Expelled Exposed

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Expelled Exposed

Let's get ahead in our knowledge of the movie expelled before it actually comes out...

Keep checking Expelled Exposed for the National Center for Science Education's official response to the Ben Stein movie Expelled; for now, we hope you will find this collection of resources helpful. (all info from ExpelledExposed)

Reviews of Expelled from those who have seen it

Other News Coverage of Expelled

Biologist PZ Myers expelled from Expelled screening


For more information on creationism and evolution, see NCSE's main website at

www.ncseweb.org

. Questions? Email

expelled@ncseweb.org

.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Snake's vestigial limbs,

You do realize that evolution works both ways - if species find themselves in a way of life where they no longer need certain organs, those organs will tend to diminish over time. Once they are small enough to no longer get in the way, they may persist for a long time.

Critters that take to living in caves tend to gradually lose sight over many generations.

I had some legless lizards as pets as a kid, and the little flaps of skin either side of their body near their anus, were fascinating. They could still move them, would just spread out sideways when they were trying to wriggle away, or otherwise excited. It is more common to find such vestigial limbs on legless lizards, since they have more recently split off from the main reptile line than snakes. They are different from snakes in identifiable ways, but they do demonstrate the snakey way of life has its own viability, so more than one line of critters has evolved into that form.

Here are examples of vestigial limbs on some snakes, from http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:You were

hanntonn wrote:

You were arguing that evolution predict no useless organs. Well, if it's the case, how do you get irreducibly complex system in place. If anything useless is eliminated, then irreducibly complex system cannot form. Well, evolutionists argue for a step-by-step evolution of irreducibly complex system. And now you're arguing against that. I simply cannot understand your so confusing position. I reassert it, how do you get new complex system without going through a transitional form all by a step-by-step process? a transitional form would require a useless system. I'm not asking for one example that could be explaining by a bad comprehension of the functioning of the organ. There should be plenty, guys.

So, in fact, you guys are arguing for a non-evolution hypothesis. This is unbelievable.

What is confusing is when evolutionists argue for random mutations when it comes to DNA talk, but they argue against randomness when it comes to biological appearances of organisms. This is really confusing.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hanntonn, We are well aware

Hanntonn,

We are well aware of what you wrote. It shows that you don't know what you're talking about on this subject.

Everything you have written in an attempt to discredit our case has instead discredit yours. You are one of the better players on our team. Thank you.

Now to your crap.

1. You still don't have a clue what "vestigial" means, do you? Again, it means we don't know what original function it had but we know it's not doing anything at present.

2. The tail bone is not performing its original function as an attachment for a damn tail!

3. The pelvic bones of whales originally had legs attached.

4. You're attacking a straw man here. Nut I see you're good at that.

All I did was question an error in quoting - Bob and I aren't fighting each other. In fact, you are spending all your energy supporting our view while supposedly attacking it.

Please, do some research.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. You still

jcgadfly wrote:


1. You still don't have a clue what "vestigial" means, do you? Again, it means we don't know what original function it had but we know it's not doing anything at present.

I knew that. The problem is that it assumes it had an earlier function. Thank you for saying I'm a good player. I was not considered that well when I played hockey.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. The tail bone is not performing its original function as an attachment for a damn tail!

Well, where is it. You assume it was there.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. The pelvic bones of whales originally had legs attached.

You assume it had legs.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. You're attacking a straw man here. Nut I see you're good at that.

All I did was question an error in quoting - Bob and I aren't fighting each other. In fact, you are spending all your energy supporting our view while supposedly attacking it.

No, What I said didn't refer to the question you asked. I only quoted your sentence to refer to what we were talking about: useless organs.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote:hanntonn

El-ahrairah wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

You were arguing that evolution predict no useless organs. Well, if it's the case, how do you get irreducibly complex system in place. If anything useless is eliminated, then irreducibly complex system cannot form. Well, evolutionists argue for a step-by-step evolution of irreducibly complex system. And now you're arguing against that. I simply cannot understand your so confusing position. I reassert it, how do you get new complex system without going through a transitional form all by a step-by-step process? a transitional form would require a useless system. I'm not asking for one example that could be explaining by a bad comprehension of the functioning of the organ. There should be plenty, guys.

So, in fact, you guys are arguing for a non-evolution hypothesis. This is unbelievable.

What is confusing is when evolutionists argue for random mutations when it comes to DNA talk, but they argue against randomness when it comes to biological appearances of organisms. This is really confusing.

Where is the strawman, I don't see it. There is really a confusion about whether useless organs are necessary or not.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Whales have small sets of

Whales have small sets of bones near their pelvis which correspond to the leg bones in animals with limbs.

Even a pelvis demonstrates they evolved from land animals, fish don't have anything corresponding to that structure. The pelvis originated most likely in the gradually modification of one of the vertebrae near the rear fins.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:You do

BobSpence1 wrote:

You do realize that evolution works both ways - if species find themselves in a way of life where they no longer need certain organs, those organs will tend to diminish over time. Once they are small enough to no longer get in the way, they may persist for a long time.

Critters that take to living in caves tend to gradually lose sight over many generations.

I had some legless lizards as pets as a kid, and the little flaps of skin either side of their body near their anus, were fascinating. They could still move them, would just spread out sideways when they were trying to wriggle away, or otherwise excited. It is more common to find such vestigial limbs on legless lizards, since they have more recently split off from the main reptile line than snakes. They are different from snakes in identifiable ways, but they do demonstrate the snakey way of life has its own viability, so more than one line of critters has evolved into that form.

Here are examples of vestigial limbs on some snakes, from http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html

So, these vestigial limbs have another function now that they had before? Don't you know that microevolution can predict those kind of things?

I did some research on this and it appears that snakes limbs can vary in length in a very short period of time. So, it appears that this is already coded in the DNA so that lizards can do this.

Evolutionists only have examples of devolution whereas they should be looking for evolution and then, they say that evolution predict that there shouldn't be transitional forms at all. Don't you see the foolishness of this? How do you get irreducibly complex systems?

You assume that evolution works both ways, but when it comes to observation, you assume that there can't be any useless organs. Why?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The gain in un-used parts

The gain in un-used parts growing smaller is that the resources used to grow and maintain those limbs are now available for something else (or aren't needed, so the critter can get by with less).  Both of those are distinct advantages.

 

Like if you have a car at home you never drive anymore you can get rid of it and use the money for something else.  You might still have the snow tires in the garage the year after you sell it, but eventually you'll get rid of those too, even if it only gives you a bit more space.  No rush though.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:El-ahrairah

hanntonn wrote:

El-ahrairah wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

You were arguing that evolution predict no useless organs. Well, if it's the case, how do you get irreducibly complex system in place. If anything useless is eliminated, then irreducibly complex system cannot form. Well, evolutionists argue for a step-by-step evolution of irreducibly complex system. And now you're arguing against that. I simply cannot understand your so confusing position. I reassert it, how do you get new complex system without going through a transitional form all by a step-by-step process? a transitional form would require a useless system. I'm not asking for one example that could be explaining by a bad comprehension of the functioning of the organ. There should be plenty, guys.

So, in fact, you guys are arguing for a non-evolution hypothesis. This is unbelievable.

What is confusing is when evolutionists argue for random mutations when it comes to DNA talk, but they argue against randomness when it comes to biological appearances of organisms. This is really confusing.

Where is the strawman, I don't see it. There is really a confusion about whether useless organs are necessary or not.

Who's arguing for an irreducibly complex system?

That's your position that you are failing to defend. then again, if Behe couldn't do it why should I expect you to do better?

People who do research in science know that irreducible complexity is bat squeexe.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Whales have

BobSpence1 wrote:

Whales have small sets of bones near their pelvis which correspond to the leg bones in animals with limbs.

Even a pelvis demonstrates they evolved from land animals, fish don't have anything corresponding to that structure. The pelvis originated most likely in the gradually modification of one of the vertebrae near the rear fins.

You assume that a pelvis necessitate legs. Well, it has been shown that whale's pelvis serve a reproductive purpose. Assuming that they had legs doesn't prove it's true. No land animals breathe the way whales and dolphin breathe. If you assume that it came up by chance, then chance should have produced a lot of other kind of organs and systems before coming up to this. But this is not seen in transitional fossils, there are no future organs in formation that can be seen today. So, there is no support for your assertion. Similarities to not prove they came from the same thing. You forget that you need transitional forms. Where are they?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The gain in

mellestad wrote:

The gain in un-used parts growing smaller is that the resources used to grow and maintain those limbs are now available for something else (or aren't needed, so the critter can get by with less).  Both of those are distinct advantages.

 

Like if you have a car at home you never drive anymore you can get rid of it and use the money for something else.  You might still have the snow tires in the garage the year after you sell it, but eventually you'll get rid of those too, even if it only gives you a bit more space.  No rush though.

You may also cut the tires in pieces and they could form by gradual changes a bunch of pucks and you could play hockey with them. Oh wait, since you wouldn't use the puck before they are ready to be used, they would then be thrown in the trash before they get ready. so the evolution wouldn't happen.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You do realize that evolution works both ways - if species find themselves in a way of life where they no longer need certain organs, those organs will tend to diminish over time. Once they are small enough to no longer get in the way, they may persist for a long time.

Critters that take to living in caves tend to gradually lose sight over many generations.

I had some legless lizards as pets as a kid, and the little flaps of skin either side of their body near their anus, were fascinating. They could still move them, would just spread out sideways when they were trying to wriggle away, or otherwise excited. It is more common to find such vestigial limbs on legless lizards, since they have more recently split off from the main reptile line than snakes. They are different from snakes in identifiable ways, but they do demonstrate the snakey way of life has its own viability, so more than one line of critters has evolved into that form.

Here are examples of vestigial limbs on some snakes, from http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html

So, these vestigial limbs have another function now that they had before? Don't you know that microevolution can predict those kind of things?

I did some research on this and it appears that snakes limbs can vary in length in a very short period of time. So, it appears that this is already coded in the DNA so that lizards can do this.

Evolutionists only have examples of devolution whereas they should be looking for evolution and then, they say that evolution predict that there shouldn't be transitional forms at all. Don't you see the foolishness of this? How do you get irreducibly complex systems?

You assume that evolution works both ways, but when it comes to observation, you assume that there can't be any useless organs. Why?

We have examples of both.

We don't assume there can be no useless organs. All organs are assumed to have had some use at some point in the lineage of the organism, but not necessarily at any particular point.

There are vestigial organs that no longer have a use, but don't particularly get in the way of the normal life of the organism, so are not strongly selected against, and simply whither away due to random mutations, since mutations that make them smaller are likely to have a very minor positive effect, while anything that makes them larger is more likely to turn them into a nuisance and so be selected against to a small extent.

Then there is the other case where a small change starts to make the organ useful for something entirely different. This is what defeats the 'irreducible complexity' argument.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Who's arguing

jcgadfly wrote:

Who's arguing for an irreducibly complex system?

That's your position that you are failing to defend. then again, if Behe couldn't do it why should I expect you to do better?

People who do research in science know that irreducible complexity is bat squeexe.

I didn't assume that irreducibly complex system were in fact irreducible. But since they require more then one step of evolution before they get functioning, such as the bacteria flagellum, there must be at least the possibility for more than one useless mutation to happen without the organism getting rid of it. If this doesn't happen, complex systems cannot be built. So, I was in fact trying to explain what would be the position of evolutionists on how really complex systems can get formed. If useless evolution doesn't happen, than complex systems cannot form. But we don't see these things in the observation of nature. There are no useless organs. For me, it renders clearly evolution impossible. So, evolutionists must assume that evolution happened only based on faith. So, evolution should then not be taught in schools.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:We don't

BobSpence1 wrote:

We don't assume there can be no useless organs. All organs are assumed to have had some use at some point in the lineage of the organism, but not necessarily at any particular point.

First, it wasn't my saying that evolutionists assumed that there were no useless organs. That was one of your friend's sayings. He said that evolution predicted no useless organs. But evolution predict exactly the contrary. It predicts plenty of useless organs. The problem is that we don't see them. Your saying that all organs had some use in the past "or none?" requires that this happen at some particular point in time. You can't say that something happened, but that I can't demand at what point in time it happened. Your saying is like if you said: yes, there must have been transitional fossils, but you can't look at the geological column to verify if there are any. This is going against science, I'm sorry.

BobSpence1 wrote:
There are vestigial organs that no longer have a use, but don't particularly get in the way of the normal life of the organism, so are not strongly selected against, and simply whither away due to random mutations

Wait a minute. Did you really said that. Don't you know that a vestigial organ that have no longer a use in the organism is at an equal state than a forming organ or "useless organ". If the useless organ can continue it ascension toward a useful organ, why should the vestigial organ disappear? Both are useless should you remark. Shouldn't both be eliminated as a waste of energy?

BobSpence1 wrote:
since mutations that make them smaller are likely to have a very minor positive effect, while anything that makes them larger is more likely to turn them into a nuisance and so be selected against to a small extent.

You've provided me another reason to think useless organs won't grow up. Since they become a nuisance by becoming larger before they get useful, any trying of evolution to make a complex system would be ripped out at some point. Thank you for that argument, I didn't think about it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Then there is the other case where a small change starts to make the organ useful for something entirely different. This is what defeats the 'irreducible complexity' argument.

Your previous point contradict the possibility of this. The complex organ must be useful since the start or it will be wiped out.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
bob wrote:Then there is the

bob wrote:

Then there is the other case where a small change starts to make the organ useful for something entirely different.

If every complex organs are made from the devolution of a vestigial one, how is the first one made? they can't all be formed by devolution.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
hanntonn wrote:bob

hanntonn wrote:

bob wrote:

Then there is the other case where a small change starts to make the organ useful for something entirely different.

If every complex organs are made from the devolution of a vestigial one, how is the first one made? they can't all be formed by devolution.

Don't be a dick.

Where the hell did you get me saying that every organ is "made from the devolution of a vestigial one"??

That is one of the many paths by which organs evolve, both increases and decrease in complexity, and gradual change of function.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Where the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Where the hell did you get me saying that every organ is "made from the devolution of a vestigial one"??

That is one of the many paths by which organs evolve, both increases and decrease in complexity, and gradual change of function.

I suppose it's the only other possibility for evolution. Since you said that a growing useless organ is not something probable, but more a decreasing useless organ, how are you going to get those complex systems? Since the first complex systems do not get there by devolution, how are the first useless somewhat complex systems evolve into a useful one? If you think that organisms get rid of bigger useless organs because it is a nuisance, then no complex systems can form in the first place.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
I know you are going to

I know you are going to argue to a change in function of already useful organs, but there are things that you can't get from an already functioning organ. Such as the bacterial flagellum. Some evolutionists assume that each steps can arise by chance, but they don't get the end result, the bacterial flagellum, from another preexisting system that could be useful. If you remove any of the many pieces in the bacterial flagellum, the mechanism won't work. And there is no utility to the whole mechanism at all. There may be some use for each pieces from which the whole mechanism is formed, but not half of it for example. If useless bigger organs are dumped, then this can't arise by chance. And it go along with the observation of the data in the geological column.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Who's arguing

jcgadfly wrote:

Who's arguing for an irreducibly complex system?

That's your position that you are failing to defend. then again, if Behe couldn't do it why should I expect you to do better?

People who do research in science know that irreducible complexity is bat squeexe.

I'm quoting this again since it pushes the ridicule to it extreme limit. I don't know who is that Behe, but what I know is that there is nothing to defend about irreducible complexity. In fact, irreducible complexity was named that way since there was no explanation as to how these kinds of systems arised by chance. So, in fact, talking about irreducible complexity is just asking a question to evolutionists as to how a very complex system that cannot be reduced to any sub-complex systems can be formed by chance.

If an evolutionist says that I failed to defend irreducible complexity without answering anything to what I'm asking is in fact saying that I failed to prove I had the right to ask that question. This is delusional and pathetic. As I pointed out, if useless organs needed to form an irreducible system are non-existent or wiped out by natural selection, new complex systems cannot arise at all. Have I failed to prove this was a valid question? What is the view of evolutionists on this matter? If some of you guys think that useless organs are possible in order to form very complex system, then I've another question.

Since there is only a low probability that a very complex system arise by chance if there is no advantage to that system before it is finished, shouldn't there be statistically more useless organs seen than useful complex systems? Why isn't anything of this observable?

So, by taking one assumption or the other, it seems to me that evolution fails miserably the test of logics.

The only rebuttal that was written on irreducible complexity is the argument of Bob that irreducible complexity could be done by a decrease in complexity followed by a small change that could render the system functional for another purpose. But that argument fails to explain how the complexity of the first organ was formed. He said that this argument  was defeating irreducible complexity. After my rebuttal, he then said that not every complex systems were formed that way. So, his argument did not defeat irreducible complexity. I must add that not one single complex system is formed the way he said. This is so because any decreasing complexity must be preceded by an increase in complexity. So, in fact, he was really saying that these systems were formed by an increase in complexity followed by a decrease in complexity. This just pushed forward the problem. It comes back to the same problem which is how the first complexity can be formed without giving the organism any advantage in the first place if the organism tend to wipe out any new complexity that is not useful. If this is possible by chance, it then goes back to the second problem which is that we don't see statistically more useless systems than useful complex ones in organisms. So, I think you guys have a real problem with irreducible complexity and need to explain yourself.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Where the hell did you get me saying that every organ is "made from the devolution of a vestigial one"??

That is one of the many paths by which organs evolve, both increases and decrease in complexity, and gradual change of function.

I suppose it's the only other possibility for evolution. Since you said that a growing useless organ is not something probable, but more a decreasing useless organ, how are you going to get those complex systems? Since the first complex systems do not get there by devolution, how are the first useless somewhat complex systems evolve into a useful one? If you think that organisms get rid of bigger useless organs because it is a nuisance, then no complex systems can form in the first place.

Now I know you're just yanking our chains.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Now I know

mellestad wrote:

Now I know you're just yanking our chains.

What chains? re-explain the whole thing to me please. It seems that it is self contradictory. If you've no proofs of these things, how do you call this theory anything else than a religion?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
hanntonn wrote:mellestad

hanntonn wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Now I know you're just yanking our chains.

What chains? re-explain the whole thing to me please. It seems that it is self contradictory. If you've no proofs of these things, how do you call this theory anything else than a religion?

Time for a summary.

Theories are established by being shown to fit the facts, and provide the most plausible explanation for them, and where possible, make predictions which turn out be accurate.

The facts in the case of evolution are:

1. All forms of Life on Earth are seen to be related, with degrees of similarity strongly suggesting many 'family trees', by body structure and way of life, all strongly suggesting an ultimate common origin;

2. Fossil evidence further supports this observation, by showing examples of actual ancestral forms;

3. Modern DNA studies of relatedness through the basic mechanism of inheritance provide a third independent line of evidence, probably the strongest of the three.

4. Individuals within a thriving species all show a range of variation in the details of their form and behaviour - we do not normally find absolutely identical genetics across an entire species, and mating between individuals that are identical or near identical (apart from gender) are generally more likely to produce defective offspring.

As to the proposed mechanism of evolution:

1. Random mutation of genetic material provides the raw material for change, and the the absence of anything limiting the amount of change that can occur from any starting point;

.... all the necessary processes to generate such change have been observed and documented to occur in DNA at an adequate rate to make this workable.

2. Only a fraction of the new organisms produced in each generation survive to give rise to the next generation;

.... This has been common observation since long before Darwin.

3. Across the range of individual variation within a species, any variations that increase the likelihood of survival to reproduce will be more common in those that do survive to reproduce;

.... This is a simple logical consequence.

4. Therefore, over time, any large inter-breeding group of organisms ('species') will tend to be dominated by those individuals best adapted to the environment;

5. 'Speciation': this requires that there be some additional factor splitting what would otherwise be a mutually inter-breeding group into two or more sub-groups, which rarely, if ever inter-breed. This may be geographical separation, such as by sheer distance, or barriers such as large bodies of water ( for non-aquatic life), mountain ranges, deserts.

It can also be simply some mutation which spreads through a significant fraction of a group, which reduces fertility between that sub-group and the rest. This has been observed in in some tropical butterfly species. To be practically observable, it has to be in a species with a short generation time.

Once there is such separation, there will be some tendency for differences to accumulate, even if just due to 'genetic drift', the effect of the basic mutation rate. Any significan difference in the environment will naturally accelerate such differentiation.

Regarding 'information' in the DNA:

Random variation is ultimately the most truly 'creative' generator of genuinely novel patterns, but it is typically much slower to stumble across the more 'obvious' changes that a conscious designer might choose. OTOH, it has a higher possibility of 'stumbling across' variations that do not have a clear connection with existing patterns.

This is why it can take millions of years for major changes to occur, which would not be expected if a competent designer were involved.

THe main limitation of natural evolution is the step-by-step nature, with the requirement that each step be a viable organism.

As more individual mutations are required in one step to go from one viable organism to some other viable form, the probability of that combination occurring goes down dramatically.

This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

See this site for more on this: http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php.

EDIT: I almost forgot to give an example of Prediction'

For such theories as natural section,where much of the evidence is forensic, ie historical, prediction involves suggesting what we should find if we look for something not so far found, and should suggest where and how to look for it.

This worked out pretty well in the recent case of Tiktaalik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Scientists wanted to find a better example of a transitional form between marine life and land-dwelling forms. So they worked just what environment would favour such a critter, and where might be a good place to find the modern traces of such an environment. And they found something pretty close to what they predicted such a transitional form would look like, in some detail.

That will do for now, I have work to do.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Time for a

BobSpence1 wrote:

Time for a summary.

Theories are established by being shown to fit the facts, and provide the most plausible explanation for them, and where possible, make predictions which turn out be accurate.

You are right. Lets examine this.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The facts in the case of evolution are:

1. All forms of Life on Earth are seen to be related, with degrees of similarity strongly suggesting many 'family trees', by body structure and way of life, all strongly suggesting an ultimate common origin;

There are two hypothesis to this. common ancestry and common designer. We must examine the predictions of both before concluding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

2. Fossil evidence further supports this observation, by showing examples of actual ancestral forms;

Fossil evidence do not show any transitional forms and you must assume that the fossils are ordered through the stratas starting by the oldest ones at the bottom in order to think that there are ancestral forms. Examples of how the dirt is deposited in rivers show that this is not how the stratas were formed.

BobSpence1 wrote:

3. Modern DNA studies of relatedness through the basic mechanism of inheritance provide a third independent line of evidence, probably the strongest of the three.

DNA studies do not show how animals could come from other types of animals. There is nothing strong there, creationists would include that mechanism in their theory also. It doesn't say  anything about evolution. On the contrary, modern DNA studies show that Junk DNA code for something, showing that the Junk DNA is not really Junk finally. It shows that harmless mutations and duplication are not occuring since a long time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Individuals within a thriving species all show a range of variation in the details of their form and behaviour - we do not normally find absolutely identical genetics across an entire species, and mating between individuals that are identical or near identical (apart from gender) are generally more likely to produce defective offspring.

All individual within a species show that they all have the same organs with different size and color, etc. These variations would be predicted by microevolution within the ID theory. On the contrary, this fact show that the more a DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. But evolution need an individual to override a species with his superior gene in order to work. So, this doesn't work for evolution, but against it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
As to the proposed mechanism of evolution:

1. Random mutation of genetic material provides the raw material for change, and the the absence of anything limiting the amount of change that can occur from any starting point;

I'm not against this idea, but the problem is that you said that a bigger useless organ would be a nuisance and would more likely be eliminated. This doesn't show how complex systems may arise. Moreover, for this to be true, we would need to have some observations of useless organs in formation toward a useful one. There is no such a thing in nature. In fact, it is more likely that useless organs do not form. You fail to explain how complex organs form.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... all the necessary processes to generate such change have been observed and documented to occur in DNA at an adequate rate to make this workable.

You need me to believe this on faith? You already know that evolutionists are good at hiding their discovery (somehow because they think only themselves can understand it).  So, if  there is a documentation on this, I've yet to see it. But as we've talked, since useless organs wouldn't be useful to organisms, they would be eliminated, so even if there has been seen a beginning of useless organ, we need to see if it will not be eliminated and further verify if it may really get useful later. We are not requiring only the observation of one small part of an organism changing it function (this might be possible by mutation, but it doesn't explain how complex systems arise). We are requiring more than a small observation in order to explain irreducible complex system (I've already explained what I meant by irreducible). for this to be verified, you'd have to provide examples of complex useless organs and also that they be not eliminated and also that they would get useful later. So, here, we're not searching for vestigial organs that are devoluting (ID predicts devolution), but only new organs that do not seem to have a function a priori and get to be useful by mutations in the future.

1. We do not see useless organs in nature; only supposedly a few vestigial organs, but vestigial organs do not show evolution, it shows devolution.

2. We do not see complex systems forming from sub-complex systems.

BobSpence1 wrote:
2. Only a fraction of the new organisms produced in each generation survive to give rise to the next generation;

.... This has been common observation since long before Darwin.

You've provided yourself a reason to think that the more the DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. This does work for speciation, but speciation, if you really think about it, works against evolution by eliminating characteristics within a species.

BobSpence1 wrote:
3. Across the range of individual variation within a species, any variations that increase the likelihood of survival to reproduce will be more common in those that do survive to reproduce;

1. Any variation that would produce a useless mutation would reduce the likelihood of survival. But useless mutations are necessary for the formation of complex systems. So, organisms that are more likely to produce new complex organs are more likely to be eliminated.

2. In the end, the population that is more likely to reproduce is the population that do not have much variations from it ancestors in the DNA.

3. I must add to this that as the reproduction of members of a same family will more likely produce difformities, any speciation within a species will more likely produce difformities. So, even if natural selection preserve the strongest genes, it still works against the survival of the species.


BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Therefore, over time, any large inter-breeding group of organisms ('species') will tend to be dominated by those individuals best adapted to the environment;

No, over time, the more the DNA will be specified, the more it will look like two members of a same family interbrede. There will be a major reduction in DNA information and a reduction in the adaptability to the environment with more risks of difformities. This is why there are so many species being wiped out from the earth and none appearing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
5. 'Speciation': this requires that there be some additional factor splitting what would otherwise be a mutually inter-breeding group into two or more sub-groups, which rarely, if ever inter-breed. This may be geographical separation, such as by sheer distance, or barriers such as large bodies of water ( for non-aquatic life), mountain ranges, deserts.

Speciation show a loss in DNA information from ancestry. This is why isolating two members of a same family will produce difformities.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... This is a simple logical consequence.
Not at all. As I pointed out, nothing works. Everything you said show devolution, not evolution. You assume that the members of a species that will survive more will have some better genes, but the fact is that isolating a member of a species with a new useless gene won't make it easier for him to change it into a useful one. Assumptions over assumptions don't make a theory true.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can also be simply some mutation which spreads through a significant fraction of a group, which reduces fertility between that sub-group and the rest. This has been observed in in some tropical butterfly species. To be practically observable, it has to be in a species with a short generation time.

Where have you seen a new complex system being made up in those butterflies? There has been mutations, true, but since mutations are most of the time neutral or harmful, where is the point in this. Microevolution predicts this. Butterflies produce butterflies and evolutionists are seeing butterflies make helicopters.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Once there is such separation, there will be some tendency for differences to accumulate, even if just due to 'genetic drift', the effect of the basic mutation rate. Any significan difference in the environment will naturally accelerate such differentiation.

Since such a separation will drop some DNA information in that sub-species, it will be even less adaptative and as each new useless organs would be eliminated, no progress would result with this, but only a loss of genetic information.

Regarding 'information' in the DNA:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Random variation is ultimately the most truly 'creative' generator of genuinely novel patterns, but it is typically much slower to stumble across the more 'obvious' changes that a conscious designer might choose. OTOH, it has a higher possibility of 'stumbling across' variations that do not have a clear connection with existing patterns.

You must assume this with no indication at all. There are no transitional fossils, no useless complex organs, no explanation as to why there is not a lot of non-coding genetic information.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is why it can take millions of years for major changes to occur, which would not be expected if a competent designer were involved.

millions of years are supposed to be written in the geological column. You can't get all the fossils to not show any transition all by chance. There is no seen transitions neither in fossils or in living animals. But no creationists believe in the millions of years stuff and you must assume it in order to say that the designer can't go through millions of years. That's the problem, there were no millions of years.

BobSpence1 wrote:
THe main limitation of natural evolution is the step-by-step nature, with the requirement that each step be a viable organism.

As more individual mutations are required in one step to go from one viable organism to some other viable form, the probability of that combination occurring goes down dramatically.

It's in fact so low that it's not observable.  EDIT: that is principally what is the problem of irreducibly complex systems. They cannot be reduce to a similarly smaller working system. They just can't go through a simple step-by-step process without being at some point "USELESS". Since you said that useless systems are likely to be eliminated from the species, evolution has a real problem in permitting these systems to get there.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

That is very discussable whether this is poor design or a good design or a relatively good design. Your hypothesis may come from some misconception about the functioning of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. There is no indication whatsoever that the giraffe could come from any totally different ancestor since there are no transitional fossils and there is not even a good explanation existing as how such a complex system could arise by a step-by-step serie of functioning organisms.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
For such theories as natural section,where much of the evidence is forensic, ie historical, prediction involves suggesting what we should find if we look for something not so far found, and should suggest where and how to look for it.

that theory would predict transitional fossils where there are none, it would predict plenty of useless organs where there are none, it would predict plenty of non-coding DNA where there are more and more functions found instead of non-coding DNA.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists wanted to find a better example of a transitional form between marine life and land-dwelling forms. So they worked just what environment would favour such a critter, and where might be a good place to find the modern traces of such an environment. And they found something pretty close to what they predicted such a transitional form would look like, in some detail.

You don't seem to understand what are transitional forms. In fact, if evolution was made by a step-by-step process, you should search for a series of fossils with very little differences between them to join them in common ancestry. If evolution takes millions of years to happen, there should be very little differences between fossils with common ancestry. The observations show that every fossils are completely formed, with no signs of evolution.

If you find a supposedly transitional fossil, how do you know it did evolved from any ancestors if there are no signs of evolution in it body and that there are no fossils linking it to another species. The answer is that you assume it in order to prove evolution. Evolution is based on faith.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:You don't

hanntonn wrote:

You don't seem to understand what are transitional forms. In fact, if evolution was made by a step-by-step process, you should search for a series of fossils with very little differences between them to join them in common ancestry. If evolution takes millions of years to happen, there should be very little differences between fossils with common ancestry. The observations show that every fossils are completely formed, with no signs of evolution.

If you find a supposedly transitional fossil, how do you know it did evolved from any ancestors if there are no signs of evolution in it body and that there are no fossils linking it to another species. The answer is that you assume it in order to prove evolution. Evolution is based on faith.

You might say that fossils only form rarely. The problem is that man has not been there since a long time and there are many fossils. There should be at least one fossil that could be found from each species each 50000 years. So, we wouldn't see much differences between fossils separated by 50000 years. But these fossils are not seen.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Time for a summary.

Theories are established by being shown to fit the facts, and provide the most plausible explanation for them, and where possible, make predictions which turn out be accurate.

You are right. Lets examine this.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The facts in the case of evolution are:

1. All forms of Life on Earth are seen to be related, with degrees of similarity strongly suggesting many 'family trees', by body structure and way of life, all strongly suggesting an ultimate common origin;

There are two hypothesis to this. common ancestry and common designer. We must examine the predictions of both before concluding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

2. Fossil evidence further supports this observation, by showing examples of actual ancestral forms;

Fossil evidence do not show any transitional forms and you must assume that the fossils are ordered through the stratas starting by the oldest ones at the bottom in order to think that there are ancestral forms. Examples of how the dirt is deposited in rivers show that this is not how the stratas were formed.

BobSpence1 wrote:

3. Modern DNA studies of relatedness through the basic mechanism of inheritance provide a third independent line of evidence, probably the strongest of the three.

DNA studies do not show how animals could come from other types of animals. There is nothing strong there, creationists would include that mechanism in their theory also. It doesn't say  anything about evolution. On the contrary, modern DNA studies show that Junk DNA code for something, showing that the Junk DNA is not really Junk finally. It shows that harmless mutations and duplication are not occuring since a long time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Individuals within a thriving species all show a range of variation in the details of their form and behaviour - we do not normally find absolutely identical genetics across an entire species, and mating between individuals that are identical or near identical (apart from gender) are generally more likely to produce defective offspring.

All individual within a species show that they all have the same organs with different size and color, etc. These variations would be predicted by microevolution within the ID theory. On the contrary, this fact show that the more a DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. But evolution need an individual to override a species with his superior gene in order to work. So, this doesn't work for evolution, but against it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
As to the proposed mechanism of evolution:

1. Random mutation of genetic material provides the raw material for change, and the the absence of anything limiting the amount of change that can occur from any starting point;

I'm not against this idea, but the problem is that you said that a bigger useless organ would be a nuisance and would more likely be eliminated. This doesn't show how complex systems may arise. Moreover, for this to be true, we would need to have some observations of useless organs in formation toward a useful one. There is no such a thing in nature. In fact, it is more likely that useless organs do not form. You fail to explain how complex organs form.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... all the necessary processes to generate such change have been observed and documented to occur in DNA at an adequate rate to make this workable.

You need me to believe this on faith? You already know that evolutionists are good at hiding their discovery (somehow because they think only themselves can understand it).  So, if  there is a documentation on this, I've yet to see it. But as we've talked, since useless organs wouldn't be useful to organisms, they would be eliminated, so even if there has been seen a beginning of useless organ, we need to see if it will not be eliminated and further verify if it may really get useful later. We are not requiring only the observation of one small part of an organism changing it function (this might be possible by mutation, but it doesn't explain how complex systems arise). We are requiring more than a small observation in order to explain irreducible complex system (I've already explained what I meant by irreducible). for this to be verified, you'd have to provide examples of complex useless organs and also that they be not eliminated and also that they would get useful later. So, here, we're not searching for vestigial organs that are devoluting (ID predicts devolution), but only new organs that do not seem to have a function a priori and get to be useful by mutations in the future.

1. We do not see useless organs in nature; only supposedly a few vestigial organs, but vestigial organs do not show evolution, it shows devolution.

2. We do not see complex systems forming from sub-complex systems.

BobSpence1 wrote:
2. Only a fraction of the new organisms produced in each generation survive to give rise to the next generation;

.... This has been common observation since long before Darwin.

You've provided yourself a reason to think that the more the DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. This does work for speciation, but speciation, if you really think about it, works against evolution by eliminating characteristics within a species.

BobSpence1 wrote:
3. Across the range of individual variation within a species, any variations that increase the likelihood of survival to reproduce will be more common in those that do survive to reproduce;

1. Any variation that would produce a useless mutation would reduce the likelihood of survival. But useless mutations are necessary for the formation of complex systems. So, organisms that are more likely to produce new complex organs are more likely to be eliminated.

2. In the end, the population that is more likely to reproduce is the population that do not have much variations from it ancestors in the DNA.

3. I must add to this that as the reproduction of members of a same family will more likely produce difformities, any speciation within a species will more likely produce difformities. So, even if natural selection preserve the strongest genes, it still works against the survival of the species.


BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Therefore, over time, any large inter-breeding group of organisms ('species') will tend to be dominated by those individuals best adapted to the environment;

No, over time, the more the DNA will be specified, the more it will look like two members of a same family interbrede. There will be a major reduction in DNA information and a reduction in the adaptability to the environment with more risks of difformities. This is why there are so many species being wiped out from the earth and none appearing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
5. 'Speciation': this requires that there be some additional factor splitting what would otherwise be a mutually inter-breeding group into two or more sub-groups, which rarely, if ever inter-breed. This may be geographical separation, such as by sheer distance, or barriers such as large bodies of water ( for non-aquatic life), mountain ranges, deserts.

Speciation show a loss in DNA information from ancestry. This is why isolating two members of a same family will produce difformities.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... This is a simple logical consequence.
Not at all. As I pointed out, nothing works. Everything you said show devolution, not evolution. You assume that the members of a species that will survive more will have some better genes, but the fact is that isolating a member of a species with a new useless gene won't make it easier for him to change it into a useful one. Assumptions over assumptions don't make a theory true.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can also be simply some mutation which spreads through a significant fraction of a group, which reduces fertility between that sub-group and the rest. This has been observed in in some tropical butterfly species. To be practically observable, it has to be in a species with a short generation time.

Where have you seen a new complex system being made up in those butterflies? There has been mutations, true, but since mutations are most of the time neutral or harmful, where is the point in this. Microevolution predicts this. Butterflies produce butterflies and evolutionists are seeing butterflies make helicopters.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Once there is such separation, there will be some tendency for differences to accumulate, even if just due to 'genetic drift', the effect of the basic mutation rate. Any significan difference in the environment will naturally accelerate such differentiation.

Since such a separation will drop some DNA information in that sub-species, it will be even less adaptative and as each new useless organs would be eliminated, no progress would result with this, but only a loss of genetic information.

Regarding 'information' in the DNA:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Random variation is ultimately the most truly 'creative' generator of genuinely novel patterns, but it is typically much slower to stumble across the more 'obvious' changes that a conscious designer might choose. OTOH, it has a higher possibility of 'stumbling across' variations that do not have a clear connection with existing patterns.

You must assume this with no indication at all. There are no transitional fossils, no useless complex organs, no explanation as to why there is not a lot of non-coding genetic information.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is why it can take millions of years for major changes to occur, which would not be expected if a competent designer were involved.

millions of years are supposed to be written in the geological column. You can't get all the fossils to not show any transition all by chance. There is no seen transitions neither in fossils or in living animals. But no creationists believe in the millions of years stuff and you must assume it in order to say that the designer can't go through millions of years. That's the problem, there were no millions of years.

BobSpence1 wrote:
THe main limitation of natural evolution is the step-by-step nature, with the requirement that each step be a viable organism.

As more individual mutations are required in one step to go from one viable organism to some other viable form, the probability of that combination occurring goes down dramatically.

It's in fact so low that it's not observable.  EDIT: that is principally what is the problem of irreducibly complex systems. They cannot be reduce to a similarly smaller working system. They just can't go through a simple step-by-step process without being at some point "USELESS". Since you said that useless systems are likely to be eliminated from the species, evolution has a real problem in permitting these systems to get there.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

That is very discussable whether this is poor design or a good design or a relatively good design. Your hypothesis may come from some misconception about the functioning of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. There is no indication whatsoever that the giraffe could come from any totally different ancestor since there are no transitional fossils and there is not even a good explanation existing as how such a complex system could arise by a step-by-step serie of functioning organisms.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
For such theories as natural section,where much of the evidence is forensic, ie historical, prediction involves suggesting what we should find if we look for something not so far found, and should suggest where and how to look for it.

that theory would predict transitional fossils where there are none, it would predict plenty of useless organs where there are none, it would predict plenty of non-coding DNA where there are more and more functions found instead of non-coding DNA.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists wanted to find a better example of a transitional form between marine life and land-dwelling forms. So they worked just what environment would favour such a critter, and where might be a good place to find the modern traces of such an environment. And they found something pretty close to what they predicted such a transitional form would look like, in some detail.

You don't seem to understand what are transitional forms. In fact, if evolution was made by a step-by-step process, you should search for a series of fossils with very little differences between them to join them in common ancestry. If evolution takes millions of years to happen, there should be very little differences between fossils with common ancestry. The observations show that every fossils are completely formed, with no signs of evolution.

If you find a supposedly transitional fossil, how do you know it did evolved from any ancestors if there are no signs of evolution in it body and that there are no fossils linking it to another species. The answer is that you assume it in order to prove evolution. Evolution is based on faith.

I just realized what your stuff read like.

"Dr" Hovind, when did you get out of jail?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
The more I read of this, the

The more I read of this, the more I'm convinced this is some kind of student prank, "designed" to get other people to do their biology homework for them.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

That is very discussable whether this is poor design or a good design or a relatively good design. Your hypothesis may come from some misconception about the functioning of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. There is no indication whatsoever that the giraffe could come from any totally different ancestor since there are no transitional fossils and there is not even a good explanation existing as how such a complex system could arise by a step-by-step series of functioning organisms.

About the poor design, it can't be proven that there is really a poor design in something only based on how useful it is. It may have some other functions or patterns that show really great design. for example, some may say that some characteristics of animals are absurd, yet it could be that they haven't seen that these organs show a complete symmetry. Symmetry might be useful to an organism, but it seems more that it is something rational rather than useful. It would be extremely improbable that evolution would make organisms with complete symmetry since there is no great advantage at that. Evolution might create, if we assume that a process of making a complex organ from a series of other useful organs could happen, only an approximative symmetry. So, saying that there is poor design in the world is extremely wrong GLOBALLY. You may find one or two examples here and there from things that you do not understand properly, but creationists can find you Billions of examples of very good designs. So, if we take the whole picture, this is really not at your advantage.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Creationists can find

Creationists can find examples of really good design?

This could be interesting - what do you have?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Every fossil is a

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, unless it happened to have been from an species that was on the verge of extinction.

It requires certain conditions for fossils to be formed and preserved and be in accessible parts of the earth, not too deeply buried, unless they are in mining areas.

So only a tiny fraction of all the animals and plants that ever lived have left identifiable fossils.

So of course we can't trace the step-by-step of evolution thru fossils except perhaps a few exceptional cases.

Nevertheless, we do indeed have enough fossils to trace pretty convincing evolutionary paths for quite a few lineages.

You will never see 'signs of evolution' on any single specimen - there is no magic sudden change of one animal giving birth to something that looks like a different species, just the normal process of minor differences between parent and offspring.

It is only when there is some selection pressure that consistently gives a slight advantage to some particular direction of change, that significant evolution will occur, and normally the change in the group. Evolution is only something that applies to a whole inter-breeding group of animals.

It can only be detected in retrospect, by comparing the average body form, behaviour, and so on, of a group, at different times over many generations.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Creationists

jcgadfly wrote:

Creationists can find examples of really good design?

This could be interesting - what do you have?

I was thinking about you, but... Nah, it can't count as an example of good design.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Every

BobSpence1 wrote:

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, unless it happened to have been from an species that was on the verge of extinction.

You can't say anything without having just an assumption to support it?

BobSpence1 wrote:
It requires certain conditions for fossils to be formed and preserved and be in accessible parts of the earth, not too deeply buried, unless they are in mining areas.

This doesn't explain why there are many fossils of modern men. These fossils should show, if it was true that modern men are around since 50000 years to a 100 thousand years, that fossils are made quite regularly on the contrary of what you're saying. Since fossils of men would be formed every some thousand years, we should also have enough fossils from other species every so few thousands of years to complete the tree of common ancestry. You know why we can't do that? it's very simple. it's because evolution is false.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So only a tiny fraction of all the animals and plants that ever lived have left identifiable fossils.

You assume this because you believe evolution. But since there are plenty of human fossils, and some other modern animals there is no reasons why there shouldn't be fossils from every ages from every species. So, again, the facts do not concord with what evolution should produce.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So of course we can't trace the step-by-step of evolution thru fossils except perhaps a few exceptional cases.

And it's a really bad justification why there are not more fossils of every species of every period present in the geological column.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nevertheless, we do indeed have enough fossils to trace pretty convincing evolutionary paths for quite a few lineages.

Convincing for who? You only convince yourself and those that do not know anything about ID. These fossils do not show any evolutionary paths (you must imagine them) and no other species are enough similar to be possible for us to say which one came from which one.

BobSpence1 wrote:
You will never see 'signs of evolution' on any single specimen - there is no magic sudden change of one animal giving birth to something that looks like a different species, just the normal process of minor differences between parent and offspring.

You've just ignored what I said about complex systems that cannot be rendered functional through step-by-step functional organs such as the bacterial flagellum. If we can't see signs of evolution such as "Useless organs", then complex organs such as the bacterial flagellum cannot form.

So, we've:

1. no explanation as to how complex irreducible systems to another smaller complex system can form by a step-by-step process without involving a useless organ.

2. no explanation why there is not more non-coding DNA.

3. no explanation why there are not more transitional fossils.

4. no explanation as to how not advantaging logical features can arise in organisms by chance (such as Symmetry).

These 4 points all point to the possibility of these things being caused by a designer. If there are no answers to these questions, then evolution is dead.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Creationists can find examples of really good design?

This could be interesting - what do you have?

I was thinking about you, but... Nah, it can't count as an example of good design.

Yep, I was created in the image of God according to you, so that can't be good design.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yep, I was

jcgadfly wrote:

Yep, I was created in the image of God according to you, so that can't be good design.

that is obvious. There is a major problem with this. If your intellect is not well designed, How can you believe that it functions properly and that you can learn anything about reality?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:hanntonn

jcgadfly wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Time for a summary.

Theories are established by being shown to fit the facts, and provide the most plausible explanation for them, and where possible, make predictions which turn out be accurate.

You are right. Lets examine this.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The facts in the case of evolution are:

1. All forms of Life on Earth are seen to be related, with degrees of similarity strongly suggesting many 'family trees', by body structure and way of life, all strongly suggesting an ultimate common origin;

There are two hypothesis to this. common ancestry and common designer. We must examine the predictions of both before concluding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

2. Fossil evidence further supports this observation, by showing examples of actual ancestral forms;

Fossil evidence do not show any transitional forms and you must assume that the fossils are ordered through the stratas starting by the oldest ones at the bottom in order to think that there are ancestral forms. Examples of how the dirt is deposited in rivers show that this is not how the stratas were formed.

BobSpence1 wrote:

3. Modern DNA studies of relatedness through the basic mechanism of inheritance provide a third independent line of evidence, probably the strongest of the three.

DNA studies do not show how animals could come from other types of animals. There is nothing strong there, creationists would include that mechanism in their theory also. It doesn't say  anything about evolution. On the contrary, modern DNA studies show that Junk DNA code for something, showing that the Junk DNA is not really Junk finally. It shows that harmless mutations and duplication are not occuring since a long time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Individuals within a thriving species all show a range of variation in the details of their form and behaviour - we do not normally find absolutely identical genetics across an entire species, and mating between individuals that are identical or near identical (apart from gender) are generally more likely to produce defective offspring.

All individual within a species show that they all have the same organs with different size and color, etc. These variations would be predicted by microevolution within the ID theory. On the contrary, this fact show that the more a DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. But evolution need an individual to override a species with his superior gene in order to work. So, this doesn't work for evolution, but against it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
As to the proposed mechanism of evolution:

1. Random mutation of genetic material provides the raw material for change, and the the absence of anything limiting the amount of change that can occur from any starting point;

I'm not against this idea, but the problem is that you said that a bigger useless organ would be a nuisance and would more likely be eliminated. This doesn't show how complex systems may arise. Moreover, for this to be true, we would need to have some observations of useless organs in formation toward a useful one. There is no such a thing in nature. In fact, it is more likely that useless organs do not form. You fail to explain how complex organs form.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... all the necessary processes to generate such change have been observed and documented to occur in DNA at an adequate rate to make this workable.

You need me to believe this on faith? You already know that evolutionists are good at hiding their discovery (somehow because they think only themselves can understand it).  So, if  there is a documentation on this, I've yet to see it. But as we've talked, since useless organs wouldn't be useful to organisms, they would be eliminated, so even if there has been seen a beginning of useless organ, we need to see if it will not be eliminated and further verify if it may really get useful later. We are not requiring only the observation of one small part of an organism changing it function (this might be possible by mutation, but it doesn't explain how complex systems arise). We are requiring more than a small observation in order to explain irreducible complex system (I've already explained what I meant by irreducible). for this to be verified, you'd have to provide examples of complex useless organs and also that they be not eliminated and also that they would get useful later. So, here, we're not searching for vestigial organs that are devoluting (ID predicts devolution), but only new organs that do not seem to have a function a priori and get to be useful by mutations in the future.

1. We do not see useless organs in nature; only supposedly a few vestigial organs, but vestigial organs do not show evolution, it shows devolution.

2. We do not see complex systems forming from sub-complex systems.

BobSpence1 wrote:
2. Only a fraction of the new organisms produced in each generation survive to give rise to the next generation;

.... This has been common observation since long before Darwin.

You've provided yourself a reason to think that the more the DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. This does work for speciation, but speciation, if you really think about it, works against evolution by eliminating characteristics within a species.

BobSpence1 wrote:
3. Across the range of individual variation within a species, any variations that increase the likelihood of survival to reproduce will be more common in those that do survive to reproduce;

1. Any variation that would produce a useless mutation would reduce the likelihood of survival. But useless mutations are necessary for the formation of complex systems. So, organisms that are more likely to produce new complex organs are more likely to be eliminated.

2. In the end, the population that is more likely to reproduce is the population that do not have much variations from it ancestors in the DNA.

3. I must add to this that as the reproduction of members of a same family will more likely produce difformities, any speciation within a species will more likely produce difformities. So, even if natural selection preserve the strongest genes, it still works against the survival of the species.


BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Therefore, over time, any large inter-breeding group of organisms ('species') will tend to be dominated by those individuals best adapted to the environment;

No, over time, the more the DNA will be specified, the more it will look like two members of a same family interbrede. There will be a major reduction in DNA information and a reduction in the adaptability to the environment with more risks of difformities. This is why there are so many species being wiped out from the earth and none appearing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
5. 'Speciation': this requires that there be some additional factor splitting what would otherwise be a mutually inter-breeding group into two or more sub-groups, which rarely, if ever inter-breed. This may be geographical separation, such as by sheer distance, or barriers such as large bodies of water ( for non-aquatic life), mountain ranges, deserts.

Speciation show a loss in DNA information from ancestry. This is why isolating two members of a same family will produce difformities.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... This is a simple logical consequence.
Not at all. As I pointed out, nothing works. Everything you said show devolution, not evolution. You assume that the members of a species that will survive more will have some better genes, but the fact is that isolating a member of a species with a new useless gene won't make it easier for him to change it into a useful one. Assumptions over assumptions don't make a theory true.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can also be simply some mutation which spreads through a significant fraction of a group, which reduces fertility between that sub-group and the rest. This has been observed in in some tropical butterfly species. To be practically observable, it has to be in a species with a short generation time.

Where have you seen a new complex system being made up in those butterflies? There has been mutations, true, but since mutations are most of the time neutral or harmful, where is the point in this. Microevolution predicts this. Butterflies produce butterflies and evolutionists are seeing butterflies make helicopters.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Once there is such separation, there will be some tendency for differences to accumulate, even if just due to 'genetic drift', the effect of the basic mutation rate. Any significan difference in the environment will naturally accelerate such differentiation.

Since such a separation will drop some DNA information in that sub-species, it will be even less adaptative and as each new useless organs would be eliminated, no progress would result with this, but only a loss of genetic information.

Regarding 'information' in the DNA:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Random variation is ultimately the most truly 'creative' generator of genuinely novel patterns, but it is typically much slower to stumble across the more 'obvious' changes that a conscious designer might choose. OTOH, it has a higher possibility of 'stumbling across' variations that do not have a clear connection with existing patterns.

You must assume this with no indication at all. There are no transitional fossils, no useless complex organs, no explanation as to why there is not a lot of non-coding genetic information.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is why it can take millions of years for major changes to occur, which would not be expected if a competent designer were involved.

millions of years are supposed to be written in the geological column. You can't get all the fossils to not show any transition all by chance. There is no seen transitions neither in fossils or in living animals. But no creationists believe in the millions of years stuff and you must assume it in order to say that the designer can't go through millions of years. That's the problem, there were no millions of years.

BobSpence1 wrote:
THe main limitation of natural evolution is the step-by-step nature, with the requirement that each step be a viable organism.

As more individual mutations are required in one step to go from one viable organism to some other viable form, the probability of that combination occurring goes down dramatically.

It's in fact so low that it's not observable.  EDIT: that is principally what is the problem of irreducibly complex systems. They cannot be reduce to a similarly smaller working system. They just can't go through a simple step-by-step process without being at some point "USELESS". Since you said that useless systems are likely to be eliminated from the species, evolution has a real problem in permitting these systems to get there.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

That is very discussable whether this is poor design or a good design or a relatively good design. Your hypothesis may come from some misconception about the functioning of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. There is no indication whatsoever that the giraffe could come from any totally different ancestor since there are no transitional fossils and there is not even a good explanation existing as how such a complex system could arise by a step-by-step serie of functioning organisms.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
For such theories as natural section,where much of the evidence is forensic, ie historical, prediction involves suggesting what we should find if we look for something not so far found, and should suggest where and how to look for it.

that theory would predict transitional fossils where there are none, it would predict plenty of useless organs where there are none, it would predict plenty of non-coding DNA where there are more and more functions found instead of non-coding DNA.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists wanted to find a better example of a transitional form between marine life and land-dwelling forms. So they worked just what environment would favour such a critter, and where might be a good place to find the modern traces of such an environment. And they found something pretty close to what they predicted such a transitional form would look like, in some detail.

You don't seem to understand what are transitional forms. In fact, if evolution was made by a step-by-step process, you should search for a series of fossils with very little differences between them to join them in common ancestry. If evolution takes millions of years to happen, there should be very little differences between fossils with common ancestry. The observations show that every fossils are completely formed, with no signs of evolution.

If you find a supposedly transitional fossil, how do you know it did evolved from any ancestors if there are no signs of evolution in it body and that there are no fossils linking it to another species. The answer is that you assume it in order to prove evolution. Evolution is based on faith.

I just realized what your stuff read like.

"Dr" Hovind, when did you get out of jail?

That's your best counter-argument? There is no secret then why there are so many creationists out there. No rebuttal do not convert anyone. Scoffing isn't an argument.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5874
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Almost all fossils found, if

Almost all fossils found, if they are sufficiently complete, or have preserved certain bones, have been shown to be related to other fossils, and/or some living species.

There are some, mostly really old ones, that seem somewhat unique, but that is to be expected as fewer fossils are preserved from really ancient times.

Why would you assume that conditions for fossilization are very common?

What can you refer to to justify your assumptions?

You keep making totally backward (in all senses of that word) statements - we can't trace detailed evolutionary paths because there are so few fossils.

How do you read that as a 'justification why there are not more fossils"?? That there are not more fossils is a simple FACT, it isn't something that needs 'justifying' -  it may need verifying, by looking at the records of discovered fossils. How many fossils do you think have been found?

The evolutionary path of the bacterial flagellum has been traced, thorough structures which originally had a different function, and even if it hadn't, even using Behe's own estimates of the probability of such a structure emerging by evolution, it could emerge many times in historical times, let alone geological times, when you take into account the number of micro-organisms on the planet and the rate at which they reproduce.

Do you think that numbers of found human fossils, which are currently in the thousands, is 'plenty'? Considering that there have been millions of people or more on the earth for thousands of years at least.

I have never claimed that any evolutionary path either must or must never involve some part of the organism becoming non-functional, either temporarily or permanently. It does not represent a problem for evolution, it is just something that can happen, due to the random element in the path evolution follows.

Do you mean you want an explanation for why 'only' about 98-99% of DNA is non-coding???

All fossils are ultimately transitional (or truly extinct).

Symmetry requires less information to encode and is easier to grow with that assymetry. For example, it requires less information to define two limbs where one is just the mirror-image of the other than to define two independently specified limbs. This is why we see so much symmetry, it needs less 'information' to encode, so is easier to evolve.

Simpler multi-cellular organisms tend to have more symmetry - starfish and sea-urchins typically have 5-fold symmetry, for example.

So what designed the designer?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:The more I

Anonymouse wrote:

The more I read of this, the more I'm convinced this is some kind of student prank, "designed" to get other people to do their biology homework for them.

I'll reformulate what you've just said: You know, Hanntonn, you are a creationist because you didn't study enough. Go back to study and you'll see that evolution is true by yourself. Until then, evolution stays true. If you come back and you still don't believe evolution, we won't try to convince you, but we'll tell you to go back to study because it must be because you didn't study enough that you don't see the picture.

This is an obvious logical fallacy since there are many educated people that do not believe evolution and people with no education at all in philosophy such as Dawkins that believe evolution. Studying evolution without studying philosophy will produce the kind of things we see in the atheists ranks: dogmatism, certitudes, close-mindedness, baseless morality, no comprehension of others' points.

It is obvious that it's not me that is lacking the comprehension of your philosophy. I was raised exactly in the same educational system than you guys, so my comprehension of the things you guys explains is not erroneous in my mind. But since you were taught evolution in a dogmatic fashion, you didn't think about all the problems and impossibilities that go along with evolution. So, as for myself, I tell you, go back to your desk and study ID with an open mind and then come back with counter-arguments. I know you are not going to accept ID, but at least get a good comprehension of it because you have none. It's clear that you didn't read any ID literature. Or at least answer the problems I raised about evolution.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Time for a summary.

Theories are established by being shown to fit the facts, and provide the most plausible explanation for them, and where possible, make predictions which turn out be accurate.

You are right. Lets examine this.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The facts in the case of evolution are:

1. All forms of Life on Earth are seen to be related, with degrees of similarity strongly suggesting many 'family trees', by body structure and way of life, all strongly suggesting an ultimate common origin;

There are two hypothesis to this. common ancestry and common designer. We must examine the predictions of both before concluding.

BobSpence1 wrote:

2. Fossil evidence further supports this observation, by showing examples of actual ancestral forms;

Fossil evidence do not show any transitional forms and you must assume that the fossils are ordered through the stratas starting by the oldest ones at the bottom in order to think that there are ancestral forms. Examples of how the dirt is deposited in rivers show that this is not how the stratas were formed.

BobSpence1 wrote:

3. Modern DNA studies of relatedness through the basic mechanism of inheritance provide a third independent line of evidence, probably the strongest of the three.

DNA studies do not show how animals could come from other types of animals. There is nothing strong there, creationists would include that mechanism in their theory also. It doesn't say  anything about evolution. On the contrary, modern DNA studies show that Junk DNA code for something, showing that the Junk DNA is not really Junk finally. It shows that harmless mutations and duplication are not occuring since a long time.

BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Individuals within a thriving species all show a range of variation in the details of their form and behaviour - we do not normally find absolutely identical genetics across an entire species, and mating between individuals that are identical or near identical (apart from gender) are generally more likely to produce defective offspring.

All individual within a species show that they all have the same organs with different size and color, etc. These variations would be predicted by microevolution within the ID theory. On the contrary, this fact show that the more a DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. But evolution need an individual to override a species with his superior gene in order to work. So, this doesn't work for evolution, but against it.

BobSpence1 wrote:
As to the proposed mechanism of evolution:

1. Random mutation of genetic material provides the raw material for change, and the the absence of anything limiting the amount of change that can occur from any starting point;

I'm not against this idea, but the problem is that you said that a bigger useless organ would be a nuisance and would more likely be eliminated. This doesn't show how complex systems may arise. Moreover, for this to be true, we would need to have some observations of useless organs in formation toward a useful one. There is no such a thing in nature. In fact, it is more likely that useless organs do not form. You fail to explain how complex organs form.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... all the necessary processes to generate such change have been observed and documented to occur in DNA at an adequate rate to make this workable.

You need me to believe this on faith? You already know that evolutionists are good at hiding their discovery (somehow because they think only themselves can understand it).  So, if  there is a documentation on this, I've yet to see it. But as we've talked, since useless organs wouldn't be useful to organisms, they would be eliminated, so even if there has been seen a beginning of useless organ, we need to see if it will not be eliminated and further verify if it may really get useful later. We are not requiring only the observation of one small part of an organism changing it function (this might be possible by mutation, but it doesn't explain how complex systems arise). We are requiring more than a small observation in order to explain irreducible complex system (I've already explained what I meant by irreducible). for this to be verified, you'd have to provide examples of complex useless organs and also that they be not eliminated and also that they would get useful later. So, here, we're not searching for vestigial organs that are devoluting (ID predicts devolution), but only new organs that do not seem to have a function a priori and get to be useful by mutations in the future.

1. We do not see useless organs in nature; only supposedly a few vestigial organs, but vestigial organs do not show evolution, it shows devolution.

2. We do not see complex systems forming from sub-complex systems.

BobSpence1 wrote:
2. Only a fraction of the new organisms produced in each generation survive to give rise to the next generation;

.... This has been common observation since long before Darwin.

You've provided yourself a reason to think that the more the DNA is selective, the more it is harmful. This does work for speciation, but speciation, if you really think about it, works against evolution by eliminating characteristics within a species.

BobSpence1 wrote:
3. Across the range of individual variation within a species, any variations that increase the likelihood of survival to reproduce will be more common in those that do survive to reproduce;

1. Any variation that would produce a useless mutation would reduce the likelihood of survival. But useless mutations are necessary for the formation of complex systems. So, organisms that are more likely to produce new complex organs are more likely to be eliminated.

2. In the end, the population that is more likely to reproduce is the population that do not have much variations from it ancestors in the DNA.

3. I must add to this that as the reproduction of members of a same family will more likely produce difformities, any speciation within a species will more likely produce difformities. So, even if natural selection preserve the strongest genes, it still works against the survival of the species.


BobSpence1 wrote:
4. Therefore, over time, any large inter-breeding group of organisms ('species') will tend to be dominated by those individuals best adapted to the environment;

No, over time, the more the DNA will be specified, the more it will look like two members of a same family interbrede. There will be a major reduction in DNA information and a reduction in the adaptability to the environment with more risks of difformities. This is why there are so many species being wiped out from the earth and none appearing.

BobSpence1 wrote:
5. 'Speciation': this requires that there be some additional factor splitting what would otherwise be a mutually inter-breeding group into two or more sub-groups, which rarely, if ever inter-breed. This may be geographical separation, such as by sheer distance, or barriers such as large bodies of water ( for non-aquatic life), mountain ranges, deserts.

Speciation show a loss in DNA information from ancestry. This is why isolating two members of a same family will produce difformities.

BobSpence1 wrote:
.... This is a simple logical consequence.
Not at all. As I pointed out, nothing works. Everything you said show devolution, not evolution. You assume that the members of a species that will survive more will have some better genes, but the fact is that isolating a member of a species with a new useless gene won't make it easier for him to change it into a useful one. Assumptions over assumptions don't make a theory true.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can also be simply some mutation which spreads through a significant fraction of a group, which reduces fertility between that sub-group and the rest. This has been observed in in some tropical butterfly species. To be practically observable, it has to be in a species with a short generation time.

Where have you seen a new complex system being made up in those butterflies? There has been mutations, true, but since mutations are most of the time neutral or harmful, where is the point in this. Microevolution predicts this. Butterflies produce butterflies and evolutionists are seeing butterflies make helicopters.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Once there is such separation, there will be some tendency for differences to accumulate, even if just due to 'genetic drift', the effect of the basic mutation rate. Any significan difference in the environment will naturally accelerate such differentiation.

Since such a separation will drop some DNA information in that sub-species, it will be even less adaptative and as each new useless organs would be eliminated, no progress would result with this, but only a loss of genetic information.

Regarding 'information' in the DNA:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Random variation is ultimately the most truly 'creative' generator of genuinely novel patterns, but it is typically much slower to stumble across the more 'obvious' changes that a conscious designer might choose. OTOH, it has a higher possibility of 'stumbling across' variations that do not have a clear connection with existing patterns.

You must assume this with no indication at all. There are no transitional fossils, no useless complex organs, no explanation as to why there is not a lot of non-coding genetic information.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is why it can take millions of years for major changes to occur, which would not be expected if a competent designer were involved.

millions of years are supposed to be written in the geological column. You can't get all the fossils to not show any transition all by chance. There is no seen transitions neither in fossils or in living animals. But no creationists believe in the millions of years stuff and you must assume it in order to say that the designer can't go through millions of years. That's the problem, there were no millions of years.

BobSpence1 wrote:
THe main limitation of natural evolution is the step-by-step nature, with the requirement that each step be a viable organism.

As more individual mutations are required in one step to go from one viable organism to some other viable form, the probability of that combination occurring goes down dramatically.

It's in fact so low that it's not observable.  EDIT: that is principally what is the problem of irreducibly complex systems. They cannot be reduce to a similarly smaller working system. They just can't go through a simple step-by-step process without being at some point "USELESS". Since you said that useless systems are likely to be eliminated from the species, evolution has a real problem in permitting these systems to get there.

BobSpence1 wrote:
This explains how many viable but far from ideal features are seen in actual life-forms. Natural evolution only predicts adequacy, not perfection.

My current favorite example of such 'poor design' is the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, which goes from the head all the way down to the base and back, because in some distant ancestor species it happened to go around one side of some major blood vessels rather the other. In the original species (a fish of some kind, I think) it did not matter, since both were short paths.

Not so in the giraffe - as well as all other mammals, but its most extreme example of absurdity is in such a long-necked animal.

That is very discussable whether this is poor design or a good design or a relatively good design. Your hypothesis may come from some misconception about the functioning of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. There is no indication whatsoever that the giraffe could come from any totally different ancestor since there are no transitional fossils and there is not even a good explanation existing as how such a complex system could arise by a step-by-step serie of functioning organisms.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
For such theories as natural section,where much of the evidence is forensic, ie historical, prediction involves suggesting what we should find if we look for something not so far found, and should suggest where and how to look for it.

that theory would predict transitional fossils where there are none, it would predict plenty of useless organs where there are none, it would predict plenty of non-coding DNA where there are more and more functions found instead of non-coding DNA.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Scientists wanted to find a better example of a transitional form between marine life and land-dwelling forms. So they worked just what environment would favour such a critter, and where might be a good place to find the modern traces of such an environment. And they found something pretty close to what they predicted such a transitional form would look like, in some detail.

You don't seem to understand what are transitional forms. In fact, if evolution was made by a step-by-step process, you should search for a series of fossils with very little differences between them to join them in common ancestry. If evolution takes millions of years to happen, there should be very little differences between fossils with common ancestry. The observations show that every fossils are completely formed, with no signs of evolution.

If you find a supposedly transitional fossil, how do you know it did evolved from any ancestors if there are no signs of evolution in it body and that there are no fossils linking it to another species. The answer is that you assume it in order to prove evolution. Evolution is based on faith.

I just realized what your stuff read like.

"Dr" Hovind, when did you get out of jail?

That's your best counter-argument? There is no secret then why there are so many creationists out there. No rebuttal do not convert anyone. Scoffing isn't an argument.

You don't have an argument that has been left un-debunked. I'm not going to waste an argument on you that you will simply ignore.

In other words, you get what you give.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You're going to accuse us of

You're going to accuse us of not reading anything on intelligent design and you don't know who Behe is?

How about Kitzmiller v. Dover? Edwards v. Aguillard? Know anything about those cases?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I'll

hanntonn wrote:
I'll reformulate what you've just said:

Yeah, well, that's pretty much all you have left to try, I suppose.

Btw, sorry to burst you enormous floating bubble, but you're not the first one to come here and spread the gospel. If you google search this site for you favorite buzzwords, you'll find all of the answers you claim you never got and more besides. Having read pages and pages of threads like this, I already know how it ends, so excuse me for not wasting the energy to take you seriously.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, the patience of some of the regular posters here is just amazing.

 

 

 


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I'm really tired of the

Ok, I'm really tired of the fact that you ignore everything I write. So, this is going to be my last post. I just want to show you where I hate how you treat me so unkindly.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Almost all fossils found, if they are sufficiently complete, or have preserved certain bones, have been shown to be related to other fossils, and/or some living species.

There are some, mostly really old ones, that seem somewhat unique, but that is to be expected as fewer fossils are preserved from really ancient times.

Why would you assume that conditions for fossilization are very common?

If there are many human fossils that formed since less than 50 thousands years, why should it be different before that. You assume that fossilization doesn't happen often because you need millions of years, but if we observe the facts, we see that there are usually more than one fossil found from a lot of species. If fossilization is so rare, why did more than one fossils happened to form at the same time in the past from different places around the world? It is as if you'd say that it is possible for two fossils to form in one species in less than 10 thousands years and that we wouldn't find any other fossils from that species for twenty millions of years. Some fossils are so different from other animals that it would take at least some millions of years to evolute from a prior ancestor. How did it happen that we have found more than one fossil from that species that are identical at one time and not between that moment and since it got different from a prior ancestor? The probabilities, if fossilization was so rare, would be extremely low to find two fossils from one species that would be similar. So, it is obvious that it is justified to ask why there are no more fossils in the geological column to show the process of evolution since we find plenty of fossils from today's species. It would be me that should ask you why you can pose the hypothesis that fossilization could be rare.

BobSpence1 wrote:
The evolutionary path of the bacterial flagellum has been traced, thorough structures which originally had a different function, and even if it hadn't, even using Behe's own estimates of the probability of such a structure emerging by evolution, it could emerge many times in historical times, let alone geological times, when you take into account the number of micro-organisms on the planet and the rate at which they reproduce.

I searched to find who was that Behe and he is not even a creationist. He believes in the old Earth hypothesis like you guys. He believes in an intelligent God going by the step-by-step process of evolution. So, of course what he says can't stand up to the facts. So, I don't understand why you quote him as if I would support his thesis. He believes evolution, So, of course, he must have said some stupid things. I also hate your argument since it is an appeal to authority and I hate that kind of arguments. It tells people that they are too stupid to think by themselves. I don't care who is Behe. I don't want to know what he says. He is just an evolutionist that believes in God. I'm not interested in theistic evolution. It doesn't stand up one second. It is a compromise between evolution and theism.

BobSpence1 wrote:
  Do you think that numbers of found human fossils, which are currently in the thousands, is 'plenty'? Considering that there have been millions of people or more on the earth for thousands of years at least.
There have been millions of other type of animals also and they didn't show any more fossilization in their anterior appearance going through evolution. So, indeed, having only ten fossils of modern man is a lot if evolution happens rarely. Going back through time, we would be supposed to logically multiply the number of fossils by the number of periods that there are until we find the species that link with it. So, indeed, we do not see any of these transitional fossils. It can't just happen that there would be no fossils at all for many millions of years.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Do you mean you want an explanation for why 'only' about 98-99% of DNA is non-coding???
Why do you ignore the recent discoveries that show that non-coding DNA do code for something. It seems to me that you don't even read what I write before answering me. You look like an ignorant when you say such things that were taught 20 years ago.

BobSpence1 wrote:
All fossils are ultimately transitional (or truly extinct).
This is again an assumption, yes, baseless assumption. You don't know if any extinct species were either an ancestor of a modern one or if it is in fact a separated branch that didn't produce any species further. Every extinct species could all have been extinct without producing any of the modern one. You must assume they did in order to permit evolution. But there is no link that can be made at all.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Symmetry requires less information to encode and is easier to grow with that assymetry. For example, it requires less information to define two limbs where one is just the mirror-image of the other than to define two independently specified limbs. This is why we see so much symmetry, it needs less 'information' to encode, so is easier to evolve.

It doesn't change anything. mutations do not think what is better or not. There could have been programmed two different limbs and it would have been as adapted to the environment than a DNA with symmetry. DNA doesn't take much place, so taking less information to encode something is not advantaging an organism. Mutations do not think about efficiency. Even if it would be easier for the organism to evolve with symmetry, you seem to think that mutations have a purpose to evolve. But it don't have any. Efficiency might be better, but how can natural selection know if it is efficient or not? An organism that is less efficient but more adapted to the environment would be preserved before the one that has efficiency. That is very stupid the explanation you gave me here. Efficiency and Symmetry is something so improbable to achieve with evolution since there is no advantage in an organism to be efficient of not that I just can't understand why you still assume evolution by faith.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
So what designed the designer?

This is what I hate about you. We had a whole blog on that subject and you forgot everything. I've failed to teach you anything about logics which is really not your branch as I can see.

So, here is the answer that I already gave you and that you didn't seem to understand; so I'll explain it more simply.

1. Your question refers to the principle of cause to effect. Every effect has a cause.

2. I must add that every effect must follow it cause in time. Indeed, if it doesn't follow it, then the cause don't really cause the effect since the effect would be already there when it's caused.

3. So, if there is a designer that existed to create time, being prior to time, he can't be caused by anything because he can't follow anything in time (there is no time). So, something prior to time cannot be an effect. So your question is pointless. If the designer was designed, he couldn't be prior to time. So, you can't ask that question. If the designer exist, he can't be caused by definition. You must assume that God is a natural cause depending on time to be able to ask that question.

4. Moreover, you're so distracted that you didn't even think about the fact that you'd have the same problem with an automaton or for an eternal process of chance, or an eternal Universe, or anything. If you think that there is nothing prior to time, no uncaused cause, then logics don't work at all. On the other hand, there can't be infinite time as I explained.

 

So, you made me think that this web site is purposeless since there is no real rational discussions, only repetitive discussions of what everyone already know and no one ever keeps anything others say in their mind and after that you guys call yourself free thinkers. Being stuck on a fact-less theory is everything else than being free to think the way you want. At least you confirmed to me the fact that there was no proof of evolution and that my arguments are good enough to convince people that base their opinion on logics and not on some world view that they have heard of.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you see where your

Do you see where your argument falls apart?

There can't be infinite time but there can be an infinite God?

You have posted one long special pleading fallacy. That's where all first cause arguments fail.

As for Behe - he only developed the irreducible complexity hypothesis that you love to use. All of the Hovind crap you've been spouting uses Behe as a source as well.

Transitional forms -  look in a mirror. Do you look exactly like your parents? The "no transitional forms" view claims you should since nothing changes over time. That's right - if you believe there are no transitional forms you take out both the macro-evolution you can't stand and the micro-evolution you accept.

I'll give you one thing - you do have rocks to talk about fact-less theories while ignoring all that you've been given on evolution. Do you have any facts to show special creation?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zen
zen's picture
Posts: 5
Joined: 2010-10-28
User is offlineOffline
"I searched to find who was

"I searched to find who was that Behe and he is not even a creationist."

True, he is an IDer - a difference without a distinction.

" He believes in the old Earth hypothesis like you guys"

He may believe that the earth isn't 6000 years old, but he certainly isn't like us.

"He believes in an intelligent God going by the step-by-step process of evolution. So, of course what he says can't stand up to the facts"

Of course not. It's predicated on on intelligent designer.

"So, I don't understand why you quote him as if I would support his thesis"

Because he's the one who came up with the concept of irreducable complexity. Your arguments are completely void without his contributions

"He believes evolution"

no, he doesn't

"So, of course, he must have said some stupid things"

Yes, he did.

"I also hate your argument since it is an appeal to authority and I hate that kind of arguments"

Really, then why do you believe in god?

"It tells people that they are too stupid to think by themselves"

As opposed to the bible......

"I don't care who is Behe. I don't want to know what he says"

There's a term for that - 'willfully ignorant'

" He is just an evolutionist that believes in God."

Behe is not an evolutionist. He fully embraces the concept of intelligent design - two concepts that are diametrically opposed. Be that as it is, there are a great many evolutionists that believe in god. That doesn't make them bad people, but it makes them significantly more rational than you.

"I'm not interested in theistic evolution. It doesn't stand up one second. It is a compromise between evolution and theism."

'I refuse to believe in a god that plays dice with the universe' - albert einstein

'Who are you to say what god does or does not do with his dice?' - Nels Bohr

This is life
it's a fucked up thing we do
it's a nightmare come true
or a playground if we choose
and I choose
- I Choose by the Offspring


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't want to continue

I don't want to continue this debate, but I'm just going to correct a few misunderstanding.

1. I said that I don't care what Behe had to say on the subject, but I said that in the context of this debate in which he had nothing to do with my arguments. Even if he invented the expression ID, it doesn't mean that my views on mutations are related to his position. I said that Behe must have said stupid things in the context that he admitted that the flagellum could be made by simple mutations in a few millions of years. If this is true, it is also obvious that he believes that evolution is possible. I don't.

2. God can be infinite because he can be in the present tense always. Time cannot be infinitely in the present tense. The problem with time is that there cannot be an infinite amount of past moments.

3. As for transitional fossils, living animals do not show infinite amount of genetic differences whereas evolution supposes that. We call the first microevolution (finite possibilities of evolution) and the second Macroevolution (Kinds of animals linked between them), Macroevolution can only be seen in the fossils. This is why I say there are no transitional forms. Supposing that because I'm not exactly like my parents I must have come from a monkey is exagerated if there are no fossils that show very little differences between them.

4. Special creation cannot be proven positively. But it can be proven negatively by showing that the contrary is impossible the same way I can show you that a house cannot make itself. You cannot prove evolution either positively since it is fact-less, but you could prove it negatively if you'd be able to show that special creation is impossible. But this is clearly not shown.

5. Appeals to authority are bad arguments when the authority is supposed to be a proof just because it is the authority. Aristotle, as a Greek, didn't need the Bible to find that the Universe had to have an infinite being as it cause. Even if the Greeks believe in multiple Gods, he found, by the use of reason that there had to be one supreme being over all others. I'm asked why I believe in God without appeals to authority. It's very easy. It's just logical. No house can build themselves. It need the work of a man; If it is so, how could life which is a lot more complex than a house could build itself from nothing. If evolution is true, then I'm logical to think that a house can build itself. I don't need an appeal to authority to understand this.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:I don't want

hanntonn wrote:

I don't want to continue this debate, but I'm just going to correct a few misunderstanding.

1. I said that I don't care what Behe had to say on the subject, but I said that in the context of this debate in which he had nothing to do with my arguments. Even if he invented the expression ID, it doesn't mean that my views on mutations are related to his position. I said that Behe must have said stupid things in the context that he admitted that the flagellum could be made by simple mutations in a few millions of years. If this is true, it is also obvious that he believes that evolution is possible. I don't.

2. God can be infinite because he can be in the present tense always. Time cannot be infinitely in the present tense. The problem with time is that there cannot be an infinite amount of past moments.

3. As for transitional fossils, living animals do not show infinite amount of genetic differences whereas evolution supposes that. We call the first microevolution (finite possibilities of evolution) and the second Macroevolution (Kinds of animals linked between them), Macroevolution can only be seen in the fossils. This is why I say there are no transitional forms. Supposing that because I'm not exactly like my parents I must have come from a monkey is exagerated if there are no fossils that show very little differences between them.

4. Special creation cannot be proven positively. But it can be proven negatively by showing that the contrary is impossible the same way I can show you that a house cannot make itself. You cannot prove evolution either positively since it is fact-less, but you could prove it negatively if you'd be able to show that special creation is impossible. But this is clearly not shown.

5. Appeals to authority are bad arguments when the authority is supposed to be a proof just because it is the authority. Aristotle, as a Greek, didn't need the Bible to find that the Universe had to have an infinite being as it cause. Even if the Greeks believe in multiple Gods, he found, by the use of reason that there had to be one supreme being over all others. I'm asked why I believe in God without appeals to authority. It's very easy. It's just logical. No house can build themselves. It need the work of a man; If it is so, how could life which is a lot more complex than a house could build itself from nothing. If evolution is true, then I'm logical to think that a house can build itself. I don't need an appeal to authority to understand this.

Now that we've established you're a YEC, let's have some fun.

We have history of the Babylonians brewing beer when your God was supposedly created the universe. How did that happen?

Now for your points:

1. The only thing that you and Behe disagree on is time scale - you both claim  "God did it" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Evolution has had over 150 years of scrutiny. Creationism couldn't survive one court case.

2. Special pleading is neat, isn't it?

3. If I followed your straw man view of evolution, I'd have to agree with you. Fortunately, I know that your straw man view is bat squeeze. Please open a biology text and read the damn thing.

4a. The appeal to authority is a bad argument unless it comes from your God, right? Your view leads to an infinite regress - if life needed a complex being to design it - then that being needed a more complex being to design it., etc. Oh wait, you decided to arbitrarily avoid that by unnaturally selecting the God you like as a "first cause". Congratulations, you just imposed your will on your God. What does that make you?

4b. Again, lose the straw man view of evolution. If you don't know what the actual theory says, kindly refrain from pulling incorrect ideas out of your hindquarters and open a book.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We have

jcgadfly wrote:

We have history of the Babylonians brewing beer when your God was supposedly created the universe. How did that happen?

If you doubt that the Bible is true history, why should you believe the Babylonians? Both writings are from antiquity. Supposedly from a time where people were exagerating the duration of happenings and telling fairy tales. I know of a lot of texts that were written aside of the Bible. Most came from scoffers. It doesn't mean that because something exists that it is true. Of course, you don't have to believe in the Bible if you don't want to. I don't need the Bible to argue that the creation is not old. But I don't want to develop on that subject. I don't want to stay to much time on the computer. Let just finish what were talking about here and I'm done.

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The only thing that you and Behe disagree on is time scale - you both claim  "God did it" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Evolution has had over 150 years of scrutiny. Creationism couldn't survive one court case.

Overwhelming? are you a clown? Evolution has had 150 years of existence only because it served the atheist political ambitions. It was pushed into science classes as a result of the great efforts atheists put into justifying their belief system. What I understand about ID losing the court case is that the State didn't want to mix religion with education. The only problem with this is that evolution is also a religion. It's linked with atheism and atheism, as I already said, is the faith in the non existence of God. What a strange belief I agree, but the fact is that evolution should have lost also in that court case. This is just showing that judges can be as stupid as any man. I claim God did it and you claim: chance and time did it. It is equivalently a belief.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. Special pleading is neat, isn't it?

You've never made any study in metaphysics, so it's not strange why you don't understand. You think you know everything and you make yourself even more stupid by being proud of you lack of knowledge about logics.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. If I followed your straw man view of evolution, I'd have to agree with you. Fortunately, I know that your straw man view is bat squeeze. Please open a biology text and read the damn thing.

Observing the facts out there is a straw man? I don't need a book to explain me how fossils are made to understand that there should be little differences between fossils if evolution is true. So, keep saying that it is a straw man and go back to you biology book and believe everything which is said in it and stop bothering others with your beliefs. If you want to discuss, you must provides proofs, not beliefs.

jcgadfly wrote:
4a. The appeal to authority is a bad argument unless it comes from your God, right? Your view leads to an infinite regress - if life needed a complex being to design it - then that being needed a more complex being to design it., etc. Oh wait, you decided to arbitrarily avoid that by unnaturally selecting the God you like as a "first cause". Congratulations, you just imposed your will on your God. What does that make you?

Again, you don't understand my arguments because you've never studied metaphysics. And you interpret your lack of understanding as a foolishness from me. You can't learn metaphysics if you don't want to learn it. But charitably, If I state again my argument for less proud people:

1. every effect must have a cause.

2. a cause do not necessarily have a cause because there must be a first cause.

3. every effect follows it cause in time since if the effect was simultaneous with it cause, it wouldn't be caused at all.

4. there can't be infinite time since it's impossible to go through an infinite amount of time, an infinite road, etc. If there was infinite time, we couldn't be here to talk about it.

5. If there is no infinite time, then everything that depends on the time law had a beginning.

6. All matter depends on the time law. Therefore, the whole Universe had a beginning.

7. If the Universe had a beginning, it is an effect. Therefore, it needs a cause.

8. everything that precedes time do not follow anything in time. But anything that is caused must follow it cause in time. Therefore, anything that precedes time cannot be caused.

(so, understand that I'm not arbitrarily selecting God as the first cause. It's simple. If he precedes time, he cannot be caused. He is automatically a first cause -- point 8.) Ok, let's not conclude automatically that he does exist. We need more steps.

9. Nothing can follow anything in time prior to the existence of time. It follows that any process that has steps with different results would produce all his results simultaneously prior to the existence of time.

10. any non-free or deterministic process produces always the same possible results unless there is a cause to the change. But there cannot be a cause to effect relation prior to the existence of time. Therefore, any non-free process cannot change it possible results prior to the existence of time.

11. 10 show that there cannot be any change to a non-free process prior to the existence of time. But point 9 show that results from any process that necessitate steps are simultaneous. Therefore, any non-free process that necessitate steps to produce different results would always produce the same results simultaneously prior to time.

12. Since all results coming out from a non-free process necessitating steps would be simultaneous prior to time, it follows that time would be automatically produced if it was a possible result of that non-free process.

(when talking about these non-free processes that necessitate steps, I'm in fact talking about an automatic system of chance results (spontaneity) or a computer (determinism) that would generate the Universe by some processes)

13. Prior to time, there was no time. But we know that every result that come out of a non-free process are simultaneous prior to time. It follows that time should have been produced automatically prior to time if it was caused by a non-free process. It also follows that time should be eternal if it was the result of a non-free process since there could always be another moment prior to the appearance of time that we could think of where time should have been produced by the non-free process. It follows that time is not the result of a non-free process since there is not an infinite time. Therefore time is the result of a free process also called free will.

14. a free will can also be called a person. 13 show that a free will must be the cause of time. Therefore, a person was the cause of the appearance of time.

15. Understand this reasoning and you will comprehend why there is no infinite regress with the belief in God. It just follows by the use of strict logic.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
4b. Again, lose the straw man view of evolution. If you don't know what the actual theory says, kindly refrain from pulling incorrect ideas out of your hindquarters and open a book.

I already know everything the theory has to say. It is just stupid. When I say that evolution pretend that we come from a rock, it sound stupid, so you call this a straw man, but it's the truth. The theory just add the sentence: give it a lot of time. Well, that's the problem. We can't argue with you because there is not enough time to see evolution and there are no transitional fossils. In the end, evolution pretends that complex things such as life can arise by change even if basic life is more complex than a house and no one believes that it can arise by chance. You say that it started with self replicating molecules. Well, didn't you know that even self replicating molecules are still more complex than a house and you wouldn't believe a house arise by chance? It's not just a bunch of elements, it's organised in a certain way. If it was so simple, why is it that scientists are not able to figure a way to produce those molecules by using their intelligence? Is chance more effective than the intellect of a man? Of course, you may argue that life evolved by keeping the good mutations and leaving the bad ones, but how could molecules do that before they got self-replicating. A scientist already calculated the possibilities of the first self replicating molecule to arise by chance and the results showed that it was impossible. It's not even possible to be made in laboratories; so it tells a lot. In the end, you may still believe in evolution, but don't tell lies about me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We have history of the Babylonians brewing beer when your God was supposedly created the universe. How did that happen?

If you doubt that the Bible is true history, why should you believe the Babylonians? Both writings are from antiquity. Supposedly from a time where people were exagerating the duration of happenings and telling fairy tales. I know of a lot of texts that were written aside of the Bible. Most came from scoffers. It doesn't mean that because something exists that it is true. Of course, you don't have to believe in the Bible if you don't want to. I don't need the Bible to argue that the creation is not old. But I don't want to develop on that subject. I don't want to stay to much time on the computer. Let just finish what were talking about here and I'm done.

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The only thing that you and Behe disagree on is time scale - you both claim  "God did it" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Evolution has had over 150 years of scrutiny. Creationism couldn't survive one court case.

Overwhelming? are you a clown? Evolution has had 150 years of existence only because it served the atheist political ambitions. It was pushed into science classes as a result of the great efforts atheists put into justifying their belief system. What I understand about ID losing the court case is that the State didn't want to mix religion with education. The only problem with this is that evolution is also a religion. It's linked with atheism and atheism, as I already said, is the faith in the non existence of God. What a strange belief I agree, but the fact is that evolution should have lost also in that court case. This is just showing that judges can be as stupid as any man. I claim God did it and you claim: chance and time did it. It is equivalently a belief.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. Special pleading is neat, isn't it?

You've never made any study in metaphysics, so it's not strange why you don't understand. You think you know everything and you make yourself even more stupid by being proud of you lack of knowledge about logics.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. If I followed your straw man view of evolution, I'd have to agree with you. Fortunately, I know that your straw man view is bat squeeze. Please open a biology text and read the damn thing.

Observing the facts out there is a straw man? I don't need a book to explain me how fossils are made to understand that there should be little differences between fossils if evolution is true. So, keep saying that it is a straw man and go back to you biology book and believe everything which is said in it and stop bothering others with your beliefs. If you want to discuss, you must provides proofs, not beliefs.

jcgadfly wrote:
4a. The appeal to authority is a bad argument unless it comes from your God, right? Your view leads to an infinite regress - if life needed a complex being to design it - then that being needed a more complex being to design it., etc. Oh wait, you decided to arbitrarily avoid that by unnaturally selecting the God you like as a "first cause". Congratulations, you just imposed your will on your God. What does that make you?

Again, you don't understand my arguments because you've never studied metaphysics. And you interpret your lack of understanding as a foolishness from me. You can't learn metaphysics if you don't want to learn it. But charitably, If I state again my argument for less proud people:

1. every effect must have a cause.

2. a cause do not necessarily have a cause because there must be a first cause.

3. every effect follows it cause in time since if the effect was simultaneous with it cause, it wouldn't be caused at all.

4. there can't be infinite time since it's impossible to go through an infinite amount of time, an infinite road, etc. If there was infinite time, we couldn't be here to talk about it.

5. If there is no infinite time, then everything that depends on the time law had a beginning.

6. All matter depends on the time law. Therefore, the whole Universe had a beginning.

7. If the Universe had a beginning, it is an effect. Therefore, it needs a cause.

8. everything that precedes time do not follow anything in time. But anything that is caused must follow it cause in time. Therefore, anything that precedes time cannot be caused.

(so, understand that I'm not arbitrarily selecting God as the first cause. It's simple. If he precedes time, he cannot be caused. He is automatically a first cause -- point 8.) Ok, let's not conclude automatically that he does exist. We need more steps.

9. Nothing can follow anything in time prior to the existence of time. It follows that any process that has steps with different results would produce all his results simultaneously prior to the existence of time.

10. any non-free or deterministic process produces always the same possible results unless there is a cause to the change. But there cannot be a cause to effect relation prior to the existence of time. Therefore, any non-free process cannot change it possible results prior to the existence of time.

11. 10 show that there cannot be any change to a non-free process prior to the existence of time. But point 9 show that results from any process that necessitate steps are simultaneous. Therefore, any non-free process that necessitate steps to produce different results would always produce the same results simultaneously prior to time.

12. Since all results coming out from a non-free process necessitating steps would be simultaneous prior to time, it follows that time would be automatically produced if it was a possible result of that non-free process.

(when talking about these non-free processes that necessitate steps, I'm in fact talking about an automatic system of chance results (spontaneity) or a computer (determinism) that would generate the Universe by some processes)

13. Prior to time, there was no time. But we know that every result that come out of a non-free process are simultaneous prior to time. It follows that time should have been produced automatically prior to time if it was caused by a non-free process. It also follows that time should be eternal if it was the result of a non-free process since there could always be another moment prior to the appearance of time that we could think of where time should have been produced by the non-free process. It follows that time is not the result of a non-free process since there is not an infinite time. Therefore time is the result of a free process also called free will.

14. a free will can also be called a person. 13 show that a free will must be the cause of time. Therefore, a person was the cause of the appearance of time.

15. Understand this reasoning and you will comprehend why there is no infinite regress with the belief in God. It just follows by the use of strict logic.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
4b. Again, lose the straw man view of evolution. If you don't know what the actual theory says, kindly refrain from pulling incorrect ideas out of your hindquarters and open a book.

I already know everything the theory has to say. It is just stupid. When I say that evolution pretend that we come from a rock, it sound stupid, so you call this a straw man, but it's the truth. The theory just add the sentence: give it a lot of time. Well, that's the problem. We can't argue with you because there is not enough time to see evolution and there are no transitional fossils. In the end, evolution pretends that complex things such as life can arise by change even if basic life is more complex than a house and no one believes that it can arise by chance. You say that it started with self replicating molecules. Well, didn't you know that even self replicating molecules are still more complex than a house and you wouldn't believe a house arise by chance? It's not just a bunch of elements, it's organised in a certain way. If it was so simple, why is it that scientists are not able to figure a way to produce those molecules by using their intelligence? Is chance more effective than the intellect of a man? Of course, you may argue that life evolved by keeping the good mutations and leaving the bad ones, but how could molecules do that before they got self-replicating. A scientist already calculated the possibilities of the first self replicating molecule to arise by chance and the results showed that it was impossible. It's not even possible to be made in laboratories; so it tells a lot. In the end, you may still believe in evolution, but don't tell lies about me.

Well, I'm glad you're happy in not knowing a damn thing about what you're talking about. Your belief is unshakable and no amount of fact will sway you. Or at least that's what you fear when you don't dare do the research.

Praise Jayzus! Now get out of the gene pool. You might breed and then you'd see all sorts of evolution at work.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Praise

jcgadfly wrote:
Praise Jayzus! Now get out of the gene pool. You might breed and then you'd see all sorts of evolution at work.

As I already pointed out, the gene that is responsible for the belief in God must be a superior one since people tend to reproduce more when they have that gene.   Consequently, the atheist gene must be inferior since societies that contains atheists tend to have lower birth rates. So, why are atheists trying to convince people of faith that atheism is right? Go make yourself kids and if you are really more intelligent, you'll multiply more than religious people and you'll become a dominant race. If you try to convert people of faith without making your own kids, people of  faith will continue to make kids that you'll have to convert and atheists won't grow in number since they don't make enough kids. So, trying to convert a race that has a higher birth rate than yours is a lost cause. Why do you keep hope?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:So, trying to

hanntonn wrote:
So, trying to convert a race that has a higher birth rate than yours is a lost cause. Why do you keep hope?

A "race" ?

No offense meant, but you're just generally not a very bright fellow, are you ?

Personally, I was converted to atheism by people such as yourself, not by atheists. We don't have to convert people. You do that for us.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:jcgadfly

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Praise Jayzus! Now get out of the gene pool. You might breed and then you'd see all sorts of evolution at work.

As I already pointed out, the gene that is responsible for the belief in God must be a superior one since people tend to reproduce more when they have that gene.   Consequently, the atheist gene must be inferior since societies that contains atheists tend to have lower birth rates. So, why are atheists trying to convince people of faith that atheism is right? Go make yourself kids and if you are really more intelligent, you'll multiply more than religious people and you'll become a dominant race. If you try to convert people of faith without making your own kids, people of  faith will continue to make kids that you'll have to convert and atheists won't grow in number since they don't make enough kids. So, trying to convert a race that has a higher birth rate than yours is a lost cause. Why do you keep hope?

Two reasons:

1. We understand the carrying capacity of the planet (aka we respect the planet).

2. We don't believe that vaginas should be used as clown cars (aka we respect women).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Two

jcgadfly wrote:

Two reasons:

1. We understand the carrying capacity of the planet (aka we respect the planet).

2. We don't believe that vaginas should be used as clown cars (aka we respect women).

Ha ha ha! At least, you have a good sense of humour. I must give you this.

1. I know that you were converted to atheism because of religious people. Some religious people think that because someone is an atheist, he can't go to heaven. I'll tell you that I don't believe such things. The only important thing in life is to love others. I'm sorry that the lack of charity and respect that you experienced from religious people made you change your mind. Understand that this shouldn't make you think that everyone is like that and that you can lack in respect toward others that didn't make any offence to you.

2. You say that you respect the earth when you understand that there is a lack of carrying capacity and so, you make less kids. Well, I don't believe this. I believe there is a lack of space and food because there is a lack of love in the world. In fact, it's easy to understand that there would be an overflow of food if there was peace in the world. Every war create destructions, so it's no secret why there is a lack of space for people in this world. However, when evolution says that natural selection will cause superior individuals to reproduce more, it doesn't say "if there is enough space". According to natural selection, superior individuals should create the space they need in order to be able to reproduce more than genetically inferior individuals either by generating more food, buildings or by killing some population. So, if that principle is true, it would be also true that religious people would be genetically superior. I don't think it's the case, but it follows from that principle of natural selection.

3. Women shouldn't be used as babies factories it's true if the purpose of life is really to love others. I'm not saying that people that reproduce more are superior genetically, I just wrote that to laugh at the idea that natural selection will make genetically superior individuals reproduce more in time. It's false. Religious people are not genetically superior to atheists. I made that point to show that natural selection do not make superior individuals reproduce more. We see all sorts of people having big families. There are very intelligent people that have big families, but there are also very stupid people that are able to achieve the same thing. So, natural selection do not operates at all. It's not the genes of the animals that adapt to the environment, it's the animal that choose it environment according to its genes.

3b. aside from this; it's easy to observe that even if atheists don't consider women clowns cars, they won't mate women less often then religious people. Respecting women as persons should be done not by fucking them without producing babies, but by not considering them sexual objects. The materialistic consequences of the act (baby production) shouldn't enter the equation to tell if someone respect women or not. It's not possible to tell if a man really respect a woman by looking at how he has sex with her.  A man should respect a woman by respecting the intentions the woman has. If a woman wants many kids and you don't give her these kids by thinking that it's unrespectful to make her too many kids, then she will be sad and you'll not be respectful toward her. Contrarily, if your wife doesn't want too many kids and you don't stop making her kids, then you are unrespectful. But how do you know that the every woman that has a big family didn't want it a priori? So, it is far from being clear that atheists respect more women than religious people. You say this in order to justify your way of life. I don't say that it is wrong to not make too many kids. But it's wrong to judge people. If I would like to have many kids, that's my own affair. But I won't force my wife to make them, that's where start the respect.

4. Moreover, you say that you respect the planet and women. I say: why? If there is no after-death life, the only purpose of life is the purpose you put to it. Why should you consider women anything else than a baby factory if she is happy with that and that you are happy with it? Why should you respect the planet when there won't be any planet after your death. Since you won't be there to see how the planet becomes after your death, there is no point in protecting it. If you think you are better in protecting the planet, it's just an idea in you head. There won't be any consequences to your good action. you'll disappear like everyone.

P.S. If there is no after death and judgement, then there is no purpose in respecting women and the planet. The sole consequence could be that you go to jail or get killed. But just find a way that you don't get caught and you will be able to enjoy the fun. For example, if you want to have all the sex you want with a woman, just convince her that it's good for her that you do that. If she is stupid enough, you'll get what you want, but anyway, there won't be any consequence in the after-death, so it's fine if you do that. If you think this is wrong, then you are just posing a moral judgement that is based on your religious morality. If you think it is still wrong to do that, then it follows that you must believe in a certain moral judgement or you must remove the saying that it's wrong to do that since it's not wrong if there are no consequences to this action. Without any judgement to wrong deeds, there is nothing really wrong. So, we can't say that Hitler was wrong if he didn't get any pain contrary to the purpose he put to his life. If he didn't care about dying, but just wanted to have the power of a country in his hand for some time, then he wasn't punished at all. He got right what he wanted for his life. I think I've said enough about morality to show that there is no basis to it if there is no objective morality.