Nice to be understood.
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
Nice to be understood.
Most scientists I read say 99+% of species go extinct. There have been five or six mass extinction events, in addition to other, ordinary events.
Because?
If I said exactly that to colton, it was presumptive of me. I think colton probably has more sophisticated means of reconciling faith and science that just ignoring one or the other.
Fossils *alone* don't reveal such relationships, but MET doesn't rely on fossils alone. YOu can reveal more by looking at the results of three or four lines of evidence in conjunction than they will reveal separately.
No one chart can hold everything and be readable. Here's a website with a good start, if you are interested:
Tree of Life
This is not MET, nor even close. It's actually a much better description of ID, except they replace "at random" with "by some random miracle".
The ones with "weird ***" random mutations don't survive.
If you want to choose a better name, feel free. Changing the name won't change the process. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Natural selection is not goal-oriented. It has no end product in mind. Intelligent selection has goal.
Science is reticent to pronounce certainty.
General eye evolution
Samples using currently existing eye structures.
If you think 0110 and 0110011001100110 have the same amount of information, you are wrong.
Most asexual organism use non-reproductive means to exchange genetic information.
I understand the concept. It's just wrong. Chance generates information, but useful and not useful, with do discrimination between the two. Selection weeds out what's useful. In combination, you get more useful information.
No one designed language. It arose without any intent of trying to create it.
It would have done more than that.
20, not 200. Of those 20 parts, 18 have a known use for other purposes. Throwing a bunch of stuff together, with a couple of new parts, happens all the time in bacteria.
The appendix is much less useful to us that it was to the common primate ancestor, regardless of our current environment.
MET can be disproved by the infamous Cambrian rabbit, and many other thousands of types of observations.
Last edited:
MVP
Well-Known Member
replace "beautifully designed" with evolved and you are right. Now you sound like you believe in leprechauns and unicorns.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
PW: Whoooooo?
OB: Birds.
You didn't get the joke?
*********
PW: I wouldn't call 20% all.
OB: I don't think 20% of fossilized species are extant, either.
Approximately 80% of all known species, including fossilized species, are extant.
*********
OB: Smallpox was wiped out because it couldn't adapt. 99% of all species went extinct even before there was pollution.
Yeah, it couldn't adapt to intelligently designed vaccines.
You pulled 99% out of your ape-like ***, but if it was true you would again undermine the environmental movement.
*********
PW: The real problem is that scientists can't question the crazy *** answers Darwiniacs insist upon.
OB: The real problem there is that the scientists you are talking about don't have good arguments or reliable evidence to question the answers of MET.
Remember how you said Colton ignored the science when it clashed with his faith. That is what you METers do when science smacks you in the face.
*************
PW:
OB: A chart is a simplification of a complex process. It doesn't present the whole story. The full linage of any ancient species with modern descendants would have hundreds of branches, most of which terminate.
Your chart represents middle of the story guesswork.
Fossils don't reveal parent child relationships, so you have no idea where that ant-eater like fossil fits in.
Of course Darwiniacs don't have a chart to show their whole crazy *** story, because the evidence doesn't jive with their crazy *** story.
The story begins with a common ancestor...an asexual organism...but you started in the middle of the story with a 4 legged mammal...and left off the whole first "half" of the story. That's what I call cheating. You can't be considered in serious scientific contention if you can't begin your theory at the starting gate rather than placing your theory in the middle of the track and insist that everyone acknowledge your "scientific" win.
Even when you start in the middle with your whole "punctuated equilibrium" chart story, it is so crazy *** you might as well share church buildings with the "creationists:"
Your parents are slugs. Suddenly but totally at random. You evolve into a gecko. Your brother evolves into a shark. Your sister evolves into a polar bear. The family down the street have children that evolve into a hippo, whale, and dolphin. Then everyone remains virtually unchanged for 150 million years. Except you get your occassional "atavistic" ant-eater leg mutations to remind the whales where they really came from.
*******
PW: So the hippo was just one of the retarded babies of the pakicetus and the indolyus that managed to survive? The other retarded baby went on to make the dolphin and the whale somehow.
OB: Obviously not, since hippo ancestors survived.
Retarded babies = animals with weird *** random mutations they are trying out to see if they are "fit" enough to survive
********
PW: Okay, let me explain this a different way.
Your comparison isn't meaningful. You can't compare "natural" (undirected) selection to "you pick out the ones that best fit your criteria" (directed) selection.
Evolutionary Design=Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design = Directed Selection
OB: The issue is that you are confusing "directed" with "intelligent". Natural selection is not random selection, it's selection directed by the environment. There is some probability involved, because many traits only increase/decrease your fitness relatively, as opposed to absolutely.
The real issue is that "natural selection" is a misnomer. Only intelligence has the ability to make a selection.
Intelligence is a directional force like gravity.
You already know this: "ID is not just a claim of intelligence, but one of intelligent direction." ~One Brow
If you consider human interference "natural selection" then we have a whale-like problem because Dembski considers human interference to be "intelligent design."
If we continue this discussion we have to differentiate between terms.
You can't have it both ways. Either "natural" represents directed forces, including humans, or "natural" represents undirected/elemental forces.
**********
PW: Oh right. Fish have two eyes. But the first known creature to have eyes had 5 eyes. Why did 3 eyes disappear once it mutated its way into the fish? I would guess 5 eyes would make any fish more fit.
OB: Eyes have developed differently in different lineages. The earliest seem to have been individual cells that could sense "bright" and "dark". So, I'm not sure to what you refer.
I'm refering to the earliest creature actually found to have eyes...opabinia...it had 5 eyes.
"The earliest seem to have been..." Now that's a "sciency" sounding statement.
Tell me about the development of the eyes in the fish lineage. Did the first mutation start with one eye, 2, 3, or 5? Where on the body did it first mutate from? Was it as miraculous as the fish who "randomly" mutated 2 useful arms with hand-like things out of the front of its body so it could crawl out and mate with land mammals who happened to be open for a sexual romp with a mutant fish baby?
*********
PW: The amount of information may increase but the amount of new information doesn't. There are more pages in the 2 copy book but you can't learn anything more from reading the second copy of the story than you did from reading the first copy of the story.
Remember we are talking about the ability of undirected contingencies (chance) to create new information.
OB: Again, you are claiming that 0110011001100110 has the same amount of information as 0110. Below, you say this is not true.
You have a repeating pattern. The only thing you have is a copy of the original information. You don't get new information. If we apply this to biology you get an identical twin with the same attributes. You don't get new useful attributes from an asexual organism.
**********
OB: I fully acknowledge that the division algorithm is a designed process. However, my point was that you can't claim that something is not produced by a process simply because it is not produced in any particular step. This is just as true of useful information as it is of division.
PW: I don't believe I ever made that claim, so your point is moot.
OB: Dembski made that claim, you quoted it. He said that since no individual step of the chance -> selection -> chance cycle created CSI, the overall process could not, either.
Okay, I see what you are getting at now.
You can't understand that simple concept?
Random mutation (chance) is the only possible place you can get new information in those 2 steps.
Selection is just that...a selection. You either have something to select or you don't.
*********
PW: We were talking about "Whenever chance and necessity work together..." they can't create new useful information.
OB: Yes, then. The notion that, because something is not created by an individual step, that means it can't be created by a process, is wrong.
See above explanation.
*********
OB: How do you distinguish "new information" from "information you did not have previously, but have now"?
Copy=you already had that information to begin with.
*******
OB: Languages often get more complex as they evolve.
PW: Human's made an alphabet (symbols of sounds) and created words (more complex sounds) and then strung those words together to make sentences and so forth. Then over time the language changed a little bit here and there but it was still recognized as language...and was useful for the transfer of information between humans.
OB: Language, and writing, preceded the alphabet. Outside of that, your point is in complete agreement with the notion of languages evolving.
Okay, I'm going to redesign my original point.
No matter how you slice it language was intelligently designed and the "change over time" was directed by intelligence (humans). Whether you use pictures, characters, or dots to represent words or concepts in your written language it was all intelligently designed for communication.
*******
PW: This is why you can't apply "micro-evolution" to Darwin's common ancestry theory, because it is just change in creatures that already exist. It doesn't account for how those creatures came into existence.
OB: They come into existence by being born/hatched/etc. from their parent(s).
"The common ancestor" was asexual and single celled and simply made copies of itself.
An asexual organism ain't going to randomly mutate 200 separate parts to make a flagellum. The only way you get a 200 part flagellum or all the pieces and differentiation necessary for sexual reproduction is through intelligent design.
******
PW: I'm saying depending on the environment the usefulness of the appendix changes. This is what us God-believers call adaptability.Vestigial means less useful over time...sometimes the appedix is more useful in certain environments...and time has no bearing on it's usefulness.
OB: Which changes it's vestigial nature how?
*******
PW: But if it supports your ape-like ancestor assumptive starting point it also supports the Bible's Adam starting point. So you unwittingly support the "creationists" you despise.
OB: Can any evidence, ever, not be consistent with creationism? Because if creationism agrees with everything, it can be confirmed by nothing.
Exactly. Replace "creationism" with "darwinism" and you'll understand why I call you all Darwiniacs. You preach a nondisprovable psuedoscience.
...excellent rebuttal and your use of a much more sophisticated language type (college grad I assume) probably was right up there alley! Wanted to rep you but it rejected my attempt at this time! I was tied up for a day or two, but am about to get back into this discussion to further "bury" their theory of evolution.....and perhaps put it in the coffin it deserves to be in!
MVP
Well-Known Member
If you are about to come back you will bury yourself in embarrassment even more instead of making even a small dent into MET. 900 year old humans. Birds with no scales. Birds with hollow bones only. Should I create a list of most embarrassing blunders you already posted?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
......my factual comments cannot be undone by your overbearing generalizations that have already been thrown on the heap pile of discarded "theories" and "hypothesis" of years gone by! My well thought out answers to your objections are not the result of "God's will" as you say, but the true facts of science! It is a known fact that human aging is a "mystery" that even the greatest scientific minds cannot explain! Yes, some birds do have scales and solid bones, but the very first ones according to your theory could not have survived without getting airborne.....and that, my friend, could not have happened no matter how many jumps from trees and cliffs they attempted!
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
MVP
Well-Known Member
Show me where "my theory" states that.
All in all, as I predicted you embarrassed yourself even more. Please stop.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
One Brow
You've dropped the crucial questions about your story, and have begun to repeat yourself so I'll get down to the crux of the issue.
While your fish to human, and giant ant-eater to whale stories are ridiculous there really is no getting past your supposed answer for irreducible complexity.
You imagine that stating how the 200 parts of a flagellum may possibly have other functions is a satisfactory answer.
This is like explaining that The Last Supper painting is an accident of nature by saying paint has other functions. There is still the crucial step of assembling them all together, at one time, into The Last Supper. It doesn't matter if 200 mutations happened at once or over a billion years. All 200 mutations would have to 1) occur, 2) be the "most fit," 3) survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to 4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.
This is true for every part of our coordinated life systems, let alone the whole of it.
The idea that just the right mutations occured randomly and separately to eventually produce a flagellum or other "CSI" is highly implausible let alone that it would assemble itself in a "cooption event" where hundreds of "selections" would have to be made simultaneously.
If "natural selection" is capable of #4 then "nature" is an intelligent force, and the only difference between you and and an IDer is that they believe the 200 "mutations" were purposeful and you believe the 200 mutations occurred by chance. 200 purposeful/designed "mutations" sounds a lot more reasonable than 200 chance mutations.
As an aside, I still can't buy into your wildly divergent definition of "natural selection."
You want me to believe "natural selection" is a bird "selecting" a white moth over a black moth to eat and that "natural selection" is also hundreds of selections of chance mutations occurring simultaneously to create a functional attribute. Ain't happening.
If you want me to make the Darwin cake I'll need the chart for single celled organism to fish, the evolution of the eye in the fish lineage, and the single celled organism to the 4 legged giant ant-eater.
You've dropped the crucial questions about your story, and have begun to repeat yourself so I'll get down to the crux of the issue.
While your fish to human, and giant ant-eater to whale stories are ridiculous there really is no getting past your supposed answer for irreducible complexity.
You imagine that stating how the 200 parts of a flagellum may possibly have other functions is a satisfactory answer.
This is like explaining that The Last Supper painting is an accident of nature by saying paint has other functions. There is still the crucial step of assembling them all together, at one time, into The Last Supper. It doesn't matter if 200 mutations happened at once or over a billion years. All 200 mutations would have to 1) occur, 2) be the "most fit," 3) survive long enough to exist at the same time and place, in order to 4) assemble themselves into a working flagellum.
This is true for every part of our coordinated life systems, let alone the whole of it.
The idea that just the right mutations occured randomly and separately to eventually produce a flagellum or other "CSI" is highly implausible let alone that it would assemble itself in a "cooption event" where hundreds of "selections" would have to be made simultaneously.
If "natural selection" is capable of #4 then "nature" is an intelligent force, and the only difference between you and and an IDer is that they believe the 200 "mutations" were purposeful and you believe the 200 mutations occurred by chance. 200 purposeful/designed "mutations" sounds a lot more reasonable than 200 chance mutations.
As an aside, I still can't buy into your wildly divergent definition of "natural selection."
You want me to believe "natural selection" is a bird "selecting" a white moth over a black moth to eat and that "natural selection" is also hundreds of selections of chance mutations occurring simultaneously to create a functional attribute. Ain't happening.
If you want me to make the Darwin cake I'll need the chart for single celled organism to fish, the evolution of the eye in the fish lineage, and the single celled organism to the 4 legged giant ant-eater.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Since Darkwing Duck thinks birds came from flying squirrels this is for him:
****
Darwiniac squirrel to bird story:
****
Darwiniac squirrel to bird story: