Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 527 (577537)
08-29-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:21 PM


So why should anyone be impressed by a theory that has as its only claim for evidence, a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria, and then after a while staying as the exact same bacteria, and then after a zillion generations,more, staying....you guessed it, bacteria.
When you pretend that the only evidence for the evolution is "a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria", whom do you hope to deceive by telling this ridiculous lie?
If all of the things that your side claims as evidence for evolution, continued to proceed in exactly the same progression as witnessed by the evidence, not a single organism would ever change into anything in a billion zillion years. That is the only rational inference anyone who is honest could make about the evidence. A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
If you want to know what honest and rational people think, we'll let you know. One necessary (though not sufficient) criterion for being honest and rational is to not tell dumb lies about what "all of the things that [evolutionists claim] as evidence for evolution" consist of in front of an audience consisting mainly of evolutionists: because it is not honest to lie, and not rational to lie when you are certain to be caught.
---
P.S: "Bacteria" is a plural. Have you taken some sort of oath to be wrong about everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 94 of 527 (577906)
08-31-2010 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICdesign
08-30-2010 7:26 PM


For one thing, your blood needs your bones. Do your nerves need blood?...can you live without your bones?...will your nerves survive if you die?
But there are organisms which have blood and nerves but not bones.
I need bones, but then I'm not a basal chordate.
As the skeletal system developed, what was once optional became essential. Take the skull, for example. First chordates with no skulls. Then skulls developed apparently as a form of armor, originally as a set of independent plates of dermal bone --- a defense mechanism that assisted survival but was not anatomically essential. To us, it having a skull is essential. I don't know exactly what would happen to us if we didn't have skulls, but for one thing we wouldn't have jaws and so couldn't eat --- unlike basal chordates, which could eat without jaws.
An analogy: if you took away electricity now, it would wreck our civilization, we'd all starve within weeks (except the Amish, I guess). But there was civilization before electricity; and then there was a time when it was useful but not essential to Western civilization; and now we're in a situation where we couldn't get by without it, as it has taken on a role which is not merely useful but essential to our way of life.
It's a very loose analogy, but hopefully you see the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 7:26 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 527 (577907)
08-31-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by ICANT
08-30-2010 11:24 PM


Re: Great Potential
What mechanism would cause the mutations to mutate (mess up the DNA enough times) to get the proper changes to create the foot?
The mechanism which causes mutations is called "mutation".
I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 08-30-2010 11:24 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 527 (578007)
08-31-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 9:33 AM


But more importantly, why are you constantly shifting the burden on the skeptics to just accept what you say without proof, rather than putting the burden on the one's making the extraordinary claims to provide some extraordinary evidence. Or any evidence for that matter.
When we have evidence that something has happened, the burden of proof is very much on the person who claims that it can't have happened. Because in the light of the evidence that is an extraordinary claim.
If your only argument to back up your claim is personal incredulity, then you are hardly meeting the burden of proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 9:33 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 1:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 527 (578013)
08-31-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Bolder-dash
08-31-2010 1:50 PM


I have asked repeatedly for you to produce the evidence, any evidence, that a random mutation caused the beginning of a new functioning limb or system.
You can't do that. Mobiogirl it seems just tried, and I don't think anyone could call that a success.
You have evidence of what you feel is common relations, you have absolutely no evidence for the mechanisms that caused complex functioning systems.
So when you lie, like you are doing right now, Dr. A, it makes one wonder what your real motive is.
What are you pretending that I am lying about, and whom do you hope to deceive by so doing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-31-2010 1:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 225 of 527 (579568)
09-05-2010 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by ICdesign
09-04-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Seeking to understand basis for incredulity
I don't care how gradual the change is, eventually you reach a line that has to be crossed where one kind becomes another kind. Its not MY law that says that line cannot be crossed, but never the less THE law says that line cannot be crossed.
If we had such a smooth blend from one kind to another that this law was not violated then we wouldn't even be able to tell one kind from another.
And we can't. That explains why creationists are unable to agree with one another, or even with themselves, whether certain fossils are to be considered ape or human. There are no lines in nature. That's why they can't find them even though it's their job to pretend that they exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ICdesign, posted 09-04-2010 10:47 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 239 of 527 (579857)
09-06-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by ICdesign
09-05-2010 11:11 AM


Re: closing thoughts
Yes. Everything I see has huge gaps and holes. I never see drawings of the step by step progression for the skeletal system bone by bone. Its always, "Here is what it was, and here is what it became". I want to see all the details and here how all the bones formed all the way through the process.
You mean something like this?
One of the things that strikes me is that changes that would result from these "pressures" happen at such a slow rate ...
Show your working.
... by the time the thousands of years (or more) transpire into the resulting changes everything has drastically changed making the reasons the changes happened void.
Actually "everything" does not change in "thousands of years".
For example, the laws of optics stay the same, so more acute vision remains more acute vision.
The laws of hydrodynamics stay the same, so a more streamlined form remains a more streamlined form.
The laws of aerodynamics stay the same, so a better wing remains a better wing.
The laws of thermodynamics stay the same, so better insulation remains better insulation.
But apart from the laws of nature, the fossil record shows that many things do stay much the same for long periods of time.
On the one had you say these changes happen because of the immediate environment yet all change is so extremely slow you can't even point to anything other than Genomes for some type of evidence that it happened.
This is, of course, not true: there are many lines of evidence besides genetics for evolution. How do you think Darwin thought of it in the first place.
I don't see one shred of evidence that selective pressure along with rm/ns is capable of creating new designs. None.
You mean, apart from all the evidence?
You 'claim' it happened but it is sooo slow we can't show it to you.
If by this you mean that we can't show you directly the sorts of changes that the fossil record tells us take a million years, then the fact that we can't would actually be a prediction of the theory, would it not?
That in a nutshell is your argument ...
No.
... and I say you lose this debate by way of forfeit.
Do creationists also lose by way of forfeit when they say that they can't show us God making new organisms poof into existence by magic?
If you ever come up with anything tangible be sure to let us Creationists know won't you?
You mean tangible things like fossils and genes and morphology and embryology and biogeography and stuff like that?
Do let us know if you ever see God doing magic.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by ICdesign, posted 09-05-2010 11:11 AM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by barbara, posted 09-07-2010 12:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 349 of 527 (586386)
10-12-2010 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Strongbow
10-12-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Entropy
As the possible states of a system increase, so does the entropy. Let's look at some examples.
a: 000
b: 0000000
Item b in the above example has more entropy.
next example:
a: 0000000 (can ONLY be 0)
b: 0000000 (each digit can only be 0 or 1)
Again, b has the greater entropy
Now the last one
a: 0000000
b: 1011001
Again, B has the greater entropy. B is clearly more complex as well.
Is that clearer? Still disagree?
Yes, I disagree. Because this has damn-all to do with thermodynamics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Strongbow, posted 10-12-2010 1:14 PM Strongbow has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by crashfrog, posted 10-13-2010 12:03 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 351 by Strongbow, posted 10-13-2010 7:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 374 of 527 (599263)
01-06-2011 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 371 by ICdesign
01-06-2011 3:10 AM


I think that was an excellent way to put it because that's exactly what this whole notion of natural selection being able to "edit" is, a fraud. In a nutshell editing is an act of intelligence with intentionality. This is in direct violation of the very premise of ToE.
Since the essence of creationist argument is to willfully misunderstand very simple issues, it is futile to try to explain anything to a creationist by analogy, because this just gives him greater scope for creative misunderstanding, as he can now misunderstand not only the thing you were trying to explain in the first place but also the relationship between metaphier and metaphrand --- no matter how obvious this relationship actually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by ICdesign, posted 01-06-2011 3:10 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 421 of 527 (599526)
01-08-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 12:31 PM


I did respond Percy. Why don't you respond with evidence that a sophisticated system can be created without intelligence? All your survival of the fittest theory can show is death of the unfit.
If you don't know what natural selection is, I suggest that you find out.
We'll wait for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 12:31 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 12:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 423 of 527 (599528)
01-08-2011 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by ICdesign
01-08-2011 12:48 PM


Show me the observable evidence of natural selection developing sophisticated systems.
Show me the observable evidence of a dog cremating the world in six ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by ICdesign, posted 01-08-2011 12:48 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 444 of 527 (599598)
01-09-2011 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 12:05 AM


Re: I'll give you something else to ignore or waffle around
Was there a computer involved? Where did the materials come from to construct? Who constructed the systems? Was intelligence involved to determine what the designs were useful for? Would the systems exist if intelligent man did not determine they were useful then construct them? Did the systems construct themselves? Shall I go on?
No, just tell us who designed the antenna.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 12:05 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 451 of 527 (599633)
01-09-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 10:23 AM


This is exactly what I mean about a waste of precious time. Ho Hum.
Because a computer is intelligence. Coming up with a design on a computer program is not simulating evolution. If man has to help in the outcome of a design, it is not evolution.
What part of this don't you guys understand?
Who designed the antenna?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 10:23 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 473 of 527 (599703)
01-09-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 5:44 PM


The antenna was generated by a computer program.
Maybe its irrelevant to you but not to the truth. Would the antenna exist if intelligence was taken out of the equation? Yes or no? That is the relevant question.
Who designed the antenna?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 5:44 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 476 of 527 (599728)
01-10-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICdesign
01-09-2011 8:11 PM


How can you simulate a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.
By simulating a process void of intelligence using an intelligent mind to create the simulation on equipment of intelligent design.
For example, you can simulate the weather, which is void of intelligence, using the intelligent mind of a computer programmer to create the simulation of the weather on a computer which was intelligently designed.
---
Who designed the antenna?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICdesign, posted 01-09-2011 8:11 PM ICdesign 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