Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "What type of department do you work in?"

I do the IT support for an little group of Liberal Arts and Sciences types from a mix of fields (English, Education, History, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Psychology, Anthropology, Physics) hanging out in an Engineering School, who study the process of Engineering, and who try to teach the Engineers (among other things) that the time to think of the impact on society from making doomsday devices is BEFORE they start building, rather than after they've been on the market for a decade or two.

I'm not that hard to track down.

Note, I'm not one of the professors. I'm simply the fly-on-the-wall who's listened enough to acquire A Little Knowledge. This in turn means my opinions are my own, and not that of the department or school; my employer does not pay me to have opinions.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Maybe they had the mathematics or perhaps they had a different access to understanding"

Education + Brothers strongly suggests "Jesuits". Iggy's boys generally don't have a lot of moss growing on them. (Of course, they also seldom have a problem with the idea of Genesis 1 being a parable, or with accepting evolution... aside from the imparting of the Soul requiring action by God.)

viking: "Obviously I did not advance on to the postdoc math studies and therefore can't really judge the validity of your assertion regarding the "baroque" math."

Oh, THAT isn't post-doc level; that's merely advanced undergrad. If you get through GEB you can probably make sense of it; Turing-computable equals type-zero unrestricted Chomsky grammar equals Recursively Enumerable complexity.

The Vitanyi-Li paper is what I think is graduate level stuff.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Intelligence and wisdom are two different things."

Something like that; check www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/68545 for a perspective I can get behind.

Daniel Paul: "Have you seen the G5 big screen theater edition with surround sound."

Eh; I use a G4 dualie with 17" screen at work, and my laptop is a MacBook. My home desktops are white-box Win2k/WinXP/Linux multiboot. The department secretary is currently using an iMac 24" running Windows; the rest of the department is now looking forward to migrating, one OS or another. =)

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Hi, I searched around and found the actual paper rather than just the abstract"

The link to the abstract includes (on the right) a link the PDF of another version from last year; you seem to have found one just published, covering much the same material, plus a bit more. (Thank you.) I'll need to review it to see if there's anything new and mindbending. Based on an email conversation, I expect not, but I try to keep an open mind without an empty head.

viking: 'Now maybe I'm stretching in this next observation. If as asserted in this paper that elementary particles have free will identical in kind to the free will of humans would it not be a logical extension to conclude that it is not our evolved brains that are the source/origin/whatever of this "free will" since elementary particles don't appear to have these same evolved brains.'

At least you ARE stretching, rather than retreating to the comfort zone of the familiar (or catatonia)!

It would (in some sense) appear that "free will" in this sense is an inherent property of all matter, yes. As such, "free will" at the macroscopic level may be considered as an emergent property resulting from the "free will" at the microscopic level. Our brains make use of it, but are not the ultimate source.

Also note, this "free will" is not completely unconstrained. You're still stuck with "the laws of physics", whatever those are.

Furthermore, getting back to the earlier question, the "free will" might well be describable by a hypercomplex system, such as a Recursively Enumerable Church-Turing Automaton aided by invocation of a (simple) Halting Oracle. But... such a concept precludes inferences from finite description; which in turn means, it might as well be "random" from where we sit. That appears to be the final Gap for a "God of the Gaps" to hide in. However, such a God is inherently incomprehensible by finite beings.

viking: "Do you think they were serious in agreeing with Einstien's theistic statement or just fooling around."

Based on my email to Conway and the earlier version, pending my review of the latest version, and from a mathematical framework: presuming there is a God, and that He is playing games, Dice appear inadeqately complex to encompass the complexity of game He is playing.

agentorangex: "The paper states that determinism isn't possible"

...perhaps with some really weird mathematical qualifiers on what is meant by "determinism", involving the nature of "recognizable general patterns" and whether "determine" is from within a space-time framework, versus regarding the whole of eternity unto infinity (lower case omega of the mathematical-ordinal-not-theologial-variety) as a "fixed" structure.

Make no mistake: the pure mathematicians have wandered firmly off into deeper la-la land than any philosopher, on a bridge more solid than any mundane philosopher has ever aspired to. And the shipments are stranger than fish-bicycle hybrids.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

continuing...
These assumptions enable a constructive solution to the Problems of Deduction and of Induction via a mathematically formal version of Occam's Razor. Using this formal version to solve the Problem of Deduction gives a solution to the riddle of the "P" key(s); epically oversimplifying the math, "it's the simplest complete description, thus now probably right". Feel free to provide an alternative philosophical basis for solving the problem in general; I'm happy to consider whether what I presently term "RElatability" is a required implicit.

As for "posited properties", the simple example is a naive conception of "omnipotence": can God create a catalog listing all catalogs that do not list themselves? This leads to a paradox, in that allows inference of (P OR (NOT P)). A more subtle example involves "omniscience", and deals with Hypercomputation and Oracles.

The most useful example to the last requires some fairly baroque math to even describe. In this sense, an example of a "supernatural" phenomenon (if obviously not yet observed) would be a rock that appears red or green, depending on whether the time in seconds (in its own inertial frame) since the Midnight of January 1, 1970 AD was or wasn't the integer expression of a program on the (8,4) Universal Church-Turing Automaton. If such "supernatural" phenomena exists (requiring "hypercomputation" to describe), it contradicts the assumption for the particular Razor-like constructive solution, and you are back to square one for telling a hawk from a handsaw... regardless of wind direction.

Hoffstaeder's book "Goedel, Escher, Bach" is good for getting a layperson up to speed on the halting problem.

The paper with the constructive solution is (doi:10.1109/18.825807), available for free download in PostScript form at www.cwi.nl/~paulv/papers/ideal.ps if you want. (Ghostscript is a free PostScript viewer for Windows and Linux; Mac OS 10.4+ has one built in to Preview.) Be prepared to buy a math PostDoc copious beer in exchange for help wading through.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "If you could state 1. the posited properties 2. the assumption necessary."

The assumptions are:
#1. The validity for philosophical inference of formal logic- that is Boolean-equivalent plus Existential/Universal relation. (I use a modified Robbins construction for my Boolean-Equivalent basis; although the Wolfram Axiom is self-sufficient, it's weird enough I can't accept it on Faith.)
#2. The self-consistency of joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms. (I do not at this time take a position on the Axiom of Choice; the results are independent of it.) With #1, this yields all of modern mathematics.
#3. That Reality is Relatable to Evidence with formal (mathematical) Complexity at most congruent to being Recursively Enumerable. (This is the kicker that triggers the screaming. There ARE objections to this, involving the set of "Real Numbers". I've not seen them expressed coherently. Feel free to try, if you are willing to remain polite; anyone not willing, FOADIAF.)

To be continued...

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

agentorangex: "As abbw3 mentioned, the acts of a god, or the supernatural aren't allowed to be used as they cannot, by good reasoning & logic, shown to be distinguishable from actual natural cause & effect phenomena."

More exactly, either positing the supernatural is "worse" at description relative to the purely natural, OR the posited properties of the supernatural are in contradiction to an assumption which appears necessary to distinguish anything whatsoever about reality. EG: the problem of the "P" key I mentioned back at (Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:58 pm).

Which it is depends on the properties ascribed to the supernatural.

agentorangex: "But as genetic drift ensues & the populations become geographically isolated they later only breed with difficulty"

Again, look up "ring species". Gene diffusion is still possible by crossbreeding, but you have to go from group "A" to group "H" via groups B, C, D, E, F, G, and H along the way, because fertile interbreeding is only possible between immediate "neighbor" groups.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "The path of least resistance is not random."

The non-uniform random walk, however, is; "path of least resistance" is a macroscopic approximation, such as that of Entropy in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you use Statistical Mechanics to examine the microscopic details (EG: grand canonical ensemble derivation), you find there is indeed a slight chance that despite the Second Law, one minute while walking down the street you will spontaneously and instantly freeze solid and fly up in the air at several miles per second. It's merely LOTS-of-zeroes unlikely.

Similarly, the random processes underlying evolution lead to a macroscopic phenomenon on the lines of "path of least resistance". In a closer examination, the general lack of significant differences in resistance between two nearby paths leads to genetic drift; however, where there's a significant "hill" (such as a mutation increasing mortality rate by a factor of fifty) or "valley" (such as being able to prosper with only 2% of the resources otherwise needed), you have mutations that quickly disappear or rise to dominate.

Of course, that's still thinking of the "path" in two dimensions of mutation (and one of "fitness"), when the genome really needs many, many more dimensions of mutation to "walk" in.

Daniel Paul: "If youre nuts and you want to learn how to blow things up you you become an engineer."

Note this presumes someone has the intelligence needed to become an Engineer, AND can retain the key "nuts" viewpoint (Scriptural Inerrancy; for Jihad, of the Qur'an) through the education process required.

The "Engineers of Jihad" appear to be only one instance of a more general phenomenon, which describes both that AND the "Salem Hypothesis" via the same mechanism: that Engineering requires accepting (and allows the use of) the results of Science, but does not require incorporating the philosophical principles which generated the results; and that the modern world presents significant conflict to a world view derived from Scriptural Inerrancy.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Don't you HATE it when that happens!"

Meh; result of using a Mac (with the exotic non-roman characters so easy to get) on a website with a poorly designed comment board. I'm more annoyed that the common slang form of "richard-and-jane" gets censored.



Daniel Paul: "True science is about finding facts."

Slightly incorrect; it is about INFERRING the nature of reality. This, in turn, appears to require the assumption of a relationship between Reality and Evidence is of no more than Recursively Enumerable complexity. Otherwise, there can be no Inference. (See Chomsky's work on formal inference grammars.)

As a result, supposition involving the hypercomputationally complex is precluded by the implicit philosophical assumption.

Daniel Paul: "Assuming your premise, not only is it a well constructed wall but it is flawless in it's design ability for it's purpose."

You stretch the metaphor beyond the limits by presuming it's a "designed" artifact with "purpose", rather than a natural barrier, akin to a rock slide fallen across a narrow path.

Daniel Paul: "It also came on the scene suddenly as there are no remains of anything in the gradual evolution between ape and man. There are ape remains and there are human remains."

Incorrect. The fossil remains from the time period have an attribute set intermediate between modern human (or modern ape) and the posited common ancestor. They are not exactly "human" nor "ape". Furthermore, there is also another "remnant" of the process in addition to the fossils: the telomere block in the center of human chromosome #2 pair, found in every cell of every human now living.

Daniel Paul: "If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is completely scientifically accurate to say that (if) CA fell into the ocean that based on current movement evidence even though the fault shifted and it fell all at once?"

"Continuously ongoing universally in the present" does not require "uniformly"... which it isn't. Earthquakes cause jumps of inches or feet, due to releases at sticking points. Such short time-scale irregularities in the evidence also get described, providing a more exact theory. In the literal case of "CA falling into the ocean", that would appear be evidence "substantively different" than allowed by the theory (unless there's a LOT more energy stored there than allowed as I understand the possible energy density). At that point the "theory" gets modified first with the quick and dirty addition of "...aaaaaaaaand CaliforniaFellIntoTheSeaOnFriday." This would still be "better" than other current alternatives... but is "kludgy" enough that further refinement would historically be expected, where someone forms a hypothesis giving an explanation of how currently understood mechanisms - plus, perhaps, some new posited phenomenon - might do a "better" job explaining than the kludge.

Note that "better" has a VERY formal mathematical sense in this context.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:51 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abb3w: 'I "conclusion" refer'

...sigh... 'by "conclusion" I refer'. I can needz more caffine....

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

abb3w (10:44 am): "What I'm disputing that the conclusion actually correctly follows explicitly from that premise ALONE."

To clarify, I "conclusion" refer to the conclusion about responsible choice. Sorry for any ambiguity.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "Do you agree with the naturalist position that is outlined above and stated clearly by them in their literature (They claim and I concur that it is an inevitable logical implication of the naturalist belief system)" [that no one is actually responsible for their beliefs or actions since according to naturalism they had no choice in the matter]

I believe it is an incorrect inference. From the vantage of within space-time and using the scientific method, it appears "choice" and "free will" both appear to exist, such that the nature of the choice is not "predetermined".

Mathematically "choice" may be viewed as the result of a "black box" Church-Turing automaton in the Recursive complexity class. This means that given some set of inputs, the CTA will eventually give a simple "yes" or "no" output. If the inputs are fully determined, the decision resulting is not "free".

However, the Conway-Kochen theorem (available online at arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286) mathematically proves that the state of the present is NOT FULLY SPECIFIED BY INFORMATION IN THE PAST, but requires information which only can be considered "determined" at a vantage point in the future. Using the phenomenon described in the paper, it is possible that part of the input may only be considered "determined" at an ARBITRARY point in the future.

This, then, is close enough to "free will" to meet the definition most people would use... once they finish finding the aspirin, ibuprofen, and/or ethanol needed to cope with encountering the Conway-Kochen result.

The more difficult question is what then is meant by "responsible", given this observation.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking: "I am not sure I am understanding your post here since there are plenty of examples of high levels of cross species communication of relatively complex and abstract concepts and mental models."

Not sufficient to allow generalized communication, such as might allow discussing philosophy, however. =(

viking: "If you repudiate" [the position] "as your post seems to attempt then of course you are not truly a naturalist as naturalists understand the term."

Well, first, I don't accept "methodological naturalism" (as I understand it) as a primary philosophical premise in itself. I do accept something most people would be unable to distinguish from the premise, but only as an inference resulting from my other working primary premises. While Wikipedia is a lousy authority, it's handy for a first pass: "Many modern philosophers of science use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the methodological assumption that explanations of observable effects are practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes." I would agree with this proposition, but only as inference, not as assumption.

What I'm disputing that the conclusion actually correctly follows explicitly from that premise ALONE. The error results from the implicit presumption that a "cause" (specifying conditions) must necessarily be in the PAST from the "effect" (resultant state of the universe). Such conception of "cause-and-effect" is usually taken implicitly (as "obvious" inference from the methodological naturalism premise, or as unspecified additional premise). However, it may be shown as mathematical inference from results obtained via the methodology of science that "sequential causation" is either (depending on how held) an incorrect inference, or is a primary premise allowing inference of (P AND (NOT P)).

So, while I may be viewed as a methodolgical naturalist in effect, to the extent the view you present coming from that camp is held by a significant faction, I believe the faction has made an error of inference from their premises. The premise you attribute at their end is not "a necessary corollary", and in fact it is WRONG under their starting premise.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Unless you have specific data documentation from the time you cannot."

No; we only need specific data documenting that such change is continuously ongoing universally in the present. At that point (informally) burden of proof shifts to showing why we should expect this to have been substantively different in the past.

Daniel Paul: "It is logical to assume that, because there are no connected processes between steps"

That would be where your problem is. There's one process connecting the steps: "giving birth". The differences at each step are the mutations I mentioned above.

Daniel Paul: "Selection or path of least resistance?"

Mathematically the same, when you express the genetics via non-uniform "random walk". Also note that the "landscape" is pretty flat, so there isn't always a lot of resistance resulting from minor detrimental changes, which allows for considerable "drift".

Daniel Paul: "Quite frankly, proving we were created or we evolved won't help feed one hungry child, cure any illnesses or solve our economic problems."

Not of a certainty. However, "proving" evolution to the satisfaction of those who don't yet credit that it has already BEEN proven might help further reduce prevalence of the Scriptural Inerrancy mindset, in turn allowing reduction of problems resulting from the inflexibility of the Scriptural (not merely Biblical) Inerrancy mindset, such the effort wasted by legislators trying to prohibit the tide from rolling in.

Perhaps you might know Islam considers the Arabic Q'ran the absolutely perfect Word Of God ? Perhaps you might credit that those most intelligent are most likely to have the strongest objections to viewpoints that conflict with one they consider Divinely Inerrant, should they retain such premise through their education? Were you aware that Engineers are STRONGLY over-represented among Jihadists? Do you perceive a connection?

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

agentorangex: "This is how its witnessed in the lab, so yes."

For some value of "smooth" and "lab". EG, ring species observed in the wild, where group A can interbreed with group B which in turn can with group C which in turn... but the final group "G" cannot interbreed with the first "A" population. A minor geologic disaster wiping out one of the middle groups (or just preventing continued interbreeding between two links of the ring for a few generations) would yield full speciation.

agentorangex: "If it's not measurable, what on earth are all those other hominid fossils & pre hominid fossils doing even being around? "

And why did an infinitely creative being make chimpanzees and humans using such similar genomes?

agentorangex: "We don't have to say it, we know it's a fact, they move. Period."

See kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/nasa.html for some entry level on this, or (doi:10.1029/2000JB000033) for a more technical analysis.

agentorangex: "Science isn't allowed to infer 'the supernatural intelligent designer did this, that, & that over there' as they are - unfalsifiable."

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. Mathematically, "supernatural" is indistinguishable from what I call the "absolute null hypothesis", which says "we have this data".

Leaving aside the supernatural elements, the problem with "Intelligent Design" is that technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, no science, NO COOKIE!

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Whoops... clipped.

Daniel Paul: "Evolution is not based a process of change but rather steps of change. There is no observable process of change between ape and man. It's not a gradual progression from ape to man."

Um, no. The process of change is not in the individual organisms, but in the line of descent. That is to say: you don't have the exact same genes as either parent. In fact, on average you probably have about 175 base-pairs that are different from the corresponding gene in either parent. (See Genetics 156:297-304, "Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans"). That's simple point-replacement; there's other mutation modes. EG:

1) Point insertion/deletion, where one base "letter" is inserted/deleted in the sequence
2) "amplification", where extra copies of a subsequence get inserted
3) Translocations, where a sequence moves from region to another
4) Inversion, where a subsequence gets reversed within the longer string
5) Full duplication of a chromosome to provide an additional copy
6) Fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome

In any case, this (as agentorangex has already noted) demonstrates "the progression of change over years", analogous to measurement of plate drift now confirms plate tectonics.

Humans and Chimps have different genomes; this is what makes them different. The differences between the genomes (both available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genomes if you care) are consistent with mutation from a common ancestor in the timescale expected, and provides the best explanation for the massive overlap. (Mutations within the human genome are also confirmed via genetic migration studies.)

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Evolution is not based a process of change but rather steps of change. There is no observable process of change between ape and man. It's not a gradual progression from ape to man."

Um, no. The process of change is not in the individual organisms, but in the line of descent. That is to say: you don't have the exact same genes as either parent. In fact, on average you probably have about 175 base-pairs that are different from the corresponding gene in either parent. (See Genetics 156:297–304, "Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans"). That's simple point-replacement; there's other mutation modes. EG:

1) Point insertion/deletion, where one base "letter" is inserted/deleted in the sequence
2) "amplification", where extra copies of a subsequence get inserted
3) Translocations, where a sequence moves from region to another
4) Inversion, where a subsequence gets reversed within the longer string
5) Full duplication of a chromosome to provide an additional copy
6) Fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome

In any case, this (as agentorangex has already noted) demonstrates "the progression of change over years", analogous to measurement of plate drift now confirms plate tectonics.

Humans and Chimps have different genomes; this is what makes them different. The differences between the genomes (both available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genomes if you care) are consistent with mutation from a common ancestor in the timescale expected, and provides the best explanation for the massive overlap. (Mutations within the human genome are also confirmed via genetic migration studies.)

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul: "Actually, one of the main problems with Boolean application occurs due to lack of data. Boolean is fine if you have the data."

Actually, Boolean also works if you're willing to express unknowns as variables. This allows you to use it Boolean Logic as a set of rules for when inference is permissible between propositions. It's used as an underlying way to get from "P IMPLIES Q" with "NOT P IMPLIES Q" to get to "Q"; this, along with self-consistency for the joint affirmation of ZF, allows the construction of Mathematics. Science actually uses a more complicated logic for working with "data"; the requirement Boolean logic is because the validity of the more complicated rests on the validity of Boolean Logic.

Daniel Paul: "Chimps produce chimps. Humans produce humans. There seems to be a firm wall there. Evolution would have us believe that either: (1) the wall dropped at specific places, or, (2) gradual changes occurred and the evidence disappeared between ape and man."

Indeed, once walls become firm, they tend to stay that way. However, we also know that walls do not always exist, as that is what defines a group being the "same species"; and that walls can arise, and tend to become increasingly solid over time. Thus, evolution would have us believe that there originally was only one common form; that due to gradual changes, a wall developed between the two groups; and that thereafter, further gradual changes took the two new subgroups farther and farther apart, rendering the wall uncrossable.

Or in other words, it's not that the wall was crossable, it's that there was no wall until one was built.

Daniel Paul: "In a production environment, a process would require outside action unless it is one smooth process with each step blending into the next."

Please bear in mind Earth's biosphere is not a closed thermodynamic system. Yet again: "Evolution is a by-product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178)."

That we do not have corresponding fossils for every step says more about how fossilization is a relatively rare process than evolution. (The most common fate for something that dies is to become lunch for something else.) Formally, Science doesn't have to explain a lack of finding something; it merely has to describe all the evidence found everywhere anyone looks for anything.

Ministry Challenges Darwin, Evolution in Film Project

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steveh20: "That's a very interesting thought. Have you ever read escaping from fundamentalism by James Barr?"

Nope. One of the usual suspects in some of the on-line bull sessions on religion that I participate in might have read it, so I may have been indirectly exposed to the ideas. However, I'm speculating based on my Catholic upbringing, my experiences with one particular "Biblical Inerrancy" YEC proponent, a bit of semi-random poking at Wikipedia, and some less-than-obviously related science articles.

Creationists to Mark 'Darwin Day' with Anti-Evolution Conference

abb3w »

Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

agentorangex: "I would agree, but it is odd no organisms past or present (future maybe) harness such an ability of introspection of logic."

High entry barrier; getting a brain to the size where it's possible to pull off the trick has high resource requirements for initially fairly modest benefit. There's also the problem of noticing it in species lacking the ability to readily make and manipulate tools. Plus given how lousy humans are at being rational (EG: Iran's President Ah'mAWhackJob), I'm not convinced it's of any certain long-term benefit.