Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 225 (737642)
09-27-2014 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:06 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
Everyone thinks that they are right, but very few people ever think that maybe, just maybe, someone else has a point.
You did not have a point.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:06 PM Bookworm7890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:35 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Bookworm7890
Junior Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 13
From: mississippi
Joined: 09-25-2014


Message 32 of 225 (737643)
09-27-2014 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
09-27-2014 10:28 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
Nonukes, my point was that we should at least think about what the other group has to say, and look at the evidence with an open mind, before calling them wrong. From now on, if anyone has something to say to me that is not about wether or not flight could have evolved, pleaee pm me. We are cluttering up the thread with arguing and insulting each other! If you want to argue,argue about evolution/creation and present evidence. Also, anyone who wants to insult me go ahead and pm me that as well. That way you wont look like jerks. (To everyone else at least.)

"Science isn't about why, it's about why not! -cave johhnson, (Fictional character.)
Only two things are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity, and i am not sure about the first one.- albert einstein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2014 10:28 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 10:39 PM Bookworm7890 has replied
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2014 12:21 AM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 33 of 225 (737644)
09-27-2014 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:27 AM


Re: Reply to subbie
I see that both Cat Sci and Tangled have provided information for you. Is that sufficient to answer your questions?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:27 AM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 34 of 225 (737646)
09-27-2014 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:35 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
I not only think about what creationists say, I've read many, many of their writings. Given the level of understanding that the typical creationist has about evolution, I'm quite confident that I've read a LOT more creationist product than they have read science.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:35 PM Bookworm7890 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:59 PM subbie has replied

  
Bookworm7890
Junior Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 13
From: mississippi
Joined: 09-25-2014


Message 35 of 225 (737652)
09-27-2014 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by subbie
09-27-2014 10:39 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
Subbie, what you say is Sad yet true,this is another reason i started the backwards debate. I wanted for both sides to understand each other. It is sad that we say that others are wrong without even knowing what the other has to say. To creationists: what would jesus say about how you just attack another persons belief without listening to what they have to say? The bible says "do unto other as you would have them do unto you!" And to evolutionists: did our ancestors crawl/slither/ooze/flop out of the ocean just so that their descendants could argue all day without at least thinking about what our opponent has to say? And to everyone: I know several children who act more mature than you lot! The least you could do is read what the other side has written, pay attention to what they say, and appreciate the effort they put into supporting what they believe!
Be you creationist, evolutionist, or somewhere in between, please listen, care, and understand. We dont have to be enemies just because we disagree.
Edited by Bookworm7890, : First sentence made no sense
Edited by Bookworm7890, : Accidental insult and a typo

"Science isn't about why, it's about why not! -cave johhnson, (Fictional character.)
Only two things are infinite, the universe, and human stupidity, and i am not sure about the first one.- albert einstein.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 10:39 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 09-27-2014 11:36 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied
 Message 37 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-28-2014 12:03 AM Bookworm7890 has not replied
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 09-28-2014 2:43 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 225 (737654)
09-27-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:59 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
Bookworm7890 writes:
Subbie, what you say is Sad yet true,this is another reason i started the backwards debate. I wanted for both sides to understand each other. It is sad that we say that others are wrong without even knowing what the other has to say.
I hope you'll forgive me if I doubt the sincerity of this. The fact that you could even ask the questions you asked at the beginning of this thread demonstrates quite clearly that you have read very little, if any, about the Theory of Evolution. If in fact you are saddened by the things you claim, I'd suggest the best first step for you to take would be to follow your own advice and read something about the Theory of Evolution before you start taking badly aimed potshots at it.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:59 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 37 of 225 (737655)
09-28-2014 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:59 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
And to everyone: I know several children who act more mature than you lot! The least you could do is read what the other side has written, pay attention to what they say, and appreciate the effort they put into supporting what they believe!
You may be indulging in some projection here. Given the religious demographic of North America, the majority of people who understand and accept evolutionary theory were raised in creationist homes. I know I was. Unlike you, I do understand the subject from both sides.
It was an honest appraisal of just how little substance supported my efforts to cling to belief over evidence that led me to accept that I was wrong. You should understand that "the effort... put into supporting..." an idea is irrelevant. What matters is evidence. Creationists appear to have none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:59 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2014 9:47 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 38 of 225 (737656)
09-28-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:35 PM


Nonukes, my point was that we should at least think about what the other group has to say, and look at the evidence with an open mind, before calling them wrong.
Why do you assume that this hasn't happened? At least when I call creationists wrong, this is indeed the terminus of extensive research into the evidence and of an unnecessarily long and painful study of what creationists think. Now I get to call them wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:35 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 39 of 225 (737658)
09-28-2014 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bookworm7890
09-27-2014 10:06 PM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
BW writes:
creationists do not say " squid are so awesome that they cannot possibly be the result of evolution!
That's exactly what most of them say. And for the few that don't say it, that's their core reason. They look at the complexities of life and declare that it must have been designed.
I have some sympathy for this view, until you examine the evidence for evolution it's hard to imagine. The biggest barrier though is not lack of education and imagination, it's a previously held belief in ancient religious books and their particular shaman's teaching of what they mean.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bookworm7890, posted 09-27-2014 10:06 PM Bookworm7890 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 369 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 225 (737660)
09-28-2014 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
09-27-2014 2:43 PM


"Likely true"? Well - if it's down to probability, what is the probability of an eye evolving 40 times by convergence? Shall I be generous and say the chances of eye evolution are 1 in 2? That would then be 1 in 3 X 340.
If I say that that's only the third dumbest thing I've seen all week, that's only because you have some very talented competition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 2:43 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2014 10:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
vimesey
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(7)
Message 41 of 225 (737661)
09-28-2014 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
09-27-2014 2:43 PM


Probability is a pain
"Likely true"? Well - if it's down to probability, what is the probability of an eye evolving 40 times by convergence? Shall I be generous and say the chances of eye evolution are 1 in 2? That would then be 1 in 3 X 340. Is it likely true that the aggregate eye of the Trilobite solved the problems with optics?
Probability is a tricky area, and you're making the mistake of looking at the odds of the particular result, instead of the odds of a successful result.
A fair analogy is the lottery. For our non-UK readers, the lottery here chooses 6 numbers, from 1 to 49. The odds of any one particular combination occurring are around one in 14 million.
However, the odds of a successful combination occurring is (I'm guessing from the number of rollovers) currently around 3 in 5. This is obviously due to the number of tickets people buy.
Evolution doesn't require a particular winning combination. It just requires any winning combination, whatever it may be.
And with every organism in a species getting a free ticket, the odds of successful evolution in that species are very high.
So the odds of me, Vimesey, being the end product of millions of years of evolution, sitting here in Brum, typing this - vanishingly small. The odds of some life form being here filling the biological niche I fill - virtually certain.
Evolution fired its arrow at the wall, and hit it where I am. You're looking to paint a target around the point of impact, and claim that the arrow must have hit there by design, because the odds of it hitting that particular point on the wall is tiny.
In reality, evolution just has to hit the wall.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 09-27-2014 2:43 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2014 10:08 AM vimesey has not replied
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 09-28-2014 10:53 AM vimesey has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 42 of 225 (737672)
09-28-2014 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Capt Stormfield
09-28-2014 12:03 AM


Re: Reply to capt stormfield.
It was an honest appraisal of just how little substance supported my efforts to cling to belief over evidence that led me to accept that I was wrong. You should understand that "the effort... put into supporting..." an idea is irrelevant. What matters is evidence. Creationists appear to have none.
By implication you're saying that because you had set of reasons X, and you come to believe you were wrong, that that makes creation and creationists wrong. By implication if you say, "I was wrong" that would mean we are also wrong.
If that is the case, you commit the Ad Logicam fallacy.
If two people share the same conclusion, this does not mean that if one person's reasons for inferring that conclusion are wrong, that the other person is wrong.
EXAMPLE:
1. mike is a pig. pigs are animals, therefore mike is a human.
2. mike has every element that makes a human, therefore mike is human.
Captain, you are saying that because you personally came to the belief in Creation, and you think you are now wrong, that this means creation is wrong, creationists are wrong and there is no evidence for creation because we all believe and reason as you believed and reasoned. But it seems to me your abilities to reason are still the same.
It does not follow. If you are saying that your reasons were wrong, so that is why you believe creation is wrong, then that means that you have believed in a non-sequtir, ad logicam fallacy, for if I believed that gravity was true because I hate Mondays, that would not mean gravity is not true when I came to discover that Mondays doesn't mean it is true.
Chances are, the way you see things and reason, always spoke more about you than about the clear-cut Creation evidence all around us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-28-2014 12:03 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Capt Stormfield, posted 09-28-2014 11:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 43 of 225 (737674)
09-28-2014 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by vimesey
09-28-2014 4:24 AM


Re: Probability is a pain
You're a smart guy. But then answer always comes in the end. I admit this is a challenge to me, and I seldom feel challenged. You've got mikey on the ropes but he's a rope-a-dope. And the last rope-a-dope was, "the greatest."
Evolution fired its arrow at the wall, and hit it where I am. You're looking to paint a target around the point of impact, and claim that the arrow must have hit there by design, because the odds of it hitting that particular point on the wall is tiny.
This is Begging-The-Question because it assumes that you can compare a certain outcome with evolution, and thereby you have assumed that evolution is a "certain outcome". You have conflated a "certain outcome" with a posteriori-knowledge. A lottery win is certain, because the chances of anyone winning is close to 1 in 1, but is the chances of evolution happening, a "certain outcome"?
Example:
It is a certain outcome or nearly 1 in 1, that SOMEONE will win the lottery. But for a particular person to win the lottery is 1 in 14 million.
So let's say Jane wins the lottery, you could then say:" You're looking to paint a target around the point of impact, and claim that the arrow must have hit there by design"
BUT, the difference is that someone was going to win certainly. Whereas you have to prove that evolution was going to happen. It's only fortuitous that our knowledge of SOMETHING happening, is posteriori, which means we already know we are "here".
A fair analogy is the lottery. For our non-UK readers, the lottery here chooses 6 numbers, from 1 to 49. The odds of any one particular combination occurring are around one in 14 million.
And with every organism in a species getting a free ticket, the odds of successful evolution in that species are very high.
I would equate a "free ticket" as an equivocation of what we mean. You're very smart but like you say, probability is tricky, and first you have to prove free-tickets by showing that the mechanisms of evolution inevitably lead to new information in gene pools, and novel designs. You have not proven that evolution is unlimited, and the facts show that a culling and a loss of information, is usually prevailent and the general picture that we observe, as direct evidence, whereas we don't observe new machinery such as a new motor in the ATP synthase or the Kinesin motor. These small machines should be easy-tickets for evolution yet we don't see that the limited abilities of adaptation can achieve anything of the sort.
In reality, evolution just has to hit the wall.
Herein lies the easiness of knowledge-from-hinsight - what can anyone know about what evolution would produce, apriori?
Probability is only useful BEFORE. Is it "probable" that evolution can create at least 40 eyes by convergence? even if we say it is very easy, say 1 in 3, we have to multiply the consecutive coincidences, including not just eyes, but the chances of life being there by chance to begin with, and the chances of all of the homoplasies that exist, etc...
Would you say to me, "well, that spider appeared on your wall, but the probability is irrelevant because we know it's there!"
No - because if it happens again in the same place, we MULTIPLY the probability. So then if ONE thing evolved we could argue, "ah well, it was a free ticket" - but to argue the same thing again would be to argue the spider to the next night, appear on the same spot, the circle you drawn on the wall. Now the spider appears there on the same spot, every night, for 40 nights.
It's the same with evolution, we look into the past and we know that the same things would have had to happen consecutively, hundreds and hundreds of times, if we invoke "convergence" and mathematically, your example, though clever, can only be equated to evolution happening once, mathematically.
I could be wrong. But I doubt I am. Unusual things aren't guaranteed to happen, if they are still very unusual to the extreme. I can expect a "12" on my toy, but if it happens every day for the next year? Then that would be equatable to evolution's probabilities, coupled with the chances of abiogenesis, which are the same as a solar system packed with people, all solving a rubix cube consecutively.
Now would you then say after the event, "well, it was bound to happen, people win the lottery". LOl! RoFLmAO!!
Probability, in regards to one event, is not the same looking back in time, as a set of events. So your analogy would have to be multiple lotteries, because evolution argue multiple homoplasies.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by vimesey, posted 09-28-2014 4:24 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 09-28-2014 12:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 225 (737675)
09-28-2014 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2014 3:52 AM


Now if you could just say what is "dumb" about it. Did you mean the typo-error? I pressed "2" instead of "3".
Is it dumb that when flipping a coin, the chances of getting heads are 1 in 2. So then to achieve a heads 100 times in a row, would be 1 in 2 multiplied by 2, onwe hundred times.
the third dumbest thing I've seen all week
And my opinion is that you are a highly intelligent person, knowledgeable, and I often enjoy our encounters because that comes across when you put forth a goof challenge and may you have a pleasant day. Bless you sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2014 3:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2014 11:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 45 of 225 (737676)
09-28-2014 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2014 3:54 PM


You asked what the probability of the eye evolving is.
To answer that, we're going to have to use the path that evolution posits.
How could you possibly think that you could calculate the probability of the eye evolving by using some other method of getting there besides evolution?
Fair enough, I misunderstoof your intentions. It seemed you were making it easy to believe in an eye evolution as something guaranteed, sorry for the error.
(Sorry if I can't answer everyone all the time, usually I have to answer many posts, and sometimes it's best to just choose one or two randomly if you are debating many people.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2014 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024