered your question with how science answers that question with a link.

 

I don't know as our discussion can resolve a question of what science has demonstrated. I have many times said that I have no problem with God, and no problem with science. Ask me a question about what I believe. I will answer to the best of my limited ability. Ask me a question of what science says, and there too I will answer to the best of my limited ability.

 

I didn't presume to know why you didn't respond. It could be any number of possible reasons.

Fair enough.

Thanks for the warm reply.

[bcuzbcuz]

Thought I would add this to the table for discussion/thoughts/opinions.The Darwinian evolution of symbiotic relationships.Example: The shark and the cleaner fish.Random mutations and natural selection? How on earth did that naturally evolve?How many cleaner fish entered the shark's mouth and ended up being lunch before this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship evolved to where the shark allowed the cleaner fish to clean its teeth while the cleaner fish ate dinner?

I have videos and pictures of the cleaner fish doing their magic on any number of fishes. The fish desiring a cleaning, "park" themselves in the area certain cleaner fish hold shop. The fish desiring a cleaning maintains a position, keeping still, and with their mouths wide open. It is easy to get the impression that they´re in a state of stupor. If they could drool, they´d be drooling. Their eyes roll back in their head (not really, but it looks like it) and they get a sleepy expression on their face. They float, often in a position of head pointing straight up and tail straight down. The cleaner fish swims briskly from spot to spot, both around the gills, around the mouth and in the mouth.

As you stated, certainly a number of cleaner fish ended up being dinner, but we don,t know that because the fish with the genes of the "stupid" cleaner fish have disappeared.

I´m well versed in their techniques because while I was filming a cleaner fish working its magic on a fish, other cleaner fish were busy cleaning me. I had a number of large scabs on my legs and arm from a diving incident. The cleaner fish have extremely sharp teeth and I didn´t notice their handiwork until another diver pointed it out. Later on, same day, while filming another area, I definitely felt a painful tug at my skin around my sores. This time it was a Rainbow wrasse that was taking a piece of me. But they have decidedly less sharp teeth and they do not remove scabs with a scapels precision but instead just tug a piece away. It´s like picking at a fresh sore.

You can read about these fish from Helmut Debelius´ "Indian Ocean and Red Sea Fish Guide".

If a rainbow wrasse tried to pick clean another fish, it would probably get the same treatment I dished out. A message that said "Go away".

When, in the long distant past, that the cleaner fish developed their symbiotic relationship with other fish is unknown. But both the cleaner and the cleanee benefit. That is the definition of symbiotic.

[NotaMormon]

I believe in young earth creation, but I'm not opposed to an intelligent design evolution view. I think Christians will have more success in the issue if we focus on the evidence for an intelligence behind the creation than the specifics of how that creation happened.

 

I recently saw a video that could be a good conversation starter on the issue.

 

He mentions that light exists outside our concept of time and he's comfortable saying the laws of physics seem to be designed, but he doesn't even acknowledge the theory that a supreme being, who exists outside of time, created those physics.

[bcuzbcuz]

I believe in young earth creation, but I'm not opposed to an intelligent design evolution view. I think Christians will have more success in the issue if we focus on the evidence for an intelligence behind the creation than the specifics of how that creation happened.

 

I recently saw a video that could be a good conversation starter on the issue.

 

He mentions that light exists outside our concept of time and he's comfortable saying the laws of physics seem to be designed, but he doesn't even acknowledge the theory that a supreme being, who exists outside of time, created those physics.

Sorry, but your video plagarizes Steven Wright. His joke about "What happens if you're driving at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?" is over 20 years old. He's the guy who said, "I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone."

Not everyone here on this site believes in the Bible's story of creation as being literal, or even that it got things in the right order. If there was an intelligent designer, he got an awful lot of things wrong. That covers the appendix and dinosaurs, to name just a few thousand.

[name]

Hi bcuz!

Although I didn't have anything worthy to contribute to your last post about the experiences you shared with me/us involving cleaner fish and symbiotic relationships, please now that I did read it and enjoyed reading it.

Not everyone here on this site believes in the Bible's story of creation as being literal, or even that it got things in the right order. If there was an intelligent designer, he got an awful lot of things wrong. That covers the appendix and dinosaurs, to name just a few thousand.

Perhaps it is/was us (not the Creator) that got a lot of things wrong?

[bcuzbcuz]

Hi bcuz!Although I didn't have anything worthy to contribute to your last post about the experiences you shared with me/us involving cleaner fish and symbiotic relationships, please now that I did read it and enjoyed reading it. :)Perhaps it is/was us (not the Creator) that got a lot of things wrong?

Allow me to return the compliment. I enjoy reading your posts and especially the tone and warmth. I know all too often I read comments that I enjoy but neglect to pass on a kind word about the input to the writer. I will need to remember how much I enjoy getting a pat on the back.

[bcuzbcuz]

Well, Enough of this warm and fuzzy stuff. Apparently that kills off a discussion faster than a ban by the lords of the board.

Now, where were we? Ah, yes. ¡Talk of creation has nothing to do with evolution!

Evolution is the motor and process of change. Creation is the ignition. Intelligent Design is principally about the ignition, unless you feel the "I D"esigner has been involved in every step of the way, including the "Edsels" of design that have been dropped off along the way. Sodom and Gomorah, or Noah´s flood, when everything(almost) gets chucked down the drain and then started over again.

Frankly, without even knowing all the details about Sodom and Gomorah, but knowing what´s offered nowadays on the internet, isn´t it time for a complete overhaul? Not just the oil and filter but a complete remake from the ground up? Remind me that I should start a post addressing exactly this question......because it, too, is way off track.

[name]

Hey again Bcuz,

Thanks for the gracious post above.

Well, Enough of this warm and fuzzy stuff. Apparently that kills off a discussion faster than a ban by the lords of the board.

Lol!

Frankly, without even knowing all the details about Sodom and Gomorah, but knowing what´s offered nowadays on the internet, isn´t it time for a complete overhaul? Not just the oil and filter but a complete remake from the ground up?

I think that proposing a complete vehicle overhaul would largely depend on who is driving said vehicle and how they believe it is performing as they navigate various roads and traffic signals they encounter along the journey.

My beloved YEC (Young Earth Creationists)brothers and sisters may not think an overhaul is required at all. They hold the position that the earth is young (approximately 10,000 years) and believe in a very literal reading of the Bible (literal 24 hour days in Genesis/Creation to be sure)

My beloved Theistic Evolutionist brothers and sisters (They believe 100% in Darwinian Evolution - as well as a 4.5 billion year old earth. They just believe that God is the one who has directed/guided it all)would certainly think a complete overhaul is not only prudent - it is absolutely required.

Remind me that I should start a post addressing exactly this question......because it, too, is way off track.

Hey Bcuz - You should start a post addressing exactly that question.

[Tarski]

In my personal research on the topic of evolution I have found no evidence of Darwins theory other than his vivid imagination. There is simply no evidence of one species evolving into another, ie. macro evolution. We see micro evolution, that is evolution within a species or probably more appropatly adaptation. The fosill record shows no evidence of one species evolving into another such as a half reptile half bird. For years scientists were searching for the so called missing link between Neandertal and Cro-Magnon. Well come to find out Neandertal DNA is alive and well in modern humans. Simply because species share DNA to me does not support evolution but only suggests perhaps a common sorce materal. I read somewhere we share 50% of our DNA with a bannanna. Does that make me a fruit? I don't think so. Modern science has revealed DNA can be minupilated and life can be created. Given that the master of the universe probably has more knowledge than modern man I am quite comfortable with creationism as my paradigm. We now have a new idea reffered to as intelegent design that is used so scientists don't have to acknowledge God as creator. The Glory of God is Intellegence.

Most emarrassing and uninformed post in a long time.

 

In my personal research on the topic of evolution I have found no evidence of Darwins theory other than his vivid imagination.

 

Well, you clearly don't know how to do research. I think I can imagine what is amounts to (answersingenesis).

Evolutionary theory in its modern form is supported by more lines of independent evidence than any other theory I can think of. Its a slam dunk. 

 

 

I read somewhere we share 50% of our DNA with a bannanna. Does that make me a fruit?

 

No. Any othe irrelevent questions? But you might be a fruit in another idiomatic sense.

 

The fosill record shows no evidence of one species evolving into another such as a half reptile half bird.

 

This sentence alone exhibits an embarrassing and irrelevant cartoonical concept of what speciation amounts to and what evidence for speciation should look like.

How is this any different from claiming that a poodle could not have a common ancestor with a great dane because they have never seen the head of a great dane on the body of poodle.

Of course, there is lots of evidence for speciation (a notoiously difficult concept to nail down with out giving rise to borderline cases and potential counter-examples).

 

As for this "missing link" nonsense, I can't believe people still argue with this silly term. Talk about old school!

Well, of course, there are plenty of intermediate species exibited in the fossil record (not that we should need to be so lucky given the rarity of fossilization---evolution has mountains of evidence already and a transitionary fossil is only a cherry on top!)

But hey, here is your answer in cartoon form (your welcome):

Basically, the point about missing links is made humorously between the 1:00 minute and 2:15 minute mark.

[name]

Hi Tarski

 

Evolutionary theory in its modern form is supported by more lines of independent evidence than any other theory I can think of. Its a slam dunk.

 

 

It's a slam dunk?

Great, because I have some serious struggles with darwinian evolution. Maybe you can "slam dunk" a couple for me.

How about:

The evolution of male and female sexual reproduction.

The evolution of mitosis.

Here's the ball - dunk away!

Edited March 7, 2015 by name

[Tarski]

Hi Tarski

 

 

 

It's a slam dunk?

Great, because I have some serious struggles with darwinian evolution. Maybe you can "slam dunk" a couple for me.

How about:

The evolution of male and female sexual reproduction.

The evolution of mitosis.

Here's the ball - dunk away!

Oh yes, that same old list one finds on the creationist web sites. Talking points. Not serious scientific thought.

 

But, OK, lets see. You appear to have an interesting notion of how to decide which scientific theories are slam dunks. Just to make the situation clear, can we take a look at another theory that is a slam dunk and see if your way of assessing things makes sense?

Well, there is a  well tested theory that has it that common everyday matter is composed of atoms which form molecular relationships roughly bases on the notion of electron valence, orbitals etc. which in turn seems to be well explained by the mathematics of quantum theory.  Lets just agree to all this the atomic theory of matter for the sake of discussion. The later theory has been tested is countless ways over the decades.  Indeed, all of chemistry and all of electronics only fully makes sense in the light of basic quantum mechanics.

I suppose it is a good thing that the atomic theory of matter doesn't seem to offend religious sensibilities because would be quite easy to imagine how that would go down it it did.

If you had wanted to challenge my assertion that the atomic theory of matter was a slam dunk, you might have challenged me thus:

 

"It's a slam dunk?

Great, because I have some serious struggles with the atomic theory of matter, especially that quantum stuff. Maybe you can "slam dunk" a couple for me.

How about:

 

1.  How is it that the use of the apparently mathematically ill-defined notion of a Feynam path integral in quantum field theory gives correct predictions in quantum theory?

2. What  explains the existence of the state in the fractional quantum Hall effect?

3. Why do certain enzymes exhibit faster-than-diffusion kinetics? How is this even possible?

4.  How does the physical brain give rise the strange property of consciousness? (What the heck!!)

5. Why does the electron emission in the absence of light increase when the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased?

6. What explains the particular value we see for the mass of an electron. (How can your theory not explain such a basic thing? )

 

Here's the ball dunk away!"

 

 

So do you now doubt the atomic theory of matter? Even a little?

Well, gee wiz, maybe that's because a theory having so much support as to make it unreasonable to doubt it, is not the same thing as there being no unaswered questions posed within the theory. Maybe? 

 

By the way, the basic outlines of the atomic theory of matter (the existence of actual atoms with alledged properies) was not in doubt by the time Einstien worte his Brownian motion paper. That was long before the mature quantum theory even existed.

 

So, your challenge is simply misguided as I hope you can see. The existence of difficult open problems does not at all contradict the slam dunk assertion! There are open questions and fewer each day. By the time Behe had written his book claiming the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism was impossible because of irreducible complexity, it had been worked out how it happen! Funny! (The work of Russell Doolittle et. al.)

 

But, as luck has it, we do have lots of good ideas about the problems you bring up. Just stay away from the creationist sites and I am sure you can find the scientific articles as well as I.

 

One point. Sometimes the task is simply to find a way that something could have evolved. Suppose I asked you exactly how a particular dry leaf got into my back yard. I can't tell you for sure exactly how because there are so many, too many explanations that do not require a miracle. There are many ways it could have blown there or fallen from a tree. I don't need elves. Similarly, sometimes we can see many evolutionarily plausible biochemical pathways that might be the way a particular fact of nature came to be.  Once we find one plausible way we have done the important work. Some things can evolve in many ways and we may never know exactly which way it happen.  Knowing several ways something could have happened within the confines of the theory is pretty good and sometimes the only reason we don't know how something happened is because we can see many equally possibly ways it could have happened through evolution--an embarrassment of riches. Sometimes, the evolution of a particular feature in nature happened independenly in several ways. Such is the case with vision in the animal world.

[NotaMormon]

Sorry, but your video plagarizes Steven Wright. His joke about "What happens if you're driving at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?" is over 20 years old. He's the guy who said, "I spilled spot remover on my dog and now he's gone."

Not everyone here on this site believes in the Bible's story of creation as being literal, or even that it got things in the right order. If there was an intelligent designer, he got an awful lot of things wrong. That covers the appendix and dinosaurs, to name just a few thousand.

Regardless of originality, the headlights question is entertaining, but it wasn't why I posted the video. The point is that many scientists are willing to support basic principles of intelligent design, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent creator. They would rather suggest that aliens seeded the earth with life or that there are an infinite number of alternate universes than consider the possibility of an intelligent creator.

 

What was wrong with dinosaurs? Genesis is also clear nature is under the curse of sin. So many of the things we think are wrong with nature could be part of the sin curse.

[bcuzbcuz]

Regardless of originality, the headlights question is entertaining, but it wasn't why I posted the video. The point is that many scientists are willing to support basic principles of intelligent design, yet they refuse to even acknowledge the possibility of an intelligent creator. They would rather suggest that aliens seeded the earth with life or that there are an infinite number of alternate universes than consider the possibility of an intelligent creator.

 

What was wrong with dinosaurs? Genesis is also clear nature is under the curse of sin. So many of the things we think are wrong with nature could be part of the sin curse.

 

I'm not sure I understand your response. Perhaps you could clarify. What are the basic principles of intelligent design?

 

If I, for example, have theories that somehow coincide with a basic principle of intelligent design, does that mean I must accept, as the clear and undisputed outcome of those ideas, that I must go full out and accept an intelligent designer/creator?

 

You also wonder why anyone who supports the "principles" of intelligent design can instead conceive of the idea of Alien seeding, or alternate universes. I don't see that there is any such connection. I don't want to play the numbers game with you, such as "I have 25 scientists who believe this or that." and then you must counter with, "Well, I have 26 who believe the opposite". I'll be happy with one well spoken advocate for the idea.

 

Your final comment confuses me even more. Do animals fall under the realm of the curse of sin? How do animals sin? 

[NotaMormon]

The basic principle of intelligent design is the since various aspects of the universe and nature seem to have been designed by an intelligent mind, then it's logical to at least be open to the idea that the universe and nature was designed by an intelligent being. Is that what you believe? Do you believe God guided evolution?

 

If a scientist has various theories that support the idea of intelligent design, it seems pretty silly for them to refuse to acknowledge ID as a legitimate theory.

 

I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't suggest alien theories. My point is there's just as much, if not more, evidence for ID as there is for any of those other theories. If they want to mention aliens as a possible source of the origin of life on earth, that's fine, but why would they ignore or even ridicule ID at the same time? Richard Dawkins is probably the most well known opponent of ID, often mocking it, yet he's suggested the alien theory at least once even though there's no evidence for it.

 

Genesis says Adam would have a tough time growing food after the fall. Certainly plants and the dirt didn't sin, yet they were still fell under the curse. Why wouldn't animals fall under the same curse?

[name]

Hi again Tarski,

 

Oh yes, that same old list one finds on the creationist web sites. Talking points. Not serious scientific thought.

You really do have a fetish about "creationist sites" don't you?

 

 

But, OK, lets see. You appear to have an interesting notion of how to decide which scientific theories are slam dunks. Just to make the situation clear, can we take a look at another theory that is a slam dunk and see if your way of assessing things makes sense?

You want to "make the situation clear" by completely dodging my questions about evolution and talk about another theory?

Odd. I wonder why you would want to do that?

 

Well, there is a  well tested theory that has it that common everyday matter is composed of atoms which form molecular relationships roughly bases on the notion of electron valence, orbitals etc. which in turn seems to be well explained by the mathematics of quantum theory.  Lets just agree to all this the atomic theory of matter for the sake of discussion. The later theory has been tested is countless ways over the decades.  Indeed, all of chemistry and all of electronics only fully makes sense in the light of basic quantum mechanics.

I suppose it is a good thing that the atomic theory of matter doesn't seem to offend religious sensibilities because would be quite easy to imagine how that would go down it it did.

If you had wanted to challenge my assertion that the atomic theory of matter was a slam dunk, you might have challenged me thus:

 

"It's a slam dunk?

Great, because I have some serious struggles with the atomic theory of matter, especially that quantum stuff. Maybe you can "slam dunk" a couple for me.

How about:

 

1.  How is it that the use of the apparently mathematically ill-defined notion of a Feynam path integral in quantum field theory gives correct predictions in quantum theory?

2. What  explains the existence of the state in the fractional quantum Hall effect?

3. Why do certain enzymes exhibit faster-than-diffusion kinetics? How is this even possible?

4.  How does the physical brain give rise the strange property of consciousness? (What the heck!!)

5. Why does the electron emission in the absence of light increase when the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased?

6. What explains the particular value we see for the mass of an electron. (How can your theory not explain such a basic thing? )

 

Here's the ball dunk away!"

 

 

So do you now doubt the atomic theory of matter? Even a little?

Well, gee wiz, maybe that's because a theory having so much support as to make it unreasonable to doubt it, is not the same thing as there being no unaswered questions posed within the theory. Maybe? 

 

By the way, the basic outlines of the atomic theory of matter (the existence of actual atoms with alledged properies) was not in doubt by the time Einstien worte his Brownian motion paper. That was long before the mature quantum theory even existed.

What was that?

Not only didn't you do any dunking - you don't even have a ball!

 

 

So, your challenge is simply misguided as I hope you can see.

It wasn't a challenge, it was a question/questions (although, given your bizarre and off-topic essay, I can understand why you took it as a challenge)

 

The existence of difficult open problems does not at all contradict the slam dunk assertion!

It most certainly does!

How many "slam dunks" posses difficult challenges, problems, and totally unanswered questions?

Maybe you should call it a 65 foot jump shot?

There are open questions and fewer each day. By the time Behe had written his book claiming the evolution of the blood clotting mechanism was impossible because of irreducible complexity, it had been worked out how it happen! Funny! (The work of Russell Doolittle et. al.)

You trot out Dr. Behe?

Are you certain that it isn't you that gets his information from the "creationist sites"

 

 

But, as luck has it, we do have lots of good ideas about the problems you bring up. Just stay away from the creationist sites and I am sure you can find the scientific articles as well as I.

How ironic!

 

 

One point. Sometimes the task is simply to find a way that something could have evolved. Suppose I asked you exactly how a particular dry leaf got into my back yard. I can't tell you for sure exactly how because there are so many, too many explanations that do not require a miracle. There are many ways it could have blown there or fallen from a tree. I don't need elves. Similarly, sometimes we can see many evolutionarily plausible biochemical pathways that might be the way a particular fact of nature came to be.  Once we find one plausible way we have done the important work. Some things can evolve in many ways and we may never know exactly which way it happen.  Knowing several ways something could have happened within the confines of the theory is pretty good and sometimes the only reason we don't know how something happened is because we can see many equally possibly ways it could have happened through evolution--an embarrassment of riches. Sometimes, the evolution of a particular feature in nature happened independenly in several ways. Such is the case with vision in the animal world.

Are you absolutely certain that you want to stick with your "slam dunk?"

In the answers you author about the question of sexual reproduction and mitosis (or challenges as you see them), your post gives me - in total:

Molecular relationships

Orbitals

Creationist sites

Atomic theory

a leaf in your back yard

Blood clots

Diffusion kinetics

Einstein

"Slam dunk"

Really?

(If you're not going to even use the ball - you should give it back)

Edited March 7, 2015 by name

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution of meiosis. 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_function_of_meiosis

[bcuzbcuz]

The basic principle of intelligent design is the since various aspects of the universe and nature seem to have been designed by an intelligent mind, then it's logical to at least be open to the idea that the universe and nature was designed by an intelligent being. Is that what you believe? Do you believe God guided evolution?

A so-called theory that uses terminology such as "seem to have been designed", therefore "it is logical" is in no way a scientific theory. Science cannot formulate theories on a "seem to"-"therefore" basis. If one finds a watch in the desert, the assumption of design must be proven. There will be machine scratches, maybe even patent numbers, or serial numbers, even the name of tha manufacturer.

One cannot look at a flower and say, "this flower was obviously designed." You might think that anything that beautiful was obviously designed but you would need to show the marks of manufacture. Beauty doesn´t count simply because ugly can also be manufactured. Complexity is not evidence of design, any more than simplicity is.

You ask whether or not I believe that God guided evolution. Allthough that is an entirely different question, I will answer. No, I do not think god guided evolution. But that is only what I think, I cannot offer any evidence for that. But I can provide a multitude of evidence about evolution.

 

If a scientist has various theories that support the idea of intelligent design, it seems pretty silly for them to refuse to acknowledge ID as a legitimate theory.

Theories that support ID? I will ask again, what theories? Furthermore if a scientist wants to believe ID, yes he will probably acknowledge ID as a theory. But where is the evidence that can be tested?

 

I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't suggest alien theories. My point is there's just as much, if not more, evidence for ID as there is for any of those other theories. If they want to mention aliens as a possible source of the origin of life on earth, that's fine, but why would they ignore or even ridicule ID at the same time? Richard Dawkins is probably the most well known opponent of ID, often mocking it, yet he's suggested the alien theory at least once even though there's no evidence for it.

Alien theories? Well, I don´t consider those ideas as theories until someone can come up with evidence. Where is the evidence? Simply coming up with an idea that stretches the imagination because one is not willing to accept other ideas is not a theory either. Von Däniken made a fortune during the 70´s and 80´s with flying saucer ideas, around the same time of "pyramid power", Yuri Geller, and such crap. When no real evidence existed, they made some up. I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Genesis says Adam would have a tough time growing food after the fall. Certainly plants and the dirt didn't sin, yet they were still fell under the curse. Why wouldn't animals fall under the same curse?

Sin, according to my own concepts, is when someone does something willfully against the major norms of society. I say "major" because I don´t view speeding as a sin (at least I hope, I hope, I hope it isn´t). I don´t believe parking the wrong way is a sin........although anyone who parks un-necessarily in the handicap parking zones.....a zone my daughter crucially needs..., that driver is sinning! I think drunk driving is a sin, even if the person doesn´t get caught. I believe killing another human being is a sin.

Animals like dogs and horses cannot sin, because they do not know right from wrong. Dirt cannot sin. Why would animals or dirt be cursed? Just because the plants in my house all die, doesn´t mean they were cursed. Weeds, however, thrive in my garden. That doesn´t mean they were blessed.

[ERayR]

A so-called theory that uses terminology such as "seem to have been designed", therefore "it is logical" is in no way a scientific theory. Science cannot formulate theories on a "seem to"-"therefore" basis. If one finds a watch in the desert, the assumption of design must be proven. There will be machine scratches, maybe even patent numbers, or serial numbers, even the name of tha manufacturer.

 

Science formulates theories all the time on "it seems", "it appears" and "it is thought" all the time.

Edited March 9, 2015 by ERayR

[Rob Osborn]

Almost every major evolution paper written begins something like "It is believed..." They should just be more truthful and start it out- "It was a dark and stormy night..."

[danielwoods]

A so-called theory that uses terminology such as "seem to have been designed", therefore "it is logical" is in no way a scientific theory. Science cannot formulate theories on a "seem to"-"therefore" basis. If one finds a watch in the desert, the assumption of design must be proven. There will be machine scratches, maybe even patent numbers, or serial numbers, even the name of tha manufacturer.

One cannot look at a flower and say, "this flower was obviously designed." You might think that anything that beautiful was obviously designed but you would need to show the marks of manufacture. Beauty doesn´t count simply because ugly can also be manufactured. Complexity is not evidence of design, any more than simplicity is.

 

If one happens upon a language that is easily 30 times more complex as our own. Which ends up constructing things on a micro scale, to the point that we didn't even understand what was going on until we invented electron microscopes. 

 

Would such evidence be enough to indicate an intelligent source for said language?