Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
43 online now:
nwr, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary idiocy (More or less standard dogma)?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1249 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 73 (487722)
11-03-2008 11:56 PM


Gish Gallup
Hi, Chemscience.

I've been trying to follow this thread, but it seems that there are too many different sub-topics blooming out of your last couple of messages. Anytime you write, in a single message, a whole list of things that, in your mind, discredit the Theory of Evolution, you're going to get a whole lot of scientists and science buffs whose "pet topics" have been offended, and the thread will spin violently into a gnarled mess of topics.

In fact, in relation to the Evolution vs. Creation debate, evolutionists have invented a title for this style of argumentation. It's called the "Gish Gallup," named after an intelligent design proponent who debates by ignoring rebuttals and repeatedly bringing up new points, that his opponent then feels obligated to answer. This way, he has total control over the discussion, keeps his opponents on the defensive, and never once has to support his own position, and this gives the impression that his opponent's argument is actually much weaker than it really is.

So, before this thread gets caught up in that, may I suggest that you decide which of the many points you've brought up you'd like to discuss here? You can talk about animal migrations and circadian rhythms, australopithecines and Sivapithecus, mathematical improbabilities, or whatever else. Some of these would make interesting separate threads in their own right, too. But, whatever you choose, try to stick to arguments on a narrow topic, but it helps keep the discussion under control and meaningful.

-----

As a side note, you discussed the Cambrian Explosion in one of your posts. I recently started a thread (Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion) that, unfortunately, didn't really get off the ground due to the lack of creationist activity on the thread. This is a topic that I am deeply interested, but not particularly expert, in, so I would love to see your contributions there if you're interested.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 2:06 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 73 (487723)
11-04-2008 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Coyote
11-03-2008 10:36 PM


CHEMSCIENCE ANSWERS COYOTE
COYOTE I like your name, at Phoenix Union HS Coyote was our mascot.
I love to hear them sing.

"But don't let that stand in the way of the standard creationist talking point that science is all wrong and can't be trusted because it changes. Those changes represent improvements; science is becoming more accurate all the time. Your examples from the Early Man book are horribly outdated. Care to try again with current scientific findings?"

Read carefully: my complaint is the DISHONESTY of a chart supposedly presenting 25MY of prehumans but the first 15MY weren’t "prehuman". It was commonly stripped of the subscripts under the critters. Visually it’s very persuasive. Who reads the captions anyway?

Those beasts are in your family album because they’ve nothing else to put there. Pictures sell books.

I’m holding a laminated Cambridge Research Group Ltd. 1997 chart called EVOLUTION with 16 butterflies progressing from iridescent blue, to a ones with orange spots, to orange butterflies.

I probably paid ten bucks for it in some museum. It’s convincing, but inspection reveals the 16 are the same bug, colored over. This is deceit, fraud, dishonest, perverse mendacious flim-flam. But I bet they sold a lot posters, and victims of their fraud were reinforced in an unscientific viewpoint.

I have a book from 30 years after the Piltdown fraud exposure with him right in the middle of the chart. Who cares?

"But don't let that stand in the way of the standard creationist talking point that science is all wrong and can't be trusted because it changes. Those changes represent improvements; science is becoming more accurate all the time."

You just used a standard evolutionist talking point: “We had it wrong, but we’re learning, & all creationist viewpoints are mass produced.”

I didn’t say science is all wrong. I'm saying evolutionism isn’t science. In science you don't have to lie.

"your examples from the Early Man book are horribly outdated."

No, Coyote, It's Darwin who's outdated. Didn't know a thing about the cell, DNA or biochemistry, but fashioned a myth that persuades millions whales walked on land & birds are dinosaurs. It's not testable, it's not science, it's just conjecture, with an agenda.

I received a solicitation from TEACH12.com with this headline: Could String Theory Be the Long-Sought "Theory of Everything"
24 lectures for $69.95.

TIME's 8/21/06 article: "The Unraveling of String Theory"
says "Without a shred of evidence, critics say, It doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong." Just think, if I get the CD I can impress all my egghead friends. Who cares if it aint science!

Columbia U. mathematician Peter Woit called it a "Rube Goldberg contraption"

Sounds like a 10 dimensional hallucination to CHEMSCIENCE.

But www.Teach12 has all these CDs and they have to sell them to somebody.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2008 10:36 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 11-04-2008 7:04 AM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 7:50 AM chemscience has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1247 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 48 of 73 (487725)
11-04-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by chemscience
11-03-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Tern Migration
chemscience writes:

TERNS: They cross thousands of miles of open ocean, powered by perhaps an ounce of body fat. If they miss target they die. Who taught terns where Antartica is? Trial & Error would be fatal. One generation of drowned terns and the species becomes extinct.

Trial & error would be fatal? I don't think so. Trial & error could be fatal , but not necessarily so. Even if most terns drown somewhere along the way, those terns who do make it to Antarctica will be the ones who pass on their navigational skills to their offspring, who will therefore have a better chance of reaching Antarctica when their turn comes. In this way, successive generations of terns will become better and better at navigating the globe on their yearly migration. It's a perfect example of how evolution by natural selection works. No one taught them where Antarctica is, they learned it the hard way.

Anyway, who knows? Maybe there has been a species of migratory birds that has become extinct because none of them could reach their feeding or breeding grounds anymore, for some reason or other. That's also part of evolution: most of the species that evolution came up with in its long history are now extinct. Terns are just lucky it hasn't happened to them (yet).


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 10:42 PM chemscience has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 49 of 73 (487727)
11-04-2008 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by chemscience
11-03-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Tern Migration
quote:

TERNS: They cross thousands of miles of open ocean, powered by perhaps an ounce of body fat. If they miss target they die. Who taught terns where Antartica is? Trial & Error would be fatal. One generation of drowned terns and the species becomes extinct.

If you object to being considered ignorant, you really ought to take the time to find out the basic facts.

Firstly you refer to a specific species of tern, the Arctic tern. Secondly terns are seabirds and do not have to rely on their fat reserves.


Arctic terns follow the coastlines of northwest Europe and Africa, feeding as they go.

Arctic tern


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 10:42 PM chemscience has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 846 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 50 of 73 (487728)
11-04-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by chemscience
11-04-2008 12:49 AM


Re: CHEMSCIENCE ANSWERS COYOTE
Hello Chemscience.

I agree with the people here who say this thread is becoming way too diverse way too fast. I'd like it if you could pick one or two topics you wish to discuss, and let's stick to them for now. Else it will be very hard to follow this thread. Thanks :)

Edited by Huntard, : Spellings


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 12:49 AM chemscience has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2741 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 51 of 73 (487729)
11-04-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by chemscience
11-04-2008 12:49 AM


Re: CHEMSCIENCE ANSWERS COYOTE
I’m holding a laminated Cambridge Research Group Ltd. 1997 chart called EVOLUTION with 16 butterflies progressing from iridescent blue, to a ones with orange spots, to orange butterflies.

I probably paid ten bucks for it in some museum. It’s convincing, but inspection reveals the 16 are the same bug, colored over. This is deceit, fraud, dishonest, perverse mendacious flim-flam. But I bet they sold a lot posters, and victims of their fraud were reinforced in an unscientific viewpoint.

What type of inspection. Did you painstakinly get one of each of the 16 butterflies and study them to ascertain if they are the same or not or did you just look at the picture and make a determination


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 12:49 AM chemscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 12:48 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
aftab
Junior Member (Idle past 4174 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 11-02-2008


Message 52 of 73 (487736)
11-04-2008 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Huntard
11-02-2008 4:18 PM


Nice analogy
“And since time began with the big bang, there is no "before" the big bang.“
A senseless idea.

A senseless idea? Really? Perhaps you'd like to tell me what's north of the north pole then?

Nice analogy Huntard. I would never have thought that up.
You have a very developed brain. Which of course means someone designed it. Which is of course the Lord, i'm guessing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Huntard, posted 11-02-2008 4:18 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2008 9:54 AM aftab has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Huntard, posted 11-04-2008 10:04 AM aftab has not yet responded
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 2:02 PM aftab has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 53 of 73 (487741)
11-04-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by aftab
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Nice analogy
Hello, Aftab! Welcome aboard!

You have a very developed brain. Which of course means someone designed it.

Where did that "of course" come from? That seems rather a baseless assertion.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by aftab, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM aftab has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Parasomnium, posted 11-04-2008 10:11 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 846 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 54 of 73 (487743)
11-04-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by aftab
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Nice analogy
aftab writes:

Nice analogy Huntard. I would never have thought that up.


I didn't, I read it on this very forum for the first time, I believe I saw cavediver use it in exactly the same situation. But thanks for the compliment nonetheless.

You have a very developed brain. Which of course means someone designed it. Which is of course the Lord, i'm guessing.

As Coragyps points out, having a developed brain is NOT evidence for that brain being designed. And even if it was, what points to god as that designer?


I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by aftab, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM aftab has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 1247 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 55 of 73 (487744)
11-04-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coragyps
11-04-2008 9:54 AM


Re: Nice analogy
Coragyps writes:

Hello, Aftab! Welcome aboard!

You have a very developed brain. Which of course means someone designed it.

Where did that "of course" come from? That seems rather a baseless assertion.

Would this also imply that people with less developed brains are not designed? O, the irony is precious: the idea of evolutionists having been created and creationists having evolved...


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2008 9:54 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2383
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 56 of 73 (487745)
11-04-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by chemscience
11-03-2008 10:42 PM


Re: Tern Migration
Okay, thanks for your answer chemscience. I'm going to side-step the bt about monarch butterflies if you don't mind and go straight onto the terns.

TERNS: They cross thousands of miles of open ocean, powered by perhaps an ounce of body fat. If they miss target they die. Who taught terns where Antartica is? Trial & Error would be fatal. One generation of drowned terns and the species becomes extinct.

1) They don't cross the open ocean. They follow the coastlines, especially the coast of Africa. Terns don't go very far out to sea, preferring to stay within striking distance of land.

2) If they miss their target, they need not die. Arctic terns spend the Northern Hemisphere's summer spread out, all over the Arctic. They could quite easily miss their mark only to find themselves in a different area that is still capable of supporting terns. As has been pointed out, they feed as they travel. Going off course is not as disastrous for Arctic terns as it might be for some species. Migrants often go way off course. We call them "vagrants". Some vagrants doom themselves by their mistake. Others simply sit tight and try again next year.

3) They don't need to be taught where Antarctica is. They rely on instinct. Do you dispute the existence of instinct? Their instinctive behaviour probably operates using very simple rules (fly south, keep Africa to your left, that sort of thing). This is enough to get them there. After the first time, they will have learned their way. Like many behaviours, it is a mixture of instinct and learning.

4) One generation of drowned terns would indeed end the species (apart from a few stranded terns that never managed to migrate at all. You often get a few stragglers with migrants). It's not very likely though is it? What would cause such a disaster? Terns are very good at making a living. They're not going to all just get lost and die. This is because evolution has honed them to be effective exploiters of their environment.

Let me ask you a question; if terns were created, how do they respond to changing weather patterns that affect their migration? Does God come back and fine tune them now and then? Or did he simply create them with the ability to adapt to a changing environment? If the latter, it sounds very much like evolution to me.

Of course one could posit their migrations commenced in Gondwana, before the continents separated, but that was about 4 times before birds are said to have arrived. Archeopteryx, [who was a real bird, btw] is pegged at 145 MY. So that Idea flunks. (It was mine, don't blame it on anybody else)

No-one is suggesting any such thing. There were no birds on Gondwanaland. There's no need to look so far back.

Migrations such as the tern's would have evolved far more recently than that. The migratory behaviour is not surprising in terns. They cover large distances in the course of seeking good fishing grounds, so it seems a simple matter for the birds who travelled furthest to pass on this advantageous behaviour to their offspring.

So the problem remains, How these fragile creatures acquired the skill and sense of direction to execute enormous round trips. I vote for Jehovah.

As far as I can tell, you still haven't explained why this is contrary to evolution. What aspect of evolutionary theory is being challenged here?

Terns may seem fragile to you, but they are superbly adapted to their environment and lifestyle, just as evolutionary theory would predict. Arctic terns are part of a much larger group of terns, some more closely related than others, with all of them showing differing degrees of similarity in both physiology and behaviour, just as evolutionary theory would predict.

Now be frank, Granny: Based on this improbable phenomenon, could a reasonable person see it as basis for belief in creation?

If you have another idea please explain it in detail.

Simple; the migratory behaviour developed from the existing behaviour of itinerant sea birds, most of which move around a lot within their range anyway. Those migratory behaviours that were advantageous were passed on. Over time the migration spread further afield, until Arctic terns were migrating from pole to pole. Here is a rather nice description of how migration can evolve;

quote:
The general model for the evolution of migratory behavior considers a permanent resident that expands its range due to intraspecific competition into an area that is seasonally variable, providing greater resources for reproduction but harsher climactic stress and reduced food availability in the non-breeding season. Individuals breeding in these new regions at the fringe of the species' distribution are more productive, but in order to increase non-breeding survival they return to the ancestral range. This results, however, in even greater intraspecific competition because of their higher productivity, so that survival is enhanced for individuals that winter in areas not inhabited by the resident population. The Common Yellowthroat of the Atlantic coast is a good example. Birds occupying the most southern part of the species' range in Florida are largely nonmigratory, whereas populations that breed as far north as Newfoundland migrate to the West Indies in the winter, well removed from the resident population in Florida. Because a migrant population gains an advantage on both its breeding and wintering range, it becomes more abundant, while the resident, non-migratory population becomes proportionately smaller and smaller in numbers. If changing environmental conditions become increasingly disadvantageous for the resident population or interspecific competition becomes more severe, the resident population could eventually disappear, leaving the migrant population as characteristic of the species. These stages in the evolution of migration are represented today by permanent resident populations, partial migrants, and fully migratory species. As for all adaptations, natural selection continues to mold and modify the migratory behavior of birds as environmental conditions perpetually change and species expand or retract their geographic ranges. Hence, the migratory patterns that we observe today will not be the migratory patterns of the future.

From here.

To be honest, I'm still not sure what your objection is. Migration is not particularly difficult for the ToE to explain. It does not require a God-based explanation. We already have an explanation. What's more, there are far more extreme and improbable life-forms out there than terns. You are only scratching the surface of nature's weirdness. :)

Mutate and Survive.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by chemscience, posted 11-03-2008 10:42 PM chemscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 3:09 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 73 (487749)
11-04-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by bluescat48
11-04-2008 7:50 AM


BUTTERFLY CHART
The morphology and positioning of each insect is identical, dimensions, position of antenna, scalloping of wing edges, etc.

I wish you could see it, you'd agree.

Perhaps you can buy the chart

CHEMSCIENCE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 7:50 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2008 1:36 PM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 63 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 2:33 PM chemscience has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 58 of 73 (487753)
11-04-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by chemscience
11-04-2008 12:48 PM


Re: BUTTERFLY CHART
Photographs? Hand drawings?

If it was an artist's depiction based on observation or photographs of actual specimens, then what's the problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by chemscience, posted 11-04-2008 12:48 PM chemscience has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1502 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 59 of 73 (487755)
11-04-2008 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by aftab
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Nice analogy
Hi aftab, welcome to EvC.

Nice analogy Huntard. I would never have thought that up.

Actually, the analogy was Stephen Hawkings', used to explain his No-Boundary Proposal.

Which of course means someone designed it. Which is of course the Lord, i'm guessing.

Well is it 'of course', or are you 'guessing'? In other words, are you certain its the Lord, or do you have a particular religion that told you it is the Lord making it anybodys guess at that point?


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by aftab, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM aftab has not yet responded

  
chemscience
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 73 (487757)
11-04-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
11-03-2008 11:56 PM


Re: Gish Gallup
Thanks for the lesson, Bluejay.

Huntard is "sad" that I'd not given evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. I outlined a protocol & menu of considerations to examine. I understand they were acceptable to Huntard.

I asked "where?" since ADM says this thread isn't for theological
topics. I want to answer Huntard's request, to isolate & concentrate on the evidence for Bible authenticity. If I do so here, I'll be out of bounds, a condition some apparently think I'm in right now.

I've been asked to back up what I believe with facts: I can do it. I'm new to this venue, unfamiliar with the compartmentalization of topics. A solution is for me to go away so as not to disturb the congruence of the thread. I've heard "No" often.

To Bluescat I listed some of my objections to accidentalism, not a complete list. I attended a 2 day symposium at Emory U advertised thusly: "Evolution vs Creation We thought it would be nice to throw eaverybody together in one room, we want to frame the controversy."

They framed it well: 9 "experts" on stage, none supported creation. The room reeked with hubris. The 400 or so biologists, Darwinists & students were told to play nice with the other kids and not use an insulting or snide manner should they speak to yahoos, idiots and dodos, terms referenced to believers like Betty and me.

I beat Tiger Woods in a round of golf last week. He didn't play badly, but I kept score.

No trespass intended.

CHEMSCIENCE

Edited by chemscience, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 11-03-2008 11:56 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by bluescat48, posted 11-04-2008 2:23 PM chemscience has not yet responded
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2008 2:27 PM chemscience 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 © 2020