Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: Asyncritus on 17/08/2008 23:37:59
-
THE EVOLUTION OF INSTINCT
In my humble opinion, instinct is the most remarkable feature of the natural world: second only to the existence of life itself.
It is the force powering behaviour in animals.
We may argue and dispute about whether something evolved or not, but the one thing that is beyond dispute is the fact that instinct exists, and that there is no evolutionary accounting for its existence.
Looking at the lowliest forms of life the viruses and phages, we see the viruses entering cells, and taking them over, turning them into virus factories. We know the details of how they do this - how they shed their protein coats, invade, and take over the genetic machinery of the cell and compel it to produce more virus material. And so on.
The biochemistry of much of this is well known, but there is one thing that will forever elude description. The WHY of their action. The REASON for what they do.
WHY do they enter the cell? WHY do they take over the genetic machinery?
There is no obvious compulsion for them to do so, yet they are driven to do this, somehow, and by something that cannot be identified. It can be called, even at this level, some form of INSTINCT.
An amoeba approaches a diatom. It's chemotaxis recognises it as food, and it moves toward it, engulfs it, then digests it. But WHY? Why didn't the chemotaxis make it turn in the opposite direction and run away? The amoeba recognises that it is food, it can be 'eaten', it will do it (the amoeba) good. but how does it 'know' this?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microscopy-uk.org.uk%2Fmag%2Fimagsmall%2Famoebafeeding3.jpg&hash=581a607b3c89a548259d66731fcf352d)
INSTINCT again. But what is that? And where does it come from?
The most startling examples come from the more complex animals, and I will present a few examples of the ones that have startled me the most. In every case, no evolutionary explanation can be sensibly offered. The sheer improbability of what actually happens, the fact that at every step of the way any mistake would have resulted in disaster for the species, argue powerfully that these examples originated in one blow, and not by any gradual evolutionary process. At least none I've ever heard about, but it is up to readers to correct me.
We will begin with the Yucca Moth (Tegeticula spp).
-
THE LIFE HISTORY OF THE YUCCA MOTH
The adult female moth emerges from the ground in June through July, at the time that the yucca plant is in flower (!!!), and mates shortly after emergence.
She collects the pollen of a yucca plant, using her specially shaped mouthparts, shaping it into a kind of horseshoe-shaped mass. She then flies to another inflorescence (on another plant.) There, she selects a flower, inserts her ovipositor through the wall of the carpel, and lays an egg next to the developing ovules.
She then climbs to the top of the style, and, using her specially shaped mouthparts, called maxillary tentacles (which are unique to the yucca moth), she actively transfers the pollen on to the top of the stylar canal. She repeats the process, several times, thus ensuring that the plant is adequately pollinated, and can produce seeds on which the survival of her young, and the plant, depends.
She then drops off the plant and dies.
The eggs hatch out into larvae after 7 -10 days, and they feed on the developing seeds, leaving one uneaten. After about 40 days, the 4th instar larvae eat their way out of the developing fruit, and drop to the ground using a silken thread. They then burrow their way into the soil, pupate after a year or so, and emerge as adults at the time of the flowering of the yucca plant.
The instinctive behaviours in this life history are nothing short of astounding.
Consider:
1 The young never see their mother or father, and therefore cannot copy what they did. They are born with the behaviour somehow programmed into their genes.
2 The female moth somehow knows that pollination of the flower is essential to the formation of the seeds, which are going to become the food for her offspring. She knows where the pollen needs to be placed in order to effect fertilisation.
3 Her mouthparts are shaped precisely to create the mass which is to fit into the stylar canal.
4 She somehow knows that the ovary contains the food her developing larvae will need to eat. If the plant is not pollinated, the seeds cannot develop.
5 The larvae, it has been observed, never eat all of the developing seeds, but always leave one or more to perpetuate the plant.
6 She ensures cross-pollination of the flowers, by flying from one plant to another after collecting the pollen.
7 The larvae, the grubs, pupate. That means, they dissolve entirely into a fluid within the pupal case, and reform into a flying creature, the moth. This by itself is a major, miraculous feat.
8 The pupae hatch out in June/July, at the very time that the yucca plant is in flower. Although they were underground, they are somehow aware of the correct time to hatch out and fly.
I have used the word ‘knows’ several times in this account. A moth cannot ‘know’
1 How to dissolve its grub character into a fluid enclosed in a case which is somehow going to reconstitute itself into a flying moth fully armed with instincts.
2 When to emerge at exactly the right time that the yucca plant is flowering
3 That pollination is essential to the fertilisation of the seeds and the survival of her larvae. How could she know? She never lives long enough to see either take place.
4 That the pollen she collects with her peculiarly shaped mouthparts is shaped exactly correctly to fit the stylar canal.
5 That the ovary contains ovules, which are going to develop into seeds on which her young can feed.
6 That cross pollination will ensure the continuance of the yucca plant
7 If the larvae do not have the silk thread, they would probably perish on impact with the ground.
Without the moth, the yucca species will perish. Without the yucca, the moth will perish. Each is entirely dependent on the other for its survival, because the moth lives on no other plant, and the plant is not fertilised by other insects. No moth, no yucca. No yucca, no moth.
The instinct displayed defies belief. Yet several reputable observers have described the behaviour in detail and published their findings, mithering foolishly about 'co-evolution' when they try to explain the origin of the behaviour.
It's like a lock and a key. Without the key, the lock is useless. Without the lock, the key is useless. Both have to be present at the same time for the device to work - and both are the work of an intelligent designer.
Here, we have several miracles rolled into a single life cycle. The moth would perish without the plant, and the plant would perish without the moth. Which came first? Answer: neither. They appeared there at the same time, fully formed and fully functioning. There's no evolution here, that's for sure.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpie.midco.net%2Fdougback%2Fmiscphotos%2Fyucca_moth.jpg&hash=02ec795850e044447fc5c4173bf2f792)
The moth is collecting the pollen.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morning-earth.org%2FGraphic-E%2FINTERLIVE%2FImages-Interliving%2Finter_yucca_moth.jpg&hash=fb517991c8ac42dc986a52ca2ab9f46d)
She is placing the pollen on the stigma of the plant.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.eb.com%2Feb%2Fimage%3Fid%3D8696%26amp%3BrendTypeId%3D4&hash=0948c6ae2f259ce72afdd080a2750988)
If you look carefully, you'll see the moth inserting its ovipositor into the ovary of the plant.
Source of photographs:
http://www.morning-earth.org/Graphic-E/INTERLIVE/Images-Interliving/inter_yucca_moth.jpg
-
I have to confess that when I consider the phenomena of the natural world, I am always gobsmacked at the incredible things that happen, especially when they concern instinct.
Here is another gobsmacking example which has me respectfully doffing every hat that I have at the brilliance of the Creator.
THE EUMENES WASP
This wasp occurs in my country of origin, so I'm happy to be able to say that I can testify to the accuracy of some of this from what I personally saw. However the full details are taken from various authors, such as Henri Fabre, whose observations carry more weight.
After mating has ocurred, the female wasp begins the process of confounding evolutionists (and amazing me, when I saw it doing this).
She actually builds what looks like a hollow igloo made out of mud, and sticks it on a wall or the underside of a roof. The mud is made of her own spittle, dust, and small stones. It’s quite a structure, too: about 1 cm in diameter, and 1 cm deep.
At the top, she creates an opening, and curves the lip of the opening backwards, much like the lip of a round ornamental vase. She decorates the nest with shiny pebbles too!
She then catches and stings small green grubs.
Now hear this you unbelievers, and marvel with me. She stings them - but does not kill them, merely inducing partial paralysis. This keeps the game fresh and not putrefying. I wonder how many wasps take degrees in anaesthesiology!!
Somehow, the wasp knows what sex her offspring is going to be!!! If male, she catches fewer grubs, and if female she catches more. Here's J H Fabre describing the Ammophila wasp:
http://www.pdbooksonline.com/free_books/The_Wonders_Of_Instinct_by_J_H_Fabre/page_23.php
'But the egg is laid when the provisions are stored; and this egg has a determined sex, though the most minute examination is not able to discover the differences which will decide the hatching of a female or a male.
We are therefore needs driven to this strange conclusion: the mother knows beforehand the sex of the egg which she is about to lay; and this knowledge allows her to fill the larder according to the appetite of the future grub.
What a strange world, so wholly different from ours! We fall back upon a special sense to explain the ™ hunting; what can we fall back upon to account for this intuition of the future? Can the theory of chances play a part in the hazy problem? If nothing is logically arranged with a foreseen object, how is this clear vision of the invisible acquired?'
Fabre asks a question it's impossible for evolution to answer.
But the wonders aren't over yet.
Where is the mother to lay her extremely fragile eggs? If she lays them in the mass of grubs, then they might squash it as they wriggle around.
Fabre says that he and his friends were astonished at the answer, and admits that he was unable to guess it. Before you read further, can you guess it?
The mother suspends the egg by a silken thread from the ceiling, out of reach of the grubs. When it hatches, it is suspended by its hindquarters, and can raise itself out of danger if a grub becomes too frisky.
She has also built an escape route for it, a protecting sheath that he failed to observe initially, because it was so well hidden.
Now wasps have a brain the size of a mustard seed. And yet, the mother is able to do all this - without having been taught - after all, she never sees her own mother, who dies after all the above is done.
How can she possibly
1 know how to make mud?
2 know how to build an igloo?
3 know which grubs to catch?
4 know how much venom to inject, and where to inject it so it paralyses, but doesn't kill?
5 And who thought up the idea of hanging the egg from the ceiling?
6 And how does a wasp learn how to manufacture a silk thread?
7 And how did all that get into the chromosomes?
The only answer is that the whole thing was carefully and competently designed.
And if it was designed, then there was a Designer.
-
i'm sorry to say that there is no WHY in evolution. It just is. there is no direction or reason for the results of evolution. It occurs randomly...as evolutionary theory suggests.
Whilst seeking reason is comforting, you could argue that it is an inherently human trait, to nicely compartmentalise our world and classify it into neat categories. Evolutionarily speaking, our abilty to categorise the world is what has allowed us to profliferate like we have. But our abilities and life itself is a an artifact of chance. Any reason there is for the existence of life or instincts will be what we decided to project upon it.
-
I'm sorry you take that view, Mario.
It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.
Shame that, especialy when we have such beautiful examples to the contrary.
-
It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.
I'll remind you that you are saying that these species were created by magic, so you're in no position to talk about reason.
And it doesn't mean life is meaningless (in fact, it quite clearly gives the meaning of life - reproduce, and do what you can to help those who share your genes survive), though it does mean that creationism is meaningless.
-
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)
-
It means that life is meaningless, and that reason has been abandoned in favour of evolutionary guesswork.
I'll remind you that you are saying that these species were created by magic, so you're in no position to talk about reason.
Let's assume that they were. Would it make you feel any better if I then kept on talking about evolution? I thought science was about truth, verifiable truth?
I'm simply presenting facts. In my opinion, there's no evolutionary theory that can possibly explain them. PLEEEEZZE put up one instead of leaping on me. Get Dawkins here if you like, and I'll subject him to the same treatment and we'll see what he has to say. Yeah, you guys probably will have some pull with him - more than I have anyway. Beg him to come over here and let's hear him on these topics.
And it doesn't mean life is meaningless (in fact, it quite clearly gives the meaning of life - reproduce, and do what you can to help those who share your genes survive), though it does mean that creationism is meaningless.
How sad that all were here for is to reproduce. Dont you think that's a bit pathetic?
-
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)
D-uh?
-
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)
D-uh?
The blue text is a hotlink Asyncritus.
-
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)
D-uh?
The blue text is a hotlink Asyncritus.
There's obviously some genetic abnormality, probably induced by mans polluting agents. But that's all I can say without a few more facts.
What's your explanation?
And about the yucca moth and the Eumenes wasp too. Any comment?
-
What's your explanation?
The legs on the whale are an atavism (http://medical.merriam-webster.com/medical/atavism), like these...
Many famous examples of atavisms exist, including (1) rare formation of extra toes (2nd and 4th digits) in horses, similar to what is seen in the archaic horses Mesohippus and Merychippus, (2) atavistic thigh muscles in Passeriform birds and sparrows, (3) hyoid muscles in dogs, (4) wings in earwigs (normally wingless), (5) atavistic fibulae in birds (the fibulae are normally extremely reduced), (6) extra toes in guinea pigs and salamanders, (6) the atavistic dew claw in many dog breeds
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms
Either atavisms prove evolution has occurred, or alternatively your competent and careful "designer" was having an off-day.
If evidence of atavism doesn't convert you to evolution, have a look at vestigial anatomy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges),
in humans vestiges include wisdom teeth and appendix from our herbivore ancestors, and of course our tail (coccyx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigial#Coccyx)).
-
Um, I missed your comment on the moth and the wasp.
How about it?
-
You have acknowledged the existence of genes...
There's obviously some genetic abnormality
You have acknowledged genes can change...
genetic abnormality, probably induced by mans polluting agents
If you can accept that on rare occasions those genetic changes can be advantageous then you will be an evolutionist.
Re: Moth & Wasp, genes define the anatomy which controls behaviour, e.g. nervous system, endocrine system,
so genes can produce the pre-programmed "instinctive" inherited behaviour patterns you have described.
Um, I missed your creationist "intelligent design" explanation for the examples of atavism and vestigial anatomy I listed.
-
I'm simply presenting facts. In my opinion, there's no evolutionary theory that can possibly explain them. PLEEEEZZE put up one instead of leaping on me. Get Dawkins here if you like, and I'll subject him to the same treatment and we'll see what he has to say. Yeah, you guys probably will have some pull with him - more than I have anyway. Beg him to come over here and let's hear him on these topics.
You're not presenting facts at all. You're saying 'god did it' - no facts, no evidence, no logic, no reason. That's why you get leapt upon.
And what is your fascination with talking to Professor Dawkins? That's the second time you've suggested we invite him here to discuss evolution with you - surely the forum on his website would be a much better place? I don't think he would have much time for you, as I'm sure he's had this debate a number of times already - you still don't realise that you can't hold evolution up to the highest standards of evidence whilst saying "god did it, and I don't need to have any evidence for that, because god did it."
The examples you've posted above are not evidence against evolution, merely examples that you feel evolution can't explain. I don't have time to fully research them, but you clearly do - maybe if you took the god blinkers off they would make sense to you.
-
BATS AND ECHOLOCATION
There are 3 groups of flying animals in existence today: the birds, the bats and the insects. Each of these presents evolution with insuperable problems, but my especial favourite is the bat.
It’s a shame they have had such bad press with such films as Dracula etc, because these creatures possess some of the most stupendous and miraculous pieces of biological engineering on the planet. For those who are convinced that evolution did occur, this will make not the slightest difference. For those who believe otherwise, this will be another club to beat their heads with.
Remember, the title of Darwin’s book was ‘On the Origin of Species’. That was what he set out to do, and it is what he singularly failed to achieve. It is on the origin question where he and his theory have failed most lamentably.
Fossil bats
There aren’t all that many of them, that’s for sure, and that may have something to do with the fact that they are flying animals. But what IS remarkable, is that the very first fossil bat looks remarkably like the bats of today: and has the echo-location apparatus in its head.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/bat_fossil.jpg
The author says: ‘These fossils represent essentially modern-looking microchiropterans; bats had evolved all of their characteristic features and begun to diversify by this time. In fact, the oldest known complete fossil bat, the Eocene-age Icaronycteris shown at left, shows specializations of the auditory region of the skull that suggest that this bat could echolocate.’
Remember, these are the earliest specimens of bat fossils ever found. Maybe earlier ones have been found since, but I don’t know.
Therefore, they could fly. Now a bat does not fly using feathers, it flies using the skin between its fingers. That’s the origin of the name ‘chiropteran’ – hand-wing.
Here is a diagram to show what that means. Notice the vast difference between the bird’s wing and the bat’s:
http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/wings.htm#bat
There is absolutely NO indication of any fossil ancestor of the bat, which hopped, jumped or leapt. There is absolutely NO indication of where and how they could have obtained the power of flight. None whatsoever. This, of course, is what the creation model predicts.
They fly at speeds of about 11.14 mph. In itself that doesn’t sound like much, but when we compare that with the body length of the animal, it is quite startling. It’s 234432 times its body length (say 3 inches) per hour, as compared with a car 20 ft long which at the same speed is only traveling 36000 times its length per hour.
Evolution is helpless to explain how this could have arisen so swiftly, so unexpectedly and so perfectly. Dawkins has laughably conceded that this gives the appearance of being designed, and then goes on to propound his pathetic fantasies about how this could have evolved. Have a look in Blind Watchmaker.
Flight is one thing – marvelous as it is – but the echolocation system the animal uses beggars description.
In essence, the bat emits a squeak, which like radar, bounces back to the source. Knowing the speed of the radio wave emitted we can work out very accurately how far away an object is. That’s us. The bats do this as well, but better than we can.
Let’s say that a bat is not moving, and emits a shriek. The sound wave travels to the insect it’s interested in, hits it, and bounces back. Let’s also say the insect is still. What happens then? We know the speed of sound and can calculate the distance to the object from the time it takes for the shriek to get there and reach back to us.
But the bat doesn’t know the speed of sound. So how can it calculate the distance of the insect? Evolution does not know.
Notice 2 things: it has a sound emitter, and a sound receiver, and a computer connected to the two things which is able to calculate at phenomenal speeds, and immediately communicate those results to the muscles and nervous system.
But recall that both the bat and the insect were still. That is not the case when the bat is hunting. The bat is flying at up to 11 mph, and the insect is dodging and on an uncertain flight path. The calculations immediately begin to defy belief. Bear in mind too, that there are other bats emitting shrieks. How does our bat keep track of, and identify its own signal?
Answer, it possesses the necessary equipment. That equipment is of extraordinary high quality, as we’ve seen from the requirements.
“From a computational neuroscience perspective, bats are remarkable because of the very short timescale on which they operate. The barrage of returning sonar echoes from a bat's near-environment lasts approximately 30 milliseconds following a sonar emission with the echo from a specific target lasting, at most, a few milliseconds.
From an engineering standpoint, biosonar systems (e.g. bats and dolphins) have inspired the design of very sophisticated sonar and radar systems that can map distant surfaces and track targets with great precision. Even with powerful mathematical tools and decades of experience, however, our best systems still do not rival the perceptual capabilities of dolphins. Many bats demonstrate incredible aerial agility, flying in complete darkness through branches and caves while hunting evasive insects. These animals perform such tasks in real-time with a total power consumption (including flight) measured in Watts, not hundreds of Watts. In addition to the ability to navigate in complete darkness by echolocation, both bats and dolphins live in very social environments using echolocation in group situations without any obvious problems with interference. All of these capabilities are highly desired by current military programs developing unmanned-aerial vehicles (UAV) especially since many of the target environments are in places where Global Positioning System (GPS) signals are unavailable and obstacle locations are not mapped.”
It gets extremely technical, as we might guess, but the biggest points are very obvious.
Clearly, there is extremely high order design and implementation in this system. The military want to copy the design – which means that the bats’ system is superior to any of their own.
We have high order flight engineering and acoustic engineering allied to extreme efficiency of power consumption (measured in Watts, not hundreds of watts). And meanwhile, the animal is alive, growing, breathing, excreting, responding, moving, feeding, and reproducing. So successful is the group, that they are one of the most numerous sets of animals on the planet, as far as the numbers of species is concerned. They are estimated to be about 20% of all mammalian species.
There is not even a reputable theory to account for the evolutionary origin of bats that I have been able to find. The writers content themselves with mumbling about the as yet undiscovered ancestors of bats.Too soft, they say. But they've found birds, and jellyfish, and spiders and...
The instincts involved: flight and use of this incredible sonar system are mind boggling. Imagine putting an ignoramus in the cockpit of a modern jet fighter aircraft! Because the bat has a brain the size of a brazil nut, or less.
Evolution has failed miserably here, as usual when presented with a concrete case. The animals scream ‘We are designed’ and each little creature is a small hymn of praise to its Maker.
Thomas Addison said it well: “In reason’s ear, they all rejoice, and utter forth a glorious voice….. the Hand that made us is divine”.
Well said, Thomas.
-
*yawn*
-
Try waking up atrox.
You may learn something!
Hey RD,
Got anything to say about these? Useful, I mean.
-
Your batty post did not attempt to answer my question...
Um, I missed your creationist "intelligent design" explanation for the examples of atavism and vestigial anatomy I listed.
PS
just because behavior or form is mind-bogglingly complex does not mean it was designed.
Incremental evolutionary changes over billions of years is plenty of time to produce extreme complexity.
-
Ah, the old argument from Credulity and Gullibility strikes again.
We don't know how it evolved, we don't have a clue how it could have evolved, but we believe it anyway.
Nuts to the facts. Why should we let a nasty fact spoil a perfectly nonsensical theory?
Ah well.[:-\]
-
But the facts are that these species exist. As we know that their actions and physiology are determined by genes, and we know that a population's genes change over time and are subject to natural selection, we can determine that these species evolved from ancestors through a process of evolution.
Evolution explains the facts perfectly well.
No-one is ignoring the facts, except you - ignoring the fact that there is no, and can never be any evidence for your creator, so it will never be a valid explanation for how things on earth arise and thus is not a valid alternative to evolution.
-
Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.
-
Asyncritus, do not put too much reliance on fossils.
They are certainly of great value to many branches of science but a fossil can only be formed if the conditions are right. The relative number of fossils can never be an indication of the status of the animal or plant at the time.
Fossils should be regarded as one more tool in the investigative process.
Blake
There are literally hundreds of millions of fossils. Fossil formation is not the problem. The ones that have been formed in the Cambrian alone amount to over a billion, if we count the bacteria and unicells.
Darwin himself, and all evolutionists since know full well that evolution lives or dies by the fossils.
Here's Darwin:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Darwin_ever_say_that_he_was_wrong_for_coming_up_with_the_theory_of_evolution
They are the only rock-solid facts we have. There are theories aplenty, but the fossils represent the bedrock of any evolution theory, and if they contradict the theory, then it should be abandoned.
We don't have a choice really.
-
no, evolution dont live or die with the fossils and no evolutionist would say so... but in fact, they do help to support the theory, thats right.
But that doesn´t mean in reverse, that the absence of some fossils in some parts (don´t forget the the lots of fossils, intermadiate forms ands so on we do have..) proves that evolution is wrong...
because then we wouldn´t have to discuss about creation.... I never saw god or any part of him/her/it... but in your mind, that doesn´t proove your wrong...
-
If the police are investigating a murder case, the first thing they look at is the corpse, and analyse it carefully.
Here we have hundreds of thousands of corpses, and not one of them says that evolution occurred. What does that prove?
That Something Else happened. What?
-
Your batty post did not attempt to answer my question...
My batty post? (Very funny, RD, very funny!).
But how did you say the bats evolved, and from what? And have you got any evidence?
-
You just keep ignoring or refusing to accept what we say. What's the point of you posting here? You are constantly refuted, yet you return each time with posts that demonstrate your ignorance even more. Perhaps a more receptive, uncritical forum is where you should be.
Meanwhile, you still have not made a POSITIVE case for ID. Even if you proved evolution wrong, the answer is not automatically ID. It is fallacious to think that "X is wrong, therefore Y is correct".
-
Come on Stefan.
You haven't refuted anything. The bats still fly and echolocate.
The yucca moth still pollinates.
The swallows still fly to Capistrano.
And so on.
Where's the 'refutation'?
Take any one of those, and refute it. I challenge you.
If the US military is copying the bat's systems, and the whale's systems of echolocation, that proves superintelligent design. The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it. They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.
Now what does that prove? Intelligent Design, or none at all?
.
-
The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can
Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimicry)).
Engineers have also copied evolution...
Evolutionary computation
In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.
Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.
Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.
On 28 July 1976, an SR-71 broke the world record for its class:
an absolute speed record of 1905.80993 knots (2,193.1669 mph, 3,529.56 km/h)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#Records
-
The military isn't stupid, and they know brilliant design when they see it.
They don't have a problem with that - they just copy as best they can
Yes, engineers have been inspired by or copied nature, (Biomimicry).
Engineers have also copied evolution...
So the engineers could see intelligent design, because they would certainly not copy unintelligent design. Would you, if you were an engineer?
Evolutionary computation
In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.
Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
Do I need say any more?
[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.
Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.
How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales. Don't decontextualise me.
But here's one for you. The simplest living thing can reproduce itself. How about the military then? Have they managed that yet?
-
Evolutionary computation
In computer science evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly computational intelligence) that involves combinatorial optimization problems.
Evolutionary computation uses iterative progress, such as growth or development in a population.
This population is then selected in a guided random search using parallel processing to achieve the desired end.
Such processes are often inspired by biological mechanisms of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
Do I need say any more?
The selection process in evolutionary computation is artificial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection) not natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection): the computer programmer has defined the criteria on which the partially random computer-generated prototypes will be assessed, the fittest ones being selected to "breed" from to produce successive generations, i.e. evolutionary computation is directed toward a final result by the criteria set by the programmer.
There is no such teleology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology) in the natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) which has created all the life on Earth: no design, no plan, the prevailing environment has selected which forms survive and reproduce.
[the military] just copy as best they can, knowing that they'll never equal it or better it.
Asyncritus could you tell us a creature which can better a SR-71 (military aircraft) for speed ?.
How relevant is this to anything? I was, if you recall, talking about the echolocation system in bats and whales.
Ultrasound imaging equipment used to inspect metal castings, like gun barrels, uses sound frequencies which are fifty times higher than that of a bat, so will have echolocation which has a resolution fifty times better than a bat.
(Bat about 100KHz (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JuanCancel.shtml), Ultrasonic inspection apparatus 5MHz (http://www.ndt.net/article/schulz/schulz.htm#2), i.e. 50x higher frequency than bat)
Laser rangefinders are far more accurate than sonar, they still use echolocation but use light instead of sound.
Laser rangefinders were used to create this music video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyQoTGdQywY), (sorry it's a "Radiohead" dirge).
-
[;D]
-
Asyncritus, you said -
Darwin himself, and all evolutionists since know full well that evolution lives or dies by the fossils.
This is not the case. Fossils provide evidence for evolution but what about all the countless soft-bodied creatures that never made it to being a fossil and yet managed to evolve without leaving a trace other than fragments of their genomes in successive creatures further along in the evolutionary 'tree'?
Also, evolution is going on as we correspond and has been seen to occur over a number of years in the Galapagos Islands by the Grants in the 1990s; and then there's the work of Mike Majerius on the Peppered Moth that is ongoing at Cambridge.
Fossils are a useful tool, that's all.
-
Glad you mentioned that. I was reading Gould's Wonderful Life just today. Here's a relevant quote:
"This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the miniscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.
The Burgess Shale represents a period just after the explosion, a time when the full range of its products inhabited our seas.
These Canadian fossils are precious because they preserve in exquisite detail. down to the last filament of a trilobite's gill, or the components of the last meal in a worm's gut, the soft anatomy of organisms... hence the rare soft bodied faunas of the fossil record of the fossil record are precious windows into the true range and diversity of ancient life. The Burgess Shale is the only extensive, well-documented window upon that most crucial event in the history of animal life, the first flowering of the Cambrian explosion."
He's saying that they don't have an awful lot of soft bodied fossils, but the Burgess shale is a huge exception, and there are plenty of them there.
So I'm afraid your point is valueless.
Fossils provide no evidence for evolution, but the opposite.
-
Asyncritus, your last example doesn't make much sense. Please could you be more clear.
And besides, fossil records do not neccesarily have to illustrate a gradual chain of fossils that reflect gradual change. This is a misconception.
Some changes may happen that are random and rapid. For example, the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', proposed by elderidge and gould in 1972, suggests that localised speciation events can occur in apparently stable sexually reproducing population.
-
Glad you mentioned Eldredge and Gould.
Those two have shot the whole idea of gradual evolution right in the horse's patoot.
They said that gradual evolution just doesn't happen - there's no fossil evidence that it does. So score 1 for the creationists.
They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.
They show that species appear, stand still evolutionarily, and then either disappear, or remain till today. Score 3 for the creationists.
Well that only leaves mutations. Which will produce sudden advances. But that's wrong too - because 95% of mutations are destructive, and the other 5% are neutral. So what does that leave? Score 4 for the creationists.
I only recently read about Lenski's experiment. He cultivated 33,127 generations of E.coli over a period of 26 years. He wore out his prayer mat by the refrigerators praying for a new species to show up. Did it? Like hell it did. Score 5 for the creationists.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
So all told, evolution is in a very bad way, and should be discarded forthwith.
-
Well, Lenski's work did show a new species of e.coli - one that could use citrate as a food source. (not using citrate is one of the defining features of e. coli as a species)
It also showed clear evidence of evolution within the species, as later populations were better able to compete in that environment than ancestral populations.
-
Hi Ben
No, Lenski didn't show a new species, merely a new variant which, as you say, could metabolise citrate.
Michael Behe showed that the capacity to do that had already been there, and all that was required was activation of an already existing enzyme.
E coli remained E coli, and didn't become E lenskii!
-
Does the name really matter? In Lenski's lab, bacteria evolved. That's all there is to it - observable evolution through natural selection. Your creationist ideas can't explain that, or chose to ignore what it means.
-
Ben
It does matter. Speciation is a bottom line feature of evolution. If no new species are produced, how can evolution proceed from lower to higher orders?
Answer: it can't.
Therefore, that is why they're scratching round so desperately to find new-species production - but it just doesn't seem to happen. Lenski's desperate and prolonged effort (26 years' worth) ended in a great success for us creationists. Dobzhansky had a good go, and the nuclear effects of Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't done so either.
Lenski established what Luther Burbank said so long ago - that species have a very strong pull toward the mean, and that he couldn't transgress species limits.
So where do you go from there? Nowhere, I suggest, apart from abandonment.
-
Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant. Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.
As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.
The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?
-
They did not evolve. Not even Lenski claimed a new species. Have a look at the wiki accountand you'll see that E coli remained E coli.http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=254372
Unless,of course the taxonomists don't know their job either.
This is simply an example of variation within a species, nothing more and no help to evolution at all.
-
They show very very clearly that there are huge numbers of species which just appear BANG! and with no ancestors. Score 2 for the creationists.
No ancestors? Could that perhaps mean they haven't made it into the fossil record?
What exactly is it about evolution that frightens you? - And where did you learn to argue like that?
-
They didn't make it into the fossil record? The ancestors of all 6,000,000 species existing today?
Not one of them made it? Is that really possible? Darwin said they should be littered everywhere. They're nowhere to be found.
C'mon Blake - get real willya.
Scared of evolution? No, scared of swallowing scientific gibberish. And of pushing God out of His own Universe. I'll have no truck with that.
-
Actually, speciation is pretty much irrelevant. Evolution shows that all species are genetically related, so where we draw the boundary between one species and the next doesn't matter. Genetically, it's harder to tell one species from the next.
As I stated above, the inability to use citrate as a food source was a defining feature of e.coli as a species. How many more defining features would you like to transgress before you're happy to call it a new species? Will it matter? Of course not - the later populations had evolved to out-compete the earlier populations, and some had evolved to take advantage of a new niche.
The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved. Regardless of whether or not they speciated. Do you deny that?
Did you choose to ignore my entire post?
The bacteria in Lenski's lab evolved - into new varieties of the species if you like, but being pedantic isn't a good arguement. Ancestral populations were less able to compete with modern generations - evolution by natural selection - once again it doesn't matter if they didn't form a new species in this instance it is a concrete example of the mechanisms of evolution in action. It's simply nonsense to say that evolution can produce variation within species but not speciation - there's only so much variation before the variants become sexually incompatible.
-
Ben
I don't quite know what your definition of evolution might be.Perhaps you'd like to distinguish between 'variation' and 'evolution' for me.
Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'
So a Pakicetus could eventually evolve into a whale (ho ho!).
That's what I think about when I use the word 'evolution'.
You clearly don't think so, but accept the production of insignificant new variants of the same species as 'evolution'. So you would probably regard a bunch of monkeys with longer tails as 'evolution'. I'm afraid the taxonomists whose business it is to define species etc won't agree with you.
They have reasonably well defined criteria for naming new species, and Lenski's 'new' bacteria didn't meet them. Not even Lenski claimed they did.
But that creates an enormous problem for you.
If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.
Whatever the answer, that represents rather more time than evolution has got.
-
[;D]
LOL owned! You really are the very thing evolution is going to ditch.
Btw, which of the competing gods has your balls in a vice. I am pretty sure it is just jebus. Other religions tend to conduct themselves with more dignity, not going onto science forums looking to get into fights.
The only ID I need is the one that made this lovely iPod touch keyboard. So sexy!
-
oh. I forgot to mention that this forum never fails to cheer me up. It's nutters like you that push science onwards. In hundreds of years we will look back and laugh at ancient humans with it's silly warring religions.
We will all then toast to our mastery of nature and drink alchopops from the holy Grail.
-
Mine is 'the production of new species, genera and higher taxons from existing ones.'
Then you'd be wrong - a new species does not have to appear for evolution to occur.
Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.
-
Imagine a wading bird that feeds by pulling worms out of the mud on a marsh, a Curlew say. If there were prolonged periods of drought that forced invertebrates to go deeper in the mud to avoid drying out then the birds with the longer bills (there is always a range in properties like this) would be favoured in that they would be able to feed long after those with shorter bills had insufficient nutrition to breed or had starved.
This longer bill trait would be inherited and the average bill length would increase in this species - it would still be the same species but there would be a quantifiable inherited change, that is, evolution had taken place.
You overlooked just one little thing, didn't you?
What's that?
Well, maybe two.
1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.
2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!
So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you? [::)]
-
If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.
Ever heard of a little thing called SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Species can develop at a fantastically quicker rate this way than the poor old trial and error Asexual variety. The results of mutation are constantly being injected into the gene pool and 'come out' if and when they prove to be an advantage.
To enable yourself to grasp the probabilities involved you need to be aware of the actual numbers - they are huge.
-
I think you've misunderstood (Asyncritus, not sophie). The birds with longer beaks were more likely to breed - so in the population as a whole the 2nd generation were more likely to have longer beaks. Of generation 2, those with the longest beaks were the most likely to breed, so longer beaks again would be more common in generation 3 and so on.
Blakestyger was not suggesting that acquired characteristics were inherited.
We know that genetic mutations, deletions, translations, substitutions etc happen, and this is how we get new genes - so the genes for a long beak came from these processes.
And although Flyberius has been forward in his opinions, bordering on being rude, he's entitled to his opinions. Religion inspires strong feelings in people, both for and against.
Flyberius - please try to be a little more tactful, thanks.
-
Flyberius - please try to be a little more tactful, thanks.
Sorry, I know I rarely contribute to these arguments and what I do say is usually anti-god and very offensive.
Tough love.
-
Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution
The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories,
nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent 14 Sep 2008
www.telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/2910447/Charles-Darwin-to-receive-apology-from-the-Church-of-England-for-rejecting-evolution.html)
-
Asyncritus, your definition of evolution is equivalent to saying that centimetres can't add up to kilometres. Genotypes and phenotypes don't just jump from one form into another like magic. There is a gradual accumulation of changes. These changes are evolution in action.
Of course, you reject despite the evidence that there are beneficial mutations that natural selection can act on, as you demonstrated with the E. coli experiment and the hypothetical beak lengthening.
It's unfortunate that you would rather pursue your ideology than actually understand the science. Please come back when you have done so. (There's no way you can come back with your current opinion after actually understanding the science. Please do us and yourself the favor).
-
1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.
2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!
So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you? [::)]
Asyncritus - you really haven't understood a thing, have you?
-
If it takes 33,127 generations NOT to produce a single new species of relatively uncomplicated bacteria, then how many generations does it take to produce a whale from a Pakicetus? Not to mention the 6 - 8,000,000 species in the Cambrian from nowhere, it seems.
Ever heard of a little thing called SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Species can develop at a fantastically quicker rate this way than the poor old trial and error Asexual variety. The results of mutation are constantly being injected into the gene pool and 'come out' if and when they prove to be an advantage.
To enable yourself to grasp the probabilities involved you need to be aware of the actual numbers - they are huge.
Sophie
There is not a single case on record where you can point to a new species emerging either slowly or at once in the literature today.
I showed you the 33,127 generations didn't do it in Lenski's experiment. How many more do you need? I don't call that 'fantastically quickly', do you?
If a human generation is 14 years (to reach sexual maturity) then that's 33,127 x 14 = 464,000 years for NO new species to evolve. Tough luck!
-
Dont forget that conditions were not changed in Lenski's experiment - had he started with one population, split it in two and subjected the subsequent generations to different selection pressures (different temperatures, type/amount of food etc) then you would have seen much quicker selection, and greater variation. Even with no change in conditions, the bacteria evolved to be bigger and better able to compete.
You can't escape Lenski's observations, and you are choosing to ignore that bacteria reproduce asexually, thus greatly limiting the genetic variation from one generation to the next. Sexual reproduction recombines genes each generation, thus leading to much, much quicker variation.
-
ignorance is not a proof, so again...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..
2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
Rassenkreis (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
Ex. Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct
(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)
-
The talkorigins article is a messy collection , mainly of polyploidy, and of very badly treated animals in some monster's laboratory.
And another point - these new'species' never leave the genus. So we've got a few miserable examples of species alterations, and 6,000,000 living species to account for. How do you square that numerical circle?
There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.
I am horrified to read some of the quite monstrous experiments they performed to 'produce' these brutalised 'new species'. Have you read what they actually did? No, I didn't think so.
But I do want to say that these 'new species' are artificially produced for the most part, and cruelly for the rest.
-
1. The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE.
2. If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!
So you have a lickle problem there, haven't you? [::)]
Asyncritus - you really haven't understood a thing, have you?
Oh yes I have.
1 I understand that acquired characteristics CAN'T be inherited and
2 I understand that beneficial mutations occur so rarely that they cannot possibly have produced the 6,000,000 species alive today from any common ancestor(s).
So what do you think of that, then?
-
There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.
And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..
2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
Rassenkreis (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
Ex. Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct
(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)
-
There is no example of new species arising in the wild where all this would have happened n million years ago.
And I already explained the "Race circle" to you in the other Thread... there are some of them you can observe today, that show pretty good how Evolution could work.. I gave you the Example of the great tit in Europe, these salamanders at the end of the quote are another one..
Ut the salamander is a living fossil. I gave you the reference, so you know it.
2) Reproductive isolation evolves gradually: species distinctions somewhat arbitrary
Rassenkreis (''race circle'): a geographically convergent series of species
Ex. Ensatina salamanders (Anura) are continuously distributed in California
adjacent forms are reproductively compatible & morphologically similar
ends of circle are reproductively isolated & morphologically distinct
(http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Species.htm)
And have we got a single nice new genus with all these species? No, we don't. And what about these 6,000, 000 species today then? Where did they come from????
-
So what do you think of that, then?
I think that as we both come from opposite paradigms no meaningful discussion can take place between us.
For what it's worth, a careful reading of Life, An Authorised Biography by Richard Fortey will prevent you from having to defend this hopeless position you have chosen - good luck.
-
I showed you the 33,127 generations didn't do it in Lenski's experiment. How many more do you need? I don't call that 'fantastically quickly', do you?
If a human generation is 14 years (to reach sexual maturity) then that's 33,127 x 14 = 464,000 years for NO new species to evolve. Tough luck!
I thought bacteria reproduce asexually. Did you not understand the relevance of sexual reproduction and the consequent change in time scale for evolution?
You say there is no evidence for new species - aren't the museums full of them? Doesn't the DNA analysis of long dead organisms reveal it?
You obviously have a 'faith' issue here. Try to concentrate on evidence if you want to talk about Science. Religion and Science don't have to be mutually exclusive, you know. Or are you going to join an Amish community? (Even they have come to terms with some of this new fangled modern Science.)
-
Hey Sophie
How did sexual reproduction evolve from asexual reproduction?
-
oh my....
even some asexual individues change genetic materials from time to time ... if you finally understood the princibles of evolution, than there is no need to explain anything further...
otherwise I´m just not willing to explain it again
-
Oh come on Atrox. Don't be so chicken.
All you have to do is show how a cell which is happily dividing into two every day of its life, can suddenly decide that
It's going to split its number of chromosomes into EXACTLY HALF.
Then each half is going to meet up with another one that's divided into EXACTLY HALF as well.
Then they are going to join up somehow.
Then the 2 HALF nuclei are going to join up and form the ORIGINAL whole number and live happily ever after.
Now that's not too difficult, is it? Heh heh.
-
Asyncritus
You've got some reading to do. [::)]
-
... can suddenly decide that
suddenly? decide? ...I really wonder what idea of the theorie of evolution you have...apparantly not even close to the actual one...even after all these discussions now...
-
Asyncritus
You've got some reading to do. roll eyes
Like what do you have in mind?
-
... can suddenly decide that
suddenly? decide? ...I really wonder what idea of the theorie of evolution you have...apparantly not even close to the actual one...even after all these discussions now...
Come on atrox, don't be a spoilsport now.
Here's a little bacterial cell. It is dividing into two every 2 hours, asexually, and it can do that all year, no problem.
Over there is another organism. It doesn't divide into two.
It counts its chromosomes, finds 800. Now it sez to itself, hey sexual reproduction is a good thing.
So it divides its chromosomes into 400 in two new cells. Each one is going to die, because it's 400 short!
So it looks round, and hey presto, over there is another one with 400 chromosomes too. So it rushes over there, and heck, there's a big chemical wall preventing it from going in! So both die.
Now what happens? I dunno, but I could go on like this all day, making up stupid stories like this trying to figure out how it really happened.
Why not try it? It's good for a laugh if nothing else!
How about it Sophie?
-
just read something about the reproductional cycle of plant lice ... maybe than you will understand, that there is no either...or in evolution. There are a lot of steps inbetween. No cell ever had to decide between reproducing sexual or nonsexual (and, btw, they never had to decide and surely not suddenly as you still try to imply!). The same way as no fish had to decide to stay in water or to go to the desert.. [::)]
-
Well, if they didn't decide, and they didn't do it suddenly, then how did fish get on to dry land?
Are they stupid, or what? Or did they tippy-toe out and dry out: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!
And if they didn't decide to be sexual instead of asexual, why did one change into the other?
Nope. That didn't evolve, that's for sure.
-
You used to argue sensibly, but I fear you may have run out of reasonable comments.
Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist? So you are aware that some fish are perfectly capable of spending periods of time outside of the water.
You clearly need to read the 'evolution of sexual reproduction' thread again - it was explained perfectly well there, you presented your arguments and others refuted them.
-
Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist?
lol, yes she/he knows...but just ignores...as always ;-)
We had this discussion about fish going on land before (eels, lungfish, mudskipper), but of course thats no proof that sudden is not a word of a evolutionists vocabulary... [;)]
-
Asyncritus, your posts just get inaner by the day. You continuously demonstrate profound ignorance of biology. If you wish to discuss these topics, you should at least understand what you're talking about first. There are so many resources available to you. Please stop wasting our time with your straw men.
-
You used to argue sensibly, but I fear you may have run out of reasonable comments.
Do you acknowledge that mudskippers exist? So you are aware that some fish are perfectly capable of spending periods of time outside of the water.
You clearly need to read the 'evolution of sexual reproduction' thread again - it was explained perfectly well there, you presented your arguments and others refuted them.
I think you got that the wrong way round. Others presented arguments, and I refuted them!
Nobody has yet said anything of why or how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction.
And don't tell me 'it's a good idea because...' I know it's a good idea. I want to know when asexual became sexual and why did the change take place?
-
Don't you have access to the trillions of other pages of the internet? You disregard every explanation you're given here, so why should we bother any more?
-
Because unless you do, the readership will know that you have no explanation of this enormously important phenomenon.
Now you don't want that, do you?
-
No, it will only read your self-imposed ignorance and die of laughter.
If they haven't already read the explanations provided by members of this forum and on the rest of the internet, they can ask genuinely for further clarifications and actually learn something when they are answered.
-
No, it will only read your self-imposed ignorance and die of laughter.
If they haven't already read the explanations provided by members of this forum and on the rest of the internet, they can ask genuinely for further clarifications and actually learn something when they are answered.
Stefan
The fact of the matter is that there are NONE on the internet, or in any textbook you can name.
Why is that?
-
Asyncritus, lying does not make something true. Your post is a complete lie.
A Google search for "evolution of sexual reproduction", returns 566,000 results!
The argument from ignorance is not an effective argument. Lying is worse. If these are the only "tools" in your conceptual toolbox, you are intellectually bankrupt.
-
My apologies for my extreme statement. There ARE a lot of papers. However,
You should try reading them with your common sense in gear, and not just your oesophagus.
Like the very first reference to wiki:
"The evolution of sexual reproduction is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."
Did you get that? In simple terms, THEY DON'T KNOW!!!!!
Want more?
" Since we saw last week that group selection is unlikely, this hypothesis is NOT likely to explain the evolution of sexual reproduction."
THEY DON'T KNOW.
You guys have to get some critical faculties in gear. The brain, not the oesophagus, is the organ of thought.
I do apologise for my extreme statement that there is nothing about sexual reproduction's origin. The fact is that the papers I have read, say they don't have a clue, as above. So my substance was right. There's nothing about how sexual reproduction ACTUALLY AROSE. Note the word ACTUALLY. It means EVIDENCED material, not just silly guesses and hypotheses.
They say that they don't know, and that's fair enough.
But that puts the ball right back in your court. Account already.
-
You guys have to get some critical faculties in gear.
Okay then. There is, and can never be, any evidence for the existence of god. Thinking critically, I would be forced to reject god and accept that there is another explanation for life. I would then have to consider something that is common to all life on earth - the fact that their biochemistry and physiology is controlled by nucleic acids...
Do you honestly think that you can ask other people to think critically, while telling them that god made everything?
-
I'm interested in why you are so adamant about not believing in God.
You obviously have some scientific training/knowledge, and I would have expected you to have a rather more open mind than you are exhibiting.
I can't show you a divine signature in every cell, but what would it take to reverse your opinion?
-
Good question.
The reason I have no belief in god is that I have never seen any evidence for a god, or any reason to think there may be evidence for one. There's no need for a god in my life, my moral guidance comes from my upbringing, and a sense of fairness and compassion instilled in me by my parents. I have no fear of death, and so do not need to cling on the the idea of an afterlife. I am responsible for my own actions, and do not need a deity from which to seek forgiveness. I make my own decisions based on my personal responsibility and morals, and so do not seek guidance. I am thankful for what I have, but it comes from the hard work and love of my parents, friends, family and myself, so need no deity to offer thanks to.
I am a reasonable person, and I understand enough about human nature and the nature of religion to understand that god, and religion, is a nothing more than a fable, a story to tell yourself to help tidy things away.
I am also an open minded person, which isn't to say I will believe anything I'm told. Again, there is no evidence for a god, and would you expect an open minded person to believe in pixies? I'm open minded, but also cynical - I will accept people's explanations and think them through, but I can also reject them when they are based on flawed assumptions or poor logic.
I guess the chief issue here is that we think in different paradigms. I using reason and logic and you using religion. This is why your comments get my back up on the forum, as you are attacking a reasoned argument from a non-reason point of view. I wouldn't go to a religious forum to explain why I think they are all wrong, so why do you do so on a scientific forum?
What could make me believe in god? Evidence for it's existence - but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What made you choose to believe in god?
-
Asyncritus, when you understand why you don't believe in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, then you will understand why we don't believe in (your, or anyone else's) gods.
-
Slightly off topic but can someone tell me if asyncritus means someone permanently out of step?
And actually Asyncritus, it's you who has a problem.
"The genes for long beak ARE ALREADY THERE."
Yes, and evolution explicitly depends on variabillity. If the genetic variation were absent the evolutionists would have a problem. As things stand (ie in reality) they are fine.
"If they got longer by practice (ho ho!) then the longer beak CANNOT BE PASSED DOWN, because ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INHERITED!!!!!"
If they got longer by practice, this would have nothing to do with dawrinian evolution.On the other hand if those who happened to have longer beaks survived better then evolution would work just fine.
I often wonder how much of His time the creationist crowd think God must put into ensuring the evolution doesn't happen.
It seems to me that it's inevitable that more successful creatures will outbreed less successful ones. If there's any variability in a species (and there always is) it must change in response to its surroundings.
Does God nip round each night undoing evolution?
Surely He must have other things to do.
Either that or he deliberately cam up with a crap system
-
I read a little of what you guys said. Personally i don't argue with creationists or synonyms thereof, it makes for too much frustration in my life, just leave them alone.
As for the meaning of life i heard mention of earlier. The definition for meaning:
1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
You could say that we can't know the meaning of life as we are part of the process and grasping the meaning might alter the result. That's my 2 cents anyway.
Does this make sense?
-
Slightly off topic but can someone tell me if asyncritus means someone permanently out of step?
I know you were probably kidding, but Asyncritus was an apostle (and saint), referenced by Paul. The name itself means "incomparable."
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Asyncritus
-
I read the name in Romans, liked it, and then found after I'd been using it for a while, that it meant incomparable. Wasn't deliberate choice with that in mind.
-
I have a question, does the very act of selecting requires understanding?
-
What do you mean by that question? Could you please elaborate?
-
I'm surprised no one mentioned mathematics in all of that. I know, differential equations are a bit intimidating but they open up a marvelous window into the workings of nature. How did it all evolve? I quote Rene' Thom:
"All creation or destruction of form or morphogenesis can be described by the disappearance of the attractor representing the initial form, and it's replacement by capture of the attractor representing the final form."
Change occurs through the underlying dynamics responsible for the change. The dynamics gives rise to certain forms of structure one of which is an "attractor", a stable state the change tends to. Surrounding attractors are regions called "basins of attraction" which if the dynamics happens to reach, is drawn into the attractor. Outside this basin, the dynamics tends to other states some of which are non-stable causing the dynamics to simple fall apart.
How does the ameba, moth, and wasp know? They don't know. Rather all are part of dynamic systems which have been pushed into basins of attraction and have reached the attractor which is the phenomenon we perceive as the ameba engulfing food, the reproductive cycles of the moth and wasp, the marvelous clay cathedral of the termites, and all the other wonderful forms in nature we see: at it's most fundamental level, evolution is dynamics.
There is no designer creating these forms. We are yet unable to fully appreciate the immense complexity of these dynamics, the long chain of events leading up to the attractors we observe, and wishing for a simple "human" explanation seek divine intervention. I'm sorry people. There is no God, no creator, rather only a fragile people still in many ways living in a demon-haunted world.
-
There is no designer creating these forms. We are yet unable to fully appreciate the immense complexity of these dynamics, the long chain of events leading up to the attractors we observe, and wishing for a simple "human" explanation seek divine intervention. I'm sorry people. There is no God, no creator, rather only a fragile people still in many ways living in a demon-haunted world.
If you, as a rational human being, presumably with some intelligence at your disposal, can genuinely think this, then there's really no hope for rationality and intelligence. They are withered on the vine, and blasted by the east wind.
They are meaningless terms and should be abandoned immediately.
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
Asyncritus, why would a competent and careful designer put legs on a whale ? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1)
The whale has no vestigial legs, they are not and never have been, connected to the skeleton of the whale. They are used for sexual reproduction, as grasping devices so the whales can copulate.
-
The whale has no vestigial legs, they are not and never have been, connected to the skeleton of the whale. They are used for sexual reproduction, as grasping devices so the whales can copulate.
[^] [:)]
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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:
I don't know whether the museum pics should be displayed as "vestigial hind limbs,"[/b]
Bad start!
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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
And you quoted that joker Babinski. Here's his reply:
I don't know whether the museum pics should be displayed as "vestigial hind limbs,"[/b]
Bad start!
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!
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!
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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'.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17371.msg205053#msg205053)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You have to be joking. Your posts are ridiculous.
So why aren't you laughing? You sound awfully grim!
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?
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.
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucmp.berkeley.edu%2Ftertiary%2Feoc%2Fgreenriver%2Ficaropic.jpg&hash=6baf394ced726f603b98dad5d47d4e05)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
Here we have a typical example of a fundie:
92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.
93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.
101-Odd Games Fundies Play (http://ralliance.org/GamesFundiesPlay.html) by John Richards
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells
Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.
Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.
-
Congratulations on exhibiting your inability to recognise the meaning of the simple word 'fact'.
92. "The Armour of God". When a fundie is presented with irrefutable facts that prove that he is completely mistaken about one of his opinions, he would loudly proclaim that he is putting on his "armour of God". Apparently the "armour of God" is purposeful ignorance, and the fundie is incapable of showing any difference between the "armour of God" and purposeful ignorance.
Irrefutable? Facts? Where? Let's see some. Spouting insults does not qualify as either.
93. "Perseveration" This is the fundie version of perseverance. It's when they keep doing the same thing, over and over, even if it's not working, and appears completely idiotic to everyone else.
More insults. No more facts. Where are they????
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.
You've got this all wrong. YOU can't explain any of this. Evolution can't either. Want to make a genuine effort to explain the origin of those bee facts I listed? Instead of silly remarks?
And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F42239000%2Fjpg%2F_42239348_bee_science_203.jpg&hash=24d191e1b27b9a79e5b3f679b548e394)
-
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.
So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells
Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.
No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AB14_qX2vDdBJiM%3A%3Aworldbridgermedia.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F04%2Fhoney-comb.gif&hash=94db39ee56866d004c01b6d89b05083d)
Hmmm, why do I do this... I'm pretty much sure you'll keep your fingers in your ears and continue singing "Lalalalala I can't hear you..." You're doing a fine job of making yourself look like a fool.
Why do you do this? Just to make yourself look stupid by writing this nonsense? As the saying goes, its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubts.
-
Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?
-
Now, I don't know enough about biology to make a significant contribution here, but from reading previous posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (Asyncritus) obviously don't believe in evolution, which is fine by me, I don't mind. But you are on a SCIENCE forum talking with people who know SCIENCE, and I think they are hardly going to accept a view based upon religion and that God created everything, after all these years of working in their field of expertise. Science and religion don't exactly go hand in hand. But has all this discussion gotten us any closer to answering the question 'how does "instinct" evolve?'?
To be truthful, it hasn't. The fact is that instinct could not have evolved.
My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.
The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.
Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.
The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.
I see no hope for any evolutionary explanation of this phenomenon. I have never even heard of one. I personally think that God did this to have a good laugh at the atheists, who, if they have a scrap of intellectual decency in them, must be tearing their hair out in bundles when confronted by these facts, and others like them.
-
And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F42239000%2Fjpg%2F_42239348_bee_science_203.jpg&hash=24d191e1b27b9a79e5b3f679b548e394)
Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Oct06/bee.html))
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae – insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."
So, looks like it is just half-bee...
Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.
So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead. Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.
-
Asyncritus, you have no clue about the scientific method and you know it, so far your argumentation strategy has been: "I can't explain fact X. God Did It!" A lot of people here have explained fact X to you, but you still keep saying "God Did It!"
With your approach to science you are hindering all progress. Why do research, when some deity did it.
So you want to substitute: We can't understand it - evolution did it!!!! What progress! What a huge forward step! What a breakthrough! An advance! We haven't a clue how it could have happened, but it is the scientific method to hide our ignorance by shouting EVOLUTION DID IT!!! And of course, the louder you shout, the more certain it becomes that EVOLUTION DID IT!!! So shout louder! You'll soon know everything!! Hurrah! 3 cheers for evolution guys!!!
Nope, wrong! It's "We can't understand it - let's find out how it came to be!" Apparently you don't know how the scientific method works.
how a stupid little bee could do all the wonderful things it does - like make perfectly hexagonal comb cells
Bees make roundish comb cells, the combs melt into the hexagonal form, because it's the most effective form. That's mere physics.
No, it's mere stupidity. The optimal shape for the construction of the most economical containers is the hexagon. And a lickle bee figured that all out all on her lonesome! Ain't evolution wonderful!!!!
The bee doesn't figure it out, it doesn't need to. Small changes over time (yep, evolution) have a big impact.
-
My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.
The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.
Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.
The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.
No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.
The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X° fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.
How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.
-
What evidence do you see for a God here and now?
Middle East
East Europe
Asia
Global warming
Hypocrisy from EU.
Hypocrisy from UN.
USA:s war on 'terror'.
Africa's child soldiers?
Slave trade
This sudden need for creationism (like ten years old, right?:)
In times of crisis, like war etc, nativity seems to rise, as well as organized religion.
And the world is definitely going into a 'depression', cause of several reasons.
And isn't that always when those people with the 'simple' solutions seems to 'pop' up?
If God exist he does not do what you expect him to do.
He's no ones hired Wizard, magicking for your enjoyment or understanding.
So human definitions of what one would like to be the 'truth' seems rather inconsequent to me.
But, if he exist, doing as the bible says, knowing us all, he will watch how you treat others and your self though:)
-
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?
-
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?
Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
-
My favourite example as you may have read in the thread is the Swallows of Capistrano, closely followed by the Golden Plovers.
The Plovers fly 2,500 miles across the ocean from Alaska to Hawaii, with no stops, and no landmarks to guide them. But they do it every year.
Then, they breed in Hawaii, and BEFORE THE YOUNG ARE MATURE, the parents fly off to Alaska, LEAVING THE YOUNG BEHIND.
The young then follow, without anything to guide them - all the way to Alaska.
No, the Golden Plovers breed in arctic tundra, not in Hawaii. Most of the birds migrate to South America, one of the longest migration routes. Even better they do it with almost no break, having stored about 50% of their body mass in fat. Just a small percentage ends up in Hawaii.
The genetic program of most migratory birds tells them, when the day length gets shorter and the temperature drops below X° fly south. Topographical features like mountain ranges and meterological phenomena influence the route they take.
In some bird species there is learning involved as well. Some birds even have traditions, like the European stork, some fly over Gibraltar, others over Israel.
How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting.
Are you talking about the Lesser Golden Plover?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paulnoll.com%2FOregon%2FBirds%2Fmigrate-Golden-Plover.jpg&hash=231123c4d2160f500ac5c7999b28b3ed)
If you're correct, then I've got the details wrong,and I apologise for mis-reading this article:
http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2001migration/Projects/CarpenterD/
But I'm afraid you have created an even bigger problem for yourself. But you don't seem aware of it, and are happily wand waving again, thus:
"How this instinctual behaviour evolved? Well, the birds who flew north in winter didn't survive, as didn't the ones with the genetic program east or west. The ones with the program 'fly south' survived and gave the genes for that to their offspring, i.o.w. mormal natural selecting."
I am asking, and have been asking, HOW DID THE GENETIC PROGRAM GET INTO THE GENES IN THE FIRST PLACE?
It couldn't be trial and error, or they would all be quite dead. Natural selection is a non-starter in this instance.
Therefore, the program was created and implanted in the birds from the beginning.
Therefore, God did it, and evolution should be abandoned as a theory of explanation, since it is unable to begin to account for this quite major phenomenon.
-
And how do you explain the fact that the earliest known bee IS A BEE - not something else?
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F42239000%2Fjpg%2F_42239348_bee_science_203.jpg&hash=24d191e1b27b9a79e5b3f679b548e394)
Ah, you're talking about Melittosphex burmensis, quite interesting now extinct species of bees.
A quote from an article about the find: (Oregon State University (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Oct06/bee.html))
"The specimen, at least 35-45 million years older than any other known bee fossil, has given rise to a newly-named family called Melittosphecidae – insects that share some of the features of both bees and wasps. It supports the theory that pollen-dependent bees evolved from their meat-eating predecessors, the wasps."
It is really quite stunning how garbage is swallowed so uncritically by allegedly intelligent people. Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:
1 The digestive proteins/enzymes required for nectar digestion and protein digestion are totally different in every respect. You may or may not know that proteolytic enzymes function in highly acid environments, while sugar-digesting enzymes function in alkaline environments. The bees' stomachs digest nectar and produce honey. Wasps do nothing of the sort. How did such massive biochemical changes come about?
2 The hunting behaviours of wasps are entirely different and distinct from those of nectar seeking bees. How did those vastly different instincts arise and enter the genomes?
3 Wasps create paper to build their nests. Bees synthesise and use wax - which is an entirely different compound. How did the difference arise, and why?
And that's just for starters.
Pollen-spreading bees co-evolved with flower plants, when pollen became the protein source for those species, instead of meat protein.
Since they have not a single clue as to how flowering plants arose either, I'd keep quiet about that if I were you, before I start on the origin of the angiosperms.
So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.
Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.
Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.
Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:
"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.
.
-
Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:
Why don't you?
So far you have failed to present any scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, "because my brand of religion tells me so" does not count. You keep digging up examples, they all have been refuted by others in this thead.
Yes, and pigs fly at supersonic speeds, don't they?
WOW, sound scientific argument!
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.
Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.
Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:
"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.
Yes, I am optimistic that the current puzzles in biology and other sciences will be solved, sooner or later.
You are aware that Lewontin does not believe in creationism? He strongly disagrees with the methods of Sagan, Dawkins and others; and with some of their theories too. Oh yes... scientists disagree about the details of a theory, but that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole is wrong, like so many creationists believe.
-
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse).
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion
Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".
(Vestigial features and atavisms (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118799577/abstract) are proof that evolution has occurred)
-
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?
Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
I thought you believed that God created every creature as they were and are today.
-
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse).
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion
Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".
(Vestigial features and atavisms (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118799577/abstract) are proof that evolution has occurred)
True that, I think I'll stop abusing the poor dead horsie now. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmiliestation.de%2Fsmileys%2FBoese%2F188.gif&hash=1529ce9e289388330145614cb703676c)
It's getting old fast.
-
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?
-
Why don't you write to the authors of that idiotic statement and ask them to account for the following:
Why don't you?[/b]
Because you need the help. I don't.
Of course a lot is yet unknown in the world of evolutionary biology, but the keyword is yet, there is research going on to find out. With your world view all research in this area is futile. No explanation needed for multiresistant bacteria etc.
I beg to rephrase that. NOT A LOT is known in evolutionary biology. I have pointed out a multitude of extremely intractable facts, for which there is NO possible evolutionary explanation - the most recent being the migration habits of the golden plover.
If somebody has produced an explanation, I must have missed it. But the truth is that there is, and can be, none apart from divine creation and instinct implantation. Can you imagine it? Leaving the offspring to fly 2,500 miles, entirely across the ocean, without guide, experienced birds or anything to lead them, all the way back to Hawaii.
Your optimism is admirable, but your ignorance of the facts is not. Evolutionary biology is a patchwork of guesswork, misstatements, hopeful fossil diggers, and worst of all, just plain prejudice.
Have you ever read Dawkins writing on the bats' echolocation system in the 'Blind Watchmaker'? If you have, you'll know exactly what I mean by misstatements, quackwork, guesswork and worse. In fact Lewontin, a famous Harvard evolutionary geneticist had this to say, and I advise you to take him seriously:
"As to assertions without adequate evidence, the literature of science is filled with them, especially the literature of popular science writing. Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. "Billions and Billions of Demons"
I don't know how you understand the word 'counterfactual', but I don't think that 'lies' would be too far wrong.
Yes, I am optimistic that the current puzzles in biology and other sciences will be solved, sooner or later.
You are aware that Lewontin does not believe in creationism? He strongly disagrees with the methods of Sagan, Dawkins and others; and with some of their theories too. Oh yes... scientists disagree about the details of a theory, but that doesn't mean that the theory as a whole is wrong, like so many creationists believe.
I know that Lewontin is an evolutionist (or was, if he has died). I'm not calling on him as if he was a creationist. He was smart enough to recognise Dawkins' lies and name them as such, and that is the reason for my quote.
My concern is that there are so many readers who swallow uncritically those lies and scientific untruths. Imagine, somebody constructing and peddling authoritative sounding explanations of the origin of the bats' echolocating system! And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.
I am stunned by the stupidity.
-
MonikaS as you can probably tell, trying to reason with Asyncritus is like flogging a dead Hipparion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse).
Hipparion (Greek, "pony") is an extinct genus of horse.
It resembled the modern horse, but still had vestigal outer toes (in addition to its hoof). These did not touch the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparion
Toes which "did not touch the ground": that's not an "intelligent design".
(Vestigial features and atavisms (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118799577/abstract) are proof that evolution has occurred)
Hmmm. Try this for size:
"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."
152 Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.
"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.
153 Niles Eldridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78.
.
-
And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.
I am stunned by the stupidity.
Says someone who wants us to believe in a divine creator, no further comment is needed.
-
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?
I really would like a short, accurate answer to this.
Is it beyond you (or 'beneath you')?
If you are trying to be scientific, then you should have a replacement for any theory which you object to.
-
You asked the question "how does instinct evolve", well, you obviously don't believe in evolution so why pose the question in the first place?
Because, if it couldn't and didn't evolve, then the theory needs replacing.
I thought you believed that God created every creature as they were and are today.
I think that is in the main correct. I believe that each species has a considerable, but limited amount of variability built into its genome, and that has accounted for the variations we've seen, and the extinctions that have occurred.
The fact that there are explosive bursts of creative activity is proven by the palaeontologists, who simply cannot account for the vast numbers of organisms without ancestors appearing in the Cambrian layers.
As you may be unaware of the problems, here are a couple of links to have a look at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/explo/explo.htm
-
Asyncritus, once again, you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if we don't currently have an evolutionary explanation for something - divine creation is not a scientific explanation - it's not a valid alternative. Instinct, as folks have said before on this forum, is chemically and biologically controlled, and so under genetic control and natural selection. I don't know exactly how migration evolved, or how echolocation evolved, but I'm open minded enough to not assume that a deity must, therefore, have done it.
I've got to agree with Monika:
And worse, people believing the garbage, or at least thinking that since it comes from THE AUTHORITY, it must be true.
I am stunned by the stupidity.
Says someone who wants us to believe in a divine creator, no further comment is needed.
All of your beliefs come from one religion, and in particular, one book - your entire mode of thought is based on the authority of an old, often contradictory, book of parables - there is no, and can never be any scientific evidence for your god, you merely chose to believe in him - why do you think you have the right to question what other people think?
-
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?
I really would like a short, accurate answer to this.
Is it beyond you (or 'beneath you')?
If you are trying to be scientific, then you should have a replacement for any theory which you object to.
Are you opting out of this one, Asyncritus?
If you can't talk Science then why come on a Science Forum?
-
A
Can you argue, mathematically, against what the following link is saying?
http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Home.xhtml (http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Home.xhtml)
You say you can do maths - force yourself to read the details; it may do you good.
-
Below left: 12 million year old fossil of horse foot with obvious toes, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse).
Below right: X-ray of the foot of a modern (race) horse with rare atavistic "extra" toes,(http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony11_1/Pe111.html#Atavisms)
This atavism is proof modern horses have evolved from prehistoric horses.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You could be more generous and reasonable and say that it is a very strong indication - rather than absolute proof. Evolution is the most likely explanation; much more likely than some bloke tweaking controls.
But I would like asyncritus's answer to my question about how his system actually works. It seems that he is limited to saying that evolution is wrong and giving specious reasons.
-
Asyncritus
You never did reply to my question about what actually goes on in your model.
Does someone constantly tweak the situation or was it just set going at some stage?
What is your particular idea of timescale for this?
How does the clear(?) evidence of past extinctions weigh with you?
I really would like a short, accurate answer to this.
Is it beyond you (or 'beneath you')?
If you are trying to be scientific, then you should have a replacement for any theory which you object to.
Are you opting out of this one, Asyncritus?
If you can't talk Science then why come on a Science Forum?
Sorry Sophie, I thought I had answered the questions in my previous post, though not directly to you. As that didn't get through here are the answers again:
1 I believe that the world was created in great bursts of creative activity at unspecified times in the past, but in accordance with the Genesis 1 and 2 records. I am an Old Earth Creationist by persuasion.
2 The timescale is enormous
3 The created 'kinds' (I read our modern taxon 'families' for 'kinds') had considerable but limited amounts of variability built in, as we see today.
4 Because I can't or won't produce a good egg is no reason for me to eat your bad one, if you can grasp the meaning of that little parable.
.
-
Atavisms prove nothing. Here's a most unpleasant one - what do you think it proves?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791321.stm
-
A
Can you argue, mathematically, against what the following link is saying?
http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Home.xhtml (http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Home.xhtml)
You say you can do maths - force yourself to read the details; it may do you good.
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (both reasonably good mathematicians) said:
"an enzyme consisting of 300 residues could be formed by random shuffling of residues, and calculate a value of 10^250, which becomes 10^500000 if one takes account of the need for 2000 different enzymes in a bacterial cell. Comparing this calculation with the total of 10^79 atoms in the observable universe, they conclude that life must be a cosmological phenomenon."
Whoever wrote your little article should have his calculator taken away if he's trying to somehow diminish the probabilities given above.
-
Atavisms prove nothing. Here's a most unpleasant one - what do you think it proves?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791321.stm
That's not an atavism, it's either "foetus in foetu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu)" or a teratoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma).
A structure can only be described as an atavism if there was an ancestor with the same feature...
atavism (plural atavisms) The reappearance of an ancestral characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atavism
So unless you have evidence of numerous human fossils with feet growing out of their head, then the case you sited is not an atavism.
-
Asyncritus
1 I believe that the world was created in great bursts of creative activity at unspecified times in the past, but in accordance with the Genesis 1 and 2 records. I am an Old Earth Creationist by persuasion.
So, basically, you accept all the Science which you can grasp, at the moment, as real Science but, when you come across something too hard to grasp, you say that God stepped in.
That, presumably means that, had you lived 200 years ago, you would have believed a lot more of what we now call Science as totally down to God. You most certainly wouldn't have accepted Genetics as even a wild possibility; it would have had to be divine.
It also implies that you would put a bit less down to God if you were to live 500 years in the future.
You offer no positive proof for your ideas- just attempts to refute other people's scientific ideas. Be honest. If that's what you believe then just say it's faith and not grounded on any evidence.
I did ask you to go over that link in detail; you clearly didn't because you made no comment on the details on probabilities and how it is so easy to do inappropriate calculations. It is the details which count, you know. I thought you were supposed to have studied statistics. Perhaps you are the one who needs a calculator; you could repeat the calculations and see that they work rather than just quoting someone else's view based on an unspecified calculation.
Why are you involving yourself with people who favour Science? Are you after converting us all?
-
Asyncritus
1 I believe that the world was created in great bursts of creative activity at unspecified times in the past, but in accordance with the Genesis 1 and 2 records. I am an Old Earth Creationist by persuasion.
So, basically, you accept all the Science which you can grasp, at the moment, as real Science but, when you come across something too hard to grasp, you say that God stepped in.
I accept all science which is provable - at least in my own field of |Biology. I have an acute sense and ability to recognise nonsense when I read it - and evolutionary Biology is loaded to the gunwales with such material.
I may also point out that the half-baked, nonsensical 'replies' to the biological FACTS which I have presented are typical of the lousy quality of evolutionary biological thought exhibited in the textbooks. Your fanciful hypotheses are presented as 'facts' and 'explanations' and 'refutations'. It is as GG Simpson said:
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything — or at least they are not science."—*George G. Simpson
Your collective efforts are merely examples of the above and stand roundly condemned as non-science: which sounds alarmingly similar to non-sense.
Now notice how irrelevant to the facts that I am presenting is the following personal attack. You have nothing to say about instinct, but are descending to your imaginative reconstruction of what 'I would have thought' 200 years ago.
Why not stick to the scientific facts I have brought forward, and give up with the personalities? The answer, of course, is that there IS no science which supports the evolutionary nonsense you all espouse.
That, presumably means that, had you lived 200 years ago, you would have believed a lot more of what we now call Science as totally down to God. You most certainly wouldn't have accepted Genetics as even a wild possibility; it would have had to be divine.
It also implies that you would put a bit less down to God if you were to live 500 years in the future.
You offer no positive proof for your ideas- just attempts to refute other people's scientific ideas. Be honest. If that's what you believe then just say it's faith and not grounded on any evidence.
This is a pure lie, and you should know that it is. If I did not believe in God, I still would not believe in evolution - it is such trashy nonsense. Are you aware of the fact that the rejectors of Darwin's theory when it was published did not reject it on religious grounds, but on purely scientific ones? Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz and Lyell to name but 4, wanted nothing to do with it, and they were not religious men. For a fuller discussion of that fact, read Denton's 'Evolution: A Theory In Crisis' and wake up to the truth that it is the facts that destroy the theory, not religious preconceptions.
I did ask you to go over that link in detail; you clearly didn't because you made no comment on the details on probabilities and how it is so easy to do inappropriate calculations. It is the details which count, you know. I thought you were supposed to have studied statistics. Perhaps you are the one who needs a calculator; you could repeat the calculations and see that they work rather than just quoting someone else's view based on an unspecified calculation.
I am far inferior to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe as far as statistics are concerned. They knew exactly what they were doing, and showed just how foolish the whole idea of abiogenesis and evolution really are.
You, I take it, have no statistical training, and yet you are trying to tell me that this gentleman knows enough to challenge Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's points. On what basis have you formed that judgment? It certainly wasn't an informed judgment.
Why are you involving yourself with people who favour Science? Are you after converting us all?
I am not writing for you supporters of evolution. Nothing will change a view that is set in concrete. I am writing for the benefit and information of the 8,000 or so viewers who have visited this particular topic. If they are uncommitted, maybe they will at least see the sense of what I'm saying, even if you can't.
-
Having rejected evolution as being unscientific on what you call 'scientific' grounds, have you any 'scientific' grounds, whatsoever for your version of what happened?
If you did not believe in a God then (you introduced that idea) what evidence would you have for ANY other explanation of what you see around you?
It seems that you want it both ways. We are stupid to accept evolution and yet you need give no evidence for an alternative explanation.
People frequently follow 'loony' threads; they can be entertaining. Don't kid yourself that you are gaining any converts, though. How many supporting posts have you had?
-
Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz and Lyell to name but 4, wanted nothing to do with it, and they were not religious men.
Cuvier disagreed with Lamarckian evolution, and died before Origin was published.
Owen believed in creation, and that man was special amongst animals - so obviously wouldn't accept evolution.
I don't know a lot about Agassiz, but wikipedia informs me that you are right - he didn't accept evolution. He did think different races were created in separate events though.
Lyell was a good friend of Darwin's, and helped and encourage him to publish. He was conservative about accepting natural selection, as he also held man as special in nature - quite understandable for the time, as we knew far less about genetics than we do now.
Science is essentially conservative - evolution was new to these people, and didn't have as much research and evidence behind it as it does now. Science is dynamic, and hypothesis are re-evaluated in the light of new evidence. As such, it is wise to be conservative.
Sophiecentaur is quite right, you know - there are a few people reading these threads yet nobody has come out to support you.
I think I've said this before, but you choose to believe in god despite the fact that it is entirely non-falsifiable, and evidently nothing to do with science. Why do you think you have the right to complain about what you perceive as non-science, while admitting that you do not require evidence for the beliefs you hold to be true?
Again, we can observe evolution in the wild and in the lab - we can make predictions based on our understanding of evolution that come true. Evolution is a well evinced scientific theory, which supports and is supported by the facts.
This is at least the third time I've said this in this thread, but you seem to ignore it every time - it's the answer to the main question of this thread. Instinct is reactive behaviour - behaviour is under genetic control (as can be seen by breeding knock out mice who do not show fear, for example). We know that genes pass from one generation to the next, and that genes for an advantageous behaviour are more likely to be passed on, and so will be come more common in the population. There's nothing to complain about there - mice who are not afraid of cats will not live long enough to breed - mice who are instinctively afraid of cats will live long enough to breed - therefore, there is a selective advantage, and we would expect to see instinctive fear becoming more common in a population of mice. More complicated instincts will have more complicated pathways.
-
Asyncritus
You describe one of my posts as a "personal attack" yet you are more than happy to bandy around words like "nonsensical", "lousy" and "fanciful". Try to apply the same rules to yourself please.
I notice that you seem to shy away from offering any details of what you believe is true.
Your statement -
"I believe that the world was created in great bursts of creative activity at unspecified times in the past, but in accordance with the Genesis 1 and 2 records. I am an Old Earth Creationist by persuasion."
- is very woolly. There is no information, no precision and no 'workings' in (any of) your statements - just rantings and non-specific quoting of a few named, eminent, past Scientists who, we can be sure, would have been more than prepared to get 'specific' in their arguments.
"Ya boo sucks" or "my Dad can fight your Dad" are not arguments in favour of or against any idea yet that is virtually all you can come up with. If you can't address specific numerical arguments in your own terms then any argument you make is not valid. You clearly didn't understand the implications of the sums in 'that link' so you are not in a position to reject it on any basis other than your faith.
We could all stack up a list of big-named supporters of each view and weigh the results on some scales - what would that prove? On a Science Forum we are, surely, trying to examine the arguments in specific (although, on occasions, amateurish) detail because that is what interests Scientists at all levels. Your arguments all seem to be delivered through a magaphone; you offer assertions, not discussion.
Why do I get the feeling that you have not taken on board a single one of the arguments against your ('anti')theory? Could it be a 'fingers in ears "la la la"' situation?
-
Atavisms prove nothing. Here's a most unpleasant one - what do you think it proves?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791321.stm
That's not an atavism, it's either "foetus in foetu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu)" or a teratoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma).
A structure can only be described as an atavism if there was an ancestor with the same feature...
Can you prove that there wasn't?
atavism (plural atavisms) The reappearance of an ancestral characteristic in an organism after several generations of absence.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atavism
Then the argument that says the whale with legs is an atavism is question-begging, as you are question dodging in the above example. Preconceptions prove nothing.
So unless you have evidence of numerous human fossils with feet growing out of their head, then the case you sited is not an atavism.
I've never heard a count, but I'm certain that there are many.
-
Asyncritus
You describe one of my posts as a "personal attack" yet you are more than happy to bandy around words like "nonsensical", "lousy" and "fanciful". Try to apply the same rules to yourself please.
In case you missed it,
a. your supporters have been more than happy to be exceedingly offensive, and a bit of retaliation may not be amiss, but long overdue. But
b. I am describing your arguments as lousy, nonsensical and fanciful. I don't know you, and therefore I cannot possibly be insulting you personally.
I notice that you seem to shy away from offering any details of what you believe is true.
I am a critic of evolution. It is my mission to demonstrate its fallaciousness. By elimination therefore, we arrive at divine creation. If you wish to swallow a bad egg, that is your affair.
Your statement -
"I believe that the world was created in great bursts of creative activity at unspecified times in the past, but in accordance with the Genesis 1 and 2 records. I am an Old Earth Creationist by persuasion."
- is very woolly. There is no information, no precision and no 'workings' in (any of) your statements - just rantings and non-specific quoting of a few named, eminent, past Scientists who, we can be sure, would have been more than prepared to get 'specific' in their arguments.
So we're back to the personalities: 'rantings' is a good example. Kindly desist, or I shall have some more hard words to say.
"Ya boo sucks" or "my Dad can fight your Dad" are not arguments in favour of or against any idea yet that is virtually all you can come up with. If you can't address specific numerical arguments in your own terms then any argument you make is not valid. You clearly didn't understand the implications of the sums in 'that link' so you are not in a position to reject it on any basis other than your faith.
You clearly didn't understand Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's extremely clear statements. You are in no position to argue with them, and neither am I. Perhaps you'd like to get your statistician to comment on their errors, as you think they must be wrong.
I would like to remind you that the topic under discussion is How does Instinct Evolve. Please confine your remarks to the issue at hand and refrain from the personalities.
We could all stack up a list of big-named supporters of each view and weigh the results on some scales - what would that prove? On a Science Forum we are, surely, trying to examine the arguments in specific (although, on occasions, amateurish) detail because that is what interests Scientists at all levels. Your arguments all seem to be delivered through a magaphone; you offer assertions, not discussion.
I note that you carefully refrain from specifics, especially when making such claims as 'we have refuted your arguments on many occasions'. Please furnish any such refutations with respect to the cliff swallows or the golden plovers.Or the yucca moth if you like.
Or stop talking for the sake of doing no credit to your case, such as it is.
You offer no arguments at all that are worthy of the name, so please produce some (with evidence, as Simpson demands) or concede the argument.
Why do I get the feeling that you have not taken on board a single one of the arguments against your ('anti')theory? Could it be a 'fingers in ears "la la la"' situation?
You get that feeling because you have not produced a single evidenced argument worthy of discussion. If you have, where is it?
BenV has been honest enough to acknowledge that he has no explanation to offer of some of these phenomena. Where is your admission or your supporting evidence? 'Evidence', mark you, not 'speculation'.
.
-
I am a critic of evolution. It is my mission to demonstrate its fallaciousness. By elimination therefore, we arrive at divine creation. If you wish to swallow a bad egg, that is your affair.
Once more, divine creation is not a valid scientific explanation for life on Earth and isn't an alternative to evolution. You consistently ignore this fact.
Criticising evolution is fair enough - science should be critiqued.
My problem is this huge assumption that if evolution isn't the explanation, it must be your god. How did you arrive at your religion's myth by elimination? How did you eliminate the hindu, sikh or buddhist explanation? Or Norse, roman, scientologist, greek, Maasai, Discword, voodoo, aboriginal...
So although there is plenty of evidence for evolution along with some gaps, you chose to adhere to a particular idea for which there is no evidence, and creates more questions than it answers. You then state vehemently the evolution is wrong.
Can you see why people get annoyed at you?
-
Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz and Lyell to name but 4, wanted nothing to do with it, and they were not religious men.
Owen's arguments against evolution were not religious ones, but based on his knowledge of comparative anatomy. That data obviously made him a critic of evolution.
I was intrigued to read Prof.John A Davison saying (http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=13)
"Furthermore, there is not a scintilla of tangible evidence that natural selection, the cornerstone of the Darwinian model, ever had anything to do with organic evolution except to stabilize species for as long as possble. It has always been entirely anti-evolutionary as it still is today. How could natural selection conceivably have been involved in a structure which had not yet appeared? That is the question that St George Jackson Mivart asked 12 years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species and it has yet to be answered for obvious reasons. That unanswerable question alone is lethal to the Darwinian hypothesis."
So where is your natural selection now?
Cuvier disagreed with Lamarckian evolution, and died before Origin was published.
Cuvier's arguments are irrefutable to my mind. He pointed out in this connection that any alteration in the structure of say, a claw, would require that the talons became larger, the wrist bones become bigger and stronger, the forearm more powerful, the humerus bigger, the shoulder joint stronger and so he went on.
You people seem to think that hey presto, mutation occurs, a wing forms on a reptile somehow, and that's it! It can fly! Cuvier would have destroyed you root and branch, as he did Darwin and Lamarck's ideas.
Owen believed in creation, and that man was special amongst animals - so obviously wouldn't accept evolution.
I don't know a lot about Agassiz, but wikipedia informs me that you are right - he didn't accept evolution. He did think different races were created in separate events though.
Lyell was a good friend of Darwin's, and helped and encourage him to publish. He was conservative about accepting natural selection, as he also held man as special in nature - quite understandable for the time, as we knew far less about genetics than we do now.
Had they known what we know about genetics now, Darwin would never have made it off the ground. Mendel's work would have seen to that. Unfortunately...
Science is essentially conservative - evolution was new to these people, and didn't have as much research and evidence behind it as it does now. Science is dynamic, and hypothesis are re-evaluated in the light of new evidence. As such, it is wise to be conservative.
Sophiecentaur is quite right, you know - there are a few people reading these threads yet nobody has come out to support you.
I'm not surprised given the amount of flak your side has generated! Keeping the head well below the parapet is a good idea in these debates!
I think I've said this before, but you choose to believe in god despite the fact that it is entirely non-falsifiable, and evidently nothing to do with science. Why do you think you have the right to complain about what you perceive as non-science, while admitting that you do not require evidence for the beliefs you hold to be true?
I have the right to criticise a scientific theory on scientific grounds, which is what I'm doing, in pointing out the inadequacy of evolution to explain well-observed and measured facts of natural History. Unfortunately, rocking the boat doesn't go down too well!
Again, we can observe evolution in the wild and in the lab - we can make predictions based on our understanding of evolution that come true. Evolution is a well evinced scientific theory, which supports and is supported by the facts.
Which evidence are you referring to?
This is at least the third time I've said this in this thread, but you seem to ignore it every time - it's the answer to the main question of this thread. Instinct is reactive behaviour
Instinct is not reactive behaviour, Ben. Yes, some instincts protect the species, but how can you possibly say that flying to Capistrano from Goya in Argentina is 'reactive behaviour'? Reactive to what? It is totally unnecessary, and is not a response to environmental factors. Winter temperatures in Southern California aren't sufficiently low to bother other swallows, so why do these leave, and why go so far?
- behaviour is under genetic control- behaviour is under genetic control (as can be seen by breeding knock out mice who do not show fear, for example). We know that genes pass from one generation to the next, and that genes for an advantageous behaviour are more likely to be passed on, and so will be come more common in the population. There's nothing to complain about there - mice who are not afraid of cats will not live long enough to breed - mice who are instinctively afraid of cats will live long enough to breed - therefore, there is a selective advantage, and we would expect to see instinctive fear becoming more common in a population of mice. More complicated instincts will have more complicated pathways.
But you have run into the age-old question: HOW DID THE BEHAVIOUR GET INTO THE GENES? Natural selection is no help at all, especially in the vastly complicated behaviours of the swallows and plovers, the red knots and arctic terns too. It cannot be involved in with characteristics which have not appeared as yet, such as the non-existent ability to navigate to Capistrano when it wasn't there.
Natural selection stabilises populations: it does not introduce new elements, merely destroys or retains ALREADY EXISTING features. So where did those features come from?
.
-
We pointed out solid evidence for new features appearing in genes over time - Lenski's long term e-coli evolution experiment, where e coli developed the ability to digest citrate. We do keep presenting evidence to you, but you ignore it.
Avatisms, vestigial limbs, drug resistant bacteria, peppered moths (the recent re-working), genetic clocks, comparative biology (the fact that most insect mouthparts are an adaptation of the same basic set, for example)... there are many facts which evince evolution.
As I've said before, even if there was new evidence that evolution could not be the process by which life on earth diversified, you would still be wrong. creationism will never be a valid alternative. Why don't you try to find one?
-
In fact, please do a google search for evidence of evolution - there's loads of it out there that I don't see why I should collate for you.
-
Asyncritus
How can you be so short sighted?
You only seem to discuss the successful outcomes of genetic change. The failures were the ones which didn't have a survival advantage. They didn't live to reproduce as successfully. I don't think you have appreciated what evolution by 'natural selection' really involves.
I think you are really kidding yourself when you say that you wouldn't believe in evolution even if you had no belief in a God. You have admitted, yourself, that you have no alternative which doesn't involve a creator. So what would you have gone for?
You are still looking for some 'purpose' in evolution. That is your mistake because there doesn't need to be one. Looking for a purpose is no different from looking for a God. I see both as mis guided but the former is far less reasonable.
-
Had they known what we know about genetics now, Darwin would never have made it off the ground. Mendel's work would have seen to that. Unfortunately...
I've just spotted this.
Perhaps Asyncritus could explain that statement. How do the two views not support each other?
-
You people seem to think that hey presto, mutation occurs, a wing forms on a reptile somehow, and that's it! It can fly! Cuvier would have destroyed you root and branch, as he did Darwin and Lamarck's ideas.
One of the most common arguments of creationists, born of an incorrect interpretation of how evolution works. No evolutionist will say that a wing will spontaneously form in one generation.
Watch this video for some education on the subject.
Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of Wings -
-
The meaning of life is - life is.
-
It's 42.
-
Ben, after 31,500 generations E.coli was still E.coli. Yeah, it could metabolise citrate - but Behe has pointed out that the gene does exist in the wild strains, and had been deactivated. It merely regained its functionality, and wasn't anything new.
So I'm afraid you're still stuck with the old question. If 31,500 generations failed to produce a single new species, then where did all the thousands of Cambrian species come from?
-
It's 42.
Nah, 43. That's a prime number!
-
You people seem to think that hey presto, mutation occurs, a wing forms on a reptile somehow, and that's it! It can fly! Cuvier would have destroyed you root and branch, as he did Darwin and Lamarck's ideas.
One of the most common arguments of creationists, born of an incorrect interpretation of how evolution works. No evolutionist will say that a wing will spontaneously form in one generation.
Watch this video for some education on the subject.
Richard Dawkins on the Evolution of Wings -
Dawkins has nothing intelligent to say on the evolution of wings, apart from his usual question-begging counter-factualism. Why doesn't he debate the subject here, for instance, or with Yahya, instead of feeding gullible undergraduates the usual tripe?
Why not look here: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution06.php Far more sense to be had.
-
Had they known what we know about genetics now, Darwin would never have made it off the ground. Mendel's work would have seen to that. Unfortunately...
I've just spotted this.
Perhaps Asyncritus could explain that statement. How do the two views not support each other?
Easy. There is no mixing of characters possible. Dominance and recessiveness reduce that idea to rubble, and Mendel was the discoverer.
-
Had they known what we know about genetics now, Darwin would never have made it off the ground. Mendel's work would have seen to that. Unfortunately...
I've just spotted this.
Perhaps Asyncritus could explain that statement. How do the two views not support each other?
Easy. There is no mixing of characters possible. Dominance and recessiveness reduce that idea to rubble, and Mendel was the discoverer.
I'm not sure that's a correct interpretation, especially as only certain characteristcs have been shown to have true, full, dominant and recessive alleles.
Ben, after 31,500 generations E.coli was still E.coli. Yeah, it could metabolise citrate - but Behe has pointed out that the gene does exist in the wild strains, and had been deactivated. It merely regained its functionality, and wasn't anything new.
Is this a misinterpretation, an exaggeration or a lie? Lenski hasn't yet sequenced and identified the particular gene, as Behe acknowledges, and although there have been prior mutations that allowed e-coli to digest citrate, I think you're missing the point - the genes to do this weren't there, just waiting to be switched on, they perform a different function.
I'm sorry to say that you have asked us a question, we have provided a summary of the current scientific explanation, and you do not accept it because of your preconception that god did it. You fail to address our questions and totally ignore the fact that science and religion are different paradigms. I find it very frustrating, because I know that you are not at all willing to take on board any of this, so anti-evolution is your mindset. Why should we bother?
-
Had they known what we know about genetics now, Darwin would never have made it off the ground. Mendel's work would have seen to that. Unfortunately...
I've just spotted this.
Perhaps Asyncritus could explain that statement. How do the two views not support each other?
Easy. There is no mixing of characters possible. Dominance and recessiveness reduce that idea to rubble, and Mendel was the discoverer.
Could you explain why?
-
Anyone who thinks Yahya has anything of value to say about science has lost all credibility as an intellectual.
-
Yahya's website is just typical ranting and every other word is loaded with 'extra meaning'.
He must make a lot of money if he manages to sell all his books . . . Perhaps in my Xmas stocking next time.
-
Hello everybody,
Just want to thank this thread for forcing me to sign up to the naked science website, I simply had to post something!
Firstly, sophiecentaur. Whilst I agree with your views on evolution and for the most part agree with your points, please stop arguing with Asyncritus. Each argument you bring simply adds more fuel to the fire and alot of good points made are being swallowed up as Asyncritus simply chooses to pick apart tiny flaws in your responses. That is simply the way of creationists in my experience.
To continue, I may be off the mark here but I was of the opinion that there is no place for faith in science, science must be supported by facts otherwise it is deemed to be untrue. Anything based upon faith cannot be accepted. And so with this in mind I ask (and will ask nothing else untill I have an answer from Asyncritus):
Why do you accept the Christian explanation of the diversity of life and not the explanation of any other religion?
(I have seperated the question and put it in bold so that I am not confusing anyone, all I require is a straightforward answer to this one question.)
-
Welcome to the forums fbi7000, now that you've signed up, you might as well hang around :P
-
Hi fbi
I agree with you - and also about it being a bad thing to bother with Asyncritus! It's a moth to a flame, I'm afraid.
I was thinking about the differences between Science and Religion(s).
Science is, necessarily, conservative but quite prepared to turn totally inside out, eventually, once provided with sufficient evidence.(pragmatic)
Religion(s), on the other hand, are conservative but bend and stretch when Science gives them no alternative but to accommodate new data whilst still being convinced that they haven't changed substantially. (dogmatic)
Individuals in both camps can be as bad as each other - ultra-conservative and yet determined not to change AT ALL or even to deny that there has been any change.
Of course, many very eminent Scientists have Faith and I would say that their Religion is of the most reasonable kind. The problem is that the more we learn about the brain / mind, even the highest levels of altruism, moral behaviour etc are being explained mechanistically. I have no problem with this but I can see how it may scare some people to death.
-
Indeed, I think most religious people are scared to allow themselves to be convinced by the evidence because of its implications, it may turn their whole world upside down (or the right way up, as I see it). But it is better to live in reality than an upside-down world.
I saw an excellent youtube video the other day about this;
-
I wonder if Asyncritus could get to the end of that link and actually take in what it says.
-
I'm not sure that's a correct interpretation, especially as only certain characteristcs have been shown to have true, full, dominant and recessive alleles.
Let's think about the genes for scales turning into the genes for feathers.
For the feather characteristic to become universal in the new PHYLUM it has to be extraordinarily dominant and pervasive somehow.
So let's say that F (for scales) has somehow become f (for feathers).
Since F is completely uniform and dominant in the reptilia for scales, then feathers cannot become manifest in the F1 generation, since we now have:
FF x Ff ----> FF, FF, Ff and Ff the only variants possible.
In the F2 generation, ff appears in the ratio 1 feathered to 15 scaled.
The scales are dominant and remain so, and the feathered are rare birds if you pardon the pun.
So what do they breed with? Nothing, and are selected out, not only because of the genetic peculiarity, but because of Cuvier's idea - a single change REQUIRES a considerable number of consequential changes if it is going to survive.
So a reptile with an normal forelimb moving from front to back in a plane more or less parallel to the animal's body, has to generate a flapping movement AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE ORIGINAL PLANE.
The pectoral musculature required for flight is totally different to that required for normal reptilian movement. The sternum has to change into a keel; the construction of the whole forelimb has to alter; the claws of the reptile's forelimb have to disappear; at least 3 different types of flight feather have to be produced, and that does not begin to count the down feathers, the contour feathers and the eyelashes. The eyelids have somehow to produce a nicitating membrane.
The hind limbs have to become totally modified, and a hallux produced.
Now flight has to be powered by instinct.Somehow the reptile has to know how to fly, or even glide - but I have this picture of the first bird looking at the first wings and thinking, Now what the hell do I do with these?
The instincts ruling flight are necessarily complex, and cannot be acquired by 'natural selection' - because there was nothing in the reptiles to be selected!
Somehow the leathery reptilian egg has to be converted into the hard-shelled avian egg. Somehow, the cold blooded reptile metabolism has to be converted into the highest metabolic rate in the animal kingdom, in the warmblooded birds.
Oh, I mustn't forget. The reptilian respiratory system has to be comprehensively wrecked and the one way avian system substituted.
And to add insult to already painful evolutionary injury, some birds have to learn how to fly from Goya in Argentina, to Capistrano in southern California, a distance of 7,500 miles, and arrive there on the same day every year.
How many 'mutations' do you see being needed to perform this major miracle of biological conversion? 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.
So a scaled reptile, if it ever crosses with a feathered creature will not produce a half-feathered pro-avis.
The whole thing is totally absurd, and should not receive any scientific credence even in the most faithful (and I use the word advisedly).
As for Lenski. Lenski signally failed to produce a new species in 31,500 cultivated generations of E.coli. It is immaterial whether they metbolised citrate or not - they were still E. coli. Now to do the calculation:
If 31,500 generations produces no new species, how many generations does it take to produce 1 million new species?
Well, according to my calculations the answer is an infinite number i.e. it cannot happen. Now gainsay that if you can.Remember, this is based on scientifically verified evidence, published, I think - though I may be wrong here - in PNAS, a well thought of rag, I gather.
You are compelled to bother because of the simple facts that are evident to anybody who will take the blinkers off and simply look. Hasn't it occurred to you yet that Lenski has proven quite categorically that evolution cannot have occurred? When are you going to see that?
I didn't publish the paper - Lenski did. You might like to look at this criticism of the paper:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Lenski
And here's a piece of the PNAS abstract:
"No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity."
As I said, no new species 'evolved'.
Evolution is firmly up a gum tree, and likely to stay there.
-
Yahya's website is just typical ranting and every other word is loaded with 'extra meaning'.
He must make a lot of money if he manages to sell all his books . . . Perhaps in my Xmas stocking next time.
Is it just ranting? Any more than Dawkins' site where the faithful all open wide and swallow?
Have you ever looked seriously at what the man says, or are you knee-jerking again?
What, for example, do you make of his remarks about the avian lung?
-
Hello everybody,
Just want to thank this thread for forcing me to sign up to the naked science website, I simply had to post something!
Hi fbi - welcome to the savage world of the naked scientists! - Where they savage me, I mean!
Let me first disagree with this comment:
To continue, I may be off the mark here but I was of the opinion that there is no place for faith in science, science must be supported by facts otherwise it is deemed to be untrue.
This is an absolutely correct statement. However, evolution is based on so much fantasising it's untrue. Here's Prof WR Thompson FRS:
"Darwin did not show in the Origin that species had originated by natural selection; he merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened,and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
He went on to say: "Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."
from his Introduction to the Origin of Species.
Anything based upon faith cannot be accepted.
And therefore, you cannot accept evolution, which is a faith, not a provable fact.
"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science p. 95.
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faithin experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faithin mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.
Now, what say you?
And so with this in mind I ask (and will ask nothing else untill I have an answer from Asyncritus):
Why do you accept the Christian explanation of the diversity of life and not the explanation of any other religion?
This leaves the realms of science, and enters the realm of theology.
I have what I consider to be extremely solid grounds for believing that the Bible is the Word of God. A great deal of this hinges on the fact of the resurrection of Christ, which is the cornerstone of Christianity. Hence, I believe the biblical account of things, as best I understand it. If you wish to discuss this further, then a new thread will be in order.
-
Anyone who thinks Yahya has anything of value to say about science has lost all credibility as an intellectual.
Can you explain why, please?
-
If you wish to discuss this further, then a new thread will be in order.
A thread that would be entirely inappropriate on a science forum - we've already gone a long way off topic, so I don't see why you shouldn't post the evidence for your ideas here.
So we can conclude that you feel evolution is a religion, rather than a science, and you are not alone, great. However, evolution is the current scientific explanation, regardless of whether you disagree or not - and you must accept that creation will never be a valid scientific alternative though, musn't you?
-
Ben
fbi asked the question. Not me. I'm merely answering as best I can.
-
No you're not, you're refusing to answer the question. While you're at it, could you answer some of mine too? Such as:
How can you claim to arrive at the Christian creation myth by eliminating evolution, but not any of the many other creation myths?
Do you accept that creation is a theological construct and not a scientific explanation, regardless of your opinion on evolution?
I have what I consider to be extremely solid grounds for believing that the Bible is the Word of God.
And if you're arguing that creation is to be accepted as a scientific explanation, lets see your (objective) evidence.
I also have a new question. If an alternative biological mechanism to evolution was to be found, and very strongly scientifically evinced, but it still did not involve a god/gods - would you accept that explanation? I suspect that anything that clashes with your creationist beliefs would be unacceptable to you, regaredless of the weight of objective evidence behind it.
-
Asyncritus
Do you acknowledge that there have been extinctions in the past and that there is no evidence that 'modern' species existed 100 million years ago?
-
There is considerable evidence that modern species existed 400 million years ago.
The coelacanth is a modern fish swimming about today in the Indian ocean and elsewhere, but it existed 400 mya. "A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind.." http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/070816/coelacanth.shtml
Yes there have been extinctions galore.
So where are we going with that?
I recommend that you read yahya on living fossils:
http://www.fossil-museum.com/
-
There is considerable evidence that modern species existed 400 million years ago.
A very small proportion of the current set, though, and in 'niche' environments - which is just what evolutionary theory would predict. The word "considerable" is much too woolly: how many? Give us "considerable" examples.
So where did all the modern species, of which we can't find ancient fossils, come from? Were they 'strategically introduced' at a later date?
You are remarkably reluctant to paint any sort of detailed model of your ideas. It would help if you were to flesh it out so that it can be compared, evidentially, with the evolutionary one. Failing that, you have no excuse for introducing your ideas into a Science forum.
-
"...and that there is no evidence that 'modern' species existed 100 million years ago?"
Wrong again, I see. Heh heh.
The reason why we don't find 'ancestors' of the modern species is simply because THERE AREN'T ANY - certainly not at family level and above.
Yahya has 83 PAGES of fossils that haven't changed one bit since forever ago.
Do have a look and let me know what you think AFTER you have had a look.
I am not painting any model because as I've said before, my function is to show that evolution cannot have occurred for any number of excellent scientific reasons.
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.
The reductio ad absurdum is the type of argument I am using. I have shown that evolution is absurd at many different levels, and therefore, as Sherlock Holmes said, when we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must be the truth.
I'm sure you've felt the force of many of the facts, the evidence I have adduced, and you know that there isn't a hope of evolution ever explaining any of them.
The theory is therefore absurd and must be dismissed. The 'whatever remains' is Creation. In your collective eyes this is IMPROBABLE, but since it is the only theory left standing, then it must be the truth.
I personally see no alternative, but you clearly do not agree. Why is that, I wonder. Could blind prejudice be playing a major part here?
-
Which creation myth? I like the aboriginal ones. They are equally as valid as the Christian ones.
-
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.
-
Which creation myth? I like the aboriginal ones. They are equally as valid as the Christian ones.
There can only be one that is correct. As you may or may not know, there is a huge array of fables and nonsense stories. Here is a collection. You're welcome to take your pick.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=collection+of+creation+myths&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforbiddenmusic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F01%2Fyahya_lure.jpg&hash=e385bfeb41ad4a26b9dc1bc2433eb98c)
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
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).
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
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!!!
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!
-
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.
-
"heh heh heh" is a really good argument. Based on really sound evidence and reason, of course.
-
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'.
-
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!
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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]
-
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Thanks for being so frank. I think there's a couple of things we need to address, then this discussion is over.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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
-
Hey I just signed up to reply to this:
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.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/mendel/mendel2.htm
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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?
-
Darwin on Instinct
C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Cassell and Co., Ltd., 1909), p. 189.
"This is by far the most serious special difficulty which my theory has encountered. . . . The problem at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."
"No complex instinct can possibly be produced through natural selection except by the slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable variations. . . .We ought at least to be able to show that gradations of some kind are possible, and this we certainly can do."
Heh heh heh!
-
Darwin on Instinct
Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed. (New York: A. L. Burt Co., 1874), pp.74 ff., 122.
"Those animals which possess the most wonderful instincts are certainly the most intelligent," but "instincts seem to have originated independently of intelligence."
He at least got that right - because the lowliest animals and plants, 'intelligent or not,' all exhibit instinctive behaviour.
-
Migration of the Monarch Butterflies
Burton, Illustrated London News, 23 January 1960, p. 142.
M. Ricard, The Mystery of Animal Migration (London: Constable, 1969).
Monarch butterflies are famous for their migrations, sometimes as much as two thousand miles, to places like Pacific Grove, California.15 This is so predictable that a city bylaw there protects them. Burton calls it one of the wonders of the world. The migratory hordes extend for miles each fall as they take one of two flyways southward. They semihibernate in California all winter. Then in spring they fly north, never to return. But their untaught progeny do.
Why do these creatures migrate at all? They could hibernate where they were. They pay no attention to the winds, may make wide meanders, but they get to their destination with great accuracy. They surely do not move to find new feeding grounds, nor yet for evolutionary reasons. In South America a similar race of monarchs moves in the reverse direction. Indeed, the monarch has appeared in Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, and the East Indies.
Migratory butterflies may travel enormous distances, but they always try to return to their home locality, even to the same bush, to lay their eggs.
Evolutionary explanations please?
-
More ignorance and more quote-mining. Can't we expect more from you?
Your argument is basically: "I don't know how, or science doesn't know how yet, therefore GOD DID IT!".
There actually is evidence that indicates that sea turtles navigate using magnetoreception, as well as other cues. For example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r05570821547q742/
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/45/3/539
Monarch Butterflies:
http://gomexico.about.com/od/monarchbutterfly/ss/monarch_4.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080108083008.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_butterfly#Migration
Even if there was absolutely no evidence on this topic, the alternative is not GOD DID IT. The alternative is more scientific research.
-
Sorry to go off topic here, but there's one big problem Asyncritus cannot face - god doesn't exist. He may think he can find ways that evolution doesn't work, but that simple fact totally scuppers his alternative.
Either way, Asycnritus admits that his problem is not with evolution, but with the perceived attack on his beliefs. He is not willing to discuss or debate the issue, will not listen to anyone else' point of view and is merely crusading.
-
Come, come Stefan.
You're mud-slinging again - but this time it's hitting the writers of those accounts. They're all referenced, so if you're going to shout quote-mining, you need to prove it by going back to the original articles and showing that the writers mean the exact opposite of the quote.
Until you do that, I'd shut up if I were you.
-
You make a very good point about animals not needing to migrate, but isn't this just further evidence against an intelligent creator? If animals were created, why would a creator bother with all this?
Once again, postulating a creator asks more questions than it answers.
-
Creationists cannot / will not accept the 'inside out' argument which evolution uses.
Basically, if there is an advantage in certain behaviour, then an organism may exhibit it. It is hard to conceive the colossal wastage in an evolutionary system. Most departures from the norm involve loss of reproductive capacity (failure to find a mate or death). Only the rare ones result in success. There must have been a lot of failures whilst a species 'learned' to migrate. Migration must have started as a relatively local behaviour pattern and then stretched to global dimensions, once they 'got the idea'. My anthropomorphic shorthand may be forgiven, here; no actual purpose was implied in my argument!
It is not surprising that they can't accept it because it doesn't include the existence of a God. It is amazing how 'they' prefer the complete absence of evidence for their God to the, sometimes, rather weak evidence, used to explain certain bits of evolution. Faith has been responsible for an awful lot of bad choices in the past but it is a very 'comforting' notion.
-
Come, come Stefan.
You're mud-slinging again - but this time it's hitting the writers of those accounts. They're all referenced, so if you're going to shout quote-mining, you need to prove it by going back to the original articles and showing that the writers mean the exact opposite of the quote.
Until you do that, I'd shut up if I were you.
You are taking pieces of someone else's writing, often out of much of it's context, skewing the meaning and ignoring the authors' purpose in order to support an argument that they don't agree with.
Whenever you do have the integrity to preserve the context and meaning, you abuse it all still to fit your agenda.
-
Come, come Stefan.
You're mud-slinging again - but this time it's hitting the writers of those accounts. They're all referenced, so if you're going to shout quote-mining, you need to prove it by going back to the original articles and showing that the writers mean the exact opposite of the quote.
Until you do that, I'd shut up if I were you.
You are taking pieces of someone else's writing, often out of much of it's context, skewing the meaning and ignoring the authors' purpose in order to support an argument that they don't agree with.
Whenever you do have the integrity to preserve the context and meaning, you abuse it all still to fit your agenda.
As I said, if you can't prove your allegation, then shut up.
So prove already.
-
Creationists cannot / will not accept the 'inside out' argument which evolution uses.
Basically, if there is an advantage in certain behaviour, then an organism may exhibit it. It is hard to conceive the colossal wastage in an evolutionary system. Most departures from the norm involve loss of reproductive capacity (failure to find a mate or death). Only the rare ones result in success. There must have been a lot of failures whilst a species 'learned' to migrate. Migration must have started as a relatively local behaviour pattern and then stretched to global dimensions, once they 'got the idea'.
I really cannot believe that an intelligent TNS can say such incredibly daft things!
So they flew 5 miles, and then worked that up to 7,500! Wowie!
C'mon Sophie, not even you can believe such nonsense!
Here are a few more facts which demolish the 'learned how to do it' school of thought:
"There is good evidence that young birds are equipped with endogenous migratory programs, which tell them roughly how many days and/or nights that they must fly, and in what direction."
In his book La Puissance et la Fragilité, Prof. Pierre Jean Hamburger from René Descartes University describes the extraordinary 24,000-kilometer journey made by the shearwater that lives in the Pacific Ocean:
(and also http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2006/08/sooty-shearwater-migrationamazing.html)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F6331%2F326%2F320%2Fsooty.2.jpg&hash=480456a3a64500beedacdeacbf6f0941)
It sets out from the coast of Australia. From there it flies straight southward to the Pacific. Then it turns north and flies along the coast of Japan until reaching the Bering Sea where it can rest for a while. Following that break it sets off again, and this time heads south. Crossing the western coast of America, it arrives in California. It then crosses the Pacific to return to its starting point. The route and timing of this 15,000-mile (24,000-kilometer) figure ‘8’ journey it makes every year never change. The journey in question lasts a whole six months, always coming to an end in the third week of September on the island it left six months before, at the nest it left six months before. What comes next is even more astonishing; after their return, the birds clean their nests, mate, and lay a single egg over the last 10 days of October. The chicks hatch out two months later, grow very fast and are cared for over three months until their parents set out on that stupendous journey. Two weeks later; around the middle of April, it is time for the young birds to take wing on their own journey. They follow exactly the same route as that described above, with no guide. The explanation is so obvious: These birds must have all the directions for such a journey within the inherited characteristics passed on within the egg. Some people may claim that birds navigate by the Sun and stars or follow the winds prevailing along their route on this journey out and back. But it is clear that these factors cannot determine the journey’s geographical and chronological accuracy."
Pierre Jean Hamburger, La Puissance et la Fragilité, Flammarion Pub., Paris, 1972.
"migratory birds have comprehensive, detailed, innate spatio-temporal programs for successful migration. Such programs evidently enable even young, inexperienced birds to migrate alone, with no adult guide, to the species- or population-specific winter quarters that they have never seen before. As will be explained further below, they do this by "vector" navigation: referring to a vector composed of a genetically predetermined migratory direction and to a time-plan, also genetically predetermined, for the course of migration... It follows that the departure time is programmed by genetic factors... "
Peter Berthold, "Bird Migration: Introductory Remarks and Overall Perspective", Torgos, 1998, Vol. 28, pp. 25-30
Not only is it preprogrammed, but it is preprogrammed to do impossible things!
"Some birds migrate at seemingly impossible altitudes. For instance, dunlin, knot and certain other small migrating birds fly at a level of 7,000 m (23,000 feet), the same altitude used by aircraft. Whooper swans have been seen flying at 8,200 m (27,000 feet). Some birds even reach the stratosphere, the layer of thin atmosphere, at an altitude of between 8 and 40 kilometers (5 and 25 miles).11 Bar-headed geese cross the Himalayas at an altitude of 9,000 meters (29,529 feet), close to where the stratosphere begins."
My anthropomorphic shorthand may be forgiven, here; no actual purpose was implied in my argument!
It is not surprising that they can't accept it because it doesn't include the existence of a God. It is amazing how 'they' prefer the complete absence of evidence for their God to the, sometimes, rather weak evidence, used to explain certain bits of evolution. Faith has been responsible for an awful lot of bad choices in the past but it is a very 'comforting' notion.
The evidence I have been presenting, and which has received no refutation worthy of the name, supports the exceedingly realistic hypothesis that these things were all super-intelligently designed.
Any aeroplane, flying a journey of 1000 miles or so, with fully functioning GPS, at an altitude of 25,000 feet or more at the very edge of the stratosphere, has got to be intelligently designed, or it would simply perish.
Yet, here are these birds, with brains the size of walnuts, performing feats of flight which strain the believability organ.
And they 'evolved' from reptiles, say the evolutionists!
Somebody is kidding you, guys!
-
As you have been banned, it would be unfair to answer. I only say that you have missed the whole point of what I was saying, async.
-
This is a Science Forum. If people want Religion or Philosophy, they should post on appropriate Fora. That's reasonable, isn't it?
-
Being new to this forum, it's not clear why this subject has died.
Surely we can discuss objections to scientific theory without being accused of being religious can't we?
I do have a problem with Asyncritus's conclusions and perhaps someone could talk me through the thinking here, as he appears to have been excluded. It seems to me that he is saying, 'Here with instinct is a marvellous thing which evolutionary theory cannot accommodate, and THEREFORE there must be a God who did it because no other explanation has been given.'
Surely this is a 'God-of-the-gaps' explanation, which is fine unless, and until, someone comes up with a better theory which gives some deeper consideration to these objections and provides an explanation which incorporates the objections that he makes to the current theory.
It is a valid argument against Darwinian theory but is not proof of God.
My own take on it is that the existence of what I perceive as design in the universe (not only biological , but also at all levels from subatomic to cosmology) begs the question of any existing theory for the origin of the universe and life.
One theory that should be taken into account in any reasonable open discussion is that there may be a Creator God. It is one possibility in a sea of competing theories. We can't dismiss it out of hand just because we don't like it!
-
At present, there are no valid arguments and no evidences against modern evolutionary theory. Anyone with a detailed understanding of the theory, and without an agenda of denial, would be able to see that.
The 'God-of-the-gaps' arguments are easily dismissed by evolutionary theory and basic logic.
There is no evidence of "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.
Any reasonable discussion should automatically exclude a creator entity as a possibility. There are no valid reasons that a creator should exist. There is no evidence that it does exist. And even if it did exist, it would explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions: Who created the creator? How does the creator create? etc.
Evolutionary theory has withstood the test of time, been supported by millions of pieces of evidence. There are no alternatives to evolution, just as astrology is not an alternative to astronomy, alchemy is not an alternative to chemistry, the stork theory of reproduction is not an alternative to sexual reproduction, and so on. Evolution is the best and only explanation available, and this is unlikely to change.
-
At present, there are no valid arguments and no evidences against modern evolutionary theory. Anyone with a detailed understanding of the theory, and without an agenda of denial, would be able to see that.
The 'God-of-the-gaps' arguments are easily dismissed by evolutionary theory and basic logic.
There is no evidence of "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.
Such statements are indeed far too broad to address with any validity, certainly not in a short post. They are incredibly arrogant. No significant claim was made in this most recent reply to the thread; thus, there has been no significant reply. The original post here was simply inquiring as to the explanation for the behaviors of the yucca moth. The logic springing from evolutionary theory is not capable of such an explanation for this, nor many other inter-dependent plant/animal relationships and behaviors. So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory.
And even if it did exist, it would explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions: Who created the creator? How does the creator create? etc.
Can we work to identify the genetic encoding of such behavior? What then, the origin of that genetic encoding? If one question leading to more questions is a "problem" with creationism, is it a blight that the same "problem" is shared by evolutionism? Or all science, for that matter? Isn't that the fun of science? Always more to discover... Questions, questions, questions. What questions does either theory attempt to answer? Neither provide absolutely provable answers. Both require faith.
Any reasonable discussion should automatically exclude a creator entity as a possibility.
To begin demanding the exlusion of certain possibilities is to surrender to ignorance, I'm afraid. We'd still be sacrificing our children to Molech's fire, hoping for a better harvest next year. Be reasonable? Yes. Be ignorant? No! Bury our heads in the sand and pretend that belief in God is somehow a sham that's been pulled on the masses from the beginning of time? That all people of faith (including many a great scientist) are fools? Let's not be hasty. If someone wants to postulate that a "creator entity" is a possibility, does that demand our investigation as to the "why" of the yucca moth come to a grinding halt? I would hope not - our desire for discovery demands better of us! Who knows what we'll find!
I wish the great biologist, Asyncritus, was still around to post a few of the world's wonders from time to time, rather than having been removed (probably thanks to people who didn't like the fact that a few of those wonders didn't fit the mold of their own theory!). Such elitist thought-control is paramount to book burning! Let's embrace the anomalies and examine their cause, not complain about agendas and question motives! We're scientists, here - not blithering emotional whiners!
-
So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of how evolution works.
Just as gravity is a fact. Our theory of how gravity works is our best explanation of how gravity works. And its "just a theory"
In science, a theory is the highest possible status any explanation can attain. And in order for a theory to remain a theory, it must not conflict with any evidence or observations. Evolution doesn't, which is why it remains a "just a theory".
The original post here was simply inquiring as to the explanation for the behaviors of the yucca moth. The logic springing from evolutionary theory is not capable of such an explanation for this, nor many other inter-dependent plant/animal relationships and behaviors. So evolutionary theory remains just that - a theory.
Because we do not currently have an adequate explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable, or that it therefore defies the laws of nature or requires a paranormal explanation. I agree that religion has no place in a scientific discussion.
-
Surely we can discuss objections to scientific theory without being accused of being religious can't we?
Certainly, but not if we then use religious dogma to formulate or justify those objections. That's reasonable, wouldn't you say?
It seems to me that he is saying, 'Here with instinct is a marvellous thing which evolutionary theory cannot accommodate, and THEREFORE there must be a God who did it because no other explanation has been given.'
It is a valid argument against Darwinian theory but is not proof of God.
I quite fail to see how this is a valid argument against Darwinian theory. Perhaps you could elaborate. The only thing that appears to be in contention is the precise pathway by which the instinctive behaviour arose. The general means by which it arose is the usual marriage of germ cell mutation and natural selection. The current absence of detailed explanations merely reflects the current insufficiency of research in the relevant areas.
One theory that should be taken into account in any reasonable open discussion is that there may be a Creator God.
Why should this be taken into account in a discussion on evolution? The character and diversity of life is explicable by evolutionary theory. Why introduce an unnecessary complication?
We can't dismiss it out of hand just because we don't like it!
I agree that some people dismiss it out of hand for this reason. That is invalid. But others reject it for the reason noted above - it is superfluous.
There is no evidence of "design" in the universe.
There are observations for which arguably the simplest explanation is design. Perhaps you are using a peculiar definition of evidence.
There are no valid reasons that a creator should exist.
What is the valid reason the universe should exist?
There is no evidence that it does exist.
I see you are still having difficulty with the meaning of evidence.
And even if it did exist, it would explain absolutely nothing, yet raise more questions: Who created the creator? How does the creator create? etc.
Science, in answering any one question, nearly always raises several more, so your objection her is specious.
-
I wish the great biologist, Asyncritus, was still around to post a few of the world's wonders from time to time, rather than having been removed (probably thanks to people who didn't like the fact that a few of those wonders didn't fit the mold of their own theory!). Such elitist thought-control is paramount to book burning! Let's embrace the anomalies and examine their cause, not complain about agendas and question motives! We're scientists, here - not blithering emotional whiners!
Asynchritus was banned because he refused to listen to facts, logic and reason - he had already made up his mind, and refused to engage in discussion. As this is a discussion forum, this was frustrating and detrimental to other members of the forum.
There's no elitist thought control going on.
-
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of how evolution works.
As usual, this discussion is hampered by our inadequate language. We need far too many words to qualify / explain / justify our statements. I will try not to demand or expect too much of the statements of others, as we're all limited by this unfortunate constraint.
We would all benefit (the writers and the readers) from some additional clarification, though. Such a statement as this is quite broad - "Evolution is a fact." Is this statement in regard to microevolution a la moths in England? Macroevolution a la amoebas to humans? Those subjects are quite different, most would agree. And as usual, humans have a difficulty transitioning from the micro to the macro.
Just as gravity is a fact. Our theory of how gravity works is our best explanation of how gravity works. And its "just a theory"
And of course, exceptions have been found historically to our explanations for the behavior of gravity (e.g., Newton's theories being superceded by Einstein's). So when you say "Evolution is a fact," I assume you're talking about some minor facet of evolution which has been observed, not the entire scheme. In other words, only very small bits of evolution have been observed to actually occur - the rest is inferred from fossils, etc. - each inference bearing its own inherent uncertainties (thus keeping evolution theoretical, overall). To say "Evolution is a fact" seems quite broad to me, and worthy of some explanation.
In science, a theory is the highest possible status any explanation can attain. And in order for a theory to remain a theory, it must not conflict with any evidence or observations. Evolution doesn't, which is why it remains a "just a theory".
I guess this is where the divide occurred between the camp of Asyncritus and the camp of evolution. Some will turn a blind eye to evidence which conflicts with the theory of evolution, or dismiss it as unrelated; while others see that evidence as demanding further investigation. Had Einstein and his friends ignored the minor perturbance in the orbit of Mercury, we might not have the theory of relativity!
In other words, even though Newton's theory of gravity solves 99.9% of the problem, it still is not fundamentally correct. That "phenomenon" of the disturbance in orbits (and other things we can think of now) indicated a flaw in Newton's theory. It is quite fair to point out flaws in the theory of evolution which demand we go back to the drawing board. Darwin's observations were compelling, to be sure - the facts which he observed have led to changes in our understanding of the way the natural world operates, and we shouldn't turn a blind eye to his work nor the work which has been built upon it. But we must acknowledge he provided no real answers to the question of the origin of life. There remains that work to be done, if we're still unsure of the answer.
Asynchritus was banned because he refused to listen to facts, logic and reason - he had already made up his mind, and refused to engage in discussion. As this is a discussion forum, this was frustrating and detrimental to other members of the forum.
Incidentally, I found him - he's writing a blog now - http://www.got.to/belligerentdesign
Regardless of your feelings towards him, we must admit that he introduces a confounding fact to the theory of classical macroevolution, one which demands investigation. One which may be "explained" by other various theories - that a Creator made the moth this way, that the genetic code of the moth simultaneously developed the myriad instinctive behaviours (maybe we call this "Spontaneous Temporally Unrestrained Population Interdependence Development?"), or by some other theory. The classical theory of evolution, which involves small changes within a species leading to the formation of new species over time, does not adequately explain the instinctive behaviors of the moth.
We must carve out the facts (observed phenomena) from the faith (often the theory, or the "how" of those phenomena). The fact is that the Yucca Moth shows peculiar (wonderful, indeed!) instinctive behaviors. In theorizing "how," Asyncritus seems confident of his answer, one built on faith - in which it is hard to poke holes - that a Creator encoded those requirements into the genes of the Yucca Moth. Others are content to adhere faithfully to a theory which does not adequately explain the observed fact, or to make as broad a statement as those of faith: "Evolution is a fact" (where "evolution" refers to classical macroevolutionary theory) is on par with "God did it." Thus the choice exists for people as to which camp to join. But we must acknowledge that at some point, everyone is making a leap of faith...
-
It is a fact that species evolve over time. The theory of evolution is the best current explanation of how species evolve. If you take the time to learn the subject you will find the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Such a statement as this is quite broad - "Evolution is a fact." Is this statement in regard to microevolution a la moths in England? Macroevolution a la amoebas to humans? Those subjects are quite different, most would agree. And as usual, humans have a difficulty transitioning from the micro to the macro.
It is in regard to every living organism on Earth. It can be shown by sequencing the genomes of any 2 species that they will share a common ancestor.
I guess this is where the divide occurred between the camp of Asyncritus and the camp of evolution. Some will turn a blind eye to evidence which conflicts with the theory of evolution, or dismiss it as unrelated; while others see that evidence as demanding further investigation.
Go ahead, show us this evidence which conflicts with evolution. Thousands of biologists will be keen to see it.
Had Einstein and his friends ignored the minor perturbance in the orbit of Mercury, we might not have the theory of relativity!
You set up a good example for me. Gravity is a fact - all bodies attract one another. Newtons theory was the best theory there was to explain this fact. Einstiens theory explains it even better, and succeeds Newton's theory. This is what we do in science. If a better explanation is found, that becomes the new theory. The current theory of evolution has evolved (pardon the pun) since Darwin's time as more information was brought to light. Maybe more evidence will come to light to cause further modification of the theory. But as it stands our current theory of evolution is the best explanation we have of the fact that species evolve over time.
In other words, even though Newton's theory of gravity solves 99.9% of the problem, it still is not fundamentally correct.
It was a scientific explanation though. And it was succeeded by a better scientific explanation.
What would not have been a scientific explanation though, is a theory that an all powerful undetectable being constantly pushes all matter together.
It is quite fair to point out flaws in the theory of evolution which demand we go back to the drawing board.
I couldn't agree more, that's what science is about. I'd love to learn more about these so called flaws, could you elaborate?
But we must acknowledge he provided no real answers to the question of the origin of life. There remains that work to be done, if we're still unsure of the answer.
So what? The theory of evolution explains how life evolved over time. Not how life started. Look up abiogenesis for the theory of how life began. Here is a well made youtube video explaining it -
One which may be "explained" by other various theories - that a Creator made the moth this way,
That is not a scientific explanation. "God did it" has been the explanation to almost everything at some point in time. No matter what you apply it to you can't disprove it. If this is the kind of explanation that satisfies you then you're welcome to it, but it couldn't be further from a satisfying explanation to someone who bases their beliefs on evidence and reason.
As a scientific hypothesis "God did it" fails because it introduces more complexity than the current theory. Have you heard of the concept of Occam's razor?
We must carve out the facts (observed phenomena) from the faith (often the theory, or the "how" of those phenomena).
Sorry if it upsets you but all the facts fit with evolution. Scientists have belief in the theory of evolution, but not faith. Faith is belief in absense of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution.
The fact is that the Yucca Moth shows peculiar (wonderful, indeed!) instinctive behaviors. In theorizing "how," Asyncritus seems confident of his answer, one built on faith - in which it is hard to poke holes - that a Creator encoded those requirements into the genes of the Yucca Moth.
If you assume that there is a creator then of course it is impossible to poke holes in "God did it" theory. However I can poke holes in your assumption all day long. It becomes an athiest vs. theist argument then, nothing to do with evolution. I'm happy to debate that - but this thread is supposed to be about science not religion, feel free to start a thread or add to one of the many millions of atheist vs. theist threads and i'll join you there.
"Evolution is a fact" (where "evolution" refers to classical macroevolutionary theory) is on par with "God did it." Thus the choice exists for people as to which camp to join. But we must acknowledge that at some point, everyone is making a leap of faith...
Just plain wrong. The first statement is based on observations and evidence and "God did it" is based on nothing.
-
In a Feb. 17, 2008 symposium at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Boston,*
Miller will argue that science itself, including evolutionary biology, is predicated on the idea of "design" -- the correlation of structure with function that lies at the heart of the molecular nature of life.
Miller is a cell biologist and the Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown.
Miller will argue that the scientific community must address the attractiveness of the "design" concept and make the case that science itself is based on the idea of design -- or the regularity of organization, function, and natural law that gives rise to the world in which we live.
He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the "s" curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.
"There is, indeed, a design to life -- an evolutionary design," Miller said.
"The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions.
Scientists should embrace this concept of 'design,' and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed."
4/010413083229.htm
'The Intelligent Genome,' by Adolf Heschl
Genes 'regulate' for a purpose and through a process we may not understand yet but not willy nilly and random without a reason, but usually with intent out of necessity for survival.
'Genes Know How to Network'http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/04/21-03.html?rss=1
not random but for a purpose
Genes know their left from their righthttp://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n9/full/nrg2194.html
'Evolutionary design' is not saying a diety
It may take some a very long time to grasp there doesn't have to be a 'diety' in control that life itself has design, function and one day we will find the purpose. That evolution is based on cause and effect, not random mutation.
-
Did a search on google this morning "how does instinct work?" (out of bordom - waiting for a sofa to be delivered!). This thread on this website appeared top of the search engine.
The worrying thing is that I managed to read half of Asyncritus' initial post before realising hang on a second this is creationist tripe. [xx(]
I wouldn't class myself as particularly ignorant either. When I'm not at home waiting for the trivial items of life I work in a materials laboratory for one of the worlds largest weapons manufacturer, designing materials capable of withstanding hypersonic flight, using fancy tools like scanning electron microscopes, x-rays with computed tomography & performing failure investigations (similar to air crash investigations) in the rare event one of them breaks up in a trial, To name a few things. Can't say too much. But I'm not an idiot basically.
The way it is cleverly written in the style of a scientific argument, plus the fact it appears on this website (used to listen to the podcast occasionally - CT reconstructions can really grind sometimes!) suckered me in, thinking 'oooh this is interesting' until he basically said "evolution can't exist" before i thought... hey wait a moment, that's not right [???] [:I]
My concern is other people with nothing better to do than search for "how instinct works" [;D] will be suckered in. Not due to it's content (clearly manipulated) but the convincing way it is written posing as science. Is there any way of moving it lower down the searches or editing the original post to with a caveat on top. [?]
Seems a bit police state i suppose. But I strongly feel all of this creationist stuff - especially with it being taught as 'Science' in some American schools over the pond is the biggest thread to real Scientific understanding today. Picking and choosing which bits of science to put in and leaving inconvenient things out to make it sound like the truth. [xx(] Grinded my gears so much i had to register! [:o]
Don't worry if you think I'm being stupid, i have faith that most people will see it for what it really is. Well I certainly hope so! Or hat they will read the whole thread rather than the first post and see him being discredited. i should say, people are entitled to believe what they want but they shouldn't try pass their belief of as science [:(!]
Anyway on a lighter note it also reminded me of this spoof science news story from newsbiscuit, some of the science ones are pretty funny sometimes:
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/
What i find funniest is, were there any god or creator he'd / she'd be redundant now anyway, i don't understand why people feel they need one. People are "gods" pretty much. "Anything you can do, i (we) can do better!) [;D] Able to perform "miracles" whether they be life extending "miracles", rehabilitating people after terrible accidents. Create synthetic life, alter existing life through GM. Fly, not just in air in space, land on the moon. Talk to someone on the other side of the planet through a device smaller than a cooking match box. Why on earth does anybody need a "god", we can do all his/her tricks! It's not as if he pushes the planes through the sky.
Unfortunately this extends to destructive power too (i probably play a part in this), the atomic bomb - 160,000 lives extinguished in an intant (and that was a tiny one there are ones hundreds of times bigger), biological weapons capable of larger numbers over time (equivalent to plagues in the bible), Toxic gases war and industry (Union Carbide - killing 25,000 people in Bhopal and now they are worried about a few oil covered pelicans // Controversy! [;)] ) - Oil leaks, desertification of land through industry and so on. We've have more destructive power than anything described in the stories within religious books.
If i had a time machine and could travel back with half of the things I've mentioned here, I'm pretty sure I'd have the whole planet worshiping me, because to anybody who doesn't understand them they would look like "miracles".
Woah massive post!
Have a good day,
M
(sofa delivered between 08:00 and 18:00! Jeez Clearly no intelligent design in that!)
-
Hi liquidusblue, and welcome to the forum.
I'll have a chat with the moderators - we've not included disclaimers like this in the past, but you do have a very good point.
I suppose that people who want to have their creationist views confirmed will only read the first post and go away happy, but non-creationists would read on and see his arguments thoroughly refuted.
-
Biological clock - all living creatures have it. It controls cell division in bacteria. Migration in birds, butterflies and its associated with jet lag. circadian a (24-hour) life rhythm.
Our appitite is controlled by it
MiRNAs have recently been discovered and have been shown to be involved in different processes in animals. By the use of new state-of-the-art techniques (most of them developed in the present study) the authors demonstrate that one specific miRNA (called bantam) recognizes and regulates the translation of the gene clock.
So its their body clock that tells them to migrate and apparently its their anntennae that direct them.
In a paper to be published in the journal Science, Reppert and his colleagues Christine Merlin, PhD, and Robert J. Gegear, PhD, have demonstrated that the butterflies' antennae —formerly believed to be primarily odor detectors—are actually necessary for sun-related orientation, a critical function commonly thought to be housed solely in the insect's brain.
Please read the links very interesting.
-
Statement by ornate iridescence 'There is no evidence of "design" in the universe. All apparent "design" is illusory, and can be shown to be produced by entirely natural causes.'
Mother Nature is accepted by TNS forum as having produced or created the illusion of design that's fine.
I disagree, wait, I'm not talking of a Deity...................If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.
There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.
Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.
also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"
Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.
Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.
Please eradicate the bias of this site.
-
If there was no design there would not be change, no need to change if no design.
That's clearly nonsense - it would be the other way around - if there were design, there would be no need for change. There is no design, and there is change.
There is definitely design in our universe see my post 2/6/10 above.
You saying it doesn't make it true. I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.
Science should embrace the natural design we experience in our universe, its just a few that are sensitive to the word, claiming all who use it are creationists.
also Science itself has a problem with the word "intelligent"
Maybe TNS policy should exclude the use of these words, 'design and intelligence' as all I see is real people asking real questions on a science site to get scientific answers but when those answers are not forthcoming and proof can't be found or there is no scientific answer then this site becomes bias, claiming the author a creationist. You don't have to be a creationist to have these questions.
No, that's true - and anyone asking the questions wouldn't be accused of being a creationist. People claiming there is evidence that natural systems were designed by an external 'higher power' are likely to be accused of being creationists, however, as it all amounts to the same thing.
Not everyone thinks the same, otherwise this site would not exist, there would be no questions.
The world is full of unexplained and wonderment.
Please eradicate the bias of this site.
Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid. But science seeks to remove this. The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.
-
Ben V I know we don't see eye to eye but please let me have my opinion.
The 'design' IS the ability to change.
I look at natural things around me and see such amazing design, intricate structures and mechanisms. I don't know what else to call it.
I know some other scientific folk agree. Some are stem cell scientists, biologists etc. I am not alone in my thinking.
I don't think of myself as a creationist.
It's not just black and white there are a lot of questions to be answered and stuff to be proven of course. Neither of us can prove or disprove this.
It only takes time and answers are revealed scientifically, one way or the other.
I believe there is design in nature, in science itself. That it’s not just "mother nature trying to illude us"
If there is no design, a plan, why should there be change?
Ben V You saying it doesn't make it true. I have never seen any evidence of design in nature.
I can’t understand how you couldn’t see design in nature and that is my bias just as I think it obvious. It is very difficult to research scientifically as this subject is largely ignored. But as we unravel biological systems, finding their cause and behaviour we are also discovering what the mechanisms are for and how they react to everything else such as the environment. So I suppose it will just take time to prove one way or the other.
Ben V Everyone has bias, it's really hard to avoid. But science seeks to remove this. The problem is that people often have a fixed idea, then look for evidence to confirm it - if you believe something to be true, you will find something that you feel validates your ideas.
If you have proof there is no design in nature you WILL change my mind.
So we understand structure, behaviour and function in nature but you say there is no design. Can we call it a truce? Just accept that we both disagree?
Please don't label me a 'Creationist' just because I see the "Design" in nature.
It would be like labeling you a "Magician" - things just happen.
-
Echo:
We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.
The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
-
Echo:
We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.
The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....
-
Echo:
We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.
The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....
What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.
That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.
-
Echo:
We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.
The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....
What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.
That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.
I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.
I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.
There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.
I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.
I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.
Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.
Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?
So why do we need intelligence for design?
-
Echo:
We (humans) are, for whatever reasons, capable of appreciating the wonders of nature on many levels.
The danger is that we might superimpose our feeble understanding of "intelligence" on nature. We may be clever, but we are being arrogant when we assume that our thought processes and nature converge.
Sorry I don't follow what you are actually saying.....
What I'm saying is that we might look at a very complex system that has evolved over many millions of years (nature) and because we cannot grasp how it all works, we assume there must have been some intelligence involved in the process.
That's a purely human assumption. There is no evidence that it is true.
I'm speaking of design in nature, not intelligence.
I virtually have no idea of intelligence, that may seem strange at first but when you do an IQ test, the test is only as good or intelligent as the person who wrote it, so you are being judged against the person who wrote it. So intelligence I assume has nothing to do with IQ.
There are intelligent computers, intelligent stem cells, intelligent biology, blah blah blah.
Trying to understand intelligence is like trying to imagine that there is nothing, not even a void.
What ever degree of intelligence our cells have is beyond me,... if the cells have intelligence that is.
I can however imagine design [and see it] in the universe. If some like to give it a name and call it nature, fine. Whatever.
I am bias in regard to seeing this 'design' to those who can't see the design but they are entitled to their opinion of course.
Maybe its related to computer intelligence? or stem cell intelligence? If there is intelligence.
I am not saying there is intelligence.
Maybe the cells just have a job to do (survive) and that is all they know how to do, no matter what it takes them to do it. Say, cells didn't need intelligence to network it's just what they do. Yes, the process is complex but it don't need intelligence for complexity,.............Isn't complexity associated with 'design'?
So why do we need intelligence for design?
All you are doing is superimposing another human concept on nature. Intelligence and design are both human concepts.
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.
-
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.
So you say they just happen?
-
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.
So you say they just happen?
Yes. Random mutations happen all the time. If they are beneficial to the species, they are inherited by subsequent generations. If they are detrimental to the species, they are much less likely to be inherited.
Adaptation is largely a process of trial an error. It may be a bit crude, but it's highly effective.
The "design" if you like, is for living organisms to continually experiment with random small changes. The environment determines if those changes are for the good or not.
-
How is there design without intelligence? Designs only happen if something intelligent designed them. If they "just happened", they are not designs.
So you say they just happen?
Yes. Random mutations happen all the time. If they are beneficial to the species, they are inherited by subsequent generations. If they are detrimental to the species, they are much less likely to be inherited.
Adaptation is largely a process of trial an error. It may be a bit crude, but it's highly effective.
The "design" if you like, is for living organisms to continually experiment with random small changes. The environment determines if those changes are for the good or not.
Trial and Error? How could something that does not "have" a "master plan" try or fail at something? If by "Error" you mean that the species dies off, may I remind you that everything dies at some point. Who's to know to keep track of the cause of death? How is it determined that a genetic mutation was or wasn't beneficial to a certain specimen, or even an entire species? and if this is determined at all, where is the information preserved?
Besides.. if the point of evolution is to progress a species further, it must be progressing towards something. Otherwise, progression would not exist.
I'm not saying there has to be a master plan.. I'm saying that at this stage in human evolution, it should appear to all of us that there is no other option. However, (there are humorous, obviously human-created, ideas for intelligent design(ie. religions)) and loads of other external (human created) stimuli that causes humans as a whole to view things in a very closed-minded way. I fear we have evolved so far in the wrong direction by misusing our intelligence, that we are likely not going to get back on track for hundreds of thousands of years if at all. The whole point of our species is to survive, yet we still exterminate each other. I know that the reasons for this are very deep and varied, which is why I mentioned that we have evolved to accept "that's just how it always has been and always will be" which is disappointing to say the least. We're talking about our species as a whole probably being a failure... Perhaps frogs will take our place once we have blown each other up lol.
Though by the obvious complexity of nature.. I wouldn't be surprised if everything on Earth were to exist only to serve humans just to be able to create weapons to blow up the Earth itself killing everything on it just so a piece of rock can shoot out from the Earth into space colliding with another by passing asteroid just to slightly change it's direction(for whatever reason). This may sound unlikely, but at this point, it is just as likely and unlikely to us as every other theory.
But It is most likely something we cannot fully comprehend with the limited brain power our species currently possess. We assume it's "intelligence" simply because we have no other way of wording it. Humans are "intelligent"- we are conscious and aware and we have the ability to think and create ideas and make things... so we personify what we can't understand and say that since everything is here, it had to be made by something, and if it was made, then it had to be by some sort of "intelligence".
Considering all the infinite amount of other possibilities, I should assume that the chances of everything being the result of another "being" or intelligent designer are incorrect.
I have many theories and I would love to believe them all, but then I remember that I'm probably incorrect and will also probably never find the answer. But like the Yucca Moth, I must do what my INSTINCT tells me- think, explore, and expand my knowledge..even though I may never see the results.
If evolution is random, why are we able to explain it?
If it can be explained, it is not random. By the way, I believe there is no such thing as "random."
And to add to the OP's topic.. Think about how wings for animals and insects were developed in the first place.. How did evolution learn air molecules could be manipulated? How do strawberries "know" they will be eaten so that their seeds are distributed in animal sh1t(let alone, how are they developed to withstand stomach acid...or that there are beings with stomachs that eat)?
How do dandelions know to use the wind to their advantage to spread their seeds?
Everyone who brushes these clues of nature off as "that's just how it is" has a lot of learning to do.
Nothing exists because that's is "just how it is". Take your heads out of the box, and try to look at the big picture... and I'm not talking about the big picture everyone looks at. Think of you're own "Big Picture"..There are so, so many things that we don't know and have not discovered.. The only thing we can do in our search for explanations is allow room for all the potential variables of undiscovered things in our theory results. This leads to an unlimited number of theories. Which is a good thing, cause as they say if everyone's thinking the same thing, someone is not thinking.
If you break it down to main points and byproducts of that point... Everything becomes a byproduct of something else.. continuing back until you have the beginning of time..but then is that a byproduct of something? Theoretically, everything should be a byproduct of one thing.. that One thing is the answer.
My personal favorite theory- Life(and everything) is a result of the most beautiful fractal "equation". How it was created or why it exists is open for discussion, but I feel this can explain the conservation of information theory, and how "instinct" exists. This means that to me, God is, and is in Everything.
-
By the way, I believe there is no such thing as "random."
That's strange, because it struck me that your post might just be a collection of random thoughts. [;D]
Anyway, can you back any of this up with scientific evidence?
-
That's strange, because it struck me that your post might just be a collection of random thoughts. [;D]
Anyway, can you back any of this up with scientific evidence?
Yes, indeed it WAS a collection of seemingly-random thoughts. Was just surfin the forums and thought I'd add in my 2 cents -which turned out to be closer to a few bucks. lol I do apologize for my disorganization, though.. And as far as scientific evidence... which part? Most of it is abstract thought about what shouldn't be abstract. Again, I just wanted to lay down my own opinion. What do you think?
-
Besides.. if the point of evolution is to progress a species further, it must be progressing towards something. Otherwise, progression would not exist.
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?
-
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?
Why else would it exist? Progression/improvement would not occur if there was no reason for it. We see the small scale of it's purpose as being "species survival" but why must a species survive? What is the large scale purpose for evolution?
The logic behind my thinking is that since nature is obviously continually "improving" itself through evolution, nature must be considered a progressing entity. And progress of any kind cannot occur without a beginning AND an end or "goal". (that goal may be to infinitely improve or arrange itself, but it is still a goal). The need for an end for progression to exist is why I believe that nature must have a point or goal for evolution.
-
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. It's not at all logical to assume that because there is improvement, it is for a reason. A very basic understanding of the process of evolution would show you that this is not the case.
-
Do not be sorry! Disagreement is good! It helps us learn. What I'm saying is I don't think a basic understanding of evolution yet exists. I believe we have but scratched the surface of that process. But explain to me how you can have improvement without having a purpose for improvement?
-
The "improvement" is merely a result of the process. But a basic understanding of the process is enough - things that are better suited are more likely to survive and pass their "better suited-ness" on to the next generation. Therefore the next generation is, on average, better suited to it's environment. No aims, no goals, no intention.
-
Evolution does not have a point. what makes you think it does?
Why else would it exist?
What is the purpose of gravity? What is it for?
Why does hydrogen combine so readily with oxygen? What is the purpose of that?
Why does the universe create heirarchical structures? What is its purpose?
Progression/improvement would not occur if there was no reason for it.
1. What makes you think the evolution of eukaryotes constituted an improvent? Why do you beleive that the emegence of intelligence was progress?
2. Do you insist that the progress from an amorphous gas/dust cloud to an ordered suite of star, planets and attendant bodies had a reason?
We see the small scale of it's purpose as being "species survival" but why must a species survive?
Why must a stone fall to ground? Why must hydrogen atoms combine, under the right conditions, to form helium? Why do the right conditions exist? Surely they must exist for a reason?
[/quote]There isn't one.
The logic behind my thinking is that since nature is obviously continually "improving" itself through evolution, nature must be considered a progressing entity.
Breaking news: Nature's peak of progress and acme of improvement is currently in the process of destroying much of the diversity painstakingly built up over millions of years. Is this a normal practice for a progressive entity?
-
I have read most of the replies in this post. That being said my added voice will most likely be drowned out sheer magnitude of replies. However since the discussion has devolved into an evolution vs. design debate I would like to add my two cents.
First cent. I think that the first thing that must be proven is can there be both evolution and intelligent design or must it be one or the other. Through my admittedly humble education - mostly self taught - I have never found a single case of intelligent design, including the examples here. Which I will debunk in part two. that cannot be explained by long slow evolution. Evolution on the other hand is not only evident but faster than many believe. Take the humans for example. The advent of glasses and laser eye surgery has eliminated natural selection of the poor sighted as a result the numbers of poor sighted humans are growing astronomically. Women will mate with nearly blind men and produce nearly blind babies. Who throughout most of the world would have died or at least not propagated as little as 400 years ago. Then there are dogs. Forced evolution by breeding all manner of oddities have been created just by selective breeding.
Second cent. In the originating post the possibility of co-evolution was discarded off-hand. That is what I find absurd. It must seem illogical to you because as a creationist your mind does not allow for a timeline so vast that the human mind can scarcely fathom it much less practically apply it to a theory. The very small blip of one million years is so long it defies understanding and could create a great many changes in a single species series until it settles into something that lasts for a few thousand years. Long enough that the miracle that is fossilization might catch a few and give us a snapshot of a species. Most species are never fossilized so quoting the absence of a species fossil is scientific folly. Yet species evolution often spans Hundreds of millions of years and the variations and details of evolution could account for every example given here and so much more. The whale with legs was given as a counter example and then discounted as being the possible result of human pollution. I would say that is how evolution works. A pollutant or is introduced, some animals develop genetic anomalies those that help survive and thrive those that don't eventually die off. If in a few thousand years the whales start leaving the polluted water on their legs then evolution has done its job. Evolution is not always fast enough which is why there are no dinosaurs anymore.
Lastly. I am very dissappointed I was really hoping to read about some brain scans and behavioral analysis. Some real in depth studies on what is passed down from generation to generation. Answers to questions like "are new things added or lost generationally? If so, How? Why?" You know science.
-
First cent. I think that the first thing that must be proven is can there be both evolution and intelligent design or must it be one or the other.
Your subsequent argument proves nothing. You assert that evolution has been observed. This is true. You assert that intelligent design has not been observed by you. It does not logically follow that you have demonstrated that evolution and intelligent design cannot co-exist.
A suggestion: don't talk of proof. Science does not generally deal in proof.
Second cent. In the originating post the possibility of co-evolution was discarded off-hand. That is what I find absurd. It must seem illogical to you because as a creationist your mind does not allow for a timeline so vast that the human mind can scarcely fathom it much less practically apply it to a theory.
The OPs objections appears to be that there is no obvious reason for instinct to evolve, not that there is insufficient time for this to occur.
Side comment: you overestimate the role of "pollution" in generating diversity. While "pollutants" do induce mutations in the germ cells, most mutations are a consequence of "chance".