A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
creatures instead of more complex ones.. …

That would not be a credible alternative hypothesis for at least one very good reason;
All the oldest fossils are only those of microbes and, by seeing how living things evolved by looking at the ages of fossils and what kind ...[text shortened]... for that reason.

-you don’t need any computer program to debunk this alternative hypothesis![/b]

I have to say so what? We have complex life forms now, some more
complex than others now, it does not mean automatically one came
from the other so why does it automatically mean that if you date
one older than another it had to come first as in an ancestor. Why
couldn't they just be older fossils and not related any more than the
simpler life forms today are not ancestors of those more complex life
forms we see today? That would keep complexity decreasing over time
instead of it ever increasing which makes more sense in my
estimation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have to say so what? We have complex life forms now, some more
complex than others now, it does not mean automatically one came
from the other so why does it automatically mean that if you date
one older than another it had to come first as in an ancestor. Why
couldn't they just be older fossils and not related any more than the
simpler life forms to ...[text shortened]... asing over time
instead of it ever increasing which makes more sense in my
estimation.
Kelly

Where do you get the basis for your 'estimation'? One thing evolutionists have shown is that it is not all automatically from less complex to more complex, evolution can go the other way too. All it takes is for a mutation to come about that does not kill but renders the lifeform less able to deal with other environs, like salamanders evolving into blind forms from previously sighted ones because their new environment is deep in dark caves and the cost of eyes outweighs the usefulness of them which, in a dark environment, is not too great. Who told you evolution was strictly from less to more complex? It goes both ways, always has and always will. When you roll the dice, just because you got a 6 on one roll doesn't mean you will get an 8 on the next roll. Same with evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have to say so what? We have complex life forms now, some more
complex than others now, it does not mean automatically one came
from the other so why does it automatically mean that if you date
one older than another it had to come first as in an ancestor. Why
couldn't they just be older fossils and not related any more than the
simpler life forms to ...[text shortened]... asing over time
instead of it ever increasing which makes more sense in my
estimation.
Kelly

…...I have to say so what? We have complex life forms now, some more
complex than others now, it does not mean automatically one came
from the other so why does it automatically mean that if you date
one older than another it had to come first as in an ancestor..…

If you except the fact that, with the exception of the very first life form to exist, all life forms evolved from other life forms, then if the fossil evidence says that some of the younger fossils are of more complex life forms that don’t exist in any of the older fossils then it must logically follow that they are fossils of life forms that could have only evolved from one or more of the older simpler life forms.

Note I actually don’t totally rule out the possibility that more than one single-celled life form spontaneously formed first but somehow I think that is unlikely -but either way it would make no difference to the theory of evolution.

Note also that, as sonhouse basically said, the theory of evolution does not say when a life form evolves it MUST become more complex! It is only considered to be generally true that more complex life forms evolved from simpler ones purely because that is what the fossil evidence says. But, not surprisingly because there is no special reason why it shouldn’t go the other way, there is evidence that on occasions it sometimes it can go the other way; -an example of this is with the evolution of the snake which evolved from lizards with legs -the loss of the legs could be regarded as a “simplification” of a life form due to evolution thus you could argue that, in this case, a “simpler” life form evolved from a more “complex” one!

…Why couldn't they just be older fossils and not related any more than the
simpler life forms today are not ancestors of those more complex life
forms we see today? …

Because if that was true then it would beg the question;
-if they didn’t evolve from those earlier simpler life forms then which life forms did they evolve from? -unless, of course, you are simply suggesting they didn’t evolve? -in which case I would just point out that there is a mountain of evidence that shows evolution does occur and I would also point out that evolution is the ONLY explanation of where those more complex life forms came from that is backed up by credible evidence.

…That would keep complexity decreasing over time
instead of it ever increasing which makes more sense in my
estimation. …

How can that make more sense when the oldest fossils are only of simpler life forms?
-the simplest hypothesis is that the later more complex life forms evolved from the earlier simpler ones because that would mean that evolution would explain where all of those more complex life forms came from.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to say that we can through no design get a program to
do those things we are crediting evolution with, than the programmers
would have had to let the program write itself first.

Why do you think that? Nobody is claiming that the process of evolution evolved.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All life started at once complete and started evolving into lesser
creatures instead of more complex ones.

How does that explain the evidence? The fossil record shows a clear pattern of less complex life forms in older fossils.

Originally posted by KellyJay
2. Is the evidence for it significant enough that the Theory of Evolution is a reasonable explanation for the observed evidence?

name some evidence
Kelly

You are well aware of the abundant evidence, and each item of evidence could be discussed in detail. That was not my point.
My point is that if the evidence exists and is agreed upon, then my point 2. is an important consideration that is based on logic and should not be compared to judging the outcome of a McCain and Obama debate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are well aware of the abundant evidence, and each item of evidence could be discussed in detail. That was not my point.
My point is that [b]if the evidence exists and is agreed upon, then my point 2. is an important consideration that is based on logic and should not be compared to judging the outcome of a McCain and Obama debate.[/b]

http://www.talkorigins.org/

If KelleyJay wants evidence of evolution, most of it is listed at the above website. Especially here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you think that? Nobody is claiming that the process of evolution evolved.

"The most popular criticism of the Theory of Evolution is that the mechanism cannot give rise to complex results. That is easily debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program."

You said this! I said you cannot prove evolution by using a program
that demonstrates evolution, because the program will do what you
program into it, because of that getting a program to do what you
want and saying this shows it can happen is a joke and is not proof.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
How does that explain the evidence? The fossil record shows a clear pattern of less complex life forms in older fossils.

No, fossils show other life forms, you are the one that is claiming
they are part of a chain ancestors that all or our modern life comes
from . They could just simply be just other life forms as well and not
the ancestors you claim, it isn't that clear except to true believers.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The most popular criticism of the Theory of Evolution is that the mechanism cannot give rise to complex results. That is easily debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program."

You said this! I said you cannot prove evolution by using a program
that demonstrates evolution, because the program will do wha ...[text shortened]... am to do what you
want and saying this shows it can happen is a joke and is not proof.
Kelly

I have done several computer courses at university and I can claim to have some expertise in computer programming and I can say what you keep on saying here is quite absurd -and I think what you keep on saying here may be a bit absurd even for the layperson that has no expertise in the subject!
-obviously the outcome of the simulation is NOT programmed into the iterative computer algorithm used to run the simulation! -else that would obviously make the simulation pointless -yes? (-and I have some specialist knowledge in iterative computer algorithms in particular so I can speak with some authority here).

So your suggestion that these programs are made to “do what you want” is clearly nonsense -non of the programs that is used for these simulations wouldn’t state within them nor imply what the outcome of the simulations should be and they are simply run in an iterative fashion until whatever outcomes result to then be observed.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I have done several computer courses at university and I can claim to have some expertise in computer programming and I can say what you keep on saying here is quite absurd -and I think what you keep on saying here may be a bit absurd even for the layperson that has no expertise in the subject!
-obviously the outcome of the simulation is NOT program ...[text shortened]... they are simply run in an iterative fashion until whatever outcomes result to then be observed.

Here is what you are doing; you are putting into a program the ability
to evolve and you watch it happen, and it is now suppose to be proof
life evolved. If you do not see the flaw there, you must be ready to
drink the Kool-Aid by now.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The most popular criticism of the Theory of Evolution is that the mechanism cannot give rise to complex results. That is easily debunked (and has been numerous times) by demonstrating to the contrary with a computer program."

You said this! I said you cannot prove evolution by using a program
that demonstrates evolution, because the program will do wha ...[text shortened]... am to do what you
want and saying this shows it can happen is a joke and is not proof.
Kelly

All this means is you misunderstand advanced programming AND evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here is what you are doing; you are putting into a program the ability
to evolve and you watch it happen, and it is now suppose to be proof
life evolved. If you do not see the flaw there, you must be ready to
drink the Kool-Aid by now.
Kelly

…Here is what you are doing; you are putting into a program the ability
to evolve and you watch it happen,…

So? That “ability” to show evolution is not specified in the algorithm but is merely the outcome of running the algorithm. No where in the program does it say nor imply “show evolution”.

…and it is now suppose to be proof life evolved.. . .…

What it “proves” is that, given certain conditions as specified by the algorithm, life should evolve.

… If you do not see the flaw there. …

So please insult our intelligence and explain to all of us the “flaw” you see here which apparently only you see and nobody else sees including the greatest scientific minds in the world.

Tell me, what is the extent of your expertise in computer algorithms?
Can you explain to us basically what an iterative algorithm is and why must it be iterative to perform simulations?

Originally posted by sonhouse
All this means is you misunderstand advanced programming AND evolution.

Junk in junk out, you program a program to do something, it does it
and you claim you have your proof, outstanding.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Here is what you are doing; you are putting into a program the ability
to evolve and you watch it happen,…

So? That “ability” to show evolution is not specified in the algorithm but is merely the outcome of running the algorithm. No where in the program does it say nor imply “show evolution”.

…and it is now suppose to be proof life ...[text shortened]... us basically what an iterative algorithm is and why must it be iterative to perform simulations?

Yes my point, you apply your algorithm which gives the software its
instructions, and go wow look evidence for evolution. You are walking
around in circles here.
Kelly