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
     Beneficial random mutations...
       and old TV sets.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Remember old TV sets?


What did people do when for some obscure reason they refused to work properly?
Deliver a good smack on them. And it would often set things right (perhaps you needed to give the thing several smacks).

And i know the easy reply to this: "The function was already there. The smack just corrected an anomaly."

And if you said that, you'd be missing the point.
And the point is: Why would a smack correct anything? Wouldn't that also violate the 2LoT?

Another (sillier) reply would be "It was an intelligent smack".



-------
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: 09:39 AM on May 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the point is...


-------
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: 11:23 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you mocking me or you sincerely don't get 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: 12:16 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, Not mocking -just wondering exactly what your point is here. In an analogy to the creation/ evolution debate, I'd say knocking the TV and getting it to work again is like minor variation within a kind. All the info is there to produce a good picture but keep knocking it and you're never going to get a color TV out of that old black and white because the information just isn't there.    


-------
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: 12:52 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Isn't any improvement even a momentary violation of the 2LoT, according to your beliefs?

And yes, the TV set will stop working if you keep hitting it, but only because there's no natural (or any other kind) selection involved.

I've already shown you what selection can do with random mutations:

And you stood silent about 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: 1:11 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Each step in the process was the result of a virtual smack.


-------
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: 1:13 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


It'll only work like your example if it has a purpose or an end result in mind or memory. It is what you would call specified complexity. Like Mount Rushmore it matches something we can identify with which is why we know Mount Rushmore had an intelligent designer.


-------
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: 1:54 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a fair reply.

Nevertheless in nature living forms have a much broader scope.

They just have to stay alive. Well, to reproduce. By whatever means possible.

In the example of my image the only "success" criterion is to approach to a given image.

In nature it's having offspring. Passing your genes. That's all there is to it.

So, in a sense, it's easier. There are lots of ways to accomplish this. The variety of life is a witness of this broad scope.



-------
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: 1:58 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nevertheless in nature living forms have a much broader scope.


The question is how broad is it? Maybe like the Mona Lisa a certain spectrum of outcomes are programmed into the genes and the environment determines which direction the organism goes in, which outcome it tends toward. The thing is what are the limits?
Evolutionists don't appear to think there are any, that the game has an endless variety of outcomes. We think that it has limits within the 'kind.' There's no experimental, observable evidence to show us that the limits of 'kind' can be broached in principle.
While you are thinking in terms of random mutations producing the information for new organs etc., we say that mutation only degrades the available information which was already programmed in by an intelligence outside of the system.  




-------
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: 02:56 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We think that it has limits within the 'kind.' There's no experimental, observable evidence to show us that the limits of 'kind' can be broached in principle.

Of course there is!  Any organism that displays characteristics of more than one "kind".  Are reptiles and mammals different kinds, if they are the platypus has characteristics of both.  There's just one example that disproves your claim.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:16 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Any organism that displays characteristics of more than one "kind".  


Not really. Tell me what did this one evolve from?

In fact there is no evidence that platypuses have evolved, but there is abundant evidence they have degenerated - which fits the Genesis record precisely. Fossils show that they were anatomically identical in the past just bigger (as were most things) but there is nothing to suggest that they evolved from anything, so you just have to assume that. I assume that that is the way they were created. It fits the evidence much better too!



-------
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 May 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The question is how broad is it?
Pretty broad. It depends on the different environments and the way they interact. This leads to complexity.

Maybe like the Mona Lisa a certain spectrum of outcomes are programmed into the genes and the environment determines which direction the organism goes in, which outcome it tends toward.
Almost close.

There are a certain spectrum of likely outcomes. But those are not programmed in the species, but rather in the environments.

That's how you get convergent evolution.

The environments shape the species. Or, if you prefer, natural selection shapes the species to fit their environments. But let's not get lost in words.

The thing is what are the limits?
I'm not sure what you mean. But nothing supernatural ever emerged. That seems like a clear limit.

Evolutionists don't appear to think there are any,
Well, i just dismissed that claim beforehand.
that the game has an endless variety of outcomes.
Oh, that? Then yeah. Endless. Just like there's an endless number of outcomes for individual humans to appear.

Timbrx has admitted to speciation. You might follow him (you should). And in how many directions could speciation occur?

Endless, of course.

We think that it has limits within the 'kind.'
That's not thinking. That's saying nothing, since nobody ever provided a definition or an explanation to what a kind is.

Coyotes, wolves, dogs, foxes, hyenas, thylacines kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthers, cats, hummingbirds, ostriches, bonobos, chimpanzees, rattlesnake, coral snake, tsukinowaguma bears, polar bears, panda bears, pandas, raccoons, legless lizards, legged lizards...

How many kinds did i mention?

If you can't answer to that, then you said nothing. Perhaps you think you said something that even if you don't understand yourself, perhaps someone else in the world does.

I claim that such a person does not exist. And it's up to you to demonstrate that i'm wrong.

There's no experimental, observable evidence to show us that the limits of 'kind' can be broached in principle.
Since you don't know what a kind is (i make the claim that you don't), this is just more blah blah.

Show us the kinds in my list, or take that back. =D

While you are thinking in terms of random mutations producing the information for new organs etc.,
No, i do not think in those terms. It's creationists who tend to talk about information (again not knowing what they mean).

So take that back. =D
we say that mutation only degrades the available information which was already programmed in by an intelligence outside of the system.
Not so. Many of you also believe that mutations can "awaken" traits that were put there by some intelligent foresight.

So take that back. =D

Not really. Tell me what did this one evolve from?
Yeah, really.

From a reptile, of course.

Do you want the exact one?

Do i even need to tell you that it's the same reptile WE evolved from?

In fact there is no evidence that platypuses have evolved, but there is abundant evidence they have degenerated
Show us.
- which fits the Genesis record precisely.
Claws don't. Hollow fangs carrying venom don't.

Wanna talk about those?

Fossils show that they were anatomically identical in the past just bigger (as were most things) but there is nothing to suggest that they evolved from anything, so you just have to assume that.
I've shown you a clear line from a four legged mammal to whales. You just reply "No". I tell you that the ear system is the same. And that each step looks very close to the previous step, and to the next step. You say "No". And if i show you that each new step only happens upward in the sedimental layers, you... Well, i don't know what you say. You deny it, deny the order based on some altered order of layers that you know but won't show to us, or say that there's a conspiracy... I don't feel like listing your dishonest resources.

If you claim to be intellectually honest, then defend each one of your claims up there, or take them back. =D



-------
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: 10:17 AM on May 24, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.