Proof of design and impossibility of evolution.

[AskTheFamily]

If you're going to ignore the answers and evidence you are requesting, then there's no value in continuing the conversation.

This is how I feel about you guys as well.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I have not simply talked about beneficial, I talked about it needing direction. So let's say some extra skin help in something, it still needs to have direction towards gliding, but gliding has a design, and you can't just imagine somehow it just went towards that, when there is no reason by the process for it to go towards that direction.

I think this is your main misconception. Why does it need direction?

So as I said, even a if a little extra skin helped in falling, for it to move towards gliding is whole different thing, as gliding has design.

Gliding is controlled falling. You don't generate forward thrust during the process, you get that from the initial take-off. So what it the difference? Why does it have 'design'? What do you even mean by that statement?

 

[Supreme]

It's funny, I was out and about in town today during lunch with one of my best mates, we encountered a Christian guy who gave us a leaflet, entitled 'Evolution: the evidence for and against'. It was an argument that involved calling evolution a faith, offering $250,000 for anyone who could prove evolution (for some reason it was in dollars, not pounds), asking you to carry out an experiment by clearing your garage and seeing whether or not a Mercedes evolves from nothing over a period of time, saying the Bible was very much the divinely inspired word of God, and essentially calling people to the truth of Jesus Christ. Although I agreed with the overall shameless proselytism of the leaflet, the arguments against evolution were admittedly poor.

This thread just reminded me of that incident

 

[SithDoughnut]

It's funny, I was out and about in town today during lunch with one of my best mates, we encountered a Christian guy who gave us a leaflet, entitled 'Evolution: the evidence for and against'. It was an argument that involved calling evolution a faith, offering $250,000 for anyone who could prove evolution (for some reason it was in dollars, not pounds), asking you to carry out an experiment by clearing your garage and seeing whether or not a Mercedes evolves from nothing over a period of time, saying the Bible was very much the divinely inspired word of God, and essentially calling people to the truth of Jesus Christ. Although I agreed with the overall shameless proselytism of the leaflet, the arguments against evolution were admittedly poor.

This thread just reminded me of that incident

That $250,000 offer is Kent Hovind's 'challenge'. Did the word evolution have an asterisk next to it? In Kent Hovind's 'challenge' when he asks for evolution to be 'proven', what he actually means is this:

* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Basically, it's an impossible challenge at the moment which has barely anything to do with evolution.

 

[AskTheFamily]

I think this is your main misconception. Why does it need direction?

Well for example, the fox develops more skin, it helps control, all this extra control, is not heading towards a gliding type structure. A gliding type structure is designed. It's not random.

So let's say flies. They got some extra skin. Let's say this makes them fall a little less hard (I don't really buy this specially by the fact that you would expect the creatures that don't fall to survive more and that avoidance of falling to be passed on instead), it is not heading towards gliding.

Gliding is a design in itself. Whatever type of creature it is. If the process is not heading towards that structure, it would make it. The extra control won't make it head towards gliding. It will just make it had to more control, but it will never skip to that step of gliding. You guys jsut imaginei t going to that step while is not logical by the process of natural selection. The natural selection will it make better at what it's doing, it won't make it go towards soemthing entirely different.

Although gliding is a sort of reducing fall, it doesn't mean the reducing fall will lead to it. Extra skin reducing fall is one thing, but it ever developing to a glider needs direction. It improving it reduction of fall, will not make it head towards gliding. This is the logical fallacy on your part, because it's unrelated. It's two different things even though both reduce fall.

It improving on falling does not imply it's heading towards a design of gliding. Because until it glides, there is no relationship to that reducing fall and a wing. At all. So there is no transitional process.

 

[Delphiki]

(I don't really buy this specially by the fact that you would expect the creatures that don't fall to survive more and that avoidance of falling to be passed on instead)

Why? Regardless of what causes them to survive, either way, both the creature that doesn't fall in the first place, and the one that better survives the fall get to live to reproduce offspring. You may not realize this, but you just gave an example of how one creature might be the ancestor of two different species.

I've xplain the rest of this post already, btw. Please page back and check it out.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well for example, the fox develops more skin, it helps control, all this extra control, is not heading towards a gliding type structure. A gliding type structure is designed. It's not random.

Why?

So let's say flies. They got some extra skin. Let's say this makes them fall a little less hard (I don't really buy this specially by the fact that you would expect the creatures that don't fall to survive more and that avoidance of falling to be passed on instead), it is not heading towards gliding.

No it isn't. It could end up as a gliding mechanism though. Evolution doesn't 'head towards' anything.

Gliding is a design in itself. Whatever type of creature it is. If the process is not heading towards that structure, it would make it. The extra control won't make it head towards gliding.

Why not?

It will just make it had to more control, but it will never skip to that step of gliding. You guys jsut imaginei t going to that step while is not logical by the process of natural selection. The natural selection will it make better at what it's doing, it won't make it go towards soemthing entirely different.

That's entirely wrong. Natural selection leads the the adaptation of species to their local environment. If the environment changes (and it regularly does), then the creatures that survive the best will adapt to this new environment, which may or may not involve dramatic changes.

Although gliding is a sort of reducing fall, it doesn't mean the reducing fall will lead to it.

No it doesn't. However, it still could. If the speed of falling is reduced, then the species can make longer jumps to get food or avoid predators. These individuals will be the ones most likely to pass on their genes, and over time this adaptation may become the standard.

Extra skin reducing fall is one thing, but it ever developing to a glider needs direction. It improving it reduction of fall, will not make it head towards gliding. This is the logical fallacy on your part, because it's unrelated. It's two different things even though both reduce fall.

The thing is that gliding is slow falling. The two things are not unrelated because they are essentially the same thing.

It improving on falling does not imply it's heading towards a design of gliding. Because until it glides, there is no relationship to that reducing fall and a wing. At all. So there is no transitional process.

And this bit made no sense. What are you going on about here?

 

[AskTheFamily]

No it isn't. It could end up as a gliding mechanism though. Evolution doesn't 'head towards' anything.

It needs directing towards that by natural selection. You can't have it get there without natural selection leading up to it.

The thing is that gliding is slow falling. The two things are not unrelated because they are essentially the same thing.

No they are unrelated even if they both reduce fall. They are not the same thing, and it's you making it the same thing that you imagine somehow there is a process that leads to design of gliding.

A bee for example, if it becomes better at falling, it's a whole different thing for it begin growing a flaping type wing or glider. It doesn't head, because the extra skin leading to that, is not reducing anything.

A little triangular shape for example coming of the side of something, like less the milimeter long, doesn't reduce falling let alone going towards a glider.

It's a whole different mechanism that will reduce impact of falling and become more resistance to air.

It won't lead to a glider that will become a wing. It's obvious. And you can think Dawkins answers it, it's really up to you. God gave us all a mind and we are tested on how we use it.

 

[Delphiki]

I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming in. The continued evolution of a species is not 'guided'. If a creature gets .03 of a centimeter of extra skin in it's armpit which incidentally adds drag from falling, it has to take another random variation for an offspring to have another .01cm extra skin. As small as the change is, it still makes for a slightly better chance of survival... especially if you have the .04s mating with the .02s (with some other irrelevant mutation instead) while the .01s and 0s are dying more often. The gene is now in the pool, and with half the population being .04cm armpit flappers (some with brown fur instead of black, or roundish ears instead of pointy, ie: other changes), it's only a matter of time before someone has a baby with .05cm of armpit flappage going on.

Thousands of years later you have armpit flaps extending all the way down the sides of the creature. Their ancestor, only having a small advantage, has now added up to a creature than can glide smoothly to the ground.

Through this heritage there might have bee things with backwards feet for mutations or blindness who don't live long enough to have offspring, and so were selected out of the gene pool... but ultimately you end up with Mr Happy Sugarglider


Every heard the expression "Every little bit helps."?

 

[AskTheFamily]

What you said is completely irrelevant to my points and arguments and what I meant by guided is something else then what you mean.

 

[SithDoughnut]

It needs directing towards that by natural selection. You can't have it get there without natural selection leading up to it.

Yes. I fail to see your point here.

No they are unrelated even if they both reduce fall. They are not the same thing, and it's you making it the same thing that you imagine somehow there is a process that leads to design of gliding.

There is. It's called evolution. I'm still not seeing your argument.

A bee for example, if it becomes better at falling, it's a whole different thing for it begin growing a flaping type wing or glider. It doesn't head, because the extra skin leading to that, is not reducing anything.

Still not following you.

A little triangular shape for example coming of the side of something, like less the milimeter long, doesn't reduce falling let alone going towards a glider.

Ah. Now I see where you're misunderstanding evolution. Wings, for example, did not evolve millimetre by millimetre. There is no such thing as half a wing. It has been said earlier, but a small change in the genetic makeup of a species can have drastic effects on the phenotype of the animal. Birds did not start off with a tiny stub of a wing, which grew bigger and bigger each generation until they had full-sized wings. Evolution does not work that way.

It's a whole different mechanism that will reduce impact of falling and become more resistance to air.

It won't lead to a glider that will become a wing. It's obvious. And you can think Dawkins answers it, it's really up to you. God gave us all a mind and we are tested on how we use it.

It's not obvious, because I am now sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. Or at least, you think you do but you are incorrect.

Just saying "this doesn't happen" doesn't make it so. Why can gliding structures not evolve into wings? You're making this claim repeatedly but so far you haven't backed it up with anything.

 

[b&wpac4]

The fact is that I was a creationist until I took the time to really research the science. After I looked into it, I had to admit that the science really made sense.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What you said is completely irrelevant to my points and arguments and what I meant by guided is something else then what you mean.

What do you mean by 'guided' then? You're making very little sense.

 

[durangodawood]

"Guided" means there's some pre-ordained intent. "Guiding" is something done by a conscious entity.
.
Evolution does not appear require guidance in any way.
.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Well Evolutions and Creations agree that there is Design in creation. Creationist say there is Ultimate Creator, while evolutionist say that the process of mutations + natural selection + genetic variation, guides the process, and itself is a designer.

It guides things in improvement. So this is what I mean. So there needs to be a direction it's heading.

I think we all getting repetative now and also people are making things up, like a half wing can just pop out of a mutation which is not true. I think we all agree that all should study science in more detail. It has to be very small changes specially because mutations don't make new stuff appear, it jumbles what is already there, and it will be very slight changes, and very slight, means very very slight, so there is no, "gliding" sturcture "pop" thing with a mutation. It doesn't happen. But you can imagine it. And reducement in fall or control in jumps, all this doesn't lead to it, and I've explained why already, and this is what I meant by guided, as by natural selection, there is no improving till it reaches that gliding wing type structure at all. The improvement is whole differnet direction. Reduction in Air fall doesn't make it combine to one direction. This is was logically fallacy on people's.


I showed a way of looking at things differently, and I feel if we look at creation this way, and analyze it, it's evident there is a Designer.

I say you can apply this logic to Ears, arms, legs, and systems (lungs, heart, etc) and you will see that it really can't just happen by this random mutations + survival of the fittest + genetic variation.

People choose how to use their minds and appeal to authority has been agreed to be a logical fallacy.

Good luck everyone. I think I'm done with the thread.

 

[b&wpac4]

It guides things in improvement. So this is what I mean. So there needs to be a direction it's heading.

No, a guide implies intelligence. An person with an atheistic view of evolution sees not intelligence in this process, only that the being better able to pass on offspring does.

I would be a person that has a theistic view of evolution. There is a will behind it, and that will is God.

 

[Delphiki]

Well Evolutions (sic) and Creations (sic) agree that there is Design in creation.

Seeing that I am not a biologist, I'm not technically an evolutionist, as I think that would be a study in biology, however, I am quite familiar with the theory of evolution. And no, we don't agree. There is no 'design' and there is no 'creation'. If everyone agreed to there being 'creation' then we'd all be creation-ists. Hence the root: "create"

Creationist say there is Ultimate Creator, while evolutionist say that the process of mutations + natural selection + genetic variation, guides the process, and itself is a designer. It guides things in improvement. So this is what I mean. So there needs to be a direction it's heading.

Incorrect. Evolution is not guided, those factors are the process... they determine the outcome. There is no predetermined 'goal' of any sort for natural selection to be guided to. The only goal in living things is to survive and reproduce. Evolution just happens.

I think we all getting repetative now and also people are making things up, like a half wing can just pop out of a mutation which is not true.

No, it most likely cannot, but we're not going to type a really long page of "and the a little more nub, and a little more, and a little more, a little more half-wingish, a little more, a little more, etc"

In fact, the "half-wing" would probably take half the time to develop as would a whole wing -- whatever the hack a half-wing is anyway. Even half of a wing is a wing.. it's just a smaller one, if I assume youre saying what it is I think you're saying.

I think we all agree that all should study science in more detail.

Yes.

I showed a way of looking at things differently, and I feel if we look at creation this way, and analyze it, it's evident there is a Designer.

Great! Now we just need some evidence to start with. Evidence is needed for something to be evident.

I say you can apply this logic to Ears, arms, legs, and systems (lungs, heart, etc) and you will see that it really can't just happen by this random mutations + survival of the fittest + genetic variation.

What logic? Like this?:

(1) I showed a way of looking at things differently, and I feel if we look at creation this way, (2) and analyze it, (3) it's evident there is a Designer.

1 - Look at things differently - (ie: pay no mind to the overwhelming case for the theory of evolution for absolutely no reason other than religious motivation)
2 - Analyze the not looking at evolution.
3 - Designer... just because.

There is absolutely no logic there. None.

What you're basically saying is, "If you ignore reality, nature, and science and what it tells us about biological evolution, you can be a creationist."

... well, I agree.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well Evolutions and Creations agree that there is Design in creation.

Nope. There is no design as design implies an intention. There is no intention in evolution.

It guides things in improvement. So this is what I mean. So there needs to be a direction it's heading.

There is no guiding in evolution. There is no intention.

I think we all getting repetative now and also people are making things up, like a half wing can just pop out of a mutation which is not true.

I know, that's why you're the only person who is talking about it. Evolution doesn't deal with half an organ.

I think we all agree that all should study science in more detail. It has to be very small changes specially because mutations don't make new stuff appear,

Yes they do. Ever hear of people who are born with six fingers?

it jumbles what is already there, and it will be very slight changes, and very slight, means very very slight, so there is no, "gliding" sturcture "pop" thing with a mutation. It doesn't happen. But you can imagine it. And reducement in fall or control in jumps, all this doesn't lead to it, and I've explained why already, and this is what I meant by guided, as by natural selection, there is no improving till it reaches that gliding wing type structure at all.

There is no guiding. We've explained this to you multiple times now.

I showed a way of looking at things differently, and I feel if we look at creation this way, and analyze it, it's evident there is a Designer.

Or you can look at evolution. What you are talking about is not evolution. I don't know what it is but it's not what you think it is.

I say you can apply this logic to Ears, arms, legs, and systems (lungs, heart, etc) and you will see that it really can't just happen by this random mutations + survival of the fittest + genetic variation.

Yes it can, and it does.

 

[ukgrace]

Well Evolutions and Creations agree that there is Design in creation. Creationist say there is Ultimate Creator, while evolutionist say that the process of mutations + natural selection + genetic variation, guides the process, and itself is a designer.

AskTheFamily I fear that you are a Muppet, a Muppet is someone who is operated like a puppet but through the mind, they tell you something that you really don't understand and then tell you to go out and tell other people what they have told you, you then come unstuck because the people you tell start to ask questions you can not answer, this only serves to show the people you tell that you really don't know what you are talking about, the only answer to this problem would seem to be that you either go back for more tuition by the puppet masters or you start thinking for yourself, as the latter is obviously not what you are good at you should return to them for further instructions.

 

[ukgrace]

AskTheFamily I fear that you are a Muppet, a Muppet is someone who is operated like a puppet but through the mind, they tell you something that you really don't understand and then tell you to go out and tell other people what they have told you, you then come unstuck because the people you tell start to ask questions you can not answer, this only serves to show the people you tell that you really don't know what you are talking about, the only answer to this problem would seem to be that you either go back for more tuition by the puppet masters or you start thinking for yourself, as the latter is obviously not what you are good at you should return to them for further instructions.

Tuition it is then, good.
It might help if you ask the tutors some of the questions people are liable to ask you then they can hopefully give you the answers, if they don't like you asking awkward questions then perhaps you should think about what it is they are telling you to believe.