stevebee92653 wrote:

tytalus wrote:Interesting that stevebee missed the mentions on the previous page about The Inner Fish, and its chapter on teeth. I also looked it up on Google and read what I could; I'm tempted to go shop for it so I have something to read after The Blind Watchmaker.

The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

Steve, can you provide a number of examples from the Blind Watchmaker you think strengthens the case for intelligent design as a requirement of evolution? Don't just assert it into thin air. Perhaps you misunderstood something. Just saying.

So please, bring it! If anything, maybe you get a chance to sell your case to me?

Rumraket wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

tytalus wrote:Interesting that stevebee missed the mentions on the previous page about The Inner Fish, and its chapter on teeth. I also looked it up on Google and read what I could; I'm tempted to go shop for it so I have something to read after The Blind Watchmaker.

The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

Steve, can you provide a number of examples from the Blind Watchmaker you think strengthens the case for intelligent design as a requirement of evolution? Don't just assert it into thin air. Perhaps you misunderstood something. Just saying.

So please, bring it! If anything, maybe you get a chance to sell your case to me?

I don't think it was "The Blind Watchmaker" that he was reading, I think it was "The Blind Assertationist."

stevebee92653 wrote:The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

If you haven't actually read TBW, you are lying. If you have read TBW and still say it has anything to do with "the construction of nature," you are really lying.

Hello Stevebee, I am very pleased to meet you. I have to admit I admire your passion, I only really get that worked up when someone attacks Doctor Who, ho-hum, also having seen your photo you are indeed a handsome fellow and a dentist, someone is definately pulling their weight in regards to GDP. I hope you don't take this the wrong way but I feel a need to offer a small refresher on science, as you stated that no "evolutionists" (not a term we particularly care for here I must admit, please respect that) ever attempt to poke holes in ToE. All science works off of a very basic principle; Witness a phenomenon, hypothesise about it's basis, rigorously test said hypothesis. As such every paper every published on the subject of evolutionary biology is indeed a genuine attempt to undermine evolution, these papers are then ublished allowing anyone to have a pop at disproving the theory (by the way every other theory with the same evidence as ToE would be considered a scientific law). Now baring in mind that youhave posted several times that evolution is "obviously" false I would recommend taking this information to a government representative so that it won't be taught in schools. Anyway I hope that this post does not offend, I bid you a good day you charismatic stallion of man. *doths cap and disappears into the night*

Rage? Sorry, but no. Makes it easier to find my responses in a mass of writing.

eddie.zdi wrote:I bid you a good day you charismatic stallion of man.

Perhaps he is is the only person ever who was personally designed by God?

(this is just my bookmark anyway)

Rumraket wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

tytalus wrote:Interesting that stevebee missed the mentions on the previous page about The Inner Fish, and its chapter on teeth. I also looked it up on Google and read what I could; I'm tempted to go shop for it so I have something to read after The Blind Watchmaker.

The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

Steve, can you provide a number of examples from the Blind Watchmaker you think strengthens the case for intelligent design as a requirement of evolution? Don't just assert it into thin air. Perhaps you misunderstood something. Just saying.

So please, bring it! If anything, maybe you get a chance to sell your case to me?

Perhaps he is thinking of a different one; after all, the one I am reading is sub-titled 'why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.' Anyway, such baseless assertion is cute. As easily dismissed as it's been made up, but amusing. I guess we'll see if he can back up a claim for once, I'm guessing not.

Rumraket wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

tytalus wrote:Interesting that stevebee missed the mentions on the previous page about The Inner Fish, and its chapter on teeth. I also looked it up on Google and read what I could; I'm tempted to go shop for it so I have something to read after The Blind Watchmaker.

The Blind Watchmaker is the best book I have read supporting intellingence as a requirement for the construcion of nature.

Steve, can you provide a number of examples from the Blind Watchmaker you think strengthens the case for intelligent design as a requirement of evolution? Don't just assert it into thin air. Perhaps you misunderstood something. Just saying.

So please, bring it! If anything, maybe you get a chance to sell your case to me?

Too much to write here, so if you like, see:
http://evillusion.wordpress.com/thinkin ... atchmaker/

"evillusion"

Yes, clearly the goal of that link is to find the truth, and NOT to push a preconceived narrative in ANY way...

Just so you don't have a chance to get off on another rant, do we have permission to copy some portions of your ev-illusion column, so we can discuss it here ?

True, fair use under copyright law guarantees that we have the right to do it, but I just thought I would be polite and ask you first.

Thanks, Stevie !

iamthereforeithink wrote:

eddie.zdi wrote:I bid you a good day you charismatic stallion of man.

Perhaps he is is the only person ever who was personally designed by God?

(this is just my bookmark anyway)

My gawd, my secret is out! How did you know.

stevebee92653 wrote:
SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.

Steve,

Why the shouting (all caps) assault on the senses? Did you miss the part where I told you not to take this personally? Is your reactionary response an indicator of other deeper/hidden issues? Are you so married to your position that exposure to real data in opposition threatens you, personally, in some way? Refute the findings we present, if you can or care to, but please be more civil.

I ignore none of the things you assert. The likelihood of all these things is 1. "Absolutely nothing", as you claim, exists in a small thing called selection. The evolutionary pathways to your objections have been examined under a very fine glass for a very long time and at no point does this information point to a creator or designer or any such force. If there exists such findings that I haven't read please cite them now.

My references showed that mammalian teeth are far from optimal but we have a short lifespan so constant tooth replacement would be a metabolic nightmare. We, as primates, have selected to not adopt such a dental "biological system" in favor of the adaptability in food intake/processing over a shorter lifespan. As long as we, at some point in the past, could feed ourselves well enough to reproduce our short life was enough and growing extra teeth didn't catch on.

I need not be able to provide the very fossil, as I mentioned previously, to establish that teeth did indeed arise via evolutionary forces, maybe in jawed fish. The oldest fossils don't have teeth, so at some point these "biological systems" arose from populations of creatures that gave them a reproductive advantage to adapt mutations in this area and teeth arose. What is so hard to understand here? Scream at the odds all you want but there it is.

If you wanna go down the geologic column/radiometric dating/temporal arrangement road feel free. Several thousand man-years of study await your review, and none of them, to my knowledge, deny the validity of a very old earth wherein life arose and evolved from simple organisms to what surrounds us today. Can you find us a reference that shows other data?

Come on Steve, this shouldn't be so hard. Surely not near as hard as taking your senior year final semester exams?

What about the correctly aligned teeth? I suppose I DO need to show images. GROSS evidence of shitty design.





What's up with that Steve? Go ahead, admit you dropped the ball on that one and let's move on, OK?

So, Steve, if you want to actually communicate I will read your response, but what should motivate anyone to engage you when you post something like the above. It might serve you well to consider some of us here quite able to determine fact from empty assertion, and the hard evidence I can access reveals a pattern wherein naturalistic explanations fit, and the supernatural is never demonstrated. If you have something of substance to support your claims now would be a great time to show those cards. Your objections to your imagined version of the ToE don't effect the real theory in any way. You're fighting a gas bag of your own invention.

Are you here to incite reactions, or are you being genuine in your claims, objections and seemingly obtuse questions?

RS

steve's page on The Blind Watchmaker is an amusing read, nailed in the first comment as quote mining and incredulity, and you can see the typical comment deletion from there. I wonder what makes the concept of natural selection so difficult for him.

theropod wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:
SO LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING. HOW WERE TEETH ORIGIATED (INVENTED), DESIGNED, AND ASSEMBLED? GEE, NONE OF YOUR PAPERS HAS ANY NOTION. ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT? I'M SURE NOT TO YOU. YOU CAN JUST IGNORE THAT TINY POINT. JUST LIKE HOW WAS VISION INVENTED OR HEARTS OR LUNGS OR CONSCIOUSNESS OR INTELLIGENCE. INVENTED. GOT IT? FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THROWING PAPERS OUT THAT SAY MAMMALS HAVE SIMILAR TEETH TO OTHER MAMMALS ANSWERS EVERYTHING FOR YOU. NOTHING FOR ME. SORYY. I AM THE SKEPTIC, YOU THE BELIEVER.

Steve,

Why the shouting (all caps) assault on the senses? Did you miss the part where I told you not to take this personally? Is your reactionary response an indicator of other deeper/hidden issues? Are you so married to your position that exposure to real data in opposition threatens you, personally, in some way? Refute the findings we present, if you can or care to, but please be more civil.

I ignore none of the things you assert. The likelihood of all these things is 1. "Absolutely nothing", as you claim, exists in a small thing called selection. The evolutionary pathways to your objections have been examined under a very fine glass for a very long time and at no point does this information point to a creator or designer or any such force. If there exists such findings that I haven't read please cite them now.

My references showed that mammalian teeth are far from optimal but we have a short lifespan so constant tooth replacement would be a metabolic nightmare. We, as primates, have selected to not adopt such a dental "biological system" in favor of the adaptability in food intake/processing over a shorter lifespan. As long as we, at some point in the past, could feed ourselves well enough to reproduce our short life was enough and growing extra teeth didn't catch on.

I need not be able to provide the very fossil, as I mentioned previously, to establish that teeth did indeed arise via evolutionary forces, maybe in jawed fish. The oldest fossils don't have teeth, so at some point these "biological systems" arose from populations of creatures that gave them a reproductive advantage to adapt mutations in this area and teeth arose. What is so hard to understand here? Scream at the odds all you want but there it is.

If you wanna go down the geologic column/radiometric dating/temporal arrangement road feel free. Several thousand man-years of study await your review, and none of them, to my knowledge, deny the validity of a very old earth wherein life arose and evolved from simple organisms to what surrounds us today. Can you find us a reference that shows other data?

Come on Steve, this shouldn't be so hard. Surely not near as hard as taking your senior year final semester exams?

What about the correctly aligned teeth? I suppose I DO need to show images. GROSS evidence of shitty design.

:







:

What's up with that Steve? Go ahead, admit you dropped the ball on that one and let's move on, OK?

So, Steve, if you want to actually communicate I will read your response, but what should motivate anyone to engage you when you post something like the above. It might serve you well to consider some of us here quite able to determine fact from empty assertion, and the hard evidence I can access reveals a pattern wherein naturalistic explanations fit, and the supernatural is never demonstrated. If you have something of substance to support your claims now would be a great time to show those cards. Your objections to your imagined version of the ToE don't effect the real theory in any way. You're fighting a gas bag of your own invention.

Are you here to incite reactions, or are you being genuine in your claims, objections and seemingly obtuse questions?

RS

Again, not shouting. Just used caps so people could find the notes I put between lots of their writing. I guess that offers another critical opportunity for you, so I will go back to tiny type to make everyone happy. Your logic fails because you think that demonstrating crooked or imperfect teeth is evidence that selected mutations invented, designed, and assembled dentition. You seem to think that if some religoius/perfect God didn't do it, then D. evolution did. Since there is absolutely no evidence that NS and RM did the job, your discussion falls flat. And I don't argue the timeline, so you can skip that. I really didn't need the pix. I did the surgery you showed many times, and treated far "crookeder" teeth. And, again, you criticise the tiny, and are blind to the immense. You ignore the necessity of invention, design, and assembly. And that is the way it will stay for you, for necessity reasons.

hotshoe wrote:Just so you don't have a chance to get off on another rant, do we have permission to copy some portions of your ev-illusion column, so we can discuss it here ?

True, fair use under copyright law guarantees that we have the right to do it, but I just thought I would be polite and ask you first.

Thanks, Stevie !

Well, that''s mannerly. Sure. Copy at will. I'm sure my stuff will change some minds here. har har har

stevebee92653 wrote:Rage? Sorry, but no. Makes it easier to find my responses in a mass of writing.

Perhaps in the "mass of writing" you missed me pointing out that you can use the "preview" button in order to make sure your responses are properly displayed? If they are not, you can change around the position of the quote function within the writing in order to suit your needs.

argumentativealex wrote:

Except everyone here has the answer,

Not me, necessarily. I really would like to know, what have I missed? Why do all the cladograms (like the visual systems one posted earlier, like cyt-C, like pax genes) not demonstrate common descent in the way that they seem to? What do you see that I don't?

I think putting in the negative in that question will be too subtle for our Steve.

I don't think it really matters; he seems to be studiously ignoring my posts in favour of slagging off (ragging? not a word you hear that often...) everyone else anyway. Pity, because I really would like to know what he sees in cladograms that refutes common descent.

But one very important point that I'm not letting go of until you have actually answered it:

You said that the spread of biological systems and common descent are mutually exclusive. This flies in the face of everything we know, and needs to be supported with some evidence or argument. Don't move the goalposts to the origins of those systems. Right now we are talking about existing systems.

Since you have, on at least three occassions, willfully ignored this point, the only thing I can do is surmise what you might think. I'm guessing that you think speciation is impossible. Is this accurate?

argumentativealex wrote:

argumentativealex wrote:

Except everyone here has the answer,

Not me, necessarily. I really would like to know, what have I missed? Why do all the cladograms (like the visual systems one posted earlier, like cyt-C, like pax genes) not demonstrate common descent in the way that they seem to? What do you see that I don't?

I think putting in the negative in that question will be too subtle for our Steve.

I don't think it really matters; he seems to be studiously ignoring my posts in favour of slagging off (ragging? not a word you hear that often...) everyone else anyway. Pity, because I really would like to know what he sees in cladograms that refutes common descent.

You're giving him too much credit. He doesn't HAVE an argument, all he has is special pleading, ad homs, and strawmen.

From Steve's website, as linked above:

Steve, about The Blind Watchmaker wrote:Here is how Dawkins and evolutionists say mutations work to yield small changes that over eons produce new organs and species: approximately one of every million genetic transactions (generations) [?genetic transactions / generations ? Is this what Dawkins actually says ?] results in a mutation. The vast majority are not beneficial to the host. But a small minority are. Natural selection works to select the good mutation. The individuals that have the bad mutation die because they don’t have the improvement. The new and improved genetic code is spread through the population, which is now ready for another good mutation selection. “……the whole cumulative process is directed by non-random survival.”[note: a very slight modification of Dawkins' actual phrase, but correct in essence] “The whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process, when you consider the complexity of the final end-product relative to the the original starting point.”[an accurate Dawkins quote] Does this mean intelligence? Oh, right, natural selection does it.

Yes, that is exactly correct, Steve. Natural selection does it. Too bad you meant it sarcastically when you said it, because you clearly don't get it. Your loss.

Natural selection causes the appearance of "intelligent design" strictly through random mutation and then sieving the population for whatever tends to work best in the environment at the time.