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

Darwin's theory

1…3738404243…78

Comments

  • #1172
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    If J C and catallus's posts aren't enough for a swing of the banhammer, I don't know what are.
    The thread is proceeding with civil reasoned debate on all sides, as far as I can see.

    Civil reasoned debate includes robust challenges to ideas including reasonable conclusions to be drawn from those ideas.


  • #1173
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marieholmfan wrote: »
    Surely one can be a creationist while accepting that the universe seems to be 14 billion years old (to humans).
    One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.


  • #1174
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    J C wrote: »
    One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.

    So many different ways to say 'wrong'...


  • #1175
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Well, yes I do? Say what you want about creationists: once they find an idea they like, they hang on to it come hell or high water (haha) no matter what you can actually observe in reality.
    That's the Human failing of bias ... and everyone is potentially subject to its 'charms'.
    Just talk to anybody who is a fan of a particular football club, politician, singer ... and see how they react to objective evidence that the object of their desires isn't what they think it is.
    ... similar bias can exist within any Human endeavor ... including science ... and it accounts for much of the heat (as distinct from the light) that happens (on both sides) when the evolution/creation issue is debated.


  • #1176
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    J C wrote: »
    Evolution explains the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity ... but it doesn't explain the origin of the diversity, in the first place.
    Of course it does. Mutations, which as your video points out are just imperfections in how genetic code is transferred during reproduction, is a perfectly adequate explanation.


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    A few of us pointed out the flaws in that video a couple of days ago, but to sum up a few of the key points since you might have missed it.

    1) He isn't a relevant authority. That doesn't make it wrong in itself, but it raises some questions. To make a comparison, if a physics professor was speaking about a high profile court case, you'd think "ok, he's probably a smart guy, but what does a physics professor know about this case that your regular Joe on the street wouldn't?" The guy is a law professor, which I don't think the video mentions. Funny that.
    He brings the logic of a legal mind to the issue. Basically, we are trying to establish the truth from the evidence ... which is essentially a legalistic process.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    2) He's wrong about the fossil record. Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased dramatically since Darwin's time.
    Our knowledge of the fossil record has increased allright ... and that is the point. Darwin argued that the incomplete knowledge of the fossil record was the reason why no examples of the 'gradualism' essential to his theory were found. He predicted that as more fossils were discovered that the 'gaps' would be filled and gradualism would be seen. More fossils have been discovered allright ... but 'sudden appearance' (with no intermediates) and 'stasis' (with no significant change) is the unbroken rule.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    3) His insinuation that our knowledge of evolutionary biology is solely extrapolated from Darwin's finches is wildly off the mark. They aren't even the only species we see a similar effect in, not to mention:
    The point Philip makes is that all of the examples of 'evolution in action' involves minor changes in phenotype within species using pre-existing genetic diversity - or damage to this diversity.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    4) This is key: he completely ignores the molecular data. I wonder why
    The molecular data is the most damning evidence of all against spontaneous evolution. We find that genetic information is highly complex functional and specified ... the kind of information that is easily damaged by any random change to its structure ... and impossible to devise, in the first place without an intelligent input to choose the correct specific combination of molecules for functionality from an effective infinity of non-functional combinatorial space.


  • #1178
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Knasher wrote: »
    Of course it does. Mutations, which as your video points out are just imperfections in how genetic code is transferred during reproduction, is a perfectly adequate explanation.
    It isn't ... genetic information is observed to be perfect or almost perfect ... and it is degraded rapidly if any changes are made to it.
    Its like all other CFSI ... for example the CFSI in a computer programme. If random changes are made to the source code improvements don't occur ... but instead it rapidly degrades functionality ... to the point of catastrophic failure.


  • #1179
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    "i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place."

    Darwin never implied otherwise.

    You make a good point,evolution you could say,begins at a certain point.

    As does for example,the beginning of life,the formation of the universe.

    This is when we are in unknown territory.


  • #1180
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place.

    The fittest arrived by surviving. Obvious, no?
    J C wrote: »
    He brings the logic of a legal mind to the issue. Basically, we are trying to establish the truth from the evidence ... which is essentially a legalistic process.

    The job of a lawyer is not to establish the truth, but to win the argument. He is not a geologist or a biologist. He attempts to win the argument (about ID) by the twisting of words and their meanings. He says so himself. He is nothing more than a sophist.


  • #1181
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    J C wrote:
    genetic information is observed to be perfect
    Can you explain what the bit I've bolded means exactly please?
    I'm guessing he's trying to say that genetic diseases are incredibly rare and that it would be impossible to produce phylogenetic trees or somesuch.


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    ScumLord wrote: »
    You're ........... It's just a natural process.

    Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?


  • #1183
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    J C wrote: »
    One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.

    Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.


  • #1184
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?

    Almost. We are apes. We evolved from an almost-but-not-quite ape that was almost indistinguishable from Homo sapiens. We're still doing it. We are the direct antecedents of some home futurus, that is yet to, but will inevitable appear. They'll be apes too. For a long while. Until our graveyards have become fossil beds and some strange creature of the future will inevitably be having a conversation similar to this one. 'What? We evolved from those weird two legged whatchamacallits? Seriously?!?'.


  • #1185
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,447 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.

    Only if your understanding requires a creator. Which is actually immaterial in the context of whether or not species evoke by natural selection and give rise to subsequent iterations of almost-the-same-yet-subtly-different.

    Personal belief in a prime mover really doesn't matter. Complications arise when people try to find a god-shaped hole in the narrative. There isn't one.


  • #1186
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    J C wrote: »
    It isn't ... genetic information is observed to be perfect or almost perfect ... and it is degraded rapidly if any changes are made to it.
    Its like all other CFSI ... for example the CFSI in a computer programme. If random changes are made to the source code improvements don't occur ... but instead it rapidly degrades functionality ... to the point of catastrophic failure.

    Actually genetic algorithms (which include mutation) in computer programs are a very well established part of artificial intelligence. Used for things as diverse as designed antenna for space craft to scheduling in college timetables. The success of this field is an irrefutable support of the fundamental ideas behind evolution.


  • #1187
    SaveOurLyric
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes. It is. But to understand this you would need to understand what is "compelling" in science. .............chop such rhetoric off at the knees.

    Great explanation.

    So if I have it correct :
    • The universe is 14bn years old. The earth 4.5bn.
    • No one has any tested provable theory yet why the universe is, or came to be at that time.
    • We are just an complex chemical organism that evolved over millions of years. And that doesnt require any belief, but simply observation and conclusions which can be validated and tested without contradiction.
    • We have no evidence for any god as described by any of the world's religions.
    • The best explanation for religions is as the folktales of ignorant people from about the last 10000 years where fiction filled a knowledge vacuum albeit satisfying the same thirst for knowledge and understanding as modern science.
    • Evolutionary development has given us a psychological predisposition to believing such stories despite all evidence to the contrary, and an otherwise educated, sane, and reasoned ability to handle other matters in life
    • A sound explanation of homosexuality is unknown today.
    • With no good theories explaining it as a beneficial evolutionary characteristic, or a learned societal behaviour, the leading candidate explanation for it is as genetic disorder.


  • #1188
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.
    It has positives and negatives, philosophically speaking.
    They're in line with the evolutionists on the age of the Universe ... but they have no real explanation for why it took God billions of years to Create ... or why He said that it only took six days in Genesis.:)

    ... and all the evidence isn't that the Universe is 14 bn years old.


  • #1189
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 94,823 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    SaveOurLyric wrote: »
    Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?
    Creationists believe that the world's population was descended from a single family.

    And that such a bottleneck happened again later on.

    And there weren't any problems with recessive genes or marrying your cousin.


  • #1190
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    (whatever the feck that means)
    I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india. However as that doesn't make any sense, I took a guess from the context and I think it means coding for specific information. Which seems to fit.

    It would be nice if he refrained form making up random acrynoms though, or IWBNIHRFMURA as it will be known from now on.


  • #1191
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The fittest arrived by surviving. Obvious, no?
    No ... the question is how 'the fittest' arrived i.e. came to be, in the first place.
    NS is quite good at selecting out 'un-fit' organisms that result from mutations and other injuries ... but it doesn't explain how the perfect or almost perfect organisms we observe came to be.


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The job of a lawyer is not to establish the truth, but to win the argument. He is not a geologist or a biologist. He attempts to win the argument (about ID) by the twisting of words and their meanings. He says so himself. He is nothing more than a sophist.
    It is Human Nature to want to win arguments. This tendency occurs across all disciplines.
    Lawyers have a 'nose' for the truth ... and they are trained to follow lines of questioning that establish the truth.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »


    It is Human Nature to want to win arguments. This tendency occurs across all disciplines.
    Lawyers have a 'nose' for the truth ... and they are trained to follow lines of questioning that establish the truth.

    Maybe he should use his intellect to come up with one interpretation of the bible that every one could agree to-and they would be no need for all the many different sects that make up christianity:D:D:D:D


  • #1193
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Creationists believe that the world's population was descended from a single family.

    And that such a bottleneck happened again later on.

    And there weren't any problems with recessive genes or marrying your cousin.
    Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm


  • #1194
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Knasher wrote: »
    I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india. However as that doesn't make any sense, I took a guess from the context and I think it means coding for specific information. Which seems to fit.

    It would be nice if he refrained form making up random acrynoms though, or IWBNIHRFMURA as it will be known from now on.
    Do you also have a problem with DNA, USA, RNA or IMO, AKA?

    Acronyms are useful ... but I apologize if you didn't understand what the acronym CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) means.
    Knasher wrote: »
    I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india.
    Goes to prove that Google isn't omniscient.:)


  • #1195
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    They have a nose to find the evidence to support their case. I doubt lawyers representing war criminals before a war crimes tribunal care much about the truth.


  • #1196
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    J C wrote: »
    Do you also have a problem with DNA, USA, RNA or IMO, AKA?

    Acronyms are useful ... but I apologize if you didn't understand what the acronym CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) means.
    Acronyms are only useful if there is a good expectation that everyone present will understand it. I googled that term, and apparently it is one used by people trying to promote Intelligent Design. Hardly surprising it isn't in the common parlance.


  • #1197
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Knasher wrote: »
    Actually genetic algorithms (which include mutation) in computer programs are a very well established part of artificial intelligence. Used for things as diverse as designed antenna for space craft to scheduling in college timetables. The success of this field is an irrefutable support of the fundamental ideas behind evolution.
    Such algorithms are intelligently designed themselves ... they operate on intelligently designed computers ... so whatever else they do ... they certainly don't disprove intelligent design.
    ... indeed they are a critical part of artificially created intelligence.:)


  • #1198
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    J C wrote: »
    Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm
    Those are two very different things, creationists believe that the entire population of the earth was reduced to a single family. The existence of a mitochondrial Eve means no such thing.


  • #1199
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    J C wrote: »
    Such algorithms are intelligently designed themselves ... they operate on intelligently designed computers ... so whatever else they do ... they certainly don't disprove intelligent design.
    ... indeed they are a critical part of artificially created intelligence.:)

    The idea that things can be designed intelligently is very different from the creationist movement that was re-branded as the intelligent design movement in order to try and circumvent the court cases they lost in America.


  • #1200
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    They have a nose to find the evidence to support their case. I doubt lawyers representing war criminals before a war crimes tribunal care much about the truth.
    They're duty bound to not mislead the court and therefore the truth matters to them.

    They may argue mitigating circumstances or against aggravating circumstances on behalf of their client ... but they don't tell lies.


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Knasher wrote: »
    Those are two very different things, creationists believe that the entire population of the earth was reduced to a single family. The existence of a mitochondrial Eve means no such thing.
    She isn't called Mitochondrial Eve for nothing!!!
    ... everybody is descended from her.
    ... and all men are descended from Y-Chromosome Adam as well.:eek::pac:

    Quote :-
    "Theoretically, it is not necessary to believe that Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve should have lived at the same time. However, more recent findings (2013) suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been contemporaneous."

    It just gets better and better for Creationism ... as science gets ever-closer to the truth!!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement