tactile sensory units, 2

[justlookinla]

And in order to assess flaws in your reasoning, you have to demonstrate that you haven't just tailored it to tactile sensory units and that it won't spread misinformation if applied to other things. In order to demonstrate that it "working" with tactile sensory units isn't dumb luck.

Well, since I observe a coccyx in every human skeleton, evolution is demonstrated.

Since I observe vestiges of hip bones or leg bones in whale skeletons, evolution is demonstrated.

Since I observe vestigial wings as halters on certain mosquitoes, evolution is demonstrated.

Since others have observed and accurately described a recurrent laryngeal nerve going down to the heart and back up to the larynx instead of going straight, design is refuted and evolution is demonstrated

Since others have observed recurring patterns in a nested hierarchy, evolution is demonstrated.

Since we have observed vestigial ear wiggling muscles in human ears that work best when stationary, evolution is demonstrated.

Since we have observed fossils of extinct organisms that fit into the nested hierarchy of life, evolution is demonstrated.

Since we have discovered transitional fossils found in predicted locations based on evolutionary considerations, evolution is demonstrated.

Since we have observed matching retroviral insert patterns in related species, evolution is demonstrated.

This list is incomplete.

So all I need to do is proclaim, "DNA is an element of evolution" and I have evidenced evolution since DNA is observable?

Tactile sensory units folks, tactile sensory units.

 

[bhsmte]

Unsupported claims folks, unsupported claims.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Tactile sensory units folks, tactile sensory units.

Isn't it also about deductions from tactile sensory units, and how deductions are supposed to work?

 

[DogmaHunter]

How?

- survive
- reproduce with variation
- repeat

What part of natural selection isn't the impetus whereby new life forms are created do you not understand?

I have no idea what you are speaking of.

In any case, the point being made was that natural selection isn't random, as you seemed to claim.
I don't remember saying anything about "impetus" or "new life forms".

What about the process which produces new life forms?

I don't really know what that means. So I'll just respond to what I think it means.

Evolution is the process that makes living systems change over generations.
Evolution itself, like any process, is a combination of factors, parameters and phenomena.
Again like in any other phenomena, some of these factors are random, others are inevitable consequences of specific contexts, even others are physical/chemical deterministic things - just matter obbeying the laws of nature, etc etc...

I'ld say the minimum ingredients the get the process of evolution going is competition of systems and reproduction with variation where the reproductive success is directly related to competitive success.

They are very appropriate and relevant

No, they aren't. And I've explained why on many occassions.
I don't however, remember you ever explaining why you feel to need to use these words to describe a natural phenomena.

You might not agree with evolution, but you do know and accept that it is presented as a natural phenomena, right?

So wheter you accept evolution or not, to pretend that it is not presented as a natural phenomena is nothing more then being dishonest.

The fact is, the same elements are found in tactile sensory units.

They are not.

And yet another evasion to the question, of goalless, meaningless, mindless, random, chance natural evolution.

More dishonesty.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tactile sensory units folks, tactile sensory units.

Unsupported assertions folks, unsupported assertions.

 

[justlookinla]

Isn't it also about deductions from tactile sensory units, and how deductions are supposed to work?

Are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

DNA is an element of evolution. This tactile sensory unit has DNA:

Therefore, this tactile sensory unit evolved because of the observation of DNA.

 

[justlookinla]

- survive
- reproduce with variation
- repeat

Guesses and suppositions.

I have no idea what you are speaking of.

What part of natural selection created new life forms?

In any case, the point being made was that natural selection isn't random, as you seemed to claim.
I don't remember saying anything about "impetus" or "new life forms".

I haven't claimed that natural selection is random or isn't random. Something creates new life forms on which natural selection works. What is that creative mechanism?

I don't really know what that means. So I'll just respond to what I think it means.

Evolution is the process that makes living systems change over generations.

What 'makes' the living systems change to create tactile sensory units? I'm not interested in guesses and suppositions, could be this, might be that.

Evolution itself, like any process, is a combination of factors, parameters and phenomena.
Again like in any other phenomena, some of these factors are random, others are inevitable consequences of specific contexts, even others are physical/chemical deterministic things - just matter obbeying the laws of nature, etc etc...

What factors are random and how do those factors create tactile sensory units?

I'd say the minimum ingredients the get the process of evolution going is competition of systems and reproduction with variation where the reproductive success is directly related to competitive success.

An this creates tactile sensory units how?

No, they aren't. And I've explained why on many occassions.
I don't however, remember you ever explaining why you feel to need to use these words to describe a natural phenomena.

You might not agree with evolution, but you do know and accept that it is presented as a natural phenomena, right?

Complex, functional, purposeful and shared elements of design of tactile sensory units aren't just words, they're observable in the tactile sensory units.

So wheter you accept evolution or not, to pretend that it is not presented as a natural phenomena is nothing more then being dishonest.

Depends on what brand of evolution you're pushing.

They are not.

Sure they are. They're observable.

More dishonesty.

More evasion.

 

[justlookinla]

DNA is an element of evolution. This tactile sensory unit has DNA:

Therefore, this tactile sensory unit evolved because of the observation of DNA.

Once again, are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Once again, are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

I just showed you that they are evolved because DNA is an element of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

I just showed you that they are evolved because DNA is an element of evolution.

That's not what I asked. Once more.....are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not what I asked. Once more.....are you agreeing that tactile sensory units are designed?

I just gave you the answer. The tactile sensory unit in that picture is not designed because it has the elements of evolution. The observation of DNA proves it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Guesses and suppositions.

No, fact.

1. Life reproduces with variation (ie, newborns have mutations): observably true - check
2. Through reproduction, genes (including the mutations) are inherited by off spring - check
3. Creature that survive and reproduce pass on their genes and those that don't.... well, don't - check

Please point out specifically where in these 3 points you can identify "guesses and suppositions.

What part of natural selection created new life forms?
I haven't claimed that natural selection is random or isn't random. Something creates new life forms on which natural selection works. What is that creative mechanism?

Speciation is not the result of one single aspect of the phenomena of evolution. It's a combination of factors.
To use the word "create" is also problematic. Evolution doesn't "create" anything. It rather "gradually adapts".

Having said that, I'll go ahead with the term...
The "creative" part is the entire process combined. There is no single factor that makes it all happen in my view.
You need variation.
You need a fitness test.
You need competition.

What 'makes' the living systems change to create tactile sensory units? I'm not interested in guesses and suppositions, could be this, might be that.

The underlying mechanism is:
- reproduce with variation
- "fitness test" (ie: survive and successfully breed)
- repeat

The exact path that was taken from "no fingers" to "fingers" can be roughly traced back, but not in the sense of the exact series of mutations that were subsequently selected for which eventually lead up to a proper finger...

Which is what I think you are asking.
Considering how genetics and biology (and physics) works, that is an unreasonable request.

What factors are random and how do those factors create tactile sensory units?

Mutation is random (within the limitations of the physics involced, off course).
Some parameters of the selection (fitness test) are random... The environment for example.
Vulcanic eruptions, meteor impacts... I guess one could call that random.

Selection itself is not.

As for your "creative factors" again.... once more: no single aspect makes it work. It's a combination of everything involved.

An this creates tactile sensory units how?

Survive, breed and mutate, repeat.

Complex, functional, purposeful and shared elements of design of tactile sensory units aren't just words, they're observable in the tactile sensory units.

And explainable through the process of survive, breed and mutate, repeat.

Depends on what brand of evolution you're pushing.

The biology brand.

Sure they are. They're observable.
More evasion.

More dishonesty.

 

[justlookinla]

I just gave you the answer. The tactile sensory unit in that picture is not designed because it has the elements of evolution. The observation of DNA proves it.

Complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units cannot be dismissed with a simple 'it's not designed'.

 

[Loudmouth]

Complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units cannot be dismissed with a simple 'it's not designed'.

I already gave you the observation of DNA which is an element of evolution. I have proven that hands are evolved, not designed.

 

[justlookinla]

No, fact.

1. Life reproduces with variation (ie, newborns have mutations): observably true - check
2. Through reproduction, genes (including the mutations) are inherited by off spring - check
3. Creature that survive and reproduce pass on their genes and those that don't.... well, don't - check

Please point out specifically where in these 3 points you can identify "guesses and suppositions.

Well, first, you're not addressing tactile sensory units in the post. Why not actually stick with the topic of the tread in your responses?

Speciation is not the result of one single aspect of the phenomena of evolution. It's a combination of factors.
To use the word "create" is also problematic. Evolution doesn't "create" anything. It rather "gradually adapts".

Again, nothing about tactile sensory units and the shared elements of design. Stick with the topic of the thread.

Having said that, I'll go ahead with the term...
The "creative" part is the entire process combined. There is no single factor that makes it all happen in my view.
You need variation.
You need a fitness test.
You need competition.

And still nothing about tactile sensory units.

The underlying mechanism is:
- reproduce with variation
- "fitness test" (ie: survive and successfully breed)
- repeat

And still nothing.

The exact path that was taken from "no fingers" to "fingers" can be roughly traced back, but not in the sense of the exact series of mutations that were subsequently selected for which eventually lead up to a proper finger...

Which is what I think you are asking.
Considering how genetics and biology (and physics) works, that is an unreasonable request.

I'm asking about the shared design elements of tactile sensory units.

Mutation is random (within the limitations of the physics involced, off course).
Some parameters of the selection (fitness test) are random... The environment for example.
Vulcanic eruptions, meteor impacts... I guess one could call that random.

Selection itself is not.

And selection isn't creative.

As for your "creative factors" again.... once more: no single aspect makes it work. It's a combination of everything involved.

Tactile sensory units....the topic of the thread.

Survive, breed and mutate, repeat.



And explainable through the process of survive, breed and mutate, repeat.



The biology brand.

And....nothing....about tactile sensory units.

More dishonesty.

More evasion.

 

[justlookinla]

I already gave you the observation of DNA which is an element of evolution. I have proven that hands are evolved, not designed.

Why aren't you addressing the observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units? Circuity interconnected for a purpose, programming, bidirectional information exchange....ect.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why aren't you addressing the observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units? Circuity interconnected for a purpose, programming, bidirectional information exchange....ect.

Why aren't you addressing the elements of evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

Why aren't you addressing the elements of evolution?

I'm addressing the topic of the thread. Tactile sensory units.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of design of tactile sensory units cannot be dismissed with a simple 'it's not designed'.

Saying it is not designed is NOT dismissing the complex, functional, purposeful and observed shared elements of tactile sensory units.

Verbal tricks is all you've got!