Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

19091939596232

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Nor has he explained how hitting a fish in the face with a hammer causes evolution, nor has he detailed Creationist experiments that have witnessed this rapid evolution of flat fish.

    I suspect we will be waiting for a while as he retreats under his bridge ...
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I was I was using the sledgehammer to illustrate how rapidly serious damage can be caused ... by both intelligently directed processes ... and non-intelligently directed processes like mutagenesis.

    The example of dog breeds being produced with seriously squashed up muzzles over less than a few hundred years shows that dogs muzzles that are 'remodelled' via mutagenesis, is a similar process to how flatfish got their 'remodelled' eyes!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I was I was using the sledgehammer to illustrate how rapidly serious damage can be caused ... by both itelligently directed processes ... and non-intelligently directed processes like mutagenesis.
    Well, it's a stupid illustration, so I suggest you drop it. Read it back to yourself, it's freaking hilarious. And Zombrex's summary above needs to be formalised into a quote somewhere.
    J C wrote: »
    The example of dog breeds being produced with seriously squashed up muzzles over less than a few hundred years shows that dogs 'remodelled' muzzles via mutagenesis is a similar process to how flatfish got their 'remodelled' eyes!!!
    Care to address post 2751?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Nor has he explained how hitting a fish in the face with a hammer causes evolution
    Are we allowed to 'lol' here? I cannot stop laughing at this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    In terms of evolution, what could make humans develop wings?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    JimiTime wrote: »
    In terms of evolution, what could make humans develop wings?
    God !!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Well, it's a stupid illustration, so I suggest you drop it. Read it back to yourself, it's freaking hilarious. And Zombrex's summary above needs to be formalised into a quote somewhere.
    What's stupid about pointing out that damage can be rapidly and easily done ... but creating requires a lot of effort and intelligence.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    Care to address post 2751?
    I would, if I didn't have to spend so much time and effort defending the obvious!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Without the hand of humans, the myriad dog breeds we observe today would never have come into existence (whatever those breeds are is unimportant, I am referring to the level of phenotypic separation we observe). Forced breeding between selected parents, banned breeding between unfavourable parents and swift removal of undesirable offspring pushes artificial selection processes at a speed simply unachievable by natural selection.
    You are correct that some dog breeds rely on artificial selection for their survival such are the lowering of fitness involved. However, flatfish with eyes on top do survive naturally ... and thus are examples of NS in action with a damaged pair of eyes in a position that gives them a selection advantage despite the collateral damage caused in the process of their 'relocation'.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Given that you have stated that you believe the flatfish eye migration is a result of mutation then natural selection (albeit in a negative direction, from perfection to mash up), you simply cannot begin to compare the speed at which these changes must have occurred to those observed in artificial selection processes. It's a non-sequitur.
    Why not ... natural selection can be just as efficient as artificial selection for traits that give a substantial survival advantage ... and for a flatfish having eyes looking upwards would be a substantial survival advantage.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    Except you have to, don't you? In order to explain how so many changes in so many genes have formed a pathway that causes the adult eye to switch sides? You are bound to super rates of evolutionary change (understanding that you believe it to be negative) because the changes you accept happen naturally could never naturally have occurred since your book was written.
    ... This type of damage tends to be quite rapid ... like the dog muzzle damage.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    A conundrum indeed.
    Only if you're an anti-Creationist ... and want to remain one, come what may!!!:):P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    It is true after all...JC 'cherry picks' sentences to (unsuccessfully) support his (un-supportable) viewpoint in this overly long argument, and completely ignores the science that has been carried out that clearly shows, by empirical evidence, the true nature of how the world about us has arrived at where it is today.
    I didn't 'cherry pick' anything ... I quoted the first six sentences in the article.
    maguffin wrote: »
    Your answer above ignores what comes a little further down the text in the article mentioned....
    I dealt with the first part of the article ... and I have no problem addressing any other part of this, or any other article.
    maguffin wrote: »
    "This is a profound discovery which clearly shows that intermediate fossil forms, which according to certain creationist theories shouldn't exist, are regularly turning up as scientists keep looking for them," says Dr. John Long of the Natural History Museum of LA County, an expert in fossil fishes"
    Firstly, there is nothing profound about intermediate damaged structures being found ... they are often found ... including intermediates between dogs with pointy noses and dogs with flat noses that look like they were in a bad car crash!!
    Secondly, what Creation Scientists point to is the lack of intermediate structures leading to the creation of new functional structures like the eyes themselves ... rather than examples of damage to existing perfect structures.
    maguffin wrote: »
    The only thing being 'rapidly remodeled' around here is our ever changing opinnion of your very poor grasp of reality in matters scientific.
    I doubt if your opinion is changing at all ... because you are wedded to Evolutionism come what may!!!!:)
    maguffin wrote: »
    And please, don't come back at me with the 'jesus loves you' stuff.....I'm not interested.
    He Created you ... and still loves you as the amazing child of God that you are ... whether you're interested or not!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I was I was using the sledgehammer to illustrate how rapidly serious damage can be caused ... by both intelligently directed processes ... and non-intelligently directed processes like mutagenesis.

    So I ask again, you think flat fish occurred because of physical damage to their faces view some sort of blunt trama?
    J C wrote: »
    The example of dog breeds being produced with seriously squashed up muzzles over less than a few hundred years shows that dogs muzzles that are 'remodelled' via mutagenesis, is a similar process to how flatfish got their 'remodelled' eyes!!!

    And again, given how quickly this can happen surely Creationist have observed it happening in flat fish, correct?

    Where is this research?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »
    I didn't 'cherry pick' anything ... I quoted the first six sentences in the article.

    I dealt with the first part of the article ... and I have no problem addressing any other part of this, or any other article.

    Firstly, there is nothing profound about intermediate damaged structures being found ... they are often found ... including intermediates between dogs with pointy noses and dogs with flat noses that look like they were in a bad car crash!!
    Secondly, what Creation Scientists point to is the lack of intermediate structures leading to the creation of new functional structures like the eyes themselves ... rather than examples of damage to existing perfect structures.

    I doubt if your opinion is changing at all ... because you are wedded to Evolutionism come what may!!!!:)

    He Created you ... and still loves you as the amazing child of God that you are ... whether you're interested or not!!!

    What's with the 'damaged' term?....there is no damage to the eyes of the fish....they simply moved...they are still perfectly working eyes....no blindness...no distortion...no damage!

    I'm not 'wedded' to evolution or anything else....my opinions are based on the evidence thus far presented.... they will change when I see fit to change them!!

    There is absolutely NO evidence to support your claim that 'God' created me!!.......I challenge you to present it to me (but i know you can't!).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    J C wrote: »
    God !!!:)

    I was being serious btw. What would/could make a human develop wings?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I was being serious btw. What would/could make a human develop wings?

    Adaptive pressure and natural selection. Flight developed in animals where it was advantageous for them to go from gliding to full flight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Adaptive pressure and natural selection. Flight developed in animals where it was advantageous for them to go from gliding to full flight.

    Could you give me a hypothetical scenario as to how this would happen in a human? Doesn't matter if its completely far fetched, I'm just getting my head around the process of it occurring. Would it be like, if mankind decided to live in trees and transport themselves by jumping from tree to tree, but the trees for some reason got further apart so that we couldn't jump anymore, we'd develop gliding capabilities or some such (Yes I know, we'd simply use our noggins for an artificial means, but its just a completely hypothetical question :) )


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Could you give me a hypothetical scenario as to how this would happen in a human? Doesn't matter if its completely far fetched, I'm just getting my head around the process of it occurring. Would it be like, if mankind decided to live in trees and transport themselves by jumping from tree to tree, but the trees for some reason got further apart so that we couldn't jump anymore, we'd develop gliding capabilities or some such (Yes I know, we'd simply use our noggins for an artificial means, but its just a thought experiment :) )

    So imagine that a child is born with webbed hands. Happens from time to time. For some reason, say we are as you say jumping from trees, these webbed hands gives this child a control advantage, they can use the small webs between the hands to slow down momentum.

    This advantage is passed on through the generations. Small mutations will alter the web hands, say a few generations after this initial webbed fingered child one of his descendents (who all have webbed hands) is born with slightly longer fingers. So now this child has webbed hands and longer fingers, this provides even more advantage.

    Over thousands of years mutations that build upon the advantage accumulate because natural selection (which just means these humans do slightly better and thus reproduce slightly more) selects them.

    In a million years you have gone from normal length fingers with some extra skin between the fingers, to creatures with long long fingers with sheets of skin between the fingers. Mutations that shrink the arms and lengthen the fingers would be selected (assuming this gave advantage), so you now have humans, or the descents of humans, who basically have wings.

    You can see this in the bat, who's "fingers" are actually longer than its arm

    batskeleton.jpg

    The important point is that at the start the reason this webbing between the figures is selected by evolution would not be because it gives flight. Flight is something that would come hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years later. At some point the creatures leaping between trees realize that they can now glide between trees, and then at some point later they can flight.

    A whole host of things have to develop in parallel, which would be rare mutations. But then you have hundreds of thousands of humans being born each day, all of them with approx 60 new mutations from their parents. Life is a massively parallel system.

    Hope that helps clarify.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I was I was using the sledgehammer to illustrate how rapidly serious damage can be caused ... by both intelligently directed processes ... and non-intelligently directed processes like mutagenesis.

    Oh! So you are now taking the position that non-intelligently directed processes can produce new CFSI.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So imagine that a child is born with webbed hands. Happens from time to time. For some reason, say we are as you say jumping from trees, these webbed hands gives this child a control advantage, they can use the small webs between the hands to slow down momentum.

    This advantage is passed on through the generations. Small mutations will alter the web hands, say a few generations after this initial webbed fingered child one of his descendents (who all have webbed hands) is born with slightly longer fingers. So now this child has webbed hands and longer fingers, this provides even more advantage.

    Over thousands of years mutations that build upon the advantage accumulate because natural selection (which just means these humans do slightly better and thus reproduce slightly more) selects them.

    In a million years you have gone from normal length fingers with some extra skin between the fingers, to creatures with long long fingers with sheets of skin between the fingers. Mutations that shrink the arms and lengthen the fingers would be selected (assuming this gave advantage), so you now have humans, or the descents of humans, who basically have wings.

    You can see this in the bat, who's "fingers" are actually longer than its arm

    batskeleton.jpg

    The important point is that at the start the reason this webbing between the figures is selected by evolution would not be because it gives flight. Flight is something that would come hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years later. At some point the creatures leaping between trees realize that they can now glide between trees, and then at some point later they can flight.

    A whole host of things have to develop in parallel, which would be rare mutations. But then you have hundreds of thousands of humans being born each day, all of them with approx 60 new mutations from their parents. Life is a massively parallel system.

    Hope that helps clarify.

    I would also add that 'webbed fingers' might be something of a turnoff as far as selection is concerned in the human world as we know it but if environmental pressures forced us into the trees, then webbed fingers might become an attractive trait which would increase the chances of that genetic information being reproduced.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Oh! So you are now taking the position that non-intelligently directed processes can produce new CFSI.
    There is no new CFSI involved in damage that results in 'cock-eyed' Flatfish and mushed-up noses in Dogs ... its just damage to originally perfect structures.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,682 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    JC, are you suggesting that complexity is directly proportional to functionality? That complexity necessarily makes something more functional? I'm no expert, but I would presume this to be untrue.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    There is no new CFSI involved in damage that results in 'cock-eyed' Flatfish and mushed-up noses in Dogs ... its just damage to originally perfect structures.
    From which ancestor?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    From which ancestor?
    The original Dog Kind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Are we allowed to 'lol' here? I cannot stop laughing at this.
    'Gallows Humour' ... for Evolution?:confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gumbi wrote: »
    JC, are you suggesting that complexity is directly proportional to functionality? That complexity necessarily makes something more functional?.
    Not neccessarily ... but high functionality is directly linked to high specificity ... and vice versa.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Zombrex
    Biologists have estimated the time required for this evolution (of Flatfish eyes) to be approx 50 million years, based on fossil records.
    ... so in the same 50 million evolutionist years that it took some Flatfish to become 'cock-eyed', Crocodiles remained exactly as they were ... and a rat-like creature 'evolved' into Mankind.

    ... sounds like special pleading of unbelievable proportions.

    BTW ... I'm not laughing ... I used to believe all this stuff myself ... the 'whole nine yards' ... or should that be 'nine billion years'??:o:o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    The original Dog Kind.

    No, the flat fish. Which ancestor do I "damage" in order to produce flat fish. I mean you are making a testable hypothesis, it should be very easy to test shouldn't it? I'm assuming Creationist have already done this, right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... so in the same 50 million evolutionist years that it took Flatfish to become 'cock-eyed', Crocodiles remained exactly as they were ... and a rat-like creature 'evolved' into Mankind.

    ... sounds like special pleading of unbelievable proportions.

    BTW ... I'm not laughing ... I used to believe all this stuff as well ... the 'whole nine yards' ... or should that be 'nine billion years'??:o:o

    Hey, I'm just explaining what biologists think.

    You haven't provided the time frame that Creationists believe this happened in. Can you do that please? Be precise as possible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, the flat fish. Which ancestor do I "damage" in order to produce flat fish. I mean you are making a testable hypothesis, it should be very easy to test shouldn't it? I'm assuming Creationist have already done this, right?
    There are different types of Flatfish ... with different ancestors.
    Some are descended from Ray-type fish ... and others are possibly descended from 'ordinary' fish that have suffered serious 'twisting' of their bodies ... including damage resulting in 'cock-eyed' mutations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... so in the same 50 million evolutionist years that it took some Flatfish to become 'cock-eyed', Crocodiles remained exactly as they were ... and a rat-like creature 'evolved' into Mankind.

    Zombrex
    Hey, I'm just explaining what biologists think.
    ... methinks that they need to put more thought into their thinking.:)

    ... and you need to put more explanation into your explaining.:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    There are different types of Flatfish ... with different ancestors.

    Ok, I'll let you pick one. Detail this ancestor, the evidence we have for it and the time it took to "damage" itself into a flat fish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... methinks that they need to put more thought into their thinking.:)

    Me thinks you haven't answer the question.

    What is the time frame that it takes for a normal fish to "damage" itself into being a flat fish, how many generations of mutations.

    And why does this process not kill the fish involved before they can pass on their genes, given that the individual mutations must be rather huge if they are to mutate from upright to flat in the space of a few decades?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    There is no new CFSI involved in damage that results in 'cock-eyed' Flatfish and mushed-up noses in Dogs ... its just damage to originally perfect structures.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the position of a flatfish's eyes are not due to CFSI, that the CFSI of a flatfish is identical to its ancestor's CFSI or that the positioning of the eyes, mouth and bodyshape have nothing to do with CFSI at all?

    I think that what you are suggesting is the equivalent of losing half of the instructions for building a flatpack wardrobe and constructing a bedside cabinet as a result of following the remaining instructions.

    Suppose you lost half the instructions by splashing paint over them thus obscuring half of the print. If the unobscured print resulted in the construction of a bedside cabinet then that would mean that new information had been created.

    Similarly, you don't create a bedside cabinet by hitting a wardrobe randomly with a sledgehammer. Not ever. You could hit every wardrobe in the universe with a sledgehammer but you'll never produce a bedside cabinet using that method.

    Even if random damage did cause a normal fish to produce an offspring whose eye migrated, the offspring benefited. The information encoded by the original CFSI was damaged and new information was produced.

    Anyway, in what way is the CFSI used to produce a flatfish non-functional or non-specified or not information? Presumably you don't argue against it retaining its complexity.

    At least you accept that the flatfish is a result of random mutation and that it is an organism that is suited to its lifestyle or, to put it another way, fit for purpose, and this is a step in the right direction.:D


Advertisement