Does science actually admit "design"?

[tas8831]

Didn't we copy the design of bird wings so that airplanes can fly? We deem our wings designed, but bird wings aren't? I think it would be proper to say that we copied the functional design of bird wings.

Argument via analogy?

That is so 1800s...

 

[tas8831]

It's difficult for creationists to argue with evolutionists because it's difficult to get answers to the questions that we have.

Your questions are almost always premised on outright ignorance of the subject matter.

Then, of course, you usually ignore or dismiss the explanations when you get them - it is all part of your 'witnessing' rituals, I suspect.

Take this assertion of yours for example:


" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

You could have supported this claim by simply pointing us to ground-breaking research that overturned more than a century of amassed knowledge of the working of the nervous system. Instead, you just ignore lengthy explanations of your errors, try to change topics, try to move the goal posts, play martyr a little, then imply that your claims have gone unaddressed.

Sad, really.

 

[tas8831]

For example is it possible to diagram an evolutionary change, including everything that must be in place, or take place, for even a small change to occur?

What do you mean "small change"?

There is a form of dwarfism that is caused by a single point mutation in a single gene that causes an amino acid change in a single protein. Yet that single change results in disproportionate limb growth, alterations in the facial skeleton, reduction in interphalangeal joints, etc.
This means that all of the bones, all of the nerves, all of the blood vessels, etc. in each limb were all affected by that one change.

I mention this for on another forum some years ago, a creationist claiming to be well read and to have 'studied' the issues claimed that for even a tiny change in one limb we would need to explain all of the mutations "needed" to change all of these things individually.

Which means that he, like I assume you, does not understand how development (or the underlying genetics) works.

I saw a semi-professional creationist computer expert insist that it must have taken at least 1 million beneficial mutations to alter just the pelvis of a quadrupedal chimp-like ancestor to a fully bidepal pelvis of a human. And, like you, when asked for his rationale he said it just had to be, for he could not understand any other way. And he, like you, was totally unable to provide any evidence whatsoever regarding the number of such mutations that phenotypic changes would "require."

In fact, this is a very common mantra among creationists, especially those with backgrounds in engineering of some sort.

Ever heard of Walter ReMine? He wrote a book in the 1990s in which he took an outdated equation based on information understood in the 1950s (known as 'Haldane's dilemma'), applied it to human evolution, concluded that since the estimated divergence of chimps and humans, a maximum of 1667 fixed, beneficial mutations could have accumulated in our lineage, and darn it, that was just not enough.

How did he know it was not enough? He just did - 'common sense', and besides, he was an electrical engineer, so...
He, like most creationists, also got caught misrepresenting one of the people he interviewed for his book (George Williams), whom he presented as agreeing that 'Haldane's dilemma' was a big problem for evolution despite the fact that Williams was of the opinion that there was no dilemma at all since Haldane has made errors in his calculations.

Anyway...

Since these small changes (perhaps down to the molecular level) are the basis of evolution, is there a comprehensive explanation for them?

A comprehensive explanation for mutations? Um.... Yes? Replication errors? They have been sort of measured and everything...

It just seems that evolution is a sudden inexplicable (and almost always fortuitous) change that must include thousands of other minute changes to accomplish.

I'm sure it seems that way to you, but you have, afterall, admitted that you don't understand it, so...

It's like a switch gets tripped and thousands of biological processes 'cascade' into action resulting in a successful change, like an intricate setup of thousands of dominos falling in order when the first one is tripped.

Amazingly, that is sort of how development works! The thing that folks like you cannot seem to grasp is that we only see the "end products" that worked - if that 'cascade' ends up producing a non-functional heart as a by-product, for example, the embryo dies very early on and we know nothing of it.
Depending on the source you read, this in fact occurs ALL the time as some 40-60% of all fertilized eggs dies, often well before the woman even realizes that fertilization has taken place.

Multiply this event by the uncountable trillions that must successfully occur over time in order to produce the global biosphere/ecosystem that we see today, all from a simple microscopic organism.

See above.

it really does help to dump the strawman versions of things.

It would be even better if creationists could turn some of their 'skepticism' towards their own "beliefs" now and then. But that never seems to happen for some reason.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What do you mean "small change"?

There is a form of dwarfism that is caused by a single point mutation in a single gene that causes an amino acid change in a single protein. Yet that single change results in disproportionate limb growth, alterations in the facial skeleton, reduction in interphalangeal joints, etc.
This means that all of the bones, all of the nerves, all of the blood vessels, etc. in each limb were all affected by that one change.

No, that single small change causes a cascade of millions of changes throughout the whole organism, each of which must be explained......in detail please.

 

[tas8831]

No, that single small change causes a cascade of millions of changes throughout the whole organism, each of which must be explained......in detail please.

Sure - right after you provide exquisite anatomical detail supporting these claims of yours:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop [the RLN] is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Didn't we copy the design of bird wings so that airplanes can fly? We deem our wings designed, but bird wings aren't? I think it would be proper to say that we copied the functional design of bird wings.

... Seriously?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure - right after you provide exquisite anatomical detail supporting these claims of yours:

" This is a visceral reaction (the 'mind' of the body) influencing the function of the throat and voice box without the direction of the brain."

" If the larynx needs a signal from the aortic arch that loop [the RLN] is a great way to facilitate the 'my heart was in my throat' response."

Mine is a product of brainstorming the function of the left RLN (no details available at this time). Evolution OTOH has all the answers, so let's hear a million or so of them cataloging the changes needed to affect a 'mutation', from gene to final product.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

... Seriously?

Yup.
How Do Wings Work? | Blog . DESIGN SQUAD GLOBAL | PBS KIDS

"Aircraft wing designers have always been inspired by birds. Birds glide for maximum lift and fold their wings for reduced drag -- which is exactly what aviation engineers want for the airplanes that they create."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And yet A) you are not a scientist so you cannot say that science admits design and B) you have ZERO scientific evidence for design. Misunderstanding what scientists say is not evidence, it simply shows you misunderstand what scientists say.

So the answer to my question (OP) is no?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mine is a product of brainstorming the function of the left RLN (no details available at this time). Evolution OTOH has all the answers, so let's hear a million or so of them cataloging the changes needed to affect a 'mutation', from gene to final product.

Lol, what does the bible say the left RLN does? Rhetorical question, since I know the bible doesn't say anything about it.

No one claims that the theory of evolution has all the answers. Only that, as it currently stands, it is the best explanation for the variety of life as we know it today. No more and no less. Our understanding of how anatomical structures function in living organisms, and whether or not they have any, has very little to do with the theory of evolution. We mostly determine function through analysis of the structures directly or through comparisons with analogous ones in other animals. The only time the theory of evolution has any influence is when we are trying to make recreations of extinct organisms, in that we attempt to compare those organisms with modern ones most closely related to them. But, that has some pretty severe limitations, especially with extinct organisms which left behind no modern lineages.

In short, the theory of evolution can explain the presence of vestigial structures, but it's not used to determine if a structure is vestigial or not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol, what does the bible say the left RLN does? Rhetorical question, since I know the bible doesn't say anything about it.

David was inspired to write that he was "fearfully and wonderfully made". I assume that includes his left RLN ( unless that meant that he 'feared' that God goofed it up).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.
How Do Wings Work? | Blog . DESIGN SQUAD GLOBAL | PBS KIDS

"Aircraft wing designers have always been inspired by birds. Birds glide for maximum lift and fold their wings for reduced drag -- which is exactly what aviation engineers want for the airplanes that they create."

Yeah, 'inspired' does not mean directly copying. The wings of a plane require a fair few more factors than a birds wing to work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So the answer to my question (OP) is no?

Which I have said repeatedly!

 

[tas8831]

Mine is a product of brainstorming the function of the left RLN (no details available at this time).

Why would someone admitting ignorance of the entire subject "brainstorm" anything about it in the first place, and more, why would you ignore my expansive refutation of your "brainstorming"?

Evolution OTOH has all the answers,

Cute strawman - was that the result of your "brainstorming", too?

so let's hear a million or so of them cataloging the changes needed to affect a 'mutation', from gene to final product.

Strawman on top of strawmen.

Why would a mutation need to be affected?

You really do have no clue about any of this, do you?

Did I not just explain that a single mutation can produce a multitude of effects, so 'a million' are not needed?

This is an internet discussion forum.

YOU made the foolish mistake of presenting yourself as being some sort of 'above the fray' genius who has 'studied' anatomy and sees design (without any actual evidence), whose mere opinion = fact. And when your opinions get demolished with actual facts, you pull this juvenile standard creationist cop-out nonsense.

You claim that 'the gut' and the 'aorta' generates vocalization impulses that get to the larynx via the RLN. I demonstrate that this is nonsense. Your come back with 'science doesn't know everything.' I explain that mutations can produce cascades of effects, and give an example, showing that 'millions' of specific changes are not actually required, and you come back with a demand that provide details on millions of changes. I say sure - after you provide evidence for your goofy aorta=vocalizations (no brain activity needed), and you sleaze out of it - 'gee, golly, it was just a guess.'

More beta by the day,

 

[tas8831]

David was inspired to write that he was "fearfully and wonderfully made". I assume that includes his left RLN ( unless that meant that he 'feared' that God goofed it up).

Yeah... David was as uneducated about anatomy and physiology as you appear to be, so...

 

[tas8831]

So the answer to my question (OP) is no?

Duh...

A better OP question might be "Can creationists ever admit they are wrong on anything?"

 

[tas8831]

People should not be afraid or get angst from the use of words to describe what they see.

OK - what I see from creationists is basically fraud, deception, and incompetence.

From your interpretation of cladograms to your purposeful and malicious misrepresentation of published works.

And I won't even mention the plagiarism.

Creationism is dead, and its propagandists are desperate and uninformed.

 

[tas8831]

No, that single small change causes a cascade of millions of changes throughout the whole organism, each of which must be explained......in detail please.

Or, since you think creationism is real, please provide in detail the means by which silicates (dust of the ground) were transmuted into all of the molecules required for living things, and then how the specific bio-organic molecules found in humans were transformed into an adult, fully formed human male.

Since you expect this from others, it is only fair to expect the same from you.

I'm sure this will be met with the usual 'but I take it on faith' cop-out - the pseudointellectual coward's cop-out...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, 'inspired' does not mean directly copying. The wings of a plane require a fair few more factors than a birds wing to work.

The airfoil shape providing lift is the same. Also bird wings, and thus bird flight, are far more complex than any manmade wing could ever be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Duh...

A better OP question might be "Can creationists ever admit they are wrong on anything?"

You should start that thread.