Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#541  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 9:08 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:We see some big changes in animals.For example different patterned zebras, dwarfs, giants, hairy people, cross breeds, etc.


And you think these are "big" changes?!?! :lol:

questioner121 wrote:Why nothing about electroreception? Why don't other land mammals have it?


Why do you think they need it?


Same reason why men have nipples and beards?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#542  Postby Skate » Feb 26, 2014 9:10 pm

questioner121 wrote:Haeckel's embryos.


I can't watch the video right now, but are you seriously bringing up Haeckel and recapitulation? :picard:
User avatar
Skate
 
Posts: 222

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#543  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 9:20 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Why nothing about electroreception? Why don't other land mammals have it?


Because they do:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1189155/


Excellent, now maybe you can let Sendrak know why they have it?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#544  Postby ADParker » Feb 26, 2014 9:28 pm

Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It doesn't matter that it's not under our control, that still does not explain why your designer is intentionally creating a nest hierarchical arrangement of broken vitamin-C genes with mutations in them. Why does your designer go out of his way to make it look like evolution happened?


It's you who has built this hierarchy. This would have no problem with fitting in a common design hierarchy.


That's the big problem for you creationists. The very existence of a hierarchy is irrefutable evidence for evolution. Under creationism, there is no reason for a nested hierarchy to exist at all. Whereas the odds that every single species extant or extinct can be placed into such a relationship is astronomically small, unless commond descent is true. Look at this phylogenetic tree:

Image

That tree only involves 3000 species, less than 1% of the number of known species. Yet look at how complex that diagram already is. Calculate the odds of that just happening by chance, then realize that the same relationship exists for 100 times the number of species.

A tiny snapshot indeed. If you look at a larger version of that you will find that the closest relative to humans included is the common house mouse (Mus musculus), not even any other primates are included!

As an example of how complex and in depth it can go; take a gander at this:
Image
The above is just "A figure representing the species in the flora of 137 private household yards located in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area (gray circles) and in the flora of Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve (white circles)"!
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#545  Postby ADParker » Feb 26, 2014 9:31 pm

questioner121 wrote:
ADParker wrote:
And no I would not expect any human to "reacquire" it because that is a lot of quite specific mutations that would have to take place. Either all at once which would be just insanely improbable, or mutation after mutation, every one for no good reason being maintained.


You mean something like the eye? Hands and feet? Head/face shape? Nose shape? Pregnancy changes? etc, etc.

What about two headed snakes? Cats with 6 toes?

I thought evolution was all about tiny gradual changes across successive generations?

No I don't mean that. I don't even get where you got that daft idea from! :what:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#546  Postby Shrunk » Feb 26, 2014 9:54 pm

Skate wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Haeckel's embryos.


I can't watch the video right now, but are you seriously bringing up Haeckel and recapitulation? :picard:


He's also presenting Wendy Wright as the defender of his position. :rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 57
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#547  Postby Shrunk » Feb 26, 2014 9:55 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:We see some big changes in animals.For example different patterned zebras, dwarfs, giants, hairy people, cross breeds, etc.


And you think these are "big" changes?!?! :lol:

questioner121 wrote:Why nothing about electroreception? Why don't other land mammals have it?


Why do you think they need it?


Same reason why men have nipples and beards?


I've already told you: We don't need any more examples of non-sequitors. We already know you have them mastered.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 57
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#548  Postby Shrunk » Feb 26, 2014 9:58 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Why nothing about electroreception? Why don't other land mammals have it?


Because they do:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1189155/


Excellent, now maybe you can let Sendrak know why they have it?


You thought the fact that no other land mammals had electroreception was evidence against evolution. Now that you are aware that is not a fact, but a falsehood, you are claiming that as evidence against evolution.

Just thought I'd point that out, in case you thought no one noticed.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 57
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#549  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 10:03 pm

questioner121 wrote:Same reason why men have nipples and beards?


And you think we need those because?

questioner121 wrote:Excellent, now maybe you can let Sendrak know why they have it?


I know why they have it. I'm not the one here in need of education in such matters.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15247
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#550  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 10:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Why nothing about electroreception? Why don't other land mammals have it?


Because they do:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1189155/


Excellent, now maybe you can let Sendrak know why they have it?


You thought the fact that no other land mammals had electroreception was evidence against evolution. Now that you are aware that is not a fact, but a falsehood, you are claiming that as evidence against evolution.

Just thought I'd point that out, in case you thought no one noticed.


To be honest I was expecting a lot more animals to have it on the basis that a trait like that should have been retained as it seem very useful. The fact that other animals in different parts of the phylogenetic tree is in fact evidence if common design rather than common ancestry.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#551  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 10:08 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Same reason why men have nipples and beards?


And you think we need those because?


I don't believe we do need them. I'm sure the evolutionists have a great reason for humans having them which can be backed up by tons of evidence.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#552  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 10:12 pm

questioner121 wrote:
To be honest I was expecting a lot more animals to have it on the basis that a trait like that should have been retained as it seem very useful.

A useful trait like echolocation? Or flight? Or persistance hunting? Or 360degree vision? Or heat sensing? Or the ability to inject venom?

Why indeed, do all animals not do all of these things? And if all animals could do all of these things, why didn't the magic man in the sky design it so they could? :crazy:


questioner121 wrote:The fact that other animals in different parts of the phylogenetic tree is in fact evidence if common design rather than common ancestry.


Is it now? :what:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15247
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#553  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 10:13 pm

questioner121 wrote:I don't believe we do need them.

Then why bring it up in the context of electrorecption?

questioner121 wrote:I'm sure the evolutionists have a great reason for humans having them which can be backed up by tons of evidence.


What are evolutionists? Is this another made up creationist thing?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15247
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#554  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 10:19 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:
To be honest I was expecting a lot more animals to have it on the basis that a trait like that should have been retained as it seem very useful.

A useful trait like echolocation? Or flight? Or persistance hunting? Or 360degree vision? Or heat sensing? Or the ability to inject venom?

Why indeed, do all animals not do all of these things? And if all animals could do all of these things, why didn't the magic man in the sky design it so they could? :crazy:


questioner121 wrote:The fact that other animals in different parts of the phylogenetic tree is in fact evidence if common design rather than common ancestry.


Is it now? :what:


Each animal has it's place. It has it's weaknesses and strengths. Don't you think according to evolution they should have all these great traits especially since their ancestors supposedly had them?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#555  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 10:25 pm

questioner121 wrote:Don't you think according to evolution they should have all these great traits especially since their ancestors supposedly had them?


Nope. Because as people have tried to explain to you (not that you've paid attention), it isn't efficient to keep traits you don't need. If not being able to fly doesn't put you at any sort of disadvantage in terms of survival of your genes, why have the energy intensive morphology necessary for flight?

To say this is an oversimplification is perhaps understating things, but as grasping more complex explanations appears to be beyond, we'll start small.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15247
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#556  Postby bert » Feb 26, 2014 10:32 pm

No, the world is varied: places with lots of water, or just being moist, or relatively dry, or bone dry. The level of nutrients varies. The amount of light varies with latitude, with altitude. And there are variations in time (e.g. long winter). So, you'd expect different organisms each better at living at the place they actually live. And mutations that favour living there. You know, like the Tibeteans and Andes people having mutations to help deal with reduced oxygen. And not surprisingly, the mutations they have a different: The mutations are not designed mutations (in which case the efficient designer would give the people in the Andes and in Tibet the same mutation, like he gave chimps and humans the same broken vitamin C gene for reasons of efficiency), but mutation that just happened and were selected for. Just what you'd expect in evolution. But you knew that already: It always fits the data.

And that is how animals have their place.

Bert
Promote rational thought on religion by telling other people to download this free booklet. Read it yourself and you may well learn new arguments and a new approach to debunk religion
bert
 
Posts: 517
Male

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#557  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 11:18 pm

Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:Don't you think according to evolution they should have all these great traits especially since their ancestors supposedly had them?


Nope. Because as people have tried to explain to you (not that you've paid attention), it isn't efficient to keep traits you don't need. If not being able to fly doesn't put you at any sort of disadvantage in terms of survival of your genes, why have the energy intensive morphology necessary for flight?

To say this is an oversimplification is perhaps understating things, but as grasping more complex explanations appears to be beyond, we'll start small.



This is not what we see in nature. There are many animals with traits that are not needed. This is the think with evolutionists, they see everything as being logical but when they encounter something that's no logical they'll make something up like "oh, it's neutral so the trait sticks around" or "there is no disadvantage" or "there must have been a use for it in the past and it's going through a transition", it seems there is no way if falsifying anything since in evolution absolutely anything is possible. If a common ancestor has a really good trait and it's now gone - it was no longer needed. If the animal still has the trait - it got it from it's ancestor, etc. etc.

Can't you non believers see this? You can make absolutely whatever bull you want and then just point to some other data to support it when that data is to do with another species for a specified amount of time. And then you think the evidence is there and that makes you feel all smug. Can't you see nature is bizarre and contains unpredictable phenomena amongst expected phenomena?

Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere with you guys but now I think I need something beyond what can be explained by your wishful logical thinking.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#558  Postby hackenslash » Feb 26, 2014 11:34 pm

questioner121 wrote:This is not what we see in nature. There are many animals with traits that are not needed. This is the think with evolutionists, they see everything as being logical but when they encounter something that's no logical they'll make something up like "oh, it's neutral so the trait sticks around" or "there is no disadvantage" or "there must have been a use for it in the past and it's going through a transition", it seems there is no way if falsifying anything since in evolution absolutely anything is possible. If a common ancestor has a really good trait and it's now gone - it was no longer needed. If the animal still has the trait - it got it from it's ancestor, etc. etc.


Do you have any idea how economies work? If a trait is costly in terms of resources and provides no advantage, it will tend to be discarded. If it isn't costly, it might not be discarded. The other thing to note is that environments are dynamic, so if an organism's environment changes, it will take time for adaptations to take effect.

This is ALL seen in nature.

Can't you non believers see this? You can make absolutely whatever bull you want and then just point to some other data to support it when that data is to do with another species for a specified amount of time.


SO what you're really saying is that we're all lying? What puts you in a position to assert this, given the absolute paucity of your understanding, not just of evolution, but of pretty much everything? Is there a topic you know anything about?

And then you think the evidence is there and that makes you feel all smug.


We don't think the evidence is there, it IS there.

Can't you see nature is bizarre and contains unpredictable phenomena amongst expected phenomena?


Of course we can, because environments and resource niches are dynamic. That's exactly what we should expect to see, and it's what we do expect to see. This is a natural outcome of the interaction of the three core principles of evolution, namely mutation, selection and drift. Not only can we see it, evolutionary theory fucking predicts it.

Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere with you guys but now I think I need something beyond what can be explained by your wishful logical thinking.


Is it wishful or logical? Your output suggests that you wouldn't know what logical thinking was if it shot you in the face.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22244
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#559  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 11:41 pm

questioner121 wrote:This is not what we see in nature.


It is. As I said, it was an oversimplification, we're breaking you in one step at a time.

questioner121 wrote:There are many animals with traits that are not needed.

Indeed, but if you've understood the first part (you clearly haven't) you'll understand that certain traits remain if there is no advantage or disadvantage to them being retained. Or the advantages of having something, such as human male nipples, are not immediately obvious to you.

questioner121 wrote:This is the think with evolutionists,

What are these evolutionists again? I'm not familiar with them?

questioner121 wrote:they see everything as being logical but when they encounter something that's no logical they'll make something up like "oh, it's neutral so the trait sticks around" or "there is no disadvantage" or "there must have been a use for it in the past and it's going through a transition", it seems there is no way if falsifying anything since in evolution absolutely anything is possible. If a common ancestor has a really good trait and it's now gone - it was no longer needed. If the animal still has the trait - it got it from it's ancestor, etc. etc.


Your claim that scientists are "making things up" is dishonest, disrespectful and shows the extent of your ignorance on this subject. You're spouting crap.

questioner121 wrote:Can't you non believers see this?

See that you're talking shit. Yes, yes we can.
See that you don't even remotely understand the science in question. Yes, yes we can.

questioner121 wrote:You can make absolutely whatever bull you want and then just point to some other data to support it when that data is to do with another species for a specified amount of time. And then you think the evidence is there and that makes you feel all smug. Can't you see nature is bizarre and contains unpredictable phenomena amongst expected phenomena?

Again, another crass and dishonest state from you that shows your ignorance and unwillingness to learn. You are utterly resistant to any and all information that conflicts in your nonsensical belief in a magic man what made stuff happen.

questioner121 wrote:Sometimes I think I'm getting somewhere with you guys but now I think I need something beyond what can be explained by your wishful logical thinking.

Says the person who believes in utterly made up shit and who ignores evidence that conflicts with the fantasy he has bought into.

We deal in evidence here. Show us some evidence, hard fucking evidence, for your magical peeping tom in the sky, and we'll sti right the fuck up and pay attention. Given the creationist world has manifestly failed to do this to date, I won't hold my breath waiting for your spectacular reveal that changes scientific thinking forever.

Evidence is the only way you will get anywhere with us. And by evidence we mean something that we can verify, not hyperbolic bullshit illogical falacious reasoning that shows nowt but bollocks.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15247
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#560  Postby ADParker » Feb 26, 2014 11:50 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
questioner121 wrote:I thought evolution was all about tiny gradual changes across successive generations?


And you think otherwise because?


We see some big changes in animals.For example different patterned zebras, dwarfs, giants, hairy people, cross breeds, etc.

So different patterned zebras and hairy people are "big change", but actual speciation events aren't big enough to impress you. :crazy: :roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron