10

[Aduro Amnis]

You've convinced me, now what is the Theory of Creationism so I may study it?
I know the Hypothesis - 6000 year old Earth + No Evolution + Global Flood but what is the theory?

 

[PhantomLlama]

whatever happened to napa anyway?

*searches*

Well, his last post was in the christian-only C&E forum, so I would imagine he got sick of all the 'evidence' and 'logic' he was forced to put up with here, and ran off there hoping for a softer reception. When he didn't get that, he probably gave it up altogether.

Ahh, the joys of armchair psychology.

 

[Dal M.]

I think we should call this one the argumentum ad decimus: the argument from ten. It can be rendered something like this:

1.) Evolution is a bunch of numbers.
2.) Where's your ten, huh? HUH? SHOW ME YOUR TEN!
3.) Therefore, evolution is false.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I think we should call this one the argumentum ad decimus: the argument from ten. It can be rendered something like this:

1.) Evolution is a bunch of numbers.
2.) Where's your ten, huh? HUH? SHOW ME YOUR TEN!
3.) Therefore, evolution is false.

A rep-worthy post if I ever saw one. Fantastic summation.

 

[Colossians]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...
see, you're misrepresenting me. you claimed that I said evolution would lead to its demise, I did not at all.
Oh! I see! You’re playing “I didn’t say those exact words!”
See how long I continue to respond to you when you play that game.

 

[Colossians]

Those are not and never were commonly accepted concepts of biological evolution.
And Elvis never wore white jump suits.

 

[Colossians]

Colossians, have you considered the possibility that the reason the evolutionists are telling you that you are misunderstanding evolution might be because you are misunderstanding evolution?
No. But have you considerd the possibility that maybe they are running scared, and are using the old tactic of denegrating their opposition's understanding in order to save face?
And have you also considered that I have witnessed your viewing of my threads for long enough now to know that you know that I know?
Further, is not correct understanding of this thread part of your '10'? That being actually the case, have you considered that it is you that do not understand my thread?

 

[lucaspa]

The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".

Not exactly. What you have described is looking for the selection advantage of some particular trait. However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are designs. So, the advantage of an area to detect light on the membrane of a iunicellular organism when there were only unicellular organisms and no other organism had such a area is obvious.

Let us use the number '4' to represent the current state of a supposed evolved entity.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, or some assistance/partnership, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary utility/purpose of '4'.
Let us use the number '10' to represent an ultimate utility/purpose of '4'.

Ah, there's the problem. There is no "ultimateutility/purpose". The trait has to be useful now. It can't not be useful now.

So, number 1 represents a precursor to 4.

However, what you might be describing is exaptation. This is where a trait evolves for one reason and then, by serendipity, is also useful for another, unrelated trait. An example is the forearms of bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs. Useful (with claws on the digits) for grasping and holding prey. Also useful, when covered with feathers, as wings.

For trying to be "practical", you were very abstract. Let's try something concrete: the evolution of wings in insects.

JG Kingsolver and MAR Koehl published the first hard data to support a shift from thermoregulation to flight as a scenario for the evolution of wings. The article is "Aerodynamics, thermoregulation, and the evolution of insect wings: differential scaling and evolutionary change", Evolution, 1985.

First, Kingsolver and Koehl examined the 3 categories of functional continuity: proto wings for gliding, for parachuting, and attitude stability. They then developed aerodynamic equations for exactly how proto-wings should help an insect under these 3 hypotheses. They then went on to construct insect models of flying and nonflying forms among early fossil insects. To these models they attached wings of various lengths and measured the actual aerodynamic effects for properties predicted by various hypotheses of functional continuity. The results of wind-tunnel tests were consistent: aerodynamic benefits of begin for wings above a certain size, and they increase as wings get larger. But at small sizes of insect proto-wings, aerodynamic advantages are absent or insignificant. Kingsolver and Koehl then tested their models for thermoregulatory effects. They achieved results symmetrically opposite to aerodynamic benefits: for thermoregulation, wings work well at the smallest sizes, with benefits increasing as the wing grows. however, beyond a measured length, further increase in wing size confers no additional thermo effect. These 2 effects can be graphed.

Interestingly enough, the size at which wings begin to lose any additional benefit to thermoregulation is the size at which aerodynamic effects begin to kick in. So, by actual measuring the functional shift, Kingsolver and Koehl have shown that incipient wings aid thermoregulation but provide no aerodynamic benefit -- while larger wings provide no further theromoregulatory benefit but initiate aerodynamic advantage and increase the benefits steadily thereafter. The domain of transition varies systematically with body size. The larger the body, the sooner the transition. So a smaller insect can get large wings for thermo, but if then for some other evolutionary reason the body grows smaller, then the wings will be appropriate for flight.

This discussion is drawn from Gould, "Not necessarily a wing" in Bully for Brontosaurus, pg. 139-151, 1991.

Notice how all this is backed by experimentation, not your strawman arguments.

Now, when you get some experimentation showing evolution to be impossible or redundant, let me know.

By the way: organisms are designed. Designed by natural selection.

 

[Colossians]

I think we should call this one the argumentum ad decimus: the argument from ten. It can be rendered something like this:
1.) Evolution is a bunch of numbers.
2.) Where's your ten, huh? HUH? SHOW ME YOUR TEN!
3.) Therefore, evolution is false.

Let me explain it to you better:
Evolution's steps/points (the things it produces) can be represented as numbers, for both have utility.

Evolution claims that its 'numbers' not only have utility, but that that utility is self-substantive.
For example, a man's arm is rightfully and properly an arm, fulfilling a required 'place' in the scheme of things: an absolute, self-substantive utility. Even if the arm did not exist or evolve, the concept would still exist as an absolute.
So their doctrine is built upon an underlying tautology: things are the way they are because they make sense that way. (And indeed, without such intuition, there would exist no impetus for the existence of their doctrine.)
This intuitively perceived self-substantiveness is what we have called '10'.

He has to therefore tell us where this '10' came from.
And we wish him luck in the process.

 

[Colossians]

Ah, there's the problem. There is no "ultimateutility/purpose". The trait has to be useful now. It can't not be useful now.
This "useful" is your '10'. You have not thought about it deeply enough.
'10' is not some purpose not yet understood or known: if it were, I would not have mentioned it, nor mentioned that '5' was needed because it divides exactly twice into it.
'10' is a perceived usefulness now: a self-substantiveness.
Refer also my previous post.

 

[Data]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...
see, you're misrepresenting me. you claimed that I said evolution would lead to its demise, I did not at all.
Oh! I see! You’re playing “I didn’t say those exact words!”
See how long I continue to respond to you when you play that game.

He said: 'evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.'

Which means that evolution of a species eventually leads to it's extinction, and if anything, this is always the final result of evolution.

You then twisted this into a 'HARHAR, HE SAID EVOLUTION LEADS TO IT BEING WRONG!'

This in the same response to his request for you to stop misrepresenting him.

...

 

[einstein314emc2]

I think we should call this one the argumentum ad decimus: the argument from ten. It can be rendered something like this:
1.) Evolution is a bunch of numbers.
2.) Where's your ten, huh? HUH? SHOW ME YOUR TEN!
3.) Therefore, evolution is false.

Let me explain it to you better:
Evolution's steps/points (the things it produces) can be represented as numbers, for both have utility.

Evolution claims that its 'numbers' not only have utility, but that that utility is self-substantive.
For example, a man's arm is rightfully and properly an arm, fulfilling a required 'place' in the scheme of things: an absolute, self-substantive utility. Even if the arm did not exist or evolve, the concept would still exist as an absolute.
So their doctrine is built upon an underlying tautology: things are the way
they are because they make sense that way. (And indeed, without such intuition, there would exist no impetus for the existence of their doctrine.)
This intuitively perceived self-substantiveness is what we have called '10'.
He has to therefore tell us where this '10' came from.
And we wish him luck in the process.

Are you asking "why are things the way they are?"

 

[Split Rock]

I think we should call this one the argumentum ad decimus: the argument from ten. It can be rendered something like this:
1.) Evolution is a bunch of numbers.
2.) Where's your ten, huh? HUH? SHOW ME YOUR TEN!
3.) Therefore, evolution is false.

Let me explain it to you better:
Evolution's steps/points (the things it produces) can be represented as numbers, for both have utility.

Evolution claims that its 'numbers' not only have utility, but that that utility is self-substantive.
For example, a man's arm is rightfully and properly an arm, fulfilling a required 'place' in the scheme of things: an absolute, self-substantive utility. Even if the arm did not exist or evolve, the concept would still exist as an absolute.
So their doctrine is built upon an underlying tautology: things are the way they are because they make sense that way. (And indeed, without such intuition, there would exist no impetus for the existence of their doctrine.)
This intuitively perceived self-substantiveness is what we have called '10'.

He has to therefore tell us where this '10' came from.
And we wish him luck in the process.

I lost count how many people on this forum have tried to explain to you that there is no goal, no "required place," no "absolute, self-substantive utility," and therefore no "10!" Stop making claims for evolution that you are just making up.

By the way, who is this "WE" you keep talking about?

 

[Colossians]

Split Rock,

I have lost count of the amount of times I have been quoted as though what follows the quote is somehow rebutting it.
To reassert your erroneous denial, is not to defend it.
Go back and address the post you quoted, and tell me what part you don't understand.

 

[Colossians]

Data,

He said: 'evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.'
This is one of the problems you evolutionists have (one which I have mentioned on another thread): you don't seem to be able to think inductively.

If extinction is possible for one, then it is possible for all. If all is extinct, then evolution has nothing to differentiate, and has itself therefore expired.

And I would appreciate it if you people would stop employng your 'gang-up' mentality in answering on behalf of each of your cronies. You should each be strong enough to fight your own battles. This is the last time I am responding to one of you via the proxy of another.

 

[einstein314emc2]

Split Rock,

I have lost count of the amount of times I have been quoted as though what follows the quote is somehow rebutting it.
To reassert your erroneous denial, is not to defend it.
Go back and address the post you quoted, and tell me what part you don't understand.

There is no "ultimate goal" in evolution, or a trend towards greater complexity more "information" or whatever. To explain it properly would take time, but it can be defended. I do suggest a good book to help explain it - "Full House : The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin"
by STEPHEN JAY GOULD

 

[einstein314emc2]

If extinction is possible for one, then it is possible for all. If all is extinct, then evolution has nothing to differentiate, and has itself therefore expired.

You seem to conclude that if something is possible, it has to happen. It is possible that you could have died in a car accident. But have you?
Some species evolve into others. Some species die off. Some differentiate into 5 different species, and all but one die, or none go extinct at all.

 

[Logic]

Data,

He said: 'evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.'
This is one of the problems you evolutionists have (one which I have mentioned on another thread): you don't seem to be able to think inductively.

If extinction is possible for one, then it is possible for all. If all is extinct, then evolution has nothing to differentiate, and has itself therefore expired.

evolution may lead...

What the hell are you talking about? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened. Jet said that evolution may lead to extinction simply to demonstrate that it does NOT have an "upward direction." It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that. Organisms that are better suited to live in an environment will generally have a higher success rate than those less suited to survive. Sometimes a catastophe will occur and an organism will go extinct, perhaps because of something that it developed which use to be benneficial, but is not harmful. You have a really warped view of what evolution is, describing it with numbers and everything, I don't think you realize how silly you sound.

 

[lucaspa]

You go awry in implying that evolution has a goal.
It is you who are always telling us about its goal. (I think you use the word "advantage". Sound familiar?)

So now you need to tell us why '5' is desireable because it divides into '10' exactly twice, when perhaps '7' is desirebale because it divides into '21' three times.

You are, of course, talking about natural selection here, not evolution per se.

You used the words "ultimate goal" in the OP. Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal: Picking among the designs presented to it for the design best suited for the environment at the present. But you proposed that natural selection had some goal beyond this. It doesn't.

For instance, do you think that seals are a "5" and are on the way to the "goal" of becoming a "10" -- whales? Sounds like it. But this isn't the case. The seals do a good job of earning a living right as they are. In fact, any individual seal more like a whale is at a disadvantage because whales are already there and do a better job at being whales than a seal with a slight modification to be a whale.

And this brings us to another concept: natural selection comes in three forms. Not just the one that you keep implying.
1. Directional selection. This is the one you are thinking of. When new selection pressures appear (due to a change in environment) a population will respond or not. Response takes the form of shifting the norm of variations. That is, the bell-shaped curve that is the measurement of a trait among the individuals shifts either left or right. If the variations aren't there to respond, the population goes extinct because it is not adapted to the new environment.

2. Stabilizing selection. Also called normalizing or purifying selection, this type of selection acts to preserve a certain array of phenotypes because of their selective advantage. This is the type of selection seen when a species is well-adapted to a constant environment. If a species is well adapted to an environment, any variation from the mean of a trait is going to be worse at coping with the environment. So that individual (and variation) will lose in the Struggle for Existence and be removed from the population. The population doesn't change. As long as the environment is stable.

Actually, we don't need to tell you anything at all because what you say makes no sense. Can you give us a concrete example of what you consider "5 goes into 10"?

 

[Physics_guy]

I can't believe you guys are even trying with to have a discussion with this troll.