|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How long does it take to evolve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I think you've lost track of your own argument. In nature we see certainly do see reuse of designs. Your original position is that a intelligent designer would not reuse designs because he need not do that. Uh, no. Octopus retinae place the photorectors in front of the bloodvessels and nerves supporting them. Do we see any vertebrate eyes adopting that? No. So why don't they? It is most certainly a more efficient way for an eye to work, so why doesn't any vertebrate eye work like an octopus eye does? Why does not vertebrate eye work like an invertebrate octopus' eye work? Why wouldn't an "intelligent designer" both to make use of the far superior octopus's eye?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
OK, so you are postulating a supernatural creator whose every single initial decision was precisely the exact correct one to have been made.
So just exactly where does that put us? Edited by dwise1, : clean-up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
To what NoNukes had said. Sorry about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Very late. Very busy. Very long day and miserable weather that had made for a somewhat sleepless night.
C) An analogy was made to a centipede multiplying its feet through mutations. Without any intention to be disrespectful, it seems amateurish to simplify so drastically . So much is required for something like that to happen, I am not so sure it makes it any easier to understand. But I can understand why Dawkins would use it to promote his point. HOX genes, as has been mentioned and which you should learn about. Genes which encode for the development of entire body parts. And when mutations (obviously deleterious ones) are encouraged in fruit flies (a popular subject in genetics research since the turn of the 20th century because of their short generation times) you can get such things as legs growing where antennae should be, which could be explained, I believe, by a single mutation of a regulatory gene which switched on the wrong HOX gene at that location.
As Dwise points out in his webpage, the conclusions we make from our observations is a different story- perhaps we could call it philosophy. Could you please properly cite me on that? Tell us the web page and directly quote what you are referring to? And preferably do it with quote tags. At the bottom of this message is a peek button. If you click on it, you will see all the mark-up encodings, which we call "tags". If you ever want to know how to do something that you see in a message, use that peek button. Though I must warn you that sometimes we resort to HTML. As you should have read on my cre/ev homepage (http://http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/index.html), I have been repeatedly accused in "run-by fruitings" of saying things on my site which I have never said there. It is for that reason on my site that I ask that everyone please tell me exactly where they think I had said any such thing that they claim.
I hereby invoke that right of being told just what the hell you are talking about! Ye're just lucky I dinna don me kilt te say that. Sorry, ye got my Scottish up there! Please point out to everybody what exactly you are referring to and then we can all discuss it.
Over the weekend, I have discovered a blurb from none other than Thomas Nagel himself decrying the portrayal of Darwinism as gospel. My Mexican father-in-law had an expression: En su propria casa se conece. ("In his own home he is known.") So then just who exactly is this Thomas Nagel? What biological research has he conducted to make him an expert on Darwinism? Oh, he's a philosopher. OK, so what does that have to do with biology? Here is something that I had started to write in response to another message (HINT!!!!! use the peek button here to see how to do a quote, and URL links):
quote: Your first two "points" seemed to try to make use of "information theory" type of arguments. Perhaps you were being influenced by your ID readings? But back to Nagel (German for "nail"). The purely ID anti-evolutionists hold that position for some kind of philosophical reasons. Is Nagel one of those? Does that compromise in any way what he says? I have mentioned a local creationist, Bill Morgan. He often engages in a typical creationist snake-oil show called a "creation/evolution debate." He has posted videos from some of those debates onto YouTube -- with a physicist Phil Sommerfeld on 07 March 2009. Here are a couple of those that I tried to discuss with him (met with dead silence, of course):
quote: And,
quote: So then just who is this Thomas Nagel fellow? One of those fucking creationist lies? Or just maybe you can provide us with a righteous citation for that quote that you never even bothered to provide us with in the first place. A friend I work with is a Christian fundamentalist. I believe that there is mutual respect between us ... I certain do respect him and I assume that that respect is reciprocated. One day, I shared with him a fundamental problem I have with fundamentalists. They lie about everything. He was troubled by that perception. I sincerely hope he can work it out. Lamden, creationists and IDists alike will lie to you. That is in their nature. So what are we to do? Follow truth. Follow truthfulness. Follow honesty. That is what I argue for at my site, isn't it? Bill Morgan opposes my position. He says that he opposes it. He says that he has always opposed it and that he has disproven it. So what is my position? I have repeatedly asked Bill Morgan that and every single time he has remained completely silent. My position is the truth and truthfulness and honesty. And every single step of the way, Bill Morgan has opposed the truth, and truthfulness, and honesty. OK, Lamden, just what exactly is the nature of your Thomas Nagel quote? Did he actuallly say what he appears to have said? Or has he been misquoted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes:
Speaking of which, you are no doubt well aware that Wise is German for "white". And I am called Schwartz. And according to Michael Jackson, "It doesn't matter if you're black or white", so I guess we can still be freinds. But back to Nagel (German for "nail"). Wise is not German for "white". It is not even German. Wei is "white". Yes, it has very commonly been changed to "Wise", but that is not my case. When my ancestor from Baden arrived to board that ship in Le Havre, he gave his name as "Wies". In German, that could have referred to a name associated with "meadow", "Wiese". Or to the town of Wies. I do not know which it is and am still trying to research it. The thing about "Nagel" meaning "nail" was a pun meaning that this guy Nagel seems to think that he had "nailed"something.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024