|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2003 : 04:53:21 [Permalink]
|
This is so typical, doomar. You're ignoring me.
Creationists always tend to ignore facts that speak against their idea. This is something I experienced when writing a guide about how to discuss with creationists in school and university. :(
BTW: Calculating chance of events that actually have to happen if the circumstances are fitting is dumb. There are only 120-or-so elements and thos can only connect in specific ways. This making the odds lokk better.
And, whenever a purely chemical reproductive system (also known as first form of life) appears it will reproduce ASAP given that it survived till it was given the possibility to reproduce. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 08:58:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are free to prove otherwise, if you can....hehehehheeh. Have a prehistoric man bone at home you're keeping for some rainy day? Don't hold back on us now.
Prove what??? That your imagined tests that you won't mention or tell me about are false. How can I when you won't even tell me what tests you are talking about? No I personally don't have any prehistoric bones at my home, they are kept in museums across the world where they should be. You made the claim that fossil men have been disproven by modern tests but have yet to provide one example of these modern tests you refer to.
Here I will give you a few examples you can start with:
Start with some Australopithecus specimens:
A. aethiopicus KNM-WT 17000 2.5 mya
A. afarensis AL 288-1 3.2 mya
A. africanus Sts 14 & Sts 5 2.5 mya
Show me tests that indicate that these are not bipedal apes dating from the estimated dates above with various cranial and dental features transitional between apes and humans.
Next some early Homo species:
H. habilis OH 8, OH 24, & KNM-ER 1470 all 1.8 - 1.9 mya
H. erectus/ergaster Sangiran 17, KNM-WT 15000, & KNM-ER 3733 1.7 - 1.6 mya
Archaic H. sapiens Arago XXI, Petralona 1, Atapuerca 5 300 - 400 kya
H. neanderthalensis Pick any of the thousands of specimens that exist
Show me tests that indicate that these are not hominids from the estimated dates above with transitional features between those of Australopithecines and modern H. sapiens.
You make a claim that goes against what every physical anthropologists in the world is saying and you expect me to try and disprove it? Without giving one piece of evidence to support your claim? I am beginning to doubt that you have any interest in serious dialog and are simply trolling.
quote:
The following is and excerpt. Go there yourself to read it all. Some interesting stuff.
I went there and I learned that creationists don't have a clue about organic chemistry.
Carbon by its very nature bonds only in certain ways, and it desires four covalent bonds to be more specific in a tetrahedral pattern. It commonly forms bonds with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous, etc. Already I have reduced the odds that simple organic molecules will form spontaneously from the impossible the very probably and in fact we can see it happening today all the time around us.
Next take a soup of these naturally occurring molecules and add some energy and you get quite a soup of more complex naturally occurring organic molecules. Some of these complex molecules assemble spontaneously again into more complex organic chains such as polypeptides. Again we can see this happen in the lap such as here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11538429&dopt=Abstract
Add some naturally occurring phospholipids to the solution and they naturally form spheres and often trap organic molecules in the solution. Again no astronomical odds needed. Chemical metabolic cycles establish naturally resulting in growth and reproduction. This leading to chemical and molecular evolution and thus again removing all probability problems.
By the way it is one of the main traits of evolution to remove probability problems by selecting for favorable traits out of a sea of variation.
Edited to remove runaway bold
And change a bold to a quote |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 01/08/2003 09:00:39 |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 11:57:28 [Permalink]
|
A little "devil's  advocate" (or is that "God's advocate"?? ):
The eye. The eye is useless except for in its fully evolved form. So why would an organ that is in the process of developing but is currently useless be favored by natural selection? Survival of the fittest eliminates such useless organs or causes them to exist in vestige...that's why the little toe is so small...apparently going "wee wee wee" all the way home isn't a very useful function.
And not only has the eye developed once since life began, there is evidence that the eye has evolved several times, independently. One time is a coincidence. Two times is a less likely coincidence. Three or more times hints at a pattern.
This supports intelligent design, or at least directed evolution.
.................................
But now, let's consider...intelligent design is a POSSIBLE solution. But is it the ONLY possible solution, making it a NECESSARY solution?
I don't think so.
Picture the way a crystal forms...it forms the same patterns repeately, without any outside guidance. No one needs to arrange the molecules into a crystal...it does that by itself.
Complexity theory tells us that complex systems, such as crystal formation, are self-organizing. So it is quite possible that evolution, a complex system, is self-directed. Organs such as eyes form because they are supposed to form. Life arises from nonliving matter because it is supposed to.
This would make intelligent design unnecessary. Still possible, but unnecessary. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 12:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
The eye. The eye is useless except for in its fully evolved form.
Wrong. Try again. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/08/2003 12:04:14 |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 13:34:03 [Permalink]
|
> The eye. The eye is useless except for in its fully evolved form.
Wow. Someone actually decided to present this "argument" here even after it's been debunked again and again elsewhere. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
| Edited by - Antie on 01/08/2003 13:36:02 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 13:44:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The eye is useless except for in its fully evolved form.
Let's start with basically what an eye is first and then you will see what a ridiculous statement this is. First the part of the eye that does the work are basically photo receptive nerve cells. Light hits them and it activates a photo responsive protein (enzyme) that causes charged ions to be released (normally Ca2+) that caused an electrical signal to be sent to the brain.
In fact there are quite a few primitive organisms and this is all the eye they have, a cluster of photo receptive nerve cells somewhere on their body (or an eye spot). These again are nothing more than modified nerve cells and creating a photo receptive protein can be as simple as a single mutation of a non photo receptive protein.
Simple eye spots evolved first in marine organisms where it was more for a sense of up and down or depth than for actual site.
Next the skin around the eye can be modified into a simple cup shape causing light to be reflected to the back of the cup where the eye spot is improving light sensitivity. Again all steps occurring by single mutational steps and natural selection for benefit.
THe cup could continue to close further until a single pin hole was present as is seen in some living organisms today (mostly marine). This would focus light better and filter light to a single focused point.
Next would be single mutation that would slap a clear membrane over the hole allowing more primitive filtering, eventually muscles would be modified to allow flexing of the "lens" and the lens structure would over all improve gradually over time, again all by single mutations. Again living examples are found in the ocean of such primitive eyes.
Other steps that would happen again adding benefits by single mutation would be:
1. Improvement of brain recognition of the signals from the cells.
2. Improvement of the nerves carrying the signals to the brain.
3. Concentration and movement of eye spots or primitive eyes to the forward "head" of the creature.
4. Continued improvement of muscles and the lens mechanisms.
5. Additional focusing of the eye spot (e.g. retina)
6. Addition of color sensitive nerve cells.
And so on. Again all by single mutation and selection for benefit.
We can see allot of the steps of the evolution of the eye today in living organisms that did not evolve more advanced eyes either because they never received the right mutation or it was not beneficial enough for them to be selected for due to their current niche.
So all of the eyes parts from the retina, to the socket, to the nerve connections, to the lens can be explained easily in the context of evolution. ID on the other hand cannot easily explain unintelligent ideas such as having our retina backwards with a blind spot, something the octopus does not suffer from. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 13:50:43 [Permalink]
|
| I would also like to add that for every example produced by IDer's such as the eye an evolutionary scenario can be constructed, and that scenario can then be supported by evidence from current bio-diversity, genetics, biochemistry, etc. Or at least every example I have ever seen, from eyes, to echolocation, flagellum, blood clotting, etc. |
|
|
|
chainsaw
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 14:10:23 [Permalink]
|
I wish you fundamentalists would just leave science alone. There are many concepts in science that do not appear possible to the layperson. Relativity, gravity's space time curvature, wave/particle nature of light, information through thin air, black holes and evolution to name just a small fraction of confirmed natural phenomenon. The layperson often is stretched beyond belief to understand. Not everyone can do the math.
Actually, I understand how a person can sincerely reject these if they ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary. Your personal senses will not raise a conflict. Can you tell me if the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around without instruments and measurements? You really can't tell for sure.
Fundamentalists should be very careful of what they pin the legitimacy of their faith to. Just as the Pope was seriously compromised when he rejected the heliocentric theory of the solar system (universe back then) as contrary to Bible teaching, what will happen to your faith when the ever-increasing facts of evolution can no longer be ignored?
It's okay to say that your religious beliefs do not allow you to accept the scientific facts. But you do have to get the scientific evidence and facts correct (or you flunk science). Better yet, forget science and put on your science blinders in order to protect your faith. It is your right to do that. Not everyone can pass science.
BTW, this forum does not count as "rigorous scientific review" even though we have many accomplished scientists posting. So I suggest that you take your argument where you can really get traction. Submit them to several established academic science journals. Good Luck.
|
You can "believe" what you want, but you do have to get your science right or you'll flunk science. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:05:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by welshdean
quote:
from Doomar
There are creatures and plants that live deep in the ocean that cannot live outside of that immense pressure.
So where exactly did noah keep them?
[quote] from Doomar
Many have yet to be discovered
Surely not, noah found them all 4000 yrs ago, didn't he?
Ah, why would he bring fish that swim into the arc? Duh?
Can you now see how silly it is that you'll quite happily question and ridicule a science that has been in place for over 150yrs, tested and repeated in every developed country on the globe and endorsed by EVERY credible scientist since it's inception. Yet you'll quite happily and readily believe a little fairy story that contradicts the major part of YOUR arguements AGAINST evil-ution.
Think about it man!!
Science? I am thinking. The majority of scientists were creationist before Darwin. Many modern scientists are creationist also. The evidence against this dated theory of evolution mounts every year. Please, don't speak of evolution as proven science, as it is still simply a theory. Though highly technical in many of their writings, evolutionists have yet to overcome basic probability or provide proof of ever increasing complexity from mutations. The proof of mutations being mostly harmful does exist. http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/08/2003 16:15:53 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:12:47 [Permalink]
|
Transition to man is just one development we know.
Here are some examples of other transitional fields, creationists never dealt with (for obviuos reasons): IN the transitional field between amphibians ans reptiles we have some forms that can't even be classified. Scientists still do not know if they are belonging to one group or another. Now if that isn't a transitional form.
Same about reptiles to mammals.
And, talk about transition: Do you know how many fish species are existing that actually can walk over land? Some can even breathe air. I saw eels wandering around on land near the baltic sea several times in childhood. I had a fish in my aquarium that jumped off and that I finally found all dried, but in another room.
All interesting points, though I have seen these dealt with. A fish walking on ground is not proof of evolution, as this (lung fish)still exists and works fine today. It is equally plausible given its extreme complexity, that it was made in the beginning by God, thus the ID theory still supported. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Doomar, seeing as how jcmcginn has been going to the trouble to thoroughly decimate your assertions thus far, don't you think you owe him a substantive response, rather than mindlessly repeating your party line? Try another link on that website you're copying from, already.
Regards fish and the ark: you don't think 40 days of uninterrupted downpour would cause massive chaos in the deepsea ecosystems?! |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:22:13 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by riptor
This is so typical, doomar. You're ignoring me.
Creationists always tend to ignore facts that speak against their idea. This is something I experienced when writing a guide about how to discuss with creationists in school and university. :(
Sorry, just missed that page. I have responded.
BTW: Calculating chance of events that actually have to happen if the circumstances are fitting is dumb. There are only 120-or-so elements and thos can only connect in specific ways. This making the odds lokk better.
And, whenever a purely chemical reproductive system (also known as first form of life) appears it will reproduce ASAP given that it survived till it was given the possibility to reproduce.
Let's take a closer look. Scientists agree the the simplest form of life is a bacterium, whose DNA strand is 500,000 links long. The simplest possible organism agreed upon might have been one with a 100,000 link strand. Consider that for life to begin, as the scientists describe it, the 100,000 nucleotides must of lined up all facing the right way, while the 10,000 amino acids all lined up the left way and interlocked at the same moment. It was described like this to me: 100,000 flips of a coin all heads, then 10,000 flips of a coin all tails...the odds were staggering beyond the point of possibility (without intelligent design). Not being a biologist I may not be using all the correct terminology, but I think you get the drift. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:23:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
All interesting points, though I have seen these dealt with. A fish walking on ground is not proof of evolution, as this (lung fish)still exists and works fine today.
Because it fills an ecological niche and nothing has usurped its niche-dominance.
quote:
It is equally plausible given its extreme complexity, that it was made in the beginning by God, thus the ID theory still supported.
It is not "equally plausible." Evolution postulates an observed, empirical mechanism. Creationism makes at least two additional assumptions: 1)there is a form of existence that corresponds to "supernatural"; 2)there is a supernatural agent that creates living things. Neither of these relies on facts currently in evidence.
By the by, you can drop the "ID" pretense. You have slunk to full-blown creationism. Even "legit" IDists would cringe at your claims.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:25:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Let's take a closer look. Scientists agree the the simplest form of life is a bacterium, whose DNA strand is 500,000 links long. The simplest possible organism agreed upon might have been one with a 100,000 link strand. Consider that for life to begin, as the scientists describe it, the 100,000 nucleotides must of lined up all facing the right way, while the 10,000 amino acids all lined up the left way and interlocked at the same moment. It was described like this to me: 100,000 flips of a coin all heads, then 10,000 flips of a coin all tails...the odds were staggering beyond the point of possibility (without intelligent design). Not being a biologist I may not be using all the correct terminology, but I think you get the drift.
What if there were 10,000 coins? 100,000? 1 million? You have a horrendous grasp of statistics. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
