0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Worryingly some book companies, who have a reputation for producing good quality science resources, are adding intelligent design workbooks to their available lists. Surely, they shoud be offered alongside religious theory books, not science...? Wadyathink?
In a an advertised sample page, they were suggesting that descriptions of ancient animals in the bible were in fact descriptions of dinosaurs!!!!!!!!!! The book was intended for primary school pupils- how outrageous is that ......?
Asyncritus, I think you've missed the point. The bees that produced hexagonal cells were the most successful, as they were getting the maximum gain from the minimum use of wax. Therefore, they were more likely to breed than the other bees. This is how natural selection works.No intelligence required.
lol...I read some very convincing articles and homepages and arguments of creationists... they convinced me, that I will never believe in ID.My favourite: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ grin
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjqdLG5RNgthat is all you need to know.
Asyncritus, I'm afraid that rather than posting evidence against evolution, you're merely throwing light on your own lack of understanding of evolution. There are a number of very good books that will explain it for you. Failing that, why not try thinking of these sorts of issues without the initial assumption that everything was designed by some alien intelligence? You will find that evolution is beautiful, natural, logical and wonderful.I think that the simplicity of evolution, the sheer beauty of the process and it's results is far better than any god figure could ever be. As someone else has said on this forum, and I am inclined to agree - lets look at the beauty of the garden without trying to see the fairies at the bottom.
Lol...Well, I donīt know how to make Honey myself...but Iīm sure a bee wouldnīt know how to go fishing... Well yes, you went through the reference, which is ok.But you completely ignore all things that wonīt fit, right ^^Once again: whats your opinion on these nice arguments with the fish for example?I told you my evolutionary opinion on how bees evolved this form.But I can get more specific if you want to:Lets imagine there are two colonies of bees at one place... both have nearly the same size of their hives. But one colony uses round cells, where they cant use the whole space propperly, the other uses hexagonal cells and so they can stash a lot more honey in their hive.Both colonies are ok with their amount of honey.. all is fine, as long as all the ecological terms stay the same.But then, there comes the winter and the colonies have to stay in their hives for a long time. No problem at all...they have the honey to survive.But maybe(e) this winter is longer than the other ones, food is getting short. What do you think, which colony has the best chance to survive, to reproduce in next spring, to spread?Noone ever said, that the bees with round cells just go dieing because there bees which are a bit better adapted...thats where creationist allway try to mock evolutionist...but no evolutionist would ever use the word suddently.. and no, the other ones did not just die because they felt outbided...they died because when the terms changed, the other ones maybe where more patient.Thats just no argument to prove the theorie of evolution wrong... give me a better one... you didnīt just base your view of the world on bees I guess...
I didn't post evidence against evolution - atrox did, so don't blame me.
Sorry, but where did I post evidence? I posted a link to a side, which was trying to get arguments against evolution...but most of the arguments are everything else but evidence for a creator or against evolution..
I'll be honest with you, I don't know the biochemistry involved - if I get chance, I'll look it up.
For now - Wax - a great many insects produce wax as a protective coating - humans produce a waxy substance (in the ear) as to many other animals. So the genetic precursor for producing wax is definitely there.
It only takes a small mutation to produce lots of it, and if this produced an advantage (keeping larvae safe, food storage, better protection from predators) it would be selected for. So that's the wax angle covered.
As atrox has already explained, it's not that animals 'work it out' and then evolve. The animals with specific mutations that lead to advantageous behaviour are more likely to breed, and so these mutations will become more prominant in the population.
If you actually understood evolution, you wouldn't need to ask for the specific details.
"Flowering plants are very important in the evolution of life," Poinar said. "They can reproduce more quickly, develop more genetic diversity, spread more easily and move into new habitats. But prior to the evolution of bees they didn't have any strong mechanism to spread their pollen, only a few flies and beetles that didn't go very far."
Here you are atrox, your words: [...]
If you didn't want any discussions, then why did you post the link?
I asked first about the bees.
Now, how did the bees figure out that the hexagon is the best way to do this, and then pass the info on to their offspring?
Sorry, no. It is most certainly NOT a small mutation.
Consider: Bee which doesn't know how to make wax, all of a sudden, mutation, can. What does it say to its little self? Bzz bzz - now what the hell do I do with this gunge? It's making my wings stick together. I know, I'll use it to make some of these nice hexagonal cells - and what the hell do I put in 'em?
How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.
The facts are that mutations are almost invariably damaging or neutral. Rarely beneficial.
So how many mutations did it take to get this far, and what were the 'bees' doing in the meantime while waiting for the know-how?
And just as important, what were the PLANTS doing which needed the bees to pollinate them?
Poinar can't figure out the very simple point that without the bees angiosperm pollen isn't of much use!
You'll be amazed that a bee with a brain the size of a pinhead can figure out that much biochemistry.
I know that many insects (and plants) and humans produce wax, or waxy substances. That's not the point. HOW did that ability evolve? From what? Every organism that produces wax does so for a reason.
You notice, every one does so for a purpose. There is no chance involved here. And purpose indicates design - which is what you're trying to get away from, isn't it?
That bee had to a. know how to make wax b. know how to shape it c. know how to make honey d. know that honey was good for its babies and its pals e. would be useful over winterHow did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.
I don't know how to produce bile. I don't know how to metabolise energy from food. I don't know how to store energy as fat. I don't know how to make eggs, or sperm, or how to combine them in the right way to produce a child. My genes do. It has nothing to do with my understanding, I just let the programming in my genes do it, as do you, and everything else on earth.
You don't seem to understand that the changes in the ancestor are the important ones, and instead think that a bee needs to come fully formed. This is why I think you don't understand evolution.
Okay, that's a good base to go on. The ancestor of bees produced wax for a reason that was beneficial to it, perhaps to prevent dessication.
A small mutation, or series of them, could have led to this ancestor producing more wax than it needed for this purpose. If the extra wax was advantageous, as a place to store food or a protective casing for it's larvae for example, then this mutation would be selected for.
As you think there must be an intelligent designer involved somewhere (of which there never has been, never will be and never can be any evidence) then you clearly do not understand evolution.
If our minds are the product of the random movements of molecules etc etc, then the products of those minds must also be the products of the random movements of molecules,and cannot be depended upon.
Intelligence itself is not evidence of a designer - many species are intelligent to a degree, and intelligence can clearly be seen as an advantageous adaptation to a challenging environment. In fact, as a very intelligent species, we have been able to adapt our environment to suit ourselves in such a way that we no longer rely on our wits for pure survival, and are able to think about philosophy as well.
If a monkey was able to communicate a scientific idea to me, a testable hypothesis with experimental data, then yes, of course I would trust it, as I can apply my own logic to test the hypothesis. As it happens, apes and monkeys do not have the communicative skills to do so, but apes can be seen in the wild to adapt sticks into tools through a process of trail and error, and then pass info on to fellow apes - clearly the precursor to modern man's ability to make tools and share this knowledge.
As the brain evolved through several stages, as you pointed out with increasing complexity, the final product is not random. It has been shaped by millions of years of evolution. Therefore the actions prescribed by this organ are not random.
"I understand you may feel the need to believe in a god, and that is fine by me. However you cannot use perceived gaps in evolution as an excuse to fit your god in - there is no evidence of intelligent design. If you wish to believe in the biblical creation myth, again, that's fine by me. But by doing so you opt out of rational discussion of evolution, having rejected reason in favour of an old story."
We are struggling to create 'artificial intelligence' in computers. I don't know how far they've gone, but let's say pretty far. There is no adaptation involved. Computers have to be intelligently invented and constructed, intelligent programs written, huge memories created by intelligence,and that's just the beginning. Any number of intelligent researchers have to exist, intelligent people I might add, and one day they'll have an intelligent computer. Created by intelligent Designers and implementers.
Logic tells me that intelligence cannot originate from muck and mire.
As the old saying goes, if you can't beat the case, beat the guy who's presenting it over the head. Nothing changes.
So I take it you have heard nothing of the many AI projects in the making. Including the countless ones developing "learning computers".
Several question: 1.What benefit to mankind does this Intelligent Design theory hold?
2.What designed the designer?
3.Can we use Intelligent Design to suggest theories of a God and keep up this appauling sharade?
I think you will find all the answers to the above questions here:1.None.2.Um, another designer, it evolved.3.Of course, why its already happening.
All I can see it doing is starting wars.
Personally I feel you are terrified of death and seek further meaning in your life. Why not discover something real, or do some charity work.
Evolution has had many millions of years to work on many billions of possible permutations - simply put, evolution is happening and producing some wonderful things, none of which require an intelligent designer.
I notice that once again you are bringing up tenuous examples that you feel show a weakness in evolution - everyone who understands evolution and thinks rationally about these things see them as a strength - It's amazing that cliff swallows have evolved to do what they do, but evolve they did.
I'm afraid each and every example you give is based on a simple logical failing - there is no evidence for your god, and no mechanism through which it can act. As I have stated before, evolution has been witnessed in the wild and in the lab, and predictions made by evolutionary theory happen.
I'm really sorry to inform you, but Darwin's Origin of the Species was written well over 100 years ago. That's 100 years of scientific development - so it doesn't matter which gaps Darwin couldn't fill.
You are very unlikely to find a modern scientific book or paper on evolution that will cast any doubt on any aspect of evolution.
It's accepted by the scientific world and a great deal of the world at large.
You like to pick on Richard Dawkins, but I hope you realise he's not alone in his thoughts, merely more vociferous than many, who do not see this as a discussion worth having. Might I suggest you read his books, which are very good at explaining how evolution really works, and will answer some of your criticisms.
Then your logic is failed and wrong. Please tell me where intelligence can arise from, without referring to the god that there is no evidence of. There's lots of evidence for evolution, and we can follow a logical progression to the evolution of intelligence.
When you choose to believe in creationism, you opt out of reasoned debate on evolution - you have chosen belief over logic and evidence
- there is no evidence for your god, yet you choose to believe in it. That's fine, but you can't then try to argue with the logic of, and evidence for, evolution, and expect to be taken seriously.
I shall repeat myself - a lack of specific evidence for a certain aspect of evolution is not evidence for an intelligent designer.
"This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists."-G. G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode of Evolution (N.Y.: Columbia Univ., 1944), p. 106
Iīm always wondering if lungfish, mudskipper and eels never read the "Why Transition From Water to Landis Impossible"-part.Maybe someone should tell them, that they will die within the next few Seconds, when they leave water..
Why does the eel not know, that its impossible for him, to cover the distance between two habitats, spending hours out of water without a propper sceletton or the right muscles?
Why does the Mudskipper not know, that he will dry up immediately, when spending more time out of water (like all the amphibias do, which should have the same skin-problem as described).
Why does the lungfish not know, that he wasnīt allowed to suddenly (all evolutionists know, that the fish ages ago jumped suddenly out of the water and started climbing the trees, eh?!...Thats what evolution ist all about, isnīt it??
Maybe someone should go out an tell them, that they donīt exist... there are no transitional forms...nooo! lips sealed
The rock pocket mouse lives in rocky outcrops in Mexico and New Mexico. They can have are several different coat colours - ranging from light to dark. One population has evolved to live on dark, basalt rock, where there is a high selection pressure to have a dark coat. (being darker on a dark substrate makes predation far less likely, and so the darker mice were more likely to breed, and pass on their genes to the next generation.) There is a perfect association between different versions of the Melanocortin-1 receptor gene and coat colour.
Have you ever read anything about how the mudskipper survives out of the water? I didn't think so.Let me inform you then:[...]Therefore, they cannot live on dry land. They cannot be regarded as a transitional form, because they die if they dry out. They are called mudskippers for this very reason - they skip on MUD, which you may recall, is WET.
The maximum length of time a mudskipper can survive out of water is 36 hours. That really gives it a lot of time to evolve into an amphibian! (And in any case it has to reproduce IN WATER.)It hasn't done so yet, and you can let me know when they find one doing so.
QuoteWhy does the Mudskipper not know, that he will dry up immediately, when spending more time out of water (like all the amphibias do, which should have the same skin-problem as described).If he stays out of the water for more than 36 hours, he'll find out all about it, I promise.
Yes, that's right! That's evolution in a nutshell! Fish, who can only survive in water, suddenly started walking around on land, climbing trees and jumping off, in order to turn into birds.Marvellous nonsense, isn't it?
For goodness sake atrox, THINK for a bit.
They are NOT RELEVANT. ie, nonsense in this argument. They haven't evolved, they're still there, and they're still mudskippers and lungfish.
The anabantoidea, despite having the labyrinth organ - not a lung btw, also have to stay wet. Put them on the sand for a week, and they're dead. How does that help you?
"As a result, labyrinth fishes can survive for a short period of time out of water, as they can inhale the air around them, provided they stay moist."
Just in case you didn't notice, all the taxonomists call these animals 'fish'. Not amphibians. Not halfway between water dwelling and and land dwelling animals. Fish. Unless all these taxonomists are idiots?