|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
"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. You have no idea how long evolution has been making it little changes, do you? BILLIONS of YEARS is a very, very long time. 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.
... and it was pure luck that some snakes were born with their venom glands connected to their hollow fangs!eventually some venom systems were just right. 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.
Laughter is the best medicine.
why isn't it obvious to you?what is blocking your brain from seeing this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Not "creative" powers. Accumulative powers. ... a pseudo-scientific superstition that Darwinists subscribe to that endows deep-time with magical creative 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
How is any of that relevant to the discussion? How has the theory of UCD advanced medicine?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
deleted duplicate post
Edited by xongsmith, : ooops "I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
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!others to weak to paralize a victim. some missed the teeth path and didn't work as they do today.
... and it was pure luck that some snakes were born with their venom glands connected to their hollow fangs!eventually some venom systems were just right. 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.
Laughter is the best medicine. why isn't it obvious to you?what is blocking your brain from seeing this? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
I never said the billions of years wasn't a fact. I'm not a YEC; I'm an OEC.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
How did venomous snakes get hollow-fangs?
they could provide additional structural strength, making it easier to puncture the increasingly tougher skins of their prey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
[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: xongsmith writes: So goes the story, at least. According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages. each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its 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:
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:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
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.
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024