I don't understand why an organism reverting to a previous state is in any way a problem. "[i]Since ... every organism's biology is an ever-changing process we [b]must [/b]assume that it won't revert to its original or simpler form anyway[/i]" - but I can't grasp why we should have to assume that at all, nor why the theory would have any problems with organisms doing so? I can not see what that assumption is predicated upon. If there is light, the organism will start adapting to light. If there is then no light, the organism will start adapting to darkness. If the light comes back...and so on. There is no prohibition on life reverting to an original or simpler form - and the joy of the gene means that in that simpler form it will keep a handy little note encoded inside itself on what's a good plan for dealing with light or dark. Packing away all those encyclopedias of information. Evolution has no concept of 'progress', nor of 'good' or of some sense of one thing being better than any other. It is the constant blind search for what works, what prevents the intrinsic pressures of the universe killing it off. It is mindless and without values. Many adherents to the theory posit that whales adapted themselves for the land, but ultimately went right back into the sea. Returning to the sea was a reversion to a prior strategy. Should the universe suddenly loose all environmental pressures - every cell is free from all predation or possibility of damage - then the theory would hold that all life would begin slowly start turning itself back into something like an amoeba, because all the other adaptations are not needed. Through micro-evolution, the complex can become [i]possible [/i]- not inevitable. Evolution is blind - a numbers game, trying combinations until something works works. Me banging on my locker, shouting at it, checking to see if it was really my locker. Given that the history of the planet is finite, whether you care to measure that time-frame in the billions or in the thousands, then complexity was not only not inevitable - it was actually actively unlikely. There was no guarantee I would ever have tried jiggling my locker. The core of Johnson's point remains that the theory "[i]has never been shown to be capable of creating...new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains[/i]." Which on the surface does make complete sense. It's ridiculous to suggest early life detected light and said to itself "Right, I'm going to need eyes, a nervous system, and a cappuccino". But some species did start finding it was very handy to have surface cells that could tell if it was lighter or darker. And then which direction was lighter or darker. And maybe if some part of an area had a darker bit that the rest. Apposition eyes became compound eyes became retina, etc. So on. [I'm clearly making up that example from the top of my head.]

[quote]I don't understand why an organism reverting to a previous state is in any way a problem.[/quote]Cyclical evolution is not evolution since it promotes only variants of the same species to exist.[quote]If there is light, the organism will start adapting to light.[/quote]Life needs light in the first place.[quote]If there is then no light, the organism will start adapting to darkness.[/quote]How do you suppose life got on planet Earth in the first place.[quote]If the light comes back...and so on. There is no prohibition on life reverting to an original or simpler form - and the joy of the gene means that in that simpler form it will keep a handy little note encoded inside itself on what's a good plan for dealing with light or dark.[/quote]That's my point, which is also exhibited in the OP, the same environmental factors affecting the biology of any creature has to always remain present in order to keep the process from reverting.[quote]Evolution has no concept of 'progress', nor of 'good' or of some sense of one thing being better than any other. It is the constant blind search for what works, what prevents the intrinsic pressures of the universe killing it off. It is mindless and without values.[/quote]Does this not go against Natural Selection? And did you just state why the followers of atheism have no obligation to be kind?[quote]Many adherents to the theory posit that whales adapted themselves for the land, but ultimately went right back into the sea. Returning to the sea was a reversion to a prior strategy. Should the universe suddenly loose all environmental pressures - every cell is free from all predation or possibility of damage - then the theory would hold that all life would begin slowly start turning itself back into something like an amoeba, because all the other adaptations are not needed.[/quote]Britton, if you are reading this, do you agree with it?

I'm afraid I'm running into the same problem in my comprehension as before - I can't work out why "cyclical evolution [i]is not[/i] evolution". The theory posits that one day very, very long ago my ancestors lived in an aquatic environment. They continued to develop complex ways of extracting important chemicals from that environment such as oxygen. They made themselves some fine and fancy gills to pull that off. That no doubt took quite a lot of time, trial and error. Skipping ahead a few million years, I am a land based humanoid happily devoid of gills. Without the ability to revert, to back down, to give up entirely on strategies as and when it was expedient, my species would still be trying to grow an ever better set of gills. Which I think we can all agree would not be evolutionarily advantageous. Especially in light of [i]Waterworld[/i]. In some cases environmental pressures are temporary. Such as the introduction of DDT. If the pressure are temporary, then the adaptations [i]can [/i]be cyclical. Light sensitive cells come. Light sensitive sells go. Whale leaves the sea. Whale goes back in the sea. But other environmental pressures are constant. Such as gravity. And for such permanent pressures such as gravity, a host of different coping strategies have been attempted. Such as skeletons, muscles, wings, feet. Should gravity one day turn out to have been a temporary condition in the universe, the theory suggest that all those clever adaptations that seemed pretty darn permanent at the time will all start reverting, proving those too are cyclical. Keep in mind that the only, singular, totally narrow purpose of evolution is the perpetuation of the gene. All this fancy-pants human equipment, the whole body and brain and thumbs are just a vehicle for those tiny little blobby fellows. We have evolved into the very splendid entities you see around you now in order to carry those genes around, to try and perpetuate them. These human vehicles are responses, created by increments of micro-evolution in response to what has been [so far] permanent environmental pressures. Such as gravity and the rest of the fairly hostile physics rules of the universe. Should all of those pressures somehow go away one day, the theory would hold that our genes would slowly start the process of getting rid of all these unnecessary vehicular extras. Natural Selection boils down to whatever gets to be bigger and tougher and not die gets to reproduce more often. Evolution being '[i]mindless and without values[/i]' does not go against Natural Selection, it supports it. Inspired by Evolution, Tennyson described nature as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam_A.H.H.#Nature.2C_red_in_tooth_and_claw]red in tooth and claw[/url] - although for him it was ultimately no barrier to his faith. Which leads me on, with great personal disappointment, to the innuendo that because of this "[i]the followers of atheism have no obligation to be kind..." [/i] This is a shame. All of the above comments have displayed excellent reasoning, an inquiring and questioning mindset. This attitude is a boon to any community regardless of whether it puts its faith in an invisible, unprovable, unobservable Deity.....or invisible, unprovable, unobservable Particles That Are Also Somehow Strings. Science goes absolutely nowhere without authorities being questioned. And without its authorities being questioned religion goes bad places. I have no obligation to be kind. As an agnostic [yes, worst of both worlds - I know] I do not believe that there is an Authority who will spank me if I am not moral. I'm absolutely certain there's a cop down the road who will come and get me if I stab the guy next to me in the neck with a pencil, but there is no universal compulsion upon me to be nice. I try to be kind because that is what I chose to do, because I believe that act has value to me and my un-stabbed colleague. Being kind because you believe [i]that is what you [b]have [/b]to do[/i] is without value. It is a gesture. I can train an animal to stop upon my vocal command, but the animal will not be stopping because it thinks I probably know something it doesn't, like maybe there's a car coming - it stops because [i]that is what it has to do[/i]. That completely personal and subjective point aside, you are asking the atheists why their questions and responses do not have a moral element. You are asking them why their biology has no values, why their chemistry has no moral compass, why their physics is not guided by an intelligent, loving hand. Those espousing the validity of the theory, myself included, have asked if things are likely to be 'true or false'. But you are asking us to validate those statements not in terms of what is [i]true [/i]and what is [i]false[/i] - but in terms of what is [i]good [/i]and what is [i]bad[/i]. This utterly devalues all of the above debate, because it reduces all the questions asked not to searches for truth, but to judgement of values. The question is reduced not to what is true, but to what should be true. The subject of each inquiry no longer considered on its own particulars, but is compared to a entirely external set of non-referential criteria. The only question left becomes "[i]Even if that was true - is it [b]good[/b][/i]?"

Agnostic? Aren't agnostics never at either end of the discussion?

This is a very clear and well written response, but I'm afraid the person you are talking to has had this subject explained to them very carefully numerous times, and is either incapable of understanding or they're just playing dumb. He told me he had no idea why the original article didn't overturn evolution theory. He still can't grasp that it is full of obvious errors even when everyone keeps telling him.

[quote]This is a very clear and well written response...[/quote]This is where I say that I've met three types of atheists that end up contradicting each other. The person that you recently replied to asked that why would the activity of cyclical evolution be an issue. To which you responded that his statement is a clearly, well-written response. One group of atheists assume that evolution's cyclical is true; that is, evolution is evidently cyclical. Another assumes that it isn't because it would mean that evolution may automatically correct itself from diverging from its species' original form, and the last group, which is a group isolated by itself, are agnostic deists (the denotation is self-explanatory). Agreed, the response is well-written. To which I would respond, "So what?" Is what he said true and supported by evidence? The second group of atheists is the only group I know to be truelly atheistic. All other groups have adopted some hybrid relationship among the many humanistic philosophies and religious beliefs. Anything deviating from its roots is adding to the speculation and not the debate.[quote]...but I'm afraid the person you are talking to has had this subject explained to them very carefully numerous times...[/quote]Very inadequately from you.[quote]...and is either incapable of understanding...[/quote]Oh I'm fully capable of understanding.[quote]...or they're just playing dumb.[/quote]Bigotry.[quote]He told me he had no idea why the original article didn't overturn evolution theory.[/quote]To which I responded (if I haven't already), "You don't and shouldn't need only the OP above to see the evolution as it really is: To an extent, it is an excellent form of human pseudoscience."

Ah, right on cue. You still trying to work out that difficult sentence on the other thread?

What?

Where?