|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
642
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69112
05/14/06 11:56
05/14/06 11:56
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
@ Irish Farmer: An important note about something, where you didn't undeerstand me, or didn't want to: Quote:
Quote:
To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?
Oh, ok. Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me. Doesn't the bible also say that we inheritely understand God's creation just by looking at it?
As long as you are looking at God's creation and world, making observations and theories about how everything in it is working and connected, this is not contradicting with an 'inscrutable God', it is not contradicting with the principles of scientific theory, as well.
But, and that's how understand you and creationism, if you involve God as a a creating principle within this theory, then you include God within the subject of the investigations, and this contradicts with an 'inscrutable God',
AND it contradicts with scientific theory which requires that any of its explanations are included within the theory's context, while putting a God within a theory actually claims that there are other reasons which can't be understood from the principles and their co-relations of the theory itself.
And this is what I called "deus ex machina", which is a term from theatre play writing, meaning that the story of that play doesn't allow a solution from its elements and their relations.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69113
05/14/06 15:24
05/14/06 15:24
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.
This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).
Yeah, I think that's why they think evolution has no answer to the instinct problem. Besides the brain of for example birds is already complex, if they can't do something in one way, they are able to try different ways. I don't see any problems with changing instincts and evolution causing them , so I think I did answer Dan's questions, if you don't like those answers, well whatever ...  . What kind of scientific answers does creationism have for behavior changes?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69114
05/14/06 22:35
05/14/06 22:35
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Oh man. Where to get started? I've got my hands full, but I was busy with my brother's wedding, which was absolutely great. Anyway. Quote:
"Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me."
Does one need the permission of a God-believer to read the bible?
I grow up with the bible, within a christian family and a parish, the fact that I don't believe your believe doesn't mean that I didn't read the bible with the same seriousness as you.
No, but you obviously don't believe it. If you don't believe the bible, then why are you trying to use it as leverage? However, don't argue that you do believe the bible. I'm not going to get off on that tangent. Its unimportant. Bible-creationists have plenty of material on the incompatibility of evolution and christianity. Atheists also have a bunch of material on the incompatibility.
Quote:
Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them.
You did miss them. If I remember correctly from skimming over the posts, I'll have to bring a couple of them up before I'm done with this post.
Quote:
Biology says, that all we CAN look for are natural causes, that's its base.
Which is why people believe the Big Bang, because we all know of the many natural processes that can cause nothing to explode into something. I know, the big bang has nothing to do with biology, but both are based on science, and apparently science is all about materialism these days.
Quote:
About the dna thing, eventhough repeating patterns (that's basically what they've discovered) where found, doesn't mean it has been proven that it has a purpose at this time.
Ok, you're right, scientists are wrong. You got me there.
Unfortunately for you, you can't claim this is speculation. This is real, observable, stuff. We don't understand it yet, but we know it has a purpose. A reason for existing, if you will (most of it).
Quote:
Every animal's presence has it's effect on the foodchain. Take one or a few species out, and some others could die out pretty soon too.
Strictly speaking, that's not a symbiotic relationship.
Quote:
As for the tube worm, at this time it could not survive without the bacteria, but it could very well be that there wasn't always a symbiotic relation. What if at first the worm did have a mouth, anuses and means to survive on it's own? What if the bacteria came along later and the symbiotic relation grew, mutations causing the worm to loose certain features, which he didn't needed because the newly acquired benefits from the co-existing bacteria replaced them fully?
I hope everyone caught what happened here. In order to give a rational explanation of how this relationship could relate to evolution he had to talk about the worm losing genetic data or specificity. That cracks me up.
Quote:
but remember eventhough we might think of it as something amazing, aren't we very subjective?
This is a copout if I ever saw one. The ability for the octopus is only amazing from the perspective of intelligence. Actually, its pretty amazing either way, but it comes with its own set of problems that I won't address here.
Quote:
For any behavior to occure, there's a long road of building up experience through trial and error and also mimicking others and parents.
Some behavior has nothing to do with trial and error. Its just programmed in. Some behavior is learned, and is limited only by the intelligence of the creature, which directly relates to the crow example, and I'll get to that later.
Quote:
b.) did it witness how it's parents build it
I hope not, because nests are preparation for the eggs. Certainly they weren't even alive when the nest was built. So this would probably be an example of pre-programmed bahavior.
Quote:
Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all?
Because intelligence would have had to evolve.
Quote:
A mutation which as a result affects an arm or leg, doesn't mean the being suddenly becomes stupid.
Wow.
Quote:
Like I said, we don't know much about that worm. For worms in general scientists have determined their behavior relies much on trial-and-error behavior, or at least experiments seem to suggest that. The amount of intelligence for the worm is not really relevant, it just lives for survival, take for example ants, they don't need to rely on their intelligence to survive. Sheer number and cooperation with eachother as one big 'animal', every little ant does helps in the survival of the colony. Yes, those ants must have sort of an instinct, and I do think evolution has it's effects on it. Like I said, these questions by Dan do not make evolution more or less unlikely in my opinion.
Maybe, but they certainly add to the already astronomical impossibility of evolution.
Quote:
Some creatures only react to direct things in their environments and don't actually need to think.
I'm sorry, you simply don't know this. I don't think anyone claims to know what goes on in the mind of an ant.
Quote:
The only relevant part of intelligence for those kind of species would be pure being able to move around, smell and that kind of basic stuff.
Which goes back to its central nervous system, which is what a brain is. Although ours is more sophisticated than an ant's. You can't smell without the CNS to react to the smell, you can't walk without the inclination in the CNS to do so and the ability of the CNS to tell the body to move.
Quote:
What other option do you suggest? *poof* and there the animal get's his instinct? LOL!
Isn't that kind of what happens when a person is born? They're a lump of cells, and then poof they have a human brain capable of thinking and all that fun stuff. I could 'lol' a lot of the ridiculous crap you believe, but that would get rather pointless. It would be fun though, because all you can lol is the creation. I've got a laundry list of things I can laugh at that you believe (I assume you believe).
Quote:
The evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness.
Its rather strange, then, that even in our cursed world that is pretty much all we find. Sure, there's the odd mutation that causes lost data which manages to be beneficial, but that's certainly not evolution. You have a huge problem. For a blind, random process, evolution sure has managed to do a good job of creating creatures that seem to be pretty perfect, complete, whatever you want to call it.
Don't bring up similarities. Those aren't proof of evolution, they're proof that animals are similar.
Quote:
And there are evolutionists who accuse Darwin that he only stressed this sentence, because it rectified the colonization politics of the european nations at that time.
No, he only believed it because he was ignorant. He thought that giraffes got their necks because they used to be short and they kept stretching them to reach food. He didn't know anything about genetics, so he didn't think there were mutations. Mutations are just a last ditch effort of evolutionists to save their theory. Tiny, losses of information or scrambling of genomes will never lead to anything new, because unless you can take all pressure off of animals until they're 'done changing' they'll never survive the huge gap in genomes.
Quote:
This is part of the neurobiology whereof I don't know much.
You don't have to talk about the specifics of the mind, just how it would have evolved. The evolution of the brain, and the workings of the brain are two completely seperate fields. But I don't really care.
Quote:
If a robin builds a certain nest, what would happen to that instinct if the robin evolved to a new species?
Don't you know?! Random tinkering somehow causes all of these changes to occur at once.......Or something...It doesn't really matter because: fossils!
Quote:
The evolution of instincts is indeed fascinating. Heritable instincts can evolve and change very fast - within a few generations.
I love your proof of this. I'll leave my response for your 'proof.'
Quote:
I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.
This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).
Evolution explains this with mutations or gene shift? Mutations need not cause this. When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?
Yeah, crows who do this might have an advantage, but they have existed without it for how long? Do you really think that they die off just because they don't know to put a nut under a wheel?
Or is it possible that they just learned how to do it because they're intelligent.
Unless you can actually provide evidence of mutations somehow writing this behavior, I'll stick with a real, scientific explanation.
It is strange to note that monkeys really aren't that close to us in behavior. They tend to have sex with many, many partners naturally whereas a lot of birds pick one partner for life. Birds are probably some of the closest to us in intelligence. Some birds have an english vocabulary of about 2000 words! Monkeys scratch their anus with their finger nails and pee into their mouths.
Birds can fashion their own tools, use more elaborate tools, and use more logic than monkeys can. We must have evolved from birds........
Now, since monkeys are a lot closer in DNA to our 'ancestors', that means that our larger difference is filled with mutations that are neutral. In other words, if a broken down human can survive just as well, where is natural selection in all of this? This is a problem for evolutionists, but there is no disregarding the theory, so we'll just have to wait until they find a way to make the data fit the theory....again.
Quote:
Hubble observed that the spectra are shifted to the red. The darker the galaxy was, i.e. the more distant, the more its spectrum was shifted.
How did they know the star isn't just less bright, smaller, etc?
Quote:
When all galaxies are moving away from each other, there must have been a time when they all were together at the same position.
A gigantic assumption. For all you know, they've only been moving away from each other for 6000 years. If I see a car driving east past my house, I'm not going to just say, "Oh, it MUST have driven all the way from the west coast." I don't know where it started.
Quote:
The universe had a beginning.
Clearly.
Quote:
Now astronomy had a quite reliable method to calculate the distance of stars from their directly observed temperature-brightness-relation.
How do they know, without making a few correlations or assumptions, what the temperature of an object billions of lightyears away is? How do they know what the 'initial mass' is?
Quote:
More precise distance measurements and comparisions with supernova records led to the discovery that the red shift was not caused by a doppler effect, as Hubble assumed, but by an expansion of space itself.
We've seen space expanding? Or did this assumption just make more sense within the frame of the theory?
Quote:
This happened 1964. Two US physicists discovered the cosmic background radiation. This was considered the final proof of the Big Bang. The background radiation has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, which puts the age of the universe at about 10..20 billion years.
Except it was decided that the big bang would produce variations in this temperature, and lo and behold they found variations (certain 'tropics' if you will). So how do we know what temperature to base this off of?
The one that fits the age of the universe best?
Again, this is another one of those assumptions that the cooling of the universe is proof of anything other than that the universe is cooling. Unless you can point something out, it could just have arrived at this temperature after 6000 years of existence.
Quote:
This led to the discovery that some galaxies were older than the 10 billion years assumed so far for the age of the universe. This puzzle was solved by the discovery that the universe is expanding with increasing velocity.
Expanding faster because if they aren't then the theory is bunk? Or because we have proof. Why did we only find this proof after the evidence contradicted the theory?
Quote:
In the 1990s the age of the universe was again calculated with a complete different method, measuring uranium isotopes. Uranium came into existence through the nuclear process in the first stars. This put the age of the universe at 14.5 (+/- 1.1) billion years.
See what I mean. You can come up with all sorts of answers if you come up with assumptions first. You have to assume the way that uranium was created.
Quote:
So we have three different methods for calculating the age of the universe, all producing the same result and thus giving creationists a hard time.
I'm not too worried about it. If you can only prove your theory by first assuming that its true, then that's pretty bunk. But I look forward to persuing this line of discussion.
Quote:
his is not a speciality of evolution theory, this is part of neurobiology and medicin.
Neurobiology doesn't study the evolution of the brain. It just studies the brain. Evolution speculates as to how that brain evolved. So its not reinventing the wheel, its looking at the wheel from a different perspective. So, you can't avoid this one, and neither can evolution.
Quote:
it signs responsible for a concept which puts the obvious similarities (for instance between the mammals)
You'd like to stay within this line of thought because its more comfortable to point out that animals are similar, than wonder how, within reason, evolution could possibly account for behavior and appearance.
Its also fun to focus on the similarities between mammals, than say the huge differences. Some live on land, some in water. Some walk, others have wings. Some walk and glide. Some lay eggs, some don't. Some are parasitic, some aren't. Some are venomous, some aren't. Some have duck-like bills, some don't. Some are nocturnal, some aren't (I've love someone to explain the evolution of nocturnal animals). I could go on and on. Its interesting to note that mammals have a species (or many species) to represent most of the major physical attributes of all animals, and a lot of the non-physical attributes. Excluding some of the more exotic ones like exoskeletons which by their nature exclude mammals.
That doesn't disprove evolution, but the point is that you find all kinds of variety in life. That doesn't make any speculation on animals more or less true.
Quote:
As long as you are looking at God's creation and world, making observations and theories about how everything in it is working and connected, this is not contradicting with an 'inscrutable God', it is not contradicting with the principles of scientific theory, as well.
It is if you do it without proof, and only assumptions.
'But animals really are similar!' I can't imagine you would have any other response.
Quote:
then you include God within the subject of the investigations, and this contradicts with an 'inscrutable God',
Ok, if that verse uses the word 'inscrutable' then we have to take a look at the meaning of the word, and exactly what we're doing. Scrutiny is kind of like examining, or studying something. If we're scrutinizing God's creation, are we scrutinizing Him? I don't see where you're making the connection. This is what I meant when I say the bible says we were given a mind to understand His creation. He wants us to KNOW and ENJOY His creation. He also wants us to KNOW and ENJOY Him, but we can't just pull Him out of the sky and put Him under a microscope. So I fail to see the contradiction between creationism and the bible.
Quote:
it contradicts with scientific theory which requires that any of its explanations are included within the theory's context,
If animals can't change beyond their originally programmed limits, and if mutations simply cause errors which aren't necessarily deleterious, then that fits within the mold of creation and debunks evolution. And yet nowhere in there did I pull God out of the sky to come to these conclusions , we just performed experiments, etc.. We observed His creation. Evolutionists fail to admit these two things because they're opposed to their theory, but its still true.
Quote:
while putting a God within a theory actually claims that there are other reasons which can't be understood from the principles and their co-relations of the theory itself.
Its a good thing no one does that. Creationism says that biology matches up with the account from the bible. That animals produce after their kind. This is what we see. Creationism predicts (outside the bible which never approached the subject) that mutations could never hope to even come close to writing a new kind of animal. This is what we see. These line up with what the bible says. Whereas, your invisible, and unobservable (magical) changes are being inserted into good science, I have the courtesy to keep God out of science because I know I can keep him out without contradicting His word. You have to add your god in just so that your theory makes sense. Neither of our deities are observable (per se), but at least mine makes sense in the context of science.
Quote:
I don't see any problems with changing instincts and evolution causing them
Did you ever think that if bird's brains were evolving that rapidly (in the context of random mutations), that we would see birds in confusion, or absolutely mentally retarded, or unable to function normally, more than we would see these 'good' behaviors being evolved? You guys seem to forget that brains have the wonderful ability to learn, and that this doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
Evolutionists say this all the time, "Mutations are mostly bad." So where are all the bad mutations? Surely, if it happened this quick we would still be able to observe the deleterious ones. We're back to Darwin's problem. Why is all of nature not a mass of confusion?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69116
05/15/06 01:01
05/15/06 01:01
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Did you ever think that if bird's brains were evolving that rapidly (in the context of random mutations), that we would see birds in confusion, or absolutely mentally retarded, or unable to function normally, more than we would see these 'good' behaviors being evolved? You guys seem to forget that brains have the wonderful ability to learn, and that this doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
What are you trying to say?
There are definately retarded birds, and they have a very small chance of survival, it's not only obvious, it's observable too. Syndroms, similar to the Syndrom of Down, appear amongst animals too.
Your so caught up in your own thoughts here, that you seem to have missed a lot of points I made. Anyways, YES, the brain's development, like I said already, can be apart from physical evolution. It's not like a mutation affecting a toe's growth suddenly makes the brain's development go nuts! You 'attacked' something I never stated, nor did anyone else. A mutation could cause the brain to be able to learn more or less, intelligence. But mutations can also destroy/change information, the pre-programmed behavior parts.
Quote:
Evolution explains this with mutations or gene shift? Mutations need not cause this. When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?
That capacity can change too because of mutations, I already adressed this when replying to Dan's questions earlier. Behavior and physical evolution are only indirectly linked. Off course a creature needs to have the capacity to be able to learn to cope with it's body effected by mutations.
Quote:
I hope everyone caught what happened here. In order to give a rational explanation of how this relationship could relate to evolution he had to talk about the worm losing genetic data or specificity. That cracks me up.
That's because you believe in creationism. 
Laughing away my argument of the animal losing genetic data might be tempting for you, we all know that and feel very sorry for you too. 
Symbiotic relationships have to grow, they can not be instantly there at all. We all know creatures doesn't simply *poof* appear, they need to be born first, and even before that some parents need to go nuts, or some other method of reproduction has to take place. Symbiotic or not fully dependant on eachother, even those relationships would need to grow by means of evolution. Therefore I came up with the 'lost genetic data/mutation' explanation indeed. It's still a chicken and egg 'who was first' kind of thing, as in who adapted to who, but I'm confident the most rational explanation would be the one I've stated before.
Quote:
This is a copout if I ever saw one. The ability for the octopus is only amazing from the perspective of intelligence. Actually, its pretty amazing either way, but it comes with its own set of problems that I won't address here.
Which set of problems? Intelligence-wise, it's just a matter of the species who can use it's physical abilities best, and who survives and will pass on it's genetic data. I don't see how that can be problematic. Even if it would require an amount of intelligence, or instinct or reflexes or whatever, the creatures in the past who were able to use their abilities the best would survive. Yes, mutations could have influenced this, why not?
Not every lion can hunt super efficient, there brain might not be up for the task. Mutated or not, if he's not able to catch enough preys to survive, selection will take place.
Quote:
Ok, you're right, scientists are wrong. You got me there.
Unfortunately for you, you can't claim this is speculation. This is real, observable, stuff. We don't understand it yet, but we know it has a purpose. A reason for existing, if you will (most of it).
The only thing observable, are the repeating patterns. That says exactly nothing about it's purpose, at least at the moment. Only the fact that there have been patterns found in junk dna, might suggest it's more than just junk.
Quote:
I hope not, because nests are preparation for the eggs. Certainly they weren't even alive when the nest was built. So this would probably be an example of pre-programmed bahavior.
Yes, so you say that baby birds never ever see the nests they grow up in to start with? Oww wait, you must be one of those people who believe there first were eggs. 
Pre-programmed, yes I do believe part of it must be pre-programmed, but I think by far most behavior is the result of trial and error and mimics. A small part would be pre-progammed instinct or the ability using logic.
Would we know how to build a house, just by knowing it's 'pre-programmed' concept? No, that's ridiculous to think. We would need to use logic, take efficient use of our environment and there would most definately be trial-and-error involved. I don't think birds building a nest goes very different, they are not robots you know.
Quote:
Because intelligence would have had to evolve.
And still there is no need for a direct link between physical evolution and the evolution of the brain. If there's a sufficient amount of intelligence, there's no 100% need for it to evolve in order to make physical new acquired features possible to use. Species who did evolve having additional intelligence, would again have a greater chance of passing on their genes.
Quote:
I'm sorry, you simply don't know this. I don't think anyone claims to know what goes on in the mind of an ant.
We know more about it then you seem to suggest. There are lots of not so complex animals simply reacting to their environment, reacting on impulses triggering the appropriate behavior. I'm not talking about what may or may not go on in the minds of those animals, I'm talking about observed behavior. There are tons of experiments done which do indicate for example worms rely heavily on trial and error behavior, otherwise they would not make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, seemingly random.
Quote:
Which goes back to its central nervous system, which is what a brain is. Although ours is more sophisticated than an ant's. You can't smell without the CNS to react to the smell, you can't walk without the inclination in the CNS to do so and the ability of the CNS to tell the body to move.
Yes, which is exactly why scientists believe those kind of basic functions were developed in a very very early stage of evolution. Just like eyes, which were at first, simply cells sensitive to light and evolved into what most species have now.
By the way, let's say a nose is there, fully functional and physically already evolved to a simple 'can smell something' body part, but there's no reaction on the impulses it gives, the nose might be neutral or not negative to a species survival. What if because of mutations the animal did become sensitive to what the nose smells? It could have been beneficial for survival because of the reaction on what it can smell, and there goes evolution again. I'm sure the nose's evolution, is as complicated as the eye's was, but it probably has started not as complex as it is now.
Quote:
Now, since monkeys are a lot closer in DNA to our 'ancestors', that means that our larger difference is filled with mutations that are neutral. In other words, if a broken down human can survive just as well, where is natural selection in all of this? This is a problem for evolutionists, but there is no disregarding the theory, so we'll just have to wait until they find a way to make the data fit the theory....again.
I'm not sure what you mean. Broken down human? Mostly we are able to do more than monkeys can do. On average we are more intelligent, we've adapted to a different environment, walking upright, stuff like that. Why should most of our different genes indicate they would have been neutral for survival? I think it's quite the contrary, those differences were positive for survival. What we have in common, that's what's either neutral or vital for survival, like specific organs or eyes or ears. That's definately the biggest part of what we have in common, our anatomy and basic structure/content. Change those and it would be negative for survival, that's why we still have very much in common.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69117
05/15/06 02:35
05/15/06 02:35
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
What are you trying to say?
There are definately retarded birds, and they have a very small chance of survival, it's not only obvious, it's observable too. Syndroms, similar to the Syndrom of Down, appear amongst animals too.
Your so caught up in your own thoughts here, that you seem to have missed a lot of points I made.
No. You missed the point I made. Let's assume that somehow mutations can 'write' more intelligence. If it does happen as quickly as these crows needed to adapt to stop lights and all of that, then we should constantly be finding birds that are deleterious.
Since most mutations would be deleterious this is what we should find. Instead, its a very rare occurance to even find negative mutations. These birds just had the capacity to learn. It had nothing to do with evolution.
Quote:
It's not like a mutation affecting a toe's growth suddenly makes the brain's development go nuts!
This has nothing to do with what I said. I don't even get where you're getting this from. Furthermore, what does it have to do with anything that anyone has said so far. Please, point out to me where I said a toe mutation would cause birds to lose intelligence.
Quote:
hat capacity can change too because of mutations, I already adressed this when replying to Dan's questions earlier. Behavior and physical evolution are only indirectly linked.
Nope. There's a direct link. If I sprout legs, but I don't know how to use them, the data won't become dominant. If I learn how to use legs, but haven't sprouted any, then the data won't become dominant. They both have to happen randomly and at the same time.
Quote:
Laughing away my argument of the animal losing genetic data might be tempting for you, we all know that and feel very sorry for you too.
Wow, man. You are so twisted backwards you wouldn't know logic if it stuck a knife down your eye socket.
I'll quote Kent Hovind, because he makes a great point about what you're trying to say here. On the topic of losing organs as proof of evolution:
"Yes kids, we're losing all these things, that's how we got 'em."
Do you see the problem. If I lose my arms, and my hair, and my legs, and my eyes, and my ears, and my nose, what have I evolved into? That's devolution (yes, it does exist), and you're using that to explain how this worm could have evolved. That's why I'm laughing. And now I'm laughing harder.
Quote:
We all know creatures doesn't simply *poof* appear, they need to be born first
But I'm assuming that you believe in the spontaneous generation of life.
Quote:
but I'm confident the most rational explanation would be the one I've stated before.
Yes! That is the most rational explanation! But its not evolution, that's why its so funny. In order to explain how it could have evolved, you gave an example of the opposite of evolution.
Quote:
The only thing observable, are the repeating patterns. That says exactly nothing about it's purpose, at least at the moment. Only the fact that there have been patterns found in junk dna, might suggest it's more than just junk.
You yourself referenced a quote giving an instance where its useful. Are you honestly this blind? They say it aids in transcription, an absolutely essential process of our genetic material has (just one of its many purposes). It has a role. I'm not going to keep arguing this point. Pattern or no pattern doesn't matter.
Quote:
Yes, so you say that baby birds never ever see the nests they grow up in to start with? Oww wait, you must be one of those people who believe there first were eggs.
They don't see the nest get built. That's the point. They would need to see how its done. Just because I see skyscrapers while I drive past them doesn't mean I have any idea how to build one.
But, I'll concede the point because it really doesn't matter if birds learn it or not.
Quote:
If there's a sufficient amount of intelligence, there's no 100% need for it to evolve in order to make physical new acquired features possible to use.
Yeah, actually the limb needs to grow the nerves, the muscles, the skeletal structure, and those nerves need to link back to its central nervous system, which then needs to know how to operate the limb. There's a direct link. If I added a third arm onto your shoulder, even if it was complete, your brain wouldn't know how to use it because its not built to use it.
Quote:
There are tons of experiments done which do indicate for example worms rely heavily on trial and error behavior, otherwise they would not make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, seemingly random.
I'm saying that not all behavior is learned. Some is, some isn't.
Does that make you uncomfortable or something? I don't get what your objection to this is.
Quote:
By the way, let's say a nose is there, fully functional and physically already evolved to a simple 'can smell something' body part, but there's no reaction on the impulses it gives, the nose might be neutral or not negative to a species survival. What if because of mutations the animal did become sensitive to what the nose smells?
How would the nose get built, little by little, if it has no apparent function? It would never take over in the gene pool. Now, the behavior has the same problem. How would it take over if it has no purpose? The ONLY way this works is if both mutations happen at the same time (little by little which compounds on the problem). Maybe once, or maybe even five times (although that's being generous). But I don't see how you could possibly tell me this could happen millions of times in the history of the earth? You can never laugh at anything I believe again, because that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Besides, mutations can't write new information, so the nose wouldn't even appear, nor would the ability use it.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69118
05/15/06 03:44
05/15/06 03:44
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Just to add a little "fuel to the fire": if you separate a Robin's egg from its nest, hatch it in an incubater and never allow it to experience growing up in a Robin's nest of its very own, when that grown bird is released into the wild it will build a Robin's nest. So it is obvious that the kinds of nests birds build have nothing to do with having "seen them" as they hatched from their eggs and grew. You could raise a Robin in a Blue Jay's nest and that Robin will go and build a Robin's nest when it is nesting time. This is instinct and instinct had to have come from somewhere. Since some here are stating that evolution is the means by which we now have such a variety of species and since many of these species have instincts (i.e. non-learned behavior) then these instincts must also come about by evolutionary means. The question, as asked previously, is by which evolutionary means could this information have come about originally? As has been pointed out, mutations (harmful or beneficial) do not add new information to the any creature. They only lose information. Therefore how did the Robin gain this information to build only the Robin's nest? If we all (meaning: man, birds, lizards, fish, etc) started in the same slime pool (or deep ocean floor near a vent or "name your origin theory and place here") from the same spontaneously formed proteins then it seems obvious that these proteins did not come into existance with the instinct or ability to build any kind of nest, let alone any of the specific bird nests that exist today. The instinctual ability to build a specific bird's nest would then be ADDITIONAL informaion that the original protein(s) did not have. This additional information had to come from somewhere. Since neither harmful nor beneficial mutations add information then where did the information come from? While some here may argue that instinct is not in the realm of evolution I would obviously disagree. As stated from the beginning, evolution must account for more then the various species that inhabit planet Earth (i.e. the physical form of the creature). It must also explain the evolution of instinct (unlearned behavior) and even the ability to learn (since this is, in itself, additional information that the original protein would not have had). This leads us even to the evolution of conscienceness (sp? ... sorry ... I am tired ). The original protein could not have had human thinking. Therefore, according to evolutionary thinking, this too had to have come about by evolutionary processess. What processes in evolution could create human reasoning or even emotions? As usual, I am not proving or disproving anything. Please note my utter lack of personal attacks on anyone or the lack of "lol". I am simply looking for a decent evolutionary explaination for things of this nature. By the way, the birds placing nuts where wheels would drive is interesting, but it does not provide an answer to the question. It shows the birds have a form of intelligence and that they can learn, but we all knew that. What we then have to ask is where did these birds get the ability to reason out the puzzle of placing the nut where the wheel would roll? And, as we can see, we are back to my original question instead of at an answer. As a side note, while in Israel we had these medium sized green parrots that lived in the north. They would take nuts from off the trees near our home and crack them with rocks. They would pick up a rock in their mouths and smash at the nut until it cracked open and then they would eat. It was a lot of fun to watch.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Locoweed]
#69120
05/15/06 05:11
05/15/06 05:11
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256
Oz
Locoweed
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,256
Oz
|
Wow, it happenned again. Double mutation. Checking radiation levels in the house. Seems a bit weird, two mutations in one night.
Loco
Professional A8.30
Spoils of War - East Coast Games
|
|
|
|
