|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think the evidence points to design you do not. Then you should be talking about design instead of evolution. You seem to have fallen for the false dichotomy that creationists push. They have suckered you into thinking that falsifying evolution automatically evidences design. It doesn't. Any theory has to stand on it's own legs. For example, I have yet to attend a scientific meeting where a scientist supported the evolution of a specific feature by pointing to the lack of an explanation from creationists. That's not how science works. You need to show us how design makes testable predictions and how to test those predictions.
challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs. It appears that you have things a bit backwards. Shouldn't you look at the information first before establishing a belief?
name calling shows your true collors my friend. Alot of scared people on this site. I think plenty of us are a bit worried that science education in public schools will be watered down to appease religious beliefs. Why shouldn't we be worried about this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll. What makes you a troll is that you avoided the responses that promoted a healthy discussion of your questions and instead focused on the more flaming repsonses that you could impose your martyr conplex upon. You showed no intention of actually seeking any knowledge or information about the questions you asked but instead just wanted bitch about the evolutionists.
I think the evidence points to design you do not. Then what's left to discuss? Since this site is still really active, it seems there's a little more to it than that.
I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs. Your behavior shows otherwise.
name calling shows your true collors my friend. You're a big fat stinky doo-doo head.
Alot of scared people on this site. You're the one who ran away...
to bad have your debates amongst yourself. Good! We'll just continue learning without you. Too bad you're gonna be left in the dust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.
If you add a thing called selection you can get a whole book or all the books writen by shakespere just bj shaking and leaving the letters that fit that is how evolution works. mutation <--- random
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi havoc, a couple of points,
What limitations?
New functionality....Mutations do not add new functional info. Curiously, an unsupported statement is less than convincing. Either mutations can and do add "new functional info" or your definition of what "new functional info" means is irrelevant to what can and what cannot be accomplished by evolution. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, particularly part 2 of the first post. There are many examples where organisms have developed the ability to use a food source that their ancestors could not use. That is "new functional info" as far as I can see, using normal definitions for the words.
You would have to have mutations that increased the information in the genome ... Which has also been observed, unless what you mean by information is irrelevant to what mutations can and do provide during evolution.
... and tell the dino how to change from making scales to making feathers, body plan, bone structure, lung design. They don't "tell" the dino anything. Birds are evolved from dinosaurs, and as a consequence they ARE dinosaurs and will always be dinosaurs. Curiously, we can look at the bird traits and see traits homologous with older forms of dinosaurs, which includes feathers and body plan and bone structure and lung design -- these all existed within the dinosaur clade before the evolution of birds to use feathers for flight. We can also see traits that are derived since they split from their non-flying dinosaur ancestors, such as the shape of flight feathers that has been adapted from non-specialized feathers. There are also an increasing number of fossils showing intermediate development between non-flying dinosaurs and flying dinosaurs -- what is predicted by evolution, and not by sudden creation, nor by "intelligent" design (why design a dino without feathers?). Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia
quote: Evidence of intermediate development, as predicted by evolution. In addition, as noted above, we see feathers that are intermediate between undifferentiated feathers and flight feathers (which have developed by adaptation from undifferentiated feathers):
quote: The amount of evidence increases every year, as would be expected from uncovering more fossils with time, and every one is a test of evolution, and every one so far has not invalidated evolution, but substantiated it.
This doesnt occur ... Sadly, for you, it does. Interestingly, your opinion is unable to alter reality in any way. Similar fossil evidence exists for the "body plan, bone structure, lung design" and other traits that birds have derived from dinosaur ancestors.
... and without the preconcived notion that it must have occured there is no evidence for it. I mean the fossile evidence interpetation is more art than science. Fascinating how different scientists reach the same conclusions then, over and over, isn't it? Perhaps that is because scientists use evidence instead of preconceived notions ... evidence of homologies and derivation of evolved traits, evidence that can be measured and documented, and subjected to intense peer review. If it were all art, then how do you explain the near 1-to-1 correlation of
It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human. Actually it likely took a lot more, during the 3.5 billion year evolution of life on earth, with the first billion years taken to develop multicellular life. However do not make the mistake of thinking that they all need to happen at once, or that any two need to occur together. What we have are a lot more mutations from which the ones that are passed on to future generations are selected, and rather than chance upon chance the selection process makes a critical difference. Think of throwing 1000 six-sided di and the expectation of all landing on 6's and then compare that to throwing all the di, selecting all the 6's and throwing the rest, selecting all the new 6's, etc. any idea how few throws it would take to arrive at 1000 6's? Selection is powerful even when acting on small incremental changes generation by generation.
It would take millions of these fictional mutations to turn a "simple cell" into a human. Curiously, every cell in the human body is similar to the "simple cell" of a eukaryotic bacteria, so putting them together into a multicellular body is not that difficult, and modifying that multicellular body into all the currently known living and dead multicellular organisms that exist or have existed is also not that difficult. Amusingly, every human life originates as a "simple cell" that grows into a human being in ~9 months. Incredulity is not evidence nor a logical argument. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again havoc, struggling to put mutation together with selection?
Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare. It is a common mistake of creationists and people ignorant of how evolution works to miss the linkage between mutation and selection: both are necessary for evolution, and the process is incomplete without both parts. Take any phrase you care from Shakespeare and then throw a pile of scrabble pieces, select the ones that fit the pattern you have chosen (selection for the ecological opportunities) then throw the remaining and repeat (generation after generation) and you can piece together any phrase you care. And of course this is not truly analogous to DNA, which only has 4 letters ... any arrangement of 4 letters is repeated and repeated within any genome, many times over, and you could take the DNA from any organism and reassemble it into the genome of any organism you care to name. There is nothing that is known to prevent one arrangement compared to another. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again havoc,
What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll.... I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information ... If you truly enjoy challenging yourself, then why are you upset when people provide evidence that you are wrong?
... and see how it fits my beliefs. Which curiously is NOT how science is done. In science belief and opinions are irrelevant to what we try to determine from the evidence. Beliefs that are at odds with reality are false. How do you test for reality? How do you tell if your beliefs are reflections of reality or delusion (caused by ignorance, misinformation, etc)?
name calling shows your true collors my friend. Alot of scared people on this site. to bad have your debates amongst yourself. Oh, boo hoo. Yet it's okay if you insult our intelligence? Quit whining and start dealing with the issues that have been raised, especially the ones that show how you are wrong, or at least involve some misconceptions.
I think the evidence points to design you do not. If you want to discuss the evidence for design, I'll be happy to discuss this with you at Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy.... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi havoc.
Who said I was a creationists? You have. Anyone that puts belief about how life formed above scientific evidence is a creationist. It doesn't matter whether you believe in creation by god/s or are trying to hide behind the so called "intelligent" design smoke-screen is a creationist by definition: you believe that organisms were made by non-natural processes. Now, you may or may not be a Young Earth Creationist, but you certainly put your faith above evidence.
I have my faith you have yours. Which means you are a creationist.
Message 628: I think the evidence points to design you do not. Which means you are a creationist. Whether by god/s or aliens is irrelevant. This is a condition that is curable. Interestingly, believing in creation does not mean that you cannot accept evolution in all it's amazing versatility in explaining how life develops. In that regard I am a creationist - I am a Deist, and I believe the universe was created in just the way it exists so that life could develop and evolve according the the laws of nature set out by the creation god/s. If you want to discuss if ID is a logical approach, I will be happy to discuss this on the Is ID properly pursued? thread. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again havoc, I really wonder if you really are really trying to understand, or just blindly spouting off your own personal dogma.
It is unfalsifiable because it is "DOGMA" You are confusing "has not been falsified" with "cannot be falsified" -- as pointed out in my post "you need evidence that {X} cannot be explained by evolutionary processes." None of your examples do this. Certainly Behe's IC doesn't - he even admits it.
... another founder of darwinian evo said anything like motors or magnets found to exist in living things would falsify the theory. We have numerious examples of each and evolutionists simply say "now we know that mutation and natural selection can create bio motors". And yet you don't really have motors and magnets, you have biological systems that are (badly) analogous to motors and magnets. Because they are biological systems they are necessarily available for evolutionary processes to tinker with them and assemble them. Biological systems are explainable by biological processes. How come there are no animals with entirely different DNA? That would falsify common descent. The reason you don't is because of the vast evidence for common descent, not because it can't be falsified.
I think that darwin and others tried to lay out ways in which the theory could be invalidated. Indeed, and none of it has happened. Not one bit of such evidence has turned up in over 150 years of looking. This is not because it is not possible, but because the evidence just does not exist to do it. Do you understand the difference? I notice that you have not responded to either Is ID properly pursued? or Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... ... do you understand that ID does not need to invalidate evolution if it is properly pursued? do you understand that there are other design alternatives to "intelligent" design? do you understand that your diatribe against evolution is - purely - based on creationist arguments? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : spling 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
havoc writes: Sory but the name escapes me but another founder of darwinian evo said anything like motors or magnets found to exist in living things would falsify the theory. Haldane said this, but I have no idea why, and certainly this never became an accepted tenet of the theory of evolution. After all, there's nothing in evolutionary theory precluding life from employing anything that provides a survival advantage, so while I think we would all agree that finding motors or magnets in life would be highly unexpected, unless it's impossible it would probably be prudent to agree with that famous polymath Ian Malcom when he said, "Life will find a way." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
How come there are no animals with entirely different DNA? That would falsify common descent. The reason you don't is because of the vast evidence for common descent, not because it can't be falsified. I admit that certain evidence is consistant with common ancestor, such as DNA. This however is also consistant with a common designer. Curiously I think if we did find some organism that used a different system than dna I don’t think you all would abandon your Darwinist ideas. Once again it is not falsifiable because it is dogma not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Haldane said this, but I have no idea why, and certainly this never became an accepted tenet of the theory of evolution. After all, there's nothing in evolutionary theory precluding life from employing anything that provides a survival advantage, so while I think we would all agree that finding motors or magnets in life would be highly unexpected, unless it's impossible it would probably be prudent to agree with that famous polymath Ian Malcom when he said, "Life will find a way." So once again it was "highly unexpectd" but since it happened we just chalked it up to well now we know that evo can do this "life will find a way"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: How come there are no animals with entirely different DNA? That would falsify common descent. The reason you don't is because of the vast evidence for common descent, not because it can't be falsified. I admit that certain evidence is consistant with common ancestor, such as DNA. This however is also consistant with a common designer. Curiously I think if we did find some organism that used a different system than dna I don’t think you all would abandon your Darwinist ideas. Once again it is not falsifiable because it is dogma not science. Of course there is evidence that ancestors exist but no evidence that the designer does. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Fascinating how different scientists reach the same conclusions then, over and over, isn't it? As if all scientists agree with Darwinian evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
And yet you don't really have motors and magnets, you have biological systems that are (badly) analogous to motors and magnets. Because they are biological systems they are necessarily available for evolutionary processes to tinker with them and assemble them. Biological systems are explainable by biological processes. ATP Synthase and the Bacterial flagellum are indeed motors. Unless your definition requires a man to make it in order for it to be a motor. The only reason they are badly analogous is because they are far superior to anything modern science and engineering could create.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It is a common mistake of creationists and people ignorant of how evolution works to miss the linkage between mutation and selection: both are necessary for evolution, and the process is incomplete without both parts. Take any phrase you care from Shakespeare and then throw a pile of scrabble pieces, select the ones that fit the pattern you have chosen (selection for the ecological opportunities) then throw the remaining and repeat (generation after generation) and you can piece together any phrase you care. So if you know the end game the phrase that you want you can get there. However this is not how selection works. Only traits that give that generation a breeding advantage will be selected. This does not explain how sight or flight or micro motors or proteins can come into existence the first time. You’re not saying that evolution new that it wanted to create the compound eye before there was such a thing? Every famous mutation such as herbicide and antibiotic resistance once examined at the molecular level has been shown to involve information loss.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024