Jump to content


Personifying Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 03:02 AM

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.


Sorry, I didn't mean it to. I was just pointing out that evolutionists don't require intelligence to direct evolution. That's the opposite of what the theory is going for. I wanted to see how my my quote involved any direct and deliberate indications of intelligence.

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  ;)

View Post


I would, because almost every time I try to discuss it here, creationists bring deliberate intent and planned direction up as if that somehow refutes evolution :rolleyes:

Either respond here or make a new thread when you're ready with a better connection, if you're willing :)

_____


"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."


#62 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 03:17 AM

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.

View Post


Okay, first of all let me point out that you did it again. I only asked for you to specifically respond to one thing in that post – and you completely ignored it and started giving out about me not letting you disagree with evolution.

Secondly, I don’t know why you brought absolutes up. The stance I take is that the evidence is overwhelming and I don’t ignore it. Anyway – that’s a separate discussion and I’d rather not pursue it here in this thread because it is a distraction from the OP and there is only one thing that I want to clarify here as of now.

I was implying that you don’t understand (not everyone) because you keep throwing deliberate and intent mutations back at me, as if evolution is consciously designing what to happen. That is nothing to do with the theory and it is a serious misrepresentation. I was pointing out that it is not what evolution states, and since you kept bringing it up, I figured you didn't understand what the theory really is. I could be wrong, but you'd have to prove to me that I am by doing what I asked in that post and specifically addressing this: (and ofcourse not throwing such garbage about a snake deciding it wants to grow a new hide or develop venom and then "use Wiccan abilities to morph itself just right", because that is neither rational nor evolution)

""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."


Please just explain where the conscious design is in that.

That was the only thing that post was about. I brought it up because you said things like:
"How does evolution know how to mix poison?"
"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."


That is obviously not evolution.

#63 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 27 May 2010 - 03:45 AM

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 personally don't mind the term laypeople at all. It basically describes a person who has not studied a topic as in depth as people in the field of reference. Like you mentioned with the clergy. They have possibly read the Bible front to back, studied its origins, they know how it is similar and dis-similar to other religions, and so on.

Of course everyone has access to the same information, its just that some people don't have the time, or necessarily the desire to study something as in-depth.

The other term, well I don't even like typing it. Yes it describes a physical condition of the brain, but it also has so many negative connotations.

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.

View Post


And I think that is what is great about the internet. Its nearly impossible to hide information on it.

I think the best thing to keep in mind when teaching a 'layperson' - someone who has either not had the time/ or desire, a new subject is that you need to use terms that he/she would understand. You want to take baby steps. Once the person understands that, then you increase the complexity of what you are talking about, and give them reading topics so that they can understand the basics better.

Do you think there is anything wrong with that line of reasoning? just curious really.

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 27 May 2010 - 04:42 AM

Sorry, I didn't mean it to.

View Post


No problem, I was just responding to your post. If I took it the wrong way, I too apologize.

I was just pointing out that evolutionists don't require intelligence to direct evolution.

View Post


Actually, yes they do; because there is no other explanation for the obvious design in adaptation (it is indeed driven). The evolutionists can’t explain this, and yet they try hard to deny it from themselves and others. I don’t mean this as a slam, nor am I trying to be indignant, I am merely pointing out the logic and reasoning in the science.

That's the opposite of what the theory is going for. I wanted to see how my my quote involved any direct and deliberate indications of intelligence.

View Post


It may be the opposite of the intent, but it isn’t accurate. Therefore we’ll discuss it in more detail elsewhere.


I would, because almost every time I try to discuss it here, creationists bring deliberate intent and planned direction up as if that somehow refutes evolution :rolleyes:

View Post


Again, the planned direction is obvious in the adaptation of living species to their surrounding (i.e. becoming acclimated). And there is absolutely nothing wrong in being “deliberate” in pointing out logical fallacies, rational discrepancies, and scientific oversights.

Either respond here or make a new thread when you're ready with a better connection, if you're willing ;)

View Post


Actually I already responded at:
http://www.evolution...704

I would suggest your keeping all your responses to this discussion there, as it is more along the lines of the subject matter.

#65 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 04:58 AM

I think the best thing to keep in mind when teaching a 'layperson' - someone who has either not had the time/ or desire, a new subject is that you need to use terms that he/she would understand.  You want to take baby steps.  Once the person understands that, then you increase the complexity of what you are talking about, and give them reading topics so that they can understand the basics better.

Do you think there is anything wrong with that line of reasoning? just curious really.


I'm more concerned usually with the individual doing the instructing/teaching. When I say I don't necessarily like the term, it's more of certain individuals approach to the task. Clergy tend to wear long flowing robes, decorations, etc to give the appearance of a most holy godly being himself. Those monolithic Cathedrals in Europe and some places in the states are created for much the same reason, for effect that makes the average pew person feel small and insignificant. They have over the centuries tended to talk down to the people and unfortunately the people have done it to themselves. Nobody really benefits from this approach, even if the information is true.


I think Universities and other colleges of most academics have the same problem of a condescending intellectual lording it over those perceived inferior and they usually by their approach continually remind students of that. No body benefits from that kind of approach. I have to admit that Carl Sagan was an individual who could come down to the average persons level and make them feel interested in a subject that would otherwise be boring. Last year at a scientific conference I attended here in Europe there was one researcher who was so intellectual that he lost almost everyone with nothing but physics calculations and theories on the chalk board. It wasn't till some of us kept asking, but what is the real world applications of this. During the breaks it was clear that he didn't have many social interactive skills, he was a sort of loner. But his accent and demeaner made him seem like a sort of German Einstein that no average person could even hopr or famthom getting close to. Sadly I think some believe that is the way things are supposed to be.

We unfortunately live in a natural world that is going down hill rapidly. Every man, woman and child on the planet needs to be on the same page with certain basic responsible conduct when it comes to caring for the Earth, and I can tell you with the leadership (religious, Scientific, Economic and Political) that is presently available it just not going to happen if they don't get rid of that taking down to someone approach.


BTW, Everytime I look at your avatar, I don't think of coffee beans. I more reminded to go to the garden shed and take out our Weber Bar-B-Q, clean it up and prepare it for summer. :lol:

Posted Image

#66 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:10 AM

Okay, here is yet another attempt to bring this back from the diliberate hijacking that's taken place. :lol:

Natural Selection


How does blind, pointless, pitiless indifferent without purpose or intent nature select anything ???? Answer it doesn't. Selection is done by a living thing no matter what capacity level of intelligence there is. Therefore, why isn't it called "Natural Luck" - "Natural Chance". That would be a more honest description would it not. So why the Personification fallacy ????????

Hmmmmm :o

#67 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:30 AM

Woops, posted in wrong thread.

Forgive the extra post :lol:

#68 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 05:46 AM

Natural Selection
How does blind, pointless, pitiless indifferent without purpose or intent nature select anything ???? Answer it doesn't. Selection is done by a living thing no matter what capacity level of intelligence there is. Therefore, why isn't it called "Natural Luck" - "Natural Chance". That would be a more honest description would it not. So why the Personification fallacy ???????? 

View Post


It doesn’t knowingly or actively select anything. I agree with you on that. I’ll compare it to a sieve. The powdery flour (advantageous mutations) passes through the sieve. The flour lumps (deleterious mutations) don’t and get separated from the flour (population) via filtration (selection pressures). The sieve (natural selection) didn’t actively decide that it wanted to separate the flour, it just happened due to the grid (inheritable characteristics that prove to be either detrimental or beneficial & selection pressures) without any intent or planning.

Natural Selection is a nonrandom process, just like a sieve is, hence it's not called "Natural Luck" or "Natural Chance". It's the mutations that are random.

#69 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 06:53 AM

It doesn’t knowingly or actively select anything. I agree with you on that. I’ll compare it to a sieve. The powdery flour (advantageous mutations) passes through the sieve. The flour lumps (deleterious mutations) don’t and get separated from the flour (population) via filtration (selection pressures). The sieve (natural selection) didn’t actively decide that it wanted to separate the flour, it just happened due to the grid (inheritable characteristics that prove to be either detrimental or beneficial & selection pressures) without any intent or planning.

Natural Selection is a nonrandom process, just like a sieve is, hence it's not called "Natural Luck" or "Natural Chance". It's the mutations that are random.

View Post


You keep parroting the same definitions over and over again and again as if printed enough times makes it so. Your flour sieve design theory does not explain the blind luck for which the personification lable for Natural Selection is diliberately rigged to mislead. Blind pointless indifference can't select anything. It's also a poor excuse for explaining proper selection which is done through intelligent living things , be it a man or creatures with encoded instructions of instinct inside their DNA. It's still randomness no matter how you want to look at it. It's as if you believe that if you parrot this 100 times over and over , eventually it somehow becomes engraved in stone as a truth for no other reason than others are drowned out in the discussion and leave. Your understanding of evolution and all it's supposed wonderful componants is old school Darwinisnism. It is not the modern day understanding of just how intelligently and purposed goal driven DNA actually works.

I have asked you over and over to show an empirical scientific experiment proving this blind chance randomness and you conveniently avoided the subject of randomness with any specific scientific proofs. You simply disappear on that. So here it is again. Blind chanced Randomness presumes underlying Disorder. The Scientific Method presumes underlying Order. Show us by the Scientific Method, minus the philosophical dogma, how any random mutationa mechanisml drives everything in nature to possitive order. This is not an invitation for you to again publish 15 or 20 lengthy paragraphs of the same repeated diatribe. I'm simply asking for one impircal scientific experiment that proves randomness drives or benefits anything. Use the computer model example of random copying error programs bringing some supposed improve benefit before it crashes if you're unsure of a natural world experiment. Seriously, if all this philosophical stuff is truth, then there's got to be something out there. I've just asked you for one and you've yet to deliver anything remotely intelligible.

#70 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:37 AM

You keep parroting the same definitions over and over again and again as if printed enough times makes it so. Your flour sieve design theory does not explain the blind luck for which the personification lable for Natural Selection is diliberately rigged to mislead. Blind pointless indifference can't select anything.


It can't knowingly select anything, obviously. That's not what evolution entails. I was just using the example of a sieve to show how a sieve inadvertently creates order and filters the flour without having any deliberate intent ("blind, pointless indifference"). Just like Natural Selection. Can you explain to me why comparing the filtering mechanism in a sieve is so radically different to that of Natural Selection? It's a simplification but I think it's applicable and atleast worth noting.

It's also a poor excuse for explaining proper selection which is done through intelligent living things , be it a man or creatures with encoded instructions of instinct inside their DNA.


"Proper" selection done by humans is purposeful. Natural Selection is not. There is no ideal path for evolution to take. Whatever works first usually survives. Eg, all the badly "designed" parts of the human body - the eye in particular (the blind spot). It's not very clever to put the optical nerve straight through the eye, and that observation fits perfectly with evolutionary predictions.

It's still randomness no matter how you want to look at it. It's as if you believe that if you parrot this 100 times over and over  , eventually it somehow becomes engraved in stone as a truth for no other reason than others are drowned out in the discussion and leave.


The mutations are random. Selection is nonrandom. I'm not trying to parrot anything - you're the one who keeps deliberately not addressing the specifics of anything I say. The only creationist to actually discuss that why what I said was "wrong", was Ron. The rest ignored it.

Your  understanding of evolution and all it's supposed wonderful componants is old school Darwinisnism. It is not the modern day understanding of just how intelligently and purposed goal driven DNA actually works.


So modern evolutionists claim that evolution is purposeful & intent driven? :lol:

I have asked you over and over to show an empirical scientific experiment proving this blind chance randomness and you conveniently avoided the subject of randomness with any specific scientific proofs. You simply disappear on that. So here it is again. Blind chanced Randomness presumes underlying Disorder. The Scientific Method presumes underlying Order. Show us by the Scientific Method, minus the philosophical dogma, how any random mutationa mechanisml drives everything in nature to possitive order. This is not an invitation for you to again publish 15 or 20 lengthy paragraphs of the same repeated diatribe. I'm simply asking for one impircal scientific experiment that proves randomness drives or benefits anything. Use the computer model example of random copying error programs bringing some supposed improve benefit before it crashes if you're unsure of a natural world experiment. Seriously, if all this philosophical stuff is truth, then there's got to be something out there. I've just asked you for one and you've yet to deliver anything remotely intelligible.

View Post


That highlighted sentence is exactly the problem. The mutations are random. The ones that are detrimental, die. The ones that are beneficial survive and pass on their genes. I don't think I can simplify it any further than that. That is (admittedly oversimplified) what Natural Selection is. There is no conscious design. And that's exactly what makes it nonrandom.

I can give you examples of random mutations resulting in beneficial traits. I can give you examples of speciation. Is that what you're looking for?

#71 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 08:22 AM

The mutations are random.  I'm not trying to parrot anything - you're the one who keeps deliberately not addressing the specifics of anything I say.


Madam, I've simply asked you to give me one empirical scientific experimental example using the "Scientific Method" of where randomness improves anything. Your continued silence on this is deafening and speaks volumes. :lol:


So modern evolutionists claim that evolution is purposeful & intent driven?  :o


Funny, they don't have to be evolutionists, but since you insist. James A Shapiro (Bacterial Geneticist) is a modern day evolutionist and so is Hubert Yockey (Physicist and Information Theorist). Both have shown that randomness is complete ignorance of the directed processes that operate in DNA. The main fault I can find with them is that when it comes to the subject of the origins of these brilliant language codes inside DNA, both use expressions like, the problem is "unsolvable" or "unknowable" .

This just came out a couple weeks ago about a brilliant guiding code wintin the primary code. Algorithm genes develope solutions, but they need guidence like any intelligently designed calculator would.

Researchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity


That highlighted sentence is exactly the problem. The mutations are random. The ones that are detrimental, die. The ones that are beneficial survive and pass on their genes. I don't think I can simplify it any further than that. That is (admittedly oversimplified) what Natural Selection is. There is no conscious design. And that's exactly what makes it nonrandom.

I can give you examples of random mutations resulting in beneficial traits. I can give you examples of speciation. Is that what you're looking for?

View Post


I have asked you specifically to prove by the scientific Method how randomness benefits anything regarding DNA and thus far you have deflected and brought nothing. I'll just simplify it further, Forget the computer model for DNA. Show us an empirical scientific experiment which shows us a code can come from nothing more than physics and chemicals. Just one.

#72 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 27 May 2010 - 09:01 AM

So you equate laypeople as retarded? 
.
.
.

didn't think so

View Post


All creationist are referred to as lay people because they disagree with evolution. So all creationist are....

When was the last time a evolutionist said a creationist was real smart? Point made.

Now all I'm asking is whether the remark was meant as most evolutionist mean it?

#73 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 27 May 2010 - 09:13 AM

To make this a better forum to debate on. I'm going to remind people of a function that exists on this forum for you to use. When you don't get along with a person and do not want to continue to debate them. you click on their name and then click to add them to your ignore list.

This makes all their posts into links that can be viewed when you feel in a better mood to answer. Or to just ignore completely. Or if you feel you need time to cool off with that member. A person can be removed from that ignore list at anytime after cool off. And their posts can be looked at just by clicking on the link provided where the post would normally appear. You just don't have their posts staring at you when you don't won't to see them.

This may slow me having to suspend anyone for being out of line when you take care of the problems yourselves by using this option.

Also when you do this the other person does not know unless you tell them.


#74 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 27 May 2010 - 11:57 AM

Okay, here is yet another attempt to bring this back from the diliberate hijacking that's taken place.  :lol:

Natural Selection
How does blind, pointless, pitiless indifferent without purpose or intent nature select anything ???? Answer it doesn't. Selection is done by a living thing no matter what capacity level of intelligence there is. Therefore, why isn't it called "Natural Luck" - "Natural Chance". That would be a more honest description would it not. So why the Personification fallacy ???????? 

Hmmmmm  :o

View Post


Eocene, I've always wondered about that myself. Why was it called Natural "Selection" rathar than, as you say, "Luck", "Chance" or even "Result". NS infers that there is somehow some "thought" behind the scenes going on (Selecting) where Rathie continually tells us that no thought is required.

Raithie, doesn't it make you pause for a minute as to why there are no real examples or scientific experiments that show how randomness can improve anything? All you've got is what "they TELL you" and what "you have been TELLING us". But is that "real" science? Where is the "SHOWING" us part?

I hate to use this adjective for evolution but there is a "Brilliance" behind the theory of evolution in that the only examples you can find or use to explain evolution are "IN" the theory itself. (There's another example of this kind of "Brilliance" that I'll explain further down)

We have no real life experiences that show us a "step by step random, mindless, thoughtless, purposeless process" that can "result" into becoming something usefull let alone improve anything, except from what we are "TOLD" happens within the theory itself. The other "Brilliant" part is that, well it takes way too loooooooong for evolution to happen so that's why we don't see it happening now. Brilliant!!! So it's a self sustaining theory using made up explanations and conclusions that cannot be supported with any observable examples because it just takes too darn long to happen within our life time.

You don't see a problem with this Raithie? If the scientific method can't provide actual observable, testible, repeatable evidence that randomness can improve anything, let alone make anything usefull AND we are told that such evidence requires a loooooooooong time to observe, then what in the world convinces you or anyone else of it's "reality"??????? If you can't see actuall examples and such examples require a looooooong time to see them, then how do you even know that such examples even exist???????

You know what other types of "theories" exist that follow that same "Brilliance"? Stories! Just like any story, it's self sustaining and has no bearing on "REALITY". Unless...there is some example that takes it out of it's little world into something that we can all actually relate to in "REALITY".

Unless you DO have some

Eocene "scientific experiment which shows us a code can come from nothing more than physics and chemicals. Just one."

Then it's just another tale told not based on any reality that anyone can relate to.

#75 Guest_Raithie_*

Guest_Raithie_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 12:30 PM

Madam, I've simply asked you to give me one empirical scientific experimental example using the "Scientific Method" of where randomness improves anything. Your continued silence on this is deafening and speaks volumes.  :lol:


Firstly, I could argue that you neither have addressed my points. The only other example where I didn't address your points was in the Pebbles thread, and that was because it was completely irrelevant to the OP and I didn't want to divert the thread.

However - I will address yours in the hope that you too will address mine.

I'll start with an introduction...
Randomness implies disorder. And that is the case with mutations. They are random and therefore messy. But their randomness is what gives life its variety, and without them - evolution could not work. To reuse my sieve analogy, a sieve adopts a filtering mechanism via a wired mesh. Life adopts a filtering mechanism via death. Both are unconscious and inadvertent and without any deliberate intent. The only flour that gets through the sieve is the flour that is powdery. The lumps are separated and remain in the sieve. The only life that gets through natural selection is life which is well adapted to its environment. The organisms that are not well adapted die off before they can produce progeny. So the detrimental mutations are separated from the population via death. To sum up, the sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh. Natural selections dividing mechanism is death.

Now, that is what I would like you to address.

_________

Now I'll address yours.

You want me to show you how random mutations improve anything. Here goes.

They can create new material.
* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
(talkorigins and googled the citations)

Beneficial examples.
1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
2. Pesticide resistance in insects.
3. Immunity to HIV.
4. Lactose toleranace/interlorance.
5. Sickle cell resistance to malaria(decreases efficiency & fitness but decreases likelihood of getting malaria).

Even something as simple as being born with slightly more dense muscles or a more attractive eye shape are a result of mutations.

http://www.gate.net/....html#metabolic

There are many more... I'm sure you can google them.

Some observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.wired.com...tion-in-action/

http://www.skepticfi...ut/observd3.htm



I have asked you specifically to prove by the scientific Method how randomness benefits anything regarding DNA and thus far you have deflected and brought nothing. I'll just simplify it further, Forget the computer model for DNA. Show us an empirical scientific experiment which shows us a code can come from nothing more than physics and chemicals. Just one.

View Post


Well I'd rather solely talk evolution and not abiogenesis, since I know very little about it.

To clarify - DNA didn't arrive first. The most basic of replicating compounds came first. RNA could have been a precursor to DNA.

However, I could bring up the Miller experiment. Thirteen of the twenty amino acids used in modern life were produced. It is possible that only thirteen or less were required to create the most primitive forms of life. As I said before, DNA didn't arrive on the scene first - it was a gradual progression towards complexity.

#76 falcone

falcone

    Member

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

Posted 27 May 2010 - 02:24 PM

*snip* give me one empirical scientific experimental example using the "Scientific Method" of where randomness improves anything.

and

doesn't it make you pause for a minute as to why there are no real examples or scientific experiments that show how randomness can improve anything? All you've got is what "they TELL you" and what "you have been TELLING us". But is that "real" science? Where is the "SHOWING" us part?

Here's an example from NASA: Evolutionary algorithms make better antenna




Ikester, from the Oxford English Dictionary:
layman
(or layperson)
noun 1 a non-ordained member of a Church. 2 a person without professional or specialized knowledge.

Nothing to do with with any kind of mental disability

#77 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 27 May 2010 - 02:37 PM

All creationist are referred to as lay people because they disagree with evolution. So all creationist are....


Its not that they disagree with Evolution that they might be considered a 'layperson'. It happens when they either intentionally, or un-intentionally use strawman arguments against Evolution.

When this is occurs the Evolutionist will give the creationist the benefit of the doubt that they are not doing something deliberately and try to explain it in a different way, in a way that a 'layperson' can understand it. Which as Falcon pointed out is someone who does not have the professional or specialized knowledge.

When was the last time a evolutionist said a creationist was real smart? Point made.


I've actually done it many times on this forum. There are quite a few that are smart and respectful. I know it happens on youtube and anywhere else that Evolutionists and Creationists can debate on an open,evenly moderated forum.

So point taken away and given to me :lol: seriously though why do you let trolls get under your skin?

Now all I'm asking is whether the remark was meant as most evolutionist mean it?

View Post


Look I understand that you have a lot of experience with Evolutionists and trolls so I will defer to you on this. Do you really think that 'most' mean it as the word you used earlier? Or do you think that they actually mean it as the oxford dictionary defines it? I personally choose the later option.

#78 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2010 - 02:43 PM

All creationist are referred to as lay people because they disagree with evolution. So all creationist are....


View Post


This is actually not true. Nobody would call Michael Behe a layman.

#79 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 May 2010 - 06:57 PM

Firstly, I could argue that you neither have addressed my points. The only other example where I didn't address your points was in the Pebbles thread, and that was because it was completely irrelevant to the OP and I didn't want to divert the thread.

However - I will address yours in the hope that you too will address mine.

I'll start with an introduction...
Randomness implies disorder. And that is the case with mutations. They are random and therefore messy. But their randomness is what gives life its variety, and without them - evolution could not work. To reuse my sieve analogy, a sieve adopts a filtering mechanism via a wired mesh. Life adopts a filtering mechanism via death. Both are unconscious and inadvertent and without any deliberate intent. The only flour that gets through the sieve is the flour that is powdery. The lumps are separated and remain in the sieve. The only life that gets through natural selection is life which is well adapted to its environment. The organisms that are not well adapted die off before they can produce progeny. So the detrimental mutations are separated from the population via death. To sum up, the sieves dividing mechanism is a wired mesh. Natural selections dividing mechanism is death.

Now, that is what I would like you to address.

_________

Now I'll address yours.

You want me to show you how random mutations improve anything. Here goes.

They can create new material.
    *  the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
    * adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
    * the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
    * evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
    * modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
    * evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
(talkorigins and googled the citations)

Beneficial examples.
1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
2. Pesticide resistance in insects.
3. Immunity to HIV.
4. Lactose toleranace/interlorance.
5. Sickle cell resistance to malaria(decreases efficiency & fitness but decreases likelihood of getting malaria).

Even something as simple as being born with slightly more dense muscles or a more attractive eye shape are a result of mutations.

http://www.gate.net/....html#metabolic

There are many more... I'm sure you can google them.

Some observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.wired.com...tion-in-action/

http://www.skepticfi...ut/observd3.htm
Well I'd rather solely talk evolution and not abiogenesis, since I know very little about it.

To clarify - DNA didn't arrive first. The most basic of replicating compounds came first. RNA could have been a precursor to DNA.

However, I could bring up the Miller experiment. Thirteen of the twenty amino acids used in modern life were produced. It is possible that only thirteen or less were required to create the most primitive forms of life. As I said before, DNA didn't arrive on the scene first - it was a gradual progression towards complexity.

View Post


I'd like to respond to the Millers experiment.... If you read the fine print, Millers experiment PROVES life can't occur naturally... I'm assuming you know how he sythesised amino acids :o

Some of the things people don't / won't tell you are...

1. Miller had to rescue his newly formed amino acids after each electric shock.. As the next electric shock would fry them
2. There was only about 3% of the resulting "muck", was amino acids.. The rest was tar and other compounds toxic to LIFE...
3. (I am going on memory for this, please forgive me), Miller used ammonium gas as that is what is assumed to be in the atmosphere in "pre-life times" there was an absense of OXYGEN... However this ammonium gas breaks down under UV light..... Yet there was no ozone to stop UV light.... But if there were Ozone / oxygen then the amino acids would oxidise....

It fails if there is oxygen, and it fails if there isn't oxygen :o

Here are the examples you cited for "benefitial" mutations...

Beneficial examples.
1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
2. Pesticide resistance in insects.
3. Immunity to HIV.
4. Lactose toleranace/interlorance.
5. Sickle cell resistance to malaria(decreases efficiency & fitness but decreases likelihood of getting malaria).

Out of all of these only number 5 is used in my Biology textbook for Uni... (Yet it is the 1 I have the most problems with as it is not benefitial to have a sickle cell anemia which will kill you anyway)

1- Antibiotic resistance is change yes... However it is microevolution, at the end of the day, bacteria is still bacteria, it hasn't changed. Also we cannot be 100% sure that these changes are due to random mutations, (not ALL change is evolution, stop thinking this way), as bacteria are able to swap and share genes via plasmids.. As such a bacteria may have already had the genetic information for the resistance and just spread it to its mates. Also due to this clasifying a bacteria species is nigh on impossible as they readily change their DNA from these plasmids... Perhaps utilising the Bible, in regards to placing bacteria as a single kind would be prudent :)

2- This is a format of natural selection, but how does resistance to a type of chemical, equate to becoming a new species?

3- I do not know that much about HIV immunity, perhaps you can show how it proves evolution thanks :D

4- Lactose intolerance is not benefitial, yes it is change. However people who are lactose intollerant are NOT "evolving". Otherwise we'd say people who are born with extra legs / arms are evolving or how about Downs Syndrome or all the other genetic DISORDERS out there.

5- As mentioned before genetic disorders are NOT benefitical. Your example would be neutral at best. Though in comparison to a healthy person, your example is detrimental.

If I may, I will pose 2 questions to you.

Within the human body we find systems of complexity, systems of symbiosis between organs, regarding the mainenance and upkeep of our bodies. Homeostatis is a big function of these systems to keep our body within a regular range- ie regular body temp, regular glucose distribution via Liver..etc

My question is how did these functions "evolve" over millions of years via benefitial mutations.

For example- Our stomach digests the food we eat, after this the mushed food is sent to the small intestine, however not before telling the pancreas to produce NaOH to counter the acids from the stomach that are being passed down with the food... Also the pancreas adds other digestive fluids into

Also the glucose and minerals that are extracted from the food are sent to the Liver... Why?... Because the liver allows for a gradual intake of these molecules into the blood. As my lectuer said, if we dumped all the glucose into the blood at once it would cause MAJOR problems with our body. Since our brain is built to keep everything regular a gradual intake is necessary...

So which of these "evolved" first??

Stomach- digestion organisms need to eat
Pancreas- extra digestion (increase efficiency) + neutralise acids, so the intestines don't burn
Liver- gradual intake of molecules so that our body doesn't crash itself.

I apologise this is very basic, as I don't have my books with me :lol:

#80 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 May 2010 - 02:03 AM

Firstly, I could argue that you neither have addressed my points. The only other example where I didn't address your points was in the Pebbles thread, and that was because it was completely irrelevant to the OP and I didn't want to divert the thread.

However - I will address yours in the hope that you too will address mine.



I addressed everything and you didn't like it. So evidently because I didn't answer the way you view the world, I therefore didn't answer it ?????? :huh: Your point about the blind forces of randomness in the Pebbles thread is directly related to those same forces you insist cause random mutations to be beneficial in evolution. Trying to now claim separation of both of those as separate issues is spin-doctoring and smokescreening.



Now, that is what I would like you to address.

_________

Now I'll address yours.

You want me to show you how random mutations improve anything. Here goes.

They can create new material.
    *  the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
    * adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
    * the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
    * evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
    * modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
    * evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
(talkorigins and googled the citations)

Beneficial examples.
1. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
2. Pesticide resistance in insects.
3. Immunity to HIV.
4. Lactose toleranace/interlorance.
5. Sickle cell resistance to malaria(decreases efficiency & fitness but decreases likelihood of getting malaria).

Even something as simple as being born with slightly more dense muscles or a more attractive eye shape are a result of mutations.



None of those examples are the results of random mutations. Random mutations cause sickness, tumors, cancer, death and extinctions. Those examples are nothing more than organisms engineering themselves for specific task functions and most of it forced upon them by the same selfishness and greed that continue to plague ongoing human activities of self determination. I hardly think anyone with cickle cell anemia consider it an advantage considering the other degenerative consequences. Give malaria the credit for not destroying itself by combining with a flaw.

Other than that, Yawn! :lol:



http://www.gate.net/....html#metabolic

There are many more... I'm sure you can google them.

Some observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.wired.com...tion-in-action/

http://www.skepticfi...ut/observd3.htm
Well I'd rather solely talk evolution and not abiogenesis, since I know very little about it.



None of those links are appropriate to explaining your side of the issue of randomness. That first one lists P.Z. Meyers as some unbiased scientist ???????? :) Nothing in those links proved that anything random caused anything beneficial. It's all ASSUMED. Any so-called new material is simply assumed to be random because they don't really know how the system works and it is spun as such randomness as being the cause because of a commitment to evolutionary dogma. Most people are not aware that their trust in science requires faith in things that are unprovable. I'll be upfront about it, faith is required, but it's a faith based on facts and experience in real life. I think science can be very trustworthy if done openly and honestly without bias from either side. Unfortunately we do not live in that kind of world where careers need to be maintained and monies for precious research needs to be beg for by catering to the political correctness of the times we live in. Therefore references to the E-word are a must, which is nothing more than placing a pich of incense and sprinkling it before the alter of the god Darwin.

Everyone of those links and the cited geniuses are nothing more than evolutionary shills for propagating a religious worldview philosophy. Talkorigins - skepticfiles - wired.com ??????? unbiased ??????? Puleeeaase :o



To clarify - DNA didn't arrive first. The most basic of replicating compounds came first. RNA could have been a precursor to DNA.



This is a complete lie and ignorant untruth. Information is NOT a bottom up phenomena. Francis Crick & James Watson's "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" only proved that protein molecules and the material substrate componants that make them up are completely controlled only by the information contained within DNA and any manufacture of more, even specific protein molecules come only from the instructions encoded on the protein molecules of the DNA itself and not the other way around. The genetic Information is a real language and all language we know the origin of comes from a mind. There is nothing physical about information. Therefore we have 100% inference that the brilliant encoded information contained within DNA comes from a designer. We have zero inference that it comes from the evolution of nothing more than random blind forces of physics and chemicals. Your inability to explain this continues to show your blind faith in what cannot be proved. The only thing we can assume is that you just may be more religious than I am. ;)

Admittedly it takes great leaps of faith on both sides to produce any answer to the question of the origin of DNA. The leap to a creator is a shorter one however, because we have operational communications systems all around us in everyday life. We understand and relate to them and know how they function. The genetic operating systems within DNA are an even more complex, multi-layered code with dozens of linguistic properties which far surpass anything humans have invented or created. Unfortunately for position, your leap faith to randomness and chance are an infinite Grand Canyon.

Again, Hubert Yockey is very critical of the primordial soup theory of the origin of life, and believes that "the origin of life is unsolvable as a scientific problem". At least the man's honest about that.



However, I could bring up the Miller experiment. Thirteen of the twenty amino acids used in modern life were produced. It is possible that only thirteen or less were required to create the most primitive forms of life. As I said before, DNA didn't arrive on the scene first - it was a gradual progression towards complexity.

View Post



There is no reason to address anything here as I believe gilbo12345 gave a very reasonable response and with very logical and rational questions. The Miller-Urey experiments in reality had zero to do with evolution as they merely provided proof in Intelligent Design by designers with purpose and intent. Nice try though.

Here's an interesting quote I found some years back which truly illustrate what's really going on here.

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies by all those who profit from by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly by their fear of adversaries, who have the laws in their favour, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not truly believe anything new until they've had an actual experience of it."

— Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1519), "The Prince", chapter 6.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users