Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 9:11 PM
26 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,766 Year: 6,803/19,786 Month: 1,344/1,581 Week: 166/393 Day: 99/50 Hour: 0/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific end of evolution theory (2)
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 214 (14131)
07-25-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by peter borger
07-25-2002 1:22 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[b]Ever heard of a multipurpose genome? Ever heard of the adaptation hypothesis?[/QUOTE]

[/b]

But why, if everything was created and presumably created to fit its niche, why would the ability to adapt be a feature? No significant environmental changes have occured in the last 6000 years, as an omniscient God would know. Why would animals need to adapt?

quote:
"Complex display behaviours like singing and dancing were used in order to identify the fittest mates in homonid societies (as they still are to some degree)."

Evo BLAH-BLAH. Never seen an explanation beyond storytelling.


Just look at how these behaviors are used today...

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by peter borger, posted 07-25-2002 1:22 AM peter borger has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 214 (14439)
07-29-2002 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by peter borger
07-08-2002 10:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
From information theory it has already become clear that randomness can not account for information gain. An extensive discussion on this topic has come to a grinding halt because of definitions (nothing new, if you can't win a discussion blame definitions).

I thought that was the tactic you employed.

[quote][b]Che Quevera demonstrates the most straightforward example of a redundant trait of the human brain: the ability of hearing music. The absence of this trait does not affect the fitness/survival, as clearly demonstrated by individuals suffering from amusia.[/quote]

[/b]

It proves that an individual can survive with tone deafness in modern society. What is does not prove is that this trait wasn't useful at some earlier stage.

quote:
…nobody has been able to suggest any plausible survival payoffs for most of the things that human minds are uniquely good at, such as humour, story-telling, gossip, art, music, self-consciousness, ornate language, imaginative ideologies, religion and morality [and arrhythmics].

You've got to be kidding. All of this stuff has survival value for an animal that depends on society to survive. Read up on cultural ecology, Marvin Harris in particular.

quote:
Of course, evolutionists will strongly object against this example of redundancy with a lot of "story telling"

Hopefully story-telling of better quality than your own.

quote:
The regeneration of a new lens is a feature which can not be explained by natural selection, simply because there has never been evolutionary pressure to evolve this capacity.

Could be a side effect of the ability to regenerate a tail.

quote:
Proponents of the theory of evolution must admit that the phenomenon of regeneration cannot be explained by natural selection and turn evolution upside down.

Why? You said yourself that regeneration is a superb survival trick.

[quote][b]They pose the idea that regeneration is a remnant of a common primitive characteristic exhibited by all primordial life forms and it has disappeared in the major part of organisms today due to selection against[/quote]

[/b]

quote:
It is, even for evolutionists, hard to conceive why an apparent advantageous characteristic was selected against.

Unless the author's contention that regeneration is a common primative characteristic can be upheld, this argument is worthless. I, for one, doubt the premise.

quote:
Notably, the disappearance of advantageous characteristics violates the basic principle of the theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin.

Not if is a trade-off for another trait that is more advantageous, or if said trait were not advantageous for a long period of time-- as is the case with eyes in deep cave dwellers.

quote:
Other intriguing questions involving the phenomenon of regeneration are “why does the human liver regenerate and why do bones?”

Why does bone heal? Your objection is WHY DO BONES HEAL?

quote:
To disperse and enlarge the liana’s (it's a liana!) habitat the seeds do not need to evolve this trait, and therefore it is a redundant trait.

How do you know? You have to support this claim for your objection to stand.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 10:19 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 1:32 AM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 214 (14497)
07-30-2002 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by peter borger
07-30-2002 1:32 AM


I'm running late, but one quick question.

quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:

2) These data mean that it would take about 10(exp)6 years for 3 random mutations to occur in the duplicated gene. Thus 150 million years for 450 neutral mutations.

The genes in question, are they specific to humans?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 1:32 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:20 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 214 (14709)
08-02-2002 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by peter borger
07-30-2002 9:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear John,
No, but they are highly conserved in mammals,
Peter

[This message has been edited by peter borger, 07-30-2002]


The question then is how long have these genes been around? And 'highly conserved' meaning what exactly?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by peter borger, posted 07-30-2002 9:20 PM peter borger has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 214 (15954)
08-22-2002 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by peter borger
08-22-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Indeed, that't all it is: an indirect (unwarranted) clue.

Have you no clue how science works?

Virtually everything is indirect if you think about it, and by your method, unwarranted.

Take, for example, gravity.... every bit of evidence we have for gravity is indirect-- you can't point to it and say "aha!!!" But we can measure gravity? No, we can watch a pointer on a scale; this is indirect. We can observe the effects on stars and planets. Yes, and INFER a force called gravity; this is indirect.

And how 'bout genetics? That is all indirect as well, so be consistent and stop using most of the data at your disposal.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 8:49 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 10:10 PM John has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 214 (15971)
08-22-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by peter borger
08-22-2002 10:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Theories based on indirect shouldn't have to be bad, although I prefer to have them confirmed several times. gravity has been confirmed over and over. It has also not been falsified, so there is no doubt about it (although the mechanism is still not yet clear).

So if we stack up lots of evidence then you'll accept it? The cranium is not the only portion of anatomy that can suggest bipedalism. Hip structure, knee structure, back structure, foot structure all work as well. Want I should look all of this up for you?

quote:
Not so for 'science' based on n=1. Conclusions drawn from n=1 are usually found to be wrong.

n=1 ?????

quote:
And: if you are able to infer gravity from a pointer on a scale, why is it so hard to infer a designer from genetic redundancies?

Because, for one, you cannot eliminate the other alternatives.

Genetic redundancies also argue for evolution.

quote:
However, if you followed my mailings and responses I already presented several pieces of evidence advocating my opinion.

I do follow your posts. Your evidence, despite your claims, doesn't support your position.

quote:
And, not unimportant, data can always be explained in a different way. It all depends on the paradigm.

I disagree. Not everything can be explained within multiple paradigms. The evidence itself is independent of our interpretations, ultimately. It sometimes takes awhile for old ideas to die, of course, and in the meantime evidence is twisted to fit prevailing opinion.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peter borger, posted 08-22-2002 10:10 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:29 AM John has responded
 Message 110 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-23-2002 6:04 AM John has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 214 (15996)
08-23-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by peter borger
08-23-2002 12:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
If you show me the bones of 'sahel-man' we could speculate on it.

For the moment, the skull of sahelanthropus is it. You threw me for a second with 'sahel-man'. This species could hardly be called man. Its a precursor or cousin from around the time the human line and chimp line split.

quote:
Besides, even if the bones demonstrate that the organism walked upright. How does it proof evolution?

It doesn't, taken alone. I don't think anyone is trying to make it prove evolution. It could suggest common descent.

quote:
No, they do not. I've tried to explain this several times. Since there is NO correlation between redundant genes and duplication it is NOT in accord with molecular evolution.

I have read your posts on the subject and I don't buy it. You haven't proven your case. There is already a thread for this so I am not going into it here.

quote:
Please expand and be specific. What exactly does not support what, and why.

There is also a thread for this, and I believe I have posted some objections on that thread.

quote:
With evidence you mean "data", or "interpreted data"?

Data. Though it is hard to seperate the two.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by peter borger, posted 08-23-2002 12:29 AM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Mammuthus, posted 08-23-2002 12:05 PM John has not yet responded
 Message 138 by peter borger, posted 09-06-2002 2:58 AM John has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 214 (16032)
08-24-2002 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 11:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Rationalist:
I am ready to defend your Alien theory of gravity with all of my resources. It is because our modern age has abandoned belief in the aliens that press down on our heads that all forms of sin and evil have become common in our country. It is the duty of every Alien believing person in this country to defend the theory of aliens pushing on our heads in order to protect our way of life from destruction.

To that end, I propose that we point out to scientists that they do not know how gravity works, and that they can not prove that aliens are NOT pushing down on our heads. Not only that, but the scientific establishments commitment to a purely materialistic explanation for gravity automatically and unfairly prejudices it against more plausible explanations such as alien head pushing.

If we are to defend our great nation against the growing tide of abortion, teen pregnancy, drugs, pornography, and other evils, we must defend the alien head pushing theory of gravity at all costs. To do less would be to side with Satan in a war against God himself.


Let me know if you need a trusty side-kick in this noble crusade.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 11:26 AM Rationalist 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