Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)|
|Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well|
Assertion. Evidence Please.
| again I say 'huh'? You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes? Really? |
Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation
Assertion. Evidence Please.
And really. Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.
For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.
|Excellent. So some things are designed and some things are not.|
Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.
Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence. They are cop-outs.
I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed. I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.
If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.
There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
OK, you have got to be a Poe.
Assertion, evidence please.
BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it. Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation. Oops.
| I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here. What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems. |
With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.
You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.
Consider the human genome. 3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins. The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%. So, when you do some math...
The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes. So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another. This varies among organisms of course.
You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.
It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective. In a forum like this, not so much.
I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.
BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design. Evidence for design please.
| Here's an analogy that actually works. A Dachshund is a dog right? Canis familaris right? A Great Dane is a dog, right? Same species right... and yet radically different. |
That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes
Assertion. Evidence please.
BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype. We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation. That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.
BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here. Tell us... please.
I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist
I'm not sure the forum software will let me express my disdain properly, but I will try.
QUOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE
| Interesting. |
Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here. But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.
Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.
Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.
Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct. But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results). Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement. If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring. If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.
Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature. Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.
So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument. Shame, you didn't realize it.
Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.
Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).
Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait. Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant. Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two). repeat 3 or four times. How many homozygous dominants do you have? How many heterzygotes do you have?
That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience. For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...
and you can't.
Tell you what. Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe. How about that?
| Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something|
Assertion. Evidence please.
I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device. It's called 'goalpost shifting'. You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."
Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness. Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.
Of course it doesn't explain speciation. It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.
Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.
BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change. But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.
So let me be very clear here. You don't understand cosmology. You don't understand genetics. You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold. You think quotes are evidence.
Yeah, about what I thought.
I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists. I will voluntarily teach you using actual science. My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.
At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.
I predict that you won't do it. No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted. I know why... do you?
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.