Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
39 online now:
dwise1, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,632 Year: 1,380/23,288 Month: 1,380/1,851 Week: 20/484 Day: 20/93 Hour: 4/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Fine tuning/ programming
Inactive Member

Message 3 of 123 (529621)
10-09-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Pauline
10-09-2009 7:56 PM

Dr. Sing writes:

But someone was smart enough to program the heart not to do this.

What in the world makes you say that? Actually, let me be more specific: What *evidence* makes you say that?

Dr. Sing writes:

My question to the evolutionists is twofold:

1. How do you explain such an intricate complex programming system?
2. If you do not consider this mechanism to be'programmed by someone', why not?

1. Explain what you mean by "intricate" and "complex"? A sand dune is both intricate and complex, but I suspect you do not consider it to be designed. It seems to me that you are assuming that a structural connection between points A and B would cause the heart to either cease to function, or to function in an obviously inferior manner. In either of those cases it seems the evolutionary incentive is clear.

2. I don't consider it to be programmed by someone because there is no evidence to suggest it was programmed by someone. In fact your question shows how your entire outlook is flawed, as I will explain:

I suspect you don't by default assume that things are designed by an intelligence; there are some things you consider naturally occurring. In fact this *must* be your position because the alternative is assuming your conclusion, and circular reasoning. You also appear to be using the argument "This is complex, therefore it must have been designed by an intelligence." However, as I noted there are things that you consider naturally occurring that are both intricate and complex, so there must be some other criteria on which you are basing your conclusion.

The obvious answer is personal bias, hopefully unintentional given the alternative is deliberate deception. It would be wise to reexamine your reasoning to find out your actual reason for concluding an intelligence is required, and see if there is evidence to back it up compared to the evidence of its evolution from simpler organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Pauline, posted 10-09-2009 7:56 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

Inactive Member

Message 27 of 123 (529849)
10-10-2009 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Pauline
10-10-2009 7:22 PM

Re: "Intricate complexity" makes a nice change.
Dr. Sing writes:

I'm trying to understand the idea of 'mutations collectively bringing about a postive effect over long periods of time'. So, is natural selction what is causing those mutations that an animal undergoes in order to survive?
As in there is no outside element governing their happening?

Think about two different mutations regarding only the heart of a rabbit. One mutation allows the heart to function at a greatly increased rate for twice as long as the previous generation, and one results in a halving of the duration it can function at that rate.

A wolf attacks each of these hypothetical bunnies, and all else being equal which one is more likely to escape? Obviously it is the one with the "superior" heart mutation, and there is no intelligent observer required to acknowledge which one lives. Living bunnies tend to produce many more offspring than dead bunnies, so over time you would expect the bunnies with strong hearts to vastly outnumber those with weak hearts, if any of the weak survive at all.

Obviously it isn't quite so simple in practice, it is more likely that the bunnies were never subjected to such clear natural selection. Instead the weak and strong heart mutations would spread out into the bunny population and there would be a slightly better chance that the strong-hearted bunnies would reproduce. Over a long, long time the mutations that are beneficial to the reproductive success of the bunnies would become more pronounced in the population.

This is generally what people are referring to when they refer to "natural selection"; the survival of the "fittest" organism when subjected to the rigors of nature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 7:22 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

Inactive Member

Message 29 of 123 (529851)
10-10-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
10-10-2009 7:57 PM

Re: Breeding
NosyNed writes:

That hardly seems like a very helpful "explanation".

Exactly, perhaps Straggler can provide an explanation that does not include the instruction to "think".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 10-10-2009 7:57 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 8:17 PM Phage0070 has responded

Inactive Member

Message 32 of 123 (529859)
10-10-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Pauline
10-10-2009 8:17 PM

Re: Breeding
Dr. Sing writes:

Wow,, thank you... for "contributing" to my first impression of evolutionists.

You are correct, that was a needless snip.

I suspect why I and Straggler are being somewhat short with you is that the basics of the Theory of Evolution is high-school level material, and it is clear you have not done the slightest research on the subject. As it is the central organizing structure behind modern biological study, it may be that the most helpful explanation this thread can offer is "Go read a book." This isn't intended as an insult, some understanding of the topic before starting a thread like this one will greatly aid the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Pauline, posted 10-10-2009 8:17 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020