|
Author
|
Topic: Animals with bad design.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
The horse was originally (according to evolutionary folklore) ... And, apparently, according to your creationist, and this is what puzzles me. If he admits that evolutionary processes produced new forms and functions from old, and that this evolutionary history is evident in vestigial features, then he isn't much of a creationist, insofar as he seems to be getting his ideas out of the Origin of Species rather than the book of Genesis. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4509 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
If he admits that evolutionary processes produced new forms and functions from old, Where the "evolutionary process" is deleterious mutation, and the form or function is "new" only in the sense of being different, and not additional to.
...and that this evolutionary history is evident in vestigial features I don't have a problem in believing that a species can "devolve" through loss of information and retain vestigial features, while still remaining within the Biblical "kind". I imagine the original cat to have been an incredible creature, with its multi-coloured fur, stripes, spots and sabre-teeth. Subsequent deleterious mutations would have resulted in the diverse feline kingdom we have today; the loss of retractable claws resulted in the cheetah, for example. It is good to see that this phenomenon is finally being acknowledged by mainstream science. This from New Scientist: "The idea of loss in evolution is not new. We know that snakes lost their legs, as did whales, and that our own ancestors lost body hair. However, the latest evidence suggests that the extent of loss might have been seriously underestimated. Some evolutionary biologists now suggest that loss - at every level, from genes and types of cells to whole anatomical features and life stages - is the key to understanding evolution and the relatedness of living things. Proponents of this idea argue that classical phylogeny has been built on rotten foundations, and tinkering with it will not put it right. Instead, they say, we need to rethink the process of evolution itself. Laura Spinney, New Scientist. Full article Evolution: hacking back the tree of life (can anyone say DEVOLUTION?) The point is, Doctor, that Creationists believe in a lot more of the ToE than you realise. It is only the increase in complexity that we don't believe in, and molecular research is increasingly supporting our position, as evidenced above.
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
The fall and other nonsense
It is only the increase in complexity that we don't believe in, and molecular research is increasingly supporting our position, as evidenced above. How then do you explain the change from early chimp-like ancestor through several intermediates to modern humans? That's what the evidence suggests. Is that a "loss of information" or complexity? Doesn't seem so to me. (You do realize that the idea of a "fall" and a mandatory decline thereafter is a myth, don't you?)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
Kaichos Man writes: I imagine the original cat to have been an incredible creature, with its multi-coloured fur, stripes, spots and sabre-teeth. Subsequent deleterious mutations would have resulted in the diverse feline kingdom we have today; the loss of retractable claws resulted in the cheetah, for example. how many toes do you suppose the "the original cat" had?
אָרַח
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
I imagine the original cat to have been an incredible creature, with its multi-coloured fur, stripes, spots and sabre-teeth. Subsequent deleterious mutations would have resulted in the diverse feline kingdom we have today; the loss of retractable claws resulted in the cheetah, for example. Except that the "original"cat would have been more like the cheetah than any other cat. The retractable claws came later. The cat's common ancestor with the other Carnivora had no retractable claws. Only modern cat genera Felis, Pantera & Lynx have retractable claws among the Carnivores.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
Kaichos Man writes: ... and the form or function is "new" only in the sense of being different, and not additional to.
Yes, that's what we'd expect from evolution - different, not necessarily additional. But we wouldn't expect a competent designer to build in "devolution".
You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
Where the "evolutionary process" is deleterious mutation, and the form or function is "new" only in the sense of being different, and not additional to. Where the evolutionary process gets you from a well-functioning plane to a well-functioning lawnmower --- and you are free to describe this as "deleterious" or "devolution" and to mouth any other ritualistic shibboleths of creationist jargon if it makes you feel better.
I imagine the original cat to have been an incredible creature, with its multi-coloured fur, stripes, spots and sabre-teeth. And the ability to climb trees and run at seventy miles an hour. Found any fossils?
It is good to see that this phenomenon is finally being acknowledged by mainstream science. If you wanted to spout nonsense about how "this phenomenon is finally being acknowledged", then perhaps you should have snipped off the first sentence you quoted. You know, the one that reads "The idea of loss in evolution is not new." That evolution can involve loss of function was first pointed out by a chap called Darwin. If creationists are finally admitting even this much, then in another 150 years you guys might give up being wrong entirely, who knows?
The point is, Doctor, that Creationists believe in a lot more of the ToE than you realise. You speak as though creationists were in agreement. They are not. While one is denouncing even "microevolution" as a lie, another will cheerfully admit the evolution of whales from land animals. How much of reality you personally wish to deny and how much you are willing to accept cannot be taken as an indication of what "creationists believe" in general.
It is only the increase in complexity that we don't believe in, and molecular research is increasingly supporting our position, as evidenced above. Bollocks. That is not evidence that molecular research supports your denial of "increase in complexity". It supports Darwin's idea that evolution can happen as a result of loss, but not your crazy creationist dogma that it can only do so.
|
redrum
Junior Member (Idle past 4792 days) Posts: 1 Joined: 03-05-2011
|
|
Message 174 of 204 (607691)
03-06-2011 12:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Aaron
01-15-2011 4:22 AM
|
|
Aaron writes: I'm going to post a snip from a different topic and a snip from a book and offer a few counter thoughts. Granny Magda said:
"Why don't we see eagle-like eyes in humans? Or a dog-like sense of smell? These are both good designs, so why are they kept strictly to separate lineages? Why do only birds of prey have those eyes? Why no other species? Why not give chimps the same smell capabilities as dogs? They sure could use it." In his book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne makes a similar point:
"Female sea turtles dig their nests on the beach with their flippers - a painful, slow, and clumsy process that exposes their eggs to predators... A conscientious designer might have given the turtles an extra pair of limbs, with retractable shovel-like appendages..." This line of thinking seems to me like a very narrow idea of what constitutes good design. First, its amusing how evolutionists like Coyne and Dawkins look at organisms and marvel at how well adapted they are - and how they appear to be designed. Oh, but before getting too carried away in awe - they bring in some aspect that seems to them like bad design. It's like sitting in a car and saying it wasn't made by a designer because the seats aren't heated, the mirrors have blind spots, and the brake pads are prone to wearing out early. You might retort "But cars are designed by humans. God's designs should be perfect in every way." What does it mean to be perfect? Let's push Jerry Coyne's suppositions further. Why didn't God create sea turtles with another set of limbs with sharp claws to fend off predators. Wings would have been nice too just in case it needs a quick getaway. Why can't mice run 60 mph to escape the swooping owl? Why aren't all plant species poisonous to fend off hungry herbivores? Ahh yes, that's more like it - a world where every species has the maximum level of offensive and defensive capabilities. But wait - how long do you think a world like that would last? If every plant and animals is perfectly equipped to fend off every potential snack seeker - nothing would get eaten, nutrients wouldn't be exchanged, the complex circle of life would come to a grinding halt. When it comes to creating a complex interdependent ecosystem, vulnerability is necessary to keep the whole thing going. Perfect does not mean everyone survives, perfect in the natural selection sense, is the balance of survival, it is not the success of the individual species, but the success of the ecosystem as a whole, working for and against each other, finding the best possible path for survival for life as a whole. All life on Earth is ALREADY at its maximum offensive and defensive capabilities. Another word for maximum is adapted. Nothing is here by mistake, there are no errors in change, change is life's greatest strength. This points to an interesting idea that humans NATURALLY developed the ability to apply artificial selection to natural selection for the benefit of life. To think humans are above life because we can control it is delusional, we are and everything we do is a direct product and effect of natural selection at work for the greater good of all life on Earth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Aaron, posted 01-15-2011 4:22 AM | | Aaron has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 175 of 204 (607692)
03-06-2011 12:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
03-05-2011 9:18 PM
|
|
Re: The fall and other nonsense
How then do you explain the change from early chimp-like ancestor through several intermediates to modern humans? That's what the evidence suggests. Is that a "loss of information" or complexity? Doesn't seem so to me. Sure it is. We lost fur, we lost quadrapedality, we underwent reduction of bone and muscle size, we lost specificity of diet, and above all we have much bigger brains due to a mutation to brain-growth control genes. (See, they're genes for controlling the size of the brain, so a bigger brain involves a loss of function. Yes, I know how biologically naive this is, I stole it directly from KM's blather about horses.)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2011 9:18 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 176 of 204 (607693)
03-06-2011 12:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by redrum
03-06-2011 12:24 AM
|
|
Perfect in the natural selection sense, is the balance of survival, it is not the success of the individual species, but the success of the ecosystem as a whole, working for and against each other, finding the best possible path for survival for life as a whole. You are absolutely wrong. In the "natural selection sense", concepts like "perfect" and "better" and "worse" apply not to "life as a whole", nor to "the ecosystem as a whole", nor even to the species, but most usually to the individual, and sometimes even to the gene. Natural selection cannot take into account "the ecosystem as a whole". How could it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by redrum, posted 03-06-2011 12:24 AM | | redrum has not replied |
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4509 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
|
|
Message 177 of 204 (608908)
03-15-2011 6:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Coyote
03-05-2011 9:18 PM
|
|
Re: The fall and other nonsense
How then do you explain the change from early chimp-like ancestor through several intermediates to modern humans? All of the extant skulls can be easily categorised as either human or ape, within the normal range of species variation. As for the so-called progression: "The vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence..Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it." - "Anthro Art", Science Digest April 1981 pg 41.
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2011 9:18 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4509 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
how many toes do you suppose the "the original cat" had? No idea. However, according to WP: Normal cats have a total of 18 toes, with five toes on each front paw and four toes on each hind paw; polydactyl cats may have as many as seven digits on its front and/or hind paws. Does having more toes represent an increase in information? Is a two-headed snake a more complex creature? I tend to regard the flexibility in feline toe-number as a genetic weakness. I certainly don't see it as a banner of hope for the ToE. (Pun not intended)
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4509 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
|
|
Message 179 of 204 (608911)
03-15-2011 6:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
03-06-2011 12:00 AM
|
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
But we wouldn't expect a competent designer to build in "devolution". Whyever not? Inbuilt reducing versatility to cater for a range of different environmental conditions? That's brilliant design! Regard the "you-got-an-environment-we-got-a-phenotype" foramanifera. Exquisite design, way beyond the reach of dumb, blind copying mistakes.
"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by ringo, posted 03-06-2011 12:00 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: The fall and other nonsense
All of the extant skulls can be easily categorised as either human or ape ... If it's so easy, why can't creationists agree with which is which?
As for the so-called progression: "The vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence..Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it." - "Anthro Art", Science Digest April 1981 pg 41. I believe that you were being asked about the actual progression in the fossil record, not the imaginative renderings produced by artists, which are not part of the scientific evidence.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: The Great Jenkins
Whyever not? Inbuilt reducing versatility to cater for a range of different environmental conditions? That's brilliant design! Well, try designing something like that and see how you do. You could, for example, build a machine which has both wings and paddle-wheels --- but so that the wings fall off if you spend a lot of time in the water, and the paddle-wheels fall off if you spend a lot of time in the air. I'm sure that people will flock to buy it, if they're complete frickin' idiots.
Regard the "you-got-an-environment-we-got-a-phenotype" foramanifera. Exquisite design, way beyond the reach of dumb, blind copying mistakes. And yet well within the capacity of evolutionary processes (which include selection) as we know by observing evolution directly. But enough about reality, let's hear more about your daydreams. Tell us more about the formainifera. Perhaps you could show us some details of how the various phenotypes were produced by sequences of losses from a common ancestor. Or at least regale us with entertaining tales of what it looked like as you did with your supercat. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2