Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

The entire paper is about the evolution of the eye, which is seen in the Precambrian. Here's a short segment:

"The ancestral arthropods presumably consisted of a series of more or less identical segments, which may be
represented by recently discovered precambrian Lobopodia which have a pair of legs and a pair of eyes in each segment.
The progressive divergence of Hox genes has led to progressive cephalization and caudalization."
​

Again, the full paper is here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._evolution/links/0c96052c29a839424e000000.pdf

What type were the pair of eyes?

 

[RickG]

What type were the pair of eyes?

You know, I'm one of the few people here that actually goes out of their way to link FULL ACCESS papers from the scientific literature. If you do not wish to review it, that is your choice. Please accept my apology for trying to help.

 

[justlookinla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

This and the references in it might be a good starting point.

Please. Simply giving a link isn't offering what I asked for. If you would, quote the content of the link which provides an explanation of HOW the eye evolved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know, I'm one of the few people here that actually goes out of their way to link FULL ACCESS papers from the scientific literature. If you do not wish to review it, that is your choice. Please accept my apology for trying to help.

I also provide FULL ACCESS papers but with those I give the pertinent information so that the topic at hand can be seen without "having" to read the entire paper. I don't have time right now to sit down and read the entire paper and find the relevant information that I am asking for. IF you haven't read it, or don't know how to find the relevant part why post it?

 

[justlookinla]

I also provide FULL ACCESS papers but with those I give the pertinent information so that the topic at hand can be seen without "having" to read the entire paper. I don't have time right now to sit down and read the entire paper and find the relevant information that I am asking for. IF you haven't read it, or don't know how to find the relevant part why post it?

An additional problem is that when one peruses the paper, they have to try to determine which part was the poster wanting to reference. It's almost impossible unless, as you pointed out, for the poster to actually quote the relevant part.

 

[Oncedeceived]

An additional problem is that when one peruses the paper, they have to try to determine which part was the poster wanting to reference. It's almost impossible unless, as you pointed out, for the poster to actually quote the relevant part.

Exactly. I've sometime been busy and haven't remembered to post the parts of import but almost always I try to do so.

 

[RickG]

I also provide FULL ACCESS papers but with those I give the pertinent information so that the topic at hand can be seen without "having" to read the entire paper. I don't have time right now to sit down and read the entire paper and find the relevant information that I am asking for. IF you haven't read it, or don't know how to find the relevant part why post it?

Like all that deny evolution, you refuse to read the actual scientific literature. If you have a link to a paper published in the scientific literature that refutes evolution, then please provide a link. I would be pleased to read it in its entirety.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like all that deny evolution, you refuse to read the actual scientific literature. If you have a link to a paper published in the scientific literature that refutes evolution, then please provide a link. I would be pleased to read it in its entirety.

I don't deny evolution. If you can't provide the pertinent information I just don't think posting a link is quite convincing nor informative unless one has the time to go thru it all.

 

[The Cadet]

Where is the evidence for precursor's of the eye prior to the Cambrian?

I'm not sure why you would expect it. Precambrian fossils are notably scarce, given that almost all precambrian life took the form of soft-bodied, minuscule lifeforms, often monocellular. The fossil record is incomplete.

Are you going with the denial that molecular machines and systems do not look deliberately designed?

Demonstrate objectively that they have the appearance of design and that it's anything other than your subjective opinion combined with a cognitive bias.

In this case what would you think empirical evidence would entail?

An objective method we can verifiably and reliably use to determine whether or not something is designed.

What design are you claiming is present?

The cross. God put it there with the purpose of reminding us of the faith! And look, he put it in Laminin as well!

...Don't you agree?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure why you would expect it. Precambrian fossils are notably scarce, given that almost all precambrian life took the form of soft-bodied, minuscule lifeforms, often monocellular. The fossil record is incomplete.

That at one time worked until we found a multitude of soft bodied fossil evidence. At least you are admitting there are no precambrian fossils that show precursors, even if you want to excuses for it.

Demonstrate objectively that they have the appearance of design and that it's anything other than your subjective opinion combined with a cognitive bias.

That question was for someone else.

An objective method we can verifiably and reliably use to determine whether or not something is designed.

Which would be exactly what? That is what I am asking you for.

The cross. God put it there with the purpose of reminding us of the faith! And look, he put it in Laminin as well!

...Don't you agree?

So we see a design that we recognize as one that humans have designed to represent Christ's cross on which He died. What we do next is see if this cross seen on the mountain side has all the features of design and if they have been put there by intelligent design (human) or if it is just a pattern created by natural processes. We go and observe that the cross is a natural event caused by a natural depression caused by erosion and snow lying within them. Natural processes can and do explain the "pattern" of the cross on the mountain.

The case of the Laminin, while interesting is not the same type of design we are speaking about either. This protein forms this way for a function reason and while it might form a cross which is represents something in Christian theology does not signify the type of design we are referring to in design in living forms. That is your problem, you don't understand the concept being discussed.

 

[The Cadet]

We go and observe that the cross is a natural event caused by a natural depression caused by erosion and snow lying within them.

You have no evidence for that.

...Seriously though, the problem here is not that I am unclear on the concept. The problem is that the concept is incoherent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have no evidence for that.

...Seriously though, the problem here is not that I am unclear on the concept. The problem is that the concept is incoherent.

I have no evidence for what?

 

[The Cadet]

So we see a design that we recognize as one that humans have designed to represent Christ's cross on which He died. What we do next is see if this cross seen on the mountain side has all the features of design and if they have been put there by intelligent design (human) or if it is just a pattern created by natural processes. We go and observe that the cross is a natural event caused by a natural depression caused by erosion and snow lying within them. Natural processes can and do explain the "pattern" of the cross on the mountain.

No. They don't. Natural processes wouldn't cause such a clean cross formation. You have no evidence that that happened via natural processes and not via God's Will. That cross is intelligently designed to show off God's power of design. Indeed, I'm not even sure that can happen via natural processes on that particular mountain. It has a function and a purpose. It's design.

The case of the Laminin, while interesting is not the same type of design we are speaking about either. This protein forms this way for a function reason

For a chemical reason. Laminin folds the way it does due to electron bonds, not because it needs to have a certain function. Sorry, I'm pretending to hold your viewpoints, getting back into the role...

and while it might form a cross which is represents something in Christian theology does not signify the type of design we are referring to in design in living forms. That is your problem, you don't understand the concept being discussed.

Why not? It's complex, it shows functionality, it has a clearly defined purpose (spreading the word of God) and at least one creationist has unambiguously held it up as evidence of design in nature:

I guess I don't understand the concept. But then again, I keep on asking for an objective model for determining whether the appearance of design is legitimate or due to pareidolia/apophenia, and you keep on not giving it to me, so it's hardly my fault if I don't get it.

 

[whois]

Like all that deny evolution, . . .

why is it that when a scientist, or anyone else, says darwinism belongs in a museum, they are "denying evolution"?
why do you think that way?
for example, certain scientists say the origin of life research is a failure, we don't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.
when i read stuff like that, i do not automatically think there is a god.
the first thing that pops into my mind is science is missing something, the next thought is life wasn't created anywhere at any time, but has always existed.

not everyone that questions the current state of evolution is a "god believer".
OTOH, i can not completely discount the possibility either, even though i find the concept almost impossible to believe.

 

[The Cadet]

why is it that when a scientist, or anyone else, says darwinism belongs in a museum, they are "denying evolution"?
why do you think that way?

But they don't! They don't deny evolution! Koonin does not deny evolution. Neither do the authors of that last paper you cited. They all agree with common descent, descent with modification, and natural selection, the core of evolution. None of them deny this. Do not conflate us saying that you deny evolution with us saying that your sources deny evolution. Because that disagreement between you and your sources is one of our biggest points of friction.

 

[whois]

the cadet,
my post applies to you as well.
and i will ask again,"why is it when certain scientists, or people, say "darwinism belongs in a museum" that they are denying evolution"?
why do you assume that?
actually, the biggest points of friction, are your OWN ASSUMPTIONS.
you really do need to stop assuming things about me the cadet.

 

[RickG]

"why is it when certain scientists, or people, say "darwinism belongs in a museum" that they are denying evolution"?
why do you assume that?

Ummm, perhaps because the term "Darwinism" has its origins with evolution deniers, not the scientific community. Comparing what Darwin knew with today's knowledge is like comparing the difference between medical knowldege of the 1800's with today's knowledge. I have no problem with anyone who rejects evolution. I do have a problem with those who continuously propagate that rejection through the means of misrepresentation of science and other information, especially after those misrepresentations have been exposed ad-nausium. Those few scientists who reject evolution do not publish research concerning their position in the scientific literature because it is without merit or any supporting evidence. If evolution were an invalid science, there are numerous eager scientists, wanting to make a name for themselves, that would love to be on the forefront in over throwing ToE. There are no valid arguments against ToE, PERIOD.

 

[florida2]

Please. Simply giving a link isn't offering what I asked for. If you would, quote the content of the link which provides an explanation of HOW the eye evolved.

Questions like that are ones you can easily research yourself. I gave you a link to an article about eye evolution which you can read and follow the links to scientific papers linked below it.

It would be far more useful to discussions on here if you do some independent reading about a big question like eye evolution, then come on here to ask about any detail etc once you've got a general understanding, rather than expecting everyone to do it for you.

 

[justlookinla]

Questions like that are ones you can easily research yourself. I gave you a link to an article about eye evolution which you can read and follow the links to scientific papers linked below it.

It would be far more useful to discussions on here if you do some independent reading about a big question like eye evolution, then come on here to ask about any detail etc once you've got a general understanding, rather than expecting everyone to do it for you.

Yes, you gave a link and I'm asking for a quote, some direction to the content in the link which describes HOW the eye was formed. Would you refer me to just a section of the link which describes HOW the eye was created? All I'm seeing is the claim that the eye evolved, not HOW it evolved.

 

[whois]

Ummm, perhaps because the term "Darwinism" has its origins with evolution deniers, not the scientific community. Comparing what Darwin knew with today's knowledge is like comparing the difference between medical knowldege of the 1800's with today's knowledge. I have no problem with anyone who rejects evolution. I do have a problem with those who continuously propagate that rejection through the means of misrepresentation of science and other information, especially after those misrepresentations have been exposed ad-nausium. Those few scientists who reject evolution do not publish research concerning their position in the scientific literature because it is without merit or any supporting evidence. If evolution were an invalid science, there are numerous eager scientists, wanting to make a name for themselves, that would love to be on the forefront in over throwing ToE. There are no valid arguments against ToE, PERIOD.

it seems that you and the cadet are missing the point.
the point being, it's perfectly reasonable, and scientifically valid, to point out the various frauds and inconsistencies of the current theory.
this is EXACTLY what noble, koonin, smith, and a host of others has done.
it's people like you and the cadet that twists this around to say i am using their arguments to debunk, or deny, evolution, and it's simply not true.