I don't mean to sound like the upstart newbie, but there are a few questions that could be more intellectually honestly answered (Not A therefore B, AKA false choice fallacies are the result of saying "Then where'd God come from?", not any real arguement, though it does make your opponent think)
Dr. Dino wrote: 1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
We don't know.
It really is that simple. One of the great things that attracted me to a more materialistic viewpoint was the ability to say "I don't know, but I'm working on it".
Lack of knowledge on the subject does not, of course, give anyone the right to inject fantasy into it. We used to not know what lightning and thunder were, but did the "Zues throws thunderbolts" and "God gets angry" answers satisfy the men who eventually harnassed electricity?
Of course not. While you're free to hold your own beliefs, they mean exactly nothing to anyone but yourself until there's some substantiation.
(Repeat for questions 2 and 3)
Dr. Dino wrote:4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Well, how do you define organized? Stable and predictable? So the crystal lattice of solid matter counts as organized? Well, you have to take into account the fact that, under different conditions, the lowest energy state of any specific matter might as well be "organized".
Perfectly organized? Well, when you consider things such as radioactive decay and natural nuclear fission (Oklo Reacter), it doesn't look like matter is all so perfectly organized.
Dr. Dino wrote:5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Matter will naturally tend towards its lowest possible energy state (a falling object loses potential energy as it falls and will lose all energy when it hits bottom and all its kinetic energy is converted into heat, sound, ground compression, and a small bounce). When the lowest possible energy state happens to be, say, quartz, then the matter will find itself in the state of quartz.
Dr. Dino wrote:6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
We don't know for sure, but we've got several very promising theories on it. I highly suggest subscribing to some biology journals and finding a decent biologist at some university to chat up, you'll find the whole thing quite interesting.
Dr. Dino wrote:7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
This is another thing that we don't know for sure but have some rather tantilizing ideas about. Again, check with the modern scientific community to learn about these fascinating hypotheses and theories.
Dr. Dino wrote:8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
The leading theory at the moment is, I believe, that sexual reproduction is an offshoot of cellular genetic migration (the summer is far too advanced for me to remember the exact term, it starts with a D or an M or something, possibly a C) where two cells with simply exchange genetic material and move on. Eventually the roles become specialized so as the facilitate more efficient and total transfer.
Dr. Dino wrote:9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
Quite simple. Those species that do not have a drive to reproduce will die out rather quickly. Those that do will survive and continue to thrive.
Dr. Dino wrote:10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Mistake creates an extra chromosome, latter mistakes change the content of that 'some. Even something as simple as genetic duplication of a few codones could count for creating novel genetic code while still maintaining the previous.
Dr. Dino wrote:11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Yes, but always remember to not multiply beyond necessity. If you can adequetely explain things with a creator-less system, than the requirement of a (for now) additional supernatural entity are cut away as un-needed.
Dr. Dino wrote:12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Natural selection indeed only acts upon available genes (imagine the surprise on a researchers face when he sees a group of bacteria he is studying selected for traits they do not possess), but they do not tend to keep species stable. It selects for the most environmentally beneficial trait. If a species has been evolving in the same niche for so long that they have become particularly well adapted to it and concievable mutations that could be drastically beneficial (enough so that they are strongly selected for) are few and far between, such as is the case with sharks and several other creatures, then it will remain basically the same until some completely novel mutation gives it such a great advantage over its competitors that its genes become dominant within the population over the next several generations.
Dr. Dino wrote:13. When, where, why, and how did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Well, to condense your questions into a "how" or "why" type answer: two heads are better than one. In this case, two cells that worked together towards a common goal have a better chance of accomplishing it than one cell. Eventually, through continued contact and perhaps even many instances of conjugation (I remembered the word!) their individual genetic material become intertwined.
Look up the kingdom protista, its a beautiful kingdom full of multi-celled but still microscopic "colony" organisms arranged in a wide variety of shapes and sizes.
Dr. Dino wrote:* Single-celled animals evolve?
Well you'll have to be more specific here. There is no such thing as a single-celled animal. Hell, the very definition of the kingdom Animalia
includes "multi-celled". If you mean Eubacteria that resemble animals in characteristic outside mutli-celled, than it would take quite a while to explain.
Needless to say, all it requires is self-motivation and predatory habit, two things that addressed quite constantly on more scientific forums.
Dr. Dino wrote:* Fish change to amphibians?
I believe there are several fish nowadays that are capable of hopping up on shore for a while (lung fish and mud skippers, I believe). These are perfect examples of an intermediary between sea-dwelling organisms and land ones. The ones that could stay out longer could avoid predators for longer and be in a position to ambush prey that stalked shallow waters. This the type of advantage natural selection selects for.
Dr. Dino wrote:* Amphibians change to reptiles?
The development of primitive amniotic sacs seperates amphibians from the ancestors of all synap, anap, and diap sidas.
Dr. Dino wrote:Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
To be completely honest, Reptiles didn't turn into birds, Dinosaurs did. While dinosaurs and modern reptiles are both diapsidas, they are part of different genera. Whilst reptiles are subset of their own, dinosaurs are a further specification of the subset archosauria.
That being said, dinosauria is not all that remarkably different from aves, or birds.
Overall, you're asking for a lot of information without specifying what exactly you want. If you could be more specific, then I'd be happy to provide. if not, then I'm sorry Dr Dino, but I don't think it worth visiting your website again.
Dr. Dino wrote:*SNIP*
I'm not going to do your research for you. Kindly consult the available literature and researchers on the subject.
Dr. Dino wrote:22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
As far as I know, I'm not any kind of "evolutionist", just someone who reads, enjoys, and understands various fields of biology enough to accept the facts and logic that point to evolution.
Dr. Dino wrote:23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
Show it to me.
Dr. Dino wrote:24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
Dr. Dino wrote:25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
(I hope this particular sentence is a direct copy and paste and no mistake of yours Mr Wong, for it took me a few reads of it to get what was being asked)
The evidence that confirms current models allows for it. What more is needed to make it scientific?
Dr. Dino wrote:26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
that, at the moment, we do not know exactly where "everything" came from or whether or not everything ever really had a "come from" part to it. I perfectly comfortable in accepting my ignorance on the fact and am so only because I and others continually work to correct this fact.
Dr. Dino wrote:1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Most of all my answers are scientifically viable and most all of them have some more-than-circumstantial evidence for them. Of course, it is quite impossible to study fossils of the first single-celled organisms if they either don't exist or were destroyed long ago, but other evidence still supports this theory.
Dr. Dino wrote:2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Much less, as I only make the assumption that my eyes aren't lieing to me, whereas the religious person will not only assume their eyes are
lieing to them, but also they will imagine what their eyes don't see to be true.
Dr. Dino wrote:3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
It is always possible. Of course, it is also always possible that the entire world came into existance a few moments ago due to the trans-universal scream of a business man who's anus has just been gored by the invisible pink unicorn.
Dr. Dino wrote:4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
As far as science goes, all they teach students are the facts about evolution: the mechanism and the implications it has for biology. You have to go out of your way and take voluntary classes to get into the theoretical, origins part of evolution.
Dr. Dino wrote:5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Er, tomato pie as opposed a sausage an onion pizza? I don't know, I don't generally associate my moral and ethical standings with my views on the way the world works.
Dr. Dino wrote:6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
I dunno, I am me, not "people". If you were to ask other "people" you might get a sufficient answer. Try asking all however many people there are that follow the science of evolution, understand it, and apply it to their knowledge.
Dr. Dino wrote:7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
As far as I know, some of those aren't out-dated/disproven/questionable/inconclusive and those that are are not longer in use.
Dr. Dino wrote:8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
No, there is a rather implicit seperation of church and state within our country.
Not to mention that science has given us the internet and the moon trip because it was taught in our schools. As far as I know, all we got from religious morality being taught in schools was the gilded age
Dr. Dino wrote:9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
I risking? My intellectual integrity and honesty? My one good shot at having fun (as most every concept of afterlife I've heard of barring Valhalla sounds either boring or terrifying)? I dunno, I don't really think about it. I'll worry after I'm dead.
Dr. Dino wrote:10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Actually, an arguement could be made that logic is an unsubstantiated philosophy no better than religion. Of course, nihilism always wins in philosophical debates when you throw out logic, so we avoid that.
In truth, though, unless you're willing to dismiss all of science (something I highly doubt considering that you're typing on a computer, communicating with millions of people through the internet), arbitrarily labeling evolution as a religious worldview (even when science doesn't even really fit any truely rigorous definitons of religion) is fallicious and downright shameful from an intellectual standpoint.
So, after wasting all my time typing that (and changing my attitude half-way through), is there anyway I cans end an e-mail to this "Dr Dino" (does he frequent any use.net groups?) or was that just a brain exercise?