Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

Intelligent design v Devolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#81  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 11:09 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:He's a tricksy cunt, this Intelligent Designer. He purposely designs things to look exactly like they evolved through random mutation and natural selection. He even makes things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve to really fuck with us. He designed smallpox, and bubonic plague, and dental caries, and cancer, and a host of other things that would, to the uninitiated, be proof that none of it was actually designed! A Mighty Designer is our Designer!


Show me one molecular machine that looks like it evolved through random mutation and natural selection.

All of them. Things produced by mutation and selection are what things produced by mutation and selection look like. Hence all the molecular machines known from biology look like they evolved through mutation and selection.


Except that, as Behe points out, selection either keeps functional systems in place, or it breaks them when the environment requires disposing of them.

LOL. First you mindlessly ask for an example of a molecular machine that evolved by mutation and natural selection. I then point out that since all known molecular machines in biology evolved by mutation and natural selection, the molecular machines of life are what things that evolve by mutation and selection look like.

So then you come back and wave your hands incoherently in the direction of Michael Behe, who said nothing of relevance to what you were first asking.

Wortfish wrote:
Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

It doesn't need foresight to do that. I just needs to retain components with useful functions when they are added together. That's it. No foresight needed.

So a mutation increases the complexity of some structure by adding a component, and if that mutation is beneficial natural selection will preserve it.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#82  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 11:12 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
The eye, of all things, is fucking insane to appeal to - it's hilarious how many times Creationists churn out this rubbish completely ignorant of the hundreds of studies with god knows how much evidence establishing beyond any credible doubt the numerous paths that eye evolution has taken. And the fucking insanely stupid thing about your declaration is that there are extant animals possessing all the various stages of eye which would result in the more complex eyes through small stages.

Again, all you are showing is your ignorance. If you stopped making confident declarations and sought to learn, you wouldn't keep showing yourself up. But then, if you were seeking to learn - you almost certainly wouldn't be a Creationist/


No scientist can show how the vertebrate eye was purportedly built up mutation by random mutation, tracing each change to a specific gene. In fact, no scientist can claim to know how the eye develops during ontogeny. All that has been proposed is which parts of the eye evolved first without showing how they actually emerged. You are, sadly, mistaken.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#83  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 11:15 pm

Wortfish wrote:
laklak wrote:In terms of trustworthiness, Behe ranks somewhere between a three-card Monte dealer and a Subic Bay hooker.


I would offer a more nuanced response. Natural selection can do the following in molecular biology:

1. Keep things as they are: a conserving force that rejects changes which degrade functionality.

It can also drive mutations that are adaptive to fixation in a population.

Wortfish wrote:2. Destroy a functional system if it provides a reproductive benefit in an extreme situation: as with antibiotic resistance.

Yes it can do that too, though that is not the only way natural selection operates. And btw, antibiotic resistance can evolve in many different ways that do not involve destroying any functional systems.

Wortfish wrote:
3. Tweak an existing feature to optimize its effectiveness: as with the novel coronavirus' protein coat.

Yes, natural selection can do that too. If mutations occur that are beneficial, natural selection can drive them to higher frequency in the population over generations.

Wortfish wrote:
What natural selection cannot do, as Darwin envisaged, is cumulatively build up a complex system from scratch.

In combination with randomly arising variation, it can, which is actualyl what Darwin envisaged. He did not known the source of the variation, we do that today. It's genetic mutations. So genetic mutations in combination with natural selection is how complex systems are built up over time.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#84  Postby Wortfish » Apr 10, 2020 11:21 pm

Rumraket wrote:
LOL. First you mindlessly ask for an example of a molecular machine that evolved by mutation and natural selection. I then point out that since all known molecular machines in biology evolved by mutation and natural selection, the molecular machines of life are what things that evolve by mutation and selection look like.


I note that you are just making an unsupported assertion without any evidence.

So then you come back and wave your hands incoherently in the direction of Michael Behe, who said nothing of relevance to what you were first asking.


Behe has shown that many molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, could not have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

It doesn't need foresight to do that. I just needs to retain components with useful functions when they are added together. That's it. No foresight needed.

So a mutation increases the complexity of some structure by adding a component, and if that mutation is beneficial natural selection will preserve it.


What you are proposing is exaptation...the rewiring of existing parts to make something new. This is wrong on two accounts:

1. Many molecular machines need specific/peculiar components (like new protein-coding genes), not just generic ones.
2. Machine functionality is not produced by simply assembling parts together haphazardly. They need to be arranged in a precise way, and in the right order and amount. Random mutations don't confer this constructive arrangement and architecture.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#85  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 11:22 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:The complex molecular machine develops step by step with most "versions" at every step being selected against or ignored. Natural selection doesn't need to plan it. The bits that work hang around and the bits that don't, don't. It's social. Over time the complexity of the machine increases. Sometimes those complex machines play different roles at particular steps. Sometimes a single mutation results in a molecular machine performing a different function that is selected for.

If foresight were involved it would happen much faster than it does via natural selection, which is gradual, and probably wouldn't fulfill intermediate roles. There would be a distinct endpoint goal to work towards. Nevertheless, natural selection worked for a long time. Now we regularly avoid being selected against because we research and plan and experiment. Natural selection has happened up until now without us exerting any influence though.


You need to have something functional and useful already in place for which to "select".

Yeah and all the structures we see have ancestral structures from which they evolved by mutation and selection. There were useful and functional things for evolution to work with basically going back to the origin of life.

Wortfish wrote:That is the fundamental flaw in the Darwinian argument.

Turns out there's no flaw.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#86  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 11:32 pm

Wortfish wrote:
newolder wrote:
Wortfish wrote:... Natural selection is blind, and so lacks the foresight to build a complex molecular machine.

And yet there are eyes.


Let's read the Origin of Species: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/12 ... k2H_4_0008

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated


The incipient stage in the development of the eye:

1. A nerve cell has to become sensitive to light (Darwin didn't know how).

True. We know that today. Olfactory receptors mutated and became sensitive to light. That's right, your sense of sight is a derived sense of smell and taste. It happened, get over it.

Wortfish wrote:
2. That process has to trigger some sort of response.
3. That response has to improve the organism's survival chances.

Turns out olfactory receptors were already connected to neurological responses when sight evolved. So when the receptors became sensitive to light, all the rest was already in place having served other, similar useful functions.

Wortfish wrote:
In the case of 1) a gradual approach won't do since each step must confer some improvement on the previous one.

No, that's not necessary. Functional proteins can drift neutrally through an epistatic ratchet of amino acid substutions, turning an olfactory GPC-receptor into, basically, an opsin. It could have taken as little as a single amino acid substitution to turn the ultimate ancestor of the first opsins from an olfactory receptor into a receptor sensitive to light.

Wortfish wrote:
Selection won't select anything which does not make the nerve cell more sensitive.

The nerve cell doesn't need to become "more sensitive" whatever that means. It just needs to respond to a different stimulus. Instead of producing a reaction upon detection of some chemical by the G-protein coupled receptor, it produced that reaction upon detection of light.

Wortfish wrote:Mivart heavily criticized Darwin's theory, claiming that the incipient and intermediate stages in the hypothetical evolution of a new feature probably conferred no biological utility or could even be harmful.

Mivart said it, you believe it, that settles it.

Wortfish wrote:
In the case of 2) and 3) sensitivity to light alone is not useful, however functional, if it does not trigger a response that improves the survival of the organism.

Already dealt with.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#87  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 10, 2020 11:38 pm

Wortfish wrote:
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/earth-sciences/birds-are-theropod-dinosaurs-t25365.html

Read the thread linked above, which can be found in the “Earth Sciences” sub forum right here on RatSkep, about how we KNOW for a fact that modern birds are the direct descendants of maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs. There is enough hard evidence presented therein to shoot your stupid fucking assertion fest through the roof of the mouth with a hollow point .44 magnum. Of course, being the contrary for the sake of being contrary, you won’t bother. If on the off chance you do bother to look you will refuse to accept anything and everything therein, even though the empirical physical evidence is well in hand. You have absolutely nothing but an argument, and it is very poorly formed.

RS


Alan Feduccia would disagree with you: https://bio.unc.edu/files/2019/04/Journ ... -20141.pdf

Along with unique adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle, Scansoriopteryx fulfills predictions from the early twentieth century that the ancestors of birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and instead were derived from earlier arboreal archosaurs which originated flight according to the traditional trees-down scenario


The idea that birds evolved from cursorial maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs is just too ridiculous to consider.


Called it.

One should take a month of hard study to merely review all the material I cited in that thread, and you spout off about A. F.

I think you need to find another forum to troll.

RS

PS Posting from the ER while I wait for an ambulance to transfer me from my small hometown hospital my to a larger facility. Fuck heart acted majorly stupid, and still is. Ah, pure O2, and chems!
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#88  Postby OlivierK » Apr 10, 2020 11:45 pm

Get well soon, Roger!
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#89  Postby Rumraket » Apr 10, 2020 11:49 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
LOL. First you mindlessly ask for an example of a molecular machine that evolved by mutation and natural selection. I then point out that since all known molecular machines in biology evolved by mutation and natural selection, the molecular machines of life are what things that evolve by mutation and selection look like.


I note that you are just making an unsupported assertion without any evidence.

You can just google stuff you know. I suggest you go read the paper "evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine" for example.

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:So then you come back and wave your hands incoherently in the direction of Michael Behe, who said nothing of relevance to what you were first asking.

Behe has shown that many molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, could not have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

I note that you are just making an unsupported assertion without any evidence.

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It doesn't need foresight to do that. I just needs to retain components with useful functions when they are added together. That's it. No foresight needed.

So a mutation increases the complexity of some structure by adding a component, and if that mutation is beneficial natural selection will preserve it.

What you are proposing is exaptation...the rewiring of existing parts to make something new.

Yes, simple. We know it happens and there are examples. Go googling, the evidence is out there. Stop wasting your time trying to argue about this.

Wortfish wrote:This is wrong on two accounts:

No it's not wrong for any of the shit reasons you concoct.

Wortfish wrote:
1. Many molecular machines need specific/peculiar components (like new protein-coding genes), not just generic ones.

Ahh the "specific / peculiar compotent" as opposed to the "generic" one. What the hell does that mean? Either two components work together or they do not. Some times they do, and when they do, natural selection can favor that association.

Wortfish wrote:
2. Machine functionality is not produced by simply assembling parts together haphazardly.

Turns out it some times is.

Wortfish wrote:
They need to be arranged in a precise way, and in the right order and amount.

Yeah some of them do this just by themselves. Some proteins will naturally oligomerize into structures like pentamers, hexamers, octamers or what have you. Naturally oligomerizing structures, created by a single protein all by itself. A single protein coding gene is expressed continously, and as the number of proteins build up they self-assemble into larger structures. Good examples are evolution of beta-propeller structures. A bona fide molecular machine that evolved.
See this as an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735018/

Wortfish wrote:
Random mutations don't confer this constructive arrangement and architecture.

Turns out they do.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#90  Postby Hermit » Apr 11, 2020 12:37 am

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

The thing is, this is such basic stuff, and the eye... I mean, seriously? Why do Creationists invariably rattle on about the eye when it's been studied from the context of evolutionary biology for the better part of a century? Just how outdated you folks are!

Maybe because Darwin wrote the following:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Nice piece of quote mining there, Wortfish. The key word is not 'absurd' but 'seems', and Darwin continues in the same paragraph - you know, the bit you intentionally left out:
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Darwin basically wrote the sentence you quoted only in order to knock it down in the rest of the paragraph. In short, his message was "The evolution of the eye seems absurd, but it really isn't."

I bet you knew the part of the paragraph you elided, but left it out because it would have been impossible for you to misrepresent what Darwin meant had you left it in. You, Wortfish, are a dishonest debater.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4386
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#91  Postby Hermit » Apr 11, 2020 12:43 am

Wortfish wrote:Explain why 50 years after Darwin published his famous work, the majority of scientists had rejected his claim about natural selection.

That's easy: Science evolves. That's why the vast majority of scientists accept his claim about natural selection.

Funnily enough, Darwin already destroyed your argument in part of the quote above that you intentionally elided:
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4386
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#92  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Apr 11, 2020 6:39 am

Everyone here is wasting their time.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13519
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#93  Postby campermon » Apr 11, 2020 7:41 am

The eye? Bacterial flagellum?

Have we gone back in time by 10 years?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#94  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 11, 2020 12:00 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
The eye, of all things, is fucking insane to appeal to - it's hilarious how many times Creationists churn out this rubbish completely ignorant of the hundreds of studies with god knows how much evidence establishing beyond any credible doubt the numerous paths that eye evolution has taken. And the fucking insanely stupid thing about your declaration is that there are extant animals possessing all the various stages of eye which would result in the more complex eyes through small stages.

Again, all you are showing is your ignorance. If you stopped making confident declarations and sought to learn, you wouldn't keep showing yourself up. But then, if you were seeking to learn - you almost certainly wouldn't be a Creationist/


No scientist can show how the vertebrate eye was purportedly built up mutation by random mutation,

Still treating your rectum as a source of information I see. You really need to stop doing that Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:You are, sadly, mistaken.

Even after all these years, reality still doesn't give a fuck about your petulant fantasies. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#95  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 11, 2020 12:02 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
LOL. First you mindlessly ask for an example of a molecular machine that evolved by mutation and natural selection. I then point out that since all known molecular machines in biology evolved by mutation and natural selection, the molecular machines of life are what things that evolve by mutation and selection look like.


I note that you are I am just making an unsupported assertion without any evidence.

FIFY. Stop projecting Wortfish.

Wortfish wrote:
Behe has shown that many molecular machines, like the bacterial flagellum, could not have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

QED.

Wortfish wrote:
What you are proposing is exaptation...the rewiring of existing parts to make something new. This is wrong on two accounts:

1. Many molecular machines need specific/peculiar components (like new protein-coding genes), not just generic ones.
2. Machine functionality is not produced by simply assembling parts together haphazardly. They need to be arranged in a precise way, and in the right order and amount. Random mutations don't confer this constructive arrangement and architecture.

Dunning and Kruger really aren't your friends Wortfish.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#96  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 11, 2020 12:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
newolder wrote:
Wortfish wrote:...

I would appreciate it if you would actually engage with my three points rather than just talk about a time before this and that.

I would appreciate you understanding evolution by means of natural selection but that ain't gonna happen either. :snooty:


I am referring to Darwin because he came up with the idea that biological structures, like the eye, could be built up gradually

And since it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Darwin isn't the Jesus of evolutionary theory, this continued insistence of treating him as such only serves to demonstrate dishonesty on your part Wortfish. :naughty:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31087
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#97  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 11, 2020 12:33 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

So much wrong in so few words.


Let's see.


I can see, that's the point.


Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Sensitivity to light alone is not enough? No one would ever suggest that is all there is. Organisms already had flight responses when they detected they were being attacked, whether that be from pressure on their cell wall, or from perturbations in the medium around them - the solitary light sensitive cell simply gave them another way to detect the approach of a threat and to then employ existing behaviors in response to that detection.


Sensitivity to light is not a trivial development. It requires light-sensitive proteins and phototransduction circuits, the combination of which require more than just a couple of mutations.


It is trivial - it's one single protein, and it needs be only one single spot to confer a benefit. All the remainder is simply co-opting of existing traits.



Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:No 'slight twitch' - a concerted effort to move away. Detect sudden loss of light - move. It doesn't need to guarantee successful evasion of a predator; it only needs to offer a statistically greater chance of surviving long enough to reproduce, or longer to reproduce more to ensure that the gene producing that photosensitive spot would be preferentially retained.


You don't seem to understand that a rudimentary system would not produce that kind of response.


The problem is that I do understand, whereas you're just engaging in undereducated denialism.


Wortfish wrote:The robust response which you envisage would only happen once further changes and improvements had been made.


There's nothing particularly robust to it - it's a pre-existing trait in response to physical contact or chemoreception.

If you want to blag your incredulity - you're going to need to find someone who doesn't know about the evolution of eyes.


Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:The thing is, this is such basic stuff, and the eye... I mean, seriously? Why do Creationists invariably rattle on about the eye when it's been studied from the context of evolutionary biology for the better part of a century? Just how outdated you folks are!


Maybe because Darwin wrote the following:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.



That quote-mining should net you a formal warning. I am pretty sure you've quote-mined that before in the past, had it exposed as a quote-mine, and consequently you should know better. Of course, Creationists are not known for their integrity or honesty.

I'll include the bit you either specifically and intentionally elided, or the bit your Creationist source you mindlessly regurgitated didn't include:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


Maybe you should fuck off until you can engage here with some elementary integrity, or perhaps find yourself some ignorant people to preach your reality denial at?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#98  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 11, 2020 12:38 pm

Wortfish wrote:
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/earth-sciences/birds-are-theropod-dinosaurs-t25365.html

Read the thread linked above, which can be found in the “Earth Sciences” sub forum right here on RatSkep, about how we KNOW for a fact that modern birds are the direct descendants of maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs. There is enough hard evidence presented therein to shoot your stupid fucking assertion fest through the roof of the mouth with a hollow point .44 magnum. Of course, being the contrary for the sake of being contrary, you won’t bother. If on the off chance you do bother to look you will refuse to accept anything and everything therein, even though the empirical physical evidence is well in hand. You have absolutely nothing but an argument, and it is very poorly formed.

RS


Alan Feduccia would disagree with you: https://bio.unc.edu/files/2019/04/Journ ... -20141.pdf

Along with unique adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle, Scansoriopteryx fulfills predictions from the early twentieth century that the ancestors of birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, and instead were derived from earlier arboreal archosaurs which originated flight according to the traditional trees-down scenario


And?

Science is about consensus, not preferred ideas espoused by a few.


Wortfish wrote:The idea that birds evolved from cursorial maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs is just too ridiculous to consider.


Going to muster something better than a litany of arguments from incredulity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]

Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]


Inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, and a lack of understanding... otherwise termed: Creationism.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#99  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 11, 2020 12:39 pm

Wortfish wrote:
No scientist can show how the vertebrate eye was purportedly built up mutation by random mutation, tracing each change to a specific gene. In fact, no scientist can claim to know how the eye develops during ontogeny. All that has been proposed is which parts of the eye evolved first without showing how they actually emerged. You are, sadly, mistaken.


Bullshitting is not going to get you anywhere.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Coyne's review of Behe's new book on Darwinism

#100  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 11, 2020 12:40 pm

Wortfish wrote:
I note that you are just making an unsupported assertion without any evidence.



Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest