Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 8:00 AM
40 online now:
JoeT, RAZD (2 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,160 Year: 15,196/19,786 Month: 1,919/3,058 Week: 293/404 Day: 11/96 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A serious question to evolutionists
Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 15 (18141)
09-24-2002 11:52 AM


Lets first begin with a human eye-brow and why it is there and how it evolved according to some evolutionists:

Its function is said to be that it keeps the sweat away from our eyes.
You and me are both agreable on that.

Further that it havent always been there and that it has evolved through natural selection, there the creationist turn right and the evolutionist left and they both claim that theyre way is the right way.
But after reading this I hope you wont make any wrong turns.

First of all evolution through natural selection doesnt have a CONCIENCE, so as to say it cant plan ahead or determine ANYTHING.
Just wanted to make that clear.

So in order for even a single hair above the eye to arise, a mutation (replacement of the genetical structure of the DNA) have had to occure.
Most of the people know that mutations are almost always harmful or at its peak, inefficient.
That is to say, that the probabilities for a mutation to occur is very ,very low.
Then the probability for this new hair to arise just at the convenient spot (above the eye to prevent the sweat reaching the eye)is also very ,very low.
Then finally and here`s the important bit,( because improbabilities tend to be widely accepted by evolutionists) is that ONE hair isnt enough to make ANY sort of advantage to the bearer.
Its just an ineffective material that doesnt improve its chance to reproduce.
That specie would have to wait thousands of years inorder for another hairstring to be misplaced in the convenient symmetrical spot next to the first hair string.
And on and on for millions of years until it has gathered enough hair to start to make a function(Preventing sweat).Again, evolution HAS no CONCIENCE so it could not have known from the beggining that this was going to be the final product.How does evolutionists explain this simple example , And keep in mind that this is nothing compared to the complex organs that exists in nature and whereas all components have to be there right from the beginning, slow progress is completely out of the question in those cases.
I hope youll be able to give a descent answer to my question and ill always try to response back. Good luck

------------------


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-24-2002 12:29 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 12:33 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Jeff, posted 09-24-2002 3:07 PM Delshad has not yet responded
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 10:44 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 2 of 15 (18145)
09-24-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-24-2002 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Lets first begin with a human eye-brow and why it is there and how it evolved according to some evolutionists:

Its function is said to be that it keeps the sweat away from our eyes.
You and me are both agreable on that.


Depends what you mean by "function" - it's a loaded term.

If used in a purposive sense it may give the impression that the eyebrow is somehow intended to perform that function. This teleological approach may be too strong.

However, you may mean simply that the eyebrow is there, and being there, keeps sweat out of the eye, and by keeping sweat out of the eye confers a slight selective advantage and therefore we can talk, after the fact, of its de facto function.

I hate analogical reasoning, but let me try ...

I have a screwdriver which I use for opening paint tins. It's function is a paint tin opener, but that is not its purposive function: it was not designed for that. But it is now used only for this , so its de facto function is as a paint tin opener. When I went through my old tools in spring for a charity garage sale, I selected the old screwdriver and kept it back - for its function as a tin opener, though it was never intended to be one.

You see, evolution does not need to plan ahead. It simply doesn't work that way. The screwdriver had no plan to be a paint tin opener - but it happened to do the job and now it survives in my tool box. And, by the way, the special paint tin opener given me by HomeBase last time I bought paint there: that was one of the first things chucked into the garage sale! Who needs it when I have an old, rather bashed about, imperfect, but very functional screwdriver?

Now I remember why I hate analogies!

Anyway, you probably thought you were starting with an easy, "everyone-will-agree-with-this-so-lets-get-on-to-the-real-problem-with-evolution" sort of statement. Would that life were so simple, Delshad.

[B][QUOTE]But after reading this I hope you wont make any wrong turns.[/B][/QUOTE]

Let's see how well you keep us on the straight path, then, shall we?
[B][QUOTE]First of all evolution through natural selection doesnt have a CONCIENCE, so as to say it cant plan ahead or determine ANYTHING. Just wanted to make that clear.[/B][/QUOTE]

I presume you mean "consciousness" rather than "conscience." If you want to make things clear, best to use the right words. But perhaps you did mean "moral sense", though it is difficult to see moral significance of an eyebrow.
[B][QUOTE]So in order for even a single hair above the eye to arise, a mutation (replacement of the genetical structure of the DNA) have had to occure.[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm. Don't you think the question in human evolution would be "how come all the hair on our ancestors hairy ape faces disappeared except for the eyebrow?"
[B][QUOTE]Most of the people know that mutations are almost always harmful or at its peak, inefficient.
That is to say, that the probabilities for a mutation to occur is very ,very low.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think you mean the "probabilities for a mutation which will be selected for" are very low. The probabilities of a mutation are very high indeed - practically 1, given the nature of DNA transcription. That is why you don't look exactly like either of your parents, and why even identical twins have differences.
[B][QUOTE]Then the probability for this new hair to arise just at the convenient spot (above the eye to prevent the sweat reaching the eye)is also very ,very low.[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, as I said before, the other descendents of our ancestors are covered with hair all over their foreheads: I think you are asking the wrong question.
[B][QUOTE]Then finally and here`s the important bit,( because improbabilities tend to be widely accepted by evolutionists) is that ONE hair isnt enough to make ANY sort of advantage to the bearer.[/B][/QUOTE]

Homer Simpson seems to think so! Oh but hang on - he has two!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-24-2002 11:52 AM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 09-26-2002 11:48 AM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 15 (18146)
09-24-2002 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-24-2002 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Lets first begin with a human eye-brow and why it is there and how it evolved according to some evolutionists:

Its function is said to be that it keeps the sweat away from our eyes.
You and me are both agreable on that.

Further that it havent always been there and that it has evolved through natural selection, there the creationist turn right and the evolutionist left and they both claim that theyre way is the right way.
But after reading this I hope you wont make any wrong turns.

First of all evolution through natural selection doesnt have a CONCIENCE, so as to say it cant plan ahead or determine ANYTHING.
Just wanted to make that clear.

So in order for even a single hair above the eye to arise, a mutation (replacement of the genetical structure of the DNA) have had to occure.
Most of the people know that mutations are almost always harmful or at its peak, inefficient.
That is to say, that the probabilities for a mutation to occur is very ,very low.
Then the probability for this new hair to arise just at the convenient spot (above the eye to prevent the sweat reaching the eye)is also very ,very low.
Then finally and here`s the important bit,( because improbabilities tend to be widely accepted by evolutionists) is that ONE hair isnt enough to make ANY sort of advantage to the bearer.
Its just an ineffective material that doesnt improve its chance to reproduce.
That specie would have to wait thousands of years inorder for another hairstring to be misplaced in the convenient symmetrical spot next to the first hair string.
And on and on for millions of years until it has gathered enough hair to start to make a function(Preventing sweat).Again, evolution HAS no CONCIENCE so it could not have known from the beggining that this was going to be the final product.How does evolutionists explain this simple example , And keep in mind that this is nothing compared to the complex organs that exists in nature and whereas all components have to be there right from the beginning, slow progress is completely out of the question in those cases.
I hope youll be able to give a descent answer to my question and ill always try to response back. Good luck


I think that the eyebrow was also to help shield the eyes from the sun as well. At one time we were a lot hairier than we are now.

One thing you may realize is that evolution is a very wasteful process and only those who can survive long enough get to pass along those traits which have helped them survive.

BTW, can anyone name the fallacy he is using?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-24-2002 11:52 AM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 09-24-2002 12:46 PM nos482 has responded
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-24-2002 12:48 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3908 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 4 of 15 (18147)
09-24-2002 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-24-2002 12:33 PM


quote:

I think that the eyebrow was also to help shield the eyes from the sun as well. At one time we were a lot hairier than we are now.

One thing you may realize is that evolution is a very wasteful process and only those who can survive long enough get to pass along those traits which have helped them survive.

BTW, can anyone name the fallacy he is using?


JM: Argumentum ad Hovindum

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 12:33 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 2:14 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5805 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 5 of 15 (18148)
09-24-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by nos482
09-24-2002 12:33 PM


Just spotted this one in Delshad's post (my emphasis)...

quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
I hope youll be able to give a descent answer to my question and ill always try to response back. Good luck

If that was deliberate, it's one of the best puns I've seen from a creationist!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-24-2002 12:33 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 15 (18153)
09-24-2002 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joe Meert
09-24-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
quote:

I think that the eyebrow was also to help shield the eyes from the sun as well. At one time we were a lot hairier than we are now.

One thing you may realize is that evolution is a very wasteful process and only those who can survive long enough get to pass along those traits which have helped them survive.

BTW, can anyone name the fallacy he is using?


JM: Argumentum ad Hovindum

Cheers

Joe Meert


Now that is a real fallacy. Sadly it is not included in the list on the Fallacies site;

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joe Meert, posted 09-24-2002 12:46 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 15 (18156)
09-24-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-24-2002 11:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Lets first begin with a human eye-brow and why it is there and how it evolved according to some evolutionists:

Its function is said to be that it keeps the sweat away from our eyes.
You and me are both agreable on that.

Further that it havent(sic) always been there and that it has evolved through natural selection,


I am wondering how this conclusion was reached.
Is it not also possible that a human ancestor had hair covering most of their head, up to the face - and even over most of the face ?
This would mean the inherited change was a REDUCTION of hair that left the eyebrows as a legacy.

If we're discussing hypotheticals, we should look from both directions:
-an increase of facial hair
-a reduction of facial hair

jeff

------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-24-2002 11:52 AM Delshad has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5894 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 8 of 15 (18177)
09-24-2002 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Delshad
09-24-2002 11:52 AM


Dear Delshad,

Maybe ask them about the newborn's swim reflex in conjunction with the GAG reflex. Lay back and let's enjoy the stories

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Delshad, posted 09-24-2002 11:52 AM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 09-25-2002 9:46 AM peter borger has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 15 (18237)
09-25-2002 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by peter borger
09-24-2002 10:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Delshad,

Maybe ask them about the newborn's swim reflex in conjunction with the GAG reflex. Lay back and let's enjoy the stories

Best wishes,
Peter


Better yet, let's hear Peter B.'s amazing, paradigm-busting story that explains it, that will surely not rely on unwarranted inferrences and will lots of unequivocal data to support it, just like his letter to Nature surely did.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by peter borger, posted 09-24-2002 10:44 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 9:06 PM derwood has responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5894 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 10 of 15 (18303)
09-25-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
09-25-2002 9:46 AM


Dear SLPx,

It is a good question, isn't it?

Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 09-25-2002 9:46 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 09-26-2002 10:09 AM peter borger has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 15 (18350)
09-26-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by peter borger
09-25-2002 9:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear SLPx,

It is a good question, isn't it?

Peter


Yeah, I guess you can't answer it.

Must be that your preferred explanation is thus disproofed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by peter borger, posted 09-25-2002 9:06 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-27-2002 12:04 AM derwood has responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3261 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 15 (18351)
09-26-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mister Pamboli
09-24-2002 12:29 PM


Dear Mr. P;
That "depends" is contingent for my reading of people who read SJ Gould, so this is very interesting because I doubt my reading can be correct yet to correct this writing would be rather difficult. NO substance from me yet. This was out of a book on Post-Modernism and Science which attempted to show how to use Gould's worm of the shale bed to re-develop embryology. One does not need SJ Gould to do this which means I would prefer to read this "eye-brow" as not the icon it is but the human trait it was but then again I doubt 'perhaps' = 'that depends'.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-24-2002 12:29 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5894 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 13 of 15 (18385)
09-27-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by derwood
09-26-2002 10:09 AM


dear SLPx,

Yes, I can answer this question in a 'scientific' way. It involves virtual particles --let's call them creatons-- interacting with matter in a morphogenetic field (earth) that gives rise to a genetic program that specifies reflex arches. Let's abbreviate it: creation.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 09-26-2002 10:09 AM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 09-27-2002 1:34 PM peter borger has responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 104 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 14 of 15 (18441)
09-27-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by peter borger
09-27-2002 12:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear SLPx,

Yes, I can answer this question in a 'scientific' way. It involves virtual particles --let's call them creatons-- interacting with matter in a morphogenetic field (earth) that gives rise to a genetic program that specifies reflex arches. Let's abbreviate it: creation.

Best wishes,
Peter


Considering your track record, I find it difficult to tell whether or not you are being facetious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by peter borger, posted 09-27-2002 12:04 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 09-27-2002 5:22 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5894 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 15 of 15 (18453)
09-27-2002 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by derwood
09-27-2002 1:34 PM


Dear SLPx,

It is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis, even better than invoking space-aliens, since that only relocates the problem. Maybe it is even testable, and maybe I could even provide some biological indirect evidence for it. Do you like the idea?
Best wishes
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 09-27-2002 1:34 PM derwood has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019