Chatter from thread about evolution

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
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/


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

mutantshark wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've seen the video that you're talking about. I don't recall Dawkins claiming that this is how they believe the eye 'did' form naturally, but rather one way an eye 'could have' formed naturally.

That means evolutionists have no idea how an eye really evolved but feels some thing 'could have' happened and due to that an eye evolved? Isnt this blind and baseless belief?

Quote:

"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."

redneF wrote:

Wrong.

You're (as well as the vast majority of creationists) missing most of the salient point of 'natural selection'.

"The rate of elimination or accumulation depends on how unfavorable or favorable the mutation is." The elimination process described here is natural selection and they claim it eliminates only the unfavorable ones.

redneF wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

According to the above statement, only unfavorable ones are eliminated.

That's not what happens in 'natural selection'.

So, tell me how a patch of photo- receptors on a leg can cause natural selection to eliminate that organism?

redneF wrote:

This has zero to do with whether it's true or not, which is why it's a fallacy to conclude that something is not true because you don't know if it's true.If you want to argue against evolution, write to Francis Collins and get him back on the 'Intelligent Design Track', because he's no longer on it after contemplating the 'evidence'.

"something is not true because you don't know if it's true" I call Theory of evolution a fallacy because its illogical and not because I dont know if its true.

1. No,it means that they are willing to say that their knowledge is incomplete and that they espouse the best explanations put forth thus far. A blind and baseless belief would be the one you hold, i.e. " I don't understand how real evolution works but I know my strawman characterization of evolution doesn't. So God did it." 

2. You don't know what happens in natural selection since you don't believe it occurs.

3. You can't show that the theory of evolution is illogical. It is not so much that you don't know whether it's true but that you believe it to be false without being able to say why (except when you are knocking down your stawman). 

 

"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


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: It hasn't changed

cj wrote:
It hasn't changed because it works.  If it (any pattern or adaptation) didn't work, it would change or die out.

I agree that if the change was not favorable it would die out. My question is how can he claim that the basic pattern once formed did not change for millions of years? If you say its because it works, then evolution should stall at the first successful organism.

cj wrote:

You might try reading Mistakes were made but not by be.  A fascinating book written by a couple of psychologists about how we all self justify.  You might be able to figure out why you are having difficulties with comprehending peer reviewed and tested science.

Theory of evolution is not tested science. Its not like theory of relativity or some thing similar. It tries to explain some aspects of the origin and existence of life but most if the crucial topics remain untouched.

cj wrote:

Neutral organs and energy:

All organisms must adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.  Neutral organs cost the organism energy.  Energy that could be used to reproduce instead.  Therefore, there are no neutral organs because there is no spare energy for them.  You did say you were an engineer and had studied physics.  Why do you seem to believe the various laws of energy consumption and conservation don't apply to biological systems?

......waste vast quantities of energy to waste on useless organs.

Im not talking about large neutral organs wasting vast quantities of energy. Im talking about small neutral organs like a patches of useless photo/heat/vibration-receptors on the body that are useless but are harmless in every sense.

cj wrote:
PS - I too, have an engineering degree.  My elective science was Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.  Doesn't make me an expert, but it means I have had some formal training.  And a big chunk of ecology is figuring out the tropic (energy) levels in any subsystem.  I have continued to read in evolution and ecology because I enjoy the subject.

Good, so you should be answering my questions.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:redneF

mutantshark wrote:

redneF wrote:

I've seen the video that you're talking about. I don't recall Dawkins claiming that this is how they believe the eye 'did' form naturally, but rather one way an eye 'could have' formed naturally.

That means evolutionists have no idea how an eye really evolved

That's incorrect.

They haven't actually observed an eye evolve due to the probable timescales involved, which is why they're not claiming they know how it 'actually' evolved.

They're showing 1 of the myriad of ways that it possibly could have developed on it's own 'naturally' vs 'supernaturally', or 'otherworldly'.

See? There are more than just 2 options.

mutantshark wrote:
...but feels some thing 'could have' happened and due to that an eye evolved?

I don't think you understand that 'philosophically' speaking, all that has to be shown is that it's logically possible in 'some world' that something is not logically contradictory to have occurred for it to be considered a 'sound' argument.

If you want to debate that it could not have happened by any other means that supernaturally, be my guest. There's a Noble Prize if you can overturn the biological evidence.

mutantshark wrote:
Isnt this blind and baseless belief?

No. The theory must be completely compatible with what is possible in actuality. The evidences are compatible with the theory, and we've actual living proof of organisms mutating radically on very short timescales.

Had the Italian Wall Lizards died from some 'natural' event before they actually mutated radically in a few decades, we'd have once less evidence that is compatible with the theory of evolution.

But we do, so the answer to your question is an emphatic 'No'; the Theory of Evolution is not blind and baseless.

mutantshark wrote:
"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."

redneF wrote:

Wrong.

You're (as well as the vast majority of creationists) missing most of the salient point of 'natural selection'.

"The rate of elimination or accumulation depends on how unfavorable or favorable the mutation is." The elimination process described here is natural selection and they claim it eliminates only the unfavorable ones.

Do you have reading comprehension problems??

Where exactly do they say that natural selection 'ONLY' eliminates 'unfavorable' ones?

mutantshark wrote:
According to the above statement, only unfavorable ones are eliminated.

Obviously you've got the wrong theory. You're arguing against your miscomprehension, not the actual theory.

Arguing against your miscomprehension just makes you look stupid or dishonest, or both.

 

mutantshark wrote:
So, tell me how a patch of photo- receptors on a leg can cause natural selection to eliminate that organism?

That's like asking me how being born with 6 fingers on one hand can 'cause' natural selection.

You really, really don't understand what the simple term 'natural selection' means, do you?

mutantshark wrote:
I call Theory of evolution a fallacy because its illogical and not because I dont know if its true.

You can say anything you want, however, when you're arguing (as you are) against a theory you don't even comprehend, it only demonstrates how stupid and self deluded you are.

If you think it's a fallacy, put it in the form of a sound logical argument, instead of arguing from ignorance and incredulity, and then we''ll submit your argument for a Nobel Prize and for the Million Dollar Prize from the JREF.

Whenever you're ready...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote: You are

mutantshark wrote:
You are underestimating me.

I learned a long time ago never to underestimate human stupidity, but thanks for your concern that we may be underestimating you.

mutantshark wrote:
Im an engineer.

So am I. And I don't even have a degree.

What do you think that proves?

mutantshark wrote:
The basis of engineering is physics and mathematics. I have done quite a good amount of work on both.

Yet you don't use basic logic to test your theories.

Did they condition you to do that as part of qualifying for your degree?

Glad I didn't get that 'edumacation'.

mutantshark wrote:
One of my works in mathematics was even chosen for publication by a national mathematics journal when I was still in my high school.

Which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China, nor evolutionary biology, or why there's always 1 sock that's missing it's partner every other time when I do laundry.

mutantshark wrote:
So if you want to point out some thing more interesting please go ahead.

Sure.
What's fantastically interesting is your lack of reading/comprehension skills, and your inability to grasp what 'natural selection' is.

But don't feel too bad, even eminent (sic) Christian philosophers like Platinga think that evolution is something that 'cares' about how and what mutations occur in biological chemistry, so it's no small wonder why there is such ignorance among Christians in particular, and it's easy to see where to lay blame to their ignorance...

 


 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mutant,a neutral mutated

mutant,

a neutral mutated gene will not be actively selected against, this is arguably true, BUT it will still tend to disappear, since when it first appears, it will only be on one individual.

As I already pointed out, unless it has a beneficial effect on reproductive success, it will not spread beyond a diminishing proportion of that individuals lineage.

We do continue to see individual neutral mutations, but that is because mutations continue to occur at low but not harmful level.

The rate of mutation itself is evolved - organisms with very low mutation rate will not evolve beyond the lowest forms, will not be able to adapt to any changes in their environment, so can only survive in very stable environments, like the deep oceans. Too high a mutation rate will lead to too much disruption of the organisms structure, too many birth defects, and so on.

What can you not grasp about these FACTS??

 

 

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


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
mutantshark wrote:Theory of

mutantshark wrote:

Theory of evolution is not tested science. Its not like theory of relativity or some thing similar. It tries to explain some aspects of the origin and existence of life but most if the crucial topics remain untouched.

Have you read ANY of the peer-reviewed and published articles that are available to you as links in the original post?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is tested science.

It is tested science. Prolonged studies with bacterial colonies. Computer simulations. Mutation rates are measurable and broadly consistent with evolution. Intermediate forms have been predicted and found in locations where they were predicted to be likely to be found (Tiktalik, intermediate between aquatic and land-dwelling creatures).

It does not tell us anything about the origin of life before the first self-replicating molecules arose - that is a separate study, which is, as it happens, coming up with promising results.

What 'crucial topics' remain untouched?

And, as already asked, have you, mutantshark. read the materials linked to in the OP?

 

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: cj wrote:

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:
It hasn't changed because it works.  If it (any pattern or adaptation) didn't work, it would change or die out.

I agree that if the change was not favorable it would die out. My question is how can he claim that the basic pattern once formed did not change for millions of years? If you say its because it works, then evolution should stall at the first successful organism.

 

Basic patterns have not changed all that much when we are talking about basic.  Oxygen breathers have not changed how they deal with oxygen because the basic structures for dealing with oxygen work.  All organisms that survive on an oxygen based biochemistry have similar structures and molecules - as evolved by the very first aerobic single celled organisms.  All of the organisms that rely on aerobic (oxygenated) biochemistry have mitochondria in their cells - humans too - because it worked for the very first single celled critter that teamed up with a mitochondria cell to make it work.  If it works, it doesn't change.  And it gets inherited by its offspring - all of its offspring for however many millions of generations after the first.

Evolution doesn't stop just because it is successful the first time.  It continues - on and on.  Single celled organisms predate on each other.  Well, if you gang up, you can predate on more.  Jellyfish are a colony of organisms, for example.  And so on.  This is where evolutionary biology and ecology overlap.  As food sources become plentiful in a particular niche, other organisms will evolve to take advantage of them.  So you have a continuous evolution of predator and prey, each trying to not be eaten and to eat.  If there is adequate food and not much competition, then not much evolving is going to happen.  The existing structures are adequate and mutations do not confer an advantage. 

It is when the mutation confers an advantage - either because the mutation is beneficial or because of changes in the local ecology - that you see evolution happening rapidly.  Remember, all it is is a change in the frequency of an allele.  And if the allele allows just a few extra offspring to survive to adulthood each generation, it won't be long before it is dominant in the population.

 

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

You might try reading Mistakes were made but not by be.  A fascinating book written by a couple of psychologists about how we all self justify.  You might be able to figure out why you are having difficulties with comprehending peer reviewed and tested science.

Theory of evolution is not tested science. Its not like theory of relativity or some thing similar. It tries to explain some aspects of the origin and existence of life but most if the crucial topics remain untouched.

 

And have you seen relativity?  Is it something you can touch?  I am not saying the theory of relativity can not be measured.  Of course it can.  And it can be tested and measurements compared.  But it isn't something you can smell or taste or see.  It is a concept.

Evolution, on the other hand, is just the change in allele frequency in a population over time.  We can measure the frequency, we can physically compare chromosomes and DNA.  Hence, the Bones and CSI series.  Scientists have tested, counted, profiled, analyzed the genomes of a number of populations.  And they have seen the mutations on the chromosomes.  If there weren't any changes we would all look identical to each other.

Evolution in the broader sense - which is what you are going on about - in the sense of speciation and humans being the mammals and primates that they are - has been documented.  In our historical records, in our breeding programs, in domesticated species, in the fossils, in the diversity of species on earth and in the genes. 

Yes it has been tested.  And one of the tests is - does the theory predict accurately?  Can we make a hypothesis then predict where we might find the answer and what that answer might look like?  Yes, we can and we have.  Scientists have made predictions that a particular ancestor that looks like thus and so must be found in this epoch.  And so they have searched for and found the fossil that fits that description in that epoch, just where they predicted they would.  They have tested in the lab.  And have pushed bacteria to evolve to new conditions.  They have tested in the wild, finding new species that they know did not exist earlier.  (Nylon eating bacteria did not exist before there was nylon to eat.)  They test in the agriculture business.  Just what do you think genetically modified food is if not forced evolution?  They test in our hospitals - researching genetic diseases and evolving viruses and bacteria. 

 

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:

Neutral organs and energy:

All organisms must adhere to the laws of thermodynamics.  Neutral organs cost the organism energy.  Energy that could be used to reproduce instead.  Therefore, there are no neutral organs because there is no spare energy for them.  You did say you were an engineer and had studied physics.  Why do you seem to believe the various laws of energy consumption and conservation don't apply to biological systems?

......waste vast quantities of energy to waste on useless organs.

Im not talking about large neutral organs wasting vast quantities of energy. Im talking about small neutral organs like a patches of useless photo/heat/vibration-receptors on the body that are useless but are harmless in every sense.

 

The organs don't have to be large to waste energy.  Some organisms - not modern humans and our corporate agricultural industrial capabilities - are close enough to the edge that a very small waste of energy could push them to extinction. 

BTW, you do have photo, heat, vibration sensors on your skin already.  You have photosensitive cells that convert sunlight to vitamin D.  You have heat sensors that tell you you have a sun burn or you are too close to the stove.  You have tactile sensors both for pain and pressure.  Humans don't have vibration sensors exactly, but we can feel the hairs of our body move with wind and water.

 

mutantshark wrote:

cj wrote:
PS - I too, have an engineering degree.  My elective science was Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.  Doesn't make me an expert, but it means I have had some formal training.  And a big chunk of ecology is figuring out the tropic (energy) levels in any subsystem.  I have continued to read in evolution and ecology because I enjoy the subject.

Good, so you should be answering my questions.

 

Try asking some questions that show you have done your homework.  I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you continue to reiterate the same questions - obviously without spending any of your time and effort on at least reading what information you have been given.  Even if you don't bother to learn anything, you could at least demonstrate that you have skimmed over some of the material.

 

-- 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.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: I have no

cj wrote:

 I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you...

cj, keep in mind that while one individual might not appreciate your time and effort, it by no means indicates that you've wasted your time putting factual evidence on the internet, and especially in a thread that is a 'sticky'.

You're offering your wealth of education and information, articulated wonderfully in unambiguous terms.

When you post, I read, and I appreciate that you do post, and I'm sure many others do.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


HumanVuvuzela
atheistSilver Member
HumanVuvuzela's picture
Posts: 93
Joined: 2011-04-24
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:cj wrote: I

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

 I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you...

cj, keep in mind that while one individual might not appreciate your time and effort, it by no means indicates that you've wasted your time putting factual evidence on the internet, and especially in a thread that is a 'sticky'.

You're offering your wealth of education and information, articulated wonderfully in unambiguous terms.

When you post, I read, and I appreciate that you do post, and I'm sure many others do.

 

 

 

^ Hear hear


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

HumanVuvuzela wrote:

redneF wrote:

cj wrote:

 I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you...

cj, keep in mind that while one individual might not appreciate your time and effort, it by no means indicates that you've wasted your time putting factual evidence on the internet, and especially in a thread that is a 'sticky'.

You're offering your wealth of education and information, articulated wonderfully in unambiguous terms.

When you post, I read, and I appreciate that you do post, and I'm sure many others do.

^ Hear hear

 

Thank you both, I appreciate the kudos.  I'll try to remember that but I expect I will feel just as exasperated with the willfully ignorant the next time around.

 

-- 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.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Thank you both, I

cj wrote:
Thank you both, I appreciate the kudos.  I'll try to remember that but I expect I will feel just as exasperated with the willfully ignorant the next time around.

I'll offer kudos when y'all acknowledge that you can't prove G-d didn't create Evolution the same as G-d created everything else in the entire Universe Smiling

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:cj

FurryCatHerder wrote:

cj wrote:
Thank you both, I appreciate the kudos.  I'll try to remember that but I expect I will feel just as exasperated with the willfully ignorant the next time around.

I'll offer kudos when y'all acknowledge that you can't prove God didn't create Evolution the same as God created everything else in the entire Universe Smiling

You are obliged to demonstrate that on the balance of the evidence that the idea of a God creator is a more plausible explanation for anything than the what we have come to understand from Scientific study.

'create Evolution'?? You nitwit, that makes no sense.

Evolution is inevitable given self-replicating organisms with DNA-style governing of the variations in their characteristics.

And since it looks like all we needed to knick evolution off was the formation of a bunch of simple RNA molecules in a suitable environment, there is no need for any specific divine intervention.

Just random chance, and given billions of years and billions of different planets for everything to come together at least once on at least one planet, unless the odds against were truly astronomical, makes it pretty much inevitable.

Now if you want to label the basic principles of existence as 'God', ok.

But you need a lot more work if you want to establish a credible case that the ultimate principle of existence had a 'will' and other attributes as portrayed in Holy books, you have a lot of work to do.

And if you want to make a case that this imagined entity is 'good', the evidence is all against you.

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Try not to argue against

Try not to argue against Christianity when arguing with me.  You tried that the last time I stopped by a few years ago and that didn't get you any further then than it will now.

You think the Laws of Nature exist because they always existed?  Would "No" be the correct answer?

Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed.  Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle didn't exist.  No Weak Nuclear Force.  No Binding Energies to cause stellar thermonuclear fusion to favor the production of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen and cease with the production of Iron.  No need to deal with supernovae with produced massive amounts of heavier atoms with poor organic chemistry.

Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing.  And that includes all of Science.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wow, cool. Sounds like

Wow, cool. Sounds like someone here who knows way more than the rest of us. Which means they can answer questions.

I just hope they won't resort to circular or ad hoc reasoning like all the other theists that claim to know things I don't...

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed. 

How do you know that? Because I've never had anyone show how this universe couldn't be part of a larger system, that contained the 'Laws of Nature'.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics. 

Ummm, that's like stating without the child their behaviour wouldn't exist. Duhhh...

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The Pauli Exclusion Principle didn't exist.  No Weak Nuclear Force.  No Binding Energies to cause stellar thermonuclear fusion to favor the production of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen and cease with the production of Iron.  No need to deal with supernovae with produced massive amounts of heavier atoms with poor organic chemistry.

Rather than go point for point with a 'Duhhhh' for every obvious consequence that accompanies matter and energy, see my previous answer.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing. 

So you're going to claim that all that existed in all of actuality was a single god, prior to all the stuff he made.

Ok.

How do you know that?

I hope your answer is better than all the ones I've heard before.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Try not

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Try not to argue against Christianity when arguing with me.  You tried that the last time I stopped by a few years ago and that didn't get you any further then than it will now.

You think the Laws of Nature exist because they always existed?  Would "No" be the correct answer?

Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed.  Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics.  The Pauli Exclusion Principle didn't exist.  No Weak Nuclear Force.  No Binding Energies to cause stellar thermonuclear fusion to favor the production of Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen and cease with the production of Iron.  No need to deal with supernovae with produced massive amounts of heavier atoms with poor organic chemistry.

Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing.  And that includes all of Science.

If a God can 'just exist', then so can a minimall level of Planck scale energy. And that is all we need for events like the Big Bang to have a finite probability of occuring at some random time. If there was meaningfully any 'Time' before the singularity, what existed then need be nothing more than a minimal energy state pervading whatever dimensions reality occupied, and need not have a 'beginning'. 

Alternatively, Time may have more that one dimension itself, and be curved, meaning asking what was 'before' the singularity would be like asking what is North of the North Pole of the Earth.

There are a number of ideas being bounced around - string theory, M-theory, etc .

As I have already said, if you want to label whatever principle required that 'something' exist. ok, but that does NOT logically entail anything that could meaningfully correspond to any version of the Abrahamic Deity, or the Egyptian Gods, or the Sumerian Gods, which predated yours, or the many other variations that human minds have created.

Introducing a 'God' is now only an unnecessary complication in any attempt to explain existence.

God is an infinitely more implausible 'thing' to have 'just exist'. And totally unnecessary. It amounts to just a series of naked assertions and non-sequiters, built on primitive superstitions.

Principles pre-exist. They are the properties of reality that govern the fundamental attributes and behaviour of the elementals of energy and particles.

You may be thinking of the Laws describing the behavior or specific particles, which are dependent on the specific particles which have condensed out of our Big Band, and which may have formed in different ways in possible different instances of a Singularity.

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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:FurryCatHerder

redneF wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed. 

How do you know that? Because I've never had anyone show how this universe couldn't be part of a larger system, that contained the 'Laws of Nature'.

Study what the people who study the Big Bang have to say.

Before there was the Big Bang =none= of what we have now existed.

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics. 

Ummm, that's like stating without the child their behaviour wouldn't exist. Duhhh...

Since Thermodynamics plays a huge role in Evolution, the lack of pre-existing Laws of Thermodynamics pretty much means there was no pre-existing basis for Evolution.  When matter condensed after the Big Bang, =that= is when "time" was created, and much of the rest of what we have today.

Quote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing. 

So you're going to claim that all that existed in all of actuality was a single god, prior to all the stuff he made.

1). G-d has no penis, so dispense with the "he" biz.  I'm not a Christian -- G-d doesn't have a beard, where a white robe =or= have a penis.

2). Yes.  The first word of the Torah means, literally "before there was anything else."  Which pretty much agrees with that Big Bang thing.

Quote:
How do you know that?

I hope your answer is better than all the ones I've heard before.

The Torah isn't a Science text.  If you want a Science text, I suggest going to a library which has them.

When I want to read about G-d creating the Universe, I start with Genesis 1:1.  When I want to read about how it all worked out, I read standard cosmologies and Physics texts.  I just don't pretend that before the Big Bang there was a neighborhood of other Big Bangs and they all hung out together and played Bridge, just so I don't have to explain why the Laws of Nature pre-existed the Nature they governed.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
 FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation of the Universe, or Big Bang, or pick your favorite cosmology, none of the Laws of Nature which make Evolution happen even existed. 

redneF wrote:
How do you know that? Because I've never had anyone show how this universe couldn't be part of a larger system, that contained the 'Laws of Nature'.

Study what the people who study the Big Bang have to say.

I asked you. Are you afraid to try and explain it in case you're not accurate?

Theoretical physicists don't all suspect the same thing. Therefore I asked you because you are making absolute claims of knowing things they are still trying to work out.

But, I guess you don't know more than them.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Before there was the Big Bang =none= of what we have now existed.

That's not what they're all saying.

Or haven't you heard?

Which ones should I believe, and how do you know that they have a more accurate understanding?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Without matter or energy, there was no Laws of Thermodynamics.

redneF wrote:
Ummm, that's like stating without the child their behavior wouldn't exist. Duhhh...

Since Thermodynamics plays a huge role in Evolution, the lack of pre-existing Laws of Thermodynamics pretty much means there was no pre-existing basis for Evolution. 

I guess you missed the point.

That's like saying the rules of hockey couldn't exist without hockey players. That's a total non sequitur.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
When matter condensed after the Big Bang, =that= is when "time" was created...

So the rapid expansion of the singularity happened in 'no time'? Is that what you're claiming? How could that be?

Let's back up a bit. Maybe I don't understand time as well as you personally do.

Can you personally explain what time is?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...and much of the rest of what we have today.

Much of the rest? You mean there was somethings that were added to what emerged from the singularity?

I've never heard that one before. Please explain that more elaborately.

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Prior to the Creation fo the Universe, or Big Bang or turtles on the backs of still more turtles, there was nothing. 

redneF wrote:
So you're going to claim that all that existed in all of actuality was a single god, prior to all the stuff he made.

1). G-d has no penis, so dispense with the "he" biz. 

You mean you have that knowledge too?

Can you explain how you know that? There's a lot of people who say that God is the Father and the Son, so, I'd really like to know why people claim that he's male in gender and that Adam (who had a penis) was created in 'His' image.

There seems to be much confusion that you could help clear up, if you had accurate knowledge.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I'm not a Christian --

So you're in the minority?

Why don't the majority of people believe the things you say? Are you too busy to show people what is accurate and what isn't?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
G-d doesn't have a beard, where a white robe =or= have a penis.

I wouldn't know.

The majority of people making the current god claims are saying that there is only 1, and then saying that 'he' is the Father, the Son, and the Hold Ghost.

2 of those would be male by definition.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
2). Yes. 

How do you know that the supposed 'god' that supposedly created this formation we inhabit wasn't made itself by something else?

I can imagine some possible world where that is possible.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The first word of the Torah means, literally "before there was anything else." 

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

I asked 'How do you know?', not where I can read about it.

Is all that you are doing? Reading back or paraphrasing something you've read?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Which pretty much agrees with that Big Bang thing.

The numerous theories about what could have been before the Big Bang don't support your claim that there could not have been anything before the Big Bang. Maybe you need to get up to speed.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The Torah isn't a Science text. 

I didn't think it was. Nor was I interested in what a bunch of ignorant men wrote as testimony.

I was interested in having you explain what you think, but it seems that you just take those kinds of scribblings on faith.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
If you want a Science text, I suggest going to a library which has them.

It appears you're confused. I never asked where I could find a science textbook.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
When I want to read about G-d creating the Universe, I start with Genesis 1:1.

I might do that too if I presupposed that the claims of the Abrahamic god were accurate. But, I'd probably study as many of the other religions as well.

Based on the knowledge I have gained so far, it could take a lifetime and I still wouldn't have time to compare all the claims.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
When I want to read about how it all worked out, I read standard cosmologies and Physics texts.

That's good. At least you read about theories based on evidence that was tested for compatibility with reality, even though it seems you're a little behind. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
I just don't pretend that before the Big Bang there was a neighborhood of other Big Bangs

So, you've never read about theories of Quantum Foam where particles and energy can emerge and vanish without violating the laws of conservation?

Have you read about the theories of 10 dimensions + Time existing?

 

If you know these things are not possible, why haven't you written about your knowledge to prevent people from living their lives in vain?

Many theist who think they know their stuff have blogs to try and educate others. Do you have a blog, or just like to run your mouth and think that you can run with this RRS crowd here on an intellectual level?

I think you're full of shit, and aren't even half as knowledgeable as some of the theists that we get on here. 

Let's see what you got, other than stupid dodges to questions that can make you look the utter fool.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 The Torah isn't a science

 The Torah isn't a science text but it makes a scientific claim that you buy?

"G-d (I really mean God here but I'm too scared to buy a vowel - don't ask me about Yahweh...oops YHVH) created the universe is a cosmological claim.

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Fender,So I see your tactic

Fender,

So I see your tactic is the giant mega-response interspersed with crap you don't understand.  Like, your closing comment about "quantum foam" -- "Quantum Foam" isn't about making new "big bangs" right next door to some other "big bang", and the "foam" isn't like shaving cream, or even infinitely large amounts of shaving cream.

Nor do I give a flip what polytheists say about their magical Three-In-One penis-bearing bearded old white guy.

Nor do I give a flip about speculation about what existed before anything existed, or perhaps you're unaware that SPECULATION isn't science.  The "Big Bang" is pretty much a done deal.  What happened before?  Wild-eyed speculation.  Sort of like, I dunno, irrational religious beliefs you so readily reject?

Christians are a minority of the Abrahamic faith adherents, and the majority followers of Abraham's G-d believe that having an extra one or two gods is a sin.  You might want to keep up on the religious beliefs of brown skinned people.

Jews don't convert.  It comes as a shock to many atheists that I'm not going to try and get you to give up pork and cheeseburgers, but I'm not.  You want to be an atheist?  Enjoy!  Just don't treat people like shit.  Because Judaism is a "how you treat others" kind of religion, not a "do you believe in G-d" one.  Not that there is a "Believe in G-d " commandment in the Torah.

G-d doesn't have a penis because G-d isn't male =or= female.  Hebrew has linguistic gender -- there are words for G-d that have male gender, and words for G-d that have female gender.  But linguistic gender isn't penis or vagina gender.  A table in Spanish doesn't have a vagina, for example.  All cats in Spanish aren't male just because "gato" is.

G-d created male =and= female at the same time in G-d's image.  See Genesis 1:27.  And "Adam" in 1:27 is "et Ha'Adam", where "ha'adam" just means "the man", not "some penis-bearing-dude named Adam", but the generic "man", like "mankind" and "mailman" and "chairman".  And it definitely says "male and female G-d created them."  Not my fault that Christians (and you) are illiterate -- 10th and 11th words in the verse, male and female, respectively.  Which is pronounced "so much for the Bible says that Adam was created in G-d's image, but Eve came later."  Bible says -- same time.

ANYWAY, I'm now becoming just as bad as you with the giant super-mega post.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Fender,

So I see your tactic is the giant mega-response

Red Herring.

Well, I think you're full of shit and can't cope when backed into a corner, so let's look at what snake oil salesman tactics you'll reach for.

Don't shift the blame on me about the size of the steaming hot pile of horseshit you left behind for me to pick through that left more questions than answers.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...interspersed with crap you don't understand. 

I specifically asked how you knew the things you claim to know, and requested you explain what you think 'time' is.

It appears I was right. You are full of shit. And you think you can bullshit your way out of answering pointed questions and come out smelling like a rose.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
"Quantum Foam" isn't about making new "big bangs" right next door to some other "big bang"

Red Herring.

I never claimed it was.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
...and the "foam" isn't like shaving cream, or even infinitely large amounts of shaving cream.

Red Herring.

I never claimed it was.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nor do I give a flip what polytheists say about their magical Three-In-One penis-bearing bearded old white guy.

That doesn't answer any question I've asked.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Nor do I give a flip about speculation about what existed before anything existed

Well, that's typical of theists. They don't like to attempt falsifying their theories.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
or perhaps you're unaware that SPECULATION isn't science. 

Ummm, ya, it is actually. Look up the word 'hypothesis'.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
The "Big Bang" is pretty much a done deal.

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious. 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
What happened before?  Wild-eyed speculation. 

Have you heard the one about the non detectable sky daddy?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You want to be an atheist?  Enjoy! 

Thanks for giving me an out to believing in things for no good reason. I'm so relieved.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Just don't treat people like shit. 

Or else what?

FurryCatHerder wrote:
G-d doesn't have a penis because G-d isn't male =or= female.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you how you know that, and you only kick the can further down the road with more assertions, without answering my question on how do you know these things.

Why are you reluctant to answer how you have come to know these things? 

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Hebrew has linguistic gender --

Strawman.

French has linguistic gender, too. But I didn't ask you to list what languages have linguistic gender.

The Ambrahamic god is overwhelmingly referred to as male in gender, as I've pointed out. So you have no basis to derail into scolding me for referring to this mythical sky daddy as a 'he'.

Nor does it prove you have some great understanding of the ancient languages, otherwise you'd be able to translate the 1000 or so words from the ancient texts that have never been translated into modern language.

Or didn't you know that?

Then you'd know that you have huge gaps in your knowledge, which is why I asked for you to be specific about 'how you know' the things you feel you have great knowledge about.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
ANYWAY, I'm now becoming just as bad as you with the giant super-mega post.

Going point by point through your bullshit is being thorough, not 'bad'.

But thanks for stopping by and adding to the growing list of shit for brains idiots who believe in a non detectable sky daddy, for no good reasons. It helps us make more theists become atheists...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
*Applause*

*Applause*

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
"Evolution of Language" is a

"Evolution of Language" is a fascinating read and fits exactly my areas of interest. Thanks for posting it!


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Seconded. 

Vastet wrote:
*Applause*
Seconded. 


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
First part of the post

First part of the post explains a birds eye view of evolution and how you would define evolution. Im not particularly interested in defining evolution and my question is very specific to be explained in such broad terms.

"Oxygen breathers have not changed how they deal with oxygen because the basic structures for dealing with oxygen work."
I dont agree with this statement firstly because green plants breath more CO2 than Oxygen (photosynthesis) and secondly because there is no alternative to consuming oxygen - Oxidation /De-oxidiation is the simplest way energy can be liberated/stored with the most commonly available resource (oxygen). Other options typically use rarer elements or are really complex.

cj wrote:
The organs don't have to be large to waste energy.  Some organisms - not modern humans and our corporate agricultural industrial capabilities - are close enough to the edge that a very small waste of energy could push them to extinction.

Can you give a specific example (a hypothetical organ) to prove your statement? Any small organ that is absolutely neutral and that can push the organism to extinction.
cj wrote:
BTW, you do have photo, heat, vibration sensors on your skin already.  You have photosensitive cells that convert sunlight to vitamin D.  You have heat sensors that tell you you have a sun burn or you are too close to the stove.  You have tactile sensors both for pain and pressure.  Humans don't have vibration sensors exactly, but we can feel the hairs of our body move with wind and water.

Skins cells are different from rod/con cells of retina. Retina does not generate Vitamin D and skin cells develop Vitamin D for a different purpose (again not a neutral organ).  Im talking about Photo-receptors. Heat receptors and vibration sensors that you are talking about are also completely different from the actual ones im talking about (available on some animals).
cj wrote:
Try asking some questions that show you have done your homework.  I have no patience for spending time replying to posts and carefully hunting for supporting documentation only to have my efforts totally ignored while you continue to reiterate the same questions - obviously without spending any of your time and effort on at least reading what information you have been given.  Even if you don't bother to learn anything, you could at least demonstrate that you have skimmed over some of the material.

Again, Im not trying to irritate you, Im just giving you some pointers to think about before believing in what you hear.


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:It is tested

BobSpence wrote:

It is tested science. Prolonged studies with bacterial colonies. Computer simulations. Mutation rates are measurable and broadly consistent with evolution. Intermediate forms have been predicted and found in locations where they were predicted to be likely to be found (Tiktalik, intermediate between aquatic and land-dwelling creatures).

It does not tell us anything about the origin of life before the first self-replicating molecules arose - that is a separate study, which is, as it happens, coming up with promising results.

What 'crucial topics' remain untouched?

And, as already asked, have you, mutantshark. read the materials linked to in the OP?

I read some of those on the OP but except for the evolution of brain and eye there is almost nothing of my interest there. Hopefully we can discuss some of aspects of evolution of brain in the next post.

Development of organs is one of the most crucial topics remaining either unexplained or inadequately explained. There are others like complex animal behavior like mutualism recorded in the genes of some animals, eg. - Myrmecophilous caterpillars of the family Lycaenidae are herded by the ants, led to feeding areas in the daytime , and brought inside the ants' nest at night...


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

mutantshark wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

It is tested science. Prolonged studies with bacterial colonies. Computer simulations. Mutation rates are measurable and broadly consistent with evolution. Intermediate forms have been predicted and found in locations where they were predicted to be likely to be found (Tiktalik, intermediate between aquatic and land-dwelling creatures).

It does not tell us anything about the origin of life before the first self-replicating molecules arose - that is a separate study, which is, as it happens, coming up with promising results.

What 'crucial topics' remain untouched?

And, as already asked, have you, mutantshark. read the materials linked to in the OP?

I read some of those on the OP but except for the evolution of brain and eye there is almost nothing of my interest there. Hopefully we can discuss some of aspects of evolution of brain in the next post.

Development of organs is one of the most crucial topics remaining either unexplained or inadequately explained. There are others like complex animal behavior like mutualism recorded in the genes of some animals, eg. - Myrmecophilous caterpillars of the family Lycaenidae are herded by the ants, led to feeding areas in the daytime , and brought inside the ants' nest at night...

Unexplained or inadequately explained is still no excuse for "Goddidit".

"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: 5876
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Plants have some processes

Plants have some processes which consume oxygen for energy, and they rely on those at night.

Those processes would be similar to oxygen-consuming processes in animal life.

But the vast bulk of the energy most plants use is from photo-synthesis, utilizing the energy in sunlight to convert CO2 and H2O into sugars.

Some supplement this to a significant degree by capturing and digesting insects.

The basic structures for photosynthesis evolved very early, in the form of cyano-bacteria, close to 3.5 billion years ago.

A small useless organ will not 'push the organism to extinction'. That is not what we are saying. It actually represents a basic misunderstanding. 'Organisms' don't go extinct, lineages do. Extinction is when there are no surviving descendants of an individual, or specific group of organisms.

This is not about extinction of the species, it is about differential reproduction. Even a small negative burden will lead to a consistant bias in reproductive success against individuals with that organ. That is actually the definition of a negative trait. So individual organisms with that useless organ will be a smaller proportion of the population in each generation.

Unless an organ had some useful function at a very early stage, it would never spread beyond the first individual in which it appeared, and a diminishing proportion of its direct descendants, so would never become a feature of that species.

There are cells in the skin that are sensitive to thermal radiation (infra-red 'light' ). There are about 5 types of cell in the epidermis. They have the same DNA as every other cell in the body, so given the right selection pressures, can evolve whatever structures and sensitivities we already observe in other parts of the body already, and almost certainly others, if some new situation suited that. Again, unless there is some positive benefit to a structure appearing in a particular location, it will not spread across the species, even if a mutation should bring it into being.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:A small

BobSpence wrote:

A small useless organ will not 'push the organism to extinction'. That is not what we are saying. It actually represents a basic misunderstanding. 'Organisms' don't go extinct, lineages do.  

That hits the nail right on the head.

It's astonishing to me that there are such a number of people who aren't able to properly model evolution by natural selection.

I doubt they understand that even if there were a human that was born with a 3rd eye in the back of their head (which would have been an astoundingly beneficial random mutation) that in no way means that it would certainly get passed on to an offspring due to 'Murphy's Law'.

In evolution, Murphy's Law works to advance, impede and eradicate evolution.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Interview on Evolution

Hi,
 
My name is Jacob and I am from Iowa. I was instructed by our College English teacher to conduct an interview with a person of an opposite belief than myself. I have found it very hard to find someone who opposes the idea of Creation, and one who belives in Evolution. If you believe in the earth being created by Evolution, please awnser these following questions when you find the time:
 
     What are the reasons why you believe in Evolution?
 
 
     When and how did you decide to believe this instead of any other form of "universe creation"?
 
 
     Are you a Christian? And if not, do you have a religious group or stance?
 
 
     Do you believe it is fair to teach Evolution in schools, even if it is science? And why?
 
 
     Do you believe that most children who are taught Evolution in class believe it in the real world?
 
 
If none of these questions pertain to you, I am sorry for taking up your time. Have a nice day.
 
If these questions to pertain, thank you for awnsering them, this will give me much needed information for my research paper I am about to right. Please leave your name (just first name if you feel like it) and I thank you very much.
 
Thanks again, 
 
 
Jacob
 

 


mutantshark
Theist
Posts: 24
Joined: 2011-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Evolution of a worm

Bob,

Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IDKUbh8kI

How do you think this worm evolved?

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lol, the demands get better

Lol, the demands get better and better.

"Please explain, in precise detail, everything that factored into the evolution of 'insert creature here' from the moment of the big bang to now, in 100,000,000 words or less"

Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I definitely

BobSpence 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.

 

It's called the infinite monkey theory. Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey randomly banging on a typewriter would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

The same theory applies to evolution and the 747 argument - the odds of a tornado hitting a junkyard one time and randomly assembling a 747 are next to nothing, but if the junkyard contained all of the necessary components and the tornado hit the junkyard over and over again, eventually, by sheer mathematical probability, it would eventually assemble a fully functional 747. It just takes time and repetition. Life didn't spring up on Earth overnight, it took billions of years of evolution to get it right.

How's that for a simple explanation?

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth


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

Reverend Wells wrote:

BobSpence 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.

It's called the infinite monkey theory. Given an infinite amount of time, a monkey randomly banging on a typewriter would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

The same theory applies to evolution and the 747 argument - the odds of a tornado hitting a junkyard one time and randomly assembling a 747 are next to nothing, but if the junkyard contained all of the necessary components and the tornado hit the junkyard over and over again, eventually, by sheer mathematical probability, it would eventually assemble a fully functional 747. It just takes time and repetition. Life didn't spring up on Earth overnight, it took billions of years of evolution to get it right.

How's that for a simple explanation?

 

The real way evolution works is not like junkyard + tornado = jet, not even repeated bazillions of times.

Evolution works by keeping what works.  So we have infinite monkeys and they are typing away.  When they randomly type a correct letter - for Shakespeare's Hamlet or the Oxford Dictionary, whatever - we keep it.  And have them type until they get another correct letter.  You can imagine that at first, almost all of the letters will be kept, and as we progress, more will be discarded.

This way, we have the result we want in much less time.  You can even say - when they type a correct letter in the correct sequence - lengthening the odds somewhat - we keep it.  And you will still have what you are searching for much more quickly.

Evolution keeps what works.  What doesn't work, doesn't reproduce, and therefore is not retained in the species.  It is not truly random.  For a more in depth discussion, try http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

 

 

-- 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.