Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@Leadfoot,

Nah...Set has his own committee (of selves) . But you are right , I has been 'done' here. Smile

0 Replies

There are some assholes here who can't seem to post without dragging my name into it.

@Setanta,

You shouldn't talk about farmerman that way. Besides, you're the one who dragged yourself into the conversation (and brought nothing but insults with you)

0 Replies

Actually, my comments about natural selection and the complete lack of evidence from the IDiot crowd are germane. If it is insulting to you to have your bullshit called bullshit, then don't post bullshit.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Im amazed at the controversy that the IDesr stipp try to convince themselves that the pile of evidence that science has developed supports their worldview.

They state this but never expand on it.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

and fresco

Quote:

Bounds are bounds, whether the phenotype becomes extinct by genetics or nat selection is kinda immaterial no? ALL DNA insertions or mutations or copying MUST be associated with whats already there. I cant see a mammal coding for gills. Look at whales, how long did it take for cetaceans to leave the dry land and occupy the waters?? Did they develop gills? of course not. Youve gotta spend some more time ferreting out these associations of genotype and phenotype

What do you mean of course not? The only reason you can say of course not is because gills didn't appear in the genetic code to cause them to develop on mammals. Why do we have a duckbill platypus but not a whale with gills? The amazing thing is that with all the possible mutations that could happen to evolve through nmutations to higher complexity (or death with death being more likely) happened in exactly the right way so, that a cow (and the millions of necessary biospheres and organisms necessary for its survival), all evolved at the same time, in the correct order and without destroying itself or the biosphere.

What makes that amazing is matter is not capable of randomly guiding itself to do that. We cannot get matter in a computer program to create one chapter of a novel let alone a sequel because matter cannot create, it only reveals an intelligent beings (man and God's) ability to create.

Understanding the genotype and phenotype and how they affect evolution does not reveal the amazing ability of random actions to develop complex organisms, it reveals your ability to understand the physical results of somebody else's intelligence. An intelligence that built a living system, that was started so long ago it is hard to identify that intelligence's exact identity.

The difficulty in determining the identity because, the system is so vast and complex (and we are so small and so simple in comparison) and, while at the same time so much time has passed (a time when the intelligence is resting and not creating except in the heart of believers) doesn't mean science should rule out intelligence and give all the credit to chance for the development of everything we observe and feel.

Quote:

It only if some advantage in offspring is realized will any mutation be selected for, even genetic drift is a kind of adaptation

Genetic drift never drifts in the right direction without preset boundaries. Preset boundaries are always set by somebody. They are set today by humans in comparatively small and simple things we do in building civilizations, and in the ancient past with things as complex as developing intelligent life that can contemplate the universe by a greater intelligence so that intelligent being's can discover purpose in it.

Why do you think the pattern of intelligence being necessary for the boundary setting which develops complexity (which we only observe in humans) was different in the past than it is today?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im amazed at the controversy that the IDesr stipp try to convince themselves that the pile of evidence that science has developed supports their worldview.

They state this but never expand on it.

Scientifically, we only directly observe complexity being introduced by humans today. And we know the reason for that is because we are the only organism we can observe creating by using intelligent thought to manipulate matter. Why do you think the pattern of, "intelligence being necessary for the boundary setting which develops complexity we observe today" was different in the past when establishing the boundaries to create matter and life? I don't think it is scientific understanding to say,"the pattern of intelligence being necessary for complex boundary setting" we observe today-- did not following through into the ancient past". Can you explain that? It seems like an obvious scientific pattern to me. Could you expand on this?

1 Reply

Actually, this last post betrays the primitive mind-set of the creationists. It is not true, of course, that only humans create things. Birds build nest, and so do insects. Octopi on the floor of the Mediterranean build "houses." Chimpanzees make and use tools. But the simple-minded (and unimaginative) view of the creationists is that all things are created, and as we don't have the power to create worlds, there must be a higher order being who has done so. Hence, there must be a creator god. That simple-mindedness sees everything around them as puposive, Then they take that a step further, and with a silly childish conceit, see themselves as the object of creation. From there, it's just a trip and a tumble down the stairs to see the development of life forms as following some silly plan that they imagine, lacking the depth of understanding to comprehend a vast, random and uncaring cosmos into which consciousness has arisen. The IDiots are the most disgusting of the creationist bunch, because they don't even have the honesty to acknowledge their belief that the "design" is to create humans as the pinnacle of creation, and the putative intelligence behind that is, of course, their magic sky daddy.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You are correct birds build nests. They build the same nest every year and every generation. They don't build it for a purpose they just do it. Humans create new things for new purposes. You cannot compare human creative thought to the instincts of a bird. Those two systems operate differently. I have never seen a bird invent a new and improved nest. It is more like a machine designed to build one type of nest.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

What do you mean of course not? The only reason you can say of course not is because gills didn't appear in the genetic code to cause them to develop on mammals.

Are you certain of that statement?? Gills, teeth, fethers, scales, toes etc etc, can be seen on all sorts of phyla and NOT SEEN on others. Not becauase genes arent there, but that they are turned off or on. Youve heard oif pseudogenes no? It doesnt mean that these are something else playing a role of genes. It means that once genes were turnd on and now are off and have been entitled pseudogenes.

Quote:

with all the possible mutations that could happen to evolve through nmutations to higher complexity (or death with death being more likely) happened in exactly the right way so, that a cow (and the millions of necessary biospheres and organisms necessary for its survival), all evolved at the same time, in the correct order and without destroying itself or the biosphere

Have you ver gone to musuems and looked through the vast collections of the vast number of evolutionary "losers" that lasted but a few hundred thousand years (wrt the then current environments). You seem to forget that the "cow" is part of several groups of even toed (not odd toes) "dactylic ungulates". "Cows" are functionally related to hippos, bison, goats gazelles, giraffes , deer,moose, sheep, camels and even whales etc etc. They evolved in clusters from the PALEOGENE through the NEOGENE (hardly at "just the right time") as functions of environmental adaptation (Why not find a cladistic diagram of artiodactyl mammals and see their actual evolution in time).

Your stories (and they are just precious stories) sometimes get all bolixed up and devoid of actual facts.
Why did bovids evolve in separate clades between the old and new worlds? Could it be that much of the evolutionary roots were established BEFORE continental drift separated these clades so that they are ancestral of related daughter species??

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

"intelligence being necessary for the boundary setting which develops complexity we observe today" was different in the past when establishing the boundaries to create matter and life? I don't think it is scientific understanding to say,"the pattern of intelligence being necessary for complex boundary setting" we observe today-- did not following through into the ancient past"

You seem to want someone to believe that you know of what you speak. Please show me how you believe that environment,population dynamics,species behavior or genetics doNOT drive future evolution?? The fossil record alone casts huge doubts on your beliefs. Fossils dont occur showing us the development of the "just right" species, instead, they represent the chaff and ruins of many many species who didnt have any long term advantage. Thats why we see huge chrono overlaps of species like birds (first appearing in the Jurassic and not fully developing into major clades until the Paleogene) Weve seen tetrapod lizards with flight feathers and tru birds with teeth for over 100 million years worth of fossils. I would like to liten to the ID story about how thi comes about?

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

By the way, if anyone here is lying, it's the religionists who pretend they're not talking about their magic sky daddy. Those same folks are engaged in hilariously obvious and inept question-begging by assuming a design and an intelligence for which they provide not a shred of evidence. You folks aren't looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion, you've just set out to attempt to shoe-horn a feeble and incomplete bag of evidence into your preconceived assumption that there is an intelligence and a design. Until you provide some evidence, your entire participation here is pointless. But thanks for insulting everyone's intelligence and insulting people themselves because they don't start from the same puerile assumptions.

Sorry, Nothing but insults here. Not a single attempt at refuting ID arguments. But I assume you can always revert to assertions that ID has made no arguments ala farmerman.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im amazed at the controversy that the IDesr stipp try to convince themselves that the pile of evidence that science has developed supports their worldview.

Just curious about your perception of what happened in only a few years after Darwin published 'Origin'.

Prior to and immediately after first publication, Darwin was roundly rejected by the science community. But in the next few short years there was an almost complete turnaround in their perception and it was accepted whole heartedly.

The thing I'd point out is that it was not evidence that made that happen, it was 99+ % just the power of the argument itself that did it. The evidence in the field was much the same before as after. For 'science' that flatters itself for being evidence driven, this ought to give one pause I'd think.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

True: https://www.livescience.com/49109-bird-teeth-common-ancestor.html

Quote:

Modern birds have curved beaks and a hearty digestive tract that help them grind and process food. But the 1861 finding of the fossil bird Archaeopteryx in Germany suggested that birds descended from toothed reptile ancestors, Springer said. And scientists now know that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, carnivorous beasts such as Tyrannosaurus rex, which had a mouth full of sharp teeth.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The first few years after Darwin published EDITION 1 of the Origin, he was mostly beset by the religious leaders and clergy of the nation, The Academy was all behind him and Wallace because they were asked to publish and present as co-dicoverers of this theory .

Some of his most howling detractors were like the Reverend Wilberforce and they were fairly easily dealt with. Supporters , like Huxley and Hooker came to publically support Darwin since Darwin himself was mostly unwilling to leave his estate.

Only two scientists in his circle really came out against him, Richrd OWen and Charles Lyell. Both had separate arguments and Owen was really the only one who was a decided Creationist, while Lyell was arguing against the "time dependency" of the fossil record. If you review a "Variorum" compilation of all of Darwins 6 editions of"The Origin...", you can see that he undertook arguments about his mistakes and his failure to recognize earlier works on transmutation.Most of his scientist detractors had either died or consented to their agreement with Darwin.

As I said before , many many times. Darwin left one huge error un solved--That being the sustainability of inherited traits> Darwin actually believed that these trais would be "diluted" over generqtions so there woul need to be something like a refreshment of the trait.(remember, he knew Nothing of genetics)

As far as the evidence "being the same", whereve you been the last 200 yerw? The fossil record has grown in a manner that has solved most of the development trains of specific species and most higher tqxa. Darwins knowledge of the fossil record was as a "future ky" to where science would better understand the transmutation of species. In this he was dead right. The Creationists have used the argument that these fossils ere merely the display of a species "kind" (as stated in the Bible), never even considering the limitations of trans mutational features or that these many fossils were preserved in an upward proceeding stratigraphic sequence.

His own argument was greatly a "mind experiment" If you read Darwin (Id suggest the first edition since it is loaded with signs of his own surprise in all this) you will see in chapters 10 and 11 the speculations he had about the
1 Limitations of the Geologic record and
2 The succession of life through geologic history
(my paraphrasing)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I assume you can always revert to assertions that ID has made no arguments ala farmerman

Are you praising us for co-discovery of the emptiness of your beliefs? or are you just engaging each of us with more of your passive aggressive style of debate??

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You seem to want someone to believe that you know of what you speak. Please show me how you believe that environment,population dynamics,species behavior or genetics doNOT drive future evolution??

I do believe they all drive future evolution. ID guided evolution would not work without the designer understanding that either the living system has to either be predesignated to adapt to environmental changes while, developing the synergistic relationships between species within biospheres. The right mutations (or pseudogenes being switched off and on) were there for the dna to evolve to match the environmental and bio spherical needs of the time and the future. There appears to be a considerable amount of foresight written into the dna or very coincidental mutating. (which you keep pointing out every time you say I don't understand the intricacies of biological evolution and the complex way in which dna always has the answer when the environment changes).

Quote:

The fossil record alone casts huge doubts on your beliefs. Fossils dont occur showing us the development of the "just right" species, instead, they represent the chaff and ruins of many many species who didnt have any long term advantage.

The fossil record looks exactly like I would expect it to look if an IDer wanted species to evolve and adapt to changes in the environment while providing a demonstration of beauty, variability while, revealing his desire for love and morality when it comes to the human family. (a desire we chose to ignore at times with dire personal and enviromental consequences) Of course there would be some differences in time that some species survived. The important thing is that "all" adapted and survived for a while and contributed in there own unique way to a very complex multilayered biosphere that was constantly changing. Without a designer, nearly all life should have died when the first cataclysmic environmental change occurred with little chance of recovery unless, recovery was programmed into the system and/or someone (maybe Noah) introduced a new batch of 7 (7 means as many as it takes in the bible) clean animals that he had developed by evolving them from the one unclean animal of each type of creature.

But, that would mean Noah would have had to existed millions of years ago and lived for millions of years to match the fossil record and guide evolution as he introduced the clean animals to the earth. (which would have made him godlike like the gods of mythology). And the forty days of the flood would have actually taken millions of years (which is exactly what the author of the bible meant if you do the research)

Now this throws a monkey wrench into Darwinian evolution by adding intelligence, and another monkey wrench into young earth theistic evolution by adding millions of years to the bible story. (But, it works if a year in the bible before the flood, is thousands or millions of years longer than a year after the flood.) This would also make the flood the Big Bang transition event (rather than the quantum creation event) from a nearly perfect compacted universe to the inflated dying universe that we observe today.

But for someone like you, who doesn't even believe that intelligence is always necessary to initiate complexity, I would expect this adaption of the God of the bible into the story of evolution as its told by the fossil record is mighty hard to swallow. (and just as hard to swallow for most Christians)

There I offered you a plausible intermediary in Noah as a go between nature and God to guide evolution, and he is identified in the bible.

The fossil record completely supports this proposition, there is documented historical evidence identifying the source of the ancient intelligence (and how he did it), and it provides a plausible explanation to all the complexity we observe other than the anthropic principle combined with there is enough disorder in the unobserved multiverse to account for the extreme complexity we observe here.(or all the losers to the lottery in the millions or billions of other dead universes to account for all the winners that live here)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Fossils dont occur showing us the development of the "just right" species, instead, they represent the chaff and ruins of many many species who didnt have any long term advantage. Thats why we see huge chrono overlaps of species like birds (first appearing in the Jurassic and not fully developing into major clades until the Paleogene) Weve seen tetrapod lizards with flight feathers and tru birds with teeth for over 100 million years worth of fossils.

The Jurassic could be preflood and the Paleogene could be post flood.(maybe)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Flood? oy

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

The fossil record looks exactly like I would expect it to look if an IDer wanted species to evolve and adapt to changes in the environment while providing a demonstration of beauty, variability while, revealing his desire for love and morality when it comes to the human family.

Wow, unproveable word salads again . So your intelligent "designer" has nothing to do with the environment itself , just the flotsam of the 99.9999% of extinct evolution. I wonder why youve limited this guy. If it can "design" why cant it set the stage?? I think its because you know youre dancing very close to the edge of mythology.(Your science stories should probably begin with "once upon a time")

My feelings are that I dont think youve spent any time looking at any of the variability and biogeographical differences of life through time.
You seem convinced that ID is a fact and, well, As long as youre not on some school board or a research director, you are not detracting from the way science proceeds.

Whenever you feel youve got some evidence that even hints of an ID agent, Ill look in from time to time to see what it may show.

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know