Jump to content


Personifying Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 24 May 2010 - 04:58 PM

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!

View Post

I'm simply saying I responded to the entire paragraph, as a whole, that's all.

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.

There is no refutation, adaptation fits in the creation model. We both agree that these fish adapted; you say adapted/evolved; I say adapted/designed.

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?

He finished his creation work in six days, He designed things to adapt, He doesn't need to go back and change things, they didn't always live in the dark caves.

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 sorry you can not allow a little humor in this discussion, geesh! ;)

I am simply stating that the sources you referrence are biased toward evolution, and I don't agree with them. As with other presummed "vestigial" organs, the actual function of these ear muscles may be discovered later. And I don't need my position validated, thank you.

"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.

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).
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.

Yes, the article is biased toward evolution - there is no denying that fact.

My point is simple, goose bumps are simply a reaction, and the underlying "happening"; the adrenaline rush, is serving a purpose. No, they don't make us look larger, so in a possibly dangerous situation the goose bumps are just a reaction that is a result of an adrenaline rush, but the adrenaline rush does highten our awareness. No, they don't assist with fur insulation, but tightened skin, which also happens with the goose bump reaction, may assist in protecting us from cold.

The problem we (creationists) have with the presumption that these things are "vestigial" is that there is no need to compare them to the animal world, it is your evolutionary world view that demands that you do that. You don't need to, we are not related, except by a common Designer.

#42 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 24 May 2010 - 05:14 PM

I had a thought in the other topic in which we're also discussing goose bumps:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring? Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it ;), but what do you think? Ponder that for a while.

#43 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 03:19 AM

I'm simply saying I responded to the entire paragraph, as a whole, that's all.


Argh I don't see it. Sorry. Let's move on though, it wasn't that relevant a point and I have enough to reply to already :)

There is no refutation, adaptation fits in the creation model.  We both agree that these fish adapted; you say adapted/evolved; I say adapted/designed.


Could you explain? How did the fish adapt, if if it didn't evolve?

He finished his creation work in six days, He designed things to adapt, He doesn't need to go back and change things, they didn't always live in the dark caves.


So he designed things to evolve? (Sorry, I don't really know what you mean by adapt in a creationist sense.)
You didn't address this point by the way, and I think it's important:
"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?"

I am simply stating that the sources you referrence are biased toward evolution, and I don't agree with them.  As with other presummed "vestigial" organs, the actual function of these ear muscles may be discovered later.  And I don't need my position validated, thank you.


I don't think so, they were just noting the similarities between the ear muscles. And how ours are the exact same, bar being minimally developed, rendering them useless in situations other than a grandad twitching his ears to "amuse his grandkids".

Yes, the article is biased toward evolution - there is no denying that fact.


Is it biased towards science? :blink: Can you point out how it's biased?

My point is simple, goose bumps are simply a reaction, and the underlying "happening"; the adrenaline rush, is serving a purpose.  No, they don't make us look larger, so in a possibly dangerous situation the goose bumps are just a reaction that is a result of an adrenaline rush, but the adrenaline rush does highten our awareness.  No, they don't assist with fur insulation, but tightened skin, which also happens with the goose bump reaction, may assist in protecting us from cold.


I think you're confusing the order of which it occurs. The adrenaline rush is what causes the goosebumps, not the other way around. An adrenaline rush is very important in survival situations, I am not denying that. Goosebumps are not. There is no reason for the adrenaline rush to trigger goosebumps.
Creationists seem to have a lot of different explanations of what goosebumps do. Science has one.
And by the way, the skin isn't tightened. Just the tiny muscles beneath the hair follicle that contract to erect the hair. It doesn't help us with insulation - certainly not to an extent to actually help us, anyway.


The problem we (creationists) have with the presumption that these things are "vestigial" is that there is no need to compare them to the animal world, it is your evolutionary world view that demands that you do that.  You don't need to, we are not related, except by a common Designer.

View Post


It doesn't "demand" us to do that. Science connected the dots and noticed the results linked to evolution. "Goose bumps are created when tiny muscles at the base of each hair, known as arrectores pilorum, contract and pull the hair erect. The reflex is started by the sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for many fight-or-flight responses." This happens in all animals with goosebumps, and it also happens to humans. Should we just ignore it? Doesn't sound very sciency.

I had a thought in the other topic in which we're also discussing goose bumps:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring? Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it ;), but what do you think? Ponder that for a while.


No, I don't think so. As Isabella and Cata already pointed out in the other thread.

#44 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:05 AM

Could you explain? How did the fish adapt, if if it didn't evolve?

So he designed things to evolve? (Sorry, I don't really know what you mean by adapt in a creationist sense.)

You didn't address this point by the way, and I think it's important:
"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?"

View Post

Adaptation is not "evolution" in the broad sense, this could be considered "micro-evolution", it is discussed and understood by both evolutionists and creationists.


I am simply stating that the sources you referrence are biased toward evolution, and I don't agree with them.  As with other presummed "vestigial" organs, the actual function of these ear muscles may be discovered later.  And I don't need my position validated, thank you.

I don't think so, they were just noting the similarities between the ear muscles. And how ours are the exact same, bar being minimally developed, rendering them useless in situations other than a grandad twitching his ears to "amuse his grandkids".
Is it biased towards science? :blink: Can you point out how it's biased?

The article in question:
http://www.scientifi...ans-get-goosebu
Snipets from the article showing an obvious bias toward evolution:
Goosebumps are a physiological phenomenon inherited from our animal ancestors, which was useful to them but are not of much help to us.
In people this reaction is useless because we do not have a hair coat, but goosebumps persist nevertheless.

I think you're confusing the order of which it occurs. The adrenaline rush is what causes the goosebumps, not the other way around. An adrenaline rush is very important in survival situations, I am not denying that. Goosebumps are not. There is no reason for the adrenaline rush to trigger goosebumps.

Yes, I have been corrected already that I had the order wrong; adrenaline causes goosebumps, not the other way around.

So, it is the adrenaline rush that initiates the goose bump reaction, which is just a by-product of a useful reaction. There is no reason to assign a purpose to the goose bumps theirselves, they are just a reaction. The adrenaline rush that caused them does assist us, they (goose bumps) are just a result of the adrenaline rush; that's all, just a reaction, nothing more, no need to find a purpose for those goose bumps in a dangerous situation, just use the adrenaline that caused them to help in your fight or flight.
(I'm sorry, I was being purposefully redundant)

Creationists seem to have a lot of different explanations of what goosebumps do.

Not really, I have only thought of possible explanations, only because you evo's demand that there must be some purpose for them. I don't agree, there does not need to be a purpose for goose bumps - they are just a reaction (see above so I am not annoyingly redundant).

Science has one.

And I agree that the "scientific" answer for animals is acceptable, but it is not exclusive to "evolutionary science".

And by the way, the skin isn't tightened. Just the tiny muscles beneath the hair follicle that contract to erect the hair. It doesn't help us with insulation - certainly not to an extent to actually help us, anyway.

Well it certainly feels like my skin is tighter when I have goose bumps, maybe it doesn't actually tighten, *see below also.

It doesn't "demand" us to do that. Science connected the dots and noticed the results linked to evolution.

"Goose bumps are created when tiny muscles at the base of each hair, known as arrectores pilorum, contract and pull the hair erect. The reflex is started by the sympathetic nervous system, which is responsible for many fight-or-flight responses." This happens in all animals with goosebumps, and it also happens to humans. Should we just ignore it? Doesn't sound very sciency.

No, "evolutionary" scientists say there's a link, but there is not. As I said, "...there is no need to compare them to the animal world, it is your evolutionary world view that demands that you do that. You don't need to, we are not related, except by a common Designer."

What does pure science say:
1. Humans sometimes get goose bumps.
2. Adrenaline flow causes goose bumps.
3. Observation noted!

To take it a step further, science could notice the similarities between the human adrenaline rush causing goose bumps and the animals goose bumps actually resulting in these defense and warming advantages. And they could suggest that a common Designer seems apparent. Again, just because an adrenaline rush results in goose bumps does not necessitate a purpose!


I had a thought in the other topic in which we're also discussing goose bumps:
Is our skin more resistant to puncture while the goose bump reaction is occuring? Hmmm, it does tighten the skin - would a knife, or claws, or teeth, or a sword penetrate less while the goose bump reaction is occuring?

I'm not gonna test it ;), but what do you think? Ponder that for a while.

No, I don't think so. As Isabella and Cata already pointed out in the other thread.

*And as I said in the other thread:
I was only suggesting a possible positive effect of goose bumps, I don't require one; it is you all that are saying there "must" be a reason / purpose. And besides, how do we know the scratch you received wouldn't have been worse had you leg been warm.

I'm perfectly OK with them being a simple side effect.


#45 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 12:45 PM

Oh fudge cake. I just accidently misclicked a side button on my mouse and closed the window with my response. I'm sorry if this now appears rushed. I really am not in the mood to type it out twice... oh well.

Adaptation is not "evolution" in the broad sense, this could be considered "micro-evolution", it is discussed and understood by both evolutionists and creationists.


Why not? Adaption is what evolution is all about. In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection had to be found. In order to move around, they utilize lateral lines to detect fluctuating water pressures. They also have tastebuds all over their head, can store four times the amount of fat and have unpigmented skin. How is that not evolution?
Also, you still haven't answered this question that I asked:
""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?""

The article in question:
http://www.scientifi...ans-get-goosebu
Snipets from the article showing an obvious bias toward evolution:
Goosebumps are a physiological phenomenon inherited from our animal ancestors, which was useful to them but are not of much help to us.
In people this reaction is useless because we do not have a hair coat, but goosebumps persist nevertheless.



Because of the evidence. Evolution & an ancient earth is included in science.
Why did you highlight "useless" and "persist"? They are useless, and they have persisted in the human condition despite this obvious lack of function.

So, it is the adrenaline rush that initiates the goose bump reaction, which is just a by-product of a useful reaction. There is no reason to assign a purpose to the goose bumps theirselves, they are just a reaction.  The adrenaline rush that caused them does assist us, they (goose bumps) are just a result of the adrenaline rush; that's all, just a reaction, nothing more, no need to find a purpose for those goose bumps in a dangerous situation, just use the adrenaline that caused them to help in your fight or flight.
(I'm sorry, I was being purposefully redundant)


Science doesn't like saying "they are just a reaction". It asks why they are there, how they work, when they work, what happens etc. By understanding this, and noting the exact same process that occurs in other coated animals, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots. We utilize the exact same reaction as chimps, mice, cats and porcupines (and many more), except ours serve no function. Why is it so wrong for us to conclude that they are indicative of evolution?

Not really, I have only thought of possible explanations, only because you evo's demand that there must be some purpose for them.  I don't agree, there does not need to be a purpose for goose bumps - they are just a reaction (see above so I am not annoyingly redundant).


I was not specifically reffering to you. I have had discussions in the past and when I brought up goosebumps, I got details about all sorts of wonderful functions that goosebumps carry out and how they do it. Most of them being contradictive of each other. They seem to think science is just a huge conspiracy out to disprove creationism.

And to what you said about them "just being a reaction", see above. I'll also add that reactions occur for a reason, or a past reason. And yay we agree - goosebumps don't serve a purpose.

And I agree that the "scientific" answer for animals is acceptable, but it is not exclusive to "evolutionary science".


It's not exclusive. Science researches everything. It also connects the dots between why animals and humans share so many traits, reflexes and anatomy.

Well it certainly feels like my skin is tighter when I have goose bumps, maybe it doesn't actually tighten, *see below also.


No, that's just the muscles contracting underneath the hair follicle. I don't think tightening your skin anyway would help prevent heat loss.

No, "evolutionary" scientists say there's a link, but there is not.  As I said, "...there is no need to compare them to the animal world, it is your evolutionary world view that demands that you do that.  You don't need to, we are not related, except by a common Designer."


There is one. Comparative anatomy, genetics, vestigiality, junk dna (the broken vitamin C gene in particular) microbiology etc.
My evolutionary "world view" does not demand me to do that. Science addresses everything, as it should. And I think we do need to. Especially with all the evidence indicative of evolution.

What does pure science say:
1. Humans sometimes get goose bumps.
2. Adrenaline flow causes goose bumps.
3. Observation noted!


Correct. But science goes further. It notices how they do not seem to serve any function. And that the exact same process occurs in other animals, only it serves very important functions for them, despite it being no different to our mechanism, only we lack fur rendering it useless. It asks why we have such a useless reflex, and why some very distantly related species don't, when we obviously don't need it either. It then looks at the evidence that connects us to those species, such as comparative anatomy, genetics, fossils etc. Science then concludes that goosebumps also served a very important function in our ancestors past, just like it does today in so many animals.


To take it a step further, science could notice the similarities between the human adrenaline rush causing goose bumps and the animals goose bumps actually resulting in these defense and warming advantages.  And they could suggest that a common Designer seems apparent.  Again, just because an adrenaline rush results in goose bumps does not necessitate a purpose!


Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. Especially since it doesn't need to.
Reflexes occur for a reason. Efficiency is quite important.

*And as I said in the other thread:
I was only suggesting a possible positive effect of goose bumps, I don't require one; it is you all that are saying there "must" be a reason / purpose. And besides, how do we know the scratch you received wouldn't have been worse had you leg been warm.


Maybe you don't require one, but science does. And because there is no evidence to suggest so. If it does, it's on a miniscule level and it probably wouldn't affect us enough to even notice. Our skin doesn't tense or harden. Tiny muscles simply contract, just like when I lift or straighten my arm.

I'm perfectly OK with them being a simple side effect.

Science isn't. So it asks why. Ignoring contrary evidence and similarities doesn't validate your position.

Also, you didn't address this from Page 2. I hope you don't mind if I bring it up again.
"(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)".

Sorry if I seem impatient. I was nearly finished when I had to start again :blink:

#46 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 May 2010 - 02:57 PM

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


Okay, let me qualify this by saying we probably subscribe to the same understanding of biology. All I'm saying is Darwian evolution is not modern biology. Evolutionary theory has been modified to the point that if Darwin read an academic paper on the subject he would be completely lost. There is no such thing as Darwinian evolution. There is only evolution in contemporary science.

#47 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

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

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:15 PM

Why not? Adaption is what evolution is all about. In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection had to be found. In order to move around, they utilize lateral lines to detect fluctuating water pressures. They also have tastebuds all over their head, can store four times the amount of fat and have unpigmented skin. How is that not evolution?
Also, you still haven't answered this question that I asked:
""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?""

View Post

I did answer all of this, adaptation - call it "micro-evolution" if you want, creationism allows for micro-evolution.

Because of the evidence. Evolution & an ancient earth is included in science.

No, you forgot one very important word, allow me to correct your statement:
"Evolution & an ancient earth is included in EVOLUTIONARY science."

Why did you highlight "useless" and "persist"? They are useless, and they have persisted in the human condition despite this obvious lack of function.

If you do not know why I highlighted those words then I can not help you.

Science doesn't like saying "they are just a reaction". It asks why they are there, how they work, when they work, what happens etc. By understanding this, and noting the exact same process that occurs in other coated animals, it is not unreasonable to connect the dots. We utilize the exact same reaction as chimps, mice, cats and porcupines (and many more), except ours serve no function. Why is it so wrong for us to conclude that they are indicative of evolution?

I can, and do, understand why EVOLUTIONARY science insists that they are "indicative of evolution". The reason it is wrong for us to conclude there is a relationship, a common distant ancestor, is because we are not related, in any way/shape/form, to chimps, mice, cats!

I was not specifically reffering to you. I have had discussions in the past and when I brought up goosebumps, I got details about all sorts of wonderful functions that goosebumps carry out and how they do it. Most of them being contradictive of each other. They seem to think science is just a huge conspiracy out to disprove creationism.

EVOLUTIONARY science most definitely is "out to disprove creationism"!

And to what you said about them "just being a reaction", see above. I'll also add that reactions occur for a reason, or a past reason. And yay we agree - goosebumps don't serve a purpose.

Not all reactions must "occur for a reason", other than that they are simply a reaction. EVOLUTIONARY science demands that they occur for a reason!

It's not exclusive. Science researches everything.

It was good enough to stop your thought there, but you had to add:

It also connects the dots between why animals and humans share so many traits, reflexes and anatomy.

Real science doesn't connect dots that don't exist. EVOLUTIONARY science demands that the imaginary dots be connected.

There is one. Comparative anatomy, genetics, vestigiality, junk dna (the broken vitamin C gene in particular) microbiology etc.

My evolutionary "world view" does not demand me to do that. Science addresses everything, as it should. And I think we do need to. Especially with all the evidence indicative of evolution.

Correct. But science goes further. It notices how they do not seem to serve any function. And that the exact same process occurs in other animals, only it serves very important functions for them, despite it being no different to our mechanism, only we lack fur rendering it useless. It asks why we have such a useless reflex, and why some very distantly related species don't, when we obviously don't need it either. It then looks at the evidence that connects us to those species, such as comparative anatomy, genetics, fossils etc. Science then concludes that goosebumps also served a very important function in our ancestors past, just like it does today in so many animals.

Yes, your EVOLUTIONARY world view does demand that you think that way.

Real science would admit that it can only observe commonalities/similarities, it can not say that similarities are indicative of relation, it can not say that we are related by some common ancestor. Real science does not say evolution is a fact.

EVOLUTIONARY science demands that there is a relationship.

Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural. Especially since it doesn't need to.

OK, then science can use a lowercase letter in the word "designer".
Reflexes occur for a reason. Efficiency is quite important.

Maybe you don't require one, but science does.
No, they don't have to. EVOLUTIONARY science demands that they do, but real science doesn't have that obligation.
bobabelever:
I'm perfectly OK with them being a simple side effect.
Rathie:
Science isn't. So it asks why. Ignoring contrary evidence and similarities doesn't validate your position.
Ahem, EVOLUTIONARY science isn't. So EVOLUTIONARY science asks why.

Real science only observes and documents, real science only asks "how", real science doesn't presume a relationship, real science can notice similarities and document them, but it can not demand a relationship.

EVOLUTIONARY science demands a relationship.

I don't need my position validated.
Also, you didn't address this from Page 2. I hope you don't mind if I bring it up again. 
[i]"(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)".[/i]
Well, you did say "if you're interested" - so it is my choice whether to be interested or not. Besides, you provided a suitable answer yourself in the same paragraph. Now we probably don't agree on the time line, my "distant ancestor" would be a human being that lived within the past 6,000 years; your "distant ancestor" would be some sort of homo erectus xyz that lived within the past million years.

************************************************************
We have strayed way off the point of the OP, let's get back to it as you have provided some excellent examples yourself, right here in this thread.

Here is the title once again:
Personifying Evolution; Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution
(I think the word sutlely is mis-spelled, it should be subtly - we won't tell Eocene ;))

Here are the examples from your posts:

(the first example is from your very first post in this thread)
"And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because they didn't need to."
- As if they could realize this need, or lack thereof.

"A strand might get swapped end for end. A section may be snipped out. A section might be inserted. Or the entire gene might be duplicated."
- Who/What is doing the swapping, snipping, inserting, duplicating. This implies intelligence!

"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."
- Who/What did the "imbedding", who/what is gonna "remove" it, who/what is doing the "reasoning"?

"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."
- This implies they were able to "focus" their own evolutionary adaptations, this is implied purposeful participation in the evolutionary process!

"In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection had to be found."
- As if the fish "found" the other method.

************************************************************

Now you can attempt to back-peddle and explain why you have used these "intelligence attributes" in your own posts. As for me, I'm done with this thread :blink:

#48 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 25 May 2010 - 11:58 PM

Q. Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution?
A. To simplify the explanation for laypeople.

#49 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 03:06 AM

I did answer all of this, adaptation - call it "micro-evolution" if you want, creationism allows for micro-evolution.


But you didn't address it specifically. You just briefly summarized it as adaptation without explaining why. I want to know exactly why "science is wrong" and why you're right. This is what I want you to answer, specifically and in detail. Please. I don't see how this can go further without it.
"Why not? Adaption is what evolution is all about. In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection had to be found. In order to move around, they utilize lateral lines to detect fluctuating water pressures. They also have tastebuds all over their head, can store four times the amount of fat and have unpigmented skin. How is that not evolution?
Also, you still haven't answered this question that I asked:
""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?""


No, you forgot one very important word, allow me to correct your statement:
"Evolution & an ancient earth is included in EVOLUTIONARY science."


No, all science points to an ancient earth. It's not disputed. It's pretty much the same thing with evolution, except the evidence isn't as overwhelming. Science could cast off everything we know about commen descent as creationism. But that would be very contradictive on sciences part, and would get us nowhere. Once again, science seeks to explain natural phenomena via natural means. The supernatural is not included in science, and how could it?


I can, and do, understand why EVOLUTIONARY science insists that they are "indicative of evolution".  The reason it is wrong for us to conclude there is a relationship, a common distant ancestor, is because we are not related, in any way/shape/form, to chimps, mice, cats!


That's your prejudice in creationism showing through. You are trying to tell science that it's wrong because "god did it". According to science and observation, there is a very good reason to reach that conclusion. According to creationism, it's wrong because it doesn't agree with what it teaches.

EVOLUTIONARY science most definitely is "out to disprove creationism"!


No, science sets off to explain as much as possible. Evolution is a way of explaining how life came to its form today via natural means, instead of resorting to a supernatural deity. Disproving creationism is not its intent. Its only focus is to explain how we came to be using only the natural world. It does not associate itself in any way with creationism, because that falls in with the supernatural which science doesn't refer to.

Not all reactions must "occur for a reason", other than that they are simply a reaction.  EVOLUTIONARY science demands that they occur for a reason!


Then why don't I have all sorts of wacky reactions going on constantly? All our reactions can be explained, bar goosebumps - but we can link that to other animals since they use the exact same mechanism and it serves them a very important function. Science asks why and how to everything it can.

Real science doesn't connect dots that don't exist.  EVOLUTIONARY science demands that the imaginary dots be connected.


But the dots do exist. What about all the similar genetics, the comparative anatomy, the transitional fossils, the vestigial organs, the junk dna (broken vitamin C gene in particular), the fossils, the morphological similarities, mirco evolution, artifical selection, obvious S@xual selection traits in us(eg, a heterosexual women tends to be more attracted to men with higher testosterone levels, which usually results in a wider jaw, wider shoulders, thin waist, body hair, deep voice etc. Heterosexual men tend to prefer women with higher levels of fertility - eg wide hips, thin waist, large breasts etc. Why would god implant us with these genetic ideals? Seems unfair to the people born without the genetics.) etc? Science looks at the dots, notices the similarities and draws an evolutionary line between them.


Yes, your EVOLUTIONARY world view does demand that you think that way.


No. Certainly not in the way your creationism worldview demands that you cast off evolution just because it doesn't fit in with creationism.
If I could disprove evolution, I would publish it tomorrow (it still wouldn't point towards creationism). I have no emotional attachment to it - I just looked for the most scientific and rational theory which holds the most evidence. Other than evolution, there aren't any (that I know of). I obviously don't resort to creationism, because the supernatural isn't in the realm of science, and science is all I'm looking for. Anyone can make up a story about origins based on untestable & unknowable supernatural intervention, but you have to prove science and not resort to anything but the natural world.

Real science would admit that it can only observe commonalities/similarities, it can not say that similarities are indicative of relation, it can not say that we are related by some common ancestor. [u]Real science does not say evolution is a fact.[/u]

What about observed speciation and transitional fossils? What about artifical breeding? We have been able to play the role of natural selection and decide what traits we want to keep or lengthen/shorten or change in dogs. They have not speciated, but to be honest I wouldn't be all the surprised if it happened in the future.

They all seem pretty indicative of relation. If you want examples of the observed speciation and transitional fossils - I'll be more than happy to give them to you.

[b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science [b]demands[/b] that there is a relationship.

Evolutionary science notices the similarities and evidence and then points to a scientific, natural conclusion - evolution. It's purely based upon science.


No, they don't have to.  [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science [b]demands[/b] that they do, but real science doesn't have that obligation.
[code]

"Real science" has the obligation to explain everything it can through natural means. Evolution is the conclusion it drew. Also, could you explain why efficiency is not important?


[code]Ahem, [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science isn't.  So [b]EVOLUTIONARY[/b] science asks why.

Real science only observes and documents, real science only asks "how", real science doesn't presume a relationship, real science can notice similarities and document them, but it can not demand a relationship.

But "real" science can conclude there is a relationship, if given sufficient evidence. Also I don't think science is confined to "how". It asks everything.


I don't need my position validated.

So, then it's not based in science. It's just an opinion tied in with your beliefs.


Well, you did say "if you're interested" - so it is my choice whether to be interested or not.  Besides, you provided a suitable answer yourself in the same paragraph.  Now we probably don't agree on the time line, my "distant ancestor" would be a human being that lived within the past 6,000 years; your "distant ancestor" would be some sort of homo erectus xyz that lived within the past million years.

Yes, I thought it might interesting to add to the discussion. However, if you're going to reject it - I would like a reason why, if that's all right.
So if you accept that one mutation can become a part of every human, then why is evolution so far fetched? With evolution, there is also a much bigger timeline which makes it even easier.

************************************************************
We have strayed way off the point of the OP, let's get back to it as you have provided some excellent examples yourself, right here in this thread.

Yes, we definitely have. If we are to continue, we should probably try to return.

Here is the title once again:
Personifying Evolution; Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution
(I think the word sutlely is mis-spelled, it should be subtly - we won't tell Eocene;))

Haha, yes he has. But returning to that point, (which I have already explained) the only reason why some words like that are used is because of either a lack of understanding in evolution or an oversimplification to make it easier to understand for the layman. I have already pointed out that the sign Eocene was talking about was wrong.



(the first example is from your very first post in this thread)
"And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because [b]they didn't need to[/b]."
- As if they could realize this need, or lack thereof.

Wow, I have explained this so many times. It doesn't mean the snakes realized they needed something. The random mutation occured that offered an advantage. Here's a follow on post from that quote you cherry picked.
"Here's a hypothetical scenario:
The other snakes might not have been a part of the rattlesnake population. Therefore, they didn't mate so the genes of the rattlesnakes didn't spread to the other populations (I don't know whether they were seperate species or not). As I said above, they must have already been atleast partially adapted for them to be able to continue to produce offspring in the first place. Hence, the development of venom was not vital for them. Also, there is no goal for evolution, so whatever works is what we see in organisms. Venom is only one possible way to go. And if it's not needed in a certain location due to different predators or prey, then there is no real reason for it to evolve (if the other defensive / offensive mechanisms work just as well as the venom would in that environment)."


"A strand might [b]get swapped end for end[/b]. A section may [b]be snipped out[/b]. A section might [b]be inserted[/b]. Or the entire gene might [b]be duplicated[/b]."
- Who/What is doing the swapping, snipping, inserting, duplicating.  This implies intelligence!

Nothing is actively planning the swapping, snipping, inserting or duplicating. It does not imply intelligence. Random copy errors occur all the time. Here's a quick overview.

"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."
- Who/What did the "imbedding", who/what is gonna "remove" it, who/what is doing the "reasoning"?

Natural selection. I know you're going to leap at me and say it's an intelligent process, so I'm just going to copy and paste my answer of how it works.
"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" (notice the parenthesis) the mutations. It can described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it, as I explained very simplistically above.
"



"While onland, they now had to find a way to compete and survive with all the other organisms on the land, so the [b]focus turned to adapt with a land environment[/b] as opposed to a water one."
- This implies they were able to "focus" their own evolutionary adaptations, this is implied purposeful participation in the evolutionary process!

No, it doesn't. I was using focus on a broad scale. If you read the rest of my post, you should have realised what I was saying.
"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.
"



"In order for the Blind Cave Fish to be able to adapt to their now lightless environment, another method of detection [b]had to be found[/b]."
- As if the fish "found" the other method.

No, but for the species survival, the method had to be found - regardless of whether it would be. If it wasn't, they would have died or moved. A random mutation obviously offered a slight advantage and that fish was able to manoeuvre more easily in the new environment. So the method was "found" inadvertently without any deliberate intent through mindless mutations.


************************************************************

Now you can attempt to back-peddle and explain why you have used these "intelligence attributes" in your own posts.  As for me, I'm done with this thread

It's simply a way of explaining it easily. I'll try to be more careful from now on. But, I don't see why you attempted to invalidate my position through such cherrypicking, when I have already explained what I mean by evolution many times.

It's a pity you done with the thread. I thought it was interesting. Also, I apologize for the size of this post - I wanted to address everything you said specifically.

#50 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 May 2010 - 04:12 AM

Q. Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution?

View Post


Because, without intelligent intervention, evolution could not direct anything. Unless evolution itself is intelligent?

#51 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 04:12 AM

Q. Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution?
A. To simplify the explanation for laypeople.

View Post


I don't agree with that, but I do applaud you for trying to attempt to get the thread back on track but I unfortunately believe it's a waste of time. ;)

Maybe the Mods can just close this thread since it's not even close to the original subject anyway and these subjects being discussed aren't even remotely close to the O.P. and have morphed into nothing more than philosophical idealogies touted as TRUTH repitiously parroted over and over as if to say, if repeatedly parroting (even without citations from real science papers as opposed to philosophical sites) it simply morphs into truth. The thread has long since lost it's purpose. :blink:

#52 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 04:43 AM

Because, without intelligent intervention, evolution could not direct anything. Unless evolution itself is intelligent?

View Post


No evolutionists claim that intelligence is required to direct evolution. Could you point out to me where intelligent intervention is needed in my below explanation?:

"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" (notice the parenthesis) the mutations. It can be described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it, as I explained very simplistically above."


By the way, I apologize for the derailment.

#53 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:03 AM

No evolutionists claim that intelligence is required to direct evolution. Could you point out to me where intelligent intervention is needed in my below explanation?:

"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" (notice the parenthesis) the mutations. It can be described as guiding, but there is nothing conscious or deliberate about it, as I explained very simplistically above."


By the way, I apologize for the derailment.

View Post


The last I remember,I was replying to someone else...

#54 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:21 AM

The last I remember,I was replying to someone else...

View Post


Sorry. I figured what you said was open for discussion since this is a public thread and not a one on one debate. However, I do apologize – it has happened to me multiple times since I’ve joined here, and it resulted with me having separate discussions with creationists on the same page, so I understand the annoyance.

If you don't want to reply to my post and only to falcone, that's fine - i'll politely leave this discussion.

#55 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 26 May 2010 - 03:36 PM

Because, without intelligent intervention, evolution could not direct anything. Unless evolution itself is intelligent?

View Post

'Direct' is a verb from which one would normally infer intelligence. Your use of this intelligence attribute is a good way of explaining a complex process in a one sentence, forum friendly tweet. Well done! :rolleyes:

#56 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 26 May 2010 - 03:43 PM

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.


Is evolution an absolute, yes or no?

You see what I'm trying to relay to you is that all of your comments are based on you implying that evolution is an absolute. When I disagree with you, you claim that it's because I don't understand, right? Disagreeing is not that someone does not understand. It's because they disagree.

So when you keep implying that everyone whom disagrees does not understand, you are taking away the choice to disagree. Therefore you are implying an absolute by giving everyone whom has contact with you by giving only one choice. Which is: Agree with me or you are stupid. Sound about right?

And because evolution has to remain falsifiable to be scientific, you are making it not even science. So if you are going to keep up this stance, you are un-debatable. And will cause more trouble at this forum than what it worth. Because your fustration is also ours for almost the same reason.

#57 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 26 May 2010 - 03:48 PM

Q. Why are intelligence attributes sutlely applied to Evolution?
A. To simplify the explanation for laypeople.

View Post


More or less saying that anyone whom disagrees is retarded?

#58 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 May 2010 - 03:55 PM

Sorry. I figured what you said was open for discussion since this is a public thread and not a one on one debate. However, I do apologize – it has happened to me multiple times since I’ve joined here, and it resulted with me having separate discussions with creationists on the same page, so I understand the annoyance.

If you don't want to reply to my post and only to falcone, that's fine - i'll politely leave this discussion.

View Post


I don't have a problem with discussing anything, with anyone here. But your post came off as if I had accused you of something in particular. Or that I had distorted something you said directly.

If you'd like to discuss the matter further, I'd be more than happy to. Bit, it will have to wait until I'm at a faster connection then I am right now :rolleyes:

#59 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:41 PM

More or less saying that anyone whom disagrees is retarded?

View Post



So you equate laypeople as retarded?
.
.
.

didn't think so

#60 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:54 PM

So you equate laypeople as retarded? 
.
.
.

didn't think so

View Post


Well I have to say I don't like the expression either. It does have an arrogant condescending ring about it. However, I first started disliking it back in the early 1970s with it's usage in Churches. They have class distinctions separating the Clergy from the Laity. I also found it a put down in that sense as well. Such class distinctions were never scriptural in the Bible in the first place. An ecclesiastical hierarchy was created with the introduction of the Catholic Church who were created out of more of a political move. They patterned there organization after the pagan Rome they were replacing. The Protestants merely followed the Catholic pattern or rather kept certain traditions since even their reformation was more of a political one than religious.

I suppose today our world of academics is no different than clergy of the past and present. But since we were trying to discuss terms in the first place, it is a major one I don't like either no matter who is using it. It's like, if you have knowledge of something that most don't have, then share it with them and you'll both be equal. Unfortunately our world doesn't work that way.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users