|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 05:26:44 [Permalink]
|
Pardon me, folks, if I point out something that's obvious to most of us here, but it's an important point that cannot be repeated too much for the benefit of those lurkers who might have missed it.
As Dave W. pointed out above, vestigiality in biology refers to an organ's loss of a fuction it once had.
By leaving out words to the effect of "it once had," both DaveTard and BillTard are not simply making an error or simplifying a concept for popular reading.
Their misdefinition is a critical part of their deception. Only if they can slip in that false definition of vestigiality, can they even begin to defend their rejection of vestigiality as evidence for evolution. (Check the Wiki link above. Essentially, nobody involved in this debate is ignorant of vestigiality's definition.) Their "edited" definition is not that used by science. Just being tards does not give them the right to deliberately make up their own definitions of crucial terms as a trick to win an argument. Any argument can be "won," if someone is allowed to redefine terms arbitrarily.
Typical Creo dishonesty. Having no science, no ID predictions, no evidence, and no theory, the IDiots are desperately resorting to cheap, transparent rhetorical fallacies.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2008 05:29:45 |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2008 : 06:06:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Dave W.
No. And that just shows that creationists such as Dembski don't understand that when biologists say "vestigal," they mean "has lost a function it once had." |
He DEFINITELY does not understand what vestigial means:
| Vestigial structures, after all, are structures that have lost their function. |
|
The most frustrating thing about UD is the comments. A few are deceptively clever, but most are just stunningly stupid. One guy says:| Human beings have little right to brand any of nature's designs as lousy when we have come nowhere close to nature's cunning (as in its biochemical nanotech). |
This is a defense of ID?
The classic one is this:
The same way heated leather seats in a BMW do not help the car get there faster or more efficiently, many structures do not confer a selective advantage, they just makes it the trip more enjoyable. This is evidence of robust luxurious design, not vestigal structures as seen by strict Darwinian utilitarianism.
Along those same lines, I do not believe all of the markings, colors, and patterns on animals confer a selective advantage every time. I think they are often there because of the Designer's sense of style. |
Yikes! This is exactly the logic I suggested earlier that makes ID unfalsifiable. Now, anything is proof of design. If we can't explain its function, it's not "junk DNA" for example, it's just "the Designer's sense of style."
The whole debate is hopeless. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 06:41:25 [Permalink]
|
| I can't wait for God's new spring line, more togas probably. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 07:04:07 [Permalink]
|
And Mats really doesn't get it:Vestigial organs are another version of “bad design” arguement (BDA). It is not intself an evidence FOR evolution, but an arguement against the Designer. No, vestigal organs really are positive evidence in favor of evolution. If organs simply "poofed" out of existence as soon as they're no longer needed, currently known evolutionary processes would be hard pressed to explain that. Instead, what we see are fully functional but useless organs undergoing mutation and selection in several directions, including (but not limited to) smaller size and cooption, as the environment demands.
Also, DaveScot starts running with the logic, but stops before reaching the end (as usual):We have also observed that in all cases where we can determine the origin of a machine its design sprang from the mind of an intelligent being. Why would this not be the case for machines of undetermined origin? No, Dave, in all cases where we can determine the origin of a machine its design sprang from the mind of a human. Why should this not be the case for biology?
Also, we're getting a whole lot of "the body as a machine" stuff from IDists these days. It's funny as hell that they're trying to portray humanity as soulless robots just to keep shouting "it's all machines!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2008 : 07:15:06 [Permalink]
|
I should have kept reading. Joseph says that wanting to see evidence for the designer's existence means that a person isn't interested in science:Joseph: I take it you require a meeting with the Creator or Designer before you will accept anything as evidence.
1of63: That would be ideal, yes, but something like "Made in Heaven‚" or "Best before the year 20,000,000,000," buried in our DNA would be good too.
Joseph: Thank you for showing us that you are NOT interested in science. These guys crack me up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
