# "No proof of evolution because speciation gaps in the fossils!"



## bsd3355

So I always have guys/gals from the church knocking on my door to try and convert me or open my mind to their beliefs, so to speak. I tend not to answer my door now because of that. Sometimes they catch me at home when my dad is home and he'll always answer the door and then relay them to me like last visit. On two different occasions there is a guy who always brings some type of booklet or pamphlet or magazine that delves in the creationists' ideology; in this case it was this magazine.

I decided to read it mainly for my own amusement's sake. In part of this short magazine it describes how there has NEVER been a documented case of speciation and that all fossil records show no gradual change from one parent species to a new species, and that, in fact, gaps in the fossil records dictate a sudden burst of different species coming into existence with no gradual indication, and of course the sudden burst of life was a reason to believe in creationism because there is no evidence of true speciation as they said in the booklet. They also talked about how "According to the Bible's opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began" (pg 24), which they say is true because in the Bible it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1). So basically, they are saying that the dates of the old fossil records are true dating back millions of years because the universe was "before the creative days began." They believe that God puts new species on this Earth and the evidence is because the earth has existed for an infinite time as well as no record showing speciation in labs or fossils (Jehovah Witnesses). This alone doesn't make sense because they also claim that God created the universe, including the Earth, before he started the "creative days". Wtf does that mean?

Anyway, the reason I am writing this is because I suppose I was a little ignorant on evolution to the degree of which I didn't know of punctuated equilibrium (or I forgot; can't remember), which basically adds to Darwin's theory of slow gradual change of species over time stating that the sudden changes in environmental factors and/or mass extinction, mainly, are reasons for the gaps in fossil speciation and sudden burst of new species on record. All I had to do was look online on youtube to debunk the booklet's claim of lack of proof of speciation, because they are speaking of lack of proof of evolution due to the theory of Darwin's claim 150 years ago, which theorizes slow gradual change (also theorized BEFORE the abundance of fossils on record to date). However, since 150 years have passed and more knowledge has been gained on the subject, we see evolution does not ONLY do slow gradual change in the sense Darwin theorized in his publication in the Origins of Species; however, speciation/evolution occurs through punctuated equilibrium as well, and it is punctuated equilibrium that explains the gaps in the fossil records, not God putting creatures into existence.

I just wanted to share that. So the next time a creationist argues that there is no proof of speciation due to the gap of transforming species in the fossils, let them know that evolution doesn't quite work that way and they should look up punctuated equilibrium. Gradual change does occur, however it happens _so slow_ that it is unlikely we will see many fossils of a parent species slowly transforming into another species completely because "punctuated" events like environmental changes happen between slow gradual speciation occurrences, or species that can't interbreed with another, which explains the gaps on the fossil records. When a punctuated event occurs the species is forced to evolve very quickly in evolutionary time (thousand of years instead of millions) or be forced into extinction, which also explains lack fossil transitioning of speciation events. The earth hasn't been a friendly place all these years allowing the kind of slow gradual speciation to occur the way Darwin theorized in the Origin of Species, and some creationists simply do not know that. I supposed I didn't know that either but found it out after 5 minutes of research.

LINK TO PDF OF THE BROCHURE I WAS GIVEN (click the link to read)


----------



## Sam1911

the theory of evolution is just THAT, a theory


----------



## oubliette

Sam1911 said:


> the theory of evolution is just THAT, a theory


Yes, like gravity.


----------



## Lemonmonger

bwidger85 said:


> They also talked about how "According to the Bible's opening words, the universe, including our planet, Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began" (pg 24), which they say is true because in the Bible it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Genesis 1:1). So basically, they are saying that the dates of the old fossil records are true dating back millions of years because the universe was "before the creative days began." They believe that God puts new species on this Earth and the evidence is because the earth has existeted for an infinite time as well as no record showing speciation in labs or fossils (Jehovah Witnesses). This alone doesn't make sense because they also claim that God created the universe, including the Earth, before he started the "creative days". speciation/evolution occurs through punctuated equilibrium as well, and it is punctuated equilibrium that explains the gaps in the fossil records, not God putting creatures into existence.


Sounds to me like someone else is going to have to rewrite the Bible, yet again.

Why don't you scream 'I'm not interested in what you're selling' and slam the door like a crazy person?


----------



## Ramondo

Sam1911 said:


> the theory of evolution is just THAT, a theory


And evolution is just THAT, evolution. So what's your point?


----------



## bsd3355

There is probably some gaps in what I'm saying I'm sure creationists or skeptics could fill in. This is as far as an understanding that I currently have. Basically, punctuated equilibrium happens suddenly due to drastic environmental changes and only those suitable to adapt to the new environment through fast adaptations will survive, which is ONE reason why it is hard to find those adaptations during these events, because they happen fairly quickly in evolutionary terms. Of course this is a theory as to why there are gaps in the fossil records, and it does seem a little strange how even in a short amount of time there isn't ANY fossils of complete speciation given how a lot of these "punctuated" events have happened a lot throughout earth's history. But then again, is it even possible to have EVERY fossil of an evolving creature that goes all the way back to stardust? Doesn't it make sense that it would be incredibly difficult to have EVERY fossilized form captured of a living organism dating back from stardust? Not every transitional period of an organism from stardust is going to be fossilized because that would be an extraordinarily rare occurrence in itself!. The only way we could truly document it is if we found a linage of it starting from stardust to current day's time, or we start documenting a creature today for millions of years. We simply haven't had enough time to document that, but I have heard of speciation happening in fast changing organisms such as bacteria, so maybe we have documented it? Idk, more research i guess on my part is needed...

This is as far as my understanding goes, so I'm open to learning more about it. There is proof of gradual evolution and it has been documented; there hasn't been a full speciation record of fossils in completion (that I currently know of), but wouldn't that be an incredible amount of luck to have a full record of it? Think about that.

As far as I can tell, evolution is lacking evidence of clear speciation. Instead, we have hints to its possibility. It is the closest scientific evidence we have that fits observations. I'm going to have to sit down one day and go over all of it if I can say there is clear evidence of speciation. There is evidence of gradual evolution though, but not speciation. Or is there?


----------



## scythe7

You know when you get sick and you take a specific brand of medicine? Then after a few months you get the same sickness and use the medicine again and it doesn't work as well anymore? Thats it! Thats evolutions in a micro scale, the virus has evolved and become immune to your medicine and you have to change to a different brand or a completely different treatment in some cases. Thats how evolutions works. We are not gonna see creatures evolve during our lives, monkeys will not build entire cities and civilizations over night. It takes thousands and thousands of years for even small things to change, but still they will evolve.


----------



## Ramondo

You could start here. It's very clear and elementary.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml


----------



## Noca

Evolution is observable, just look at how bacteria gain immunity over time to antibiotics. The shorter the life cycle, the faster the evolution of a said organism. The only way you can dismiss evolution is by closing your eyes, plugging your ears and sticking your head in the sand, something religious people seem to be very good at doing.


----------



## ugh1979

Sam1911 said:


> the theory of evolution is just THAT, a theory


You clearly don't understand what the definition of a scientific theory is. It's NOT the same as the general definition of the term theory.


----------



## bsd3355

Ramondo said:


> You could start here. It's very clear and elementary.
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VSpeciation.shtml


Thanks for the link. Geographical isolation is something Darwin noticed with the finches but it wasn't documented as a speciated event, rather a morphological change; still, the same species. This is very common and documented quite well (I'm sure you are aware of this anyway). Humans are one of many examples of this with the different races, although the only "real time" proof of this is when two different races come together to make babies of different physical attributes (skin color, eye formation, hair color, etc [can also happen of the same human race]); still, not complete speciation. Asexual creatures like some bacteria is weird.

Haha, btw, I found a link to the pdf of the magazine they gave me (below link)!

http://sherlock.pagesperso-orange.fr/PDF/WasLifeCreated.pdf

I also found another cool link that talks about observed cases of the beginnings of speciation as well as the things that can cause it (there seems to be a variety of ways it can happen).

Quoted from link below, "_...__speciation occurs as many different sorts of traits (physical, behavioral, and genetic) diverge from one another along a continuum_":

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation


----------



## Noca

If you keep filling the gaps which science cannot yet explain with God, God will only continue to get smaller and smaller.


----------



## bsd3355

Noca said:


> If you keep filling the gaps which science cannot yet explain with God, God will only continue to get smaller and smaller.


Agreed. But if people want to believe in faith it'll never go away. Evolution many have "gaps" in it but at least there is much, much, much more evidence with it than what the Bible says, or any other religion. It's kind of like, are we going to believe that pigs can fly or are we going to believe they can't based upon the resources we've gathered from evidence? Except with pigs, there isn't a damnation attached for not believing they can fly; no punishment for disbelieving, as there is no punishment for disbelieving Zeus or Thor, etc.

Or a better example, are we going to believe in science due to all the technology and medicine we use, or are we going to believe in a man name Jesus who heals the blind? But it's the same argument, faith doesn't require evidence so it doesn't really matter to some creationists. I wouldn't call our understanding of chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, etc., based 100% on faith considering how we obviously know enough about it to make medicine and advanced technology. There is no blind faith when it comes to our current knowledge of medicine or technology.


----------



## ugh1979

bwidger85 said:


> Agreed. But if people want to believe in faith it'll never go away. Evolution many have "gaps" in it but at least there is much, much, much more evidence with it than what the Bible says, or any other religion. It's kind of like, are we going to believe that pigs can fly or are we going to believe they can't based upon the resources we've gathered from evidence? Except with pigs, there isn't a damnation attached for not believing they can fly; no punishment for disbelieving, as there is no punishment for disbelieving Zeus or Thor, etc.
> 
> Or a better example, are we going to believe in science due to all the technology and medicine we use, or are we going to believe in a man name Jesus who heals the blind? But it's the same argument, faith doesn't require evidence so it doesn't really matter to some creationists. I wouldn't call our understanding of chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, etc., based 100% on faith considering how we obviously know enough about it to make medicine and advanced technology. There is no blind faith when it comes to our current knowledge of medicine or technology.


People who think that the gaps in well established and confirmed scientific theories like evolution mean that a totally different option is possible should consider this simple analogy.

Imagine a jigsaw. The theory of evolution is like a 1,000 piece jigsaw that only has 800 parts in place. Even though there are still large gaps in the complete picture, we know for absolute certainty what the picture is of. There are just some details missing, and under no circumstances will it change into a totally different picture when we fill the gaps.


----------



## bsd3355

^Very good analogy.


----------



## Foh_Teej

Theists often conveniently ignore that even if evolution was absolutely proven false 10 minutes ago, that still wouldn't make any competing hypothesis any more plausible or true by default. The same methods of discerning fact from fiction would have to be applied to validate alternative hypotheses.


----------



## Alyson

Does it bother anyone else that when people (of any religion) refer to their religion as "the truth"? If someone- lets say is an atheist or agnostic, how does that have any relevance whatsoever? It's as if religion causes people to have such a closed-minded view. It's not the truth if we don't believe in religion. I don't know. To me, religion is a confine. Labeling yourself as anything really. I'm always enlightened to know there are others out there like me!


----------



## Thix

Alyson said:


> Does it bother anyone else that when people (of any religion) refer to their religion as "the truth"? If someone- lets say is an atheist or agnostic, how does that have any relevance whatsoever? It's as if religion causes people to have such a closed-minded view. It's not the truth if we don't believe in religion. I don't know. To me, religion is a confine. Labeling yourself as anything really. I'm always enlightened to know there are others out there like me!


Yea, when "The Truth" gets bandied about I always wonder if they're trying to convince "us" or themselves.


----------



## Zyriel

Humanity is as a plague, a scourge on this world, the very bane of evolution and nature in general. Survival of the fittest is prime to continued evolution, all which has become stagnant in the primordial soup of life. Chaos cannot be contained, and order which is sought after fails when complacency through irrational, subjective beliefs takes place hindering advancement. There lays within the irony, as the perceived order comes crashing down. Only through natural selection of a diverse gene pool can efficient mutations take hold and change a species.

In this world change is looked down upon, and stability is sought in vain. Through technological advance humanity has the potential, yet lacks the insight of an existential view point. In other words, this planet is doomed on it's current course. All that is must come to an end, unless one finds a way outside beyond the self. That of which humanity fails, as being the pinnacle of evolution on earth at this present moment in time. If natural history has taught us anything, it is that nature holds the reins. Dinosaurs lasted for millions of years through various evolutionary paths, yet **** sapiens have been around a couple hundred thousand max lol. Yet within the last century, humanity in all it's arrogance has caused more damage through overpopulation and pollution than any of it's (known) predecessors. Think in a few millennium, just as humanity populates, so do micro-organisms. I am sure a virus will eventually come along and wipe out 1/2 the population eventually, and war for resources or cultural beliefs, then we will back in the dark ages. (If anything were to survive the nuclear holocaust ) But then again, cockroaches can survive in an atmosphere like that. So take a couple hundred thousand years and a sentient insectoid race might be our successors


----------



## bsd3355

^Gloomy, but true. We are bound to be extinct sometime, especially as we've exploded and been on a population growth extravaganza over the few hundred years. The earth can only hold so much and contain so much and produce so much. We are also like every other organism, in that we strive to survive, so enjoy it while it lasts! Our best best is to hop to another habitable planet, but of course major complications are unforeseen; the first, whether or not we can even find and get to one, and then comes the question of if we can even live there considering how we evolved to live on this planet! Of course, the only way we can keep living forever is if we find something to stop cell splitting and decomposition, or if we can find a way to hop universes! It seems pretty solid to say we are bound to go extinct sometime regardless unless we can find someway to transgress it but I'd say it's very unlikely, and as far as we can tell, most everything that has ever lived will go extinct if the universe eventually goes into a big freeze from accelerated expansion or collapses into itself--the first options seems more viable considering that is what is currently happening. yay


----------



## bsd3355

i just typed out such a long explanation of why this magazine doesn't understand evolution and speciation and it got erased by the back page button!

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

a brief summary of what i said:

because a species can diverge forming different size beaks--finches in this case--due to change of their environment, if a narrow, elongated beaked finch was introduced to such a drastic change in environment taking its specific food source away (insects, etc) then that bird would be eradicated from, say, a wide, short beaked version of the same finch that mainly diets on seeds.

some people look at the species that are here now and can't figure out how they evolved from another species probably because they forget, or are ignorant of, the fact that one species and can change its morphology, rituals, etc., due to environmental changes, but if something drastic happens (drastic environmental changes) it can eliminate the less suited version of the species giving the APPEARANCE that there was only one species all along! in other words, they are ignorant of how speciation and evolution in general works. it also happens slowly and over a much longer time than what a few generations have shown in labs, which makes the magazine's "myth" of "100 years of mutation study to be false" stupid. it also makes the magazine's claim that "*At best*, Darwin's finches show that a species can adapt to changing climates" (pg 21). Obviously, the creationists who made this book are leaving out that those adaptions are exactly what makes a species's subgroup a new species if the environment forces the less adapted to parish! also, given that the famous fruit fly experiment shows that changing two subgroups' (of the same species) diet made the two subgroups only choose to mate with like-dieting flies, causing a separation of genes from the two subgroups, which is basically the beginning of slow speciation.

but then you can talk about how man-made hybrid species are less conditioned to survive than original species and tend not to last long in comparison, but i should do more research on that. mules, for example, are a cross between horses and donkeys and are usually sterile and unable to replicate, leaving doubts in speciation. i think there is much more than meets the eye however, and more time is needed and certain other events before stating that speciation does not occur, least with hybridization.

i must admit though, when i read it i was clearly less educated about evolution than i thought because i used the magazine's version of lack of proof of speciation to make me question. however, after some more research i have found that the magazine makes sense to the less educated, obviously.

read this over if you don't agree


----------



## Tothegrave

Evolution is a done deal. Anyone still denying evolution is denying so much scientific evidence that they may as well not believe in gravity. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true. The fact is, if you look at something like **** erectus, and don't think evolution happened, you're blinded. Sorry, but it has to be said. You just can't ignore such overwhelming evidence.

I've also heard people say dinosaur bones were planted by Satan. Sigh.


----------



## Strategist

Foh_Teej said:


> Theists often conveniently ignore that even if evolution was absolutely proven false 10 minutes ago, that still wouldn't make any competing hypothesis any more plausible or true by default. The same methods of discerning fact from fiction would have to be applied to validate alternative hypotheses.


:agree

I was raised on creationism and christianity but now I'm agnostic. I don't know much about evolution and I don't see the need to know more. If the theory of evolution isn't correct, that doesn't make any one religion true. I don't see how species developing over a very long time could be any more far fetched than the idea that there is a god that decided to create the world. Why is it theists seem to think that a universe could not exist without a god to make it but a god can just exist?


----------



## ugh1979

Great. said:


> Why is it theists seem to think that a universe could not exist without a god to make it but a god can just exist?


Exactly. It's just horrifically arrogant double standards. It just makes them sound even more ridiculous than they already appear.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> People who think that the gaps in well established and confirmed scientific theories like evolution mean that a totally different option is possible should consider this simple analogy.
> 
> Imagine a jigsaw. The theory of evolution is like a 1,000 piece jigsaw that only has 800 parts in place. Even though there are still large gaps in the complete picture, we know for absolute certainty what the picture is of. There are just some details missing, and under no circumstances will it change into a totally different picture when we fill the gaps.


Could be a lawnmower heading up the garden bottom right or center.


----------



## Glass Child

Very good reads in this thread. Learn something new every day.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> Could be a lawnmower heading up the garden bottom right or center.


There could but it wouldn't mean it turned it in to a picture of a swimming pool rather than a garden.


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> There could but it wouldn't mean it turned it in to a picture of a swimming pool rather than a garden.


Suppose the lawnmower caught the eye of the intelligentsia who followed it in its wake, never so far behind to see what was left, and never so far ahead as to see the garden? They may equally consider the time between the lawnmower first setting itself on the garden and the end of its shredding it to pieces inconsequential from a higher point of view. No, I don't think the picture would be the same. I'll leave evolutionists to themselves so long as they aren't in my way.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> Suppose the lawnmower caught the eye of the intelligentsia who followed it in its wake, never so far behind to see what was left, and never so far ahead as to see the garden? The may equally consider the time between the lawnmower first setting itself on the garden and the end of its shredding it to pieces inconsequential from a higher point of view. No, I don't think the picture would be the same. I'll leave evolutionists to themselves so long as they aren't in my way.


Are you an evolution denier?


----------



## bsd3355




----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

Lack of evidence is not evidence of something else. The answer doesn't have to be "Darwinian Evolution" or "Creationism". Can't we just, for one second, entertain the idea that there's actually a 3rd explanation, better than both? There's a theory in astrobiology that DNA may have traveled here from another planet with life on a comet that already contianed an advanced code for an intelligent species that developed years and years ago far off. I'm not saying this is the answer either, I'm just saying that there isn't only 2 answers ffs.


----------



## bsd3355

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> Lack of evidence is not evidence of something else. The answer doesn't have to be "Darwinian Evolution" or "Creationism". Can't we just, for one second, entertain the idea that there's actually a 3rd explanation, better than both? There's a theory in astrobiology that DNA may have traveled here from another planet with life on a comet that already contianed an advanced code for an intelligent species that developed years and years ago far off. I'm not saying this is the answer either, I'm just saying that there isn't only 2 answers ffs.


Well yeah, this isn't something scientists ignore either. Hence the reason many are so excited about sending rovers to Mars, as one example. This is definitely a possibility. However, just because, or if, an organism can from another planet, it still supports evolution, obviously.


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> Lack of evidence is not evidence of something else. The answer doesn't have to be "Darwinian Evolution" or "Creationism". Can't we just, for one second, entertain the idea that there's actually a 3rd explanation, better than both? There's a theory in astrobiology that DNA may have traveled here from another planet with life on a comet that already contianed an advanced code for an intelligent species that developed years and years ago far off. I'm not saying this is the answer either, I'm just saying that there isn't only 2 answers ffs.


Panspermia hypotheses don't negate evolutionary theory though, so it's not a third explanation. It's a proposed answer to a different question. (i.e. how did life first start on earth)


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> Are you an evolution denier?


I'm not an evolution accepter.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> I'm not an evolution accepter.


So are you a Creationist?


----------



## fredbloggs02

ugh1979 said:


> So are you a Creationist?


I don't commit myself to either as the exclusive explanation. I see the demand for a personal God beyond all the light of the cosmos.


----------



## ugh1979

fredbloggs02 said:


> I don't commit myself to either as the exclusive explanation. There is a demand for a personal God beyond all the light of the cosmos.


So if you are in the middle does that mean something like a belief in theistic evolution?


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

First off, I'd like to apologize for my response being short, I was running to work at the time and didn't have enough time to find the video that I wanted and post the rest. I was careful to specifically say "Darwinian Evolution" as opposed to just "Evolution", as you are right, the panspermia hypothesis is still a form of evolution. _*However*_, it was my understanding that this form of evolution was fundamentally different from the way Darwin viewed it as the primary cause being new stressors. Instead, DNA itself holds a complex instruction manual to advanced life and is waiting for *Favorable* conditions in which to evolve. The organism doesn't evolve to survive, it survives to evolve. At any rate, I finally found the video to share.






P.S. bwidger85 I hope you did not take offense to my comment, as you do exactly what I wish everyone on this planet would do. You entertained someone else's belief, and found enough merit in it to do your own research to either re affirm your belief or change it. I wish more people were like that  It's the attitude of jumping to conclusions when I tell people "I dont believe in Darwian Evolution" they automatically assume I must be some kind of creationist, which couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## Ramondo

fredbloggs02 said:


> I don't commit myself to either as the exclusive explanation. I see the demand for a personal God beyond all the light of the cosmos.


The only situation in which you'd need to make a choice is if your God conflicts with the science. Even then, you technically don't need to make a choice if you can live with the ambiguity. 
Most religions and most gods can accommodate evolution, and other scientific theories. It's a weak god that can't accept the facts that he created.


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> First off, I'd like to apologize for my response being short, I was running to work at the time and didn't have enough time to find the video that I wanted and post the rest. I was careful to specifically say "Darwinian Evolution" as opposed to just "Evolution", as you are right, the panspermia hypothesis is still a form of evolution. _*However*_, it was my understanding that this form of evolution was fundamentally different from the way Darwin viewed it as the primary cause being new stressors. Instead, DNA itself holds a complex instruction manual to advanced life and is waiting for *Favorable* conditions in which to evolve. The organism doesn't evolve to survive, it survives to evolve. At any rate, I finally found the video to share.


That's not a definition of panspermia I've ever read of.

The idea that DNA holds all the information for everything that could ever evolve from it is just ridiculous, and impossible in relation to what we know of chemistry, biology and physics.


----------



## Deepthought

Finding fossils is like picking a random number between 1 and a billion out of a hat, the chances are you will not find a number next to another, even if you did it every day for the rest of your life. 
We dig a few feet into the ground and find fossils. The earths crust is miles and miles thick, it is constantly changing, who knows what else is down there, we inhabit 1% of the land mass of the earth, there is literally 1000's of years worth of work to do in archaeology terms. We wont put the pieces together in our life times, eventually we will, but right now it is still a Theory, however it is a very solid theory. 
As for creationism, where I have not seen a single shred of evidence for that theory, the theory of creationism is about as solid as bubble in a storm.


----------



## ugh1979

Deepthought said:


> Finding fossils is like picking a random number between 1 and a billion out of a hat, the chances are you will not find a number next to another, even if you did it every day for the rest of your life.
> We dig a few feet into the ground and find fossils. The earths crust is miles and miles thick, it is constantly changing, who knows what else is down there, we inhabit 1% of the land mass of the earth, there is literally 1000's of years worth of work to do in archaeology terms. We wont put the pieces together in our life times, eventually we will, but right now it is still a Theory, however it is a very solid theory.
> As for creationism, where I have not seen a single shred of evidence for that theory, the theory of creationism is about as solid as bubble in a storm.


There is no such thing as the theory of creationism. Only hypothesis.

Theories need evidence. (Under the scientific definition of theory that applies here anyway. Remember not to confuse it with the general term "theory".)

This image isn't in response to you but I like to post it anyway:


----------



## Nutcase

People here are confusing "evolution" with "Natural Selection".

Evolution is basically proven. Natural Selection is not. NS is merely manifestation of the ideals of Naturalism. Yes, testing of the philosophy to the real world has been done and has yielded interesting results, but by no means is it proven or airtight or close to airtight, for that matter.


----------



## Ramondo

Nutcase said:


> People here are confusing "evolution" with "Natural Selection".
> 
> Evolution is basically proven. Natural Selection is not. NS is merely manifestation of the ideals of Naturalism. Yes, testing of the philosophy to the real world has been done and has yielded interesting results, but by no means is it proven or airtight or close to airtight, for that matter.


Are you a Lamarckian? Or do you have some other favourite means by which evolutions occurs? 
Do you agree that random mutations lead to phenotypic differences, and some of these differences lead to certain genes being favoured or lost to future generations due to natural processes acting differentially on individuals with certain phenotypes, and hence genotypes? If natural selection isn't the mechanism, what's the next best hypothesis?


----------



## Azazello

Ramondo said:


> Are you a Lamarckian? Or do you have some other favourite means by which evolutions occurs?
> Do you agree that random mutations lead to phenotypic differences, and some of these differences lead to certain genes being favoured or lost to future generations due to natural processes acting differentially on individuals with certain phenotypes, and hence genotypes? If natural selection isn't the mechanism, what's the next best hypothesis?


Aside from the way Nutcase had worded the post and the whole 'ideals of Naturalism' thing, it is more or less correct. Theory of evolution basically deals with 'what are evolutionary changes' and 'how do they occur'. The fact that there are "_changes in populations that [...] are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next_"* is almost indisputable and is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, which is why ToE is often referred to as a fact. The mechanisms of these evolutionary changes, however, are still open for debate. Natural selection is one of the most widely accepted mechanisms but it is by no means the only one and none of them are free from dispute.

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


----------



## Rainbat




----------



## bsd3355

Rainbat said:


>


hahaha


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

Ramondo said:


> Are you a Lamarckian? Or do you have some other favourite means by which evolutions occurs?
> Do you agree that random mutations lead to phenotypic differences, and some of these differences lead to certain genes being favoured or lost to future generations due to natural processes acting differentially on individuals with certain phenotypes, and hence genotypes? If natural selection isn't the mechanism, what's the next best hypothesis?


I thought about this at work today, and I thought of an interesting hypothesis bringing it back to the OPs topic. Gaps in speciation. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the there ARE gaps in speciation in the fossil records of the earth, and that instead of slow adaptation to the environment, all species on the planet experienced a jump from 1 species to another simultaneously. This would happen during what is called an extinction event:

Since life began on Earth, several major mass extinctions have significantly exceeded the background extinction rate. The most recent, the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, which occurred approximately 66 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time. In the past 540 million years there have been five major events when over 50% of animal species died. Mass extinctions seem to be a Phanerozoic phenomenon, with extinction rates low before large complex organisms arose.[3]
Estimates of the number of major mass extinctions in the last 540 million years range from as few as five to more than twenty. These differences stem from the threshold chosen for describing an extinction event as "major", and the data chosen to measure past diversity. (Wikipedia)

No one really knows what causes ALL of these extinction events to happen (some we do, and they have various reasons or guesses volcanoes, asteroids, etc), but the 1 that's not a guess is 
Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary marine extinction 2 Ma Supernova in the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association[17]

A supernova's radiation is far more powerful than any star's during it's lifetime. Perhaps the Earth has been periodically showered with supernova radiation throughout it's lifetime, obliterating most life on Earth (greater than 50%) and mutating the rest beyond recognition (speciation jump). This would account for the gaps in the fossil record, and why it would appear species just "jumped" from ones species to something completely different without an intermediary hybrid species.


----------



## Pretty Bullet

ugh1979 said:


> The idea that DNA holds all the information for everything that could ever evolve from it is just ridiculous, and impossible in relation to what we know of chemistry, biology and physics.


How is it impossible? I'm clearly not as knowledgable as you guys. Well maybe... Who's to say? And I will do further research on his theory he presented, I found it interesting and maybe plausible.. Now how is it impossible in relation to chemistry, biology or physics? DNA is still in its infancy stages in lab work and study's. they are only beginning to unlock and decode DNA.. They already know that it preconditions what a person or animal or plant life ect will look like.. They are trying to figure environmental factors and such that cause specific genes to switch on or off.. If any at all. Why can it not be predetermined evolutionary paths a organism may or may not take given specific factors? Like I said, I've never heard this theory before, but I did find it interesting and wonder about the possibilities.. Further researching is in order for this subject.. At least in my eyes.. I don't understand how you would write it off as impossible. Could you elaborate more as to why you came to that conclusion?


----------



## ugh1979

Pretty Bullet said:


> How is it impossible? I'm clearly not as knowledgable as you guys. Well maybe... Who's to say?


I'll explain how.



> And I will do further research on his theory he presented, I found it interesting and maybe plausible..


Indeed I certainly suggest learning how DNA works, as it will explain how implausible this idea is.



> Now how is it impossible in relation to chemistry, biology or physics? DNA is still in its infancy stages in lab work and study's. they are only beginning to unlock and decode DNA.. They already know that it preconditions what a person or animal or plant life ect will look like.. They are trying to figure environmental factors and such that cause specific genes to switch on or off.. If any at all. Why can it not be predetermined evolutionary paths a organism may or may not take given specific factors? Like I said, I've never heard this theory before, but I did find it interesting and wonder about the possibilities.. Further researching is in order for this subject.. At least in my eyes.. I don't understand how you would write it off as impossible. Could you elaborate more as to why you came to that conclusion?


Think about DNA like a blueprint on how to build an organism. That one blueprint builds one type of organism. It doesn't hold data on how to build every organism that could ever exist.

DNA is made up of base pairs, with complicated lifeforms such as humans having billions of base pairs as opposed to simple life such as bacteria having as less as a couple of hundred thousand. Think of the number of base pairs as the storage capacity of a flash drive.

It would be like saying you're 8Gb flash drive with the blueprint for a building on it actually contains unlimited storage capacity and has all the blueprints for every building that could ever exist on it.

Only DNA with an unlimited number of base pairs could hold the blueprints to every organism that could ever exist.

New organisms emerge via the process of DNA evolution (among other things). They aren't pre-planned/programmed in the DNA.


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

ugh1979 said:


> I'll explain how.
> 
> Indeed I certainly suggest learning how DNA works, as it will explain how implausible this idea is.
> 
> Think about DNA like a blueprint on how to build an organism. That one blueprint builds one type of organism. It doesn't hold data on how to build every organism that could ever exist.
> 
> DNA is made up of base pairs, with complicated lifeforms such as humans having billions of base pairs as opposed to simple life such as bacteria having as less as a couple of hundred thousand. Think of the number of base pairs as the storage capacity of a flash drive.
> 
> It would be like saying you're 8Gb flash drive with the blueprint for a building on it actually contains unlimited storage capacity and has all the blueprints for every building that could ever exist on it.
> 
> Only DNA with an unlimited number of base pairs could hold the blueprints to every organism that could ever exist.
> 
> New organisms emerge via the process of DNA evolution (among other things). They aren't pre-planned/programmed in the DNA.


First off, you act like all living organisms are so different. The difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is about 2%, this blue print only needs a slight variation to create a human instead of a chimpanzee. So let's get even further away. A human shares 60% of it genome with a *banana*: (http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/defiant_modernism/01.ST.02/?scene=6&tv=true) . The fact is, over half of this blueprint (genome) is the same base across living creature.

Secondly, when we look at DNA, and how it is expressed and not expressed:
*Fraction of noncoding genomic DNA*

The amount of total genomic DNA varies widely between organisms, and the proportion of coding and noncoding DNA within these genomes varies greatly as well. More than 98% of the human genome does not encode protein sequences, including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA.[2]
While overall genome size, and by extension the amount of noncoding DNA, are correlated to organism complexity, there are many exceptions. For example, *the genome of the unicellular Polychaos dubium (formerly known as Amoeba dubia) has been reported to contain more than 200 times the amount of DNA in humans.[7]* The pufferfish _Takifugu rubripes_ genome is only about one eighth the size of the human genome, yet seems to have a comparable number of genes; approximately 90% of the _Takifugu_ genome is noncoding DNA.[2] In 2013, a new "record" for most efficient genome was discovered. _Utricularia gibba_, a bladderwort plant, has only 3% noncoding DNA. The discovery led project co-lead Victor Albert to declare "At least for a plant, junk DNA really is just junk - it's not required."[1] The extensive variation in nuclear genome size among eukaryotic species is known as the C-value enigma or C-value paradox.[8] Most of the genome size difference appears to lie in the noncoding DNA.
About 80 percent of the nucleotide bases in the human genome may be transcribed,[9] but transcription does not necessarily imply function.[10]

(Wikipedia)

Why is junk DNA present but not required? _Perhaps_ it is the unneeded pieces of the bigger genome. And why does a unicellular organism contain absurd amounts of DNA? It makes you wonder.

Lastly, to break it down one step further, it's *far far far* less complicated than you think:
The *genetic code* is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. Biological decoding is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. _*The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms, and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.*_ (Wikipedia)


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> First off, you act like all living organisms are so different. The difference between a human and a chimpanzee's genome is about 2%, this blue print only needs a slight variation to create a human instead of a chimpanzee. So let's get even further away. A human shares 60% of it genome with a *banana*: (http://www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/stories/defiant_modernism/01.ST.02/?scene=6&tv=true) . The fact is, over half of this blueprint (genome) is the same base across living creature.


I never said there was direct correlation between how different the genome was with how different the organism was. Just that there was a general trend for simpler organisms DNA to have less base pairs so I could give an analogy of data, and how it can't be infinite so as to hold the blueprint for every organism every possible.



> Why is junk DNA present but not required? _Perhaps_ it is the unneeded pieces of the bigger genome. And why does a unicellular organism contain absurd amounts of DNA? It makes you wonder.


By that logic all DNA would need to have the so called "junk" DNA, which it doesn't.



> Lastly, to break it down one step further, it's *far far far* less complicated than you think:
> The *genetic code* is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. Biological decoding is accomplished by the ribosome, which links amino acids in an order specified by mRNA, using transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules to carry amino acids and to read the mRNA three nucleotides at a time. _*The genetic code is highly similar among all organisms, and can be expressed in a simple table with 64 entries.*_ (Wikipedia)


And any blueprint for any building designed ever can be expressed with paper, and ruler and a pencil. Having the tools to create the blueprint doesn't mean every blueprint possible is already on the paper.

I suggest that you, a layperson with no qualifications in the field, rather than coming up with crazy ideas such as this on your lunch hour or whatever, listen to the evolutionary biologists who are qualified and have the knowledge to give us the best answers currently possible.

Don't think you are the first person to ever think of this idea, and realise that it's been rejected by the people who are best qualified to say so outright.


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

ugh1979 said:


> I suggest that you, a layperson with no qualifications in the field, rather than coming up with crazy ideas such as this on your lunch hour or whatever, listen to the evolutionary biologists who are qualified and have the knowledge to give us the best answers currently possible.
> 
> Don't think you are the first person to ever think of this idea, and realise that it's been rejected by the people who are best qualified to say so outright.


LOL. First off I will say that Einstein developed the theory of relativity while commuting to his job at a patent office. All the smartest people in the world KNEW Newton was right and that gravity was a pulling force. And Einstein proved his hero wrong proving that space-time was the same fabric, and gravity was cause by a warping in in that space-time pushing you down. I don't need your permission to think *******.

Secondly, these ideas are based on idea from people with PhDs. Most of the work is rooted in Fred Hoyle's work "The Intelligent Universe", and his work with Wickramasinghe, his student. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia. In 2001, Hoyle passed away, but his work continues on:

He was a student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia.[2] It proposes that cosmic dust in the interstellar medium and in comets is partly organic, and that life on Earth was 'seeded' from space rather than arising through abiogenesis. His latest work attempts to extend the hypothesis of cometary panspermia to that of cosmic ancestry in collaboration with Carl H. Gibson, *Rhawn Joseph* and Rudolph Schild. He is also making further identifications of spectral features in comets and in the interstellar medium. (Wikipedia)

The video that I presented was made by another man with a PhD, Rhawn Joseph. The idea I've presented is based on this work which is the current panspermia theory.



ugh1979 said:


> That's not a definition of panspermia I've ever read of.


Maybe you're the one who needs to do more research, listen to someone besides Dawkins. It makes you as dogmatic and closed minded as any religious person.


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> LOL. First off I will say that Einstein developed the theory of relativity while commuting to his job at a patent office. All the smartest people in the world KNEW Newton was right and that gravity was a pulling force. And Einstein proved his hero wrong proving that space-time was the same fabric, and gravity was cause by a warping in in that space-time pushing you down. I don't need your permission to think *******.


It sounds like you are trying to compare your own lunch hour hypothesis with the work of Einstein. The difference is he was a genius and you are not.

Gravity is an attractive force, that didn't change with Einstein. Some of what Newton said was wrong, but not all. In fact, it was Newton who said, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.", in reference to previous scientific work by others. Einstein stood on Newton's shoulders, just as more contemporary physicists stand on Einstein's.

It's very rare a whole area of science is proven completely wrong. The usual way it works is that theories are constantly revised and built upon.



> Secondly, these ideas are based on idea from people with PhDs. Most of the work is rooted in Fred Hoyle's work "The Intelligent Universe", and his work with Wickramasinghe, his student. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia. In 2001, Hoyle passed away, but his work continues on:
> 
> He was a student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia.[2] It proposes that cosmic dust in the interstellar medium and in comets is partly organic, and that life on Earth was 'seeded' from space rather than arising through abiogenesis. His latest work attempts to extend the hypothesis of cometary panspermia to that of cosmic ancestry in collaboration with Carl H. Gibson, *Rhawn Joseph* and Rudolph Schild. He is also making further identifications of spectral features in comets and in the interstellar medium. (Wikipedia)
> 
> The video that I presented was made by another man with a PhD, Rhawn Joseph. The idea I've presented is based on this work which is the current panspermia theory.


Which video?



> Maybe you're the one who needs to do more research, listen to someone besides Dawkins. It makes you as dogmatic and closed minded as any religious person.


To the contrary, it's because i'm reasonably well read that I can comment with confidence on such subjects. In fact it's your hypothesis that makes it sound like you aren't.

After investigation I see the hypothesis you support is called cosmic ancestry. It's obscure and almost universally discredited, hence why i've never heard of it.

You've just copy and pasted part of the Wikipedia article on panspermia, but no where in that whole article does it describe what you are proposing (cosmic ancestry. It only references Hoyle in general.). I never said I had a problem with the idea of panspermia as I know it (as detailed on the wiki for example). It's plausible IMO.

I've looked in to Fred Hoyle, and see he wrote a book related to the hypothesis you talk of (cosmic ancestry), but it's notable that it's not mentioned on the panspermia wiki. Probably because cosmic ancestry is such a poorly supported hypothesis.

Some further investigation in to Fred Hoyle shows he had many papers rejected by the peer review process, so i'm not inclined to give him any credit on this subject.

Indeed from the wiki on cosmic ancestry:



> Postulating that life (and the universe) have always existed is contrary to nearly all contemporary scientific views. The cosmic ancestry hypothesis has been largely ignored by the scientific community. Most biologists regard natural selection as an adequate (although not fully understood) and more plausible explanation for the evolution of life on Earth. Some evidence, such as Hoyle's interpretation of his spectral analysis, is disputed.
> 
> If viruses or spores had been found on those heavenly bodies already visited by space probes, the case for cosmic ancestry would be strengthened, but they have not.


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

This video. And yes to everything else you said besides the fact that I'm not a genius.


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> This video.


I see, so another cosmic ancestry proponent.



> And yes to everything else you said besides the fact that I'm not a genius.


What do you mean by yes? Are you now agreeing with me?


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

I think that my original point was lost in all this mess:


TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> Lack of evidence is not evidence of something else. The answer doesn't have to be "Darwinian Evolution" or "Creationism". Can't we just, for one second, entertain the idea that there's actually a 3rd explanation, better than both? There's a theory in astrobiology that DNA may have traveled here from another planet with life on a comet that already contianed an advanced code for an intelligent species that developed years and years ago far off. *I'm not saying this is the answer either, I'm just saying that there isn't only 2 answers ffs.*


I was never trying to say this is what I believe. I just wanted people to think outside the box for 2 seconds. I presented this cosmic ancestry and panspermia hypothesis as something plausible besides Darwinian Evolution and Creationism. This is just some fringe research that I've done because I'll give anything that has some credibility a few minutes of my time if for no other reason that to expand my imagination. I'm either researching or thinking about what I've researched if I can't research, like when I'm at work. Hoyle might not have had the best explanation to the universe, but he did have solid objections to Darwin and the Big Bang. These holes challenge me to make better explanations as to how our universe works.

And it does talk about cosmic ancestry in the article:
He was a student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia.[2] It proposes that cosmic dust in the interstellar medium and in comets is partly organic, and that life on Earth was 'seeded' from space rather than arising through abiogenesis. *His latest work attempts to extend the hypothesis of cometary panspermia to that of cosmic ancestry* in collaboration with Carl H. Gibson, Rhawn Joseph and Rudolph Schild. He is also making further identifications of spectral features in comets and in the interstellar medium. (Wikipedia)


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> I think that my original point was lost in all this mess:
> 
> I was never trying to say this is what I believe. I just wanted people to think outside the box for 2 seconds. I presented this cosmic ancestry and panspermia hypothesis as something plausible besides Darwinian Evolution and Creationism. This is just some fringe research that I've done because I'll give anything that has some credibility a few minutes of my time if for no other reason that to expand my imagination. I'm either researching or thinking about what I've researched if I can't research, like when I'm at work. Hoyle might not have had the best explanation to the universe, but he did have solid objections to Darwin and the Big Bang. These holes challenge me to make better explanations as to how our universe works.


Panspermia doesn't violate Darwinian evolution, only cosmic ancestry does. I find it amusing when people call previously almost universally rejected hypothesis "thinking outside the box". It's not thinking outside the box. It's supporting a discredited hypothesis, which can just make the proponent look foolish.

You said you considered it as it has some credibility, but to the contrary, it doesn't, as it's been almost universally discredited.



> And it does talk about cosmic ancestry in the article:
> He was a student and collaborator of Fred Hoyle. Their joint work on the infrared spectra of interstellar grains led to developing the hypothesis of panspermia.[2] It proposes that cosmic dust in the interstellar medium and in comets is partly organic, and that life on Earth was 'seeded' from space rather than arising through abiogenesis. *His latest work attempts to extend the hypothesis of cometary panspermia to that of cosmic ancestry* in collaboration with Carl H. Gibson, Rhawn Joseph and Rudolph Schild. He is also making further identifications of spectral features in comets and in the interstellar medium. (Wikipedia)


The panspermia wiki entry refers to it with a link, but contains nothing of what it proposes.


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

ugh1979 said:


> Panspermia doesn't violate Darwinian evolution, only cosmic ancestry does.


Ah, now I see what you're saying. I found panspermia hypothesis through cosmic ancestry. I found a better idea from entertaining a bad one. I worked my way backwards and found panspermia hypothesis, and then I worked my way backwards from there and found Hoyle and, "The Intelligent Universe". From there I found that Hoyle's work was fundamentally based on anti-darwin and anti-big bag mentalities, which he felt was still based in religious dogma ideas on how the universe "was created"/came into being. I felt that there was some truth in that. And I felt that his discoveries were all based in trying to prove darwin wrong, he didn't, but he found some interesting things that would have not been found if we sat around thinking that we're about 90% right about how the universe works.

I think that mainstream ideas tend to be *mostly* right, and fringe ideas are tend to be *mostly *wrong. However, there is a nugget of truth to be found in these ideas, and that's what I'm looking for. I work these fringe ideas back and usually someone has made too many assumptions based off of 1 weird fact or observation, and just extrapolating far too much from it. Their assessment is wrong, but there is some valid information. However, people find it hard to be satisfied with just 1 piece of a puzzle, so they imagine the rest, and this is how we get these ideas. So bringing it back to mainstream ideas, I think it's important to keep in mind that we're mostly right, that there are still holes, and to not make too many assumptions about those holes, lest we end up just as foolish as the fringers.


----------



## ugh1979

TheManInTheRedSuit said:


> Ah, now I see what you're saying. I found panspermia hypothesis through cosmic ancestry. I found a better idea from entertaining a bad one. I worked my way backwards and found panspermia hypothesis, and then I worked my way backwards from there and found Hoyle and, "The Intelligent Universe". From there I found that Hoyle's work was fundamentally based on anti-darwin and anti-big bag mentalities, which he felt was still based in religious dogma ideas on how the universe "was created"/came into being. I felt that there was some truth in that. And I felt that his discoveries were all based in trying to prove darwin wrong, he didn't, but he found some interesting things that would have not been found if we sat around thinking that we're about 90% right about how the universe works.


How bizarre. He found the well substantiated theories of evolution and the big bang to be based in religious dogma but the idea what all life is pre-planned not. :afr

The guy was an idiot, and its little wonder the scientific world so easily dismissed his fallacious unsubstantiated hypothesis.



> I think that mainstream ideas tend to be *mostly* right, and fringe ideas are tend to be *mostly *wrong. However, there is a nugget of truth to be found in these ideas, and that's what I'm looking for.


You mean sometimes a nugget. Sometimes fringe ideas have no kernel of truth.



> I work these fringe ideas back and usually someone has made too many assumptions based off of 1 weird fact or observation, and just extrapolating far too much from it. Their assessment is wrong, but there is some valid information.


That's why we have a peer review system. One person can be far more easily prone to mis-assessment than a panel of experts.



> However, people find it hard to be satisfied with just 1 piece of a puzzle, so they imagine the rest, and this is how we get these ideas.


Indeed, and the validation and credibility of said ideas on the missing parts are what drives science and it's supporting self assessment and validation systems.



> So bringing it back to mainstream ideas, I think it's important to keep in mind that we're mostly right, that there are still holes, and to not make too many assumptions about those holes, lest we end up just as foolish as the fringers.


All ideas are worthy of consideration, but entertaining the plausibility of ideas that have been empirically rejected as being fallacious is bad judgement and poor intelligence. Until new evidence that supports such a claim is discovered and passed a peer review system as being legitimate then it's common sense to not believe in it.


----------



## TheManInTheRedSuit

ugh1979 said:


> How bizarre. He found the well substantiated theories of evolution and the big bang to be based in religious dogma but the idea what all life is pre-planned not. :afr
> 
> The guy was an idiot, and its little wonder the scientific world so easily dismissed his fallacious unsubstantiated hypothesis.


He went too far. But I think that there is an observation to be made as to how people fundamentally understand things. We observe and test things through a cause and effect system. If we do 1 cause multiple times and the same effect happens, we develop laws and fact. This system work beautifully until you reach the beginning and try to figure out how the first effect happened without a cause. If God made the universe, what made God? And what made that thing that made God? And if the Big Bang "created" the universe, where did the materials for it come from? And why did it goes from being inert to expanding? And what caused that? All you keep doing is pushing the answer further away. The premise of cause and effect, the very fiber of thought we base everything on, has to begin with a causeless effect that violates its own premise?

Hoyle tried to solve this problem with the concept of an infinite universe. However, it falls into the same logical pitfall. It's not right, but at least I had some other idea (besides religion) to compare/contrast with the big bang theory with, which is how I saw this logical pitfall.



ugh1979 said:


> You mean sometimes a nugget. Sometimes fringe ideas have no kernel of truth.


Indeed, although I would like to hope someone with a PhD would be grounded at least a little, but not always the case.



ugh1979 said:


> That's why we have a peer review system. One person can be far more easily prone to mis-assessment than a panel of experts.


This is something that I've been looking into lately. Not to say I wasn't aware of its existence and what it does in practice, but more of what its doing today in a practical way. I shyed away from it earlier not understanding the scientific jargon, but I've been closing the gap in understanding and it's not as intimidating anymore.



ugh1979 said:


> Indeed, and the validation and credibility of said ideas on the missing parts are what drives science and it's supporting self assessment and validation systems.


Exactly, this was more or less my original point. I think we're just looking at it differently like a half glass of water. I'm saying the glass is half empty and focusing on the empty space while you're saying the glass is half full and focusing on the water. I'm saying look at all these things we don't know and you're saying look at all these things we do, both being right.



ugh1979 said:


> All ideas are worthy of consideration, but entertaining the plausibility of ideas that have been empirically rejected as being fallacious is bad judgement and poor intelligence. Until new evidence that supports such a claim is discovered and passed a peer review system as being legitimate then it's common sense to not believe in it.


Like I said originally, it's not what I believe, just something that I proposed for the sake of argument. I think too often religious explanation are proposed and we beat the hell out of that strawman so hard you might as well call it a pinata. And no one learns a damn thing. We're all aware of how preposterous a 10,000 year old universe is, and many other reasons why we chose to be Atheist or Agnostic, respectively. There's no need to continue to sit around talking about how ridiculous religious people are.

I just think that arguing a scientist's idea, regardless of the little evidence they have, is still more productive then talking about Science > Religion.


----------

