The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?  (Read 28387 times)

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #50 on: 16/08/2008 03:36:16 »
Hi Atrox

Let's discuss this business of a fish coming on to land, as you seem to think I don't understand what's going on.

Have you ever seen a fish on land after a fisherman has caught it? I have. I've caught many, dropped them on the bank - and they died. You know the expression - 'like a fish out of water'.

Now what makes you think there's any survival advantage in dying when the fish has dried out?

Look at it the other way. How long would you survive if you tried to live underwater? Not very long at all, unless you had diving equipment of some sort. Do you think, for example, that if somebody held your head underwater for 1 minute today, 2 minutes tomorrow, 3 mins the day after that, and so on, after a year like that you'd be able to live underwater? I very much doubt it, because you'd drown somewhere around 7 minutes.

Why do you think things would be different for a fish?

Here's the problem stated very nicely:

"In trying to decipher the evolution of tetrapods from fish, scientists face formidable problems. The transition from water to land occurred long ago, and various family trees suggested by the fossil record are so tangled that scientists acknowledge they may never be able to sort them out definitively".

For a fish to come out on to dry land - which is what we're talking about - it has to have breathing apparatus, like lungs. No fish has lungs - not even the lungfish. Their lungs are totally different to our lungs, and bear no relationship to them.

You ever heard about the coelacanth?

Well. once upon a time, in this sea far away, there lived a fish called Latimeria. Scientists thought that it was a very special fish which could walk out on to land and somehow breathe air! Hoo boy! This great fish was the ancestor of all the land animals or something. It got out and walked in swamps and such places.

And then you'll never guess what happened.

Evolutionists needed evidence to back up the supposed transition of vertebrates from the sea to dry land. For that reason, they took the fossil coelacanth, whose anatomy they believed was ideally suited to this scenario, and began using it for propaganda purposes. They interpreted the creature's fins as "feet about to walk," and a fossilized fat-filled swimbladder in its body as "a primitive lung." The coelacanth was literally a savior for evolutionists bedeviled by such a lack of evidence. Evolutionists had at last laid hands on "one" of the countless missing links that should have numbered in the millions.

Heh heh!

And then.... ta daaaa!

This evolutionist excitement was short-lived,when a living coelacanth specimen was captured by fishermen in 1938. This inflicted a terrible disappointment on evolutionists.

James Leonard Brierley Smith, an instructor in the Rhodes University Chemistry Department and also honorary director of various fish museums on the South Coast of England, expressed his astonishment in the face of this captured coelacanth:

    "Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth." 

The discovery of this imaginary missing link, once believed to have close links to man's alleged ancestors, in the form of a living fossil, was a most significant disaster for Darwinist circles.

The coelacanth, the greatest supposed proof of the theory of evolution, had suddenly been demolished.

The most important potential candidate in the fictitious transition from the sea to dry land turned out to be an exceedingly complex life form still alive in deep waters and bearing no intermediate-form characteristics at all. This living specimen dealt a heavy blow to Darwin's theory of evolution.

So back to the old drawing board and some more idiotic inventions.

Don't you see how stupid this whole thing is? You take any goldfish and drop him on the floor, then let me know what happens. If he gets up and walks off into the distance, you are the greatest scientific discoverer of all time, and you'll get 25 Nobel prizes for your discovery.

But I think you'll have a big pile of dead stinking goldfish on your floor before that happens. Try it, and see. Let me know how long he can survive out of water. ;D

Here's another nice creationist site for you to laugh at: http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_05.php
« Last Edit: 16/08/2008 04:03:23 by Asyncritus »

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #51 on: 16/08/2008 08:54:17 »
BTW Atrox

Fish have nostrils - but they are used for smelling. They aren't any lungs to attach to! And the gills don't need any nostrils.

_Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #52 on: 16/08/2008 11:02:57 »
Asyncritus, your arguments are ridiculous. You are comparing modern organisms that are adapted to living in certain environments, to ancestral species that were adapted to living in intermediate environments, and expecting them to behave in the same manner. This is a logical fallacy.

Modern fish are adapted to their aquatic environments. You cannot fish them out and expect them to suddenly be able to survive for extended periods on dry land, because evolution occurs continuously over generally vast amounts of time, not over the period of a single lifetime. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. It happens incrementally by many small steps, not big leaps. You ask where the variation in the gene pool comes from. The answer is through mutation, genetic drift, and genetic recombination.

If a fish is living near the shore and is using its fins as supports for its body as well as for better swimming, and over many generations it begins spending increasing amounts of time, from being totally submerged, to partially submerged, to staying on the shore, to living on land for finding food or for other reasons, it is easy to see how the transition from fish to amphibian can be made.
 
If by "there are no transitional forms" you mean that each species is a species in its own right, then yes, that's true. But to say that the fossil record does not show a sequence of organismal evolution is literally myopic.

For transitional forms, Wikipedia has a nice article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils 

Further, even without a shred of fossil evidence, there are other lines of evidence for evolution. This simple tutorial will help you with this. Genetics and developmental biology are particularly strong lines of evidence. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/index.shtml

Look at amphibians themselves. The larvae and juveniles spend all their time aquatically, and then make the transition to partial or mainly terrestrial existence as adults. Consider toads, which have leathery skin adapted to conserving water, allowing them to spend the majority of their time on land, yet their offspring would die without water. The evolutionary history of these amphibians can be seen each time a tadpole metamorphoses into a toad. 

The tetrapod lung is considered to be a homologue of the fish swim bladder. http://www.earthlife.net/fish/bladder.html
http://www.csupomona.edu/~dfhoyt/classes/zoo138/PRIM_FISH.HTML - This page also gives you a good run down on evolution.


The sad fact of the matter is that you don't understand how evolution works, and I doubt if you even want to. If you did, this thread would be obsolete.

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #53 on: 17/08/2008 09:59:23 »
Quote
Asyncritus, your arguments are ridiculous. You are comparing modern organisms that are adapted to living in certain environments, to ancestral species that were adapted to living in intermediate environments, and expecting them to behave in the same manner. This is a logical fallacy.

You are displaying an unfortunate ignorance of the facts of both palaeontology and modern discoveries.

First, we have absolute proof of the fact that a 418 million year old fish was no different to its descendants.

Latimeria, the coelacanth, is found in fossil form 410 -418 mya. It was also found in 1938 and is no different to the ancestral forms. Brierley Smith in the above quoted statement said:
    "Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth."

Now what happened when the fish was brought to the surface? It died. As I have been saying.

Now what proof do you have for this silly idea that ancient fishes could come on to land and survive? None. And here is absolute physical proof that the idea is useless and just plain wrong.

The second prong of proof comes from the fact that ancient fishes and modern ones hardly differ, and as proof of that statement, here are two sets of photographs which prove this beyond doubt:



Those are flying fish - today found in quantity off the coast of Barbados, and being sold in the restaurants there. You can see the identity of the fossils and the modern fish.



That's a sting ray - modern and fossil. No difference.

Here's a guitar fish, ancient and modern:



Now with all that before us, how can you or anyone say that ancient fishes were somehow able to do things that modern fish can't? ie walk out on to land somehow and survive?

There's the killer point which nobody can gainsay. ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED.

For those who don't know what that means, here's an explanation: If a fish did manage to walk on land somehow, and it was the first such fish to do so, then although he can walk on land, his children cannot - because it isn't in the genes. That ability CAN'T GET THERE.

So no matter if a fish DID get out on to land and survive, its offspring couldn't do so. They couldn't inherit that ability, UNLESS IT WAS ALREADY THERE. And if it was alreadY there, HOW DID IT GET THERE?

So that leaves the theory high and dry - dead, and stinking, like the fish! 

I had a look at those dubious specimens in your Wiki link. Here's what is says about Eryops:

"Several complete skeletons of Eryops have been found in the Lower Permian, but skull plates and teeth are the most common fossils. Although it had no direct descendants, it is the best-known Permian amphibian and a remarkable example of natural engineering."

What, I wondered, was 'natural engineering'? Luckily, the author of the article gave a link, which said this, and I call your attention particularly to the intelligent design features involved:

"“[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property.”

Does that prove my point, or does it?

I hope you readers are beginning to see the sheer nonsense that evolution requires you to believe, and will write in and say so in no uncertain terms, and ask some very nasty questions - like exactly HOW did this happen? And when you get stupid answers, you say so plainly. Otherwise the truth will be held down forevermore if the scientific press has its way.


Here's a splendid source of information for you to look at:

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_09b.php

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #54 on: 17/08/2008 10:05:50 »
Quote
The tetrapod lung is considered to be a homologue of the fish swim bladder. http://www.earthlife.net/fish/bladder.html
http://www.csupomona.edu/~dfhoyt/classes/zoo138/PRIM_FISH.HTML - This page also gives you a good run down on evolution.

I don't know which joker said that the tetrapod lung is a homologue of the fishes' swim bladder - but he or she knew absolutely nothing about the anatomy of either a lung or a swim bladder apart from the fact that they both contain air. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER.
 
Quote
The sad fact of the matter is that you don't understand how evolution works, and I doubt if you even want to. If you did, this thread would be obsolete.

Oh, it isn't sad at all. It is my refusal to swallow nonsense uncritically that you're objecting to. I've put up my understanding of evolution and Ben couldn't pick holes in it. So I don't know where you're going with this.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2008 10:08:36 by Asyncritus »

BenV

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #55 on: 17/08/2008 12:03:46 »
Hello again,

I didn't want to get back into this, but here we go...

Just to point out, if you think that ancient animals being identical to modern animals is evidence against evolution, you're wrong.  If the conditions haven't changed, there would be no selective pressure to change, and so ancient species would be genetically close to identical to modern species.  Evolution doesn't say everything should change, but if a mutation allows an individual to take advantage of a new niche, it will be selected for.  This process has also been seen in the lab.

I think you've missed the point of the lungfish.  We know that some fish can survive briefly out of water (lungfish, mudskippers etc.)  If it's advantageous to be able to survive out of water, as it no doubt was, and still is in certain environments, then the ones capable of this would have been more likely to breed - but we're going over old ground here, you've acknowledged that you understand natural selection, and can see how that shapes every species around us.  Your problem now is that you don't see how advantageous traits can arise to be selected.  You've been told a number of times that these traits can arise by mutation, recombination, genetic substitution etc.

It may be worth you looking into the work of Richard Lenski, whose long running E. coli experiment has shown advantageous mutations to appear in bacterial colonies, and that these traits depend on a series of mutations before any phenotypic change is witnessed.

Certainly, sometimes we can speculate on how species have changed, simply by applying the rules of evolution as we know them to be.  This means that although I'm not a biochemist, I can understand the process through which a certain protein has evolved.  We know that DNA replication is not perfect, and so we know where mutations come from.  To suggest that these changes are being controlled externally by an invisible, intangible intelligence is beyond speculation, and into pure fiction.

You're constantly criticising, and supplying what you believe to be evidence against evolution (which turn out to be evidence of your lack of comprehension of the rules of evolution).  I'll now ask again for evidence for a creator.  This would need to be evidence that species change with out natural selection, or genetic changes, or adaptations that are contrary to natural selection (i.e. an adaptation that couldn't have evolved, rather than one where you can't understand how it evolved.)

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #56 on: 17/08/2008 18:04:17 »
Hi again Ben.

Quote
Just to point out, if you think that ancient animals being identical to modern animals is evidence against evolution, you're wrong.

If it was only one species, I would certainly agree with you.

Unfortunately, there are hundreds: they call them 'living fossils': that's the evolutionists' name for them. Here's a Wiki listing. You'll notice that these are only examples, not the whole lot.

:informally known as "living fossils".

[edit] Plants

    * Amborellaceae
    * Araucaria araucana the Monkey Puzzle tree
    * Cycads
    * Ginkgo tree (Ginkgoaceae)
    * Horsetails Equisetum (Equisetaceae)
    * Metasequoia Dawn Redwood (Cupressaceae; a borderline example, related to Sequoia and Sequoiadendron)
    * Sciadopitys tree (Sciadopityaceae)
    * Whisk ferns Psilotum (Psilotaceae)
    * Welwitschia (Welwitschiaceae)
    * Wollemia tree (Araucariaceae; a borderline example, related to Agathis and Araucaria)

[edit] Fungi

    * Neolecta

[edit] Animals

    * Vertebrates
          o Mammals
                + Cypriot mouse (Mus cypriacus)
                + Red Panda (Ailurus fulgens)
                + Okapi (Okapia johnstoni)
                + Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus)
                + Volcano rabbit (Romerolagus diazi)
                + Amami rabbit (Pentalagus furnessi)
                + Monito del Monte (Dromiciops gliroides)
                + monotremes (the platypus and echidna)
                + Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
                + Opossums
                + Przewalski's Horse (Equus ferus przewalskii, Equus przewalskii or Equus caballus przewalskii, classification is debated)
          o Birds
                + Acanthisittidae (New Zealand "wrens")
                + Hoatzin (Ophisthocomus hoazin)
                + Broad-billed Sapayoa (Sapayoa aenigma)
                + Bearded Reedling (Panurus biarmicus)
                + Coliiformes (mousebirds, 6 living species in 2 genera)
                + Magpie-goose (Anseranas semipalmata)
          o Reptiles
                + Pig-nosed turtle
                + Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials and alligators)
                + Tuataras (Sphenodon punctatus and Sphenodon guntheri)
          o Amphibians
                + Purple frog (Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis)
          o Bony fish
                + Bowfin (Amia calva)
                + Coelacanth (the lobed-finned Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae)
                + Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus fosteri)
                + Sturgeons and paddlefish (Acipenseriformes)
          o Sharks
                + Frilled shark (Chlamydoselachus anguineus)

    * Invertebrates
          o Insects
                + Mantophasmatodea (gladiators; a few living species)
                + Mymarommatid wasps (10 living species in genus Palaeomymar)
                + Nevrorthidae (3 species-poor genera)
                + Notiothauma reedi (a scorpionfly relative)
                + Orussidae (parasitic wood wasps; about 70 living species in 16 genera)
                + Peloridiidae (peloridiid bugs; fewer than 30 living species in 13 genera)
                + Sikhotealinia zhiltzovae (a jurodid beetle)
                + Syntexis libocedrii (Anaxyelidae cedar wood wasp)
          o Crustaceans
                + glypheoid lobsters (3 living species: Neoglyphea inopinata, N. neocaledonica, and Laurentaeglyphea neocaledonica)
                + Triops cancriformis (a notostracid crustacean)
          o Molluscs
                + Nautilina (e.g. Nautilus pompilius)
                + Neopilina galateae, a monoplacophorid mollusc
                + Ennucula superba (Nut clam)
          o Other invertebrates
                + crinoids
                + Horseshoe crabs (only 4 living species of the class Xiphosura, family Limulidae: Limulus polyphemus,Tachypleus gigas, Tachypleus tridentatus and Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda)
                + Lingula anatina (an inarticulate brachiopod)
                + onychophorans
                + Valdiviathyris quenstedti (a craniforman brachiopod)

So what do we do with them?

I think Latimeria (the coelacanth) finished the argument 'that if conditions haven't changed, the fish wouldn't'. Do you really mean to say that conditions haven't changed in 418 million years? I very much doubt it.

This is terrible proof that evolution has not occurred. Remember, Stephen Hawkings remark: “…you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory”

Well, here are several hundreds of that kind of observation. What are you going to do with your theory? Still carry on with it, or abandon it?

I'd be interested to know what it would take to make you discard the theory. Tyre tracks in the PreCambrian? Well we have plenty of those. What else? A sting ray in the Cretaceous? We've plenty of those too.
Quote
Your problem now is that you don't see how advantageous traits can arise to be selected.  You've been told a number of times that these traits can arise by mutation, recombination, genetic substitution etc.

JSTOR aticle records 66 advantageous mutations over 10,000 generations. That makes all of this a joke. There simply isn't the needed time for all 6,000,000 or so species to arise not mentioning the extinct ones. Where did they all come from, then?

And then there's the Cambrian explosion.

For those who may not know, it is the sudden 'explosive' appearance of thousands of new species, genera, orders and phyla in what is described as a geological blink of an eye.

"Cambrian Explosion: the term used to describe the very sudden appearance of a huge variety of fossil organisms with hard skeletons in the sedimentary rocks of the middle Cambrian."
http://www-sedgwick.esc.cam.ac.uk/education/glossary.html

Note the VERY SUDDEN; the HUGE VARIETY of hard skeletoned organisms.

If the hard skeletoned animals arose from soft tissued animals, then there's no evidence of them doing so. Also, the swiftness of their appearance is consistent with their having been created in a short period of time. They simply cannot have evolved by the usual mutations + selections therefrom mechanism, especially if 66 advantageous mutations arose in 10,000 generations. There simply isn't time for them to have done so.

Quote
Certainly, sometimes we can speculate on how species have changed, simply by applying the rules of evolution as we know them to be.  This means that although I'm not a biochemist, I can understand the process through which a certain protein has evolved.  We know that DNA replication is not perfect, and so we know where mutations come from.  To suggest that these changes are being controlled externally by an invisible, intangible intelligence is beyond speculation, and into pure fiction.

Ben, assuming that the first organisms were the most complex genetically that there ever were, then the mutations etc route you are describing can only have been downhill all the way. Why? Because in general, mutations represent DAMAGE  and DESTRUCTION of perfectly good genes/chromosomes.

They never represent improvements, really. Do you know how many generations of Drosophilas Dobzhansky and co. irradiated with gamma and Xrays? It was in the thousands. And guess what happened? Nothing as far as producing a new species is concerned. Red eyes changed to white eyes to no eyes at all. Wings were damaged, bodies deformed and so it went on. Why the society for the prevention of cruelty to dumb anmals didn't roast Dobzhansky and co, I don't know.

But we have had Chernobyl in recent years. It was probably the worst and most massive irradiation experiment ever performed. And guess how many new species have been formed in the locality? None. Similarly Hiroshima and Ngasaki.

Which I submit, leaves evolution high and dry - because unless a new characteristic can be inherited, it is valueless to the progress of evolution.

So where have we got to in the evolution of amphibians and reptiles from fish?

1 It couldn't have occurred.

2 The evidence shows that it didn't occur.

Since the Creator didn't choose to sign every cell with His Name, I can't supply that sort of evidence. What He did do,however, was to leave traces of His activity in the form of the extremely intelligent designs we see in the world around us. Michael Behe has described some of them in Darwin's Black Box.

That form of evidence is beautifully described by William Paley in his book on Natural Theology here:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ucNMDAWWyLsC&dq=William+Paley's+Natural+Theology+online&pg=PP1&ots=xiS8Bb1RxT&sig=FOnTBepsqX4-dkuMYLXsTQZ6idA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA5,M1

I highly recommend that you read it with some degree of attention.

« Last Edit: 18/08/2008 00:28:07 by Asyncritus »

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #57 on: 21/08/2008 07:02:41 »
BTW, I just found this last night.

For anyone who may be interested in living fossils, here's an amazing and extensive compendium of unchanged, living fossils.

http://www.fossil-museum.com

« Last Edit: 21/08/2008 07:04:22 by Asyncritus »

RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7121
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #58 on: 21/08/2008 11:16:13 »
Just because the form of some creatures has remained the essentially the same for millions of years does not disprove evolution: they have adapted to an environmental niche which has not changed, so their form has not changed, although their immune systems will have evolved in response to appearance new diseases. [You're now going to tell us that there are no new pathogens, because that would require evolution].
 
Evidence of the evolution of one species into another is sufficient to disprove creationism "intelligent design", the horse for example...

Quote
Fossil Evidence for Evolution – Transitional Fossils
The second line of fossil evidence for evolution concerns transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils which are thought to document the evolutionary change, or transition, of one species into another. The orohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychippus, and pleshippus are all thought to be transitional fossils, documenting the evolution of the hyracotherium into the modern horse.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/fossil-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm

These transitional fossils along with rare atavisms* in modern horses are convincing evidence for evolution,
(to those who are susceptible to reason).


Quote
* Probably the most well-known atavism is polydactyly of modern horses ... This condition is similar to the extra toes found in many of the three-toed fossil horses including Archaeohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus and Neohipparion.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony11_1/Pe111.html#Atavisms
« Last Edit: 21/08/2008 11:42:49 by RD »

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #59 on: 21/08/2008 15:41:43 »

Quote
Just because the form of some creatures has remained the essentially the same for millions of years does not disprove evolution: they have adapted to an environmental niche which has not changed, so their form has not changed,


Don't you get tired of this nonsense? If they changed that's proof of evolution. If they haven't changed, that's proof of evolution. Marvellous.
Quote
although their immune systems will have evolved in response to appearance new diseases.

How do you know that?
[You're now going to tell us that there are no new pathogens, because that would require evolution].
 
Evidence of the evolution of one species into another is sufficient to disprove creationism "intelligent design", the horse for example...

The second line of fossil evidence for evolution concerns transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils which are thought to document the evolutionary change, or transition, of one species into another. The orohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychippus, and pleshippus are all thought to be transitional fossils, documenting the evolution of the hyracotherium into the modern horse. [/size]


Haven't you read about Eldredge shoving that stupid lot of fossils downstairs in his museum, or do I have to go find the references?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/fossil-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm

Quote
These transitional fossils along with rare atavisms* in modern horses are convincing evidence for evolution,
(to those who are susceptible to reason).

Maybe they convince you, but it doesn't convince the palaeontologists who stata categorically that there are no transitional fossils. Here's Gould:

"(1)"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, (2) indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, (3) has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" – (4) of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing?"

Maybe he wasn't susceptible to reason either. But he was professor of invertebrate palaeontology at Harvard.

Simpson:
Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, off hand, be imputed to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation as has been felt by most paleontologists.”

Gould again:
I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with (6) caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed.

« Last Edit: 21/08/2008 15:44:28 by Asyncritus »

RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7121
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #60 on: 21/08/2008 18:13:36 »
I did not say that species whose form has remained the same for millions of years proves evolution, I said this constancy does not disprove evolution, it is entirely consistent with species having adapted to a niche which has remained constant for millions of years.

My reference to the immune systems was to point out that evolution has not stopped in these "living fossils". The immune systems of all animals are subject to evolutionary pressure by the emergence of new pathogens: those whose immune system can defeat the new virus/bacteria will survive and can have progeny who inherit this immunity, those whose immune system cannot defeat the new pathogen will perish and become an evolutionary dead-end.

You have acknowledged the existence of genes in similar threads Asyncritus.
If you acknowledge that members of a species are not genetically identical, and environmental conditions will favour the survival of those who posses certain genes over those whose do not, (like the immunity example I have given above), then you acknowledge evolution.

PS
      I missed your comment on the appearance of new pathogens, (e.g. new viruses such as H571, SARS, AIDS).

PPS

perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed.

Atavism proves that intermediates did exist and that modern creatures are descended from them.
The DNA of the intermediate must be carried by modern members of the species who exhibit atavistic traits.


      http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/SkeletalSystem/Images/19.shtml
« Last Edit: 21/08/2008 19:34:45 by RD »

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #61 on: 22/08/2008 20:23:43 »
Just because the form of some creatures has remained the essentially the same for millions of years does not disprove evolution: they have adapted to an environmental niche which has not changed, so their form has not changed, although their immune systems will have evolved in response to appearance new diseases. [You're now going to tell us that there are no new pathogens, because that would require evolution].

This is pure nonsense. The coelacanths appeared 418mya. They've remained unchanged till today. You seriously mean to say that in 418my no environmental changes took place???????

Those fossil pics above are from various times between 100 and 50 mya. No environmental changes???? Tripe.

Quote
Evidence of the evolution of one species into another is sufficient to disprove creationism "intelligent design", the horse for example...

And what does evidence of no evolution prove?

Quote
Fossil Evidence for Evolution – Transitional Fossils
The second line of fossil evidence for evolution concerns transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils which are thought to document the evolutionary change, or transition, of one species into another. The orohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychippus, and pleshippus are all thought to be transitional fossils, documenting the evolution of the hyracotherium into the modern horse.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/fossil-evidence-for-evolution-faq.htm

These transitional fossils along with rare atavisms* in modern horses are convincing evidence for evolution,
(to those who are susceptible to reason).



Quote
* Probably the most well-known atavism is polydactyly of modern horses ... This condition is similar to the extra toes found in many of the three-toed fossil horses including Archaeohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus and Neohipparion.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony11_1/Pe111.html#Atavisms
[/quote]

Are you going to force me to find Eldredge's quote where he said he shoved that display downstairs in his museum? You ever heard of Eldredge, and know who he is? Try google.

RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7121
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #62 on: 22/08/2008 20:45:09 »
This is pure nonsense. The coelacanths appeared 418mya. They've remained unchanged till today.

Quote
It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
« Last Edit: 22/08/2008 21:26:05 by RD »

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #63 on: 23/08/2008 17:17:51 »
 
The name 'coelacanth'is the name of a group. It is known from fossils.

"Although I had come prepared, that first sight hit me like a white-hot blast and made me feel shaky and queer, my body tingled. I stood as if striken to stone. Yes, there was not a shadow of doubt, scale by scale, bone by bone, fin by fin, it was true Coelacanth."

Unless, of course this guy knew nothing about it.

The nasty fact remains that they are not really different from their 410 myo ancestors. THEY ARE RECOGNISABLE. SO ALL THE WRIGGLING WILL DO YOU NO GOOD AT ALL.

Here are two pictures which demonstrate that:





"A second coelacanth was found in later years. However, the fish died soon after being removed from the deep waters in which it lived and brought to the warm, shallow surface waters. Nonetheless it was still possible to examine its internal organs. The reality encountered by the investigating team, led by Dr. Jacques Millot, was very different to that which had been expected. Contrary to expectations, the fish's internal organs had no primitive features at all, and it bore no features of being an intermediate form, nor of a supposedly primitive ancestor. It had no primitive lung, as evolutionists had been claiming. The structure that evolutionist investigators imagined to be a primitive lung was actually a fat-filled swimbladder."http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_II/atlas_creation_II_05.php
« Last Edit: 23/08/2008 17:20:49 by Asyncritus »

RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7121
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #64 on: 23/08/2008 19:18:10 »
The nasty fact remains that they are not really different from their 410 myo ancestors. THEY ARE RECOGNISABLE.

I agree with you Asyncritus: modern coelacanths are very similar to the fossils…

the form of some creatures has remained the essentially the same for millions of years

Quote
It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species.
http://www.lakestluciavillas.com/coelacanth.html

But "recognisable", "very similar", "essentially the same" and "closely resemble", are not sufficient for creationism:
If creatures were designed then modern species and fossils would be identical.
If the modern species has even slight changes from the fossil then it was not "designed", it has mutated, it has evolved.

Coelacanths and you and I are decendents of mutants who were better adapted to their environment than their contemporaries.
« Last Edit: 23/08/2008 19:58:43 by RD »

_Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #65 on: 24/08/2008 02:18:05 »
It's amusing that you're using the Harunyahya book as a reference. It's so poorly written, and its contents grossly misrepresent the science it's attacking. Not only that, but the photos they've used aren't even accurate: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins


You seem to think that every species must constantly be evolving no matter what in order for the theory to be correct. As other members have explained to you, species will only evolve significantly (i.e. aside from genetic drift) when the environmental pressures (natural selection) change to a certain extent in ways that act on the variation (due to mutation and recombination) in the population.

You also seem to think that the result of evolution must express itself in the species' external morphology. This is not necessarily the case. Most evolution occurs on the internal environment of the organism, and species can appear superficially unchanged, while their DNA has evolved dramatically. Take the Tuatara for example: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/cp-ttf032008.php
 
In case you're the kind of person who thinks that evolution is false because you can't see it happen before your eyes, there are many examples of that. This is just one off the top of my head: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

That evidence ALONE falsifies creationism.

Unfortunately, you ignore and reject the evidence that doesn't confirm your irrational ideologies. The only reason I can see for rebutting your nonsense is to prevent innocent readers looking for real science from being brainwashed by you. http://www.talkorigins.org/ is a great place to start.

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #66 on: 24/08/2008 18:39:13 »
Quote
But "recognisable", "very similar", "essentially the same" and "closely resemble", are not sufficient for creationism:
If creatures were designed then modern species and fossils would be identical.
If the modern species has even slight changes from the fossil then it was not "designed", it has mutated, it has evolved.

My dear fellow, if we lived 410mya, we would probably see these very organisms swimming around. It's called variation. There are several genera in most families, and this is all you're describing. Variation.

So what happened to the coelacanth being the ancestors, so confidently proclaimed, of the tetrapods and us? That theory has been properly stuffed and mounted.

Quote
Coelacanths and you and I are decendents of mutants who were better adapted to their environment than their contemporaries.

Your faith is very touching. I'm saddened to see it. Because you really haven't thought it through.

Let's take hypothetical organism A in the preCambrian layers, which was the common ancestor of everything. It's functioning perfectly and doing well. Let's not bother too much about where it came from just yet.

It mutates. Now, do you know what a mutation is? Here's a definition from google:

"a mistake in the cell's DNA, produced by miscopying during cell reproduction, radiation damage, or environmental factors. ..."

Which is absolutely correct.

So we have perfect specimen A, with perfect genes, producing a damaged, miscopied, mistaken set of genes in its offspring B.

Is that E-volution, or DE-volution?

Do you seriously mean to tell me, that that represents progress? And for the next n generations the process is repeated. What would you expect after the nth generation? I personally would expect damage and destruction, and the possible extinction of the species.

But that's not what we find. We find, in the Cambrian stratum, about 100 new PHYLA - not species (they're unable to count those). That is a gigantic amount of improvement. So where did it come from?

What is worse from your POV, is that all these fossils are HARD-SKELETONed animals. Now they've no idea where all these have come from, and much scratching round in the preCambrian hasn't found anything much except cyanobacteria and other microbes.

So assuming  microbial first organism, how did all these things arise, and from what?

Yahya documents 83 pages of fossils whose descendants haven't changed much since they were deposited. That's a lot of species. I listed above the 'living fossils' given by wiki.
Have a look, and let me know why you're sneering at the facts.
http://www.fossil-museum.com/

Now as a fairminded person, you've established a theory which says that organisms will change/ evolve over long periods of time. How many exceptions to that rule do you have to have before you discard the theory? 10? 20? 100? Yahya has got 83 PAGES full of them in the fossil-museum. Why haven't you discarded the theory yet?

So you've got a situation where:

1 Acquired characters can't be inherited. ie if fish C walks out on land, he can't pass those characters on to his offspring! They're stuck in the water.

2 Mutations are generally neutral or destructive. I read a JSTOR article which said that about 66 advantageous mutations occur in about 10,000 generations.

So if we say a human reproduces at 20 years, and that's a generation, then that's 66 beneficials in 200,000 years.Or so.
We aren't going to become supermen anytime soon, that's for sure.

So what have you got? You have a theory that can't work.

I see that the tuatara is being touted as an example of rapid DNA evolution. I don't know what he's on about, but I do know that it is one of the 'living fossils' listed by wiki. Hasn't changed for 230 million years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil 

It hasn't changed any since and is one of the species that forced Niles Eldredge to say:

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history"
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, [1995], phoenix: London, 1996

I'm amazed to see you quoting that stupid experiment by Lemski. There is a metabolic change in the organism over 40,000 generations while it was stuck in a refrigerator. Fantastic proof of evolution occurring! Now if it had evolved and changed into a shrimp or something (as they obviously needed to have done to account for the Cambrian explosion), I might have listened. I wonder who's paying the electricity bill for this guy to waste time so uselessly.

I see you are attributing unpleasant motives to me. Dawkins, of course does nothing of the sort! He's as pure as the driven snow. Please let's keep personalities out of this.

But here's a video you might not like:

http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php



RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7121
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #67 on: 24/08/2008 19:01:34 »
My dear fellow, if we lived 410mya, we would probably see these very organisms swimming around.
No fossil evidence to prove this Asyncritus,
the modern coelacanth are very similar, (but not identical), to cretaceous fossils, ~100 myr old.

It's called variation. There are several genera in most families, and this is all you're describing. Variation.
Yes, the kind of variation that would arise from evolution: variations on a theme: similar creatures evolved from a common ancestor.

Mutations are generally neutral or destructive.
True, but on rare occasions a mutation will be advantageous. Evolution is a slow accumulation of these beneficial mutations.
« Last Edit: 24/08/2008 21:46:33 by RD »

atrox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #68 on: 24/08/2008 22:41:32 »
wow, you still just don´t understand...

again, to understand what your adversaries believe in, doesn´t mean that you have to believe in it yourself. So why are you afraid of even try to understand what we think is a possible explanation of the diversity of species? Because if you would understand, you wouldn´t have to ask questions on general basics of evolution. But in fact, to convince someone of the opposition or even discuss the matter propperly you should understand the train of thoughts.
thats not an attack, just a suggestion to make a scientific discussions work...


I wont explain detailed, because I´m getting really tired of the way you use to respond without seeming to remember what any of us did try to explain.. so I would just give you a hint on mutations:

Take a look into sickle cell anaemia for example, how it is an adverse mutation at first sight, but how it make its way, when conditions change...for example when malaria appears...

Or, i think we agree, that there are a lot of neutral mutations, yes?
That doesn´t mean, that they are useless after all...that also depents on the environment. Lets take lactose tolerance...definitive not "normal" for humans(or in fact any other adult animal) as the common reaction of members of certain peoples, which didn´t cultivate milkproducing animals in their history before the globalisation, shows. Its a mutation, neutral, as long as you don´t need it. It wouldn´t affect you or your behaviour or your evolution until you try to drink milk. So if you have this mutation, you can drink milk (and when its invented all the products from milk), you can use the milk as an energy ressource, which is an advantage, so you are more likely to reproduce. Therefore, most indivuals of populations which use milk in any way, are tolerant against lactose, but only a small part of the individuals of nations which didn´t use milk the longest part of their history are.. like the asian nations...but some asian people are able to tolerate lactose as well...because it´s a sleeping mutation which just spread, when it´s an advantage in some environments..
I think most of the mutations had an effect through scenarios like this...


ok...I just wrote mor than I wanted to...take it or leave it, hmmm...I wonder if I bet right on what you will do.--.  ::)

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #69 on: 25/08/2008 10:40:01 »
Hi Atrox

Thought you had disappeared.

Here, prove that you're listening to what I say. Comment on this:

Quote
Let's take hypothetical organism A in the preCambrian layers, which was the common ancestor of everything. It's functioning perfectly and doing well. Let's not bother too much about where it came from just yet.

It mutates. Now, do you know what a mutation is? Here's a definition from google:

"a mistake in the cell's DNA, produced by miscopying during cell reproduction, radiation damage, or environmental factors. ..."

Which is absolutely correct.

So we have perfect specimen A, with perfect genes, producing a damaged, miscopied, mistaken set of genes in its offspring B.

Is that E-volution, or DE-volution?

Do you seriously mean to tell me, that that represents progress? And for the next n generations the process is repeated. What would you expect after the nth generation? I personally would expect damage and destruction, and the possible extinction of the species.

True or false.

If false, why?

If true, isn't that the ruin of your nice theory?

atrox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #70 on: 25/08/2008 11:33:31 »
again yóu don´t seem to have read what I just explained...

I explained how mutations (even mutations that seem to be disadvantageous in first place, like the sickle cell anemia or neutral) can become advantageous... I gave you some examples, which would fit into the (our) theorie of evolution... so why do you again ask the same thing?

at your quote:
a big missunderstanding is, that no species is perfect. Thats just not possible...a species is adapted to its environment. Either its perfectly adapted to its very own environment...that means, that every change would be a big desaster to the species because the adaptations only work if nothing changes a lot (you can find species like this a lot on islands for example). Or the species is an all-rounder... could work with very different environments (like humans, foxes, rats, crows.... all the animals which live in the surroundings of humans for example). But than there is allways a possibility to be better adapted... and if an generalist would end up in an limited area, with an environment, that wouldn´t change a lot for a long time (say on an island), it is very likely that it would evolve to a species of the first kind over the time... so your scenario would just not work....
so it (the perfect species...the first kind of species I mentioned) would not de-evolve, it would evolve, when environment changes and the species wouldn´t be perfect anymore...

Asyncritus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #71 on: 25/08/2008 12:51:44 »
I'm asking the same thing because you haven't read the quote I gave. Here it is again:

 
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history"
Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, , phoenix: London, 1996

Mutations can't account for it, although you make a good case for sickle cell anaemia. However, that does not produce a new species of human being: only one that is more resistant to sickle cell disease.

So if mutations can't do it, what does?

Remember, it's all those thousands and thousands of species in the Cambrian that you're trying to explain.
« Last Edit: 25/08/2008 12:54:10 by Asyncritus »

cheryl j

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #72 on: 01/11/2011 17:17:08 »
Believing that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that fossils aren't real is silly. I also wince when people call Evolution just a theory, simply because no one was around to witness it. Many of the ideas we accept with reasonable certainty in chemistry, physics, astronomy etc.  can't be directly observed, so if evolution is a theory, than so is every explanation, even the engineering principles that hold up bridges and buildings.  And actually, you can observe natural selection taking place with living things, like drug resistant bacteria.

On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss anyone who uses the word intelligence as a nut, or even a believer in creationism. There is some interesting work in physics about intelligence and the universe. Check out Seth Llloyd, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. This is a quote from him:

"OK, so life is the big one, the mother of all information processing revolutions. But what revolution occurred that allowed life to exist? I would claim that, in fact, all information processing revolutions have their origin in the intrinsic computational nature of the universe. The first information processing revolution was the Big Bang. Information processing revolutions come into existence because at some level the universe is constructed of information. It is made out of bits.
Of course, the universe is also made out of elementary particles, unknown dark energy, and lots of other things. I'm not advocating that we junk our normal picture of the universe as being constructed out of quarks, electrons, and protons. But in fact it's been known, ever since the latter part of the 19th century, that every elementary particle, every photon, every electron, registers a certain number of bits of information. Whenever two elementary particles bounce off of each other, those bits flip. The universe computes."

Of course believing that intelligence is woven into the fabric of the universe is not the same as believing in a creator, or that universe was designed specifically to generate you and me. It would seem like an awful lot of time and trouble just for us, not to mention the wasted space.
 

Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8416
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #73 on: 01/11/2011 19:20:57 »

"Whenever two elementary particles bounce off of each other, those bits flip."
 

He should stick to Mechanical Engineering.

Contrary to popular belief, real computers are not binary. They are probabilistic.

Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Do intelligent design ideas make you wince?
« Reply #74 on: 05/11/2011 11:32:26 »
They are Bible literalists who say the earth is six thousand years old, but the first verses of Genesis can be taken to mean the earth was already there before the six thousand years one counts in life times were. It was in chaos, covered in water, the plot is missed deliberately.

I did in my misfortune as a child amidst divorce, need more than I got, and thinking I was going to die, and a little belief in Jesus, and I turned around my life for justice and honour. I appreciated the highs it gave me, and the wisdom, to commit and correct myself from time to time. So I am not in prison like some others with little fathering.
« Last Edit: 05/11/2011 13:42:13 by Titanscape »

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length