|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
 Posted - 02/25/2002 : 12:38:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is why I prefere Chaos therory over evolution.
In your example, the genetic mutations are random, and of a great leap regardless of how small the physical change is.
In a nut shell, Choas says that the mutations are not random. They are cause and effect. The rat (photo-bat) is changed by the enviourment, and during change changes the enviourment itself.
The tree dwelling rat is changed by the trees growing apart for example.... so the rat starts to to change as a result, as it changes the other life around it is also changed, in turn changing the way a preditor reacts, in turn changing the way a parasite lives, in turn changing something else, in turn causing the trees to start growing higher, in turn causing the proto-bat to get bigger, in turm etc.... etc.... etc...
Hi, Dan,
I know something about evolution, and something about chaos theory, but I've never heard anything that would lead me to think the latter could be considered a substitute for the former.
Do you have a brief description, or a link to a description, of how this is supposed to work?
Your example leaves me quite confused. How exactly is the rat changed by the trees growing further apart, if not by natural selection? And what do you call such change, if not evolution? Where does chaos theory enter into the picture anywhere?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
By the way, traditional evolutionary theory encompasses both the organism and its environment, much as you describe in the example.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2002 : 14:51:54 [Permalink]
|
Anything concerning bat evolution has to be the purest speculation. There simply are not enough fossils to confirm much of anything.
Bats evolved, not from rodents like rats but from small, shrew-like insectivores. Their ability of true flight was a huge advantage to them in that they could pursue flying insects. On the down side, flying requires a LOT of energy so the creature(s) had to become lighter and many of it's muscles had to become more specalized. And so forth.
This process would have nothing to do with the distance trees would grow apart, how ever many flyers, leapers, and climbers were swarming over, around and on them. Trees have their own riff to play. The main reason old forest's trees are so far apart is that their canopy's block the sunlight from the ground. None but the most vigorous of saplings can grow, and then only in a spot where they get some sun. When the old growth is cut, a tangled mass of brush and scrub results, until the trees can grow back, shade the ground, and continue the cycle.
Evolution has played some funny tricks on small, bug-eaters. Witness the Tarzier. This, little guy, a little bigger than a well-fed mouse, is a primate (one of our country cousins) with huge eyes and ears, long arms, and hands with big finger pads. It is known to make huge leaps from tree to tree, and even catch insects on the fly. A proto bat-like creature? I don't think so, but your guess is at least as good as mine.
Another thing to remember about bats: Their wings are largely supported by bones coresponding to our hands and fingers. Would a glider like a flying squirrel, who's feet are perfectly squirrel-like feet, evolve into a true flyer. I say: Unlikely. Which is NOT to say that it couldn't evolve into some other form of flier.
Second-guesing Evolution is a lot of fun, but ultimatly futil.
What became of Dinon? He's the one who got us into this!
f
"Don't tell me your doubts; I've got enough doubts of my own. Tell me something you BELIEVE in!"
Brother Dave Gardner |
|
|
|
Peter de Blanc
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2002 : 22:28:11 [Permalink]
|
[i]...genetic repair system found in ALL living cells and in prokaryotes[/i]
I don't really have anything important to add to this conversation, but I find the implication that prokaryotes are not living cells hilarious.
|
|
|
|
dinon74
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 10:32:29 [Permalink]
|
Hey everyone!!
I know it's been a long long time. Work has been killing me 13 hour days have not been very uncommon. Good to see everyone is still around. I decided to post on this forum since the other one showed no activity since march 9th. So I've done a little bit of reading in the little time I've had. First though Xev I went to the one site you had listed about the 300 contradictions. I took the very first one and answered it. I'll be honest this late at night I didn't feel like doing the other 299 haha..
The first "contradiction" had to do with Jesus appearing to the 11 or the 12. The verse for 11 was Matthew 28:16 - "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him."
Along with Mark 16:4 -"Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
There is your eleven. The supposed contradiction comes to question in 1st Corinthians 15:5 -"And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve."
The correct answer is 11. Because Judas hung himself see Matt 27:3-5. Also there is no contradiction with 1 Cor 15:5. If you read just two more verses you will see that. Here you go. Starting with verse 5. “ and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. (Not the apostles, watch) 6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to present, but some have fallen asleep (died). After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles ( the 11)
When you stop and assume the 12 spoken of are the apostles that is wrong for just a few sentences down it clearly states otherwise. What is interesting too is that James (Jesus's brother) denied Christ as the Messiah while He was alive. Why then would he admit that He was the Messiah after He was dead? He saw Jesus as the text states. I don't expect anyone here to believe that part though. (No need for discussion on that right now) But the bottom line is that there is no contradiction. The same could be done with the others, often those who make those statments don't know the scriptures nor cross-reference to get the whole story they just pick isolated verses here and there to try and pick it apart. Very frustrating as it is for those who come on this site and distort science to promote their cause. Since the beginning with you guys I have stated that I am open to investigating the evidence. It will be great to hear from everyone again. If I'm not on that much it's just because of work. Which by the way if anyone lives near Pasadena stop by and say hi..
Talk to you later.. Dino
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 10:44:44 [Permalink]
|
Dino, This is creation/evolution. You might care to join the historic Jesus discussion under religion because that pretty much makes bible contradictions a moot point.
And by the way although the NT says that there are 12 Apostiles it names 14. Shoddy copy editing
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 16:11:31 [Permalink]
|
Hi Dino,
Great to see you didn't desert us. I konw about those long days and can identify.
Slater is right, this is evolution, rather than religon, although some Creationists might argue that Evolution is a religon. Nonsense, of course.
Let me lay a link on you. It covers both the Theory of Evolution and the Creationist arguments against it very well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
CAUTION: You can get lost trying to cover this amazing site. It is vast and I often wander through it, checking out both Evolution and Creation.
Enjoy!
f
"Don't tell me your doubts; I've got enough doubts of my own. Tell me something you BELIEVE in!"
Brother Dave Gardner |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 20:34:38 [Permalink]
|
Hello Dino> When will you answer the questions posted by the people here?
In one of your earlier posts you complained that not all of your original questions where answered to your satisfaction. I just went through this entire tread, and you do not answer even a tenth of the sceptics questions.
The Bible is not pure fiction, no. Parts of the book contains passages about real kings and events. That does not prove the existence of any God whatsoever. There is no archaeological evidence that Jesus existed for example. The bible claims that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem in the Roman province of Judea, where his family had gone for a census during the time of Augustus. But there was no census at the time stated and Judea was not a Roman province at the time.
When a census was held in 7 AD it did not require anyone to leave the place where they lived. Also, King Herod died in 4 BC. Roman and Greek writers of the time makes no mention of Jesus or the Star of Bethlehem.
When making a claim, you're the one who must prove the truth of the claim. If you say “You can't prove that God does not exist, therefore he does exist” it is called argument ad ignorantum. Nothing has been proven, if the opposite can't be proven. When discussing God it is completely irrelevant whether or not a sceptic can prove God does not exist or not.
The burden of proof is yours.
So do you have any proof?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2002 : 22:47:39 [Permalink]
|
[quote]When discussing God it is completely irrelevant whether or not a sceptic can prove God does not exist or not.
The burden of proof is yours.
So do you have any proof?[/quote]
I'll save you some time, Omega, and tell you that it all boils down to one word: No.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
dinon74
New Member
8 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 01:49:23 [Permalink]
|
First to address Slater, I posted my comment under he thread "you guys are so right" it seemed dead so I copied and pasted back to this thread. Easy killer..(and where do you get 14 help me out I'll look it up. THX)
Thanks for the site Filthy I've spent many hours there already. Good stuff.
To James, actually the burden of proof lies on the newer thought to remove the older established. -This from one of the founders of Harvard Law School Simon Greenleaf. -Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. - I'm sorry James where did you get your Law Degree. (Just teasing)
And to Omega if you did read the thread you'll see that for everyone one post I do I get an average of 3-5 back. I am only one person here I admit the number of questions along with looking at the sites everyone is giving me can be overwhelming. I would hope that at least you would give some credit that I am still around by myself to talk with you guys. It's like playing a basketball game of 1 against 5. I will stay though, just keep that in mind.
To be honest what I am finding that the prelimary arguements that creationist use do have answers to them as I have read from everyone and the websites I've looked at. So it just takes me to a deeper level of investigation. Nothing debated here has actually presented anything that has caused me to question my faith, I know that is not the intent we are here to talk about evidence. There are things in both camps that at the most irreducible level require some element of trust and faith. As far as the questions not answered a compliation of what was asked of me would be great. There has been so much. I do admit looking back my very first post and questions were quite trivial.(Can you ever forgive me.hehe) So you guys have taught me a lot already. (pat yourselves on the back..)
Ok back to the evolution debate, I don't want to upset anyone else here.
Something I was reading brought an interesting point to my attention. Share your thoughts on this. I know it's long but please read it all, it took me even longer to type. Take care all..
This guy is a PhD in Mechanical Engineering his name is Stuart Burgess. The book is Hallmarks of Design.
The point he brings up is about irreducible mechanisms. They are a mechanism that must have several parts simultaneously present and correctly assembled for the mechanism to perform a useful function.
He quotes evolutionist Steven Vogel as saying "the evolutionary precess faces constraints far more severe than anything impeding human designers. We biologists recognise these constraints, but we don't often rise above our natural chauvinsim and make enough noise about them. Every organism must grow from an initially smaller to an ultimately larger size. Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation. The need for growth without loss of function can impose severe geometrical limitations." from Cats'Paws and Catapults, p23 1998
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins also admits that evolution must be incremental whilst providing continuous functions. from The Blind Watchmaker p.49 1986
And Darwin himself as most of you are aware said in page 154 of Origin of Species that
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Now moving on to the knee joint, of the main three: Ball and socket, pivot, and condylar of which the knee joint is. It is the largest and most complex joint in the human body.
He says the Knee joint is an irreducible mechanism that cannot evolve because it requires four complex parts to exist simultaneously and in a complex assembly to be able to perform it's basic function. If just one ligament is removed then the joint cannot function as a hinge and the joint has no other useful function.
The knee has many critical characteristics because the two cruciate ligaments and the two leg bones form a very sophisticated and precise mechanism call a four-bar hinge.- from O'Connor,J and Goodfellow,J "The mechanis of the knee and prosthesis design, Journal of bone and joint surgery 60B, pp.358-369.
There are 16 critical characteristics that not only must all be present from the start but they must also remain unchanged otherwise it will cause the physical system to break down. I'll list the 16 just in case:
Part
Femur Bone
Critical Characteristics
Protrusion of two condyles -2
Convex curvature of two condyles -2
Position of ligament attachment points 1 &2
Part
Tibia Bone
Concave curvature of two tracks -2
Position of ligament attachement points 3&4
Part
Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Assembly of ligament to points 1 & 4
Length of ligament
Part
Posterior cruciate ligament
Assembly of ligament to points 2 & 3
Length of ligament.
The theory of evolution proposes that gene mutation causes random changes to single units of information in the genetic code and this leads to evolution. Yet in the case of the knee many thousands of precise units of information must be in place simultaneously for the knee to have any usefulness.
How is it that an evolutionary process could cause two ligaments to suddenly become crossed at the center of a pivot joint precisely at the same time that a space is formed to accomadate them and precisely at the same time that a complex and compatible rolling motion is formed?
Another point is that human designers design from a top-down process starting with concepts and finishing with details. In contrast evolution is a bottom up process that starts with details and finishes with a concept.
Even one of the most advanced recent text books on growth of organisms says that " The mechanism whereby the correct connections between tendons, muscles, and cartilage are established has still to be determined" from-Wolpert, L Principles of Development, Oxford University Press p.316
If scientists do not know how a joint assembles itself with all our knowledge how are we expected to believe that it happened with no intelligence or design?
The human knee is also different than that of monkeys and apes. Evolutionists admit that the only way apes can attempt to stand upright is by having awkward bends at the ankle, knee and hip joints- from Hinchliffe, J.R. and Johnson, D.R. The Development of the Vertabrate Limb. pp 37-39
They would have been at a disadvange to stand like this. They would be much more mobile and agile the way they are today. Evolutionist Dye says " Despite the overall similarity of the design of the knee in tetrapods, no ideal animal model of the human knee is available." -from Scott, F. and Dye, M.D. An evolutionary perspective of the knee, Journal of bone and joint surgery. 69A pp976-983
Think of all the thousands of different kinds of animals on the earth and they all move with a horizontal stature. We are the only ones, doesn't that seem a little odd?
Evolutionist Stephen Gould said" our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" -from Gould, S.J. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, Vol 6 Jan 1980 p 127
This is just the first chapter of the book but this point I have never heard brought up before. Scientist still haven't been able to come up with a way to replace the human knee it is so complex. Yet I am to be |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 08:51:40 [Permalink]
|
I am not James but....
***To James, actually the burden of proof lies on the newer thought to remove the older established.***
No. The Ptolemaic system was in use for ~thousand years before Coprenicus, for instance. Time does not make an idea more true.
***He says the Knee joint is an irreducible mechanism that cannot evolve because it requires four complex parts to exist simultaneously and in a complex assembly to be able to perform it's basic function. If just one ligament is removed then the joint cannot function as a hinge and the joint has no other useful function.***
Knees now? I thought it was eyes that are irreducably complex.....has creationism evolved?
In any case, it is not as if every part had to evolve independantly of one another. They could have easily evolved together.
***The theory of evolution proposes that gene mutation causes random changes to single units of information in the genetic code and this leads to evolution. Yet in the case of the knee many thousands of precise units of information must be in place simultaneously for the knee to have any usefulness.***
See above.
***How is it that an evolutionary process could cause two ligaments to suddenly become crossed at the center of a pivot joint precisely at the same time that a space is formed to accomadate them and precisely at the same time that a complex and compatible rolling motion is formed?***
Natural selection?
***Another point is that human designers design from a top-down process starting with concepts and finishing with details. In contrast evolution is a bottom up process that starts with details and finishes with a concept.***
Dosen't that argue against creationism?
***If scientists do not know how a joint assembles itself with all our knowledge how are we expected to believe that it happened with no intelligence or design?***
Appeal to ignorence. I don't know exactly how my computer works, but I use it.
Of course my computer was designed. But just because we don't know how somthing happened, dosen't mean it didn't happen.
***Think of all the thousands of different kinds of animals on the earth and they all move with a horizontal stature. We are the only ones, doesn't that seem a little odd?***
No. We are also the only animal capable of asking that question.
See the connection?
***Evolutionist Stephen Gould said" our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution" -from Gould, S.J. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology, Vol 6 Jan 1980 p 127***
Ah, Gould is arguing for punctuated equilibrium, not creationism.
***Scientist still haven't been able to come up with a way to replace the human knee it is so complex.***
Well, we can replace hips, no? So it is only a matter of time, no?
***Yet I am to believe that all this happened on it's own with no guidance or direction.***
You can believe what you want, few scientists actually pay attention to the creation/evolution debates.
***Maybe you have more "faith" than I do.***
Hardly. There is evidence for evolution.
Can creationism say that?
Ecrasez l'infame
-Voltaire
Edited by - Xev on 03/24/2002 08:56:11 |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 09:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Sigh. If it's not the eye that can't be produced by evolution, it's the knee.
Dino, I hope you never have spine problems like so many of us "naked apes" (myself included). If you do, though, you may come to appreciate just how poorly-designed we are for our upright posture.
I did have one flash of insight while reading your post, though, and it makes me rather pessimistic that believers and skeptics will ever find common ground.
Even if we agree that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", we still won't see eye to eye. Because, for a believer, the existence of the supernatural is the given, and its nonexistence is the extraordinary claim that requires "proof". For the skeptic, it's precisely the opposite. And neither can be satisfied, since neither proposition has yet been proven to the level required to convince the other side.
Maybe, though, we skeptics can point to the trend, rather than trying to prove the unprovable (or disprove the undisprovable). Over the course of human history, the role of the gods has been steadily shrinking: from a pantheon of physical (if magical) beings that controlled virtually every aspect of our existence (from the weather to our fertility to the whims of fate), to a now very remote, immaterial entity whose role in our day-to-day lives is subtle at best. At the same time, the cosmos (as we understand it) has expanded, from the few square miles known to any individual one of our remote ancestors to the vast gulf of space and time we know of (but still barely grasp) now.
Perhaps the trend will continue, so that in a few more millennia, today's gods will seem about as silly as Baal or Aphrodite do to us. "How could anyone have ever believed such foolishness?"
Dino, while we don't yet have all the answers in science, and there may be questions that science can never address, at least we have this tool that (if nothing else) shows us where the limits of are knowledge lie. Science is strong enough in its foundations to say "we don't know" whan that's appropriate. If that's faith, then it's the kind of honest faith I can accept.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 09:42:49 [Permalink]
|
Donnie:
***Perhaps the trend will continue, so that in a few more millennia, today's gods will seem about as silly as Baal or Aphrodite do to us. "How could anyone have ever believed such foolishness?"***
Just as long as you aren't dissing Cthulhu with that....
Peace.
Ecrasez l'infame
-Voltaire |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 11:11:17 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Slater...and where do you get 14 help me out I'll look it up.
[/quote]
Name the Twelve (or so) Apostles? Sure.
In [b] Matthew[/b] there are
Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James Less
[red]LEBBEUS[/red]
Simon
Judas Iscariot Mark
In [b]Mark[/b] there are
Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James Less
[red]THADDEUS[/red]
Simon
Judas Iscariot Luke
In [b]Luke[/b] there are
Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James Less
[red]JUDAS[red]
Simon
Judas Iscariot
[b]John[/b] does not name the Twelve Apostles and this important omission is admitted to be a grave defect in the Fourth Gospel but Hey who'se counting.
I'm sure that this will be no trouble to you as the bible seems to mean whatever you would like it to mean instead of what it says. That's some talent you have there, get your info straight from god is it?
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
<i>The Preparation of the Gospel</i>
Edited by - slater on 03/24/2002 11:12:39 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 20:02:16 [Permalink]
|
[b]Evolutionist Richard Dawkins also admits that evolution must be incremental whilst providing continuous functions. from The Blind Watchmaker p.49 1986[/b]
Question Dino. Why did you quote from[i]The Blind Watchmaker[/i]? I only ask because this book clearly and simply answers PhD in Mechanical Engineering, Stuart Burgess, makes his statement seem to be one that only a simpleton would make. If you had read more than one sentence on a creationist web site you wouldn't have posted this silliness. And why, when you are talking about biology don't you read something written on the subject by a Biologist? A PhD in Mechanical Engineering ? Is this supposed to be a joke? Do you think that people and other animals are machines?
And why do you think that the supernatural is the "default" answer if evolution is incorrect? An invisible god blew on a pile of dirt is your idea of science? If it's science then you have to prove it is real.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2002 : 21:36:17 [Permalink]
|
[quote]He says the Knee joint is an irreducible mechanism that cannot evolve because it requires four complex parts to exist simultaneously and in a complex assembly to be able to perform it's basic function. If just one ligament is removed then the joint cannot function as a hinge and the joint has no other useful function.[/quote]
I'll just leave out all the stuff about the knee that makes no sense because it obviously lacks context. I want you to understand that you are completely wrong and that you obviously misunderstand everything you have cut-and-pasted. I had a complete tear of my right ACL in 1990. I had the surgery to replace it in 1998. Eight years of near-normal functionality without one of the ligaments that you claim I must have. Running, jumping, swimming, etc. - all stuff I could do with no tissue where my anterior cruciate ligament should have been.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
