Posted on 06/03/2005 6:25:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
Okay, looking at eyes, check.
Now think about this. How did evolution know things needed to be in focus, how did evolution know there were colors to be seen?
Evolution didn't "know." Those ancestors of mine who had a better ability to focus light and discern different wavelengths had a reproductive advantage over their cohorts who did not. They passed that advantage to their descendants. Those of the descendants whose vision conferred a reproductive, compared to their cohorts, had, on average, more descendants, and so on. Millions of years later, there is me. (And the human eye is only one of about 40 different eyes that independently evolved, by the way.)
How could we, who are so wonderfully made-be the product of a string of coincidences?
Wonderfully made? Ha! We're a collection of ad-hoc adaptations, maladaptations, and evolutionary holdovers. We walk upright, but have the lower backs of quadrupeds. We have an appendix, which is susceptible to infection, bursting and death, but which has no necessary function. The evolution of the eye has the light sensitive cells wired backwards which has lead to a blind spot in our field of vision. And, after using one of our key adaptations (our brain) to form modern society, our natural desire for sugar and fat in our diet has become a severe maladaptation.
Wild Horse...you are the proof.
Given the fact that I have a blind spot in my eyes, a slipped disk in my back, an appendectomy scar, and an expanding waistline from a sweet tooth and a taste for burgers, if I'm proof of anything, it is evolution. But I don't see any evidence of a creator.
Curious phrase. Many scientific hypothesis are outside the realm of scientific testability, yet they make their theories never the less. Unless a black hole happens to come for tea, scientifically testing that theory simply isn't possible, nor is it possible to absolutely prove it wrong. What you are concerned with is primacy of thought, which is good, otherwise I wouldn't have you as such a textbook example for my footnotes.
Perhaps you could contemplate and answer the big "so what" to all knowledge of the universe beyond our solar system, and to all life not today in existence. Beyond satisfying our own curiosity, of what use is this knowledge? Chemistry, physics, etc. provide real fruits, but at the end of the day how does ID vs. Darwin matter? I'm sure it is significant and you have a wonderful answer, or you wouldn't let yourself be so consumed by it. Please share.
Well, create some dirt and get busy building a better model then. Since you have a brain and evolution doesn't (curious, isn't, how you got intelligence from the hot primordial soup of the Big Bang?) with just a slide rule and few sheets of foolscap you can easily design and build a superior model.
Get cracking. Time's a wasting.
I pity you.
The issue isn't whether I could do better. The previous poster pointed to the fact that humans are allegedly "wonderfully made" as evidence of a creator-god. I pointed out that, as proof of a divine creation, our bodies are poor proof, if they are proof at all.
But more to the point, the fact is that no one needs to "design" a better human from scratch because humans were never designed from scratch to begin with. The human body fails as evidence for design by any type of direct creator, but as the end process of billions of years of evolutionary adaptation, it's pretty darned good.
Of course the zygote receives energy from its mother, that is exactly my point. I never said that evolution is not subject to the 2LoT, I stated that it does not break the 2Lot because the earth is continually receiving energy from the sun.
I'm not sure where you got that idea, but we do not start dying as soon as we are born. Even though we have individual cells dying we receive energy indirectly from the sun which enable us to increase our cell number over all until we reach adulthood. We hit a stasis point where the number of cells dying equals the number created until mid adulthood. The replacement of cells is not equivalent to dying.
"Not that your or anyone else's quotes aren't on the up-and-up, but Wikipedia isn't original source material, since anyone can edit at will."
I used Wiki because I wanted to give the poster a source other than creationist sites that is easily understood. Had I given him links to other more technical sites he would not have even attempted to read them. I also wanted him to see how to reference his quotes.
If you knew anything about ID, and the fact it does not support your idea of a young earth nor your angst about evolution you would not be so quick to jump on the ID bandwagon.
Stifling new thought. Hmmm. You mean new thought like string theory, game theory, branes, the multi-universe,...? Go through the list of all developments in science over the last 20 years and tell me which ones have only been accepted because they are main stream science. Then go through the list of hypotheses that haven't been accepted by science and show they were rejected, not on the basis of bad or incomplete research, but because of a bias in science.
"Many scientific hypothesis are outside the realm of scientific testability, yet they make their theories never the less. Unless a black hole happens to come for tea, scientifically testing that theory simply isn't possible, nor is it possible to absolutely prove it wrong."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html
There is a lot of evidence for the existence of black holes.
As to absolute proof, it doesn't exist in regard to scientific theories.
There is nothing that could theoretically be discovered that could disprove the axioms of the ID explanation. It is therefore not a scientific theory.
"Beyond satisfying our own curiosity, of what use is this knowledge? Chemistry, physics, etc. provide real fruits, but at the end of the day how does ID vs. Darwin matter?"
It answers how we came to be. I value reason, so I want to know what really happened, as apposed to a fairy tale. There is no need for a scientist to waste time on a fairy tale.
"I'm sure it is significant and you have a wonderful answer"
There's hope for you yet... not much, but some. :)
Calling it a theory and making an obvious attempt to elevate ID's status is your doing, not Randi's. He considers it pseudoscience.
Now answer Dimensio's question and show why you insist on referring to ID as a theory.
Hardly! Randi does not consider ID a theory, just junk-science.
Rather than making wild assertions why can't you acquire a working knowledge of the subject being debated?
Our hostility comes from the frustration of hearing the same old baloney from creationists that have been refuted time and again, not from some unfounded and unsubstantiated claim of fear you hope will help your cause.
I assume your reticence in answering is either because your knowledge is incomplete or you are aware there is no theory. I'm relaively certain that if you were sure of your own knowledge and were confident of the existence of an ID theory you would be all too happy to share it with us.
So why is he willing to pay to suppress it?
Evolution reacts to changes in environment, it does not anticipate. The ability to focus came as the eye, which has evolved as many as 20 times, experienced mutation (probably a copy error) and natural selection weeded out those that could not focus.
For your edification, there exist within extant organisms a relatively smooth transition between a simply light sensing cell and the Octo-eye which is superior to ours in design. You are aware that much of our eye is backwards or otherwise poorly designed?
BTW, trying to prove evolution incorrect is not equivalent to proving your God exists. That is a much used false dichotomy intended to give anti-evolutionists some hope that they will be proved right about the existence of their God.
"For you slime birthed animals (Which is what evolution believes)"
No, that is just your ignorant distortion of evolution. Every evolutionist believes that every human being was born from another human being.
"When I was a child the communists spat out the same filth to us in the schools and I swallowed it hook line and sinker"
I am not surpised your were easily led.
"But unlike you, you batch of primordial ooze, I got a real education and questioned the lies. Evolution is a lie-you live a lie and you will die a liar."
Liar Liar! Pants on Fire!! lol
Not so far. Take a look at my discussion with him. Very frustrating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.