PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 8 9 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Can a snowflake form without intelligence?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:48 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am the one asking questions, remember I started this great thread. I am the un-informed one doubting evolution so for the sake of it it's encumbent for you to defend here.
Ok, that makes sense.

BTW, the word is "incumbent".
So my next question is, if mutations are random and happen by chance, how do they produce higher levels of organization and complexity w/out intelligent purpose?
And that's a valid question!! It's been answered before, but it's a valid question anyway.

You're making progress!!

Let's see...


Evolution is playing cards. It has many games at once. It periodically gets some new cards. Most of them are useless, and are discarded. Every once in a while it gets a card that's good for it's game. And it uses it. Because it gives that hand an edge.

Get it?

Perhaps you don't believe it. But at least do you get it?
Pay a lot of attention here (this is what it's all about):
Differential survival/reproduction rates.

Now think it over. That's all there is to it.
Yet another explanation:
Imagine an unfinished sculpture. It has been sculpted up to that point, right?
Right.
Now throw a stone to it. What are the chances that it will improve the sculpture?
Pretty slim, right? The nearer it is to completion, the harder it is to improve it.
But, again, you know that suffering impacts is what brought it to this point. So it's possible.

Well, Natural Selection has millions of works in progress, for millions of years (so tiny little improvements are not only possible, but inevitable). And it has a backup (the gene pool), so when mutations fuck up (more often than not), it's no big deal. And when they are an improvement, that's a big deal!

Besides, Natural selection has no purpose or fixed direction. It goes where survival leads. So it can do many things instead of just one. And it has.

May I ask the questions until I get your final stance on the matter?
I don't know what you mean by "final stance". These issues are very basic. It's not like we're changing our minds.


(Edited by wisp 3/31/2009 at 9:23 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:22 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would think snowflakes are simple pattern over and over again & not very complex.  They form from defined laws of atmospheric physics so no, not intelligent.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:39 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

May I ask the questions until I get your final stance on the matter?  I am the un-informed one doubting evolution so for the sake of it it's encumbent for you to defend here. So my next question is, if mutations are random and happen by chance, how do they produce higher levels of organization and complexity w/out intelligent purpose?

I'm surprised you still haven't grasped this concept.  Everyone else has presented it pretty well, so I don't know if my attempt to simplify it will be worthwhile, but here goes....
Every population of organisms are born with numerous mutations.  Most are neutral, they don't help or hurt the individual organisms.  Some mutations are disadvantageous for an organism in the environment they live in.  A brown bunny born in an arctic environment where there's snow on the ground almost all year is at a disadvantage compared to a white bunny.  Over a number of generations more brown bunnies will get eaten before they can have babies than white bunnies until there are no more brown bunnies left in the population.  That's natural selection.  No mysterious force, no intelligence.  brown bunnies naturally selected against, white bunnies selected for.
Does that make sense?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:53 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


And protocells form spontaneously from abiotically formed thermal proteins.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:10 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was a good example, Demon.

Here's another example of natural selection in action in a real life situation.  

Native US fence lizards are adapting to escape attacks by Fire Ants, which were introduced into the US accidentally in the 1930's.  Penn State Assistant Professor of Biology Tracy Langkilde has shown that native fence lizards in the southeastern United States are adapting to potentially fatal invasive fire-ant attacks by developing behaviors that enable them to escape from the ants, as well as by developing longer hind legs, which can increase the effectiveness of this behavior.

Lizards adapt to escape attacks by fire ants

Ah!  It works now that I take the 'rel=nofollow' parm out.  Thanks!

If the link doesn't work, here's the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121123041.htm

A very interesting article, and a nice example of how evolution works via natural selection.  

Sure, I hear some people say "Big deal.  So some lizards learn some twitching behavior and have slightly longer legs.  They're still fence lizards."

Yes, but this is the way we expect evolution to progress.  And keep in mind that all this happened in less than 60-70 years.  That's actually a pretty short period of time to see a change in a population.  The fact is we do see a noticable change in a population, just as natural selection predicts.  I think its a beautiful example of natural selection.

Life is dynamic, not static.    



(Edited by orion 3/31/2009 at 10:55 PM).

(Edited by orion 3/31/2009 at 10:57 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:36 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Evolution is playing cards. It has many games at once. It periodically gets some new cards. Most of them are useless, and are discarded. Every once in a while it gets a card that's good for it's game. And it uses it. Because it gives that hand an edge.
Get it?

Don't mutations cause degenerative diseases?
I did a bit of googling and came across this.

A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish. The problem is like a large book, written with perfect grammar in the beginning, but with random letter substitutions introduced at an ongoing rate. The book will still be readable for some time, but it will eventually lose all sense. Just as the universe is projected to reach a state of maximum entropy, so also the human race is condemned to a degenerative death, not just as individuals, but as a whole.

What do you think?



(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/1/2009 at 4:47 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:46 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 4:46 PM on April 1, 2009 :
What do you think?


I think it's wrong.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:16 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a bunch of nonsense.

I think the word 'mutation' has suffered a lot from Sci-Fi movies.  How many science fiction movies has Hollywood put out that has some horrible desease or mutant monster killing people?  Lots of brainless stuff come out of Hollywood.  People hear the word 'mutation' and they think the worst.

A genetic mutation is merely a change in the base pair sequence in DNA.  It may be harmful, neutral, or beneficial.

Changes (mutations) that are detrimental to an individual's survival lead to that individual producing fewer offspring to carry forth that harmful change.  It doesn't even be a harmful change to the individual.  What if a mutation makes an individual less desirable to a mate?  That individual will leave fewer offspring than others in the population.  The exact opposite will be true for individuals who happen to have mutations that are beneficial.  A benefical mutation may give a slight edge to survival, or enhance attracting a mate.  

Saying that DNA will just degenerate to the point of being gibberish - that simply will not happen.

I'd be curious what article you were reading that said that about the human race being condemned to a degenerative death.  

BTW - as for the universe reaching a state of maximum entropy - that is so far off in the future as to be meaningless in human terms.  The earth will have long since be gone before that happens.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:29 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In other words, in nature we don't see degeration of DNA in populations because natural selection weeds those detrimental changes out.  It's that simple.  That's why the statement you give about DNA degerating is wrong.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:34 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about disease mutations that do cause harm?
I find this hard to believe that random mutation in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in gerneral leads to better things? In my life randomness does me no good. Interestingly, how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye as I often refer to, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it was going to be an eye? Of what use would a partially developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the entire eye was formed as we see today?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:10 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:10 PM on April 1, 2009 :
I find this hard to believe that random mutation in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in gerneral leads to better things?


Because they don't "in general" lead to better things.  Nobody ever said that, you are making it up.

In my life randomness does me no good. Interestingly, how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye as I often refer to, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it was going to be an eye? Of what use would a partially developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the entire eye was formed as we see today?


How much of an eye does it take for a single celled organism?
Quote from Apoapsis at 9:35 PM on March 26, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 8:01 PM on March 26, 2009 :
Even vegetarians need to see with their eyes where the plants are to walk over to them and harvest them. But the eye is oh so complicated and according to you, the eye was a mass of tissue that one day became useful and gave sight. What force,pray tell caused this to happen?


The need for food.  In the case of the single celled Euglana, light, so only a tiny fraction of a cell is needed.




One really cool feature of Euglena and other related organisms, is the presence of a pigmented organelle, or eyespot, that allows the organism to orient toward or away from light. This is a sensible adaptation since these organisms carry out photosynthesis. The image to the left show the eyespot . The eyespot itself is not sufficient to help the organism turn toward light since the cell is transparent. So the outside of the eyespot is covered by a black pigmented area. The Euglena determines which way turn turn by turning to the direction in which the eyespot is receiving the least light. In this direction the pigmented eyespot is most directly shaded by the black pigmented area.  






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:30 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - you seem to be intrigued with eye evolution. Or rather, you seem to be doubtful that eye evolution took place. We have presented material showing how eye evolution could have proceeded via natural selection. Apoapsis has even shown you a single celled Euglenna and it's eyespot.

Ah!  Richard Dawkins is here to explain eye evolution.  Watch this video.

Richard Dawkins explains eye evolution
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:18 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still don't understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics has to do with evolution.  Everyone who understands science and biology knows the 2LOT in no way prevents  evolution.  So why do people keep bringing it up???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:48 PM on April 1, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who knows.

- It's a clear indication that they don't know what they're talking about.

- and if they do know the truth, then they're knowingly lying in order to cling to their religious beliefs.  Don't ask - I don't understand the logic behind that either.

- It sounds good to the unknowing lay-person who wants some excuse to deny evolution is possible, thus keeping their flawed religious beliefs intact.  

Its dishonest to present the 2nd law in such a manner.  Just like its dishonest, indeed outrageous, for the Creationist Museum in KY to imply that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.  I still find it hard to believe that anyone can believe such a thing.  But hey, lots of people believe in UFO's, ghosts, black magic, astrology, etc, etc.  Lots of gullible people out there.

 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:11 AM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:11 AM on April 2, 2009 :
 Just like its dishonest, indeed outrageous, for the Creationist Museum in KY to imply that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.  I still find it hard to believe that anyone can believe such a thing.  


I think the legal phrase is "reckless child endangerment".




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:20 AM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How much of an eye does it take for a single celled organism?


Which by no means proves that any simple eye evolved into a complicated eye -look at the trilobites.

Everyone who understands science and biology knows the 2LOT in no way prevents  evolution.


It might not prevent it but it in no way promotes it either. Raw energy is no good to anyone without those pesky little biological machines that can convert it into something.

Just like its dishonest, indeed outrageous, for the Creationist Museum in KY to imply that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.  I still find it hard to believe that anyone can believe such a thing.


Maybe you should go there and find out why they say that. There are so many people out there that find it hard to believe that anyone could believe the common ancestor story. At least with dinosaurs, there are historical accounts of men seeing them and drawings on cave walls - which is far more compelling evidence than the old 'fossil record'.
If the coelocanth could pop back up out of nowhere after 65 million years of so (that's if you believe the old coelocanth extinction story) perhaps the dinos can do it too.

We have presented material showing how eye evolution could have proceeded via natural selection


Could have, might have, should have but probably didn't -lot of organization needed there -we still need a mechanism for such a thing to have happened. I am sure mutation and natural selection are not up to the job and if they were I'd need more evidence than 'could have' followed by a vastly imaginative bit of storytelling.

Lots of gullible people out there.


Perhaps you'll find one day to your horror that you were one of them -I did.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:46 AM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which by no means proves that any simple eye evolved into a complicated eye -look at the trilobites.


Trilobite eyes, over millions of years, became quite complex.   Would you like to learn how the simple holochroal eye became very complex?

If the coelocanth could pop back up out of nowhere after 65 million years of so (that's if you believe the old coelocanth extinction story) perhaps the dinos can do it too.


No species of coelacanth from 65 million years ago, is found today.  The coelacanth of today is as different from ancient ones as ostriches are from dinosaurs.  (and you could equally call an ostrich a dinosaur, since like modern coelacanths evolved from very different ancient fish, it evolved from dinosaurs)



(Edited by Yehren 4/2/2009 at 08:11 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 08:08 AM on April 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A slight but definite ongoing mutation rate, accompanied by a zero rate of positive genetic change, will eventually turn the human genetic code to gibberish.
That phrase is gibberish. Those with "gibberish dna" will not mate, even if by miracle they live after birth.

Your source sounds creationist.

Do you people notice some pattern with the creationist concept ofdevolution/adaptation? If they like some new trait, it was already there, and it was adaptation. If they don't, it's new and it's devolution.

Some races of dog became small keeping some proportion (like the chihuahua).
But in some (like the dachshund) the legs went VERY short.

It's a new mutation.

You could say that it's degenerative. But they use them to crawl in underground galleries to find their pray. They're good at it, even if they suck at running.

It's not about downward or upward. It's al about differential survival/reproduction rates. That's all there is to it.

So very simple, and you don't want to understand it. Your loss.

What about disease mutations that do cause harm?
THEY CAUSE HARM!!! THEY WON'T BE SELECTED!!!
Gee, man!

I find this hard to believe that random mutation in the face of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in gerneral leads to better things?
Go ahead. Pretend that you understand thermodynamics. See if anyone will buy it.

Interestingly, how could many organs of the human body, such as the incredibly complicated human eye as I often refer to, develop bit by bit by chance mutation, not knowing it was going to be an eye?
You don't like my asshole remarks about your learning problem, but you keep making exhibions.
Of what use would a partially developed eye be?
Compared to no eye? A LOT!
- - -
Lester
How much of an eye does it take for a single celled organism?
Which by no means proves that any simple eye evolved into a complicated eye -look at the trilobites.
How simple is "simple"? Who said anything about proof?

Everyone who understands science and biology knows the 2LOT in no way prevents  evolution.
It might not prevent it but it in no way promotes it either.
1) Why should it have to? Who said it does?
2) Yes, it does. I say it now. It promotes energy dispersion. Without it no structures can take form.
Raw energy is no good to anyone without those pesky little biological machines that can convert it into something.
If there were no biological machines, what the Hell would 'anyone' mean?

And they're only pesky to creationism. Like parasites and lions. They should not exist according to it.


(Edited by wisp 4/2/2009 at 3:17 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:13 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So Wisp, you aren't a fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics huh? It's pretty simple actually but are evolutionists exempt from it?
You do theorize that the steps of mutation to form into an eye are quite voluminous right? Many many steps, each successive to the one b4 it has been "dealt a good card" right? but what is good about these steps when  the eye formation is still many steps and millions of years coming? And in the meantime no working eye?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:49 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - watch this video.  It's a little dated, showing a much younger Richard Dawkins.  But it still covers the basics of eye evolution.  

Eye Evolution Video

Do you agree that even a unperfect eye is better than no eye?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:03 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I watched most of it although I cannot understand his thick accent. Do I agree that an  imperfect eye is better than no eye? Perhaps, as long as it's a functioning eye. There is no functioning eye when it's half developed though. But the idea that the sheer complexity of the eye formed randomly forces my mind's logic to kick into gear and rule out that idea.


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/2/2009 at 8:13 PM).

(Edited by gluteus_maximus 4/2/2009 at 8:14 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:19 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the idea that the sheer complexity of the eye formed randomly forces my mind's logic to kick into gear and rule out that idea

And, of course, according to the theory of evolution, it didn't form randomly.  Evolution doesn't work by chance.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:34 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean that 'there is no functioning eye when half-developed'?

Here is another video demonstrating the evolution of the eye.  It essentially says the same thing that Richard Dawkins demonstrated in his earlier video.

Evolving from a flat layer for photoreceptor cells we have:

- primitive cup eye, which cannont focus images very well, but can nonetheless be used to detect movement.  Flatworms use such an eye today.

- evolution then takes the development of the eye a step further by constricting the area through which light enters the eye - a pin-hole eye can produce a sharp, but dim image.  An example of a creature alive today with such an eye is the chambered naultilus.

- The next step is the development of a lens in the eye.  But notice that the lens started out as simply a protective transparent layer that offered some protection to the eye.  Natural selection favored further changes that developed the lens that could be used to focus a sharp image.  This development of the lens is thought to have taken perhaps 100,000 generations.  Not that long a period of time.

Eye Evolution Video


I feel kind of sorry for Creationists because they don't seem to have any clue how spectacular and wonderful nature really is.   Instead of a dynamically changing world and history, they see a dull, static world produced by an unimaginative God.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:25 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gluteus_maximus at 6:49 PM on April 2, 2009 :
So Wisp, you aren't a fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics huh? It's pretty simple actually but are evolutionists exempt from it?


Do you think evolution would cause heat to flow from a cooler to a hotter body?  That would violate the 2nd law.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:47 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So Wisp, you aren't a fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics huh?
So gluteus, you don't know what you're talking about, for a change, huh?
It's pretty simple actually
Oh, don't say that! It makes you look dumb when you show that you don't get it.
but are evolutionists exempt from it?
Exempt from a universal law?
Again, nobody will believe that you understand any aspect of it. It shows.
You do theorize that the steps of mutation to form into an eye are quite voluminous right?
I don't get your jargon, but you're probably wrong again.
Many many steps, each successive to the one b4 it has been "dealt a good card" right?
Are you drunk? I really don't get you.
but what is good about these steps when  the eye formation is still many steps and millions of years coming?
I'd venture the hypotesis that English is not your native language, if i could believe that you're capable of learning languages.
And in the meantime no working eye?
Ok, i'm guessing the meaning of your gibberish now. It's wrong, as usual. Every evolving structure has a 'function' (meaning that it improves the rate of survival/reproduction).
I watched most of it although I cannot understand his thick accent.
Options:
1) English is not your native language. So you've learned one language and a half.
2) You've learned half a language.
Your poor wits make me lean towards the second.
Do I agree that an  imperfect eye is better than no eye? Perhaps, as long as it's a functioning eye.
So you don't learn from videos either...

Orion, it was a cool video. I had not seen it, and yet my depiction of the evolution of new eyes is quite similar.

Creationists could only dream of reaching an agreement about such important questions as 'how many kinds do you have if you own a dog and a jackal?'.
Or 'how many elephants were carried into the ark?'.
There is no functioning eye when it's half developed though.
What? Man, just go away. You won't learn anything from us, and nobody in the world can learn anything from you.
You're not helping your cause. You've embarrassing it even more than Lester10.
You should leave it to Timbrx. None of you can ever say anything that he can't, except for the dumbest of things.
But the idea that the sheer complexity of the eye formed randomly
Again??? You have the memory span of a fish.
forces my mind's logic
xD
to kick into gear and rule out that idea.
Nah, i don't buy it.
I'm calling Poe's law. Nobody that knows how to turn a computer on can be that stupid.

I got you! Yeah, you made me buy it for a while. That was genious!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:24 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So Wisp, you aren't a fan of the 2nd law of thermodynamics huh? It's pretty simple actually but are evolutionists exempt from it?


Explain to us how the 2LOT prevents evolution, be specific now.  And then explain why it doesn't apply to an organism reproducing.  You know, a much more complex tree growing from a tiny, less complex seed...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:59 PM on April 2, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, you are not addressing my concerns, dismissing them does not make you correct. So you have not given me a reply to my last legitimate question. Instead running away. Your insults show your insecurity.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:04 PM on April 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The law of Entropy is not simple enough for you to grasp. It determines the direction of TIME! And you'll never know why.

I answered what good is half an eye. As Dawkins says in the video, even 1% of an eye is an improvement.

There is no functioning eye when it's half developed though.
You see? explained before.
You can't say i don't answer. You keep asking the same moronic questions.
But the idea that the sheer complexity of the eye formed randomly
And making the same moronic comments. How many times do we have to tell you that nothing formed randomly before you stop  saying stuff like that?

You're either a moron (and i'm sorry, but you're wasting our time, please, go away), or you're moking us (i'm not sorry, you're wasting our time, please, go away).

When you're not capable or willing to learn, there are no good answers.





-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:51 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not random? How many times have you said MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM???

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 08:42 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:28 PM on March 29, 2009 :
Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:06 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Wikipedia :

It is a matter of debate whether the "eye" evolved once, or independently in many clades. The genetic machinery employed in eye development is common to all eyed organisms. The only unique prerequisite for vision is the use of vitamin-A-related chromophores in the visual pigment, and this is also found in bacteria. Even photoreceptor cells may have evolved more than once from molecularly similar chemoreceptors, and photosensitive cells probably existed long before the Cambrian explosion.

All light-sensitive organs rely on photoreceptor systems employing a family of proteins called opsins. All seven sub-families of opsin were already present in the last common ancestor of animals. Further, the genetic toolkit for positioning eyes is common to all animals: the PAX6 gene controls where the eye develops in organisms ranging from mice to humans to fruit flies.  However, these master control genes would be much older than many of the structures they control in modern animals, and were probably co-opted for a different purpose.

Sensory organs probably evolved before the brain did – there is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:25 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before I answer Demon 38

Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not.


Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.

Back to Demon38:

NO, the problem here is you don't know what your talking about. .  I didn't present HOX genes as an example of new information, I was showing that one mutation can radically change an organism.  


But it can only change the organism within the confines of the existing information. According to my sources Hox genes only kick in after the basic body plan is laid out in any case, nevertheless show me where a new and useful structure that has arisen as a result of hox genes –just one example please so that I can give this some more thought.

If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information.


No it doesn’t. Some bacteria are naturally penicillin resistant. That some drugs were already resistant to man made antibiotics before these were invented is common knowledge to microbiologists. Soil samples from villages where modern antibiotics had never been used show that some of the germs were already resistant to antibiotics like methicillin which have never existed in nature. Also some bacteria acquire resistance from other bacteria by plasmid transfer. So sorry, no new information there.

And what's wrong with a consensus by the experts based on the evidence?


The consensus is coloured by philosophy. It is derived from a worldview. It is an interpretation of the evidence not the evidence itself.

If you have to have surgery, do you scream consensus! consensus!  when the doctors consult and agree on the best treatment?  


Doctors don’t use evolution to come to their consensus opinion. Some of their ideas may be based on variability and mutations within organisms but definitely not on the concept of macroevolution. There is nothing to be gained by imagining that birds were related to dinosaurs via some common ancestor. But it’s good to know how resistance builds up within a population but that would be micro- not macro- information. The problem is in the extrapolation from micro ‘observable’ changes to macro-‘ imagined’ changes. That is where we diverge in what we believe to be true.

" I am using laboratory evolution experiments of bacteriophage (bacterial viruses)


And tell me at the beginning of the experiment you had bacteriophages and at the end….??? Bacteriophages of course. You see that is not where we disagree. We all agree that mutation can happen and these micro changes can cause organisms to adapt to their environments but that cannot be randomly extrapolated to the entire biological realm. You are not going to add up all the changes and end up with elephantophages after millions of years. There is no evidence for the extrapolation of the process from one organism to another with a different body plan. We don’t disagree on the fact that finch beaks vary with environment, only on the suggestion that after millions of years, finches will be changed into non-finches piece by piece.

That took me all of 3 minutes to find.


Which only shows that you have little idea of what we are actually arguing about.

That seems to be your major research method, make up some silly conclusion based on your imagination and resfuse to look at the real world evidence that completely refutes your claim.


Well in my view that is what evolutionists do constantly. They extrapolate the observable to the imaginary and call it fact then wonder how anybody could disagree. They don’t appear to recognize where science fact becomes science fiction.

Thousands of clearly transitional fossils have been found, so much that no reasonable person can doubt evolution.


But unfortunately that is not true, it is only the party line of the believers.
I could give you so many quotes from evolutionists themselves and do not please call it quote mining, that is just a diversionary description used to explain precisely nothing. I’m giving you some short ones as I do not feel like typing all afternoon –

“The origin of insect flight, like the origins of wings and flight in vertebrates is a wonderful mystery yet to be completely solved (wonderful understatement here).
The basic problem is one of explaining the intermediate stages… The earliest known insect fossils include both winged and wingless types –but no intermediates or partly winged  fossil forms have yet been found.”

Brusca Richard C. & Gary J Brusca in Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York, NY (1990), p562

“The fossil record of amphibians in the lower carboniferous is very incomplete and little is known of the specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages.”

Carroll Robert “Evolution” in Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution W.H.Freeman and Co., New York NY (1988), p188

“The gaps in the fossil record are real however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods; species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt.”

Wesson, R.
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991), p45

.  
And even one transitional fossil destroys the creationist claim that evolution doesn't happen.


You can call anything transitional, the problem is proving that it is any such thing. You can believe it and clearly you do, but it is not because the so-called transitionals are obvious but because your worldview expects to find them and so you choose things like archaeopteryx to demonstrate your point. Unfortunately the handful of ‘transitionals’ only convince the already convinced. What you need to do is not to find the odd fossil that can be imagined to be a transitional between this or that but to find a general pattern of gradual change in the entire fossil record. The overall picture supports creation not evolution. We expect sudden appearance of fully formed creatures with nothing leading up to them. The picture we see in the fossil record is just that, it is certainly not one supporting gradualism.

If you want to disprove evolution, take a look at the reptile to mammal transiton series of fossils and explain it to us without evolution.  


Show me and I’ll explain it to you.

Why have we so many dinosaurs but nothing to show us what supposedly evolved into the dinosaurs?


Archyopteryx, all modrn birds (which are dinosaurs, by the way) what more do you want?


Archeopteryx is a bird. As for birds being the descendants of dinosaurs –we’re going to need a whole lot more than the widely disputed archaeopteryx to convince us that the brontosaurus turned into a bird by a gradual process of mutation and natural selection. Once again, you can only preach that one to the already converted.

facing tough criticism in a discussion period  he was forced to admit again that perhaps


I’d put the emphasis on the ‘perhaps’ - and remember ‘perhaps’ is just another possibly, maybe, who knows – which does not mean that it is possible at all just that we can perhaps imagine that maybe it might be which is not as good as observable experimentation that shows it to be so.

No philisophical assumption, just evidence, which you won't look at.


It is the assumption of naturalism –it is a philosophy. The only ‘evidence’ we have is of minor variation in things such as finch beaks and bacteria. In those cases all we get at the beginning and the end is a variation of finch or bacteria, nothing new. Extrapolation beyond that minor variation is pure imagination.

All IC systems have been debunked because biologists have shown that there IS a way to form them.  


Wrong, they’ve imagined pathways that may have occurred by using their imaginations –that is not the same as demonstrating their feasibility by experimentation.

What happened to the secretory mechanism when the flagellum took over its parts -wasn't it needed anymore?


Nope, it wasn't needed any more, more bacteria survived with the mobility granted them by the flagellum.


Don’t you see? That is fiction –nobody has demonstrated any such thing, they only imagine it and think it sounds good enough to them and then they don’t understand why it is considered by those who support ID to be science fiction.
It is science fiction, pure and simple. We don’t mind your fictions really but just request that you respect an alternate viewpoint that you cannot say is incorrect since it is all history –nobody was there.

No imagination needed, just an undrstanding of biology and the facts that already exit.


In other words, imagination.

And what are real biologists? The sector that agree with you, I suspect.


And that's 99.9% of the worlds biologists taht agree with me.


In your dreams is it 99,9% though I’d have to point out that 100% have been traditionally brainwashed into your viewpoint so its not a surprise that they remain in the majority.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:37 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:37 AM on April 4, 2009 :
Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.


By your definition this is a random process:




And this is not:



Random noise is widely used in engineering to improve processes.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:59 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester is my front man in the quest for truth.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 10:03 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's too bad that you feel like you need a front man.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:28 AM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By your definition this is a random process:


Well it sure seems to have randomized that cat's edges somewhat. What does random improve?

Lester is my front man in the quest for truth.


Thanks Gluteus, it's good to feel vaguely appreciated amidst all this negativity. We're not here for fun are we now - though there is a bit of comic relief to be had periodically.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 2:18 PM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:18 PM on April 4, 2009 :
Well it sure seems to have randomized that cat's edges somewhat. What does random improve?


Don't you agree that the randomized picture looks more natural?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:54 PM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:37 AM on April 4, 2009 :
Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.


If you have ever flown in a modern airliner with laser ring gyros, your life was in the hands of a random process.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:25 PM on April 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.
No.
Who told you such a thing?


NO, the problem here is you don't know what your talking about. .  I didn't present HOX genes as an example of new information, I was showing that one mutation can radically change an organism.
But it can only change the organism within the confines of the existing information.
You seem to subscribe to the theory of information, while knowing nothing about it.

What is 'information' to you?

One simple mistake and you have the 'information' to produce a head with legs.
So?

Creationists get lost in concepts because they're scared of the facts

The consensus is coloured by philosophy. It is derived from a worldview. It is an interpretation of the evidence not the evidence itself.
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Did i find it's vestigial limbs because i expected them? Was it my belief in the TOE??
Don't you have any problems with random chance here?

If you have to have surgery, do you scream consensus! consensus!  when the doctors consult and agree on the best treatment?
Doctors don’t use evolution to come to their consensus opinion.
Then your problem isn't with consensus, but with the TOE.
Consensus is very important. Most revealing. Because it happens between specialists of many disciplines, using many different methods. So it's like the very methods are in agreement.
The methods unravel facts. So it's the facts that ultimately agree.

There is nothing to be gained by imagining that birds were related to dinosaurs via some common ancestor.
Are birds related to each other? What does it mean to be a bird to you?
To us it means that they share certain traits because of their common origin.
That's not the case when we say 'parasite' or 'hervivore'. Not even when we say 'carnivore plant'.

We're still waiting for sone insight on biblical 'kinds'.


And tell me at the beginning of the experiment you had bacteriophages and at the end….??? Bacteriophages of course
More tags?

Anyway, it's creationists who believe in a superfast Evolution that gave us the cat and the lion from two (or seven?) individuals 4k years ago (the Egyptians were imagining their cats).

So, the same question to you: where's the evidence for that superfast Evolution? You can call it 'adaptation' if it makes it easier. I don't care much for tags.

u see that is not where we disagree. We all agree that mutation can happen and these micro changes can cause organisms to adapt to their environments but that cannot be randomly extrapolated to the entire biological realm. You are not going to add up all the changes and end up with elephantophages after millions of years.
Instead of that, tell us why not. What's the precise step/s that are impossible to you?
You know (a liiiitle bit) about our story. What's the problem with it?
And don't say bullshit like 'increase of information' (what's 'information' anyway?), or '2nd law of thermodynamics'. Something specific.

You just say 'no bacteria to human'. That's billons of years worth of blurriness.
Something specific would be 'a mutation cannot copy sequences of DNA'.
That would be wrong but specific.

We don’t disagree on the fact that finch beaks vary with environment, only on the suggestion that after millions of years, finches will be changed into non-finches piece by piece.
We don't? How would we know?
So all finches share a common ancestor? Do all birds? Ostriches and hummingbirds?
Ostriches look more like dinosaurs than like hummingbirds...

If you don't know what you're talking about, how could we?

That took me all of 3 minutes to find.
Which only shows that you have little idea of what we are actually arguing about.
'We'?
Man, nobody knows what YOU're talking about.

Well in my view that is what evolutionists do constantly. They extrapolate the observable to the imaginary and call it fact then wonder how anybody could disagree. They don’t appear to recognize where science fact becomes science fiction.
Blah blah blah...
Specifics!
How did i guess that the legless lizard could have vestigial limbs?

I could give you so many quotes from evolutionists themselves and do not please call it quote mining,
Blah blah blah...
Quotes from evolutionists themselves...
That's a logical fallacy called 'ipse dixit' ('he himself said it').
It's a pathetic attempt used when you have no facts or arguments.
It won't work here. But you creationists never learn this.

Save us the trouble of your quotes. Unless they're depictions of facts.
that is just a diversionary description used to explain precisely nothing.
Divert from... Quotes???
Haha!
It does explain something very precise: To take a phrase out of context with the purposeful dishonest goal of making someone appear to claim something he did not claim.

Ok, next you make a silly post of some quotes that i totally agree with, and don't help your point in any way.

What we find tells us a lot, but what we don't find is quite revealing too. We learn. You quote.
Unfortunately the handful of ‘transitionals’ only convince the already convinced.
No. They convince people who aren't religious fundamentalists. People who are not afraid. People who don't feel that their faith is threatened by the facts.

What you need to do is not to find the odd fossil that can be imagined to be a transitional between this or that but to find a general pattern of gradual change in the entire fossil record. The overall picture supports creation not evolution.
Can we talk about your vesion of creation? What's the creationist acount of the thousands of natural weapons we see in life? And the countless parasites.
And viruses.

If you want to disprove evolution, take a look at the reptile to mammal transiton series of fossils and explain it to us without evolution.
Show me and I’ll explain it to you.
Haha! Yeah!
''God made it that way. That too. And that. That also.''

facing tough criticism in a discussion period  he was forced to admit again that perhaps
I’d put the emphasis on the ‘perhaps’ - and remember ‘perhaps’ is just another possibly, maybe, who knows – which does not mean that it is possible at all just that we can perhaps imagine that maybe it might be which is not as good as observable experimentation that shows it to be so.
Man, he was talking about his own previous opinion. You wouldn't expect him to say ''Hum... Yea... I was very stupid saying all that, right?''

The only ‘evidence’ we have is of minor variation in things such as finch beaks and bacteria. In those cases all we get at the beginning and the end is a variation of finch or bacteria, nothing new. Extrapolation beyond that minor variation is pure imagination.
Well, what about cats and lions?
How can we discuss if you don't show us some kinds?
Did elephants and mam oths belong to the same 'kind'?

Wrong, they’ve imagined pathways that may have occurred by using their imaginations –that is not the same as demonstrating their feasibility by experimentation.
Wrong. You said it can't miss any parts and be useful. We produced the same basic structure, with fewer parts, with some other use.
No stories. Just plain facts.

Are those nasty bacteria irreducibly complex too, according to you? Did God make them like that or what?

In your dreams is it 99,9% though I’d have to point out that 100% have been traditionally brainwashed into your viewpoint so its not a surprise that they remain in the majority.
I wasn't.
Nobody taught me anything about Evolution.
Just TV, dogs (my father bred them), some lousy scientific magazines i read as a kid, and lots of observation.
Nature did most of my brainwashing. (Schools in Argentina suck. I just learned grammar. I taught myself about the rest.)



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:54 PM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:18 PM on April 4, 2009 :
Well it sure seems to have randomized that cat's edges somewhat. What does random improve?


There is more information in the first picture.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:26 PM on April 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
There is more information in the first picture.


You mean the clearer picture is less random and more information rich?

Wisp
No.
Who told you such a thing?


I think it is obvious that a process that has as a critical factor even one chance element, is in effect reduced to pure chance. What else can it be -directed chance?
If Darwinism is not a chance process, even in part, then it must be a guided or directed process...
Richard Dawkins has said that 'living complexity is the very antithesis of chance" in a book written to convince its readers that evolution is blind and that the universe is without design.
As Roddy Bullock has commented in his semi-fiction "The Cave Painting"  -"Apparently Dawkins wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a blind watchmaker, but not one that stumbles upon various parts only by chance."

One simple mistake and you have the 'information' to produce a head with legs.


You have the information in any case but it has been directed to the wrong part of the anatomy. Put some antennas on a cat's head and then I'll agree that we do indeed have new information.

How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.


Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
The point is we just don't believe you can add something new and useful to the genome without an intelligent source of information. Mutation won't suffice as a source of useful information.

Consensus is very important. Most revealing. Because it happens between specialists of many disciplines, using many different methods.


Well yes, doctors may have a consensus on a treatment protocol but that is based on the fact that they have tried this or that and it works. So consensus comes from repeatable experimentation.
The consensus of macroevolution, on the other hand, comes from a united desire to believe that no God is necessary in the creation of life. That belief in turn comes from indoctrination in schools and universities.

Are birds related to each other? What does it mean to be a bird to you?
To us it means that they share certain traits because of their common origin.


Which helps you in what practical way? What if it has nothing to do with common origin and everything to do with a common creator who uses a common recipe. How can you exclude that possibility randomly?

(the Egyptians were imagining their cats).


Just like so many people especially the chinese were imagining their dragons (that looked exactly like dinosaurs)

Instead of that, tell us why not. What's the precise step/s that are impossible to you?


The introduction of new and useful co-ordinated information that wasn't coded into the original organism.

So all finches share a common ancestor? Do all birds? Ostriches and hummingbirds?
Ostriches look more like dinosaurs than like hummingbirds...


I'd say common creator not common ancestor. Different kinds of birds programmed with different information and different potential to vary in different environmental conditions.

We can only ever demonstrate mutational change leading to loss, why assume it can build new information without some demonstrable evidence of that possibility?

Save us the trouble of your quotes. Unless they're depictions of facts.


Why use any other kind?

No. They convince people who aren't religious fundamentalists. People who are not afraid. People who don't feel that their faith is threatened by the facts.


Now who ever said I was a religious fundamentalist? You must have just assumed that. What if I am actually dedicated to exposing the truth while you are dedicated to protecting a disputed worldview? Maybe you are the religious fundamentalist that has never recognized himself as such. Perhaps you are afraid of the facts? Perhaps your faith is threatened by the facts. That certainly is how I feel about you.
There is nothing wrong with being fundamentally religious as long as what you believe is the truth -so do you have the truth or do I? As far as I'm concerned, I am far more interested in the truth than you are. You are protecting a worldview with too many holes in it -like the story of the Emporers new clothes, I am telling you that the emporer has no clothes on and you are insisting that just because you can see his butt (and everything else) does not mean he is naked.

We produced the same basic structure, with fewer parts, with some other use.


In your imagination, yes. Show me the experiment not the supposition.

Nobody taught me anything about Evolution.
Just TV,


I rest my case.













-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:24 AM on April 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:24 AM on April 5, 2009 :
Apoapsis
There is more information in the first picture.

You mean the clearer picture is less random and more information rich?


No, the opposite.  The second picture has the least information. and has had random noise added to it in a process known as dithering, which increases the information content.

Do you ever fly commercial airliners?  The laser gyros are dithered too.

(Edited by Apoapsis 4/5/2009 at 10:16 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:38 AM on April 5, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So the "fact" is that random mutations have created for us very ordered complex bodies with the tools we need for survival and comfort and pleasure? Perhaps I will scatter my groceries on the floor when I get home and expect a Chicken liver Parfait with mushroom coulis dish all prepared?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 1:41 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long are you prepared to wait?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:13 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it is obvious that a process that has as a critical factor even one chance element, is in effect reduced to pure chance.
It's not only not ovbious: it's false.
Besides you said that such processes are random by definition, but didn't provide a definition to support it.
"Random process: A process in which there's any random element."
Or some silly thing like that.

I'll give you something obvious: The fact that the same bunch of guys keep winning poker tournaments is not due to random chance, even if the cards they get are.

Can you admit to this?

What else can it be -directed chance?
Not at all. No director, no chance.
"Natural selection" is a human concept. Things get selected by the environment. GENES are selected by the environment.
To a gene, another gene is just part of the environment.
A new gene must cooperate with the rest (the older ones, that have already been selected to cooperate), or it will be kicked out.
New random genes show up for the audition. But the audition is NOT random.
But it's not guided either.
If Darwinism is not a chance process, even in part, then it must be a guided or directed process...
More flawed logic?

If you want us to tag Natural Selection as guidance, FINE!
Now leave words alone, and lets discuss facts.

Richard Dawkins has said that 'living complexity is the very antithesis of chance" in a book written to convince its readers that evolution is blind and that the universe is without design.
As Roddy Bullock has commented in his semi-fiction "The Cave Painting"  -"Apparently Dawkins wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a blind watchmaker, but not one that stumbles upon various parts only by chance."
Words, words, words, blah blah blah...

What about the Tiktaalik? Let's not say it's anyone's ancestor. Just answer: how the fuck did they know where to look for it?

One simple mistake and you have the 'information' to produce a head with legs.
You have the information in any case but it has been directed to the wrong part of the anatomy. Put some antennas on a cat's head and then I'll agree that we do indeed have new information.
A bug head with bug legs isn't new?
Ok, then nothing is. The building pieces cannot form anything new, right?
Man, you get lost in words again.
You can't win an argument about facts just by tagging stuff.
The fact is that you can take some LEGO® and make something new.

How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption.
I do. If it removes my fucking legs i sure do!
The lizard's original information was corrupted.
I get it. So just by losing stuff a God-made lizard got corrupted into a snake. Well, not a taxonomic 'God-made' snake.
So, the same basic 'design' can be achieved by creation or by corruption?

Anyway, apparently you do believe in vestigiality. Timbrx doesn't. And he's smarter than you. You got it right, incidentally. But you failed to realize that vestigiality makes your delusion impossible.
You can't lose important stuff without gaining something (NEW).

If you don't believe me, chop off a lizard's legs and see how it fares.

You think that ''corruption'' went after it's legs by random chance?
Fortunately it didn't go after it's head!

The point is we just don't believe you can add something new and useful to the genome without an intelligent source of information.
What about the legless lizard? Is it just an amputee to you?
What about the nylon digesting bacteria?

What about claws, fangs, horns, thorns, type 3 secretory system, the ability to hunt, to make a shelter, capparaces, ELECTRIC SHOCKS, etc?

Mutation won't suffice as a source of useful information.
What the hell is 'information'?
Bah. Leave words alone. Check the facts.

Well yes, doctors may have a consensus on a treatment protocol but that is based on the fact that they have tried this or that and it works.
We guess what we can find and where. If we know the evolutionary history of a family of animals we can guess the percentage of shared DNA. It works.
We know that the tylacine shared more DNA with the koala than with the similarily 'designed' dog.
I don't know if they have tested it. It's kind of a stupid test. The result is pretty obvious. Except for a creationist.
I know it just like i know that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I also know when and where.
So consensus comes from repeatable experimentation.
On humans?
They make experiments on our relatives too. Did you know?
For some experiments the rat is close enough.
The TOE tells them when it's close enoug.
The consensus of macroevolution, on the other hand, comes from a united desire to believe that no God is necessary in the creation of life.
Nonsense. I don't care about your little Yahweh. Few scientists do, when they're at work.
That belief in turn comes from indoctrination in schools and universities.
I went to law school. My formal education said nothing about Evolution.
My ignorant father told me when i was a kid that my father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father was a dinosaur. That was it.
(You don't want to know the things he told me about the speed of light.)
I'm a free thinker.
How do i fit in your delusional conspiranoia?

Are birds related to each other? What does it mean to be a bird to you?
To us it means that they share certain traits because of their common origin.
Which helps you in what practical way?
Let's say 'none'.
Now you answer.

Because this forum is supposed to be 'Creationism VS Evolution', not 'Evolution VS ???'.

What if it has nothing to do with common origin and everything to do with a common creator who uses a common recipe.
We would se very different things. We wouldn't have had the dog AND the tylacine.

And we could find species that we couldn't classify. Like a unicorn.

How can you exclude that possibility randomly?
Haha! You sure like that word. xD

Just like so many people especially the chinese were imagining their dragons (that looked exactly like dinosaurs)
Yeah, magical supersized snakes with legs and long moutaches that fly through the air but live under the sea. Exactly like dinosaurs.
How much do you know about dinosaurs?

Actually they found that dragon. Look it up in YouTube. Search 'dragon+fish' or something like that.
Oh, don't get disappointed, but it has no legs, it doesn't fly, and it's not magical.
And it still look more like a dragon than any dinosaur (i don't know what species you meant).

Instead of that, tell us why not. What's the precise step/s that are impossible to you?
The introduction of new and useful co-ordinated information that wasn't coded into the original organism.
I told you not to say that.
What's 'information'?
Information doesn't exist. It's a human concept. Genes don't care about them.
Give me something real.

So all finches share a common ancestor? Do all birds? Ostriches and hummingbirds?
Ostriches look more like dinosaurs than like hummingbirds...
I'd say common creator not common ancestor.
What?
You do believe that humans have a common ancestor, right? The African and the Japanese. Right?
Well, what about finches?
What about cats and lions and tigers? Were they designed like that?
Please, answer this. Or leave. If you can't even answer that, you don't even know what you believe. So shut up already.

Different kinds of birds programmed with different information and different potential to vary in different environmental conditions.
Don't use the word 'kind' if you can defend it.
How many kinds do you find in felines, canines, marsupials, elephants, mammals, apes, etc?
Name things, not concepts.
We know what we mean. We know what we're talking about.
How can you be right if you don't?

We can only ever demonstrate mutational change leading to loss, why assume it can build new information without some demonstrable evidence of that possibility?
You clarify your 'kinds', and demonstrate that members of the same 'kind' share common ancestors, and members of different 'kinds' don't. Or shut it.

I ask you not to post quotes that are not about facts, and you say
Why use any other kind?
You post quotes about concepts, opinions, and little about facts.
If your quote contains the words 'phenomenal', 'wonderful mystery', or something like that, or if you say 'he himself said it', you lost.

Now who ever said I was a religious fundamentalist?
I did, and i still do.
You must have just assumed that.
I did, and i still do.

What if I am actually dedicated to exposing the truth while you are dedicated to protecting a disputed worldview?
You'd explain parasites and predators. And you're not exposing anything. You try to say that something DIDN'T happen.

Maybe you are the religious fundamentalist that has never recognized himself as such. Perhaps you are afraid of the facts?
I keep giving you facts, you give me words and quotes.

Perhaps your faith is threatened by the facts. That certainly is how I feel about you.
Keep feeling. Thinking is not your thing.

There is nothing wrong with being fundamentally religious as long as what you believe is the truth
There's this problem: being fundamentally religious doesn't let you know if what you believe is true.

-so do you have the truth or do I?
You don't even know what you're talking about, so i'll say 'me', if i have to bet.

As far as I'm concerned, I am far more interested in the truth than you are. You are protecting a worldview with too many holes in it -like the story of the Emporers new clothes, I am telling you that the emporer has no clothes on and you are insisting that just because you can see his butt (and everything else) does not mean he is naked.
Does that mean that we can start talking about your hypothesis?

Please, give us some timeline of biological diversity that includes the ark.

We produced the same basic structure, with fewer parts, with some other use.
In your imagination, yes. Show me the experiment not the supposition.
What are you talking about? What experiment? Do you want me to show you the bacteria?

Nobody taught me anything about Evolution.
Just TV,
I rest my case.
What case?
Your case was indoctrination.
Your case rests in peace.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:59 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Any process that has a random component in it is random by definition.


Lester, your statement is utter nonsense.  Evolution proceeds through a feedback process via Natural Selection.  New traits arise that may increase or decrease an  organism's chances for survival and reproduction, relative to the rest of the organism's population.  This is a feedback process, driven by numerous variables within the environment and ecology.  The one outstanding feature is that these environmental and ecological variables are always changing - thus driving life to change in a constant feedback cycle.  

I gave a simple example of this earlier in my post about fence lizards adapting to attacks by fire ants, which were introduced into the US from South America in the 1930's.

That example is a clear demonstration of natural selection occuring in nature.
 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:07 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does every number multiplied by a negative turn out to be negative?
The negative element causes all to be negative.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:58 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - what negative element are you referring to?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:29 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all elements multiplied by a random element causes all to be random. You agree?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:34 PM on April 5, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 8 9 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.