So...how realistic is X-men?
First Prev
of 24
Next Last

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#471 Jun 15, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How can we aid you?

The sickle cell mutation is a good example of co-evolution. Yes, the sickle cell condition causes a disease, but in the presence of malaria, having this trait confers a selective advantage. It isn't perfect, but perfection is not part of the theory of evolution.

Ah, yes, downplaying Lenski's experiment by claiming it didn't achieve what it was never designed to achieve. Much like calling the Wright brothers discovery a failure because they did not achieve low earth orbit when that wasn't a goal.

The ability to use citrate required at least two mutations. You fail again.

You have got to find better and more up to date propaganda to draw on. Shoddy, just shoddy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#472 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The basic structures he started with were a bar of indeterminate length, a circle with indeterminate number of cogs, and a coil of indeterminate properties. Remember this was a demonstration of evolution, not abiogenesis (as he made clear). Starting with very rudimentary and disorganised components, an accurate time-piece self assembled over generations through nothing but random changes to the parts, and number of parts, and random changes to how they were connected, combined with a simple re-mixing of different timepieces (sexual recombination) and natural selection eliminating the "worst" ones in each generation.

The demonstration certainly disprove you claims that the mechanism of evolution cannot produce ordered complexity.
Besides which, you have yet to let me know whether we can even ascertain that the middle ear exaptation occurred by random mutations.
You want to know if the mechanism was evolution as opposed to say, some extremely slow and apparently tentative designer. The answer to that is whether the steps individually fell far outside the normal variation we see in species. For example, the first step was the expansion of the dentary bone at the expense of the other bones of the jaw. Look around you at any population. Variation abounds, and a larger dentary is no stretch. The point being, this arrangement was positively selected and so tiny rear bones became the norm. Once they are the norm, they become the locus (mid point, average) of any new variation. Mutations will operate on the new norm, producing some variants the would move it back to the old, and some that move it even further along the new trend. So long as the increasing trend is providing a survival advantage, it will continue.

Organisms are complex interactions of parts, so changes in one feature may also produce a cascade of new opportunities for changes in others, and this phenomenon is inherently opportunistic and unpredictable.

I just use this example as the first step rather than go through all 16+ steps. The point is, the structural "distance" from one step to the next is tiny and would not stretch the normal bounds of variation we see in most creatures today, from one generation to the next.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#473 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
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.
In the real world, fitness to environment is the selection factor.

Obviously when we create a model, we need a proxy for fitness.

An accurate timepiece - with NO FURTHER ELABORATION - no prespecified, prefered design, is a good proxy.

There is no prespecification of what makes a creature fit in nature either. One way or another, it manages to make a living and reproduce. That is the only "specification". That is why we see, throughout evolutionary history, so many novel strategies emerging, and many succeeding for a time then failing, etc.

Whenever the clock program was run, did you notice how the end products were always different, sharing only the characteristic that they were accurate timepieces? Here is another simulation of evolved creatures....



Again, do not say I am basing science of a few cute simulations. This is part of a corpus of evidence that includes the fossils, population genetics, observation from the field, biogeography, embryology, genomics, atavisms, and long running lab experiments (eg Lenski). They all point to the explanation you continue to argument is "ludicrous" without ever being able to explain why you think so.
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#474 Jun 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic structures he started with were a bar of indeterminate length, a circle with indeterminate number of cogs, and a coil of indeterminate properties. Remember this was a demonstration of evolution, not abiogenesis (as he made clear). Starting with very rudimentary and disorganised components, an accurate time-piece self assembled over generations through nothing but random changes to the parts, and number of parts, and random changes to how they were connected, combined with a simple re-mixing of different timepieces (sexual recombination) and natural selection eliminating the "worst" ones in each generation.
The demonstration certainly disprove you claims that the mechanism of evolution cannot produce ordered complexity.
<quoted text>
You want to know if the mechanism was evolution as opposed to say, some extremely slow and apparently tentative designer. The answer to that is whether the steps individually fell far outside the normal variation we see in species. For example, the first step was the expansion of the dentary bone at the expense of the other bones of the jaw. Look around you at any population. Variation abounds, and a larger dentary is no stretch. The point being, this arrangement was positively selected and so tiny rear bones became the norm. Once they are the norm, they become the locus (mid point, average) of any new variation. Mutations will operate on the new norm, producing some variants the would move it back to the old, and some that move it even further along the new trend. So long as the increasing trend is providing a survival advantage, it will continue.
Organisms are complex interactions of parts, so changes in one feature may also produce a cascade of new opportunities for changes in others, and this phenomenon is inherently opportunistic and unpredictable.
I just use this example as the first step rather than go through all 16+ steps. The point is, the structural "distance" from one step to the next is tiny and would not stretch the normal bounds of variation we see in most creatures today, from one generation to the next.
Having basic structures of clocks to assemble already presupposes that there are mutations with basic structures of the parts that form complex systems. This is an issue to be resolved. You need to pay attention to details more closely. You cannot simply assume this and go from there. Like I said, with these assumptions in place, OF COURSE he'll reach the desired conclusion.

Equally as important are the affinities between these parts. What is the analogue of this in biology? What do we actually know about part assembly and the genetic alterations required to form them? For all we know there are very specific sequences that must be in place for the links to be established between the parts.

These algorithms aren't evidence of anything other than their creators' facile thinking on the matter.

Well, I want to know whether the mechanisms were those of mutation and so on. What I would consider a possible alternative isn't the issue. But I will say this. Time is a relative thing. It could simply be that changes in biology occur much like those in embryology with the difference being the duration required for their progression and the amount of organisms that play a part in the process.

Insofar as the transitional steps have been observed to occur separately, then we have ample evidence that this is how it happened in the past. The question is, have we observed the ones that amplify the function of the ear in that way? If not, are these the sort of changes that we do observe or is there something different about them?
Evolutionisstupi d

Israel

#475 Jun 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In the real world, fitness to environment is the selection factor.
Obviously when we create a model, we need a proxy for fitness.
An accurate timepiece - with NO FURTHER ELABORATION - no prespecified, prefered design, is a good proxy.
There is no prespecification of what makes a creature fit in nature either. One way or another, it manages to make a living and reproduce. That is the only "specification". That is why we see, throughout evolutionary history, so many novel strategies emerging, and many succeeding for a time then failing, etc.
Whenever the clock program was run, did you notice how the end products were always different, sharing only the characteristic that they were accurate timepieces? Here is another simulation of evolved creatures....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1yRrti88ccEXX
Again, do not say I am basing science of a few cute simulations. This is part of a corpus of evidence that includes the fossils, population genetics, observation from the field, biogeography, embryology, genomics, atavisms, and long running lab experiments (eg Lenski). They all point to the explanation you continue to argument is "ludicrous" without ever being able to explain why you think so.
It may be a good substitute, but it is no analogue for living systems. A mutation doesn't always confer a survival benefit. If it does, we need to know if it's relevant to a potential function. Take the eye. We have many supposed benefits along the way, but what steps exactly are required for each of them? We do not just leap from one benefit to the next, as Dawkins might lead you to believe in the old video clip. At least, I do not think it has been shown that this is the case. We just do not know enough about the necessary alterations to make that judgement.


For instance, I can take a car and point out how each part makes it more suitable for driving. If the tires were not in place, it wouldn't drive very well and so on. We can clearly see how many of the parts would make the car drive better. Naturally, the car was made to drive well, and I believe the eye was as well, but that's not relevant here. If we want to say that the car was formed by incremental steps that conferred advantages, we have to show that the non obvious parts did as well, since those are just as important. What good would the wheels be without the mechanism to operate them and vice versa? These things must be taken into account.

I'm not sure how important a role natural selection is supposed to play in all this. Well, I do know what it is supposed to play, according to the theory, but I'm not sure how great a role it would play in actuality given the variables of the theory. Nevertheless, it has a central role all the same, so it should be accounted for accurately for the simulations to be of real use.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#476 Jun 16, 2014
Hey Stupid, you still haven't told me what each and every meal you ever had was, without which your entire existence is suspect. You DO understand this burden of proof of yours, yes?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#477 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
No, it is evidence for ID. That is the default stance.
There is no such thing as a default stance. Evolution is not a default stance, it has been demonstrated by evidence. What you need to do with ID is demonstrate it with evidence.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
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 blah blah blah MY ANALOGY IS FUCKING STUPID blah
(paraphrased)

Not interested in your analogies, we want direct evidence. Why do IDCers ALWAYS replace evidence with analogies?
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
From a complexity standpoint, our body dwarfs it.
How is complexity measured?
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
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?
Because it doesn't matter how often or how different you rephrase the same argument.(shrug) Life is complicated so you don't understand it, therefore it must have been made by an invisible magic Jewish wizard.

You'd be a WHOLE lot more convincing if you could identify the designer, what it did, how it did it, where it did it, when it did it, and how you were able to figure that out via the scientific method.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#478 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
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.
Who CARES what you personally accept? You're an idiot.(shrug)
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
Support for ID is evident in every single biological organism. The fact you're turning a blind eye to it is par for the course for your ilk.
How can we turn a blind eye to something when you've never told us what it is?
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
Behe's claims were shown to be wrong how exactly?
By the fact he had a non-supportable premise and we had provided examples which broke his rules. Ergo he was refuted. Both in the science literature AND the courts.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
They are only wrong if the parts can be shown to have alternate functions, and even then, I am not sure that it stands refuted.
Whether YOU are sure doesn't matter.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
The function of the system, depending on what it does, may be pivotal for the organism's survival.
They may be. That doesn't preclude evolution. Functions change over time as organisms change over time. This is uh, pretty obvious.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
I understand how evolution works... No scientific data seems to support the outlandish notions which evolution proposes.
No you DON'T understand how evolution works. If you DID you wouldn't be going around arguing that magic Jews were necessary for reality to be real.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
There's a thing called google you can search, toad. It was just an aside.
Search what? It wasn't ME that had a query. I knew EXACTLY what point you were making. You did NOT. That's why you fundies constantly babble about Dawkins and PZ just because they're atheists, therefore they must be the high Lord priests of evolution.

Science on the other hand doesn't care. They are but two evolutionary biologists out of many, and we don't rely on just two biologists. We rely on the evidence provided by LOTS.
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
You really have to try to rebut everything, don't you?
No, we don't have to try at all - you're easy. That's why you can't answer the questions we present which your very premises rely on. Without which your arguments fall flat. In the meantime we still presented evidence for evolution years ago which you absolutely positively REFUSE to deal with.

That's why we win here. And that's why evolutionary biology wins out in the real world.

You can prove us all wrong by answering those questions I asked you on Saturday, which would finally put IDC in the upper echelons of the scientific community.

Don't feel bad though. Even the guys who invented ID can't answer them either.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#479 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
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.
Then you are inconsistent, as designed objects are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms.
In Six Days wrote:
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.
On the contrary we have provided evidence you can't refute. Then you called US names.

So in this case I'll point out that EVERY LIFE FORM ON EARTH RIGHT NOW was NOT designed. They all arose via natural forces. Therefore there's no reason at all whatsoever to conclude that life is designed.

Unless that is, you can provide evidence.
In Six Days wrote:
I have doubts about natural selection as a mechanism but this is for me under review, I could be mistaken.
You simply are mistaken. Period. Your personal doubts are irrelevant.
In Six Days wrote:
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?
Try educating yourself on the subject first and maybe you won't have such problems.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#480 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
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.
On this point you are simply plain and utterly WRONG. Mutations can remove, change or ADD extra DNA bases. If they are adding bases then they are creating new genetic information by definition. Of course this kind of thing has been observed by geneticists for DECADES, but you creationists keep assuring us that this doesn't happen.
In Six Days wrote:
Don't believe me, just try producing mutations that ever created instead of degrading. Produce a coherent post via a series of typos.
Your problem here is that your comparing DNA with written languages. Written languages are abstract and symbolic. DNA is not. That is why your analogy fails. Mutations CAN be detrimental to the genome but this is not always the case. They are often neutral, and can occasionally be beneficial. Once you have these three potential outcomes natural selection takes care of the rest.
In Six Days wrote:
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.
Actually you were correct the first time - creationists use their own ignorance as a weapon against knowledge.

Not to mention the fact that you can't demonstrate us to be ignorant. That is why WE present evidence YOU cannot refute. Not vice versa.
In Six Days wrote:
You are ignorant of the fact that mutations don't create anything. Sorry.
You are ignorant of the fact that you are wrong. Sorry.

We can even provide you with peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject if you wish, but what use would that be? Evidence does not matter to creationists anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#481 Jun 16, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, indeed - creationist strawman.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#482 Jun 16, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
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.
Indeed. Chopping your foot off to escape a bear trap so you don't get eaten by a bear IS a valid survival strategy.
In Six Days wrote:
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.
But what you are NOT aware of is that if this leads to speciation then this IS evolution. Also, "bacteria" represents an entire biological DOMAIN, not a species. But apparently you're clueless as to our Linnaean classification, which has been around for roughly, uh, three hundred years.
In Six Days wrote:
This is evidence against mutation creating anything.
Not if mutations actually lead to extra bases in the genome, which remember is an observed fact.
In Six Days wrote:
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.
No you won't. How do we know this?

Because you were GIVEN that evidence. And you DIDN'T address it.

Therefore you show willfull ignorance, because you're not INTERESTED in science.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 24
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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Subduction Zone 61,215
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 28 min Subduction Zone 2,675
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 220,549
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr River Tam 160,259
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Dogen 28,314
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Thu Regolith Based Li... 99
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Mar 16 Dogen 180,394
More from around the web