|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Bolder-dash.
Bolder-dash writes: Because all you have done with your post is to try to jump on a bandwagon, while saying nothing. That is not a fair debate. ...says the guy who adamantly ignored me until I said something sufficiently substanceless that he could figure out what I was saying. Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Hey look, I am truly sorry to have offended anyone personally. I was just being playful about the Lucky Charms. To me the answers you give defy all common sense. That's why I view them as nonsensical and wishful magic.
My train of thought had to do with the very first creature that had a skull, a brain and eyes. According to the theory of evolution that wasn't a human being anyway so whatever that creature would have been would need to be my point of argument. Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design. I have several inventions I am building, a full time job, a senior mother to attend to, a daughter and four grandkids that need my attention as well as church activities and most importantly making time to seek my Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I have so many good arguments to roll your way but knowing I will never penetrate your walls of defense with my best explanations I have to put it on the bottom of my priority list to spend any more time with this. Sheesh man, this stuff begins to consume all your thoughts after awhile and becomes overwhelming. I just have too many, much more important things to occupy my mind. Please forgive any harsh and offensive comments I have made in my frustration on these topics and I pray that God will find a way to help you see the truth of his existence and the sacrifice he made for each and every one of you in the death of his son Jesus Christ.....TO HIM BE THE GLORY ICDESIGN
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design.
Sorry, that is not obvious. In fact, it is not what the evidence shows. In the fossil record we can see the change over time as this trait develops. Check out the various science websites that deal with this subject and take a look at the evidence. Don't just assume, for non-scientific reasons, that it can't exist. That is apologetics. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
To me the answers you give defy all common sense. Frequently science uncovers truths that defy our common-sense notions about the world. But where science and common sense differ, there's no reason to believe that "common sense" is more reliable. "Common sense" is just another term for the workaday stereotypes, biases, rules of thumb, and other approximations we use to simplify cognition. Science is a more rigorous means of determining what is true than "common sense."
Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design. I don't find that obvious at all, not least of which because that's exactly what happened.
I have so many good arguments to roll your way but knowing I will never penetrate your walls of defense with my best explanations Here's a thought - instead of trying to trick us with your arguments, why not ask questions and expand your knowledge about the natural world? It's obvious you've never studied any biology. If you're interested in how living things work, why don't you start? This is the invitation I give to all creationists, but for some reason it's universally ignored.
I just have too many, much more important things to occupy my mind. More important than the study of the natural world? Your priorities are all messed up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Bluejay, the primary reason I did not respond to this post is simply because I don't believe it is not grounded in anything true, so the most I would be able to say is essentially, 'That's not true."
For instance:
I think you’re suffering from a misinterpretation of scale here. Evolution is a broad-scale phenomenon. The Theory of Evolution is only meant to explain what will result when there is differential fitness between organisms over time. It has nothing to do with our judgments about what is beautiful and what is ugly; nor about what is good and what is evil. When you refer to these dichotomous ambiguities, you are really only dealing in the finer-scale field of ecology, which has a large number of theories and hypotheses to explain its internal dynamics. Ecological theories are usually based on the concept of fitness. It asks the question of how organisms can be successful when they employ a certain strategy or lifestyle. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with things on this scale. As far as I am concerned this is simply not true at all. The theory of evolution most certainly does try explain every one of these aspects of life. if you know of another alternative theory that is attempting to answer how and why these things in lfe are the way they are, please cite those theories. I would be very curious to see how they are separate from the ToE.
That there are multiple ways to achieve fitness is not a weakness of the Theory of Evolution, because ToE is not meant to detail the mechanisms that can lead to fitness. It is only meant to detail the outcome of changing fitness. Again, just not true. The ToE is meant to deal with what mechanisms lead to that fitness. If it wasn't meant to deal with this, than Lamarck-ism would be just as compatible with your theory as would Darwinism. Likewise a divine intervention controlling those mechanisms would fit your theory just as well also. So all I can say is I don't agree that what you are saying it true. What are these other theories that deal with the finer details?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The ToE is meant to deal with what mechanisms lead to that fitness. Natural selection and random mutation are what lead to organisms being fit to survive in their environment.
If it wasn't meant to deal with this, than Lamarck-ism would be just as compatible with your theory as would Darwinism. Lamarkism is disproven merely by observation. Organisms generally do not pass along characteristics they acquire in life. The children of pirates are not born with hooks and peg-legs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design. It's as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not be the result of any kind of a planned design but rather had to have evolved through natural selection and random mutation. Hey, assertion is easier than argument! And to think of all the years biologists have wasted producing evidence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design. So then obviously this would have had to be designed in the hagfish then again in the lampreys and then in the sharks & rays and then in the ray finned fish and then in the lungfish and then in the amphibians and then in the reptiles & birds and then again in the mammals. Seems like your designer is very inept or just plain stupid. The fact is the eyes evolved before the cranium. The chordate eye predates the hagfish. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's interesting in this connection to note that the bones of the skull are dermal bone. Obviously they go around the openings for the eyes and mouth because so does the skin. There's no way that dermal bone could do anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1301 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
Its as obvious as the eyes on your face that the eye sockets in the skull would not have evolved through any kind of natural selection and random mutation but rather had to be the result of a planned design. But the skull of this early ancestor was not a shrunken version of our own skull. It was not necessary for everything to evolve at once. For an example look at the sharks skull. There is a brain case, which in sharks is made of cartilage just like the rest of the skeleton. There is no eye sockets as such, with the jaws being a completely separate section. It would be later in our evolution ossification occurred and the various elements which make up our skull became one contiguous unit, and by that point the eyes would already be developed.It's important to remember, as others have pointed out, that our skeleton is not a preordained blueprint in our genes. During development the cells act like a colony reacting to the local environment, in this case other cells. So nerve cells in the brain are not going to grow through the cartilage that will later become the skull, just as cartilage for the skull is not going to be laid down through the eyes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4828 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
More important than the study of the natural world? Your priorities are all messed up. Who are you to dictate what is important to me? The only thing that made the time I spent on this site worthwhile is that I am more convinced than ever how wrong the theory of evolution is.Here is the cool thing about truth though; It doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think. The truth doesn't change because of what we believe. If every single person on the planet thinks the truth is black but the truth in reality is white? Guess what? At the end of the day truth will be white. All of you are betting your lives that Darwin is right. I am betting my life that the Holy Bible is right.....see you at the end of the day.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes:
First of all, lots of people believe both in god and are convinced by the evidence for evolution. Second, you're wong, 'twas the Koran, see you in hell.
All of you are betting your lives that Darwin is right. I am betting my life that the Holy Bible is right.....see you at the end of the day.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The only thing that made the time I spent on this site worthwhile is that I am more convinced than ever how wrong the theory of evolution is. In which you differ from biologists, who know about biology.
All of you are betting your lives that Darwin is right. No.
I am betting my life that the Holy Bible is right. No. What a strange pair of statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes:
All of you are betting your lives that Darwin is right. I am betting my life that the Holy Bible is right.....see you at the end of the day...quote: So YOU reject the will and gift of the Creator, limit God, commit an act of hubris, condemn your children to a life of ignorance.
And you think that when you stand in judgment before Jesus he will not send you off with the rest of the Goats? I will pray for your enlightenment, you poor lost soul. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Dash.
Bolder-dash writes: The ToE is meant to deal with what mechanisms lead to that fitness. If it wasn't meant to deal with this, than Lamarck-ism would be just as compatible with your theory as would Darwinism. The modern ToE, as you know, has two premises: (1) random mutations, and (2) natural selection. These are more accurately viewed as assumptions of the model than as actual components of the model. The ToE states that, if and when both of those premises are working in the system, evolution will result. Each of the two premises is governed by its own set of related theories and studies. Random mutations are random because their pattern of occurrence in nature is essentially unpredictable. Thus, any mechanism for mutations that results in an unpredictable pattern of occurrence is compatible with the ToE. Natural selection is a collective description of many different mechanisms that result in differential survival of organisms. These mechanisms occur on the scale of individual organisms. So, once again, this is not evolution, but just a factor that contributes to evolution. When a chemist or molecular geneticist studies the chemical mechanisms (such as tautomerism or deamination) that cause mutations, he is not studying the ToE. When an ecologist (such as myself) studies food web dynamics (e.g. optimal foraging theory or niche theory) or dispersal patterns (e.g. island biogeography theory), he is not studying the ToE. However, they are both studying evolutionary biology, which is a collection of theories and concepts that interrelates with the ToE. ToE has very little to do with explaining these mechanisms or their effects (i.e. ugliness vs beauty, altruism vs evil, etc). These mechanisms deal only with the attributes and behaviors of individual organisms. In Darwinian evolution, individual organisms do not evolve (contrast this with Lamarkian evolution, in which individual organisms do evolve): so, Darwinian evolution is not happening on these scales. Fitness describes the fit of an organism to its environment. So, mechanisms leading to fitness only deal with individual organisms, and how those individual organisms fit their environment. Since individual organisms do not evolve in the Darwinian model, this is not part of the ToE. The ToE comes into play when we compare multiple organisms to each other. Organisms that fit their environment well will generally survive and proliferate well, whereas organisms that do not fit their environment well will not generally survive and proliferate well. Since the traits that determine fitness can be passed on from parent to offspring, over many generations, we should see a relative amplification of those traits the increase the fit of organisms to their environment, and a relative depletion of those traits that decrease the fit of organisms to their environment. Because evolution involves multiple different organisms, it is essentially one massive trial-and-error experiment. Many things that come up via mutation work, and many things that come up do not. So, we see a huge diversity of successful, living things; and a huge diversity of unsuccessful, extinct things. We also see the conditions for success changing somewhat over time, both locally and globally, such that more and more is required of organisms in order to survive and proliferate successfully. Eventually, as selection puts exerts more and more unique pressures on organisms, we see an accumulation of fit traits, and a depletion of unfit traits. Thus, over time, organisms start to look like they were special-made for their ecologies, because, in a sense, they were. But, the necessity for intelligence in any of this is, at best, very uncertain. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024