Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 826 of 1429 (899132)
10-08-2022 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 820 by xongsmith
10-08-2022 1:14 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
xongsmith writes:
You have no idea how long evolution has been making it little changes, do you? BILLIONS of YEARS is a very, very long time.
"BILLIONS of YEARS" per se is not a scientific explanation - it amounts to a pseudo-scientific superstition that Darwinists subscribe to that endows deep-time with magical creative powers.
Give a forest enough time and it will produce a log-cabin. Bullshit.
start with a little groove on the inside of a tooth then some are born with deeper grooves that are favored in that current environment. they survive at a more frequent rate and eventually are the major variant.
How are those "deeper grooves ... favored in that current environment" and how do they allow the snake to "survive at a more frequent rate"?
then the deeper groove begins to fold together
Hilarious. What makes the deeper groove fold together? Magic?
and the saliva has also been changing ever so slightly to venomous in this surviving population.
What causes the saliva to become venomous? Magic?
some early venoms may have been self-destructive
Comedy gold!
others to weak to paralize a victim. some missed the teeth path and didn't work as they do today.
eventually some venom systems were just right.
... and it was pure luck that some snakes were born with their venom glands connected to their hollow fangs!
How old are you? Five?
the venomous fangs gave an advantage in the life encounters over food and real-time battles of life & death.
No kidding, Einstein?
this is abundantly obvious to me.
why isn't it obvious to you?
what is blocking your brain from seeing this?
Laughter is the best medicine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 820 by xongsmith, posted 10-08-2022 1:14 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 827 by ringo, posted 10-08-2022 10:10 PM Dredge has not replied
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 1:40 AM Dredge has replied

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


(1)
Message 827 of 1429 (899133)
10-08-2022 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by Dredge
10-08-2022 9:44 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
Dredge writes:
... a pseudo-scientific superstition that Darwinists subscribe to that endows deep-time with magical creative powers.
Not "creative" powers. Accumulative powers.
Tiny changes, that nobody would notice, accumulate over long periods of time to make huge changes.
And we do have long periods of time. You creationist idiots often make the mistake of thinking that science makes up long periods of time because evolution needs long periods of time.
But we HAVE long periods of time. We have the geological evidence of long periods of time whether evolution happened or not. Long periods of time are there even if life never happened.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by Dredge, posted 10-08-2022 9:44 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 828 of 1429 (899135)
10-08-2022 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 787 by AZPaul3
08-31-2022 1:42 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Whatever. You've yet to demonstrate how the theory of UCD has proven useful in medicine.
Note: A possible explanation for why genetic similarities exist between humans and non-humans is not a medical use; it's just a story. A story about what might have happened millions of years ago never cured anyone, as far as I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by AZPaul3, posted 08-31-2022 1:42 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 829 of 1429 (899136)
10-08-2022 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 785 by Taq
08-30-2022 11:30 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
How is any of that relevant to the discussion? How has the theory of UCD advanced medicine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Taq, posted 08-30-2022 11:30 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 830 of 1429 (899137)
10-08-2022 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by AZPaul3
08-31-2022 2:28 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
AZPaul3 writes:
The UCA does not specifically explain why a certain trait appears. What UCA does, Dredge, is give us the ability to understand HOW it happened.
The same ingredients are necessary, and the understanding of how those ingredients work together starts with UCA.
Irrelevant to the discussion, I should think. I not interested in your useless theorizing - I want to know how the theory of UCA has provided a practical medical advancement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by AZPaul3, posted 08-31-2022 2:28 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 831 of 1429 (899138)
10-09-2022 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 796 by Dredge
09-01-2022 10:49 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
Dredge spouts:
Nonsense. Humans are mammals, so anyone with half a brain would figure that insulin from other mammals would likely work better than insulin from non-mammals like mollusks or fish ... nothing to do with UCD.

Do try and awaken from your stupor.
There it is folks! his stupidity unchained!
he describes UCD/genetic defects resulting in mammals to be different from mollusks and then claims it has nothing to do with UCD! WOW what happened to you that your brain cannot see this?

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by Dredge, posted 09-01-2022 10:49 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-09-2022 12:50 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 832 of 1429 (899139)
10-09-2022 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 796 by Dredge
09-01-2022 10:49 PM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
deleted duplicate post

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by Dredge, posted 09-01-2022 10:49 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 833 of 1429 (899140)
10-09-2022 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 831 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 12:43 AM


Re: Dredge thinks not knowing everything is not knowing anything
WOW what happened to you that your brain cannot see this?
He's a troll. Being an obnoxious asshole is the most positive thing he has going on in his life.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 12:43 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 834 of 1429 (899141)
10-09-2022 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 826 by Dredge
10-08-2022 9:44 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
from the Dredge pile:
"BILLIONS of YEARS" per se is not a scientific explanation - it amounts to a pseudo-scientific superstition that Darwinists subscribe to that endows deep-time with magical creative powers.
IT IS FACT, you idiot. you are, like all humans, unable to visualize/grok the concept of billions of years. but we know it as a fact.
Give a forest enough time and it will produce a log-cabin. Bullshit.
perhaps, but the survival of a forest does not depend on building log cabins. Maybe some day, in some future time, it might be advantageous to make shelters out of fallen relatives by growing root systems that push the logs around and make the forest safer from decay above - but that is just conjecture. the point is there is no survival advantage known in the historical records at this date.
This is nothing more than a rewording of the spurious argument about the creation of the human eye. each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its survival advantages. the octopus eye ancestors would have been a better supply of DNA, but they were on a different branch in the tree of Universal Common Descent.
How are those "deeper grooves ... favored in that current environment" and how do they allow the snake to "survive at a more frequent rate"?
they could provide additional structural strength, making it easier to puncture the increasingly tougher skins of their prey.
then the deeper groove begins to fold together
Hilarious. What makes the deeper groove fold together? Magic?
Why did John Wooden roll his program up on the sidelines of the UCLA basketball championship seasons? Here, they make the snake's teeth stronger. There certainly may have been mutations that made flat teeth, but the weaker structure might break or crack and would have led to their death before they could procreate. In the meantime, the prey is experiencing survival advantages in tougher skins and the race is on.
and the saliva has also been changing ever so slightly to venomous in this surviving population.
What causes the saliva to become venomous? Magic?
Yes...the "magic" of BILLIONS of generations with tiny flaws in reproducing an exact copy of their DNA. Most flaws are probably neutral, many are disadvantageous, and a few are advantageous. Yes, it is magical - this natural world we live in! So. What are you? A rider on the slow bus?
some early venoms may have been self-destructive
Comedy gold!
Thank you.
others to weak to paralize a victim. some missed the teeth path and didn't work as they do today.
eventually some venom systems were just right.
... and it was pure luck that some snakes were born with their venom glands connected to their hollow fangs!
BY GEORGE, I THINK HE'S GOT IT!!!! YES, YES, YES!
the venomous fangs gave an advantage in the life encounters over food and real-time battles of life & death.
No kidding, Einstein?
this is abundantly obvious to me.
why isn't it obvious to you?
what is blocking your brain from seeing this?
Laughter is the best medicine.
Except that none of us are laughing...we are instead trying to help your deficient brain get up to speed in simple understanding.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by Dredge, posted 10-08-2022 9:44 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 835 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 2:33 AM xongsmith has replied
 Message 836 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 2:39 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 837 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 2:43 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 841 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 4:31 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 842 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 4:36 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 843 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 4:51 PM xongsmith has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 835 of 1429 (899143)
10-09-2022 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 834 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 1:40 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
xongsmith writes:
IT IS FACT, you idiot. you are, like all humans, unable to visualize/grok the concept of billions of years. but we know it as a fact.
I never said the billions of years wasn't a fact. I'm not a YEC; I'm an OEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 1:40 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 6:05 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 836 of 1429 (899144)
10-09-2022 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 834 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 1:40 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
[qs=each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its survival advantages.[/qs] So goes the story, at least. According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 1:40 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by nwr, posted 10-09-2022 10:05 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 839 by dwise1, posted 10-09-2022 1:19 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 837 of 1429 (899145)
10-09-2022 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 834 by xongsmith
10-09-2022 1:40 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
xongsmith writes:
they could provide additional structural strength, making it easier to puncture the increasingly tougher skins of their prey.
How did venomous snakes get hollow-fangs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 1:40 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(3)
Message 838 of 1429 (899153)
10-09-2022 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by Dredge
10-09-2022 2:39 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages.
That's the viewpoint known as panadaptationism. Many (perhaps most) evolutionists disagree.
Try reading up about exaptation and about spandrels.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 2:39 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by xongsmith, posted 10-09-2022 6:38 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 839 of 1429 (899157)
10-09-2022 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by Dredge
10-09-2022 2:39 AM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
[qs=each ...
You can repair that by replacing the equal sign (=) with a right square bracket (]).
Oh yeah, you can't, can you? Because you've lost your editing privileges. Because you had abused that privilege so egregiously.
Well, it's your own damned fault for being such a horrible troll! If you were to at least try to act like a person, then things would have been different, but they could never happen, could it? Because you are a troll and you refuse to be anything other than a troll.
To quote from Marcus Lycus' beratement of an employee for not trying to improve himself (last quoted regarding you in my Message 678):
quote:
But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
xongsmith writes:
each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its survival advantages.
So goes the story, at least. According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages.
So are you now going to blather trollish nonsense about the evolution of the vertebrate eye? (NOTE: most of the evolution of the human eye happened long before any hominids existed)
I'm curious to see whether you try to use the usual absolute nonsense "arguments" creationists typically use for this one, including their egregious misquoting of Darwin on the subject. So go ahead and describe how you think the evolution of the vertebrate eye would have worked and what you think the problems with that would be that would make it impossible.
 
Of course, you are much too stupid an idiot and hence too much of the proverbial swine to be able to learn from these pearls. Therefore, this is more for the benefit of the lurkers (called "visitors" on this forum).
NOTE:
I'm reminded of a university professor's explanation for why he engages in debates with creationists. Those "debates" are creationist-run circuses designed to place their opponents at as much of a disadvantage as possible in order to deceive the audience.
This professor knows that he will never be able to convince a creationist (it's difficult enough just to get a creationist to listen). And yet there he is in an audience full of people who are listening intently to every word he says (even if just to try to find fault). That is far more attention than is paid by his students to his classroom lectures. So he sees these debates as an excellent educational opportunity, perhaps the only opportunity most in that audience would ever have to hear what evolution really is (as opposed to creationists gross misrepresentation (AKA "lies"), which Dredge and I have taken to calling "evilution" and which Dredge credits with making all creationists evil (see his Message 341).
At another debate, the opponents canvassed all the vehicles in the parking lot and determined (eg, from church and Christian school buses, ΙΧΘΥΣ fishes and bumper stickers on cars) that about 90% of the audience were pro-creationism going into the debate. At the end of the debate, the creationist organizers had the audience cast their votes on who had won, as is very common at these events. Since about two-thirds of the votes were for creationism, the creationists declared victory. But the audience had gone from 90% to only 66% creationist, losing about a quarter of the audience. Doesn't look like a victory to me.
Darwinist? Are there still Darwinists? Anybody who actually studies evolution or would works with it would be much more likely to be a neo-Darwinist than an outdated out-of-touch Darwinist. Darwin published On the Origin of Species (1859) over one hundred sixty (160) years ago. You're undoubtedly too stupid to understand how long a time that is in terms of the human lifespan, but that's a helluva long time ago. Darwin didn't know anything about genetics so he failed in his attempts to describe how inheritance works.
Because Darwinism is wrong about how inheritance works, a Darwinist would also be wrong about how inheritance works. But neo-Darwinism solved that problem circa 1940 by integrating Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. And in the subsequent eight (8) decades we have learned even more often at an exponential rate.
So by miring yourself in an outdated discipline like Darwinism while ignoring the advances made by neo-Darwinism, you are keeping yourself out-of-touch with current science. And you are doing that deliberately and even stubbornly (AKA "willful stupidity").
Of course you will never understand anything because you refuse to ever learn anything. And it's not just mere refusal, but rather you actively prevent yourself of ever learning anything. But then that is the evil nature of creationism.
 
According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages.
Perhaps, but we have learned a lot in the past 160 years. Try to learn something about neo-Darwinism. For example, there's genetic drift, there are neutral mutations, "coattail riders" (ie, traits that are on the same chromosome as another trait that is being selected for so these other traits are retained as they "ride on the coattails of those other traits being selected for"), etc.
Yes, I know that your simple mind wants very simplistic explanations, but reality is not simplistic and biology in particular is very complex and complicated -- and very messy and can be very wet.
Even just thinking through what life does and how life works should be enough to figure some of this out, not that you would ever consider doing that. For example, a simple listing of the Circle of Life (as I presented to "Little Man" Kleinman in Message 45):
DWise1 writes:
Adaptation is an iterative process (I'm a retired software engineer, so I know something from iterative processes), which simplified goes something like:
  1. (jumping into an ongoing loop) Start where you have a population which is adapted sufficiently to its environment. Observe that there is some genetic and phenotypic diversity within the population centered about a hypothetical optimum though with an acceptable degree of deviation from that optimum.
  2. That starting generation then reproduces resulting in a new generation of offspring who are very similar to, though still different from, their parents. This increases diversity through a number of different factors, including recombination and mutations.
    This step also includes the non-viable genotypes which never are born/hatched/sprouted but rather spontaneously abort (I keep hearing the figure of about 50% -- that is also why you plant a few seeds in each hole in your garden). Those spontaneous abortions play no further role in this iterative loop and hence their non-adaptive traits are eliminated from the gene pool.
  3. The new generation survives and matures ... some of them. This is part of where their fitness comes into play, though it is almost literally a crap shoot (a freak accident could take out the most hyper-fit individual, so the surviving population does so statistically with greater fitness being a contributing factor).
  4. The surviving mature individuals enter the mating game and reproduce. This is where sexual selection comes into play.
    This is also where various reproductive strategies; eg, produce mass quantities of eggs in the hope that a few survive, produce a few eggs and be around to nurture them, etc.
  5. Loop back to Step 1.
Please note that the closer an individual is to the optimal mean for its population in their environment (it may help to visualize this as a bell curve with the optimal mean in the center) then the more fit it is.
Now consider a change in the environment where that optimal mean is no longer in the center, but rather off to one side (or even beyond the curve in the most extreme cases). In those cases, the fringe individuals closest to that new optimal mean will be the ones most fit for the new environment and will have their genes represented more in the next generations. That is adaptation.
So here's a question for you, Littleman. All that expresses change to changing environments. For that matter, many common definitions of "evolution" involve change, but not stasis.
But what about statis? How does evolution explain stasis, the absence of change? I know the answer, but do you? I've even already given you the answer.
The answer to that last paragraph is that the exact same evolutionary processes that lead to change also drive stasis, as we observe in every negative-feedback control loop.
OK, selection is how we describe what's happening, but it does not imply a "Selector". The overall effect of what we call "selection" is the simple small set of facts:
  • Heritable traits are passed on to the next generation though reproduction.
  • More offspring are spawned than will survive to reproductive maturity.
  • The ability for an offspring to reproduce involves the ability to survive into reproductive maturity.
    You don't need to be the absolute best (ie, "the most fit"), but rather just "good enough". For example, I made PO1 the first time I went up for it, but my final multiple was the cutoff score. Similarly, when I finally made Chief, I was the fourth of four DSes to be selected. I "survived" not by being the top selectee, but rather by being "good enough" to make the cutoff.
  • And obviously if the individual possesses traits that would endanger his ability to survive (or be selected as a mate, as your trollness must serve to keep you from being selected), then the likelihood of being able to reproduce (let alone survive) would be reduced and your maladaptive traits would not be passed on.
So then, if you truly believe that survival has nothing to do with passing on a trait, then do please explain that position of yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 2:39 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by Dredge, posted 10-09-2022 3:24 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 840 of 1429 (899163)
10-09-2022 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by dwise1
10-09-2022 1:19 PM


Re: Dredge tries with Re: what did it?
dwise1 writes:
You can repair that by replacing the equal sign (=) with a right square bracket (]).

Oh yeah, you can't, can you? Because you've lost your editing privileges. Because you had abused that privilege so egregiously.
That's right ... I can't correct any editing mistakes bcoz, unlike every other poster here, I don"t have any editing privileges. A gross miscarriage of justice, to be sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by dwise1, posted 10-09-2022 1:19 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by dwise1, posted 10-09-2022 5:29 PM Dredge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024