Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Explains Everything - Doesn't It


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 01:46 PM

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Now you understand why nothing in biology makes sense except in the “light” of evolution. By stating at the outset that “whatever happens, evolution did it,” evolution can’t be falsified. It’s a completely vacuous theory that is true by definition. It explains opposite things. It can’t possibly be wrong, if you can mold enough skulls full of mush to accept the premise. The only hard part is making up the just-so story to explain the de jure fact. We think people should go for de facto facts. link

Post ridiculous evolution claims here.

Example:
survival of the slowest

Posted Image

It is the first time that evolution has been shown to select for this trait in individuals of any species.

Snails with lower metabolisms are at an advantage because they have more energy to spend on other activities such as growth or reproduction, the researchers say in the journal Evolution.


Can evolution make things less complicated?

“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

The numerous examples “illustrate the Darwinian view of evolution as a reversible process in the sense that ‘eyes can be acquired and eyes can be lost.’ Genome evolution is a two-way street,” Kurland says.



#2 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 02:18 PM

Synthetic Biology Yields Clues To Evolution And Origin Of Life

According to Deamer, life began with complex systems of molecules that came together through the self-assembly of nonliving components. A useful metaphor for understanding how this came about, he said, can be found in combinatorial chemistry, an approach in which thousands of experiments are carried out in parallel by robotic devices.



The power of combinatorial chemistry lies in the vast numbers of structurally distinct molecules that can be synthesized and tested at the same time.  Similarly, conditions on the early Earth allowed not only the synthesis of a wide variety of complex organic molecules, but also the formation of membrane-bound compartments that would have encapsulated different combinations of molecules.
    “We have made protocells in the lab--artificial compartments containing complex systems of molecules,” Deamer said.  “The creationists charge that it’s too unlikely for the right combination to have come together on its own, but combinatorial chemistry gives us a better way to think about the probability of life emerging from this process.”


Evolution began when large populations of cells had variations that led to different metabolic efficiencies,” Deamer said.  “If the populations were in a confined environment, at some point they would begin to compete for limited resources.”
    The first evolutionary selection processes would have favored those organisms that were most efficient in capturing energy and nutrients from the local environment, he said.


Look how many miracle words are in this short article. Life came about. Life came together through self-assembly via natural experiments in combinatorial chemistry. Molecules were synthesized and formed membranes that allowed different protocells to compete for limited resources. In sum, life emerged. There is their favorite miracle word again. That miracle is so common it hardly seems miraculous any more.

#3 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 02:34 PM

Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control

These findings imply that religious people may be better at pursuing and achieving long-term goals that are important to them and their religious groups. This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression, and longer lives.



Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit.

I guess this proves that evolutionist are less evolved than the Creationist. :)

#4 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:07 PM

Synthetic Biology Yields Clues To Evolution And Origin Of Life
Look how many miracle words are in this short article.  Life came about.  Life came together through self-assembly via natural experiments in combinatorial chemistry.  Molecules were synthesized and formed membranes that allowed different protocells to compete for limited resources.  In sum, life emerged.  There is their favorite miracle word again.  That miracle is so common it hardly seems miraculous any more.


You just might be prophetic. After all, when something has been explained and demonstrated repeatedly, it ceases to be a miracle.
That has happened with numerous medical advances and with many technical inventions, beginning perhaps with Edison's phonograph and Marconi's radio, and it probably will happen with the origin of life.

You claim Deaver is miracle words without substance, but have you made any attempt to find out whether your characterization is justified?
Deaver is an academic and likely to be talking of something he has studied.
In fact:-
"We are exploring self-assembly processes and polymerization reactions of organic compounds, and the potential role of minerals, in natural geothermal environments and in related laboratory simulations. The analogue environments include volcanic regions in Kamchatka, Hawaii, Iceland and northern California. In my talk, I will discuss why we think these are appropriate analogues, and how our results constrain scenarios related to the origin of cellular life. In laboratory simulations, we have found that macromolecules such as nucleic acids and proteins are readily encapsulated within membranous boundaries during wet-dry cycles such as those that would occur at the edges of geothermal springs or tide pools. The resulting structures are referred to as protocells, in that they exhibit certain properties of living cells and are models of the kinds of encapsulated macromolecular systems that would have led toward the first forms of cellular life. We have also determined that RNA-like polymers can be synthesized non-enzymatically from ordered arrays of mononucleotides in lipid microenvironments. Chemical activation of the mononucleotides is not required. Instead, synthesis of phosphodiester bonds is driven by the chemical potential of fluctuating anhydrous and hydrated conditions, with heat providing activation energy during dehydration. In the final hydration step, the RNA is encapsulated within lipid vesicles. We propose that lipid-assisted polymerization serves as a model of an early stage of evolution toward an RNA World. "
http://www.geology.w....12.05.2008.pdf

If you had put as much effort into researching Deamer instead of posting about miracle words you might actually have learned something about one approach to early life research.

#5 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:10 PM

You just might be prophetic.  After all, when something has been explained and demonstrated repeatedly, it ceases to be a miracle.
That has happened with numerous medical advances and with many technical inventions, beginning perhaps with Edison's phonograph and Marconi's radio, and it probably will happen with the origin of life.

You claim Deaver is miracle words without substance, but have you made any attempt to find out whether your characterization is justified?
Deaver is an academic and likely to be talking of something he has studied.
In fact:-
"We are exploring self-assembly processes and polymerization reactions of organic compounds, and the potential role of minerals, in natural geothermal environments and in related laboratory simulations. The analogue environments include volcanic regions in Kamchatka, Hawaii, Iceland and northern California. In my talk, I will discuss why we think these are appropriate analogues, and how our results constrain scenarios related to the origin of cellular life. In laboratory simulations, we have found that macromolecules such as nucleic acids and proteins are readily encapsulated within membranous boundaries during wet-dry cycles such as those that would occur at the edges of geothermal springs or tide pools. The resulting structures are referred to as protocells, in that they exhibit certain properties of living cells and are models of the kinds of encapsulated macromolecular systems that would have led toward the first forms of cellular life. We have also determined that RNA-like polymers can be synthesized non-enzymatically from ordered arrays of mononucleotides in lipid microenvironments. Chemical activation of the mononucleotides is not required. Instead, synthesis of phosphodiester bonds is driven by the chemical potential of fluctuating anhydrous and hydrated conditions, with heat providing activation energy during dehydration. In the final hydration step, the RNA is encapsulated within lipid vesicles. We propose that lipid-assisted polymerization serves as a model of an early stage of evolution toward an RNA World.  "
http://www.geology.w....12.05.2008.pdf

If you had put as much effort into researching Deamer instead of posting about miracle words you might actually have learned something about one approach to early life research.

View Post


Hi Kieth,

I am really glad I haven't chased you away.

Why did you post an advertisement to a conference rather than something that would correct my errant thinking?

Bruce

#6 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:39 PM

Why did you post an advertisement to a conference rather than something that would correct my errant thinking?


If you actually read the page you would have discovered that the first item is an announcement of a departmental lecture to be presented by Deaver on some of his recent work. I sent you there because that is what I was quoting from.

I have no idea how to correct your errant thinking.

#7 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 06:02 PM

If you actually read the page you would have discovered that the first item is an announcement of a departmental lecture to be presented by Deaver on some of his recent work.  I sent you there because that is what I was quoting from.

I have no idea how to correct your errant thinking.

View Post


Kieth,

I did notice that the conference was presented by Deaver.

Bruce

#8 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 28 June 2009 - 06:09 PM

Great story telling

Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it.
...
Therefore, although we cannot distinguish at what level (intraspecific or interspecific) reinforcement has operated, our comparative study demonstrates that natural selection against maladaptive matings is likely to have caused widespread divergence in pre-zygotic isolating characters between sympatric species of Agrodiaetus, and could have led to speciation


This article doesn’t improve much on evolutionary storytelling. Who is asking how or why the little flying bugs developed team spirit? Can they even see their own wing patterns, let alone care whether that attractive, sweet-smelling female over there has identical strips? Seems to be another case of imputing human aesthetic values on bugs. As long as we’re speculating about butterfly fashion fads, why wouldn’t they just as easily be saying, vive la difference?

The authors of the paper note that “empirical evidence has been sufficiently scarce to raise doubts about the importance of reinforcement in nature.” Their own case is full of speculation and doubt. So is this the best that evolutionists can do, 150 years after The Origin of Species supposedly settled the issue? Look how excited they all get over a few wing styles, and how eagerly they want to invoke the magic phrase natural selection to help Charlie get a little credit. link

#9 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 June 2009 - 09:52 PM

Heres a good one,Bruce.

Survival Of The Weakest? Cyclical Competition Of Three Species Favors Weakest As Victor

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) — The extinction of species is a consequence of their inability to adapt to new environmental conditions, and also of their competition with other species. Besides selection and the appearance of new species, the possibility of adaptation is also one of the driving forces behind evolution. According to the interpretation that has been familiar since Darwin, these processes increase the “fitness” of the species overall, since, of two competing species, only the fittest would survive.

LMU researchers have now simulated the progression of a cyclic competition of three species. It means that each participant is superior to one other species, but will be beaten by a third interaction partner. “In this kind of cyclical concurrence, the weakest species proves the winner almost without exception,” reports Professor Erwin Frey, who headed the study. “The two stronger species, on the other hand, die out, as experiments with bacteria have already shown. Our results are not only a big surprise, they are important to our understanding of evolution of ecosystems and the development of new strategies for the protection of species.”


http://www.scienceda...90213115127.htm - 52k -

#10 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 01 July 2009 - 12:43 PM

Heres a good one,Bruce.
http://www.scienceda...90213115127.htm - 52k -

View Post

:D

Great find Jason. I laughed.

#11 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 01 July 2009 - 02:18 PM

A copy of the paper can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0812.4191v2.pdf

The paper's main point is neatly summarized by the next to last paragraph using a real world example:

We conclude by relating our results to the E.coli experiments mentioned in the beginning. Identifying A with the sensitive, B with the resistant, and C with the colicinogenic strain, we uncover the relation kC >> kA > kB [C can kill A (fast) and reproduce, while A and B can only reproduce if a neighboring bacterium dies (slow).  kA and kB are then proportional to the reproduction rate di erences of A and B resp. of B and C. The measured data leads to kA > kB]. The resistant strain B is thus `weakest' and, according to the `law of the weakest', survives, in agreement with experimental observations.


This summary places "weakest" in quotes, and it judges B "weakest" because, "The measured data leads to kA > kB." But how this justifies concluding that B is weakest given that "C can kill A (fast)" is not clear. It seems that because A has a high reproduction rate providing many bacteria for C to quickly kill, and because B reproduces only if a neighboring bacterium dies, which will usually be death of an A since C is killing them fast, that it isn't really possible to conclude whether A or B is at the greatest disadvantage. And certainly an outcome of B outsurviving A and C should lead one to doubt one's criteria for assessing weakness.

--Percy

#12 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 02 July 2009 - 07:58 AM

A copy of the paper can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0812.4191v2.pdf

The paper's main point is neatly summarized by the next to last paragraph using a real world example:
This summary places "weakest" in quotes, and it judges B "weakest" because, "The measured data leads to kA > kB."  But how this justifies concluding that B is weakest given that "C can kill A (fast)" is not clear.  It seems that because A has a high reproduction rate providing many bacteria for C to quickly kill, and because B reproduces only if a neighboring bacterium dies, which will usually be death of an A since C is killing them fast, that it isn't really possible to conclude whether A or B is at the greatest disadvantage.  And certainly an outcome of B outsurviving A and C should lead one to doubt one's criteria for assessing weakness.

--Percy

View Post


Hi Percy,

I think the point of the thread is that no matter the result evolution explains it. If it stronger - evolution explains it. Likewise if it weakest - evolution explains it. The way TOE is proven is that is assumes it is the explanation of everything. By the basis of the assumption you can not disprove evolution and likewise evolutionist can explain everything. TOE proves itself based on the assumption that "evolution proves everything" which is circular reasoning.

HTH

Bruce

#13 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 02 July 2009 - 08:35 AM

Hi Bruce,

Yes, I understand the circular reasoning claim. In this case it's that if the strongest survive then that supports evolution, and if the weakest survive then that also supports evolution.

But I don't think many evolutionists would agree that the weakest surviving is consistent with evolution. Certainly in the interplay among multiple species scenarios are possible where stronger species compete each other to death leaving the playing field open to weaker species that merely played spectator.

But that research is suggesting something else, that the weakest enters into competition with two stronger species and comes out the winner. In the absence of other factors this is counterintuitive, and as I attempted to explain, I think that their criteria for weakness is flawed. They probably understood this as they put "weaker" in quotes.

--Percy

#14 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 02 July 2009 - 08:52 AM

Hi Bruce,

Yes, I understand the circular reasoning claim.  In this case it's that if the strongest survive then that supports evolution, and if the weakest survive then that also supports evolution.

But I don't think many evolutionists would agree that the weakest surviving is consistent with evolution.  Certainly in the interplay among multiple species scenarios are possible where stronger species compete each other to death leaving the playing field open to weaker species that merely played spectator.

But  that research is suggesting something else, that the weakest enters into competition with two stronger species and comes out the winner.  In the absence of other factors this is counterintuitive, and as I attempted to explain, I think that their criteria for weakness is flawed.  They probably understood this as they put "weaker" in quotes.

--Percy

View Post


Hi Percy,

This is a little of topic but it relates to your comment.

When I played Risk my objective was to stay away form conflict and let others fight it out. When they had sufficient pounding on each other I would pounce For example, Europe is a hot bed of conflict. I would camp in Iceland with a huge army and collect cards. Invariably the power players would pound each other into weakness. Then with may massive army I would take advantage of their battle fatigue. The strategy of being weak until mid game worked.

Survival of the weakest -LOL

Bruce

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 02 July 2009 - 09:55 AM

Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control
Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit.

I guess this proves that evolutionist are less evolved than the Creationist. :)

View Post

;)

I often laugh at the idea of an atheist's support of godlessness and evolution when according to their own ideology, religion must be a logical result of evolution so what's their problem? They could disrupt the whole evolutionary time-line, of survival of the fittest, by upsetting the evolved minds of the religious. :o They're messing with nature, man! :D

#16 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 July 2009 - 02:48 PM

I think the point of the thread is that no matter the result evolution explains it.  If it stronger - evolution explains it.  Likewise if it weakest - evolution explains it.  The way TOE is proven is that is assumes it is the explanation of everything.  By the basis of the assumption you can not disprove evolution and likewise evolutionist can explain everything.  TOE proves itself based on the assumption that  "evolution proves everything" which is circular reasoning.

View Post


I think one of your big problems is that you are expecting too much from the TOE.
All the theory does is explain how a species can and will change due to natural selection, the genetic variation present in the species, and mutation.

What is not specified in the theory is the particular pressures which will be acting in any one situation, and which will determine the direction of change.

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:03 PM

I think one of your big problems is that you are expecting too much from the TOE.

View Post

It is too much for Darwinists to be expected to stay within the realm of reality, huh?

All the theory does is explain how a species can and will change due to natural selection, the genetic variation present in the species, and mutation.

View Post

Come on now, Keith. This is a cop-out and you know it. If evolutionary theory only examined how species changed over time, this web site wouldn't exist and there would be no problem. It's because Darwin and his followers concluded that all organisms grow out of a common organic molecule sludge pond and that all organisms are necessarily related as some evolutionary fact, that we have a discussion. You may want to reserve your confusion for less witting groups. Here, we will call you on your attempts at erecting smoke screens every time.


What is not specified in the theory is the particular pressures which will be acting in any one situation, and which will determine the direction of change.

View Post

This demonstrates that this so-called 'scientific theory' is a dud.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:26 PM

I think one of your big problems is that you are expecting too much from the TOE.

View Post


I guess expecting anything from the model of evolution is too much then.

By the way, and I know I keep asking this without any response, but; who is this evolution guy, that you keep saying “explains” everything?

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 July 2009 - 04:34 PM

Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control
Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit.

I guess this proves that evolutionist are less evolved than the Creationist. :(

View Post



:D Well there's the problem Bruce. We have at our disposal a set of unique psychological resources that atheists don't have. :)

#20 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 July 2009 - 06:39 PM

What is not specified in the theory is the particular pressures which will be acting in any one situation, and which will determine the direction of change.


Evolution is non-random until it needs to be explained that way.Nice contradiction,Keith.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users