|
Author
|
Topic: The Origin of Novelty
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 15 of 871 (689751)
02-04-2013 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Bolder-dash
02-03-2013 11:45 PM
|
|
How did a hand start? That is a question which must give us paws.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-03-2013 11:45 PM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
First you have a small eye, then a bigger eye, then a bigger eye-I mean come on, exactly how intellectually lazy is your side anyway? We're so lazy we could be bothered to look at the diagrams and see that there was a difference between the eyes other than size. Whereas you have evidently worked really hard on not noticing that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-04-2013 11:18 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 32 of 871 (689780)
02-04-2013 2:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Admin
02-04-2013 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: To Bluegenes and Taq
Could you not let Boulder-dash be wrong on his own account? He hardly seems to need any help.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Admin, posted 02-04-2013 2:28 PM | | Admin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Admin, posted 02-04-2013 3:01 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 38 of 871 (689789)
02-04-2013 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Admin
02-04-2013 3:01 PM
|
|
Re: To Bluegenes and Taq
How am I being cryptic? What I am saying is that it is an intrusion on this thread for you to swoop in in your role as moderator and say: "Here is the question that B-d would be asking if he was more sensible and coherent, so people responding to him should answer that instead." No, we should answer what he asked and respond to what he actually posted. Your powers as moderator are extensive, but they don't extend to getting us to ignore what a creationist buffoon is actually asking and respond instead to what he might be saying if he was smarter. Such answers would in fact be off-topic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Admin, posted 02-04-2013 3:01 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by Tangle, posted 02-04-2013 5:13 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 41 of 871 (689802)
02-04-2013 6:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
02-04-2013 5:13 PM
|
|
Re: To Bluegenes and Taq
I think Percy's just trying to protect BD a little, Dr A. Well, sure, fine. I've said the same thing myself. In effect: "Lay off the poor little retarded creationist, 'cos he's a poor little retarded creationist". We have to give them a little more latitude than we'd give to an intelligent person, or we'd run out of people to debate with. But surely this does not extend to us making up their arguments for them 'cos the poor little dumb little things need our help? We can patronize them, sure, but to that extent?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Tangle, posted 02-04-2013 5:13 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by Tangle, posted 02-04-2013 6:27 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied | | | Message 43 by Admin, posted 02-04-2013 7:04 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 44 of 871 (689809)
02-04-2013 7:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Admin
02-04-2013 7:04 PM
|
|
Re: To Bluegenes and Taq
In conformance with the Moderator Guidelines, this is written warning that your next violation of the Forum Guidelines in this thread will result in a suspension. Do please explain how I have violated the Forum Guidelines, so that I can avoid doing it again. Thank you. In the meantime, I would like to renew my request that you should adhere to guideline 2.
I feel I am trying to frame the discussion in the most challenging way possible for evolutionists ... As a moderator on these forums, and indeed the sole administrator, you should have no problem in starting your own thread about any topic you choose. Indeed, I urge you to do so.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Admin, posted 02-04-2013 7:04 PM | | Admin has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Do try to understand the fairly simple concepts that are being explained to you. If you sincerely can't understand them, that's not really our fault.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-05-2013 3:42 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 58 of 871 (689936)
02-06-2013 3:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by broken180
02-05-2013 1:51 PM
|
|
So in the picture in message six, I presume that picture one and picture six are the ones based in reality and the rest is just the imagination of an evolutionist? What's that saying: "When you presume, you make a pres out of ..." --- wait, that doesn't work. You wouldn't like to edit your post so as to say "assume" instead, would you? The stages are all there for us to look at. Sometimes we can see them all in the same group of animals. The standard example is molluscs, but we can also see this in jellyfish. In fact there are some jellyfish where the same species has a mix of different types of eyes, a few good ones and a lot of more primitive ones. See for example V J Martin, Photoreceptors of cnidarians, Can. J. Zool. 80: 1703—1722 (2002)
Many cnidarians are sensitive to light, yet they bear no distinct ocelli. Lentz and Barnett (1965) observed ciliated sensory cells in the outer epithelium of hydra and suggested that these cells are photosensitive. The precursor of the photoreceptor cells in cnidarians was probably a photosensitive ciliated ectodermal cell, similar to those described in hydra . Such ciliated photosensory cells possess greater information capacity if they are grouped with nonciliated pigment cells to form a primitive distinct ocellus. The ocelli of L. octona illustrate this design, as they are composed of a simple patch of ciliated photosensory cells intermingled with pigment cells. The photosensory cells expanded their apical, light-receptive surfaces with microvilli, and their basal ends were drawn out to form axons. Such simple eyespots would be useful for informing an animal about the distribution of light and dark in the surroundings. Over time the light-sensitive patch invaginated to form a cup-shaped structure, and the plasma membrane covering the cilium of the photoreceptor cell evaginated to form villous processes, thus increasing the surface area for photon detection. The pigment cells also formed microvillous processes that interdigitated with the villous processes of the sensory cells, both processes filling the ocellar cup. This design is seen in P. penicillatus. Through the formation of a pigmented cup, spatial resolution was introduced, as the angle through which the individual photoreceptor cells received light was reduced. Spatial differentiation of the villous processes of the pigment cells and photoreceptor cells occurred, as is seen in B. principis. In some animals, such as C. radiatum, primitive lenses derived from villous extensions of pigment cells formed in the ocellar cups. Finally, the ocelli of cubomedusae represent the most highly evolved eyes in the Cnidaria. In these ocelli, the opening to the eye cup constricted and a spherical, graded-index lens formed in the center of curvature of the retina, producing a camera-type eye. So unlike (for example) talking snakes, these gradations of vision are real things that we can look at and study.
So what mechanism is it that leads to new genetic information? I know that mutation leads to loss of information but can be beneficial, and natural selection is a mixing up and reducing of the genes, but I am not sure what it is that produces the new genetic information? Well, I see you've already retracted this. But this problem is not just what you think it is, that creationist definitions of "information" are incoherent. The big problem is when you write: "I know that mutation leads to loss of information". Now, let's leave aside the fact that you haven't quantified "information". The real problem you'd have to face even if you did is this: if it was true that a mutation changing a sequence of bases that went like "ATCG GCTATCA" to a sequence of bases that went like "ATCG CCTATCA" destroyed information, then it would necessarily be true that a mutation that changed "ATCG CCTATCA" to "ATCG GCTATCA" would create information. If one of them reduces information, then the exact opposite mutation must increase it. And this is going to be true no matter how you choose to count the information in the genome --- if you decide that a mutation from this to that destroys information, then a mutation from that to this must increase it. And this will be true whatever definition creationists come up with for information. There's no crafty definition you guys can come up with that will get round this problem. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by broken180, posted 02-05-2013 1:51 PM | | broken180 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
And NOT A ONE SINGLE ONE of them can adequately try to describe how they think it happens. [...] All they can do is [...] say,see, that's how its done. I'm not sure what sort of distinction you're trying to make here. What did you want if not a description of the steps by which it occurs?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-09-2013 12:13 PM | | Bolder-dash has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Really, Dr. A, is that right? Someone here has described the steps that occur to go from nothing, to a complex organ or body system? Who has done that. Are you talking about showing pictures of many kinds of eyes? Is that what describing the steps is like. Or are you talking about RAZD claiming that if you just somehow, luckily got an indentation, just anywhere, that would sure be useful to telling which direction sunlight would be wouldn't it. Wow what a brilliant theory, no wonder they have you hooked A. All it needs to do is fool a kindergartener. I bet you have a great clavicle lens. Or maybe that's not it either, maybe you just think that saying, no one has ever proved irreducible complexity. Is that describing steps? Were you blow away by Kenneth Miller comparing life to a mousetrap being used for a tie-clip. Did that tell you all you need to know to be a strident believer? "Yea, it's true, a mousetrap really can be used for a tie-clip! Now it all makes sense! Honey, where are the fruit loops?" Let's just forget about explaining how one feature can be selected for, at the same time that 50 or 100 mutations are also being selected for in each generation. I mean, yea, you got a bum leg, and peeling skin, but that handy clavicle feeler is sure making you hot to the women. And you got a sort of pancreas like mutation that is feeding you finger-nail enzymes, which eventually will mutate to regulating blood sugar, and that is being selected for over the guy who has a mutated gill which doesn't tell his pyloric valve when to close, but he has great early sweat like glands. He will get his chance to develop those in a few hundred more generations, while he is competing against the guy with bones that can bend. That is the beauty of this whole random process. But hey, it all works, please don't bother me with all the details, my brain hurts. "Honey, where are my dam fruit loops!" This appears to be gibberish. When you've figured out what question you would like to ask, let me know.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-11-2013 11:53 AM | | Bolder-dash has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 127 of 871 (690319)
02-11-2013 6:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Taq
02-11-2013 6:04 PM
|
|
Perhaps you can explain why none of these are valid topics for this conversation? You answered a question with reference to facts and evidence, whereas the proper way to answer a question is to post incomprehensible ravings about "fruit loops", which I understand to be a form of breakfast cereal. I'm not sure whether gibberish about Coco Pops would be equally acceptable, perhaps you could ask.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Taq, posted 02-11-2013 6:04 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Experimentation, no straw needed
No Blue Jay, the real question I am asking is not whether or not mutations could form an eye, the question is whether or not RANDOM mutations could form an eye-and I think the answer to that is almost certainly no. Please show your working.
For one thing, we just don't see any evidence of such random mutations cropping up in species, random mutations for cornea on peoples elbows, and adjustable pupils in between your toes. This is what random means. It means purposeless, scatter-shot, it means accidental deformations. You pathetic idiot.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Which is a better answer:
"I've got no idea"
"God did it" Without any evidence in favor of God doing it, the first. 'Cos of being true.
Well that is what abiogenesis looks like to creationists, seriously, its like huh duh, we have no idea but we far more intelligent than you guys who actually believe in a God! Well, most things aren't done by God. Let us suppose that God exists and is known to exist, and is omnipotent. Then I tell you that last week I lost my spectacles. How highly would you rate the possibility that God did a miracle to make them vanish? Even granting the existence of God, which is the better explanation for the disappearance of my spectacles?
Which is a better answer:
"I've got no idea"
"God did it" The answer "I've got no idea" is definitely better than "God did it", because the first answer is 100% incontrovertibly true. I do have no idea. If I maintained the same degree of certainty that "God did it", you'd think I'd gone off my head, wouldn't you?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 166 by mindspawn, posted 02-18-2013 6:36 AM | | mindspawn has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 186 of 871 (691032)
02-19-2013 12:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by mindspawn
02-18-2013 1:52 PM
|
|
Its one less principle , not one more. Hmm, let's see. We either have: (a) The known processes of genetics. (b) The known processes of genetics, plus an invisible creator. Unless there are a negative number of invisible creators, that would be one more, not one less.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by mindspawn, posted 02-18-2013 1:52 PM | | mindspawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 205 by mindspawn, posted 02-20-2013 12:12 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 208 of 871 (691117)
02-20-2013 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by mindspawn
02-20-2013 12:12 PM
|
|
(a) The known processes of genetics. (b) The known processes of genetics, plus an invisible creator. (c) The known process of genetics , plus the sudden creation of biological life by lifeless nature - lol yeah Do you know that to base your beliefs on an unproven process and be confident in that unproven process is faith. And to have faith to such an extent that its a major part of your life, is religion. So you may not realize it, but you are a very religious man Dr Adequate, the religion of abiogenesis. (1) Please do not lie to me about what I think or why I think it. (2) Why are you lying about abiogenesis? We were talking about evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by mindspawn, posted 02-20-2013 12:12 PM | | mindspawn has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 210 by mindspawn, posted 02-20-2013 12:28 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2