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

#121  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 5:29 pm

felltoearth wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf


Like any cretinist creationist, a poorly posed question. What defines front from back? Why does anatomical position really matter in a non-teleological system. You may as well ask if your nose can be on top of your head. You’re engaging in wordplay to poorly make a point.

You know what they say, if your nose runs and your feet smell, you’re built upside down.


It would be useful to see who was sneaking up on us. But no amount of random mutation is going to provide the variation to let natural selection do its job.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#122  Postby felltoearth » Apr 12, 2020 5:32 pm

Wortfish wrote:
I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later.

As explained many times, it’s a problem for Creationists not the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
This has been explained to you so many times, you are either lying or you are thick. Which is it?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14076
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#123  Postby felltoearth » Apr 12, 2020 5:35 pm

Wortfish wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf


Like any cretinist creationist, a poorly posed question. What defines front from back? Why does anatomical position really matter in a non-teleological system. You may as well ask if your nose can be on top of your head. You’re engaging in wordplay to poorly make a point.

You know what they say, if your nose runs and your feet smell, you’re built upside down.


It would be useful to see who was sneaking up on us. But no amount of random mutation is going to provide the variation to let natural selection do its job.


Non-sequitur. It would be useful. Night vision would be useful too. Lasers shooting out of my fingertips would be really awesome. Here’s the thing. If you can stay alive long enough to reproduce, what would be useful and really really cool is completely unnecessary.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14076
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#124  Postby laklak » Apr 12, 2020 5:55 pm

campermon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:<snip bollocks>


"Seeing without eyes"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-eyes1/

:thumbup:


You mean the sensus bullshitatis?
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

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

#125  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 12, 2020 5:57 pm

Troll, Poe, or barely functional idiot. Perhaps a combination. Not even a fun one either.

RS
“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

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

#126  Postby Svartalf » Apr 12, 2020 6:30 pm

felltoearth wrote:
Wortfish wrote:

Let me ask you this.

1. Can we evolve eyes on the backs of our heads if it was useful to our survival?
2. Could we grow feathered wings like angels if flight was useful to our survival?

I would hope you would say NO to both questions. Here's why: http://www.ufscar.br/~evolucao/popgen/ref12-5.pdf


Like any cretinist creationist, a poorly posed question. What defines front from back? Why does anatomical position really matter in a non-teleological system. You may as well ask if your nose can be on top of your head. You’re engaging in wordplay to poorly make a point.

You know what they say, if your nose runs and your feet smell, you’re built upside down.

Well, the nose Can be atop the head... where do you think cetaceans have their breathing holes?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 2435
Age: 51
Male

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

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

#127  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 7:18 pm

felltoearth wrote:

Non-sequitur. It would be useful. Night vision would be useful too. Lasers shooting out of my fingertips would be really awesome. Here’s the thing. If you can stay alive long enough to reproduce, what would be useful and really really cool is completely unnecessary.


I was referring to biological utility - the ability to survive and reproduce. Many people are killed every year by tigers sneaking up on them from behind. Btw, bats and whales have sonar systems.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#128  Postby Wortfish » Apr 12, 2020 7:19 pm

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Troll, Poe, or barely functional idiot. Perhaps a combination. Not even a fun one either.

RS


Explain the environmental changes that caused some theropods to develop feathers.
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

#129  Postby felltoearth » Apr 12, 2020 7:51 pm

Wortfish wrote:
felltoearth wrote:

Non-sequitur. It would be useful. Night vision would be useful too. Lasers shooting out of my fingertips would be really awesome. Here’s the thing. If you can stay alive long enough to reproduce, what would be useful and really really cool is completely unnecessary.


I was referring to biological utility - the ability to survive and reproduce. Many people are killed every year by tigers sneaking up on them from behind. Btw, bats and whales have sonar systems.

Have tiger attacks contributed to a net decline in population?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14076
Age: 53

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

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

#130  Postby campermon » Apr 12, 2020 7:54 pm

Wortfish wrote:Many people are killed every year by tigers sneaking up on them from behind.


And those that survive has some feature that will be conferred to their offspring. eg the wit not to walk around tiger territory, :thumbup:
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

#131  Postby fluttermoth » Apr 12, 2020 8:47 pm

campermon wrote:The eye? Bacterial flagellum?

Have we gone back in time by 10 years?


:lol:

It's bloody hilarious!

:popcorn:
User avatar
fluttermoth
 
Posts: 240
Age: 51
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

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

#132  Postby laklak » Apr 12, 2020 9:03 pm

campermon wrote:
Wortfish wrote:Many people are killed every year by tigers sneaking up on them from behind.


And those that survive has some feature that will be conferred to their offspring. eg the wit not to walk around tiger territory, :thumbup:


Messing with tigers always ends badly.
Attachments
Joe Exotic.jpg
Joe Exotic.jpg (151.68 KiB) Viewed 553 times
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

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

#133  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 12, 2020 9:09 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
What a nasty little liar you are. It doesn't matter how many fucking IFs there are in Darwin's account from 150 years ago, because you were the liar trying to pretend that Darwin had said something else by cutting out 75% of the paragraph.


I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later. All that Darwin did was make a suggestion without any supporting evidence.


You're just lying again.

What you did was engage in the entirely typical deceitfulness of Creationists by lifting a sentence out of context, and ignoring all the bit that directly contradicted the usage of that sentence you employed.

It's bare-faced bullshit.

And you're completely fucking wrong because you know precisely jack shit of anything relevant.


Wortfish wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:As for relevant knowledge, try modern scientific journals - not a Victorian naturalist writing prior to the advent of knowledge about genes, ffs.


No scientific paper has been published that claims to account for the genetic basis of the evolution of the eye through random mutation and natural selection. We still don't know how an eye is put together, let alone its evolutionary origin.


I've already told you what you can do with your inane arguments from incredulity, and the first sentence should actually read:

I am too lazy, dishonest and lacking relevant competence to review the scientific literature to see whether any papers account for the evolution of the eye.

Despite your sweeping claims, the reality is quite different.

Instead of blathering bullshit at me over the internet, type 'Google scholar' into your search engine.

Then in Google scholar, look up 'evolution of the vertebrate eye'.

What do you get?

151,000 results.

So you were not just wrong - you were outrageously wrong. Did you review all 151,000 to verify that your arrogant assertion was valid? Of course you fucking didn't because you're a fucking Creationist, and like all your ilk you think you can just decree reality by asserting it.

The top result on my search is:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2283

Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup


From 13 years ago - which shows how up to date you are!

Charles Darwin appreciated the conceptual difficulty in accepting that an organ as wonderful as the vertebrate eye could have evolved through natural selection. He reasoned that if appropriate gradations could be found that were useful to the animal and were inherited, then the apparent difficulty would be overcome. Here, we review a wide range of findings that capture glimpses of the gradations that appear to have occurred during eye evolution, and provide a scenario for the unseen steps that have led to the emergence of the vertebrate eye.


Well, that's you wrong then, isn't it?

We can keep going though:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6200000021

Dramatic improvement of our understanding of the genetic basis of vision was brought by the molecular characterization of the bovine rhodopsin gene and the human rhodopsin and color opsin genes (Nathans and Hogness, 1983; Nathans and Hogness, 1984, Nathans et al., 1986a, Nathans et al., 1986b). The availability of cDNA clones from these studies has facilitated the isolation of retinal and nonretinal opsin genes and cDNA clones from a large variety of species. Today, the number of genomic and cDNA clones of opsin genes isolated from different vertebrate species exceeds 100 and is increasing rapidly. The opsin gene sequences reveal the importance of the origin and differentiation of various opsins and visual pigments.


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 2/pro.2229

The camera eye lens of vertebrates is a classic example of the re‐engineering of existing protein components to fashion a new device. The bulk of the lens is formed from proteins belonging to two superfamilies, the α‐crystallins and the βγ‐crystallins. Tracing their ancestry may throw light on the origin of the optics of the lens. The α‐crystallins belong to the ubiquitous small heat shock proteins family that plays a protective role in cellular homeostasis. They form enormous polydisperse oligomers that challenge modern biophysical methods to uncover the molecular basis of their assembly structure and chaperone‐like protein binding function. It is argued that a molecular phenotype of a dynamic assembly suits a chaperone function as well as a structural role in the eye lens where the constraint of preventing protein condensation is paramount. The main cellular partners of α‐crystallins, the β‐ and γ‐crystallins, have largely been lost from the animal kingdom but the superfamily is hugely expanded in the vertebrate eye lens. Their structures show how a simple Greek key motif can evolve rapidly to form a complex array of monomers and oligomers. Apart from remaining transparent, a major role of the partnership of α‐crystallins with β‐ and γ‐crystallins in the lens is to form a refractive index gradient. Here, we show some of the structural and genetic features of these two protein superfamilies that enable the rapid creation of different assembly states, to match the rapidly changing optical needs among the various vertebrates.

The tremendous evolutionary advantages conferred by the ability to respond to light are evident in the success of species from the unicellular, with simple eyespots, to vertebrates with image forming eyes.1 In the animal kingdom, the six phyla (out of 35) that are most widespread and numerous are those that have image forming eyes while many others have light sensing systems. In all eyes, light is absorbed by related members of the opsin superfamily arrayed in either rhabdomeric or ciliary photoreceptor cells that transduce the optical signal through distinct mechanisms.2 Beyond this basic level of light sensitivity, the structures and optics of eyes are extremely diverse. Eyes can be single or compound, gathering, and directing light onto the photoreceptors of the retina with pinholes, lenses, cylinders, or mirrors. Vertebrates use a camera eye with a cellular lens situated behind a curved cornea. In fish, underwater, the lens alone provides almost all the focusing power, while in terrestrial species, in air, the cornea provides most focusing power and the lens is mainly used for fine control of image formation.

The vertebrate lens is derived embryologically from an invaginated ectodermal epithelium, the lens vesicle, and grows throughout life by the orderly proliferation and differentiation of epithelial cells into layers of extremely elongated fiber cells.3 Cell organization is important for lens transparency and focusing, but most of the refractive power of the lens is conferred by high concentrations of proteins, with any highly abundant protein being designated a crystallin. The most widespread and apparently ancient crystallins found in vertebrate lineages are the α‐, β‐, and γ‐crystallins. Nonchordates, even those with superficially similar cellular lenses, use quite different proteins. This shows that lenses arose independently, relatively late in evolution and means the crystallins must have been selected from proteins with pre‐existing functions. In the case of α‐crystallins the original function is very likely a role in protein homeostasis as they belong to the family of small heat shock (stress) proteins that are ubiquitous across all domains of life and most cellular types.4-6 The β‐ and γ‐crystallins are not related to α‐crystallins but are members of another protein superfamily of restricted phylogenetic and tissue distribution. In vertebrates, β‐ and γ‐crystallins are highly expressed in the lens, with low levels found in some other eye tissues, particularly in different retinal cell types.7-10 In many vertebrate lineages, the optical properties of the lens have been also modified to adapt to environmental constraints by loss of some crystallins (generally γ‐crystallins) and by independent recruitment of other proteins which, surprisingly, are usually well characterized enzymes.11 Thus crystallins are all proteins that have been adapted from their original function to be constituents of the optics of animal eyes.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 008-0091-2

As we shall discuss, there is now overwhelming evidence that the vertebrate eye did indeed arise through an evolutionary sequence involving countless tiny steps. However, a full picture of the historical sequence remains hidden from our view for two major reasons. Firstly, the most important advances in the organization of what would eventually become the vertebrate eye occurred over 500 million years ago (Mya), prior to the evolution of hard body parts (like a bony skeleton), and as a result, many such advances in the arrangement of the vertebrate eye occurred in animals that are either not preserved, or else are very poorly represented in the fossil record. Secondly, each of those eye arrangements that was superseded by a better arrangement is very unlikely to have survived for hundreds of millions of years in the face of competition from animals possessing better eyes, and as a result, very few extant species retain eyes with the intermediate features. Nevertheless, several extant organisms do appear to retain eyes that provide remarkable windows into the sequence of events that took place. In addition, the genes of vertebrates retain detailed clues about their origins, and modern phylogenetic approaches can help piece together evolutionary sequences. Likewise, the sequence of events occurring during embryonic development can, with careful interpretation, provide information about events that are likely to have occurred during evolution. And finally, certain apparent imperfections in the structure of the eye provide major clues to the evolutionary events that took place.



https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... 008-0087-y

Evidence of detailed brain morphology is illustrated and described for 400-million-year-old fossil skulls and braincases of early vertebrates (placoderm fishes). Their significance is summarized in the context of the historical development of knowledge of vertebrate anatomy, both before and since the time of Charles Darwin. These ancient extinct fishes show a unique type of preservation of the cartilaginous braincase and demonstrate a combination of characters unknown in other vertebrate species, living or extinct. The structure of the oldest detailed fossil evidence for the vertebrate eye and brain indicates a legacy from an ancestral segmented animal, in which the braincase is still partly subdivided, and the arrangement of nerves and muscles controlling eye movement was intermediate between the living jawless and jawed vertebrate groups. With their unique structure, these placoderms fill a gap in vertebrate morphology and also in the vertebrate fossil record. Like many other vertebrate fossils elucidated since Darwin’s time, they are key examples of the transitional forms that he predicted, showing combinations of characters that have never been observed together in living species.



How embarrassing for your self-certain declarations.

Are you a complete fucking liar, terminally incompetent, or just pig ignorant? Oh wait... you're a Creationist, so the answer is "yes".
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: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#134  Postby Hermit » Apr 12, 2020 11:40 pm

Wortfish wrote:I quoted the sentence showing Darwin's acknowledgement about the problem of the evolution of the eye. It is STILL a problem, 150 years later.

You mean this egregious quote mine?
Wortfish wrote: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.

What a nerve. Again, 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.

Wortfish wrote:]All that Darwin did was make a suggestion without any supporting evidence.

It was a hypothesis at the time he wrote 170 years ago, Wortfish. A testable one, and scientific discoveries since then have provided scientific evidence that support it.

Wortfish wrote:No scientific paper has been published that claims to account for the genetic basis of the evolution of the eye through random mutation and natural selection. We still don't know how an eye is put together, let alone its evolutionary origin.

None so blind...
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

#135  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » Apr 13, 2020 12:33 am

Wortfish wrote:
theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Troll, Poe, or barely functional idiot. Perhaps a combination. Not even a fun one either.

RS


Explain the environmental changes that caused some theropods to develop feathers.


:lol:

Oh, like I’m bound by your trolling, and lying bullshit, to respond at your beck and call. Your question is a loaded piece of shit, and you know it. Besides, I already have put forth the effort, but in your blind arrogance you refused to read the thread wherein all you silly challenges have been addressed. Trouble, for you, is that environmental factors may not have been the sole filter to select for feather preservation across generations. Further, it appears that the presence of feathers was the norm in all dinosaurs, as even ornithischians have been discovered to have had them. Lack of feathers in dinosaurs may have been an exception. So, either educate yourself, or not. I have little concern for your quote mining ass.

RS
“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

#136  Postby Wortfish » Apr 15, 2020 1:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:

Despite your sweeping claims, the reality is quite different.

Instead of blathering bullshit at me over the internet, type 'Google scholar' into your search engine.

Then in Google scholar, look up 'evolution of the vertebrate eye'.

What do you get

151,000 results.

So you were not just wrong - you were outrageously wrong. Did you review all 151,000 to verify that your arrogant assertion was valid? Of course you fucking didn't because you're a fucking Creationist, and like all your ilk you think you can just decree reality by asserting it.

The top result on my search is:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn2283

Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup


From 13 years ago - which shows how up to date you are!

Charles Darwin appreciated the conceptual difficulty in accepting that an organ as wonderful as the vertebrate eye could have evolved through natural selection. He reasoned that if appropriate gradations could be found that were useful to the animal and were inherited, then the apparent difficulty would be overcome. Here, we review a wide range of findings that capture glimpses of the gradations that appear to have occurred during eye evolution, and provide a scenario for the unseen steps that have led to the emergence of the vertebrate eye.


Well, that's you wrong then, isn't it?


This is pathetic. You haven't even read the paper beyond the abstract. But let's take note of THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE!


From comparison of the eyes of lampreys and jawed vertebrates, it is clear that a 'vertebrate-style' camera eye was already present in the last common ancestor of these taxa, around 500 million years ago


In other words, the authors aim to show how the vertebrate eye emerged through improvements on an already existing eye. This does not show how the eye could have evolved from a single nerve cell. Mivart's point was always that 1% of an eye does mean 1% vision. Once you have a visual system in place, then it is possible to improve upon it if the right variations occur.

In summary:

1. Nobody can explain the developmental program that makes an eye. We know a lot about the genes involved, that much is true, but no scientist can say that they know how an eye is put together.
2. The exact genetic and other changes leading to the development of the eye have not been revealed
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

#137  Postby OlivierK » Apr 15, 2020 2:12 am

So your argument is that because you personally don't know how the eye came to be, that you personally know how the eye came to be? Good luck with that.
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

#138  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 15, 2020 7:54 am

Wortfish wrote:
In summary:

1. Nobody can explain the developmental program that makes an eye. We know a lot about the genes involved, that much is true, but no scientist can say that they know how an eye is put together.
2. The exact genetic and other changes leading to the development of the eye have not been revealed

Nobody's interested in your wanking fantasies Wortfish. :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: 31088
Age: 31
Male

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

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

#139  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 15, 2020 8:07 am

Wortfish wrote:
This is pathetic. You haven't even read the paper beyond the abstract. But let's take note of THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE!


Yes, your blagging and bullshit IS fucking pathetic, but we're stuck listening to you jabber on mindlessly.

I expressly told you in the post you're supposedly replying to what I did: I typed 'evolution of the vertebrate eye' into Google Scholar to verify your inane assertion that there are no papers at all on the evolution of the vertebrate eye, and lo and behold there are 151,000 papers... how many of them have you read, Wortfish?

151,000 is not 'zero' - ergo, your mindless blather is debunked.



Wortfish wrote: But let's take note of THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE!

From comparison of the eyes of lampreys and jawed vertebrates, it is clear that a 'vertebrate-style' camera eye was already present in the last common ancestor of these taxa, around 500 million years ago


In other words, the authors aim to show how the vertebrate eye emerged through improvements on an already existing eye.


So you've forgotten your own post, have you?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2742549

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.


So, factually, despite you claiming that no scientist can show how the vertebrate eye evolved, the paper does exactly that - your wibble and distraction about existing eyes is completely irrelevant as you never specified that it had to be generated from nothing ala Creationist Pokemon evolution.


Wortfish wrote: This does not show how the eye could have evolved from a single nerve cell.


Grab a hold of them goalposts. No one has ever said that the vertebrate eye evolved from a single nerve cell - that would be mentally deranged bollocks contrived in abject fucking ignorance considering the ancestors of vertebrates already had eyes, and vertebrates consequently possessed eyes from the moment they first evolved. Those eyes themselves adapted over generations, but no one is going to argue that vertebrates evolved absent vision.



Wortfish wrote: Mivart's point was always that 1% of an eye does mean 1% vision.


Mivart's completely irrelevant to everything. We don't need to discuss the discussion of theorists 150 years ago when those people were unarguably absent possession of the wealth of empirical evidence we have today.


Wortfish wrote: Once you have a visual system in place, then it is possible to improve upon it if the right variations occur.


And as I and others have already explained to you - a single photosensitive spot already confers a benefit not possessed by organisms lacking said photosensitive spot. It doesn't matter if that benefit is miniscule - it would still offer the ability to detect potential danger from further away and confer the ability to evade predation with less risk of harm than via chemical or mechanical sense.


Wortfish wrote:In summary:

1. Nobody can explain the developmental program that makes an eye. We know a lot about the genes involved, that much is true, but no scientist can say that they know how an eye is put together.
2. The exact genetic and other changes leading to the development of the eye have not been revealed


In summary;

1. You are lying.
2. You don't know what you're talking about.
3. Your arguments are appeals to incredulity/ignorance.
4. 151,000 papers for you to get through before you can make any claims about what can or can't be explained - run along now and come back when you're finished.
5. You're a propagandist for ideology, unable to provide any support for your belief system, you instead opt for the typical fundamentalist Creationist fallacy of trying to attack science as if - were you able to disprove it - that would make your fantastical belief system the last man standing. Of course, your attempts are laughable because you simply do not possess any relevant knowledge or ability - Creationist hubris makes you believe that you can overturn empirical facts by strength of ideological conviction, whereas in the real world, everyone just considers you and your ilk clowns.
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: 27970
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#140  Postby campermon » Apr 15, 2020 8:44 am

:clap:
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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest