Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 5:04 PM
235 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,460 Year: 10,283/29,783 Month: 947/1,583 Week: 416/291 Day: 65/59 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   Animals with bad design.
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 46 of 204 (602045)
01-25-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
From barbara:

99.9% failure rate for species extinction does not leave much room for descent with modification that is currently believed right now.

Every year we are still finding new species in rainforests, caves, deep in the sea etc...literally hundreds of species every year. In fact it has been hazarded that more species are becoming extinct each year (before we actually catalogue them as a new species) than those new ones we do find.

So you can see the biodiversity is vast - and undoubtedly was as vast (possibly more so) in the past. Even a 99.99% failure rate leaves countless millions of species available at any one point in time for evolution to work on. One of the big mistakes creationists make over and over is they genuinely have no idea of the scale of time available for evolution to work (saying the earth was formed only 6000 years ago - as opposed to life being catalogued by dating to at least 3.5 billion years ago http://pilbara.mq.edu.au/wiki/Stromatolites is the same error as saying the distance from New York to Los Angeles is only about 700 yards!) In that vast expanse of time lies all those millions of millions of failed - but also those millions of currently living species. It is only with the hindsight of the expanse of time that the 99% failure rate stacks up.

[qs]What is interesting is the 99.9% extinct is based on the fossil evidence. Fossils are rare so this percentage is false. Nobody has any idea of how much biodiversity there actually was in history. Nobody knows if the fossils represent true extinction or that they changed in appearance in descent with modification.

No one can tell us if any of the species that are alive today are the actual direct descent with modification to those specific fossils or a result from a split from another species.'/qs

What is truly interesting is you taking this stance of suggesting that past species actually change by descent with modification into new species....that is precisely what the vast majority of creationists refuse to sanction, and therefore every extinct critter in the fossil record has to (by their standards) be an extinct line - because evolution can't happen right?

(I am correct in assuming you follow the creationist argument rather than the evolutionists aren't I? - Apologies if not).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:27 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 47 of 204 (602046)
01-25-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by barbara
01-25-2011 4:27 PM


Re: Re-think needed?
From barbara:

99.9% failure rate for species extinction does not leave much room for descent with modification that is currently believed right now.

Every year we are still finding new species in rainforests, caves, deep in the sea etc...literally hundreds of species every year. In fact it has been hazarded that more species are becoming extinct each year (before we actually catalogue them as a new species) than those new ones we do find.

So you can see the biodiversity is vast - and undoubtedly was as vast (possibly more so) in the past. Even a 99.99% failure rate leaves countless millions of species available at any one point in time for evolution to work on. One of the big mistakes creationists make over and over is they genuinely have no idea of the scale of time available for evolution to work (saying the earth was formed only 6000 years ago - as opposed to life being catalogued by dating to at least 3.5 billion years ago http://pilbara.mq.edu.au/wiki/Stromatolites is the same error as saying the distance from New York to Los Angeles is only about 700 yards!) In that vast expanse of time lies all those millions of millions of failed - but also those millions of currently living species. It is only with the hindsight of the expanse of time that the 99% failure rate stacks up.

What is interesting is the 99.9% extinct is based on the fossil evidence. Fossils are rare so this percentage is false. Nobody has any idea of how much biodiversity there actually was in history. Nobody knows if the fossils represent true extinction or that they changed in appearance in descent with modification.

No one can tell us if any of the species that are alive today are the actual direct descent with modification to those specific fossils or a result from a split from another species.

What is truly interesting is you taking this stance of suggesting that past species actually change by descent with modification into new species....that is precisely what the vast majority of creationists refuse to sanction, and therefore every extinct critter in the fossil record has to (by their standards) be an extinct line - because evolution can't happen right?

(I am correct in assuming you follow the creationist argument rather than the evolutionists aren't I? - Apologies if not).

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by barbara, posted 01-25-2011 4:27 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Aaron
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 48 of 204 (602591)
01-29-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Drosophilla
01-25-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
"Imagine the future fortunes of a human car designer who proudly boasted that 99.99% of all his designs were doomed to eventual failure. How long do you think he'd hold a liscence to design?"

If each car lasted 5 million years before breaking down (as God's designs have) - then I'd consider him an awesome designer. Your idea of perfection is a car whose parts don't wear out and never breaks down - and isn't out-competed by SUVs or trucks when the market shifts in that direction.

"If, as you maintain, God created everything around us - the super designer of all, then he should be the best engineer in the business."

So, how would the "best" biological engineer do things differently?

Make creatures that never went extinct?

How would you propose he do that? Make those creatures unable to die?

If that was a possibility, can you give me a reason why God must by necessity create such a world? If God possesses all creative wisdom - is there a logical reason why He must - by necessity - create a world that is absolutely perfect in every way - according to your limited understanding of what perfection is?

If God wants to create a world with limitations and death, doesn't He have the right to? Why must he conform to your opinion of perfection?

These are philosophical issues as much as science issues. The argument I was addressing in this thread is a philosophical one - that God wouldn't create animals with limitations. I think the argument falls flat on both philosophical and scientific grounds.

The only way to avoid species going extinct is if they were indestructable. That's the only way around it. I'll repeat it again - without limitations, there would be no exchange of nutrients amongst biological life. The possibility of extinction is a potential side effect of this circle of life. Without the possibility of organisms dying - without competition amongst species - without one species keeping another in check - the intricate system of biodiversity would come to a crashing halt.

Lets say that green algae fit your idea of "perfect" creatures - unable to go extinct - because they are unable to die. What would happen if they multiplied unchecked in a pond or lake? They would choke out all other forms of life.

"By "groups' do you mean "species"? If so, the number of species that have died off conservatively measure into the tens of millions - one hell of a design failure rate I'd say."

A species is just a group of animals that is physically or reproductively isolated from others like it. A founder group of giraffes can become 4 species of giraffes over time (which is in fact how many species there are today). If one of those species of giraffes lives in a climate that suddenly has a heat wave that kills of the entire species - would you consider that extinction a sign of God's failure as a designer?

"Ah - so you DO believe that animals can't suffer pain or distress.....how interesting!"

I said no such thing.

Obviously animals have pain receptors. I wouldn't classify animal distress the same way I would human distress though.

"the theologian Richard Swinbourne believes that God is controlling every proton, electron, neutron"

I don't believe that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Drosophilla, posted 01-25-2011 8:12 AM Drosophilla has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:49 AM Aaron has not yet responded
 Message 50 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:50 AM Aaron has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2011 10:28 PM Aaron has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 01-31-2011 1:32 PM Aaron has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2635 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 49 of 204 (602596)
01-29-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Aaron
01-29-2011 3:59 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
it is amazing how all of you completely misunderstood what I said.

First of all I am not the one who stated that 99.9% of species are extinct, science did. I am not the one who also stated that species change by descent with modification, science did.

What I am saying is that these two statements contradict each other when science is defining how life changed from the past and at the same time stating that 99.9% are extinct which means nothing can descend from them.

I also did not mean that all species do not feel pain when faced with predation however it is merciful compared to what humans do in killing animals. The fact is the predator/prey mechanism is how life is recycled for future generations to take their place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Aaron, posted 01-29-2011 3:59 AM Aaron has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2011 3:29 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2635 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 50 of 204 (602597)
01-29-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Aaron
01-29-2011 3:59 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
it is amazing how all of you completely misunderstood what I said.

First of all I am not the one who stated that 99.9% of species are extinct, science did. I am not the one who also stated that species change by descent with modification, science did.

What I am saying is that these two statements contradict each other when science is defining how life changed from the past and at the same time stating that 99.9% are extinct which means nothing can descend from them.

I also did not mean that all species do not feel pain when faced with predation however it is merciful compared to what humans do in killing animals. The fact is the predator/prey mechanism is how life is recycled for future generations to take their place.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Aaron, posted 01-29-2011 3:59 AM Aaron has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 01-29-2011 12:18 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 52 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-29-2011 2:58 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Blue Jay, posted 01-29-2011 3:38 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2022 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 51 of 204 (602618)
01-29-2011 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by barbara
01-29-2011 6:50 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
First of all I am not the one who stated that 99.9% of species are extinct, science did. I am not the one who also stated that species change by descent with modification, science did.

What I am saying is that these two statements contradict each other when science is defining how life changed from the past and at the same time stating that 99.9% are extinct which means nothing can descend from them.

I don't see any contradiction. Sure nothing can descend from the extinct species, but these species existed for some time before the particular species became extinct. For example, the The Ammonites, a group of Coil shelled mollusks, are extinct, they became extinct at the close of the Permian, leaving no direct descendants, but there were related mollusks such as Nautiloids which had the same common ancestor, and they survived. The same goes for other groupings of life.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2343 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 52 of 204 (602629)
01-29-2011 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by barbara
01-29-2011 6:50 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
barbara writes:

What I am saying is that these two statements contradict each other when science is defining how life changed from the past and at the same time stating that 99.9% are extinct which means nothing can descend from them.

100% of your great-great grandparents are extinct, and yet you descended from them.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19525
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 53 of 204 (602631)
01-29-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by barbara
01-29-2011 6:49 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
Hi barbara,

you had a double post
zenmonkey made the same answer
message deleted

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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 49 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:49 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 530 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 54 of 204 (602632)
01-29-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by barbara
01-29-2011 6:50 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
Hi, Barbara.

barbara writes:

it is amazing how all of you completely misunderstood what I said.

In all honesty, I don't find that surprising at all: I almost never know what you're talking about.

-----

barbara writes:

What I am saying is that these two statements contradict each other when science is defining how life changed from the past and at the same time stating that 99.9% are extinct which means nothing can descend from them.

Let's do some simple math.

Let's say that, at some point in time, there are 1 million species on Earth. Let's say that every species lives for about 2 million years, and gradually divides into 2 species during that time. Let's also say that, for each species, 1 of its 2 descendant species will go extinct.

This means that, every 2 million years, 1 million new species emerge, and 1 million of the total species pool go extinct.

After 2 million years, there are 1 million extinct species and 1 million extant (living) species.
After 4 million years, there are 2 million extinct and 1 million extant.
After 10 million years, there are 5 million extinct and 1 million extant.
After 100 million years, there are 50 million extinct and 1 million extant.

So, do you see how the number of extinct species accumulates over time, while the number of extant species does not? This means that, as we go further forward in time, the number of extant species will become a smaller and smaller portion of the total number of species that have ever existed, even if the number of extant species doesn't change much across time.

I don't know whether 99.9% is a correct figure or not (it's pretty much just a guess), but, whatever the case, there are certainly many, many, many more evolutionary lineages that have gone completely extinct than have survived until today.

This is a very simple and obvious conclusion, and it certainly doesn't contradict the idea that every species descended from a pre-existing species.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by barbara, posted 01-29-2011 6:50 AM barbara has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19525
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 55 of 204 (602642)
01-29-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Aaron
01-24-2011 8:00 PM


Re: deism
Hi Aaron

I meant endued.(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/endued)

quote:
1. To provide with a quality or trait; endow:

So you meant endowed, but want to appear learned by using abnormal words? Or do you mean the second definition?

quote:
2. To put on (a piece of clothing).

That would be like putting on airs.

Some mutations is random, some is not.
This is an interesting topic I've been studying. It would warrant a new thread.
Consider epigenetics to start - large behavioral and structural changes in direct response to environmental factors.

Taq has adequately answered (see Message 40) this portion of your post.

It was just a general statement to let you know my point of view.

Let's go back to the previous statements:

Message 26:
"So you would agree that the best conclusion regarding design would be that it starts with the creation of a universe set up so that the universe would behave according to what appear to be natural laws, where life would occur and then evolve ... and then leave the system alone for billions of years, having already done the necessary design work?"

I agree with the main premise of the statement.

I believe God set up things in the beginning to adapt and evolve.

I don't think every creature on earth looks exactly like it did when it was first created. I believe God endued each creature with the genetic ability to adapt to certain environments. Certainly, natural selection has played a roll in shaping the way creatures look and behave.

Curiously, if you believe in separate individual creation of organisms (special creation) then you disagree completely with the main premise - that life came into existence billions of years after the universe was created and then left alone - because the universe was set up for life would occur.

I titled the sub-thread deism for a purpose.

Enjoy.


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 37 by Aaron, posted 01-24-2011 8:00 PM Aaron has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3864
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 56 of 204 (602649)
01-29-2011 9:44 PM


Topic mutilation alert!
All messages should have some EXPLICIT connection to so called "animal design".

Adminnemooseus


    
Aaron
Member (Idle past 1792 days)
Posts: 65
From: Kent, WA
Joined: 12-14-2010


Message 57 of 204 (602653)
01-30-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
01-25-2011 9:05 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
Dr. Adequate elegantly stated:
"May i congratulate you on your broad and deep ignorance of biology."

That was a statement I realized I would be corrected on. I'm sure I could have thought up a bunch of extinct lineages if I took a few moments.

I should have edited it out - especially if I knew it would garner a response like yours.

It's not really crucial to the point I'm trying to make though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2011 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by barbara, posted 01-30-2011 10:51 AM Aaron has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 2635 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 58 of 204 (602660)
01-30-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Aaron
01-30-2011 12:26 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
Fine then why don't you list at least 10 examples of species that are actually extinct and 10 examples of species that are descent with modification and how exactly that you determine this to be a fact.

It is so easy for you to state animals with bad design while humans think that their designs in inventions are perfect. Changes in morphology cannot interfere with the normal cycles of reproduction and their ability to survive predation otherwise this would never have worked.

This is like comparing it to replacing the hard parts of your computer while it is still connected to its power source and is on the entire time you are replacing them. Updating software requires the system to be rebooted before it can be activated to function and this means a moment with no power. Living organisms cannot be disconnected from their main power source otherwise they would die.

Changing a organisms morphology in its structure while keeping the organism alive is a big difference compared to human inventions where you can turn off the power source to add new parts or features that improves it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Aaron, posted 01-30-2011 12:26 AM Aaron has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-30-2011 2:04 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 02-01-2011 5:15 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 12:48 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 59 of 204 (602662)
01-30-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aaron
01-15-2011 4:22 AM


What Would the Designer Do?
I find the 'bad design' arguments against design akin to the 'argument from evil' against the existence of God; quite frankly I think both of those arguments suck: those who present them pretend to know the will of One whose will is by definition unknowable to man.

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aaron, posted 01-15-2011 4:22 AM Aaron has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2011 9:26 PM Jon has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1684
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 60 of 204 (602669)
01-30-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by barbara
01-30-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Re-think needed?
Hi barbara,

I am not sure what you are arguing for or against here ( I seem to have trouble understanding a lot of your arguments).

barbara writes:

This is like comparing it to replacing the hard parts of your computer while it is still connected to its power source and is on the entire time you are replacing them. Updating software requires the system to be rebooted before it can be activated to function and this means a moment with no power. Living organisms cannot be disconnected from their main power source otherwise they would die.

IMO this is a flawed analogy. Computers (and other man-made machines) cannot be compared to living organisms when we are talking about design changes. Organisms begin as single cells and changes in morphology are caused by changes in genetic developmental pathways. Machines do not start out as one screw that slowly grows into a complex thing.

The organism does not turn off while the parts are being assembled, it is alive through the whole process.

Changing a organisms morphology in its structure while keeping the organism alive is a big difference compared to human inventions where you can turn off the power source to add new parts or features that improves it.

Yes it is.

Nature's design changes happen during an organism's development and growth and it is alive the whole time, or it is dead and further development stops.


Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by barbara, posted 01-30-2011 10:51 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018