The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does "instinct" evolve?  (Read 149533 times)

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #200 on: 16/01/2009 18:46:55 »
As I said, there are only 2 possible models available to us:

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

I've never heard of any other that makes any sense at all.
You must remember that to someone who does not believe in god, creation falls into the category of 'things that don't make any sense at all'.

Creation is not a scientific alternative, so if we are looking for a scientific explanation, then your options leave us only evolution.

Please, if you feel creation is a science, supply some positive evidence - there isn't any, of course, as it's theistic construction and not a scientific hypothesis, so I wish you luck.

Do remember that there's a difference between 'two models' and 'things that don't make any sense at all.'

I proposed 2 models, and there is a clear divide there. Only one can be correct. If evolution is as absurd as I'm showing, then you clearly have to stick with the absurdity, or abandon it in favour of the other alternative, as I have done.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #201 on: 16/01/2009 19:51:14 »
Quote
Yahya has 83 PAGES of fossils that haven't changed one bit since forever ago.
Only 83?
And how many pages do you think the existing species would occupy?
And how many extinct ones?
You have just no idea about NUMBER.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #202 on: 16/01/2009 19:55:50 »
Quote
Could blind prejudice be playing a major part here?
And who would that apply to, I wonder?

If you want to discount the least likely, you would have to discount the one with no evidence at all, surely. Elementary my dear Asyncritus.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #203 on: 17/01/2009 03:14:11 »
Your argument relies on a false dichotomy. There is no reason to think that your creation myth is any more valid than the thousands of others that have been invented by humans over the millennia.

Even if one of them were true, then how did the creator come to be, and how did he create? "God-did-it" explains nothing.

It's not enough for there to simply be an alternative. Even if the alternative is absurd, it must be supported by positive evidence. If it's not, then it is not a valid scientific alternative to evolution.

In terms of evidence against evolution, among your 198 posts, you have nothing more than logical fallacies:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from personal incredulity
Argument from design (Teleological argument)
Argument from irreducible complexity
Bare assertion fallacy
False dichotomy
Nirvana fallacy
Begging the question
Ad hominem
Appeal to authority
Wishful thinking
Fallacy of the single cause
False attribution
Fallacy of quoting out of context
Moving the goalpost
Proof by verbosity
Reification (treating "God" as if he/she/it actually exists)
Retrospective determinism
Cherry picking
Poisoning the well
Straw man

And probably a few more.

"Living fossils" do not support your argument. Firstly, the fossils and their living examples are not identical. Secondly, evolution does not prevent species from retaining successful structures and functions over many generations. If the organism is successful with the traits it has, in the environment it finds itself in, why change much? The environment it lives in may even be forcing it to retain many of the same traits. Certain morphological details, and almost certainly the immune system, have continued to change, but these mean nothing to you.

Yahya's creation propaganda is utter rubbish. He commits the same fallacies you do. You cite his work as evidence against evolution, but are you proud that your hero mistook this fishing lure as a living fossil? A clear example of the quality of information, knowledge and understanding to be found in his book.

More here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2833,UPDATED-Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins

I suggest you take off your creationist blinkers and try to read and understand evolutionary biology from reputable scientific sources, not ridiculous creationist propaganda.

You have failed to disprove evolution.

You have no valid scientific alternative.


So what are you still doing here? This is a Science forum, not a religious propaganda machine.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #204 on: 17/01/2009 10:24:48 »
I don't understand this Sophie.

Don't you get the simple fact that if there are 20,000 species that haven't evolved, that's a pretty clear indication the evolution DIDN'T HAPPEN?

But it isn't 20,000. There is not a single shred of evidence of the evolution of ANY of the major animal phyla. In the plant kingdom the situation is even worse.

Nobody has the faintest clue about how the Angiosperms evolved - and that's about half the plants on the planet. Darwin called their evolution 'that abominable mystery' - and nothing's changed since his day.

When are you going to wake up to these FACTS? Why do you keep rejecting them and refusing to face them?
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #205 on: 17/01/2009 14:47:07 »
Does any sense get past your god-lenses? Or do you just ignore information that contradicts your world view?

We've told you repeatedly that living fossils do not threaten evolution.

And you must be extremely ignorant, incapable of using Google, a liar, or all 3, to say that "Nobody has the faintest clue about how the Angiosperms evolved". There are multiple hypotheses that attempt to understand Angiosperm evolution, and a lot is already known. The more they are studied, the better the understanding becomes.
http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/angiosperm.htm

And stop spewing rubbish about the evolution of phyla. The only sense in which "There is not a single shred of evidence" is in your mind, where genetic and developmental evidence don't count.

The only person ignoring the facts here is you.

You have no argument to make. Stop wasting forum posts.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #206 on: 17/01/2009 16:23:28 »
Asyncritus
You clearly haven't the wit to understand the evidence. You don't understand that 20,000 is a tiny number compared with the millions (billions?) which have changed. You haven't understood that organisms only need to evolve when circumstances demand it.
You are not qualified to have any real opinion on the matter because you insist on a totally baseless alternative.
Believe in what you like but arguing on a Science forum needs to involve some Science.
Eliminating the models for which there is no evidence will eliminate yours instantly.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #207 on: 17/01/2009 19:21:25 »
Sophie

Have you EVER checked with the palaeontologists to hear what they have to say about the fossil evidence for evolution? Ever? Please answer this question directly, and quote what evidence you've seen there is for the evolution of ANY phylum. ANY one you like.

When you've done, you need to read G G Simpson who said:

"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...

This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
•   Simpson, G. G. (1944)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution
Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107

Heh heh heh!

So Simpson wasn't a scientist too, and unqualified to express an opinion? Wiki:
 
George Gaylord Simpson
Born    June 16, 1902
Died    October 6, 1984
Nationality    American
Fields    paleontology
Institutions    Columbia University
Notable awards    Linnean Society of London's Darwin-Wallace Medal in 1958.

George Gaylord Simpson (June 16, 1902 – October 6, 1984) was an American paleontologist. He was an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Simpson was the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century and a major participant in the Modern synthesis, contributing Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) and Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals (1945).

Heh heh heh!
« Last Edit: 17/01/2009 19:22:59 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #208 on: 17/01/2009 19:44:32 »
Does any sense get past your god-lenses? Or do you just ignore information that contradicts your world view?

We've told you repeatedly that living fossils do not threaten evolution.

They don't? You mean, the fact that they DIDN'T evolve is proof that they DID evolve? Heh heh heh!

Hadn't you better get some training in common sense?

Quote
And you must be extremely ignorant, incapable of using Google, a liar, or all 3, to say that "Nobody has the faintest clue about how the Angiosperms evolved". There are multiple hypotheses that attempt to understand Angiosperm evolution, and a lot is already known. The more they are studied, the better the understanding becomes.
http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/angiosperm.htm

Did you read the article? Obviously not. Here's what he said:

"Controversial assertions abound in the scientific literature of the 20th century and three categories of credible hypotheses and theories exist (Rothwell et al. 2009). None of these ideas when taken as a whole are either compelling or plausible to many scientists, including the author".

Meaning, he didn't believe them either. Heh heh heh.

And just in case you missed it, he says:

"Despite a concerted effort by evolutionary-developmental biologists and paleontologists the origin of angiosperms remains enigmatic and mysterious (Frohlich and Chase 2007). Further, certain paleobotanists regard the problem of flowering plant origins, "as intractable a mystery today as it was to Darwin 130 years ago"[/u] (page 318, Rothwell et al. 2009).

Quote
And stop spewing rubbish about the evolution of phyla. The only sense in which "There is not a single shred of evidence" is in your mind, where genetic and developmental evidence don't count.

"An estimated 50 to 100 phyla appear explosively at the base of the Cambrian. Fossil evidence suggesting their common ancestry is not found in Precambrian rocks. A General Theory of Macrostasis is needed to explain the fossil data and the stability of the higher taxa."http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/sub2.html

Quote
The only person ignoring the facts here is you.

Really? What about those guys I quoted above? They ignoring facts too? You'd better write to their universities and complain!

Maybe you'd like to hear the great prophet Dawkins on the subject?

""Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229)..

Heh heh heh!!!

Don't worry Stef old man. You're in good company with the other ignoramuses on this subject - like Dawkins above. He dunno either!!!

Quote
You have no argument to make. Stop wasting forum posts.

Come come Stefan. Can't stand a bit of healthy opposition? Good for the soul you know!
« Last Edit: 17/01/2009 19:54:21 by Asyncritus »
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #209 on: 17/01/2009 20:56:22 »
Healthy opposition we all here can stand easily, your unhealthy one gets a bit boring, because you are by now quite predictable.

As for angiosperm evolution, you're doing your usual schtick. Scientists are looking into it, doing research, debating, disagreeing; you (predictably) have no other explanation than your variant of god did it, which is not science, but creationism.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #210 on: 17/01/2009 23:24:55 »
"heh heh heh" is a really good argument. Based on really sound evidence and reason, of course.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #211 on: 17/01/2009 23:39:37 »
Asyncritus
Have you any idea of how rare are the conditions for the formation of fossils?
Have you any idea about numbers, statistics, probability - even mathematics? Don't quote someone else - just so some sums yourself to prove you are qualified to have an opinion.
You belong with the 'peanut butter man'.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #212 on: 18/01/2009 14:45:32 »
Monika
Did you read the article STEFAN quoted - not me? I merely quoted the bits he didn't read: probably couldn't. The author of THAT article doesn't believe the rubbish theories. I don't see why I should, and neither should you!

Sophie

If the conditions are so rare, then how come there are so many millions of them?

"These vast beds of sedimentary fossil-bearing strata cover about three-fourths of the earth’ surface, and are as much as 40,000 feet thick."

I don't want to embarrass you, but the white cliffs of Dover are all fossilised exoskeletons. And there's an area in the Pacific ocean which is about 1000 miles square and about 1 mile deep, which is all fossil calcareous skeletons.

Heh heh heh!




 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #213 on: 18/01/2009 15:12:56 »
Seabed conditions (and bogs) are quite good for fossil formation and, particularly for shellfish. Green plants and soft bodies don't do quite so well. They tend to be used as an energy source for some other organism - no fossil results.

Why should you expect me to be impressed by the words "vast" and "millions"? There have been 'gazillions' of living organisms since life began. Do you understand the concept of fractions and proportion? (And probability).
 

Offline MonikaS

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #214 on: 18/01/2009 17:28:57 »
Monika
Did you read the article STEFAN quoted - not me? I merely quoted the bits he didn't read: probably couldn't. The author of THAT article doesn't believe the rubbish theories. I don't see why I should, and neither should you!


Yet again you show how intellectually dishonest your discussion strategy is. The author  has doubts about the current theories of angiosperm evolution and conducts a meta analysis of those theories. He disagrees with some of the conclusions, but not with the finds of the researchers. Clearly he doesn't subscribe to creationism. If you had bothered to read on, you would have discovered this fact.

There is a lot of research going on in this area, why don't you write to all these scientist and tell them not to bother anymore, since your fictional bronze age deity did it?
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #215 on: 19/01/2009 06:52:02 »
Asyncritus, you seem to think that knowledge is handed to scientists on a platter. It's not! To understand phenomena involves research. Of course scientists have not understood every single thing there is to know about specific phenomena, because they have not yet sufficiently researched every single specific phenomenon. It takes time, resources and brain power, not magic.

It certainly does not involve "GOD DID IT". If scientists took that easy option, no-one would know anything about anything.

Evolution is correct because everything it has studied in-depth so far confirms it.

Your refusal to understand evolution and how science works is not an argument against evolution. I listed the logical fallacies that your arguments almost entirely consist of. Take note of them, and go away to learn some real science.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #216 on: 19/01/2009 08:30:44 »
As I said, there are only 2 possible models available to us:

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

I've never heard of any other that makes any sense at all.
You must remember that to someone who does not believe in god, creation falls into the category of 'things that don't make any sense at all'.

Creation is not a scientific alternative, so if we are looking for a scientific explanation, then your options leave us only evolution.

Please, if you feel creation is a science, supply some positive evidence - there isn't any, of course, as it's theistic construction and not a scientific hypothesis, so I wish you luck.

Do remember that there's a difference between 'two models' and 'things that don't make any sense at all.'

I proposed 2 models, and there is a clear divide there. Only one can be correct. If evolution is as absurd as I'm showing, then you clearly have to stick with the absurdity, or abandon it in favour of the other alternative, as I have done.

You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?
« Last Edit: 19/01/2009 08:45:00 by BenV »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #217 on: 19/01/2009 22:14:19 »


You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?
[/quote]
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #218 on: 20/01/2009 00:10:31 »
Quote
You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

As I said, Ben, my purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a scientific farce. One has to clear the ground before building any edifices.

Would I be correct to say that you have agreed that there are vast lacunae in the theory and its powers of explanation of the scientific facts I have brought forth?

And that given those lacunae, you will be searching for some other explanations? I think you are the fairest minded of the writers in this thread, and have not totally allowed prejudice to blind you to the faults.

Quote
I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

Ben, as this is a science forum, I am reluctant to enter into this discussion. Not that I am reluctant to give my reasons, but I have no doubt that a torrent of abuse will follow, mainly along the theme of 'this is a science forum, so why don't you shuddup'?

This thread is the scientific part of the debate, and therefore I have no reluctance in caning evolution here. As I suggested to fbi, we will need another thread to do justice to the existence of God, the evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the evidence of prophecy as proof that there is One who sees, guides and directs the future.

If any of those is provable, and they are, then I wonder what you will do?

Quote
You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

They are decidedly not of the same validity. I gave a link above to the creation myths of the world, and invite you to have a look at them.

Then have a careful look at Genesis 1 and see the difference. There is nothing mythological there. It is clear, level-headed and the record of palaeontology indicates considerable support for the order in which life appeared on the earth.

Quote
Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

I believe that the cases I have brought forth are incredible proofs of Design ingenuity. In no form or fashion could unintelligence or chance have entered into the construction of the bat's echolocation system, for instance, or the existence of meiosis and mitosis. They are splendid examples of intelligence at work, as is the unbelievably brilliant invention of the DNA molecule to produce reproduction.

I cannot fail to see intelligence in the construction, and if there is, then how does one account for its existence without postulating a greater intelligence to devise these devices?

Just as our brains have produced computers - and therefore our brains are superior to computers. Similarly, the Intelligence that produced our intelligences, MUST be greater than ours. But ours is phenomenal - therefore the Designer's must be immeasurably so.

Quote
And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

I think you're asking if I could ever stop believing God, for whatever reason. I don't believe I could. There are just too many OTHER evidences, including my own personal, subjective knowledge - which creates in me a positive and deep love for the Divine, despite my own many failures, which prove positively that I am not divine. It's hard to say that, especially in public, but I'm afraid it's true, and as an honest man, I must admit the truth.

Quote
You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?

To be perfectly honest, I am more than a little surprised at the numbers. I don't know why they come - perhaps it's to see me being pulverised. In which case they must be sorely disappointed!

But I hope they are seeing that there ARE serious problems with evolution, and that maybe, just maybe, one or 2 are beginning to think differently about the subject. I hope so, anyway.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #219 on: 20/01/2009 08:39:39 »
Thanks for being so frank.  I think there's a couple of things we need to address, then this discussion is over.

Quote
You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

As I said, Ben, my purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a scientific farce. One has to clear the ground before building any edifices.

Would I be correct to say that you have agreed that there are vast lacunae in the theory and its powers of explanation of the scientific facts I have brought forth?

And that given those lacunae, you will be searching for some other explanations? I think you are the fairest minded of the writers in this thread, and have not totally allowed prejudice to blind you to the faults.
So you offer no alternative mechanism, merely faults you perceive with evolution.  Of course we can't explain all the minutiae yet, however I have seen and read and understand enough of the science of evolution to accept it as our best current scientific explanation.
Quote
Quote
I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

Ben, as this is a science forum, I am reluctant to enter into this discussion. Not that I am reluctant to give my reasons, but I have no doubt that a torrent of abuse will follow, mainly along the theme of 'this is a science forum, so why don't you shuddup'?

This thread is the scientific part of the debate, and therefore I have no reluctance in caning evolution here. As I suggested to fbi, we will need another thread to do justice to the existence of God, the evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the evidence of prophecy as proof that there is One who sees, guides and directs the future.

If any of those is provable, and they are, then I wonder what you will do?
You have been asked a number of times for this evidence, and so if anyone complained, we would merely point them to the comments where we asked you for it. (and I strongly suspect it doesn't exist - if it did, I think I would have heard it by now, don't you?  Objective, scientific evidence for god would be incredibly well known).

As I explained before, it is not worthy of a new thread on a science forum, but as it is the evidence to back up the arguments you put forward on this thread, it is appropriate here.

Quote
Quote
You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

They are decidedly not of the same validity. I gave a link above to the creation myths of the world, and invite you to have a look at them.

Then have a careful look at Genesis 1 and see the difference. There is nothing mythological there. It is clear, level-headed and the record of palaeontology indicates considerable support for the order in which life appeared on the earth.

Sorry, but that's just your personal bias.  Regardless of how they're written, and that some sound more like a 'story' than others, all creation myths are of equal validity - including the flying spaghetti monster - there's no evidence, so the authors can claim whatever they like - this goes for the bible as much as the spaghetti monster.

Quote
Quote
Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

I believe that the cases I have brought forth are incredible proofs of Design ingenuity. In no form or fashion could unintelligence or chance have entered into the construction of the bat's echolocation system, for instance, or the existence of meiosis and mitosis. They are splendid examples of intelligence at work, as is the unbelievably brilliant invention of the DNA molecule to produce reproduction.

I cannot fail to see intelligence in the construction, and if there is, then how does one account for its existence without postulating a greater intelligence to devise these devices?

Just as our brains have produced computers - and therefore our brains are superior to computers. Similarly, the Intelligence that produced our intelligences, MUST be greater than ours. But ours is phenomenal - therefore the Designer's must be immeasurably so.
So examples where you cannot understand how they might evolve is all you can offer?

Quote
Quote
And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

I think you're asking if I could ever stop believing God, for whatever reason. I don't believe I could. There are just too many OTHER evidences, including my own personal, subjective knowledge - which creates in me a positive and deep love for the Divine, despite my own many failures, which prove positively that I am not divine. It's hard to say that, especially in public, but I'm afraid it's true, and as an honest man, I must admit the truth.
And thank you for doing so, for in that you have acknowledged what many of us suspected all along.  Your problem is not with evolution, it is with  the perceived threat to your religious beliefs.  Many people both undersand and accept evolution as the scientific explanation for the origins of species, but hold a strong, personal belief in their god.  They need not be mutually exclusive, as I have tried to explain a number of times, as they are entirely different paradigms of thought.  The bible is not a scientific truth, and does not contain scientific truths - it is a religious text, and so full of parables and allegory to help you be a better person.

Quote
Quote
You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?

To be perfectly honest, I am more than a little surprised at the numbers. I don't know why they come - perhaps it's to see me being pulverised. In which case they must be sorely disappointed!

But I hope they are seeing that there ARE serious problems with evolution, and that maybe, just maybe, one or 2 are beginning to think differently about the subject. I hope so, anyway.


I think they will be here to see what incredulous argument you would come up with next.

Asyncritus, I like you - your arguemen ts are so much better reasoned that most other creationists that turn up here, or elsewhere on the web.  I hope these conversations will have made you realise that the reason you do not accept evolution has nothing to do with the science, you are merely trying to find a scientific ground on which to project your fears about your religion being under threat.
Try to make peace with yourself and realise that religion and science are different things.  Evolution only threatens your religion if you chose it to do so, by assuming the bible is to be taken literally.  You can accept both evolution and god, as many do.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #220 on: 01/02/2009 21:49:48 »
Hi everybody, I'm back!

Now, please restrain your applause and general bonhomie.

I'm afraid I've been rather taken up with constructing a website, and haven't had as much time as I would have liked free.

If you'd like to see the results of the endeavour, as it evolved (heh heh!) over the last week or so, go here:

That link is a blatant bit of advertising. How could you, Asyncritus? I thought you were better than that. MOD


I would appreciate anyone linking to the site on their webs.

But I'll be back shortly to reply to Ben's points which are indeed worthy of attention.

Asyncritus
« Last Edit: 01/02/2009 22:06:42 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline seeker

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #221 on: 17/03/2009 16:01:46 »
Hey I just signed up to reply to this:
Quote
Mendel showed that there can be no halfway house, because red flowers crossed with white flowers don't produce pink flowers. They produce more red and white flowers.
This is not true. Red flowers crossed with white flowers DO produce pink flowers, please revise.
newbielink:http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/mendel/mendel2.htm [nonactive]

I would also like to comment on the evolution supporters, Asyncritus seems to be the one who's doing the actual work and stretching far by presenting different links and quotes supporting his arguments, giving counter arguments with your own evidence is actually YOUR job, telling him that he's a liar or an idiot will only show weakness on your side, now I know that you don't represent evolutionists but please don't tell him to go away but instead try to keep up with him. I see many of you as merely hand waving to avoid critically examining the arguments.

Now all of his arguments could be common creationist fallacies, but I and many other readers have never seen them or the responses for them. Can you take Asyncritus seriously and respond to the actual points presented, please? Don't even try questioning his faith because that is not our topic!
Or at least point me to some website where I can read, if you can't bother copy and pasting, you know?

By the way I accept evolution but much thanked Asyncritus' is making me revise and research many things.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 16:06:15 by seeker »
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #222 on: 19/03/2009 23:10:02 »
Time pressure is now easing, so I'll have a go at answering your questions, Ben rather sooner than later, and I apologise for the delay.

Seeker,

Thank you for this reasonable and reasoned post. We may not agree, but we can at least be rational about our discussions, as you have pointed out the way.

Up till now I hadn't encountered the co-dominance phenomenon (where red x white --> pink). But the very fact that a whole paper has to be devoted to a relatively small number of examples shows how unusual a thing it is.

I accept your correction.
 

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #223 on: 20/03/2009 11:06:32 »
seeker
I appreciate your concern for fair play. However, the evidence for evolution having taken place and descriptions of the various mechanisms are well known and published.
Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-dominance#Codominance for loads of discussion about one part of the subject. Wiki is not the Holy Grail of Science but it is a good starting point. (You will note that the article is 'disputed')
If you read the posts from Asyncritus you will find that they present no serious evidence - mainly references to the Bible and other cultural works and to stuff by Agassiz, who is a shameless moneymaker. Would we accept statements from the Taliban?

The details of evolutionary theory are extremely intricate and it is very easy to take a Punnet diagram and think that is all that is involved. Asyncritus picks out Science Bytes and throws them into the discussion with little thought. His statement about 'no half way house' is naive because most, if not all, characteristics are determined by multiple genes plus other factors like mitochondrial DNA. Mendelism is a good working model for breeding horses and sweet peas - that's all.

There is little more to be said in this argument for and against "God made us". There is no scientific evidence  for it; Asyncritus has quoted none. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Evolution has taken place and the steps involved are being steadily explained, one by one. The scientific approach would indicate that Evolution is the most likely alternative to go for.
 

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #224 on: 22/03/2009 11:26:19 »
The Migration of the Green Turtle
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?

"Green turtles, Chelonia mydas, make lengthy, regular migrations from Brazil to their nesting grounds on Ascension Island, 1400 miles away. The navigational systems used by Chelonia are unknown [heh heh heh!]; but recent measurements of visual acuity in green turtles suggest that they cannot use stars for guidance[heh heh!]. In this paper, we evaluate the possibility that orientation is based, in part, on the detection of some chemical substance originating at Ascension Island."

[What nonsense! Some chemical from Ascension Island, being identified by green turtles, at a distance of 1,400 miles! Must be a pretty powerful pong! And sufficiently powerful to guide a green turtle over a distance of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED MILES, in water yet! Heh heh heh!]

Evolutionary explanations please?
« Last Edit: 22/03/2009 11:34:05 by Asyncritus »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #224 on: 22/03/2009 11:26:19 »

 

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