The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?  (Read 42315 times)

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #25 on: 04/08/2008 09:25:34 »
I didn't post evidence against evolution - atrox did, so don't blame me.

Sorry, but where did I post evidence? I posted a link to a side, which was trying to get arguments against evolution...but most of the arguments are everything else but evidence for a creator or against evolution..

You picked one out, you ignore my questions completely, you seem to ignore my answers to your question completely.
I asked you about the fish-thing, I asked you for other arguments, I gave you an possible explanation from the view of evolutionist how the bees evolved...but you just stick with nearly the same words again and again... thats not a discussion.
A bee never thought of "Yeah, Iīm bored...maybe I try to make honey...and if it works, I will give that knowledge to my descentants" ...thats just not how evolution works. So it just doesnīt make any sence, to compare it to you, who maybe donīt know how to make honey and donīt know how to put that information in your genes...you dont have to know suchthings...
By the way, I donīt know how to built a car or how to sing...but other people do...unbelieveable, isnīt it?
« Last Edit: 04/08/2008 09:28:34 by atrox »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #26 on: 09/08/2008 23:06:03 »
Quote from: atrox


Sorry, but where did I post evidence? I posted a link to a side, which was trying to get arguments against evolution...but most of the arguments are everything else but evidence for a creator or against evolution..


Here you are atrox, your words:

Quote
lol...I read some very convincing articles and homepages and arguments of creationists... they convinced me, that I will never believe in ID.

My favourite: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ grin


I followed your link, read the stuff you're mocking, asked some intelligent questions - and hey presto, everybody's down my throat.

If you didn't want any discussions, then why did you post the link?

I asked first about the bees. Let's settle that point first, then move on to the others. There's plenty to go on, but one at a time.

Now, how did the bees figure out that the hexagon is the best way to do this, and then pass the info on to their offspring?

.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #27 on: 09/08/2008 23:51:50 »
I'll be honest with you, I don't know the biochemistry involved -  if I get chance, I'll look it up.

OK. You'll be amazed that a bee with a brain the size of a pinhead can figure out that much biochemistry.

Quote
For now - Wax - a great many insects produce wax as a protective coating - humans produce a waxy substance (in the ear) as to many other animals.  So the genetic precursor for producing wax is definitely there. 

I know that many insects (and plants) and humans produce wax, or waxy substances. That's not the point. HOW did that ability evolve? From what? Every organism that produces wax does so for a reason. We produce wax in our ears to trap small insects and prevent them from reaching thw eardrum and damaging it. Bees and other hymenoptera produce wax to store honey. Plants produce wax to prevent dessication.

You notice, every one does so for a purpose. There is no chance involved here. And purpose indicates design - which is what you're trying to get away from, isn't it?

Quote
It only takes a small mutation to produce lots of it, and if this produced an advantage (keeping larvae safe, food storage, better protection from predators) it would be selected for.  So that's the wax angle covered.

Sorry, no. It is most certainly NOT a small mutation.

To go from a wax-less insect to one that produces wax AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, is a gigantic step forward, and is a huge contributor to the success of those insects.

Consider: Bee which doesn't know how to make wax, all of a sudden, mutation, can. What does it say to its little self? Bzz bzz - now what the hell do I do with this gunge? It's making my wings stick together. I know, I'll use it to make some of these nice hexagonal cells - and what the hell do I put in 'em?

Oh yeah, honey! Damn, I gotta go collect nectar, swallow it, and puke it up again. That'll be honey! That'll do the trick.

That's tripe, and you know it. That bee had to a. know how to make wax b. know how to shape it c. know how to make honey d. know that honey was good for its babies and its pals e. would be useful over winter

How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.

Here's a pic of a fossil bee:
and here's a modern one. Not too different, I would say:

Quote
As atrox has already explained, it's not that animals 'work it out' and then evolve.  The animals with specific mutations that lead to advantageous behaviour are more likely to breed, and so these mutations will become more prominant in the population.

The facts are that mutations are almost invariably damaging or neutral. Rarely beneficial. So how many mutations did it take to get this far, and what were the 'bees' doing in the meantime while waiting for the know-how? And just as important, what were the PLANTS  doing which needed the bees to pollinate them?
Quote
If you actually understood evolution, you wouldn't need to ask for the specific details.

If you mean by 'understand evolution' that I'm prepared to swallow any old garbage that sounds good, then no, I don't understand evolution. I'm not prepared to swallow junk, however learned it may sound. If the 'explanations' don't cover the facts, then a a scientist, I feel entitled to ask all the nasty questions I can think of.

Quote
"Flowering plants are very important in the evolution of life," Poinar said. "They can reproduce more quickly, develop more genetic diversity, spread more easily and move into new habitats. But prior to the evolution of bees they didn't have any strong mechanism to spread their pollen, only a few flies and beetles that didn't go very far."

Poinar can't figure out the very simple point that without the bees angiosperm pollen isn't of much use!

Prior to the evolution of bees, angiosperms were dead ducks! No pollination, you see. So where did the angiosperms come from?

Did you know that there is absolutely NO explanation anywhere of the origin of flowering plants, the angiosperms?

Here's Arnold:

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.

and again:

"[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."

and Axelrod:

The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance.






 

Offline Moron

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #28 on: 10/08/2008 17:04:53 »
I too believe in ID, but then again, I am a moron!
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #29 on: 10/08/2008 22:44:58 »
Here you are atrox, your words: [...]

I know my words...thank you...again...where exactly did I post proof? I just see a side posting more than porous arguments.. there is just no proof there...

Quote
If you didn't want any discussions, then why did you post the link?

Iīm very ok with discussions...but this ist just no one... you seem to avoid my answers and my questions all the time (no, I wonīt repeat them AGAIN..)...thats no discussion at all

Quote
I asked first about the bees.
no, you didnīt ...I asked first abaout the fish...but you donīt seem to want to talk about that...why?

Quote
Now, how did the bees figure out that the hexagon is the best way to do this, and then pass the info on to their offspring?

You know, whatīs the best?
They didnīt even have to figure that out, because the wax figured it out itself.
The hexagon has a high energy efficiency... many atoms try to reach these form...snowflakes have this form as well...
if you heat a pad of round waxcells to 40°C (sorry, dont know what that is in F) it will float automatically into the héxagonal form...amazing, isnīt it?.. but this is a pretty young theory...
Even if this one isnīt true, the hexagonal form yould beperfectly explained by evolution (no I wonīt do this again...I did it earlier, just read it...)
« Last Edit: 11/08/2008 00:49:51 by atrox »
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #30 on: 11/08/2008 00:09:26 »

Sorry, no. It is most certainly NOT a small mutation.

I agree...not just a small mutation...but a lot of them..

Quote
Consider: Bee which doesn't know how to make wax, all of a sudden, mutation, can. What does it say to its little self? Bzz bzz - now what the hell do I do with this gunge? It's making my wings stick together. I know, I'll use it to make some of these nice hexagonal cells - and what the hell do I put in 'em?

again...why do you always use the word „sudden/suddenly...“ ??? ... no evolutionist would do!!
And also again: evolution is no intentional process! The bee didnt ever have to think anything!

Quote
How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.

and yet another missunderstanding! It didnīt have to evolve in one step...and it surely didnīt do!
Itīs like the example with the fish... creationists say., itīs impossible for the fish, to go suddenly out of the water an climb up the trees...well, we evolutionists agree...and all the living expamples of intermediates I listed above, too.
A bee didnt have to evolve honey out of a sudden or else die. More likely, the bees (or their former ancestors) got there step by step. .. the first ancestors maybe only ate green parts of the plants...later they went on to the flowers, the pollen, nectar ... and they still ate these things when they discovered honey, before the started to focus on the honey.
Also the wax-thing... bee were not damned to die, when they couldnīt produce wax... in fact, many wild bees still cant produce wax (or honey). Most likely they „invented“ wax as a waste product of the production of honey... not because they thought „Oh I need wax to build forms“. But because bees use many products (like wood, plants clay..) to built a nest, one bee maybe realised, that this waste product was very useful.....and so on... the rest is normal evolution everyone should understand (even if he/she doesnīt believe it) who ever really dealt with that subject.


Quote
The facts are that mutations are almost invariably damaging or neutral. Rarely beneficial.

Thats right. Mutations can be destructive, neutral...but also constructive. And if you donīt believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, there is a lot of space for neutral an constructive mutations...
We can see a lot of neutral and constructive mutations by looking at our economic plants and animals. ...of course in nature, this evolution takes much longer, because the individuals wont be selected that acurate there...but itīs the same principle...


Quote
So how many mutations did it take to get this far, and what were the 'bees' doing in the meantime while waiting for the know-how?

They didnīt wait for the evolution to happen...so there was never any „meantime“.
Look at wild bees, how they breed their offspring...thats what honeybees maybe did a long time ago, when they were no honeybees yet.. they used holes to lay their eggs in it and to store food in it.. and they used different materials to close it.


Quote
And just as important, what were the PLANTS  doing which needed the bees to pollinate them?

And again...there is no such as a meantime. First plants used wind-pollination... than they coevoluted with the insects, which are collecting pollen and nectar. Getting pollinated by insects has some advantages... so it did make sence, to get more attractive for these insects, so that they would visit them more often... but step by step... they didnīt just switch the button and stopped using wind-pollination as well (in fact, there are still a lot of plants, spreading their pollen through wind and through insects!)


Quote
Poinar can't figure out the very simple point that without the bees angiosperm pollen isn't of much use!

as I wrote...coevolution...
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #31 on: 11/08/2008 10:11:02 »
Quote
You'll be amazed that a bee with a brain the size of a pinhead can figure out that much biochemistry.
I don't know how to produce bile.  I don't know how to metabolise energy from food. I don't know how to store energy as fat.  I don't know how to make eggs, or sperm, or how to combine them in the right way to produce a child.  My genes do.  It has nothing to do with my understanding, I just let the programming in my genes do it, as do you, and everything else on earth.

Quote
I know that many insects (and plants) and humans produce wax, or waxy substances. That's not the point. HOW did that ability evolve? From what? Every organism that produces wax does so for a reason.
Okay, that's a good base to go on.  The ancestor of bees produced wax for a reason that was beneficial to it, perhaps to prevent dessication. A small mutation, or series of them, could have led to this ancestor producing more wax than it needed for this purpose.  If the extra wax was advantageous, as a place to store food or a protective casing for it's larvae for example, then this mutation would be selected for.

You don't seem to understand that the changes in the ancestor are the important ones, and instead think that a bee needs to come fully formed.  This is why I think you don't understand evolution.

Quote
You notice, every one does so for a purpose. There is no chance involved here. And purpose indicates design - which is what you're trying to get away from, isn't it?
Another misunderstanding.  'Purpose' can change, as stated above.

Quote
That bee had to a. know how to make wax b. know how to shape it c. know how to make honey d. know that honey was good for its babies and its pals e. would be useful over winter

How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.
And another misunderstanding.  If the ancestor of bees produced wax, then a is invalid (also, as above, it doesn't need to know anything about it, just as you don't need to know how to convince your stomach to produce acid.

For point b - if it produced wax, and formed it into any shape that protected it's larvae, it would be an advantage.  So the precursor to shaping it in hexagonal chambers was there.  Those that produced the most efficent shape (unbeknownst to them) gave their larvae a greater chance of developing, and so those genes became more represented in the genepool of the population.  So the genes which control wax-shaping behaviour were subject to selection.

For point c - again, no knowledge required.  If you eat too much, your body produces fat in which to store the excess energy.  You don't need to know how, as the bee didn't need to know how to make honey.

For point d - those mutants that produced honey and used it to feed their offspring, gave their offspring a better chance at life. hence these mutant genes becoming more abundant in the genepool.

And finally e - You really don't understand evolution if you feel this is a point worth making.  If there was honey there, and it helped in surviving over winter, then the ones which produced honey are more likely to breed in the next season.

So as you can see, not a single weak point in what you think of as a chain.  These didn't all have to happen in one generation.

Finally, there's no timeline implicated in any of this - perhaps an insect started producing honey, which it used as a food source for it's larvae.  These larvae did well, so in the next generation there are more honey producing insects.  One of these produced more wax than it required to keep itself waterproof, so left some wax with it's offspring as it fed it the honey.  These ones did even better, so now honey producing, wax producing insects are more common in the population.  Any mutation from then that improved the amount of honey/wax without overspending was then an advantage.  This insect starts storing honey for a future larvae, again, increasing it's chances of survival.  Over time, the most efficient way to store honey and protect larvae with the wax resources will be selected for.

So we have an ancestral insect which evolved to produce honey and wax, and store excess honey in the same wax hexagons that it protects it's larvae.  It evolved to become a bee.



But enough of this.  Until you explain your understanding of evolution, we're not even on the same page, and this will just go back and forth.  It should be obvious that to my mind, the questions you ask and objections you put forward suggest you do not understand evolution.  So once again, please could you explain fully your understanding of evolution, so we can see where the root of our disagreement stems from.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2008 14:31:07 by BenV »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #32 on: 11/08/2008 23:50:17 »
Quote
I don't know how to produce bile.  I don't know how to metabolise energy from food. I don't know how to store energy as fat.  I don't know how to make eggs, or sperm, or how to combine them in the right way to produce a child.  My genes do.  It has nothing to do with my understanding, I just let the programming in my genes do it, as do you, and everything else on earth.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I know you don't 'know' these things  - just as the bee didn't. But these are highly efficient, and greatly beneficial processes, just like the bees themselves. Now if you're saying that highly efficient processes such as these, with the incredibly complex biochemistry involved, 'just happened', then I fear that you don't know a great deal about the world in which we live.

They do NOT just happen. They are in every case you can point to - in say the biochemical manufacturing industry extracting and modifying penicillin just as an example - highly complex processes REQUIRING intelligence and very critical design.

How then can you, or Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, say that such processes are the product of blind, random mutation processes? Dawkins, for example, named his book the highly insulting term 'Blind Watchmaker'. It simply isn't possible on any evolutionary supposition anyone can make - and certainly there is no evidence to base such suppositions on. The fossil bee I posted a picture of looks very little different to modern ones - so there's no reason to suppose that they couldn't make honey, even then all those millions of years ago. They've actually found beehives 3000 years old:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20588417/

You are willing to suppose that the 'programming in your genes' performs all these almost miraculous processes - not one of which could possibly occur outside the body in a chemistry lab without highly intelligently designed experiments requiring any number of highly complex chemicals.

I am totally unwilling to make such a crass supposition. It's simply impossible. Therefore, Intelligent Design is an absolute necessity in order to make sense of the evidence before us, and dismissing the possibility with a sneer is not a reasonable thing to do.

Quote
You don't seem to understand that the changes in the ancestor are the important ones, and instead think that a bee needs to come fully formed.  This is why I think you don't understand evolution.

I understand that SUPPOSED changes, un-evidenced changes, in the ancestors are absolutely, desperately important to the survival of any evolutionary theory of the origin of the phenomena we are discussing. You have no evidence. And more to the point, you cannot produce even a viable GUESS as to how and why those hexagonal shapes originated.

The ID supporter, on the other hand has no such problems. Intelligence is abundantly displayed in the whole series and sequence of processes in which the bees are involved. Without the bees, the angiosperms which depend on them for pollination would perish speedily. Without the angiosperms which produce the nectar and pollen on which the bees depend, the bees would perish. So they arose, or were created together, or not at all.

What are you going to make of this I wonder? The angiosperms have no evolutionary history in the fossils, and neither do the bees. One without the other would perish. So what then?

Look at how feeble your case really is, and how you beg the questions I am asking:

Quote
Okay, that's a good base to go on.  The ancestor of bees produced wax for a reason that was beneficial to it, perhaps to prevent dessication.

You note how you can't escape the word 'reason'in your exposition. That alone puts your case out of court - because evolution is a random process depending on random mutations occurring and being selected from. 'Reason' is inadmissible for that very cause. So why did wax-production arise? As said before, it is a complex process requiring complex chemicals arranged and combined in a complex manner using complex enzymes to catalyse a complex series of biochemical reactions. The statistical improbability you are invoking beggars the imagination. And that is even without thinking about the construction of the enzyme proteins - which can't happen without other enzymes which are themselves proteins!

Quote
A small mutation, or series of them, could have led to this ancestor producing more wax than it needed for this purpose.  If the extra wax was advantageous, as a place to store food or a protective casing for it's larvae for example, then this mutation would be selected for.

You cannot escape that easily, I fear. As I also said before, and you can verify this any time you like, mutations are either neutral or deleterious. How then can a mutation happen which results in so many beneficial effects? A mutation, in case you don't know, represents damage of various kinds to the plans for constructing an organism.

If the plans for a car were torn up, or rearranged randomly in some accident or something similar, then we wouldn't be too surprised to find the engine on the roof, and the steering wheel up the exhaust pipe! Not too good for the manufacturer.

So how can you possibly suppose that a 'mutation' would result in so many beneficial alterations in a bee's behaviour and biochemistry? I can't see it myself, because the improbability is too great.

I won't dissect the rest of your post, but do you see how many 'perhaps-es' and 'maybe-s' you've had to use in your 'explanation' of the impossible? Isn't that just what Professor Thompson said? '...fragile towers of hypotheses built upon hypotheses'? All completely un-evidenced, and the merest speculative guesswork.

Like the whole of evolution theory  itself.
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #33 on: 12/08/2008 00:32:45 »
wow...pretty impressive that you now managed to ignore my post not just only in parts, but in whole...

a lot of the question you ask in your latest post, are answered there....but not a single question I asked is answered somewhere in your posts...

Ok, at this point I have to admit, that I was right all the time...that is not a discussion... donīt know what I expected..

sorry about that, I think I will swallow my answers, you wont notice anyways and leave this pointless conversation now...

have fun with your creator (who ever created him...)

bye
aj

 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #34 on: 12/08/2008 08:32:22 »
Asyncritus, your little rant has not really addressed any of the points I made, and I notice you are still refusing to give us an  explanation of your understanding of evolution.  As you think there must be an intelligent designer involved somewhere (of which there never has been, never will be and never can be any evidence) then you clearly do not understand evolution.

As this is a topic you do not understand, and are unwilling to show any understanding of, why do you bother posting?  Until you post an explanation of what you understand as evolution, so that together we can discuss where our differences arise, I, like atrox, see no point in continuing this discussion.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #35 on: 12/08/2008 09:16:24 »
Atrox

I'm sorry not to have replied to your post. Time - but I promise I will, but the truth is that all you've offered is guesswork, but I will detail that accusation as soon as I can.

Ben my understanding of what evolution is, and how it proceeds is as follows:

1 All the modern species are the result of gradually increasing complexity which began with some ancestor in the dim and distant past

2 The modern species have accumulated small changes over the millennia which changed them to what we see now

3 Those small changes are caused by natural selection acting on mutations which occur from time to time and are beneficial in one way or the other. If they are not beneficial in some way,they will be selected out.

4 Since those variations must be heritable, they must occur in the chromosomes or genes.

5 There is no other mechanism of evolution possible or available.

I'm sure you'll be able to pick holes in that ad hoc statement, but it's the best I can do in a hurry.

Quote
As you think there must be an intelligent designer involved somewhere (of which there never has been, never will be and never can be any evidence) then you clearly do not understand evolution.

Intelligence demonstrates the existence of an Intelligent Designer. After all, you don't need to meet the designer to know beyond any doubt that a Mercedes was intelligently designed, do you? How can you prove that it was intelligently designed? That's the proof of the pudding.

Now if you are totally unable to see intelligence in nature, then you must necessarily deny the existence of a Designer.

On the other hand, intelligence is everywhere demonstrated. Dawkins brain, for example, is an exhibition of intelligent construction - being misused for foolish ends, to be sure, but proof of intelligent design nonetheless.

Which raises Darwin's greatest bugbear.

If our minds are the product of the random movements of molecules etc etc, then the products of those minds must also be the products of the random movements of molecules,and cannot be depended upon.

Therefore evolution itself, which is the product of the random movements of molecules,is a nonsense.

Would you trust the scientific pronouncements of a donkey? I doubt it. But you listen to Dawkins - who is a product of the random movements of molecules, just like the donkey!!!!

You're being inconsistent, illogical and irrational if you deny that point.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2008 10:24:51 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #36 on: 12/08/2008 10:55:40 »
Asyncritus, thank you for finally explaining your understanding of evolution.

I shall not pick holes in your statement, as it's a pretty good summary of evolution.

I will pick holes in the rest of your post, however.

Intelligence itself is not evidence of a designer - many species are intelligent to a degree, and intelligence can clearly be seen as an advantageous adaptation to a challenging environment.  In fact, as a very intelligent species, we have been able to adapt our environment to suit ourselves in such a way that we no longer rely on our wits for pure survival, and are able to think about philosophy as well.

You miss a huge point when you say:

Quote
If our minds are the product of the random movements of molecules etc etc, then the products of those minds must also be the products of the random movements of molecules,and cannot be depended upon.

As the brain evolved through several stages, as you pointed out with increasing complexity, the final product is not random.  It has been shaped by millions of years of evolution.  Therefore the actions prescribed by this organ are not random.

If a monkey was able to communicate a scientific idea to me, a testable hypothesis with experimental data, then yes, of course I would trust it, as I can apply my own logic to test the hypothesis.  As it happens, apes and monkeys do not have the communicative skills to do so, but apes can be seen in the wild to adapt sticks into tools through a process of trail and error, and then pass info on to fellow apes - clearly the precursor to modern man's ability to make tools and share this knowledge.

I'm afraid that by describing evolution, and then by making the sudden and inexplicable jump to an intelligent creator, it is you who is being inconsistent and illogical.

Surely if you acknowledge that species evolve, your creator is merely filling in the gaps?  And as we find more examples of evolution in action, and sequence more genomes, your creator shrinks and becomes irrelevant?

I understand you may feel the need to believe in a god, and that is fine by me.  However you cannot use perceived gaps in evolution as an excuse to fit your god in - there is no evidence of intelligent design.  If you wish to believe in the biblical creation myth, again, that's fine by me.  But by doing so you opt out of rational discussion of evolution, having rejected reason in favour of an old story.

Furthermore - as many living things have throwbacks, such as vestigial organs, and that all species are prone to disease and parasitism, it would appear that your designer is actually not very good at designing anything.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #37 on: 12/08/2008 19:00:53 »
Quote
Intelligence itself is not evidence of a designer - many species are intelligent to a degree, and intelligence can clearly be seen as an advantageous adaptation to a challenging environment.  In fact, as a very intelligent species, we have been able to adapt our environment to suit ourselves in such a way that we no longer rely on our wits for pure survival, and are able to think about philosophy as well.

So we're back to the question begging with a vengeance.

If intelligence is not evidence of a designer, then what is it evidence of?

It is an 'advantageous adaptation' you say. But it is not an adaptation.

We are struggling to create 'artificial intelligence' in computers. I don't know how far they've gone, but let's say pretty far. There is no adaptation involved. Computers have to be intelligently invented and constructed, intelligent programs written, huge memories created by intelligence,and that's just the beginning. Any number of intelligent researchers have to exist, intelligent people I might add, and one day they'll have an intelligent computer. Created by intelligent Designers and implementers.

We look at ourselves, and see the intelligence that can design and produce artificial intelligence. That is an inordinately higher degree of intelligence that the computers won't be able to mimic. Nor can they mimic the emotions, the feelings, and most important of all, life, and reproductive capacity.

Yet, say you, that is an advantageous adaptation. I say that is nonsense. The word 'adaptation' is a loaded term, which begs the question of whether evolution did or did not take place. Intelligence is not an adaptation, it is a cause of design and change.

I wonder if I can ask you: look at the cliff swallow for a moment. Let's leave out the questions of the origin of flight for a moment.

Those birds migrate from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in southern California, a distance of about 7500 miles. The arrive there on March the 18th every year, give or take in a leap year. They fly up, on the 23rd October and make the return flight. Another 7500 miles. Those are specific dates, every year. Time has newsreel footage of it happening, and thousands of tourists go every year to watch.

I need a GPS to get me from London to Birmingham. Airline pilots have extremely complicated navigation systems to get them the same distances safely and correctly.

Now, are those GPS systems the products of intelligence, or not? Are those timing devices aboard the products of intelligence or not? Be careful what you say - they'll probably lock you up for libel if you say 'no'.

Now those things are relatively recent inventions. But birds have been doing those journeys for presumably millions of years.

How did they get the equipment to do so? And pack it all in a brain the size of a peanut? And not only that but the mechanisms which run all their life processes are in there too. This is microminiaturisation gone mad.

Any genius who could microminiaturise to that extent would receive a dozen Nobel prizes - yet here is a little bird having successfully done so millions of years ago. How? Without intelligent direction and design? Nonsense.

Quote
If a monkey was able to communicate a scientific idea to me, a testable hypothesis with experimental data, then yes, of course I would trust it, as I can apply my own logic to test the hypothesis.  As it happens, apes and monkeys do not have the communicative skills to do so, but apes can be seen in the wild to adapt sticks into tools through a process of trail and error, and then pass info on to fellow apes - clearly the precursor to modern man's ability to make tools and share this knowledge.

Do you really believe that monkeys handing sticks on to one another is the precursor of producing the theory of relativity and Beethoven's Seventh? They've been passing sticks for millennia - where's the monkey music? Or physics?

And this illustrates another point which you will not be able to explain. Music. Now for music to be appreciated, the neural connections etc etc have to be present BEFORE music could ever be invented - otherwise the uncultured brutes across the river would pulverise the composers and players for disturbing their slumbers! The connections etc were obviously there BEFORE the need arose: if there ever was a need.

Those things were divinely implanted in us. Evolution is helpless to answer the problems of the origins of abstract thought. There's no need for it. Billions of animals live and die without it. So where did it come from? And why?

Quote
As the brain evolved through several stages, as you pointed out with increasing complexity, the final product is not random.  It has been shaped by millions of years of evolution.  Therefore the actions prescribed by this organ are not random.

Here you are begging questions galore again.

We are discussing whether or not evolution did or could have taken place. You may not therefore say that 'the brain evolved'. It quite obviously didn't. And to be fair, I shouldn't say that either. So that leaves us with the facts, and not the assertions, your or mine.

My logic cannot be faulted: Darwin himself saw this point:

"... But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
http://brainwagon.org/2006/01/16/intelligent-design-isnt-the-future/

Whether Dawkins can see it is a moot point.

Quote
"I understand you may feel the need to believe in a god, and that is fine by me.  However you cannot use perceived gaps in evolution as an excuse to fit your god in - there is no evidence of intelligent design.  If you wish to believe in the biblical creation myth, again, that's fine by me.  But by doing so you opt out of rational discussion of evolution, having rejected reason in favour of an old story."

Logic tells me that intelligence cannot originate from muck and mire. Life can't either, as Pasteur proved irrevocably.

Whether I believe in a God or not, does not invalidate the facts. As as someone with a scientific frame of mind, I don't think you should hide behind such statements as 'having rejected reason'. That is an extremely unjust and irrational statement, reeking highly of prejudice and recognition of the weakness of evolution's case.

As the old saying goes, if you can't beat the case, beat the guy who's presenting it over the head. Nothing changes.

« Last Edit: 12/08/2008 19:08:49 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #38 on: 12/08/2008 19:30:06 »
We are struggling to create 'artificial intelligence' in computers. I don't know how far they've gone, but let's say pretty far. There is no adaptation involved. Computers have to be intelligently invented and constructed, intelligent programs written, huge memories created by intelligence,and that's just the beginning. Any number of intelligent researchers have to exist, intelligent people I might add, and one day they'll have an intelligent computer. Created by intelligent Designers and implementers.

So I take it you have heard nothing of the many AI projects in the making.  Including the countless ones developing "learning computers".

Several question: 
1.What benefit to mankind does this Intelligent Design theory hold?
2.What designed the designer?
3.Can we use Intelligent Design to suggest theories of a God and keep up this appauling sharade?

I think you will find all the answers to the above questions here:
1.None.
2.Um, another designer, it evolved.
3.Of course, why its already happening.

All I can see it doing is starting wars. 

Personally I feel you are terrified of death and seek further meaning in your life.  Why not discover something real, or do some charity work.
« Last Edit: 12/08/2008 19:31:46 by Flyberius »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #39 on: 12/08/2008 21:14:22 »
<To everyone else on the forum, I apologise for the coming rant.  I dearly hope this will be the last correspondence I have on this topic>

Asyncritus,

To boil down your arguement above - "Mankind isn't intelligent enough to design these things, so they couldn't possibly have evolved."  You also suggest "Mankind has had to develop technology to copy the natural world, so it couldn't have evolved"

Evolution has had many millions of years to work on many billions of possible permutations - simply put, evolution is happening and producing some wonderful things, none of which require an intelligent designer.

I notice that once again you are bringing up tenuous examples that you feel show a weakness in evolution - everyone who understands evolution and thinks rationally about these things see them as a strength - It's amazing that cliff swallows have evolved to do what they do, but evolve they did.

I'm afraid each and every example you give is based on a simple logical failing - there is no evidence for your god, and no mechanism through which it can act.  As I have stated before, evolution has been witnessed in the wild and in the lab, and predictions made by evolutionary theory happen.

I'm really sorry to inform you, but Darwin's Origin of the Species was written well over 100 years ago.  That's 100 years of scientific development - so it doesn't matter which gaps Darwin couldn't fill.  You are very unlikely to find a modern scientific book or paper on evolution that will cast any doubt on any aspect of evolution.  It's accepted by the scientific world and a great deal of the world at large.  You like to pick on Richard Dawkins, but I hope you realise he's not alone in his thoughts, merely more vociferous than many, who do not see this as a discussion worth having.  Might I suggest you read his books, which are very good at explaining how evolution really works, and will answer some of your criticisms.

Quote
Logic tells me that intelligence cannot originate from muck and mire.

Then your logic is failed and wrong.  Please tell me where intelligence can arise from, without referring to the god that there is no evidence of.  There's lots of evidence for evolution, and we can follow a logical progression to the evolution of intelligence.

When you choose to believe in creationism, you opt out of reasoned debate on evolution - you have chosen belief over logic and evidence - there is no evidence for your god, yet you choose to believe in it.  That's fine, but you can't then try to argue with the logic of, and evidence for, evolution, and expect to be taken seriously. 

If I were to say that my garden was created by a fairy and a dragon, that would be my prerogative.  However, this line of argument would not be applicable in a scientific debate.  The only difference between this and your intelligent design is that more people have been dogmatised into believing in your god.

Quote
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat the case, beat the guy who's presenting it over the head. Nothing changes.
We've beaten the case - in fact, there is no case.  You continue to return with poorly reasoned arguments and so we try to explain why you are wrong.  This feels to me like banging my head against a brick wall, and I find your lack of ability to address the questions we put to you very frustrating.  I shall repeat myself - a lack of specific evidence for a certain aspect of evolution is not evidence for an intelligent designer.  You will find as much evidence for intelligent design as I could for my garden dragon.

On that note, I would prefer not to continue this conversation.  I have every confidence that you will continue to evade the questions put to you by myself and atrox, and you will consistently fail to show any evidence for intelligent design.

I hope one day you will come to understand how evolution works, reject the ridiculous creationism notion and share in the wonder of the natural world - which never has, and never will need your designer.
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #40 on: 12/08/2008 23:38:35 »
Remarks on the Rev. S. Haughton's Paper on the Bee's Cell, And on the Origin of Species
(S83: 1863)

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S083.htm

Its a good read! ;)
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #41 on: 13/08/2008 00:25:20 »
Quote
So I take it you have heard nothing of the many AI projects in the making.  Including the countless ones developing "learning computers".

Are these the products of Intelligent Design or not?

Quote
Several question:
1.What benefit to mankind does this Intelligent Design theory hold?

Quite simply, it's truth: something that unintelligent designers seem to care little about.

Quote
2.What designed the designer?

I don't know Carl Benz's parents. Do you?
Quote
3.Can we use Intelligent Design to suggest theories of a God and keep up this appauling sharade?

What appalling charade? I believe in God, and make no secret of it.
Quote
I think you will find all the answers to the above questions here:
1.None.
2.Um, another designer, it evolved.
3.Of course, why its already happening.

Pity I can't describe these answers in the same way as the design I see.

Quote
All I can see it doing is starting wars.

Ever heard of Social Darwinism?
Quote
Personally I feel you are terrified of death and seek further meaning in your life.  Why not discover something real, or do some charity work.

Instead of making silly judgements on someone of whom you have no knowledge, why not go criticise answersingenesis or similar?
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #43 on: 13/08/2008 01:30:27 »
Quote
Evolution has had many millions of years to work on many billions of possible permutations - simply put, evolution is happening and producing some wonderful things, none of which require an intelligent designer.

Have you totally ignored the palaeontological facts which innumerable workers have dug up? There is no evolution of anything. Species, even phyla, appear with breathtaking suddenness - as if they were created - and disappear the same way. Even such diehard evolutionists as Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge had to produce their punctuated equilibrium theory to account for this.

It was so near to creation that the establishment - people like you, I suppose - jumped down their throats, and Gould at least backtracked.
Quote
I notice that once again you are bringing up tenuous examples that you feel show a weakness in evolution - everyone who understands evolution and thinks rationally about these things see them as a strength - It's amazing that cliff swallows have evolved to do what they do, but evolve they did.

What a pity you can't stop question begging, Ben! How do you know they evolved? Because they evolved. Well, how much further forward are we? Zero. And this is typical of evolutionist arguments. They have no weight, and can point to no evidence whatsoever.

This is not a tenuous example - it is totally destructive of any evolutionary theory of its origin. I've never even heard of one single halfway decent theory, or any solid facts to support it.

Quote
I'm afraid each and every example you give is based on a simple logical failing - there is no evidence for your god, and no mechanism through which it can act.  As I have stated before, evolution has been witnessed in the wild and in the lab, and predictions made by evolutionary theory happen.

I wonder what you'd call evidence. Can you give me an example? Use the cliff swallows - what would covince you that there is a Great Designer at the back of the phenomenon? You can see that they must have a navigation system which works perfectly. No that evolved by chance mutations - mutations of what, I ask you?

You can see they have a timing device or calendar that works precisely to the day. You've got one on your mobile. Did that come about by random mutations? No, ny Nokia. Is that phone intelligently designed? Of course it is. But the birds' calendar - that evolved by chance mutations. Like hell it did.


Quote
I'm really sorry to inform you, but Darwin's Origin of the Species was written well over 100 years ago.  That's 100 years of scientific development - so it doesn't matter which gaps Darwin couldn't fill.

My dear fellow, he couldn't fill ANY gaps. All he showed was that evolution IS a great gap. I tell you again, look up the palaeontologists, and see what they say about the origin of ANY group you can think of. "We dunno" is the chorus. Don't take my word for it, go see for yourself. Google is the great destroyer of evolution. Ask Gould - he wrote several books like 'Ever Since Darwin'. Go read it, and you'll hear things like:

""The Cambrian explosion so disturbed Darwin that he wrote in the last edition of his Origin of Species 'The case must remain inexplicable, and may be truly be urged as a valid argument against the view here entertained' "

"Nonetheless, these exciting finds in the preCambrian palaeontology do not remove the problem of the Cambrian explosion, for they only include the simple bacteria and bluegreen algae" p120, 121
Quote
You are very unlikely to find a modern scientific book or paper on evolution that will cast any doubt on any aspect of evolution.


As the above shows very clearly, even the Origin cast doubt, and Gould, as only one example, expresses serious reservations. Punctuated equilibrium is the heaviest recent blow on evolution theory.

Here's more:
""The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design…has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.'1 "…The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.'

Gould ridiculed the lack of fossil evidence pointing to gradualism. "The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record.'

"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists."
-G. G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode of Evolution (N.Y.: Columbia Univ., 1944), p. 106

Quote
It's accepted by the scientific world and a great deal of the world at large.
 

Yes, their tenure depends on their doing so!

The scientific world at large once thought that the world was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that spontaneous generation took place everywhere.

Quote
You like to pick on Richard Dawkins, but I hope you realise he's not alone in his thoughts, merely more vociferous than many, who do not see this as a discussion worth having.  Might I suggest you read his books, which are very good at explaining how evolution really works, and will answer some of your criticisms.

You've obviously never read Lewontin, famous Harvard geneticist, who said:

"Lewontin writes: "As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O.Wilson, Lewis Thomas and Richard Dawkins, "each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very centre of the stories they have retailed in the market.

I think that means 'lies', don't you?
Quote
Then your logic is failed and wrong.  Please tell me where intelligence can arise from, without referring to the god that there is no evidence of.  There's lots of evidence for evolution, and we can follow a logical progression to the evolution of intelligence.

Intelligence can only arise from intelligence. Every school teacher knows that, and so should you. You will never get a donkey producing a theory of relativity.

And just where is all this evidence for evolution? Bring it here so I can treat it justly.

Quote
When you choose to believe in creationism, you opt out of reasoned debate on evolution - you have chosen belief over logic and evidence

Sir Isaac Newton:

"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Was he an idiot too?
Quote
- there is no evidence for your god, yet you choose to believe in it.  That's fine, but you can't then try to argue with the logic of, and evidence for, evolution, and expect to be taken seriously.


"This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

No evidence, huh? Try telling Newton that.
Quote
I shall repeat myself - a lack of specific evidence for a certain aspect of evolution is not evidence for an intelligent designer.

I will repeat myself too. There is not a single iota of evidence that can possibly show that intelligently designed things are not intelligently designed. Order does not come from chaos, nor intelligence from madness. Several Nobel winners said so too:

"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
--Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945),

"To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero."
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945).

So the 'everybody accepts evolution' battle cry has become a pathetic wail, which will one day fade into the distant past.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #44 on: 13/08/2008 09:01:14 »
I never said you were an idiot, and the words of Newton (who died in 1727 - a long time before anyone had put forward the mechanism through which species change over time) are completely irrelevant in a discussion of evolution.

I was hoping not to come back to this discussion, but just to touch on a few final points...

I think it's first worth pointing out that we are approaching this discussion from different paradigms.  As a believer in god, you base your arguments on the assumption that god exists.  As I don't believe in god, I approach it with no such assumption.  As such, we will struggle to find common ground, as your logic is based around a different premise to mine.  This is why I would prefer to end this discussion here.

It only takes one piece of evidence for evolution to kill off the intelligent designer - it's illogical that an intelligent designer would work on everything except the examples we have evidence for, where we can see evolution to be the process.  Any evidence of evolution kills creationism stone dead, so here's a particularly tidy one:

The rock pocket mouse lives in rocky outcrops in Mexico and New Mexico.  They can have are several different coat colours - ranging from light to dark.  One population has evolved to live on dark, basalt rock, where there is a high selection pressure to have a dark coat.  (being darker on a dark substrate makes predation far less likely, and so the darker mice were more likely to breed, and pass on their genes to the next generation.) 

There is a perfect association between different versions of the Melanocortin-1 receptor gene and coat colour. 

The genome of the Rock Pocket Mouse has been sequenced, and so we can see that not only is there strong evidence that local populations have adapted by natural selection, but that the genes responsible have been identified.

In other words - different alleles (mutants) of the Melanocortin-1 receptor gene offer different selective advantage depending on environment, and correspondingly the populations on dark basalt are under strong selection pressure to have darker fur.

To simplify: Natural selection, acting on known variations in known genes, has resulted in genetic differences between one population and another in a different environment - evolution by natural selection, no intelligence required.
« Last Edit: 13/08/2008 09:41:32 by BenV »
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #45 on: 13/08/2008 12:05:56 »
Quote
"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists."
-G. G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode of Evolution (N.Y.: Columbia Univ., 1944), p. 106

all your references are about 70 years old...impressive...
Oh, and I think I gave you some transitional forms, which are still existing on the fish thing (you are still ignoring perfectly)
and there is a bunch of transitional forms... for example a lot of human ancestors...homo habilis, australopitecus..
or just listen to this guy
feature=related

and again, because you seem to missed this one by accident ::):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #46 on: 14/08/2008 01:21:13 »
Quote
Iīm always wondering if lungfish, mudskipper and eels never read the "Why Transition From Water to Land
is Impossible"-part.
Maybe someone should tell them, that they will die within the next few Seconds, when they leave water..

Let me tear this nonsense to pieces atrox.

Have you ever read anything about how the mudskipper survives out of the water? I didn't think so.

Let me inform you then:

Mudskippers breathe through their skin and also through the lining of the mouth (the mucosa) and throat (the pharynx). This requires the mudskipper to be wet, limiting mudskippers to humid habitats. This mode of breathing, similar to that employed by amphibians, is known as cutaneous breathing.[This, btw, is tripe. Amphibians do breathe through their skins, BUT VERY MANY HAVE LUNGS]. They propel themselves over land on their sturdy forefins.[Did you hear that? The amphibian has legs. The fish does not - it has fins.

Therefore, they cannot live on dry land. They cannot be regarded as a transitional form, because they die if they dry out. They are called mudskippers for this very reason - they skip on MUD, which you may recall, is WET.

They are as much land dwellers as we are underwater dwellers. I don't see many gills on scuba divers.
Quote
Why does the eel not know, that its impossible for him, to cover the distance between two habitats, spending hours out of water without a propper sceletton or the right muscles?
The maximum length of time a mudskipper can survive out of water is 36 hours. That really gives it a lot of time to evolve into an amphibian! (And in any case it has to reproduce IN WATER.)It hasn't done so yet, and you can let me know when they find one doing so.

Quote
Why does the Mudskipper not know, that he will dry up immediately, when spending more time out of water (like all the amphibias do, which should have the same skin-problem as described).

If he stays out of the water for more than 36 hours, he'll find out all about it, I promise.

Quote
Why does the lungfish not know, that he wasnīt allowed to suddenly (all evolutionists know, that the fish ages ago jumped suddenly out of the water and started climbing the trees, eh?!...Thats what evolution ist all about, isnīt it??

Yes, that's right! That's evolution in a nutshell! Fish, who can only survive in water, suddenly started walking around on land, climbing trees and jumping off, in order to turn into birds.
Marvellous nonsense, isn't it?

For goodness sake atrox, THINK for a bit. IF A FISH COMES OUT OF WATER FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT TIME, IT DIES. Here's what one evolutionist author says:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/fos.news.html

"So why are lungfish or mudskippers not relevant? Because hundreds of millions of years have passed."

Not me, him. They are NOT RELEVANT. ie, nonsense in this argument. They haven't evolved, they're still there, and they're still mudskippers and lungfish.

"An impediment to understanding the fin-limb transition has been the nature of available evidence from the sister group of tetrapods. The closest living relatives of tetrapods -- lungfishes and coelacanths -- either lack homologous elements to distal limb bones or are so specialized that comparisons with tetrapods are uncertain."

What's that mean? I'll tell you: it means 'we dunno'.


) develop these organs for breathing which gave him his name?
Why the hell do some fish die, when you prevent them from taking the chance to breath air (Anabantoidei, Corydoradinae).

The anabantoidea, despite having the labyrinth organ - not a lung btw, also have to stay wet. Put them on the sand for a week, and they're dead. How does that help you?

"As a result, labyrinth fishes can survive for a short period of time out of water, as they can inhale the air around them, provided they stay moist."

The catfishes swallow air, which is then absorbed through their intestines - no lungs, mark you. They live in shallow streams, and in muddy swamps, they swallow air, because they can't get enough from the water. No help there, I'm afraid.

Quote
Maybe someone should go out an tell them, that they donīt exist... there are no transitional forms...nooo! lips sealed

Just in case you didn't notice, all the taxonomists call these animals 'fish'. Not amphibians. Not halfway between water dwelling and and land dwelling animals. Fish. Unless all these taxonomists are idiots?
« Last Edit: 14/08/2008 01:32:22 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #47 on: 14/08/2008 01:53:51 »
Quote
The rock pocket mouse lives in rocky outcrops in Mexico and New Mexico.  They can have are several different coat colours - ranging from light to dark.  One population has evolved to live on dark, basalt rock, where there is a high selection pressure to have a dark coat.  (being darker on a dark substrate makes predation far less likely, and so the darker mice were more likely to breed, and pass on their genes to the next generation.)

There is a perfect association between different versions of the Melanocortin-1 receptor gene and coat colour. 

My dear fellow, this is nothing else but the Kettlewell moth syndrome. The dark moths died out on light backgrounds, and the light ones died out on dark backgrounds.

BUT BOTH KINDS WERE PRESENT IN THE POPULATION. Natural selection can only act on WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. I fully agree that natural selection takes place, but that is not evolution into new species, phyla etc. It explains the SURVIVAL of the fittest, but not the ARRIVAL of the fittest.

And there evolution dies, because natural selection cannot account for the appearance of new characters. It merely selects from the existing pool of genes. What we are arguing about, is WHERE DID THE POOL COME FROM?

IL Cohen ( mathematician and researcher) said: “At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

He was right.

But thank you for being willing to discuss with me.
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #48 on: 14/08/2008 08:46:18 »
Wow, finally I got the privilege to see you answering my questions... :o

But Iīm afraid...it just shows, that you really donīt have any glue what evolution is about.
Itīs ok, if you donīt want to believe in evolution... but if you want to discuss it, than you should at least understand the mechanisms, as evolutionists believe in... otherwise thats all just senceless..

Have you ever read anything about how the mudskipper survives out of the water? I didn't think so.

Let me inform you then:
[...]
Therefore, they cannot live on dry land. They cannot be regarded as a transitional form, because they die if they dry out. They are called mudskippers for this very reason - they skip on MUD, which you may recall, is WET.

Noone ever said, that fish came out of the water, to live in deserts and never went back! They started with staying out of water for short periods... but that fish, which could stay longer out of water had an advantage and could use the many unused ressources there. So they had the best chances to reproduce (as the example with the bees)... and so they started to stay longer and longer out of water... btw Many amphibias need to be wet too

Quote
The maximum length of time a mudskipper can survive out of water is 36 hours. That really gives it a lot of time to evolve into an amphibian! (And in any case it has to reproduce IN WATER.)It hasn't done so yet, and you can let me know when they find one doing so.

You are really getting ridiculous. They donīt have to evolve in 36h, and you really should know that, if you did understand what the theorie is about...I hope that was just a poor joke. By the way...all the amphibians need to reproduce in water as well.. but most of them can live on solid ground the rest of the year...

Quote
Quote
Why does the Mudskipper not know, that he will dry up immediately, when spending more time out of water (like all the amphibias do, which should have the same skin-problem as described).

If he stays out of the water for more than 36 hours, he'll find out all about it, I promise.

Wow, 36h sounds a bit different than to claim, they would try up immediately... 36h is a lot of time...and maybe the next generation of mudskippers, that could have problems in finding food under water, could stay a bit longer out of water...and tha next generation stay again...and so on


Quote
Yes, that's right! That's evolution in a nutshell! Fish, who can only survive in water, suddenly started walking around on land, climbing trees and jumping off, in order to turn into birds.
Marvellous nonsense, isn't it?

Oh sorry, I need to read that again..."Yes, that's right! That's evolution in a nutshell! Fish, who can only survive in water, suddenly started walking around on land, climbing trees and jumping off, in order to turn into birds.
Marvellous nonsense, isn't it?"

Wow...Ben, now you know where the lack of understanding is... ::)

Again...no suddenly in evolution.... why do you allways say something about an sudden evolution??! If someone should use that word, than creationist... you say, some higher beeing, coming out of nowhere (did it evolve maybe  ::) ) suddenly put the mamals on earth...
And as the examples show, itīs not that unlikely, that fishes started to go on land for several reasons..


Quote
For goodness sake atrox, THINK for a bit.


Oh, I did...but maybe you should start too...would make a discussion much easier...

Quote
They are NOT RELEVANT. ie, nonsense in this argument. They haven't evolved, they're still there, and they're still mudskippers and lungfish.

They are relevant, as they show you (wait...no...they should show ..but Iīm sure you just have another "argument" against it), that these arguments of fish dieing the same hour or so, they leave water are just wrong! It is not that unbelieveable as the creationist would like it to be or make it to be...therefor they are relevant.
That is how the beginnings of landliving animals could look like... part-time-land-living.
Why did they not evolve? Because they didnīt have to...they are perfectly adapted to their environment. And if it didnīt change a lot, no other adaptation could conquer their niche.
But if there was another fish, just like the mudfish maybe, and the habitat did change...maybe they could now find much more food out of water than under water, than the adaptation, that could stay a bit longer out there had an advantage, and the biggest chance to reproduce, because it had the bigges chance to survive. An the adaptation, which could move a bit further on land, away from itīs collegues, to find food, where nobody else could go, than had the best chance to reproduce...and so on...I really shouldnīt need to explain that part, if you did understand what evolution is about...


Quote
The anabantoidea, despite having the labyrinth organ - not a lung btw, also have to stay wet. Put them on the sand for a week, and they're dead. How does that help you?

Of course they donīt have lungs...but you know...lungs needed to evolve... maybe through these organs...or comparable ones.. Many Amphians have to stay wet, too. But you wonīt doubt, that most of them live on land for a pretty long period of their live...but if you put them on sand, they will be dead in a week, too ...so thats just anoter not-argument... itīs again an example of how transitional forms could look like... oh, by the way...there are also amphibians, which donīt have any lungs at all...breathing just trought their skin... so lungs are not a premise to take the first steps on dry land..

Quote
"As a result, labyrinth fishes can survive for a short period of time out of water, as they can inhale the air around them, provided they stay moist."

as I said...most ambhibians need to stay moist too...


Quote
Just in case you didn't notice, all the taxonomists call these animals 'fish'. Not amphibians. Not halfway between water dwelling and and land dwelling animals. Fish. Unless all these taxonomists are idiots?

Thank you so much for informing me... but now I really wonder, what you would expect from an transitional form? As I said, evolution comes in small steps... sometimes its only, that a fish could stay a bit longer out of water... therefor it would not be possible to draw an exact line between two species, which evolved from each other, if you would know all of the transitional forms...often you wouldnīt even notice, that one animal is different from the next form...

Take the great tit as an example.. There is a populationn livin in a race circle (east Europe)...if you go more to the east of Europe, the will change very slightly, you wont even really notice if you go step by step... but their is one place where the one end of the population meeds the other end and they behave like two different species...because these slight modulations did lead to two different species in seperated habitats... But you could not pick one of the birds and tell, that is an transitional form....
 

Offline atrox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #49 on: 14/08/2008 08:51:04 »
Oh, and I really would be said, if I would take you the pleasure of reading that side (and me the plaesure of you surely scientific explanation, why these examples canīt be true ;-) )
...so, in case you didnīt see that
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #49 on: 14/08/2008 08:51:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums