Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving the Musculoskeletal System
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 527 (577531)
08-29-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Granny Magda
08-29-2010 1:12 PM


So why should anyone be impressed by a theory that has as its only claim for evidence, a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria, and then after a while staying as the exact same bacteria, and then after a zillion generations,more, staying....you guessed it, bacteria.
If all of the things that your side claims as evidence for evolution, continued to proceed in exactly the same progression as witnessed by the evidence, not a single organism would ever change into anything in a billion zillion years. That is the only rational inference anyone who is honest could make about the evidence. A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
Note: Honest doesn't include you.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 08-29-2010 1:12 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Granny Magda, posted 08-29-2010 1:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-29-2010 1:37 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 51 by bluescat48, posted 08-29-2010 4:33 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 47 of 527 (577536)
08-29-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:21 PM


What no answer? Just a few random outbursts? Oh. Okay...
So why should anyone be impressed by a theory that has as its only claim for evidence, a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria
Well they shouldn't. But we're not talking about some imaginary theory that you just pulled out of your ass, we're talking about the Theory of Evolution. There are many lines of evidence supporting that theory, as you well know.
If all of the things that your side claims as evidence for evolution, continued to proceed in exactly the same progression as witnessed by the evidence, not a single organism would ever change into anything in a billion zillion years.
If a simple experiment like the one Crash describes were capable of creating a new domain of life, in so short a time, it would falsify the ToE. Change at that scale, in that amount of time would destroy the theory, not prove it.
A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
Again, if anyone were actually claiming that it could, you would have a point...
Note: Honest doesn't include you.
Very nice sweetheart. Why not just go the whole hog and resort to throwing faeces at your monitor?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 527 (577537)
08-29-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:21 PM


So why should anyone be impressed by a theory that has as its only claim for evidence, a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria, and then after a while staying as the exact same bacteria, and then after a zillion generations,more, staying....you guessed it, bacteria.
When you pretend that the only evidence for the evolution is "a few cases of a bacteria staying a bacteria", whom do you hope to deceive by telling this ridiculous lie?
If all of the things that your side claims as evidence for evolution, continued to proceed in exactly the same progression as witnessed by the evidence, not a single organism would ever change into anything in a billion zillion years. That is the only rational inference anyone who is honest could make about the evidence. A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
If you want to know what honest and rational people think, we'll let you know. One necessary (though not sufficient) criterion for being honest and rational is to not tell dumb lies about what "all of the things that [evolutionists claim] as evidence for evolution" consist of in front of an audience consisting mainly of evolutionists: because it is not honest to lie, and not rational to lie when you are certain to be caught.
---
P.S: "Bacteria" is a plural. Have you taken some sort of oath to be wrong about everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 527 (577550)
08-29-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICdesign
08-29-2010 10:14 AM


ICDESIGN writes:
This is exactly the point we are taking issue with Percy. All any of you have to offer is inference. Inference is not evidence. It may be rational to you and other evolutionists but there are millions of us out here in the real world who think your inferences are extremely irrational.
Uh, inferences are made from evidence. That's how all science works. Inferences are not proof, and science doesn't attempt to prove anything. If science could prove things then its theories wouldn't be tentative, they'd be proofs.
The obvious inference is that the processes we see operating in the here and now, whether in space or on earth or at the particle level, are the same processes that operated in the past. All the evidence we have supports this inference.
So if you have evidence that infers something else, just tell us what it is.
You seem to be drifting off topic with your other comments about "minor variations within a kind" and transitional pre-humans. You might want to raise those questions in threads where they'd be on topic.
Evolution proceeds at a snail's pace with the accumulation of tiny changes over many generations. Each tiny change that passed through the filter of natural selection provided some advantage in the environment at that time. It feels like what you would find helpful would be if someone did for, say, the evolution of the knee joint what the Wikipedia article on the Evolution of the eye does for the evolution of the eye. Do I have that right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICdesign, posted 08-29-2010 10:14 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:02 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 50 of 527 (577552)
08-29-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 12:39 PM


Bolder-dash writes:
Ok, so let's be perfectly clear then. You are now saying (contrary to your see, smell, taste, touch demands) that rational inference is as good as any for drawing the conclusions one wants to draw, and we really don't need to be hamstrung by the whole see, taste touch, smell evidence burden.
For some reason you and ICDESIGN both concluded that inferences are something made up. You two seem to be two peas in pod so far as your misunderstandings of science and even simple English. Inferences are not made up. They're drawn from evidence gained via our senses. For example, you come home to find a broken lock and infer that someone has broken in. Without the evidence of the broken lock you would not have made this inference.
The inference that the same processes operating today were the same ones operating in the past is because the evidence we find is precisely what we would expect if that were so. For example, if it were true that radiometric decay was much faster in the past then we would expect to find evidence of that. But we don't. All the evidence we have, both from our own planet and from our observations of stars (including the sun) and galaxies and nebula indicates that the same processes have been in play unchanged since the beginning of time.
But anyway, I guess you do have lots of evidence for RM and NS in todays world? It must be common as heck right? We can see it all around us, right?
Yes, RM and NS are occurring all the time. Almost every single reproductive event produces mutations. Everything that produces progeny has passed through the filter of natural selection.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 12:39 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICdesign, posted 08-29-2010 7:05 PM Percy has replied
 Message 360 by barbara, posted 10-26-2010 2:59 PM Percy has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 51 of 527 (577566)
08-29-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:21 PM


A bacteria is not going to stop being a bacteria just because it changes its diet.
Bacteria is a domain not a species, genus, order etc.
Saying a bacterium is still a bacterium would be the same as saying a human is still an amoeba, that is saying a eukaryote is still a eukaryote. Note bacteria is plural.
Edited by bluescat48, : quote error.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:21 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 52 of 527 (577617)
08-29-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
08-29-2010 3:07 PM


Percy writes:
you come home to find a broken lock and infer that someone has broken in. Without the evidence of the broken lock you would not have made this inference.
The broken lock IS the evidence and no inference is necessary.
If you knew there was a watch on your dresser when you left for work and it was missing when you came home and you are the only one with access to your house, then you would infer someone stole the watch. Even with no signs of a break-in the inference would be justified. It wouldn't be a proven fact but a reasonable inference.
Percy writes:
All the evidence we have, both from our own planet and from our observations of stars (including the sun) and galaxies and nebula indicates that the same processes have been in play unchanged since the beginning of time.
....Lets see now. What was that comment about ME being off topic again?
However since you keep bringing up the subject; if nothing has changed how come we don't see any evidence of apes in the process of evolving into man all around us? That would be hard, tangible evidence, end of argument.
That eye article is nothing more than pointing to eyes on previous
creatures then inferring that is how we ended up with our current eye.
You asked me what I want and the answer is this; I want to see hard evidence that rm/ns is capable of producing a brand new feature. Where is the observed, repeatable evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 3:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:05 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 08-30-2010 1:06 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 53 of 527 (577622)
08-29-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
08-29-2010 12:17 PM


crashfrog writes:
did you decide that knowing nothing at all about biology would somehow give you the advantage you need to go toe-to-toe with evolutionists?
I'll go toe-to-toe with you any day of the week sonny boy.
As I have stated before; being smart isn't so much as how much knowledge you have as it is coming to the right conclusions with the knowledge that you do have. As far as I can see all of you Darwinists fail miserably in this department!
As I also stated before; all a person needs to refute ToE is common sense because ToE fails to pass the simplest of common sense tests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 12:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 08-29-2010 7:54 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 11:30 PM ICdesign has replied
 Message 362 by Flatland, posted 12-20-2010 12:20 AM ICdesign has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 527 (577627)
08-29-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICdesign
08-29-2010 7:25 PM


ICDESIGN writes:
As I have stated before; being smart isn't so much as how much knowledge you have as it is coming to the right conclusions with the knowledge that you do have.
If that was true, Og the Caveman would have been the smartest man the world has ever seen because he figured out how to kill a deer by poking it with a sharp stick. But knowledge is cummulative and collectively owned, so one person coming to The Right Conclusion™ isn't the end of it.
ICDESIGN writes:
As I also stated before; all a person needs to refute ToE is common sense because ToE fails to pass the simplest of common sense tests.
Dirt is common - and not very valuable.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICdesign, posted 08-29-2010 7:25 PM ICdesign has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 527 (577630)
08-29-2010 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICdesign
08-29-2010 7:05 PM


ICDESIGN writes:
The broken lock IS the evidence and no inference is necessary.
It may be an obvious inference, but it is still an inference.
If you knew there was a watch on your dresser when you left for work and it was missing when you came home and you are the only one with access to your house, then you would infer someone stole the watch. Even with no signs of a break-in the inference would be justified. It wouldn't be a proven fact but a reasonable inference.
This is a fine example of inference, too.
That eye article is nothing more than pointing to eyes on previous creatures then inferring that is how we ended up with our current eye.
You asked me what I want and the answer is this; I want to see hard evidence that rm/ns is capable of producing a brand new feature. Where is the observed, repeatable evidence?
Now it's becoming unclear what you're asking for. Are you asking how random mutation and natural selection *might* have produced something like an eye or a joint, or you asking how they actually *did*. If the former, then that's what we're trying to do. If the latter then that's not possible. DNA doesn't leave evidence behind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICdesign, posted 08-29-2010 7:05 PM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 9:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 56 of 527 (577646)
08-29-2010 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
08-29-2010 8:05 PM


Then I think in a fair debate, from the beginning you should just admit that there is no way to produce evidence for Rm and Ns, and be clear that any suggestion of these mechanisms is simply inference as you said.
Anyway, since that is what you are saying now, let's nail down this point so we don't keep changing goalposts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 08-29-2010 8:05 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 08-30-2010 8:35 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 527 (577655)
08-29-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Bolder-dash
08-29-2010 1:01 PM


Did you create a new type of organism or something?
No, I merely restored a disabled metabolic function in E. coli by means of natural selection and random mutation. If random mutation did not occur then my Ames bacteria would not have been able to grow on minimal glucose media. But they did. By means of random mutation - which you're asking us to provide evidence of.
Which I have.
A spleen?
Why would a bacteria need a spleen? You're not making any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-29-2010 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 12:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 58 of 527 (577659)
08-29-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICdesign
08-29-2010 7:25 PM


As I have stated before; being smart isn't so much as how much knowledge you have as it is coming to the right conclusions with the knowledge that you do have.
Do you think that different amounts of knowledge could justify different conclusions? That, say, a few facts taken out of context might justify one conclusion, but the entire suite of facts might justify another?
If that's the case - and I think a reasonable person would have to conclude that it was - don't you think that one has a duty to, and an interest in, making sure that their conclusions really are justified by the largest amount of knowledge possible?
You and I seem to agree that you don't know all that much biology. I'm just trying to get at why you think that's a strong position to argue from.
As I also stated before; all a person needs to refute ToE is common sense because ToE fails to pass the simplest of common sense tests.
The most amazing thing about the theory of evolution is that it is so common-sensical. In a given species there really are more individuals born than will, or even can, survive to adulthood and reproduction. Individuals really do significantly vary amongst themselves in ways that are advantageous or disadvantageous to survival, and they really do pass on those traits to their offspring if they survive to have any.
That stuff is all just so amazingly obvious and common-sensical that it continues to amaze me that anyone could be a creationist. Denying the power of random mutation and natural selection to effect species change is basically saying that all members of a species are exact clones of each other, offspring aren't any more like their parents than they're like anybody else, and that when a fox catches a hare and eats it, it's not because the hare was slow, he was just unlucky.
And none of that is true at all. Everybody knows none of that is true, but that's the world where there's no such thing as mutation or natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICdesign, posted 08-29-2010 7:25 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICdesign, posted 08-30-2010 6:49 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 59 of 527 (577668)
08-30-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
08-29-2010 11:08 PM


So we can agree that your experiment, regardless of what you ware claiming is happening, can provide no evidence whatsoever for the development of any new system or organism, correct?
We won't get a new bacteria, or the start of a new feature to an organism, and we basically won't have any evolution at all, if all that happens is what happened during your experiment. A bacteria that changes its diet is still a bacteria. For a zillion generations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 08-29-2010 11:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2010 12:22 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 527 (577669)
08-30-2010 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Bolder-dash
08-30-2010 12:20 AM


So we can agree that your experiment, regardless of what you ware claiming is happening, can provide no evidence whatsoever for the development of any new system or organism, correct?
Who ever said anything about a new system or organism? I told you, the experiment is proof that random mutation and natural selection exist.
We won't get a new bacteria, or the start of a new feature to an organism, and we basically won't have any evolution at all, if all that happens is what happened during your experiment.
Who ever said that "all that happens is what happened during my experiment"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 12:20 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-30-2010 1:30 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024