|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 04/06/2006 : 13:15:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
You have missed the point. this was an experiment. It was designed to create a environment that mirrored life on earth, but on fast forward. the computers and digital organisms were used only to create that quickened version of reality.
You are wrong about this being an example of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design states that irreducibly complex organisms (think the digital organism that can do addition) must have been designed. But Avida was able to evolve those organisms. The article is, in fact disproving intelligent design.
your arguments about life's origins and Darwin's "warm little pond" have nothing to do with evolution, and therefore they have no place in your reply to this Discover article. It just makes it look like you are changing the subject. abiogenesis is an interesting subject and I will write a post about it soon.
I can't seem to find my copy of "on the origin of species" anyone know a good website that has a the text to it?
quote:
You have missed the point. this was an experiment. It was designed to create a environment that mirrored life on earth, but on fast forward. the computers and digital organisms were used only to create that quickened version of reality.
You are wrong about this being an example of Intelligent Design. Intelligent design states that irreducibly complex organisms (think the digital organism that can do addition) must have been designed. But Avida was able to evolve those organisms. The article is, in fact disproving intelligent design.
(bill) No, you are missing the point. Without an intelligent agent to setup the experiment, with a preconceived result in mind, the experiment does not even happen. In a naturalistic world who would have programmed the computers to begin the experiment? Where did the computers come from? Were they just there, like Darwin's "primordial entity?" The digital life had a creator who set about, with intelligence, to reach a preconceived goal. To demonstrate a naturalistic world something has to come into existence all on it's own from nothing and then all must transpire from that nothing with no outside intelligence setting up and then guiding the experiment, in order to demonstrate true naturalism that is.
quote:
your arguments about life's origins and Darwin's "warm little pond" have nothing to do with evolution, and therefore they have no place in your reply to this Discover article. It just makes it look like you are changing the subject.
(bill) They have everything to do with it. Without them there is nothing to evolve. And I am not going to let you begin your story of evolution with the huge assumption that "they were just there" and then they evolved. Were they preprogrammed for life or did they pop into existence with no information for natural and/or cumulative selection to use?
abiogenesis is an interesting subject and I will write a post about it soon.
(bill) Don't waste your time going to Mars is all I ask.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 13:24:10 [Permalink]
|
Both "Intelligent design" and evoultion have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how it all started. They both have to do with how things got to how they are now, not how it all started.
A god (or a Little Invisible Elephant) could have created the first primordial creature, but then allowed evolution to take over for the next 4 billion years. This would not invalidate evolution at all, and it would not give any credence to Intelligent Design.
How many times must this be stated before you understand it?
So, what do you think about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000 |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 04/06/2006 13:25:35 |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 14:39:25 [Permalink]
|
posted by Bill:
quote:
So do you agree, or not, that if we go to the British Natural History Museum we will find fossils of modern day creatures in their current state in a overwhelming majority vs. creatures in a intermediate state?
I'm not sure what you mean. If by "animals in their current state" you mean only animals that are alive today, than no. Most animals that have lived are now extinct. I think most fossil collections show that.
quote:
Even if the modern day creature only had a few hundred thousand years to lay down carcasses while the creature in transition from one species to another would have had millions up on millions of years to lay down carcass as future potential fossils.
two things. first, all species are in transition. they do not "stop" evolving. natural selection will continue to select beneficial mutations and weed out harmful ones. therefore all fossils are transitional. second, when you look at the fossils in a cladogram of a macroevolving population, they are not half wolf/ half whale. that would be crazy. they look like animals that are not quite as aquatic as whales, but more aquatic than wolves. I have already linked to good articles that show this.
quote:
Heck, the senior paleontologist there says you will find no transitional fossils, out of millions! Do you know of any museum where the transitional fossil display is even close in volume to the display of creature in current state?
Once again I cannot speak for other people. If you tell me the source for that quote I might be able to find out. Like I said before, all fossils are transitional.
quote:
Do you know of any museum where the transitional fossil display is even close in volume to the display of creature in current state? Yes, fossils in and of themselves are rare, but of the ones that do turn into fossil why do virtually all of them end up being a creature we see in it's current state?
We see al sorts of fossil animals that are no longer seen. Think dinosaurs. This is of course not what you meant. What I think you want to see is something that is half one animal and half another. This does not happen. See above.
quote:
It would almost appear to the unbiased eye that macroevolution has never occurred at all. If you can show me a fossil collection where the transitional display even comes close to the modern creature display, in volume, you will have my attention...
That's nonsense! New species are created all the time. Look here my favorite examples are whale evolution and Culex pipiens it's good stuff. Read up on it.
|
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2006 : 16:11:35 [Permalink]
|
More transitional fossils anyone?quote nzherald.co.nz:
Primitive 'Fish with Fingers' Evolutionary Missing Link
An amphibious creature that lived 375 million years ago has turned out to be a "missing link" in the chain of events that led to the emergence of the first fish-like animals to walk on land.
The animal bears all the hallmarks of a primitive land animal, with limb-like appendages, a crocodilian head and tooth-filled jaws, but it still retains scales, fins and gills.
[...]
Its description is published in the journal Nature. Neil Shubin, a professor of biology at the University of Chicago and part of the research team, said: "Tiktaalik blurs the boundary between fish and land-living animals in terms of its anatomy and its way of life. Most of the major joints of the fin are functional. The shoulder, elbow and even parts of the wrist are already there and working in ways similar to the earliest land-living animals."
Read more about it on these Google News links.
Edited to add Google link. |
| Edited by - GeeMack on 04/06/2006 16:19:39 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 08:01:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Both "Intelligent design" and evoultion have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how it all started. They both have to do with how things got to how they are now, not how it all started.
A god (or a Little Invisible Elephant) could have created the first primordial creature, but then allowed evolution to take over for the next 4 billion years. This would not invalidate evolution at all, and it would not give any credence to Intelligent Design.
How many times must this be stated before you understand it?
So, what do you think about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
quote:
Both "Intelligent design" and evoultion have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how it all started. They both have to do with how things got to how they are now, not how it all started.
(bill) Maybe if this was biology 101 and you were the professor who was dictating the syllabus? That is not the case here. This is one worldview vs. another worldview. (Naturalism vs. God) if you will. If you persist in beginning the story of macroevolution with "simple primordial entities" all ready in existence and then they began to evolve then I, as a seeker of truth, will want to know where these "simple entities" came from and what would be a base description of them, from the evolutionists perspective? Did these "simple entities" come preprogrammed for life? If so who programmed them? Did they "pop" into existence with no information to offer natural and/or cumulative selection? If so, how and who created the first information that natural and/of cumulative selection used to produce complex life? I am surprised that you, a man of science, would want to begin your worldview with "it was just there, Bill, and who cares how it got there, that is irrelevant?" I begin my worldview with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." I am always stopped at this point and asked where did God come from? Who made God? And I answer this question to the best of my ability. The evolutionist begins his worldview with the "simple primordial entities" already in existence and when someone asks, "Where did they come from?", the evolutionist is quick to chide them for crossing the imaginary separation line between macroevolution and it's genesis. Of course the evolutionist is the one who puts in this imaginary divider between macroevolution and it's genesis, but why? Because they have no clue where the matter required for life came from or how it assembled into life in a completely naturalistic universe and so they want to protect their sacred cow of evolution by protecting it from any origins scrutiny. The fact that they have now moved the search to mars in an attempt to even dream up a hypothesis on the origin of the "simple primordial entities" is evidence of the desperation mode that they are in to come up with even a plausible naturalistic origins theory. Heck, if I was an evolutionist I would not want to discuss origins either...
quote:
A god (or a Little Invisible Elephant) could have created the first primordial creature,
(bill) How you, a man of science, is able to just hand wave away the issue of where the "simple primordial entities" came from or what they were like and just begin your story with, "They were just there, bill, and it makes no difference who put them there or why." is beyond me?
quote:
but then allowed evolution to take over for the next 4 billion years. This would not invalidate evolution at all, and it would not give any credence to Intelligent Design.
(bill) Sure it does. Trodog's (sp) little experiment he showed us from Lansing actually demonstrates that without an intelligent agent to build the computers, to create and program the digital life with a desired outcome, and to guide the process, then nothing would have happened. In one billion years nothing still would have happened, without outside intelligence starting and guiding the process that is.
quote:
How many times must this be stated before you understand it?
(bill) The same amount of times I will tell you that your answer of "They were just there, Bill, and it makes no difference why or how thy got there, Bill." is a cop out that the naturalist crowd will use to circumvent the origins issue.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 08:37:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
posted by Bill:
quote:
So do you agree, or not, that if we go to the British Natural History Museum we will find fossils of modern day creatures in their current state in a overwhelming majority vs. creatures in a intermediate state?
I'm not sure what you mean. If by "animals in their current state" you mean only animals that are alive today, than no. Most animals that have lived are now extinct. I think most fossil collections show that.
quote:
Even if the modern day creature only had a few hundred thousand years to lay down carcasses while the creature in transition from one species to another would have had millions up on millions of years to lay down carcass as future potential fossils.
two things. first, all species are in transition. they do not "stop" evolving. natural selection will continue to select beneficial mutations and weed out harmful ones. therefore all fossils are transitional. second, when you look at the fossils in a cladogram of a macroevolving population, they are not half wolf/ half whale. that would be crazy. they look like animals that are not quite as aquatic as whales, but more aquatic than wolves. I have already linked to good articles that show this.
quote:
Heck, the senior paleontologist there says you will find no transitional fossils, out of millions! Do you know of any museum where the transitional fossil display is even close in volume to the display of creature in current state?
Once again I cannot speak for other people. If you tell me the source for that quote I might be able to find out. Like I said before, all fossils are transitional.
quote:
Do you know of any museum where the transitional fossil display is even close in volume to the display of creature in current state? Yes, fossils in and of themselves are rare, but of the ones that do turn into fossil why do virtually all of them end up being a creature we see in it's current state?
We see al sorts of fossil animals that are no longer seen. Think dinosaurs. This is of course not what you meant. What I think you want to see is something that is half one animal and half another. This does not happen. See above.
quote:
It would almost appear to the unbiased eye that macroevolution has never occurred at all. If you can show me a fossil collection where the transitional display even comes close to the modern creature display, in volume, you will have my attention...
That's nonsense! New species are created all the time. Look here my favorite examples are whale evolution and Culex pipiens it's good stuff. Read up on it.
quote:
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 08:58:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Bill:
So, what do you think about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 09:34:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed. [emphasis mine]
Hi, Bill-- sorry to jump in late, but doesn't your last comment bias you in favor of a supernatural cause for life's diversity on earth? In other words, it's not that you are unimpressed by the (rather interesting and compelling) evidence recently published, but rather, it's that you refuse to be impressed by anything that doesn't posit the supernatural-- a decidedly poor way to go about exploring the world! |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 09:56:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed. [emphasis mine]
Hi, Bill-- sorry to jump in late, but doesn't your last comment bias you in favor of a supernatural cause for life's diversity on earth? In other words, it's not that you are unimpressed by the (rather interesting and compelling) evidence recently published, but rather, it's that you refuse to be impressed by anything that doesn't posit the supernatural-- a decidedly poor way to go about exploring the world!
quote:
a decidedly poor way to go about exploring the world!
Me! You have many on this site who will begin their worldview with life and matter already in existence. When asked on the origin of this life they will say, "It was just there, Bill. And why or how it got there is irrelevant, Bill." Now that is begining the whole conversation with bias. Not only is this a poor way to go about exploring the world, but it is a very anti-scientific approch to exploring this world. This type of behavour is what leads to indoctranation, rather then learning. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:24:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
quote:
So do you agree, or not, that if we go to the British Natural History Museum we will find fossils of modern day creatures in their current state in a overwhelming majority vs. creatures in a intermediate state?
I'm not sure what you mean. If by "animals in their current state" you mean only animals that are alive today, than no. Most animals that have lived are now extinct. I think most fossil collections show that.
(bill) I don't know about all that, but anyway, I have no problem at all with microevolution. We might see evidence of a type of tiger gone extinct in days past, but we still have another type of tiger still in existence to this day. Maybe the modern tiger was alive at the same time or maybe it is a result of breeding between two different tiger types, but the fact remains that tigers come from tigers and lizards come from lizards, always have and always will...
Bill we have seen the species barrier broken many times. whenever we bring this up, you simply say "but it's still [next higher order of taxa]." that will not fly. make up your mind as to what defines a "kind" and then we can talk eye to eye.
quote:
quote:
two things. first, all species are in transition. they do not "stop" evolving.
(bill) Amongst their own species that is. A certain tiger might come about through breeding interaction of two types of tigers but lizards don't evolve into tigers, or any similar fairytale story of species evolution, but rather tigers types evolve from other tigers...
Because there is not too much new stuff that you are saying here, I will give you cats candy and evolution no doubt you will say: "ha another harmful mutation!!" But look at how evolutionary theory makes predictions.
quote:
quote:
natural selection will continue to select beneficial mutations and weed out harmful ones.
(bill) What evidence do you have for this theory? Here is what an expert has to say on the matter:
Dr Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University:
But in all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information.
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.
The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biologi |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:38:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Bill:
So, what do you think about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
It is a really cool find. Even if you do not agree with some of the ideas in the paper. Remember what I said about respecting fossils? they are one of the sole remaining windows into another time. They have played a game of chance with the earth and, against all odds they have survived. they're COOL goddamnit!
quote:
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed.
Evolution concerns things that are alive. that's why it's part of biology. and the barrier between living and dead is not as absolute as you think it is. Just like the species barrier, there are organisms that ride the fence. viruses cannot be considered fully alive or dead for example. |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:43:06 [Permalink]
|
this is the Culix pipiens I was talking about:
Another issue that is continually brought up by creationists is the fact that no one has ever seen a species evolve. Darwin assumed that because the earth was extraordinarily old, any species would have many, many years to evolve and therefore no human would be alive for long enough to observe evolution in action.(Darwin, 123) Despite this fact, anti-evolutionists continue to use this idea to try to disprove Darwin. Recent evidence from mosquitoes in the London Underground has shown that species can indeed evolve in decades not centuries.
When the London subway system was being built, a small number of mosquitoes, of the species Culex pipiens found their way into the tunnel. Because these mosquitoes normally feed on birds, and because there were no birds in the subway system, new food sources had to be found. After 100 years of natural selection and evolution, now the subway mosquitoes are different. This table shows the differences between the aboveground populations of pipiens and the underground population, dubbed molestus
character molestus Pipiens
breeding site Hypogeous Epigeous
(underground) (above ground)
Mating Stenogamous Eurygamous
(occurs in confined spaces) (cannot occur in confined spaces)
Host preference Mamophilic ornotherophilic
(bites mammals) (bites birds)
Egg production Autogenous anautogenous
(oviposition without a blood meal) (requires oviposition for blood meal)
Life cycle Homodynamic Heterodynamic
(no winter diapause) (Winter diapause)
(Nichols & Byrne, 8).
Two researchers at the University of London, Richard Nichols and Katharine Bryne, studied both populations of pipiens mosquitoes and found that they are very different genetically as well (Nichols & Byrne, 7). The differences within the two populations are minimal, about 2-5%. But on the other hand, when the two populations are compared to each other, the difference is much more apparent, closer to 20% (Nichols & Bryne, 10). This difference is incredible, proof that evolution can happen on short time scales.
|
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 10:56:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trogdor
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Bill:
So, what do you think about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000A040D-36A2-1434-B6A283414B7F0000
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
It is a really cool find. Even if you do not agree with some of the ideas in the paper. Remember what I said about respecting fossils? they are one of the sole remaining windows into another time. They have played a game of chance with the earth and, against all odds they have survived. they're COOL goddamnit!
quote:
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed.
Evolution concerns things that are alive. that's why it's part of biology. and the barrier between living and dead is not as absolute as you think it is. Just like the species barrier, there are organisms that ride the fence. viruses cannot be considered fully alive or dead for example.
quote:
they're COOL goddamnit!
(bill) Now settle down here jr. I agree with you that fossils are cool, no mattter what your personal worldview may say. There is no need to lose your composure here... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2006 : 11:00:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Another evolutionist claiming to have a rock that supports macroevolution that was peered reviewed by more evolutionist. So what?
Yep it is all a vast conspiracy.
quote:
When you trace the lineage of the stubby foot whale creature back to the first "simple primordial entities" of life, which evolved into "fishapod", and then you tell me how these "primordial entities" first formed, and from what, and the process was guided by whom, then I will be impressed.
Hmm, you will be impressed when you know something that is impossible happens. No wonder you beleive in god. 
The problem with your statement is that no matter how complete the tree becomes, you will always find a problem with it.
And "and the process was guided by whom" could never have a definitive answer, so there is no way for your statement to be fullfilled. How honest of you. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
