I love being a Creationist!

[notto]

no one?

Not until you explain specifically why it doesn't meet your challenge.

You are now demonstrating the other half of my observations of you.

You act as if evidence hasn't been presented when it demolishes your case.

You just move the goalposts and ask for something that evolution doesn't predict.

That is intellectual dishonesty.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Opethian]

Am I aware of smell? Yes...what if I smelled a wasp and then as a result somehow morphed new a wasp-killing spray that came out of my eyeballs. That wouldn't strike you as amazing? No difference here. Just because there is a chemical involved (which I'm sure you can't identify) does not take away from the fact that there must be an awareness and a response to such a chemical on behalf of the organism. The environment must be interpreted by something...there are surely billions of "chemcials" in the world, millions of different animals that emit them (supposedly) thus, this salamander had to somehow distinquish this chemical from all the rest and make the correct response.....for which you have no explanation for.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The olfactory system has many different receptors that bind to many different volatile substances, which elicit different responses because the neural connections of different receptors target different parts of the brain, which thus will have a different effect. In short, different chemical, different response. At a certain point in time, the predator was already emitting the volatile chemical but the salamander could not detect it yet, because it didn't have a gene coding for the receptor to which the substance can bind yet. However, if for example gene duplication occurs copying a gene coding for an existing receptor (which does not bind the chemical), followed by random mutations in the new copy, natural selection would weed out those organisms in which the copy would be altered to code for a protein with a different structure, suitable to bind with the chemical emitted by the predator (if there was enough pressure of the predators on the salamanders). At first, the new receptor would only come in handy for adult salamanders, as there would be no mechanism yet for the smell to be associated with an urge to not break out of the egg yet, however adult salamanders could distinguish the smell of the predator from other smells (because of all the different kinds of receptors and the different neural connections to the brain), and by experiencing the danger associated with the smell in a first encounter with the predator (if it would survive this first encounter), have an advantage the next time it encounters the smell, through learned behaviour (a trauma). However, through time more mutations occur, eventually linking the neural transmission caused by the chemical binding the receptor to the release of a hormone that inhibits the urge to break out of the egg. This is just a quickly thought of hypothetical but it shows how reasonable and logical it is for something like this to evolve. Anyhow, I don't know why I'm even responding to this, we all know this guy cannot be reasoned with. Have fun living a life of ignorance.

 

[guzman]

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The olfactory system has many different receptors that bind to many different volatile substances, which elicit different responses because the neural connections of different receptors target different parts of the brain, which thus will have a different effect. In short, different chemical, different response. At a certain point in time, the predator was already emitting the volatile chemical but the salamander could not detect it yet, because it didn't have a gene coding for the receptor to which the substance can bind yet. However, if for example gene duplication occurs copying a gene coding for an existing receptor (which does not bind the chemical), followed by random mutations in the new copy, natural selection would weed out those organisms in which the copy would be altered to code for a protein with a different structure, suitable to bind with the chemical emitted by the predator (if there was enough pressure of the predators on the salamanders). At first, the new receptor would only come in handy for adult salamanders, as there would be no mechanism yet for the smell to be associated with an urge to not break out of the egg yet, however adult salamanders could distinguish the smell of the predator from other smells (because of all the different kinds of receptors and the different neural connections to the brain), and by experiencing the danger associated with the smell in a first encounter with the predator (if it would survive this first encounter), have an advantage the next time it encounters the smell, through learned behaviour (a trauma). However, through time more mutations occur, eventually linking the neural transmission caused by the chemical binding the receptor to the release of a hormone that inhibits the urge to break out of the egg. This is just a quickly thought of hypothetical but it shows how reasonable and logical it is for something like this to evolve. Anyhow, I don't know why I'm even responding to this, we all know this guy cannot be reasoned with. Have fun living a life of ignorance.

You've got to be kidding me. You give me this conveluted explanation of evolution when you can't even give me one example of actual evolution? You can't give me a single example of a mutation that adds a beneficial morphological feature and you want me to believe it can accomplish all this? You need to wake up and join the real world. You are also forgetting that the brain has a function in all this. It's amazing to me that evolutionists admit to an organ called the brain but they refuse to admit anything intelligent comes out of it -- like coordinating responses to stimuli. This mindset is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, so illogical and against all common sense that it really makes me wonder if these people have all their marbles. And my question has yet to be answered: if your brain is not intelligent, and your mind is not intelligent (oh, I forgot, you don't have one of those) and your cells are not intelligent, and your genome is not intelligent ---- how exactly is it that you want me to believe that YOU as a whole are intelligent? Why should I take your word for anything?

I noticed you also avoided the insect which is able to change color based on environment. No mystery chemicals that you can't identify -- just change.

http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/emlenlab/Lab/Miller/miller_research.htm

Nymphs of Leptoscelis tricolor express color plasticity; nymphs grow to match the color of their surrounding environment

 

[guzman]

Not until you explain specifically why it doesn't meet your challenge.

You are now demonstrating the other half of my observations of you.

You act as if evidence hasn't been presented when it demolishes your case.

You just move the goalposts and ask for something that evolution doesn't predict.

That is intellectual dishonesty.

You are a great creationist.

you're darn right I'm a great creationist -- and I've got you and every other darwinist smoked. If you don't believe that evolution needs mutations to add new, selectable, morphological features to the observable phenotype, then please tell me how evolution happens at all....and give me an scientifically-validated example of such. I'll be waiting with my bowl of popcorn for this.

 

[FishFace]

Am I aware of smell? Yes...what if I smelled a wasp and then as a result somehow morphed new a wasp-killing spray that came out of my eyeballs. That wouldn't strike you as amazing? No difference here.

*SPLUTTER*

What?! Perhaps, over time, one of the chemicals in your sweat randomly mutated to be harmful to wasps. When you noticed a wasp and started to sweat, you would drive it off. If wasps were deadly, then this would be selectable. Since they aren't, the point is moot.

Just because there is a chemical involved (which I'm sure you can't identify) does not take away from the fact that there must be an awareness and a response to such a chemical on behalf of the organism.

Also nonsense. A bacterium is not aware of the chemicals it senses, it's a simple chemical pathway - we can map it out (that's what biochemists do every day) and know exactly how it works. If you think that's awareness, then sure, perhaps there has to be awareness behind any response.

The environment must be interpreted by something...there are surely billions of "chemcials" in the world, millions of different animals that emit them (supposedly) thus, this salamander had to somehow distinquish this chemical from all the rest and make the correct response.....for which you have no explanation for.

Again, nonsense. Inside your nose you have loads of little receptors, of all kinds of different shapes. Each shape of receptor goes to some nerve which sets off some part of the brain corresponding to that smell. The brain is just an accessory, however. A bacterium or salamander could have the same sensory ability without any awareness.

 

[FishFace]

You've got to be kidding me. You give me this conveluted explanation of evolution when you can't even give me one example of actual evolution? You can't give me a single example of a mutation that adds a beneficial morphological feature That I will allow through my ever-shifting goalposts

Corrected that for you.

and you want me to believe it can accomplish all this? You need to wake up and join the real world.

You need to wake up and explain ERVs and human chromosome 2.

You are also forgetting that the brain has a function in all this. It's amazing to me that evolutionists admit to an organ called the brain but they refuse to admit anything intelligent comes out of it

Right. Yeah, of course, whatever. You're not arguing with evolution, you're arguing with some caricature of evolution that exists only in your imagination.

This mindset is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, so illogical and against all common sense that it really makes me wonder if these people have all their marbles.

Which people? The ones who exist only in your head?

And my question has yet to be answered: if your brain is not intelligent, and your mind is not intelligent (oh, I forgot, you don't have one of those) and your cells are not intelligent, and your genome is not intelligent ---- how exactly is it that you want me to believe that YOU as a whole are intelligent? Why should I take your word for anything?

If the moon is made of green cheese, how come it looks like it is made of rock?

I noticed you also avoided the insect which is able to change color based on environment. No mystery chemicals that you can't identify -- just change.

http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/emlenlab/Lab/Miller/miller_research.htm

Nymphs of Leptoscelis tricolor express color plasticity; nymphs grow to match the color of their surrounding environment

Once again, you think science has to know the answers to everything. Sorry, but we're not evolution scientists. Ask someone else if you want to know.
You can't actually explain ANYTHING though, so hey.

 

[notto]

you're darn right I'm a great creationist -- and I've got you and every other darwinist smoked. If you don't believe that evolution needs mutations to add new, selectable, morphological features to the observable phenotype, then please tell me how evolution happens at all....and give me an scientifically-validated example of such. I'll be waiting with my bowl of popcorn for this.

You already have been given one that you refuse to address in detail. You shifted the goalposts to a strawman that evolution never predicts.

It's like asking you to show me an invisible purple pumpkin and then declaring victory when you can't.

I guess I win that one.

Your continuing use of the strawman only demonstrates your ignorance of evolutionary theory and its mechanisms.

You are a great creationist.

 

[notto]

I noticed you also avoided the insect which is able to change color based on environment. No mystery chemicals that you can't identify -- just change.

No, but there is clear stimuli and it affects development.

No real surprise or magic there.

No genetic changes and no 'thought'.

Physical stimuli affecting development.

Well understood mechanisms and observable outcomes.

wow.

The only reason you are in awe is because it is clear that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Read a book.

 

[guzman]

You already have been given one that you refuse to address in detail. You shifted the goalposts to a strawman that evolution never predicts.

It's like asking you to show me an invisible purple pumpkin and then declaring victory when you can't.

I guess I win that one.

Your continuing use of the strawman only demonstrates your ignorance of evolutionary theory and its mechanisms.

You are a great creationist.

wake me up when you care to debate me with actual science....and I already explained to you that the mouse thing was just a loss of information, a decrease in pigmentation....but a creature could never get out of a swamp by billions of decreases. Bring it on, man -- whatever else you've got. Just try to pull the darwinian fairytale up out of the realm of fantasy and into reality...we're all watching and waiting.

 

[notto]

the mouse thing was just a loss of information, a decrease in pigmentation.

You can claim this all you want. You haven't demonstrated it. Come on, show us this loss of information.

How do you measure it? What units do we use? Please show your work. Show us your actual science.

Reference the research, provide a source, use the proper terminology, and explain this supposed loss of information.

The mutation clearly matches your original requirements. That is obvious if your read the research. You have read the research provided you, right?

You shifted to an impossible strawman that evolutionary theory would never predict (and that would actually falsify evolutionary theory).

That you don't understand that demonstrates your ignorance.

That you continue to avoid the evidence that was presented and that you continue to make unsupported claims shows that you really are not interested in actually understanding evolution.

That can only mean one thing.

You are a great creationist.

 

[FishFace]

wake me up when you care to debate me with actual science....and I already explained to you that the mouse thing was just a loss of information, a decrease in pigmentation....but a creature could never get out of a swamp by billions of decreases. Bring it on, man -- whatever else you've got. Just try to pull the darwinian fairytale up out of the realm of fantasy and into reality...we're all watching and waiting.

Loss of information? Prove it. What measure of information are you using, and precisely how much information did the mouse genome have before and after the mutation.

Your everlasting goalpost shifting is very tiresome, guzman. You've stated what you wanted, and we've given it to you ten times over. If you keep modifying your requirements, of course no-one can fulfill them.

Do you want an honest debate, or do you just want to give lip-service to your intellectual dishonesty?
Wait, no need to answer that one... I want to see your invisible purple pumpkin as well. And how come you believe the moon is made of green cheese?

 

[Opethian]

You've got to be kidding me. You give me this conveluted explanation of evolution when you can't even give me one example of actual evolution?

There are plenty of examples of ("macro"-)evolution that you can read about at talkorigins and numerous other websites that have been linked to you a thousand times. The fact that you just ignore this indicates that you don't want a reasonable discussion.

You can't give me a single example of a mutation that adds a beneficial morphological feature

People have given you plenty of examples. There's only so much you can do to persuade someone with as much cognitive dissonance as you.

and you want me to believe it can accomplish all this? You need to wake up and join the real world. You are also forgetting that the brain has a function in all this.

Obviously, but we humans use intelligence to describe something we use at the level of higher consciousness (does the conscious mind ring any bells) to respond to situations. The brain is an organ with many different functions, and isn't only about higher consciousness, certainly not in organisms like salamanders. It plays a great role in autonomous responses as well. Do you need to think about breathing to keep breathing? Can you stop yourself from sneezing when you really need to sneeze? Your body has an amazing degree of autonomous processes for which no intelligence is required, and in less intelligent organisms, this degree is even higher.

It's amazing to me that evolutionists admit to an organ called the brain but they refuse to admit anything intelligent comes out of it

We have said no such thing, all I have said in this particular case is that there is no need for the higher consciousness to be involved in the response to the volatile chemicals. The salamander does not use its conscious mind (if it even has a real consciousness like we do, since this is highly linked with language), it doesn't smell the chemical and thinks, "Oh gosh, a predator is about, should I get out of my egg or just stay safely inside?", the smell simply causes a hormone to give the salamander the urge to stay in the egg, no conscious thinking is necessary, and thus no intelligence as we define it. Unless of course you want to define intelligence wider, and claim that a bacteria that uses sugars that are less abundant before sugars that are more abundant, because of the way its regulatory mechanisms work, encoded in its DNA, is intelligent. In the same way you could say a computer is intelligent, but then the term intelligence has lost its meaning.

-- like coordinating responses to stimuli. This mindset is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, so illogical and against all common sense that it really makes me wonder if these people have all their marbles.

If it is illogical, please point out how. All I've done is shown how the response to the situation is simply a result of evolution, and is an ability encoded in the DNA of the organism, rather than being the result of a conscious decision, which would be what you imply with an intelligent decision.

And my question has yet to be answered: if your brain is not intelligent, and your mind is not intelligent (oh, I forgot, you don't have one of those) and your cells are not intelligent, and your genome is not intelligent ----

I think your problem lies with the definition of intelligence. The way you are looking at it, the receptors in the membrane of E. coli and the pathway that follows after activation of the receptor are intelligent because they cause a response that is beneficial to the organism. Fact is, this system has arisen because of evolution, it is completely material, and requires no higher consciousness. Maybe you've just found out that god isn't the intelligent designer you believe exists, but evolution is?

how exactly is it that you want me to believe that YOU as a whole are intelligent? Why should I take your word for anything?

I am a human, I have a higher consciousness, thus I posess intelligence as defined conventionally.

I noticed you also avoided the insect which is able to change color based on environment. No mystery chemicals that you can't identify -- just change.

http://dbs.umt.edu/research_labs/eml...r_research.htm

Nymphs of Leptoscelis tricolor express color plasticity; nymphs grow to match the color of their surrounding environment

If the link would work, I could see how exactly this system works. I can already see a perfect way of this working without intelligence. The nymphs should have different kinds of light receptors all specialized to absorb energy in different parts of the spectrum, and linked to different pigmentation pathways so that the appropriate colours are expressed on their body to the appropriate colours they detect in their environment. There is no need for a higher consciousness for this response, just the code of the different kinds of receptors in the DNA, the different pigments, and the pathways between the receptors and the altered pigmentation.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

ridiculous...take your brain away and see if your heart keeps beating.

I am not a medical doctor, but I have heard of people being brain dead, at the same time their other bodily organs keep working.

Any doctors out there please confirm.

 

[Bombila]

The best thing about (someone else) being a creationist is that they inevitably attract the attention of people who know what they're talking about wrt science. This leads to my learning all kinds of exciting biology, science, paleontology, etc., which I might otherwise never think to look up for myself. Creationists in these forums (and elsewhere have had the effect of greatly increasing my store of real science knowledge. You might say I've adapted my intelligence due to the intellectual 'chemical signal' of creationists eliciting information sharing from scientists who might otherwise just engage me in small talk. Very cool.

 

[Opethian]

I am not a medical doctor, but I have heard of people being brain dead, at the same time their other bodily organs keep working.

Any doctors out there please confirm.

I'm not a doctor, but I'm getting Animal Physiology during my Bio Engineer studies and yes, the heart keeps beating seperated from the rest of the body, it is myogenic, since the sinoatrial node is located in the heart itself and initiates the wave of excitation that makes the heart contract without need for signalling from the nervous system.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Yea, it's fine -- and you need a SCIENTIFIC...aka materialistic...explanation for it.....now please give it to me -- please tell me how mere matter somehow is aware of its surroundings and then responds accordingly and intelligently, creating new matter or allowing the organism to stay in its egg longer, which helps it survive -- all by dumb luck.

Tell me -- are you intelligent? If so, how -- if nothing in your body is intelligent how can you claim to be....and if you are not intelligent, why should I trust your judgement about anything?

I am not a biologist, but here are a few ways to perceive the world through barriers.

Shut your eyes and look in the general direction of the sun (not directly at the sun) and ask someone to walk in front of you.

You will perceive their passing; you may even get some idea of their size.

Do the same thing again, but ask the person to where a strong deodorant.

You would perceive them passing and smell their cent.

Do the experiment again, this time cover your ears.

If you scenery functions are in good working order, you should still perceive, smell and ear their passing.


ALSo

If I sit on a hot stove, I want have to think it’s hot to realise its hot, the pain it would cause will tell me its hot, and that does not need intelligence.

Try it, prove my case.

 

[Opethian]

Also, if you sit on a stove, the sudden pain will cause an adrenalin rush that will cause you to very quickly jump up from there, much faster than you would have if you had consciously thought "oh my, my butt is getting warm, I better get off of here".

 

[Vimes177]

Adrenaline rush? You mean reflex, no? xD

But seriously guzman, did you just completely ignore Aron-ra's post about beneficial mutations? It's post number 58, for helpful reference.

Also, you never answered my question either:

Wait wait wait wait wait. Who's claiming this? Where does it even say that the chemicals itself keep the organism in the egg?

You keep pulling things out of thin air and then forgetting about them as soon as we call you on it.

 

[Opethian]

Adrenaline rush? You mean reflex, no? xD

A reflex to a threatening situation is the result of heightened adrenaline release. Adrenaline heightens supply in oxygen and glucose to the muscles and brain, so that for a short time you are able to respond quicker to threatening situations.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I'm not a doctor, but I'm getting Animal Physiology during my Bio Engineer studies and yes, the heart keeps beating seperated from the rest of the body, it is myogenic, since the sinoatrial node is located in the heart itself and initiates the wave of excitation that makes the heart contract without need for signalling from the nervous system.

Thanks for the conformation.