"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock wrote: »

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

To answer your second half.
OK, in living species we have seen a broad spectrum of lets call them minor changes add up to larger morphological, behavioural and metabolic changes in animals, plants and bacteria... you agree with this?
We see the environment appling selective pressures on species currently extant. You agree with this?
We know from a variety of clocks that the Earth is 4.5 Ga old, rougly... you agree with this.
We can date layers of rock with fairly reliable accuracy, and we see fossils going back through time.
We can compare fossils in areas and track minor morphology changes through time. Tiny changes adding up... over time.
Now this is tricky in some areas... big flashy animals like dinosaurs have a more sporadic fossil record then boring things like gastropods and bivalves living on the sea floor... and few people have the patience to compare thousands upon thousands of remains pulled out of rocks comparing them to older rocks... but the world takes all sorts and people do enjoy different things.
So there are nice people who have sat and gone down through millions of years of worth of and traced tiny changes, changes that you would not consider novel, matching them to where (and as such "when") they are are found in the rock.
Changes that add up to massive differences.
This has happened.
We agree about this.
Show you this evidence you say?
Would you like to take a while going through 10,000 fossils, each one almost identical to the last, each pulled from a rock layer dated older than the last by a number of means showing that what starts off as one creaure can end up as a very different sort of animal?

Where we diverge is that you think that these changes can't come about by undirected means... that only minor changes come about by undirected means... but you agree that minor changes add up to major changes?
And that is why your position makes so little sense.

I'm working off the assumption that the past works like the present and vice versa.

The direction is provided by the pressures the environment creates.

kiffer wrote: »

Novel like lizards developing placenta rather than egg laying?

Novel sort of implies a big change no?
Do you think we'd need some sort of crocoduck creature for it to be novel?
I mean you clearly think that bacteria that can digest nylon don't count as novel... or maybe it's that you think it doesn't count because they are not animals?
What sort of thing would you consider novel...
Wait, you're just going to say "Why don't you show me novel things if they exist?" aren't you?

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Seriously, imagine talking to someone about social welfare or tax without them telling you what they think is a living wage, a high wage, a low vs high rate of tax but instead they just keep saying "The tax rate is wrong"... a terrible analogue I admit but it's late and I'm kind of sick of this run around.

Respond to the above post or not at all.
Seriously, you seem to go out of your way to ignore the most interesting parts of the discussion.

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

BTW You said there are limits to what Darwinism can do. What do you consider them to be?

:-)
Ok.
I'm thinking of limits in terms of rates of change.
You don't see massive changes in one generation, limit observed. In ID and Directed Evolution you could see massive changes in one generation if the Director(s) decided to make such a change, never observed.

Evolution is limited by its need for a continuous pressure over many generations.

Evolution builds on what the animal has, expacting organs for new novel uses in gradual maner, using organs for more than one use. Functions for which it is not used in other species are steps towards developing a new specialised organ.
For example in ID/GE if the director(s) wanted to allow a speices to live longer in an aquatic environment then they could just arbitrarily add gills in a single generation. We never see that limit crossed. Evolution has to do it in a more limited step wise manor, for example sea snakes that can spend more time underwater by absorbing oxygen through their anus... unexpected and novel, allowing the snake to spend more time submerged.



There are lots of limits.
You can't even provide one.

mickrock wrote: »

I understand it perfectly well.

I just don't swallow it hook, line and sinker like you lot.

Oh, I'll question it all right. And I'll accept reasonable answers. In the spirit of being open to new thinking. If you were to offer new thinking as opposed to regurgitated, reactionary taurus cacas, I'd pay attention and consider it. Hasn't happened yet in this thread though, and time is running out.

If its all the same, I'll read 'you lot' to mean 'people who don't agree with mickrock', and 'swallow hook, line and sinker' to mean 'consider rational and pertinent responses'. That corner you're backed into is looking pretty tight at this point. I do admire your 'lone voice in the wilderness' though. As well as find you funny. Don't go changin'.

'You lot'. Is there a uniform, or a secret handshake? Something?

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

In that case, please present an alternative hypothesis, or if you have evidence, theory.

Hey! Welcome to Boards! And frustration...

kiffer wrote: »

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Novel would be brand new or innovative functions, organs and systems.

You believe these can emerge via undirected mechanisms that can have vast creative powers. I don't.

mickrock wrote: »

Novel would be brand new or innovative functions, organs and systems.

You believe these can emerge via undirected mechanisms that can have vast creative powers. I don't.

Lenski's E.coli, ref:oldrnwisrs posts on eyes, systems is a meaningless term.

Why do you believe that? The evidence for evolution has been presented to you time and time again.

On what grounds do you reject it?

Whimsy is an insufficient reason.

mickrock wrote: »

Like I thought. You can't show that Darwinism was the cause.

Of course he can't. 'Darwinism' didn't cause it. It doesn't cause anything. It does, however, describe plenty.

mickrock wrote: »

You should read some books that are critical of Darwinism. You might learn something.

Such as? Come on then. Rattle off a brief synopsis at least one of them. Of an alternative mechanism that these books propose. I dare you. In fact, I double-dare you!

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose atheists need their own creation story and Darwinism seems to fit the bill.

Not really. Both atheism and evolution boil down to kinda the same basics. Those being 'what is real?', and 'how can it be demonstrated to be real?'.

Maybe its you who needs atheism to need a creation fairytale? To fit your own limited view?

Now you come across as funny, and defensive!

Sycopat wrote: »

Because mickrock keeps saying this and it's still not true.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well done, you've now lowered yourself to one level above 'I know you are but what am I.' I suppose next you'll be telling us our mothers describe plenty? Engage in proper debate or just bloody admit defeat.

Darwinism an 'Atheist Creation story.' You trollin' boy.

Hey man, cool your boots!