Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dogs will be Dogs will be ???
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 121 of 331 (474672)
07-10-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
07-07-2008 10:29 PM


Probabilities
Hi Razd,
(1) all variation seen is within a species and (2) we can only look at variation within a species, then of course your argument is banally true, and it proves nothing
By banally true, you must mean true according to how the evidence superficially appears but lacking any depth of insight because I have not come to the correct philisophical conclusions about this lack of evidence?
But surely by this you can see that everything beyond that is possibly, probably, maybe, perhaps...
So what I say gels with the evidence but is only apparently true and proves nothing? Hello?
What you cannot say, however, is that you have in any demonstrated that the evolution of horse by standard evolution of hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation has not in fact occurred
Well it is not for me to prove that it did not happen;
if this is science -then you must prove that it did in fact occur.
This is the problem, you cannot prove it, you can only imagine and suppose it.
or that the evidence in the fossil record is not sufficient to show this evolution
Show me that it is sufficient for the purpose of guessing and supposing. We're talking about dead things, no date attached, no historical records, no eyewitnesses...
If you get buried on top of a cat, does that indicate that you and the cat may be related?For me it's a stretch to suppose that something may be your ancestor simply because you have some similarities in your genetic code especially if both you and the cat appeared suddenly in the record in separate strata and fully formed (as everything tends to do) at first appearance.
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
If organs take eons to build, why does every creature today have complete functioning parts instead of, at least some, semi-formed ones?
Prove that there is any limitation to evolution.
That is what the living evidence shows and continues to show -any other extrapolation is not evidential, it is imaginary and although possibly, maybe, perhaps true, not the sort of conclusion one can draw directly from the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 07-07-2008 10:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2008 5:48 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2008 7:52 AM Beretta has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 122 of 331 (474677)
07-10-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Beretta
07-10-2008 2:43 AM


Re: Probabilities
Beretta writes:
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land?
That's a very naive view of evolution, merely because of the word "trying". But it gives me the chance to show off one of my favourite species. This little fellow is not trying to be anything other than himself.
When is a fin an arm, and when is an arm a hand? Or when is a wing a flipper, as the penguin might ask, as the chimp asks whether his forelegs are legs or arms.
Transition, Beretta, is in all creatures.
http://www.arkive.org/...s/GES/fish/Brachionichthys_hirsutus
Cute, eh? You could almost give him a high-six.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 2:43 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 6:13 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 123 of 331 (474678)
07-10-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by bluegenes
07-10-2008 5:48 AM


Funny fish
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.Every creature has to be able to carry out all the various functions -respiration (macro and cellular), metabolism, excretion, ingestion -you have to be able to do them all to survive -if you can ingest but not breathe, metabolize but not excrete, respirate but all the enzymes and parts are not there yet -you will die. Everything has to be there but they had to arrive piece by piece apparently - not very feasible if you look at the nitty gritty details. You really have to believe that that kind of thing is possible. Obviously evolutionists find that easy to believe but I don't and we certainly can't prove that it can happen that way. One function missing -bye bye fishy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2008 5:48 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RickJB, posted 07-10-2008 6:39 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 125 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2008 6:44 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 126 by Granny Magda, posted 07-10-2008 6:52 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2008 12:38 PM Beretta has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 124 of 331 (474679)
07-10-2008 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Beretta
07-10-2008 6:13 AM


Re: Funny fish
Beretta writes:
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.
All animals are and were transitionals. All are and were "fully functional". You are "debunking" a strawman version of the ToE.
Besides, and with respect, your "instincts" about the matter count for precisely nothing.
By the way, will you ever get around to telling us about your design hypothesis? All you seem capable of doing is picking holes in a non-existent, strawman version of the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 125 of 331 (474680)
07-10-2008 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Beretta
07-10-2008 6:13 AM


Re: Funny fish
Beretta writes:
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.
Instinctively, certainly. It would be counter-intuitive to suggest otherwise. But the instincts of the cute little Hand-fish in relation to its complete and complex environment will only tell us things that are very parochial. And the same thing goes for the instincts of its large brained land dwelling relatives.
I picked up on the word "trying" for a reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 126 of 331 (474682)
07-10-2008 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Beretta
07-10-2008 6:13 AM


Re: Funny fish
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.
Your instinct is irrelevant and you should know better than to rely on so flawed a tool. I for instance, instinctively know that I am the wittiest and most attractive individual in the world, but sadly, the evidence is against me. Forget instinct. It's rubbish at science.
Every creature has to be able to carry out all the various functions...
Are you attempting to argue irreducible complexity for the handfish's fin? It seems a poor candidate for such reasoning, since it's fairly obvious how progressively more "foot-like" fins would convey increasing advantage to a bottom dwelling fish at each stage.
You really have to believe that that kind of thing is possible.
The "science=religion" argument has no place here, even if it weren't fallacious.
One function missing -bye bye fishy.
Very silly comment. I have a fish in my tank called Botia lohachata. It has no eyes, seemingly no eye sockets even. To be quite clear, the species normally posses eyes. My one is a freak. It does absolutely fine. Even in the wild it would be at little disadvantage, since its home waters are too murky for sight to be of much use anyway.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 8:34 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 127 of 331 (474683)
07-10-2008 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Beretta
07-10-2008 2:43 AM


Re: Probabilities
By banally true, you must mean true according to how the evidence superficially appears but lacking any depth of insight because I have not come to the correct philisophical conclusions about this lack of evidence?
No, by banally true I mean that you limit your looking at evidence to only looking at the evidence that shows your statement to be true. It's like saying that all numbers are odd numbers because we don't look at even numbers. That's a pretty poor philosophy.
Well it is not for me to prove that it did not happen;
if this is science -then you must prove that it did in fact occur.
Actually you have it exactly backwards: if it is science (like every other science) then all you can do is prove the theory false, and it is the job of the skeptics to do so.
A theory explains facts, if you don't like the explanation you need to show why it is false, not say that we can't look at the facts.
If you think you have a better explanation, then trot it out so we can compare how each one handles the evidence, the facts, reality.
Show me that it is sufficient for the purpose of guessing and supposing. We're talking about dead things, no date attached, no historical records, no eyewitnesses...
You agree that eohippus is less different from wolf than some dog varieties are. That is our starting point. Do you agree that the difference between eohippus and mesohippus is also less than the difference from wolf to some dog breed/s?
If you agree then we know that evolution from eohippus to mesohippus was possible. We don't need to look at the intermediate fossils, because we know that dogs are in fact related to wolves.
If you get buried on top of a cat, does that indicate that you and the cat may be related?
Not for that reason, no, that just indicates the time frame for the existence of the cat and me.
We also do not assume a direct relationship because the morphological similarities between human and cat are more than the morphological similarities between wolf and any dog species. This indicates that cats are less related to humans than dogs are to wolf.
We are however, talking about horses and horse fossils, where numerous morphologically similar skeletons are found associated in time (layers) and location (habitats) AND they show less variation that that between wolf and dog breeds.
Regardless of what species taxonomists classify the various fossils under, we can define a boundary around fossils such that the variety of fossils in any one particular time is less than the variety between dog breeds, and thus we can conclude that the fossils inside that boundary are a possible breeding population. We don't include cats and humans in that possible population because the differences fall outside the boundary.
That is what the living evidence shows and continues to show -any other extrapolation is not evidential, it is imaginary and although possibly, maybe, perhaps true, not the sort of conclusion one can draw directly from the evidence.
What the living evidence shows is the same kind and amount of evolution that we see in the fossil record from eohippus to mesohippus
That exact similarity is not extrapolation, that exact similarity is not imagination, that exact similarity is fact, known from looking at the evidence and making direct comparisons.
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
If organs take eons to build, why does every creature today have complete functioning parts instead of, at least some, semi-formed ones?
Let's deal with the evidence from eohippus to mesohippus first, then we can move on to other transitions.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 2:43 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 10:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 128 of 331 (474689)
07-10-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Granny Magda
07-10-2008 6:52 AM


Re: Funny fish
Are you attempting to argue irreducible complexity for the handfish's fin?
No, I'm arguing for the whole fish's irreducible complexity -all of it's biochemical systems must work together or the fish can't exist.
The "science=religion" argument has no place here, even if it weren't fallacious.
Actually it is science=religion since you have philisophical assumptions -you believe that material processes alone could put this thing together -you don't evidentially know that it is possible.
Granny Magda writes:
Beretta writes:
One function missing -bye bye fishy.
Very silly comment. I have a fish in my tank called Botia lohachata. It has no eyes
Well we can live with no eyes as well -I am referring to things like metabolism,excretion,respiration -those sorts of functions-can't have any one without all the others in place and functional. Pretty complex interactions to put together piece by mutational piece.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Granny Magda, posted 07-10-2008 6:52 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2008 9:48 AM Beretta has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 129 of 331 (474706)
07-10-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Beretta
07-10-2008 8:34 AM


Re: Funny fish
Beratta writes:
Well we can live with no eyes as well -I am referring to things like metabolism,excretion,respiration -those sorts of functions-can't have any one without all the others in place and functional. Pretty complex interactions to put together piece by mutational piece.
Certainly. Pretty complex interactions to be put together piece by mutational piece. And, what exactly are you trying to say? If you want to make an adult argument about complexity, you can easily do that on the thread that I've put up about blood clotting.
It is a favourite of Intelligent Design advocates like yourself.
:http://EvC Forum: Behe and blood clotting -->EvC Forum: Behe and blood clotting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 8:34 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 130 of 331 (474713)
07-10-2008 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by RAZD
07-10-2008 7:52 AM


Re: Probabilities
No, by banally true I mean that you limit your looking at evidence to only looking at the evidence that shows your statement to be true.
While you are only looking at evidence that cannot be proven to be true or false and then concluding that it is true in the absence of confirmatory evidence.
Actually you have it exactly backwards: if it is science (like every other science) then all you can do is prove the theory false, and it is the job of the skeptics to do so.
So I can have a theory that the inside of an uncut melon is yellow until I cut it open at which point it's color is changed and that stands until you can prove that what I'm saying is false.Pretty dumb huh? Surely the wiser approach is for me to have some evidence before I hatch such a dumb theory.Your theory should be based on some kind of evidence.
A theory explains facts, if you don't like the explanation you need to show why it is false
Evolution is neither proven nor based on facts -it is an interpretation of the facts, creation is the alternate interpretation of the facts. I say you have no proof that your theory is true so now you show me the mechanism. It doesn't help to say that small scale change extrapolates to large scale change if there is no proof that that is possible. In the absence of confirmatory evidence -we both have a theory and neither can prove the other one to be false. So which one is better supported by the evidence? I know your answer and you know mine.
If you agree then we know that evolution from eohippus to mesohippus was possible.
'Possible'is not proof by any stretch of the imagination. You still need to prove it by showing me how. I say my theory is possible but it is better supported by the facts than is yours.
beretta writes:
If you get buried on top of a cat, does that indicate that you and the cat may be related?
Not for that reason, no, that just indicates the time frame for the existence of the cat and me.
If strata equal time periods than why is so much time missing from so many areas of the earth. Time, as laid out in the textbooks, only ever happened in the textbooks.It is theoretical 'time' and too many assumptions are made.What if many different strata are deposited simultaneously? What looks like millions of years may have been one particular time and what the strata contain has no bearing on age and evolutionary change.
This indicates that cats are less related to humans than dogs are to wolf.
Unless you look at the usually contradictory molecular phylogenies which very often show a completely different tree from the morphologically based tree.
What the living evidence shows is the same kind and amount of evolution that we see in the fossil record from eohippus to mesohippus
We can still only prove living relationships not relationships between dead things.
That exact similarity is not extrapolation, that exact similarity is not imagination
Exact and similarity are not words that should be used together - exact and same maybe, but exact and similar -I don't think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2008 7:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 131 of 331 (474716)
07-10-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluegenes
07-03-2008 12:33 PM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Bluegenes writes:
You literally annihilated the christian faith with this video(not that we needed any more evidence that christianity is a sect for the weak-minded). Why is it I don't see any comments about it from the ID'ers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 07-03-2008 12:33 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2008 11:32 AM Agobot has replied
 Message 135 by Beretta, posted 07-11-2008 3:42 AM Agobot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 132 of 331 (474721)
07-10-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Agobot
07-10-2008 10:41 AM


Re: Brainwashed by Imagination/Evolution
Agobot writes:
You literally annihilated the christian faith with this video
I don't agree with you, at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 10:41 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Agobot, posted 07-11-2008 4:47 PM bluegenes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 133 of 331 (474739)
07-10-2008 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Beretta
07-10-2008 6:13 AM


Banally True - funny fish in a long line of funny fish
This is precisely what I mean by your view being banally true:
Message 121, Beretta:
And on that note, why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?

Message 122. Bluegenes:
When is a fin an arm, and when is an arm a hand? Or when is a wing a flipper, as the penguin might ask, as the chimp asks whether his forelegs are legs or arms.
http://www.arkive.org/...s/GES/fish/Brachionichthys_hirsutus

Message 123, Beretta:
Really cute -I like that fish -but when I look at it, I instinctively know it is a fully functional creation.Every creature has to be able to carry out all the various functions -respiration (macro and cellular), metabolism, excretion, ingestion -you have to be able to do them all to survive -if you can ingest but not breathe, metabolize but not excrete, respirate but all the enzymes and parts are not there yet -you will die.
Here you have a living organism that is an intermediate form between a swimming fish with fins, and a walking amphibian organism with a functional arm. The fact of the functional arm is ignored in your response as you go off on an irrelevant tangent (all organisms in evolutionary relationships of descent with modification are fully formed and functional).
We can also add Mud Skippers, which can live out of water, but are otherwise similar to the Spotted handfish, and thus demonstrating a clear path of evolution that is ongoing today.
When you ignore the transition from species to species you cannot see the overall picture of change in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next.
You are looking at a forest and only seeing the individual trees, and you claim there is no forest because trees only grow as individuals.
Banally true does not mean universally true, it means you ignore the rest of the picture to focus on only one element.
The other thing that these pictures and existing species show is exactly the same evolutionary developments as the transitional fossils: fins become arms, organism becomes able to live out of water.
Tiktaalik
Ventastega
It's the same evolution: change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. The only difference for modern organisms is that there is already competition on land.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Beretta, posted 07-10-2008 6:13 AM Beretta has not replied

  
dkv
Member (Idle past 5732 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 09-15-2007


Message 134 of 331 (474796)
07-11-2008 3:22 AM


Evolution is all about emergent properties..
It doesnt talk about one gene , one tissue or one organ...
consciouness is an emergent property.
complex body part arrangement is an emergent property.
complex metabolism is an emergent property.
complex sexual behaviours is an emergent property.
There is only one basic process and that is replication.
However at the level of organism some emergent properties can act against replication.

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 135 of 331 (474797)
07-11-2008 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Agobot
07-10-2008 10:41 AM


ERV hype
DNA not known to be coding for proteins or functional RNAs, especially pseudogenes, are now at times referred to in publications simply as nonfunctional DNA, as though their nonfunctionality were an established fact.’ - Zuckerkandl, Latter and Jurka2
Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations.Unfortunately 'thought' speaks of preconceptions and prejudice as always.
But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation.
That is why with evolution "it is written and rewritten and rewritten" and every time there is an accompanying prejudice that leads to foolish errors. Doubtless there may be some 'junk' in the DNA but if there is a superintelligent creator than we start with the position that the majority of the DNA, that which is not mutated and damaged,was created with a function.
Evolutionists tend to start with the prejudice that if they don't know the function of something then it must be a useless vestige of something in evolutionary history -because they know that evolution happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Agobot, posted 07-10-2008 10:41 AM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by RickJB, posted 07-11-2008 3:56 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2008 5:44 PM Beretta has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024