RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 1:52:30 PM)
Try another attack then. Darwinian theory says that random mutations occur and if the resulting body types have advantage in the environment then that change takes hold. This would lead one to expect that all members of any given species would be approximately the same. Say a Lion: they all lounge around a lot, get the missus to go and kill for them, blend in to the background, ie camouflage, kill the odd cub or two given half a chance, dont like humans much, instinctivly fight with other Lions, sleep a lot etc etc , thats about it really. All pretty much of muchness. ergo Natural Selection verified. Now lets look at human beings...... People who can write symphonies. People who are tone deaf. People who can develop abstract mathematical concepts. People who cant handle the simplest algebra. People who can write highly philosophical novels. People who can barely write their own name. None of the positives above presented a great deal of advantage to the possesser or the species as humans came on the scene. In fact many possessing them verge on the edge of mental instability. How then did those qualities survive ? The list can be extended indefinately. Incidently I assume large mammals have more complex genomes than small ones, so size does matter when short time scale evolution is considered. If I am wrong, about genomes I mean,then I refer to the comment that chimpanzees share 93% of the genome with humans. Hope I am using the right technical term. What a difference that 7% makes.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 2:06:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule It is called evolution by punctuated equilibria. It happens whenever ecological niches open up. May have taken as little as less than one thousand years. Exactly... for people that may like a bit of abstraction to simplify things, in general terms, this is an optimization problem, and the maximum rate of improvement in the solution in any short time interval, will be given by the slope of the function gradient at the current solution. For those who find the preceding sentence clear as mud, what I am saying is, ges will happen with a speed that is limited by the incremental improvement in fitness from the current organism interacting with the current environment. In this example, although mammals existed for hundreds of millions of years before the ice age, there was no great advantage to being a mammal (and internally regulating body temperature) during the temperate period. Once the ice age came, the advantage in being a mammal was huge to avoid dying of exposure, and so mammals and variations thereof rapidly accelerated in their frequency and diversity. Then, as the huge dinosaurs died out, a niche opened up for larger mammals to overpower smaller mammals, and so those also became more prevalent. One of the most telling problems with Intelligent Design "Theory" is... there is simply no evidence for it. When asked to provide physical evidence, any evidence at all... ID proponents inevitably fall back on something like "Well, I don't understand how evolution could have worked, so it must be ID!". Of course, you don't even need to have had a single science course to see that this arguement is useless. Even if there were any major issues with evolution (which there aren't), such hypothetical problems would lend zero creedence to ID, ie, beleiving in problems with theory A, does nothing to prove theory B - that is just basic logic, no science required.

LadyEllen -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 2:21:35 PM)
I sometimes think its a shame that those less well adapted to our society - those who could but wont get a job - are not bred out, leaving we stronger types to survive and prosper. Then I have to have a rethink - these lesser types breed more quickly and adapt well to our society, living without effort and prospering on social benefits and so must be more successful. Meanwhile I barely survive by working all hours to provide for them and can only afford two offspring - crikey, I'm doomed - I have to adapt and go sign up for dole immediately! If God wants to get involved in this, then he will have to explain why these scroungers do so well in his intelligent design, when they are breaking not only many of his commandments but also many of the laws we have which spring from those commandments. Or maybe there is no God like in the bible, and so there is no creation, and this situation with scroungers is just because humanity is working against natural selection? After all, were no dole provided, these types would have died from starvation long ago. E

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 2:38:30 PM)
Daddy Oh Daddy why dost thou torture me so, verily I am sinned against. Just read the first 3 or 4 paragraphs of the best solution algorithm to the travelling salesman problem. Who, Daddy, in BLIND Nature identifies the route characteristics that can be taken advantage of. notes the common characteristics that the better routes have. is able to compare the results after comparisons have taken place. What incentive is there for me to digest more of such irrelevant xxxx

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 2:42:34 PM)
Punctuated Equilibria has the environment driving evolution. Some body has said thats a definate no no. I blame Daddy

Lordandmaster -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 3:26:12 PM)
I don't know what Bible he was using and he didn't say. But in every Bible on earth, the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" comes in the verse AFTER the verse that says God created male and female human beings. quote: ORIGINAL: QuietDom quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Kedikat must be referring to a characteristic of the Elohist source. If you have a decent study Bible, it will use consistent standard when it translates terms for God, so that you know which word was originally used. The Pentateuch source considered to be the earliest is the Elohist or 'E' source. He uses the word Elohim for God. In Hebrew, words ending in -im are plurals. Scholars take that to imply that, at the time of the E-source, the Israelites were not yet monotheistic, but polytheistic just like all the neighbouring cultures. This earlier practice also carried over into the name El Elohim, which your Bible likely translates to "God of gods." This term bespeaks a continuing polytheistic practice, but with an "over-god" in charge of all the others, comparable to the roles of Zeus and Odin in their respective belief systems.

captiveplatypus -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 3:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Try another attack then. Darwinian theory says that random mutations occur and if the resulting body types have advantage in the environment then that change takes hold. This would lead one to expect that all members of any given species would be approximately the same. Say a Lion: they all lounge around a lot, get the missus to go and kill for them, blend in to the background, ie camouflage, kill the odd cub or two given half a chance, dont like humans much, instinctivly fight with other Lions, sleep a lot etc etc , thats about it really. All pretty much of muchness. ergo Natural Selection verified. Now lets look at human beings...... People who can write symphonies. People who are tone deaf. People who can develop abstract mathematical concepts. People who cant handle the simplest algebra. People who can write highly philosophical novels. People who can barely write their own name. None of the positives above presented a great deal of advantage to the possesser or the species as humans came on the scene. In fact many possessing them verge on the edge of mental instability. How then did those qualities survive ? The list can be extended indefinately. Incidently I assume large mammals have more complex genomes than small ones, so size does matter when short time scale evolution is considered. If I am wrong, about genomes I mean,then I refer to the comment that chimpanzees share 93% of the genome with humans. Hope I am using the right technical term. What a difference that 7% makes. You do understand the human brain is far more complex than a Lion's, correct?

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 4:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uhh...wrong. This is Genesis 1:27-28: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. quote: ORIGINAL: Kedikat Just the other night we ran through some Genisis. Glaring gaffs all over the place. I like it when god says he makes man in " our " image. Not his. Ours. Was he hangin out with his buddys? Also, it seems he said to be fruitful and multiply when he hadn't made women yet. Just to be fair...I have "The New American Bible" (The New Catholic Translation) which oddly enough I had to buy as a text book at the private "Catholic University of America" I attended. Within it I find the following: Genesis 1:26 (just before the passage you quoted). Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." Genesis 1:27 God created man in his image; in the devine image he created him; male and female he created them. This is the First Story of Creation. It's interesting that there's mention of male and female. Not until the second chapter (Second Story of Creation) do we read about Eve being created from Adam's rib. It's also in the second chapter that Adam is given the company of all the various forms of life on Earth. God showed them to Adam and whatever he called them became their name. This is something I picked up on at the age of 10. I wondered how Adam could have named Tyrannosaurus Rex for example. Dinosaur fossils weren't recognized in terms of their age until only the past couple hundred years. This led me as a young boy to deduce that there was a great deal of earth's history left out simply because the people who authored the stories found in the Bible had no knowledge of its existence. To them, the world they saw in their time was taken to be the same right back to creation. Now one might argue that they were all there but disappeared in the great flood (along with the unicorns...God's favorite according to the song). But then if the earth is less than 6000 years old as creationists would have us believe, I would think the bones (not fossils) of all the life that perished would be found all over the earth. Yet it's not and we know by using various, quite accurate dating techniques that these fossils are extremely old. anthrosub

anthrosub -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 4:45:04 PM)
You really can't take human behavior and compare it to other life forms. Although other animals exhibit behavior very similar to our own, it's more a case of what we do that matches their behavior in the final analysis. People have a tendency to anthropomorphize other animals. We project our own behavior on our pets, wildlife, and so forth. The human brain has something no other life currently has...an enormous capacity for memory based interpretation. It's commonly called our imagination. Think of your own experiences, particularly each time you encountered something for the first time. What is it you do without even thinking about it? You compare it to something you've already done before ("Tastes like chicken"). We also have memories of things that haven't happened to us yet because we've seen them happen to others...for example growing old and dying eventually. Animals don't have this capacity and therefore are not tasked with having to deal with it in the day to day of their existence. Very, very few people understand and realize just how much we are literally living in the past. Our identity, our sense of self is memory based. We interpret everything in the process of thinking which is also a product of memory, since we were taught how to think by our parents and in school. Ever wonder why you can't remember all the way back to birth? The mind was brand new then and had nothing to contrast and compare, so for a period of time each of us had to live and simply store experiences until there was enough to develop the image of a self. anthrosub

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/10/2006 5:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus yeah I still don't understand how you can't both be a Christian and think Evolution is possible. It is entirely possible. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Darwinian theory says that random mutations occur and if the resulting body types have advantage in the environment then that change takes hold. This would lead one to expect that all members of any given species would be approximately the same. Your expectation is incorrect. Nearly all mammalian species have a gene pool with many alleles. Exceptions are cheetahs and humans. Cheetahs are the most genetically homogeneous species of mammals. They might as well be clones. Humans are also genetically fairly homogeneous due to the Toba-extinction event 78 thousand years ago. quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus Say a Lion. All pretty much of muchness. ergo Natural Selection verified. Now lets look at human beings...... None of the positives above presented a great deal of advantage to the possesser or the species as humans came on the scene. In fact many possessing them verge on the edge of mental instability. How then did those qualities survive ? Lions have it easy. They have one specific function. As you yourself notice: humanity has many functions. As to these positives and negatives: it is a division into various qualities and functions - and sometimes the wage of sin, speaking from a spiritual point of view. It is like a see-saw: what is perceived as a deficit may in fact enhance another quality. quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus Incidently I assume large mammals have more complex genomes than small ones, The assumption is not correct. I have forgotten a lot and am not up to date, but the complexity of genomes is pretty much the same for sexually reproducing eukaryotes - whether they are mammals, fish, plants or algae. As to the size of the genomes, as you may have intended: I expect mammalian genomes to all have approximately the same number of genes: they all have similar organs that require the same genes to build them, after all. So size does not matter. On the other had: rapidly evolving species - thus not necessarily large species - like humans, may perhaps have more junk-DNA or perhaps duplicates of certain genes. quote: ORIGINAL: captiveplatypus so size does matter when short time scale evolution is considered. If I am wrong, about genomes I mean,then I refer to the comment that chimpanzees share 93% of the genome with humans. Hope I am using the right technical term. What a difference that 7% makes. If you are not certain about the facts, then why speculate about it? I recall that the shared genome was 98 %. Anyhow, chimpanzees approximately have the same number of genes that humans do. It is just that two percent (or seven) of our genes are not shared. quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut Exactly... in general terms, this is an optimization problem, and the maximum rate of improvement in the solution in any short time interval, will be given by the slope of the function gradient at the current solution. That is about as clear as mud. quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut For those who find the preceding sentence clear as mud, what I am saying is, ges will happen with a speed that is limited by the incremental improvement in fitness from the current organism interacting with the current environment. That also is about as clear as mud. quote: ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut In this example, although mammals existed for hundreds of millions of years before the ice age, there was no great advantage to being a mammal (and internally regulating body temperature) during the temperate period. Once the ice age came, the advantage in being a mammal was huge to avoid dying of exposure, and so mammals and variations thereof rapidly accelerated in their frequency and diversity. Then, as the huge dinosaurs died out, a niche opened up for larger mammals to overpower smaller mammals, and so those also became more prevalent. As I said, I am not up to date. However, when I was, I considered the arguments for homeothermic hot-blooded dinosaurs - high bird temperature - pretty convincing. Many dinosaurs probably did not sit on their eggs, but relied on the sun to hatch them. When the comet impact caused a "nuclear winter", the eggs did not hatch. Long lived poikilothermic (cold-blooded) reptiles like crocodiles and turtles could winter this 'winter', but the hotblooded dinosaurs could not. Birds did sit on their eggs, so those could hatch. Mammals had the advantage not to rely on eggs for reproduction. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I sometimes think its a shame that those less well adapted to our society - those who could but wont get a job - are not bred out, leaving we stronger types to survive and prosper. It is a waste of human resources. Those people are deliberately trapped in their predicament by society. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen If God wants to get involved in this, then he will have to explain why these scroungers do so well in his intelligent design, when they are breaking not only many of his commandments but also many of the laws we have which spring from those commandments. Those people are the product of five million years of human evolution. As far as any biologist is concerned, they have the same worth as any other human being. You are clearly unaware of it, but you do need them. They have useful and superior qualities unsuspected by you. A deaf person will always consider ears useless as in his eyes they do not have any apparent function. Any characteristic deleterious to the species has long since been selected against and removed from the gene pool.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 12:00:20 AM)
Rule you totally failed to answer my criticism of Natural Selection implicit, the criticism that is, when I pointed out the wide ranging capabilites of humans, which at the higher or positive end present no survival benefit to the species. Natural Selection decrees that such "things" will not survive. Also if, as you say the genetic, structure of most mammals is similar AND this goes back into the early mists of time then that is a hammer blow to Natural Selection due to the time required to produce such complex molecules. If you meant the large mammals then that is also crushing to Natural Selection since it appears that many changes all occured in "short" time scales. Again statistically unlikely. And incidently all producing the similar bodily characteristics Again unlikely if the process is random. With regard to clear as mud Daddy, his first mudlike statement appears to describe a simple exponetial curve using hi falutin terms. A further point: am I wrong in saying that even the most basic cells present at the earliest stages of the development of life still contain complex molecules ? Sexual reproduction also presents Natural Selection with an insurmountable problem.....I cant remember what it is tho' sorry. LOL

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 3:42:00 AM)
Must raise the problem of the EYE. Surely this must have been raised before but a quick skim through the thread hasn't shown it. By the very structure of the eye it must have come about sequentially. ie surely even a Natural Selectioner would concede it cannot have evolved in one go. Therefore you are faced with the crushing jaws of the AND function..... this and this and this must occur all fitting exactly into a precise predictive almost PURPOSEFUL pattern. Bearing in made that MOST mutations produce deleterious results a slight change in favour of the eyes developing would at some point in the sequence be corrupted. ergo No eye. Natural Selectioners...Darwin saw this difficulty. Surely any response will do better than...Natural selection is true, eyes exist,eyes must have evolved. so no problem. Over to you Natural Selectioners.

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 3:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule you totally failed to answer my criticism of Natural Selection implicit, the criticism that is, when I pointed out the wide ranging capabilites of humans, which at the higher or positive end present no survival benefit to the species. Natural Selection decrees that such "things" will not survive. Then let us examine your criticism: quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave People who can write symphonies. People who are tone deaf. People who can develop abstract mathematical concepts. People who cant handle the simplest algebra. People who can write highly philosophical novels. People who can barely write their own name. None of the positives above presented a great deal of advantage to the possesser or the species as humans came on the scene. In fact many possessing them verge on the edge of mental instability. How then did those qualities survive ? I observe that all the positives you name are people that create beauty. You therefore say that beauty has no survival value and should be selected against. You are quite correct. Nevertheless, we are surrounded by the beauty of plants and animals. Nature - and therefore natural selection - LOVES beauty. Why is that? Why does the male peacock have such a beautiful, but cumbersome and utterly useless feather tail? Biologists were stumped, until one of them discovered the solution: beauty is an advertisement and it says: "My genes are the best". For if they were not, they would indeed have been selected against. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also if, as you say the genetic, structure of most mammals is similar AND this goes back into the early mists of time then that is a hammer blow to Natural Selection due to the time required to produce such complex molecules. I said that the size of their genomes must be approximately the same. You misunderstand the principle of evolution by punctuated equilibria. Say that after the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous the archetypes of all future mammalian species evolved by natural selection within one thousand years from the already existing mammalian species. Say such mammals lived for about three years, then we are talking about 333 genenerations. That is a number substantially larger than the game of seven questions to find a correct solution. It is your misunderstanding that the evolution of these species is limited to those stipulated thousand years. That is not so. It is the vehement natural selection that is limited to those thousand years. Before the extinction event, however, the species during millions of years has been enlarging its gene pool with numerous apparently useless and sometimes non-optimal alleles. It is after an extinction event - or whenever a new ecological niche opens, for example when a river or other barrier is crossed or an island is colonized - that this huge gene pool pays off. Species with small gene pools will become extinct because they cannot cope with the extinction event, or will not branch out into new species because they lack the potential to do so. Species with huge gene pools will have mutations occurring - as they always do, but are often selected against - in all of their many 'useless' alleles and therefore thanks to natural selection may divide into smaller individual gene pools: new species. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If you meant the large mammals then that is also crushing to Natural Selection since it appears that many changes all occured in "short" time scales. You are obsessed with size. Quantity is not relevant. What matters is quality. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Again statistically unlikely. And incidently all producing the similar bodily characteristics Again unlikely if the process is random. You are also obsessed with statistics. This is a misconception of many people who struggle with the concept of evolution. The driving principle of evolution theory is not statistics, but natural selection. Statistics is a dead log in the water. Natural selection is a tall ship with full sails. Natural selection is not random. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave With regard to clear as mud Daddy, his first mudlike statement appears to describe a simple exponential curve using hi falutin terms. Whatever. You may not use such language as he did on a public forum and expect to be understood by most of the people that you are addressing. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave A further point: am I wrong in saying that even the most basic cells present at the earliest stages of the development of life still contain complex molecules ? According to my theories the earliest "self-reproducing" molecules were even more complex. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Sexual reproduction also presents Natural Selection with an insurmountable problem.....I cant remember what it is tho' sorry. LOL Never mind. Good memories are selected against. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave By the very structure of the eye it must have come about sequentially. Quite. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Therefore you are faced with the crushing jaws of the AND function..... this and this and this must occur all fitting exactly into a precise predictive almost PURPOSEFUL pattern. Eyes are simple organs to evolve. In fact, nature has evolved eyes at least eighteen times if I recall correctly. Basically, eyes are (read this as one sentence): 1. light sensitive cells (even bacteria may be sensitive to light), 2. gathered together into an optical field, 3. in a hollow, 4. that evolves into a cavity, the small opening of which focuses the incoming light, 5. that is closed off by an optic lens. So the evolution of an eye basically requires only five main evolutionary steps. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Bearing in mind that MOST mutations produce deleterious results a slight change in favour of the eyes developing would at some point in the sequence be corrupted. ergo No eye. These deleterious mutations are not relevant as they affect only the individual which is selected against, and therefore are not shared by the entire species. Advantageous mutations, however, are shared by the entire species - sometimes within only twenty generations. Look, the creator did not simply pull his creation out of a tall hat. He provided life and the universe with a pedigree. Evolution is that pedigree for all living beings, validating their existence. There is nothing wrong with examining your pedigree - examining evolution - but what you are doing is implying that the creator botched his job of supplying us with a valid pedigree and you thereby imply that we are worthless mongrels that exist without purpose.

Daddy4UdderSlut -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 5:57:44 AM)
With regard to the size of the genome relative to the size of the organism, there is no rationale for that. What one would expect though, is that genome size would increase with the complexity of the organism. Interestingly, while there is something of an overall trend as one would expect there, it's not a strong one, and in fact some terribly simple organisms have larger genomes than people. Before everyone starts invoking the mystery of God to explain the unexplainable though, it turns out that this seeming paradox is well understood. Through a variety of mechanisms which are more prevalent in higher organisms, the same stretch of chromosome may actually encode multiple proteins, so, if you will, the effective information density may be higher due to multiple "splicing" schemes being used on the same stretch of "raw transcription" from DNA to RNA. Now that's probably clear as mud too ;-) See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splicing_%28genetics%29 The gradient I was referring to is not an exponential growth curve. I really mean just looking at evolutionary optimization in a more abstract manner as a fitness function optimizer. Another way of stating something similar, anyway, to what I did without invoking generalized concepts is to say that the larger the difference in fitness between different alleles present at the same time, the faster that changes will be observed in the population. That's kind of a weak statement, however, compared to the "overview" of a fitness landscape being explored by a changing population of solutions. Anyway, I am trying. Seeks - there are no "crushing jaws of the AND function". Variation can and is retained over evolution that simply has no effect on fitness. Variation can and is retained that is detrimental. There is no requirement that all changes be strictly beneficial. Furthermore, the fitness of the phenotype can therefore access a region of higher fitness along a trajectory that is either level for a considerable period of time, or passes downhill through a valley first before ascending to a higher level of fitness. The stochastic (random) nature of evolution is absolutely critical to it's operation. Variation is random for any particular event, and in fact survival and reproduction themselves have significant random components. However, also critical are two other things: the iterative nature of the generations, and the deterministic character of fitness itself. Statistical results obtained by ID proponents purporting to show that evolution is so unlikely as to be unacceptable as the explanation for life's development and present character... are usually correct in terms of the algebra, but ludicrous in terms of their assumptions. They are developed by persons who simply don't understand the nature of evolution and all its mechanisms or DNA. Without even going to evolution, that's also how you get such nonsense results as some bonehead stating that there's only a 1E40000 chance of spontaneous generation of amino acids. That person doesn't understand chemistry at all, so their model with which they develop the calculation is all wrong. The proof of that is what I already told you, amino acids were in fact spontaneously generated without any difficulty at all in the lab. Those sorts of gross conceptual screwups is why you rarely see ID papers show up in respected science journals. They are written by rank amateurs, who misunderstand the basics of science.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 6:03:20 AM)
Rule I will say this for you at least you argue to the point ! Needless to say I dont agree with a lot of what you say but two points I must comment on...... The eye is a simple organ to evolve. It has occured 18 times.Thats the circular argument I referred to elsewhere. ie Evolution is true therefore if eyes exist they must have evolved by NATURAL SELECTION. Also rule you missed out one ENORMOUS factor. The processing power of the Brain in responding to visual stimuli.. Since many species have brains presumably thats no problem to you either. The other point if I read you correctly is that a Creator triggered off evolution. Just checked your post and thats what you said.Well Rule, if that is true, then it is no longer NATURAL selection is it ? It is purposeful !!!! One more Rule, the size that obsesses me is the size AND complexity of the molecules that constite life. I threw in an enormous number to invalidate the likelhood of said molecules evolving by chance processes. People who know far more maths than I do have made estimates and the numbers simply make evolution by chance IMPOSSIBLE. Not improbable impossible. Evolutionary Biologists just ignore the numbers.

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 7:07:23 AM)
Well said, D4US. You do understand the principles of evolution theory. It is a pleasure to read your posts. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule, I will say this for you: at least you argue to the point ! Thanks. [:D] Otherwise, what else is the point of arguing? quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Needless to say I dont agree with a lot of what you say I commisserate with you. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave but two points I must comment on...... The eye is a simple organ to evolve. It has occurred 18 times.Thats the circular argument I referred to elsewhere. ie Evolution is true therefore if eyes exist they must have evolved by NATURAL SELECTION. This is not circular reasoning. It is axiomatical thinking. Science is based upon reasonable assumptions: axioma's. We find fossils and we date them according to increasing complexity: that is an assumption - supported by further research. We observe species and that their progeny resembles the parents and we conclude that characteristics are inherited: that is an assumption - supported by further research. We observe variations and mutations and we conclude that the genetic material is subject to changes: that is an assumption - supported by further research. We observe progeny and see that some individuals have larger numbers of surving progeny than others: we conclude that the fitness of the parents differs: that is an assumption - supported by further research. In short: the science of biology (and of geology) reasonably assumes that evolution has occurred. Suddenly, what was previously senseless to biologists does make sense. Instead of being faced with an incomprehensible chaos of species, they are dealing with one specific structure. It is like the difference of having to deal with forty million individual pieces of a jig-saw puzzle without knowing what it is about, and dealing with a nearly completed jig-saw puzzle with only a few manageable holes in it and seeing the complete picture. To biologists evolution theory is a tool that enables them to make sense of nature and that has predictive powers. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Also, Rule, you missed out one ENORMOUS factor. The processing power of the Brain in responding to visual stimuli.. Since many species have brains presumably thats no problem to you either. Eh? Nerve cells are simple quantummechanical switches. Qualitatively speaking, there is no difference between one nerve cell or a hundred billion. So what is enormous about a simple switch? Again you seem obsessed with size and quantity instead of quality. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The other point if I read you correctly is that a Creator triggered off evolution. You do not read me correctly. I said that the creator supplied us with evolution as a pedigree. For all I know I have been created this very instant and all my memories are false and the sun does not exist, nor do you. We assume that the universe has existed forever and we assume that Earth has existed 4.5 billion years and that life has evolved, because that is the pedigree the creator provided, whereas in fact the small room I sit in may have been created only seconds ago and there is no 'outside'. As far as I know my small room may be all of creation. However, I will assume that my knowledge is valid and that there is an 'outside', as otherwise my life would be pointless. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave if that is true, then it is no longer NATURAL selection is it ? It is purposeful !!!! Of course it is. Whatever gave you the idea that it isn't? Its effect and therefore purpose is to fill open ecological niches. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave One more, Rule, the size that obsesses me is the size AND complexity of the molecules that constite life. I threw in an enormous number to invalidate the likelhood of said molecules evolving by chance processes. People who know far more maths than I do have made estimates and the numbers simply make evolution by chance IMPOSSIBLE. Not improbable impossible. Evolutionary Biologists just ignore the numbers. You are obsessed with randomness and statistics, but that is not what evolution by natural selection is about. I can tell you what I see, but I cannot give you sight. I can tell you how to walk, but I cannot give you legs. You lack the ability to comprehend the essence of evolution theory. Knowing facts does not make a scientist. It is the ability to formulate, comprehend and apply theory that does.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 9:37:36 AM)
Rule says Nerve cells (in the brain) are simple quantummechanical switches. Just as a billion electronic memory cells doth not a computor make so a billion nerve cells do not a brain make. If you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Perception of External reality then I know someone is getting desperate. Prove to me I am communicating with you then ? What is enormous about a simple switch you say. Try and build one for a telephone exchange and you will find out. One last point on stats. and size. When I found out how many combatants there were on the Eastern Front in the 2nd World War I questioned who really won the War. When I found out how enormous ,at the molecular level, is the stuff of life so I questioned chance based evolution. I like the idea of Latent Evolution. ie advantage building up until such time as conditions are ripe for it to emerge.Give up the basic hypothesis I say, not construct evermore implausable ones. Incidently how do you respond to the argument that had Natural Selection been posited at a different time in history, ie when attempts were being made to break the shackles of Christian political control it would have been subjected to a much more rigorous examination right from day one.

meatcleaver -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 10:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently how do you respond to the argument that had Natural Selection been posited at a different time in history, ie when attempts were being made to break the shackles of Christian political control it would have been subjected to a much more rigorous examination right from day one. It would have simply been banned and those promoting such heresy would ahve been tortured and burnt. God or a creator has become more peripheral to our thoughts because we invented the idea of a higher being in the first place and no one has yet put forward any evidence to say one exists. I for myself just don't see a need for a creator, we are here and if there was a creator who created the creator? It's a pointless argument.

Rule -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 10:20:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Rule says Nerve cells (in the brain) are simple quantummechanical switches. Just as a billion electronic memory cells doth not a computor make so a billion nerve cells do not a brain make. Quite. It is evolution that doth maketh brains. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave If you introduce Quantum Mechanics and Perception of External reality then I know someone is getting desperate. Nerve cells are the subject of study of biophysicists and of molecular biologists. They are very well understood. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Prove to me I am communicating with you then ? We are trying to communicate. It does not work, because you are inable to comprehend and grasp what I and D4US are telling you about the essence of evolution. Your abilities therefore are other than ours. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave What is enormous about a simple switch you say. Try and build one for a telephone exchange and you will find out. I have some background in electronics. Anyhow, the principles of a switch are simple, and so is a nerve cell: either it fires, or it doesn't. All else is merely elaboration. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave One last point on stats. and size. When I found out how many combatants there were on the Eastern Front in the 2nd World War I questioned who really won the War. When I found out how enormous, at the molecular level, is the stuff of life so I questioned chance based evolution. I reiterate: evolution is not chance based, but selection driven. As long as you do not understand this, as long as you cling to your misunderstanding, you will never understand the essence of evolution theory. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I like the idea of Latent Evolution. ie advantage building up until such time as conditions are ripe for it to emerge. Actually it is genetic potential building up. I am glad that you understand this part of evolution by punctuated equilibria. That makes you and me the only two people who understand this, as far as I am aware. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Give up the basic hypothesis I say, not construct evermore implausable ones. Evolution theory is not a hypothesis, but a theory. Lots of people erroneously confuse a theory with a hypothesis. Unlike a hypothesis, a theory has been tested and proven valid and accepted as true, introducing a new axioma in science. The fact that evolution theory is called a theory does not imply that it is of dubious value, but quite the opposite: it is a rock solid truth, just like the theory of gravity. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Incidently how do you respond to the argument that had Natural Selection been posited at a different time in history, ie when attempts were being made to break the shackles of Christian political control it would have been subjected to a much more rigorous examination right from day one. Christianity is a lost cause. It was and is an easy prey to Satan because of its dogmatic and inflexible nature. By not accepting evolution and evolution theory they blaspheme against the Creator who provided us with these miracles, diminishing the Creator and thereby playing into the hands of Satan. Repent the error of your ways, sinner.

seeksfemslave -> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas (8/11/2006 11:09:38 AM)
Rule says I reiterate: evolution is not chance based, but selection driven. As long as you do not understand this, as long as you cling to your misunderstanding, you will never understand the essence of evolution theory. So when I believe that molecular changes which occur for whatever reason and HOWEVER FREQUENTLY, want to avoid using a technical term but I will take a chance, in the genome. I mean by that, that part of the genetic infra structure that determines the entity's physical and mental capacity and development then I mis understand evolution. Is that so ? Rule, just a point about you, some of your reponses seem so logical and well argued and some, in the SAME post, are as the Yanks say so far out in Left Field, I cant believe the same person posts them lol. Do you under go a Quantum Transformation as you type ? I have just noticed that I missed a NOT out when I was describing the period when Evolution was first posited. ie at that time Political control by Christians was under attack, Evolution was seen as a scientific method that would help that attack, therefore it received a soft ride. Thats what I meant.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375