Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5 ... re=related

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11kn...eature=related

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrp...eature=related

Originally Posted by Chris

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5 ... re=related

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11kn...eature=related

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eblrp...eature=related

I'm sorry Chris but my god these are all so easy to refute. Are you telling me there is no conscious Christian Scientist out there that hasn't tackled this? What a joke. The only thing I'm wondering is whether or not I want to dedicate the time to this since I personally DON'T even have a bone to pick with EVOLUTION!!! Really has nobody challenged this at all?? There is no discernment left in the world.

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

I'm sorry Chris but my god these are all so easy to refute. Are you telling me there is no conscious Christian Scientist out there that hasn't tackled this? What a joke.

I hope you're joking.. if not, go for it.. i'd love to see you try.

Originally Posted by Chris

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

I'm sorry Chris but my god these are all so easy to refute. Are you telling me there is no conscious Christian Scientist out there that hasn't tackled this? What a joke.

I hope you're joking.. if not, go for it.. i'd love to see you try.

Ok but I'm going to take my time about it. No not joking just flabbergasted at the guys contention that it is "irrefutable" and I will do it from a position of a person that honestly doesn't even freakin' care to refute it...

Originally Posted by WhiskeyandGunpowder

Ok but I'm going to take my time about it. No not joking just flabbergasted at the guys contention that it is "irrefutable" and I will do it from a position of a person that honestly doesn't even freakin' care to refute it...

Well why would you bother if you don't even care? Why would you waste your time. His arguments seem pretty good to me, this isn't the first place I've heard these same arguments. Whether it's from a professor at UofT or this youtube video, they seem solid.

The word "irrefutable" always makes me wince. Just ask Annnnnoid...

Yeah - it's sort of like saying I have ireffutable proof of God's existence and we all know how atheist's feel about that.

Originally Posted by JackSkellington

Yeah - it's sort of like saying I have ireffutable proof of God's existence and we all know how atheist's feel about that.

I agree (oddly enough). The term irrefutable is something of an insult to evolution. It's not irrefutable, simply the best answer we have at the moment. Nothing is for certain hence the use of the word probably in the ad, so lets not let that belief be neglected when talking about science.

Kiefer.

Let's keep pushing evolution - as far as it will go. I am quite sure that many mysteries of the universe lie undiscovered and hidden in the genome.

It is truly a miracle how life has devoloped here on earth. It is also a miracle that we have not destroyed ourselves yet. (or an asteroid)

I think the more we learn about the micro-universe (or nano) we will come to understand the macro.

I think the earth itself is like a big atom. With protective layers .... Laws of attraction (and repulsion) governing both.

Maybe we are really just a "speck" - like on "Horton Hear's a Who". Have you seen it ?

Makes you think.

Originally Posted by Chris

Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11kn...eature=related

The first of a few.

Atavism; the tendency to revert to ancestral type, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.

WETWARE
On occasion as part of my career I have written quite a bit of code, mostly machine language programming (assembly). Machine language or Assembly programming is not done as frequently now as "C" and other higher level languages have made the process more universal. In any case, machine language is essentially software/firmware at the microcontroller or microprocessor level. This code tells the circuit how to configure itself, what operations to perform and on what data, etc… Now any experienced programmer will tell you that they don’t always start from scratch on every program they write but rely on some of the work they have done previously.
At the center of the code is the kernel which is the backbone of the program, essentially the thing that all the other code hangs on and is compatible with. The idea is that when using a kernel in a larger group coding environment if "Sandra" writes the input / output routine code and "Sam" writes the external memory management portion of the program, when they hang their code onto the kernel the whole created from the pieces will function properly without Sandra and Sam needing to communicate much and most of the time this works. This method also allows a good programmer to reuse code over and over again for mundane and repetitive portions of a function that are common to many different applications. For example, most small electronic devices will have a self test function for battery power remaining or a standard clock.
The more experienced the programmer the more rapidly he or she can assemble a program from their collection of previously designed functions, making minor adjustments along the way for each unique application. If enough memory exists to fit the program assembled from many function code segments then no adjustment is made to the chunks of code assembled. The risk of introducing error and conflicts mitigates the desire to create the smallest version of the code. If it works don't fix it. This ultimately means that many applications include code that is without purpose in the application other than a placeholder. The functions they contain will for the most part never be "called".
Modern sophisticated applications can verify that they are intact, that is that no data has been lost if they are copied or transmitted through some means. They can verify each segment as it is reproduced to ensure that it is correct and intact using check-sums, parity tests, etc… If it fails it is reported and you start again. One of the most difficult types of program that can be written will self correct errors during the process of replication, they exist but this is the height of programming – military spec stuff and programmers who can do this feel really cool and believe me when I tell you that programmers and geeks like me have precious little to feel cool about, but I digress.
Computers work with on and off states, ones and zeros and we do not, so at the root of all this funky programming is a language. In the case of a microcontroller or a small chip sized computer the language is composed of a set of simple usable instructions, around fourty root commands. Examples would be ADD this register to that register or PUSH this data to some memory location. Now the programmer is dependent on this language. It allows the ability for the intentions of the programmer to be translated by the computing device. The language was previously conceived and produced by someone in order for the programmer to make use of it. It is simple but it is nevertheless a language with specific actions and methods, specific meanings that are not subject to interpretation that have been predetermined.
So why bore you with this little programming summary? There is a reason why DNA is called genetic code. It is a massive construct of instructions based on a universal programming language. The more complex the organism the greater the code required to construct and maintain it. I’ll call this "wetware". Every living thing on earth is wetware.
When a cell duplicates it unravels (decompresses/unzips) massive amounts of code, splits it into segments and makes complete duplicates of the original code. As it performs this function it tests to make sure the process of duplication was without error and will fix the errors if it successfully detects them. When a protein is needed for the ongoing function of the cell it is made by searching the code for the appropriate instructions/method to manufacture the protein. Once found the protein is manufactured by following the appropriate segment of genetic code.
In no particular order:

Atavism; the tendency to revert to ancestral type, an atavism is an evolutionary throwback such as traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.

An atavism occurs when a mistake is made in the construction of the organism that reveals a segment of code that is not intended to be used in the program for the particular organism (wetware). It is a manufacturing mistake. Contained within the genetic code for any organism are many segments of code that are not used in that organism. It is true for instance that we have a lot in common genetically with pigs but it would be difficult to say that it is obvious. Mammals on the whole possess a difference in their genetic code of somewhere less than 5% which is a very small differentiation, or so I have read.
Because we are wetware and because we are constructed of massive segments of usable and reusable code it is not unlikely that any one piece of code, like the code for "tail" may be expressed by error. In fact because genetic code has a uniform language, the code segment for "tail" will be recognizable in any organism that possesses them but also those that do not have but possess similar attributes, it is only the details of the code that vary trimmed by programming to be appropriate for the specific organism.
In other words "Atavism" is just as viable an argument for a programmer who reuses code, even code that is not necessarily needed in the particular organism with little change to avoid errors in the organisms function. The fact that an error has occurred to reveal a segment of code that should not have been expressed is no different than an error in a compiled program that calls a subroutine that is not needed in the application but exists as a placeholder. If anything it is evidence of an efficient programmer or at least can be argued to be such making this first of the many "irrefutable proofs" refutable...
more soon...
<end of part I>