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
     Vestigal organs:
       evolutionist red herring

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon
Speciation is macroevolution not microevolution.  As stated before species is the only really meaningful concept in biology.  Everything else is just man made attempts to artificially put definitions on the continuum of orgainisms.

So you are saying that evolution is only a reality in the observable realm of species? Than we agree. Selective breeding of show horses is evolution. Show horses coming from an ancient rodent like ancestor is "just man made attempts to artificially put definitions on the continuum of orgainisms"  


Species, though, are breeding populations.  Populations of similar orgainisms that no longer normally mate are considered seperate species.  And as stated life isn't static groups but a continuum.  Similar species that are recently seperated as far as breeding goes, have a better chance of being fertile than species that have been seperated for a longer amount of time, a greater amount of mutations have accumulated in both populations making them more dissimilar.

Yes. Agreed. This tested and observed phenomenon precisely describes what I have often referred to as microevo.
Are you telling me that this is the extent of the reality of TOE? If so than we agree.

New words:
realevolution- formerly known as microevolution

imagivolution- formerly known as macroevolution

Yehren
It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."

Herein lies my objection. The only way you determine its "former use" is in the context of imagivolution unless "vestigial" is used in the place of adaptation.

Orion
Again, the previous article I posted demonstrates no ability to 'suppress a trait (eyesight)', but rather the loss of eyesight was due to a genetic mutation.  In animals that depend on eyesight, such mutations would be detrimental and the animal would not likely survive to produce offspring.  But in the completely dark environment of a cave such a mutation would not be harmful because the function of the eye is not needed.  So the fish passed on the mutation resulting in blindness to its offspring.  Evolution explains this perfectly.

How is this not adaptation? Finches adapt by developing longer beaks in a population. Tetras adapt by becoming blind in dark environments. Both are still genetically complete versions of the base species.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:10 AM on March 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
Speciation is macroevolution not microevolution.
I'm still skeptic about there being any real sense in those words.

Can ANYONE show me what you mean?

timbrx
Demon38
As stated before species is the only really meaningful concept in biology.  Everything else is just man made attempts to artificially put definitions on the continuum of orgainisms.
So you are saying that evolution is only a reality in the observable realm of species?
Of course not. He was very clear. The fact that there's a continuum of organisms shows Evolution in... Can you guess? The continuum of organisms. Not just in each separate species.
Selective breeding of show horses is evolution.
Can you be certain that there's absolutely no new mutation that has been beneficial to show horses?

WAIT... DO YOU GET BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS IN YOUR CONCEPT OF ADAPTATION????

I remember now that you said that the nylon digesting bacteria were examples of adaptation...

Well, if you can have a successful mutation, then there's no limit to your 'adaptation'! You can develop new organs by 'adaptation'. Species can produce wings and learn how to fly by 'adaptation'! Just by accumulating good mutations!

Man, your adaptation is Evolution.

Show horses coming from an ancient rodent like ancestor is "just man made attempts to artificially put definitions on the continuum of orgainisms"
You're limiting God given ability of 'adaptation'.

This tested and observed phenomenon precisely describes what I have often referred to as microevo.
Precisely?

What cannot happen, precisely?
And don't say "bacteria to humans".
There are billions of steps in between.
Which ones are not possible?

If bacteria mutate and stay together instead of being dispersed, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they start cooperating, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they start communicating, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they specialize, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they grow in number, you call it 'adaptation'.

If some of them become stiff providing a better support for the rest, you call it 'adaptation'.

If some of them develop light sensitivity, you call it 'adaptation'.

If the colony starts acting as a single organism, you call it 'adaptation'.

If the organisms learn how to communicate with other organisms, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they develop religions, you call it 'adaptation'.

If they go to the Moon, you call it 'adaptation'.

Seriously, man. Be specific. We've been debating a long time now, and i still have no clue on what's micro and macro.

Bacteria-to-man is not a clue.

New words:
realevolution- formerly known as microevolution

imagivolution- formerly known as macroevolution
Sigh... New words for old imaginary specious void concepts...

timbrx
Yehren
It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."
Herein lies my objection. The only way you determine its "former use" is in the context of imagivolution unless "vestigial" is used in the place of adaptation.
And i've told you again and again that that's not a problem.

The fact that factual facts need the truth to be true is not a problematic problem.

If it is, tell me why. If you can't say why, then, please, stop using it as an objection.

Overruled.

Tetras adapt by becoming blind in dark environments. Both are still genetically complete versions of the base species.
So they got a new function by 'adaptation'...

What's the limit? What CAN'T you get by 'adaptation'?

What's the limit of your God's 'adaptation'?

Anyway, why would the fish 'need' to be blind?
Why is it good for it to be blind???



-------
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 March 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying that evolution is only a reality in the observable realm of species?

No I'm saying that species are the only naturally occurring classification.  Everything else is just man trying to put a name on a constantly changing continuum.  New species can keep getting more and more dissimilar, reptile species become mammilian species, they're still different species but we add family, class, genus, etc.  for our convienience.
And macroevolution is when a new species forms.  The evidence is clear that every living organism is related, that common descent is a fact, that all life is related and evolved.  There is no argument in the scientific community, this is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:04 PM on March 27, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

Im with you!
I have no idea what timbrx means by 'macroevolution'. Microevolution is more than enough to explain all the diversity of life.

If 'macroevolution' means sudden, miraculous transformation from one genus to another then I agree that is unlikey....  sounds more like creation than evolution.

Given microevolution, which everyone is now agreed on,  (seems to me you might as well just say evolution cos Im not at all convinced that 'macroevolution' means anything at all) anything is possible just by making enough small changes.

The creos have difficulty comprehending how new structures can arise through an evolutionary process. Thats a very fair question and certainly one that is harder to demonstrate then adaptation of pre-existing structures. I think the clue to this is best seen in the process of cell differentiation. Each embryo starts with a few undifferentiated cells. (If you take an embryo at a very early stage and 'cut off' a few cells then the cells you take can still grow into a full, healthy adult) As the cells divide they start to differentiate. Nerve cells and hair follicles derive from common, undifferentiated cells as a result of differentiating chemical control signals. Here is a mechanism that has great potential for producing new stuff. If one undifferentiated cell can be turned into either a skin cell or a kidney cell simply by manipulating its chemical environment then its not to hard to imagine how mutations could interfere with the process producing bizarre and potentially useful (or harmful  OR benign) new 'organs'. Tumors are a bit like this...  they are usually either harmful or benign though. Perhaps new structures could start out as 'benign' tumors that get established in a population without doing any particular harm. Once established they could, conceivably, evolve some function by a series of adaptations. Benign tumors are pretty common in many animals. I'm not saying this has ever happened but it is a plausible scenario for the evolution of innovative new structures.

Basically, what the creos call microevolution is quite enough to explain all the diversity of life that we see around us. Speciation within genus is no problem as the creos have now admitted to that. Genusiation within order? Actually thats no problem either because Genus is an artficial classification based on degree of genetic difference. There is nothing objective in nature that corresponds to a 'genus boundary' (there is for speciation). So evolution does not have to explain 'genusiation' because genus is not a 'natural phenomenon'. Evolution (microevolution if you must) explains speciation and genetic diversity. Thats all there really is to explain. Macroevolution is unnecessary (actually its a nonsense invented by creos, a strawman).






-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:19 PM on March 27, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren observes:
It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."

Herein lies my objection. The only way you determine its "former use" is in the context of imagivolution


Nope.  For example, Darwin mentioned the perfectly-formed wings sealed under fused elytra, of some oceanic beetles.  

The appendix is, in some other mammals, quite functional for digestion.  It just doesn't do it for us any more.

BTW, you're wrong about the coccyx, too.    It has no function other to take up space.   Some humans don't even have one, and never know it, unless they get an x-ray.   It's called coccygeal agenesis, and sometimes, even the lower part of the sacrum can be missing, with no symptoms.

Sacral agenesis:
http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/reprint/115/3/611.pdf

(Edited by Yehren 3/27/2009 at 8:28 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 8:21 PM on March 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly. An example of what Demon says are platypuses. They are right in the edge, leaning towards the mammal side.

But you can make up a definition of mammal that excludes egg laying creatures, if you want to.

From here:
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/ScienceQuestions/h1sciQplatypus.asp



Is the platypus a mammal?
   

The platypus is usually considered to be a mammal because its features are like those of other mammals. For example, it has hair over most of its body and has mammary glands that make milk for its young. It also has pretty good temperature control so it can be called warm-blooded.

One characteristic, however, that is more like the reptiles is that the female lays eggs that develop outside her body.

The platypus is a water-loving animal that lives along streams in Australia. You probably have heard about it because it is partly like a reptile and partly like a mammal.

Actually, it should be no surprise that there are some animals that do not fit exactly into groups like reptiles and mammals. After all, these names just stand for man-made ideas.

I am quite sure that a platypus doesn’t care whether we think it’s a mammal or a reptile.
 Is the platypus a mammal?

waterboy
Microevolution is more than enough to explain all the diversity of life.

If 'macroevolution' means sudden, miraculous transformation from one genus to another then I agree that is unlikey....  sounds more like creation than evolution.
Hum... I had not thought about it that way...

I like it!

We can all deny macroevolution!

Big changes don't happen. You only have small change.

What's the limit?
Mmm... What you can get from one generation to the next. That's the limit per generation. xD

What's the limit if you have an infinite amount of time?
I can hardly see any. You could evolve nuclear reactors in your entrails.

You think i'm kidding, right?
I'm not.
By what steps?
By getting smart first, learning how to make nuclear reactors, getting progressively better at it untill, after millions of years, you can make them by instinct, like caterpillars.
If the creature's main concern  in life is to reproduce and make nuclear reactors...
Well, i better keep the rest for myself. It's crazy, but not impossible.

Here is a mechanism that has great potential for producing new stuff. If one undifferentiated cell can be turned into either a skin cell or a kidney cell simply by manipulating its chemical environment then its not to hard to imagine how mutations could interfere with the process producing bizarre and potentially useful (or harmful  OR benign) new 'organs'.
Hum... True.
Tumors are a bit like this...  they are usually either harmful or benign though. Perhaps new structures could start out as 'benign' tumors that get established in a population without doing any particular harm. Once established they could, conceivably, evolve some function by a series of adaptations. Benign tumors are pretty common in many animals. I'm not saying this has ever happened but it is a plausible scenario for the evolution of innovative new structures.
Hey, that's very interesting! I had never thought of that.

I believe that tumors are random, so i guess you can't have a breeding population with the same tumor. But it's a good idea anyway. Perhaps there's some way it could work...

Genusiation within order? Actually thats no problem either because Genus is an artficial classification based on degree of genetic difference.
Exactly. And, in the spirit of that artificial classification, you can say that the platypus didn't finish its 'genusiation'. Haha!

But if you make up the rule that every living creature must fit into some genus, well, you can call 'monotremes' a genus if you like.

There is nothing objective in nature that corresponds to a 'genus boundary' (there is for speciation). So evolution does not have to explain 'genusiation' because genus is not a 'natural phenomenon'.
You just don't get tired to be right.

timbrx, this is what you need to learn. The difference between a natural phenomenon and an artificial classification.
The difference between facts and words.
The difference between the map and the terrain.

So evolution does not have to explain 'genusiation' because genus is not a 'natural phenomenon'.
That's an interesting and accurate way to depict it, waterboy.

Speciation is all you get. Species don't know how similar they are to other species. And they don't care. WE care.

Yehren
For example, Darwin mentioned the perfectly-formed wings sealed under fused elytra, of some oceanic beetles.
That's very interesting, and yet unsurprising.

The world of Biology is filled with lots of interesting and unsurprising facts.
Yehren, could you have predicted such a beetle (its possibility) if no one told you it existed?


(Edited by wisp 3/27/2009 at 8:58 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: 8:58 PM on March 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

New words:
realevolution- formerly known as microevolution

imagivolution- formerly known as macroevolution


Excellent summary there Timbrx! I couldn't have put it better. I was watching a Nat geog. feature this morning on hammer head sharks where they discussed how the hammer head got his hammerhead via evolution and for what reasons the head ended up all flattened out.
When a creationist sees that, they see design -intentional purposeful design with attendant abilities. When evos see the same thing, they have to invent a big story about how it happened by many small intermediate steps, from a regular shark, for this or that hypothetical reason. To me the entire hypothetical story is akin to a madness that has infected man. They can imagine anything and I understand why they do it -it is because they believe it so they 'know' there is a story and a reason for why it happened.

Usually the story sounds like purpose is involved but all evos know that no purpose is involved (since there is no creator) so in steps the 'designoid' concept. It looks like design but there is no design so we have to call it designoid. Ignore what your senses are telling you about design and purpose, 'it's not real, block it out'.

If the hammerhead's head flattened out and happens to have unique abilities then it happened because it needed to be able to do this and that and developed this or that as a result. It's all hypothetical but is taken as truth by the believers. What came first, the need or the mutation that just happened to supply the needed parts and then that need, of course, had to be passed through the generations ( very lucky indeed though low in statistical probability since just the right sperm cell with the useful info for the new and incipient part had to be involved in the procreation process or would that be the 'proevolution' process)

For this we just have to have lots and lots of time -the time it would take to make the impossible seem possible otherwise we would know that the story was all wrong and quite impossible.

It is all just storytelling pure and simple.  



-------
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: 06:02 AM on March 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Turns out that flattening of parts of the body is seen in many different groups of elasmobranchs (sharks and related fish).   In the Sphyrinidae, just the head is flattened.   The hammerhead is only the most extreme example of that family, with transitional forms in the fossil record and even living members which are more similar to other sharks.   For example, the bonnethead shark:



(Edited by Yehren 3/28/2009 at 09:13 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 09:11 AM on March 28, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The world of Biology is filled with lots of interesting and unsurprising facts.
Yehren, could you have predicted such a beetle (its possibility) if no one told you it existed?


Well, yes, in the sense that we often see winglessness in insects living on small oceanic islands.   Flying for them is much riskier due to the chance of being blown offshore.  Landing in water for most species is a death sentence.   Simply locking down the wings is good enough, although it's hard to see how a designer would make perfect wings and then make them unusable.



(Edited by Yehren 3/28/2009 at 09:18 AM).

(Edited by Yehren 3/28/2009 at 09:18 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 09:17 AM on March 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeap, exactly.

Did you read my story about predicting vestigial limbs in a legless lizard?

New words:
realevolution- formerly known as microevolution

imagivolution- formerly known as macroevolution
Excellent summary there Timbrx!
Specially when you ignore the refutations.
I couldn't have put it better.
Well, that's true. You're not as smart as timbrx.
I was watching a Nat geog. feature this morning on hammer head sharks where they discussed how the hammer head got his hammerhead via evolution and for what reasons the head ended up all flattened out.
Yeah, i wonder. I was never able to figure that out.
I've heard complex explanations about them following magnetic paths or something. But scientists probably know.
When a creationist sees that, they see design -intentional purposeful design with attendant abilities.
"God's will", basically. Easy, and doesn't answer anything.


When evos see the same thing, they have to invent a big story about how it happened by many small intermediate steps, from a regular shark, for this or that hypothetical reason.
Refer to Yehren's post. You lose, man. The intermediate steps are there for us to see. Some of them are alive today. Hum... I smell a future lack of an answer...
To me the entire hypothetical story is akin to a madness that has infected man.
Remember: unicorns, rib cloning, giants, light being made before the sun and the stars, a global flood, an ark containing every land species, 'kinds'...
Also remember your inability to give any account of the nasty creature's cool designs.

They can imagine anything and I understand why they do it -it is because they believe it so they 'know' there is a story and a reason for why it happened.
It never fails. Creationism always does. Like in this example of yours, the hammerhead shark.
You failed, and you'll disregard it and run to the next debunked example.
Usually the story sounds like purpose is involved
Yes, that is true. For instance i say that "genes want to get more copies of themselves into the world".
It's just words. Refer to facts.
Our words try to describe the facts.
Your words try to describe our words.
but all evos know that no purpose is involved
Yes indeed.
so in steps the 'designoid' concept.
Yeap. Just a concept.
It looks like design but there is no design so we have to call it designoid.
No, we don't have to. I have never done that.
Ignore what your senses are telling you about design and purpose, 'it's not real, block it out'.
We don't block anything. The intermediate steps are there, or they are easy to figure out.

You'll protest. But our "figured out" steps in between are often found AFTER we figured them out. Like the Tiktaalik.
Perhaps it's the power of Satan.

That would be the only explanation, right?
So please, go ahead and say it.
At least say SOMETHING about our predictions.

If the hammerhead's head flattened out and happens to have unique abilities then it happened because it needed to be able to do this and that and developed this or that as a result.
Hahaha! Smarten up.
Evolution isn't about developing stuff out of "need" exactly. It's about differential survival/reproduction rates.

Perhaps you don't "need" something (whatever "neeed" means, i don't know), but having inherited it gives you an edge, and more offspring as a result.

It's all hypothetical but is taken as truth by the believers.
No. That would be a lie. I don't take it as truth. It is simply false. So would you please take that back?

Will you EVER take something back?

What came first, the need or the mutation
Hahaha! I thought you had written "need for the mutation".
that just happened to supply the needed parts and then that need, of course, had to be passed through the generations
A mutation supplying needed parts? What? A single one?
Please, think before you post.
( very lucky indeed though low in statistical probability
"Lucky though unlikely" is wrong. The word would be "and" at best, although you're saying the same thing twice.
since just the right sperm cell with the useful info for the new and incipient part had to be involved in the procreation process or would that be the 'proevolution' process)
You'll have to take that back too.
You know what's the proportion of "right sperm cells" (the ones that carry it's parent's mutation)?
1/2 (50%, to clarify).
For this we just have to have lots and lots of time -the time it would take to make the impossible seem possible otherwise we would know that the story was all wrong and quite impossible.
Bla bla bla bla.

The decaying rates of radioactive isotopes had to be faster in the past, so the Earth can be 6k years old.
Trees had to grow several annual rings per year.
The speed of light had to be quicker in the past.
Glaciers had to be quicker too. Perhaps Satan sprinkled those pesky isotopes that refuse to say that the Earth is young...
Shaken water/earth/sand/stones/chalk/clay have to result in layers (even if we can easily demonstrate it's impossibility in a fish bowl).

It is all just storytelling pure and simple.
What about our predictions?



-------
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: 10:19 AM on March 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
The creos have difficulty comprehending how new structures can arise through an evolutionary process. Thats a very fair question and certainly one that is harder to demonstrate then adaptation of pre-existing structures.

Speaking for myself as a creo, I don't have that much difficulty understanding the process. In fact I can visualize it much more clearly than I can articulate it. You articulated it very well. Going from one common creature to two similar kinds of creature doesn't seem so ridiculous if you color in the gaps between the two with time. I understand what you're saying with the stem cells. But if you look real close at the actual evidence, not the presupposed "common ancestor" there are just too many things that would have to either develop spontaneously with full function of would have to have "useless" little mistakes that linger until other "mistakes" make them useful.

Hypothesize a "common ancestor". Analyze the divergent descendants. Note the differences. Now one at a time try and visualize the transformation process that results in, say, human hands and chimp hands. Not just the positioning of the thumb, but the genetic changes that accompany this change and how they can be passed on. Now factor in all of the other little divergences that would have occurred during the same time frame. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

demon
The evidence is clear that every living organism is related, that common descent is a fact, that all life is related and evolved.  There is no argument in the scientific community, this is a fact.

Hmm... So I guess that all of those molecular biologists, geneticists, physicists etc. who write those silly little papers posted in those wacky creo web sites are not really a part of the "scientific community". Sounds like Pasteur wasn't a member of the scientific community, either, since he didn't believe in spontaneous generation.  

Yehren
It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."

timbrx
Herein lies my objection. The only way you determine its "former use" is in the context of imagivolution unless "vestigial" is used in the place of adaptation.

wisp
And i've told you again and again that that's not a problem.

Maybe not for you, but it is for me.

The fact that factual facts need the truth to be true is not a problematic problem.

So than the problem with your "facts" is truth.

If it is, tell me why. If you can't say why, then, please, stop using it as an objection.

I'll try. The appendix is considered vestigial, right? Because it does not function as fully as a chimps. But what if it does function fully for humans? Just as chimps function fully for chimps? Without a presupposed "common ancestor" how can an appendix be considered a "vestige" of its former self? It can't. Can an appendix that functions like a chimps be bred into humans? Maybe if many generations of humans died of malnutrition before one survived. Hopefully they would live long enough to reproduce in the first place. Can useful eyes be bred into blind tetras? Yes, according to wisp.

Overruled.

Undermined.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm... So I guess that all of those molecular biologists, geneticists, physicists etc. who write those silly little papers posted in those wacky creo web sites are not really a part of the "scientific community". Sounds like Pasteur wasn't a member of the scientific community, either, since he didn't believe in spontaneous generation.

Well, they're not submitting them for peer review, so we have to assume that those papers are worthless.  If they really amounted to anything, let the rest of the scientific community examine them.  And to be fair, they haven't published anything that remotely refutes evolution.  So I stand by my claim.  And Pasteur did indeed disprove spontaneous generation by showing that life doesn't form in bowls of soup or rotting meat.  He did no experiments on life forming on a primitive earth.  So how can you use Pasteur as evidence against abiogenesis?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:34 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38, i think he's talking about real scientists misquoted in those sites. They don't post their papers. They write them, and they are posted in those wacky creo web sites.

I'm not sure though.

Anyway, i find it hard to believe that in those sites they post entire papers... Am i wrong, timbrx?

But if you look real close at the actual evidence, not the presupposed "common ancestor" there are just too many things that would have to either develop spontaneously with full function of would have to have "useless" little mistakes that linger until other "mistakes" make them useful.
Such as?

If there are too many, please, name just a few. But please, be ready to take them back when they are explained.

Hypothesize a "common ancestor".
I'm not sure about the 'common ancestor hypothesis'. Most people believe it. But i don't. Because of a technicallity.

Remember the wasp who had viral dna? In a way it's no longer a pure wasp.
Its common ancestor with the rest of the wasps go back to the common ancestor of wasps and the virus.

In ancient times it was probably messier. Perhaps cells used to share their DNA much more often than they do today.
If there was a common ancestor, it probably wasn't alive in the normal sense (and thus can hardly be called an 'ancestor').

I believe in a common single-celled group of ancestors.

Hypothesize a "common ancestor". Analyze the divergent descendants. Note the differences. Now one at a time try and visualize the transformation process that results in, say, human hands and chimp hands.
From the common ancestor we share with the chimp, you mean? That would be our most recent common ancestor. What's there to picture? Our hands look pretty much the same.

Or do you mean from the first living organism/s?
That's something that could easily fill many books.

If we see an orange (not an apple because it might hurt susceptibilities because of the Eden event, and the Newton event, and because i'm eating an orange), next to a tree, i'll say "It fell from it." I'm not 100% sure, but it's very likely.

Someone says "No, it was created there, in the ground."

I say "Ok, if i'm right, there's some indentation in some of the stems in some of the branches that match with the indentations of the green thingy in the orange."

If i don't find it, well, tough luck. I can still be correct though.

If i find it, it won't be enough for that person. Even if i predicted it.

He can say "That's how the creator wanted it."

Well, perhaps that's how it happened. Perhaps he's right.
But his hypothesis is not testable.
So it shouldn't even be mentioned in the context of science.
And we're still able to make predictions.
And that's what a theory is.

Let's say Evolution never happened, if that makes you happy. Let's say that God made it look like it did (Occam will be scratching his face in his grave, but nevermind him).

If that's how God wanted it, we're still able to make predictions about what we'll find (God's smart enough to plant the correct fossils).

And just like i say that genes want to make more copies of themselves, even if i know that they don't want anything, so can you.
You can say that we evolved from reptiles. Meaning nothing but that we'll find reptiles-to-mammals (extant and or extinct).

demon
The evidence is clear that every living organism is related, that common descent is a fact, that all life is related and evolved.  There is no argument in the scientific community, this is a fact.
Hmm... So I guess that all of those molecular biologists, geneticists, physicists etc. who write those silly little papers posted in those wacky creo web sites are not really a part of the "scientific community".
No. Just that they're not arguing about what your creo sites want to make you believe they're arguing about, probably.
Sounds like Pasteur wasn't a member of the scientific community, either, since he didn't believe in spontaneous generation.
Neither do we. So no argument. You see?

timbrx
wisp
timbrx
Yehren
It's important to remember that "vestigial" does not necessarily mean "useless."   It means "no longer has it's former use."
Herein lies my objection. The only way you determine its "former use" is in the context of imagivolution unless "vestigial" is used in the place of adaptation.
And i've told you again and again that that's not a problem.
Maybe not for you, but it is for me.
I mean the objective part of it. That's why i made the following generalization:
The fact that factual facts need the truth to be true is not a problematic problem.
So than the problem with your "facts" is truth.
Why is it that you always write "than" instead of "then"? Waterboy did the opposite in your quote.

Anyway, it's quite simple. You say that the problem with vestigials is that they presuppose Evolution. Since Evolution is a fact, there's no problems.
The appendix is considered vestigial, right?
Right.
Because it does not function as fully as a chimps.
Wrong. Because it doesn't function as it used to.
But what if it does function fully for humans?
It would be a problem if we took it out.
Just as chimps function fully for chimps?
Does it? I didn't know.
Without a presupposed "common ancestor" how can an appendix be considered a "vestige" of its former self?
It's not vital, and it doesn't give you an edge. So it can't evolve.
It can't.
If you mean it can't without Evolution, well, you're right. Again, not a problem.
Maybe if many generations of humans died of malnutrition before one survived.
I bet more than one.
Hopefully they would live long enough to reproduce in the first place.
I'm not understanding... Sorry...

What i get is this: you say that if some fact takes Evolution as a requisite, that's a problem.

I say that Evolution is a fact, so it's not a problem.

So, if the problem with my "facts" is "truth", then attack that. Show us what happened instead of Evolution.

Every species was created in it's present form? No, you admitted to speciation.

I still don't know what happened with the parasites according to Creationism.



-------
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: 1:41 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon
So how can you use Pasteur as evidence against abiogenesis?

Pasteur is an example of a scientist who's beliefs were refuted and denied by the "scientific community" and later validated.

Well, they're not submitting them for peer review, so we have to assume that those papers are worthless.

How do you know? Just because a chemist, for example, believes in creation, doesn't mean he hasn't published an accepted paper on a chemical formula. The formula proves itself without creation or evolution.
To make a blanket statement that implies that simply believing in creation cuts you off from the "scientific community" is disingenuous at best and an outright malicious lie at most.

As to things that "remotely refute" evolution, how do you judge that? How do you refute speculation with speculation? Both creo and evo are equally presumptuous.

wisp
From the common ancestor we share with the chimp, you mean? That would be our most recent common ancestor. What's there to picture? Our hands look pretty much the same.

Yes. Our most recent common ancestor. Which is...?
Lets compare that to chimps and humans.

T
Because it does not function as fully as a chimps.

Wrong. Because it doesn't function as it used to.
How do you know?

But what if it does function fully for humans?
It would be a problem if we took it out.
I bet it would be a problem if you took it out of a developing human embryo or a third world primitive.

Just as chimps function fully for chimps?
Does it? I didn't know.
Than how do you know that a humans doesn't?

Without a presupposed "common ancestor" how can an appendix be considered a "vestige" of its former self?
It's not vital, and it doesn't give you an edge. So it can't evolve.
You "know" that it's not vital to development of antibodies in human embryos and newborns?

If you mean it can't without Evolution, well, you're right. Again, not a problem.
So than to be a true "vestigial" evolution must be true.

Why is it that you always write "than" instead of "then"? Waterboy did the opposite in your quote.
Than is a conjunction, usually differentiating between two things. (If you like blue than why are you wearing red?)
Than is a preposition, usually indicating an order in time. (I'll eat then shower.)

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:33 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pasteur is an example of a scientist who's beliefs were refuted and denied by the "scientific community" and later validated.

Denied by a scientific community that did not use the scientific method, so they can't be compared to the modern scientific community.  And his results were validated due to evidence, experimentation and the scientific method.  Evidence, experimentation and the scientific method the the very things that fully support the theory of evolution and disprove creationism.  So, again, i say your example is invalid.

How do you know? Just because a chemist, for example, believes in creation, doesn't mean he hasn't published an accepted paper on a chemical formula. The formula proves itself without creation or evolution.

I agree with this 100%.  Sure, a creationist isn't automatically wrong.  It's when they make claims without evidence, based on faith, that they are more likely to be wrong.  Creating a formula that proves itself by the evidence, without creation or evolution, that can be tested by others, is perfectly valid.  Where did I say this was not so?

To make a blanket statement that implies that simply believing in creation cuts you off from the "scientific community" is disingenuous at best and an outright malicious lie at most.

And I didn't do this.  But making claims about the central concept of biology, the theory of evolution, that is fully accepted by virtually all biologists, that is an observable fact, with nothing more than ancient superstitions, is not science and more, is anti science.

As to things that "remotely refute" evolution, how do you judge that?

By showing evidence that better explains the diversity of life, show us experiments that better explain how life evolves, show us EVIDENCE.  Creationists can't do this.

How do you refute speculation with speculation?

Evolution is observed fact, creation is superstition.

Both creo and evo are equally presumptuous.

Nonsense.  Evolution is a fully supported theory of science that all virtually all biologists
accept.  It has made thousands of successful predictions, it is succesfully used in medecine, farming, industry, raising animals.  it is the central, most important concept of modern biology.  the evidence for evolution is monumentous and covers multiple fields.
Creationism is a disproven superstition, shown to be wrong over 200 years ago.  That's creationism, not creation.  Creationism made specific scientific claims that were disproven.  Creation is not science so cannot be proven or disproven by scientific means.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:07 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
For this we just have to have lots and lots of time -the time it would take to make the impossible seem possible otherwise we would know that the story was all wrong and quite impossible.


Not quite true. What is required is not time but environmental pressure and selection. Without environmental presures and natural selection time is not enough. Remember the coin throwing example. If you throw all the coins every time then it could be a very, very long time before you get all heads. Add a selection process (keep the heads) and you get ALL HEADS very soon. Natural selection is a bit like keeping the heads. It makes the process happen much more quickly than you would ever expect. Evolution does not proceed smoothly with constant rates of change. Changes happen quickly when there is sufficient environmental pressure and  natural selection begins to occur.  The long periods of time where 'life is easy' would lead to populations with great diversity because the variants are not being eliminated. Then when circumstances change and environmental pressures kick in, the favourable variants will survive and the unfavourable variants will be eliminated.

When you look back through geological history and the fossil record there is plenty of evidence for evolution but there are also plenty of 'gaps' in the record... like pages missing from a book. It can be hard to comprehend.

But with all that we now know about molecular and population biology it isnt so difficult to look into the future and see what is possible. We know that small chemical differences can produce significant morphological variation. We can see exactly how environments can change and how selection will eliminate whole populations or 'selected' parts of populations. We can model how far these changes really could go and see how evolution is not only 'possible' but it is inevitable. Time is important but changing environments and selection pressures will also bring about rapid 'evolutionary' change.
If you can see the possibilities for divergence within the descendants of a population then it begins to make sense that present day diversity is a result of this same process. Cats and dogs are different 'types' now but surely they could represent divergent descendants of a past single 'type'. Its not impossible that horses and hippos also represent divergent descendants from some common type.... its just a question of degree of difference. How much variation and selection has taken place will determine the extent of divergence that occurs. Fish and humans are simply a long way apart in  the 'divergence' spectrum? They still have quite a lot in common when you really think about it!




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:45 PM on March 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx, you keep talking about the appendix. I guess because it looks almost functional, i don't know.

Can you give toe nails, body hair and goose bumps some thought?

Those are more obvious vestigials. And you can see them without cutting people or corpses.

And if you think i'm trying to evade the subject, you're wrong. The subject is vestigials in general. And it would be appropriate to take the more obvious ones to discuss.

From the common ancestor we share with the chimp, you mean? That would be our most recent common ancestor. What's there to picture? Our hands look pretty much the same.
Yes. Our most recent common ancestor. Which is...?
What, the name, the time frame, or what?
It lived around 6 million years ago (that's the most likely answer).
Lets compare that to chimps and humans.
I don't know. So it's an opportunity to make a prediction: It's hands will look pretty much the same (6kk years is not a long time). If you chose to believe that chimp hands are very different from human hands, ok, our common ancestor will have hands more similar to those of the chimp. Because chimps swing from tree branches. We obviously did it too (because we still can, and because our exaltations when we're about to sleep tell us that we used to sleep in tree branches).
It's US who have stopped swinging, so it's OUR hands the ones that must have undergone most of the comparative change.

This is very easy.

Wrong. Because it doesn't function as it used to.
How do you know?
Because it doesn't do much (if anything).
Can we leave the appendix alone for a while and talk about toe nails and stuff?

But what if it does function fully for humans?
It would be a problem if we took it out.
I bet it would be a problem if you took it out of a developing human embryo or a third world primitive.
I don't see many chances of anyone claiming the win on that bet.

Why not start betting on goose bumps? Are they fully functional?

Just as chimps function fully for chimps?
Does it? I didn't know.
Than how do you know that a humans doesn't?
Actually i trust scientists on this one. They have no reasons to lie about this one. I don't go cutting people.
I give it 95% chances of it being useless. Perhaps those who know more than i have a higher degree of certainty.
Anyway, the appendix is not my passion.
Seemingly, toe nails are not your passion either.

You "know" that it's not vital to development of antibodies in human embryos and newborns?
No, i don't.

And if it is (i don't think so, but it might be), then we have even more evidence against Creationism.

God couldn't have given us anything against diseases (there were no diseases in the Garden of Eden). So it must have evolved.

If you mean it can't without Evolution, well, you're right. Again, not a problem.
So than to be a true "vestigial" evolution must be true.
That's almost correct for the appendix. It's not impossible to lose function of an organ because of a change on the environment. But it's more likely to lose it because other new or improved functions have been developed.

But, as i've said before, you can have vestigials without Evolution. You can lose stuff without gaining anything, if a selective pressure gets relaxed.

I'll repeat my example: the canine instinct to bury their feces is now vestigial. Now they just give a couple of ridiculous kicks in the pavement, towards their feces (as if they could bury them with pavement).

Than is a conjunction, usually differentiating between two things. (If you like blue than why are you wearing red?)
Than is a preposition, usually indicating an order in time. (I'll eat then shower.)
"Than" is not for differentiating. It's correct use is ONLY for comparing. As in "higher than"-
"Then" means "in that case" or "at that time" (subsequently).

-I like blue more than red.
-Then why are you wearing red?

Thanks for answering this!



-------
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: 09:00 AM on March 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to know what could make you say "Hey! That's more than adaptation! That's Evolution!".

You have not answered what's the limit of your concept of 'adaptation'.

What can't happen?

Try to think in Evolutionary terms. Think of the long series of adaptations/mutations/whatever that would turn a bacteria into a human being (since you're so obsessed with human beings, who have nothing special, biologically speaking).
What's the step that sounds ridiculous?

What cannot happen, according to you?

If you find more than one ridiculous step, i'd like to hear them all.

I honestly can't think of any.

To me the hardest and weirdest step would be to become a celibate priest.

I don't deny that it can happen though.

Oh, and please tell me what's macroevolution, because i still don't know.



-------
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: 11:27 AM on March 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and you've not answered this either:
1) Do you believe my story about the legless lizard? When i predicted that it could have vestigial limbs i mean.
2) If you believe me, how did i do it?

You could at least say... I don't know... That the instructions for snake-like locomotion were already there (so there was no increase of 'information'), and that losing limbs was an adaptation... I don't know... SOMETHING!



-------
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: 11:31 AM on March 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 11:28 AM on March 28, 2009 :
Going from one common creature to two similar kinds of creature doesn't seem so ridiculous if you color in the gaps between the two with time.


Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?





-------
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: 7:37 PM on March 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which is more of a problem for you, evolution or billions of years of time?


Sorry Timbrx, got to jump in here. My personal problem is that there is no evidence to suggest that mutation and natural selection has the ability to craft new body forms even given enough time.

The only evidence we have for the effects of mutations is that they are either innocuous and have little to no effect or that they produce deleterious effects. That is why mutations in the human genome is termed "mutational load". Far from producing an improvement in the human genome, mutational changes seem to be driving us in the direction of extinction.

Even evolutionists know that this is happening but according to their belief system, there have to be many other 'good' mutations (yet to be demonstrated) occurring that have changed unicellular organisms into men over millions of year.

So is macroevolution fact or fantasy?  



-------
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: 01:42 AM on March 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fact.

And those are a bunch of lies.

We know a mutant woman who can see four colors.

That's when you will deny it for a long time, and when you can't deny it anymore, you'll say it's adaptation.



-------
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: 02:18 AM on March 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So is macroevolution fact or fantasy?
 
Fact.


Wrong - fiction.

We know a mutant woman who can see four colors


Meaning what? She can't see all the colors that everybody else can see? So is that loss or gain? Exactly what are you proposing?

That's when you will deny it for a long time, and when you can't deny it anymore, you'll say it's adaptation.


Sorry this sentence makes no sense -please explain.




-------
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: 08:19 AM on March 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Sorry Timbrx, got to jump in here.
Yeah... THIS is when you have to jump... Not when i ask you why the platypus lays eggs... Or what's a kind...

Wrong - fiction.
You have the gift of saying nothing.

We know a mutant woman who can see four colors
Meaning what? She can't see all the colors that everybody else can see? So is that loss or gain?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"She can't see all the colors"... Hahahahahaha!
Oh, man...

The irreducible complexity of the eye is one of your tenets. You should know more about it.
You're amazingly clueless.
Exactly what are you proposing?
Perhaps somebody else will be kind enough to find that question worthy of an answer.
Sorry this sentence makes no sense -please explain.
Nah. Anyone else could understand it (except perhaps for gluteus).


(Edited by wisp 3/30/2009 at 11:57 AM).


-------
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: 09:50 AM on March 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp -
We know a mutant woman who can see four colors



Lester -



Meaning what? She can't see all the colors that everybody else can see? So is that loss or gain? Exactly what are you proposing?


Lester - Wisp is laughing because when he says a woman who can see 4 colors, he means a woman who has the extraordinary ability to see vastly more colors than you or me.  He's talking about a woman with tetrachromatic vision.  

Most people have 3 color cone cells in their retina - blue, green, and red.  They are referred to as trichromats.  Some people are missing one type of color cone cell, and thus are color blind in one or more colors.  But a woman with tetrachromatic vision has an extra color cone cell, and can see vastly more shades of color.  Because this genetic mutation can only occur on the 'X' chromasome (on the leg of the chromasome that men are missing) only women can have this extraordinary ability.

Demon brought this up a while back on another thread.

Here, read about it.

Tetrachromatic Vision in Women

(Edited by orion 3/31/2009 at 11:00 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:26 AM on March 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are plenty of colors out there. But we can only see three really.

Our brain analyzes the combination of the three wavelengths that we can perceive, and makes up an approximation of the real color.

That's the best that Evolution could do.

Check your TV screen. Any color your screen shows is made from those three (in this case what you see is what you get).

To a true tetrachromat your TV screen looks dull.

Why couldn't God come up with some design that allowed us to see every wave length (at least from the visible spectrum)?

Perhaps it's green for plants, red for ripe frut, and blue to be able to know the wheather.

---

This shows the way Evolution and Creationism are different things.

The TOE is about knowing stuff. Creationism is always about ignoring stuff.

-We don't know how something happened, so God did it.

-We don't know how something happened, so let's find out.

Which one sounds better?



-------
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: 1:23 PM on March 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We know a mutant woman who can see four colors.


I have 12 alsatian dogs. In the last batch of puppies, one turned up with brown in it instead of solid black -is this evolution then!!?

I read the article about tetrachromatic vision and it doesn't say enough about anything to get to the bottom of where this additional cone came from. Was it more common historically? Did everyone have it once apon a time? Is it a recessive trait?
You can assume evolutionary advancement if you like (I'm sure you do like) but you may be incorrect. If I were you, I'd do more homework before becoming too excited.

The TOE is about knowing stuff. Creationism is always about ignoring stuff.


Not really. The way I see it, evolutionists are the ones ignoring stuff. They ignore the general entropy that exists all around us, the law that says everything is falling apart not getting better. They ignore the mutational load and the lack of evidence for the assumption of onward upward evolution. They ignore the vast gaps in the fossil record as if they were unimportant. They ignore all the many problems with origin of life research (they remain optimistic). They ignore or explain away anything that turns up in the wrong place or position in the fossil record. They ignore obvious design when they see it and pretend it does not exist. They ignore the paucity of transitionals amongst the multibillions of fossils. As I see it, they are actually in the business of ignoring anything that does not fit with their philosophy.

We don't know how something happened, so let's find out


But if we find something that does not fit, lets ignore it or explain it away in order to keep our assumptions intact. Evolution is a FACT!!

We don't know how something happened, so God did it.


Actually we know that God exists and since he is the creator and gave us brains to operate with, he no doubt expects us to enjoy finding out how and why he did it. Creationists tend to not see junk when they can't explain something. Usually and unlike evolutionists they will not be in a hurry to declare anything an evolutionary remnant -rather they will try to find its function. Creationists don't assume that non-coding DNA is evolutionary junk so they are more likely to keep looking.




-------
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: 06:18 AM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We know a mutant woman who can see four colors.
I have 12 alsatian dogs. In the last batch of puppies, one turned up with brown in it instead of solid black -is this evolution then!!?
I don't understand your use of the word "then", but i sure don't feel like talking about your brown dog and explaining recessive genes to you.

I read the article about tetrachromatic vision and it doesn't say enough about anything to get to the bottom of where this additional cone came from.
Yes it does. It's a copy mistake that... Bah, forget it.
Was it more common historically? Did everyone have it once apon a time? Is it a recessive trait?
Hahaha! How didn't i see this coming?

No! We did not!
It's a disadvantage that gives those women color-blind sons!
And yet it shows clearly how mutations can give you an advantage.

The only way everyone would have this in the past is that our Y chromosome was more like an X.
Yet we see our relative species, and we're all the same. Our Y chromosome didn't "devolve" just in the right way to look like those of the rest of the primates.

Yu're still amazingly ignorant of these things you're trying to discuss.

You can assume evolutionary advancement if you like (I'm sure you do like) but you may be incorrect.
It might be an advance, but it's not right now. So no.
If I were you, I'd do more homework before becoming too excited.
No, you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do your homework if your life depended on it.

The TOE is about knowing stuff. Creationism is always about ignoring stuff.
Not really.
Yeah. Really. All your "positive evidence" has been debunked. And the rest of your "evidence" consists in ignoring stuff, like how we got the biological diversity we see today.
The way I see it,
Which has been proven worthless.
evolutionists are the ones ignoring stuff.
Hahaha! You're funny! Let's see...
They ignore the general entropy that exists all around us, the law that says everything is falling apart not getting better.
I don't. I know a whole lot more about entropy than you could ever understand.
I know, for instance, that the law of entropy DOESN'T say what you said.
And no matter how many times i refute this, you'll keep bringing it up.
Not EVERYTHING is falling appart. Isolated systems as a whole are.

The Solar System as a whole (whose main interaction is with empty space) is falling apart indeed.

Little Earth is NOT. We're NOT isolated. We receive energy from the Sun.

You'll try not to understand this (successfully in all likelihood). And you won't take it back even if you accidentally do.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. And you don't care about thermodynamics (i do). You only pretend to care about it because in your mind it proves Evolution wrong.

They ignore the mutational load and the lack of evidence for the assumption of onward upward evolution.
There's plenty of evidence. Like mutant bacteria digesting nylon.
They ignore the vast gaps in the fossil record as if they were unimportant.
No we don't. We learned from it. It tells us how things evolve. In many cases it's in small population and in a short period of time (a few million years).
They ignore all the many problems with origin of life research (they remain optimistic).
No we don't. We all know that God started life. He made the first cell and He's scratching Himself and yawning every once in a while ever since.
We're here to discuss Evolution. Not Abiogenesis. If Abiogenesis was wrong, Evolution would still be true, so focus.
They ignore or explain away anything that turns up in the wrong place or position in the fossil record.
Of which you'll present NO EXAMPLES.
They ignore obvious design when they see it and pretend it does not exist.
We have explained the apparent designs (like snowflakes and other crystals and other dissipative systems).
You can't explain where parasites come from, and where did they get their cool designs.

You ignore the millions of traits in life that are there for attack or defense. Everyone was peaceful in the Garden of Eden, so? How did this happen if not by Evolution?
They ignore the paucity of transitionals amongst the multibillions of fossils.
"Paucity" means "insufficiency". So the paucity of transitionals would mean... That they're insufficient to what? To make you shut up? Nothing is.
As I see it, they are actually in the business of ignoring anything that does not fit with their philosophy.
How come, then, you're not able to present a single valid case?

Actually we know that God exists
I don't even know what you mean. But i'm sure i can prove you wrong very easily.
and since he is the creator and gave us brains to operate with,
Care to present any evidence to back that up, besides some obviousness of design that could be evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
he no doubt expects us to enjoy finding out how and why he did it.
No doubt. Except that you have found nothing.
Creationists tend to not see junk when they can't explain something.
It's called "bias".
Usually and unlike evolutionists they will not be in a hurry to declare anything an evolutionary remnant -rather they will try to find its function.
We're not hurried. We're quick. And we're not wrong very often. You're always wrong.
Creationists don't assume that non-coding DNA is evolutionary junk so they are more likely to keep looking.
Yet finding nothing.

What they really keep looking at is scientific papers from where to misquote. That's as far as their investigation goes.



-------
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: 08:11 AM on March 31, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, wisp, but lester's right. You do keep ignoring stuff. Anything that exists beyond your own personal understanding seems to be the fault of the observer for not agreeing with your unique perspective. You have proven in your last three posts on this thread that if you think it's settled than it's settled whatever "it" is. Arguing a point with a long diatribe, multiple images and endless single sentence negative responses is not settling this discussion. It is proving lester's point. One good example is siting how "clueless" lester is for not knowing all about eyes when he uses irreducible complexity of the eye as one of his "tenents". It is a demonstration of your ignorance as to what irreducible complexity is about.

Thanks, orion, for explaining the four color thing in a patient and respectful manner.

(Edited by timbrx 3/31/2009 at 2:17 PM).

(Edited by timbrx 3/31/2009 at 2:19 PM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:16 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, since i'm a prick, it proves the ignorant guy right...

What do we ignore? Examples! Specifics!

What???

Entropy? Debunked. I do understand Entropy.
How humble do you want me to be? What for?

Arguing a point with a long diatribe, multiple images and endless single sentence negative responses is not settling this discussion. It is proving lester's point.
That's the creationist proof. The best you can do.
One good example is siting how "clueless" lester is for not knowing all about eyes when he uses irreducible complexity of the eye as one of his "tenents". It is a demonstration of your ignorance as to what irreducible complexity is about.
No. I know what YOU mean by it. You mean that sight is irreducibly complex (even if that's not what most creationists say).

But Lester has no clue. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Ever.

So we ignore stuff. Right? Start a thread for each one.

Do you know about Entropy? Do you really think that EVERYTHING decays every second? No upward mobility? No structures forming without a miracle? Each snowflake is a discrete miracle to you?

Lester says that i don't do my homework. He has demonstrated his utter ignorance in each post, and i have to be cool with him telling me that?

Meh... You just defend him out of bias. You know he doesn't know what he's talking about (he's still better than gluteus, the truth be told). And arrogant or not, you know that i do (even if you think i'm wrong).



-------
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: 3:25 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

-You ignore or explain away anything that turns up in the wrong place or position in the fossil record.
-Like which ones?
-You see? You ignore them.

---

-You say that this species randomly transformed into this other one? Well, what's in the middle?
-Here. I give you the Tiktaalik.
-You had one gap, and now you have two! You're losing ground!

---

-How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs without looking, and without even knowing that legless lizards existed?
-Avoid subject.

---

-How could snakes and spiders develop fangs and venom just by losing stuff?
-Avoid subject.

---

You don't even have the honesty to say "Hum... Now that you say it, it IS weird... I'm sure there's an explanation that doesn't involve Evolution, but i don't know it. I'll look it up and come back to it."

I'd respect that.

I'd like at least a guess before the lookup, but i'd respect that anyway.

Gluteus and Lester10 are always playing dumb, avoiding subjects and ignoring replies.



-------
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: 3:34 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
The way I see it, evolutionists are the ones ignoring stuff. They ignore the general entropy that exists all around us, the law that says everything is falling apart not getting better.

Oh?  Do you care to cite some evidence/research backing up your statement?  

I find it amusing that you are trying to refute an entire field of science (evolution) by presenting a distorted view of what another area of science says (thermodynamics - specifically the 2nd law).  

Being a chemist by education, I like the following explanation of entropy and the 2nd law.

Entropy and Evolution - Chemistry perspective

From a chemist's viewpoint, this article states:

Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis.

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.


Hmmm, maybe that's why we see complex organic molecules in other regions of the cosmos!  Maybe that's why we see amino acids, and other compounds, present in meteorites!  

Lester & Timbrx, you might find this site rather interesting.  It's by a Christian physicist - Doug Craigen.  He explains entropy and the 2nd Law here:

Entropy and Evolution

You might read some of his other short articles here:
Other articles by Doug Craigen

He makes some interesting comments.  Obviously a man who loves science, but also one who has a strong Christian belief.

However the point I would like to make is that if someone presents a statement that is totally incorrect (as entropy/2nd law of thermodynamics  makes evolution impossible), then by making such a statement you lose a lot of your credibility.  

Also, making generalized statements without backing them up doesn't mean a whole lot.  

(Edited by orion 3/31/2009 at 4:19 PM).

(Edited by orion 3/31/2009 at 11:03 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:09 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
However the point I would like to make is that if someone presents a statement that is totally incorrect (as entropy/2nd law of thermodynamics  makes evolution impossible), then by making such a statement you lose a lot of your credibility.


I agree with you, orion. I think where our discussion breaks down on both sides is trying to fit a complex explanation into a couple of sentences. I understand that as a chemist you see things with a mathematical sort of order and precision. But unfortunately, as wisp has pointed out, the precision immediately brakes down in the explanation. Words fail to convey the entirety of the thought as expressed in the mind of the thinker. I think we would benefit on both sides by not trying to nit pick and trying to understand.

I admit to being guilty of nit picking usually as a defense when my argument starts to unravel. I'll try not to.

What lester means by "general" entropy is not necessarily a mathematical formula but a general perception based on an observation:  systems break down. In any imaginable primordial environment environmental stresses would be extreme. As you know, energy often aids in the breakdown of complex systems. In a pristine laboratory environment with conscious effort applied the self ordering of chemicals into life and life into more complex life remains illusive.

Which leads to my point in starting this thread. I don't want to chase every "what about ..." vestigial rabbit. I want to nail down whether or not "vestigial" is a relevant argument in support of evolution or not.  

orion
Also, making generalized statements without backing them up doesn't mean a whole lot.


I agree (again? twice in one post? I must be trying to butter you up for something, O!)
Which is why I am trying to stay on topic with this thread.

An appendix is considered vestigial because... why?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:55 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, you have not responded to Yehren's post.

Won't you say anything about the bonnethead shark?

You should. Something. At least admit that the hammerhead shark was not an good example.

If you shut up about that, don't bother bringing up "new" stuff.

Your unsupported claims are tiresome.

Orion, that was an excellent article.

Oh, correct your link. The "ref=nofollow" part  breaks your link quite often.

From the page:
It would be arrogant to believe that now that we are a "scientific" people, that if we cannot detect God's working in our microscopes, then He isn't there. The church has gotten sidetracked on this point many times, with horrible results. The Bible is not a text book of Science. It is a mistake either to classify scientific theories as Biblical and non-Biblical, or to believe that the proof of God's existence will be found in the failure of science to explain something. We believe that God set the universe in motion with consistent and sufficient mechanical rules. Science studies those rules.
That's beautiful.
I'm not sure of what it means for this guy to be a Christian, but i like most of what he says.

The article was very clear (probably made for scientific illiterates). But i doubt that Lester will ever take something back. He just abandones it.



-------
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: 6:06 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah nuts!  What's wrong with the dumb links?

Here - the chemist perspective of Entropy and the 2nd law.  It makes a lot of sense to me because of my background in chemistry.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

And for Timbrx and Lester, here's a fine article on the same subject from physics professor Doug Craigen.  I find some of his other short articles very interesting.  

http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/old/evolution.php

Look at some of his other short articles at his 'End of an Era' link.  

http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0908.php


He says in 'Why (bother to) argue with Christian Pseudo-Science':

Finding scientific error in Christian teachings is an exercise that brings me no joy, rather I see it as a necessary chore. It is rather like taking out the garbage at home. Fun? No! But, if I don't do it, its only matter of time until the whole house will be smelly and disease ridden.

A man who seems to honor science integrity, but who also apparently has a deep Christian faith, I would suspect.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:01 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:01 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Ah nuts!  What's wrong with the dumb links?


The site is tacking on a "rel=nofollow" to the url, you have to edit it out for the link to work.



-------
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: 10:13 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with you, orion. I think where our discussion breaks down on both sides is trying to fit a complex explanation into a couple of sentences.
Lester10 doesn't read long answers. Ask him if you don't believe me.
What lester means by "general" entropy is not necessarily a mathematical formula but a general perception based on an observation:
Then why call it a "law"?
He was talking about the second law of entropy.
systems break down.
The isolated ones do. The Earth is not one.
In any imaginable primordial environment environmental stresses would be extreme.
Primordial environment? Are you talking about abiogenesis?
As you know, energy often aids in the breakdown of complex systems.
Very true. Like a huge laser towards a kitten.
In a pristine laboratory environment with conscious effort applied the self ordering of chemicals into life and life into more complex life remains illusive.
Yeah, you're talking about abiogenesis...
But we weren't trying to convince Lester that abiogenesis is true (it is, with all likelihood, but we weren't trying to convince him).
However, i don't think we have elements to say that every environment on Earth was very pressuring. I mean... Many many environments, for a very long time... Perhaps life has arisen lots of times, and then died because of environmental pressure, until it finally catched. But i don't have much hope that i'll ever find out (and i feel actually sad about it).
An appendix is considered vestigial because... why?
Because it does not do the function for which it evolved. And how do we know? Because it's function (my cousin says that it does have a function, like the ganglions, she insisted) is not as important as that of the cecum in other animals.

But you won't believe any of this. And i confess that the appendix isn't my passion. I don't care much about it (i say it like Lester should confess that he doesn't care about thermodynamics).

I want to nail down whether or not "vestigial" is a relevant argument in support of evolution or not.
I think it is. And this is why: A trait (organ/tissue/instinct/etc) that's not functionall at all, or has a limited functionality, should tell us that either:
a) There was a release of some environmental selective pressure.
b) There was a horrible genetic accident, or a limited gene pool.
c) Other traits have evolved, which rendered the vestigial one unimportant.

Evolution would predict that living beings should only have traits that are important, or were important.

The basic answer to that question is that anything that can be explained by Evolution and not by other theories supports Evolution.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to discuss the most obvious cases of vestigiality?
Would you say that toe nails are good to us in some way? Or that we devolved them?

Perhaps you could be more extreme to defend "devolution", and say that Adam and family had long fangs (and we devolved them leaving the long roots behind), thick fur (and we devolved it to this point), could move his ears to better hear sounds from different directions (and devolved to the point that moving them serves no purpose), had a strong plantaris muscle that allowed him to swing from tree branches, had a third eyelid to better see under water, etc.
That would be awesome.
It wouldn't help the Biblical account much (why would we ever have long teeth if we were so peaceful? Why does any fanged animal have fangs?), but still be awesome.



-------
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: 10:13 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But a woman with tetrachromatic vision has an extra color cone cell, and can see vastly more shades of color.  Because this genetic mutation can only occur on the 'X' chromasome (on the leg of the chromasome that men are missing) only women can have this extraordinary ability.


Makes sense; men are VGA; they have 16 colors.  Ask a man what color a paint is, does he ever say:
"It's a kind of mauve with a little bit of cranberry?"


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:16 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren -
Ask a man what color a paint is, does he ever say:
"It's a kind of mauve with a little bit of cranberry?"


:0)   Well, my wife seems to have better color vision than I do.  She even claims I must be slightly color blind (I'm not, so I say).  So having the extra 'color' gene on the 'X' chromasome, even if it doesn't give a women tetrachromatic vision, might give her a slight edge... maybe.  Who knows.

Apoapsis & Wisp - thanks for the note on the link.  I'll keep it in mind in the future.

Now maybe someone can explain a simple thing to me... how do you put quotes into those niffty rectangles outlines?  And how do you use the 'image' insert to paste images?  

I'm a real dummy when it comes to computers... even though I'm a programmer!  For heavens sake!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:53 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp
Evolution would predict that living beings should only have traits that are important, or were important.

Than how does a useful trait arise? For evolution to be consistent it should also predict traits that will BECOME important.  

Even the simplest system in a living thing consists of multiple parts working together. If evolution is true than these multiple parts "developed" either at the same time and began a new function or a bit at a time until they begin to function.

If a useful system suddenly "arose" in a living thing without any previous useless parts as precursors that would be evidence of some type of intentional outside influence.

If a useful system started with useless bits and pieces adding up until they reach some sort of useful "critical mass" than nothing is vestigial and everything is continual flux.

A human appendix could be a transitional phase that could potentially mutate into a new and higher use. In which case it's not "left over" but part of the evolutionary continuum.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:58 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:53 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Now maybe someone can explain a simple thing to me... how do you put quotes into those niffty rectangles outlines?  And how do you use the 'image' insert to paste images?  


Instead of using the "new reply" button at the bottom of the page, hit the "quote" button up by the red "report post" sign.   The entire post will show up using the quote tags.  Edit out what you don't want.  For the images, find the image you want, right click and "Copy image location", then return to the edit post page, hit the image button above the color bar.  It will ask for an image URL.  Control-C in the url field to paste the link.





-------
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: 11:05 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:05 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 10:53 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Now maybe someone can explain a simple thing to me... how do you put quotes into those niffty rectangles outlines?  And how do you use the 'image' insert to paste images?  


Ah!!!!  I have evolved!  Or at least adapted.  You can't imagine how long this has annoyed me not to be able to do this.  Thanks Apoapsis.

For my next trick...

Instead of using the "new reply" button at the bottom of the page, hit the "quote" button up by the red "report post" sign.   The entire post will show up using the quote tags.  Edit out what you don't want.  For the images, find the image you want, right click and "Copy image location", then return to the edit post page, hit the image button above the color bar.  It will ask for an image URL.  Control-C in the url field to paste the link.







 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:12 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For heavens sake, it didn't come out right!  Aghhhh!  But I'll get it right next time.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:14 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:58 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Than how does a useful trait arise? For evolution to be consistent it should also predict traits that will BECOME important.  


A "vestigal" component in an organism may become important if the environment changes.  For instance, if humans all of a sudden needed to become tree dwelling, the 10% or so of the population who are lacking a plantaris muscle would be at a disadvantage, and those who have one that is more functional than others would have a large advantage.

You can't predict what will BECOME an advantage without knowing ahead of time what the environment will be.




(Edited by Apoapsis 3/31/2009 at 11:17 PM).


-------
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: 11:16 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:14 PM on March 31, 2009 :
For heavens sake, it didn't come out right!  Aghhhh!  But I'll get it right next time.  


That's what the "edit" button is for, you can fix it.



-------
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: 11:18 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:12 PM on March 31, 2009 :

Quote from orion at 10:53 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Now maybe someone can explain a simple thing to me... how do you put quotes into those niffty rectangles outlines?  And how do you use the 'image' insert to paste images?  


Ah!!!!  I have evolved!  Or at least adapted.  You can't imagine how long this has annoyed me not to be able to do this.  Thanks Apoapsis.

For my next trick...

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:05 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Instead of using the "new reply" button at the bottom of the page, hit the "quote" button up by the red "report post" sign.   The entire post will show up using the quote tags.  Edit out what you don't want.  For the images, find the image you want, right click and "Copy image location", then return to the edit post page, hit the image button above the color bar.  It will ask for an image URL.  Control-C in the url field to paste the link.


Be careful with the quote tag nesting, preview is helpful when you're doing something complicated.





-------
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: 11:22 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion, the code for quoting is this (with brackets): (quote)quoted text(/quote)

(I always thought that quoting in bold was just your stile, and i thought the same about Demon38)

The code for images is this (img)img url(/img)

You can check the url of an image by right clicking on it, and selecting "properties", and then copypasting, or you can just right click on them and selecting "copy image location".

You can also drag the image and drop it in wordpad or a text box. The url will be pasted.

The code for links is this (always brackets):
(url=http://www.whatever.com)Description.(/url)

You can insert a link to an image too (i'll let you do the math).  

If you want to quote quotes within quotes, it goes like this:

(quote)(b)You:(/b)(quote)(b)Me:(/b)(quote)(b)You:(/b)
Hi.(/quote)Hi, how are you?(/quote)I'm fine, thanks! And you?(/quote)I'm also fine.

In that case "you" said "hi" first.

That's how i do it anyway. It's a nice mental exercise. xD

And if you use a color, like i do, it gets far more complex. Haha!

Evolution would predict that living beings should only have traits that are important, or were important.
Than how does a useful trait arise?
Huh? Mutation and selection. I get this feeling that you wanted a better answer, but i don't know what it might be.
For evolution to be consistent it should also predict traits that will BECOME important.
Hum... I don't see why... Well, actually i don't get exactly what you mean.

If we know the future of the environmental pressures upon a species we can make some good guesses. But surprises would happen anyway.
We can also make predictions if a new selective pressure is at work right now.
Even the simplest system in a living thing consists of multiple parts working together.
Yeah.
If evolution is true than these multiple parts "developed" either at the same time and began a new function or a bit at a time until they begin to function.
Yeah, well, you can forget about "at the same time".
Everything we have is evolvable by baby steps (except some weird mutation that instead of putting antennae in a fly's head it gives it some advantage, but that would be VERY rare).

Big changes have very few chances of success.

Let's say we lose our eyes (and let's not talk about how and why). People with more skin sensitivity to light would have an advantage: they could "feel" light sources.
Mutations will eventually make genes for a little bit more sensible skin.
But when it goes beyond some point, light sensitivity is no longer an advantage, because your skin protects you less.

But those who limit the sensible skin to a certain area will have protective skin AND light-sensible skin.
The more sensible the area is, the smaller it needs to be.

It will sense higher and higher wavelengths (always baby steps). The sensible area will become concave because it's more efficient at determining the source of light. It will become dual to perceive in 3D. A transparent layer will be developed to protect the sensible area as it goes more concave.
Cells that specialize in different wavelengths will be developed, if colors are important for the species.
The structure will develop a harder transparent mass that will act as a lens. It will be rigid and movable or, if Evolution fucks up again, it will be bendable.

If a useful system suddenly "arose" in a living thingwithout any previous useless parts as precursors
You know we don't say that. Only useful parts as precursors.
that would be evidence of some type of intentional outside influence.
Yes. A strong and compelling evidence.
If a useful system started with useless bits and pieces adding up until they reach some sort of useful "critical mass"
There's no such a point. And it's beginning to sound like a strawman.
than nothing is vestigial and everything is continual flux.
I don't see why, but it doesn't matter, since nobody (that i know of) would say such that a useful system started with useless bits and pieces adding up until they reach some sort of useful "critical mass".
A human appendix could be a transitional phase that could potentially mutate into a new and higher use.
Yes. It could.
In which case it's not "left over" but part of the evolutionary continuum.
Just names and tags that are not committed to reality. It doesn't matter how you name them.

But yes. I'd say any vestigial could find some new use, become important and start developing.

Both tags (vestigial and developing) could be applied at the same time.

Can we talk about toe nails and goose bumps now?


(Edited by wisp 3/31/2009 at 11:54 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: 11:48 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:05 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 10:53 PM on March 31, 2009 :
Now maybe someone can explain a simple thing to me... how do you put quotes into those niffty rectangles outlines?  And how do you use the 'image' insert to paste images?  


Instead of using the "new reply" button at the bottom of the page, hit the "quote" button up by the red "report post" sign.   The entire post will show up using the quote tags.  Edit out what you don't want.  For the images, find the image you want, right click and "Copy image location", then return to the edit post page, hit the image button above the color bar.  It will ask for an image URL.  Control-C in the url field to paste the link.






Presto... an image that will impress everyone!

SECURITY ALERT: null

Hmmm, how did that get there?  Let me try again...  I command the image to appear!

Abaracadabera!





Ah!!!  It works.  Now for the real thing!


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:53 PM on March 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I SOOO downloaded that image...

Edit: It looks a bit like my avatar.


(Edited by wisp 4/1/2009 at 12:30 AM).


-------
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: 12:01 AM on April 1, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THAT is a great image.


-------
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: 12:16 AM on April 1, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 ]
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.