Biological functioning high precision...

Biological functioning high precision gears found

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
turbotrunks

Franklin, NC

#1 Sep 12, 2013
See Washington Post article for video:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health...

What is with this long running joke of bottom up evolution? Is it not just getting totally absurd (and hilarious)?

Time to wake up people, and overcome your acquired, emotional, or psychological biases. Let's be honest with ourselves now: we are not the top of the pyramid; there is a lot more to this seen, and unseen universe, than what is now observable or measurable. This includes so called logic, as to understanding how things, and high level information, come to be.

Do realize that for a gear (which is great to relate to rather than the more common but less intelligible biological processes), the tolerable deviation of pitch, tooth geometry, etc. is extremely small.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#2 Sep 12, 2013
Evolution is amazing. This gear system is a remarkable adaptation for enabling planthopper nymphs to avoid predation.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#3 Sep 12, 2013
Whoever said we were the top of the pyramid? Evolution certainly doesn't claim that.
turbotrunks

Franklin, NC

#4 Sep 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Evolution is amazing. This gear system is a remarkable adaptation for enabling planthopper nymphs to avoid predation.
Oh oh, ha ha, good one Dan! Keeping true to form, true to form. ;-)
turbotrunks

Franklin, NC

#5 Sep 12, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Whoever said we were the top of the pyramid? Evolution certainly doesn't claim that.
Dude, if you really believe that, I'm not going to argue with you. But yeah, that's the whole direct implication, that if the "creative" mechanisms of the universe that we have to work with (in intellectual consideration) are only what we can see or measure, then it's necessary that these noncognitive mechanisms result in wildly advanced biological nanotechnology that far exceeds the technologies that our sophisticated scientific and engineering minds can come up with. As the belief goes, there is no greater creative mechanisms (and with cognition) that may be assumed, so therefore we must be considered the pinnacle of cognition (in this area of the universe at least), resulting from noncognitive mechanisms.

To anyone that has a mind to see, without agenda, and doesn't buy into this joke, it's rather clear that the causative/creative agent/actions of biological nanotechnology (and beyond) extends beyond the known universe (and is hence intractable even to our logics) and is cognitive in nature (in excess of our own).

But I get it, that's the default position many take for various reasons, that unless they are supernaturally dumbstruck, they absolutely positively cannot accept the notion of the pyramid extending beyond us and the known universe... In fact, testing whether a change of view is in order might not be a bad idea (actually wholeheartedly probe/petition for supernatural indication...hey what do you have to loose).

Good day, Dude.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Sep 12, 2013
turbotrunks, though rather amazing there is nothing particularly difficult to evolve for this critter.

If you think that is a toughy look up the rotator flagellum of bacteria. Michael Behe based his career on the idea that this could not have naturally evolved. Of course when it was first discovered scientists did not know how it evolved. It was rather enigmatic. But scientists do not give up very easily and now it is very well understood.

There are hundreds of cases where we could give up, and say "God did it". Of course that is a dead end knowledge wise. If you don't think evolution works the odds are extremely high that you do not understand the theory of evolution.
turbotrunks

Franklin, NC

#7 Sep 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
turbotrunks, though rather amazing there is nothing particularly difficult to evolve for this critter.
If you think that is a toughy look up the rotator flagellum of bacteria. Michael Behe based his career on the idea that this could not have naturally evolved. Of course when it was first discovered scientists did not know how it evolved. It was rather enigmatic. But scientists do not give up very easily and now it is very well understood.
Seriously? Seriously??? Not to be rash, but put YOUR thinking cap back on, man! Come back when you have your head out of a constrained worldview that leads to things like WILD speculation in the nonexistent field of abiogenesis and the like.
There are hundreds of cases where we could give up, and say "God did it". Of course that is a dead end knowledge wise.
That's fine, but it's disingenuous to tell others that this high level information is originating from somewhere other than an "as of yet not understood and not measured" extant of the universe. For whatever reasons, institutional academia has a dog in the fight for purely noncognitive mechanisms of evolution, whereas in BASIC information theory terms, we are looking at by BASIC necessity the introduction of absolutely necessary biological information content, systems and mechatronics before all this great biodiversity is happening.
If you don't think evolution works the odds are extremely high that you do not understand the theory of evolution.
Sigh...again very disingenuous, but I just don't expect you to understand...you just can't see it mayn! You and your hilarious ilk have been looking at the situation in a very inverted, skewed and disjointed way, for a long time now...and it really is time to wake up to reality, the fuller reality. I won't say there aren't pitfalls in the wide open world. But as it stands now, you are stuffed in a dark corner, highly likely not only of your own doing, and I'm the concerned neighbor trying to introduce you to Mr. and Mrs. sensitivity to the big ol' epiphany.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#8 Sep 12, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh oh, ha ha, good one Dan! Keeping true to form, true to form. ;-)
Thanks. Don't forget that I am right too.
turbotrunks

Franklin, NC

#9 Sep 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks. Don't forget that I am right too.
Right right...of course. ;-)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10 Sep 13, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
Dude, if you really believe that, I'm not going to argue with you.
That would be wise.

But you're gonna anyway...
turbotrunks wrote:
But yeah, that's the whole direct implication, that if the "creative" mechanisms of the universe that we have to work with (in intellectual consideration) are only what we can see or measure, then it's necessary that these noncognitive mechanisms result in wildly advanced biological nanotechnology
I am unaware of any wildly advanced biological nanotech. I am aware of naturally self-replicating biological organisms which are not technological in any way.
turbotrunks wrote:
that far exceeds the technologies that our sophisticated scientific and engineering minds can come up with.
Therefore they are nothing like technological machines.
turbotrunks wrote:
As the belief goes, there is no greater creative mechanisms (and with cognition) that may be assumed, so therefore we must be considered the pinnacle of cognition (in this area of the universe at least), resulting from noncognitive mechanisms.
Evolution makes no theological claims. It doesn't claim that God didn't do it. Perhaps it might, it's just that there's no evidence.

Also humans being the current 'pinnacle of cognition' doesn't make them the apex of evolution. Being smart won't help you if a virus evolves that eats smart brains.
turbotrunks wrote:
To anyone that has a mind to see, without agenda, and doesn't buy into this joke, it's rather clear that the causative/creative agent/actions of biological nanotechnology (and beyond) extends beyond the known universe (and is hence intractable even to our logics) and is cognitive in nature (in excess of our own).
So you can't understand how life could develop naturally therefore Goddidit with magic. No theological agenda of course.
turbotrunks wrote:
But I get it, that's the default position many take for various reasons, that unless they are supernaturally dumbstruck, they absolutely positively cannot accept the notion of the pyramid extending beyond us and the known universe
Sure they can. Many do. But that doesn't mean those ideas are science, or in fact affect the validity of evolution in any way.
turbotrunks wrote:
In fact, testing whether a change of view is in order might not be a bad idea (actually wholeheartedly probe/petition for supernatural indication...hey what do you have to loose).
Good day, Dude.
The supernatural is not science, period. It has no bearing on the validity of evolution, or indeed any other science. Therefore it is relevant only to those who have theological beefs with reality, such as yourself. Science doesn't have to worry about it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Sep 13, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
Seriously? Seriously??? Not to be rash, but put YOUR thinking cap back on, man! Come back when you have your head out of a constrained worldview that leads to things like WILD speculation in the nonexistent field of abiogenesis and the like.
So Harvard are just sitting on their azzes doing nothing? That might surprise them.
turbotrunks wrote:
That's fine, but it's disingenuous to tell others that this high level information is originating from somewhere other than an "as of yet not understood and not measured" extant of the universe.
We aren't. Information is originating from us. The universe produces natural phenomena then we quantify it using information.
turbotrunks wrote:
For whatever reasons, institutional academia has a dog in the fight for purely noncognitive mechanisms of evolution
Absurd claim, considering theists also accept evolution.

You also can't complain when you just openly addmitted that your alternative "explanation" is non-scientific magic.
turbotrunks wrote:
whereas in BASIC information theory terms, we are looking at by BASIC necessity the introduction of absolutely necessary biological information content, systems and mechatronics before all this great biodiversity is happening.
Inventing big words and using terminology incorrectly accomplishes the complete opposite of making you look smart.
turbotrunks wrote:
Sigh...again very disingenuous, but I just don't expect you to understand...you just can't see it mayn! You and your hilarious ilk have been looking at the situation in a very inverted, skewed and disjointed way, for a long time now...and it really is time to wake up to reality, the fuller reality. I won't say there aren't pitfalls in the wide open world. But as it stands now, you are stuffed in a dark corner, highly likely not only of your own doing, and I'm the concerned neighbor trying to introduce you to Mr. and Mrs. sensitivity to the big ol' epiphany.
We're not in a dark corner. We're enlightened by scientific knowledge. You're trying to drag knowledge back to the stone age by invoking invisible magic wizards because you don't know how lightning works.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#12 Sep 13, 2013
Wonder if Sioux and turbotrunks share the same bed...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#13 Sep 13, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Seriously??? Not to be rash, but put YOUR thinking cap back on, man! Come back when you have your head out of a constrained worldview that leads to things like WILD speculation in the nonexistent field of abiogenesis and the like.
<quoted text>[QUOTE]Hmm, it seems that you do not know the meaning of "WILD speculation". Last time I checked it did not mean "following the evidence to a logical conclusion". So far all you have been able to do is to argue from incredulity and insult people.

That is not too promising.

[QUOTE]
That's fine, but it's disingenuous to tell others that this high level information is originating from somewhere other than an "as of yet not understood and not measured" extant of the universe. For whatever reasons, institutional academia has a dog in the fight for purely noncognitive mechanisms of evolution, whereas in BASIC information theory terms, we are looking at by BASIC necessity the introduction of absolutely necessary biological information content, systems and mechatronics before all this great biodiversity is happening.
<quoted text>
What "information"? It is a very poor analogy to try to relate DNA to "information". That will lead many, like you, to an incorrect conclusion. If you want to make an analogy it would be better to think of DNA as a recipe for making proteins. Then you may be able to see how a slight change in the "recipe" can cause a smooth surface to "grow bumps". Once the bumps start to form and succeed further changes to the "recipe" made the bumps more and more regular until we see the gears we do today.
Sigh...again very disingenuous, but I just don't expect you to understand...you just can't see it mayn! You and your hilarious ilk have been looking at the situation in a very inverted, skewed and disjointed way, for a long time now...and it really is time to wake up to reality, the fuller reality. I won't say there aren't pitfalls in the wide open world. But as it stands now, you are stuffed in a dark corner, highly likely not only of your own doing, and I'm the concerned neighbor trying to introduce you to Mr. and Mrs. sensitivity to the big ol' epiphany.
Sorry "mayn", but all of the scientific evidence found to date supports the theory of evolution. In fact, scientifically, there is NO competition.

What would you replace evolution with and what evidence do you have that supports that idea?
turbotrunks

United States

#14 Sep 13, 2013
May God have mercy on your souls. :-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#15 Sep 13, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
May God have mercy on your souls.:-(
Oh, turbotrunks!!! Here I thought you were about to wow us with some great fantastic science to usher in a new era of knowledge and it turns out you're just another typical garden variety creationist!

:-O

I'm shocked. Shocked I say.

But don't worry, His Noodlyness is always merciful to those who have been touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAMEN!

:-)
turbotrunks

Durham, NC

#16 Sep 14, 2013
Anyone wishing to discuss things further, and have prayer unleashed for them, can contact [email protected]

--

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#17 Sep 14, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
Anyone wishing to discuss things further, and have prayer unleashed for them, can contact [email protected]
--
Why do you think that anyone would need or want "prayer unleashed" for them?

You do realize that most Christians around the world accept the theory of evolution, don't you? How would you feel if one of those Christians offered to pray for you to cure you of your ignorance?
turbotrunks

United States

#18 Sep 25, 2013
Put on some of your best music, or look into the face of your most beloved, then realize, everything of importance is in the living (that goes on forever!) that we begin after this life. This life is the launch platform, and determines what kind of start we get (and hopefully do indeed take off). Stuff like forever seems impossible and crazy right? That's the business our God is in. I'm in no position to say what kind of launch (or even lack thereof) anybody is going to have, or discount the triumphs or tragedies of anyone, just giving a heads up.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#19 Sep 25, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
Put on some of your best music, or look into the face of your most beloved, then realize, everything of importance is in the living (that goes on forever!) that we begin after this life.
Actually universal entropy will eventually end it, although you may be reincarnated as a worm multiple times over. Whether the death of our universe leads to the beginning of another is not knowable at this time.
turbotrunks wrote:
This life is the launch platform, and determines what kind of start we get (and hopefully do indeed take off). Stuff like forever seems impossible and crazy right? That's the business our God is in.
Can you please provide any objectively verifiable scientifically testable evidence that this God entity of yours even exists?
turbotrunks wrote:
I'm in no position to say what kind of launch (or even lack thereof) anybody is going to have, or discount the triumphs or tragedies of anyone, just giving a heads up.
You are not in any kind of position to make any of these claims at all, but that doesn't stop us from fundies pretending to tell us all about it. The reality of it all is...

... they haven't a clue.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#20 Sep 25, 2013
turbotrunks wrote:
Put on some of your best music, or look into the face of your most beloved, then realize, everything of importance is in the living (that goes on forever!) that we begin after this life. This life is the launch platform, and determines what kind of start we get (and hopefully do indeed take off). Stuff like forever seems impossible and crazy right? That's the business our God is in. I'm in no position to say what kind of launch (or even lack thereof) anybody is going to have, or discount the triumphs or tragedies of anyone, just giving a heads up.
...'shrooms season.

No other explanation for it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 min Regolith Based Li... 28,321
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min Dogen 61,382
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 35 min Horn Dog 220,673
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Subduction Zone 160,311
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 12 hr Dogen 2,687
Curious dilemma about DNA 19 hr Subduction Zone 2
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Mar 23 Regolith Based Li... 99
More from around the web