Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 12:22 PM
207 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,386 Year: 19,209/29,783 Month: 1,154/2,043 Week: 199/507 Day: 27/83 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Proof of evolution!!!
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 16 of 110 (264018)
11-29-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Guido Arbia
11-28-2005 5:17 PM


If we could step aside from the unseemly point scoring for a moment, there is an interesting point to be made here.

Do artefacts designed by humans demonstrate the same kind of developmental patterns as living things? The answer is no, they don't. There was a Scientific American article on this some time back in which they used the parsimonous techniques used to produce phylogenic trees for living things and applied them to the varying forms of trumpet and related musical instruments. The resulting trees look nothing like those that you find in nature. Whereas those in living creatures show predomitantly biurificating trees, those from artefacts show flat plateaus from which several "descendants" emerge.

What's more, if you look at human designed artefacts you see a lot of horizontal transfer - features from one family will suddenly appear in another - something that simply doesn't happen in higher animals.

So, simply by looking at the data, we could easily establish a difference between things we know to be designed and natural living things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-28-2005 5:17 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 11-29-2005 10:43 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14570
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 17 of 110 (264021)
11-29-2005 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mark24
11-29-2005 5:37 AM


Reproduction with variation is one of the observations referred to in my point 3.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mark24, posted 11-29-2005 5:37 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 110 (264088)
11-29-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Jack
11-29-2005 5:51 AM


i'm not so sure about the first point (you're probably right) but this is definitally the key:

What's more, if you look at human designed artefacts you see a lot of horizontal transfer - features from one family will suddenly appear in another - something that simply doesn't happen in higher animals.

while we do see convergent evolution, we don't see full-scale horizontal transfer. animals don't really rip each other off. a mammal, a dinosaur, a reptile, and an insect may all grow wings but they all do it in different ways. you don't see the dinosaur saying "gee, that insect's really got a feature the market desires. i think i'm reverse engineer that."


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 11-29-2005 5:51 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 317 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 19 of 110 (264249)
11-29-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-28-2005 9:10 PM


Says you. The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. Not only do proteins self-assemble in the cell, classes of proteins exist that assemble copies of themselves from other protein sequences.

Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.

It seems you don't know what DNA or RNA is.

I will ingnore the rest of your post since it need not be debated, it is known to be false just as evolution IS false.

This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 11-29-2005 06:13 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2005 9:10 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2005 6:51 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 7:24 PM Guido Arbia has responded
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 11-29-2005 7:30 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded
 Message 25 by AdminNWR, posted 11-29-2005 7:53 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Lammy, posted 11-29-2005 8:20 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Guido Arbia
Member (Idle past 317 days)
Posts: 548
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 20 of 110 (264254)
11-29-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Omnivorous
11-28-2005 9:06 PM


The first replicator need not be a cell.

You've lost twice in 8 posts.

I haven't lost because I did not set up the argument yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 11-28-2005 9:06 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Omnivorous, posted 11-29-2005 6:36 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 950 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 21 of 110 (264267)
11-29-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Guido Arbia
11-29-2005 6:15 PM


:)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:15 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2077 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 22 of 110 (264273)
11-29-2005 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Guido Arbia
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.

Are you sure, because they seem to have just popped up in your reply even though Crashfrog didn't say anything about organelles in the post you were replying to.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 110 (264286)
11-29-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Guido Arbia
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.

I believe it was proteins we were talking about.

Try to stay on-topic, ok?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-30-2005 8:44 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11655
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 24 of 110 (264291)
11-29-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Guido Arbia
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


Let them argue as they will!
Guido the enforcer writes:

I will ingnore the rest of your post since it need not be debated, it is known to be false just as evolution IS false.

Ignoring someone, Guido? What? A bright young lad as you has no reason to ignore anything. You started this topic and even gave it the title Proof of evolution for crying out loud! You know me, Guido...I think that its great that you believe in God...but if you wanna be a creationist,(helping spread the Truth) you have to understand that bashing evolutionists does not help Gods publicity any.

There are many smart people on this forum, Guido. Some of them may not believe exactly the same things as you or I do, but they deserve to be taken seriously. One of my favorites is Modulous---and he gives you a good answer in his post that you have ignored, thus far..

Modulous writes:

Now, you need to develop a Theory for your inferred phenomenon of computers changing throughout time. I doubt its going to be the same as the biological theory of evolution (which you are trying to lampoon), you don't even have the starting observations of Darwin, no reproduction, no fecundity, no population stasis, no heredity. There are also no later observations, there is no mechanism that one computer can use to pass its design onto offspring. If you dig through the dirt long enough you'll also find computer factories, blueprints and design specifications. Perhaps you'll even find a computer that has not been fully built yet, a tremendous aid to your research.

He even calls you Mr. Alien! A true sign of respect! Perhaps you had better not ignore him since you yourself said to nwr:

Guidosoft writes:

Yes I will be defending intellegent design.

You can't very well defend something by ignoring everyone who challenges it, now can you?? :)

This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 05:36 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 110 (264304)
11-29-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Guido Arbia
11-29-2005 6:10 PM


It seems you don't know what DNA or RNA is.

Be careful, crashfrog may know a lot more than you on DNA and RNA.

I will ingnore the rest of your post since it need not be debated, it is known to be false just as evolution IS false.

You ought to say what is known to be false, and you ought to provide a reference.

If you don't make reasonable efforts to support your claims, that might well be taken into consideration when your next "Proposed New Topic" is being examined.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

      
    Lammy
    Member
    Posts: 3578
    From: Chicago
    Joined: 03-29-2004


    Message 26 of 110 (264318)
    11-29-2005 8:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by Guido Arbia
    11-29-2005 6:10 PM


    Guidosoft writes:

    Wrong. Organelles do not create themselves.


    Muahahahahahahahaha

    Nevermind the fact that froggie wasn't talking about organelles and you some how made it pop up out of nowhere, you still managed to get it wrong.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by Guido Arbia, posted 11-29-2005 6:10 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-29-2005 8:34 PM Lammy has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11655
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.4


    Message 27 of 110 (264322)
    11-29-2005 8:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by Lammy
    11-29-2005 8:20 PM


    Oooh, Oooh! Pick ME, Teacher!
    Lam, I want to ask you to do me a favor. Pretend that you are a High School teacher and that Guido is in your class.

    He turns in the opening post as a writing assignment. Tell him what he needs to work on to develop his talents.

    Is he a science fiction writer? Is he serious? Has he compiled his facts and his source material? Help me out on this one as I am just a Faith/Belief type of encourager! :)

    This message has been edited by Phat, 11-29-2005 06:35 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by Lammy, posted 11-29-2005 8:20 PM Lammy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 9:01 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4621
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 28 of 110 (264326)
    11-29-2005 9:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
    11-29-2005 8:34 PM


    Lam and Crash acting children
    If Lam wants to teach, or Crash for that matter, then they'll need to learn not to act like students firstly, wouldn't you say?

    If a student gets something wrong, the teacher doesn't partake in derision and curse at the student.

    IMHO, C and L's comments are unnecessary in this thread and are turning it into a fun-fest.

    The claimant still mentioned some valid factors that are at play. Such as hinderance of the capacity of being able to infer an intelligent agency. Perhaps a flaw in our own rules. Maybe it could be discussed instead of chastising the claimant.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by Phat, posted 11-29-2005 8:34 PM Phat has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 9:12 PM mike the wiz has responded
     Message 34 by nator, posted 11-30-2005 7:49 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

      
    crashfrog
    Inactive Member


    Message 29 of 110 (264330)
    11-29-2005 9:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz
    11-29-2005 9:01 PM


    Re: Lam and Crash acting children
    If you don't see the ridiculousness of a situation where one could not infer the presence of intelligent artifact design on a planet full of intelligent designers, then I don't understand what there is to discuss.

    The reason we reject intelligent design for the origin of life is because there are no known designers except for humans (and some other modern organisms), and none of them were around 4 billion years ago. It's pretty simple, really.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 9:01 PM mike the wiz has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2005 9:36 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
     Message 38 by Phat, posted 11-30-2005 10:30 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
     Message 41 by Ragged, posted 11-30-2005 4:04 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
     Message 49 by ohnhai, posted 11-30-2005 9:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

      
    mike the wiz
    Member
    Posts: 4621
    From: u.k
    Joined: 05-24-2003


    Message 30 of 110 (264336)
    11-29-2005 9:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
    11-29-2005 9:12 PM


    Re: Lam and Crash acting children
    If you don't see the ridiculousness of a situation where one could not infer the presence of intelligent artifact design on a planet full of intelligent designers, then I don't understand what there is to discuss

    BUT, in general, rather than the specific analogy, there is an automatic hinderance of an intelligence via the God of the Gaps. The point remains even if the analogy isn't the best of analogies.

    The reason we reject intelligent design for the origin of life is because there are no known designers except for humans (and some other modern organisms), and none of them were around 4 billion years ago. It's pretty simple, really.

    It seems simple ofcourse.

    There are no known instances of evolution except for on earth, but do you reject life on other worlds?

    Surely you don't apply this logic pertaining to other universes? I'm sure you see them as possible. Is it fair to see a mind as possible rather than rejecting him?

    In each case we have one case. One example of a designer. One example of a universe. One example of evolution.

    See the problem if you look at this from a Columbo-perspective?;) Do you apply a double standard when it comes to the mind.

    (P.S. I'n not entirely in disagreement with you, I just thought ppl were ganging up on Guidobaba).

    This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-29-2005 09:38 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2005 9:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2005 6:32 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

      
    Prev1
    2
    345678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018