|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4838 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bolder-dash's very own little thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Secondly, I have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans, is something that evolutionists are not able to do. But we are able to do that, and have. Evolution generates new body plans by the same mechanisms it generates everything else; random mutation and natural selections. New body plans are generated by small, heritable changes to the old ones that accrue over time. That's why the fossil record shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms between taxa. That's why the modern world still shows a continuous pattern of transitional forms, from microorganisms, to colonial microorganisms, to multicellular invertebrates, to part-time chordates, to ocean-dwelling vertebrates, to cold-blooded land vertebrates, to warm-blooded vertibrates, to primates, to hominids, to humans. There are no truly de novo body plans in evolutionary history. The sort of saltational change you may have in mind would be evidence against evolution, not in favor of it.
Now of course, virtually every evolutionist on this site will pull out the same BS card of simply saying its all in a magic book Because here at EvC we're expected to support our arguments with references. Those "magic books" are actually collegiate textbooks on the relevant subjects, suited for instruction and considered proof in any court of law. If you don't care to look at the references, you can hardly accuse us of not providing evidence. We can lead you to water but nobody can make you drink.
bullshit, I know about biology You don't know any biology. The reason I know this is because biology is taught from textbooks, and you refuse to read books.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How big is your body of empirical evidence? There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than for any other scientific theory. More than for Newton's theory of universal gravity, more than for Einstein's general relativity, more than for quantum mechanics. There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is in support of any medical diagnosis that any doctor has ever made. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for any crime for which anyone has ever been convicted at any trial in any country.
Does the body of evidence extend beyond the bounds of a few simple changes in bacteria? It is only out of complete ignorance of biology that you would be able to describe any change in bacteria as "simple." But, yes, the body of evidence extends beyond changes in bacteria. There's about 3 million hits for that search, that should get you started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Dr.A was not the first to pull out the "read a book" technique of argumentative fallacy (I am sure there is a name for this pedantic school of rhetorical discourse, but it slips me right now). There is no name for it, because it's not a fallacy to provide your opponent with references to sources. What is fallacious is pretending that your opponent didn't source his arguments because he didn't open the book and read them to you by your bedside.
But crashfrog, since you are in school, and hoping to make a career out of biology, I implore you to at least first understand the difference between seeing an evolutionary change (such as a fossil) and understanding all of the mechanisms that actually caused those progressions of changes, and being able to account for them Fossils are not "evolutionary change." Fossils do not ever change, they're made of stone - mineralized bone - and have been dead for millions of years, in some cases. No fossil is ever going to engage in "evolutionary change" right before our eyes. No individual organism is going to, either. Evolution is something that happens to species, to populations, not to individuals. Everybody who didn't get their knowledge of biology from the "X-Men" movies knows that.
This requires more than just blind faith, that a random mutation can seamlessly provide all of the variation necessary We've observed random mutations make every kind of change to DNA that it's possible to make. DNA can be added to, can be subtracted from, can be re-arranged. That's it; that's all you can do with DNA. And we have observations from the lab that prove that all three of those types of changes can be the result of random mutations. So we know that random mutation is a potential source for any kind of heritable, genetic change, and those are the only sorts of changes that represent evolution of populations.
In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The scientific theory of evolution has an extraordinary amount of proof, far more than for any other scientific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I still need to get a mutation for a tear duct,, and I need to it be somewhere near my eye, and I need it to be more beneficial than it is detrimental (if that is even possible before I have teardrops) even if we are getting mutations for a club foot, or for baldness, or for a cornea that is attached to the tip of a tail and serves no purpose whatsoever. And we observe that all that happens. And then natural selection weeds out the detrimental mutations and selects for the advantageous ones. And we observe that happen, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
That's great, so show me where we observe corneas popping up in organisms spontaneously? How about cone photo receptors appearing on the palms of people's hands? Those events would disprove evolution, not be evidence in favor of it. On the other hand, the living world contains examples of a continuum of eyes ranging from simple eye spots to human-style backwards-retina "just good enough" camera eyes to the retinas-forward, optimum design found in cephlopods.
You must have access to some studies I have not seen. I don't believe you've ever in your life seen a scientific study. What was the last one you read? Be specific. I'm asking for title, authors, and the volume and page of the journal in which it appeared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What does the random mutation for something like a functioning tear-duct look like? A small change to a bog-standard sebaceous gland.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What is the change exactly? Oh, what is the exact change? A mutation in developmental genes, most likely. Changes to body plan are usually the result of changes to the program of cell development and proliferation that occurs pre-natally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where are these random mutational changes that might make one particular sebaceous gland begin to secrete fluid onto your knee every time you get an itch there? They're in your DNA, where they've always been.
Or how about a genetic mutation to a sebaceous gland that will allow you to squirt a deadly poison anytime a robber points a gun at you, sort of like spiderman; or at least like a spitting cobra? Saltational change is evidence against evolution, not evidence in favor of it. Biological function emerges from small changes to body plan, not enormous changes all at once like the sudden emergence of poison glands in primates. Everybody who didn't get their biology education from "X-Men" knows this.
For a theory that relies ENTIRELY on these type of processes to create every system on earth, you sure are lacking in real examples. Not at all. In fact there are dozens of examples:
Are Mutations Harmful? Every biological trait in every organism in every species is the result of mutation. That's a countless number of examples of beneficial mutations. An effectively infinite amount.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Its ok with me if you also want to name a few examples of what you prefer to call a "neutral" mutation that you see in modern creatures that you feel is suitable as a building block for a completely new system. Gene duplication - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are a young college student that already feels they know everything in life that there is to know, you have taken a couple of biology classes (congratulations) and you are now going to tell everyone who will listen all about your great life experience wisdom, with all of the confidence of Walter Middy. That's a delightful work of fiction you've created, but why not just admit that you know nothing at all about me and address my points?
You are so sure that you already have every answer, like your naive claim that you know all about every psychic and near death study that has ever existed So show me the ones you think I don't know about. Like I said - there aren't that many so-called "psychic studies" in the first place. The "paranormal" has long since been relegated to cranks and hucksters since study after study fails to find any defensible example of paranormal powers. If there's all this evidence for "non-material" stuff then you shouldn't have any trouble providing some of it, and putting me in my place. But instead you're forced to write these insipid little biographies that violate the forum guidelines:
quote: You don't need to spend time learning things, or contemplating things, or listening and trying to gather a deepening understanding-no you already have it all figured out at 20 years of age. I'm actually a 30-year-old married man, and maybe the reason that I seem like a know-it-all to you is because you know so very little about the world and its function. Certainly the steady array of biological ignorance you've spat all over this forum testifies to that. And now we find out that your credulity truly knows no bounds, and you'll swallow any old hokum at all - psychic surgery, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing - that you think will let you "stick it" to us awful ol' materialists. That's fine. Prove to me that you're the one possessed of a mind open to all the evidence, and go out and find some for psychic powers. For out-of-body experiences. Prove to me you're not just running off with your tail between your legs when I showed up at your little battle of wits with a lot more armament than you were prepared to defend against.
Your understanding of science doesn't impress me at all. Of course not - because you're fundamentally someone who fears and hates knowledge. An intellectual coward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So there should be every kind of possible mutation viewable in the fossil record, and yet there just isn't. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, and generally all that fossilizes is the skeleton, so just from that you're unlikely to see very many mutations in the fossil record, and none at all that occurred primarily in the soft body tissues that don't fossilize. The place to look for the record of mutations is in the DNA. And that's where they're found, by the millions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
How many psychic studies are there? Hardly any, for the reasons I've already described.
Let me have a discussion with you about every psychic study you know about No, let's start with the ones you know about. What was the last scientific study you read? Be specific. What is the evidence of non-materialism to which you keep referring? Be specific.
.let me NOT have that discussion with you. You don't seem prepared to have any discussion at all. The only thing you seem prepared to do is trash scientists you don't understand and call people names.
how you know much more about the phenomenon than the people who have spent their lives actually doing the studies, like Dr. Sam Parnia, or Rupert Sheldrake, or Michael Marsh,or . What evidence did those people produce? Parnia's study on OBE's has released no data at all. Sheldrakes "morphic resonance" was disproved by his own experiments. If even these guys who "devote their lives" to these subjects can't find the evidence, why should I believe there is any?
Because making a decision about things requires first having an open and clear enough mind to actually contemplate what it is your are deciding on.
Assume my mind is open. Show me the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thus I am giving up giving crashfrog lengthy answers until he demonstrates a deeper level of insight. We're not dumb. You're "giving up on me" because I make points you can't refute and can barely understand (and frequently don't.) You don't have the science background to interpret the vast majority of evidence being presented to you, you've made that obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
he said um, um..nothing? Contrary to your lie, here, I think you'll find that I did reply, and that you have not addressed the reply. It's actually you who had no comeback.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024