So...how realistic is X-men?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#451 Jun 15, 2014
replaytime wrote:
The BBT is what created the universe, matter and time. The BBT is what created everything for life. The BBT is what created the means for evolution to happen. The BBT is what created everything and made it possible for everything else to happen. Without the BBT there would be no life, no evolution, no universe, no earth, no gravity, no laws of thermodynamics, no math, no anydamnthing! The BBT CREATED everything!!!!!!!!!!
I left out "Now prove me wrong!"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#452 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
The gradual progression of the fossil record, as stated, is neither here nor there. Insofar as we do see changes occurring that might be best imputed to random mutations, they are not significant enough to warrant the extrapolation you make. Besides that, such imputations also require evidence. You will have to be specific with computer models. It is easy to just assume evolutionary questions to be resolved and have a model prepared that reflects your basic notions.
Take Dawkins' like a weasel model. It assumes that each letter confers a significant evolutionary advantage, but, more importantly, it assumes that the process is as simple as that. Do we actually know what kind of genetic alterations would cause a heart like feature to emerge? What letters would be required to change to produce a mutational part thereof? Computer models are only as good as the data inputted.
No one has denied the existence of non directed change. Chance does play a big part in life. As stated by me earlier, these occurrences aren't nearly enough to negate the evidence for design. It would be like disavowing intelligence agency in factory products when some are shown to be defective. And this factory has been in operation for a very long while, producing the kinds of things that might not be the sort that you can create without occasional errors if the process is left to its own devices.
The change we see from artificial selection doesn't address how evolution produces complexity via undirected means. The organisms are already in place as complete creatures, and morphological alterations attest more to how reproduction works than it does random mutational force, as far as I can gather.
I have far more than a reckoning that evolution couldn't do the things it is said to. What I have is a whole slew of evidence that is functionality and complexity that requires intentionality. What I have is the understanding that, to believe in the incredible claims of evolutionary theory, we require actual evidence to that effect. Meanwhile, it is simply a crazy theory. What I have is direct evidence of intentionality versus speculation of the most thoughtless sort of how it can be explained away.
Yes, I know it is a different process. I was simply qualifying my statement.
By the way, I recently read that P.Z Meyers doesn't agree with that characterization of abiogenesis and the attempt to divorce it from evolutionary theory. Make of that what you will. I'm not sure what to make of his reasoning myself.
I showed you a genetic algorithm model that demonstrated the development of a reliable clock, with no direction apart from selecting the "best", no matter how bad, and recombining them using an analogous process to sexual reproduction and random changes to the components.

You chose to ignore the whole point and make some irrelevant points.

The fact is, this program demonstrated that evolution could construct complex, highly specified, functional mechanisms. Go and look again if you like...it simply devastates most of what you write above, empirically, observably.

And you still miss the point with hearts and ears...tiny incremental changes from the simplest effects as I described earlier can be the starting point, and change by tiny degree from there can successively build up a more and more complex organ. Its not that hard to see unless you don't WANT to see it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#453 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I tentatively accept the idea of common ancestry. I consider the mechanisms proposed ludicrous in the highest degree.
The evidence for the origin of life is the evidence of information in the cell which is pretty damned impressive. The origin of life doesn't even get the benefit of natural selection for people to mindlessly speculate about, so there's that too. Less imaginary stories equals more evidence in a way I guess.
You are correct in that the mechanism for the origin of life cannot be biological evolution. We all acknowledge that - in fact usually we have to continually remind creationists that abiogenesis is NOT evolution and refuting natural abiogenesis would still not refute evolution.

Autocatalytic sets of organic chemicals - peptides, amino acids, RNA, etc, do constitute an early analog of evolution, and may explain the original burst of complexity that was necessary to the development of proto-life. In a complex organic soup, the emergence of such sets is almost inevitable. But I am the first to admit research in this area is still in the early stages.

As for "imaginary stories", it always amuses me that creationists find a structure such as the feather, and DEMAND a blow by blow explanation of how they developed, then accuse the evolutionists of "just so stories" when they offer one. When we do have a comprehensive fossil picture - such as the 3-boned middle ear - you ignore the fact that the principle is proved and just go on to something we have little evidence about. Such as the convenient heart argument, based as it is on a soft tissue organ that is not going to be preserved for 300 million years anyway. We can of course ONLY speculate in such a case, looking at the evidence we have of simpler organisms today, embryology, and other such cicrumstantial lines of evidence. But so what?

We do not actually HAVE to give you just so stories. We do not HAVE to have ready made explanations to hand for every single physical trait. All we need is enough evidence to prove the principle, and you have already been given that, whether you like it or not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#454 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Support for ID is evident in every single biological organism.
There is structured complexity in every single organism. That is evidence for a mechanism able to produce it. If you have already decided that ID is the only way it can happen, you will see it as evidence for ID.

However, when there is another viable mechanism, evolution, and when we ask what constraints evolution has that ID would not, and we see that living organisms fit into those constraints, then there is really no support for ID in biological organisms.

All you can do is keep repeating that the mechanism of evolution seems ludicrous to you. And yet we see how it works, in the lab, in genetic algorithms, even in the genome as the series of specific mutations leading to specific changes starts to emerge. In short, your personal incredulity is simply not an argument against the FACT that the mechanism of evolution works.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#455 Jun 15, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed you a genetic algorithm model that demonstrated the development of a reliable clock, with no direction apart from selecting the "best", no matter how bad, and recombining them using an analogous process to sexual reproduction and random changes to the components.
You chose to ignore the whole point and make some irrelevant points.
The fact is, this program demonstrated that evolution could construct complex, highly specified, functional mechanisms. Go and look again if you like...it simply devastates most of what you write above, empirically, observably.
And you still miss the point with hearts and ears...tiny incremental changes from the simplest effects as I described earlier can be the starting point, and change by tiny degree from there can successively build up a more and more complex organ. Its not that hard to see unless you don't WANT to see it.
What? I didn't make irrelevant points at all. If that's the kind of model you're thinking of, then you're nowhere near having a cogent analogy in computer models. What I said was that given the information inputted the results were bound to follow as they did. The question is if the analogy is a valid one. In the algorithm, there were parts to mimic mutations and the keeping of time better to mimic natural selection. The latter is fine, the former is highly problematic. You first have to show that mutations create the parts needed for the sort of novel body structures we see functioning today and you have to demonstrate that the affinities present in the algorithm are truly analogous to those that exist in biology and can fashion a functional system out of the parts in question.
Demonstrate that adequately and I'll have far less of an issue believing that the process took place
I might even believe that it did. Until then, however, it remains an insane idea that is only supported by peripheral evidence. You've pretty much proven my case vis a vis assumptions made in computer models that beg the question.
I didn't miss the point. I know what you're arguing. It isn't a complicated matter. I simply demand evidence that that is the case. Assertions are easy to make. The word "see" in your sentence should be substituted with "imagine". I want details, not vague allusions to the mechanisms in question. Besides which, you have yet to let me know whether we can even ascertain that the middle ear exaptation occurred by random mutations.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#456 Jun 15, 2014
Oh, actually, that was slightly inaccurate. As far as I remember, the clock algorithm also supposes that each advancement will confer a survival advantage, just as Dawkins' model does, so the natural selection part is also slightly problematic.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#457 Jun 15, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct in that the mechanism for the origin of life cannot be biological evolution. We all acknowledge that - in fact usually we have to continually remind creationists that abiogenesis is NOT evolution and refuting natural abiogenesis would still not refute evolution.
Autocatalytic sets of organic chemicals - peptides, amino acids, RNA, etc, do constitute an early analog of evolution, and may explain the original burst of complexity that was necessary to the development of proto-life. In a complex organic soup, the emergence of such sets is almost inevitable. But I am the first to admit research in this area is still in the early stages.
As for "imaginary stories", it always amuses me that creationists find a structure such as the feather, and DEMAND a blow by blow explanation of how they developed, then accuse the evolutionists of "just so stories" when they offer one. When we do have a comprehensive fossil picture - such as the 3-boned middle ear - you ignore the fact that the principle is proved and just go on to something we have little evidence about. Such as the convenient heart argument, based as it is on a soft tissue organ that is not going to be preserved for 300 million years anyway. We can of course ONLY speculate in such a case, looking at the evidence we have of simpler organisms today, embryology, and other such cicrumstantial lines of evidence. But so what?
We do not actually HAVE to give you just so stories. We do not HAVE to have ready made explanations to hand for every single physical trait. All we need is enough evidence to prove the principle, and you have already been given that, whether you like it or not.
I very much doubt that the cell's complexity can be explained by a random coming together of elements. When has such a thing ever been observed to work?

The feather isn't that impressive a thing, but it would be nice if there was at least an explanation about how and why the mutation takes place. See, here's the problem. We see all these fantastic structures and varied features in living things. They are not something you can predict ahead of time. If you and I speculated on what would occur once the first life developed, it is safe to say neither of us would be justified in saying that a thing like a feather would emerge.

So, the question is why. Why does it emerge? I can see how natural selection would preserve it at a certain point, but that's not the central issue. The just so story part come in when you assert that each part, or most parts, must confer an evolutionary advantage. If you manage to do so properly, then fine. If you use ad hoc rationalizations, however, then it should just be considered a just so story. I understand that we cannot have evidence for every single thing given the time scale and fossilizing process, but isn't that something that should necessitate caution when we speculate on it? Isn't it something that we shouldn't boldly speak of as if we knew what transpired?

I do agree that if the principle is shown, then it is safe to assume that the process can explain the rest of the set. I far from agree that the principle is shown. You have not addressed my point that the heart function is independent as part of a closed system whereas the jaw's arrangement only enhanced an existing function. This is not a matter of convenience. This isn't a college debate. If the evidence showed what I require then I would yield the point. I would be amazed, but I'd be shown wrong. Unfortunately, in biology, the truly complex systems are impossible to fossilize. Remember though, fossilization is only the first step. You then have to show that this process took place by random mutations. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. It is not at all an obvious corollary.

Saying that I've been shown it whether I like it or not is just your baseless opinion. Meanwhile, I have given you actual reasons for why that is not so.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#458 Jun 15, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is structured complexity in every single organism. That is evidence for a mechanism able to produce it. If you have already decided that ID is the only way it can happen, you will see it as evidence for ID.
However, when there is another viable mechanism, evolution, and when we ask what constraints evolution has that ID would not, and we see that living organisms fit into those constraints, then there is really no support for ID in biological organisms.
All you can do is keep repeating that the mechanism of evolution seems ludicrous to you. And yet we see how it works, in the lab, in genetic algorithms, even in the genome as the series of specific mutations leading to specific changes starts to emerge. In short, your personal incredulity is simply not an argument against the FACT that the mechanism of evolution works.
No, it is evidence for ID. That is the default stance. That is what is to be explained as illusory. If something can do that, well, we'll see how well it can and how. If it does so well, then it no longer qualifies as evidence for ID.
Let me put it to you this way. Let us say you were an astronaut and were sent on an expedition to a remote planet. Upon surveying the area you found that there was an invisible object blocking your path. After using some infra red equipment you found that it was actually a giant obelisk. Inscribed on the obelisk were an assortment of odd looking runes. Having tinkered with them, pressing them in random sequences, the earth shook and a door, which suddenly became apparent, shifted to reveal the interior of the obelisk.
Mind you, the door and runes were not at all like how we would fashion our machines. They appeared raw and crude. The door too was not shaped in a way most doors are. It only opened halfway and you had to struggle to make it inside.
Now, on that alone, would you not agree that the presumption of intelligence design is warranted? Would you not agree that a natural explanation would be highly unlikely? The example was purposely made to include as little sophistication as possible. From a complexity standpoint, our body dwarfs it.
Why do you keep implying that my incredulity is my basis for an argument when I'm not even structuring my argument in that way? Much less after I've already explained, and it didn't require explaining, that my incredulity was based on specific facts and lines of reasoning. Saying that you find X to be ludicrous IS a statement of incredulity, as well as judgement of X. That is just one layer. It has no expository power whatsoever.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#459 Jun 15, 2014
You know what evolutionary biologist's reasoning reminds me of? Richard Dawkins' story about how children were given a bible narrative and asked whether the acts therein were good or evil. When they were told it was a bible narrative, the results highly favored the former view. When they were told that the story was about some warlord, they almost unanimously held the latter view.

This, I would bet, is how scientists look at biological systems. There is a theory in place and the theory must be true, since everyone believes it and, really, it's pretty much a fact. They work within the confines of this and reason the evidence to fit into that paradigm. If that paradigm did not exist, almost none of them would reach the conclusion that a collocation of accidents caused the complexity living beings exhibit.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#460 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
I very much doubt that the cell's complexity can be explained by a random coming together of elements. When has such a thing ever been observed to work?
........
So, the question is why. Why does it emerge? I can see how natural selection would preserve it at a certain point, but that's not the central issue.
........
I do agree that if the principle is shown, then it is safe to assume that the process can explain the rest of the set. I far from agree that the principle is shown. You have not addressed my point that the heart function is independent as part of a closed system whereas the jaw's arrangement only enhanced an existing function.
.......
You then have to show that this process took place by random mutations. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. It is not at all an obvious corollary.
FIRST OF ALL, instead of your numerous confirmations that you understand evolution theory, you KEEP ON producing straw man fallacies. He DOESN'T need to "show that this process took place by random mutations." He will have to show that the process took place by natural selection. And the cell's complexity can NOT be explained by a random coming together of elements but by a NON-RANDOM process of natural selection.

I think you don't understand A BIT of evolution.

But, more importantly, I have some questions for you pertaining YOUR position.
As you see I selected some phrases out of your last post to Chimney1.

I shall now ask you THE SAME pertaining your position. Fair isn't it?

1. I very much doubt that the cell's complexity can be explained by some unknown creation event. When has such a thing ever been observed to work? Your answer please.

2. So, the question is why. Why does it emerge? I can't even see a creative process would preserve it at a certain point, and that's the very central issue. Explain please.

3. As the principle of creation even isn't shown, then it is invalid to assume that the creation process can explain the rest of the set. The principle is not shown in any required degree. Hence it is completely out of order to talk about individual biological features like the heart function as an independent part of a closed system or the jaw's arrangement. do you have any DEFINITION of the creative process and consequently, any empirical evidence on it?

4. You then have to show that this process took place creation. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. It is not at all an obvious corollary.

I'm waiting.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#461 Jun 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
FIRST OF ALL, instead of your numerous confirmations that you understand evolution theory, you KEEP ON producing straw man fallacies. He DOESN'T need to "show that this process took place by random mutations." He will have to show that the process took place by natural selection. And the cell's complexity can NOT be explained by a random coming together of elements but by a NON-RANDOM process of natural selection.
I think you don't understand A BIT of evolution.
But, more importantly, I have some questions for you pertaining YOUR position.
As you see I selected some phrases out of your last post to Chimney1.
I shall now ask you THE SAME pertaining your position. Fair isn't it?
1. I very much doubt that the cell's complexity can be explained by some unknown creation event. When has such a thing ever been observed to work? Your answer please.
2. So, the question is why. Why does it emerge? I can't even see a creative process would preserve it at a certain point, and that's the very central issue. Explain please.
3. As the principle of creation even isn't shown, then it is invalid to assume that the creation process can explain the rest of the set. The principle is not shown in any required degree. Hence it is completely out of order to talk about individual biological features like the heart function as an independent part of a closed system or the jaw's arrangement. do you have any DEFINITION of the creative process and consequently, any empirical evidence on it?
4. You then have to show that this process took place creation. Do not underestimate the importance of this step. It is not at all an obvious corollary.
I'm waiting.
Actually, I don't think you understand a bit in logical thinking. See, the process of natural selection depends on natural mutations. Natural mutations are the central point. If you'll stop trying to make it seem as though I didn't know what I was talking about, maybe you'd see that point. The whole issue is about the demonstration of the causal power and nature of random mutations. So, yes, he would have to show that the process of natural mutations caused the changes.
The origin of life question, I admit, I'm rather clueless about. With evolution, I understand the playing field and what is argued. Origin of life, not so much. However, from what I understand, there is nothing to be selected for as there was no duplication of organisms back then. So, if you disagree with that...just tell me why.
Your questions assume that D.evolution and ID are on equal footing. They are not. The evidence, prime facia, is for design. It gets special treatment. If one explanations accords with the sensible interpretation of the evidence and the other takes an entirely different route, one which is not only counter intuitive but rather unbelievable, then you cannot consider them equal as far as warranted belief goes.
I will answer your questions though, you condescending bastard.
1.Why do you doubt it, first of all? Seems like a materialistic presupposition to me. Creation events occur all the time. Granted, the one we're speaking of is different, but whereas with evolution you need to know if grand changes can occur, when it comes to intelligence, we recognize that it is a thing that keeps developing. There is little question as to whether intelligence can ultimately produce such complexity. And if there is, why then it is even further evidence for design since it merely bespeaks how complex it truly is. So, since we do know of a cause that produces these kinds of mechanisms, namely intelligent purpose, I believe the criterion is satisfied.
To be continued....
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#462 Jun 15, 2014
2.A creation would not need to preserve it, it would need to create it. Preservation would occur consequent to this, just as it would with mutations. So, why would it be created? The idea is in a much better home when we speak of creation than when we'd speak of mutations. Feathers, as I understand it, have a synergistic relationship with wings. So, there is a purpose to be served there. They may benefit the organisms in different ways as well.

3.See 1. I agree that creation shares this problem also, I just do not think it is that problematic given what the facts of biology indicate. If, on the other hand, biology showed very simple creatures that indicated no purposed design, then you might have a point in implying that the creation process has to be demonstrated before it can be believed.

4.No I don't. It's the best interpretation of the facts. I don't have to prove that a murder took place before I was justified in thinking that it was. I would have to prove that murder took place if the victim plunged from a rooftop. It's all about what we have to explain.

I hope you didn't wait too long. Just kidding. Don't really care.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#463 Jun 15, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I don't think you understand a bit in logical thinking. See, the process of natural selection depends on natural mutations. Natural mutations are the central point. If you'll stop trying to make it seem as though I didn't know what I was talking about, maybe you'd see that point. The whole issue is about the demonstration of the causal power and nature of random mutations. So, yes, he would have to show that the process of natural mutations caused the changes.
The origin of life question, I admit, I'm rather clueless about. With evolution, I understand the playing field and what is argued. Origin of life, not so much. However, from what I understand, there is nothing to be selected for as there was no duplication of organisms back then. So, if you disagree with that...just tell me why.
Your questions assume that D.evolution and ID are on equal footing. They are not. The evidence, prime facia, is for design. It gets special treatment. If one explanations accords with the sensible interpretation of the evidence and the other takes an entirely different route, one which is not only counter intuitive but rather unbelievable, then you cannot consider them equal as far as warranted belief goes.
I will answer your questions though, you condescending bastard.
1.Why do you doubt it, first of all? Seems like a materialistic presupposition to me. Creation events occur all the time. Granted, the one we're speaking of is different, but whereas with evolution you need to know if grand changes can occur, when it comes to intelligence, we recognize that it is a thing that keeps developing. There is little question as to whether intelligence can ultimately produce such complexity. And if there is, why then it is even further evidence for design since it merely bespeaks how complex it truly is. So, since we do know of a cause that produces these kinds of mechanisms, namely intelligent purpose, I believe the criterion is satisfied.
To be continued....
Interesting. I think your last sentence refers to "Vera Causa" or causes in operation today. Newton called this his 1st rule of reason ie we defer to causes in operation today. I've seen millions of sophisticated things arise by design today but I've never seen them evolve blindly. So if I'm to be consistent I have to infer that biology too arose by design. If the evolutionist showed me an instance of a multifaceted system arising de novo without design, I could be persuaded by their theory. Instead all they do is tell me a story & if I can't accept it start calling me names.

I have doubts about natural selection as a mechanism but this is for me under review, I could be mistaken. My worry is that natural selection has too much of an after the fact element. We get a result (we could equally have got an opposite result) & we say natural selection did it. Something doesn't feel right there. If A, then natural selection & if non-A then also natural selection? I need to think about this. Any ideas?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#464 Jun 15, 2014
To isstupi d. Let's shorten that to stupid. Yes, random mutations and random recombinations of genes is part of evolution. That does not make it a random process. Why do creatads always treat at the most only half of the driving forces of evolution? Is it because then they can make a strawman that they can defeat? It seems that way.

A ball that is rolling down a hill on a flat street may bounce back and forth randomly from one side to the other, but it still will end up at the bottom of the hill. Evolution may seem random to the uneducated but that does not make it so.

One more time for all creatards:

YOU CANNOT USE YOUR OWN IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON IN THIS DEBATE!!

Sorry for shouting, but it seems that the point is not getting across.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#465 Jun 15, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
To isstupi d. Let's shorten that to stupid. Yes, random mutations and random recombinations of genes is part of evolution. That does not make it a random process. Why do creatads always treat at the most only half of the driving forces of evolution? Is it because then they can make a strawman that they can defeat? It seems that way.
A ball that is rolling down a hill on a flat street may bounce back and forth randomly from one side to the other, but it still will end up at the bottom of the hill. Evolution may seem random to the uneducated but that does not make it so.
One more time for all creatards:
YOU CANNOT USE YOUR OWN IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON IN THIS DEBATE!!
Sorry for shouting, but it seems that the point is not getting across.
The reason I, a creatard treat only half of the driving force of evolution is that the half is the first and is wrong. Mutations do not create, they degrade so your theory fails at the 1st hurdle. Don't believe me, just try producing mutations that ever created instead of degrading. Produce a coherent post via a series of typos.

A ball rolling down a hill is a story, it's once upon a time....... As for use of ignorance as a weapon may be we can't use our own ignorance but we can surely use yours. You are ignorant of the fact that mutations don't create anything. Sorry.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#466 Jun 15, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I, a creatard treat only half of the driving force of evolution is that the half is the first and is wrong. Mutations do not create, they degrade so your theory fails at the 1st hurdle. Don't believe me, just try producing mutations that ever created instead of degrading. Produce a coherent post via a series of typos.
A ball rolling down a hill is a story, it's once upon a time....... As for use of ignorance as a weapon may be we can't use our own ignorance but we can surely use yours. You are ignorant of the fact that mutations don't create anything. Sorry.
No, only some mutations "degrade". We do have evidence that mutations can aid an animal

We can observe both these positive mutations both in the laboratory and in the field. For example can you eat cheese? That is the result of a positive mutation. That is only one of many observed positive mutations in nature. In the lab we have the Long Term E. coli experiment.

And a ball rolling down a hill is an analogy, it is imperfect, but then all analogies are imperfect. They are used as teaching tools.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#467 Jun 15, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. I think your last sentence refers to "Vera Causa" or causes in operation today. Newton called this his 1st rule of reason ie we defer to causes in operation today. I've seen millions of sophisticated things arise by design today but I've never seen them evolve blindly. So if I'm to be consistent I have to infer that biology too arose by design. If the evolutionist showed me an instance of a multifaceted system arising de novo without design, I could be persuaded by their theory. Instead all they do is tell me a story & if I can't accept it start calling me names.
I have doubts about natural selection as a mechanism but this is for me under review, I could be mistaken. My worry is that natural selection has too much of an after the fact element. We get a result (we could equally have got an opposite result) & we say natural selection did it. Something doesn't feel right there. If A, then natural selection & if non-A then also natural selection? I need to think about this. Any ideas?
See my thread titled "an evolutionary parable". It's not only in the realm of physical traits that this issue arises.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#468 Jun 15, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
To isstupi d. Let's shorten that to stupid. Yes, random mutations and random recombinations of genes is part of evolution. That does not make it a random process. Why do creatads always treat at the most only half of the driving forces of evolution? Is it because then they can make a strawman that they can defeat? It seems that way.
A ball that is rolling down a hill on a flat street may bounce back and forth randomly from one side to the other, but it still will end up at the bottom of the hill. Evolution may seem random to the uneducated but that does not make it so.
One more time for all creatards:
YOU CANNOT USE YOUR OWN IGNORANCE AS A WEAPON IN THIS DEBATE!!
Sorry for shouting, but it seems that the point is not getting across.
Oh, hey moron. Still haven't taken up those remedial reading comprehension courses I see. Either that or you've decided to go on a random...yes, random...tangent for no reason.

I'll address the point, though, as if it was made logically. The reason to focus on natural mutations is because they are the locust of everything in evolution. Plus, they are the idea that is actually in question here. We know what natural selection does fairly well.

That being said, the word random can be misleading. I'll attempt to use the word "accidental" instead since it conveys the theme that the word "random" is getting at.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#469 Jun 15, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, only some mutations "degrade". We do have evidence that mutations can aid an animal
We can observe both these positive mutations both in the laboratory and in the field. For example can you eat cheese? That is the result of a positive mutation. That is only one of many observed positive mutations in nature. In the lab we have the Long Term E. coli experiment.
And a ball rolling down a hill is an analogy, it is imperfect, but then all analogies are imperfect. They are used as teaching tools.
To "aid an animal" is not to create anything. I can aid an animal by chopping off it's cancerous leg. Another classic one is sickle-cell anaemia which aids by improving resistance to malaria at the cost of giving the organism another disease. You can stop burglars picking your lock by breaking it.

I'm aware of the E. coli experiments by Richard Lenski. They developed an ability to grow in aerobic citrate by breaking a pre-existing enzyme not manufacturing a new one. And 60 000 generations later, they were not only still bacteria but E. coli. This is evidence against mutation creating anything.

Fair enough about the rolling stone analogy, I struggle to come up with one too. If you give me good enough evidence for Darwinian evolution, I will believe in it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#470 Jun 15, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I, a creatard treat only half of the driving force of evolution is that the half is the first and is wrong. Mutations do not create, they degrade so your theory fails at the 1st hurdle. Don't believe me, just try producing mutations that ever created instead of degrading. Produce a coherent post via a series of typos.
A ball rolling down a hill is a story, it's once upon a time....... As for use of ignorance as a weapon may be we can't use our own ignorance but we can surely use yours. You are ignorant of the fact that mutations don't create anything. Sorry.
More claims. Still no evidence. You have the fundie pattern down pat.

Mutations can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial. A blanket claim that they degrade the genome is completely wrong and is not supported except, I believe in limited and unusual events that returned to the existing path of evolution when natural selection was allowed to occur. Lactose tolerance in humans, the ice-binding glycoprotein in notothenioid fish, increased amylase production in dogs, are all examples of mutations that provide benefit. It is easy to name some off the top of my head. Piece of cake. Any questions?

By the way, the ice-binding glycoprotein is a good example of how evolution works with what is available. The protein evolved from an digestive enzyme and intermediates between the two have been found.

Oh ye of little knowledge.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Into The Night 67,003
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr IB DaMann 28,546
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr Subduction Zone 218
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 160,913
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Timmee 162
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr MIDutch 221,214
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 3 hr Timmee 111
More from around the web