Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[ks777]

Obviously the clam didn't start by having a little fish like bait, it evolved that bait. For eons it projected a stick like structure, but that didn't work, then for another few million millennium it mimicked an eel, but that simple scared the bass away. Finally after billions of years it got a nub of a minnow like structure that neither helped nor hindered it, this then evolved into the fully developed clam we see today. Simple!
By the way I hope KS doesn't stand for Kitten Squeezer..

lol, of course! How could I be so blind...

 

[Delphiki]

It really is difficult to squeeze the contents of an entire biology textbook unto a thread on a web forum. To anyone who wishes to learn more about biology and evolution, I would suggest starting with a high school or college text book, or even wikipedia. Make sure you understand the science behind biology, then figure out if you wish to debate the discoveries in biological science. I think knowing more about it, and understanding it better, would give one a better advantage in debating it.

Also, one thing that creationists frequently argue is that they admit to micro evolution, but macro evolution is somehow impossible. They are both the same evolution -- the only difference is the time scale. With a longer amount of time, changes are more noticeable. To say you admit to one and not the other is like saying you believe a Ford Fiesta can run to the grocery store, but it certainly can't drive across country.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Also, one thing that creationists frequently argue is that they admit to micro evolution, but macro evolution is somehow impossible.

Just to repeat what I said earlier, I don't deny some macroevolution is possible, I deny particular marcoevolutions to be impossible. And I gave reasons why.

It's impossible for many reasons, I have shown some in this thread, and everyone is welcome to think about what has been discussed in the thread.

I have read evolution books and taken in high school, and they only talk vague stuff and want you to just fill in the gaps with somehow it happened, while when you think about the gap, of how one thing got to the other, natural selection and mutations don't explain it but are even proven to be rationally impossible by the very principle of the theory. People want to skip, some wider features that helps reduce fall, means -> small gliding wings automatically, it makes no sense.

Some extra skin for control -> automatically to design of gliders, while there is no transition, because there is no direction being guided to that by either mutations or natural selection.

There is all sorts of things you can ponder about, like arms, and even eyes, and ears, and mouths, and you will see these all need to be functioning to start with, and there is no inbetween with no functioning to all of sudden function.

Yes evolution explains how a mouth can become better, teeth stronger, or eyes and ears better, but it doesn't explain them popping to existence, because the mutations and natural selection won't lead to it, because a flesh that can't detect sounds will not be guided by this process to that of an ear that does.

Useless flesh coming out on the side, will not become arms, if up until it's an arm, it's totally useless.

Trees without fruits do better then those with them, therefore, natural selection doesn't explain fruits at all. And we tons of them, and all of them you just going to give to chance?

Like I said, it's how you choose to reflect. And if you think about how complicated a system is, and how everything relies on each other, you will realize, that useless things would not be passed on, and at the same time, there is things that all need to exist for to function. And it really does show impossibility of evolution as in all came from goo to that, type, it really does. And just saying "you don't how it's possible", is not an argument, because it's asserting it's possible, but it's clear impossible and this is not due to lack of knowledge but due knowledge.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just a note: small changes in genotype can produce some dramatic changes in phenotype. There's no rule in biology that changes in wing length may only progress in small exact measures.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Delphiki]

Some extra skin for control -> automatically to design of gliders, while there is no transition, because there is no direction being guided to that by either mutations or natural selection.

Actually wings and gliders are probably the easiest example to explain natural selection with (for me, anyway).

Have you ever seen a sugar glider? That would be a perfect example of a transition between a walking/climbing marsupial to something like a marsupial version of a bat. Flying squirrels would be a mammalian example. Take any small marsupial or rodent that lives in trees, some which might be able to jump that extra few centimeters to catch a branch to get to their mate and the others who plummet to their death. They may have babies who can jump/glide one more centimeter than mommy and daddy, and so on. Not even 1 million years later, their descendants will look very different, and be far more able to survive living in the trees.

If you look at a regular brown squirrel, they have plenty of lose skin where the Flying squirrel has it's gliding surfaces... They are quite obvious and apparentmorphological similarities. Give it a few hundred thousand years and there very well could be a new species of flying mammal descended from this. All it takes is for flying squirrels to discover they can extend their distance by flapping, and slight variations in the shape of their gliding surface.

Sugar Glider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Flying squirrel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can even apply this to chimpanzees -- for them, the helpful mutation was agility, dexterity, and prehensility. They can acrobatically move among the trees without any wings since they evolved different characteristics that help them avoid plummeting to their death. Rather than this, humans merely evolved opposing thumbs, and a keener intellect for tool making and hunting -- negating the need to live in trees all together.

This may be over-simplified, but it's all in an effort to clears it up some.

Keep in mind that just because there may be a handful of mutations which you can't understand the benefit of, that doesn't mean there wasn't any benefit. Nor does it mean that the theory of evolution is wrong in it's entirety, let alone at all.

 

[Isambard]

Yes I do, but extra skin doesn't give an extra jump... it needs to be in certain way for it to give glide (extended jump).

a 1/1000 wing is totally useless for controlled falling.

Yes it does. If you bothered to actually care about the argument, you would've viewed the video I posted where Dawkins demonstrates this.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think your just repeating what has been discussed through out. You just go bang "skin gliding" surface it needed to have been guided towards that, or you just givin in to chance producing it in one shot which is illogical.

Just a note: small changes in genotype can produce some dramatic changes in phenotype. There's no rule in biology that changes in wing length may only progress in small exact measures.

To develop a wing/glider cannot happen istaneaously. And yes, there has to be a bunch of small changes to that. Little wider, or some skin growing on the side, doesn't reduce anything, and has practically no difference. However, even it does, it will not be leading towards gliders, it's not heading to that direction. They are two different directions. Although gliding does help with fall, it won't be that what helps in fall, leads to design in gliding. In fall, it maybe develop more powerful body to take impact, but there is no way this going to lead to development of a gliding mechanism, that will lead to a wing. This is just skipping, putting something on the side, that gives gliding, is not logical, because biology doesn't work like this. It doesn't just produce features that weren't there. Mutations just jumble what is there, it doesn't bring a whole new thing. So this is not logical. Your putting the transition from that to that, when it's not logically possible, because it's not improving in gliding and reducing in fall, doesn't make towards gliding. The body if just becomes wider or what not, and reduces practically nothing of the fall, it is not leaning towards gliding. Also, how does it make sense, that it improves on this, over other features, like, I dunno, maybe not falling? Don't you think those would have better chance of surviving then those that keep falling?

Now it's the same with ears, and other things. When you think of a butterfly, it's obvious it's designed. It's just your so use to missing the blantantly obvious becasue you put your faith that Scientist have explained everything, that you been blind to it's evident proof of a Designer.

Also if you look at bees, your see their flight has nothing to with gliding type flying at all. It's super super fast stuff they do that makes them fly.

And also if it was that direction, you expect everything to have large wings, as gliding leads to that process, not develop small fast paste flapping wings on the top, which has no direction from gliding.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Also if you look at bees, your see their flight has nothing to with gliding type flying at all. It's super super fast stuff they do that makes them fly.

I think this paragraph really outlines the level of your knowledge on this topic. I would advise you actually go and study evolution, because you're consistently bringing up points that have already been refuted.

 

[AskTheFamily]

If you bothered to actually care about the argument

I veiwed your video and I found nothing relevant. If you want to bring his argument, you can bring it here and put in your words. Or you can talk about your super heroes as if they explained everything and people are welcome to believe you.

Richard Dawkins books and words are full of logical fallacies all the time, if you have any logical argument you learned from him, go ahead and bring it.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think this paragraph really outlines the level of your knowledge on this topic. I would advise you actually go and study evolution, because you're consistently bringing up points that have already been refuted.

If it's been refuted, you can bring the refutation. Otherwise, appeal to unknown books with unknown explanations as having an answer is not an argument.

If you are well versed with it, then go ahead and answer it. Every evolution book I read just goes the vague skipping too much route like everyone here is doing.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If it's been refuted, you can bring the refutation. Otherwise, appeal to unknown books with unknown explanations as having an answer is not an argument.

If you are well versed with it, then go ahead and answer it. Every evolution book I read just goes the vague skipping too much route like everyone here is doing.

You watched the videos that contained the refutations and you chose to ignore them. I don't need to repeat them for you - watch them and refute them if they are so obviously wrong.

 

[ukgrace]

AskTheFamily, may I ask who told you that evolution was impossible? was it someone who knew what they were talking about or was it someone who wanted you to believe in God?

AskThe Family please would you mind answering my question.

 

[Isambard]

I veiwed your video and I found nothing relevant.

Strange how even the children in the video understood the relevance which you continue to fail to grasp.

If you want to bring his argument, you can bring it here and put in your words. Or you can talk about your super heroes as if they explained everything and people are welcome to believe you.

LOL wut? He proves what Zoot and other have been saying with a experiment demonstrated to the view/audience. And what the heck are you talking about with superheros? Dawkins is a biologist, you know a scientist. The type of person you asked to refute you, which he has.

Richard Dawkins books and words are full of logical fallacies all the time, if you have any logical argument you learned from him, go ahead and bring it.

Shame you have yet to show how he is wrong in his demonstration. Your willful ignorance is the only thing that is evident.

 

[durangodawood]

This again???
.
Honestly, I cant fathom where people get the patience to explain the science over and over to people who are predisposed to remain ignorant based on a personal theological commitment to a particluar story about world origins.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

You watched the videos that contained the refutations and you chose to ignore them. I don't need to repeat them for you - watch them and refute them if they are so obviously wrong.

Alright Sith, you don't need to repeat, and I don't need to repeat my arguments in this thread either.

If you want to put in your own words and address what I have said, and show how it refutes what I have said, your more then welcome to. But till then, I am going to assume you have not comprehended my argument at all because that is what it seems like.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Shame you have yet to show how he is wrong in his demonstration.

I disagree.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Alright Sith, you don't need to repeat, and I don't need to repeat my arguments in this thread either.

If you want to put in your own words and address what I have said, and show how it refutes what I have said, your more then welcome to. But till then, I am going to assume you have not comprehended my argument at all because that is what it seems like.

Why do I need to put it in my own words when all that would mean is that I am repeating the video? The videos refuted the argument, I don't need to repeat them. The videos demonstrated how '1/100 wing' could be beneficial to an organism, which refutes your argument that it wouldn't be. Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how the video is wrong, then we might all be able to actually have a debate.

I've comprehended your argument perfectly, because I've seen it plenty of times. It's the result of you not understanding that 1/1000 of a wing is a nonsense statement that means nothing.

So - we've refuted your arguments, now it's your turn. How are the videos incorrect?

 

[AskTheFamily]

Why do I need to put it in my own words when all that would mean is that I am repeating the video? The videos refuted the argument, I don't need to repeat them. The videos demonstrated how '1/100 wing' could be beneficial to an organism, which refutes your argument that it wouldn't be. Now, if you'd like to demonstrate how the video is wrong, then we might all be able to actually have a debate.

I've comprehended your argument perfectly, because I've seen it plenty of times. It's the result of you not understanding that 1/1000 of a wing is a nonsense statement that means nothing.

So - we've refuted your arguments, now it's your turn. How are the videos incorrect?

I have not simply talked about beneficial, I talked about it needing direction. So let's say some extra skin help in something, it still needs to have direction towards gliding, but gliding has a design, and you can't just imagine somehow it just went towards that, when there is no reason by the process for it to go towards that direction.

So as I said, even a if a little extra skin helped in falling, for it to move towards gliding is whole different thing, as gliding has design.

Now I think Zoot and I had this discussion already, and there was even more detail then the video in our discussion. So if you like anything to add, go ahead.

 

[Delphiki]

I veiwed your video and I found nothing relevant.

Then it's apparent you're plugging your ears and humming loudly. You asked for explanations and evidence, got them, and intentionally ignored them.

You might have let the video play, but you didn't watch. You may have looked at the words on your computer screen that Sith and I put there, but it's evident you aren't actually reading them.

If you're going to ignore the answers and evidence you are requesting, then there's no value in continuing the conversation.

 

[ukgrace]

How are the videos incorrect?

The creationist answer to that is, they just are because I was told they are.