0
   

The Intelligent Designers - who were they?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 02:08 pm
real life wrote:
As you know Ros, it is not empirical evidence that is under question, but the interpretation[/b] of evidence.


So your interpretation[/b] is that poofism caused the evidence we see. That's fine, just don't try to foist it off as anything other than poofism. If you have a non-poofism based interpretation[/b] of the evidence, then let's hear it.

But if you want to talk about a valid scientific interpretation[/b] of the evidence, then there is absolutely no question; evolution is a fact. It happened and it's happening.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 08:05 pm
What's that lapping noise?

Lapus lazuli

lapidary?

Lap dog?

Oh! Ad lapidem. . . :wink:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/fallacies.html
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 10:04 pm
neologist wrote:
What's that lapping noise?


It's you, licking RL's shoes.

I haven't stated anything which isn't known scientific fact. It's not like I said that Santa was real, or that Leprechauns hide gold at the end of rainbows, or that Adam and Eve were literally real. THOSE would be baseless statements.

All I've done is state standard scientific knowledge.

If you want to go around complaining every time someone states a known fact, then you're going to be doing a lot of complaining.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:14 am
If evolution is a fact, then why isn't it occurring today?

Where are the examples of half formed organs that are currently 'evolving'?

There should be tens of thousands of examples of evolution in progress -- new organs, new biological systems being formed-- where are they?
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:57 am
real life wrote:
If evolution is a fact, then why isn't it occurring today?


What in the world makes you think it isn't?

real life wrote:
Where are the examples of half formed organs that are currently 'evolving'?


The only way somebody can say an organ is half-formed (whatever "formed" is supposed to mean) is to know what the fully-formed organ would look like. You are essentially asking people to view the future and report back an answer to you. Able2Know is a non-prophet forum.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 08:53 am
The state of Michigan recently defeated an attempt to have intelligent design taught in science class. A local Michigan newspaper published this letter from an angry reader:

Quote:
After reading Tim Martin's article Oct. 11 on the State Board of Education, I could not restrain myself any longer, and must respond to the folly of evolution, an unproven theory. What does scripture in the Bible say? "How the mighty have fallen."

I think the board implied that creation science could not elevate itself to the higher thought and reason of evolution, this reasoning coming from men with doctorate as well as master's degrees. We who live and read and submit ourselves to wisdom, which can only come from our "Creator" and not from the dregs of the primordial slime, will again attempt to reason within the board's folly.

Do the words "quantum leap" or "mutant scenario" have any significance in your evolution doctrine? Well you might consider this premise and all its implications: "The life is in the blood."

The evolutionists cannot foist on us their concoction of misalliance of prehistoric bones and then formulate an educational agenda.

It would take a quantum leap to change the blood of a fish and have it eventually become an elephant or take the blood of a fish and change it to fit a human, etc. You may be getting the picture.

With cognitive thinking, logic and minimal analysis, we soon discover there is not enough time and conditions to formulate a successful transition from primordial slime to God's highest creation, "man."

So we leave you to your folly; I will be thinking of the board of education when I visit the Binder Park Zoo, when studying the monkey cage and considering which one may be a potential candidate for the board.

We who continue to honor our Creator, leave you higher educated ones to devise your downward spiral into oblivion.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:25 am
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
If evolution is a fact, then why isn't it occurring today?


What in the world makes you think it isn't?

real life wrote:
Where are the examples of half formed organs that are currently 'evolving'?


The only way somebody can say an organ is half-formed (whatever "formed" is supposed to mean) is to know what the fully-formed organ would look like. You are essentially asking people to view the future and report back an answer to you. Able2Know is a non-prophet forum.


Please.

Are you telling me that your eye or your arm or your intestine if it was half formed would be functional? That you could not tell it wasn't complete , based on the fact that it didn't work?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:33 am
Explain your appendix RL? in light of Creation, its purpose is what?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 11:42 am
Real Life keeps asking the same questions. He never responded when Thomas answered him on a different thread.

Thomas wrote:
Quote:
real life wrote:
Do you have any examples of half completed organs or biological systems which are evolving in-progress presently?


Maybe -- but it's unknowable in advance, because evolution is not directed towards any pre-specified design goal. Instead, it's directed towards survival, no matter what physical features achieve it. Thus, our present eyes may well be half-completed infrared sensors; our arms may well be half-completed wings; our noses may well be half-completed, elephant-like trunks. I am sure that a million years in the future, some observer will look at our fossils and discover his contemporary organs in some half-completed state. But it's impossible to know in advance what they will be.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 01:27 pm
Heres a wiki on a few
Quote:
Snake legs and pelvis
Unusable wings on ground-dwelling beetles
Vestigial carotids
Whale legs
Descendant Testes in humans and other primates
Human Tails
Overlapping cone cells in snakes
Plantaris muscle (The muscle that helps monkeys clench their feet, but is vestigal in humans)
Vestigial wings in flightless birds
Vestigial flight feathers in flightless birds
Remnants of chambered shells in some cephalopods
Leg remnants in Legless Lizards
Snake Pelvises
Ovaries in some male frogs
Eyes and eye-moving muscles in caecillians
Gill slits in tetrapods
Ear rotating muscles in some humans
Nocturnal features in diurnal squirrels
Flowers of asexually-reproducing plants



0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 01:46 pm
real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
If evolution is a fact, then why isn't it occurring today?


What in the world makes you think it isn't?

real life wrote:
Where are the examples of half formed organs that are currently 'evolving'?


The only way somebody can say an organ is half-formed (whatever "formed" is supposed to mean) is to know what the fully-formed organ would look like. You are essentially asking people to view the future and report back an answer to you. Able2Know is a non-prophet forum.


Please.

Are you telling me that your eye or your arm or your intestine if it was half formed would be functional? That you could not tell it wasn't complete , based on the fact that it didn't work?


I think an appropriate response to the question of an arm is the fin. According to the theory of evolution, the fin was essentially the ancestral trait of what became arms, so it would be apt to call it a half-formed arm. The fin seems to be quite useful indeed.

farmerman wrote:
Explain your appendix RL? in light of Creation, its purpose is what?


I would also like to hear the answer.

wandeljw wrote:
Real Life keeps asking the same questions. He never responded when Thomas answered him on a different thread.


I figured the question had been asked by RL before, and had been answered before. He has pulled the same stunt regarding the second law of thermodynamics and how this "contradicts" organic evolution. I'm sure there are many more examples of such behavior. It is shameful, to say the least.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 04:59 pm
An obvious work in progress organ would be male breasts. We know how they function on the female, but the male version still has a way to go.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 08:58 pm
real life wrote:
If evolution is a fact, then why isn't it occurring today?

It is.
real life wrote:
Where are the examples of half formed organs that are currently 'evolving'?

For something to be 'half' formed, it would have to have a 'fully' formed target somewhere in the future. But since evolution doesn't have target forms, and doesn't work that way you imply, your entire concept of 'half formed' is meaningless.
real life wrote:
There should be tens of thousands of examples of evolution in progress -- new organs, new biological systems being formed-- where are they?

River banks erode every day, Mt. Everest gets a little bit higher, trees grow. Just because you can't point at it, and say, "There, see, it grew" doesn't mean it isn't happening. But we know it's happening because we can compare the present to the past and see tha change. Obviously evolution is the same, you just refuse to see it.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 10:50 pm
real life wrote:
Are you telling me that your eye or your arm or your intestine if it was half formed would be functional? That you could not tell it wasn't complete , based on the fact that it didn't work?


I found this on the PBS website. It's really interesting.

Quote:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 12:39 am
If you cut an eye in half, that is equal to a half evolved eye. Obviously half an eye is useless, therefore my god created everything.

(Thought I'd just step in for real life for a sec. I'm sure he won't mind.) Twisted Evil

The thing is though, he would have found a way to say the same thing, but make it look perfectly sensible.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 08:16 am
echi wrote:
I found this on the PBS website. It's really interesting.

Quote:
And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.


I'm curious about this calculation they mentioned. That seems like a rather short period of time to do a lot of evolving to me. How did that guy do this calculation?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 08:22 am
Eorl wrote:
If you cut an eye in half, that is equal to a half evolved eye. Obviously half an eye is useless, therefore my god created everything.

(Thought I'd just step in for real life for a sec. I'm sure he won't mind.) Twisted Evil

The thing is though, he would have found a way to say the same thing, but make it look perfectly sensible.


That's pretty good, but you're right, RL has a slicker spin.

Here, let me try one...

The scientist in the article said, each stage in the evolutionary process needed to be beneficial, but what good is a lens without a retina, and what good is a retina without a lens? How could two different things evolve randomly side by side to produce a single functioning organ. It's impossible.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 09:48 am
rosborne,

I found this information [LINK]. Maybe farmerman or someone else can shed some more light on the value of this experiment.

Quote:
In 1994, Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger presented the results of the experiments that they had been running on the evolution of the eye. They wrote computer simulations in order to analyse the rate at which such a complicated optical organ could evolve from a simple initial condition. The abstract of their paper contains the following description;

"Theoretical considerations of eye design allow us to find routes along which
the optical structures of eyes may have evolved. If selection constantly
favours an increase in the amount of detectable spatial information, a
light-sensitive patch will gradually turn into a focused lens eye through
continuous small improvements of design. An upper limit for the number of
generations required for the complete transformation can be calculated with
a minimum of assumptions. Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the
time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years."

Nilsson & Pelger used a few simplifying assumptions in order to carry out this modelling technique. Whenever they were required to make any important assumptions in terms of figures, timescales, rates etc. they always chose the most pessimistic value. That is, the value which would cause the estimated timescale for evolution to be the longest. Even through this technique they discovered that the timescale was of the order of 400,000 years, assuming generations of one year each, i.e. for fish.

This experiment is available in "Nilsson, D.-E., and Pelger, S. 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. In Proc. Royal Soc. London, vol. 256 of Series B, 53--58". It can be downloaded from the following SITE.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 11:35 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Eorl wrote:
If you cut an eye in half, that is equal to a half evolved eye. Obviously half an eye is useless, therefore my god created everything.

(Thought I'd just step in for real life for a sec. I'm sure he won't mind.) Twisted Evil

The thing is though, he would have found a way to say the same thing, but make it look perfectly sensible.


That's pretty good, but you're right, RL has a slicker spin.

Here, let me try one...

The scientist in the article said, each stage in the evolutionary process needed to be beneficial, but what good is a lens without a retina, and what good is a retina without a lens? How could two different things evolve randomly side by side to produce a single functioning organ. It's impossible.


Speaking of two different things--

How about: if the eye 'evolved' randomly from a single patch of light-sensitive skin , then how come we (and most other critters)

a) have TWO of them which just happen to be in the same area of the body (the head),

b)they both just happen to be placed symmetrically on either side of the head,

c)they both just happen to 'report' to exactly the same area of the brain where their data can be deciphered

d)they both just happen to have both evolved to have EXACTLY the same structure

e)they both just happen to work together , focusing at the same time, turning side to side at the same time, dilating at the same time, etc

f)the skull, accomodatingly enough, 'evolved' identical twin holes in itself to allow these remarkable 'patches of skin' to sink down into a protected area

g)the 'skin' in the vicinity of BOTH of these independently 'evolving' skin patches (eyes) also amazingly evolved identical support features , i.e. eyelashes, tear ducts, eye lids, which are identical in every way

and we could go on...........

If the eye 'evolved' from a single patch of light-sensitive skin, doesn't this seem unusual to anyone?

How did TWO eyes 'evolve' if it came from a single patch of light-sensitive skin?
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Oct, 2006 12:50 pm
real life,

There is a tremendous advantage to having two eyes instead of just one. (Close one eye, and go jogging through a forest.)

I can't think of any advanced critters that have only one eye, so my guess is that the selection of this (two eyes) trait goes back quite a long way in the evolutionary chain..... much earlier than the development of skulls, for sure.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 11:52:58