Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Now you've gone and done it. You asked for evidence. Shame, Shame.
But, I'll bet you'd hit it anyhow, eh?
Cute...but simple-minded and unworthy of this forum. The cartoonist demonstrates the naivete and narrowness of the thought processes of darwinoids.
Why post such drivel?
Only problem w/ this approach is that if you *are* looking at a supernaturally-created cosmos and biology, limiting your potential explanations to purely natural ones will *guarantee* that you will get the *wrong* answer.
Since the foundational question is whether we are looking at a natural vs supernatural creation, to limit acceptable explanations to only natural ones means that natural explanations are correct 'by definition' only.
Don't know if you can understand that or not.
The evidence that legs were created is the lack of evidence that legs evolved. We simply see creatures w/ legs appearing suddenly in the fossil record. The evidence for leg evolution is missing.
If you cannot see degradation in the loss of leg function, then it is no surprise that you merely require a complete absence before you accept degradation. Stopping early is a loss of the information necessary to complete the formation.
However, a complete absence (as you require) would lead you to the conclusion that they never existed. In short, you merely require a definition that you would never accept were it true.
Actually, wishful thinking is what created the evolutionary 'genetic relationships' between living things. This relationship is also explained by a common designer.
It is the evolutionists who are sticking their heads in the sand and clinging desparately to a failed theory that was crafted long before the true complexity of biology was ever imagined. Everything is interpreted from the basic assumption that evolution is true, and the evolutionary reality proceeds from there. This does not make it an actual reality except in the minds of true evo believers.
I explained why speciation was not evidence in support of evolution. Why don't you address those arguments instead of whining about a 'moving bar'. Perhaps you never understood where the bar was in the first place?
Efforts to re-define the Linnaean structure according to the Biblical kind framework is proceeding in the context of baraminology.
I think it is you who does not understand evolution and that ridicule is your only defense. Congrats.
Yes. The hatred is clear as day. You hate Christians who are conservative. If you don't, maybe you can clarify the statement "confuse conservatism with their religion." What does that mean? You haven't stated what that poorly written sentence means. Maybe you could start there.
You are either blind or intentionally thick as I have stated, restated, clarified, and reclarified that statement over and over and you are still harping on it.
You have yet to clarify the statement, unless your nonsensical "you must be one of them if you defend them" idiocy is your attempt at "clarification."
I think I was right the first time about you.
You mean that I am a Nazi? You are right about that, huh?
Everyone else understands the statement except you and wicket ....
We must be the only ones who have read all of your posts here.
1. Your both honestly ignorant of how the english language works.
My English skills are superb. That's how I have rightly interpreted your words. If they have a double meaning, let me know.
2. You really see no difference between Christianity and conservatism/Republicans (which makes you by your own words ignorant)
Another nonsensical statement. What does that mean, exaclty.
3. Your just weird little internet trolls who have nothing better to do in your life than distort statements I have clarified time and again.
You have not clarified anything, unless calling me a Nazi is your pathetic attempt at clarification.
Tell you what. We can just stop the senseless vitriol right now if you just say what you mean to say. Deal?
Placemarker
I do understand the difference between falsifiable and falsified. Evolution is unfalsifiable.
I also see that you avoided my point that the evolutionary paradigm is no different. You claim that evolution is falsifiable, I can claim that ID is falsifiable. If we did not see individual species with genetic barriers to fertility, but an ability of all species to interbreed with all other species, that would falsify ID. Doesn't exist. See, ID is falsifiable but not falsified, just like evolution.
If discovering coded information that is not a property of the underlying matter (e.g., letters on a page, codons on a DNA strand) did not falsify evolution, nothing will.
Your example of human and mammal bones in pre-Cambrian layers would not falsify evolution. Ever heard of 'reworking'. This concept was developed to explain 'out-of-sequence' fossils.
Ever heard of the Lewis Overthrust? A supposed lateral displacement of 80 km, several hundred miles wide and several miles thick Proterozoic sedimentary rocks over Cretaceous rocks that are supposedly 1.5B years younger. If that didn't falsify the 'geologic column', nothing will.
You see, the strength of the theory is entirely in the mind of the beholder. There is plenty of evidence to falsify evolution, yet evolution remains unfalsifiable simply because its adherents have the liberty to craft *any* natural explanation, even when they are patently absurd.
This is the commitment to naturalism that I alluded to earlier. It truly is the foundation of evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Strip that belief away and the theories collapse.
Too bad the cartoon hit home.
Its not drivel, what is drivel is the creationists pretending to know science to explain their preconcieved dogmatic fables.
It makes no difference whether the creation event was natural or supernatural. Humans are limited in their investigations to the assumption that the universe is not capricious. The foundation for this approach was set in place by a Christian, Isaac Newton.
I have said what i mean to say all along you are merely a troll. I can't clarify the statements anymore than I have. Some people are just to dense for words.
What do you do with someone like Skooz? I halfway think he is insane.
As opposed to what? Changing the evidence to match the theory?
This is a good indicator that you have a poor understanding of the processes behind science. Science is designed to follow the evidence, something you apparently do not approve of, and develop explanations that fit within the known constraints of the physical world. If the evidence forces a theory to be restructured or tossed by the wayside, that is what happens. That is what *should* happen if the theories we develop are to converge on a more accurate explanation.
I do thank you for agreeing that the evidence indicates that Evolution has no direction.
"This allows 'loss of function' (which is easily observed) to be passed off as 'evolution' instead of the decline that it actually represents. The little evos never know the difference.
I'm not sure why you feel a loss of function is not properly a part of the SToE, it was certainly part of the ToE as Darwin originally stated. Are you saying that the originator of the theory, Charles Darwin, had no right to incorporate the observations he made of the lack of direction in organismal change in his theory?
Even if you take a look at the common definition of Evolution, 'the variation of allele frequencies within a population due to differential reproductive success', you can see that direction is not stated.
You complain that the 'directionlessness' of Evolution has been added to, in effect disallow the recognition of *decline*, yet that attribute of Evolution is as old as Evolution itself. What you don't recognize is that the idea of 'decline' is Biblical, and the complaint against the directionlessness of Evolution is a manufactured one brought about by Creationists to use as a strawman.
Your definition of a 'loss of function' as a 'decline' is quite false as a loss of function in a successful organism is necessarily a benefit to the organism. If there was no benefit to the organism, its extinction would have been immediate (geologically speaking). In the case of snakes, the loss of functional legs allowed them to quite successfully occupy a niche for many millions of years.
How is a change that confers a survival advantage a decline?
"It also appears that you have swallowed the 'DNA controls all' canard hook, line and sinker.
I take it you did not understand my purpose in posting that short list of genome sizes.
The argument of loss of function indicating decline is a fairly common one and is generally expressed as 'there are no beneficial mutations so the information content of the genome cannot increase. This limitation means only loss of information can occur.' If that was not your intention then I misread you.
To get back to the genome. I did not state that I believe DNA controls all, I have long understood the impact the ontogenetic environment has on the development of an adult organism. My point in the previous post was that the putative information content of the genome is *not* the end all and be all; that the interaction of the processes initiated by the ontogenetic environment and the processes of the genome can produce more than what the informational content implies can be produced.
"The evidence now shows that bacteria under stress speed up the mutation of their DNA in an effort to create a genetic combination that can survive the new environment. This is evidence that 'the cell controls the DNA database' and not the other way around.
It does no such thing. You are grasping at straws.
What this shows is that the interaction of the environment and the operative portions of the genome produce a complex feedback system. The DNA is modified by the release of a catalyst from within the cell. The ability to produce and release that catalyst is a direct result of the development process which includes the DNA. In other words, the DNA gave the organism the ability to modify the DNA. Feedback systems are ubiquitous in the natural world.
"Now, if DNA controls, how did such a complex process become encoded within the very system that is being manipulated?
Is this one of the 'chicken and egg' questions?
The easy answer is that a feedback system developed. This is quite common.
Since the coding and control areas of the genome are the 'recipe' for the cell structure, the minimum needed would be for a change to the gene responsible for determining the amount of catalyst released under stress (this too is quite common). Once that occurs the feedback system (which also includes the environment) would develop.
If you are interested in the development of feedback systems in the natural world you might research complex systems and Chaos Theory.
Evolutionary processes are quite capable of producing novel solutions as shown by the many computer models put to work in recent years.
"Do you just believe *everything* you are told without question?
Of course not, I research those ideas I find interesting. It appears you readily take the word of those that belong to your family (belief system) group, without critically assessing that information.
"Is there *any* point in examining the realities of biological complexity and interrelationship of systems where you can simply recognize that they cannot develop without intelligent input or are you so committed to the naturalistic paradigm that you will accept any unobserved absurdity as the gospel truth?
I'm sorry but I do not regulate my learning through personal incredulity. What you have just stated is that I should believe biology is the produce of intelligence because *you* cannot believe natural processes are capable of accomplishing the same tasks.
There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer in the genome and the misapplication of probability as commonly found in ID documents is not compelling.
As for your contention that it's all a matter of 'interpretation' you are quite right, but not in the way you believe.
If you take one line or instance of evidence for evolution, in many cases that evidence can indeed be explained by a number of different hypotheses. However as you add additional instances or lines of evidence the number of possible correct explanations is reduced by the amount of interrelatedness of the original and the new evidence. Eventually, as you compile the interactions between lines of evidence into an aggregate the number of potential correct explanations narrows to only one. In the case of the biological world, that complex interaction of multiple lines of evidence has resulted in the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SToE).
You seem very willing to consider the complexity inherent in the biological world when it feeds your 'personal incredulity' but seem unwilling to consider the complexity of evidence for the SToE, preferring instead to create easily attacked strawmen.
Applause.
ONE LAST CLARIFICATION...... For everyones' amusement
"Christians that think their religion and conservatism/Republicanism is the same and that others of other faiths can't be Conservatives/Republicans should go hang with the democrats. If you believe that you are also a knuckle dragging racist, BTW."
Hey, I said that same thing over and over again all along and thats what I meant. Is anyone here confused except Skoozy?
No, the initial assumption is that the evidence is consistent and can be analyzed and addressed through the scientific method (methodological naturalism). That methodology has produced the technology we use today (it is quite successful). Unless you are asserting that the Designer is above the natural - that he/she/it is supernatural - then the initial assumption of science can address the question of ID. If the putative designer leaves physical evidence then the current initial assumptions are sufficient to recognize and addresses that evidence. What is necessary, and so far not forthcoming, is a rigorous method to identify and differentiate evidence produced by an intelligent designer from evidence produced by nature.
It is more logical to assume that Earthly biology is produced through natural means than to assume an intelligent agent was produced through unnatural means and initially and continuously interferes with our biological world leaving no obvious evidence of its existence.
Evolution is the change in frequency within a population of an allele. Mutation is one mechanism for the production of new alleles.
Invite him to your church and get him to give you lots of money.
What I find interesting is the contention that the SToE is not falsifiable but a single instance of an ICS falsifies the entire theory.
I love you, too.
Good bye.
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.