65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 01:12 am
real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
The idea that the eye has 'evolved' dozens of times independently, but is often built similarly, placed in the same location on the body, uses the same features and chemical processes, has the same supporting structures (eyelids, eyelashes, tear ducts. And how did each critter's skull know it was supposed to evolve twin holes to accomodate eyes that didn't yet exist? ) , etc is so preposterous as to be laughable.


Everyone who actually understands evolution stops reading right there.

The notion that a giant in the sky just "poofed" it all into being is hardly logical by comparison.


Yeah, don't let anybody read further. Dissent is dangerous, huh Eorl?

How many times do YOU think the eye evolved independently, Eorl?

And how do you account for it's similar structures (sure , doubtless some of them are built differently, but MANY of them are VERY similar. That's the ones you need to explain) , placement on the body, chemical processes, and support structures surrounding it , when it all happened independently of one another?

If the eye evolved from 'a single patch of light sensitive skin', how did nearly all critters get TWO of them, symmetrically placed in the same general region (the head)? Just coincidence, right?


Not coincidence at all. Convergent evolution. Two eyes give a vastly greater advantage over one (stereoscopy). Three eyes only slighlty more.


Quote:

Sophisticated eyes evolve because the eye has remarkable powers to help its owner avoid predators, find food, and locate mates. Individuals better at these "big three" are more likely to survive and pass on the traits that have helped in their success. This is the stuff of natural selection, constantly at work to shape an organ over evolutionary time. Several times in the history of animals, very complex eyes evolved with better powers to resolved images of predators, food and mates

The insect and the octopus are two types of animals that have evolved sophisticated eyes. As in all animal groups, there is not just one refined eye structure found in all species in the group. Instead, insect eyes vary in their abilities to resolve images, just as do the eyes of different species cephalopods, the larger group to which octopus belong. There are insects with no eyes, insects with minimal eyes, deep water octopods with no eyes, and the Nautilus, an octopus relative, has eyes that completely lack a lens. As to which eye is more sophisticated, a highly refined insect eye or octopus eye, this is a bit like comparing a good orange with a good apple. As an examination of their biology reveals, both eyes perform impressive feats of imaging, but with very different eye structures, that yield very different biological results


Source:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/octopus-insect.html
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 01:18 am
My "omniscience" yields that you need to define "beneficial" without circularity if you are alluding to a "design argument".
0 Replies
 
c logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:07 am
Eorl wrote:
c_logic, what you are missing is that all these things you are saying are brainwashing propaganda.

Science is just the latest technique being used to pretend that God and all of His Creation is somehow mundane and ordinary, and that human beings are no more than animals, thereby justifying animal attitudes and behaviour.

If you have faith in God, and trust him to show you the truth in you heart, then you will KNOW the REAL truth.

The Enemy's greatest trick was to convince the world he didn't exist !!

(real life, how was that....?)


Well, Eorl, I personally wouldn't justify animal behavior... Humans are just a "different kind of animal".

I honestly don't see why a human is more "worthy" than an animal (in most people's opinion) in absolute terms. Is it only because we say so?

If I had to choose to save a human being vs. an animal, I would - of course - choose to save a human being. Why? Because of bias - I'm human.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:30 am
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
real life wrote:
You must accept presuppositions that cannot be questioned , in effect eliminating any alternative ideas before examining any evidence.


Yes, Methodological Naturalism is the core assumption upon which science is based. Every other alternative idea within the realm of science is considered.

real life wrote:
If evolution is the only game in town, then it must be the answer, right?


Right now it's the best fit to the evidence. No other scientific theory even exists to challenge it. But not only is it the best fit to the evidence, it's an extremely accurate and predictive fit to the evidence. It's so accurate, and so predictive, that's it's considered a fact, just as much as any other piece of knowledge within science.

real life wrote:
Kinda sounds like the same thing you criticize religion for.


I don't criticize religion for having its own view. I criticize the irrationality of trying to wedge supernatural explanations into scientific methodology.

real life wrote:
Both creation and evolution interpret the world and draw inferences that tend toward their own conclusions. Religion is fairly straightforward about this. Evolution is not, but likes to pretend 'objectivity' and 'scientific method' as it's only rule.


Evolution is consistant with logic and evidence. Creation not only relies on wild flights of magic to explain reality, but also relies on wild propositions of logic and action taken by the supposed 'creator'.

Religion and science are allowed to interpret the world differently, but I prefer some semblance of logic and reason to my view of the world. Religion itself can coexist just fine with science, because the don't interact, but Creationism is just insanity (or delusion at best).

real life wrote:
I must say though, you are not getting much slicker in your presentation --- 'given the world as we understand it, we don't understand how it could've happened any other way'.


Did you misquote me on purpose, or do you misread everything this badly?

real life wrote:
I've heard more persuasive lines from telemarketers.


Oh come on, I don't even rank as high as a telemarketer? Smile Maybe you're just too scared of the product to give it a fair chance.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 12:12 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
If evolution is the only game in town, then it must be the answer, right?


Right now it's the best fit to the evidence. No other scientific theory even exists to challenge it. But not only is it the best fit to the evidence, it's an extremely accurate and predictive fit to the evidence. It's so accurate, and so predictive, that's it's considered a fact, just as much as any other piece of knowledge within science.


Yeah I remember when you told me that 'evolution predicted and confirmed that one organism would pass it's traits on to it's offspring', as if mankind hadn't known that for thousands of years prior. Laughing

I predict that a Great Wall is somewhere in China.

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I must say though, you are not getting much slicker in your presentation --- 'given the world as we understand it, we don't understand how it could've happened any other way'.


Did you misquote me on purpose, or do you misread everything this badly?



No, check it again. That's really what you are saying.


rosborne979 wrote:


Given the structures of biology as we currently understand them, it's logically impossible for evolution NOT to be happening (and to have happened).


Now if you don't intend to say so, perhaps you should reword it.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 01:07 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
real life wrote:
I predict that a Great Wall is somewhere in China.

And I predict that you will continue to misrepresent everything you read.

Here's a good example below... I say one thing, and you say another and claim that they mean the same thing.

real life wrote:
'given the world as we understand it, we don't understand how it could've happened any other way'.

rosborne979 wrote:
Given the structures of biology as we currently understand them, it's logically impossible for evolution NOT to be happening (and to have happened).


Those two quotes do not mean the same thing.

real life wrote:
Now if you don't intend to say so, perhaps you should reword it.


Why should I reword it, it was accurate the first time I wrote it and it's still accurate.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:35 pm
real life wrote:
Mutations are usually harmful, or have zero impact. Rarely are they beneficial in any real sense, and certainly not to the extent that the minor difference would convey an immediate 'survival advantage'.


Lance Armstrong has a heart abnormality that could by no stretch of the imagination be concidered a mutation. I believe it has the following effect...

most cyclists have about 40rpm on a flat surface and 20-30rpm on a inclined surface.

Lance Armstrong has 40-50 and 50-60rpms respectively. His heart allows him to process oxygen in a more efficant way than you or I even in top condition.

Would you be surprized to see his offspring have this genetic trait?

This natural occurance of genetic mutation has given him a physical advantage.

Sure he's not running from bears or fighting in wars, but it has allowed him to have a sucessful career which has a direct connection to his ability to excel in other areas of his general life.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 08:39 pm
Diest, all of that makes him attractive to more women, and therefore he is in a better position to choose from the most attractive (fit, healty) women with which to breed.

Men are shallow.... for very deep reasons they aren't even aware of!

(Waits for fireworks.....)
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:49 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
real life wrote:
Mutations are usually harmful, or have zero impact. Rarely are they beneficial in any real sense, and certainly not to the extent that the minor difference would convey an immediate 'survival advantage'.


Lance Armstrong has a heart abnormality that could by no stretch of the imagination be concidered a mutation. I believe it has the following effect...

most cyclists have about 40rpm on a flat surface and 20-30rpm on a inclined surface.

Lance Armstrong has 40-50 and 50-60rpms respectively. His heart allows him to process oxygen in a more efficant way than you or I even in top condition.

Would you be surprized to see his offspring have this genetic trait?

This natural occurance of genetic mutation has given him a physical advantage.

Sure he's not running from bears or fighting in wars, but it has allowed him to have a sucessful career which has a direct connection to his ability to excel in other areas of his general life.


Lance also had cancer. So with one good mutation and one bad one, what is the result?

Well, had he lived in any century but the present one, he'd likely be dead.

Since the overwhelming majority of mutations are bad ( millions get cancer, very few of these cancer victims are championship athletes or have anything close to the physical fitness and money/access to health care enjoyed by Armstrong. So they die quicker.), do you seriously think that the odds are that good mutations will move the species forward?

No.

They will be lost among the surging tide of bad mutations.

Even hardcore evolutionists admit that the majority of mutations are harmful. Give it up.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:54 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I predict that a Great Wall is somewhere in China.

And I predict that you will continue to misrepresent everything you read.

Here's a good example below... I say one thing, and you say another and claim that they mean the same thing.

real life wrote:
'given the world as we understand it, we don't understand how it could've happened any other way'.

rosborne979 wrote:
Given the structures of biology as we currently understand them, it's logically impossible for evolution NOT to be happening (and to have happened).


Those two quotes do not mean the same thing.

real life wrote:
Now if you don't intend to say so, perhaps you should reword it.


Why should I reword it, it was accurate the first time I wrote it and it's still accurate.


They mean exactly the same thing. It's a circular argument.

'We understand it this way, therefore this way is what makes the most sense to us.'

What is it about the circular nature of this that you cannot see?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 10:59 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
real life wrote:
They mean exactly the same thing.


No they don't.

real life wrote:
It's a circular argument.


You're a circular argument.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:02 pm
Re: Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution
real life wrote:
They mean exactly the same thing. It's a circular argument.

'We understand it this way, therefore this way is what makes the most sense to us.'


Now you just came up with a second interpretation of what I said, which isn't what I said.

What are you going to do next, re-write history.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:02 pm
I'll have you know I've lost 20 pounds in the past 6 months.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:06 pm
real life wrote:
I'll have you know I've lost 20 pounds in the past 6 months.


Write a diet book. You'll make millions. Call it "The Chocolate Cake Diet" and it'll sell like wildfire. You don't even have to have any medical credentials, most people believe any BS that someone tells them.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Nov, 2006 11:36 pm
Sorry, I'm not a chocolate cake fan. An occasional Snickers or piece of fudge with milk is cool, though.

I eat sausage and eggs for breakfast frequently, I love fried chicken and cheeseburgers and my cholesterol is 165 and has been for years. How's that grab ya?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 09:46 am
real life wrote:
Sorry, I'm not a chocolate cake fan. An occasional Snickers or piece of fudge with milk is cool, though.

I eat sausage and eggs for breakfast frequently, I love fried chicken and cheeseburgers and my cholesterol is 165 and has been for years. How's that grab ya?


Well, if you're 18 I'm not impressed, but if you're 68 you're doing great.

In either case, it sounds like evolution has given you a good physiology to compete with. Smile Good news for your kids too.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 12:39 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Sorry, I'm not a chocolate cake fan. An occasional Snickers or piece of fudge with milk is cool, though.

I eat sausage and eggs for breakfast frequently, I love fried chicken and cheeseburgers and my cholesterol is 165 and has been for years. How's that grab ya?


Well, if you're 18 I'm not impressed, but if you're 68 you're doing great.

In either case, it sounds like evolution has given you a good physiology to compete with. Smile Good news for your kids too.


Well, I'm neither 18 or 68.

Do you think if I am dug up many years from now that a valid scientific inference would be that all humans living during this time had the same cholesterol as I? How about the same height, weight, build, head shape and size, etc ?

Don't we often make those same kind of sweeping assumptions on the basis of a very few fossil representatives of previous human generations?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 03:09 pm
real life wrote:
Well, I'm neither 18 or 68.


Me either.

real life wrote:
Do you think if I am dug up many years from now that a valid scientific inference would be that all humans living during this time had the same cholesterol as I? How about the same height, weight, build, head shape and size, etc ?


Scientists would not assume that you were an exact representative of ALL humans of this era. But they would probably assume that you were representative of SOME humans. And until other samples were collected, you would probably be considered average. As new samples were added, the representative distribution would be adjusted to account for the evidence (standard procedure).

real life wrote:
Don't we often make those same kind of sweeping assumptions on the basis of a very few fossil representatives of previous human generations?


The less evidence we have, the less sweeping the assumptions. But with only one data point to go from, you kind of have to assume you are looking at something 'average'. It would be crazy to assume you found something bizarre (even though it would be possible).

That's why science re-evaluates its theories and assumptions as new evidence is found.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 07:53 pm
RL, if you can't accept my Armstrong analogy, then how about this.

In parts Africa, if you are born with sickle cell anemia, you are immune to Malaria. This genetic mutation at galce seems like a mutation for the worse, but a genetic divide such as this actually can provide support for life in our present circumstances with the avalible treatments around for either disease. Oh and guess what, if you just have the sickle homoglobin (a ressesive trait), you'll be immune to malaria as well and no sickel cell anemia. So carriers of the Sickle homoglobin are also immune!

You seemed to think that pointing out if Lance Armstrong were around in the middle ages his genetic makeup would lead to his imediate dimise, and while this may be true, it is NOT the real senario. His is a genetic mutation in the present world, as with the Malaria.

Another example is HIV (or most other viruses for that matter). Viruses mutate all the time and it's for the better of their survival. Creationists would have to argue that every sort of species around right now would have always had to have been present in some genetic form.

Hell, the common Flu mutates yearly into new strands, and not for it's worse, for ours. You can't see mutations on our level (humans) because our lifetime (gestation, birth, life, reproduction, etc) is too long for large dramatic genetic anomolies to make themselves known. If you scale down to a lifeform on a celluar scale that reproduces a seemingly infinate number genrations in your lifetime, you're going to see mutations.

Ever take antibiotics? If you don't finish your perscriptions the only viruses left are the ones that had the highest resistance to whatever you took. If you symptoms come back, you will find that the same antibiotics will have a lower success rate. Even if it's only a matter of days since you quit taking your pills, because in those few days several generations of the resistant virus have reproduced and in all likelyhood adapted and prepared for your antibiotic treatment.

EVOLUTION for you to see. No theory nessisary.

Oh and about your' timemachine example with Lance Armstrong, we could certainly say that Lance's body also has antibodies not present in that time which could help him survive. Beyond genetic information, his bateria cultures present in his digestive track would also help him when compared to the bateria cultures that would exist in any given time you meantioned. Oh, let's see, any bacteria on his body or viruses brought with him that he would have no problem wiht, say antibodies for the flu, would probably kill off other humans at the time.

Tell me when you want me to quit proving that mutation often offers positive effects.

Diet,
Enviroment,
Surrounding Genetic Pool,

We call certain plants "weeds," but from a biology standpoint, they are simply supperior fauna in their ability to survive. That antibiotics example from earlier is also applicable here with the use of pesticides to kill "weeds" off.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Nov, 2006 12:08 am
Diest TKO wrote:
RL, if you can't accept my Armstrong analogy, then how about this.

In parts Africa, if you are born with sickle cell anemia, you are immune to Malaria. This genetic mutation at galce seems like a mutation for the worse, but a genetic divide such as this actually can provide support for life in our present circumstances with the avalible treatments around for either disease. Oh and guess what, if you just have the sickle homoglobin (a ressesive trait), you'll be immune to malaria as well and no sickel cell anemia. So carriers of the Sickle homoglobin are also immune!

You seemed to think that pointing out if Lance Armstrong were around in the middle ages his genetic makeup would lead to his imediate dimise, and while this may be true, it is NOT the real senario. His is a genetic mutation in the present world, as with the Malaria.

Another example is HIV (or most other viruses for that matter). Viruses mutate all the time and it's for the better of their survival. Creationists would have to argue that every sort of species around right now would have always had to have been present in some genetic form.

Hell, the common Flu mutates yearly into new strands, and not for it's worse, for ours. You can't see mutations on our level (humans) because our lifetime (gestation, birth, life, reproduction, etc) is too long for large dramatic genetic anomolies to make themselves known. If you scale down to a lifeform on a celluar scale that reproduces a seemingly infinate number genrations in your lifetime, you're going to see mutations.

Ever take antibiotics? If you don't finish your perscriptions the only viruses left are the ones that had the highest resistance to whatever you took. If you symptoms come back, you will find that the same antibiotics will have a lower success rate. Even if it's only a matter of days since you quit taking your pills, because in those few days several generations of the resistant virus have reproduced and in all likelyhood adapted and prepared for your antibiotic treatment.

EVOLUTION for you to see. No theory nessisary.

Oh and about your' timemachine example with Lance Armstrong, we could certainly say that Lance's body also has antibodies not present in that time which could help him survive. Beyond genetic information, his bateria cultures present in his digestive track would also help him when compared to the bateria cultures that would exist in any given time you meantioned. Oh, let's see, any bacteria on his body or viruses brought with him that he would have no problem wiht, say antibodies for the flu, would probably kill off other humans at the time.

Tell me when you want me to quit proving that mutation often offers positive effects.

Diet,
Enviroment,
Surrounding Genetic Pool,

We call certain plants "weeds," but from a biology standpoint, they are simply supperior fauna in their ability to survive. That antibiotics example from earlier is also applicable here with the use of pesticides to kill "weeds" off.


Unfortunately for you and the evolutionary crowd, mutations have to be capable of much more than a 'positive effect'.

They must be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems and complete new body plans.

Can you name ANY organism that is currently evolving a new organ or biological system that is only partially complete?

Viruses produce multiple generations in a very short time. But they are STILL viruses. No evolution.

Same thing with bacteria. Lots of generations , but still JUST bacteria. No evolution.

And with every other organism we see change in minor ways but they and their descendants never become something else entirely.

Dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, humans produce humans and so forth.

When your body builds up strength against a virus or bacteria, you haven't 'evolved' , have you? No.

Your body did this based on genetic information that was ALREADY there.

Same thing with other organisms.

You want to argue that bacteria 'evolve'. How can you show that the genetic pattern for the change wasn't already there?

You can't. The function of most of the genome is unknown. You cannot show that the information doesn't ALREADY exist there, because you don't know what the information means. Most of it is still a foreign language to us.

This is true whether we are talking about the human genome, the horse, the dog or bacteria.

In addition to this, scientists are now finding that there may be additional layers of information which overlay the one we are most familiar with.

You can speculate all you wish. But furnishing proof is a far different thing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 05:42:35