The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does "instinct" evolve?  (Read 149217 times)

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #100 on: 19/12/2008 01:52:05 »
Asyncritus, you are confusing designed and designoid objects. Don't be stupid. The Watchmaker argument simply does not hold any water.

RE: whale evolution. There are numerous transitional fossils clearly demonstrating the evolution of land mammals into whales. Those appendages clearly are vestigial legs. The very way that they swim links them to a terrestrial past - their spines move sinusoidally, just as the spines of land mammals do when they run. DNA and fossil evidence has already told us that their closest living relatives are hippos.

Asyncritus, since you can't find any positive evidence for the designer, then you could at least try to explain who designed the designer. Any intelligent being capable of creating a universe and organisms is surely too complex to have appeared out of nowhere by chance. Please note: "The creator was not created, the creator has existed for eternity", or similar, is not a suitable answer.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #101 on: 19/12/2008 10:31:59 »
Quote
Quote from: _Stefan_ on 17/12/2008 02:18:50
Don't be a hypocrite, Asyncritus! Who designed the designer?

None of the evidence indicates that the universe was designed and has an intrinsic purpose or meaning. If you want to insist that there is, you must find positive evidence for your claim.

Your criticisms of evolution are invalid because they are based in ignorance, misunderstanding, and consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. Further, even if evolution was completely falsified, there would still be no case to be made for creationism as there is no positive evidence. You continue to ignore this major point.

Quote
Don't you think this is somewhat irrational Stefan?

I've never met the designer of Mercedes cars, but I drive one.

Does that mean he doesn't exist? Or that Carl Benz is a figment of my imagination?

What say you, Stefan?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #102 on: 19/12/2008 10:37:34 »
Quote from: _Stefan_

RE: whale evolution. There are numerous transitional fossils clearly demonstrating the evolution of land mammals into whales.

Heh heh heh!

How gullible you are Stefan - and uninformed. Let me show you:

EVERY MAMMAL with a tail swishes it from side to side. Think of a cow, for example.

EVERY WHALE, on the other hand, swishes its tail UP AND DOWN for propulsion.

OK. So how did the lateral movement become a vertical one?

And before you start yelling about logical fallacies and my ignorance, try answering the question first.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #103 on: 19/12/2008 13:54:47 »
Wow, you are incredible. You don't even make an effort to understand what I am saying.

I wrote: "The very way that they swim links them to a terrestrial past - their spines move sinusoidally, just as the spines of land mammals do when they run."

Exhibit A
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DzXW2IGcKrA&NR=1

Exhibit B
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iarsmqA3dck&feature=related

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html

It is easy to see how the vertical tail movement could have evolved. With the natural undulation of a terrestrial mammal's spine, and a tail adapted for use as a paddle (as in otters, beavers, and the platypus), can it be any clearer?

Take your blinkers off and do your own research with the lenses of a learning thinker.

I'm still waiting for positive evidence for creationism, and a good explanation for the designer. Please do not return until you can provide them. I have asked you so many times already, but you just skip it and give us another demonstration of your ignorance.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #104 on: 19/12/2008 19:29:55 »

Wow, you are incredible. You don't even make an effort to understand what I am saying.

I'm beginning to have serious doubts about your ability to understand English. I don't speak any other language, so I really can't say this any other way. Maybe Ben or somebody can weigh in with some remedial language programs.

So here's the question again. Please try first, to understand it, and second, to answer it.

I drive a Mercedes. I have never met or seen Carl Benz.

Now does he exist, did he exist or not?

My car is proof that he did - but clearly you don't think he did, or do you?

Quote
I wrote: "The very way that they swim links them to a terrestrial past - their spines move sinusoidally, just as the spines of land mammals do when they run."

These videos are supposed to show that the sinusoidal movements of cheetahs at speed somehow evolved into the titanically powerful vertical PROPULSION  movements of whales and dolphins? You've just got to be Mr Gullible, haven't you?

Can you possibly imagine a cheetah swimming for its life UNDERWATER suddenly swishing its tail up and down? IT HAS NO MUSCLES TO DO SO. So where did they come from?

And you quoted that joker Babinski. Here's his reply:

Quote

I don't know whether the museum pics should be displayed as "vestigial hind limbs,"
[/b]

Bad start!

Quote

Maybe the Baleen whale is a hipbone with a leg bone fused to it at an angle, but I can't tell. It could just be a pelvis with no vestigial hind limb. From the pics I've seen of whale pelvises, that's all it might be.

Even worse!

Quote

The vestigial leg bone in Baleen whales is usually just an ovoidal bone, the pelvis reduced to an egg-shaped bone, and I don't see that in the photo. It's often overlooked according to one of those Japanese experts on vestigial whale hind limbs. And so that may be why it isn't hanging from the ceiling in the museum. But I can't prove that.

Heh heh heh! You don't say!

Quote

All I can say is that the most you can safely say is that those whale skeletons show a vestigial pelvis.

With all that ignorance, he can still 'safely say' that? No sir, he can't. What I can say, is TRIPE.
 
Quote
It is easy to see how the vertical tail movement could have evolved.

Only if you shut your eyes and drift off into a Delightful Dawkins Daydream! I ask you again, where did those muscles come from? Where did the flukes on the end of the tail come from? Can you see any vestigial flukes on the end of the cheetah's tail? I can't, but maybe you can.

Quote

With the natural undulation of a terrestrial mammal's spine, and a tail adapted for use as a paddle (as in otters, beavers, and the platypus), can it be any clearer?


What utter tripe! Can any of these animals dive to 1.5 miles without a concrete block tied round their middles, and come back alive? Maybe you should try it sometime!

And, um, there's another lickle ting called echolocation. Ever heard of it? So did your Pakicetus or Ambulocetus or Whateverthehell-cetus take to the water and have deep diving lessons, and sonar-manufacturing techniques instruction too? How did its skin survive the soaking?

Oh yeah, I forgot. These beached whales we see every now and then are whales coming back on to land, remembering how to dry out their vestigial fur! Hm. Tough luck guys. They all die without help.

So why don't you push off till you have some intelligent answers to give? Try writing Babinski. He may have more tripe to spew. Careful. He might hit you with some of that!

Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus.

Quote
I'm still waiting for positive evidence for creationism, and a good explanation for the designer. Please do not return until you can provide them. I have asked you so many times already, but you just skip it and give us another demonstration of your ignorance.

The whale is a wonderful example of creationism. There is no way it could have evolved, that rag National Geographic notwithstanding.

Therefore it was created.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #105 on: 20/12/2008 04:24:55 »

Wow, you are incredible. You don't even make an effort to understand what I am saying.

I'm beginning to have serious doubts about your ability to understand English. I don't speak any other language, so I really can't say this any other way. Maybe Ben or somebody can weigh in with some remedial language programs.

So here's the question again. Please try first, to understand it, and second, to answer it.

I drive a Mercedes. I have never met or seen Carl Benz.

Now does he exist, did he exist or not?

My car is proof that he did - but clearly you don't think he did, or do you?

It is you who is lacking the intelligence and/or the will to understand anything I'm saying.

We only know that your car was designed because we have evidence that all cars are designed and produced by humans and their equipment. We know that Benz existed because we have other lines of evidence that he did and that he designed automobiles including the Mercedes - without such evidence, anyone could have designed the Mercedes.

Similarly, we know how evolution in general works, and when specific lineages are researched vigorously, we discover how they evolved too. This comes about through finding and understanding the evidence.

Your creationist biases lead you to ignore, misunderstand, and lie about such evidence, in order to preserve your unfounded religious beliefs.

You cannot provide evidence for creation, and you cannot provide a logical explanation for how creation occurs. Therefore, you forfeit the argument to evolution, which does a very good job of providing and explaining the evidence of life's development over time.

You simply cannot say that since cars are designed by intelligence, organisms have been too. This is the Watchmaker Analogy, and it includes the logical fallacy Argument from Ignorance.

Quote
Quote
I wrote: "The very way that they swim links them to a terrestrial past - their spines move sinusoidally, just as the spines of land mammals do when they run."

These videos are supposed to show that the sinusoidal movements of cheetahs at speed somehow evolved into the titanically powerful vertical PROPULSION  movements of whales and dolphins? You've just got to be Mr Gullible, haven't you?

Can you possibly imagine a cheetah swimming for its life UNDERWATER suddenly swishing its tail up and down? IT HAS NO MUSCLES TO DO SO. So where did they come from?

The videos show that the motions are already there. The mammal tail certainly has muscles. The whale's tail has been reinforced with stronger muscle and the behaviour has been developed, over thousands of generations of evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080911-whale-legs.html

Quote
And you quoted that joker Babinski. Here's his reply:

Quote

I don't know whether the museum pics should be displayed as "vestigial hind limbs,"
[/b]

Bad start!

Quote

Maybe the Baleen whale is a hipbone with a leg bone fused to it at an angle, but I can't tell. It could just be a pelvis with no vestigial hind limb. From the pics I've seen of whale pelvises, that's all it might be.

Even worse!

Quote

The vestigial leg bone in Baleen whales is usually just an ovoidal bone, the pelvis reduced to an egg-shaped bone, and I don't see that in the photo. It's often overlooked according to one of those Japanese experts on vestigial whale hind limbs. And so that may be why it isn't hanging from the ceiling in the museum. But I can't prove that.

Heh heh heh! You don't say!

Quote

All I can say is that the most you can safely say is that those whale skeletons show a vestigial pelvis.

With all that ignorance, he can still 'safely say' that? No sir, he can't. What I can say, is TRIPE.

You are QUOTE-MINING. Classic creationist tactic. Read the whole article, because you are ingoring what the article actually says and means. While you are there, you should read the articles in the list on this page:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=cetacea

Especially this:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/hind_limb_buds/ - you simple cannot ignore that whales have evolved from terrestrial mammals.

Quote
Quote
It is easy to see how the vertical tail movement could have evolved.

Only if you shut your eyes and drift off into a Delightful Dawkins Daydream! I ask you again, where did those muscles come from? Where did the flukes on the end of the tail come from? Can you see any vestigial flukes on the end of the cheetah's tail? I can't, but maybe you can.

Tails already have muscles! They need only be reinforced to the extent that they are in whales.

Re: flukes:

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_b/reviews/acker10.html

Quote

With the natural undulation of a terrestrial mammal's spine, and a tail adapted for use as a paddle (as in otters, beavers, and the platypus), can it be any clearer?


Quote
What utter tripe! Can any of these animals dive to 1.5 miles without a concrete block tied round their middles, and come back alive? Maybe you should try it sometime!

And, um, there's another lickle ting called echolocation. Ever heard of it? So did your Pakicetus or Ambulocetus or Whateverthehell-cetus take to the water and have deep diving lessons, and sonar-manufacturing techniques instruction too? How did its skin survive the soaking?

It's called evolution by mutation and natural selection. That means new structures and functions develop from changes to the DNA that was already there. There is no learning involved.

Echolocation is most likely a result of the elongation of the skull and the change in ear position. I am not an expert on this; perhaps instead of being an idiot you could do your own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans

Quote
Oh yeah, I forgot. These beached whales we see every now and then are whales coming back on to land, remembering how to dry out their vestigial fur! Hm. Tough luck guys. They all die without help.

You have to be kidding.

Quote
So why don't you push off till you have some intelligent answers to give? Try writing Babinski. He may have more tripe to spew. Careful. He might hit you with some of that!

You misrepresented his work; the tripe being spewed is all your own.

Quote
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus.

Nothing you have ever written on this forum indicates that you are capable of following your own advice.

Quote
Quote
I'm still waiting for positive evidence for creationism, and a good explanation for the designer. Please do not return until you can provide them. I have asked you so many times already, but you just skip it and give us another demonstration of your ignorance.

The whale is a wonderful example of creationism. There is no way it could have evolved, that rag National Geographic notwithstanding.

Simply, no. Try being honest and sincere next time. Find some real evidence for creation. Currently, evolution satisfies whale origins.

Quote
Therefore it was created.

No. Again, the Argument from Ignorance. Do not return until you have something better than that. I keep telling you that even if evolution was wrong, creation is not a sufficient alternative.

I will refrain from posting here until you have demonstrated that you have fully understood evolutionary science, and science in general. When you really understand the science, you'll have no use for creationism. Until such time, we can only conclude that you have no clue and refuse to understand. Further argument is beyond pointless.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #106 on: 20/12/2008 12:35:20 »
Asyncritus
Why do you bother to post on a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the Scientific approach?
Your attitude towards evidence is the ratchet system: use supporting evidence and reasoning to confirm what you believe and ignore the contrary evidence and reasoning. That's a win win for your (as I see it, erroneous) beliefs.
Do you have any appreciation of the concepts and statistics involving large numbers? If you haven't, then I can see how evolution could seem difficult to understand.
btw, is God male or female?
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #107 on: 20/12/2008 15:21:15 »
Quote
Asyncritus
Why do you bother to post on a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the Scientific approach?
Your attitude towards evidence is the ratchet system: use supporting evidence and reasoning to confirm what you believe and ignore the contrary evidence and reasoning. That's a win win for your (as I see it, erroneous) beliefs.
Do you have any appreciation of the concepts and statistics involving large numbers? If you haven't, then I can see how evolution could seem difficult to understand.
btw, is God male or female?

I hold an honours degree in Agriculture - an applied biological subject Sophie.

For that reason I refuse to allow garbage to parade as christmas presents.

There is no contrary evidence. There is ALLEGED contrary evidence - but as shown above, it is hopeless, meaningless, and should be trashed. All we have is CLAIMS.

There is that joker Stefan writing this absolute nonsense:

Quote
Echolocation is most likely a result of the elongation of the skull and the change in ear position. I am not an expert on this; perhaps instead of being an idiot you could do your own research.

I have done my own research, and guess what? They haven't a clue how it could have evolved - but they're dead sure that it did!

He's on your side, but I'm sure that even you can recognise that quote as fit for the Council garbage collector. A bone becoming longer, and the ear position changing, produces an echolocating device that the US Navy is even now racking its collective brains to copy? What does he think you are? Stupid? I hope not. But if you do believe it... heh heh heh!

And yes, I have a Diploma in Teaching Applied Mathematics too, which was mostly statistics and differential equations. What have you got?

And since you don't believe in God, what does it matter if He's male?
« Last Edit: 20/12/2008 15:23:58 by Asyncritus »
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #108 on: 20/12/2008 16:59:57 »
OK
Apart from your gut feeling and your faith, what have you that you can call evidence that someone 'made us'?
If you insist that it has to be true because of the small probability of things evolving then you also should say that, when a coin comes down 'heads' then God made that happen too. They are both problems in probability; one is easy to assess and the other involves very big numbers and very small probabilities and is very hard to assess
Your attitude to the timescales and numbers involved with evolution theory has let you down because you don't want it to be true. I hope that, in your statistics lessons, you insist that your students are made aware of statistical significance and numbers and that they go with their results.
When you make statements like "they haven't a clue" about how whales developed echo location you are clearly emotionally involved. "They" aren't obliged to have a clue about something as specific as that. The pathways in evolution are very complex and there will always be unexpected reasons for a particular development.

Are you saying that God keeps introducing new strains and species of bacteria just to keep us on our toes? Is it too hard to accept that a strain of bacteria which just manages to survive the onslaught of a new drug will live to reproduce whilst the target strain is killed off? Or is that allowed in your model?
Where is the essential difference between that and the development of fast  enough predators and fast enough prey?
You can have no proof of your faith until your God comes along and shows us it happening overnight and under a repeatable conditions. Unsurprisingly, your faith doesn't include that sort of evidence - just statements like "It stands to reason" and "evolutionists are all crazy".

The qualifications game is a non starter; 2+2 doesn't make 5, whoever says so - BSc, PhD or whatever.

SO why not refer to God as 'her' or 'it'? Thatt would demonstrate some degree of open mindedness.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #109 on: 20/12/2008 17:05:15 »
Asyncritus, why are you still here?

You may have noticed that the people on this forum do not accept your explanation of the origin of species - this is because it is based on the illogical assumption that there is a god.  As others here do not share your assumption, your explanation is not, and can not be, relevant to them.

Every problem you see with evolution is based not on the science, but on your assumption of a creator.

You may have also noticed that many people have asked you for positive evidence for your creator - it should ring warning bells for you that you will never be able to supply this evidence.  This is because religion is a philosophy, and not a science.  You can't supply a scientific alternative to evolution. Creationism is not a science, nor will it ever be.  You are, as I have said before, calling a foul in football based on the rules of cricket.

I have tried a number of times, as have others on this forum, to explain why evolution is the obvious explanation for the diversity of species on Earth.  I realised a short while ago that we are banging our heads against a brick wall.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #110 on: 20/12/2008 22:24:31 »
I wish that the creationists would realise that, by insisting that God did things 'their way' they are, in fact, being just plain arrogant.
There is no reason why you can't have a God who is supreme and who created things in the very beginning and even a 'personal' God who can care for humans.  That doesn't, in any way, deny the possibility of Evolution. Many people of religion can believe it in this way.
BUT, the crashing presumption of these Creationists is to dictate to a SUPREME being, from the experience of a few brief years of human history, how it must have arranged its Universes. Can they really be so arrogant if they believe in one so omnipotent??

At least the Scientist try to test their ideas destruction and always consider themselves as on a journey rather than to have arrived.
« Last Edit: 20/12/2008 22:26:07 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #111 on: 22/12/2008 12:14:49 »
OK
Apart from your gut feeling and your faith, what have you that you can call evidence that someone 'made us'?

This is no 'gut feeling'. Set up any criteria you like that will demonstrate the Intelligent Design of an object,and we'll see if the whale meets them. Or the eye, or the flight of birds as simple examples.

Quote
If you insist that it has to be true because of the small probability of things evolving then you also should say that, when a coin comes down 'heads' then God made that happen too. They are both problems in probability; one is easy to assess and the other involves very big numbers and very small probabilities and is very hard to assess.

I don't think the statisticians would agree with you here. The current scientific biological attitude is 'give it long enough, and anything can happen'.

That, however is not true. Giving a chemical reaction long enough merely produces an equilibrium, not new, more and increasingly complex products.

Quote
Your attitude to the timescales and numbers involved with evolution theory has let you down because you don't want it to be true. I hope that, in your statistics lessons, you insist that your students are made aware of statistical significance and numbers and that they go with their results.

Calculation of compound probabilities is a large part of probability theory, and the probability of a single protein emerging by chance has been calculated by far better statisticians than myself: Fred Hoyle is the prime example. He came up with the figure of 1 in 10 exp 40,000. Now as a biologist, indeed as any reasonable scientist, biologist or not, I know that any probability lower than 1 in 10 exp 100 is an impossibility. Therefore, notwithstanding the whining and special pleading of the abiogeneticists,life itself could not have occurred by chance. So what's the probability of a whale evolving from a land mammal with fur/hair? I'll leave that one with you to chew over.

Quote
When you make statements like "they haven't a clue" about how whales developed echo location you are clearly emotionally involved. "They" aren't obliged to have a clue about something as specific as that. The pathways in evolution are very complex and there will always be unexpected reasons for a particular development.

You in your turn are equally emotionally involved, because you refuse to admit the possibility that things did not evolve. I have put up many things on this board for which evolution cannot provide even a theory of origins. Yet you hold on to it!

So let me ask you directly, is there ANY possibility in your mind that evolution did not, could not have occurred?

Quote
Are you saying that God keeps introducing new strains and species of bacteria just to keep us on our toes? Is it too hard to accept that a strain of bacteria which just manages to survive the onslaught of a new drug will live to reproduce whilst the target strain is killed off? Or is that allowed in your model?

Please don't misunderstand me. I think that variation occurs, even speciation in a very restricted number of cases. But above genus or family level? There's no incontrovertible evidence that it does.

Quote
Where is the essential difference between that and the development of fast  enough predators and fast enough prey?

There's no essential difference - until you come to serious differences. Stefan was trying to show that the sinusoidal up and down movement of a running cheetah could somehow produce the vertical movements of a whale's tail, flukes and all. That's a whole new ball game, and extrapolations of that magnitude are never justifiable.

Quote
You can have no proof of your faith until your God comes along and shows us it happening overnight and under a repeatable conditions. Unsurprisingly, your faith doesn't include that sort of evidence - just statements like "It stands to reason" and "evolutionists are all crazy".

I don't remember having made such inflammatory statements.

You, however are struggling with two impossible things:

1 Evolution (in a serious way, I mean, above genus level) has never been shown to happen and

2 You are demanding that we somehow return to the days of creation. I'm sorry, but I can't oblige.

Quote
The qualifications game is a non starter; 2+2 doesn't make 5, whoever says so - BSc, PhD or whatever.

I agree. But you started this particular one:

Quote
Asyncritus
Why do you bother to post on a Science forum if you don't subscribe to the Scientific approach?
Your attitude towards evidence is the ratchet system: use supporting evidence and reasoning to confirm what you believe and ignore the contrary evidence and reasoning. That's a win win for your (as I see it, erroneous) beliefs.
Do you have any appreciation of the concepts and statistics involving large numbers? If you haven't, then I can see how evolution could seem difficult to understand.

Evolution isn't difficult to understand, merely impossible to accept for very good reasons already given.

Quote
SO why not refer to God as 'her' or 'it'? Thatt would demonstrate some degree of open mindedness.

I am a believer in the Bible, which does not leave much room for manoeuvre on that issue.
 
« Last Edit: 22/12/2008 12:24:22 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #112 on: 22/12/2008 13:20:07 »
Quote
I am a believer in the Bible, which does not leave much room for manoeuvre on that issue.

And this is why people find your position on evolution untenable. You have already blindly accepted an idea that is at odds to evolution, despite the fact that there is no, and can never be any evidence for it - as it is a philosophy, rather than a science.

You will never accept evolution regardless of how much evidence is presented to you - so why do you keep asking for more?  You have already made up your mind, and as such, closed it.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #113 on: 22/12/2008 13:33:13 »
Complexity does not simply arise by pure chance. Variation needs to be selected upon in some way over multiple generations for that to occur. Evolution results from minute changes in allele frequencies as alleles are subjected to environmental factors over generations. In other words, small chance events are filtered and built upon successively. Since time, reproduction, mutation and recombination are all verified facts, you cannot say that evolution does not occur.

Then your problem is with phylogeny. Phylogeny uses hindsight. Phyla are simply what species that have diverged sufficiently over sufficient time become. Modern phylogeny only applies to how we classify the tree of life AFTER it has reached the present day. Millions of years ago, the basal organism of each kingdom was just another species. As such, ancestral organisms were exposed to the same factors necessary for evolution to occur as modern animals are. Therefore your argument that evolution does not occur above genus level is false.

In regards to whale movement, if you cannot see the basic motion similarities, what is wrong with you? When a downward moving spine has no legs and ground to push on, where does the rest of the spine go? Down! Then you need further adaptations such as stronger muscles, more flexible tail, and fluke. These are not difficult to develop. Did you seriously not read the resources I provided RE whale evolution?

Insufficient evidence for evolution above genus level? You mean the literally billions of pieces of fossil, embryological, genetic, and physiological evidence supporting evolution are not enough for you? When you cannot provide a single scrap of evidence for creation or your god? Seriously, don't be a hypocrite.

Have YOU considered the possibility that YOU are wrong? If not, then please stop wasting posts and go away.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #114 on: 22/12/2008 13:48:37 »
If it were all, in fact, 'designed', why are there so many vestigial organs in so many species? Was it for production line economy that we have an appendix? Do we have a coccyx just so that we can bruise it when we sit down hard?
Did the 'designer' run out of ideas and, thus, use design bodges so that we get back trouble which we wouldn't get if we were on four legs?
Why use virtually the same set of bones is so many mammalian skeletons? Why were all the little (unused) bones in a horse's foot (corresponding closely to my own carpels and tarsals)  put in there when the horse actually walks on one finger / nail and one toe / nail?
And I haven't seen any proof that short term evolution is NOT occurring in disease organisms.
If this guy was so smart, don't you think he would have been a bit more efficient?
Is it an 'intelligent up-dater' too?
« Last Edit: 22/12/2008 14:01:51 by sophiecentaur »
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #115 on: 22/12/2008 13:52:05 »
And how does sexual reproduction fit in with the idea of a designer? How many complex organisms reproduce vegetatively? If they were designed right in the first place, organisms wouldn't need 'genetics'.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #116 on: 22/12/2008 13:59:16 »
Quote
So let me ask you directly, is there ANY possibility in your mind that evolution did not, could not have occurred?
There is not the slightest shred of doubt in my mind that evolution occurred. I am open to the possibility of some very strange event (or even intervention of some kind) which triggered the 'life thing' but that has nothing at all to do with 'design'.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #117 on: 22/12/2008 15:39:56 »
We have several fine instances of hypocrisy here, if we define hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another.

Here are 3 of you, all condemning me for having a fixed idea that evolution is not a tenable scientific theory for reasons already given abundantly above, and for which you have not the slightest vestige of an explanation.

Here are you 3, with evolution dogma fixed in your heads at least as firmly as non-evolution is fixed in mine, and condemning me for having a fixed idea.

Sophie says she is unshakably convinced. Ben and Stefan, you both give me that selfsame impression.

Why then should I leave? Just so the pro-evolutionist views can rampage unchecked? Is that the kind of science you want where any opposition is firmly squashed? How does that differ from the church's behaviour against Galileo and others in the past?

Do we really want to go back down the same road? I hope not.

Remember too, that there are very large numbers of readers of these debates I am involved in. If you look, you'll see that there have been over 7,000 views of this thread alone. Not all of them disagree with me, that's for sure.

So do I shut up and cease representing them? Don't they have a voice too? Shame on you guys.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #118 on: 22/12/2008 18:30:55 »
Can anyone who agrees with Asyncritus please explain why they do so in this thread?

No hypocrisy here - if I see evidence for a better explanation than evolution I will accept it.  However, as the evidence for evolution is enormous and convincing, it will take more than someone's personal belief in an old book to convince me.  I'm sure the others would agree.

We would like you to go away because there is no debating with you - how can you say it's stifling debate when you have already made up your mind to believe in fairy tales rather than reality?  You are against evolution and will continue to be so, regardless of what we explain.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #119 on: 22/12/2008 18:45:41 »
Asyncritus
I'm sure they can speak for themselves - if they feel strongly enough.

Apart from your ranting, I have not seen much sign of good reasons from you why evolution is not a reasonable explanation.
There are some questions you might address to help explain the details of what you believe.
How, where and when does / did this design take place?
If the formation of strata is in strict chronological order, it would appear that certain organisms were around at a different time from others. Many species seem to have become extinct - why was this allowed, when a swift modification would have allowed them to survive. The process could be interpreted as a very cruel experiment. That's just not nice; is it 'intelligent but heartless' design?
Do you really believe that, if there is a supreme being, that you would be capable of understanding its reasoning behind what it is doing? How can you dare to presume that about your maker?
You describe evolution as dogma but it is, in fact, the most open minded explanation possible for what we see. The concept of evolution leaves everything completely free. and doesn't need to produce tableaux of happy prehistoric children playing with long extinct animals to make itself attractive to the new generation. It doesn't need to massage any evidence to  make it fit.
Despite your claimed training in statistics, you don't seem to understand numbers.
You show the same level of appreciation as the 'peanut butter man' in this link.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17371.msg205053#msg205053
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #120 on: 29/12/2008 20:43:02 »
Have you got any idea of the meaning of the word 'ranting'? Or is it just another insult to heap? It comes from the Greek rhantizo, meaning to froth, usually at the mouth.

The frothing displeasure is all on your side. I have presented many pieces of evidence now, and any reader who revisits the earliest parts of this thread will soon see who has the more reasonable arguments.

It is a scientific procedure to examine hypotheses and theories, and to discard them if and when sufficient contrary evidence is presented, and which cannot be explained by the theory. The supporters of the theory can kid themselves that their theory is sufficient to account for the evidence - but you people, as supporters of the theory of evolution have done a pathetically dismal job.

You have produced absolutely no evidenced explanations of the origin of any of the great examples of instinct I have supplied.If you think you have successfully done so, please link me to the relevant paper or post. Start with the Swallows of Capistrano.

Since instinct is the force powering every behaviour in every living organism, then failure to account for the existence of ANY example of instinct is failure to account for all life as we know it. Evolution is therefore a failure.

Maybe it is merely your supporters' ability that is a failure. In that case, go get Dawkins or Ruse or Babinski on the site to help you fight the noble cause - if they dare to show up.

To answer your questions:

1 I do not know when the designing took place.

2 The strata as you ought to know, are NOT in strict chronological order, apart from in the textbooks. Whether you wish to describe the processes as 'heartless' or not is neither here nor there.

3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are. Here are some quotes to substantiate that remark:

[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”  Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.  One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory.  Is it then a science or a faith?  Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation.  Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

[The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.

Choose, therefore, which faith you will espouse: and know that that is exactly what you're doing. Do not make the mistake of thinking that either you or evolution is scientific when you have made your choice.

Having worked through your post I see absolutely nothing remotely scientific presented in it - merely rantings and personal slurs. If I've missed the scientific bit of it, please point it out for me to rebut.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #121 on: 30/12/2008 06:36:09 »
You have to be joking. Your posts are ridiculous.

We know instinct is under genetic control. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/flygene-071305.html

Since natural selection does actually work, it's really easy to set up plausible ways in which specific instincts evolved. We've already been through this with you with honeybees.

Behavior does not leave direct fossil evidence, but it does leave genetic and developmental evidence.

Are you still being a hypocrite? Creation has NO evidence supporting it at all, and has NO rational explanation and mechanism. All you have is wishful, magical thinking. Do you even listen to yourself speak?

To respond to your answers to our questions:

1 - Yet you still believe?

2 - Wow. Where is your evidence for that claim? All the dating methods and geological knowledge confirm the age and sequence of strata. The only exceptions I'm aware of are when geological processes invert segments of rock.

3 - That's the problem. Your entire worldview depends on the almost certainly false assumption that god exists and that "it" caused anything to happen at all. You have no evidence and no rational explanation. Give it up already.

4 - Quote mining and Argument from Authority. Is that the best you have?

Your personal beliefs, weak thinking and willful ignorance are not evidence against evolution.

Even if you proved evolution wrong, creation is no closer to explaining biology, than alchemy is to replacing chemistry, astrology is to replacing astronomy, and the babies-come-from-storks theory is to replacing sexual reproduction.

The onus is on you to present positive evidence, and rational explanation, for creation. You can't, so go away.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #122 on: 30/12/2008 08:28:02 »
3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are.


I hope you see the circularity of your arguments.  You are saying that evolution is nothing but a religion, whilst at the same time saying that religion should be given special privileges to claim whatever it likes without proof.

If evolution were a religion, remember that it would be equally as valid as yours.  I suspect you disbelieve the hindu creation myths?  They're also just as valid as yours.

However, evolution is a branch of the study of genetics, and a well-evinced theory that adequately explains the origins of species.  I'll grant you that some people defend it with am almost religious fervour, but so do football fans or boy band groupies - don't confuse the reaction with the cause.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #123 on: 30/12/2008 23:48:48 »
Quote
You have to be joking. Your posts are ridiculous.

So why aren't you laughing? You sound awfully grim!

Quote
We know instinct is under genetic control. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/flygene-071305.html

Let me try, in words of one syllable or less, as it's obvious that any more than that is beyond your grasp.

I AM ASKING YOU HOW INSTINCT BEGAN. STARTED.

I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT THE MOTOR CAR, I'M ASKING ABOUT THE DRIVER. So spare me the claptrap about 'being under genetic control'. HOW DID IT GET IN THE GENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Quote
Since natural selection does actually work, it's really easy to set up plausible ways in which specific instincts evolved. We've already been through this with you with honeybees.

No you haven't. You produced the old mishmash of tripe, under genetic control etc etc, but not a word about how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells, like make wax, like direct its pals to the honey source with a little dance, like being able to see polarised light, like fly, like figuring out that pollen is good for it, like digesting nectar produces honey, like pollinate millions of plants which would die without them - all proof of design ingenuity, completely rubbishing evolution.

Quote
Behavior does not leave direct fossil evidence, but it does leave genetic and developmental evidence.

I'm sorry, but behaviour does leave fossil evidence everywhere. Take a bat. The earliest microchiropteran fossil has the echolocating apparatus bumps on its head.So there's fossil evidence of behaviour.



Quote
Are you still being a hypocrite? Creation has NO evidence supporting it at all, and has NO rational explanation and mechanism. All you have is wishful, magical thinking. Do you even listen to yourself speak?

Are you still being stupid? Evolution only has the dreams and wishful thinking of its supporters like you, who seem to go round with a paper bag over your heads so you can't see a fact even when it hits you in the mush.

Quote

2 - Wow. Where is your evidence for that claim? All the dating methods and geological knowledge confirm the age and sequence of strata. The only exceptions I'm aware of are when geological processes invert segments of rock.

So you are aware of some facts! Congratulations, pal. Show me one place in the entire world where the geological column is complete from top to bottom.

Quote
3 - That's the problem. Your entire worldview depends on the almost certainly false assumption that god exists and that "it" caused anything to happen at all. You have no evidence and no rational explanation. Give it up already.

I have huge amounts of design intelligence that your paper bag won't let you see. Take those bees above. Explain already how some stupid bee can do things we can't - like fly.

Quote
4 - Quote mining and Argument from Authority. Is that the best you have?

Nothing annoys me more than this ignorant bleat. Go find the quotes yourself and show how I have misquoted the authors. If you can't, then I demand that you withdraw this idiotic remark.

Quote
Your personal beliefs, weak thinking and willful ignorance are not evidence against evolution.

No, but the facts are. See the bees (above) in case you've forgotten.

Quote
The onus is on you to present positive evidence, and rational explanation, for creation. You can't, so go away.

No, you go away if you can't stand facts and the truth. That's just typical of evolutionist behaviour. Leave and stop your ranting. Or better yet, wake up to the facts and face them honestly, instead of sniping all the time.

 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #124 on: 30/12/2008 23:58:50 »
3 I presume nothing, besides the fact that He exists, has designed, and that we see proof of that everywhere.

4 Evolution is a dogma. More, it is a faith and is held with religious fervour as numerous authors have stated clearly. It is for this reason that people like Dawkins are forced to write things like The God Delusion. His religion is under attack, and he is responding like a high priest scenting blasphemy. Just like you are.
Quote
I hope you see the circularity of your arguments.  You are saying that evolution is nothing but a religion, whilst at the same time saying that religion should be given special privileges to claim whatever it likes without proof.

I don't follow this. Evolution is ALLEGED TO BE SCIENCE. As such, it has rules of evidence to adhere to - but it certainly doesn't do so.

Religion is not science, and does not pretend to be. In my own case, I use the facts of science to support my view of divine existence. Those facts are adequate to the task, but in no case do I argue from a religious basis. I argue TO religion from scientific facts.

Quote
If evolution were a religion, remember that it would be equally as valid as yours.  I suspect you disbelieve the hindu creation myths?  They're also just as valid as yours.

YOU CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION IS A SCIENCE. If you admit that it IS a religion, then we have no argument any more - but I suspect your cronies would crucify you comprehensively.

Quote
However, evolution is a branch of the study of genetics, and a well-evinced theory that adequately explains the origins of species.  I'll grant you that some people defend it with am almost religious fervour, but so do football fans or boy band groupies - don't confuse the reaction with the cause.

Evolution is not a branch of genetics. Genetics is used to support the theory: with marked lack of success, I may say.

Evolution has to stand or fall by the scientific evidence - otherwise it is worthless. Since there are so many facts it cannot possibly explain, then it fails on this most important criterion. When are you going to abandon it?
« Last Edit: 31/12/2008 00:03:41 by Asyncritus »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #124 on: 30/12/2008 23:58:50 »

 

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