My favorite argument for the existence of God

[doubtingmerle]

you cant do that too. if you want to add your car a video camera, you cant do that by mixing existing parts in the car.

Ah but that is the beauty of DNA. With DNA, nature can take a part originally used for one purpose and redesign it for another. For instance, it can be shown that the growths that turn into gill arches in fish, actually grow into jawbones in reptiles, and into the inner bones of the ear in mammals.

 

[doubtingmerle]

if we cant made a video camera stepwise then why it will be possible in the eye case?

If we can't push a camel through the eye of a needle, why can a bacterium get through?

Answers:
1. A bacterium is not a camel.
2. An eye is not a video camera.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if we will have a self replicating car and we want to add it a video camera, in this case you will agree that its possible because in this case the car has a living traits?

If we have purple unicorns, you will agree that blue dragons exist?

Why waste our time with nonsense fictional questions?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I think I will make a baloney sandwich. First a slice of bread:

One of the strong evidences for evolution is that the embryos of similar creatures look very similar to each other. Differences develop only with time. We now know that mutations that change the early development of animals are rare. There are so many things that can go wrong. Such mutants seldom survive. But mutations that are expressed in later life do not interact with as much of the creature's development. Hence, creatures are free to explore differences in later life with genes that don't affect the creature unto later. Thus, the closer two creatures are in the evolutionary tree, the closer their embryos are, and the longer they remain close to each other during development.

And now for the baloney:

As Jonathan Wells points out in his recent article, The Cracked Haeckel Approach to Evolutionary Reasoning, “Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

• (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;

Now for another slice of bread:

Haekel's drawings are not far off, considering the technology he had to work with. We now have better drawings and pictures, and most textbooks have been updated. Haekel's drawing errors are small, but his interpretations errors of those drawings are big. Haekel wrongly concluded that human embryos followed the adult ancestors. That is not true. The truth is that human embryos are close to the embryos of their ancestors. The fact that one uses Haekel's pictures does not mean he agrees with Haekel's mistaken conclusion from those pictures. See Wells and Haeckel's Embryos.

Delicious sandwich. Thanks for the baloney!

 

[Speedwell]

Oh this should be good. What evidence do you have that says it would be impossible for a computer running a genetic algorithm to evolve the design of a robot? Impractical? Probably. Impossible? I know nothing that makes that impossible. Please prove your claim.

Too late. It's already being done.
Genetic algorithms in computer aided design - ScienceDirect

 

[pitabread]

But one sometimes wanders if the source of the posts under the user name Xianghua is a robot. One would think that a human would get tired of repeating defeated arguments ad infinitum.

I find myself wondering if something is getting lost in translation (since English isn't his native language). Maybe 'robot' means something entirely different to him?

 

[dmmesdale]

Which textbooks? The first one on your Discovery Institute list is this....

In what way is this drawing one of Haeckel's, what is inaccurate about it, or about the accompanying text?

The only one on your list that actually shows Haeckel's drawings is talking about them in a historical context.

Not according to the analysis which was skipped.
What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? | Center for Science and Culture
(3) The text not only discusses “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” but also affirms it, albeit in a slightly different form. This entire discussion comes from a subsection entitled “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” in which the authors repudiate Haeckel’s claim but then defend a reformulated version of it: “The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, promoted in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the ‘biogenetic law.’ It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenetic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors.” (p. 1180, emphases in original) Earlier the text stated: “In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.” (p. 416) The basis for the text’s claims that the law holds is the fraudulent Haeckel-derived drawings, which obscure the differences between the embryos.

As I said, pathetic.

Unsoliciated assessments laced with invective are not subs for arguments.

If you've found a flaw in modern comparative embryology please point it out.

Are you saying embryo development supports common descent? That would be as scientific as phrenology. Rather primitive along the lines of reading livers. Common descent is an asumption that dictates the interpretation of the data to extremes as is the case of reading CD into embryo development. The point being, the revamped 19th century myth is still in the Bio textbooks. Apparently the atheists evos don't mind all that much.

 

[pitabread]

The point being, the revamped 19th century myth is still in the Bio textbooks. Apparently the atheists evos don't mind all that much.

Context is needed. Developmental biology does point to evolutionary ancestry even if Haeckel's original ideas were not correct. A prime example are dolphin hind-limb 'buds' which begin development during the embryonic phase before being genetically 'switched off' and reabsorbed as development continues. From the context of an organism that has its ancestry with land mammals, such a pattern of embryonic development makes sense.

 

[Kylie]

but we have many scientific evidences that it has a beginning. so you are argue against the scientific evidences.

Ah, so now you require scientific evidence for something!

Very well, since there is scientific evidence that evolution by means of natural selection can explain the vast variety of life, and no designer is required, we can eliminate the concept of a designer without any trouble.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so what?

living things are subject to biological evolution.
non-living camera's aren't. They are manufactured products, even made from materials that don't even occur naturally, that need to be artificially produced.

So yes, when talking about evolution, it's kind of silly to compare it with things that aren't even subject to it.

we are talking about ic system. such systems exist in both living things and non living things. so this is a good comparison.

Every such system that has ever been pointed out by cdesign proponentsists, have turned out to have precursor genes and/or demonstrable pathways of evolution.

 

[quatona]

I find myself wondering if something is getting lost in translation (since English isn't his native language). Maybe 'robot' means something entirely different to him?

In any case, the easiest way to shoot down his argument would be to ask for his definition of "robot", and then point out that he doesn´t use this definition consistently.
Unfortunately, he has already asserted that he doesn´t care for definitions. In a back-handed way he has thus admitted that his argument is but semantics wizardry.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not according to the analysis which was skipped.
What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? | Center for Science and Culture
(3) The text not only discusses “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” but also affirms it, albeit in a slightly different form. This entire discussion comes from a subsection entitled “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” in which the authors repudiate Haeckel’s claim but then defend a reformulated version of it: “The developmental instructions for each new form seem to have been layered on top of the previous instructions, contributing additional steps in the developmental journey. This hypothesis, promoted in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the ‘biogenetic law.’ It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) involves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenetic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of that vertebrate's ancestors.” (p. 1180, emphases in original) Earlier the text stated: “In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.” (p. 416) The basis for the text’s claims that the law holds is the fraudulent Haeckel-derived drawings, which obscure the differences between the embryos.

So says the Discovery Institute lawyer Casey Luskin. As we can't read the actual text in question I've got no reason to accept his biased judgment on a textbook written by numerous well qualified biologists.

I asked you if those drawings are accurate or not, if not what's wrong with them? One thing's for sure, they aren't an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in a modern textbook so stop trying to move the goalposts and admit you're wrong.

Unsoliciated assessments laced with invective are not subs for arguments.

Neither is using myths about textbooks to discredit science you don't agree with.

Are you saying embryo development supports common descent? That would be as scientific as phrenology. Rather primitive along the lines of reading livers. Common descent is an asumption that dictates the interpretation of the data to extremes as is the case of reading CD into embryo development. The point being, the revamped 19th century myth is still in the Bio textbooks. Apparently the atheists evos don't mind all that much.

No, I simply asked you a straightforward question. We know Haeckel's work was flawed, 19th century mistakes have little bearing on the validity of modern science.

Your have failed to back up your initial insinuations and your Discovery Institute list shows that in modern textbooks Haeckel's drawings are only used in a historical context. It seems the other drawings in the list are described by Casey Luskin as "recapitulated" "Haeckel's drawings" because they illustrate stages of embryonic development, yet they show no of Haeckel's inaccuracies so what's the problem?

Another Discovery Institute fail - you really need to get some better sources.

 

[dmmesdale]

So says the Discovery Institute lawyer Casey Luskin. As we can't read the actual text in question I've got no reason to accept his biased judgment on a textbook written by numerous well qualified biologists.

So your appeal is to authority rather than the actual arguments. Biologists, who believe we have a common ancestor with a banana? Believe in mythical creatures because of philosophical convictions and peer pressure absent actual and convincing objective evidence? Common descent is nothing more than a 19th century deduction from Darwin's theory. Never demonstrated. The same century which used phrenology and leeches as medical treatments.

One thing's for sure, they aren't an example of Haeckel's drawings being used in a modern textbook so stop trying to move the goalposts and admit you're wrong.

Quote. From the article.

Analysis: (1) As seen here, the textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel’s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did.

Neither is using myths about textbooks to discredit science you don't agree with.

I do not believe there was theoretical creatures which were common ancestors between non-human hominoids and humans due to a lack of evidence. They do not even know what the creature was nor can they objectively identify with bones. Bones tell nothing of ancestry or offspring. It is all read in after the fact by true believers. Voodoo. You believe there is because of a philosophical conviction which dictates the interpretation. Big difference.

No, I simply asked you a straightforward question. We know Haeckel's work was flawed, 19th century mistakes have little bearing on the validity of modern science.

It is still there according to the article. Embryo stages show common descent (pseudoscientific voodoo) according to their faith absent convincing evidence.

Your have failed to back up your initial insinuations and your Discovery Institute list shows that in modern textbooks Haeckel's drawings are only used in a historical context.

I gave you the references in the article which directly refutes you assumption.

It seems the other drawings in the list are described by Casey Luskin as "recapitulated" "Haeckel's drawings" because they illustrate stages of embryonic development, yet they show no of Haeckel's inaccuracies so what's the problem?
Another Discovery Institute fail - you really need to get some better sources.

It would not make a difference. It would not overcome your bias. You seem to assert your genetic fallacies, over-generalizations and ignoring, are rational reasons to reject valid arguments. The reality being they are irrational. They will not get anyone anywhere in the real world. If one reads something then they are at least expected to know the content and if they do not then it is assumed they have not done their homework. I pointed out to you twice the relevant passages in the article and you simply reply like they are not there. It may be a comprehension problem on your part.

 

[xianghua]

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. I'm asking you to explain the biological barriers which would prevent the evolution of something like an eye. You keep claiming it's impossible, I'm asking you to demonstrate why based on real-world biology.

it's simple: any minimal light detector need at least several parts. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.

 

[xianghua]

And the first animal with an eye didn't just randomly assemble an eye from nothing either. Your arguments are getting dumber

so how he get the first eyespot from non-eyespot? this is the quesion.

 

[xianghua]

It isn't though...there's a reason why we don't call people robots

and this reason is? now, if you will claim that we cant call it a robot because it have a s elf replicating system or made from organic components, then i already explained why it doesnt matter at all.

Why did you delete my last question? What makes all those other things so different from humanity? Why are they capable of evolving, but humanity must be designed? What's the difference?

what do you mean by "other things"?

 

[xianghua]

if a watch need a designer (and it could be any designer) then human need a designer too.
​

Please verify that statement or drop the argument.

because they both seems too complex to evolve by a natural process. so both are evidence for design.

Oh this should be good. What evidence do you have that says it would be impossible for a computer running a genetic algorithm to evolve the design of a robot? Impractical? Probably. Impossible? I know nothing that makes that impossible. Please prove your claim.

to prove what? that a robot need a designer?

 

[xianghua]

2. An eye is not a video camera.

why not? it can be a kind of. they both render an image by a similar process and parts.

 

[Jimmy D]

So your appeal is to authority rather than the actual arguments. Biologists, who believe we have a common ancestor with a banana? Believe in mythical creatures that never existed due to a stark lack of evidence? Common descent is nothing more than a deduction from Darwin's theory from the 19th century. The same which used phrenology and leeches as medical treatments.

So you don't know what an appeal to authority is?

Show me the text in question and we can discuss it rather than Luskin's assertions.

Quote. From the article.

Analysis: (1) As seen here, the textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel’s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel’s original drawings did.

I know what Luskin wrote, I did read the article. They aren't Haeckel's drawings though are they? As I said before, point out what's actually wrong with those illustrations or pipe down.

I do not believe there was theoretical creatures which were common ancestors between non-human hominoids and humans due to a lack of evidence. They do not even know what the creature is nor can they objectively identify with bones. You believe there is because of a philosophical conviction which dictates the interpretation. Big difference.

I couldn't care less what you believe, my response to you was to point out your false accustation about Haeckel's drawings.

It is still there according to the article. Embryo stages show common descent (pseudoscientific voodoo) according to their faith absent convincing evidence.

You're entitled to your opinion.

I gave you the references in the article which directly refutes you assumption.

It shouldn't be difficult for you to provide a title and page number then, because I could only see one example of Haeckel's drawing out of the ten books listed, and that was discussing them in a historical context.

It would not make a difference

Of course it would make a difference to any rational person. Haeckel's drawings exaggerated certain features, the modern illustrations are accurate, they are not the same.

Please remember why I responded to you.. to correct your false assertion about Haeckel's drawings, you haven't provided any examples of those drawing in a modern biology text book (apart from one where they were used to provide historical context above text which clearly stated where Haeckel was wrong).

I feel I've wasted to much time discussing this nonsense anyway, biology has moved on since the 19th century.

 

[xianghua]

Thus, the closer two creatures are in the evolutionary tree, the closer their embryos are, and the longer they remain close to each other during development.

so if we will find 2 creatures that are actually looks very different from each other even though they are close to each other (from phylogenetic perspective) then evolution is false?