If Evolution is true, why are human adaptations not ubiquitous?

[pitabread]

You may be surprised to know that the human body is entirely made of organic chemicals.

The human body is also made of atoms, too. Does that mean your average physicist is also an expert on evolution?

When you provide a refutation of Professor Tour' objections, please email him (not with somebody else's paper).

What objections? From what I've seen, he seems to be little more than incredulous.

Would it make any difference if I quoted Stephen Meyer, Walt Brown or David Berlinski? Michael Behe? David Gelernter?

Not really. Because all you're really doing is engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy: Argument from authority - Wikipedia

None of the people you list are biologists. Why are you so afraid to get a biologist's opinion on the subject?

I've quoted Todd Wood repeatedly and he's even a creationist (like you!) and a real biologist with more relevant credentials and experience than anyone you list, and yet you ignore his opinion. Why is that?

I've read some critiques of Stephen Meyer. They go along the line that he doesn't agree with evolution so he must be wrong.

I've read critiques of Meyer too along with Meyer's actual writings. The critiques of Meyer are that he is out of his depth when it comes to biology and gets a lot of things wrong. And why wouldn't that be? Meyer is not a biologist.

 

[pitabread]

Just dismiss anything that is contrary to your world view, even former evolutionists who have woken up to the fallacy.

Pot, kettle, black.

Btw, saying things like "former evolutionists" doesn't mean anything. It's not like evolution is a club that has membership cards or something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution has not always been seen as fact. You can be a scientist and believe in God as many of the greatest scientists did in the past. There are still geniuses who believe in God and reject evolution. Some even work in the field of life sciences. People of enormous intelligence (that's not me) see the same things and come to entirely different conclusions. James Tour got into his field because he was fascinated by it, not because he wanted to make money or just have a career.

Well, that's as maybe; I'm not arguing any of those points. But even if I had not spent a number of years working with environmental biologists, I would still be wary of taking the example of a single individual who isn't even a biologist as in any way representative of the views of biologists in general. His views may coincide with yours, but that doesn't make them significant.

 

[SLP]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

I ask again - are you in high school?

Your "questions" seem to be on the level of someone that has taken, at best, some high-school level science classes.

 

[SLP]

The real reason that scientists back evolution:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair wasn’t right about much. He was a socialist, after all. But he was right about that. Evolutionists control the budgets and so most scientists will not go against the status quo

What will a man say if he thinks his ETERNAL SOUL depends on it?

I'm guessing that he would claim a soul exists (with no evidence), that a collection of ancient tales are totally true (despite their being zero corroboration for the magic parts), etc.

 

[SLP]

When a monkey comes up to me at the Zoo and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?" I might accept evolution as a possibility. Until then, not a chance.

So... you accept ancient tall tales at face value despite there being ZERO actual evidence for the creative or destructive acts of your favorite tribal deity, yet demand a laughably naive occurrence in order to accept something for which there is lots of evidence, but you reject due to your zany religionist proclivities?

Super logic!

 

[SLP]

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

Why?

Evidence for your position, please.

 

[SLP]

Why did the mechanism exist in the first place? How does blood know to clot only in the area of the wound? If it does not clot, you bleed to death. If all the blood clots, your circulation stops and you die. That's before we get into how the body fights infections that come into an open wound.

Amazing scientific insights - did you read them on Popsicle sticks?

Allow me to demonstrate the shallow naivete of your mere assertions:

Why did the mechanism exist in the first place?

The organisms that lacked a means of staving blood loss died.

How does blood know to clot only in the area of the wound?

1. It doesn't. Blood clots form spontaneously. Creatures with blood have means of breaking down most clots before they become a problem.
2. Interactions between damaged tissues and platelets make platelets release chemicals locally that cause a brief positive feedback loop, producing clot formation that occurs more rapidly and extensively than can be interfered with via anti-clotting factors in the blood.

I am forever perplexed as to the reasons that people with a minimal understanding of even basic science/physiology nevertheless feel justified in pontificating on such subjects.

 

[SLP]

Evolution is mathematically impossible.

Show your math please.

 

[SLP]

Evolution is impossible with current known mechanisms.

No, it isn't.

You can't even produce life by evolutionary means.

But you can produce strawman fallacies to argue against evolution.

Don't tell me that OOL is not the same as evolution.

Don't tell me Christianity is not the same as Hinduism.

Without life, there is nothing to evolve. "Compelling evidence" is available everywhere. Evolutionist are as blind as bats and can't see the (created) nose in front of their collective faces. Evolutionists are so intellectually dishonest that they conflate adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is everywhere. Evolution is nowhere.

Writes the fellow that insists that OOL is part of the ToE and claims without reference to a single equation - that evolution is mathematically impossible.

 

[SLP]

Extract from an interview with a molecular biologist, name Sam. George is writer George Caylor

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it
evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such
information could not have been written any other way. The
paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know,
it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong
believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

I've left some out for brevity

S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist
requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it
would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see
the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you
don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research
grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would
stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes
where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually
dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honourable. We will
find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in
the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the
living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves
around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly
trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of
hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear
it isn’t there!”

Didn't you already present this lie? Yes, you did.

I mean, the guy claiming to have had this made-up conversation is a right-wing bible nut with a radio show.

Who just totally coincidentally ran into a molecular biologist... who, out of the blue, was comfortable discussing such things with a stranger.... things that just coincidentally totally backed up the bible nut's beliefs...

Sounds mathematically impossible to me.

This one time, while travelling, I happened to have a conversation with some random dude. Turns out that he was a... um... an... wait.. errrr.... a creationist... no - a creation scientist! Yeah that was it - his name was Jeff. Jeffrey. Yeah Jeff. We talked about the weather and and such, and then he said that he had something to confess - his creation science was a sham! He just makes stuff up for a paycheck, and his religious overlords take it all at face value.
Totally true - and never mind that I am a non-creationist pushing an anti-creationism viewpoint, nope - this totally happened!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would it make any difference if I quoted Stephen Meyer,

Gained tenure at Whitworth college.

Walt Brown

(career army)

David Berlinski?

"He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France."

Michael Behe?

Tenured at Lehigh University

David Gelernter?

Professor at Yale

It seems your statement that people's salaries depend on believing evolution is false. On the flip side, we know that many fundamentalist schools do require signing statements of belief - a contradiction of academic freedom. It is the creationists who know their salaries depend on denial of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gained tenure at Whitworth college.
...
(career army)
...
"He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France."
...
Tenured at Lehigh University
...
Professor at Yale

It seems your statement that people's salaries depend on believing evolution is false. On the flip side, we know that many fundamentalist schools do require signing statements of belief - a contradiction of academic freedom. It is the creationists who know their salaries depend on denial of evolution.

I couldn't help but wonder how many are funded by Discovery Institute grants & fellowships...

 

[loveofourlord]

Amazing scientific insights - did you read them on Popsicle sticks?

Allow me to demonstrate the shallow naivete of your mere assertions:

Why did the mechanism exist in the first place?

The organisms that lacked a means of staving blood loss died.

How does blood know to clot only in the area of the wound?

1. It doesn't. Blood clots form spontaneously. Creatures with blood have means of breaking down most clots before they become a problem.
2. Interactions between damaged tissues and platelets make platelets release chemicals locally that cause a brief positive feedback loop, producing clot formation that occurs more rapidly and extensively than can be interfered with via anti-clotting factors in the blood.

I am forever perplexed as to the reasons that people with a minimal understanding of even basic science/physiology nevertheless feel justified in pontificating on such subjects.

I love how they think it's all or nothing, like I pointed out animals could have survived a little while while blood was first forming without clotting just because enough survive, it's not like every rat has a cut that would kill it without blood clotting...their imaginations are so limited heh.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I love how they think it's all or nothing, like I pointed out animals could have survived a little while while blood was first forming without clotting just because enough survive, it's not like every rat has a cut that would kill it without blood clotting...their imaginations are so limited heh.

I suspect that it's not so much a limitation of imagination, but a lack of basic knowledge about the range of animal life, the difference between modern and early forms of life, and the co-evolution of traits. It's hard to imagine something like this without some basic knowledge and understanding of the subject.

 

[loveofourlord]

I suspect that it's not so much a limitation of imagination, but a lack of basic knowledge about the range of animal life, the difference between modern and early forms of life, and the co-evolution of traits. It's hard to imagine something like this without some basic knowledge and understanding of the subject.

Exactly, plus as I pointed out, many early life were hard bodied, which might have helped avoiding bleeding much easier.

 

[SLP]

...their imaginations are so limited heh.

Coupled with their unwarranted belief that their attempts at 'science' are spot-on and beyond reproach - even the ones that admit to not knowing what they are talking about.

 

[ruthiesea]

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Evolution is not a force nor is it called such in science. The Theory of Evolution, like any scientific theory, is an explanation of observable phenomena. We see life around us as it is today and the remains of life as it once was. Evolution looks at how that occurred.

G-d gave us thinking, creative minds and science is how we learn about His universe and all that it contains.

 

[SLP]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

Because none of that reflects, at all, what we actually understand about evolution.

Like your claims about "interrupting" gravity and all that, here, too, you rely entirely on cartoon ideas about the topic.

Go here and learn something:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution here. Domestic animals will never become human. A rule in evolution is that no organism can be something other than its ancestors were. If you look on a phylogeny diagram humans will always be apes and dogs will always be canids but the two branches are divergent. The common ancestor is before the split to canids and apes. At least this is my understanding. I may have misunderstood you though.