Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 9:49 AM
108 online now:
bluegenes, Coragyps, Coyote, Davidjay, edge, kjsimons, Tangle, xongsmith (8 members, 100 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,084 Year: 13,690/21,208 Month: 3,172/3,605 Week: 514/933 Day: 12/40 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   How long does it take to evolve?
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 151 of 221 (770665)
10-11-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by dwise1
10-11-2015 8:09 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
Oh, sure, the ID proponent would say that the Designer was so perfect that She wouldn't have ever had to go to back to the drawing board.

That's actually you putting an argument into someone else's mouth.

NoNukes writes:

Secondly, while a supernatural designer is not bound to reuse developments, there is nothing preventing such a designer from doing so.

dwise1 writes:

And yet we never see that happening. That is what I'm talking about.

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. And I believe I've provided examples of evolution coming up with diverse solutions, which is what you originally argued (wrongly in my opinion) that an intelligent designer should often do.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 8:09 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 9:38 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 10-11-2015 10:07 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 10-13-2015 12:12 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2746
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 152 of 221 (770666)
10-11-2015 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
10-11-2015 8:37 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2015 8:37 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15631
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 153 of 221 (770667)
10-11-2015 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by NoNukes
10-11-2015 8:37 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
NoNukes writes:

dwise1 writes:

Oh, sure, the ID proponent would say that the Designer was so perfect that She wouldn't have ever had to go to back to the drawing board.


That's actually you putting an argument into someone else's mouth.

This seems like an unwarranted criticism. Wasn't it precisely Faith's argument that the designer would have no need to go back to the drawing board, that all the DNA ever needed was seeded into life at the beginning?

NoNukes replying to dwise1 writes:

Your original position is that a intelligent designer would not reuse designs because he need not do that.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see where DWise1 had this as an "original position." Creationist positions vary all over the map, and all one can do is customize one's arguments to the particular creationist argument of the moment.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2015 8:37 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 10:39 PM Percy has responded
 Message 155 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2015 11:22 PM Percy has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2746
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 154 of 221 (770668)
10-11-2015 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
10-11-2015 10:07 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 10-11-2015 10:07 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2015 11:25 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-12-2015 7:35 AM dwise1 has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 155 of 221 (770669)
10-11-2015 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
10-11-2015 10:07 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
This seems like an unwarranted criticism. Wasn't it precisely Faith's argument that the designer would have no need to go back to the drawing board, that all the DNA ever needed was seeded into life at the beginning?

Surely 'Faith said it' is not the standard for what constitutes a reasonable argument.

I see your point. People do use that argument, so it is justified to for someone to repeat it and criticize it. But in my opinion, the argument is both unnecessary to explain reuse and incredibly silly. Yes, attack the argument when someone uses it, but as a method of demonstrating that God would not reuse a design or must resuse a design, the argument stinks.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 10-11-2015 10:07 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 10-12-2015 8:06 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 156 of 221 (770670)
10-11-2015 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by dwise1
10-11-2015 10:39 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
removed

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 10:39 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15631
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 157 of 221 (770673)
10-12-2015 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by dwise1
10-11-2015 10:39 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
Hi DWise1,

My message was a response to NoNukes, so if you're replying to what I said to NoNukes then I guess your reply has me confused. You didn't quote anything, so is it possible you clicked "reply" for the wrong message?

If you *were* replying to me then I guess I'd have to say that, no, I'm not "postulating a supernatural creator...etc..." I was just telling NoNukes that when he said you were putting arguments in someone else's mouth that it seemed to me you were just generalizing around Faith's argument.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 10:39 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 10-12-2015 10:18 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15631
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 158 of 221 (770674)
10-12-2015 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by NoNukes
10-11-2015 11:22 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
NoNukes writes:

This seems like an unwarranted criticism. Wasn't it precisely Faith's argument that the designer would have no need to go back to the drawing board, that all the DNA ever needed was seeded into life at the beginning?

Surely 'Faith said it' is not the standard for what constitutes a reasonable argument.

What I thought I said was that DWise1 was raising an argument along the same lines as Faith, not putting words in anyone's mouth. The argument is not a reasonable one, and few creationist arguments are.

But in my opinion, the argument is both unnecessary to explain reuse and incredibly silly. Yes, attack the argument when someone uses it, but as a method of demonstrating that God would not reuse a design or must resuse a design, the argument stinks.

I interpreted DWise1 as arguing against design reuse, based on the fact that we never see it. To elaborate on DWise1's argument, if every creature was designed then why do we never see octopus eyes (in the sense of placement of the blood vessels) in vertebrae? Was there truly not a single vertebrae that would have been improved with an octopus eye? Another example is the laryngeal nerve, whose path in most vertebrae is adequate, but which in the giraffe is absurd and cries out for borrowing a better design from some other creature. At the heart of this is the fact that we never see homologous structures in unrelated species, only analogous ones.

If I seem to be missing your argument then perhaps you're making a subtle distinction that I'm just not seeing, but then would a creationist see it either.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by NoNukes, posted 10-11-2015 11:22 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2746
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 159 of 221 (770675)
10-12-2015 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
10-12-2015 7:35 AM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
To what NoNukes had said. Sorry about that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-12-2015 7:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Lamden
Junior Member (Idle past 425 days)
Posts: 25
From: Lakewood
Joined: 09-23-2015


Message 160 of 221 (770680)
10-12-2015 2:38 PM


Ok, let's dig a little deeper
You guys really got me to use the noodle. Unfortunately, my time, biological education, and brain power are limited, but this is what I have come up with so far.

Regarding the eye:
A) Even if we accept the notion of gradual evolution.... is each gradual stage not the product of i) a change in DNA code , to ii) gather a different arrangement of amino acids, to iii) form a new variation of protein, to iv) form a new cell, to v) form a new type of tissue, to vi) form a new, improved, 2016 model organ . No matter how slight the improvement is, is that not an astounding chain of events? Even the most miniscule, subtle improvement would require a huge degree of organization. And all this has to happen millions and millions of times, in a limited amount of time.

B) Even if we work with the assumption that such organization could happen, I find it difficult to fathom how the finished product we see today (I know you don't accept that concept, but listen to the point) could have been followed a lineage of constant improvement. For example, imagine you are a manufacturer, assigned to making a car. You can take as long as you want, with as many stages as you desire, but each change you make must be incrementally better than the stage before. That would be a huge handicap, perhaps even crippling. Similarly, The wonders of the eye as we know it seems to good to have overgone such a handicapped development process. I do not want to digress from the subject matter in order to maintain the integrity of the thread, but this applies to all of life.

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.

D) Even if there is a beneficial mutation somewhere somehow, they are so rare that by the time it happened, the beneficial species would be outnumbered a trillion to one. By the time the effects of its beneficial mutation started to increase its population, the other trillion cousins , at all far flung parts of the world, would have multiplied to 1 trillion times ( insert some big number), and have their own representation of beneficial mutations. Repeat. And repeat. And repeat. Life as we know it ought to be far more diverse than it is today.

E) Someone attacked me for being incredulous to science. Er, I accept all of science for what it is, namely, the systematic study of the world we live in. The conclusions we make from our observations is a different story- perhaps we could call it philosophy. ( I actually read somewhere that Hawkings predicted that "science would surpass philosophy- I am thinking about starting a thread for an explanation of what he meant)
Over the weekend, I have discovered a blurb from none other than Thomas Nagel himself decrying the portrayal of Darwinism as gospel. Had I known about it earlier, I certainly would have drawn from such a celebrated name. Although he remains an atheist for reasons that he admits amount to a convenience, his statement as a philosopher is notable.

Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.

Edited by Lamden, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by NoNukes, posted 10-12-2015 2:48 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-12-2015 7:38 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2015 8:33 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 10-12-2015 8:44 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2015 8:56 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 167 by MrHambre, posted 10-12-2015 10:01 PM Lamden has not yet responded
 Message 168 by dwise1, posted 10-13-2015 2:43 AM Lamden has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9548
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 161 of 221 (770681)
10-12-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Lamden
10-12-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Ok, let's dig a little deeper
D) Even if there is a beneficial mutation somewhere somehow, they are so rare that by the time it happened, the beneficial species would be outnumbered a trillion to one.

I understand that you are using hyperbole, but what species has a trillion members? A new phenotype only has to compete with those animals within its own environment. Sometimes that is a completely new niche in which its peers cannot easily compete with the advantaged phenotype.

If you are going to declare that something is mathematically not feasible, at least get your scenario qualitatively in line with reality.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Lamden, posted 10-12-2015 2:38 PM Lamden has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 162 of 221 (770685)
10-12-2015 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by dwise1
10-11-2015 6:18 PM


Re: What is plausible, what can be tested
... somehow constrained to restrict Herself to working with and modifying only that which already exists, to live with and work with every single wrong decision She had made from the very beginning, completely powerless to change even the slightest mistake.

My favorite argument in this line is that you can take the octopus eye and the mammal eye and combine them to create a zoom-lens ability, and never need glasses.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 148 by dwise1, posted 10-11-2015 6:18 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11348
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 163 of 221 (770687)
10-12-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Lamden
10-12-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Ok, let's dig a little deeper
Regarding the eye:
A) Even if we accept the notion of gradual evolution.... is each gradual stage not the product of i) a change in DNA code , to ii) gather a different arrangement of amino acids, to iii) form a new variation of protein, to iv) form a new cell, to v) form a new type of tissue, to vi) form a new, improved, 2016 model organ . No matter how slight the improvement is, is that not an astounding chain of events? Even the most miniscule, subtle improvement would require a huge degree of organization. And all this has to happen millions and millions of times, in a limited amount of time.

Enter: the Hox genes.

They control whole body sections, which can cut out a few of your i)'s and shorten the chain into something less astounding to your point, granted it just shifts the astound to something else.

That links was great, you should check it out. This link isn't as awesome, but it better relates from Hox genes in general, to more about how they can be involved regarding the eye.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Lamden, posted 10-12-2015 2:38 PM Lamden has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18472
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 164 of 221 (770688)
10-12-2015 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Lamden
10-12-2015 2:38 PM


how do you validate concepts?
You guys really got me to use the noodle. Unfortunately, my time, biological education, and brain power are limited, but this is what I have come up with so far.

Stretching is good, except when mental gymnastics are required to make facts fit previously held convictions, rather than leading one to revise convictions that are ... inadequate.

The question is what paradigm do you use to determine what concepts are valid, and what concepts are invalid. How do you test your opinions? Your beliefs?

Regarding the eye:
...No matter how slight the improvement is, is that not an astounding chain of events? ...

Nope. As noted we have evidence of many many many organisms that exhibit all these intermediate sensory abilities, and this demonstrates unequivocally that those intermediate stages are both viable and beneficial in allowing these organisms to survive and breed.

... For example, imagine you are a manufacturer, assigned to making a car. You can take as long as you want, with as many stages as you desire, but each change you make must be incrementally better than the stage before. That would be a huge handicap, perhaps even crippling. ...

And yet every automobile corporation is engaged in just this process, year after year. Cars as an example, actually counter your argument, with this caveat -- your opinion of what is better doesn't count, what counts is whether the new model is successful.

D) Even if there is a beneficial mutation somewhere somehow, they are so rare that by the time it happened, the beneficial species would be outnumbered a trillion to one. ...

Do you understand what the differences are between a beneficial mutation, a neutral mutation and a deleterious mutation? I ask because I don't think you do.

... I have discovered a blurb from none other than Thomas Nagel himself ... Had I known about it earlier, I certainly would have drawn from such a celebrated name. ...

What a person says does not become true because that person says it, if it is true it is true independently, and a person saying it is just reflecting that truth, no matter who it is. To cite someone, as validation of a position, is known as the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 160 by Lamden, posted 10-12-2015 2:38 PM Lamden has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15631
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 165 of 221 (770689)
10-12-2015 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Lamden
10-12-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Ok, let's dig a little deeper
Lamden writes:

Regarding the eye:
A) Even if we accept the notion of gradual evolution.... is each gradual stage not the product of i) a change in DNA code , to ii) gather a different arrangement of amino acids, to iii) form a new variation of protein, to iv) form a new cell, to v) form a new type of tissue, to vi) form a new, improved, 2016 model organ.

So you're imagining that evolution would produce a new organ, like a kidney? Why? When mammals first evolved, they already had kidneys. Mammals evolved from reptiles, and when reptiles first evolved they already had kidneys. Reptiles evolved from fish, and when fish first evolved they already had kidneys. Whatever fish evolved from may or may not have had kidneys, but whatever the case, kidneys go way back in evolutionary time, as do other organs. (I'm oversimplifying evolutionary history, by the way.)

New organs aren't expected to evolve very often. Hearts and livers and kidneys and lungs (or gills) all go way, way back in evolutionary time. They originated in incipient form as just a specialized cell or few cells that provided a small survival/reproductive advantage, and they became more specialized and adapted over generations.

But new organs *can* evolve. The baleen whale evolved a new organ in its mouth that helps it feed, though we don't know the specifics of how or when.

B) Even if we work with the assumption that such organization could happen, I find it difficult to fathom how the finished product we see today (I know you don't accept that concept, but listen to the point) could have been followed a lineage of constant improvement. For example, imagine you are a manufacturer, assigned to making a car. You can take as long as you want, with as many stages as you desire, but each change you make must be incrementally better than the stage before.

Not better than before, just better adapted than before. The eyes of blind cave fish are not better than their evolutionary predecessors, but they *are* better adapted to living in a lightless cave. Better is a relative term.

D) Even if there is a beneficial mutation somewhere somehow, they are so rare...

Each human child averages around a hundred mutations. Over a hundred million children are born every year, so that's at least 10 billion new mutations. Every year. Year after year. If only one out of a billion mutations are advantageous, that's 10 new advantageous mutations. Every year. Year after year. I don't know the actual rate of favorable mutations, I'm just trying to help you see that the odds are much better than you think.

E)Someone attacked me for being incredulous to science. Er, I accept all of science for what it is,...

If I could quote you from your opening, when it comes to evolution your "biological education...[is] limited." You're right to be skeptical about the things you believe to be true about evolution, but you're misinformed.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Lamden, posted 10-12-2015 2:38 PM Lamden has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017