haha, I like the enthusiasm

Physical laws have ranges of applicability. One of these ranges comes from typical size of things. So far we have only seen physical laws fail when we go to smaller sizes but it's not theoretically impossible to have laws fail when we go to larger sizes. An example of such a large-scale modification of gravity is MOND. Btw pure MOND has been ruled out a couple of years ago as an explanation for velocities in the galaxies and dark matter is now the only candidate explanation that fits all of the experimental data (tbh I like MOND better, but what can you do - can't argue with data).

For the small scales, we actually know from the onset that gravity is going to fail at Planck scales (10^-35 m). So that whole deal about gravity being on shaky grounds is not proper interpretation - it's on solid grounds in some range + in addition we know that it is not going to work outside of that range - so it's not that GR fails at singularities, it's just that it's not the proper place for applying GR.

Similarly Newtonian mechanics is as solid of a theory as it was 400 years ago, it's just that now we know the exact range of its applicability and can in fact venture outside of that range, while Newton couldn't. GR extends that range and for GR we know that the range is limited on the bottom, but so far haven't ventured outside of the range on either side. Same applies to EnM or strong/weak interactions - we know that their range is limited on the bottom - but we haven't gotten there yet - hopefully at the LHC we will.

edit: this is an interesting development in physics btw - the fundamentals theories of 100 years ago couldn't really tell you what their own boundaries were, the fundamental theories of today can give you at least a partial answer to that question.

I agree that the theory of gravity is on solid ground in some range--equivalent to the solid ground common descent is on. Perhaps my statement "on shaky grounds" is not justified simply because a theory doesn't work in every place/scale of the universe. I would like there to be an all-encompassing theory of gravity that works in every nook and cranny of the universe and at every size and speed. That to me would be the most eloquent, but of course we know the universe doesn't care what a particular carbon-based life form in some random galaxy finds eloquent. Just as MOND is more eloquent than the dark matter model (imo too) and yet may end up being falsified perhaps in favor of dark matter, the idea of a universal theory of gravity may also be effectively falsified. It may end up being a series of ranges with their corresponding theories.

Yet I can't help but find this latter possibility to be extremely dissatisfying. It's like a theory that works perfectly in Michigan but breaks down in Indiana. I can't help but feel this means there's something wrong. I can't help but feel that the common descent theory is on a stronger footing because it is applicable to all organisms. An analogy to the gravity situation would be like common descent working for mammals but not for bacteria.

Well this is obviously just going into linguistics and aesthetics, but I'd say common descent working for mammals and bacteria is similar to saying gravity works for trees and for planets. Whereas common descent becomes kind of nonsensical when we talk about stuff earlier than cells, just like classical GR becomes nonsensical when we talk about singularities.

Btw It's not impossible that some years into the future we will find that there is a minimum spatial size at which point at least in this dimension of parameter space (I mean changing size of things) we would say that we have a complete theory of gravity or other forces (as far as size of things goes). I don't have particular aesthetic inclinations towards either option tbh. edit: I'm in a bit of hurry right now - the wording in this paragraph sounds a bit weird, but I hope I managed to convey what I wanted to say

I don't see how you could say this. Gravity is something that can be actively tested, common descent is not. There is of course plenty of other ways to test for common descent and a lot of evidence that can be shown, but the fact is we cannot watch bacterium form into baboon. We can however drop a ball and watch gravity at work. It is not even close to the same. This analogy has always bothered me.

You might say that we have the same percentage of evidence that we would expect if both theories are true, but that does not mean that they are on equal footing. There is evidence that if discovered could disprove common decent (not that I know exactly what they are but they most certainly exist), were as there is no evidence that could be found that would disprove gravity as we see it in action every day and not could show what has already happened to be false.

All these false analogies just go to show that "solid grounds" is an ill-defined statement that shouldn't be carried too far and should be just used for very qualitative arguments only.

Our theory of gravity has been tested and has given incorrect predictions in certain parts/scales of our universe. Common descent has also been tested. The ERV video which I know you've seen is one example. That example alone is extremely strong evidence.

Here's another example of testing the theory of common descent:

"Similarities which have no relevance to evolution and therefore cannot be explained by convergence, tend to be very compelling support for the universal common descent theory.

Such evidence has come from two domains: amino acid sequences and DNA sequences. Proteins with the same three-dimensional structure need not have identical amino acid sequences; any irrelevant similarity between the sequences is evidence for common descent. In certain cases, there are several codons (DNA triplets) that code for the same amino acid. Thus, if two species use the same codon at the same place to specify an amino acid that can be represented by more than one codon, that is evidence for a recent common ancestor."

There are other lines of evidence in that wikilink. Common descent is as much of a lock as our planet being an oblate spheroid. The fact that dumb people want to see bacteria go to baboon in order to convince them is totally irrelevant. Also, the fact that I've never heard a non-Christian/Muslim/Jewish person use the baseless "bacteria to baboon" argument points to their dishonesty on this issue.

Alright, ill try to reiterate. I didnt mean what you responded to after the first line.

Imagine the following. You and I are writing a play, lets call it the "play of ancient history", we have settled on the last act, what we should get to and roughly how we should get there. In discussing the specifics of the first act, you propose a 'deus ex machina' to start off, I say its not needed, although it may well be a good idea.

Do you understand my point when you take that to the actual history of the world? A personal God is not needed to explain how the story went, there is no inherent need in the story(the history of the world) for a Deus ex Machina.

edit:my use of the word 'history' may make some misinterpret, I am talking about evolution, not human history.

We're talking at cross purposes then because your worldview is shaped more by evolution and mine isn't. Mine is shaped by personal experience, the bible, world history, observation of human behavior, philosophy/ethics and legal studies . You think evolution validates your worldview. I think history validates my worldview though technically faith needs no validation.

I think education and skepticism can be a stumbling block to faith. It doesn't have to be but sometimes it puts a lot of baggage in the way when you consider matters of faith. I was lucky I never had to overcome that baggage. I think life circumstances led me into faith as a natural progression/path.

The whole evolution debate bores the socks off me. But for some reason I always keep coming back to it. “Gravity is something that can be actively tested, common descent is not”? For some reason I can’t ignore this, even though Ilovepoker gave you all the evidence you need to admit that you were wrong, I feel that I want to add to it with some interesting experiments where common descent has been observed.

Endler (a biologist) noticed that guppies when in environments with low predation reach sexual maturity later, are larger, produce litters less frequently and smaller litters than guppies than in high predation areas. If you separate guppies (as Endler did) by levels of predation, i.e. Put a nasty fish eater in one lake and remove all the nasty fish eaters in another. Then in the low predation lake the male guppies are free to evolve bright colours to attract females. In the high predation lake the males are not so free and don’t evolve the bright colours, as they need the camouflage. The evolution happened amazingly quickly and was evolution before the biologist’s eyes.


More interestingly in the great African lakes of Victoria, Malawi etc there are many hundred types of cichlids, they have evolved (by from a common ancestor) from just a few founder species and have been isolated geographically from eachother. In each of the lakes the descendents of the founder species have speciated to populate the lakes. And I don’t need to point out (but will) that this has common ancestry has been proven genetically

Similar evidence that common ancestry is observable (within a human lifetime, which I hope is what you meant is impossible to witness, when you said “but the fact is we cannot watch bacterium form into baboon” can be found in Belayev’s silver foxes, Lenski’s e coli experiment, genetics

No doubt that we can witness common ancestry.

However, I think the argument began when talking specifically about the human/chimp common ancestor.

It doesn't matter, common ancestry is as applicable to us as it is to the animal kingdom. Zooming in on the last link puts Jib in his place on the tree of life.

Perhaps we are, but I disagree that it has something to do with all that other stuff you wrote about. Vague terms and interpretations of what I supposedly think are not at all interesting to the conversation. Common ancestry does not 'validate' my 'worldview', to use two of those vague terms. Common ancestry simply means that in order for the incredible diversity of life to have come to be, no deus ex machina is necessary to 'fix' the story, only evolution.

Lets cut it to the bone here, do you think common ancestry followed by speciation is what happened or not? In other words, are you a creationist? This is what I gathered from previous posts, but I feel its best to try to get things clear.

I have no firm position on evolution. If I have to choose a camp I will go with theistic evolution if only because it allows evolution to continue to unfold.

I'm aware there has been medical progress derived from studying the ToE but then there's been medical progress gained from studying lab rats too.

My case for or against the existence of God doesn't hinge on evolution. Evolution can swing in any direction it wants because its only a periphery issue to me. But I think God already anticipated this origins debate in Jude 1 verse 17. Pretty forward thinking of him 2,000 years ago wasn't it?:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+1&version=NIV

Which bit was actually apposite to this thread?

I presume that is the 'guided' evolution concept? Yes...ever wondered why that is? We arent that much different, rats and us...and, you probably guessed it, thats because of common ancestry.
I didnt see anything in that passage that related to anything even remotely in line with the thread, perhaps show/explain it to me?

+1

You're capable of finding your own links.

But if you really want to know more details pick up a copy of Dean Hamer, M.D.'s book "The God Gene Book".

You can wiki "theistic evolution". Its the evolution stance of choice by many top theist biologists.

As for the Jude passage it just relates believers should expect controversies in the last days.

"we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies." 1 Corinthians 8:1

An interesting question has risen: Is it possible that religious people will continue to be "better" at having babies than non-religious people, thus prolonging christian control of the country?

There may be some truth to that notion. Its a well know fact that religious people are better at sex than atheist people.

Idiocracy

Uneducated + Gullible = Believer

Yep thats sounds about right lol :P

If they are devout and dont break Gods rules they would never know if they were bad. It's like being the world's best masturbator.

Do you even understand the point that I was making?