Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

So God could have set it all up ages ago and left it on autopilot and we see this auto pilot as nature?

He could have, yes. But that would be creation, not self-directed evolution. I think mythology has better answers than science. The angry 'gods' often changed their enemies into creatures reflecting their character, or that god's anger.

That's why we see entirely different creatures appear suddenly throughout the (ruin/restoration of) the geologic layers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Eum....

It seems to me that you have it completely backwards...
It's creationists that don't understand the complexity of things and are baffled by it... which is why they use it in an argument from incredulity, as if that justifies the assertion that "god dun it".

A biologist and geneticists, understands perfectly what the complexity of living things is about and, more importantly, how this complexity is an inevitable result of the process known as biological evolution.

Goddidit is the true 'Unified Theory of Everything'.

 

[Speedwell]

He could have, yes. But that would be creation, not self-directed evolution.

How would you tell the difference? How would you distinguish variation and selection as designed and initiated by God from "self-directed" variation and selection (whatever that may be)?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How would you tell the difference? How would you distinguish variation and selection as designed and initiated by God from "self-directed" variation and selection (whatever that may be)?

You choose the one that includes God because God is not the author of confusion. Left to itself 'evolution' would descend into biological chaos with all sorts of goofy critters scurrying around (some, having evolved only one leg would be scurrying in a circle).

 

[Speedwell]

You choose the one that includes God because God is not the author of confusion. Left to itself 'evolution' would descend into biological chaos with all sorts of goofy critters scurrying around (some, having evolved only one leg would be scurrying in a circle).

That's just silly. How do you suppose that natural selection would allow the survival of such unfit variations?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The topic is irreducible complexity, not evolution.

The irreducible complexity argument is an argument about evolution (i.e. what it can't do).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You choose the one that includes God because God is not the author of confusion. Left to itself 'evolution' would descend into biological chaos with all sorts of goofy critters scurrying around (some, having evolved only one leg would be scurrying in a circle).

Ah, no. Natural selection takes care of that; any critters that are unfit are less likely to survive to reproduce and if they do, are likely to have fewer viable offspring. The mutations causing their distress will not propagate through the population.

However, to quote William F. Buckley Jr., "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."

 

[RickG]

Metamorphosis.

The simple answer is a transference from immature to mature. The detailed explanation would be the biochemistrty involved in the process which goes into great detail. Here's an example:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.2307/1536759

 

[RickG]

Why do you think that asking hard questions is 'criticizing'?

Because your questions are expressing doubt without an explanation to support that doubt. You are saying science is wrong but present nothing to support that claim, rather only an opinion. If science is wrong, then cite a published research paper in the scientific literature and point out the problems. Contrary to what you may think science does this quite often. That is how science gets corrected and learns more about its environment.

 

[Speedwell]

Why do you think that asking hard questions is 'criticizing'?

The other point is, that you seem to be directing your questions towards something other than the real theory of evolution. Your latest response to me leaves me in doubt about whether you are doing it intentionally or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's just silly. How do you suppose that natural selection would allow the survival of such unfit variations?

Now we're getting somewhere. Evolution would provide prey species for the one-legged critter (you did want to broach the subject of evolutionary interdependency, which is much more complex.)

Where are the fossil remains of those unfit variations?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah, no. Natural selection takes care of that; any critters that are unfit are less likely to survive to reproduce and if they do, are likely to have fewer viable offspring. The mutations causing their distress will not propagate through the population.

However, to quote William F. Buckley Jr., "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."

Why "natural selection", why not call it what it is; survival of the fittest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why "natural selection", why not call it what it is; survival of the fittest.

Ask Eric Harris.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The simple answer is a transference from immature to mature. The detailed explanation would be the biochemistrty involved in the process which goes into great detail. Here's an example:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.2307/1536759

How does survival of the fittest (natural selection) fit into the process of metamorphosis? Does the caterpillar 'hide' from it's enemies by enclosing itself in a cocoon? Why does it changed into a butterfly. It was doing just fine as a caterpillar. Is there an outline of the substances and processes needed to accomplish this (not a thoroughly confusing tome like the link presents)?
Is there a mathematical formula for metamorphosis as for other processes? What are the odds that the process evolved? And what about the mating behavior of butterflies. What are the odds that each aspect 'evolved'?

http://www.gardening-for-wildlife.com/butterflies-mating.html

Special creation makes more sense (which is the true basis for all creationist arguments).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ask Eric Harris.

Who he? (I'll google him laterl)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because your questions are expressing doubt without an explanation to support that doubt. You are saying science is wrong but present nothing to support that claim, rather only an opinion. If science is wrong, then cite a published research paper in the scientific literature and point out the problems. Contrary to what you may think science does this quite often. That is how science gets corrected and learns more about its environment.

I believe that there is, somewhere in the back of the minds of scientists, a persistent nagging doubt concerning the origin of things. They are seeing the trees now, in fact examining them quite thoroughly, but have yet to discovered the forest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who he? (I'll google him laterl)

Eric Harris was one of the shooters who shot up Columbine high school.

He wore a shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION.

And I like using him as a poster child for evolutionists who act like the animals they were led to believe they are.

It gives me pleasure to see evolutionists deny their heritage.

 

[HitchSlap]

Eric Harris was one of the shooters who shot up Columbine high school.

He wore a shirt that said NATURAL SELECTION.

And I like using him as a poster child for evolutionists who act like the animals they were led to believe they are.

It gives me pleasure to see evolutionists deny their heritage.

Wasn't Harris bullied by the bible-thumpers?

 

[RickG]

How does survival of the fittest (natural selection) fit into the process of metamorphosis? Does the caterpillar 'hide' from it's enemies by enclosing itself in a cocoon? Why does it changed into a butterfly. It was doing just fine as a caterpillar. Is there an outline of the substances and processes needed to accomplish this (not a thoroughly confusing tome like the link presents)?
Is there a mathematical formula for metamorphosis as for other processes? What are the odds that the process evolved? And what about the mating behavior of butterflies. What are the odds that each aspect 'evolved'?

http://www.gardening-for-wildlife.com/butterflies-mating.html

Special creation makes more sense (which is the true basis for all creationist arguments).

Metamorphosis is not evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals.