|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Animals with bad design. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drosophilla Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 172 From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aaron Member (Idle past 3990 days) Posts: 65 From: Kent, WA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4832 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4832 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4541 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi barbara,
you had a double postzenmonkey made the same answer message deleted Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Aaron
I meant endued.(Endued - definition of endued by The Free Dictionary) quote: So you meant endowed, but want to appear learned by using abnormal words? Or do you mean the second definition?
quote: 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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
All messages should have some EXPLICIT connection to so called "animal design".
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aaron Member (Idle past 3990 days) Posts: 65 From: Kent, WA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4832 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
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 No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple! Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024