|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
533
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68941
04/19/06 08:12
04/19/06 08:12
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Which is why people who are smarter than you, JCL and Marco, have been able to converse with me on the subject.
Maybe you are the smartest of all, since you seem to see clearly what all scientists with training and experience miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have conversed with you at length about the subject, but the fact is, there is little reason to use scientific arguement when you are incapable of seperating evidence from your own biases.
For instance, I have repeatedly mentioned that there are clear genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and likely all other lifeforms. The genetic seperation is generally in line with the morphological differences, with chimps sharing 96% of our DNA, and being the most morphologically like humans.
This seems conclusive.
I have heard no possible refutations, and certainly you have offered none. Do you deny that these facts are accurate? Or do you suppose that modern genetic science is inherently flawed?
Given these simple genetic facts, it seems that no other arguements for the reality of evolution are needed. The proof is in the genes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But all the other evidence gives more weight to the conclusion. The evidence from the fossil record seems very strong, with many transitional forms having been found since Darwin's day-- from Archeaopteryx to this new fossil, Tiktallik, which I have mentioned in another thread.
These can be certainly be considered "transitional" forms, and your arguments are insufficient to disprove this. Even if they are NOT, this doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. Fossils are certainly not preserved for every species, nor do we need fossils to conclude that evolution happens. Darwin already did it without fossils.
But as we have the fossils, we should use them, and they are conclusive.
To get the meat of the thing, what about hominid fossils such as Homo Erectus? Can you deny that this species is related to modern humans? It seems that such a denial is impossible, given the obvious similarities. What the exact place of H. Erectus is in the human family tree is not certain, but what seems certain is that is HAS a place.
Homo Erectus was so like us that he could walk down the street wearing modern clothes and not draw too much attention. He could use and make tools, he could probably make fire, and may have had some language skills.
How then does Homo Erectus fit into the world if not as a human ancestor? Is he a freak of nature, without precedent or antecedent?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may see, the fossil record is not really a search for the precious transitional forms, but a search for species with dates. We can reconstruct the evolutionary tree, however approimately, from any specimens with dates. Why do all vertebrates seem to share important characteristic, such as 4 limbs, when most lifeforms like arthropods, etc have more limbs/legs?
Is it not sensible to conclude that the this is because there is a line of descent between the vertebrate species, and that they are related? To deny this is to posit that each species is entirely seperate from all others. Is then a lion completely divorced from a tiger? They share may features, they can even interbreed. Yet according to your philosphy, they must be seperate and the lines unbroken from the beginning of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the sequence of the appearance of species in the fossil record? Why do only very simple and primitive forms seem to exist from the earliest ages, to be followed by more and more complex creatures in latter? Did creation happen again and again? Why do we not see God creating new species even now, under our very noses. Bing, out pops an alligiraffe!
The answer is, speciea take long time to develop. But it is ongoing, even now. There are new species forming as we speak, out there in the jungles, in the misted ranges of the Costa Rican cloudforests, in the perenially flooded wetlands of the Amazon Basin, and in your backyard.
This is why I say species always in transition, fomr one form to another. Species are after all populations, not discreet blocks. As Darwin saw, birds can differentiate based on environment and habit and opportunity. They speciated in the Galapogos over a fairly short time, in the scheme of the Ages of the Earth. I see no reason to contradict Darwin, as his conclusions and observations have stood for over 150 years. It will take more than you to knock them down.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#68942
04/19/06 11:42
04/19/06 11:42
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Primitive snakes — such as, pythons and boa constrictors — do have nub-like legs beneath their skins and tiny, half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs but nestle close to their bellies near the anus. Actually, even the nubs are not legs but rather a remnant of upper-leg (thigh or femur) bones. The males still use the spurs — but only during courtship and fighting — not to walk. No other snakes have legs.
All snake species have those leg nubs during their embryonal phase. They just disappear then, so snakes normally don't have legs. Only the oldest snakes species - pythons and boas, the closest to their evolutionary ancestors - keep the legs nubs during their whole life.
Seems pretty good evidence of evolution to me.
Another transient fossil that sheds some light on snake evolution:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/19/fossil.snake.ap/index.html?section=cnn_space
- The mutation question ---
Evolution requires mutations and natural selection. You admit that natural selection and small mutations exist, but deny the possibility of large mutations. The reason you give is that selection and small mutations can be directly observed, while large mutations can not be directly observed in our life time.
The first logical flaw is that you assume that something you can't observe doesn't exist. However you can't observe single quarks either and nevertheless all physicists agree that quarks exist.
The second logical flaw is that you seem to assume mutations can only remove information from the DNA, and not add information. However a mutation at first is just a random modification of the DNA. Either by removing or adding DNA parts - copies from the same DNA or from foreign DNA - or by directly modifying DNA sequences. This can add information to the DNA, or remove it. Both is possible. Only the outcome decides whether it's a good mutation or a bad one.
As you can imagine when parts of some code are randomly shuffled or changed, most mutations are bad. But probability dictates that there must also be good mutations, although less frequent. The existence of good mutations is not a matter of opinion, but follows from the laws of logic and mathematics.
- The faith question ---
Actually it's very simple.
A) Religious people can believe in evolution.
B) Religious people can believe in creationism.
C) Non-religious people can believe in evolution.
D) Non-religious people can't believe in creationism.
Conclusion: Creationism requires faith (religion), evolution doesn't. 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68943
04/19/06 22:41
04/19/06 22:41
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Ok. I can't respond right away because I have some chores to take care of. But I can see that we're not even on the same page right now. Ignoring Matt's post for the moment, I don't think we're talking about the same thing regarding mutations. Anyway, I'll be back. Some quick thingers on the appendix like I promised. As it turns out, it may not be all that important in adults, but it is necessary for human life, especially early on. Specifically, it gives the body early warning of what kinds of bacteria are and aren't allowed in the body, and without it our digestive system would not work nearly as well as it should. In other words, our body would attack bacteria that are actually helpful for us. I'm not completely educated on exactly how useful those bacteria are for us, but wouldn't this make living extremely uncomfortable, and or impossible? I don't have time to research the exact role of these bacteria. But anyway, on short notice this is the best link I could find. http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0002A56A-62A5-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7Now if you want to continue to argue against your own side, you may. But since prediction is so important for a theory, this lends credibility to the Intelligent Designer theory since that theory predicts that all vestigial organs will be learned to have a purpose (is it a coincidence that we keep finding out vestigial organs are extremely useful? possibly, although maybe we keep finding purposes for them because scientists are cranks and they're crazy and they are conspiracy theorists who need to be silenced with war or by big government). In that case, since evolution predicts that vestigial organs do exist, we can take one notch out of that belt. I will be back, as I've promised. I'll have a response to those snakes, and anything else that's been mentioned. Although, Matt, since you actually decided to contribute to the debate I may respond. Or not, since it won't do any good. Until then... edit: Oh yeah, that link you provided also gives credibility to the idea that the fossil record is a big jumble of circular reasoning. More on that later.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/19/06 22:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68944
04/20/06 04:44
04/20/06 04:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
How come the more I respond, the less Nitro responds, and the less I respond, the more Nitro responds. We need to work together. Quote:
Maybe you are the smartest of all, since you seem to see clearly what all scientists with training and experience miss.
Like I said. I don't think scientists are idiots. I think they've come to the wrong conclusion based on their own biases. That's a natural human tendancy. In general, that's about the best any evolutionists can accuse me of. Maybe some ignorance.
Quote:
that there are clear genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and likely all other lifeforms.
Which is fine. No one disagrees with you. In fact, we all think it SHOULD be this way whether or not things were created. Like I said, chances are if an animal looks like another, it has some (if not most) DNA in common.
If I'm designing a series of airplane models, I'm going to come up with a basic formula that all airplanes need in order to do what they do, then I might create different models for different purposes. Some wings may be swept back, others may be longer, while some airplane bodies may be smaller or more aerodynamic depending on the purpose. However, when all is said and done, since they are meant to do similar things, they'll probably be 95% similar.
Quote:
This seems conclusive.
Conclusive that we have a lot of morphology in common with chimps or apes or whatever. While this COULD be a side effect of common evolution, it also COULD be a side effect of common design. So it goes either way. In this case it really just comes down to our own personal philosophical differences.
Like I've said many times, if a designer is pondering how to make animals fly, what else would he give them besides wings? If I'm creating all the different kinds of birds on the earth, I'm not going to give some of them beaver tails in place of wings and say, "Go forth and fly."
If they all have wings, wouldn't it seem logical that (evolution or not) they have DNA in common? Once you've gotten the form of a wing down, there's no reason for changing the underlying building blocks of the wing. Unless, in your infinite wisdom, you're really concerned that a few of your creations are going to invent some crazy idea that you didn't create them and that they created themselves through death, and you're really concerned about sticking it to them. Somehow, I don't think a creator would care to change his creation based on some theory that will come and go like a breeze in time.
Quote:
But all the other evidence gives more weight to the conclusion. The evidence from the fossil record seems very strong, with many transitional forms having been found since Darwin's day
There are transitional forms if you consider an animal that is a fully formed, complete animal a transition (to counter this you say all animals are transitions, which is kind of flimsy since all we ever see are animals producing the same animal, with dysgenic mutations in between). The duck billed platypus is a great transition between birds (sex chromosomes), mammals, reptiles (poison barbs and gate), and of course fish or other aquatic life forms (electroception). And yet, all of these features seem pretty untransitional since they all make the creature well adapted to its relatively unchanging environment. Is it possible that your way of classifying animals is flawed? There's no controversy of whether or not the duck billed platypus is the transitionary form of all these different classes.
Quote:
These can be certainly be considered "transitional" forms, and your arguments are insufficient to disprove this.
Your assumptions are insufficient to prove this. In order to prove that they're transitionary, you must prove that your evolutionary timeline is correct. Not that they share something in common.
Quote:
To get the meat of the thing, what about hominid fossils such as Homo Erectus? Can you deny that this species is related to modern humans?
No, I just don't think it was anything other than a human. The average skull capacity of the homo erectus (as extimated on fossil evidence) is still within the range of current human skull capacity. Aboriginals have smaller skulls than most non-aboriginals, maybe they're evolving into us. Even though we can interbreed (if such a term can be used between humans). Furthermore, skull capacity has been shown to have little effect (within small variations in humans) between intelligence, and its not synonymous with brain size.
Quote:
The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more ‘archaic’ humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia.
http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_1255.html
Quote:
Archaic features were primarily concentrated on the mandibular body and on the cranium forward of the coronal suture. In particular a combination of receding frontal squama, massive supraorbital regions and a supraglabella fossae "preserving an almost unmodified eastern erectus form" (1972:319)
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/KowS.html
Maybe these traits are a bit more flexible than you're willing to admit? Certainly if humans exhibit traits similar to erectus, and you yourself say that erectus wouldn't look that out of place with us today, then maybe its a human. Certainly its brain case isn't out of our range. Different diets may be able to explain that (I don't have scientific proof to back that up, but ockham's razor shaves off your explanation for me. If there's a chance that they didn't have to go through the long and complicated process of evolution, then why should they have?), but to assume it was evolution just stifles sceintific discovery. We should be researching all avenues of these discoveries (even if that means avenues that aren't very evolutionary), if we're to pursue true scientific ideals.
Of course, that's not what you're interested in, you just want to jump on the fact that this could prove we evolved. So, if we see humans with erectus traits, and we see erectus is within the limits of human traits, then tell me why I should be bothered to believe this is proof of evolution.
Although it is in a watered down fashion, most of these supposedly different traits are seen in humans today. Chances are if it looks like a human, and smells like a human, it is a human.
Quote:
To deny this is to posit that each species is entirely seperate from all others. Is then a lion completely divorced from a tiger?
No its not, since they can interbreed. Meaning they're actually the same species. In this case, this can be easily explained simply by saying that they descended from the same kind. A more generalized cat. Ask anyone who's done breeding experiments. You can get some amazing differences in characteristics by force breeding characteristics apart from each other. The the more you let these different 'species' interbreed the more you go back to the more general form you started with. Zeedonk, is another great example. Or a zorse for that matter. If humanity kept breeding between the races (instead of having a problem with finding mates outside of their own race) then we would return to a more generalized form suggesting that certain attributes may have been force bred by the environment (some believe this happened at babel) to split traits, but not ultimately destroy the ability to return to the original kind.
Humans can vary in characteristics and still be human.
Quote:
Yet according to your philosphy, they must be seperate and the lines unbroken from the beginning of time.
As I said above. Selective breeding (even natural) can force certain characteristics to disperse into different environments, and the original kind is witnessed by interbreeding. Ask any dog breeder if you don't believe me.
So no, these animals were probably not created in their present form. In fact, there were probably far fewer created kinds that split off via selective pressures to cause the animal to become something 'different'. Which would explain the wide variety of species on earth. This is what Darwin witnessed on the galapogos islands, and this is why speciation is essential to creationism. However, we know they aren't really all that different since we can interbreed them.
This still isn't evolution, since we're losing genetic variance.
Quote:
Why do only very simple and primitive forms seem to exist from the earliest ages, to be followed by more and more complex creatures in latter? Did creation happen again and again?
Ok, if the strata is such a reliable indicator of time, then explain to me how they date millions of years old strata? When you get that answer, explain to me how they date millions of years old (rock) fossils. Then we can get to talking about that.
Furthermore, this timeline conflicts with the erectus since we find traits disappearing in the strata (if it can be called a timeline) and then reappearing later in history. Does evolution usually yo-yo like that?
Quote:
Why do we not see God creating new species even now, under our very noses.
I don't believe he's created anything new since the beginning of creation. Speciation has occured to create 'new' animals, but since these are just genetic fractures of their originals, I wouldn't put it in the same category.
JCL, I would first like to address one thing within that website that will give Matt a better idea of the problem I have with the fossil record.
Quote:
It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum -- a bony feature supporting the pelvis -- he said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known, he said.
So in other words they can just slap a date on it that fits their decided timeline, and every time they find that fossil within a given strata, that strata MUST be that age....because they said so. Let's outline the circular reasoning here.
We think that snakes lost their sacrum during evolution. We know this because the earliest snakes are the only ones with the sacrum. They're the earliest known snakes because they still have their sacrums. No scientific thought put into it whatsoever.
I simply don't trust evidence that's supposedly millions of years old. If this is the logic we put behind it, then I don't believe there is any possibility of its accuracy.
Modern snakes that keep these nubs use it to sexually stimulate the female, and grasp during copulation, and also to fight. What about the past 'legs.'
That's the best example I can find. I cannot argue that it doesn't have legs. I don't have the forensic background to determine from internet pictures what the deal is. They're found in sedimentary rock, and in what CNN calls 'terrestial environments' which they don't describe in any detail. Sedimentary usually suggests water. However, since we can't observe this animal in its natural environment, I'm still skeptical. Number one, its hind limbs may have been useful (swimming or faster burrowing). I don't suppose anyone has been able to reproduce what the limb actually looks like based on the tiny splinter that comprises the 'leg.' However, it really doesn't need to be a leg, and even then it doesn't need to be a leg with the same intent as the legs we see on creature nowadays.
I like the quote, "Fossils will sing any tune you want to hear."
It may well be a dysgenic reptile, which is fine and still fits within the creationist model besides.
By the way, backtrailing further and using evolution as my model, let's assume that snakes did have fully formed legs meant for walking. What good does that do to an animal that crawls? Where is the transition from walking to crawling besides legs, because even with legs, snakes would not walk. These snakes with legs are really just a distraction from the fact that there is no true transition between walking lizards and crawling snakes. Unless you consider that they came out of the water, in which case hind limbs could be extremely useful, and assuming they were legs meant for walking is rather illogical.
And did they stand upright? Because I'm having a hard time imagining a snake with only two legs being of any good on land before it 'devolved' into a snake with useless legs. Where are the four legged snakes?
Furthermore, those limbs in that picture of a fossil look better suited, and positioned, to be used as propulsion in water. Which would explain why the majority of these fossils are found in sedimentary rock. I guess I really just don't see the resemblance to legs.
One final note about archaeopteryx, non-transitional birds were also known to have teeth back in the day. This bird (since it obviously is a bird) really bares little resemblance to a reptile. I know, I'm wrong because I disagree with people who want it to be a reptile/bird, but let's remember that these are the same people that ignored the fact that this animal was covered in feathers and paraded around drawings of a reptile with wings. Sounds like your side is the one that has a hard time understanding scientific evidence.
It has a backwards thumb for perching, and it could fly. If it looks like a bird, and smells like a bird (even if it has teeth) it probably is a bird.
Quote:
but deny the possibility of large mutations.
Let me put it this way. Before mutations even have the chance to pile up, they're going to be selected out of the population. If we add a small change to a sequence that controls the wing growth, it could completely 'turn off' wings without completely losing the wing data. Great, now let's say we start to rewrite the eyes. If we need to do this in, for the sake of the example, a sequence of 30 different mutations. It might be safe to assume that by the 15th mutation, the genes will be coded for something so arbitrarily useless for the creature, or harmful that the mutations will never finish their work. You seem to think that if we randomly cause small enough changes to certain sequences, we can write data that makes sense. What does the creature do in the meantime while its living with data that doesn't make sense?
Quote:
The reason you give is that selection and small mutations can be directly observed, while large mutations can not be directly observed in our life time.
That's not what I said. Small mutations, as observed, will never lead to large mutations that are beneficial. If such beneficial mutations do exist (without losing data which is in the wrong direction) then the intermediate steps must not be selected out. Sometimes they aren't. For instance, when sickle cell anemia (a generally debilitating disease) prevents the mutation from being selected out. At least, until it enters an area where there is no malaria. In which case, GASP, its selected out or just sexed out.
Quote:
This can add information to the DNA, or remove it. Both is possible. Only the outcome decides whether it's a good mutation or a bad one.
So as the creature is waiting for the data for wings, its also waiting for the data to grow lighter bones, and the data to switch lungs to ones more useful for flying, and the data to behave differently with these new additions. In the meanwhile, these apparently intermediate mutations are causing disorder that will supposedly end in order. What is the creature doing in the meantime? Waiting millions of years, as a jumbled confused mess, for the mutations to finish their work or at least get to a useful intermediate? Well I don't think that between these useful intermediates, the creature is going to 'take off' genetically.
I'm not describing very well what I mean, but I'm also very tired and sick of typing right now. So I'll have to maybe explain better what I mean at another time.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68945
04/20/06 05:55
04/20/06 05:55
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
you analogy with ariplanes and creationism fails because of one mistake: all airplanes are ment to do the same in the same environment. To be scientifical correct you would have to compare "all" transport methods ever created (or if you like just the ones that can fly). as far as i know the construction plans and the main idea between a plane and a baloon is quite different. though both where "created". Not to mention all transports ever created. Starting with wagons, trains, cars, rockets, planes, zeppelins and so much more. Furthermore i am sure the planes built in 200 years wont have much in common if the ones we know today. also i am not sure if helicopters can be that easy compared with planes. they all though share one thing: Every single one was designed by a scientist another question regarding vestigal organs: Why should the fetus of a whale make teeth in its mother's womb only to reabsorb them later and live a life sifting krill on a whalebone filter? Another one about whales and them having a pelvis and leg bones (they are not a few inches, some can grow several feet long btw): There was an argument that humans can be born with a 6th finger. No reason to doubt this. Fact though is that the blueprint for a figer is allready in our genetic code. Its "just" one finger more. Whales growing legs or snakes with legs thus have one bottom line: the genetic code for legs has to be implemented into them. Evolution explains that very well. Creationism still failed to explain why god should add the blueprint of a leg into a whale.
Last edited by Blattsalat; 04/20/06 06:34.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68946
04/20/06 08:26
04/20/06 08:26
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
about the relationship between lions and tigers: Quote:
...since they can interbreed. Meaning they're actually the same species. In this case, this can be easily explained simply by saying that they descended from the same kind. A more generalized cat. Ask anyone who's done breeding experiments.
You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger! 
In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection. Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.
Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.
While brains size in modern humans is not necessarily indicative of intelligience in any specific case (microcephaly being the pathological exception), there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.
Even supposeing Homo Erectus was a subspecies of homo sapiens ( no scientist i know takes this positions though), there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis? Not to mention the many pre-homo species, such as the austrolopithicines. There may not yet be a clear agreement on the exact lines of human descent, but that it occurred is universally accepted in science.
ITo hold a position denying the evidence of human evolution requires an untenable line of reasoning:
1) All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.
2) Because we can't accept evolutionary gradation, there is must then be a bright line dividing Humans from non-Humans.
3) This line must be based solely on morphology and cultural evidence because we have no genetic data form the ealier specimens, and even if we did, we deny all genetic evidence anyway.
4) Morphology unfortunately clearly indicates gradation, with no clear line between any one specimen.
5) So we must rely on cultural data, such as tool making, burial practices, art, etc.
The earliest stone tools are several million years old, so must assume that modern humans existed that far back(and science again disagrees emphatically), since no non-human should be able to make tools according to our line of reasoning.
Unfortunately, we are back where we started, because tool-making is clearly not a good indicator of biological evolution.
Therefore, there is no way to divide the humans from non-humans in any clear way. Thus we left with making suppositions about brain size and so on. But since brain size increased on an upward curve, we can find no means to conclude that humans are different fomr ealier human-like forms in any major way, rather only by degree.
This seperation by degree is what we find repeatedly, in morphology, genetics and culture. All this points to a gradual change--evolution.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68947
04/20/06 12:15
04/20/06 12:15
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
How come the more I respond, the less Nitro responds, and the less I respond, the more Nitro responds. We need to work together.
Im too busy, plus Im not interested in the personal attacks. But I am certainly reading it as well as I am reading some other books on the subject. So at least you know that someone is listening. That way when you construct a nice long explanation and they only answer with one sentence you know you didn't write it for no reason at all
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68948
04/20/06 17:28
04/20/06 17:28
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
So as the creature is waiting for the data for wings, its also waiting for the data to grow lighter bones, and the data to switch lungs to ones more useful for flying, and the data to behave differently with these new additions. In the meanwhile, these apparently intermediate mutations are causing disorder that will supposedly end in order. What is the creature doing in the meantime? Waiting millions of years, as a jumbled confused mess, for the mutations to finish their work or at least get to a useful intermediate? Well I don't think that between these useful intermediates, the creature is going to 'take off' genetically.
I'm not describing very well what I mean, but I'm also very tired and sick of typing right now. So I'll have to maybe explain better what I mean at another time.
I think I know what you mean. But you've misunderstood evolution: that's not the way mutations work. They only stay if they offer an advantage.
In the case of wings, certainly an animal didn't suddenly get wings and flew. It's vice versa. First a species aquired the habit to use aerodynamics for moving from trees to the ground - there are enough species, even apes, who do that even today. The better they could move through the air, the better they could catch prey or flee from predators. Then they got lighter bones and a body better suited for aerodynamics. Wings were probably the last addendum.
To illustrate this let's take the example of an eye (an organ creationists often claim "must be designed"). Of course there won't be a sudden "eye mutation". Nor will a species first get a quarter-eye, then a half-eye, and then a full-eye. The eye evolved in several steps. Every step requires only a relatively small mutation. Every such mutation offers an advantage over the previous state, or at least not a significant disadvantage. Otherwise the mutation would be selected away.
Step 1: One skin cell aquires light sensitivity. The animal can now move out of the sun, avoid the shadow of a predator or similar.
Step 2: More skin cells aquire light sensitivity. The animal can detect in which direction a shadow moves.
Step 3: The cells sink slightly into the skin, in a pit. This way the direction to a shadow is even easier determined, and the sensitive cells are better protected.
Step 4: The cells are now at the inner wall of an indentation, forming a primitive lens-less camera.
Step 5: A transparent membrane covers the dent, for protecting the cells.
Step 6: The membrane aquires a certain shape, forming a lens.
And so on. Probably the eye evolved in more or other intermediate steps, but I think you get the idea.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68949
04/20/06 22:10
04/20/06 22:10
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I've had a realization. While I'm extremely tempted to keep going, I'm going to have to find some restraint. This just isn't going to end anytime soon. Its not that I'm not having fun, and I'd love to keep going. Its just, I don't really have the energy for it anymore. The whole three on one thing makes it rather difficult. I think if I could bring a couple serious, knowledgable creationists or IDers or whatever into the fold then things would be easier. But...I don't know. I may end up being dragged back into the debate, especially after I reread the responses. But for now I need to take a break.
edit: I'd just like to point out one thing. My analogy is simpler than real life for one reason. If I were going to use an analogy, it would be pointless to use an analogy as complex as the topic of debate. Otherwise I might as well not use the analogy in the first place.
Although the logic of your response doesn't seem to be very sound. Evolutionists say that different creatures fly with 'different' mechanisms because they evolved at different times. In other words, all wings didn't evolve from the same source. So your analogy about other flying machines could just be used to point out how different animals can do similar things with different structures. Planes are birds, helicopters are insects, so on and so forth. In which case my analogy could still stand. Besides, the point of my analogy wasn't to say that its not possible that those similarities aren't the result of evolution, but just to say that they aren't conclusive proof of evolution. They could have just as well been designed that way. But whatever. Maybe I'll be back.
I think maybe I just need to pace myself, so I don't get burned out.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/20/06 22:16.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
