1. Comment #52957 by aoratos philos on June 28, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Many thanks Richard and Josh for these great videos.

Looks like you all had a good time :D

Other Comments by aoratos philos

2. Comment #52976 by Veronique on June 28, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Speciation is something I have been interested in since I read Quammen's book The Song of the Dodo several years ago.

The Wallace line is between the mainland and an island that hasn't got a deep channel of water and the speciation that occurs on islands within a continental shelf is so different from speciation on islands separated by deep channels of water.

And you ar right aoratos I reckon they all had a good time! I wish I had been with them:-) I would love to go to the Galapagos Islands. Ah well....

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

3. Comment #52981 by Zaphod on June 28, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Yes, these videos from Galapagos trip are great. Keep them coming.

Other Comments by Zaphod

4. Comment #52990 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm

I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent. I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited adaptation can be extrapolated to imply large scale evolutionary development. Sure, we can muddy the waters and call it all "evolution", but any intellectually honest and scientifically inclined individual understands that the "evolutionary" processes we observe today and what scientists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

We can also bring time into it; massive amounts of time, millions and billions of years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem. We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations. There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed fossils that most evolutionary paleantologists are constantly arguing over. And as I've said before, it is only rational to believe what is most reasonable based on our experiences. Keep in mind that reason simply assimilates experiences to form logical conclusions and make sense of them. It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Of course, I'm sure it was a spectacular trip. Being an avid birdwatcher (that's how I became interested in biology; I know, I'm a major geek), the Galapagos islands is on my list of places to visit before I die.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

5. Comment #52992 by CDG on June 29, 2007 at 12:27 am

Most of us revere RD for many reasons. And with that reverance comes a high expectation. We expect him to carry alot of water. Politically astute. Scientifically sound. Best Selling Author. Superior communicator. Original thoughts.

But he continually proves himself a teacher first and foremost. I appreciate all of the current advocates that have emerged. Harris and Hitchens of late. But RD is the best and truest educator. I just read the Blind Watchmaker and after I finished I read one of the endorsements on the front cover which read "Every page rings of truth." Which I feel sums up RD quite efficiently. Everything he does and says rings of truth. Even when he doesn't know the answer there is a sense of humility that is delivered in a perfect dose. So, we have an educator of the highest level who reveres his responsibility as the search for truth.

Richard Dawkins is a great teacher.

Other Comments by CDG

6. Comment #52993 by BMMcArdle on June 29, 2007 at 12:28 am

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown
[Creation science is] an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world's foremost biologists, paleontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops. ~Ron Peterson
Speaking of time, 6000 compared to 4,600,000,000 is the same as 1 inch compared to 12 MILES!

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

7. Comment #53029 by decius on June 29, 2007 at 3:27 am

Thanks Bizarro, for delighting us again with a fresh string of logical fallacies. I shall indulge in high-lighting just a few of them, if you don't mind.

You say:

"I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent [argument from personal incredulity] . I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited adaptation can be extrapolated to imply large scale evolutionary development [argument from personal incredulity]. Sure, we can muddy the waters and call it all "evolution" [non sequitur], but any intellectually honest and scientifically inclined individual understands [appeal to flattery] that the "evolutionary" processes we observe today and what scientists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals[non sequitur].

We can also bring time into it; massive amounts of time, millions and billions of years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem[argument from personal incredulity]. We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations [ambiguity]. There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred [ignoring the evidence], save for a handful of disputed fossils that most evolutionary paleantologists are constantly arguing over [ignoring the evidence and argument from prior error]. And as I've said before, it is only rational to believe what is most reasonable based on our experiences [appeal to flattery and appeal to personal experience]. Keep in mind that reason simply assimilates experiences to form logical conclusions and make sense of them. It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence [denying the consequence].

Of course, I'm sure it was a spectacular trip. Being an avid birdwatcher (that's how I became interested in biology [ probably you meant "subverting biology"]; I know, I'm a major geek), the Galapagos islands is on my list of places to visit before I die.

Please, give us more, you are most entertaining.

Other Comments by decius

8. Comment #53060 by Galactor on June 29, 2007 at 6:57 am

Hallo everyone, my first but hopefully not last post. I thought I would begin by answering post #52990 (from our friend at Liberty) in its own graven image, so to speak.

My observations are in brackets.

I am surprised that the bible in the world at large (for educated people in particular) is still so revered by religious apologists as evidence for a supernatural creator. I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited nonsense can be extrapolated to imply any presence of a supernatural creator at any scale at all. Sure, we can muddy the waters and call it "faith", but any dimwitted and religiously inclined individual understands that the "supernatural" processes we observe today and what religious apologists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

We can also bring time into it; limited amounts of time, say 6500 years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem. We don't observe supernatural processes altering anything whatsoever in our universe. There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed scrolls that most religious nutters are constantly arguing over. And as I've said before, it is only irrational to believe what is most unreasonable based upon our experiences. Keep in mind that a lack of reasoning simply assimilates experiences to form illogical conclusions and make no sense of them. [I shall, indeed, keep this nugget of wisdom in mind]. It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence. [Note that this sentence is verbatim; if only those of faith who venture into the realm of scientific reasoning could invertedly apply such an observation. Sigh.]

Of course, I'm sure it was a spectacular trip. Being a student at Liberty, erm, that is to say, aah, oh go on then: "University" (that's how I became interested in perverting evolutionary biology), the Galapagos islands are on my list of places to visit before I die. [how nice; this adds such credence to those erudite and thought-provoking arguments that has convinced me, Galactor, that the only explanation for our being is that which is held to be the one truth namely the god Zeus who must have come up with it all ]

Other Comments by Galactor

9. Comment #53101 by BillySands on June 29, 2007 at 10:53 am

Bizzarro,
Try actually reading about evolution. Go read about the alx-4 gene in dogs, read about dupication of opsin genes and subsequent mutation for just one of many examples of increased information as you call it. Read up about radiation in lake malawi and lake victoria cichlids. the piss all over darwin's finches (which are still good examples.
Lack of intermediates? are you taking the piss? Also arguements generally revolve around whether a fossil is nore like A OR B. Not whether it is an intermediate or not, Statements like yours are typical of those who misrepresent evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html for a tiny fraction of intermediates

Other Comments by BillySands

10. Comment #53108 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

galactor, nice post, with your name galactor, should your revered god not be the Great Sosai X????

Other Comments by phasmagigas

11. Comment #53109 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm

you know how fossils are here to test the faith, well creationists were put on earth to test ones patience. Actually i had this idea that maybe god put non believers on earth also to test the faith (via arguments and general disbelief), and we being ultimate 'martyrs' to the cause (because of the scorn we suffer) will actually get greater rewards after death.
we are allowed to be silly sometimes yes??

Other Comments by phasmagigas

12. Comment #53110 by steve99 on June 29, 2007 at 12:50 pm

We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations.

I am amazed that this argument continues. We do see precisely that, and we see it often. We not only get individual gene duplication as been mentioned, but we see polyploidy - the multiplication of entire genomes. This then allows some copies of genes to mutate without the loss of the original function.

A significant number of food crops are polyploid. I find it somewhat ironic that those who deny that information can be added by mutation probably see and eat the results of that daily.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #53112 by Galactor on June 29, 2007 at 1:02 pm

phasmagigas: I suppose I should really worship the god Galacticos but I'm not really good at gods.

What gets me praying on my mat is statements like

"It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence"

coming from someone who seemingly does just that - believing without evidence - whilst attempting to pervert the arguments of evolution.

Other Comments by Galactor

14. Comment #53114 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm

galactor, sorry, I was under the impression that maybe you were a fan of the early 1970's japanese anime 'gatchaman' (better known as 'battle of the planets' in the west). Galactor (which is japanese for 'waste' i think, were the baddies!) and they had a god called sosai/leader X.

anyway i digress off topic........

on topic, yes, the sentence you point out there is magnificent as an example of just how blind the religious mind can be.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

15. Comment #53116 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:12 pm

stevee 99:

quote 'I am amazed that this argument continues' unquote.

seems that the religious mind also suffers from the inability to shake of ill conceived arguments once they are planted.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

16. Comment #53117 by ricey on June 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Reassuring to note that Darwin was as disorganised as I am. There is hope for us all!

This was a well presented and critical appraisal of RD's personal hero by RD. Perhaps a biography is on the cards?

Also reassuring to note that during this series of presentations RD suffered from "middle-aged man dress code syndrome", Although a fellow sufferer, even I was taken aback by the shorts ... or rather, the legs, "like something you'd see hanging out of a nest" - as they say in this part of Ireland.

The green tropical shirt for the final "piece to camara" was the most sober in the series. In fact, I want one ...

(Sorry, I don't get much deeper than that after two 14 hr day shifts.)

Other Comments by ricey

17. Comment #53118 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:21 pm

RD has always had a distinct dress sense, look at the RI xmas lectures (although he did pick the leafy one to disguise the stick insect yes??), anyway, what we mustnt do is let evolution opponents get wind that his clothes are seen as a bit 'liberal' as soon that will be one of the main ad hominem arguments against evolution: 'we know evolution didnt happen because that man dawkins wears those terrible shirts.'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

18. Comment #53124 by Enlightenme.. on June 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm

^ ad-homs based on sartorial inelegence would be a welcome relief from the current attacks on Hitchens' atakiraqphilia, alkophilia or Trotskyapostacy

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

19. Comment #53132 by Donald on June 29, 2007 at 3:30 pm

A reasonable post from Bizarro.
So here is a reasonable response.

I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent.

I don't think it is revered as strong evidence. It is celebrated because it was a memorable tipping point that triggered a revolution in human scientific thought.

I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited adaptation can be extrapolated to imply large scale evolutionary development.

Yes, one needs a great deal more evidence to confirm Darwin's speculation. Darwin had more than finches to go on, of course, but he was still going out on a limb. Since Darwin, though, his speculation has been overwhelmingly confirmed by ever-increasing evidence on many fronts, e.g. fossils (some very recent, e.g. tiktaalik - have you read http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php?), by ever-increasing DNA analysis, by evolution of disease microbes and drug resistance, and by better understanding of genetic and molecular processes from computer simulation.

any intellectually honest and scientifically inclined individual understands that the "evolutionary" processes we observe today and what scientists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

True, in the sense that placing a moving a brick onto a garden wall is very different from building a city. Not true, in respect of the principles involved.

We can also bring time into it; massive amounts of time, millions and billions of years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem.

It's only one contribution to solving the problem. Note however, that time alone changes things dramatically. Could you walk 10 miles in a day? I think you could. So you could walk the distance from the west coast to the east coast in a year. You could walk the distance to the sun and back 20 times in a million years. And a billion years is a thousand times longer. Yes, time is definitely part of the solution.

Another part of the solution is that evolution is not linear in time. Complexity grows exponentially, not linearly. Have you seen Kurzweil's talk - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/38? He is talking about how technology has grown over human history. It takes a mental readjustment to really understand the consequences of exponential growth if one has previously been thinking mainly linearly. Another talk about the human genome project - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/80 - makes the same point about the effects of exponential growth on accumulation of knowledge about DNA sequences.

Now, Kurzweil and Enriquez were talking about human acquisition of knowledge. However evolutionary biologists understand that the same character of exponential growth applies to biological evolution too. At all stages of DNA evolution, the process includes copying chunks of DNA by accidental duplication and modification. In the beginning the chunks were tiny, and modification could only operate on small pieces or individual bases. Later, the chunks were large, and modification could be about rearranging DNA fragments, rather than about changing bases, one by one. For much of the evolution of living things, it would be more appropriate to think of in terms of a "doubling time" for complexity, rather than a time for "adding each gene".

This switch from linear estimating to exponential estimating makes even MORE difference than the expansion of time scale from thousands to millions to billions.

We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations.

I'll let BillySands deal with that one. But I'll throw in my twopennyworth. First, time. Don't expect too much from observations from one decade compared to millions of years. Second, there is another aspect of DNA evolution to mention. It follows on from my comments about exponential growth rather than linear growth. Most of the evolution today operates on the higher level of rearranging existing chunks rather than painstakingly constructing new genes. Mutations are still occurring, and new genes can still gradually get constructed, but the reason for the spectacular explosion in the Post-Cambrian (Phanerazoic) era is that evolution has been operating on rearranging and adjusting the genes for basic body parts evolved earlier, rather than constructing genes and gene sequences one by one. (In this vein, don't forget that you (and me) get 70% of our genes from plants!!)

There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed fossils that most evolutionary paleontologists are constantly arguing over.

Erm... Could I politely suggest that you should rephrase that to "I [bizarro] am not yet aware of the evidence scientists have discovered..."

It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Agreed. But you are grossly underestimating the scale and weight of the evidence that scientists have accumulated for the evolution of modern life from simple prokaryotes. It enables today's well-informed scientists indeed to "clearly infer evolution from the evidence".



Other Comments by Donald

20. Comment #53144 by Martha on June 29, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I get the impression, from these fascinating Galapagos Islands lectures, that Richard Dawkins is at pains to explain what SOME of us humans (I'm a woman and a mother - probably therefore a "deadlier species than the male") INTUITIVELY know, but don't have to analyse it to the death, as it were. I admire his attempts to explain "it all" to the rest of us but one either "knows" whats going on, or one doesn't. Intuition is the key to survival.

Other Comments by Martha

21. Comment #53178 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 2:02 am

Can I just make an observation about the difference between good science (and I include Dr Dawkins here) and bad science. Good science seeks to disprove a theory, not to prove it (Sir Karl Popper), as scientific theories are not verifiable. Dr Dawkins would be wasting his time looking for evidence in support of his theory. Instead, he should focus on what might not fit, and try to explain that.

In terms of evolution, I remain to be convinced that it is random mutation that leads to a change in genetic code.

The correct response to that statement shouldn't be an emotional one (people so easily get angered on these threads) or to re-gurgitate something someone else has told you. What evidence might there be that evolution could be the result of something else? Don't look for proof, look for alternatives. The more alternatives we can rule out, the more likely it becomes that evolution is the result of random mutations of genes.

I really do think that evolution is not just the result of random mutations. What do you think (please, do think)?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

22. Comment #53190 by seals on June 30, 2007 at 3:06 am

Re: Comment 4. #52990 Alarmingly, as apparently 99% of species that ever existed are already extinct - dinosaurs, mastodons, mammoths, sabre toothed cats etc, we're down to 1% already. I hope evolution is continuously taking place as on the evolutionary timescale, Earth will be a lifeless place pretty soon otherwise...

Other Comments by seals

23. Comment #53205 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 5:02 am

Donald
It is also worth mentioning that sex greatly increases the rate of evolution. It allows transfer of beneficial mutations to new individuals that have themselves aquired beneficial mutations. Genes interact, and selection acts on more than one factor at a time. A simple example would be multiple drug resistance. An asexual organism would produce a beneficial mutation in the genepool at a low rate, and doesnot get transferred between members of the species. You would then have some individuals resistant to drug A or B, but not both. Sex allows individuals that spontaneously generate mutatants to A and B to mix their genes. The result is the sexual populatin become multidrug resistant much faster than the asexual population, where individuals need to generate both mutations on their own.

Other Comments by BillySands

24. Comment #53212 by CJ on June 30, 2007 at 6:12 am

re; 4. Comment #52990 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm

It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Sutiabley corrected.

It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive God that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Thanks for the usually giggle BD

Other Comments by CJ

25. Comment #53213 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 6:13 am

Billy ..sex...
Thanks, Billy. Yes, sex is great. By which I mean, of course, that sex is a great way to try out rearrangements of DNA fragments. Most importantly, as you point out, it is not just rearrangements of the DNA within a single individual, but rearrangements of fragments from anywhere in the whole population, given enough generations. It means the entire population is an entity evolving, not just individuals. This greatly increases the rate of evolution as measured by tracking individuals, as you say. Also, biologists have discovered that DNA is transferred by plasmids and viruses throughout the biosphere. So it is actually the whole of earth's living biomass that is evolving, not just each species separately.

PaulEmecz: I really do think that evolution is not just the result of random mutations.

I agree. So does Dawkins, and every other evolutionary biologist.

Evolution is the result of "natural selection". Let me amplify the meaning of natural selection.

Natural selection means that there is a competitive situation. It means that there are fewer places for something than there are things.

It is not exclusively biological. For example:
The earth has heavy stuff (mainly iron) at the centre and light stuff (water and air) as the outer layers. This is the result of natural selection. Gravity drew tiny grains of dust together. There are fewer places at the centre of a ball than there are places in the whole ball. The heavy particles won the natural selection competition, which involved much violent jostling and collisions between particles to convert the initial random, approximately uniform distribution, into the result we see. There was no need for a celestial entity to carefully sort the particles to achieve this extremely improbable distribution (of nearly all the heavy stuff at the centre).

Obvious, you say. Yes, and so is biological natural selection, once you understand it.

The relevant competitive situations have changed over the eons of evolution. One reasonable speculation is that the earliest competitive situations were competitions for binding sites on mineral surfaces, with simple molecules being the competitors and (at the earth surface in particular) a proportion of them being "killed" (I.e. dislodged from their binding site) twice a day due to tides.

Later, the competitive situation would be location near to an energy source. There are fewer places near to sunlight, and near to hot springs, than there are places throughout the whole oceans. Natural selection would favour molecules that first survived the energy flows, and later exploited the energy flow to maintain position near the energy flow.

Then there is a big gap in our knowledge. There is not yet good understanding of how molecular groupings might arrange themselves into a primitive cell, nor how DNA might have come about. [This gap is the easiest into which to insert a belief in "god". But, be warned, this gap is shrinking fast.]

It is still true today that there is insufficient energy source (food) for all the molecular whirlpools (cells) that exist at any one time. Cells die, and only some survive.

In the last few hundred million years, the competition has between different colonies of cells, rather than individual cells. Each colony (read creature) effectively creates a new competitive situation for the other creatures. Each creature is in competition against other creatures for the food. This creates selection pressure, and the more successful creatures survive and the others die.

The ever-changing arenas of competition have led to a ratchet effect in complexity. To be successful, creatures must be as capable as their competitors, and then have an extra advantage. This increases the complexity of the environment (= competitive situation) for others. The result has been ever increasing complexity.



Other Comments by Donald

26. Comment #53218 by TemporaryAura on June 30, 2007 at 6:59 am

BillySands:

I like your new avatar;
"Brevity is the soul of wit", Wm Shake.

Other Comments by TemporaryAura

27. Comment #53224 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 7:24 am

Cheers TemporaryAura
Shame it wasn't a free church of Scotland. Mind you, one day they will be giving them away free :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

28. Comment #53255 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 11:48 am

Donald,

Thank you for the explanation of natural selection - it seems accurate, and I'm happy with that. Incidentally, the gap into which I fit God is not inside this universe, but has more to do with the existence of such a universe as this, and the existence of intelligent life in the universe (the two things together seeming very unlikely, given what we know scientifically).

I was merely interested in one specific issue - as this appeared more of a science thread than a God thread - which was

In terms of evolution, I remain to be convinced that it is random mutation that leads to a change in genetic code.

Put another way, what caused the specific event that led to the reality, in this universe (or any other), of Schrodinger's dead cat?

Isn't 'randomness' as much of a cop-out as 'God' in explanatory terms? Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

29. Comment #53256 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm

PaulEmecz:

Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

If the frequency of certain events can be described by probabilistic laws, chance seems a reasonable description.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

30. Comment #53263 by BillySands on June 30, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Paul,
the events that cause mutation are random - eg, environmental factors like radiation or mutagens. There are also random errors in DNA copying and repair. We often get things like viruses randomly integrating into our genomes, and random errors in the production of eggs and sperm. What selects these mutations are not random. Imagine there is an advantage in being able to detect an extra colour. We could better tell poisonous or ripe fruits for example (this is probably what selected coulour vision in humans, and our opsin genes have been duplicated, and random mutation has produced one that has an altered wavelentgh detection). That gives an advantage as you can spend less time foraging, and dont get poisoned. Conversely, bad mutations are selected against. Imagine a wading bird on a mudflat. If it has a mutation that increases the surface area of its feet, it can forage better and will produce more offspring, and those carrying the mutation will be favoured. Those with a mutation that decreases the area of the foot will be at a disadvantage and will be selected against. Most mutations are bad and are selected against. hope that helps

Other Comments by BillySands

31. Comment #53287 by Donald on June 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Isn't 'randomness' as much of a cop-out as 'God' in explanatory terms?

I don't think it is. The reason is that "god" would have to have such tremendous insights and powers that it would be, as Dawkins says, a very complex entity, even if we postulate "god" might lie outside our universe.

Whereas randomness is simple to create. It can be created by very simple rules. Take a look at http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html for some nice illustrations of how exceedingly simple rules, replicated across enough even-simpler entities, can produce amazingly complex patterns that are essentially random. The patterns are not forseeable by anything of comparable complexity to the rules (because the rules are uterly trivial). Another curious property of some wolfram-type rules is that although a lot of the patterns are effectively random, some higher-level relationships between patterns can emerge which are not random, although they have no simple relationship to the trivial rules in the underlying machine.

Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

Scientists do say "we don't know" where that the initial randomness came from. They also say we don't know where the randomness in quantum mechanics comes from.

But your question contains a subtle implication. It suggests that "chance" and "we don't know" are somehow opposites, or at least multually exclusive. In fact, they are perfectly compatible. We don't know, and it seems to be random, which is perhaps what you mean by "chance".

It might be helpful to understand how scientists and mathematicians define random. A good working definition is that random events are choices unrelated to the phenomenon being considered. That is why it is fair to say that wolfram-type simple rules can produce random effects in the patterns.

Other Comments by Donald

32. Comment #53312 by robotaholic on June 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I appreciate you Richard for being an educator foremost and your ethical stance so much. Thank you. This coming from Central North America lol! I would give anything if I had seen "Growing up in the Universe" when I was a child instead of just recently- me being 32 now. I have developed a love of the diversity of life that I never recieved from religious upbringing-just from listening to you. May you have good 'fortune' or w/e you want to call it in the future and I wish you'd leak what your next book title will be. >:)
love John

Other Comments by robotaholic

33. Comment #53345 by PaulEmecz on June 30, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Ow!

Donald,

I appear to be talking to someone more intelligent, and far better informed, than I am. I'm going to shut up and read some more of Wolfram's book.

Thank you for explaining the bit about God being unnecessarily complex. I'm still going to have to think a great deal about how a universe such as this may have come to exist in the first place, but it is massively important that complexity comes out of simplicity.

Thank you.

Paul Emecz

Other Comments by PaulEmecz

34. Comment #53353 by smash1gordon on June 30, 2007 at 11:45 pm

We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations.

How 'bout those pesky species of flu virus, MRSA, multi-drug resistant TB, etc, etc. Easy enough to see the "novel genetic code."

Other Comments by smash1gordon

35. Comment #53370 by Donald on July 1, 2007 at 4:55 am

Paul,
Thank you for the kind words.
I think you have an excellent attitude - you are willing to listen to other points of view and investigate and learn about new things.
You may wish to reconsider your belief in god at some point.
I hope you aren't blocked from that by emotional influences (remember that love for people can be just the same whether one believes in god or not).
As I remarked in the other thread, humanism is an alternative to religion.
Best,
Donald.

Other Comments by Donald

36. Comment #53392 by mortiz on July 1, 2007 at 8:10 am

Beneficial mutations are far rarer than none-beneficial mutations, but we [b]can[/b] see mutations even in humans which cause an increase in the genome size, certain genetic disorders for instance cause certain chromosomes to be duplicated. Combine these mutations with mutations that re-arrange existing DNA and span it out over millions of years and there you have it.

Other Comments by mortiz

37. Comment #53806 by sane1 on July 3, 2007 at 9:53 am

Bizarro...

Read the Science Times from last Tuesday, which contained numerous azrticles on evolution and genetic changes. You'll realize that you are just plain wrong.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/evolution/index.html

Other Comments by sane1

38. Comment #53901 by Will S on July 4, 2007 at 3:24 am

It seems that Bizarro has not returned to make further comments. Let's hope that he has at least read the replies. Herewith my two penn'oth:

Creationists are certainly correct in saying that there are many large changes in form or function which human biologists have never observed occurring in nature in living organisms. For example, we have never observed a land animal develop wings and take to the air; we have never seen an animal which breathes through gills develop lungs.

The absence of such observations does not contradict evolutionary theory; rather, evolutionary theory predicts that we're very unlikely indeed to make such observations, simply because of the time required. To put the boot on the other foot, if biologists were routinely discovering such goings-on in nature, it would be strong evidence that present day evolutionary theory was wrong, or, at least, very seriously incomplete.

So the absence of such observations cannot be taken, either as evidence for, or as evidence against, evolution.

What (of course!) is needed is an examination of all the, very extensive and very varied, evidence for evolution. Let's hope that friend Bizarro is motivated to undertake the necessary study.

Other Comments by Will S

39. Comment #54737 by Shuggy on July 8, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Bizzaro doesn't really deserve this much attention, but

I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent.

I am astounded that someone can actually miss the point of Darwin's finches. Nobody has ever denied that they are all finches. Their common descent is breathtakingly evident. What stunned Darwin was their evident variation and adaptation to different, previously empty, ecological niches. From this he was able to extrapolate the rest of evolution.

Actually, Darwin and Newton have this in common, they were able to draw a universal from a particular; Newton's genius was seeing that the earth falls - just a little - towards the moon, and the apple, Darwin's, that we could and did diversify away from the other apes and the finches by exactly the same mechanism as they diversified away from each other.

Other Comments by Shuggy