Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[expos4ever]

Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection.

Natural selection.

 

[expos4ever]

I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

It seems that when those who deny the overwhelming consensus of qualified scientific experts on the matter of evolution, they often cite a person who is an expert in an unrelated field - in this case, computer science and missile technology.

This would be like me taking medical advice from someone with a Phd in English literature.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Many proteins have more than one application, and, with slight variations, multiple applications. The opsin family has a wide range of functions outside of mammalian eyes. They're most common in bacteria, where they supply a variety of light-activated functions, switching on/off membrane ion pumps, activating/deactivating enzymatic activity, etc.

Mammalian visual opsins are a bit different, but it's thought plausible that they derive from an ancient 'toolkit' of genes that has serves a variety of purposes and so is highly conserved. This would also plausibly explain how eyes have evolved independently so many times - the 'building blocks' are part of a common inheritance.

Many evolutionists have little idea of how things work in reality. Try this for a paper on how cold blooded creatures "evolved" into warm blooded.

When You’re Hot, You’re Hot!

I know something about temperature control. The people who wrote the paper obviously do not. Equally uninformed are the people who published it.

 

[pitabread]

Many evolutionists have little idea of how things work in reality. Try this for a paper on how cold blooded creatures "evolved" into warm blooded.

When You’re Hot, You’re Hot!

That's not a paper. That's a critique of a paper (and a rather poor critique at that).

Have you actually read and understood the original paper in question? I'm betting not.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Natural selection.

I asked you not tell me that. (Maxwell Smart)

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's not a paper. That's a critique of a paper (and a rather poor critique at that).

Have you actually read and understood the original paper in question? I'm betting not.

It's an extract from the paper that covers the salient points. What do you know about closed loop temperature control?

 

[Speedwell]

It's an extract from the paper that covers the salient points. What do you know about closed loop temperature control?

What do you know about the evolutionary mechanism itself? Evidently your friend "do-while" Jones doesn't know much of anything. But I would think that anyone who has the math background to design control systems would understand more about stochastic processes than I see any evidence of.

 

[pitabread]

It's an extract from the paper that covers the salient points.

How do you know it covers the salient points? Have you read the original paper in question?

A simple yes/no is all you need to respond with.

What do you know about closed loop temperature control?

I don't see how that is relevant. I'm asking whether you have read the original paper in question.

Have you read it? Or did you just read someone's (poor) critique of it?

 

[klutedavid]

It's not unique to humans. Research into primate language and communication has demonstrated that other primates can learn to 'read' as well:

For example: Kanzi - Wikipedia



And the purpose of that citation is...?

Birds may, in fact, be on par with primates in the area of problem solving and using language.

ARE BIRDS AS CLEVER AS PRIMATES?

Many birds, in particular corvids (the family containing crows and ravens) and parrots, are capable of cognitively demanding tasks: making and using tools, solving problems, understanding underlying mechanisms and anticipating future behaviour of others. Corvids in particular have been found to be capable of spontaneous analogical reasoning and can exhibit motor self-regulation on a par with great apes. Songbirds and parrots also possess the ability for vocal learning – parrots even exhibit the exceptional ability to learn words and use them to communicate with humans. (biosphereonline.com)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Many evolutionists have little idea of how things work in reality. Try this for a paper on how cold blooded creatures "evolved" into warm blooded.

When You’re Hot, You’re Hot!

I know something about temperature control. The people who wrote the paper obviously do not. Equally uninformed are the people who published it.

And, of course, a software developer is better qualified than a biologist to critique it...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Birds may, in fact, be on par with primates in the area of problem solving and using language.

ARE BIRDS AS CLEVER AS PRIMATES?

Many birds, in particular corvids (the family containing crows and ravens) and parrots, are capable of cognitively demanding tasks: making and using tools, solving problems, understanding underlying mechanisms and anticipating future behaviour of others. Corvids in particular have been found to be capable of spontaneous analogical reasoning and can exhibit motor self-regulation on a par with great apes. Songbirds and parrots also possess the ability for vocal learning – parrots even exhibit the exceptional ability to learn words and use them to communicate with humans. (biosphereonline.com)

An interesting fact about 'bird brains' is that they pack in far more neurons per unit volume than mammalian brains. Small can mean smart.

 

[pitabread]

And, of course, a software developer is better qualified than a biologist to critique it...

It's an embarrassingly bad critique too, judging by the author's over-reliance on personal incredulity and hand-waving dismissals.

Their critique of the methodology re: determination of coupled vs decoupled evolution of BMR and T(b) also has a glaring error in it, not the least of which their own criticism does not jive with the results quoted for the paper in question.

Just looking at the following figures refutes that particular critique:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...n-their-branch-wise-rates-in-a_fig1_335174629

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's an embarrassingly bad critique too, judging by the author's over-reliance on personal incredulity and hand-waving dismissals.

Their critique of the methodology re: determination of coupled vs decoupled evolution of BMR and T(b) also has a glaring error in it, not the least of which their own claims do not jive with the results quoted for the paper in question.

Just looking at the following figures refutes that particular critique:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...n-their-branch-wise-rates-in-a_fig1_335174629

It gave me the impression of wanting to sound clever and failing dismally.

 

[expos4ever]

Here is something about these debates: we all know that there is virtual unanimity among experts: evolution is a FACT. Deniers often then do something really, really odd - they effectively claim that they know better than trained experts.

Who does this in other areas?

- Do regular people claim they know better than doctors how to treat cancer?

- Do regular people claim that they know better than engineers when it comes to building bridges?

- Do regular people claim they could outperform a professional race driver in the Indy 500?

I can think of only two areas where regular Joes set themselves over the experts: evolution and climate change.

Both these issues require years and years of highly specialized training in order to be duly qualified.

How bizarre is it that obviously unqualified people believe they know better than tens of thousands of experts.

 

[pitabread]

I can think of only two areas where regular Joes set themselves over the experts: evolution and climate change.

Oh, people do this with lots of things. Medicine is prime example; look at anti-vaxxers for instance.

Law is another one. Look up videos of 'sovereign citizens' if you want some hilarious examples of people thinking they know more about the law than lawyers, judges, etc. Or tax protesters that think that they are legally except from taxation (Kent Hovind being a prime example).

 

[klutedavid]

Oh, people do this with lots of things. Medicine is prime example; look at anti-vaxxers for instance.

In my experience, I have seen older people start taking prescription drugs.

Once they start taking the drugs, the list of the drugs taken by these older people steadily increases. The doctors, pharmacies, and drug companies become very wealthy, so the doctors obviously prescribe more and more drugs. I am fairly certain that they get a kickback for prescribing certain drugs.

On and on it goes, until these older folk start to really look sick. Some folk for example may be taking more than ten pills a day.

So when I walk past a doctor's practice I always warn older people not to see the doctor. Because they will end up on a long list of drugs that will only kill them in the end.

 

[pitabread]

So when I walk past a doctor's practice I always warn older people not to see the doctor. Because they will end up on a long list of drugs that will only kill them in the end.

Wait, what? You actually warn people *not* to go to the doctor?

That is the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time. And that's saying a lot.

edited:

To put this in perspective and why this comment p*sses me off, a member of family never went to the doctor until they got really sick. Turns out they had a form of colon cancer. Had they been getting checkups, could have been caught and treated much earlier. Unfortunately by the time it was detected, the cancer had spread. They died within a month.

That served as a wake-up call for other members of my family, another of which who ended up also getting diagnosed with cancer. However, they caught it early enough that it was treatable and they are still alive today. That was about 10 years ago.

So the advice of "don't go to the doctor", especially for older individuals is not only completely asinine, it's morally reprehensible. I hope you never are faced with losing family members with treatable or preventable diseases due to your misguided and selfish "advice".

 

[expos4ever]

Wait, what? You actually warn people *not* to go to the doctor?

That is the dumbest thing I've read here in a long time. And that's saying a lot.

I generally agree with you. To be fair, though, I would bet that there is some overtreatment driven by profit motive. On balance, though, I am confident that following doctors orders is the best choice.

 

[pitabread]

I generally agree with you. To be fair, though, I would bet that there is some overtreatment driven by profit motive. On balance, though, I am confident that following doctors orders is the best choice.

I edited my above response, because I still can't believe what I was reading. Part of my extended family tends to shun doctors (bit of a cultural thing), but it's resulted in a death that could have otherwise potentially been prevented (cancer that could have been treatable).

I just can't believe anyone would be dumb enough to actually tell people not to go see a doctor. For anyone who is older (e.g. 40+), doing a routine annual checkup can save lives.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And, of course, a software developer is better qualified than a biologist to critique it...

Yes! because he knows how things work. DNA is the most amazing coding system, far more complex than anything man has come up with. And no, such things don't come about by accident. An explosion in a scrabble factory is not going to produce a dictionary.