Author Topic: I'm just sayin'  (Read 17220 times)

Online ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #240 on: December 07, 2013, 11:11:15 am »
Is the acceptance of creationism a benefit or a hindrance to scientific advancement? The evidence is very one sided on this issue.

Actually, historical or origins science and scientific advancement are not related.  There has been NOTHING discovered by means of Darwinian evolution that has benefited man the least little bit.   Go ahead and name one. 
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Online ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #241 on: December 07, 2013, 11:26:16 am »
I will tell you the bit of evidence which convinced me of the validity of evolution. It was presented to me in an introductory biology class my first year of undergrad. It is the phenomenon of ring species. This is when a population spreads out around an uninhabitable area to form a ring around it. Each adjacent population can and does interbreed; however, when a population circles fully around the uninhabitable area and meets back up with the original population, they cannot interbreed! Think about what that means for a moment. Here we have an example macroevolution in action! Not only did it demonstrate speciation, but all of the intermediate forms were still in existence. If all of the intermediate forms were to die out, then there would be two distinct species. But with them there, the group becomes very hard to classify (another reason I believe our current classification system should be abandoned). Is it one kind of animal to two? This completely destroys the argument of each kind bringing forth its own. It also shows that the transitive property does not work with ‘is the same species as’. Now that we have this clear example of one kind of animal changing into another, what’s to stop it from continuing? Do you know of a mechanism which will stop this divergent process? I would love to hear it if you do.

That example doesn't even raise my eyebrows.  At best, I see it as reduction in the DNA.  Reduction is hardly the direction needed to go from single cell to man and all other life kinds.

The classic example of a ring species was the herring gull, with populations circling the northern hemisphere. But this example is not what it has been advertised to be. In a 2004 paper titled "The herring gull complex is not a ring species," German and Dutch biologists concluded:

    What earlier authors... regarded as "the herring gull" turned out to be an assemblage of several distinct taxa (argentatus, vegae, smithsonianus), which are not each other's closest relatives. Our results show that the ring-species model does not adequately describe the evolution of the herring gull group.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html#sthash.dk46EEAh.dpuf

Dorit Liebers1†, Peter de Knijff2 and Andreas J. Helbig1*
1Institute of Zoology, University of Greifswald, Vogelwarte Hiddensee, 18565 Kloster, Germany
2Forensic Laboratory for DNA Research, MGC-Department of Human and Clinical Genetics,
Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9503, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Online ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #242 on: December 07, 2013, 11:36:39 am »
I'll give my favorite evidences for creation.

1.  Irreducible complexity - the old mouse trap argument.  All parts must be in place and fully developed all at once or the result is death and extinction.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n2/admissions
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #243 on: December 08, 2013, 12:28:34 am »
It is useless griffen.  the crazy texas coach does not have the intellect to be able to grasp evolution.  He will cling desperately to creation because to do otherwise would be to admit the Bible is not the inerrant word of God and he would have no foundation for his life.  That Is just how flimsy a foundation he has for living.  It is truly sad, but what is even sadder is there are thousands like him and then their are even more thousands that are gullible enough to be led astray by the teaching of people like him.  As Bill Nye said, the teaching of he and others like him is tantamount to child abuse.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #244 on: December 08, 2013, 12:56:42 am »
I'll give my favorite evidences for creation.

1.  Irreducible complexity - the old mouse trap argument.  All parts must be in place and fully developed all at once or the result is death and extinction.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n2/admissions

The fall back argument for people with extremely weak minds.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Online ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14796
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #245 on: December 09, 2013, 03:13:26 pm »
Hey griffin, this is fabulous.  I can talk about Irreducible Complexity extensively.  I hope you give serious consideration to the evidence.  Here is a beetle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug&list=PLB1DBE92D450C3A35&index=6

BTW, Sparkles is NOT included in our discussions.  Just ignore him.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #246 on: December 19, 2013, 12:25:08 pm »
Hey griffin, this is fabulous.  I can talk about Irreducible Complexity extensively.  I hope you give serious consideration to the evidence.  Here is a beetle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug&list=PLB1DBE92D450C3A35&index=6

BTW, Sparkles is NOT included in our discussions.  Just ignore him.

Hmmm ctc thinks he should be able to tell people to or not to discuss things with me.  What a tool!
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline coachsparky

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 14015
  • Tolerate everthing but Intolerance
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #247 on: December 19, 2013, 12:28:54 pm »
Hey griffin, this is fabulous.  I can talk about Irreducible Complexity extensively.  I hope you give serious consideration to the evidence.  Here is a beetle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug&list=PLB1DBE92D450C3A35&index=6

BTW, Sparkles is NOT included in our discussions.  Just ignore him.

Also important to point out that ctc cannot discuss irreducible complexity at all.  All he can do is post AIG lies as usual.  And when the scientific answer which shows that the item is irreducible he ignores it and goes to another one hoping the scientific answer has not yet been found.  But each and every time the creationist crew tries to show something that indicates irreducibility, it is thoroughly decimated by scientist.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;  the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Bigotry disguised as religious liberty is still BIGOTRY

Offline Griffin

  • Schoolboy
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
Re: I'm just sayin'
« Reply #248 on: January 04, 2014, 01:03:59 pm »
CTC sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I simply don’t have enough time to devote to our discussion.

CTC said: ‘Actually, historical or origins science and scientific advancement are not related. ‘

You have yet to define ‘historical or origins science’ and ‘operational science’ in a measureable way. Until you do so, how can I address your point? And please don’t try to assert that it is ‘common sense’.  Common sense has no place in science. There are many examples of things that were once thought ‘common sense’ which have been shown untrue by science.

CTC said: ‘There has been NOTHING discovered by means of Darwinian evolution that has benefited man the least little bit.   Go ahead and name one.’

First off, is the sole purpose of scholarship (of any kind) to find applications? If so why do we study history at all? After all, the old saying ‘He who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it’ has never held up and historians (as a whole) have never been able to make predictions based on history that are any better than chance. Sometimes knowledge is worth having for its own sake. It helps give an understanding of who we are. Secondly, the concept of natural selection and decent with modification are largely accredited to Darwin, thus shouldn’t they are part of ‘Darwinian evolution’; although, as I have already explained, I hate the term ‘Darwinian evolution’.  No person’s name should ever be attached to any scientific idea. It holds the science back. Anyway, back to the point. Understanding natural selection and decent with modification is useful in a number of fields including agriculture, animal breading, and medicine. However, you like to try to separate these ideas from evolution even though that is not a scientifically supported stance. All that aside, let’s look at how organisms are interrelated (the tree of life). This is an idea which most creationists reject, so I assume it is safe to place in what you would call ‘Darwinian evolution’. Has our understanding of these relationships had any benefit to man? The answer is obviously yes. If evolution is true, then knowing an organism’s place on the tree will tell us other information about it based on the other organisms to which it is most closely related. Where might this be useful? One answer is in medicine. Suppose someone goes to the doctor with a new ‘bug’ which the doctor cannot identify. How should he treat it? He doesn’t want to give the wrong treatment, as it could make the problem worse. He must first identify the organism which is causing the problem and properly place it on the evolutionary tree. This can be done by analyzing the unknown organism’s DNA. From known organisms which are closely related to the unknown, the doctor can treat it in the same way he would its close relatives. With a high degree of certainty, the unknown organism will be vulnerable to the same treatment as its relatives. The process is called 16s ribosomal typing. It works on the same concept as a paternity test. After all, the only difference from a person’s family tree and the evolutionary tree is size. If you accept one, the other follows. What you are doing is equivalent to agreeing 1+2+3+4+5=15, but then claiming there is no way that 1+2+3+…+n = (n+1)n/2. There is no difference! Mutation and selection (as well as a few others) are the same forces which create small variations within a species (microevolution) as well as drive the emergence of new species (macroevolution). What do you feel could stop the process? We have seen the emergence of new kinds (macroevolution). We have seen the evolution of completely new traits (adding information). We have seen the emergence of complexity. What incremental, measurable step do you feel we are still missing? Please define your terms.

CTC said: ‘That example doesn't even raise my eyebrows.’ 

I don’t find it surprising that it didn’t raise your eyebrows. You’ve already said that there is nothing I could show you which would convince you of life’s interrelatedness and diversification. I recommend you consider the concept a bit further before you dismiss it. There are examples of ring species and the implications of the fact are vast. Some creationists (such as Kent Hovind) even accept the idea, although he denies the obvious implications.

CTC said: ‘At best, I see it as reduction in the DNA.  Reduction is hardly the direction needed to go from single cell to man and all other life kinds.’

You have yet to explain what is meant by a ‘reduction in the DNA’ or an increase in ‘information’. Please do so, and make sure you explain how it is to be measured. It should also be noted that evolution does not imply every step must be more complex than the one before? Evolution does not have a long term goal. The only goal of evolution is to make sure no niche goes unfilled.

CTC said: ‘The classic example of a ring species was the herring gull, with populations circling the northern hemisphere. But this example is not what it has been advertised to be. In a 2004 paper titled "The herring gull complex is not a ring species," German and Dutch biologists concluded:

    What earlier authors... regarded as "the herring gull" turned out to be an assemblage of several distinct taxa (argentatus, vegae, smithsonianus), which are not each other's closest relatives. Our results show that the ring-species model does not adequately describe the evolution of the herring gull group.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/sorry_ring_spec058261.html#sthash.dk46EEAh.dpuf

Dorit Liebers1†, Peter de Knijff2 and Andreas J. Helbig1*
1Institute of Zoology, University of Greifswald, Vogelwarte Hiddensee, 18565 Kloster, Germany
2Forensic Laboratory for DNA Research, MGC-Department of Human and Clinical Genetics,
Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9503, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands’

I was unaware of the herring gull. The example of a ring species which I see used most often is that of the greenish warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides). Of course, it is not a perfect example either as the distribution is not continuous. Yet all adjacent populations can interbreed with the exception of where the two divergent branches meet up. This demonstrates a clear example of speciation with most of the intermediate forms still present.

Another example which is sometimes used is the Ensatina eschscholtzii, a kind of salamander. The reason this is not as strong of an example is that there is some hybridization between the two final branches (as your article correctly pointed out). However, these hybrids are uncommon so it will be interesting to see if the genetic isolation becomes complete.

It should be noted that the article you posted made a very blatant error. At the end of the first paragraph it said: ‘biologists have never actually observed the origin of a new species by variation and selection’. This is simply false. There have been many examples of speciation (the origin of a new species) both in the lab and in the field. This is not an obscure fact, and is accepted by many leading creationists. As such, I am at a loss as to how they could have made such a mistake.

CTC said: ‘I'll give my favorite evidences for creation.
Irreducible complexity - the old mouse trap argument.  All parts must be in place and fully developed all at once or the result is death and extinction.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n2/admissions

I was wondering how long it would be until you brought up irreducible complexity. There are many problems with irreducible complexity (at least as you are trying to use it), one of which should really concern you, it definitely concerns me. Irreducible complexity is a God of the gaps argument. What happens when those gaps are filled in? There have been a number of proposed irreducibly complex systems which have been shown to have evolutionary roots. Your article gives a few examples of proposed irreducibly complex structures for which an evolutionary expiation has been found (such as the bacterial flagellum). If you put all of your faith in a God of the gaps, what happens to your faith when there are no more gaps? You have just become responsible for the death of God. I think the irreducible complexity argument has the potential to do more damage to belief based religions (such as Christianity and Islam) than anything in science. For a much better explanation than I could ever give of why irreducible complexity and intelligent design are bad for faith in general and Christianity in particular, I recommend you read some of Francis Collins’ writing on the subject.

Let’s now look a closer at the ideas and assumptions behind irreducible complexity. From your article: ‘By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.’ If we can all agree on using this definition of irreducibly complex, then I am more than happy to admit that there are a large number of irreducibly complex systems in nature. However, that does not mean that they could not have evolved. Evolution neither requires nor predicts every structure have the same function as that form which it evolved. The process of evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures by repurposing parts which once had different uses. We see this in nature all the time (just think of the flight feathers in birds). Also, evolution can remove structures as easy as it can add them, so there is no guarantee that what we see now is all there ever was. For a nonorganic example to illustrate this point, think of a stone arch (I am talking about arches occurring in natural rock formations, not man made). If any part of the arch is removed, the whole thing collapses; therefore, some intelligence must have constructed the arch. Clearly not. The supports could have eroded away. The same is true with organic systems. A system could have evolved with supports which, once they became unnecessary, were selected against and thus removed.

As for your specific example of the bombardier beetles, I admit my ignorance on its evolutionary history, or that of any arthropod. I have run into the example before, the topic was presented in an introductory biology class I took in undergrad. I remember finding the lecture that day rather uninteresting, and I never took the time for fully understand it. As such, I will not attempt to create a rebuttal to your video. Instead, I will provide you with a link which maps out how the beetle could have evolved. The points made in the article are close to what I remember my professor saying all those years ago. However, it does present the idea much clearer than I could have done myself:

 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

I do not know if the article is peer reviewed, but it does provide references from peer reviewed sources. I have only checked a few of them, but those do seem to support the assertion of the article.