Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How did the bombardier beetle evolved?

Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 3:21:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What was the process if evolution was true?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 12:35:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This gives some info: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 12:53:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 12:35:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
This gives some info: https://en.wikipedia.org...

He's not really interested in a scientific answer. He just wants a soapbox from which to proclaim ID. Because this is how an omnipotent, omniscient god spends his time --- designing elaborate defense mechanisms for beetles on one tiny piece of cosmic dust in a staggeringly vast universe. Lol.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 1:52:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 12:53:55 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/1/2015 12:35:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
This gives some info: https://en.wikipedia.org...

He's not really interested in a scientific answer. He just wants a soapbox from which to proclaim ID. Because this is how an omnipotent, omniscient god spends his time --- designing elaborate defense mechanisms for beetles on one tiny piece of cosmic dust in a staggeringly vast universe. Lol.

Sounds like you're on a soapbox too. And I'm sure God feels very shamed by your rebuke.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 2:59:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 3:21:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
What was the process if evolution was true?

1 Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2 Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

3 Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4 The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5 A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6 In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7 Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8 The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

9 Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

10 Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

11 Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12 More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]

14 The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14 Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15 The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 4:20:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 12:35:06 PM, bsh1 wrote:
This gives some info: https://en.wikipedia.org...

It didnt actually refuted any of the creationist's claims.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 4:33:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 2:59:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps.

They have to be broken down to the level of individual mutations. Random, undirected mutations. That's the hypothesis.

The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution.

Does asserting this claim repeatedly make it more scientifically feasible? No need to demonstrate the evolution of even one small sliver of the ecosystem, we can just claim it's so?


The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that.

Which is to say, an honest person must concede - the bombardier beetle may not have evolved at all.
This space for rent.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 4:34:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 2:59:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/1/2015 3:21:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
What was the process if evolution was true?

1 Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2 Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

I'll give you the first two points.

3 Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

How did they developed in the first place? Won't the body fix and reject anything that's not serving as a use?

4 The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

They can't deepen if they can't developed in the first place. Besides, who would it marry?

5 A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

Do we observe that in nature?

6 In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

That doesn't explain how they got it in the first place.

7 Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

Again, did we ever see this in nature?

8 The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.

How did the chemicals found there way to the right duct?
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

See last question.

9 Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

How did the muscles evolved?

10 Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

If there mixed then they are of no use without the two catalases.

11 Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

And how did all those chemicals found the right spots?

12 More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]

And we're do we see this in nature?

14 The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

So for millions of years the beetles blew off there hind ends until one of the got a firm end?

14 Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

So again, the beetles blew up there hind ends practicing using there defense mechanism?

15 The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

And what was happening before that happened?

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.

We never see benificial mutations that add new information

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given. For example, the muscles closing off the reservior (step 9) could have occurred simultaneously with any of steps 6-10. Determining the actual sequence of development would require a great deal more research into the genetics, comparative anatomy, and paleontology of beetles. The scenario does show, however, that the evolution of a complex structure is far from impossible. The existence of alternative scenarios only strengthens that conclusion.

So in other words we don't know.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2015 8:26:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 4:33:19 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/1/2015 2:59:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps.

They have to be broken down to the level of individual mutations. Random, undirected mutations. That's the hypothesis.

So in order to show evolution is true, one must break down every single example of every single life form into a step by step evolutionary progression from an organism we no longer have the DNA for?

Yet, to infer design, one simply has to say life kinda looks designed if you don't look to hard?

You will claim no, but in actual fact this is yes; because even if we can account for the EXACT process by which a particular trait has evolved by detailed study and analysis (which we have for many genes), you reject it out of hand.

Obviously, a detailed picture of large scale evolution operating using small changes to body plan and phylogeny over time in flowering and diverging lines of descent being the only explanation of the fossil record, fossil record chronology, extant and extinct life operating using the processes we see today, and building up detailed taxonomic and genomic patterns clearly distinguishable between anything designed; is not enough to even realistically conclude evolution.

The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution.

Does asserting this claim repeatedly make it more scientifically feasible? No need to demonstrate the evolution of even one small sliver of the ecosystem, we can just claim it's so?

Since when do I assert it?

Showing that all life is related, and life evolves, and the taxonomy and genomes of organisms show a pattern consistent with markers, differences and similarities solely and only consistent with shared patterns of inherited being modified independently after a definite point of divergence is sufficient evidence to show life is all related.

Explanations such as this are powerful, as they show that even the most obscure and "most designed" example of an organism shows many properties consistent with evolution (such as almost every facet of the beetle being borrowed, hi-jacked or potentially evolved through small steps).

The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that.

Which is to say, an honest person must concede - the bombardier beetle may not have evolved at all.

If you only look at this single item; maybe. But remember, there are many other pieces of evidence that build a comprehensively coherent narrative about the progression of life over large scale geological time.

While they cannot easily be proven (without evidence that can validate either the genome, or the taxonomy given highly preserved fossile samples, how can it? And is it reasonable to find such things if the beetle evolved EXACTLY as shown here), the power is that complex examples in nature cited as "examples of design" can almost invariably be boiled down to reasonable and practical steps, many if not all show practical changes that can either be observed to already occur, or inferred from sequential steps in the fossil record.

You can't do this with cars, or anything designed; because they're designed, and not subject to the constraints of beetles.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 4:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2015 8:26:09 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/1/2015 4:33:19 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/1/2015 2:59:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps.

They have to be broken down to the level of individual mutations. Random, undirected mutations. That's the hypothesis.

So in order to show evolution is true, one must break down every single example of every single life form into a step by step evolutionary progression from an organism we no longer have the DNA for?


You have to show the concept is feasible. So yeah, you need to evolve something, or decipher some evolution down to exact mutations, if you want to claim that evolution can occur as an accumulation of mutations. Otherwise it's just a guess.

Yet, to infer design, one simply has to say life kinda looks designed if you don't look to hard?


You have to show that design is feasible. Obviously it is. This is what I don't think you, or a lot of other evos really get: The mechanisms of evolution are not really 'known good's. Yes, we know mutations occur, we know selection happens, and we know macroscopic adaptation occurs. But the accumulation of random mutations as a creative process - that is simply claimed. It has never been observed, nor can it be demonstrated. So ID infers a known process, evolution infers a process that is only speculated.

And, btw, the harder you look at life, the more it looks designed. The 'bad design' arguments are arguments from ignorance and incompetence. And an IDer like me is not claiming 'settled science', just that I think that's how it happened.

You will claim no, but in actual fact this is yes; because even if we can account for the EXACT process by which a particular trait has evolved by detailed study and analysis (which we have for many genes), you reject it out of hand.

Again, and I'm sure I sound like a bit of an arrogant jerk saying this, but part of the problem here is an ignorance of how hard it is to make real products work. Your idea of a detailed account of an exact process is naively simplistic. You say 'a muscle adapts', but you forget that a muscle must have nerves back to the CNS, and circuitry in the CNS to then control the muscle (or some other means of control). The muscle must be fueled, repaired, and have waste products drained. All of these functions must co-evolve with the muscle tissue itself. And that's just off the top of my head.

This is why in the 'real world' of commercial success or failure, the only thing that counts is running the recipe you've written up and seeing if it actually produces what you say it will produce. So yes, you have to actually make a beetle become a bomber beetle or else you're just playing fantasy football. It's like, when people know I'm a design engineer, they come to me at gatherings with all sorts of great ideas - "You could replace the umpire with a camera!" and stuff like that. And even when it's a good idea, Edison's maxim applies: "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration". Nothing is more common in real life than great ideas that don't actually work. And it only takes one missing link to destroy a chain. One part you can't get may tank a project. So I think Darwinian evolution is one of those great ideas that can't actually work. And one evidence of that is the fact that after a century and a half, nobody has been able to evolve anything. It doesn't happen. It can't happen. It's nonsense.
This space for rent.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 6:49:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd just like to applaud Ramshutu for his step-by-step walkthrough of the evolution of the chemical defense adaptation by bombardier beetles. He shows, among other things, that several of these steps are or can be advantageous on their own, thus providing a powerful argument against the hidden "watchmaker argument" which seems implied by the thread starter.

While his post may seem lost on much of the audience, I thought it was very good and am impressed that he would even bother seeing as the IDers here were sure to dismiss it, even though it certainly is a much more rational and parsimonious explanation than thinking that the beetle is somehow designed.

As a newcomer to these boards, I see widespread confusion about evolution here and many fail to realize the explanatory, predictive power of evolution, how it builds on the foundation of countless studies and observations or that it is one of the most important scientific theories underlying the whole of modern biology and our modern view of the life as it was, is and will be.

While a difficult theory of such importance and relevance should inspire respect, awe and humility, here it seems to inspire arrogance and contempt.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 9:18:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 6:49:22 PM, toretorden wrote:
I'd just like to applaud Ramshutu for his step-by-step walkthrough of the evolution of the chemical defense adaptation by bombardier beetles. He shows, among other things, that several of these steps are or can be advantageous on their own, thus providing a powerful argument against the hidden "watchmaker argument" which seems implied by the thread starter.

While his post may seem lost on much of the audience, I thought it was very good

oh, I agree - it is very good. But it's a work of fiction. It's story telling. And if you disagree with that assessment feel free to run the recipe and demonstrate that it works as advertised.


As a newcomer to these boards, I see widespread confusion about evolution here and many fail to realize the explanatory, predictive power of evolution, how it builds on the foundation of countless studies and observations or that it is one of the most important scientific theories underlying the whole of modern biology and our modern view of the life as it was, is and will be.


Well, you might be a newcomer, but you've got the pompous blowhard schtick down pat, so I feel right at home with you. But it's mostly a lie, what you've said: Evolution is an ex post facto pattern imposed on historical data, that, whether true or not, is of little or no practical use. I'm not saying you're personally a liar, but you're playing along as if you see the emperor's glorious new clothes, and I can see that's not actually possible.
This space for rent.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2015 10:00:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 9:18:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Evolution is an ex post facto pattern imposed on historical data, that, whether true or not, is of little or no practical use. I'm not saying you're personally a liar, but you're playing along as if you see the emperor's glorious new clothes, and I can see that's not actually possible.

I think knowledge of evolution is useful in various ways. For example, look at the rise of multi-resistent bacteria which is now a major, global health concern. What is happening is that there's a natural selection of bacteria and bacterial genes that do well in a world with humanly applied antibiotics in it. Knowledge about evolution could have (and should have) led to decisions to regulate and restrict antibiotic use to prevent this from happening.

Furthermore, I think you are underestimating the value of understanding the world we live in. Why do honey bees give their life to protect the hive? If you know the fitness strategy behind this, it makes sense. If you believe it's merely design, you don't.

If seals or whales like dolphins are designed, why do they have fingers inside their fins? Why are they not just bone paddles? If humans were designed, why do we have vestigial tails? If rodents were designed, why do they have two rodent teeth so far ahead of the rest of their teeth? Why not just two sets of teeth?

On islands off the coast of Australia, you might find a tree climbing kangaroo, but not monkeys. On islands closer to Asia, you have monkeys, but no tree climbing kangaroos. The climbing kangaroos are really clumsy climbers. Why did God want kangaroos in the trees on some islands when they are such bad climbers? Why design bad climbers?

Why did God create parasites that live in the eyes of children? Why diseases? Why does Go subtly change diseases so that they are more efficient at making us sick?

There's a whole bunch of questions ranging from smart to trite to stupid which ID has absolutely no capacity at all of explaining any nicer than "cause God willed it" (which only begs the question why would He will it?). Accepting Intelligent Design would make biology really dumb again, like a step back to the days when people thought barnacle geese actually came from barnacles. Evolution, however, explains all these questions in a rather neat way and when we do uncover more evidence, such as by a new fossil or a study on how bacteria evolve in a lab, they fit nicely with evolutionary theory. It explains life and stands up to scrutiny which is more than you could ever say for ID.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:34:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 4:59:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
And, btw, the harder you look at life, the more it looks designed.

I'm going to deal with one point at a time.

This statement, is absolutely false. Clearly and indisputably false, and evidenced by the fact that you never actually go into any significant detail in any of your posts in any way when supporting ID.

Here's why.

You can arrange life into a nested hierarchy. That much is beyond any doubt; and this is evidenced by the fact that Creationists have had 150 years to try and find a violation using the objective criteria used to create it and never can.

Lets not talk about descent yet, though. But lets look at classification of all organisms, living and dead.

You can describe all life as follows.

Start with a simple organism; lets say a single Nucleic Eukaryotic cell. Create one or more branches for it, on each branch add, modify or remove a trait or feature. Keep repeating this process for each branch; branch and add a trait, branch, add trait; and as long as you chose the traits that exist in the life we've already found, you can produce life as it currently has and does exist.

The number of identical traits that you have to add onto multiple branches? None. For example, you add feathers at one point, and everything below that in that branch can have feathers, but nothing else on different branches. The same goes for every single other trait. "Wings", unfortunately as is often pointed out, is not a trait; the structure of the wing IS a trait, and one that doesn't repeat itself. Bird wings appear in the bird branch and no where else, at any level other than bird wings and bat wings share some traits consistent with traits added at level common to both; conforming to this pattern.

If we use dating, we know that as you go back in time the creatures that exist at that time consistently move back down that tree; indicating, among other things that species we have classified as a branch always appear after the species we have classified as the root of that brunch. Kind of a coincidence, don't you think!

You can't do this for cars, for phones, houses, or anything designed. Try it with a car: You start off with the first car, branch into fords, and chryslers adding a few distinct ford traits onto one, and chrysler into the other. This describes things to a point, but falls foul of the "identical trait" rule. You get to a point where identical traits appear in multiple branches you create. You find starter motors, diesel engines, airbags, ABS, and other innovations appearing consistently on multiple disparate branches at the same time. Whenever you cite examples of other things that can form hierarchies, I find definitiv, objective, major and broad violations easily, yet you cannot do the same with life; the best you can do simply confuse "identical traits" with "superficially equivalent".

So given that as you move forward in time, you effectively have a system where species are come into existence that did not exist before, and differ only from what was there before via a few traits; and we know we can describe pretty much all life on the planet via this method too.

So, how do you explain why life is in this planet forms this pattern?

Well, firstly, you can look at life. A species can be made to split into two distinct breeding groups, we have seen a whole magnificent host of things that change, and appear to accumulate; size, shape, bone size, bone structure. We understand enough about how embryological development works to know that the gene expression is significantly mutable and can accumulate for many different aspects. We can also see at work a number of processes, including natural selection, genetic drift and other vagaries of population mechanics that could turn the random variation we see into non random variation over a longer period of time.

So, we have a pattern of life that we can describe as species categorized in a branching structure with each branch consisting of adding, removing or changing traits; all of which correlate with the progress of time. Thus far, I have not needed to invoke or assume descent once.

We have a process that we shows that species can branch, and that species can add, remove or change traits over time through a number of processes we broadly understand.

According to you, this seems to be the most atrocious, unforgivable and faulty "leap of logic" imaginable. Not really, in fact, you probably have to be a moron, dishonest or delusional to not think the two cannot possibly be related. Indeed, I haven't even begun to mention how all of biology, taxonomy, genetics, to the minute detail falls into place with detailed causative explanation if one were to accept it.

The second way, is the one you posit. ID.

Well, the first failure at the low level with ID; is you don't have ANY causative process; the explanation of evolution depends on statistics, genetics; supported by experiment and analysis. The causative process of ID; is effectively the motivation, mood, requirements and limitations of the designer. You never define this, and it could be any convoluted, incoherent or nonsensical thing you want it to be, which effectively means your position is not falsifiable.

Then there is comparison to things that are designed; as I mentioned, you can't fit anything designed into the pattern that life forms into; so in that respect it really doesn't look designed. Even at a deeper level, the flaws that you so eloquently say are arguments from ignorance without ever attempting to justify why, are examples of things where the designer did one thing in one instance and a completely different thing in another; that looking at the design of life, it is pretty clear that the simplest, most elegance and most appropriate solution is something that violates the nested hierarchy I described.

Heck, humans do it all the time. When they want to invent a mythical creature, they slap wings on a horse, they don't take a dinosaur, and tweak it a little.

The designer, if there was one, was either motivated by or limited to making relatively small scale changes to existing creatures to make new organisms. The latter is obviously incoherent, the designer obviously had time, will, and intelligence to create at least one organism from scratch, why not many?

The second could be laziness, that he went to lots of effort to create the first organism, then half-assed the rest of the design. That's incoherent with any form of designer anyone has ever posited.

Indeed, there is no coherent argument you can make for why life is the way it is, in it's specific pattern; the pattern must be the result of whatever motivation or limitation the designer has, and you simply are unable to describe what they are in a way that is logical, rational or sensible; which is why neither you, nor any other ID proponent has ever even bothered trying.

But even then, you have this incoherent mess of trying to match up a designer with the properties of life; yet you seem to think this is completely reasonable and rational; whereas evolution, which matches and explains the evidence so perfectly it's almost a no-brainer.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 1:13:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2015 10:00:10 PM, toretorden wrote:
At 12/2/2015 9:18:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
Evolution is an ex post facto pattern imposed on historical data, that, whether true or not, is of little or no practical use. I'm not saying you're personally a liar, but you're playing along as if you see the emperor's glorious new clothes, and I can see that's not actually possible.

I think knowledge of evolution is useful in various ways. For example, look at the rise of multi-resistent bacteria which is now a major, global health concern. What is happening is that there's a natural selection of bacteria and bacterial genes that do well in a world with humanly applied antibiotics in it. Knowledge about evolution could have (and should have) led to decisions to regulate and restrict antibiotic use to prevent this from happening.


But knowledge about evolution didn't help, did it? Antibiotics were discovered, by accident, and new antibiotics have generally been created by trial and error.

And some antibiotic resistance seems to be more consistent with design, btw - a form of code sharing, and not a result of random mutation.

Furthermore, I think you are underestimating the value of understanding the world we live in. Why do honey bees give their life to protect the hive? If you know the fitness strategy behind this, it makes sense.

How do you figure? The first bee that mutated the die-for-the-hive behavior, his mutation died with him. This sounds to me precisely like the sort of behavior you have to design, and not evolve.


If seals or whales like dolphins are designed, why do they have fingers inside their fins?

Because this is the design that works best for them. Seals, whales, and dolphins all seem to be doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?

If humans were designed, why do we have vestigial tails?

We don't have vestigial tails, we have a feature that's similar to a tail. And for the same reason - for balance, most likely.

If rodents were designed, why do they have two rodent teeth so far ahead of the rest of their teeth? Why not just two sets of teeth?


I don't know, but again - rodents will most likely outlive the human race. They are an incredibly good design, far more reliable than a 747. This amateur criticism by people who've never designed a friggin mousetrap - it's absurd.


Why did God create parasites that live in the eyes of children? Why diseases? Why does Go subtly change diseases so that they are more efficient at making us sick?


Yeah, but this is theology, not science. I'm arguing for design as at least one of the mechanisms that shaped the ecosystem. The problem of evil is really not appropriate in this context.

The answer here, from a technology point of view, is that death is part of the system design. Call it recycling. The weak are recycled. You may personally not like being recycled, but as a system design it obviously works very well. Stop and ponder for a moment - what if excrement (of all species) wasn't biodegradeable? And how do you select for recyclable poop, when that feature benefits the system as a whole and not necessarily the individual specimen or species?

There's a whole bunch of questions ranging from smart to trite to stupid which ID has absolutely no capacity at all of explaining any nicer than "cause God willed it" (which only begs the question why would He will it?).

Again - "God willed it" is not part of ID. As I've said to Ramshutu - imagine visitors from another galaxy experimenting on our planet, if that helps you get past "evolution as an alternative to sunday school" kind of thinking.

Accepting Intelligent Design would make biology really dumb again,

No, that's ridiculous, frankly. What does medicine do, for instance, if not treat the body like a machine that is supposed to work a certain way (which is design), and then tries to fix the machine when it's broken. Medicine does NOT treat the body like "ok, well, let's see where this genetic illness (which is mutation) takes the species, shall we?"

It explains life and stands up to scrutiny which is more than you could ever say for ID.

I don't see much scrutiny. Definitely no testing. I mostly see either intimidation or the sort of fawning you illustrate. Evolution is the creation myth of the modern tribe, that's all. It's not science, and not even reasonable when you really think it through.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 1:26:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:34:13 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/2/2015 4:59:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
And, btw, the harder you look at life, the more it looks designed.

I'm going to deal with one point at a time.

This statement, is absolutely false. Clearly and indisputably false, and evidenced by the fact that you never actually go into any significant detail in any of your posts in any way when supporting ID.

Here's why.

You can arrange life into a nested hierarchy. That much is beyond any doubt;

The fun thing about you is that NOTHING ever registers. But for the sake of lurkers, let me repeat myself: Yes, you can arrange life in a hierarchy. You could also arrange animals by different classifications. How about "flying" - which would encompass some insects, birds, and bats (all I can think of right off). Boy, similar function from species that clearly didn't inherit the feature from a common ancestor. And btw, this is especially true of plant life- inferring a tree structure is quite problematic.

So pattern in something that is applied to blind data by a sentient observer. You could arrange a library by genre of book (fiction, history, etc), or you could arrange by number of pages. Neither is right or wrong, but one is obviously more useful than the other. And conversely, when you find apparent pattern in new data, there may be multiple explanations for that pattern. That snowflake - is that a work of art, or is it just the molecular packing that results from crystallization?

As I've pointed out numerous times - a tree of descent can be observed in devices that are clearly the result of ID. Go visit of museum of computer technology, for instance, or look at the planes in the Hazy-Udvar center near DC. Trace the lineage of the airfoil, and have the integrity to admit to yourself how much it looks like the pretty pictures in your evolution textbooks.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 1:26:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:34:13 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/2/2015 4:59:57 PM, v3nesl wrote:
And, btw, the harder you look at life, the more it looks designed.

I'm going to deal with one point at a time.

This statement, is absolutely false. Clearly and indisputably false, and evidenced by the fact that you never actually go into any significant detail in any of your posts in any way when supporting ID.

Here's why.

You can arrange life into a nested hierarchy. That much is beyond any doubt;

The fun thing about you is that NOTHING ever registers. But for the sake of lurkers, let me repeat myself: Yes, you can arrange life in a hierarchy. You could also arrange animals by different classifications. How about "flying" - which would encompass some insects, birds, and bats (all I can think of right off). Boy, similar function from species that clearly didn't inherit the feature from a common ancestor. And btw, this is especially true of plant life- inferring a tree structure is quite problematic.

So pattern in something that is applied to blind data by a sentient observer. You could arrange a library by genre of book (fiction, history, etc), or you could arrange by number of pages. Neither is right or wrong, but one is obviously more useful than the other. And conversely, when you find apparent pattern in new data, there may be multiple explanations for that pattern. That snowflake - is that a work of art, or is it just the molecular packing that results from crystallization?

As I've pointed out numerous times - a tree of descent can be observed in devices that are clearly the result of ID. Go visit of museum of computer technology, for instance, or look at the planes in the Hazy-Udvar center near DC. Trace the lineage of the airfoil, and have the integrity to admit to yourself how much it looks like the pretty pictures in your evolution textbooks.

Talking about things "not registering", please actually read my post. Because it seems you simply ignore that which is inconvenient:

"The number of identical traits that you have to add onto multiple branches? None. For example, you add feathers at one point, and everything below that in that branch can have feathers, but nothing else on different branches. The same goes for every single other trait. "Wings", unfortunately as is often pointed out, is not a trait; the structure of the wing IS a trait, and one that doesn't repeat itself. Bird wings appear in the bird branch and no where else, at any level other than bird wings and bat wings share some traits consistent with traits added at level common to both; conforming to this pattern."

You always seem to ignore that nasty little problem with your argument. "Flying" is not a taxonomic trait, nor is it identical.

"ou can't do this for cars, for phones, houses, or anything designed. Try it with a car: You start off with the first car, branch into fords, and chryslers adding a few distinct ford traits onto one, and chrysler into the other. This describes things to a point, but falls foul of the "identical trait" rule. You get to a point where identical traits appear in multiple branches you create. You find starter motors, diesel engines, airbags, ABS, and other innovations appearing consistently on multiple disparate branches at the same time. Whenever you cite examples of other things that can form hierarchies, I find definitiv, objective, major and broad violations easily, yet you cannot do the same with life; the best you can do simply confuse "identical traits" with "superficially equivalent"."

It's pretty fun when I have already pre-empted your argument.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 2:23:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 1:13:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
But knowledge about evolution didn't help, did it? Antibiotics were discovered, by accident, and new antibiotics have generally been created by trial and error.

It has helped, though not enough. For example, there are less multi-resistent bacterias in Norway than there are in Denmark because Norway has been better at regulating and restricting use of antibiotics.

However, because multi-resistent bacteria can move around, Denmark's problems with multi-resistent bacteria will almost inevitably become Norway's problem with multi-resistent bacteria in the future.

And some antibiotic resistance seems to be more consistent with design, btw - a form of code sharing, and not a result of random mutation.

Really? When antibiotics are first applied, they are generally very effective (which is why they are applied in the first place). Resistence is something you generally don't see until many generations of bacteria have been explosed to them and the antibiotic has become a regular feature of those bacterias' environment. In other words, it takes time and generations for resistance to appear and this is predicted and explained perfectly well by evolution. The resulting changes in the genomes of such diseases can be discovered and studied.

Furthermore, I think you are underestimating the value of understanding the world we live in. Why do honey bees give their life to protect the hive? If you know the fitness strategy behind this, it makes sense.

How do you figure? The first bee that mutated the die-for-the-hive behavior, his mutation died with him. This sounds to me precisely like the sort of behavior you have to design, and not evolve.

I thought you might think that because the seemingly altruistic behaviour of bees can, at first glance, seem to break with the concept of natural selection. The reason is that bees are Hymenopterans and hymenoptera have a peculiar way of doing sexual reproduction with something called haploid males.

You have two parents and you have two sets of chromosomes, one from each. Organisms with two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, are said to be diploid. This means that your dad has, by raising you and ensuring your continued existence, ensured the future survival of 50% of his genes. Which 50% of his genes he passes on, he has no control of. Your diploid parents are basically guaranteed to be 50% related to you and so will you be to your own children.

However, for bees, it's not quite like that. When a queen wakes up from hibernation, she lays drone eggs. These eggs are not the result of sexual reproduction. Rather, they are the result of asexual reproduction and contain only one set of chromosomes, even though the queen herself is diploid. Only one of her two sets of chromosomes go into each egg. These eggs will hatch and produce males with one set of chromosomes, haploid males. She then has sex with one such haploid male and all her future children in that hive will come from his sperm.

This sexual reproduction produces eggs carrying diploid females with one set of chromosomes from dad and one from mom. But, unlike your dad, their dad only has one set of chromosomes to give. His contribution is always the same - all female worker bees carry all his genetic material. Then these worker bees also get a set of chromosomes from their mom, the queen. This means that a female worker bee is, on average, 75% related to another female worker bee (50% similar from dad, on average 25% similar from mom).

Natural selection selects for fitness-raising strategies. A honey bee would be 50% related to her own offspring, but she is on average 75% related to a sister bee. In other words, for a honey bee to maximize her own fitness and ensure her own genes' future existence, it is better if she can do something to ensure the birth of another sister rather than have children of her own.

It's in every worker honey bee's selfish interest that the queen bee produces as many offspring as possible.

I know that you will probably think of this as some kind of design, but it sure seems an extraordinairy coincidence that this behaviour by bees is neatly explainable, understandable and predictable by evolutionary theory.

If seals or whales like dolphins are designed, why do they have fingers inside their fins?
Because this is the design that works best for them. Seals, whales, and dolphins all seem to be doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?

I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark; something that for example could get the oxygen they need from the water so that they wouldn't have to come up to breathe. I generally would not leave vestigial bones or other traits of any sort in any animal because it wouldn't serve a purpose.

While seals, whales and dolphins may seem to be doing alright to you, they are not perfectly adapted to their environment and so will continue to evolve until they go extinct.

If humans were designed, why do we have vestigial tails?

We don't have vestigial tails, we have a feature that's similar to a tail. And for the same reason - for balance, most likely.

We have a vestigial tailbone. This is not our only vestigial trait.

See https://en.wikipedia.org...

The answer here, from a technology point of view, is that death is part of the system design. Call it recycling. The weak are recycled. You may personally not like being recycled, but as a system design it obviously works very well. Stop and ponder for a moment - what if excrement (of all species) wasn't biodegradeable? And how do you select for recyclable poop, when that feature benefits the system as a whole and not necessarily the individual specimen or species?

I find it interesting that you believe God comes up with ways of killing people in order to recycle materials in his system and that this is a better explanation of why there are diseases than those offered by evolution. I disagree, it is a less parsimonious hypothesis and thus much less likely to be true, but then again I guess you don't care much about the likelyhood of being right or wrong or you wouldn't stick to your position at all.

Accepting Intelligent Design would make biology really dumb again,

No, that's ridiculous, frankly. What does medicine do, for instance, if not treat the body like a machine that is supposed to work a certain way (which is design), and then tries to fix the machine when it's broken. Medicine does NOT treat the body like "ok, well, let's see where this genetic illness (which is mutation) takes the species, shall we?"

I don't really get your point.

Medicine tends to affect the things inside the body. Antibiotics kill bacteria for example. An antidote neutralizes a poison or a painkiller sticks to certain receptors in the central nervous system. They work for a while until they are metabolized or otherwise exit the system and then they don't anymore.

How again is this an argument for the validity of ID?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 4:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:23:43 PM, toretorden wrote:
At 12/3/2015 1:13:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:
But knowledge about evolution didn't help, did it? Antibiotics were discovered, by accident, and new antibiotics have generally been created by trial and error.

It has helped, though not enough.

I don't see how it helped. Evolution is taken to explain resistance, but does nothing to help us deal with it, is the point. The data is sufficient, it doesn't really require an explanation in order to be dealt with. I don't really see how this is that much different from finding out that opium produces tolerance and is addictive, so we limit its use. Save it for when you really need it. There's no need for evolutionary theory to reach that common sense conclusion.


It's in every worker honey bee's selfish interest that the queen bee produces as many offspring as possible.


The bee's interests are quite irrelevant, unless you are proposing that bees intelligently create themselves. Evolution is a theory of discrete mutations. One mutation at a time, and that mutation either makes the species more or less survivable (or the same). That's the thing, you see - to think clearly about evolution you have to get down to this level. The devil is in the details, in any real world issue.

I know that you will probably think of this as some kind of design, but it sure seems an extraordinairy coincidence that this behaviour by bees is neatly explainable, understandable and predictable by evolutionary theory.


No, it's not a coincidence and there's nothing extraordinary about it. Evolution is a hypothesis that was formed based on what was observed, so obviously what is observed is going to be compatible with the hypothesis. We can admire Darwin's cleverness in forming this hypothesis, but that's many miles from testing and confirming the hypothesis.

There's a saying in several fields of science: Correlation is not causation. People in hospitals are 98% more sickly than those on the outside. It does not follow that hospitals make people sick. So finding correlation does not mean any guess at causation is correct.

If seals or whales like dolphins are designed, why do they have fingers inside their fins?
Because this is the design that works best for them. Seals, whales, and dolphins all seem to be doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?

I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?

I generally would not leave vestigial bones or other traits of any sort in any animal because it wouldn't serve a purpose.


Sigh. It is a presumption that they are vestigial bones. The circular reasoning goes bone deep in evolutionary thinking.

While seals, whales and dolphins may seem to be doing alright to you, they are not perfectly adapted to their environment and so will continue to evolve until they go extinct.


Well, there's a classic. Kind of like "The beatings will continue until morale improves"


I find it interesting that you believe God ...

Dude, I really don't like it when somebody clearly ignores what I write.

... I guess you don't care much about the likelyhood of being right or wrong or you wouldn't stick to your position at all.


Cute, and lol. Talk about prediction - I can always predict that the ad hominems are not far off when introduced to a new evolutionist. How come you guys always have to resort to this crap if your evidence is so good, eh?

And I can predict that you don't know what the term ad hominem means, and won't google it before accusing me of doing the same.

And I don't like being a nasty person, I should let this go sooner rather than later. I just have no patience with closed minds, (which could be an ad hominem right there), and maybe I'm too quick to assume someone is not listening rather than honestly not getting it. So, I don't want to fight with you - I'll try to give my opinions in a better way, if you're interested. And if you're not interested in what an evolution infidel has to say, I understand, that's fine.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 4:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 2:02:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Talking about things "not registering", please actually read my post. Because it seems you simply ignore that which is inconvenient:

"The number of identical traits that you have to add onto multiple branches? ...

Identical? No too things are identical. Similarity is a concept created by the sentient mind. You really should take a breath and absorb this concept. Similarity exists in the mind of the observer, not in the objects themselves.

...None. For example, you add feathers at one point, and everything below that in that branch can have feathers, but nothing else on different branches. The same goes for every single other trait. "Wings", unfortunately as is often pointed out, is not a trait;

By what definition of 'trait', lol? Are wings not "a distinguishing quality or characteristic" and "a genetically determined characteristic" ? You're just making up your own definitions of words to suit your purposes now. It's ironic, because you're just illustrating the arbitrary nature of classification by making up your own words.
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point. The fact that there are scads of different varieties of whale proves the point of evolution. The fact that there is a plainly better design proves the point of evolution, the fact that such a design wasn't implemented from the start is a strike against ID. You seem to have this backwards: evolutionist are showing something is not designed, intelligently, by demonstrating that a better creature of similar build or construction exists. If it was designed as SoTA, there wouldn't be a need for a superior model, nor would the current model fall obsolete.

"Build it" and "evolving something" is your goal post, not that of an Evolutionist. Show us it can be done. Grab some base elements, walk into a lab, and leave with say... a sheep. Or frog. Or rat. If life can be designed, you should have no problem with this.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:00:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 4:54:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 2:02:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Talking about things "not registering", please actually read my post. Because it seems you simply ignore that which is inconvenient:

"The number of identical traits that you have to add onto multiple branches? ...

Identical? No too things are identical. Similarity is a concept created by the sentient mind. You really should take a breath and absorb this concept. Similarity exists in the mind of the observer, not in the objects themselves.

Find lungs appearing in two independant branches, find fingers, or toes, or arms and legs, or ribs, or hair, or placenta, or lacteal glands, or nails, or pretty much every single diagnostic trait that allows us to tell one thing apart from another.

You see, you're haggling over terminology here to avoid actually addressing or having to deal with the key point; that the key features that separate birds from everything else, mammals from everything else, ray finned fish from everything else never appear on any other branch.

They just don't, and that doesn't happen in that way with ANYTHING designed.

...None. For example, you add feathers at one point, and everything below that in that branch can have feathers, but nothing else on different branches. The same goes for every single other trait. "Wings", unfortunately as is often pointed out, is not a trait;

By what definition of 'trait', lol? Are wings not "a distinguishing quality or characteristic" and "a genetically determined characteristic" ? You're just making up your own definitions of words to suit your purposes now. It's ironic, because you're just illustrating the arbitrary nature of classification by making up your own words.

Please, show me how bat wings and bird wings are taxonomically the same thing, without ignoring all of the detail. Indeed, I have explained this innumerable times, and you still revert to this comment that they are somehow the same, even though they are fundamentally different.

You can't do it. Which makes it clear, I am taking into account everything, you are taking into account almost nothing; yet you claim that I am the one making up words, and not being objective.

This is difference here: with classification I can present detail justification based on physical traits as to why everything you claim is the same is not; yet you cannot provide any sort of detailed justification as to why everything you claim the same actually is.

Like I said in this set of arguments; you ignore everything but the most superficial details. You HAVE to; because anything lower than the most superficial details prove you wrong. Thus you have to resort to word play and avoidance of what life actually is as you are doing here to retain any shred of intellectual dignity.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke. I come back the "The Emperor's New Clothes" so often - when you see that the emperor has no clothes, you see that the emperor has no clothes. Why is everyone else acting so strangely? I dunno, but the issue can't really be whether the emperor has clothes or not, I just see that he doesn't.

But hey, play along if that's your thang. I'm sure some of you do sincerely see some clothes. Really kind of see-thru though, aren't they? Can you admit that much?
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 6:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense, or that would appreciate evolution as a plan to begin with, or that it would be convincing too as a form of argumentation?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 7:54:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 6:31:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense,

Not you, apparently. I'll try to make a mental note of that: "FaustianJustice. No comprende"
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 8:00:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 7:54:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:31:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense,

Not you, apparently. I'll try to make a mental note of that: "FaustianJustice. No comprende"

Yes. Traditionally, calling something that is not a plan "a plan" causes that.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 9:23:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 8:00:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 7:54:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:31:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense,

Not you, apparently. I'll try to make a mental note of that: "FaustianJustice. No comprende"

Yes. Traditionally, calling something that is not a plan "a plan" causes that.

Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org... A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two. In this case, both a hypothesis and a business plan make claims. People who invest in business plans and those who accept science claims want some assurances that the claims are true. I wouldn't invest in mass producing a product that didn't have a single sale yet, and I'm not going to accept a claim of spontaneous auto-creation that has never been observed nor replicated.

And be sure to donate a coupla bucks to wikipedia while you're there. Only I offer free education, 'cause I'm a bored idiot.
This space for rent.
toretorden
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 10:00:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 4:17:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
I don't see how it helped. Evolution is taken to explain resistance, but does nothing to help us deal with it, is the point. The data is sufficient, it doesn't really require an explanation in order to be dealt with. I don't really see how this is that much different from finding out that opium produces tolerance and is addictive, so we limit its use. Save it for when you really need it. There's no need for evolutionary theory to reach that common sense conclusion.

If you know the mechanisms behind why bacterias evolve resistance, it could for example help you build evidence for an argument why restricting its use is important. This is actually extremely important as it is a matter of global health concern and you'd go up against various lobbyists trying to prevent any such regulation from happening.

No, it's not a coincidence and there's nothing extraordinary about it. Evolution is a hypothesis that was formed based on what was observed, so obviously what is observed is going to be compatible with the hypothesis. We can admire Darwin's cleverness in forming this hypothesis, but that's many miles from testing and confirming the hypothesis.

There's a saying in several fields of science: Correlation is not causation. People in hospitals are 98% more sickly than those on the outside. It does not follow that hospitals make people sick. So finding correlation does not mean any guess at causation is correct.

Well, we know that evolution takes place because we can observe it. To put it simply, in order to record that evolution has taken place, you'd have to be able to somehow document or show that there's been genetic change across generations. This has been done various times in various ways by various people. I give you a cool example below.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?

We've "made" better bacteria in the lab simply by letting them evolve. See the link up there.

Cute, and lol. Talk about prediction - I can always predict that the ad hominems are not far off when introduced to a new evolutionist. How come you guys always have to resort to this crap if your evidence is so good, eh?

It's ironic, perhaps sadly, you should accuse me of this. This is you in your very first reply to me in this thread. I quote :

Well, you might be a newcomer, but you've got the pompous blowhard schtick down pat, so I feel right at home with you.

That's not very nice, is it?

The reason I criticize you for not caring about the likelyhood of being right or wrong is not merely an attempt to be nasty. From what I can tell, you go against one of the most heavily well-founded theories in science and your position favours intelligent design as an alternative explanation. This seems highly irrational to me.

I pointed out earlier that evolution is a more parsimonious explanation. I'm not sure you understand what this means, but to be brief - both intelligent design and evolution are theories about the universe which need a lot of claims or assumptions about the universe to support them. For example, if you believe in intelligent design, you may have to assume that there is a god, it designs organisms, it seemingly does so without us being able to see it or sense it, for some reason it tweaks diseases to overcome our antibiotics and kill us more efficiently to keep the waste disposal system working .. assumptions like this. If knowledge is a mountain, the ID mountain is built starting top first. It starts with a creator and then makes up the assumptions it needs to accomodate it. Lots of big, important assumptions needed by ID are not really testable, observable or anythingable other than guessable. Hence, there is a large chance that by accepting ID, you will have to accept assumptions about the universe which are, in fact, false. Is there even a god? It's a pure gamble. Right from the start, it requires leap of faith. That's not a very elegant way of building a world view, is it?

Science tries to build a world view from the ground up. It searches for truth rather than just assume it. Science starts from the bottom rather than the top. So while evolution needs assumptions too, these assumptions are built on observations, studies, experiments - thousands upon thousands of bits of evidence corroborating to tell the greater story of the theory of evolution. The assumptions that evolution builds on are testable, observable, applicable, fit the universe and have stood up to scrutiny. Hence, the chances of being wrong about the universe is less if you accept evolution rather than ID.

If you care about the chances of being wrong, you should choose your beliefs accordingly.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 10:56:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense,

Not you, apparently. I'll try to make a mental note of that: "FaustianJustice. No comprende"

Yes. Traditionally, calling something that is not a plan "a plan" causes that.

Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org... A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two. In this case, both a hypothesis and a business plan make claims.

One is a projection, the other is an explanation! How are you calling the two similar?!?

People who invest in business plans and those who accept science claims want some assurances that the claims are true. I wouldn't invest in mass producing a product that didn't have a single sale yet, and I'm not going to accept a claim of spontaneous auto-creation that has never been observed nor replicated.

... but you support ID, which hinges upon a claim of the spontaneity of a creator willing various creatures into existence, despite this is not observed or replicated.

Are you by chance a businessman whom has run afoul of poor planning?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2015 11:49:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/3/2015 9:23:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 8:00:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 7:54:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:31:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/3/2015 6:19:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 12/3/2015 5:22:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say that if I were to design swimming animals living in our world's oceans, I would create something like a fish or a shark;

Go for it then. Seriously, make a better fish, show us how it's done. Just playing with that idea may introduce a touch of reality to your thinking. The smartest person on this planet is way out of his pay grade making these kinds of assessments. No researcher has been able to evolve or synthesize the simplest example of life in the lab, and we're supposed to think they know how to make a better whale?


"making one in a lab" proves your point.

Yeah, the point of "real world". As I often say, would anybody invest in evolution if it were a business plan? Of course not, it would be considered a joke.

Whom do you often say this to that it would even vaguely make sense,

Not you, apparently. I'll try to make a mental note of that: "FaustianJustice. No comprende"

Yes. Traditionally, calling something that is not a plan "a plan" causes that.

Here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org... A metaphor is a figure of speech that identifies something as being the same as some unrelated thing for rhetorical effect, thus highlighting the similarities between the two. In this case, both a hypothesis and a business plan make claims. People who invest in business plans and those who accept science claims want some assurances that the claims are true. I wouldn't invest in mass producing a product that didn't have a single sale yet, and I'm not going to accept a claim of spontaneous auto-creation that has never been observed nor replicated.

And be sure to donate a coupla bucks to wikipedia while you're there. Only I offer free education, 'cause I'm a bored idiot.

It's funny you should use business plan; because right now research and investment into evolutionary algorithms is worth billions of dollars.

Indeed, that evolutionary processes of mutation and reproduction are capable of generating complex and adaptive algorithms far more advanced and complicated than anything someone could "design" by using descent with modification, is a business plan that a lot of people buy into.