Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1066 of 1311 (815850)
07-25-2017 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1059 by Dredge
07-25-2017 2:35 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green?
Science knows the answer to both of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by Dredge, posted 07-25-2017 2:35 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:30 AM ringo has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 1067 of 1311 (815854)
07-25-2017 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by CRR
07-24-2017 11:53 PM


Re: Self replicating molecule
CRR writes:
Nice fairy story, but that's all it is.
Aren't you the one who believes that a supernatural deity spoke the universe into being?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by CRR, posted 07-24-2017 11:53 PM CRR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 1068 of 1311 (815855)
07-25-2017 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by Dredge
07-25-2017 2:35 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Why did God make a bunch of primates that are like humans in many ways, yet different? I don't know. It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green? Or even, why did God make Dredge super-duper-intelligent and incredibly handsome? There are many mysteries.
If you can't explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not evidence for a Common Designer. You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by Dredge, posted 07-25-2017 2:35 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2017 1:57 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 1075 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:21 AM Taq has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1069 of 1311 (815859)
07-25-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1068 by Taq
07-25-2017 1:17 PM


More Interesting questions ...
You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer.
For three additional reasons.
  1. If it is claimed that they are elements of design that are copied from one species to another, then why do the shared characteristics only appear where there is a lineage with a nested hierarchy and in no other lineage or hierarchy. Why there and only there?
  2. Why aren't characteristics ever combined from a number of different lineages in order to form a superior characteristic in any species:
    1. The octopus eye has a fixed lens and focuses the image by moving the retina to the desired focal length,
    2. The mammal eye has a fixed retina and a flexible lens that can be shaped to focus the image on the retina,
    3. Combining both focal systems would give the organism zoom lenses to see any distance at any magnification desired. Human designers have accomplished this feat of design.
  3. Then there is the question of the purpose of the design, where we of course have the alternative of the Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... which claims that design is for the amusement and entertainment of the god/s. How do you know what kind of designer would be involved?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : more

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 1068 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:17 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1070 of 1311 (815879)
07-26-2017 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1052 by Taq
07-24-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Taq writes:
When did magical proofing become a reasonable explanation?
The point is not whether life being magically poofed into existence is reasonable or not; rather, whether it's true or not. When did reality become confined to what humans think is reasonable?
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 1:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1086 by Taq, posted 07-26-2017 11:06 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1071 of 1311 (815880)
07-26-2017 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Taq
07-24-2017 1:19 PM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Taq writes:
Here's a bit of advice. Grow up.
I'm gonna tell on you for saying that!
Point 1. You have taken Dredge's important statement of fact and - somehow - interpreted it as a vacuous insult.
Point 2. If you think any scientific yarns regarding what happened on earth billions of years ago carry any weight, then your appetite for science-fiction rivals that of any
Trekkie. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way of testing any claims made by scientists about what happened so long ago, so such claims add up to nothing more than scientifically-worthless stories. But atheists love to incorporate this sort of pseudo-scientific babble into their canon of theology - it makes them feel intellectually fulfilled. (Evidently, their standards of intellectual and scientific rigour are quite low ... little wonder they find it easy to accept Darwinism.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Taq, posted 07-24-2017 1:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Taq, posted 07-26-2017 11:08 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1072 of 1311 (815881)
07-26-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1044 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2017 10:02 AM


Re: Insecticide resistance
NewCatsEye writes:
You don't think that snakes can talk, do you?
It's likely that when the serpent "spoke" to Eve, it may not have been in an audible voice, but something telepathic (if that's the right word), as when humans become demonically influenced or possessed - ie, the demon's thoughts reach the victim's mind. 👿 ....😱. When Satan entered Judas Iscariot (during the Last Supper) and compelled him to commit his act of betrayal, do you suppose he heard an audible voice coming from somewhere, or did he "hear" the devil's "voice" in his mind?
And as is evident from Mark 5, demons can enter animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1044 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2017 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 8:37 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 1073 of 1311 (815882)
07-26-2017 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1058 by PaulK
07-25-2017 12:17 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
PaulK writes:
For creationists, of course, the problem is that we don't find convincing evidence of separate creations. Such evidence should be quite widespread if creationism were true.
If creation be true, we would expect the fossil record to be characterised sudden appearance and stasis ...
"The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." S. J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2017 12:17 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2017 2:31 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1080 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2017 7:20 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1074 of 1311 (815883)
07-26-2017 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by ringo
07-24-2017 11:45 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Ringo writes:
Dredge writes:
No one knows what happened billions of years ago.
So you reject astronomy too? Because what astronomers are seeing today is what happened a long time ago.
I didn't know astronomy can tell us what happened on earth billions of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by ringo, posted 07-24-2017 11:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by ringo, posted 07-26-2017 3:09 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1075 of 1311 (815884)
07-26-2017 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1068 by Taq
07-25-2017 1:17 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Taq writes:
If you can't explain why a Common Designer would produce a nested hierarchy, then a nested hierarchy is not evidence for a Common Designer. You can't claim that the shared characteristics are evidence of a Common Designer.
Agree. But the existence of nested hierarchies doesn't rule out the existence of a Common Designer. How do know the Creator doesn't have a penchant for nested hierarchies?
Why does Porsche, for example, make different models of sports cars? Their models are similar, but different. The answer is: Because they want to.
Why did God create many different kinds of eucalyptus trees? Because he wanted to.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by Taq, posted 07-25-2017 1:17 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by Taq, posted 07-26-2017 11:11 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1076 of 1311 (815885)
07-26-2017 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1066 by ringo
07-25-2017 11:51 AM


Re: Interesting question...
ringo writes:
Dredge writes:
It's a bit like asking, why did God make the sky blue and grass green?
Science knows the answer to both of those.
God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1066 by ringo, posted 07-25-2017 11:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1092 by ringo, posted 07-26-2017 3:12 PM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1077 of 1311 (815886)
07-26-2017 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Dredge
07-26-2017 1:54 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Dredge writes:
If creation be true, we would expect the fossil record to be characterised sudden appearance and stasis ...
"The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." S. J. Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.
And still they dishonestly quote mine despite it being pointed out over and over that Gould was a confirmed 'evolutionist'.
quote:
Gould, in this article and many more over the next twenty years, consistently and extensively explained his position and the evidence for evolution, including transitional forms found in the fossil record. The constant abuse of the body of Gould's life's work in the face of this is not merely dishonest, it is despicable.
Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes
Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"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 1073 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:54 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1078 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:39 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 1090 by dwise1, posted 07-26-2017 3:00 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


(1)
Message 1078 of 1311 (815887)
07-26-2017 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Tangle
07-26-2017 2:31 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Tangle writes:
And still they dishonestly quote mine despite it being pointed out over and over that Gould was a confirmed 'evolutionist' ... Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake?
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. Predictably, many other atheists accepted PE as sound "science" ... any tin-pot idea will do, as long as it isn't creationism!
... Which reminds me of another committed atheist, Salvador Dali, who said, "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it."
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2017 2:31 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1079 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2017 3:03 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1089 by Taq, posted 07-26-2017 11:13 AM Dredge has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1079 of 1311 (815888)
07-26-2017 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1078 by Dredge
07-26-2017 2:39 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Dredge writes:
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. Predictably, many other atheists accepted PE as sound "science" ... any tin-pot idea will do, as long as it isn't creationism!
Gould was what he said he was, an 'evolutionist'.
... Which reminds me of another committed atheist, Salvador Dali, who said, "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it."
Now you quote a surrealist???

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"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 1078 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:39 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 1080 of 1311 (815893)
07-26-2017 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Dredge
07-26-2017 1:54 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
I love it when creationists quote-mine Gould. I'll do it, too:
Stephen Jay Gould writes:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
So, Dredge, did you quote Gould because of your stupidity?
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1073 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:54 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 8:16 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 1101 by Dredge, posted 07-28-2017 1:26 AM Pressie has 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