|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I have my area of expertise but have learned so much from the experts on this forum. That's why I am still here. I have learned fine details on a bunch of subjects that I find interesting and I have had a blast visiting and photographing geological formations that I learned about here.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Every dragonfly you see.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You were complaining about a definition i provided. You were complaining about descriptive words in that definition that you apparently didnt like, but admitted you agreed with. I still reject your definition. I've spent my life as a biological scientist and I have never heard another scientist use your definition. If you want to discuss evolution with scientists you will find that most will reject descriptive words that have no other purpose than to ridicule the theory, because science does not include your imaginary fantasy bullshit. If you wanted to have an honest discussion you wouldn't have played your gotcha "oh that's the first time I've heard Dawkins called a creationist, gotcha". Then it turns out that Dawkins didn't say what you implied. A behavior we see universally from creationists here at EvC is the habit of redefining terminology and theories used by science. Scientists are the ones who define the terminology and theories used by science. No matter how puffed up you get, we are not going to let you redefine it. If you have evidence of an intelligent entity guiding biology present it.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
So which scientist has used the definition: "The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats." It is from a member here at EvC named RAZD.
Oh, and by the way. I got this from a little letter signed by 38 Nobel Laureates to the Kansas State Board of Education -
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Well, like you said earlier, context. These guys were informing the idiots in the Kansas State Board of Education who were advocating some sort of bill to teach creationism is science classes, so they made it very specific that the creationists were wrong.
So if scientists never use such descriptive words....then you need to look up the definition of SCIENTIST too. I admit I've been distracted. Are you ever going to present evidence? Or are you just going to continue being a rude jerk?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
If you are asking about how "Design would be detectable", it is a technique that is used in other scientific endeavors. Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms? What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?
Information theory has a big hand in it, but design detection is used in Archaeology, Forensics, Crytography, search endeavors like SETI, and in many historical sciences. This seems overly broad and yet completely unspecific. Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.
It can produce some things very easily, but they are usually small changes that correspond to minor phenotypic traits, what is often referred to as micro-evolution. Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?
There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed. This assertion has not been demonstrated.
Things like new body plans and regulatory networks. This is a total strawman argument. Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks? What do you consider a new body plan? What regulatory networks are you talking about?
Anything that require an measure of complex and specified information have never been demonstrated to be formed via a random process, Can you describe anything that requires a "measure of complex and specified information"? Can you describe a measure of complex and specified information?
I would note that living organisms with or without a measure of complex and specified information have never been demonstrated to be formed via an undetectable intelligent agent. but in all cases where we do have knowledge of the origins, it has always been by a mind, intelligence. Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made. It also turns out that humans are detectable.
M + NS are just not up to the task of producing such things. An assertion without any supporting evidence. ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Tangle writes: WookieeB writes: No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Who do you think you're fooling? Is it yourself? At first, I read it as "No wonder that more and more scientists are publicly coming out as skeptical of claims for ONLY random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Considering all the components we now know can operate within the process of evolution, pretty much every scientist I know acknowledges my quote above. It is quite extraordinary that these guys keep making claims like this as if there is some huge groundswell of scientists who have become convinced by the ID argument. In my life I have only encountered one scientist who suddenly became a proponent of ID, but he refuses to discuss it so his colleagues who I know are all puzzled what happened. The most bizarre part, to me, is he's a paleontologist.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Why would living organisms be an exception? Can you describe how these techniques can be applied to living organisms? WookieeB writes: Why are you arbitrarily singling out living things? WTF?? We are discussing Biological Evolution WookieeB writes: Applying design principles is agnostic with regards to the materials it works on. I have no idea what you are saying here. What design principals?
You can detect design when looking at certain rock formations. Yes, you can. Michelangelo's David comes to mind. What certain rock formations are you talking about?
You can detect design when looking at certain magnetized deposits. Yes, you can. Hard disk drives come to mind. What certain magnetized deposits are you talking about?
You can detect design when looking at some formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products. Yes you can. Furniture and decorations and art come to mind. What formations of wood, flowers, or other organic products are you talking about?
You can detect design among elecromagnetic or light signals. Yep, television and radio are good examples of human design. What design among electromagnetic or light signals are you talking about?
There is no limitation on what you can consider for design. Humans use all sorts of materials, but there actually are limitations. We can even design imaginary worlds in literature and art. Music, designed from sound.
Why would living organisms be an exception? Humans are the only known designers and so far we have only been able to modify the designs of living organisms, not create completely new organisms from scratch. There is no evidence of your imaginary designer.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
The techiques are used in other sciences that I already mentioned. Archaelogy, forensics, cryptography. SETI is good example of looking for design signs of something that clearly would not be from humans. What specific techniques from other scientific endeavors would be used and how would they differentiate design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design resulting from evolution?Why would one have to differentiate design from one agent (known) or another agent (unknown) or presumably evolution. Design is design. I asked for what specific techniques from other sciences would be used to differentiate between design by an undetectable agent and the appearance of design from evolution and you just respond by repeating your list of sciences, not techniques. So you have no useful answer.
Design is design. There is no evidence of design in living organisms. The only evidence of design is in man-made artifacts.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes: Design detection is not focussing on what you are implying. It is not looking for whom made an artifact, it is just determining that an artifact was 'made'. So whether an item was made by a human or not, is not the important distinction. It is just whether a thing was 'made' or not. Identifying artifacts made by humans seems to have little relationship to identifying organisms created by an undetectable agent.Or in other words, why would there have to be no relationship between them? The only examples we have of designed artifacts are those made by humans. There are no features of living organisms that can be shown to be designed by anything other than evolution. Apparently you fail to see the rather obvious differences between non-living artifacts designed be humans and living organisms.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Not really, because I am thinking of them as the same process. You have to define the distinction if that is needed. Can you demonstrate that micro-evolution is a different process than evolution?The only thing I am debating is what the process can realistically produce. Ok, I thought you were implying they were different processes. So far you have failed to demonstrate that you have any grasp of what the processes of evolution do produce.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution. Wookieeb writes:
This assertion has not been demonstrated. There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed. Nobody suggested that you prove a negative. You asserted "There are other features though that would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, for it to produce. Things that would be considered irreducibly complex would rarely, if ever, be able to be formed." I responded that you have not demonstrated that. So far, you have stated evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex features, but your IC features have been shown to not be IC after all. I note that JonF answered this question nicely in Message 281 JonF writes: No, the assertion that evolution can produce such things is what has not been demonstrated. I don't need to prove a negative. Show me how an IC object can be produced via unguided evolution.
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation (free registration required)Also the many propoosed pathways such as Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. Can you demonstrate any issues with that? WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Body plans comprise the specific arrangements of specialized organs and tissues. What do you consider a new body plan?What regulatory networks are you talking about? For networks, things like developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRNs) that control the timing and expression of pre-existing genes during animal development. I was asking what you consider a new body plan, in the context of something evolution cannot produce, not the definition of body plan. What specific example of a new body plan are you referring to that cannot be the result of evolution? WookieeB writes: Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution produces new body plans and regulatory networks?
Well, to an evolutionist, what else would account for them? I see that I should have asked, "Can you show any examples of biologists claiming that evolution suddenly produces completely new body plans and regulatory networks?" I thought the what I was asking for was obvious, but I doubt you will be able to provide an example.
Where we have knowledge of the origin of artifacts, it has always turned out to have been man-made.
Usually, but not always. Animals have left behind artifacts that are detectable as designed. Right, like paper wasp nests, but those examples are hardly evidence that living organisms have been designed by an undetectable designer. Evolution does account for these byproducts of living organisms.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
This is irrelevant as to whether something is designed or not. But what do you mean by "detectable"? It also turns out that humans are detectable. I was just pointing out the contrast between the designers that we know about and your designer that is undetectable and indistinguishable from imaginary.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
What is asserted without evidence is that M+NS can produce any significant new information. An assertion without any supporting evidence This is just silly. What is asserted, with whole libraries and millions of scientific papers full of evidence, is that the diversity of life on this planet is the result of the processes of biological evolution. Significant is something you will always claim is not enough. New information is produced by every mutation. Modern genomes are the obvious products of billions of mutations that have been accumulating for billions of years. That is a whole shitload of new information.
WookieeB writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Nope, no religion needed for ID. Just an inference to the best explanation based on our uniform and repeated experience that complex specified information always comes from a mind. Stop strawmanning. ID is a religious fantasy depending on an undetectable designer and magic. Grow up. You are fooling yourself. Your designer is completely undetectable and indistinguishable from imaginary. ID was the religious brainchild of Behe and the Discovery Institute. Their Wedge Document is irrefutable proof that ID is a religion.
Wedge strategy -Wikipedia quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Next, I thought evolution was supposed to be good at cleaning up things that don't work. With as old as the recurrent laryngeal nerve is supposed to have first developed, you would think that the all-powerful evolution would have corrected that badly working thing? If you assume evolution, the fact that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is conserved would point to it not being a 'bad design'. You really don't know very much about evolution do you? Evolution is not very good at cleaning up things that don't work perfectly. It is quite good at cleaning up things that are lethal, obviously. Evolution has to work with the features it has and if they are not lethal and still allow the organism to live and reproduce then they may be retained. There are dozens of features (maybe hundreds) that have been pointed out as less than optimum design, but that are still retained. The vertebrate eye is a well known example when compared to cephalopod eye. Evolution works at modifying existing features rather than inventing features that are completely new. It makes do with modifying what it has, sometimes for completely different functions, which is why we see features that appear to be less than optimum design. See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Evolution could have produced spiders with more legs. Yep, and it did, they are called scorpions, centipedes and millipedes, to name three.
Many insects have a lot more legs. Why not spiders? Insects have 6 legs and 0, 2, or 4 wings. Any Arthropod with more than 6 legs IS NOT AN INSECT Here you are imagining scenarios of evolution doing something that you seem to think is impossible, but you don't seem to know anything about biology, or paleontology, or genetics, or how the scientific method and supporting evidence works. Why don't you know these most basic facts about biology; we call all arthropods with 8 legs and 2 main body sections Spiders, Insects have 6 legs and many adults also have wings, there are arthropods with many more legs than insects or spiders, but we don't call them insects or spiders because we can recognize that they also form their own clades, like insects and spiders do. Didn't you go to high school, why don't you know these basic facts about biology, especially if you are going to come here and argue about evolution (biology)?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: So you decided to miss the point and hide behind labels. Got it!
Nope, I directly refuted statements YOU made that are FALSE. And asked why you don't know these basic facts of biology.
Tanypteryx writes: sensei writes: Evolution could have produced spiders with more legs. Yep, and it did, they are called scorpions, centipedes and millipedes, to name three.
sensei writes: Many insects have a lot more legs. Why not spiders? Insects have 6 legs and 0, 2, or 4 wings. Any Arthropod with more than 6 legs IS NOT AN INSECT Here you are imagining scenarios of evolution doing something that you seem to think is impossible, but you don't seem to know anything about biology, or paleontology, or genetics, or how the scientific method and supporting evidence works.
Why don't you know these most basic facts about biology; we call all arthropods with 8 legs and 2 main body sections Spiders, Insects have 6 legs and many adults also have wings, there are arthropods with many more legs than insects or spiders, but we don't call them insects or spiders because we can recognize that they also form their own clades, like insects and spiders do. Didn't you go to high school, why don't you know these basic facts about biology, especially if you are going to come here and argue about evolution (biology)? Just which point did I miss, other than you demonstrating that you don't know shit about what you are talking about?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
So when your side asks why bats were not designed with having bird feathers, that is a valid question? We're not asking that. We are saying that there is a reason bats do not have feathers, and that reason is because feathers did not evolve in the avian dinosaurs (birds) until after their split from a common vertebrate ancestor with Synapsida reptiles (mammal ancestors).
sensei writes: But when I ask why evolution has not produced spiders with 12 legs, that is invalid and I don't know what I'm talking about? Good Grief! Arthropods with 8 legs are called spiders or scorpions and arthropods with 12 legs are called centipedes. Now, does your question demonstrate that you know what you are talking about?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
His grasp of science, biology, and evolution seems almost non-existent. I wonder if he's done with 89 content less posts, or if he's going further demonstrate his ignorance?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
And I told you, you know nothing. I am right again. And that's a fact.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Many things produce nested hierarchies. Keep ignoring that fact and proving your utter ignorance.
And yet you have not been able to provide supporting evidence for even a single one, no matter how many times we ask.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Still Conman the Bullshit Peddler, I see. Still no new citations of your Bullshit papers?
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024