How does "instinct" evolve?

  • 270 Replies
  • 151629 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

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

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

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

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

I proposed 2 models, and there is a clear divide there. Only one can be correct. If evolution is as absurd as I'm showing, then you clearly have to stick with the absurdity, or abandon it in favour of the other alternative, as I have done.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

lyner

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

*

lyner

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

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

*

Offline _Stefan_

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

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

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

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

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

And probably a few more.

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

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

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

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

You have failed to disprove evolution.

You have no valid scientific alternative.


So what are you still doing here? This is a Science forum, not a religious propaganda machine.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

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

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

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

When are you going to wake up to these FACTS? Why do you keep rejecting them and refusing to face them?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline _Stefan_

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

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

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

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

The only person ignoring the facts here is you.

You have no argument to make. Stop wasting forum posts.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

lyner

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

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

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

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

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

Heh heh heh!

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

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

Heh heh heh!
« Last Edit: 17/01/2009 19:22:59 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And just in case you missed it, he says:

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

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

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

Quote
The only person ignoring the facts here is you.

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

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

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

Heh heh heh!!!

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

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

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

*

Offline MonikaS

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

As for angiosperm evolution, you're doing your usual schtick. Scientists are looking into it, doing research, debating, disagreeing; you (predictably) have no other explanation than your variant of god did it, which is not science, but creationism.
--------
I tried installing Jesus on my Scientific Method and I got a Blue Screen of Eternal Damnation.

*

lyner

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

*

lyner

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

Sophie

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

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

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

Heh heh heh!




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

*

lyner

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

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

*

Offline MonikaS

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


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

There is a lot of research going on in this area, why don't you write to all these scientist and tell them not to bother anymore, since your fictional bronze age deity did it?
--------
I tried installing Jesus on my Scientific Method and I got a Blue Screen of Eternal Damnation.

*

Offline _Stefan_

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

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

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

Your refusal to understand evolution and how science works is not an argument against evolution. I listed the logical fallacies that your arguments almost entirely consist of. Take note of them, and go away to learn some real science.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline BenV

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

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?
[/quote]
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I hope they are seeing that there ARE serious problems with evolution, and that maybe, just maybe, one or 2 are beginning to think differently about the subject. I hope so, anyway.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

Now, please restrain your applause and general bonhomie.

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

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

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


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

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

Asyncritus
« Last Edit: 01/02/2009 22:06:42 by sophiecentaur »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline seeker

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

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

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

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

Seeker,

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

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

I accept your correction.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

lyner

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

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

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

*

Offline Asyncritus

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

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

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

Evolutionary explanations please?
« Last Edit: 22/03/2009 11:34:05 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #225 on: 22/03/2009 11:39:31 »
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!
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #226 on: 22/03/2009 11:43:49 »
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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #227 on: 22/03/2009 11:47:10 »
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?
« Last Edit: 22/03/2009 11:51:15 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #228 on: 22/03/2009 12:31:41 »
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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #229 on: 22/03/2009 14:37:05 »
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.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #230 on: 22/03/2009 14:38:11 »
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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #231 on: 22/03/2009 16:14:51 »
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.

*

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #232 on: 22/03/2009 20:38:28 »
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.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #233 on: 22/03/2009 21:10:01 »
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.
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #234 on: 26/03/2009 01:34:06 »
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.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #235 on: 26/03/2009 02:06:51 »
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)


    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."

Quote
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!
« Last Edit: 26/03/2009 02:11:14 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #236 on: 28/03/2009 22:13:09 »
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.

*

lyner

  • Guest
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #237 on: 01/04/2009 23:29:02 »
This is a Science Forum. If people want Religion or Philosophy, they should post on appropriate Fora. That's reasonable, isn't it?

*

Offline achilles_heel

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #238 on: 02/12/2009 20:54:47 »
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!

*

Offline ornate iridescence

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #239 on: 03/12/2009 04:26:39 »
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.

*

Offline littleWolf

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #240 on: 13/01/2010 23:35:29 »
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!

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #241 on: 14/01/2010 06:23:09 »
Quote
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".

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2010 06:29:30 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #242 on: 14/01/2010 12:38:09 »
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.

Quote from: ornate irridescence
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.

Quote
There are no valid reasons that a creator should exist.
What is the valid reason the universe should exist? 
Quote
There is no evidence that it does exist.
I see you are still having difficulty with the meaning of evidence.

Quote
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.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #243 on: 14/01/2010 13:09:51 »
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.

*

Offline littleWolf

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #244 on: 14/01/2010 17:24:19 »
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 - newbielink:http://www.got.to/belligerentdesign [nonactive]

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...

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #245 on: 14/01/2010 18:49:51 »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2010 18:52:33 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #246 on: 02/06/2010 00:38:53 »
Quote from:  There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
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.

A view with an open mind

*

Offline liquidusblue

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #247 on: 10/06/2010 08:02:03 »
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:

newbielink:http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/05/25/synthetic-life-form-accuses-god-of-playing-science/ [nonactive]

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!)
« Last Edit: 10/06/2010 08:29:06 by liquidusblue »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #248 on: 10/06/2010 11:13:04 »
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.

*

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 395
    • View Profile
How does "instinct" evolve?
« Reply #249 on: 28/06/2010 23:35:15 »
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
Quote from: http://www.physorg.com/news178804470.html
   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.

Quote from: http://www.physorg.com/news173021625.html
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.
A view with an open mind