Creationist Derail From Evolving Fish Thread

[Spearthrower]

This is interesting. Might help some of the people here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tions.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tures.html

Evolution myths: Evolution produces perfectly adapted creatures

You don't have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors. The apparent perfection of plants and animals may be more a reflection of our poor imaginations than of reality.

It's a theme repeated endlessly in wildlife documentaries. Again and again we are told how perfectly animals are adapted to their environment. It is, however, seldom true.

There are many reasons why evolution does not produce "designs" that are as good as they could be. Natural selection's only criterion is that something works, not that it works as well as it might. Botched jobs are common, in fact. The classic example is the panda's thumb, which it uses to grasp bamboo. "The panda's true thumb is committed to another role. So the panda must... settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable, solution," wrote Stephen Jay Gould in 1978.

It might help you -we spent a good 3 or 4 pages patiently educating you on the absurd notion you have of 'perfect' forms.

[Spearthrower]

If the creator designed the panda properly in the first place, there would be any need to rely on clumsy evolution to finish the job. Why don't pandas decide to have better thumbs?

Well it's done fine for the past few millions of years. Can't be that badly designed. If it was down to evolution I'd be expecting it to be swinging from the bamboo shoots by now.

That's because your expectation is based on the complete ignorance you have of this specialist topic matter.

[Spearthrower]

This is interesting. Might help some of the people here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tions.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... tures.html

Evolution myths: Evolution produces perfectly adapted creatures

You don't have to be perfectly adapted to survive, you just have to be as well adapted as your competitors. The apparent perfection of plants and animals may be more a reflection of our poor imaginations than of reality.

It's a theme repeated endlessly in wildlife documentaries. Again and again we are told how perfectly animals are adapted to their environment. It is, however, seldom true.

There are many reasons why evolution does not produce "designs" that are as good as they could be. Natural selection's only criterion is that something works, not that it works as well as it might. Botched jobs are common, in fact. The classic example is the panda's thumb, which it uses to grasp bamboo. "The panda's true thumb is committed to another role. So the panda must... settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable, solution," wrote Stephen Jay Gould in 1978.

Oh look, I said exactly the same thing in this post in another thread, whilst trying to educate someone else who doesn't understand the basics.

Or indeed as many tried to point out to Questioner in this very thread, with only limited success because he absurdly believes he's presenting a coherent argument against evolution:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1601968.html

I was referring to a perfect wing for flying. I'm sure you can find plenty examples of that. And lookup the dictionary before replying.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1602006.html

The requirements of a wing to be perfect are that it should fulfil whatever it's purpose is. In the case of flying the wing should be perfectly formed to allow flight to take place.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1602021.html

So is the purpose of a penguins wings to fly or swim? Yes a penguins wings are perfect for swimming. Can there be other designs which allow it to swim just as good? Of course there can be. Being perfect for something doesn't mean having just one absolute solution. As long as the purpose is being met that's all that matters.

[Calilasseia]

If the creator designed the panda properly in the first place, there would be any need to rely on clumsy evolution to finish the job. Why don't pandas decide to have better thumbs?

Well it's done fine for the past few millions of years. Can't be that badly designed. If it was down to evolution I'd be expecting it to be swinging from the bamboo shoots by now.

That's because your expectation is based on the complete ignorance you have of this specialist topic matter.

That's one of the ingredients, but not the sum total. You also have to factor in that he thinks his pet mythology constitutes some fantastic repository of knowledge, that gives him a hot line to Absolute TruthTM, and as a corollary, tries to make the facts fit that mythology and its assertions wherever he can. It's the standard pattern we see all the time from supernaturalists, the playing of duplicitous apologetics with science in order to prop up pre-scientific mythology, and in doing so, adopting the position unintentionally given away by arch-charlatan and pathological liar for doctrine Henry Morris - "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right".

[Spearthrower]

If the creator designed the panda properly in the first place, there would be any need to rely on clumsy evolution to finish the job. Why don't pandas decide to have better thumbs?

Well it's done fine for the past few millions of years. Can't be that badly designed. If it was down to evolution I'd be expecting it to be swinging from the bamboo shoots by now.

That's because your expectation is based on the complete ignorance you have of this specialist topic matter.

That's one of the ingredients, but not the sum total. You also have to factor in that he thinks his pet mythology constitutes some fantastic repository of knowledge, that gives him a hot line to Absolute TruthTM, and as a corollary, tries to make the facts fit that mythology and its assertions wherever he can. It's the standard pattern we see all the time from supernaturalists, the playing of duplicitous apologetics with science in order to prop up pre-scientific mythology, and in doing so, adopting the position unintentionally given away by arch-charlatan and pathological liar for doctrine Henry Morris - "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right".

Correction noted and duly accepted!

There's also the garnish of idiocy in believing that, even were someone who is terminally clueless about basic biology and science in general actually able to overturn a scientific theory with a hundred years of collated evidence supporting it, that this would automatically mean 'magicmandunnit' would be considered the only valid alternative and become right by default.

People like Q only wield their ignorance of science to try and take pops at the massive edifice of science - they can't field their own beliefs in the scientific arena, because they're implicitly aware that their fatuous myths don't stand up to even a moment's scrutiny.

[Shrunk]

You seem to have some trouble with comprehension like a lot of people on this forum.

Or one person, anyway....

[questioner121]

I think I'm beginning to understand where the evolutionists on this forum are coming from. They assume that variations in animals is natural so it's perfectly possible to have a mutations which give birds a navigation system, for zebras to have stripes, for peacocks to have extravagant feathers, etc. The only thing I'm unclear is on are these mutations big bang or did they develop gradually over millions of years? Did bird migration start of with a basic navigation system, did the zebras start of having grey stripes which deepened to black, did the peacock start off having 1 feather which then became 100+?

[ramseyoptom]

I think I'm beginning to understand where the evolutionists on this forum are coming from. They assume that variations in animals is natural so it's perfectly possible to have a mutations which give birds a navigation system, for zebras to have stripes, for peacocks to have extravagant feathers, etc. The only thing I'm unclear is on are these mutations big bang or did they develop gradually over millions of years? Did bird migration start of with a basic navigation system, did the zebras start of having grey stripes which deepened to black, did the peacock start off having 1 feather which then became 100+?

So you are assuming that the these variations are unnatural ( or artificial ?).

How can you be unclear on how the mutations came about, have you not read any of what has been posted or the links to other information?

I suspect that what you are looking for has been someone able to point and say the change began here. Because nobody can actually give you the "smoking gun" you will not accept anything.

[Shrunk]

I think I'm beginning to understand where the evolutionists on this forum are coming from. They assume that variations in animals is natural so it's perfectly possible to have a mutations which give birds a navigation system, for zebras to have stripes, for peacocks to have extravagant feathers, etc.

Not an assumption. An empirically proven fact.

The only thing I'm unclear is on are these mutations big bang or did they develop gradually over millions of years? Did bird migration start of with a basic navigation system, did the zebras start of having grey stripes which deepened to black, did the peacock start off having 1 feather which then became 100+?

Gradually, yes. But, no, not gradually in the absurd strawman you are presenting here.

Really, as Spearthrower's sig says: "Learn Stuff. Stuff good."

(And no, what you're doing here does not constitute "learning". It constitutes "exercising prejudices.")

[questioner121]

I think gene mutations are 'natural' but for a gene mutation to actually develop a well functioning trait is something that is unusual to say the least. If you look at the genetic level, a mutation to create, let's say for example, an extra digit on a persons hand doesn't just mean creating an extra finger but also wiring it up to the brain, plugging it into the blood circulation system, maintaining it, etc.

I can understand it if evolutionists think it's perfectly naturally for animals in a population to have an extra digit here or there, different coloured skins, different shaped beaks, etc. But I don't think evolutionists understand that it's not a simple matter of a genetic mutation at the molecular level. It needs to encompass a significant proportion of the animals DNA in order to make the genetic mutation viable.

[questioner121]

Gradually, yes. But, no, not gradually in the absurd strawman you are presenting here.

Ok, please do describe 'gradually' using your own words.

[Shrunk]

I think gene mutations are 'natural' but for a gene mutation to actually develop a well functioning trait is something that is unusual to say the least. If you look at the genetic level, a mutation to create, let's say for example, an extra digit on a persons hand doesn't just mean creating an extra finger but also wiring it up to the brain, plugging it into the blood circulation system, maintaining it, etc.

So think this was not due to a mutation, but was some magical spell cast by Allah:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/off ... -man_x.htm

Why did Allah do that? So the surgeon could make some extra money?

[questioner121]

How can you be unclear on how the mutations came about, have you not read any of what has been posted or the links to other information?

Sorry I didn't see any link which describes how a mutation develops at the genetic level. The links just pointed to what mutations are observed in nature and then whole load of speculation as to how they could have been naturally selected for.

Basically the entire explanation on the diversity of life from 'simple' cell organisms to multi cell organisms relies on mutations to present within any given population. And that's it. Nothing else. The direction of the diversity of organism population is then based on NS or some other mechanism.

So when the evolutionists reads thousands of papers on observations of genetic mutations and how they are selected for it immediately tells them that this is what happened 'billions' of years ago. Now that is just plain ridiculous. How can someone make such a huge assumption? And then to go on and trumpet about how humans came from apes as a fact is even crazier. At least admit that it's theoretical and that you 'think' that this is how humans evolve. Why the need to harp on about it as if it's a fact?

[DarthHelmet86]

This is becoming comedy gold. We evolved from apes (and still are apes), it is a fact. Scientists found evidence for it, they even found things that could falsify it but which when investigated only made the evidence stronger.

[questioner121]

I think gene mutations are 'natural' but for a gene mutation to actually develop a well functioning trait is something that is unusual to say the least. If you look at the genetic level, a mutation to create, let's say for example, an extra digit on a persons hand doesn't just mean creating an extra finger but also wiring it up to the brain, plugging it into the blood circulation system, maintaining it, etc.

So think this was not due to a mutation, but was some magical spell cast by Allah:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/off ... -man_x.htm

Why did Allah do that? So the surgeon could make some extra money?

No one denies mutations in animals. But you need to understand that for any mutation to be viable is not a matter of just having certain molecules in the genes in the wrong place. There has to be something more significant make the mutation viable.

Do you see the extra digit as a gradual mutation or a big bang one?
If that person had children with a partner who also had an extra digit, would you expect all the children to have an extra digit?

[DarthHelmet86]

It is a big bang one for the single person, but for the species as a whole it is a gradual one. If having an extra finger gave those people an advantage it could slowly become the norm, even more so if it is an isolated group. Image a group of humans stuck on a small island, they can no longer breed with people off the island. One or two of them mutate to have an extra finger, this becomes an advantage. Even though not all their kids have this mutation those that do breed more due to the advantage it slowly starts spreading amongst the group. Eventually the extra finger is normal and the mutation is to be born without it.

[Fenrir]

I think gene mutations are 'natural' but for a gene mutation to actually develop a well functioning trait is something that is unusual to say the least. If you look at the genetic level, a mutation to create, let's say for example, an extra digit on a persons hand doesn't just mean creating an extra finger but also wiring it up to the brain, plugging it into the blood circulation system, maintaining it, etc.

I can understand it if evolutionists think it's perfectly naturally for animals in a population to have an extra digit here or there, different coloured skins, different shaped beaks, etc. But I don't think evolutionists understand that it's not a simple matter of a genetic mutation at the molecular level. It needs to encompass a significant proportion of the animals DNA in order to make the genetic mutation viable.

Do you mean something like this?



Now go learn something about hox gene expression then maybe we can talk.

Oh, and "DNA", "gene", "genetic", "molecule" and "mutation" would be good while you are at it.

[ramseyoptom]

How can you be unclear on how the mutations came about, have you not read any of what has been posted or the links to other information?

Sorry I didn't see any link which describes how a mutation develops at the genetic level. The links just pointed to what mutations are observed in nature and then whole load of speculation as to how they could have been naturally selected for

Well if there isn't then I apologise over that, but most, not all mutations occur as replication errors during cell division.

Basically the entire explanation on the diversity of life from 'simple' cell organisms to multi cell organisms relies on mutations to present within any given population. And that's it. Nothing else. The direction of the diversity of organism population is then based on NS or some other mechanism.

Congratulations you've got it!

You carry mutations within you cells, these occurred right at the moment of conception.( I know we just can't picture our parents having SEX) For you to be born a male sperm must fertilise a female egg the moment the first cell division takes place there is the good chance of a replication error in the cell's DNA from that point on any genetic mutation which has occurred is fixed in the cell line which will become you. It will also become part of the DNA sequence that you will pass on to your children (assuming you have any)

Genetic diseases are DNA replication errors, one or two of which may be beneficial eg Sickle Cell Anaemia.

So when the evolutionists reads thousands of papers on observations of genetic mutations and how they are selected for it immediately tells them that this is what happened 'billions' of years ago. Now that is just plain ridiculous. How can someone make such a huge assumption? And then to go on and trumpet about how humans came from apes as a fact is even crazier. At least admit that it's theoretical and that you 'think' that this is how humans evolve. Why the need to harp on about it as if it's a fact?

Just a note on how not to win friends and influence people around here the word " evolutionists" is something of a No-No.

It is not necessarily billions of years ago (the earth only being some 4.7), it may be a few thousands of years ago. Again the changes and the fact that changes can be shown by experimentation, selective plant and animal breeding, to occur just confirms that it is not ridiculous. The assumption is based on evidence the same way that forensic science is used to solve crimes, just because we were not there does not mean we cannot with a very high degree of accuracy work out what happened.

And note Humans did not come from apes (or vice versa). Humans are apes and we shared a common ancestor several million years ago. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS.

We harp on about it only because people like you resort to "Goddidit" rather than looking at the evidence.

[campermon]

!

MODNOTE Questioner123, This post contains a personal attack/insult: [Reveal] Spoiler: your reported post, relevant text in bold red font I've already quoted, at least twice, the passage where you admitted that all these traits could have arisen thru NS. Do I need to quote it yet again? Yes please. Sorry, that was a rhetorical question. I'm not repeating it yet again, because you'll obviously just ignore or "misunderstand" it yet again. Your admission is there in black and white, and your fake inncocent act won't make it disappear. You seem to have some trouble with comprehension like a lot of people on this forum. Making personal attacks against other forum members is not allowed, as is spelled out in our Forum User's Agreement, paragraph 1.2.c, to which you agreed when you joined the community. [Reveal] Spoiler: relevant section of the Forum User's Agreement Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to: 1.2. not post or transmit defamatory, abusive, threatening or illegal material, or any other material with the intent to purposely mislead or harm others or infringe on the ability of others to enjoy rationalskepticism.org. This includes but is not limited to: c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members After reviewing the thread and seeing that you have previously been advised and warned for such posting behaviour, I have issued you with a warning for these latest reports. This is now your 2nd Warning for such posting behaviour in this thread (1st Warning here), and I would advise you to carefully consider the content of your future posts before submitting them. Remember, attack the post not the poster. If you have come to this thread to offer controversial opinions on the validity of evolution by natural selection, as it appears so, then do expect many scientifically literate posters to strongly challenge you on your ideas. The appropriate response to this is for you to provide valid arguments and evidence to back up your points. Campermon Please do not discuss this modnote or moderation in this thread as it is off-topic. If you need clarification or want to appeal this decision, please PM me or a senior moderator.

[Shrunk]

It is a big bang one for the single person, but for the species as a whole it is a gradual one.

In another sense it is not a "Big Bang" even for the individual. All that happens is that the gene(s) that encode the message "make five fingers" changes to "make six fingers", which is a minor variant that requires no major new structures. A "Big Bang" would be more properly something and an organism with no limbs given birth to something with fully functioning arms and legs. I can't think of too many examples of that happening, if any. But questioner121 seems to think this is what happens.