Southern Methodist University speaks out against Intelligent Design

[PokerPacker]

oh boy, the zaire strain of the Ebola Virus. isn't that pretty much the deadliest/ most unpleasant virus?

[PeterMP]

That's a good point. The human breeding program of dogs which created both the Mexican Chiwawa ( 4 inches tall ) and the Irish Wolf hound ( 6 feet tall ) are examples of breeding for trait es. You draw a distinction between traits and mutations? But weren't all the different traits themselves once mutations? And doesn't the selective breeding program magnify and isolate the individuals exhibiting these traits? Isn't mutation how differenciation occurs in Evolution? Also the human contribution would subsetute for natural secection and create both a isolated genetic pool as well as an isolated environment to evolve in.

From an evolutionary stand point genetic diversity is good. Human contribution is terms of domestication though does not introduce stress (in fact it reduces it), which means the organisms mutation rate (and therefore its likelihood to mutate) remains low.

I'm sorry if you missed my point about the Canadien Geese, but the word should have speciation. The resident and migratory Geese are under different pressures, and if they don't interbreed, there will be a speciation event. As for other animals, their environment has been pretty consistent even though they switched continents, and there have been no mass extinctions.

If you think that Pasteurs' Law is a law in the same context as the laws of thermodynamics, you are wrong. The same is true for all of the "laws" in biology. Let's take Mendel's laws as an examle:

http://www.purchon.com/biology/mendel.htm

Mendel is correct most of the time, but Mendel's laws do not account for crossing over, which affects the structure of the chromosome and therefore changes how traits are inherited,

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/Bio%20101/Bio%20101%20Laboratory/Mitosis/mitosis.htm

and invalidate Mendel's laws, but many (especially introductory) Biology text books still teach Mendel's laws. I guess this is where you would be better off listening to an expert rather than your own interpertation because I don't know a single Biologist that would assert that their laws should be taken in the same context as the Laws of Physics.

Anyway if you accept Pasteur's Law as an absolute law, you aren't doing yourself any good. You are stuck in a paradox. If life NEVER comes from non-life, where did the first life come from?

As somebody else stated, viruses are not considered to be alive by most people. The RNA world theory describes the process by which a single molecule of RNA (or a related molecule) could become self-replicting and produce an evolutionary process by which all other life could have evolved. In order for viruses to survive they need another living organism so for any viruses, you have to assume first their was life, and then they evolved. I BELIEVE, it is generally thought there were DNA viruses first, and the RNA viruses evolved from DNA viruses.

[JMS]

oh boy, the zaire strain of the Ebola Virus. isn't that pretty much the deadliest/ most unpleasant virus?

We categorize many Viruses with/as living organisms in Biology. Actually all the ones we know of. I just picked out one. Still I'm not saying you were wrong to say that Viruses aren't alive. It's just a controversial subject in science. Lots of people are still debating this one.

It's like what are the properties of light in Physics. Is it a wave or is it a particle. Newton proved it was a wave. Einstein proved it was a particle a hundred years later. It exhibits properties of both. Just like a Virus exhibits properties of living organism as well as non living particle. If it is life, it is one of the simplest forms of life. I surmised it would be an example of what PeterMP was describing as a simple RNA organism.

[techboy]

Just to be clear... I'm the honey in this analogy.

Oh, indeed.

techboy, apologies if I've missed it, but ... have you considered answering my earlier question about assigning, for the sake of discussion, a number between 1-100 as to your degree of certainty that the historical figure Jesus Christ 1) had supernatural parentage and 2) rose from the dead?

I've considered it.

*EDITED to add* Yes, Om, i am being coy. Partly because I think it's funny, but mostly for another reason altogether.

You and I are in this discussion for different reasons. Fot you, this is an issue of intellectual curiosity. You discuss to learn more about how and why others think differently than you.

For me, that's some of it, but you also have to keep in mind that as a Christian, it is my duty to advocate for Christianity.

I would never lie or use dishonest tactics, but neither will I write something in an open forum read by tens of people () which might be taken in a manner which I didn't intend, or which might undermine my advocacy for the Christian faith.

If I ever figure out a way to answer your question honestly but without providing potentially misleading impressions (and I've tried, with no success), I will do so. If we were having a private conversation face to face, with no possibility of unintended parties overhearing and getting the wrong idea, and where I could immediately correct any misimpressions you might have, I'd have answered your question already (by the way, this rules out PM, too... ).

Technically, even admitting that I'm effectively dodging your question (at least for the moment) is probably creating some of the effect I'm trying to avoid, but I figure you have a right to know.

For now, I will merely reiterate that approaching the subject from an Historical Critical perspective, with the method of inference to the best explanation, the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is the explanation which best fits all the facts. It is, I'd argue, the only explanation that fits all the available facts, while still maintaining coherency and a lack of ad hocness.

*EDIT 2* Enough whining from me. I've figured out an answer that adequately elucidates my views. See below. (I will leave this up, as is my policy with all "serious" posts, even the ones where I've said something stupid. )

[JMS]

From an evolutionary stand point genetic diversity is good. Human contribution is terms of domestication though does not introduce stress (in fact it reduces it), which means the organisms mutation rate (and therefore its likelihood to mutate) remains low.

It is my understanding that environment doesn't create mutation. The environment just effects whether a mutation will flourish or not. If the mutation creates a crab with a larger claw that allows him to better defend protect himself. IT gives him an advantage and is thus more likely spread. If a mutation creates a trait with no viable advantage, then it is more likely to either disappear or not flourish.

Thus a population of inter breading dogs isolated to refine and develop a single trait would be act similarly to natural selection in evolution. The trait would flourish, ( small size ) because in the human breeding program that trait would give that organism an advantage. Humans would see small dogs and breed those small dogs to refine the characteristic.

I'm sorry if you missed my point about the Canadien Geese, but the word should have speciation. The resident and migratory Geese are under different pressures, and if they don't interbreed, there will be a speciation event. As for other animals, their environment has been pretty consistent even though they switched continents, and there have been no mass extinctions.

I'm sorry I think I still might be missing your point. You believe we not only understand specization but we can predict within a few generations of when it will occur? This is not my understanding. I don't believe we can predict it. I don't think we've ever been able to achieve it. I think we have infinite examples of geographically isolated populations which once re-united even across 10,000 of years remain in the same species. Captain Cook for example when he discovered Tahiti did not discover a different species of humans even though the Polynesians who populated those islands were likely more than 100,000 years removed from Cook's own ancestors who left Africa or China to originally populate Europe.

The polynesians didn't interbreed with the Europeans in the interum. They didn't eat the same food or even reside in the same ecological niche. Still speciation didn't occur, why would you presume that it would occure in Canadian Geese populations just because they eat different food and don't inter breed?

If you think that Pasteur's' Law is a law in the same context as the laws of thermodynamics, you are wrong. The same is true for all of the "laws" in biology. Let's take Mendel's laws as an example:

I don't believe the law of Science has a different definition when it applies to Physics, Biology, Chemistry or any of the hard sciences. Please show me where you have found any dictionary, encyclopedia or text which claims this.

Scientific law is a fundamental instrument of scientific method which spans many branches of science uniformly. It is a root scienfific term passed down by those who first defined our modern understanding of science.

Mendel is correct most of the time, but Mendel's laws do not account for crossing over, which affects the structure of the chromosome and therefore changes how traits are inherited,

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/michael.gregory/files/Bio%20101/Bio%20101%20Laboratory/Mitosis/mitosis.htm

I'm not familiar with Mendel's Laws. But are you saying that

(1) for any pair of characteristics there is only one gene in a gamete even though there are two genes in ordinary cells..

That in sexual reproduction both parents don't contribute a single gene each?

(2) This says that for two characteristics the genes are inherited independently.

That genetic traits can be inherited as sets?

Anyway if you accept Pasteur's Law as an absolute law, you aren't doing yourself any good. You are stuck in a paradox. If life NEVER comes from non-life, where did the first life come from?

I do accept Pastuer's law as absolute fact. Because that is the definition of Scientific Law something to be taken as absolute fact. This doesn't mean that it can't be wrong or that other Scientific Law's haven't been proven to be wrong in rare cercumstances. This does mean that one would hope that anybody who objected to a Scientific Law would should have more than just a bunch of hand waving to explain the contridiction.

[PokerPacker]

JMS, refer to my post (371) as to why pastuer's law is not 100% fact.

[JMS]

JMS, refer to my post (371) as to why pastuer's law is not 100% fact.

PokerPacker, Pasteur's law of Biogenesis is proven law. It is to be taken as fact, that's what is the definition of Scientific Law states. It is not reasonable for you to equate this with a wild claim of invincibility by some yet to be impaled mad man. As I said before this particular law is proved in sterile operating rooms the world wide every day. This doesn't mean that Biogenesis won't be disproved. It just means that we haven't breached it yet, and thus this law is still a binding fact that would refute anybody who suggests life spontaneously occurs.

It is literally at the cornerstone of chemistry, medicine and many other modern industries.

I thought your most convincing argument refuting Biogenesis conflict with "Evolution" was the same one you applied to Specialization. That in evolution so much time is involved that both issues could be resolved over millennium. Problem with this argument is that it can not be proven through experimentation. Thus to accept this explanation would require an application of faith just like Creationism does. I prefer to just leave the hole open, and let science continue to work on it until they come up with an answer which can be verified through experimentation or is a little more convincing than just saying...... "then the fundamental laws of science are paused.... then life occurs.... then they are put back into effect..

[techboy]

What Peter tried to use against my post was James 2:24: Now on the surface, it appears he is correct. But like everything else, we must be careful to use a sound hermeneutic.

It should be noted that Zguy28's participation in this entire discussion is so that Mr. "I'm going to Seminary" can show off the fact that he can use the word "hermeneutic" correctly in a sentence.

[Enter Apotheosis]

As I noted earlier, if you take the time to investigate it, you will find that there is a significant amount of historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. This evidence includes multiple eye-witness testimony, the otherwise inexplicable behavior of the Jewish and Roman authorities and the Disciples and early Christians themselves, and a variety of other evidences which lead me to conclude that the Ressurection is an historical event.

Or, as I put it... word of mouth.

You made up your scenario last night.

Yep.

If you can't see why one might be just a smidge more reasonable than the other, then I don't know what to tell you.

Resurrection vs. a supposition as to what (a) god may or may not believe? Yeah, neither of those seem very reasonable as accurate statements to me.

Be that as it may, that's really not the point, anyway. You don't accept the documents of the Bible as presenting a true message (I phrase things this way to allow for the fact that PeterMP apparently sees the Bible as true in message, if not in literal factual accuracy), and you don't claim to be a Christian. PeterMP does claim to be a Christian, and so I don't need to establish the validity of the Bible with him to cite it as a source. Presumably, he believes at least the overarching message, or he wouldn't call himself a Christian.

If my comments were addressed to a non-believer, I certainly wouldn't have framed them in such a manner.

And my point was that using Pascal's wager tends not to work in any context. I could have substituted my 'argument' for any number of things (and quite possible something PeterMP thinks that you do not) that would have held the same purpose. Even the most devout Christians will not agree on every aspect of how they see their god, so Pascal really can't hold his ground anywhere.

[PeterMP]

It is my understanding that environment doesn't create mutation. The environment just effects whether a mutation will flourish or not. If the mutation creates a crab with a larger claw that allows him to better defend protect himself. IT gives him an advantage and is thus more likely spread. If a mutation creates a trait with no viable advantage, then it is more likely to either disappear or not flourish.

So you are misinformed. This is where a real understanding of science comes into play. Try putting in "oxidative stress" and "DNA damage" into www.pubmed.com. Some types of stress do cause DNA damage. This will result in mutations and spead up evolution. But in addition to that organisms can essentially cause their own mutations through processes like recombination. These pathways are turn downed under normal conditions AND cellular processes that protect DNA are turned up. This combination decreases the number of mutations and therefore the rate of evolution. During periods of prolonged stress, this will be fliped. Mutagenic processes will be turned up and DNA protection proccesses will be turned done.

Try reading this if you are really interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

Please, note I did not read the whole thing so I am not guaranteeing there are no mistakes. In addition, recombination is a DNA repair mechanism, but also a mutagenic process, and while these things may seem contradictory, if you do not understand the molecular aspects of DNA, they are not.

The polynesians didn't interbreed with the Europeans in the interum. They didn't eat the same food or even reside in the same ecological niche. Still speciation didn't occur, why would you presume that it would occure in Canadian Geese populations just because they eat different food and don't inter breed?

More than that. They have very different types of stress. Migratory geese must mantain the ability to make their long migration, while resident geese have started to accumulate mutations (e.g. weight gain) that allow them to survive winters in places like Central NJ.

My prediction is not a scientific prediction. I have no calculations to back it up. It is the same as me predicting the Redskins will be 8-8 this year.

I don't believe the law of Science has a different definition when it applies to Physics, Biology, Chemistry or any of the hard sciences. Please show me where you have found any dictionary, encyclopedia or text which claims this.

Scientific law is a fundamental instrument of scientific method which spans many branches of science uniformly. It is a root scientific term passed down by those who first defined our modern understanding of science.

I know of no place this is defined, but it only makes sense. Many laws in Physics like the laws of thermodynamics have been rigously mathematically proven. The same cannot be said of Biological Laws. Math being much older is obviously a more robust science where things are less likely to be proven false. Do you know any Biology Laws other than Pasteur's? Are you making your case based soley on Pasteur's law?

I've actually never thought about this until you posed your question (I am not a geneticist) not quite sure if this would be a violation of Mendel's law, but if you are a male, you have one X chromosome, and that came from your mother. The X chromosome is larger than the Y chromosome you get from your father, and it is bigger and contains genes not on the Y so in fact you only have one copy of the gene. This what causes sex linked diseases (more men have hair lost then woman because women have two genes (two X's), while men only have one, and if they that one they have is "bad" you lose your hair. For women, as long as one is "good" they are okay).

I was more refering to the fact that he is assuming that cell replication and division went okay, and that in fact that all chromosomes in fact have all of the proper genes so that you get two sets. Normally, if this happens the sperm or egg dies, but it doesn't have to. Many times this results in a problem in development and the embryo does not come to term, but there are examples similar to the hair lost where people live perfectly fine lives w/ a gene that you only need one copy of.

There is even some evidence that Mendel ignored this and "fudged" his statistics.

http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm

Either way Mendel's laws hold true in most cases, but occassionly are incorrect.

By the way if virus are alive then people have produced viruses in the lab, which would disprove Pasteur's Law.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/07/12/polio020712.html

[Zguy28]

It should be noted that Zguy28's participation in this entire discussion is so that Mr. "I'm going to Seminary" can show off the fact that he can use the word "hermeneutic" correctly in a sentence.

You are now anathema! :redpunch:

:jk:

I knew that word before going to Seminary & I got a whole list of big buzz words!

[JMS]

So you are misinformed. This is where a real understanding of science comes into play. Try putting in "oxidative stress" and "DNA damage" into www.pubmed.com. Some types of stress do cause DNA damage.

I did not say that environmental stress can not cause DNA mutation, especially in a laboratory. I said, environmental stress is not the cause for genetic mutation with respect to evolution. Darwin does not require cataclysmic events to occur to spark genetic mutation. Darwin and evolutionists today assert that genetic mutations occure on a regular basis as part of procreation. That the vast majority of these mutations are not positive and thus do not exhibit a prolonged lasting effect on the gene pool. But that some of these mutations do give the cariers an advantage. These advantaged indivuduals are more likely to successfully reproduce, as are their progeny who exhibit the advantagous trait. This is at the core of evolution, not that evolution or mutation require cataclismic environmental change to create the mutation.

Still evolutionary change might change what traites are deemed to be advantages. Like heavy body hair in an ice age.

More than that. They have very different types of stress. Migratory geese must mantain the ability to make their long migration, while resident geese have started to accumulate mutations (e.g. weight gain) that allow them to survive winters in places like Central NJ.

And you don't think native tihitians or eskimo's had different types of stresses than southern Italians, Africans or Chinese over the 100,000 years they were isolated from each other?

My prediction is not a scientific prediction. I have no calculations to back it up. It is the same as me predicting the Redskins will be 8-8 this year.

One of your predictions was wildly optimistic. I hope the other one was too conservative. We don't know hoe to create different species. We have never achieved it and thus don't understand the mechanism.

I know of no place this is defined, but it only makes sense. Many laws in Physics like the laws of thermodynamics have been rigously mathematically proven. The same cannot be said of Biological Laws. Math being much older is obviously a more robust science where things are less likely to be proven false. Do you know any Biology Laws other than Pasteur's? Are you making your case based soley on Pasteur's law?

if you google on "scientific method" or "scientific law" you can review the definition. If you have a dictionary it too would have a definition under law which defines the word in terms of science.

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: scientific lawPart of Speech: nDefinition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called [natural law] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific%20law

I've actually never thought about this until you posed your question (I am not a geneticist) not quite sure if this would be a violation of Mendel's law, but if you are a male, you have one X chromosome, and that came from your mother. The X chromosome is larger than the Y chromosome you get from your father, and it is bigger and contains genes not on the Y so in fact you only have one copy of the gene. This what causes sex linked diseases (more men have hair lost then woman because women have two genes (two X's), while men only have one, and if they that one they have is "bad" you lose your hair. For women, as long as one is "good" they are okay).

What you are discribing is sexually inherited traites, I think. which are not a violation of mendels laws by the definition which you posted.

I was more refering to the fact that he is assuming that cell replication and division went okay, and that in fact that all chromosomes in fact have all of the proper genes so that you get two sets. Normally, if this happens the sperm or egg dies, but it doesn't have to. Many times this results in a problem in development and the embryo does not come to term, but there are examples similar to the hair lost where people live perfectly fine lives w/ a gene that you only need one copy of.

Men are XY, women are XX. I've heard of XXY individuals, I've never heard of an X individual, one with only a single gene.

Either way Mendel's laws hold true in most cases, but occassionly are incorrect.

By the way if virus are alive then people have produced viruses in the lab, which would disprove Pasteur's Law.

That would depend on what they started with. If they started from scratch then you would have a convincing argument (that viruses aren't life). But scientists have also created human embryo's in test tubes before, but because of where their starting blocks it was not considered creating life spontaniously.

Either way, I'm not knowledgeable or interested enough in viruses to claim it either way(Life or not life), I just make note of the controversy.

[PeterMP]

I did not say that environmental stress can not cause DNA mutation, especially in a laboratory. I said, environmental stress is not the cause for genetic mutation with respect to evolution. Darwin does not require cataclysmic events to occur to spark genetic mutation. Darwin and evolutionists today assert that genetic mutations occure on a regular basis as part of procreation. That the vast majority of these mutations are not positive and thus do not exhibit a prolonged lasting effect on the gene pool. But that some of these mutations do give the cariers an advantage. These advantaged indivuduals are more likely to successfully reproduce, as are their progeny who exhibit the advantagous trait. This is at the core of evolution, not that evolution or mutation require cataclismic environmental change to create the mutation.

And you don't think native tihitians or eskimo's had different types of stress than southern Italians or Africans or Chinese?

Yes, but humans are able to over come the stress w/o evolution due to technology, tools, and logic. If not for those things, I doubt we would see humans living in the Artic. Gesse can't go out and kill and animal and make a coat to stay warm. Mutations do occur under all conditions. Just very few of them and few of them are advantageous. It only stands to reason, more mutations mean more chance evolve. Under stable conditions, mutations are limited by cellular processes. Evolution as a result moves very slowly and so is slow to the point that it might seem non-exsistant. Under times of prelonged stress, the mutation rate is allowed to increase due to the control of cellular process. This in turn will speed up evolution.

In general, to go back to Darwin is to ignore 100+ years of science. Darwin knew essentially nothing about the mechanism as he didn't even know what DNA is.

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: scientific lawPart of Speech: nDefinition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called [natural law] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific%20law

Ah this is nice. Pasteur's Law then would apply to the "certain conditions" under which he performed his experiment. Nobody is claiming that life started in a flask containing sterilized broth on Pasteur's lab bench. These would be the "certain conditions" under which Pasteur's law is true. Not in the primordial Earth, much less a different planet.

What you are discribing is sexually inherited traites which are not a violation of mendels laws by the definition which you posted.

Men are XY, women are XX. I've heard of XXY individuals, I've never heard of an X individual, one with only a single gene.

Either way Mendel's laws hold true in most cases, but occassionly are incorrect.

As I said, I was unsure, but I think you misunderstand. There are genes on the X chromosome that are not on the Y. Therefore if you are XY, you only have one copy of the genes that are on the X. Anyway, XXY individuals are clearly against Mendel's Laws. These individuals are not uncommon. For the orgin of life, we would only need for Pasteur's Law to be broken once, and not even that as I pointed out above Pasteur's Law really has no real relevance on the orgin of life because obviously life could not have originated on Pasteur's lab bench.

In general though, Mendel's Law points to the difference between Biology on one extreme and Math on the other with Chemistry and Physics in the middle. Biological "Laws" tend to "hold true in most cases" and are not very often absolutes. Mathematical principles tend to be absolutes if properly defined. To pretend they are the same is just silly.

That would depend on what they started with. If they started from scratch then you would have a convincing argument (that viruses aren't life). But scientists have also created human embryo's in test tubes before, but because of where their starting blocks it was not considered creating life spontaniously.

Either way, I'm not knowledgeable or interested enough in viruses to claim it either way, I just take note of the controversy.

Well, they certainly could have strated w/ simple organic molecules and from them produced more complex organic molecues, and from them created a virus. But I see no reason from this to conclude Pasteur's Law has been violated and therefore that viruses are not alive. As stated above, these conditions do not match Pasteur's conditions, and even if they did, how do we know this is not an acceptable violation of Pasteur's Law, just as Mendel's laws are violated.

[techboy]

Or, as I put it... word of mouth.

In a very real sense, all history is word of mouth. For you to ascribe eyewitness testimony as having the same weight as admitted fantasy is to condemn any event from before the age of photgraphs (or later, since photographs can be doctored) to the same level. Thomas Jefferson becomes Santa Claus.

Or, to put it another way, your comments make the baby David Halberstam cry.

You are now anathema! :redpunch:

Whenever I hear this word, I think of Eddie Murphy in Mulan ranting about dishonor, but I substitute "anathema".

"Anathema on you! Anathema on your cow!"

techboy, apologies if I've missed it, but ... have you considered answering my earlier question about assigning, for the sake of discussion, a number between 1-100 as to your degree of certainty that the historical figure Jesus Christ 1) had supernatural parentage and 2) rose from the dead?

As I noted in the edit, Om, I have come up with an answer for you.

Neither science or history (as has been discussed a bit in this thread), can ever be 100% certain about anything. So, from a purely historical view, if I'm going to be intellectually honest, I have to place the number as less than 100.

As I have argued, I believe that Jesus rising from the dead is the non ad hoc explanation which best fits the available facts, and that, in fact, no competing non ad hoc explanation can explain all the facts. The possibility, intellectually, that there is some ad hoc explanation, I suppose, still theoretically exists. Highly advanced space aliens, for instance, could have beamed Jesus out of the tomb, revived Him, healed Him, returned Him to Earth after three days, then beamed Him up again after 40. Or, God could be playing a big joke.

Unlike the accounts of the Bible there is, however, no reason to actually believe the alien or joke theory, which is why they are ad hoc. I thus consider these positions unreasonable. In the tradition of science and history, though, I can't actually rule them out from a purely intellectual stand point. I'm going to say, though, that purely intellectually, I believe the evidence leads me to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead, to borrow a legal term, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Put another way, intellectually, I'm about as certain as scientists are about the Theory of Gravity. Of course, perhaps Intelligent Falling is correct after all...

Since you want a number, (purely intellectually, now) I'll say something above 99 but below 100. Throw in faith, and it is 100.

Did I use the modifier intellectually enough?

Intellectually.

[Enter Apotheosis]

In a very real sense, all history is word of mouth. For you to ascribe eyewitness testimony as having the same weight as admitted fantasy is to condemn any event from before the age of photgraphs (or later, since photographs can be doctored) to the same level. Thomas Jefferson becomes Santa Claus.

Or, to put it another way, your comments make the baby David Halberstam cry.

Do you honestly believe that all the history we've been taught is completely, 100% true? Especially history that is over 2000 years old? You've got to be able to try and parse through what is fact and what is legend. Generally, we do know that the winner writes history (Christianity has definitely won a number of times) and that history becomes increasingly less reliable as time passes and entire cultures are forced to intepret the words of others for information. Hell, the fact that the Bible wasn't really compiled until 300-ish years after Jesus died tends to do a lot of damage to its believability as a historical text.

Anyway... Jesus existing and being a religious figurehead of sorts during his time? I'll opt to believe that as fact. Walking on water and essentially being the first widely-accepted zombie? I credit that more to myth.

[JMS]

Yes, but humans are able to over come the stress w/o evolution due to technology, tools, and logic. If not for those things, I doubt we would see humans living in the Arctic. Geese can't go out and kill and animal and make a coat to stay warm. Mutations do occur under all conditions. Just very few of them and few of them are advantageous. It only stands to reason, more mutations mean more chance evolve. Under stable conditions, mutations are limited by cellular processes. Evolution as a result moves very slowly and so is slow to the point that it might seem non-existent. Under times of prolonged stress, the mutation rate is allowed to increase due to the control of cellular process. This in turn will speed up evolution.

There are examples of humans who live in the Kalahari desert, or hunter gathering tribes in New Guinea who exist at pre-historic technology levels. Absent of technology. Yet they're still the same species as Europeans. Just like there are examples of other creatures which although geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years, even 100,000 years as in Australia or America from Africa and Eurasia were speceization did not occur.

I think technology is irrelivent. It would just change the environment more.

In general, to go back to Darwin is to ignore 100+ years of science. Darwin knew essentially nothing about the mechanism as he didn't even know what DNA is.

I'm not saying Evolution theory stopped with Darwin. I'm saying modern evolutionary theory does not require cataclysmic events to spark mutation. Rather mutation occurs at a regular intervals based upon errors in DNA transcriptions.

Ah this is nice. Pasteur's Law then would apply to the "certain conditions" under which he performed his experiment. Nobody is claiming that life started in a flask containing sterilized broth on Pasteur's lab bench. These would be the "certain conditions" under which Pasteur's law is true. Not in the primordial Earth, much less a different planet.

Only the law of Biogenesis isn't that Life won't occur spontaneously in a test tube. The law of biogenesis is why we sterilize instruments in medicine, chemistry, and many other industries. It says.. "All Life comes from Life".

As I said, I was unsure, but I think you misunderstand. There are genes on the X chromosome that are not on the Y. Therefore if you are XY, you only have one copy of the genes that are on the X. Anyway, XXY individuals are clearly against Mendel's Laws. These individuals are not uncommon. For the origin of life, we would only need for Pasteur's Law to be broken once, and not even that as I pointed out above Pasteur's Law really has no real relevance on the origin of life because obviously life could not have originated on Pasteur's lab bench.

Ok so you're eyeballing it and trying to think of cases which would break these scientific laws. That's fair enough. But don't you think the Internet would have an example if these laws had in fact been broken?

In general though, Mendel's Law points to the difference between Biology on one extreme and Math on the other with Chemistry and Physics in the middle. Biological "Laws" tend to "hold true in most cases" and are not very often absolutes. Mathematical principles tend to be absolutes if properly defined. To pretend they are the same is just silly.

Silly? That mathematics. physics, chemistry, biology, all use scientific method to explain observation and quantify knowledge into categories of known and unknown. It's not silly, it's science.

Well, they certainly could have strated w/ simple organic molecules and from them produced more complex organic molecues, and from them created a virus. But I see no reason from this to conclude Pasteur's Law has been violated and therefore that viruses are not alive. As stated above, these conditions do not match Pasteur's conditions, and even if they did, how do we know this is not an acceptable violation of Pasteur's Law, just as Mendel's laws are violated.

if they started with another Virus, or another living organism; then they didn't create life. If they started with elements or chemicals then perhaps they did. Are you familiar enough with the experiment to know which they did?

[dfitzo53]

There are examples of humans who live in the Kalahari desert, or hunter gathering tribes in New Guinea who exist at pre-historic technology levels. Absent of technology.

The level of technology sufficient to reduce selective pressure on humans is pretty low. All humans share the ability to learn quickly and think creatively. In terms of surviving in a hostile environment, it takes very little technology to hunt/fish effectively using spears, bows or nets. Even low-level farming is done without any metal tools whatsoever.

In terms of adapting to temperature extremes, that's a matter of clothing and use of fire.

Yet they're still the same species as Europeans. Just like there are examples of other creatures which although geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years, even 100,000 years as in Australia or America from Africa and Eurasia were speceization did not occur.

Humans have been in Australia for about 40,000 years, not 100,000. The length of time that humans have been in the Americas may be less than 20,000 years. Probably less than 25,000 and almost certainly less than 35,000.

[JMS]

The level of technology sufficient to reduce selective pressure on humans is pretty low. All humans share the ability to learn quickly and think creatively. In terms of surviving in a hostile environment, it takes very little technology to hunt/fish effectively using spears, bows or nets. Even low-level farming is done without any metal tools whatsoever.

death is not the only limiting factor in natural selection.

Humans have been in Australia for about 40,000 years, not 100,000. The length of time that humans have been in the Americas may be less than 20,000 years. Probably less than 25,000 and almost certainly less than 35,000.

First modern humans came out of africa what 100,000 or more years ago. I'm saying that those who settled in China, Africa, Europe, Australia and America could have been geographically isolated for 100,000 years from some of their fellow humans. In all that time no new species developed across all the different echologies they settled. There is more to speciazation than just settling in a different nich or being geographically isolated. You could make the same case with animals on the 6 continents which likewise did not diverge into different species.

Hell you could check out the foscil record and note that when two species do separate, they sometimes share the same geographic space.

Humans came to America by land bridge from Siberia right? The land bridge to Siberia occured during the Pleistocene Epoch. That was 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago. Do we know for sure humans came across that bridge 20,000 years ago?

[techboy]

Do you honestly believe that all the history we've been taught is completely, 100% true? Especially history that is over 2000 years old? You've got to be able to try and parse through what is fact and what is legend. Generally, we do know that the winner writes history (Christianity has definitely won a number of times) and that history becomes increasingly less reliable as time passes and entire cultures are forced to intepret the words of others for information. Hell, the fact that the Bible wasn't really compiled until 300-ish years after Jesus died tends to do a lot of damage to its believability as a historical text.

I'm not surprised at your position, if you're actually treating the Bible as text compiled 300 years after the fact. You are, of course, totally wrong.

The issue of how and why the Bible was composed is secondary to this discussion, so I'll leave it aside for now, and just point out that when the Bible was compiled is completely irrelevant to this discussion. For all it matters to this particular discussion, I could have put it together last week in my basement and sent it out via web publishing.

What is relevant is the dating of the individual source documents that make up the Bible. Remember, we're not talking about theology here, we're talking about history, so let's treat these documents as any historian would (and does).

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? by Jimmy Williams is a good, basic place to start (if you want more scholarly, we can do that, too ). Check the chart on that page. The letters of Paul are dated to within 20 years of the Ressurection. Mark, the first Gospel, is dated less than 50 years from the Ressurection. All of the Gospels are dated less than 80 years from the events in question. Note that these are very conservative dates. There's good reason, for instance, to argue that all the Gospels can be dated to before 70 A.D., and I'll address specific parts of Mark and Paul that are very early (within 10 years).

By the way, it's also interesting to check the chart to compare the documents of the New Testament to other writings of antiquity. The New Testament documents are by far earlier, better attested, and better sourced than any other contemporary work. It's not even close. A final note is that even accepting these rather conservative (as in not controversial, rather than orthodox/political) dates, all of the documents of the New Testament far predate the organized Constantine style Church, and we have many manuscripts which also predate that era, so the argument that "history is written by the winners" or that the documents might have been altered falls. We'd know. There are, in fact, a couple of cases where an overzealous copyist has tried to insert something, and we know about it precisely because of the wealth of manuscript evidence. The Johanine comma is one example of this.

Let's, though, look a little closer at a few of the documents I'm talking about. Let's start with Luke. This quote is from The Evidence for Jesus by Dr. William Lane Craig:

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. {5}Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."{6} The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."{7} Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

I actually have Hemer's book. It's quite thorough and detailed (mind-numbingly so ), and the conclusions are impressive.

Let's turn to Mark. From Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by William Lane Craig Nelson (hi Jumbo ):

(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

( The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.

7 years. Not 300+.

Historians (Christian and Skeptic alike) though, especially like the letters of Paul. These are primary source documents, the likes of which historians from other subject areas only dream of having.

From the same article:

Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

So, though Paul's letters are maybe 20 years after the Ressurection, they contain information which is less than 5 years after the event. Not 300+.

I'll close this part with a quote from the Jimmy Williams article:

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{8}

Nothing wrong with a dash of appeal to authority, right?

Anyway... Jesus existing and being a religious figurehead of sorts during his time? I'll opt to believe that as fact. Walking on water and essentially being the first widely-accepted zombie? I credit that more to myth.

I'll grant that the evidence for walking on water is not all that great. I choose to accept it because once one accepts the Ressurection, it doesn't seem so far-fetched.

With regards to the Ressurection, though, the myth theory doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.

First, there is not enough time between the events and the writing of the New Testament documents for legendary development. From the "Contemporary Scholarship" article I cited earlier:

For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's.

Further, even the most critical (i.e. secular, i.e. non-Christian) scholarship is these days concluding that the Disciples believed they encountered the Risen Jesus. The only thing really left in doubt would be why they thought so.

Please refer to Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Dr. Gary Habermas.

Excerpts of note:

From considerations such as the research areas above, perhaps the single most crucial development in recent thought has emerged. With few exceptions, the fact that after Jesus’ death his followers had experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus is arguably one of the two or three most recognized events from the four Gospels, along with Jesus’ central proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his death by crucifixion. Few critical scholars reject the notion that, after Jesus’ death, the early Christians had real experiences of some sort.

An overview of contemporary scholarship indicates that Fuller’s conclusions are well-supported. E.P. Sanders initiates his discussion in The Historical Figure of Jesus by outlining the broad parameters of recent research. Beginning with a list of the historical data that critics know, he includes a number of “equally secure facts” that “are almost beyond dispute.” One of these is that, after Jesus’ death, “his disciples . . . saw him.”[83] In an epilogue, Sanders reaffirms, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”[84]

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

The Disciples and early Christians really believed they had encountered the Ressurected Jesus, so it couldn't have been a myth (since they would have been the myth makers).

Anyway, I've only touched very briefly (and peripherally) on some of the evidence for the Ressurection of Jesus. For more, I'd recommend reading the two Craig articles I linked for starters. If anyone wants, I can point him or her to more as well. I'll even, upon request via PM, mail out a book which does a pretty good job of covering the evidence on a basic, easy to read level. No one's ever taken me up on this, but I'm serious, it's free, and I promise not to give your address to missionaries or even mention it again unless you want me to.

[dfitzo53]

death is not the only limiting factor in natural selection.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Many of the technological innovations that allow humans to survive also allow them to successfully reproduce.

Humans came to America by land bridge from Siberia right? The land bridge to Siberia occured during the Pleistocene Epoch. That was 1.8 million to 10,000 years ago. Do we know for sure humans came across that bridge 20,000 years ago?

Even between 1.8mya and 10,000 years ago, there were times when the land bridge over the Bering Strait was not passable.

The traditional wisdom has been that the Clovis culture (a name given the culture by anthropologists, not their name for themselves) represents the first humans in the New World. That particular technological assemblage (in other words, the style of tools made by people of that culture) is dated to around 11,000-13,000 years ago. However, as we do more excavations, archaeologists are finding sites which may be as old as about 20,000 years.

There is very little support for the view that humans entered the Americas before about 20-25,000 years ago, although some people are looking for it.

[monkforhall]

No need for you to personally apologize. There was actually one time where a christian came up to me and showed humility and we ended having almost a three hour discussion (without snarling at each other) and even met a few times later to continue talking. It was a positive experience for me, and I learned a lot even though I wasn't converted and neither was he but I think we came away with something useful. That's not true of most of my experiences. For instance, when I go to the movie theater, I don't want the ticket taker prodding me about my religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

Now, there's no way to broach the "hell" issue without coming off as holier than thou. This is eternal damnation we're talking about, eternal suffering, and I just can't imagine a god who would doom its creation to hell simply for not worshipping it. That seems, to me, beyond reprehensible. I can understand sending certain people to hell, say, Hitler, or Dahmer, or Phelps or Pol Pot or McVeigh. I can't accept any god who would send, or would allow, your average person to go to hell because, though "sinners" they may be and surely we all are, are generally decent and suffer enough during life that to add the prospect of an infinite existence of misery beyond comprehension simply because of the creator's bruised vanity seems really evil. If he did indeed create man in his image then man is simply acting as he was made and it's god's fault that man is fallen, not man's. If anyone should be sent to hell it is god for making such a crappy universe and such crappy people. If he wants to see us murdered, and drowned, and burning in a lake of fire for all time because we don't get on our knees and worship night and day I think that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard and anyone who supports a god that vicious and petty comes across to me, sorry, as holier than thou.

I just don't think it's right. And if god were to drop on me some knowledge explaining why his position is right and just then I might change my mind. Until that time, I think it's horrible the thought that the one who created me thinks so little of me as to allow me to endure such unfathomable tortures because I refused to accept his book of wholly unbelievable stories as literal truth and refused to wait hand and foot for some savior to come back and judge me for my actions. When I die, I just want to die, leave me alone and let me rest and rot. Anything else is unbearable.

You just pointed out my one and only reason not to believe in any organized religoun. God cannot be that incredibly evil.

[PeterMP]

I'm not saying Evolution theory stopped with Darwin. I'm saying modern evolutionary theory does not require cataclysmic events to spark mutation. Rather mutation occurs at a regular intervals based upon errors in DNA transcriptions.

It is DNA replication not transcription WE are both talking about. DNA mutations do not require a catalysmic event as I stated. They always occur at some small rate, but there are more when stress is induced. Stress can be induced w/o a catalymic event (e.g. no catalysmic event is responsible for resident geese). This will increase the rate of evolution.

Only the law of Biogenesis isn't that Life won't occur spontaneously in a test tube. The law of biogenesis is why we sterilize instruments in medicine, chemistry, and many other industries. It says.. "All Life comes from Life".

Which is directly based on Pasteur's experiments and YOUR definition of LAW stated "certain conditions". In this case, those conditions are the conidtions under which Pasteur conducted his experiment. I will stipulate that Pasteur's law applies to many conditions, but there is no reason to think it applies to all possible conditions.

Ok so you're eyeballing it and trying to think of cases which would break these scientific laws. That's fair enough. But don't you think the Internet would have an example if these laws had in fact been broken?

I am telling you Mendel's laws are broken. XXY is one examle. XXY means that you got two copies of one chromosome (and therefore all of the genes on that chromsome) from one person. This is clearly in violation of Mendel's law.

Silly? That mathematics. physics, chemistry, biology, all use scientific method to explain observation and quantify knowledge into categories of known and unknown. It's not silly, it's science.

Considering our state of understanding of algebra, which is who knows how many years old w/ our understanding of DNA, which we really haven't known about for more than 60 years equivalent is silly.

if they started with another Virus, or another living organism; then they didn't create life. If they started with elements or chemicals then perhaps they did. Are you familiar enough with the experiment to know which they did?

They bought nucleic acids from a company that almost certainly produced it chemically from more simple molecules. Synthesizing DNA and RNA from more simple molecules is very easy and commonly done.

I've noted that you still have not addressed one of my questions. If Pasteur's law is universal, then where did life come from? Either life comes only from life or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

[PeterMP]

First modern humans came out of africa what 100,000 or more years ago. I'm saying that those who settled in China, Africa, Europe, Australia and America could have been geographically isolated for 100,000 years from some of their fellow humans. In all that time no new species developed across all the different echologies they settled. There is more to speciazation than just settling in a different nich or being geographically isolated. You could make the same case with animals on the 6 continents which likewise did not diverge into different species.

JMS, I'm not sure who you are arguing /w here besides yourself. Nobody said that evolution was related only to geographical isolation. It clearly helps, but for one, I've repeatedly talked about selective pressure. Moving an organism from one enviroment that is realtively similar to another isn't going to cause enough pressure to result in a speciation event.

Take my Canadian Geese example. At least, two things are happening there. Resident Canadain Geese have to be able to survive colder winters that is pressure, and at the same time, they have had the pressure of being able to migrate removed. This combination is likely to result in an enhanced mutational rate that is not as lethal because there has been a reduction in some selective pressures (being able to migrate). Now clearly, it would be better if they were isolated because that would prevent cross breeding, and eliminate one of my caveats, but that is all isolation really does. W/o changes in selective pressure evolution is going to move very SLOWLY as I've stated.

[PeterMP]

JMS I was looking at one of you earlies post you said:

"I did not say that environmental stress can not cause DNA mutation, especially in a laboratory. I said, environmental stress is not the cause for genetic mutation with respect to evolution."

What are you trying to say here? Do you think there is a difference between genetic mutation and DNA mutation? Why would environmental stress in a laboratry cause DNA mutations and not in the natural environment? Have you ever heard of cancer?

Did you watch Erin Brockovich (the movie w/ Julia Roberts)?