Chatter from thread about evolution

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Chatter from thread about evolution

 Pulled Jacob's comment from the thread for evolution links to here.

 Sorry for the thread scramble, the below thread is a mish mosh of posts from our thread for evolution links.  Please post only specific examples of evolution in this thread as a reference.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
http://www.probe.org/site/c.f

This comment has been moved here.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The people arguing for micro

The people arguing for micro vs macro evolution need to post their 'evidence' for the existence of a mechanism which limits  change in any species from going too far from some 'standard'.

Where is this 'reference model' for each species encoded and kept perfectly constant over all time?

This would require some very special biological mechanism which science has found no hint of.

Plenty of evidence for mutation of all kinds, but no point where the mutation is tested against some reference. The only 'test' we see is whether the mutation allows the creature to survive and pass the change on.

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


AnarchyMell
Superfan
AnarchyMell's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-09-23
User is offlineOffline
Wow Bob, what an excellent

Wow Bob, what an excellent rebuttle to the xians!  I would have never thought of that.  Thanks so much!!

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.

Emma Goldman


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AnarchyMell wrote:Wow Bob,

AnarchyMell wrote:

Wow Bob, what an excellent rebuttle to the xians!  I would have never thought of that.  Thanks so much!!

Thanks.

 

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Yah, great post Bob. For a

Yah, great post Bob. For a theist who is stuck on one point, that is probably a great way to go.

 

One reservation though, it might not work with the YEC crowd. If the arbitrary starting point is in the recent past, then they don't really have to provide such a mechanism as there just has not been anywhere near enough time for it to emerge from the background data. Which then would leave you having to deal with the age of the earth.

 

Not that that is all that much harder to deal with. However, what the theists really need to do is not simply come up with one answer to one question. Where they really ought to have their feet held to the fire is the global picture.

 

As we all know, the evidence for evolution come not simply from one book written by Darwin. It comes from the totality of many areas of science. Molecular genetics, Geology, Cosmology and so on. So the true job for the theist is to come up with a whole theory that takes everything into account.

 

Such a whole theory could be attacked point for point as you demonstrated. Each piece would fall apart on it's own. Eventually, they would have nothing to work with. Still, in a proper debate with a well educated theist, one would need to be able to tear down each point individually. If one misses a single piece, then we just have smug theists running around claiming that a single argument stands because it did not fall at that point.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I definitely agree that in

I definitely agree that in responding to any argument where there are actually many different aspects to it, it helps to seize on one point at a time and 'drill down' to the basics of that point to show just where it fails.

With evolution generally, my inclination is to try and show just how simple the process is - random mutation, which has been observed, and how simple is the selection process.

There only comeback at that point is to argue that the probabilities are just so tiny that anything useful will show up by 'pure chance'.

An important point is to watch out for the Hoyle fallacy of the improbability of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747 jet. When you break the process into a series of smaller steps, with change in the 'right' direction selected at each step, the overall probability of hitting a particular final result in a given number of 'trials' increases dramatically.

Unfortunately, this requires some degree of familiarity with math and probability theory, so I am still searching for a simple way to present this.

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I

BobSpence1 wrote:

I definitely agree that in responding to any argument where there are actually many different aspects to it, it helps to seize on one point at a time and 'drill down' to the basics of that point to show just where it fails.

With evolution generally, my inclination is to try and show just how simple the process is - random mutation, which has been observed, and how simple is the selection process.

There only comeback at that point is to argue that the probabilities are just so tiny that anything useful will show up by 'pure chance'.

An important point is to watch out for the Hoyle fallacy of the improbability of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747 jet. When you break the process into a series of smaller steps, with change in the 'right' direction selected at each step, the overall probability of hitting a particular final result in a given number of 'trials' increases dramatically.

Unfortunately, this requires some degree of familiarity with math and probability theory, so I am still searching for a simple way to present this.

 

 

Have you seen this web site: http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

I found it works better to explain probability in terms of gambling.  Even those who profess to not gamble seem to pick up the theory pretty quickly when expressed in those terms. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Bob, couldn't a theist claim the genome itself

 

is the "blueprint" in all its perfection, fixed for all time? While we know the genome is an ecosystem, endlessly adapting, the god-folk make their own rules that apply in the shadows of unassailable knowledge.

When it comes to evolution, my fundy family insist on the sorts of wild combination animals like, hen/dolphins, that demands freakishly improbable mutation in order to produce an intermediate form. As mentioned earlier, the comparatively incremental changes evolution requires are just dumbed down by god people as being species-particular changes. And these people are beyond convincing.

It will be nice when genetic science is so far advanced these pompous tree brethren have no choice but to accept their 'humble' origins.

I s'pose there's always the crocoduck...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


petcart
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-08-01
User is offlineOffline
Re

Didn't want to make new thread.

Just indtroducing myself - Peter, to this forum.

Hope to find many interesting things here and see you in forum.

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
welcome

 

 

 

                         Don't be afraid to start up a new post,it helps to keep the topics seperated from mish mash.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Sam Barton (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
lol ever heard of

lol ever heard of irreducable complexity!?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Sam Barton wrote:lol ever

Sam Barton wrote:

lol ever heard of irreducable complexity!?

Only a few thousand times.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Stephen M (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Utimate Paradigm of Science

The Ultimate Paradigm of Science, which specifies the process of evolution, in presented in an essay located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/cosmo.pdf

 


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Theory of Evolution - Unanswered questions

Recently had a debate with atheist on the sanity of the Theory of Evolution. He could not answer my questions logically. Seems there are far more number people here. See if you can answer these -

http://atheistthought.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/intelligent-design-looking-at-the-logic/

Any one?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sam Barton wrote:lol ever

Sam Barton wrote:

lol ever heard of irreducable complexity!?

Did you know that it was utterly refuted in a court of law?

"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
mutantshark wrote:Recently

mutantshark wrote:

Recently had a debate with atheist on the sanity of the Theory of Evolution. He could not answer my questions logically. Seems there are far more number people here. See if you can answer these -

http://atheistthought.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/intelligent-design-looking-at-the-logic/

Any one?

 

Seems like AJ did pretty well answering your questions - where was the logic faulty?

My argument against ID is that if the planet and the universe were designed for life why are they so hostile to it?

"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: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Irreducible complexity"

"Irreducible complexity" assumes that a structure must have developed for a specific function, and if it cannot serve that function with any one part removed, that 'proves' it was designed, and cannot have evolved step-by-step.

But that already assumes a conscious design of some kind.

In fact, as was amply demonstrated by a mass of papers dumped in front of Michael Behe at the Dover trial, there are plenty of ways such things can evolve - as long as intermediate structures serve some function, not necessarily anything to do with the final function, there is no logic being violated.

It is precisely because evolution has no end purpose, that such things can evolve.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
How anyone with half a brain

How anyone with half a brain can look at a tiger and a house cat and not see that they are related have their fucking heads up their asses.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Theory of Evolution - Unanswered questions

No, my questions are not answered based on scientific facts or clear logic. Most of my questions related to development of organs remain completely untouched. Lets discuss those here one by one -

  • If all organs developed based on theories currently accepted under theory of evolution, chance of an organ developing into a fully functional organ is just a fraction of the chance of an organ remaining undeveloped. In such a case we should find more undeveloped organs in our body than developed ones. So if there are 1000 organs in human body, at least 990 of those organs should be completely irrelevant. How many such organs do you find in human body?? (I'm talking about harmless but completely useless organs).

  • According to studies, mutations largely cause either harmful or irrelevant changes. No mutation with a positive result was ever found in an experiment. For the sake of argument lets assume it happened.

  • Consider this explanation of development of eye consisting of - appearance of photo receptors - photo receptors magically getting connected to brain in the same scan order (assume that the order of scanning was preserved magically) - appearance of lens - appearance of muscles to control focal length of the convex lens etc.
    • If all this was caused by random mutations, why dont we have a random organ like a patch of photo receptors or vibration receptors or heat receptors on our arms or legs or any other part of our body that are not connected to the brain (useless but at the same time harmless).

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:No, my

mutantshark wrote:

No, my questions are not answered based on scientific facts or clear logic. Most of my questions related to development of organs remain completely untouched. Lets discuss those here one by one -

  • If all organs developed based on theories currently accepted under theory of evolution, chance of an organ developing into a fully functional organ is just a fraction of the chance of an organ remaining undeveloped. In such a case we should find more undeveloped organs in our body than developed ones. So if there are 1000 organs in human body, at least 990 of those organs should be completely irrelevant. How many such organs do you find in human body?? (I'm talking about harmless but completely useless organs).

  • According to studies, mutations largely cause either harmful or irrelevant changes. No mutation with a positive result was ever found in an experiment. For the sake of argument lets assume it happened.

  • Consider this explanation of development of eye consisting of - appearance of photo receptors - photo receptors magically getting connected to brain in the same scan order (assume that the order of scanning was preserved magically) - appearance of lens - appearance of muscles to control focal length of the convex lens etc.
    • If all this was caused by random mutations, why dont we have a random organ like a patch of photo receptors or vibration receptors or heat receptors on our arms or legs or any other part of our body that are not connected to the brain (useless but at the same time harmless).

 

1. Your question about organs makes no sense. As living things have fully functional organs the chances of life evolving them is 100%. The rest of your question is flawed because it seems to rest on Behe's thoroughly refuted belief of irreducible complexity. There would be no organs that are useless from the beginning still around because natural selection (not a random process) would not allow for them.

2. No mutation with a positive result was ever found in an experiment? Look up "nylonase".

3. Natural selection is not random so your question is based on an incorrect understanding of evolution.

"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: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I answered your first point.

I answered your first point. Organs will never remain totally non-functional - the intermediate stages of what is currently serving a particular function will have served some function, often more than one, and may still serve those other, typically simpler, functions, which justified their initial evolution.

Mutations are mostly neutral, not harmful. The fact that virtually any gene, of any significant length, for any common aspect of our structure or function, appears in typically many slightly different sequences across all species is one demonstration of that.

Mutations do happen, all the time, at a rate more than adequate to be compatible with evolution. This includes all the possible ways a chromosome can change:

1. replacement of one unit (amino acids) by another;

2. deletion of one or more adjacent units;

3. replication - one unit, or sequence, being copied one or more times in sequence;

4. jumping - a whole gene being copied into a new location, on the same or another chromosome

These are observed in bacterial and other studies.

That is a fact, and that alone should be enough to convince anyone that evolution is pretty much inevitable.

You are thinking only of major gross changes, which are usually harmful. But that is not the way most evolution happens, rather it is by small changes at each generation, most of which are neutral, but of those that are not, those that lead to lower reproduction rates will not tend to spread in the population, those that improve the likely number of offspring will naturally spread. That is evolution.

The evolution of the eye started with very simple nerves that were mainly sensitive to heat, and evolved step by step, getting more complex. 

The connection to the brain did not require any specific arrangement to be preserved, they do not form a physical replica of the retinal image in the brain.

Nerves from closely associated points on the body will naturally be connected to closely connected parts of the brain. The networks and connections that evolved around each group of heat and ultimately light-sensitive cells will evolve to respond in useful ways to the patterns in which the sensitive nerves are stimulate. 

We can find examples of all kinds of 'eyes' in nature, from simple infra-red sensitive patches to nerves arranged inside hollows which increase the ability to sense the direction of the radiation, to hollows where the opening has almost closed up, to ones where a transparent tissue has formed over the hole, etc. It is not a mystery.

'Receptors' not connected to the brain will have no advantage, so will not be selected for. That is all we need to say.

Your final comment reveals your basic misunderstanding- evolution is not a purely random process. Each generation will have a few random variations, but they will be systematically, not randomly, sorted out by the process of living, ie that those that produce more offspring will tend to persist.

 

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


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:There would

jcgadfly wrote:

There would be no organs that are useless from the beginning still around because natural selection (not a random process) would not allow for them.

Why would natural selection cause an animal with a harmless (but useless) mutation to become extinct?? This could have been right if the result of mutation would make the animal less fit to survive, but here I'm talking about a mutation that will not make it less or more fit but cause a random organ to develop. After all evolutionists say organs developed through gradual random mutations.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

2. No mutation with a positive result was ever found in an experiment? Look up "nylonase".

Nylonase is not part of an experimental mutation. It was just found in nature.

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Natural selection is not random so your question is based on an incorrect understanding of evolution.

I never said natural selection is random. I said mutations are random.

 

Here again you are missing the point - Why are there no random organs (harmless but useless) in human body? Natural selection will have no effect on random harmless organs.

 

There are more basic problems with the whole theory - lets get to that later.

 


Pacioli
atheist
Pacioli's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mutantshark, is this really you?

 

mutantshark at the linked page wrote:
 For example a female elephant mates with a male elephant and due to mutation, once in a thousand years it gave birth to a cow

That is very impressive. Please read and understand evolution before writing about it. I commend Jerry Coyne to you.

 


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I answered

BobSpence1 wrote:

I answered your first point. Organs will never remain totally non-functional - the intermediate stages of what is currently serving a particular function will have served some function, often more than one, and may still serve those other, typically simpler, functions, which justified their initial evolution.

How can you say that an organ that developed in a random mutation will always serve some function?? I agree that the animal will not survive if the new organ proves harmful, but what if the organ is not harmful (true for a large percentage of mutations).

BobSpence1 wrote:

The connection to the brain did not require any specific arrangement to be preserved, they do not form a physical replica of the retinal image in the brain.

Nerves from closely associated points on the body will naturally be connected to closely connected parts of the brain. The networks and connections that evolved around each group of heat and ultimately light-sensitive cells will evolve to respond in useful ways to the patterns in which the sensitive nerves are stimulate. 

The first statement is wrong. Images are captured in our retina in much the same way as a digital camera, that is pixel by pixel.  If there are a million pixels (rods and cons) in the retina, each pixel has to get connected to the video RAM (sorry I dont have another word for it) of brain in the same order as the connections (parallel) in the retina are. For example the pixel in column number 1 and row number 1 in retina has to get connected to the column 1 and row 1 in the brains image interpreter. If there are a million pixels, all of them have to connect to the right place (zero tolerance) or else the picture that you see will be just random dots. Im not going into the probability of all these million lines getting connected in the right order. Coz that itself will cause serious headache to evolutionists. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

We can find examples of all kinds of 'eyes' in nature, from simple infra-red sensitive patches to nerves arranged inside hollows which increase the ability to sense the direction of the radiation, to hollows where the opening has almost closed up, to ones where a transparent tissue has formed over the hole, etc. It is not a mystery.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

'Receptors' not connected to the brain will have no advantage, so will not be selected for. That is all we need to say.

Mutations are random effects so having advantage or not is not a concern here. The real concern is whether the random effect increases or decreases the fitness of the organism. Obviously a Receptor thats not connected to brain is neither and advantage nor a disadvantage and hence worth getting carried on.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your final comment reveals your basic misunderstanding- evolution is not a purely random process. Each generation will have a few random variations, but they will be systematically, not randomly, sorted out by the process of living, ie that those that produce more offspring will tend to persist.

 

I hope I have answered this in my above points.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Have you seen

cj wrote:

 

Have you seen this web site: http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

I found it works better to explain probability in terms of gambling.  Even those who profess to not gamble seem to pick up the theory pretty quickly when expressed in those terms. 

 

What a great website. It has lots of interesting topics. Well, there goes my evening. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Useless organs tend to

Useless organs tend to degenerate and atrophy, precisely because of the continuing process of random small mutations

The standard example of an organ that has little function in humans is the appendiix.

Some snakes still have flaps of skin that are vestigial legs.

And a whole organ could not develop unless it served some function at each stage, so evolution could not produce whole useless organs.

Now can you provide an argument for the existence of a God? That would be impressive if you could. The evidence for evolution is vastly more solid than anything pointing to a God of any kind, and all the evidence is solidly against a loving omnipotent one.

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Visual processing starts in

Visual processing starts in the retina, and it seems small irregular areas of retinal cells connect to separate parts of the brain's visual processing region.

So the complete, coherent image only appears on the retina, which is effectively an extension of the brain, so your model of the eye as video camera sending its image over a cable to have processing applied in the brain is incorrect.

The eye and the associated visual processing circuits developed together, so there was never an issue of 'connecting them up' - they were never unconnected.

You still clearly don't 'get it' - viability of any single generation genetic change is tested in that generation, and such changes are normally relatively small. As you suggested, large changes in one generation are more likely to be unviable, but evolution is not dependent on that any more than the normal rate of genetic variation per generation. In the absence of a strong selection pressure, such as a significant change in the environment, little change (evolution) will occur.

In one generation, you are extremely unlikely to get a whole patch of special cells formed in a localized area. That would require successive matching mutations adding more cells to a particular patch, which is extremely unlikely to happen. And is unlikely to spread to other generations unless it confers some reproductive advantage. Without that it would be just a peculiar skin patch distinguishing one individual, which will blur out when that individual mates with another without that patch.

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:The first

mutantshark wrote:

The first statement is wrong. Images are captured in our retina in much the same way as a digital camera, that is pixel by pixel.  If there are a million pixels (rods and cons) in the retina, each pixel has to get connected to the video RAM (sorry I dont have another word for it) of brain in the same order as the connections (parallel) in the retina are. For example the pixel in column number 1 and row number 1 in retina has to get connected to the column 1 and row 1 in the brains image interpreter. If there are a million pixels, all of them have to connect to the right place (zero tolerance) or else the picture that you see will be just random dots. Im not going into the probability of all these million lines getting connected in the right order. Coz that itself will cause serious headache to evolutionists. 

 

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

Second, I'm going to focus on eyes and optical nerves.  I know a little bit about it.  I have had experience pretty recently with messed up eyes and nerves.  And if I tried to respond to all of your nonsense, this post would be 60 inches long.  Or more. 

Last, I am not a neurologist, nor a scientist, nor a doctor of any sort.  Evolution is my hobby.  So I would expect you to not take my word for it and go read all of the resources I am about to give you.

The following website looks to be very comprehensive.  I haven't read all of it and I can not vouch for the author's credentials, but someone has put a lot of work into this page.  http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/index.html

There are a number of problems with your description of mammalian eyes and how they work.  We do not have digital cameras for eyes.  There is not a one to one correlation between cones and rods and nerves that connect to our brain.  In fact, the area where the optic nerve attaches to the back of the retina is completely blind - it is your blind spot.

Your brain sees, your eyes perceive.  Yes, there is a difference.  You can perceive something and not see it.  Industrial engineering designing fluorescent lights is a classic example.  Fluorescent lights flicker just before they blow out, right?  Well, they flicker all the time, you just can't see them.  However, your eyes perceive the flickers.  There was some adjustments early on to get the flickering at just the right pulse so that people can not usually see it and so that it didn't give everyone in the room a headache from eye strain.  Search for classic industrial engineering problems.

You obviously do not know any one who has had a stroke.  My husband had one about a year ago near his hypothalamus.  For about a month, he saw double.  A friend of ours had a stroke a number of years ago, and he says it was like having "fly" eyes - many images, not just two.  For both of them, it gradually cleared up.  The neurologist explained that your brain readjusts around the damaged nerves in your brain and learns how to see again with a little time.  The damage does not go away.  The original nerves are dead.  My husband has a white spot in the center of his brain.  It will be there for the rest of his life.  Occasionally, the damage is bad enough the problem does not resolve and you can get a special glasses prescription that will compensate for you. 

The important point - your brain can and does repair itself by co-opting neurons from another section of your brain in order to see.  Humans are very reliant on their vision, and our brains are very flexible.  So if your idea of "one cone/rod - one neuron" were correct, we could never recover from damage such as a stroke.

For a very detailed discussion of strokes, read My Stroke of Insight by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor.  She is a neuroanatomist (a scientist who studies brain anatomy), and had a stroke.  http://www.amazon.com/My-Stroke-Insight-Scientists-Personal/dp/B004HEXSLI/ref=sr_1_1?tag=httpwwwration-20

For more detailed information about how we see patterns and learn to read, and way more neurology see Reading in the Brain by Stanislav Dehaene.  He is a neurosurgeon and research neurologist.  http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Brain-New-Science-Read/dp/B004Q7E1TY/ref=sr_1_1?tag=httpwwwration-20

These books were both available at my local library, so you have no excuse for not reading them.  You can always get them through interlibrary loan.  They will even mail them to your address for no charge.  Since you have internet access enough to post here, you have enough to read the site on eyes.  Don't post more nonsense until you understand the biology.  Thanks for taking the time to learn.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Unanswered questions

cj wrote:

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

cj wrote:

Second, I'm going to focus on eyes and optical nerves.  I know a little bit about it.  I have had experience pretty recently with messed up eyes and nerves.  And if I tried to respond to all of your nonsense, this post would be 60 inches long.  Or more. 

Last, I am not a neurologist, nor a scientist, nor a doctor of any sort.  Evolution is my hobby.  So I would expect you to not take my word for it and go read all of the resources I am about to give you.

"respond to all of your nonsense" - I have decided not to insult any one during my argument coz it doesn't help the spirit of debate. Instead of getting angry why dont you think logically?

"Evolution is my hobby" - This is my hobby too! but it also has evolved - earlier i used to try to prove evolution is right but when I found it baseless I started disproving it. Funny fact is that you have thousands of ways to disprove it but very few ways to prove it.

cj wrote:

There are a number of problems with your description of mammalian eyes and how they work.  We do not have digital cameras for eyes.  There is not a one to one correlation between cones and rods and nerves that connect to our brain.  In fact, the area where the optic nerve attaches to the back of the retina is

completely blind - it is your blind spot.

I never said that we have a digital camera for our eyes. About "one to one correlation", where did you get this information? The exact correlation is not known but its not correct that there is no one to one correlation.

cj wrote:

Your brain sees, your eyes perceive.  Yes, there is a difference.  You can perceive something and not see it.  Industrial engineering designing fluorescent lights is a classic example.  Fluorescent lights flicker just before they blow out, right?  Well, they flicker all the time, you just can't see them.  However, your eyes perceive the flickers.  There was some adjustments early on to get the flickering at just the right pulse so that people can not usually see it and so that it didn't give everyone in the room a headache from eye strain.  Search for classic industrial engineering problems.

You obviously do not know any one who has had a stroke.  My husband had one about a year ago near his hypothalamus.  For about a month, he saw double.  A friend of ours had a stroke a number of years ago, and he says it was like having "fly" eyes - many images, not just two.  For both of them, it gradually cleared up.  The neurologist explained that your brain readjusts around the damaged nerves in your brain and learns how to see again with a little time.  The damage does not go away.  The original nerves are dead.  My husband has a white spot in the center of his brain.  It will be there for the rest of his life.  Occasionally, the damage is bad enough the problem does not resolve and you can get a special glasses prescription that will compensate for you. 

The important point - your brain can and does repair itself by co-opting neurons from another section of your brain in order to see.  Humans are very reliant on their vision, and our brains are very flexible.  So if your idea of "one cone/rod - one neuron" were correct, we could never recover from damage such as a stroke.

 

None of the above arguments disprove my point. If you think not, then let me know how.


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Useless

BobSpence1 wrote:

Useless organs tend to degenerate and atrophy, precisely because of the continuing process of random small mutations

Not necessarily. Useless organs can add complexity if it remains harmless. Probability of an organ developing into a useful one is order of magnitude less than the probability of one not developing into a useful one. In many cases it can remain useless and harmless. With that argument, we should see more useless organs in our body than useful ones.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

And a whole organ could not develop unless it served some function at each stage, so evolution could not produce whole useless organs.

This argument cannot be correct based on the concept of mutation, natural selection and above all - genetics. If that information is there in your genes then whether useful or useless will have no effect on its development. Mutation can happen to an organ and get transferred to offspring if its not harmful.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Now can you provide an argument for the existence of a God? That would be impressive if you could. The evidence for evolution is vastly more solid than anything pointing to a God of any kind, and all the evidence is solidly against a loving omnipotent one.

If theory of evolution is wrong then the only way life came to the universe must be due to a creator.

Regarding proof for the existence of god - I'm more impressed with the islamic concept of god, and there, there is no omnipotent god. Instead a creator that created time,  space and matter and He cannot be seen and cannot be understood. Basically there is nothing common between god and its creations. This argument is consistent to itself based on science because if some one created time, space and matter, then there is no way you can understand him. Every thing in science is based on time, space and matter and those three quantities are undefined. If god created time space and matter there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him. Any way lets get back to evolution Smiling


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:BobSpence1

mutantshark wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Useless organs tend to degenerate and atrophy, precisely because of the continuing process of random small mutations

Not necessarily. Useless organs can add complexity if it remains harmless. Probability of an organ developing into a useful one is order of magnitude less than the probability of one not developing into a useful one. In many cases it can remain useless and harmless. With that argument, we should see more useless organs in our body than useful ones.

No. While a no longer functional organ may provide a better framework for a possible new organ than no such structure, normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure, so we would have no reason to see more useless than useful. For a formerly useful organ to be rendered useless would require a fairly dramatic change of environmental niche, and so would be expected to be very rare.

Slower changes will be more likely to simply drive existing organs to adapt, which is even easier than re-activating a vestigial one.

Quote:
 

BobSpence1 wrote:

And a whole organ could not develop unless it served some function at each stage, so evolution could not produce whole useless organs.

This argument cannot be correct based on the concept of mutation, natural selection and above all - genetics. If that information is there in your genes then whether useful or useless will have no effect on its development. Mutation can happen to an organ and get transferred to offspring if its not harmful.

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

A genuinely new organ can only start from some very simple function requiring a very simple structure, and then its functionality and complexity can grow and change under the selective pressure of some very new environment or ecological niche.

Your reference to 'information' shows you have bought into that complete misunderstanding of 'information' that creationists have tried to bring into this context. A new organ does NOT require the 'information' represented by that new organ to be somehow present already in the DNA. That is total nonsense.

Duplication, deletion, translocation, copying errors, all of which are observed to occur, are all that is required to generate literally all possible new sequences, ie all possible information. Selection pressures from the environment determine which of these new sequences are useful and get replicated into new offspring. The kind of new 'information' you are thinking of comes from the non-random nature of the selection pressures. The 'raw' information is already there, generated by the basic DNA replication, and comes from the chemicals in the environment which form the DNA molecules, and the available energy.

That is how all new useful information arises. Random generation of new configurations, allowing the useful configurations to be selected by a non-random context.

That also applies to human creativity - random speculation, maybe 'guided' by staring at the random shapes of flames in a fireplace, in a famous example, plus a process of watching for configurations which suddenly seem to fit some existing puzzle, is the only way genuinely novel ideas are arrived at. Otherwise we are limited to what is logically derivable by analysing existing solutions.

This argument from 'information' is utterly wrong, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this whole process.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Now can you provide an argument for the existence of a God? That would be impressive if you could. The evidence for evolution is vastly more solid than anything pointing to a God of any kind, and all the evidence is solidly against a loving omnipotent one.

If theory of evolution is wrong then the only way life came to the universe must be due to a creator.

For the theory of evolution to be wrong, much basic logic would be violated. It really is one of those ideas which once grasped, is blindingly obvious in retrospect.

A 'creator' provides NO ultimate explanation. All you have done is introduce a whole new entity, utterly beyond anything we have observed, or can observe, which is far harder to explain than the evolution of life.

Quote:

Regarding proof for the existence of god - I'm more impressed with the islamic concept of god, and there, there is no omnipotent god. Instead a creator that created time,  space and matter and He cannot be seen and cannot be understood. Basically there is nothing common between god and its creations. This argument is consistent to itself based on science because if some one created time, space and matter, then there is no way you can understand him. Every thing in science is based on time, space and matter and those three quantities are undefined. If god created time space and matter there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him. Any way lets get back to evolution Smiling

But what created the creator? If a 'creator' can simply 'be', why not a basic energy field, which is all that is required by science to precede our universe.

And why need such a 'creator' be a conscious entity? A non-conscious initial origin can be identified with that basic primordial energy field.

'God' is a primitive, superstitous, unnecessary, and ultimately empty concept. As you effectively acknowledge when you say "there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him." Once you assume a God, you have no way to be certain about anything, since such a being could change anything at any instant, at a whim. We could never know anything about the attributes or motives of such a being. 

Science does actually go beyond space, time and matter. Have you not heard of Relativity, String theory, Metaverses, M-branes, etc, as theories or proposed theories about the basis of space-time, gravity, and matter/energy? The continuing search for a Grand Unified Theory is way beyond 'space, time and matter'. Relativity handles those pretty well. The world of sub-atomic particle theory defines matter and energy well. There are endless refinements being pursued, of course. But we can now predict many phenomena to extreme accuracy, so we have made enormous progress beyond the primitive understanding of reality that existed in the minds of the writers of scripture, and in medieval theologians.

All those things ARE defined, in terms of their attributes, their properties, which is all we CAN do with ANY concept, including God. The primitive concept of 'essences' is quite unhelpful.

They have proven vastly more useful in generating understanding and insights and sophisticated harnessing of reality, than any theology.

'God' is the most poorly defined concept around. It is just a label to apply to what you do not understand to make it seem like you have some kind of 'explanation'.

We really cannot ignore the God-concept, since clinging to that outdated idea is what drives this deliberate misinterpretation of science, including the extremely well supported Theory of Evolution, or more properly, the modern evolutionary synthesis, incorporating several disciplines, especially Genetics ultimately derived from Mendel, without which Darwin's ideas had a major gap.

This distortion of realty is necessary to sustain your unjustified, illogical, pre-supposition of a 'creator'.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Why can't theists actually

Why can't theists actually LEARN evolution before trying to disprove it? Their arguments are strawmen. It's like hearing someone try and disprove the existence of brownies by suggesting oxygen and hydrogen don't mix well. Not only do oxygen and hydrogen have nothing to do with making brownies, but they mix very well.

The irreducible complexity hypothesis was tested and thoroughly disproven within a few years of its presentation. Theists deserve a hand for actually coming up with a testable hypothesis that advanced scientific knowledge and understanding in an attempt to prove a creator for the first time in history. But it was still proven wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Chimp plays FPS (in

Chimp plays FPS (in japanese):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya7IhijXYUQ

Certainly, cognitive and intelligence tests have been done on chimps before. But Chrysis/Battlefield or whatever the hell that game was? Nuh-uh. Of course, one could always argue chimps don't have a soul...

NOTE: The description section is little more than an content-farm for Planet of the Apes' new movie, and numerous other pointless ads. The video is still valid.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Another necropost, but here

Another necropost, but here goes...

BobSpence1 wrote:
Where is this 'reference model' for each species encoded and kept perfectly constant over all time?

Living fossils. Though to think that everything alive today displays the same static biology through various evolutionary epochs that is found in say a... coelacanth, is a bit problematic. Yet every now and then, one creature or social unit of highly similar creatures does manage to find a niche so effectively that its anatomy does not change for millions of years.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


luca
atheist
Posts: 399
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
zhorzh borman

 

Quote:
If theory of evolution is wrong then the only way life came to the universe must be due to a creator.

If ToE was wrong, then... evolution could still be true, because one is practice, the other is theory. It would only mean that we did not understood how it happened, not that it did not happened. For evolution to be wrong you have to say that "evolution is wrong", not that "ToE is wrong".

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:cj wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

 

If you knew sic'um about genetics, you wouldn't be posting idiotic stuff about having organs spontaneously popping out all over your skin.  This is nonsense.  Since you obviously don't understand that it is nonsense, you obviously don't understand genetics.

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No. While a

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. While a no longer functional organ may provide a better framework for a possible new organ than no such structure, normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure, so we would have no reason to see more useless than useful. For a formerly useful organ to be rendered useless would require a fairly dramatic change of environmental niche, and so would be expected to be very rare.

Slower changes will be more likely to simply drive existing organs to adapt, which is even easier than re-activating a vestigial one.

 

I dont understand why you think "normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure". Remember that according to modern genetics, organs dont develop or vanish due to the amount of use it is serving (it only depends on the genetic blue print, which cannot change if an organ is not used). Instead it develops or becomes less developed due to random mutations. Then the trait gets carried on if the animal is fit to survive.

Secondly I'm not talking about a formerly useful organ becoming useless. Instead Im talking about a formerly unused organ (at the very early stages of development) adding complexity but still remaining useless.

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

But this conflicts with scientific data that says :

1. A large percentage of mutations cause harmless (but useless) changes to an organism. (This has no effect on natural selection)

2. A small percentage of mutations cause harmful effects and this will be wiped out due to natural selection.

3. Only a fraction of mutations supposedly cause useful effects.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

But what created the creator? If a 'creator' can simply 'be', why not a basic energy field, which is all that is required by science to precede our universe.

The question "what created the creator" itself is wrong because we cannot understand the creator. We can get a glimpse of his capabilities through his creations. Energy field theories cannot find god as energy is inside the time- space - matter coordinates and god is outside time - space - mass coordinates.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science does actually go beyond space, time and matter. Have you not heard of Relativity, String theory, Metaverses, M-branes, etc, as theories or proposed theories about the basis of space-time, gravity, and matter/energy? The continuing search for a Grand Unified Theory is way beyond 'space, time and matter'. Relativity handles those pretty well. The world of sub-atomic particle theory defines matter and energy well.

Science does not go beyond space time and matter, if you think science knows whats below time space and matter then tell me a basic quantity thats lower than time space and matter. If there is a quantity known below time space and matter then define 'time' base on that quantity?

How can you say that Relativity, String theory, etc are beyond space, time and matter? Take for example relativity, it uses space time and matter in relative form than absolute form but still uses time space and matter. GUT is a mathematical (abstract) theory, even GUT has to use time, space and matter to be applied to a physical phenomena. Ultimately, any physical phenomena in the world is a function of space time matter etc. I didnt say there are no other basic quantities that are not definable, even they are not below time space and matter and cant be used to define these basic quantities. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a primitive, superstitous, unnecessary, and ultimately empty concept. As you effectively acknowledge when you say "there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him." Once you assume a God, you have no way to be certain about anything, since such a being could change anything at any instant, at a whim. We could never know anything about the attributes or motives of such a being.

The first statement is out of your emotions and not logic. When I was an atheist, I used to call God - dog to make fun of it and my mom used to feel scared of my words (though even she did not have a religious background). Now I'm sorry for it and I know that I did it out of ignorance.

We cannot understand or define god because He is much below the basic quantities we know.

Do you think there is 'time'?? Then define time. You cannot! But does it mean that time does not exist? Even a guy who has never even accidentally stepped into a school would say no. Its just that we dont have the ability to understand what is below that. But any thing above that can be defined (eg. speed, acceleration, force, energy etc).

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is the most poorly defined concept around. It is just a label to apply to what you do not understand to make it seem like you have some kind of 'explanation'.

Do you think god is an old concept and Atheism is a new concept? No Atheism was there even during the very early history. I used to think that Atheism is a modern concept and god is an old concept then once I read about an incident that happened during the time of the Islamic prophet, that says - when the people who did not believe in God (the Atheist) mocked at the prophet, asking him how can your god bring back the dead people for a judgement when not even a trace of them remain (after they die and are buried). Then a verse of the Koran was revealed that says - "Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order (even) the very tips of his fingers.". For the people of that era its just means god can bring back every thing even finger tips. But with our current knowledge of finger print recognition, we know that each individual in the world has a unique finger print and bring back some one with such accuracy is not trivial. That addresses even the atheists of this age.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:mutantshark

cj wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

 

If you knew sic'um about genetics, you wouldn't be posting idiotic stuff about having organs spontaneously popping out all over your skin.  This is nonsense.  Since you obviously don't understand that it is nonsense, you obviously don't understand genetics.

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

Everyone posts total nonsense at some point in time or another. Not everyone deserves to be mocked, insulted, satired, or caricatured for it. Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

 

If you knew sic'um about genetics, you wouldn't be posting idiotic stuff about having organs spontaneously popping out all over your skin.  This is nonsense.  Since you obviously don't understand that it is nonsense, you obviously don't understand genetics.

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

Everyone posts total nonsense at some point in time or another. Not everyone deserves to be mocked, insulted, satired, or caricatured for it. Eye-wink

Ok, so you'd rather let people think the earth is flat? Sorry, but when someone, especially adults go around threatening  lagit science with comic book claims and tries to infect the minds of others with it, it deserves every scorn and ridicule.

Imagine how further ahead humanity had been if people had listened to Galileo. It is 2011, not 329. We have computers, cell phones and modern medicine. Coddling the insecurities of the fans of superstition will not progress humanity. Wallowing in tribal myth is exactly how humanity stagnates.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:BobSpence1

mutantshark wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. While a no longer functional organ may provide a better framework for a possible new organ than no such structure, normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure, so we would have no reason to see more useless than useful. For a formerly useful organ to be rendered useless would require a fairly dramatic change of environmental niche, and so would be expected to be very rare.

Slower changes will be more likely to simply drive existing organs to adapt, which is even easier than re-activating a vestigial one.

 

I dont understand why you think "normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure". Remember that according to modern genetics, organs dont develop or vanish due to the amount of use it is serving (it only depends on the genetic blue print, which cannot change if an organ is not used). Instead it develops or becomes less developed due to random mutations. Then the trait gets carried on if the animal is fit to survive.

Secondly I'm not talking about a formerly useful organ becoming useless. Instead Im talking about a formerly unused organ (at the very early stages of development) adding complexity but still remaining useless.

The genes are not really a 'blueprint', more like a 'recipe'. 

But aside from that, the genetic sequence can and does change continually, not necessarily in major ways, but in many smaller ways.

The major source of this is simply the continual reshuffling from generation to generation of the variations in each gene from individual to individual. There is no one fixed sequence for each gene across the population. Each organ will be affected by many genes, so each new individual will have some random combination of their parents versions of each gene.

Then there is the continuing random mutation.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate:

Quote:

The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]. Occasional mutations are unfavorable, and rarely a mutation will be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable and neutral changes accumulate. The rate of elimination or accumulation depends on how unfavorable or favorable the mutation is.

So just about everything you said was mistaken.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

But this conflicts with scientific data that says :

1. A large percentage of mutations cause harmless (but useless) changes to an organism. (This has no effect on natural selection)

2. A small percentage of mutations cause harmful effects and this will be wiped out due to natural selection.

3. Only a fraction of mutations supposedly cause useful effects.

You have expressed (1) backwards - you should have said "natural selection has no effect on neutral mutations".

Otherwise 2 and 3 are correct, and they do not conflict with my statement.

A random sequence of harmless mutations are extremely unlikely to produce any functional structure.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

But what created the creator? If a 'creator' can simply 'be', why not a basic energy field, which is all that is required by science to precede our universe.

The question "what created the creator" itself is wrong because we cannot understand the creator. We can get a glimpse of his capabilities through his creations. Energy field theories cannot find god as energy is inside the time- space - matter coordinates and god is outside time - space - mass coordinates.

The first sentence is nonsense. The fact that we could not understand a creator being does not make my question 'wrong'. It does mean that you cannot explain the origin of the creator being, or, if you go with the alternative, the creator is a being that had no origin, required no creator, that assertion would require you to assume knowledge of the unknowable. And if a non-trivial entity like a sentient creator requires no creator, why should some far more elementary require one?

You CANNOT ''know" a creator through his creations, that only works if you assume a creator exists, which itself is not a knowable thing. If you assume there is a creator the massive weight of evidence, from examining his 'works', is that he is either incompetent, uncaring, or positively malevolent.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science does actually go beyond space, time and matter. Have you not heard of Relativity, String theory, Metaverses, M-branes, etc, as theories or proposed theories about the basis of space-time, gravity, and matter/energy? The continuing search for a Grand Unified Theory is way beyond 'space, time and matter'. Relativity handles those pretty well. The world of sub-atomic particle theory defines matter and energy well.

Science does not go beyond space time and matter, if you think science knows whats below time space and matter then tell me a basic quantity thats lower than time space and matter. If there is a quantity known below time space and matter then define 'time' base on that quantity?

How can you say that Relativity, String theory, etc are beyond space, time and matter? Take for example relativity, it uses space time and matter in relative form than absolute form but still uses time space and matter. GUT is a mathematical (abstract) theory, even GUT has to use time, space and matter to be applied to a physical phenomena. Ultimately, any physical phenomena in the world is a function of space time matter etc. I didnt say there are no other basic quantities that are not definable, even they are not below time space and matter and cant be used to define these basic quantities. 

Relativity treats Time as an aspect of a four-dimensional manifold called 'space-time'. Time is not an absolute separate property, it is experienced differently by 'observers' travelling at different relative velocities, and subject to different gravitational fields. 

Gravity itself is a separate fundamental from space or time, associated with matter.

You also omitted energy, which is more fundamental than matter.

I could go on, but you clearly are way under-educated on physics to understand.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is a primitive, superstitous, unnecessary, and ultimately empty concept. As you effectively acknowledge when you say "there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him." Once you assume a God, you have no way to be certain about anything, since such a being could change anything at any instant, at a whim. We could never know anything about the attributes or motives of such a being.

The first statement is out of your emotions and not logic. When I was an atheist, I used to call God - dog to make fun of it and my mom used to feel scared of my words (though even she did not have a religious background). Now I'm sorry for it and I know that I did it out of ignorance.

We cannot understand or define god because He is much below the basic quantities we know.

If you consider 'God' as simply a label for the underlying principles of reality, ok, but that does not require it to have any of the characteristics usually associated with a 'God'

Quote:

Do you think there is 'time'?? Then define time. You cannot! But does it mean that time does not exist? Even a guy who has never even accidentally stepped into a school would say no. Its just that we dont have the ability to understand what is below that. But any thing above that can be defined (eg. speed, acceleration, force, energy etc).

See my earlier comments.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'God' is the most poorly defined concept around. It is just a label to apply to what you do not understand to make it seem like you have some kind of 'explanation'.

Do you think god is an old concept and Atheism is a new concept? No Atheism was there even during the very early history. I used to think that Atheism is a modern concept and god is an old concept then once I read about an incident that happened during the time of the Islamic prophet, that says - when the people who did not believe in God (the Atheist) mocked at the prophet, asking him how can your god bring back the dead people for a judgement when not even a trace of them remain (after they die and are buried). Then a verse of the Koran was revealed that says - "Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order (even) the very tips of his fingers.". For the people of that era its just means god can bring back every thing even finger tips. But with our current knowledge of finger print recognition, we know that each individual in the world has a unique finger print and bring back some one with such accuracy is not trivial. That addresses even the atheists of this age. 

'Atheism' is not a new concept, it is not really a 'concept', more the absence of a particular positive idea. Of course there will always have been people for whom the concept of a God held no interest or compelling meaning.

I was not claiming 'atheism" as new, but the search for truth via empirical methods and the verification principles as employed by modern science.

God is an empty, worse-than-useless concept, in that it leads to erroneous conclusions.

The rest of your account there really doesn't address anything of interest - it is just discussing myth, and groundless claims, and does not really address your point. To put it more specifically it only makes some kind of sense to those who take the concept of a God seriously. 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kapkao

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

First, if you must post, please first understand basic genetics.  You have a long ways to go.  And almost all evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics.

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

 

If you knew sic'um about genetics, you wouldn't be posting idiotic stuff about having organs spontaneously popping out all over your skin.  This is nonsense.  Since you obviously don't understand that it is nonsense, you obviously don't understand genetics.

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

Everyone posts total nonsense at some point in time or another. Not everyone deserves to be mocked, insulted, satired, or caricatured for it. Eye-wink

Ok, so you'd rather let people think the earth is flat? Sorry, but when someone, especially adults go around threatening  lagit science with comic book claims and tries to infect the minds of others with it, it deserves every scorn and ridicule.

Imagine how further ahead humanity had been if people had listened to Galileo. It is 2011, not 329. We have computers, cell phones and modern medicine. Coddling the insecurities of the fans of superstition will not progress humanity. Wallowing in tribal myth is exactly how humanity stagnates.

That is not what I claimed, and you can't threaten "lagit science". However, my originally intended meaning may occur along the lines of

Point 1: Someone is always going to be wrong. Get over it. Point 2: Not everyone that is wrong or "go(es) around threatening lagit science with comic book claims (ed note: on the internet)" is necessarily worth any time or energy. Point 3: A person that makes an honest mistake -as opposed to a pseudo-intellectual attempt at proving ID or creationism- does not deserve scorn and ridicule.

Brian, you're going to make an honest mistake here and there. Whether you care if people scorn or ridicule you over optic fibers (I wouldn't), I don't see the point in striking everyone who does this down with verbal fury and rage. (I think I chose an inappropriate thread to point this out. Anyhoo)

As for shark hunter or whatever their name is, let 'em have it! Same goes for Comfort. As for organs appearing in skin... wow. Just... wow.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  ..... posting

cj wrote:

 

..... posting idiotic stuff about having organs spontaneously popping out all over your skin.  This is nonsense.  Since you obviously don't understand that it is nonsense, you obviously don't understand genetics.

I never said "organs spontaneously popping out all over". This make it clear that either you havent read my post completely or you dont know any thing about mutation or genetics. There are others here who are debating with me on these points through logic. If its nonsense people wont debate.

Let me make some thing clear - This is not the first place that Im posting/asking these questions. I have asked these to many atheists including so called experts in genetics and evolution and none of them have your opinion. Many tried to explain their view of the logic and some of them needed time to respond.

cj wrote:

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

I dont have any problem with you being insulting after all its common for people to insult the opponent when they lose a debate.


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Unanswered questions

BobSpence1 wrote:

The genes are not really a 'blueprint', more like a 'recipe'.

I dont understand the difference you intend to convey. But DNA is called 'blueprint of life' even in strictly scientific circles. You can see some fairly simple explanations here

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_DNA_called_the_Blueprint_of_Life
http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&Itemid=89
Let me try to explain what I mean:
Imagine that you clone yourself from the tissue of your hand. You get an exact twin of your self with the exact looks, capabilities etc. You make a clone out of that clone even then you get the exact replica. Even if you cone a hundred times it will be the same. Its like a=b=c=d then a=d.

Wont there be any difference, the answer is yes there will be, but those will be due to the environment in which the embryo developed into foetus, temperature, supply of nutrients, the environment in which he lives, climate, food supply etc. But even with all the outward differences, the DNA will be exactly the same. That means even if you progressively vary the environment after each cloning, if the 100th clone get the same environment as you then he will be your exact replica.
Quote:

The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]. Occasional mutations are unfavorable, and rarely a mutation will be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable and neutral changes accumulate. The rate of elimination or accumulation depends on how unfavorable or favorable the mutation is.

BobSpence1 wrote:

So just about everything you said was mistaken.

But this is exactly what I said! where is the mistake?
BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

       But from the data you quoted "The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]" neutral mutations do not harm the organism (that means the organism is likely to survive) and majority are neutral.

       If you extrapolate the same logic, then there can be neutral (useless) organs in a successful animal. If you apply the same logic on its offspring, the organ can develop due to successive mutations and still remain neutral (useless). It also says majority of mutations are neutral, and in that case you should have more useless organs than useful ones. Analyze this step by step. This is exactly what made many others stop and think.


BobSpence1 wrote:

A random sequence of harmless mutations are extremely unlikely to produce any functional structure.

This is exactly what Im trying to say.
BobSpence1 wrote:

If you assume there is a creator the massive weight of evidence, from examining his 'works', is that he is either incompetent, uncaring, or positively malevolent.

You are only analyzing one small part of the evidence that you have. The other larger part of the evidence will prove that he is competent, caring and benevolent.
BobSpence1 wrote:

You also omitted energy, which is more fundamental than matter.

Energy is NOT more fundamental than time, space and matter. You know the following right?

Acceleration = displacement happening in square of time = D/(t x t)

Force = mass x acceleration

Work = Force x displacement

Finally Energy = Work done in unit time = Work / time

That means energy is less fundamental than matter time and space.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I could go on, but you clearly are way under-educated on physics to understand.

You are underestimating me. Im an engineer. The basis of engineering is physics and mathematics. I have done quite a good amount of work on both. One of my works in mathematics was even chosen for publication by a national mathematics journal when I was still in my high school. So if you want to point out some thing more interesting please go ahead.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The rest of your account there really doesn't address anything of interest - it is just discussing myth, and groundless claims, and does not really address your point. To put it more specifically it only makes some kind of sense to those who take the concept of a God seriously.

Not myth, but a verifiable fact. But my point was to tell you that atheism did not emerge due to modern day scientific discoveries. It was there even when knowledge of science was still a distant future.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote: I never

mutantshark wrote:

I never said "organs spontaneously popping out all over". This make it clear that either you havent read my post completely or you dont know any thing about mutation or genetics. There are others here who are debating with me on these points through logic. If its nonsense people wont debate.

 

post 26 wrote:

  • Consider this explanation of development of eye consisting of - appearance of photo receptors - photo receptors magically getting connected to brain in the same scan order (assume that the order of scanning was preserved magically) - appearance of lens - appearance of muscles to control focal length of the convex lens etc.
    • If all this was caused by random mutations, why dont we have a random organ like a patch of photo receptors or vibration receptors or heat receptors on our arms or legs or any other part of our body that are not connected to the brain (useless but at the same time harmless).

 

You said it.  I just love copy and paste, don't you?

 

mutantshark wrote:

Let me make some thing clear - This is not the first place that Im posting/asking these questions. I have asked these to many atheists including so called experts in genetics and evolution and none of them have your opinion. Many tried to explain their view of the logic and some of them needed time to respond.

 

And you are not the first person who refuses to read a book written by a scientist who has published in peer reviewed articles.  Granted, Dr. Behe has published in peer reviewed articles, but he isn't the only one.  You might try widening your scope.  And you really, really, need to take a course in basic genetics.  The post above proves it.

No one can debate such abysmal ignorance, one can only hope to get a little real knowledge through your so obviously thick skull.

 

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

Forget what I said about thanks for taking the time to learn. 

Yes, I am being insulting.  If you don't want to be insulted, don't post total nonsense.

I dont have any problem with you being insulting after all its common for people to insult the opponent when they lose a debate.

 

We haven't started to have a debate yet as there hasn't been any sort of reasonable start to a debate in anything you have said.  Can't win a race when your position is a non-starter.

Try http://www.talkorgins.org or http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org and search for articles on genetics.  Happy studying.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Everyone posts

Kapkao wrote:

Everyone posts total nonsense at some point in time or another. Not everyone deserves to be mocked, insulted, satired, or caricatured for it. Eye-wink

 

Of course they do, even me. 

Or you. 

And if I was that lame, I'd expect to be mocked, insulted, satirized or caricatured for it.  I'll try to remember your sensitivity, but don't count on it.

I don't have the patience to deal with someone who is deliberately and obviously ignorant.  Get over it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:Imagine

mutantshark wrote:

Imagine that you clone yourself from the tissue of your hand. You get an exact twin of your self with the exact looks, capabilities etc. You make a clone out of that clone even then you get the exact replica. Even if you cone a hundred times it will be the same. Its like a=b=c=d then a=d.

Wont there be any difference, the answer is yes there will be, but those will be due to the environment in which the embryo developed into foetus, temperature, supply of nutrients, the environment in which he lives, climate, food supply etc. But even with all the outward differences, the DNA will be exactly the same. That means even if you progressively vary the environment after each cloning, if the 100th clone get the same environment as you then he will be your exact replica.

 

Nope.  Not true.  There will be no exact genetic replica as mutations are occurring in every organism constantly.

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

"The average mutation rate was estimated to be ∼2.5 x 10-8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation." [ for humans ]

So by the time the clonal twin was adult, it would already be significantly different from its progenitor.

Clone the clone, and you get even further from the original progenitor.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:BobSpence1

mutantshark wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The genes are not really a 'blueprint', more like a 'recipe'.

I dont understand the difference you intend to convey. But DNA is called 'blueprint of life' even in strictly scientific circles. You can see some fairly simple explanations here

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_DNA_called_the_Blueprint_of_Life
http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&Itemid=89

A 'blueprint' is a set of diagrams which are simplified pictures of what various parts of a completed structure should look like, with measurements and detailed descriptions where necessary which are intended to be read by a conscious agent to clarify and specify materials and methods to be used in construction.

Nothing in DNA remotely corresponds in any way to a simplified picture of the corresponding organ, as in a real 'blueprint'. It simply defines a bunch of chemicals (proteins and others) which when brought together will have appropriate 'affinities' for each other so as to form a tiny piece of tissue which will have the capability to grow into the appropriate shaped tissue, of the appropriate composition, to have the necessary function. Its development is further controlled by all the other chemicals and organs interacting with it. A mix of chemicals is far more analogous to the 'recipe' telling us what ingredients need to be mixed together and allowed to interact to form the intended object.

'Answers.com' is a good source for informal and often not very rigorous or authoritative information.

The second one was somewhat better, but sorry, not particularly impressed. 

Quote:

Let me try to explain what I mean:
Imagine that you clone yourself from the tissue of your hand. You get an exact twin of your self with the exact looks, capabilities etc. You make a clone out of that clone even then you get the exact replica. Even if you cone a hundred times it will be the same. Its like a=b=c=d then a=d.

Wont there be any difference, the answer is yes there will be, but those will be due to the environment in which the embryo developed into foetus, temperature, supply of nutrients, the environment in which he lives, climate, food supply etc. But even with all the outward differences, the DNA will be exactly the same. That means even if you progressively vary the environment after each cloning, if the 100th clone get the same environment as you then he will be your exact replica.

That in no way addresses my point. 

I am not saying that if you start from exactly the same cells you will not produce exactly the same result. Although, given the probabilities of imperfect DNA replication, and other stages where random effects can occur, or very tiny difference in the environment can affect the processes, it is unlikely to be exactly the same.

I was saying that the way DNA controls the process is not very well described by the 'blueprint' metaphor. You are talking more about a 'photocopy' type of process.

The other point I would add is that if you put identical DNA into a very different cell, say from a different species, you will definitely NOT get an identical result, since the specific effects of a given sequence of DNA are going to be highly dependent on all the other components of the cell, many of which the organism also inherits from its parents, in addition to the nuclear DNA.

For a start, you would ideally need the mitochondrial DNA to be identical as well. 

If you gave a sufficiently detailed blueprint to any competent builder or construction firm, you should get an identical result. You would not have to give them physical samples of all the materials to be used as well, and the tools to be used, for them to produce a near identical result. 'Life' is nowhere near that simple a process.

Quote:

Quote:

The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]. Occasional mutations are unfavorable, and rarely a mutation will be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable and neutral changes accumulate. The rate of elimination or accumulation depends on how unfavorable or favorable the mutation is.

BobSpence1 wrote:

So just about everything you said was mistaken.

But this is exactly what I said! where is the mistake?

Actually, a small apology - I read your original comments as saying that mutations are mostly harmful, so on that point I will concede. My only excuse is that I typically hear that assertion.

But most of the rest of my point, apart from that specific quote, stll applies.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

       But from the data you quoted "The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]" neutral mutations do not harm the organism (that means the organism is likely to survive) and majority are neutral.

       If you extrapolate the same logic, then there can be neutral (useless) organs in a successful animal. If you apply the same logic on its offspring, the organ can develop due to successive mutations and still remain neutral (useless). It also says majority of mutations are neutral, and in that case you should have more useless organs than useful ones. Analyze this step by step. This is exactly what made many others stop and think.

NO. While it may not be strictly impossible, it is incredibly unlikely that a series of neutral mutations will lead to any coherent structure, it is more likely to lead to a random lump of tissue, which does happen, and if it gets big enough, will become a negative for the organism, by absorbing nourishment and physically getting in the way of actual functionality. IOW, it will be more likely to be identified as a tumor, a cancerous growth. 

Because of this, life has evolved mechanisms to inhibit such things, so a new 'organ' which does nothing but consume resources and get in the way will be unlikely to get going. IOW, it will not ultimately be a 'neutral' mutation. This mechanism is limited, which is why we see cancerous tumours more commonly that we would like, which of course is 'never'.

Put it another way, beyond an initial stage, there are no purely neutral useless 'organs'. There is some evidence that even our appendix contributes in small but still mildly useful way to our functioning, which is why it is still there. I don't have mine, having come done with potentially life-threatening appendicitis in my early 20's. Of course the appendix did have a major use in some ancestral species, which is why it is there.

EDIT: New organs are only likely to arise in one step by a mutation in the genes controllng the arrangement and position of the body structures, which could trigger an additional 'copy' of an existing organ. This is the sort of thing we see when someone has a whole extra arm growing out of their chest, altho that can also be the result of a resorbed twin.

Once an organ is copied, maybe imperfectly, then it may possibly evolve away from its original function to augment the function of the original, or to some new function. This is the sort of path that allows new organs to form.

But a body cluttered with a significant number of really useless organs will be less 'fit' than one without them, so is unlikely to thrive and reproduce as well, so will not pass on that characteristic. 

So useless organs are NOT neutral mutations.

Some extra useless 'organs', or existing ones that become more visible, may occasionally appeal to the female of the species, and become 'sexually' selected, like the plumage of birds of paradise or the peacocks tail, as extreme examples. They will then persist and grow, but of course they are no longer useless for the purposes of maximizing reproductive success of the individual possessing them, which is all evolution is about.

/EDIT.

Quote:


BobSpence1 wrote:

A random sequence of harmless mutations are extremely unlikely to produce any functional structure.

This is exactly what Im trying to say.

OK, but they are unlikely to produce anything which could be identified as an organ. That is where you lose me.

You are very unlikely to get anything you could call an 'organ' in one generation, except as an additional copy of an existing organ. Mutations can also cause a useful organ to fail to develop. This does happen.

Applying continuing random changes just produces a mess. 

They would almost as likely cancel out the result of any earlier mutations.

They would as likely just cause a slight change in some hormone, skin color, hair length or color, body size, etc, etc, as anything that would be describable as an 'organ', useless or not. A series of small random changes will just tend to lead to a continuing reshuffling of the characteristics of the species, which is what we see. That is the ultimate source of evolutionary change. Eventually, there wil be a small but non-zero chance that one of these versions will find an ecological niche which its particular set of attributes is better suited to.

So you are just describing evolution, but not quite grasping that random mutations, if they do not have any significant positive or negative impact on that generation, will simply get lost in the re-shuffling that continually occurs, first by sexual reproduction, then by further mutations during individual cellular replication.

An individual cluttered by a bunch of genuinely useless organs wii typically be less successful than one not so encumbered.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If you assume there is a creator the massive weight of evidence, from examining his 'works', is that he is either incompetent, uncaring, or positively malevolent.

You are only analyzing one small part of the evidence that you have. The other larger part of the evidence will prove that he is competent, caring and benevolent.
BobSpence1 wrote:

You also omitted energy, which is more fundamental than matter.

Energy is NOT more fundamental than time, space and matter. You know the following right?

Acceleration = displacement happening in square of time = D/(t x t)

Force = mass x acceleration

Work = Force x displacement

Finally Energy = Work done in unit time = Work / time

That means energy is less fundamental than matter time and space.

No it doesn't.

You are just describing how we define a quantity of energy, not what it IS. You are describing one way in which energy manifests, an example of the transformation of energy from one form into another - remember, it can neither be created or destroyed, although it can form, but only if balanced by formation of an equal quantity of negative energy (as in the Big Bang), and disappear, but only by cancellation with an equal amount of negative energy.

in any process, such as movement, the energy which is converted from some other form in order to cause something to move against some opposing force, refers to 'something' in a separate category from the movement it may be causing.

Energy is what ultimately forms all sub-atomic particles, and light, and is fundamental to the main forces of physics. Time is just one dimension of reality, of which there may be eleven, according to some hypotheses. 

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I could go on, but you clearly are way under-educated on physics to understand.

You are underestimating me. Im an engineer. The basis of engineering is physics and mathematics. I have done quite a good amount of work on both. One of my works in mathematics was even chosen for publication by a national mathematics journal when I was still in my high school. So if you want to point out some thing more interesting please go ahead.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The rest of your account there really doesn't address anything of interest - it is just discussing myth, and groundless claims, and does not really address your point. To put it more specifically it only makes some kind of sense to those who take the concept of a God seriously.

Not myth, but a verifiable fact. But my point was to tell you that atheism did not emerge due to modern day scientific discoveries. It was there even when knowledge of science was still a distant future.

So? I know that, I acknowledged it. The dispute here is not between atheism and religion, it is between modern scientific understanding and religiously-inspired attempts to deny a well-established theory of science. The scientists who support evolution include both atheists and believers.

Atheism is NOT the issue. Unjustified beliefs and theories are.

BTW, I qualified with a University Degree (with Honors) in Electrical Engineering ( Electronics and Communications), and it continues to sadden me how many of my fellow engineers get attracted to creationism or other crazy ideas, often religious.

Mathematics is an essentia tool of science, but an understanding based on empirical observations, analysed with mathematics, is what constitutes Science.

Mathematics (and the even more fundamental tool, namely Logic) leads, of itself, to no explicit truths about Reality, in the absence of a repeated cycle of careful empirical study, observation, testing, experiment, etc. It 'only' allows us to say what are the implications of specific assumptions, and produce useful but inevitably incomplete 'models' of ultimate reality. For a mathematical conclusion to be truly applicable to reality, the axioms and assumptions and data it is based on ned to be match reality to an appropriate degree of accuracy. Which can only be determined by empirical research and testing, IOW, does it work?

 

That is what puzzles me about other engineers trying to support religiously-inspired nonsense - what I described seems to me the very practical justification of science.

 

Physics does not address the complexity of living organisms - it describes the mechanics of atomic structure and chemical bonding, and so on, but it is totally impractical to attempt to describe a living organism in terms of chemistry, let alone atomic theory or quantum mechanics. Whole new concepts need to be introduced, which are independent of the specifics of the 'nuts and bolts' of a specific life process. Complexity theory, information theory, non-linear systems, are the minimum you need to consider, and these are independent of issues of what makes up matter and energy, etc. 

They are more in the realm of mathematics, but address abstractions, models, of specific aspects of the real world.

 

Parts of Physics are dependent on these studies, rather than the reverse. IOW Physics is not really the ultimate study of everything, despite what Hawking may believe. Biology is not reducible to Physics.

 

It seems your knowledge takes you a significant way along a valid path, then you make very simplistic assumptions, some maybe 'informed' by creationist sites, such as the standard crap about 'information'. (BTW, I did information theory as part of my honors subjects).

Maybe it is an insufficient grounding in the more subtle aspects of and implications of the complexity of life processes, as contrasted with the conscious and purposeful design process of engineering.

Evolution produces far more 'wholistic' structures, where it is far harder to unpick the structures and processes into clearly distinct and independent functions, precisely because every part of it has evolved together, with no overall guiding intelligence.

Evolved organisms can 'solve' problems by a pure 'trial-and-error' process that would be difficult by conscious reasoning. This has lead to the development of 'genetic algorithms' to harness this process. The natural application of the Darwinian Algorithm - random mutation followed by non-random selection - slow, but we cn speed it up considerably with modern computers. (I am also deeply experienced in computers and software development).

Step-by-step evolution also has limitations, because of the need for each intermediate step to be viable. This can be seen in many less-than-optimum 'designs', such as the classic case of the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe...

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php

Curious to identify the 'blind spots' that lead you off the track...

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
 For Bob Spence who appears

 

For Bob Spence who appears to have way more patience than I do today.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: For Bob Spence

cj wrote:

 

For Bob Spence who appears to have way more patience than I do today.

 

Yeah, but if he comes back with more of the same, not acknowledging his more egregious errors, like that 'information' nonsense, I may well 'lose it'...

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


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1704
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:cj

BobSpence1 wrote:

cj wrote:

 

For Bob Spence who appears to have way more patience than I do today.

 

Yeah, but if he comes back with more of the same, not acknowledging his more egregious errors, like that 'information' nonsense, I may well 'lose it'...

 

Bob,

There are other of us "dummies" willing to learn  who do pick up stuff from you explaining stuff to the unwilling.   

Thank you for that.

But this doesn't imply to put any restriction on your need to 

 

oh and all the above also applies to you CJ.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/