Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Makes No Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
246 replies to this topic

#61 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:08 AM

So if another arm or leg is ridiculous and not part of evolution, then why do humans have 2 arms verses just 1? Or most animals have 4 legs versus just 3? Why "just" 2 and not 3 arms or "just" 4 and not 5 legs? Why do some species have 2 eyes while others have more? Couldn't an extra 3rd arm in a human be selected for if it proved advantageous within a certain environment? I think you need to analyze your story a little closer.

View Post



Good questions, Seth, but the answers are not simple. It is to do with developmental biology and the way that bodies form. Vertebrates are constrained by their evolutionary past. I have written the following to help me understand the concept but as it was written purely for my own purposes, the explanation is rather clunky:

Identity gene produces master protein, which determines the type of protein being expressed. If the master protein is present then the interpreting gene gets switched on as the master protein binds to the regulatory portion of the interpreting gene.

The identity genes are the homeobox genes.

To make a protein a piece of DNA is required which we call a gene.  The gene trancribes a protein, but what switches this piece of DNA 'on' to start it transcribing?  There are two parts of the gene, the regulatory part and the transcription part.  If a protein attaches itself to the regulatory section then that can act like a switch.  Some attached proteins switch on the transcription, and other times they switch it off, depending on the nature of the genes involved.  The switch protein attaches to a 'binding site' which it has a certain specificity for.  The level of specificity varies, so that some switch proteins bind strongly to the binding site, whilst others bind weakly.

NOW, Take an embryo of a fly.  It starts as a single cell, and then it starts changing.  The nucleus divides and produces two.  Both of these now divide, producing four, and this continues, so that at the end of this process there are many nuclei in a single cell.  Of course, in each of these nuclei there are all of the genes for the whole organism.

The cytoplasm that the nuclei exist in came from the mother, and at one end is a source of a protein, this is transcribed from RNA passed to the cell from the mother.  Let us call this protein 'A'. This means that there is a gradient of this protein through the embryo, with less of the protein appearing furthest from its source, as would be expected.

What does this protein do?  It switches on the production of other proteins.  We can imagine a gene which has a high affinity for this protein being switched on everywhere, and so a second protein appears, which we can call 'Z' and is found everywhere in the cell.  We now have two proteins, a gradient of the first and a general diffusion of the second.

Let us now introduce a third protein, 'Y'.  This one has a lower affinity to 'A', but will still get transcribed everywhere, and so there will be a gradient of proteins, protein 'A', 'Z' and 'Y' will be found near the source of 'A' whilst mainly 'Z' & 'Y' at the further end.

Now, if 'Z' & 'Y' compete with each other, such that if 'Z' is present it attaches itself to the regularotory region of 'Y' and switches it off and vice versa an interesting thing occurs, especially if 'Y' has a higher affinity to 'Z' than 'Z' has to 'Y'.  Where there is a lot of 'Z', it will switch 'Y' off, and where there is a lot of 'Y' it will switch 'Z' off, but if all other things are equal 'Y'  outcompetes 'Z'.  There will now be a band furthest away from the source of 'A' which has 'Z' in it but elsewhere there will be 'Y'.

We can take this to the next stage, where another protein is considered, 'X'.  If the same criteria are applied to 'X' as were applied to 'Y' so that these two compete like 'Y' and 'Z' did and if 'X' has less of an affinity to 'A' then there will be a section of 'Y' and a section of 'Z'.

Repeat this several times, and there will be a series of bands of proteins, with edges that are slightly blurred between each other which are ultimately based on their position in relation to the source of 'A', from 'S' to 'Z'.  If each of these bind to another gene then in each of these bands a discrete protein will be found, and this will be found in definite areas, with none of the blurring.  We can call these proteins 'L' through to 'R'.



#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:35 AM

And, once again, you'd be incorrect:

Definitions of 'kind' Webster 1913 Dictionary

1. (adj) kind
nature; natural instinct or disposition

2. (adj) kind
race; genus; species; generic class; as, in mankind or humankind


3. (adj) kind
nature; style; character; sort; fashion; manner; variety; description; class; as, there are several kinds of eloquence, of style, and of music; many kinds of government; various kinds of soil, etc

4.  kind
characteristic of the species; belonging to one's nature; natural; native


5.  kind
having feelings befitting our common nature; congenial; sympathetic; as, a kind man; a kind heart

6.  kind
showing tenderness or goodness; disposed to do good and confer happiness; averse to hurting or paining; benevolent; benignant; gracious

7.  kind
proceeding from, or characterized by, goodness, gentleness, or benevolence; as, a kind act

8.  kind
gentle; tractable; easily governed; as, a horse kind in harness

9. (verb) kind
to beget

http://www.definitio...definition/kind

kind2    (k nd) KEY

NOUN:
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5. Archaic Manner.

IDIOMS:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots

http://education.yah...ry/entry/kind_2
kind 2 (k nd)
n.
1.
a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
. Archaic
a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
Idioms:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.

[Middle English, from Old English gecynd, race, offspring, kind; see gen - in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kind
Main Entry: 1kind
Pronunciation: \ˈkīnd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : nature b archaic : family, lineage
2 archaic : manner
3 : fundamental nature or quality : essence
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : category b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received
synonyms see type
— all kinds of 1 : many <likes all kinds of sports>
2 : plenty of <has all kinds of time>

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/kind

View Post





Thanks Ron :lol:

View Post


No problem brother... It was basically a simple answer, to a simple quiestion. ;)

#63 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:25 AM

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

View Post



You could say that we are, but we have largely eliminated the effects of selection pressure. We live in society with environmentally controlled buildings, modern medicine, support for the disabled, etc.


2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

View Post


I believe evolutionary theory says we're going to turn into beings of pure energy capable of telepathy and teleportation. j/k.

It isn't predetermined. I do know it will be a bilaterally symmetrical, protostomic vertebrate with a jaw.



3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

      -------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!). But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

View Post


If you want to know where the dot came from then go to Google scholar and do a search for abiogenesis.


4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

Those are my four main point, anyone free free to give me an answer.

View Post


A sense of what is right and wrong is necessary for a population of animals to survive. Even something as bloodthirsty as a tiger sharks doesn't regularly swim around eating other tiger sharks after they're born.

#64 livingdeadbeat

livingdeadbeat

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Devon

Posted 07 July 2010 - 12:13 PM

If you view his post, he clearly states the term "physically change into next",


No he didn't. The point you raised from my post was when i quoted his first questioned and responded.

"1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now? "

Quoted, just to clear that up. I then responded to his SECOND question which was about physical change.

And yet none of our ancestors survive today.


This does nothing to disprove ToE, and is understood very well.

Considering we are the most successful species to have ever have existed on earth I would certainly consider the human race superior, I think we get around quite fine.


Yes we are doing fine, but you can't just make a sweeping statement like "we're the most superior'. Yes we are superior over other animals in some areas certainly not all as i said. We aren't the fastest, toughest, strongest don't live the longest have poor eye sight compared to many and hearing. So you point is a bit mute really. In terms of the most successful current animal species on the planet, with regards to biomass and dominance of population we don't come close to the antarctic krill or even ants.

sooooo your point?

What do you think are the benefits of being taller and what selective pressure favoured this trait?


Well you only need to look at a giraffe. I think the advantage is clear.

You didn't actually provide an answer, you merely stated that "this is not what evolutionist believe" which didn't provide any further clues to what our ancestor actually was.
Not sure why you merged my two separate posts in one quote and then answered them separately?


No i didn't, i said, we don't know. Infact i'll quote what i said in the first post again :

"This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. We barely have an understanding of what consciousness actually is, so its not surprising we don't have an explanation of its origins or development yet.
"

#65 Seth

Seth

    Member

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

Posted 07 July 2010 - 12:58 PM

Good questions, Seth, but the answers are not simple.  It is to do with developmental biology and the way that bodies form.  Vertebrates are constrained by their evolutionary past.  I have written the following to help me understand the concept but as it was written purely for my own purposes, the explanation is rather clunky:

View Post

The question was more for livingdeadbeat to chew on than me seeking an answer.

However I did read your explanation but it's not very compelling especially with so many "if's" found throughout. You're counting on a lot of things to work out to something you can't say really happens. If so and so does happen the problem is that evolutionists don't know "if" IT does. You're mixing some things science has discovered while filling the gaps with another tale, which is fine if it's presented that way. Problem is, most of these gap stories told never openly admit that they are mere speculation.

Probably better to simply admit that evolutionists don't know why some have more or less limbs, eyes, etc. than other's, than to make up another story to add to an already existing and failing fairytale.

#66 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:04 PM

However I did read your explanation but it's not very compelling especially with so many "if's" found throughout. You're counting on a lot of things to work out to something you can't say really happens. If so and so does happen the problem is that evolutionists don't know "if" IT does. You're mixing some things science has discovered while filling the gaps with another tale, which is fine if it's presented that way. Problem is, most of these gap stories told never openly admit that they are mere speculation.

View Post

Thus fulfilling the religiosity built into the evolutionary faith statements, that beg for gap filling evidences, and prayer statements arguing for future evidences to come about. But, you’ll never get an evolutionist to admit to the faith statements that you have pointed out above.

Probably better to simply admit that evolutionists don't know why some have more or less limbs, eyes, etc. than other's, than to make up another story to add to an already existing and failing fairytale.

View Post

Ever gonna happen Seth; just postulations built speculation upon speculation.

#67 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

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

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:49 PM

When-ever I heard the term kind from a creationist I just replace it with species. This just makes things simpler. Really there is no need for debate.

:lol: sorry if I'm off topic here, but there was still discussion on this, and I wanted to toss my 2 cents in.

#68 OneHourPhoto

OneHourPhoto

    Member

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

Posted 08 July 2010 - 05:21 AM

No he didn't. The point you raised from my post was when i quoted his first questioned and responded.

"1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now? "

Quoted, just to clear that up. I then responded to his SECOND question which was about physical change.

I apologize for the misquote, I thought you responded to the 2 questions.

This does nothing to disprove ToE, and is understood very well.

I wasn't trying to debunk it with that statement, I was replying to your statement that humans may still be around after humans have branched out.

Yes we are doing fine, but you can't just make a sweeping statement like "we're the most superior'. Yes we are superior over other animals in some areas certainly not all as i said. We aren't the fastest, toughest, strongest don't live the longest have poor eye sight compared to many and hearing. So you point is a bit mute really. In terms of the most successful current animal species on the planet, with regards to biomass and dominance of population we don't come close to the antarctic krill or even ants.

sooooo your point?

My point is humans are the most superior species to have ever existed on planet earth. I thought I made that clear? We don't need evolution to aid us. Look at human kinds achievements, its all superior.

Well you only need to look at a giraffe. I think the advantage is clear.

You managed to dodge that one pretty good again. Again, what do you think are the benefits of being taller and what selective pressure favoured this trait? (as was stated in my first post, we are discussing humans here, not giraffes)

No i didn't, i said, we don't know. Infact i'll quote what i said in the first post again :

"This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing an explanation does not mean an explanation is impossible. We barely have an understanding of what consciousness actually is, so its not surprising we don't have an explanation of its origins or development yet."

But you quoted and answered him as if you were correcting him, but did not provide an answer, your reply was "That is NOT what evolutionists believe your ancestor was" and left it at that, so Cassiterides is no closer to being corrected. You didn't actually provide an answer to what its not.

#69 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 July 2010 - 05:40 AM

The question was more for livingdeadbeat to chew on than me seeking an answer.

However I did read your explanation but it's not very compelling especially with so many "if's" found throughout. You're counting on a lot of things to work out to something you can't say really happens. If so and so does happen the problem is that evolutionists don't know "if" IT does. You're mixing some things science has discovered while filling the gaps with another tale, which is fine if it's presented that way. Problem is, most of these gap stories told never openly admit that they are mere speculation.

Probably better to simply admit that evolutionists don't know why some have more or less limbs, eyes, etc. than other's, than to make up another story to add to an already existing and failing fairytale.


What I described (remember the article was as a reminder to myself so the use of 'if' shouldn't be read into too much) is actually based on solid scienrific grounds.

It has been completely empirically verified. I gave you the chance of reading that as it stood and then using that as a springboard for further reserch into why animals develop only certain numbers of eyes (or even why out eyes are only found in out heads!) but you have actually chosen to take my words as a realistic assessment and then used my use of the word 'if' to suggest that this is all part of evolutionary propoganda despite the fact that I told you the explanation was a personal one, not really intended for public consumption.

It happens with fruit flies just as I describe, but I personally like the 'if' word and use it a lot in my own writings. With vertebrates a similar process occurs but it is complicated by the fact that instead of just the nucleus dividing many times, the whole cell doesm meaning these proteins have to get into the cells, they can't just pass through the cytoplasm.

#70 livingdeadbeat

livingdeadbeat

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Devon

Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:24 AM

I apologize for the misquote, I thought you responded to the 2 questions.


No problem :lol:

My point is humans are the most superior species to have ever existed on planet earth. I thought I made that clear? We don't need evolution to aid us. Look at human kinds achievements, its all superior.


Yeah i know, but my point is by what standard and attributes are you making the claim. I agree we are superior in some areas, but in many others we are seriously lacking. So it doesn't really mean anything making such a sweeping statement. It also doesn't disprove evolution or in anyway become a negative point against it. In fact, would you not agree it supports natural selection?

Evolution has aided us and is (see the examples i gave in a former post), and saying we don't need it is implying that we are perfect- we're not. Also, why are we just sticking to humans? Evolution occurs in all orgamisms, and has been observed. In fact our understanding of evolution is one of the main tools we use to develop new medicines.

You managed to dodge that one pretty good again. Again, what do you think are the benefits of being taller and what selective pressure favoured this trait? (as was stated in my first post, we are discussing humans here, not giraffes)


Again? When did i say that humans being taller was a result of evolution? Humans being generally taller is due to genetics with regards to improved nutrition in childhood, compared with our earlier existance.

But you quoted and answered him as if you were correcting him, but did not provide an answer, your reply was "That is NOT what evolutionists believe your ancestor was" and left it at that, so Cassiterides is no closer to being corrected. You didn't actually provide an answer to what its not.


I think we are getting confused over this point here. The point i was replying to that cassiterides asked was regards conciciousness. He asked how does evolution explain it. I said; We don't have an answer to the origins of consciousness. We're barely beginning to understand what consciousness actually is, it is not surprising that we would not have its origin worked out yet.

I then qualified this by saying, that not knowing an answer to something (such as the origins of conciousness) does not mean that there isn't a naturalistic explanation nor that we won't find one. And it certainly doesn't mean that just because we don't know YET, you can just plug that gap of knowledge with magic.

#71 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2010 - 09:43 AM

Here are some things about evolution i never could understand, so if you are an evolutionist please feel free to answer:

1. If evolution is true, why is man not evolving now?

If people grow older, why aren't I getting older while I type this?

I am, it's just that in the time it takes to make this post very little will change about me.
In the same way, in the time a human life lasts, very little will change about the human race's genetic code.

2. Evolution says we evolve, so what are we ment to turn into physically next?

"meant to"? Evolution doesn't have a goal, evolution is a process.

3. The theory of evolution states we evolved from smaller things, evolutionists say we originally were tiny in size, as small as bread crumbs and even smaller pieces of bacteria. Imagine that, this is what evolutionists believe your ancestor was:

         -------------------------------> .

In case you don't see it, it's the dot (next to arrow). Evolutionists believe we started in lifeform smaller than this dot (Seriously, anyone who believes this should be locked up in a mental institution!).

So, because you personally cannot picture something, anyone who can is insane?

I cannot imagine a global flood. The image just makes no sense whatsoever to me. Does that mean that you're insane?

But my point is what came before the dot? So the dot just randomly appeared?

This seems very very unlikely. The first lifeforms were most likely descendants of self-replicating chemicals, too simple to be called life but well on their way.

4. How does evolution explain the conscience?

By looking at a simpler version and seeing how it works.

Vampire bats share blood with each other. Any given vampire bat will likely need additional food at some point in their life, and most vampire bats will give it to them.
At first this appears to make no evolutionary sense. Giving away blood is harmful to the bat that is giving it, right?

But there is a second observation. Sometimes a bat (let's call him Greedy) will refuse to give a needy fellow any blood. Then, at a later date, Greedy may find himself starving, and try and beg his fellows for more blood.
They will refuse him.

Thus, those who refuse to help the needy end up starving themselves, and it turns out that obeying the conscience actually helps the organism.

This whole process is referred to as "reciprocal altruism"

#72 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 08 July 2010 - 03:04 PM

If people grow older, why aren't I getting older while I type this?

I am, it's just that in the time it takes to make this post very little will change about me.
In the same way, in the time a human life lasts, very little will change about the human race's genetic code.
"meant to"? Evolution doesn't have a goal, evolution is a process.
[B]So, because you personally cannot picture something, anyone who can is insane?[B]

View Post

Lol what you said can be said the same for belief in God :huh: What really annoys me is when evolutionists make faith statements like this and then say evolution is a scientific fact... Yes evolution is a process, it is the process of a species changing into another species... Let me ask you, have we EVER in the HISTORY of the human race seen a species give rise to another species... (Note: I use the term species in relation to kind, ie Dog, Cat, etc)... What we do observe is variation, this is NOT evolution.. Hence we have no proof that evolution is even happening at all.. I will say again, what you have said is a faith statement.


This seems very very unlikely. The first lifeforms were most likely descendants of self-replicating chemicals, too simple to be called life but well on their way.
By looking at a simpler version and seeing how it works.

View Post

Care to show EVIDENCE of these "self-replicating chemicals", have we observed them in the natural environment? have we observed how they formed? Why aren't there any nowdays?

What does your bat situation attempt to prove, I beleive the conscience question was aimed mainly at the complex human conscience... Don't dumb it down with animals and attempt to explain it :(

imagination, creativity, emotions, critical thinking, how does evolution account for these attributes? How can imagination be "selected" for?

#73 Seth

Seth

    Member

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

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:16 PM

What I described (remember the article was as a reminder to myself so the use of 'if' shouldn't be read into too much) is actually based on solid scienrific grounds.

It has been completely empirically verified.  I gave you the chance of reading that as it stood and then using that as a springboard for further reserch into why animals develop only certain numbers of eyes (or even why out eyes are only found in out heads!) but you have actually chosen to take my words as a realistic assessment and then used my use of the word 'if' to suggest that this is all part of evolutionary propoganda despite the fact that I told you the explanation was a personal one, not really intended for public consumption.

It happens with fruit flies just as I describe, but I personally like the 'if' word and use it a lot in my own writings.  With vertebrates a similar process occurs but it is complicated by the fact that instead of just the nucleus dividing many times, the whole cell doesm meaning these proteins have to get into the cells, they can't just pass through the cytoplasm.

View Post


You say it has been COMPLETELY empirically verified and in the same paragraph express that I have chosen to take your words as a REALISTIC ASSESSMENT. Well if it's completely empirically verified then why WOULDN'T I take your words as a realistic assemssment that you are claiming? If it's NOT a realistic assessment then how can it be said that it has been completely empirically verified???

I understand it wasn't meant or intended for public consumption but you must realize that your approach to the problem is no different than every other evolutionist out there who is determined to "MAKE" their story work. So it's not propoganda but simply someone with a naturalistic worldview trying to support that world view through these gap telling stories.

PhilC, expressing yours or others speculations is NOT science. It's "religion" or to a lesser degree "philosophy". Why? Because it is NOT based on REALITY. Meaning, you can only "guess" what "might" happen, "if" so and so happens at the "right" time in the "right" circumstances in the "right" areas using existing scientific discovery which provide no answers of which you and other evolutionist must try and piece together to make work via speculative reasoning.

I realize it's "just" a springboard and that's precisely the point. It is a springboard based on assumptions and speculation that you are asking us to spring from. But then we would be researching it from a faulty premise or springboard. Faulty because it has no basis in reality but mere assumption. And that's fine but let's call it for what it really is and not pretend that just because it's "possible" therefore conclude it is indeed the "reality". It's "speculative" at best. Have as many springboards as you like but realize that it's probably a waste of time doing research based on a faulty premise.

There's a reason why you used "if" a lot and that is because you nor anyone else really knows for sure. It's just a guess. A speculation.

How many times do we read or hear evolutionists "tell" us how thus and thus evolved and how and why this or that animal did such and such and how this certain trait was selected for, having not one iota of evidence to support all these various "explanations" except to "try" and piece the "existing" puzzle pieces (actual scientific discovery) to make it work with their story or world view?

Your suggestion, though, does nothing to really help answer the question, in terms of scientific evidence, as to why evolution "selected" that people have 2 legs, 2 arms verses 3 or just 1 of each etc. Yet Creationists are expected to just swallow any speculative reasoning and be satisfied with the claims made by evolutionists that there is plenty of completely emprirically verified evidence? Then who needs the stories, just show us the evidence then.

#74 evad

evad

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:21 PM

imagination, creativity, emotions, critical thinking, how does evolution account for these attributes? How can imagination be "selected" for?

Isn't it possible that these things are all byproducts of something that was selected for (i.e. intelligence which resulted from a larger brain)?

#75 evad

evad

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 08 July 2010 - 03:55 PM

What does your bat situation attempt to prove, I beleive the conscience question was aimed mainly at the complex human conscience... Don't dumb it down with animals and attempt to explain it.

How is it "dumbing it down" to show evolutionary precursors for cooperation when discussing evolution?

There are plenty of animal species that, through evolution, have developed the need for cooperation (a precursor for what you label conscience). The vampire bat is a good example. What this example demonstrates is that it is beneficial for a species to exercise cooperation within the species. As a species "learns" that this trait is advantageous it will be selected for. For instance, the wolf that fights with other wolves over their kill stands less of a chance over the wolf that assists in the kill and takes his share.

#76 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2010 - 04:16 PM

Let me ask you, have we EVER in the HISTORY of the human race seen a species give rise to another species... (Note: I use the term species in relation to kind, ie Dog, Cat, etc)...

The theory of evolution doesn't predict that we would observe such things in human lifespans. Evolution is slow.

Can you imagine 10,000 years?

For evolution that's a very short time.

Can you imagine 100,000 years?

Can you imagine 1,000,000 years? Can you imagine 500,000 generations of people?

Humans last common ancestor with chimpanzees is estimated at 6,000,000 years ago.

And you'd probably consider any other two species as similar as humans and chimps to be the same kind.

What we do observe is variation, this is NOT evolution.. Hence we have no proof that evolution is even happening at all.. I will say again, what you have said is a faith statement.

Have you ever heard of "forensic science"
Or "archeology"

These are subjects, much like evolution, where the observations are made after (rather than during) the event.

Care to show EVIDENCE of these "self-replicating chemicals", have we observed them in the natural environment? have we observed how they formed? Why aren't there any nowdays?

I'll answer the last question, because I don't know the state of the art on biochemical research. (Last I knew no-one was sure on precise details of formation, but it is quite a complicated subject.)

They aren't around now because something would eat them.

What does your bat situation attempt to prove, I beleive the conscience question was aimed mainly at the complex human conscience... Don't dumb it down with animals and attempt to explain it  :(

View Post

If I tried to explain human psychology in evolutionary terms neither of us would understand it. Neither of us has a degree in psychology.

A simplified version that illustrates the same principles is very useful to most people.
Much like you'd probably prefer a simplified explanation of how a computer works to having a circuit-by-circuit explanation of it...

#77 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 09 July 2010 - 02:07 AM

You say it has been COMPLETELY empirically verified and in the same paragraph express that I have chosen to take your words as a REALISTIC ASSESSMENT. Well if it's completely empirically verified then why WOULDN'T I take your words as a realistic assemssment that you are claiming? If it's NOT a realistic assessment then how can it be said that it has been completely empirically verified???

I understand it wasn't meant or intended for public consumption but you must realize that your approach to the problem is no different than every other evolutionist out there who is determined to "MAKE" their story work. So it's not propoganda but simply someone with a naturalistic worldview trying to support that world view through these gap telling stories.

PhilC, expressing yours or others speculations is NOT science. It's "religion" or to a lesser degree "philosophy". Why? Because it is NOT based on REALITY. Meaning, you can only "guess" what "might" happen, "if" so and so happens at the "right" time in the "right" circumstances in the "right" areas using existing scientific discovery which provide no answers of which you and other evolutionist must try and piece together to make work via speculative reasoning.


This is just silly.

You are missing the point completely. All the stuff that I wrote has been emopirically verified. Google "fruit fly homeobox" or "fruit fly embryological development"

The proteins that I mention do exist and they do have the effect that I say, but the way that I write it for myself means that I use 'if'. I work with computers and so I often think of 'IF - THEN' statements when describing things, so the 'if' is not a comment about doubt but a decision point in the process.

The details I got from the book "The Art of Genes - How Organisms build themselves". He explains the process in a much better way.

Once again a creationist takes the words discussing the science as the science. This happens a lot. I think it is because of the way YEC'ers read the Bible. I think that when you read a book like the Bible and see it as completely true then the words written in it are extremely important. A lot of time is spent understanding the particular words and why the writer or speaker chose them. For example, Jesus used the word for love 'agape' (I hope the spelling is right), so a lot of time is spent understanding what Jesus meant by that word and why he chose that word rather than a different one.

This is completley understandable and I am sure a lot of wisdom is gained from that, but it doesn't work in other situations. My words are no where near as good as the Bibles, and whereas in that 40 authors over centuries (or thousands of years) show a single message, I get confused between sentences.

The main difference is, the Bible has words that are considered Tru in themselves. My words are my personal attempt to describe something else. My words aren't important, but what they describe is something that has been observed.

Ed Lewis in the 1940's started the work. By looking at fruit fly larvae segmentation and looking for mutations that caused abnormalities so that they could study them.

The latest work on this was started in the 1980's by three groups: Welcome Bender, Pierre Spierer and David Hogness and colleagues at Stanford, California; Matthew Scott, Thomas Kaufman and colleagues in Bloomington, Indiana; and Rick Garber, Atsushi Kuroiwa and Walter Gehring in Basel, Switzerland.

They showed that the thing I tried to describe actually occurs.

So this:

your approach to the problem is no different than every other evolutionist out there who is determined to "MAKE" their story work. So it's not propoganda but simply someone with a naturalistic worldview trying to support that world view through these gap telling stories.


Says more about your lack of research and your bias than it does about the actual facts about the science.

The work done is not naturalistic and it's not supernaturalistic. It's just looking at the genes and seeing how they are expressed. The homeobox genes get expressed in such a way as to produce segments. That is empricially verified. No philosophy involved. Just an observation of the way genes work.

#78 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 July 2010 - 03:47 AM

If people grow older, why aren't I getting older while I type this?

I am, it's just that in the time it takes to make this post very little will change about me.
In the same way, in the time a human life lasts, very little will change about the human race's genetic code.

View Post


So, the cycle of human life (to be specific in this case) is evolution in action then?

If that, then, is evidence for evolution, then it is evidence for de-evolution as well, because at a certain point, we start to deteriorate and de-evolve; which, of course, makes no sense on the evolutionary scale, because the cyclical state of the “human” life isn’t the evidence of evolution, since the “human” remains a “human” the entire time.

#79 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 09 July 2010 - 03:52 AM

Isn't it possible that these things are all byproducts of something that was selected for (i.e. intelligence which resulted from a larger brain)?

View Post


It might be, if you could somehow tie it to reality. But, at best, you can only presuppose it; or use it as a faith statement.

My question would be; “which one are you doing?”

#80 Guest_kingreaper_*

Guest_kingreaper_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:23 AM

So, the cycle of human life (to be specific in this case) is evolution in action then?

If that, then, is evidence for evolution, then it is evidence for de-evolution as well, because at a certain point, we start to deteriorate and de-evolve; which, of course, makes no sense on the evolutionary scale, because the cyclical state of the “human” life isn’t the evidence of evolution, since the “human” remains a “human” the entire time.

View Post

This is a rather large failure of reading comprehension. I will assume it was accidental.

I made an analogy.
A is to B as C is to D.
The time is takes to write this post is to aging as a human lifespan is to evolution.

In both cases, the former term is a timespan, and the latter is a process.

In the timespan of writing this post, a human ages unnoticeably. In the same way, in the timespan of a human life the human race's genepool changes unnoticeably.

Your misinterpretation of this into "evolution is identical to aging in all respects, and in fact aging is devolution" is extremely strange.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users