Jump to content


Personifying Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2010 - 02:54 PM

Unfortunately the sign that you read did not represent what the theory of Darwinian evolution preports; that is that the snake had a mutation that enabled it to survive better e.g. the poison/venom to maim/kill it's prey (the theory does not say that thre snake needed to "know" to evolve, or to develop this ability, the snake simply had the mutation that enabled the ability (poison/venom) and because this was a benefit to the snakes survival the gene was passed down to the next generation, and slowly but surely through time and breeding the Rattlesnake as we know it emerged.

The theory does not say that it (evolution) needed to have direction or purpose, it needs to just have the mutation and if it is beneficial to the snakes survival this will be passed on. I think that is why a lot of people are confused on what Darwinian evolution represents/means.

Interesting enough the snake is not affected by it's own venom when it eats its prey with the venom in it, mainly as it is ingested although other animals including humans ingesting venom could possibly be harmed although I am not sure on this.

View Post


Can you please stop saying Darwinian evolution??? There's no such thing, and you limit modern biology to what was known during Darwin's time when you use the term.

I agree with the rest of your post and see no reason to add anything else.

#22 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:18 PM

First of all, you claim my rebuttal was good, why was it? If not, why was that good, in regards to creationism?

View Post

You showed how easy it is to rationalize a things worth; you gave the example of the eyebrow.

Did you ignore the first point I made?

I suppose you're referring to your first paragraph in Post #13. I don't think I ignored it, the appendix phenomenon you mention can be included with my final paragraph in Post #15, where I said, "I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments."

The Mexican Tetra eye phenomenom can be answered by simple adaptation.

Secondly, why was my last point so unnacceptable?

Useless muscles? No, just because we don't "use" them doesn't mean they're "useless"!

Goosebumps and babies grasping thumbs are not "wacky", they just are - who cares - reflexes are reflexes.

And the rest of it I already answered:
"the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities"

#23 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 23 May 2010 - 03:51 PM

...
And for the record, evolutionists do explain it scientifically without using any of the words imbued upon it by creationists. You just have to look further than creationist written evolution hatesites or oversimplified explanations by people that either don't understand the basic concepts or are trying to make it very reader friendly.
...

View Post

Really - let's look at some stuff from your own link above, in Post #10:
http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/full/21/5/870

The Title and the very first sentences of the Abstract and the Introduction admit a presupposition to evolution, so we have a self-defined "evolutionary scientist" article (paper).

The Title:
Assembling an Arsenal: Origin and Evolution of the Snake Venom Proteome Inferred from Phylogenetic Analysis of Toxin Sequences

So at least they admit the do not have facts, but their results are "inferred".

Here's a sentences from very 1st paragraph of the Introduction:
At present, the evidence-based majority view is that venom-secreting glands evolved at the base of the colubroid radiation, with extensive subsequent "evolutionary tinkering" (Vidal 2002), including the multiple evolution of front-fanged venom delivery systems in the families Viperidae, Elapidae, and Atractaspididae (Underwood 1967; Underwood and Kochva 1993; Vidal 2002) and secondary loss in some other lineages.

2nd paragraph:
Nonetheless, some authors maintain the view that the venom-secreting glands of different lineages of "colubrid" snakes may have evolved independently on multiple occasions (Chiszar and Smith 2002).

4th paragraph:
In view of the fact that the PLA2 of viperids and elapids result from separate recruitment events, this leaves open the possibility that vipers and elapids plus "colubrids" may have evolved venom independently.

There are more, these examples should be sufficient to show that these "evolutionary scientists" do use non-commital verbiage, and that it is not the creationist that 'imbues' these words/phrases.

How is a theory that adapts to the facts bad? If evidence points to the contrary, the theory is modified, and rightly so.

Interesting how the Creation account doesn't need to change to fit anything, and the evidence fits quite nicely with it. :lol:

A stagnant, unchanging theory that doesn't conform to new data is worthless.

Truth never needs to 'conform'! B)

#24 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:34 AM

Can you please stop saying Darwinian evolution???  There's no such thing, and you limit modern biology to what was known during Darwin's time when you use the term.



Don't you just hate it when they leave off the ( Neo ) and the hyphen ( - ) ?????????????? B)

*sigh* , Layman!!! :lol:


#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:54 AM

Because gills aren't needed. Not having gills for a land mammal is not detrimental to its survival, so there are no longer any selective pressures that would ensure gills to remain. Body efficiency could be considered an extremely slight pressure, however. (Having gills as unneccessary extras)

Also, keep in mind that an individual that had a beneficial mutation in one regard, might also have had slightly less effective gills (result of another mutation). This could easily result in gills slowly being streamed out of the population.

View Post


Do human fish? Did we discontinue eating what's in the ocean just because we walked on land? What we observed says we did not. So going back into the water for food would have been ideal and wanted. Why would we just turn our backs on something that is clearly still enjoyed? and would also play a part in providing us with food?

#26 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:58 AM

Unfortunately the sign that you read did not represent what the theory of Darwinian evolution preports; that is that the snake had a mutation that enabled it to survive better e.g. the poison/venom to maim/kill it's prey (the theory does not say that thre snake needed to "know" to evolve, or to develop this ability, the snake simply had the mutation that enabled the ability (poison/venom) and because this was a benefit to the snakes survival the gene was passed down to the next generation, and slowly but surely through time and breeding the Rattlesnake as we know it emerged.


Actually the real truly unfortunate thing about this thread direction is it's not about SNAKES. It was merely an example of how words alluding to intelligent directedness are always employed as a means of suckering people in to a philosophical worldview that is considered politically correct and nature itslef doesn't care about anyone's religion or lack of it. So here are some more examples and what they should of said under the Neo-Darwinianism Rules

One of the biggest problems with using the inncorrect terminology is that it doesn't really tell the whole truth. Sometimes this is by accident, but often it is cold and calculated with all sorts of purpose and intent. It's a combination of telling the truth while at the same time telling a lie. We know them as half truths. Telling a half lie and half truth is a sort of suger coated poison which is far more effective than a great big lie. An example of someone who is a master and originator of this is recorded in the Bible. The individual who perfected this method is none other than Satan himself. He sutlely took a piece of truth and twisted it with a lie when attempting to deceive Eve. He was successful. He also quoted the truth of scriptural references, but twisted it to make a half truth or lie when he attempted to cause Jesus to Sin. He failed. The media and politicians are masters of this when taking a video of an opponant or an opposing worldview of someone being interviewed and editing it in all the correct places to give the meaning an entirely biased slant. So here are some examples.


(1) A website called biothinking.com under inside the topic link, Business Vitality had an article comparing big business corporations to nature. Here's a small paragraph example of what was printed.

When it comes to surviving and flourishing, nature is good. Really good. And it's had billions of years of practice. Weak individuals and species have been weeded out over time by the processes of natural selection. New variants have emerged to fill every available niche.


So how does nature practice anything ?????? Is not nature blind pointless and indifferent ???????? Isn't practice an intelligent human trait ?????? Unfortunately had they been honest in the pure unadulterated evolutionary sense, it should have read like this: "Nature has had billions of years of luck." Do you see how the half lie half truth factor really works and using a personification term usually applied to intelligent humans gives a certain amazing sutle slant that the average human can relate to ?????? B) Seriously, given our failed economic and financial world and the way it does things, would not that second honest method have been a more accurate way of stating the truth ?????????? Ah, but then it wouldn't have accomplished it's goal driven intent . . . . . :)


(2) Evolution has selfish genes as proposed by the Rev Dawkins. So how is a gene selfish and why even use that word ??????? Is not selfishness a human trait as well ??????? His official definition is this: ("selfish" meaning that it promotes its own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species).
Now had he been honest, it should have been explained like this: Genes contain within themselves patterns and fractals (since we all know that according to official atheism there are no such thing as a true codes, languages, etc in DNA) which billions upon billion of times over survive no matter what environmental chaos comes it's way through nothing more than random luck. :)


(3) Okay, Ricky Dawkins again with his book "The Blind Watchmaker" . The meaning here is that evolution is being depicted as some sort of tinkering black smithie, or shoe cobbler assembling parts together to invent amazing designs. A more appropriate title to his book should have been "The Blind Miracle" Or how about "The Blind Lottery Winner" which of course wins billions upon billions of times over and over in a just so history. He has however been more honest, like his explanation of life's beginnings as nothing more than a "happy chemical accident" , but even then he fudged a bit and used a human trait word happy. *sigh* :lol:


Well that's enough. I think everyone gets the idea that this thread was not about snakes. Nice strategic equivo-deflect attempt tho. :D

#27 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:14 AM

Can you please stop saying Darwinian evolution???  There's no such thing, and you limit modern biology to what was known during Darwin's time when you use the term. 

I agree with the rest of your post and see no reason to add anything else.

View Post


Of course there is, Charles Darwin's theory (natural selection, survival of the fittest etc.) is the fundamental belief in the wider, mainstream scientific establishment and although it has been edited as new data becomes available its core theory still exists. Some scientists, albeit a small number, believe in evolution, but not by Darwinist means (not natural selection etc.).
Try a search on Darwinism on Google and you will find what Darwinian evolution is.

#28 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:23 AM

Of course there is, Charles Darwin's theory (natural selection, survival of the fittest etc.) is the fundamental belief in the wider, mainstream scientific establishment and although it has been edited as new data becomes available its core theory still exists. Some scientists, albeit a small number, believe in evolution, but not by Darwinist means (not natural selection etc.).
Try a search on Darwinism on Google and you will find what Darwinian evolution is.

View Post



This is the same with belief in creation, the understanding is wide and varied. That's why sometimes discussions can get off track with specific individuals when one has a narrow understanding that all Evos or Creos have the same universal belief.

Look at the difference between the understanding of how DNA actually works between two evolutionists Geneticist James A Shapiro and our own forum member Raithie.

#29 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Melbourne

Posted 24 May 2010 - 02:54 AM

First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it. Things are only added or removed because of selective pressures. However, it is possible for things to fade out in time, such as the appendix (1 in every 100,000 people are born without one) or the Mexican Tetras eye. In the latter case, the eye is not fully removed, but a thin fleshy layer covers it.

S@xual selection could be a dominant factor in some of the examples. Eye brows in humans could also be argued for S@xual selection, however, they also have a function. They help to present moisture from entering the eye by displacing it to the side of the face. This also applies to debris, and they can even help reduce direct sunlight exposure to the eye. Eyebrows can also help in social situations, such as demonstrating emotion or helping in identification.

The same kind of thing applies to some of the other examples you mentioned. (Also, may I add that the lions mane primary function is intimidation - it makes the lion appear larger. It is also a sign of health (colour & density), which explains why it is also a S@xual selection pressure.)

To your last point, indeed - organisms do have some indeed "wacky" things! For examples, humans are filled with a surprizing amount of useless muscles etc., and even behaviors. Such as the the goosebumps reflex, or a babies reflex to grasp your thumb. If the environment changes, and if the old trait is now deemed detrimental, the trait will get washed out pretty quickly as natural selection once again takes place. Also, take a look at atavisms. They're basically ancestral limbs that later randomly re emerge in an individual. For example, tibias and fibulas in certain whales, humans with tails, chickens with teeth (artificially induced by scientists) etc.

View Post


Absolutely, but in essence that's more speculation than factual data, but one could still make a list of creatures features that could be speculated on as to why it was retained as a beneficial mutation/feature.

I find the problem with a few of the examples you have listed is that they really do not aid in the creatures ability to survive or reproduce/find a mate etc. For example the eye brow displacing moisture to the side of the face to prevent moisture entering the eye, this would hardly be life threatening, nor enhance its chances of survival, and if it rains the water is going to enter regardless, and in regards to the eye brow and S@xual selection you would need to prove why females (and vice versa) would find eye brows attractive, to me it doesn't appear to enhance someone visually, I could understand where your coming from if peoples eyebrows where rainbow coloured.

In regards to the fadeout of the human appendix and the Mexican Tetras eye, this is more of an observed loss of function, I just get a bit confused with the definition, for example it is said the reason that some people are not born with one is because it is not needed (has no function), and because it is vestigial we do not need it (although a recent paper has found the appendix does have a function, and yes I am aware that a vestige can still have a function and that it is the remainder of a past, more important function) but if that's the case, what in the body is determining no appendix in the newborns? We have 2 kidneys, we only need 1, so I could imagine people being born with only one, its also like the dry earwax gene, I understand why we have earwax and why it would be considered a benefit to have it, but the dry earwax gene is so widespread and I don't understand why a non beneficial gene is more widespread than the beneficial one?

There are quite a few items in the human body that serve no immediate function but still remain as part of the genetic makeup.

I'm also interested in the "useless behaviors" comment, can you elaborate on this more?

#30 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:49 AM

You showed how easy it is to rationalize a things worth; you gave the example of the eyebrow.


Yes, eyebrows are not vestigial.

I suppose you're referring to your first paragraph in Post #13.  I don't think I ignored it, the appendix phenomenon you mention can be included with my final paragraph in Post #15, where I said, "I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments."


I was referring to this (sorry if I was vague): "First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it. Things are only added or removed because of selective pressures. However, it is possible for things to fade out in time,"

I was wondering what was wrong/right with that statement.

The Mexican Tetra eye phenomenom can be answered by simple adaptation.


And how did this adaptation happen? And why did they have eyes in the first place?

Useless muscles? No, just because we don't "use" them doesn't mean they're "useless"!


What makes something useful? Here's an example of what I was talking about:

-Humans have minimally devleoped muscles attached to the ear that are non functional. In certain monkeys, these muscles are much further developed and allow for mobility. Humans and chimpanzees, are able to move their heads on a horizontal plane, (unlike most other monkeys) and hence do not require their ears to be mobile. "The function once provided by one structure is now replaced by another." Reference: Mr. St. George Mivart, Elementary Anatomy, 1873, p. 396 & blessed Wikipedia :lol:



Goosebumps and babies grasping thumbs are not "wacky", they just are - who cares - reflexes are reflexes.


You're being very vague here. Why would humans have reflexes, such as goosebumps, which have no known use in humans? What possible other example can they give? I know you're going to leap at the word "known", but sigh... just compare it to what it does in animals.
They provide very important uses in other animals, such as heat insulation and making themselves appear larger (providing they have enough fur). But humans don't have enough hair to make it worthwhile.

#31 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:22 AM

Absolutely, but in essence that's more speculation than factual data, but one could still make a list of creatures features that could be speculated on as to why it was retained as a beneficial mutation/feature.


Some of it was, yes. I will try to use more citations in this one.

I find the problem with a few of the examples you have listed is that they really do not aid in the creatures ability to survive or reproduce/find a mate etc. For example the eye brow displacing moisture to the side of the face to prevent moisture entering the eye, this would hardly be life threatening, nor enhance its chances of survival, and if it rains the water is going to enter regardless, and in regards to the eye brow and S@xual selection you would need to prove why  females (and vice versa) would find eye brows attractive, to me it doesn't appear to enhance someone visually, I could understand where your coming from if peoples eyebrows where rainbow coloured.


Well they serve a function, and evolution isn't all about blatent changes. Even slight advantages in S@xual selection & facial expressions or protection of the eye from liquids/debris/sunlight (or even insects, apparently they provide a more sensitive sense for detecting objects near the eye, like small insects, but I haven't heard of a detailed study of this so I can't be sure. Personally, I think eyebrows can really boost a faces attractiveness, but that's just me.
It also may have been a "carry along". It simply might have randomly came with an individual that had a different mutation that helped in survival situations.
One theory as to why humans lost their fur was because it is apparently better at cooling us down via sweat. Maybe the prevention of sweat/debris from entering our eyes was much more important then if were to run after prey for long distances. But that last part is pure speculation.

Eyebrows also helped in identification and face recognition. Here's a study about it. It also goes into a bit of detail about the aesthetics and S@xual attractiveness of them.

In regards to the fadeout of the human appendix and the Mexican Tetras eye, this is more of an observed loss of function, I just get a bit confused with the definition,


Here's the one I refer to: "Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes."

for example it is said the reason that some people are not born with one is because it is not needed (has no function), and because it is vestigial we do not need it (although a recent paper has found the appendix does have a function, and yes I am aware that a vestige can still have a function and that it is the remainder of a past, more important function)


Yes, but as you already clarified, it's not the original function. Maintaining gut flora levels and harboring some bacteria is just a secondary and very minor function. The the specific complexity of the appendix indicates a function that it does not perform.

but if that's the case, what in the body is determining no appendix in the newborns?


Nothing is "determining" it. It's just another mutation. It's so unnecessary that not having one has pretty much no impact upon the human, so the mutation is slowly able to spread without penalty.

We have 2 kidneys, we only need 1, so I could imagine people being born with only one, its also like the dry earwax gene, I understand why we have earwax and why it would be considered a benefit to have it, but the dry earwax gene is so widespread and I don't understand why a non beneficial gene is more widespread than the beneficial one?


Firstly, there are people born with only one kidney. It's called renal agenesis. According to the UK National Kidney Association: "It is not clear why there are normally two kidneys. The human body does not need two kidneys, it could manage perfectly well with one kidney. It may just be that it has been useful for us to develop some parts of the body in pairs (arms and legs), so other parts doubled up as well. It is also possible that there is an evolutionary advantage in having a spare kidney, and this is certainly important in modern medicine, because people can live live normal lives with one normal kidney."
However, after some searching I found a bit more info. Having one kidney can cause:

-"High blood pressure. Kidneys help maintain a healthy blood pressure by regulating how much fluid flows through the bloodstream and by making a hormone called renin that works with other hormones to expand or contract blood vessels. Many people who lose or donate a kidney are found to have slightly higher blood pressure after several years.

-Proteinuria. Excessive protein in the urine, a condition known as proteinuria, can be a sign of kidney damage. People are often found to have higher-than-normal levels of protein in their urine after they have lived with one kidney for several years.

-Reduced GFR. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) shows how efficiently your kidneys are removing wastes from your bloodstream. People have a reduced GFR if they have only one kidney."


They don't seem all that major, however. Maybe (I'm just speculating) that there is a relatively high chances that one kidney will fail, and having a backup is then very useful.

____

About earwax, well quite frankly I don't know. I looked it up briefly and found this:

"Earwax seems to have the very humble role of being no more than biological flypaper, serving to prevent dust and insects entering the ear. Since it seems unlikely that having wet or dry earwax could have made much difference to an individual's fitness, the earwax gene may have some other, more important function. Dr. Yoshiura and his colleagues suggest the gene would have been favored because of its role in sweating."

However, I still have no idea. Maybe earwax just isn't all that important anymore, since we hygiene and medicine is much more dominant now, and that we no longer have to fight as hard for survival, so previously helpful genes are just becoming less important. That's pure conjecture though!

There are quite a few items in the human body that serve no immediate function but still remain as part of the genetic makeup.


Agreed.

I'm also interested in the "useless behaviors" comment, can you elaborate on this more?


I was referring to vestigial reflexes, eg the goosebumps reflex or newborn babies being able to hold their own body weight when grasping (the way they grab your finger, for instance).

By the way, I apologize for the huge post and all the quote boxes. I got carried away.

#32 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:31 AM

Do human fish? Did we discontinue eating what's in the ocean just because we walked on land? What we observed says we did not. So going back into the water for food would have been ideal and wanted. Why would we just turn our backs on something that is clearly still enjoyed? and would also play a part in providing us with food?

View Post



Why would we need to go back into the ocean when we can use our wonderful brains to come up with safer methods of getting food?

#33 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 06:38 AM

Do human fish? Did we discontinue eating what's in the ocean just because we walked on land? What we observed says we did not. So going back into the water for food would have been ideal and wanted. Why would we just turn our backs on something that is clearly still enjoyed? and would also play a part in providing us with food?

View Post


Yes, humans fish. That doesn't mean it's evolutionary advantageous for us to become fish. Keep in my mind also that it's not very efficient to have both a set of lungs and gills.

But once again ikester7579, all that post does is imply a lack of understanding of evolution on your part. Evolution does not follow a hierarchial path of ideals. What works, survives, what doesn't, dies. If our ancestors moved away from water, they did so for a reason. And they were able to make the transition by slowly becoming more adapted and suited to a land environment. As they moved further inland, being able to breathe underwater became unnecessary (cool & fun on your part, but not necessary to ensure the survival of the human species, which is all that's needed) and maybe even a burden. While onland, they now had to find a way to compete and survive with all the other organisms on the land, so the focus turned to adapt with a land environment as opposed to a water one.

Also, most fish can't breathe outside of water. So in order for them to adapt to a land environment, their respiration system must chage.

Another also - we don't need gills to catch fish. We have our brain instead.

#34 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 07:20 AM

Really - let's look at some stuff from your own link above, in Post #10:
http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/full/21/5/870

The Title and the very first sentences of the Abstract and the Introduction admit a presupposition to evolution, so we have a self-defined "evolutionary scientist" article (paper).

The Title:
Assembling an Arsenal: Origin and Evolution of the Snake Venom Proteome Inferred from Phylogenetic Analysis of Toxin Sequences

So at least they admit the do not have facts, but their results are "inferred".

Here's a sentences from very 1st paragraph of the Introduction:
At present, the evidence-based majority view is that venom-secreting glands evolved at the base of the colubroid radiation, with extensive subsequent "evolutionary tinkering" (Vidal 2002), including the multiple evolution of front-fanged venom delivery systems in the families Viperidae, Elapidae, and Atractaspididae (Underwood 1967; Underwood and Kochva 1993; Vidal 2002) and secondary loss in some other lineages.

2nd paragraph:
Nonetheless, some authors maintain the view that the venom-secreting glands of different lineages of "colubrid" snakes may have evolved independently on multiple occasions (Chiszar and Smith 2002).


4th paragraph:
In view of the fact that the PLA2 of viperids and elapids result from separate recruitment events, this leaves open the possibility that vipers and elapids plus "colubrids" may have evolved venom independently.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about "non-commital verbiage". I was under the impression that we were talking about scientists using words like "goals, intentional morphs" etc when you said "using words , phrazes and expressions that denote some type of intelligent selective guidance, goals, purpose, etc". That was what I was talking about.

Secondly, why did you emphasize some of the words used? The post is acknowledging the position of other evolutionist scientists that claim it came about via a slightly different method. The differing positions are still studying the origin of snake venom, so ofcourse they're evolutionary scientists. What would be the point of writing a paper that says "God did it."? Science concerns itself with explaining natural phenomena by natural means.
Also, you never gave me that example of reputable scientists claiming evolution is when organisms govern their existence with specified intent. Please take into account what I've already said from previous posts. We seem to be running in circles.

There are more, these examples should be sufficient to show that these "evolutionary scientists" do use non-commital verbiage, and that it is not the creationist that 'imbues' these words/phrases.


Once again, I wasn't referring to that. And your previous posts weren't either. And there's nothing wrong with recognizing a potential find.

Interesting how the Creation account doesn't need to change to fit anything, and the evidence fits quite nicely with it.  ;)

Truth never needs to 'conform'! B)

View Post



That's because God is defined so that he is unproveable. How convenient. May I also mention that creation adds nothing to the table, other than "goddidit!".
I'm also going to point out that the bible is known to be inconsistent. It also relied upon human fallible minds to write, edit and sort the bible which is christian creationism comes from. And ofcourse to gain an actual consensus (eg, the the Council of Nicaea). I'm curious as to all this evidence that supports it.
However, that's for another thread. I'd rather not derail this one, and I already have two many discussions going on with too many people in this thread, so I'd rather not continue something so unrelated as well.

And to your last point - I agree. Truth does not need to conform. However, science does not know the absolute truth. We don't have time machines to go back and watch exactly how the eye formed, for example. And scientific theories must conform if contrary data presents itself. Science is self correcting.

#35 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 11:46 AM

I was referring to this (sorry if I was vague): "First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it. Things are only added or removed because of selective pressures. However, it is possible for things to fade out in time,"

I was wondering what was wrong/right with that statement.

View Post

I believe I did answer the entire paragraph in Post #22.

And how did this adaptation happen? And why did they have eyes in the first place?

I could only speculate, so here I go:
The were created with eyes, this particular group found a suitable environment in dark caves, they adapted by using other senses, sight became unecessary.

What makes something useful? Here's an example of what I was talking about:

-Humans have minimally devleoped muscles attached to the ear that are non functional. In certain monkeys, these muscles are much further developed and allow for mobility. Humans and chimpanzees, are able to move their heads on a horizontal plane, (unlike most other monkeys) and hence do not require their ears to be mobile. "The function once provided by one structure is now replaced by another." Reference: Mr. St. George Mivart, Elementary Anatomy, 1873, p. 396 & blessed Wikipedia ;)

I hope it's OK that I not agree with these evolutionary views, in suggesting that these [ear] muscles are "useless". At the minimum, some people can move their ears and it can be the source of humor; when a Grandpa moves his ears to amuse his Grandkids, that's "useful". B)

You're being very vague here. Why would humans have reflexes, such as goosebumps, which have no known use in humans? What possible other example can they give? I know you're going to leap at the word "known", but sigh... just compare it to what it does in animals.

They provide very important uses in other animals, such as heat insulation and making themselves appear larger (providing they have enough fur). But humans don't have enough hair to make it worthwhile.

I'm not being vague at all, I said very clearly - "who cares - reflexes are reflexes". We have a central nervous system, it reacts to certain things, what's the big deal? (rhetorical)

Allow me to expound just a little. Everything I read about goose bumps is biased toward evolution. It is suggested that they are part of an animalistic defense mechanism that causes hair to stand up, thus making the animal appear larger than it really is. While I suppose it might work to the animals advantage (appearing larger), this is perfectly acceptable in the creation model; God designed the nervous system to work this way. The fact that our skin reacts to cold and emotion is simply also part of God's "common design".

Besides, I wonder what research would show if we tried to discover if tightened skin does have the same effect on us as it does animals (common design);
does this reaction (goose bumps) cause blood and adrenaline to flow - thus warming us and/or hightening our awareness. I speculate that it does. :)

#36 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 May 2010 - 12:24 PM

I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about "non-commital verbiage". I was under the impression that we were talking about scientists using words like "goals, intentional morphs" etc when you said "using words , phrazes and expressions that denote some type of intelligent selective guidance, goals, purpose, etc". That was what I was talking about.

View Post

and...

Once again, I wasn't referring to that. And your previous posts weren't either. And there's nothing wrong with recognizing a potential find.

I made it very clear that I was addressing your assertion that "evolutionists do explain it scientifically without using any of the words imbued upon it by creationists."

Secondly, why did you emphasize some of the words used? The post is acknowledging the position of other evolutionist scientists that claim it came about via a slightly different method. The differing positions are still studying the origin of snake venom, so ofcourse they're evolutionary scientists. What would be the point of writing a paper that says "God did it."? Science concerns itself with explaining natural phenomena by natural means.

Evolutionary science "concerns itself with explaining natural phenomena by natural means". It attempts to fit the evidence into its world view.

Pure science does not have a bias, it simply discovers, it doesn't need to explain why/how something became the way it is, it only needs to say what it discovered.

Creation science concerns itself with explaining phenomena by created means. It does not say "God did it?", it shows how the evidence fits nicely into its world view.

Also, you never gave me that example of reputable scientists claiming evolution is when organisms govern their existence with specified intent. Please take into account what I've already said from previous posts. We seem to be running in circles.

I didn't attempt to. That is the point of the OP, that evo's use words that suggest there is an intelligence behind evolution, but at the same time they say it's random, chance, non-purposeful. Some of those words / phrases have been posted in this thread already, see Post #15

That's because God is defined so that he is unproveable. How convenient. May I also mention that creation adds nothing to the table, other than "goddidit!".

Creation science does a lot more than that! ;)

I'm also going to point out that the bible is known to be inconsistent.  It also relied upon human fallible minds to write, edit and sort the bible which is christian creationism comes from. And ofcourse to gain an actual consensus (eg, the the Council of Nicaea). I'm curious as to all this evidence that supports it.
However, that's for another thread. I'd rather not derail this one, and I already have two many discussions going on with too many people in this thread, so I'd rather not continue something so unrelated as well.

Actually, the Bible has never been proven wrong, NEVER.

And to your last point - I agree. Truth does not need to conform. However, science does not know the absolute truth. We don't have time machines to go back and watch exactly how the eye formed, for example. And scientific theories must conform if contrary data presents itself. Science is self correcting.

That's my point, the creation account doesn't need to "self correct", it only needs to show how the evidence fits - and it does fit quite nicely.

#37 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:19 PM

Why would we need to go back into the ocean when we can use our wonderful brains to come up with safer methods of getting food?

View Post


Making up logic that only conforms to an accepted theory is not science. You are suppose to consider anything feasible.

1) Why do you reject my idea.

2) And why would you only accept an idea that only supports what you believe or want to be true?

Evolution teaches conformity to a level that people do it and don't even realize it.

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 May 2010 - 01:42 PM

Yes, humans fish. That doesn't mean it's evolutionary advantageous for us to become fish. Keep in my mind also that it's not very efficient to have both a set of lungs and gills.

But once again ikester7579, all that post does is imply a lack of understanding of evolution on your part. Evolution does not follow a hierarchial path of ideals. What works, survives, what doesn't, dies. If our ancestors moved away from water, they did so for a reason. And they were able to make the transition by slowly becoming more adapted and suited to a land environment. As they moved further inland, being able to breathe underwater became unnecessary (cool & fun on your part, but not necessary to ensure the survival of the human species, which is all that's needed) and maybe even a burden. While onland, they now had to find a way to compete and survive with all the other organisms on the land, so the focus turned to adapt with a land environment as opposed to a water one.

Also, most fish can't breathe outside of water. So in order for them to adapt to a land environment, their respiration system must chage.

Another also - we don't need gills to catch fish. We have our brain instead.

View Post


Here again is another example of how one feasible idea is rejected because it does not conform, while another is accepted because it does conform.

Example: I want evolution to be true so I:

1) Ignore all other feasible evidences only because they do not support what I want to be true,
2) I will not consider any idea so I will try and make a more logical argument for my idea which does support evolution.
3) I will consider nothing in this world if it does not support evolution.

Is that science, or religion?

You see faith makes us reject things for what we want. Science is supposed to consider all alternatives regardless. So when you reject something just because it does not support what you "want" to be true. Then you are showing the reactions that basically say: I reject your idea because I have more faith in my idea. Now why is it faith? because if you cannot explain your rejection scientifically, then your rejection reason is not scientific. So if you can only explain your rejection with logic and reason, minus science. Then your rejection is only due to you having more faith in what you want to be true.

#39 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 03:09 PM

Here again ia another example of how one feasible idea is rejected because it does not conform, while another is accepted because it does conform.

Example: I want evolution to be true so I:

1) Ignore all other feasible evidences only because they do not support what I want to be true,
2) I will not consider any idea so I will try and make a more logical argument for my idea which does support evolution.
3) I will consider nothing in this world if it does not support evolution.

Is that science, or religion?

You see faith makes us reject things for what we want. Science is supposed to consider all alternatives regardless. So when you reject something just because it does not support what you "want" to be true. Then you are showing the reactions that basically say: I reject your idea because I have more faith in my idea. Now why is it faith? because if you cannot explain your rejection scientifically, then your rejection reason is not scientific. So if you can only explain your rejection with logic and reason, minus science. Then your rejection is only due to you having more faith in what you want to be true.

View Post


What are you talking about? ikester, I'm sorry but you really have no understanding of how evolution works. I've explained it numerous times already. If you are not satisfied with my answers, please refute it directly, and not just adding an unrelated social commentary. It's becoming increasingly frustrating to read your posts when you ignore almost everything I say, except the words that you cherrypick.
I'll try it again - please address the part below specifically and explain to me what's wrong with it.

"Natural selection is just a name to describe a process. There's nothing intelligent or conscious about it. The mutations occured naturally and if it highered the reproductive rates (longer survival [stronger muscles, better sight etc.), increased fertility etc) then it was passed on to more individuals and hence spread throughout the population due to the rest being unable to compete as well. These are beneficial mutations. If the mutation worsened the individual (weaker, poor sight, prone to diseases, bad heart etc etc.) then that individual either dies before he can pass on his genes, or simply doesn't compete as well with the new "better" characteristics and gets eventually washed out. These are deleterious mutations.

Hence, natural selection inadvertently "filters" (note the parenthesis) the mutations. It can described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it, as I explained very simplistically above."


_____________

Now, what are the "other feasible evidences"?
I have considered other ideas. You are assuming that I haven't, because you can only see the "logic" of what you believe and delude yourself by blatently misrepresenting what evolution really says. For example, here are some of the things in this thread that you have written, despite me telling you how it was so obviously untrue of what evolutionists claim.

"How does evolution know how to mix poison?
Does a cake make and bake itself because everything needed happens to be there, so that the cake maker-baker is no longer needed?
In a lab experiment, do the chemicals mix themselves to get results so that the chemist is no longer needed?
Does this forum program write itself for the internet because the internet is there, so that the programmer is no longer needed?
Do the chemicals in a primordial soup come together in just the right proportions to make a living cell when a chemist cannot even do this?
What makes nothing more intelligent than something?"


Here's some more:

"Do the chemicals in the snake have intelligence to make poison because the snake is not smart enough?"
"The pre-rattlesnake snakes realized this and had to make some evolutionary changes."
"the snake had the ability to think and reason intelligently on engineering strategies, perhaps also had the ability for discussion with other like snakes, then it had the power to use Wiccan abilities to morph itself just right."


I have argued against them countless times, and yet you continue to bring them up, without even having the decency to explain why you are ignoring them or telling me that they're "ignoring other feasible evidences".

Here's one brief example (I went into more detail later as you kept ignoring what I said) of what I said in my very first post in this thread.
"That something like that was written on a sign offers no bearing to falsifying evolution.
I'm confident that any evolutionist that has any basic understanding of what the theory entails would agree that the sign is a misrepresentation. The snakes obviously did not have the ability to discuss what would make it better or have the ability to morph itself to the desired form. The development of venom was probably a gradual and generational progression that started as simple mutations which allowed the snake to compete more successfully.


______________________


By the by, science DOES consider all alternatives. It doesn't deem "Goddidit" as an alternative, however, as 1. all it does is add zero to the equation and 2. science only concerns with natural phenomena and explains it via natural means, because that's the only thing it can conern itself with. Christianity conveniently defines God as immeasurable, unobservable and supernatural. And don't spout creation science on me. There's a very valid reason why that's not discussed in science class. The alternatives science considers are other possible theories, such as the other theories recognised by that origin of snake venom link I gave you.

And once again, I'm going to state that science is self correcting. It constantly adapts its theories to fit newfound data and predictions. The "flaws" that creationists so often cling to, are generally originally discovered by evolutionists, not creationists. Hence, your first numbered point is untrue. Science considers every idea and recreates possible scenarios (predictions) about how something came into place. To your third point, if an alternative theory was presented with sufficient evidence, science would connect the dots and reform evolution in order to cater for the new evidence.

Finally, please tell me why my proposition in my last post was so riddled with holes. And please address what I've said here, and I would prefer if it were only that. You can say whatever you want in your next post. Please, do it for my sanity.

This is not meant to be an attack (I'm sorry if it's taken that way, that is not my intent) - just please understand my position and explain to me the above. If there's a valid reason for why you have said the things above, I will be delighted, even if I don't agree with it. Just tell me something about the exact points I mentioned above.

#40 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:04 PM

I believe I did answer the entire paragraph in Post #22.


Do you mean when you said: ""I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments."?

Could you clarify how that relates to: ""First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it. Things are only added or removed because of selective pressures. However, it is possible for things to fade out in time,"

I was simply wondering why that would be illogical. Sorry if I'm not following you, I'm probably too tired to be posting right now. Damn early mornings!

I could only speculate, so here I go:
The were created with eyes, this particular group found a suitable environment in dark caves, they adapted by using other senses, sight became unecessary.


I emphasized "they adapted by using other senses" in your quote, because that's exactly what they did and what evolution claims. You just refuted yourself for me, but I'll refine it further.
Why do the eyes start to grow and develop during embryo development, which is later suddenly stopped, and a fleshy layer grows over the partially formed eyes? And why would God create them with eyes, (being all knowing that he is) knowing that they would end up in dark caves?


I hope it's OK that I not agree with these evolutionary views, in suggesting that these [ear] muscles are "useless".  At the minimum, some people can move their ears and it can be the source of humor; when a Grandpa moves his ears to amuse his Grandkids, that's "useful". ;)

It's ok that you don't "agree" with it. That doesn't make your position valid. And unfortunately, a grandad amusing his grandads via slight twitches doesn't strengthen your position.

I'm not being vague at all, I said very clearly - "who cares - reflexes are reflexes".  We have a central nervous system, it reacts to certain things, what's the big deal? (rhetorical)


"reflexes are reflexes". That doesn't get you anywhere, I'm afraid. And it's why I said vague, but maybe it was a poor choice of words, I apologize. And for the record, science cares. Very much so.

I'm going to ignore the bracketted rhetorical part, because it seems like a question to me. "it reacts to certain things". Now there's an ace example of being vague.
Now, why would CSN tell our bodies to carry out the goosebumps reflex? Goosebumps are very effective in other animals. They serve important functions such as heat insulation (in animals with fur) or intimidation, by making themselves appear larger (e.g cats raising their fur or porcupines raising their quills). Neither of these apply to humans since we don't have fur. Therefore, it doesn't aid in heat insulation and it doesn't make us seem larger and hence doesn't aid in our protection.

Allow me to expound just a little.  Everything I read about goose bumps is biased toward evolution.  It is suggested that they are part of an animalistic defense mechanism that causes hair to stand up, thus making the animal appear larger than it really is.  While I suppose it might work to the animals advantage (appearing larger), this is perfectly acceptable in the creation model; God designed the nervous system to work this way.  The fact that our skin reacts to cold and emotion is simply also part of God's "common design".


It's not "biased" towards evolution. Evolution describes it as I have described above. It just also links it to humans, which has shown to be pointless in humans. What you're reading is the science of goosebumps is merely observation and studying (unless you're reading some complete non-sensical garbage, which can be a problem on the internet if one don't know how to identify a valid source).
And to your last post. Well that's not very good engineering on gods part. Certainly not very efficient, anyway. (A better example is the broken vitamin C in humans, if you're interested. There's more detailed explanations elsewhere, google/wikipedia it.) Basically, we have a gene that used to produce vitamin C in our distant ancestors that is 'broken' and unusable. It wasn't needed anymore for our ancestors (perhaps an abundance in vitamin c plants) and hence it spread via neutrality (it was neither advantagous nor detrimental).


Besides, I wonder what research would show if we tried to discover if tightened skin does have the same effect on us as it does animals (common design);
does this reaction (goose bumps) cause blood and adrenaline to flow - thus warming us and/or hightening our awareness.  I speculate that it does. B)

View Post


You see, research actually has been carried out. That's how science arrived at that conclusion. For example:http://www.scientifi...ans-get-goosebu . There are books and further studies on the subject. Google it.

Hope that's alright. I didn't reread it so it may contain some errors, if so - please point them out to me.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)